Labour’s 2022 party conference began today (25th September). The first group act was a rendition of ‘God Save The King’ in front of a large backdrop featuring a photograph of recently deceased queen. In the conference hall there was near universal adherence to the order to sing the UK national anthem and to stand throughout its performance.
That act, a very rare event in the history of Labour Party conferences, was the epilogue of the party. It signalled the end of its existence as political representation opposite to conservatism. It reaffirmed the party’s intent to be an alternative conservative party, to be alternative representatives in parliament for establishment, for the corporate machine, for the wealthy, for the elite.
Royalty is incompatible with societal advancement. It acts as a reminder of knowing your place; it demands division between rulers and ruled. Politically and financially, it obstructs equality and enables exploitation. Keir Hardie understood the obstructive role of the monarchy:
“Despotism and monarchy are compatible; democracy and monarchy are an unthinkable connection. If we are for the queen we are not for her subjects. The throne represents the power of caste – class rule. In this country loyalty to the queen is used by the profit-mongers to blind the eyes of the people. We can have but one feeling in the matter – contempt for thrones and for all who bolster them up.”
To reach its current state the Labour Party systematically, with no regard to rules or justice, erased socialists from its ranks including its former leader, elected NEC members, elected councillors and members. Lies, intimidation and legal threats were exercised to force people out. Thousand of members chose to leave having realised that the party no longer acts as opposition to conservatism.
Large financial donations to Labour from disreputable wealthy individuals and from corporate entities come attached with directions that the party is eager to follow.
Labour has no alternative to conservative support for capitalist exploitation and does not pretend that it does. Its meek complaints and suggestions of different policies in response to Tory government’s extreme libertarianism are complaints and suggestions that quibble over minor points of financial probity. It has no intent to overturn Tories’ constructed cost of living crisis (particularly for food and for electricity and gas). Labour’s ideas to help people with exponentially rising bills are as useless and as dishonest as those from previous and current Chancellors Rishi Sunak and Kwasi Kwarteng.
Persistent conservative ideological positions on public services, NHS, welfare provision, workers’ rights, access to justice, right to protest, etc., all of which are being destroyed by rampant libertarianism forged in grotesque think-tanks like Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Centre For Policy Studies and Institute Of Economic Affairs, are not opposed by Labour; they are supported.
Labour Party is the new Conservative Party. It is the Conservative Party if Theresa May or David Cameron was still the leader. It is entirely consistent that some Tory MPs are considering a switch to Labour.
Labour’s conference this week is of no importance. Hollow speeches adorned with platitudes and declarations of being more “grown-up” than Tories, of being more “responsible.” In other words, of being more conservative.
Electoral democracy in UK is dead. We need something else.
Today, 23rd September 2022, Etonian Kwasi Kwarteng announced some changes to tax and national insurance to benefit highest earners. Added to earlier comments by him on removal of caps on executive bonuses and Tory government’s decision to hand billions of pounds to fuel supply industry, there is clarity about the aim of fleecing everybody to ensure greater wealth concentration.
Some observers responded with two, supposedly negative for the Tories, points: 1) UK’s economy will be damaged, internationally and long-term, including a severe drop in the international value of the pound relative to other currencies, and 2) the attack on living standards will lose the next general election for the Tories. Both points are accurate assessments but Tory government does not care about consequences of its actions.
Disaster capitalists, gamblers, ransack-and-run racketeers are the drivers of government policy via their highly-paid enablers in a series of extremist think-tanks and lobby groups whose members are in government and in advisory positions to ministers, and those racketeers are beneficiaries of chaos, breakdown and destruction. Enormous sums of money can be extracted from the public very quickly and very easily if there exists a criminally-minded government that has no intention to govern and, crucially, that couldn’t care less about its own future. Pandemic-related payments in the Covid contracts scandal and recent billions handed to fuel suppliers are examples of how swiftly and effectively the transfer of wealth from the public to thieves can be attained.
Rapid and huge wealth concentration is the only reason the current Tory government exists. It has no other purpose. It has not thought at all about wreckage left behind from its rampage. A falling value of the pound is just an opportunity for gamblers to make money by either selling the pound or by betting on its demise. There are no frets about usual concerns of capitalists governments – deficit, government debt, interest rates, inflation – because the plan is not a long-term strategy, not economically and not politically.
Losing the next general election (to a very conservative Labour party) does not perturb Tories. Take the money and scarper is a philosophy that doesn’t need a residual presence in government.
The process of destruction in UK was planned for decades. All of the key protagonists in the Tory government worked toward it for many years. They knew their aims, or were taught them by think-tanks and lobby groups (accompanied by generous donations), they developed their policies, often expressed in books (e.g. Britain Unchained), papers and speeches, they helped to formulate and enact the plan (Brexit) for the foundations needed to exercise their policies and, now, they execute their attack.
Tory government does not care about consequences of its actions. It is happy with pseudo opponents braying about the value of the pound or about government borrowing because it keeps those supposed opponents busy. Tory government doesn’t give a damn about expert analyses that show how the richest benefit and the poorest suffer the most from its decisions because the government doesn’t care about the next general election.
This is not just another conservative government. It is not just another capitalist government, It is not just another free-racketeering government. This is not a government. It is not an administration. It is employees of an international crime syndicate. It is a mob of thieves. It is the embodiment of sociopathy.
Yesterday, 19th September 2022, British monarch Elizabeth II was buried, eventually. Preceding her burial was a grotesque demonstration of elitism, militarism, power, privilege and wealth. It was a sickening festival of everything that stinks about the political and economic structure of the UK.
Elitism strutted unashamedly via closure of roads and pedestrian access to the public in the district around the funeral’s location and absence of working people present at any part of the show. Nothing in the performance referenced the people of Britain or the Commonwealth.
Militarism dominated the agenda. There were hoardes of soldiers marching, standing to attention, carrying the coffin and standing guard and many militarised police officers. A connection was displayed between royalty and conquest, with echoes from many previous centuries of bloody wars. (The pall bearers were recently stationed in Iraq. Iraq is not at war, with or against UK. Is their role in Iraq to protect oil companies’ racketeering?)
The funeral was an orgy of power and control. By diktat and by coercion, nothing was allowed to be available to the public other than the funeral. Almost all UK TV and radio channels showed hours and hours of exactly the same footage with nauseating voiceovers and commentary. All entertainment and sports venues, many shops and most public buildings were closed. Cancelled events included other funerals, vital hospital appointments and academic or vocational examinations. Some public spaces were taken over by screens showing the funeral. The intent was to force people to watch and consume the spectacle, but, simultaneously, to be excluded.
Privilege was layered. Elected politicians were put in their place by anonymous jobsworths; there were so many royal lackeys, attired in a variety of bizarre outfits, prancing about stiff-backed and vacant, performing a series of silly acts, mannerisms and gesticulations. Among “royal” guests were deceptively named “non-reigning” royals. These characters are ex-royals or descendants of ex-royals who had been kicked out of their countries by the citizens who chose democracy instead but UK royal family, as an insult to the people in those countries, continues to assign the fake fraudulent “royals” the privilege that had been wrested from them.
Wealth oozed like pus from an infected wound. Gold, diamonds and other precious stones, mostly pilfered from all over the world during the brutal history of the British Empire, adorned crowns, jewelry and carriages. No expense was spared, from vehicles to ostentatious uniforms and even the coffin. Police and military were drafted in from all over the UK. Of course, the public are footing the bill. It was an exhibition of wealth that was entirely at odds with the current state of the cost of living in UK which will be exacerbated by the cost of this circus.
The queen’s funeral and its pathetic coverage were a kick in the teeth of the public followed by a face full of diarrhea.
A definition of drama is “emotional effect characteristic of a play [in a theatre].” That is, an action or speech that is prepared in advance to create an emotional response.
Dramatic responses to the death of the British monarch were expected and were planned to be so. Some drama is written into official protocol as an anachronism from an earlier epoch and is adorned with archaic phraseology and pompous nomenclature. Absurdly-titled and bizarrely-attired characters read garbled texts beneath impractical headgear.
An audience at the theatre will be drawn in and immerse themselves in a well-written play infused with surrealism and set in a scenario wherein basic rules and norms of logic and reason are eschewed. The members of the audience suspend their usual adherence to directing their criticism to be led by intelligence; they accept boundaries, limitations and blinkers of the story’s rules and they are not perturbed by flights of fanciful imagination. For many theatre-goers, film buffs and avid readers of novels, the otherness of the world presented to them is the main attraction.
The writer creates drama within the context of the world she or he built. There are strong echoes in such drama of emotional responses that exist in the real world. Superimposing real natural emotions on a surreal context helps to draw the audience into the false world.
Comments from professional politicians, analysis from professional journalists and reports from professional broadcasters are not supposed to be located in a fantasy world. They should not express themselves subject to concocted rules and warped logic of a surrealist’s imagination. The political opinions and observations they impart, or the news they convey, is not part of a playwright’s, novelist’s or poet’s world. Drama in their reports is an intrusion.
As soon as the queen died a disease of the brain travelled instantaneously through the commentariat community infecting all newspaper journalists, TV and radio broadcasters, freelance columnists and online news outlets. It spread beyond newsrooms to entertainment and sport journalists and broadcasters. It trapped them in a surrealist play, beholden cognitively to unseen writers and directors and unable to diverge from a set path. Stringent bindings prevent them from even the merest divergence.
Symptoms are the same for each infected victim.
Erasure of analytical abilities
Suppression of knowledge
Extreme aversion to objectivity
Unthinking repetition of subservient mantras
Preponderance of tautological phrases full of gibberish and unctuousness
Nauseous cod-reverential tone
Bad poetical flavour to banal prose
The disease resembles the effects of ophiocordyceps on ants but acts much more quickly.
A few examples (click the name for the source):
Journalists and broadcasters Ben Okri (Guardian, 10th September): “People lose their faith and their beliefs daily. This perhaps makes us porous. And into that inner porousness, that vacuum between two periods, a transition from an old world to a new world, the figure of Queen Elizabeth was just what was needed.” Okri erased the capabilities and fortitude of people in the years just after WWII and ascribed both personal and societal advancements as a consequence of one person’s existence. Factually, historically and morally his hypothesis is garbage. Okri’s article is one of the worst ever in The Guardian’s 201 years of publication. Don’t eat before reading it.
Andrew Rawnsley (Guardian, 11th September): “The virtues most widely associated with her – duty, service, constancy, self-restraint and modesty – were the more prized as they became increasingly rare in so many other areas of public life.” In his article Rawnsley elucidated enthusiastically the con of the monarch being above politicking and presented her reign in false contrast to some disreputable behaviour by politicians.
Sky News’ Beth Rigby (Social media (twitter), various dates): “An address so carefully prepared, so carefully written, so carefully delivered,” she commented on King Charles’ first spoken public statement after the queen’s death. Rigby’s penchant for flattery toward dull empty speeches extended to politicians’ obsequious comments on the queen or king: “Starmer’s statesmanlike speech. An incredibly moving, eloquent & evocative speech from Sir Keir Starmer” and “Theresa May also meeting the moment.” Starmer and May had nothing to say but invented descriptions of an illusion. Rigby on Etonian criminal Boris Johnson: “And this is lovely, Johnson describes her as “Elizabeth the Great”.” Her daft observations are incompatible with how an adult operates.
ITV’s Robert Peston (Social media (twitter), various dates): “The proclamation and meeting of accession council was stirring, as a symbol of constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.” That nonsensical statement referred to an absurd relic of antiquity that is fully at odds with democracy. The accession council is a gang of unelected detached courtiers. Juxtaposition of it with democracy belongs in a tale by Lewis Carroll. Peston was amazed by handshakes: “Amazing to see King Charles shaking everyone’s hand outside Buckingham Palace. Moving. Unifying.” Who is being unified with whom?
BBC’s Nick Robinson (Social media (twitter), various dates): “The Queen is dead. Long live the King. We remember a life of duty, dedication & service.” That exclamation was not an introduction to an article or TV clip; it was a standalone snatch of propaganda infused with bizarre deference to non-existent qualities.
Evening Standard’s Ayesha Hazarika (Social media (twitter), various dates): “Excellent speech from Charles. Thought he looked comfortable and ready for this moment through his grief. An inclusive message about modern Britain. Classy confident start” was her fanciful assessment of the new king’s bland dishonest speech. Starmer’s speech received similar absurd praise: “This is one of Starmer’s best moments. Beautiful, poignant words. He genuinely rose to the occasion.” On ITV news Hazarika said “I think she’s [the queen] a real feminist icon.”
A cold observer reading comments such as those quoted above would assume the writers’ and speakers’ minds are captured in a manipulative playwright’s dystopia. They are zombiefied thespians.
Libertarians’ commentary on royal death and accession is predictably ridiculous and entirely consistent with their fascistic political philosophy. One far-right grifter is quoted here; there is no need to list examples from others whose tone and content is unvaried and unremittingly stupid. Goodwin is quoted because aforementioned Hazarika choose to promote (retweet) supportively one of his comments.
Free Speech Union and Chatham House’s Matt Goodwin (Social media (twitter), various dates): “There have been some magnificent tributes today –from the right, the left, the centre. And therein lies the power of constitutional monarchy — its incomparable ability to rally us all around the myths & memories of the nation, the full splendour of our collective inheritance.” Goodwin’s Overton Window is skewed considerably from truth; when he calls a political opinion “the centre” he means not quite as far-right as he is and his “the left” means centre-right. He roused dangerous nationalism: “The Queen embodied the values that have come to define these islands and our people. A sense of duty, dignity, humility, gratitude, faith, and belief in the nation. We feel such loss because Her Majesty was us.” (Fact check: Queen’s first language was German.)
Politicians were infected as immediately as journalists and broadcasters, with similar symptoms and similar imprisonment in a surreal drama.
Lead actors in the surrealist’s play, they delivered their words with relentless hammery. Shame and self-awareness were absent; intelligence and facts were banished.
Current Labour leader Keir Starmer in a speech in parliament on 9th September: “The attributes that defined her reign: her total commitment to service and duty, and her deep devotion to the country, the Commonwealth and the people she loved. In return for that, we loved her.” His words were so divorced from reality and so distant from democracy. Starmer seemed under the control of an invasive organism: “Our Queen was at the heart of this nation’s life. She did not simply reign over us; she lived alongside us.” He exclaimed untruths: “Covid closed the front doors of every home in the country. It made our lives smaller and more remote, but she was able to reach beyond that, to reassure us and to steel us. At the time we were most alone, at a time when we had been driven apart, she held the nation close in a way no one else could have done. For that, we say “Thank you”.” The monarch did nothing of the sort. Further invention by Starmer was a political comment that “we” should look at what we agree on: “We must always remember one of the great lessons of our Queen’s reign: that we are always better when we rise above the petty, the trivial and the day-to-day to focus on the things that really matter—the things that unite us—rather than those which divide us.” He and the Tories are almost “united” and both are committed to supporting the wealthy few (including royals) over the majority of people. His speech was the worst ever by a Labour leader on any issue.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi in a statement published on 8th September: “Her Majesty was – and always will be – a beacon of light in every corner of the globe.” Throughout her reign the UK occupied and brutalised countries “in every corner of the globe.” Former colonies of British Empire are removing the British monarch as head of state. Reaction in some countries, most notably Kenya, has not been one of disappointment at her death. Zahawi is a liar.
Tory MP Grant Shapps (a.k.a. Michael Green and Sebastian Fox) in a statement published on 9th September: “Her love of this nation was inspiration.” The extent of the queen’s “love of this nation” can be measured by the millions of pounds she stashed in offshore (tax-avoiding) accounts; it can be measured by income from “crown” estates; it can be measured by a deal she struck with corrupt Tories to dodge inheritance tax.
Current Prime Minister Liz Truss in a statement read outside 10 Downing Street on 8th September: “Our country has grown and flourished under her reign. Britain is the great country it is today because of her.” Any positive developments in UK since 1952 are not due to the monarch. Truss and the Tory government are actively destroying anything that is useful in UK. “Queen Elizabeth II provided us with the stability and the strength that we needed. She was the very spirit of Great Britain,” was another nonsense statement that displayed definite proof of contagion.
Current leader of Liberal Democrats Ed Davey in a social media (twitter) message on 8th September: “The Queen represented duty and courage, warmth and compassion.” It is difficult to believe that an adult could write the words quoted. They might make sense if spoken by Brian Cant to an audience of two-tear-olds.
Political support for monarchy is expected from most politicians in UK because most support a system that needs the existence of royalty as a demonstration of unmerited superiority. It acts as a dampener on the public to resist the temptation to seek a better system and a better society. Almost all UK politicians act in favour of wealth concentration. They fear if royalty is removed then what or who is next? A domino effect could lead to collapse of the whole of the exploitative system and wealth would be spread around.
Keenness to support continuation of monarchy is expressed via bizarre exultations of its alleged importance and benefits because any sensible argument for the same objective does not exist. It is impossible within bounds of logic and reason and via adult conversation to justify royalty. So, defenders of the system can communicate only in a constricted space that resembles the creation of fantasist writer and makes them appear riven with a mind-controlling disorder.
It is not clear when this will stop. The queen’s funeral is not the end; a coronation of the king will follow later this year.
Institutions and administrative bodies including broadcasters (particularly BBC), sports, theatres and other entertainment venues chose to postpone or cancel events scheduled soon after the death of the queen, and more on the day of her funeral (19th September). Their decisions were accompanied by a shared phrase as faux justification: “As a mark of respect to the queen.” They imposed the act of mourning upon people.
Imposition of how people should react or respond (or not) to the death of a monarch is not compatible with functioning democracy or with basic liberty and freedom. There are no laws that demand people mourn but, via administration of facets of normal life, the obligation to do so is enforced.
Cancellations were imposed on the public after administrative bodies had “consultations” with the government via Department For Digital, Culture, Media And Sport. Political censorship executed remotely.
Denial of fun in public during a period of enforced mourning is authoritarian suppression. It is the other butt cheek to “celebration” of the queen’s seventy-year jubilee earlier this year. The suppression acts upon an individual – denying access to enjoyment – but its main objective is suppression of the visibility of fun. Cheering football fans on a live Premier League match on TV (all professional football suspended in UK on weekend after queen’s death and some matches the following weekend), or live audience laughter at a comedy show on radio (new comedy broadcasts postponed at BBC) lessens effectiveness of the inculcated mantra of “a nation in mourning” as do people having a fun day out at an concert (last night of the proms cancelled) or a festival (Hackney Council cancelled Hackney Carnival). People mustn’t be seen to be having fun or be seen to be indifferent to the queen’s death.
Alongside the invisibility of fun and of indifference there are blatant political cancellations (suspension of petitions on government website; a current petition relates to payments for people with disabilities) and bizarre cancellations (Meteorological Office limited its weather reports). The latter example is typical of cult-like deference that infests establishment public communications post monarch-death wherein normal adult cognizance is abandoned in favour of squashed childlike behaviour as if a disease of the brain caused erasure of intellect, logic and reason.
There were cancellations that stemmed from a lack of political nous or courage. Communication Workers Union and Railway And Maritime Union cancelled strikes due to take place in the week after the monarch’s death, and environmental activist organisation Extinction Rebellion cancelled a conference. These cancellations were poor decisions that revealed political naivety. Employers are not cancelling their plans that led to the strikes and alternative days for strikes cannot be set due to highly restrictive anti-worker laws set by Tories. Climate destroyers are not cancelling their activities.
Reality in UK is that most people are unaffected by the queen’s demise. The cancellation of visible normal enjoyment is suppression of that reality. “A nation in mourning” is a created perception as a tool to entrench the political philosophy of entitlement and unmerited betterment. It is also an extremely anti-intellect strategy.
It should be possible to avoid the continuous fantasy of imposed collective mourning for a death of a queen and celebration of a new king but cancellations extend beyond removal of visible fun. On the day of the funeral (19th September) food banks are closed, hospital appointments are postponed and even other funerals are delayed.
We are extras in a play for which we didn’t audition, written by a surrealist, and we are surrounded by proclamations from politicians, broadcasters and other platformed voices riddled with a brain disease, but we are not allowed any fun.
Right now, fun and enjoyment are revolutionary acts.
The death of British monarch Queen Elizabeth II was announced today (8th September 2022).
Her eldest son Charles becomes king immediately. There is no vote in parliament by elected MPs to confirm his promotion. There is no parliamentary debate. Westminster MPs “swear allegiance” to the new monarch as do members of Scottish parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly.
A new head of state takes office without even a thumbs up as confirmation; there will be bows of the head.
Procedure in UK from one head of state to the next is not dissimilar to procedure in North Korea.
Democracy is absent.
The British royal family is not a benign ceremonial collection of celebs existing as a relic of an antiquated epoch. It is not a funny tourist attraction in silly hats. It is a fleecing machine that gorges on wealth generated by hard work of British people and of people in former British empire.
Directly via taxes and from rent from land “ownership” and indirectly via a network of offshore investment scams utilising the most despicable facets of exploitative capitalism, the royal family rakes in it at the public’s expense.
Their ancestors acquired land via pillage, theft, corruption and murder, and acquired their royalty via the same means. What exist today are descendants of thugs and recipients of proceeds of organised crime.
Ridding ourselves of royalty is a step toward removal of both a system and a perception thereof that perpetuates elevation, financially and legally, of people and institutions above us. They are elevated to positions that are generally (or perceived to be) unattainable for most people and their responsibilities to society are less obligatory than ours.
Among the falsely elevated are royals, politicians, senior armed forces personnel, senior police officers and police commissioners, bankers, brokers, wealthy business owners and judges, and institutions like Bank Of England, Stock Exchange, GCHQ and Supreme Court.
Most of those who we are supposed to admire and to trust and whose instructions we are supposed to follow achieved their loftiness via wealth begetting wealth, or via exploitation begetting wealth, or via the right alma meter, or via mutual back-scratching promotions, or via obedient bag-carrying and saying the right thing to the right people at the right time.
Elevated coteries of swindlers, thieves, fraudsters, lickspittles and liars occupy the houses of parliament, royal palaces, Bank Of England, Board Of Trade, government quangos and commissions, court benches, BBC governance and management, CBI, and senior posts in civil service, armed forces, police and intelligence services.
The key difference between false elevation and deserved elevation is that recipients of the former lack merit. Britain is the antithesis of a meritocracy.
What should happen to the British monarchy?
Weak methods of proposed change include
α) A vote in each parliament or assembly to confirm (or not) continuation of a monarch as head of state β) A public vote – a plebiscite – to accept or deny continuation of a monarch as head of state γ) Reduction in the constitutional influence of the monarchy alongside reduction in royal wealth
The first would not succeed because most MPs, MSPs and assembly members are not supportive of advances in democracy and many are fearful of doing anything radical or forward-thinking. They know how important the existence of royalty is in maintaining elite control; their reasoning is “if royals fall, what’s next to go?”
The second suggestion would fail due to politicians, media, think-tanks and professional influencers ensuring that campaigning on a referendum on continuation of the monarchy becomes an absurd “culturewar” about “patriotism” and Britishness that descends rapidly into binary clipped slogans, abuse and division. Any attempt at meaningful presentation of reasoned arguments would be overwhelmed.
The third option is weak because royalty’s direct political influence is small and further reductions there would make little difference. The problem of royal wealth is a problem of wealth concentration and is part of a general problem. Constitutional and wealth reductions would not diminish usefulness of royalty as a false depiction of elite superiority and as a hook on which to attach simplistic pseudo-patriotism. Recovery of stolen wealth should occur as part of abolition of the monarchy, not instead of.
End of the monarchy: How to prepare for it and what needs to be done
There is no point appealing to existing political parties to end the monarchy. Tories know royalty suits their constant need for distraction via the basest form of patriotism, and most Liberal Democrats and Labour are similarly bound. SNP, despite its aim for independence, has not declared its intent for a specifically republican independent Scotland; pragmatism is SNP’s informant on royalty. Green Party is a republican party but it is so obtusely wedded to adherence to legacy rules that it lacks the tools to make necessary changes.
What needs to happen is creation of a political party with abolition of the monarchy as a clear, unambiguous, non-nuanced intention in its ideology and in its manifesto and that has, when in power, the confidence, courage and persistence to act decisively without delay. It must place royal dissolution within context of destruction of all unearned elevation and within context of annulment of all false ownership of wealth.
The process of ending the monarchy must include the following
Terminate the position of head of state
Erase all laws that discriminate in favour of royalty including Treason Felony Act 1848
Cancel existing sentences applied for breach of any of the above laws and erase all convictions
Relabel crown land as public land
Convert royal residences and contents therein to public museums
Erase royal words (including the word ‘royal’) and insignia from police and armed forces uniforms, regiment names, and publicly owned vehicles, ships and buildings
Drop oaths of allegiance to the crown in parliaments, police, armed forces and elsewhere
Change national anthem
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in UK to public ownership
Assign royals’ ownership of land in, and shares and businesses registered in, British tax havens to public ownership
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in commonwealth countries to the people of each country
Assign royals’ ownership of land, shares and businesses in non-commonwealth countries to public ownership
Move royals’ savings, investments and gold to Treasury
Apply a tax (additional to income tax, VAT and corporation tax) to royals on future income attained due to their royal background including, but not restricted to, income from book deals, podcasts, TV and personal appearances, image rights, think-tank appointments and consultancy posts at businesses and charities
Return stolen property (jewels, diamonds, artwork, etc.) to the people of the countries from which it was taken
Return governors’ residences in countries that had a UK royal head of state to public ownership in those countries
Derecognise royal heads of state in other countries
Cancel knighthoods, damehoods and peerages awarded by royals
Remove royals from all publicly funded bodies, including Privy Council
Bar royals from candidature for elected representatives in UK parliaments, assemblies, councils and equivalent
Bar royals from employment in police forces, armed forces, military intelligence services and public services
Bar royals from administrative, teaching or governance roles in education
Bar royals from employment in banking and financial services, and at stock exchange and CBI
Bar royals from employment as judges, magistrates, barristers or lawyers
Bar royals from ownership or directorship of companies
Bar royals from ownership of land
Bar royals from ownership of property except for one home
Bar royals from employment or governance at BBC
The list of necessary actions above is not exhaustive of all that must be done. Any reluctance to act should be dismissed. There should be quick, effective and unrecoverable actions accompanied by clear, confident expositions.
The succession of Charles to the throne is neither here nor there for committed opponents of royalty. However, it is an opportunity to promote forcefully its termination.
Royalty is a con. It’s fraud. It’s a comfort blanket for the stupid. It is an impediment to progress. It needs to go.