What Has The Monarchy Ever Done For Its Supporters?

David Lindsay

Above: A very fitting visual metaphor for the state of the monarchy.

Following the decision not to charge Prince Philip, am I a republican yet? I really do not want to be. They are usually the people who want to abolish picturesque old ceremonies, but who are not so concerned about alleviating poverty or about stopping wars.

And yet it was New Labour that created the situation in which a man who happened to be married and related to the Queen could get away with breaking a woman’s arm and with coming close to killing a baby. He would have gone to court in 1996, and he was quite old even then. But he will not be going to court in 2019. What would have been the reaction if this had been any other questionably asylum-seeking immigrant who had got into this country by marrying his own cousin? Or any other foreign-born old man whose sister had been married to an SS Officer and whose own real surname was Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg?

The monarchy keeps sweet a lot of people who need to be kept sweet. But I am entirely at a loss as to why it has that effect on them. Either the Queen or her equally revered father has signed off on every nationalisation, every aspect of the Welfare State, every retreat from Empire, every loosening of Commonwealth ties, every social liberalisation, every constitutional change, and every EU treaty.

If they could not have done otherwise, then why bother having a monarchy? What is it for? I support public ownership and the Welfare State in principle, even if the practice has often fallen short. The same may be said of decolonisation, as a matter of historical interest. I find some social liberalisations and some constitutional changes a cause for joy, and others a cause for horror. I abhor the EU, and the weakening of the Commonwealth. But this is not about me.

Is it the job of a monarch, if not to acquire territory and subjects, then at least to hold them? If so, then George VI was by far the worst ever British monarch, and quite possibly the worst monarch that the world has ever seen. And is it the job of a British monarch to maintain a Protestant society and culture in the United Kingdom? If so, then no predecessor has ever begun to approach the abject failure of Elizabeth II, a failure so complete that no successor will ever be able to equal it.

For all her undoubted personal piety, I am utterly baffled by the cult of the present Queen among Evangelical Protestants and among those who cleave to a more-or-less 1950s vision of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism or Methodism. What has either the monarchy or the Queen ever done for them? During the present reign, Britain has become history’s most secular country, and the White British have become history’s most secular ethnic group, a trend that has been even more marked among those with Protestant backgrounds than it has been among us Catholics.

This has implications for the Windrush debate, and with nine Commonwealth Realms in or on the Caribbean, a fat lot of good being the Queen’s loyal subject has done anyone there. It also has implications for aspects of the debate around Brexit. If you wanted to preserve and restore a Christian culture in this country, then you would welcome very large numbers of immigrants from the Caribbean, from Africa, and from Eastern Europe.

All non-ceremonial exercises of the Royal Prerogative, including Royal Assent, should be transferred to six, seven, eight or nine of nine Co-Presidents, with each of us voting for one candidate, and with the top nine elected to hold office for eight years. That would enfranchise those who inexplicably looked to the monarchy to protect them from social democracy, or from social liberalism, or from European federalism, or what have you. It has never done any such thing.

The Royal Family might relocate to the Canada of Justin Trudeau, who is their kind of politician in a way that neither Theresa May nor Jeremy Corbyn ever could be. But the monarchy could continue to exist in Britain, too. If it kept sweet the people who needed to be kept sweet. In a word, liberals.

David Lindsay is a freelance journalist and an Independent political activist based in Lanchester, County Durham.


  1. John2o2o says

    Dear oh dear. David, the whole point of the monarchy is that it is utterly powerless. So what has the monarchy done for me?

    Bugger all, and I like it that way!!

    It’s not supposed to do anything: that is the job of Parliament. And, as David has ably demonstrated here the British monarchy are totally powerless.


    The vestment of power in the hands of one individual leads to dictatorship (oh, except in the United States of course). Parliament wrested power from the monarch in 1689. Ever since then the monarchy have had to take a back seat (metaphorically speaking anyway).

    We have enough petty dictators in the UK infesting the Houses of Parliament as it is!

    Republicans, your vote is not so precious: What do you want: President Tony Blair? President Sugar? How about President Branson, or even President Katie Hopkins? Maybe Philip Green would stand. We could even have President Piers Morgan or President Boris Johnson.

    Mmmmm Oh, to be a Republican! You want these people dictating to you?! I don’t. We have a wonderful system. Our Head of State has no impact on our lives at all. Is the Queen a Tory? I’ve no idea and I don’t care. It cannot affect me.

    Of course, you may be a Tory and like a President Boris. Or you may be a Labour man and like a President Suga. But in a system where the Head of State has power there will always be losers. In our system, we need not be concerned about the views of the Head of State. I’m not a massive fan of the royal family, but I don’t need to be.

    BTW, I am a Catholic. You don’t have to be a protestant to be a British monarchist.

  2. Mary says

    “What Has The Monarchy Ever Done For Its Supporters?”
    They provide valuable materials for deception and propaganda their supporters badly need.

    – Australian taxpayers forked out $411,000 for Prince Harry and Meghan’s royal visit in October 2018.
    – Australian taxpayers forked out about $474,137 for a 10-day visit by Prince William + Kate + George.
    – Prince Charles and Camilla’s trip to Australia in 2018 Commonwealth Games cost taxpayers more than $1 million.

  3. ObergruppenfuhrerHansAdollphPutzmann says

    Errr City of London , anyone ??
    Caymans , Anguilla, Bermuda, Virgin Islands, tax evasion and money laundering for worldwide elites in the order of trillions. Not hard to work out if you really want to know the answer.


  4. Francis Lee says

    Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the non-elected Head of State of the UK. Well, that is at least consistent; the Upper House – the Lords – is also unelected. And the lower House (of Commons) is a cartel of two parties based upon a first-past-the-post system which makes it virtually impossible for third parties to break into the 2 party political stranglehold on UK politics. The armed forces of the UK swear allegiance to the Monarch, not Parliament. So here we are in the 21st century with no written Constitution, or a constitution is what the government of the day says it is. In a modern country the Executive should be subordinate to the Constitution in the UK it is the other way around.

    To describe this as a democracy is stretching credulity to breaking point. The fact is that the bourgeois revolution was never completed in the UK. Cromwell didn’t go far enough, and faint-hearts like Thomas Fairfax C-in-C of the New Model Army ‘bottled it’ and played the ignominious role of helping back Charles II to England. And this anachronism is what we are left with. And it drags like an anchor on political consciousness, which of course is precisely what it is meant to do.

  5. Robbobbobin says

    “The monarchy keeps sweet a lot of people who need to be kept sweet. But I am entirely at a loss as to why it has that effect on them.”

    You seem to miss the subtext on the obverse of every note and every coin and on the face of every duty-paid stamp: “We am here and youse are not, and when ai am gawn we are still be here and youse are still be not.” The next best thing to Almighty God Eternal and worth its weight in inestimable power and riches to any who are entitled in any part to thusly derived eternal privilege and, equally importantly, only those who are so entitled, for ever and ever.

  6. tonyopmoc says

    I have never had any particularly strong feelings about the British Monarchy, except Princess Diana, who was my kind of girl. I was gutted when she died. She was very much like my wife, and also used to take her kids to the cheap seats, at the English National Ballet on the Southbank, sometimes at the same time. Whilst I personally never met her, she did go to the gym right opposite to where I worked. No one thought anything much of it. The world was largely at peace, and she was just another girl.

    I now know why she was killed, and even how, but at the time thought it was just a tragic accident.

    I was chuffed, when a department of people in a company I was working for, and had contributed to its success, won the Queens Award for Industry, and the Queen turned up. I didn’t meet her, I wasn’t invited, though I have seen her and her mum in a few places elsewhere.

    Personally, I think she has got a bloody awful job, and does what she does incredibly well.

    Check out the competition and look at what the Americans, or even The French have got in comparison.

    The affection from ordinary working class British people, maybe hard to understand, but it is very real, and historic.

    British Royalty, whilst they undoubtedly f*cked us peasants, they never, unlike the politicians and the priests, completely f*cked us over.


    • Some Random Passer-by says

      And this kids, is why we have a parasitical family of benefit scroungers, enabled by politicians…

    • Loverat says

      Looking at that photo of the accident I didn’t realise it was that serious but throughout that media circus and all others over the last year I have switched the television news off. Media use these events and trivia to distract people. Best use of time is to dig out proper news and if want a laugh in the bargain check-out Ian56 on Twitter. His thread is brilliant, funny and informative.

      Funny, at the weekend, an elderly relative asked me what my opinion was on the ‘ISIS bride’, What should we do with her, she asked? I knew enough from other conversations I overheard at work and read on Twitter. Probably all this a distraction from the fact a BBC journalist/researcher admitted yet again recently events being fabricated in Syria – the BBC up to their necks in it.

      Anyway, thinking of how Ian56 might reply I said, allow the girl to come to the UK, face a fair trial taking account of the circumstances. I explained that we had caused the war in Syria (and elsewhere)and the conditions for the rise. of ISIS and AQ I said on that basis we should immediately lock up all British Ministers who had been in office over the last 25 years as traitors, close mainstream media in the UK completely and lock them up as traitors – and start over again.

      When I took 15 minutes to explain everything in more detail – she looked a little concerned and said ‘ Well I don’t know whether to believe anything I read anymore’. I tried to sooth things by telling her the horse-racing and football results in the news are usually reported accurately.

      Small steps.

  7. james says

    Oh no! Not a president and another layer of politicians and bureaucrats. That’s the last thing we need. Let’s keep the Queen please.

  8. chaize says

    I have loathed HMTQ ever since I discovered (tanks to john Pilger) that she signed an order in council (no parliamentary discussion necessary) authorizing the eviction and dispossession of the Chagos islanders so that Uncle Sam could have a base at Diego Garcia.
    Talk about coronation vows to look after your people – but of course the Chagians are only black or brownish man-fridays. Of no importance at all. Disgusting woman.

  9. bevin says

    “.. a republic of gentlemen or a republic of workmen- either is better than (the rule of) those wretched money-spiders, who would sell England for one and sixpence” Bulwer Lytton, who regarded popular monarchy as the best preservative against “brute wealth and oligarchical ascendancy”, wrote in 1848.

    Of course the ‘money spiders’ now in charge are getting as lot more than one and six (7.5p for the young) for what they are selling.

  10. mark says

    England was 140 years ahead of France in chopping off the head of its royal dictator, 1649 and 1789.
    But then it went backwards by letting them back in.
    Big mistake.

  11. Jen says

    I should think any serious discussion of the value of the British monarchy to Britain must include something about Prince Charles’s close friendship with the Saudi royal family, to the extent that for some time after the events of 11 September 2001 he was actually considered a security risk; and the fact that some if not many of the Prince’s charities attract considerable funding from Saudi royal family sources.

    It is known also that the Prince has lobbied Cabinet ministers in the past to pass legislation that often has the curious consequence of benefiting the Prince or his financial or property interests indirectly,

    For someone who benefits from the indulgence and largesse of British taxpayers, many if not most of whom are now subjected to austerity programs, Prince Charles sure has a snout … I mean, a nose for money.

    “The Prince for sale: How the super-rich offered lavish favours to Charles and Camilla… including a shady Turkish billionaire who paid charity £200,000 for his wife to sit next to him”

    • mark says

      Or Prince Andrew and Epstein/ Lolita Island.

      • Yarkob says

        or the queen mother and certain children’s homes in jersey through the 50s and 60s?

        or, perhaps, phil the greek’s connections with the prometheus boys and the cia in the 60s, and their connections to Saville and the 7th circle ?

        i could go on…

        • Some Random Passer-by says

          Please do. I’m in dire need of education

  12. BigB says

    The whole point is that the Queen – more correctly the Crown: not the sitting tenant Monarch – could, and should, have witheld Royal Assent …on our behalf. Not going so puts her in violation of Her Coronation Oath. That this has become normalised is due to long term disinformation from Royalists and Parliamentarians, who have successfully stolen sovereignty for themselves. If the Queen’s sovereign powers are to be transferred, it can only be returned to its rightful owners …We, the sovereign People

    Long live the Republic Public! .

    • Joe says

      Don’t be daft! When were the people sovereign in Britain?

  13. Grafter says

    “The monarchy keeps sweet a lot of people who need to be kept sweet”………..Mr James Saville

  14. Molloy says

    Yes, a tale of greed and divisiveness. Neo-feudal-nazism pure and simple.

  15. Philpot says

    A great article and a timely one too. It is about time Elizabeth II was held to account for overseeing the complete destruction of everything 1950s Britain stood for, without even a whimper. She allowed herself to become a citizen of the EU – incredible. Personally, I was a strong Monarchist but as this article suggests, the most loyal have been betrayed and the liberal elites pandered to. HMTQ has sold the jerseys – after Diana’s death she swapped her constitutional role for that of a ‘Hello’ magazine monarchy, in return for the celebrity/media’s public tolerance of her family. Me above my people.
    End of a civilisation.

    • Thomas Peterson says

      The monarchy has been a Hello Magazine operation since the 19th century. All the ceremonial nonsense we have now like the Changing of the Guard ceremony was created by Queen Victoria’s PR agents.

  16. ThomasT says

    Wott, no mention of reptillians and Satanism? David Icke explains well. Lack of empathy shows thru.. Di murder? Why has the Lizzie 2 cancelled appointments. White hats onto it? David Zublick.

  17. Loverat says

    I see this follows an article about Winston Churchill from David Lindsay a few weeks back. Both subjects split people along ‘party lines’ and even on here readers may post partisan views coming down squarely and strongly on either side.

    I think some of the downsides of the monarchy should be discussed. But this debate should be wide-ranging and objective. My basic thoughts on the monarchy is, if it works, leave it alone.

    But thinking of the specifics of our monarchy my concern is knowing what I know about our political establishment, is how complicit (if at all) is the monarchy in foreign wars (and not talking of more than 50 years ago) and other criminal behaviour carried out by our elites today?. If they are significantly complicit, boot them out. If they are perhaps the ‘best’ part of a corrupt establishment, let them be – or at least have a balanced debate.

    I feel some of this article is a bit churlish. An article will come down on one side which will mean leaving out opposing arguments rather than a weigh up. Fair enough – but I think the arguments for or against need to be relevant, with more range, and meaningful. This style of article works with many subjects but not this one – or when discussing Churchill,

    e.g Prince Philip – fair enough you could have a humerous dig at driving the car to start off – but why start mentioning baby in car and other stuff?

    SS Officer stuff – what’s the point of that? – balance that against: Philip’s mother was in Greece during WW11 living like a tramp feeding jews.

    The problem with this is when we start debating this article, we will fall into the same trap as mainstream readers commenting over tabloid articles.. e.g we will all start debating the merits of 98 year olds driving, about why his sister might have married into the SS and whether his mother really helped jews.

    Not really that relevant to the monarchy, is it?

    • Mikalina says

      Agree. Very much a ‘skimming off the top’ article with no depth or research. It (and the WC article) could actually be an example of the AI generated journalism reported in The Guardian (spits on the floor) last week: very superficial and relatively pointless – other than entertaining, of course.

    • Yarkob says

      ‘if it works, leave it alone.’

      works for whom?

      • Loverat says

        If it works for us as a nation in the interests of the people. Or perhaps, leave it alone if the only reasons to remove are out of ideology or dislike of royalty.

        For me, pragmatism has to come into this also. Get all the criminals out of government, media, big business and other professions first. At least unlike these elites, there is argued to be a benefit of our particular monarchy..

        One example, the Queen is a great ambassador. Disagree with foreign as I do, but she is.

        A reader here said she has to meet unpleasant dictators which made me laugh. Of course, our own political establishment is the biggest evil so perhaps she is relieved to mix with foreign dictators than make polite conversaion with war criminals dressed up as liberals.

        Drive the proven criminals and traitors out first, stop wars and regime change and then we can define our role in the world and involve the monarchy. Perhaps a role of mutual respect between UK and other countries would be nice for a change. I’m sure the Queen would be up for that.

        There are other benefits and potentially if our system was overhauled and the criminals locked away we could review this. Starting up a monarchy debate is the least of our worries and priorities at the moment. And it plays into the hands of the above mentioned criminals.

        • Thomas Peterson says

          The Queen is a great ambassador? I don’t really know about that, what are you saying she has achieved in this role? I’d rather she wasn’t engaging in diplomacy to be honest, we already have diplomats who are at least accountable to someone.

  18. Archie1954 says

    Wow, you have to ask such an easy question to answer? The Royal Family is worth more than a billion pounds annually to the economy of the UK. The Queen, Herself has been the monarch for 66 years and dedicated every moment of those long years to the service of Her subjects. She is the living Constitution of the UK and many other members of the British Commonwealth. She is the unifying bond that keeps the nations constituting the UK bound together as one nation. She is forever at the beck and call of Her government and the Prime minister. She may not enjoy fraternizing with dictators and mass murderers, but She will do so, if Her government considers it necessary. You don’t fool around with a Constitutional Monarchy that is a thousand years old.

    By the way, if Prince Philip had been charged, can you imagine the court case entitled Regina vs The Duke of Edinburgh! (Regina is Latin for Queen)

    • John says

      More people visit Lego land than visit he royal castles etc combined. They need guillotined

    • John says

      The queen enjoys hanging with dictators and ads murderers she invites them and gullible cunts like you make shit up to delude yourself that a woman who survives off tax payers money and the stolen wealth of Africa India the Middle East and Asia and launched wars on Iraq Afghanistan Serbia Yugoslavia Syria Libya etc etc you are one naive fucking cretin and an obvious bootlicker. Which is handy cos my rigger boots need a clean and you live the taste of kiwi boot polish

      • Tom says

        Your comment might make more sense if you learned the uses of those two items, the comma and the full stop.

    • Max Cat says

      My answer to the question is – Nothing – except bore the pants off me as any other feudal anachronism would

    • @ Archie.The monarchy bringing in money is a myth perpetuated by those whose interests it best serves, which is, sadly, not the British people, nor the Inland Revenue and certainly not the poorest in society whether working(whose taxes keep HM in the comfort and grandeur- as demonstrated in her speech at christmas)or the jobless and disabled.

    • Jen says

      I agree with Archie1954, the question is very easy to answer for the monarchy’s supporters in Australia.

      The British monarchy helped to overthrow a legitimately elected government in Australia in 1975.

      We know from the released papers of the former Governor General Sir John Kerr that he had been in contact with Buckingham Palace (the Queen, her private secretary Martin Charteris and the Prince of Wales) over dismissing the Whitlam government.

      The Palace advice to Kerr, should Whitlam become aware of his plan to dismiss his government and try to remove Kerr as GG, was that it would try to delay Kerr’s recall by Whitlam (and enable him to sack the government).

      So the Palace was already aware of the plan to dismiss Whitlam and did not advise Kerr to consult with Whitlam, nor did it contact Whitlam himself and advise him of Kerr’s plan.

      “Relics of colonialism: the Whitlam dismissal and the fight over the Palace letters” (February 2018)

      “The facts of the Whitlam dismissal are more important than ever” (November 2017)

      Collusion or what?

    • Haltonbrat says

      Has all your hair fallen out from tugging your forelock?

    • Tom says

      Devoted to her subjects, like those in Diego Garcia?

    • Thomas Peterson says

      How do we actually know she’s worth a billion a year? If the queen wasn’t in her role, wouldn’t tourists still visit Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace?

  19. Fair dinkum says

    It began with the Pharaohs, continued with the Emperors, expanded with Kings and Queens, infested ‘democracies’ and reached the bottom of the cesspit with CEOs.
    Are we slow learners or just plain stupid?

    • Mikalina says

      Educational indoctrination; vaccines; chem trails; fluoride/chlorine/god knows what else in water; provided religion/ideology; mammon worshipping holidays; programmed parents; gmo foods; chemicals in household products (look at warnings on labels); ‘medicine’; mind controlling/reality producing television, radio, films (60s culture now known to be cia construct, as per the history you mention); memory stealing smart phones (“buy a smart phone, so you don’t have to be”); ritilin for the unprogrammable.

      We are, Fair Dinkum, seriously brain damaged.


Comments are closed.