The Merry House of Windsor

"We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead: that facade is starting to crumble."

For those Brits, who believe they live in a free and democratic country, a bit of uncomfortable reflection is in order. Why? Well, the Windsors are displaying an audacity rarely seen since William of Normandy declared that all land (in England) belonged to him. 

I blow hot and cold on the merits of the Guardian newspaper. The fawning over victimhood, allied to a mindless affection for all aspects of woke culture is bloody tiresome. Then, when I'm about to banish them from my reading, up pops a superb piece of legitimate journalism. 

Likewise, I blow hot and cold on the House of Windsor. This week the Windsors are feeling the chill, while the Guardian is on fire. 

In a series of articles, the Guardian exposed how Brenda and her family, including the prince of piffle, Charles, manipulate the law to their advantage. Are the freedoms that Briton’s enjoys contingent on the Windsors acquiescing? Looks that way.

The practice of 'Queen's consent' provides one unelected woman with the right to change draft laws. Moreover, the evidence is emerging that she used this privilege to protect her and the family from taxes and gained other exemptions. Examples include avoiding scrutiny of their investments and giving Charles the right to prevent long-term residents on his estate from buying their homes. He is the only landlord with such preferential treatment. 

Residents on Charles's land do not enjoy the rights given to other tenants under the Leasehold Reform Act. An exemption allowed Charles to avoid the laws applied to others so that he could keep an income stream. 

Earlier, in the 1970s, Brenda had changes made that allowed her to hide investments. Since then, the Panama papers revealed the vast sum of money she placed offshore to avoid UK tax. 

The 'Queen's consent' grants the monarch the right to vet incoming laws before it may go forward. In the past, this process came sold as a formality. We can now see that is not the case. Moreover, the documentation of these actions is lacking. Telephone calls and private conversations in corners suffice, as draft laws get amended to please the Windsors. 

Thus, when the lackeys in the royal household declare that the Queen never blocks a bill, they're on solid ground. 

The legitimate question must be 'is this a genuine democracy?’. Or are we witnessing the theatre of a parliament that votes on legislation agreed by the Windsors? Some commentators suggest that the UK remains a feudal fiefdom with a veneer of democracy, which overstates the case. Not all draft legislation goes to Brenda; only stuff that may impact her domain. 

Nonetheless, there's a whole world of vested interests out there, doing their best to keep this hidden. In the UK, many mock and revile other places for their secrecy. Are not the Windsors peas in the same pod?

Charles's greed (aka the Duchy of Cornwall) and how he treats those he claims to help is distasteful. Cornwall is one of the most impoverished areas in western Europe. Yet he lords it over this area, as a future king, who seems so dim to be genuinely oblivious to this situation. Asserting, Charles is too dumb to notice grants him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative is that he is aware of the abyss between his wealth and those living on his land.

It's known that Charles vetted at least 275 draft laws since 1970. These bills covered such subjects as fox hunting and inheritance. We don't know how many amendments he proposed because he's declined to say. 

But the most significant offence is against the supposed democracy and the rule of law. The idea that the Queen, and those close to her, have a mechanism to influence law-making is breathtaking. Worse, they seem to be trying to brush it off as nothing to see here. Move on.

We're told that the monarchy is a figurehead, that doesn't engage in politics. That facade is starting to crumble. 

If Britons honestly claim themselves a free country, then this affront to democracy must go. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not desperate to see the monarchy abolished; they have some utility. And what do you replace them with, if indeed a replacement is necessary? God forbid a President Blair. 

On the other hand, support for the monarchy continues to wane amongst young people. Brenda, the adroit royal survivor, better take note because her ‘light-weight’ son is busy in the corner talking to the plants. After all, most people would prefer his son as the next king. 

A good start for the UK would be a written constitution that establishes the perimeters, check and balances, and power vested in the House of Windsor. Until then, they'll continue to fudge the issue and hold off on reform.