26 February 2004

New UK citizenship ceremony

Royal apologists often defend the various pledges of allegiance to the Queen as being symbolic of a pledge to the country.

This myth has been well and truly shot down by the government's new citizenship ceremony.

In addition to pledging allegiance to the country and the constitution, those seeking to become citizens must also separately swear allegiance to the Queen. This clearly shows the two are not the same - one is a pledge to the country/system and the other is personally to the Queen/Monarchy.

So now those seeking British Citizenship must be monarchists - a test 30-40% of current British Citizens would fail.

Meanwhile, many are raising concerns over the inclusion of the "national" anthemn... which many see as anything but "national". Most countries have a national anthemn that unites the people - only in Britain do we have one that divides people according to their political views.

More info:
Citizenship anthem doubt emerges

05 February 2004

Anti-monarchy protestors win damages

Royal apologists often claim that the UK is a democracy (even though we have an undemocratically elected head of state, and one of the two chambers of Parliament is not elected).

They defend their claim on the basis that those who don't agree with the system are free to protest legally for change.

However, those that use these "rights" soon find that they are arrested.

On 4th June 2002 a number of protestors from Movement Against the Monarchy decided to make their protest against our undemocratic system. And in the true traditions of a non-democracy their protest was broken up illegally by the police.

23 members of the organisation will now receive £3,500 each and a written apology from the Metropolitan Police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment.

Its a reluctant victory. Freedom is something that can't be valued in terms of money. The establishment is happy to pay over £80,000 (of public money) to take away people's right to protest about the fact that they aren't able to democratically choose their head of state.

Your taxes are being used to pay Police to silence legal protests that are an embarrassment to the Monarchy and then your taxes are being used to compensate those that are the victims of the establishment's illegal actions.

The Police should be spending their time investigating male rapist lovers of the heir to the throne, or possible murder plots against his ex-wives.

If you break the law, the Police will try and stop you. Even if you don't break the law the Police may arrest you. Who stops the Police breaking the law? Once again the law and legal system is being perverted to suppress anything that might damage the Windsors' right to dip their hands into your pay packet.

More information:
BBC News - Jubilee protesters get damages

04 February 2004

Mad Prince Charles says Mad King George wasn't mad

When George Smith (a Falklands War Veteran who risked his life for Queen and Country) claimed that he had been gay-raped by Prince Charles's boyfriend Michael Fawcett there was only one explanation the Prince Charles could use. Clearly Mr Smith was mad, quite insane in fact.

And when Princess Diana made the spookily prophetic claim that Charles was trying to murder her in a car crash, Prince Charles once again used his favourite explanation to explain Diana's letter. She was mad, paranoid.

These "expert" opinions on mental health came from a man who:
  • enjoys killing or torturing animals (often seen as a sign of trouble by real mental health professionals)
  • dumped Diana so he could shag Camilla Parker Bowles
  • wanted to be Camilla's tampon
  • talks to plants
However, when it comes to documented cases of loonies in the Windsor family, Charles has rather different opinions. He believes that his ancestor Mad King George III wasn't actually mad at all.

According to the Scotsman Newspaper Charles told the Timewatch TV programme that:

his studies of doctors’ reports and correspondence in the Royal archives had led him to the conclusion that his ancestor was ill, but was not insane.

The Scotsman adds

George III had a passion for the countryside and a strong interest in architecture, in common with Charles.

So we have a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside, defending a nutter who is interested in architecture and the countryside.

Charles intends to become King George VII upon succession. Perhaps he is modelling himself on King George III? Further investigation suggests not, the BBC History site states of George III:

Unlike his predecessor and successor, he had no mistresses to support - consequently his court was declared to be dull. His personal tastes were frugal - which allowed Gillray, the cartoonist, to ridicule the king breakfasting with relish on a boiled egg, or advising his daughters to drink tea without sugar.

There's not much chance of Charles giving up his extravagant lifestyle or his mistress (and gay lover).

But CBS clearly sees links between Mad King George and Prince Charles - their article about Charles views on his ancestor is cheekily entitled Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap

More information:
The Scotsman - George III was ill, not insane, argues Charles
CBS News -Did 'Mad' King George Get Bum Rap?
The BBC - George III and History's Poisoned Well
BBC News - Clarence House statement in full