Monarchy

MONARCHY - THE GREATEST ‘CON’ OF ALL.

(2013)

By

JOHN ROBERTS

In Western Europe the Norsemen were the most ferocious and determined of all the peoples of that Continent, whose influence spread even into the Mediterranean World, where they established a strong influence, trading in slaves captured in their frequent raids into surrounding countries, including the British Isles. They established a Norman Kingdom of Sicily, although it lasted only for one or two generations. It is no surprise to learn, therefore, that they were amongst the principle founders of European dynasties, including that of Russia. William the Norseman became the first Norman King of England, after defeating Saxon King Harold in 1066, as every small English lad is aware. He sired a number of offspring, who went on to dominate Britain for a thousand years, although by this time his blood line has been well diluted with other strains.

When we consider the history of “Kings”, throughout the world, we see a continuous tale of strife, fratricide, murder, rapine and totalitarianism, continuing almost down to our own time. Empires galore have risen and fallen. Even today, in an age of numerous “Constitutional Monarchies”, in place of the monarch we observe that Public Officials are taking over the role of “Empire Builder”. The North-American and French Revolutions of the 18th Century revealed that Government is possible without a Monarch to guide or control the people. A “President” or “Chairman” will do the job much more efficiently, when it comes to spreading military or economic dominion across the World. This power is attained by obtaining absolute control over the media, al all types.

Having recently read, once again, the diaries of Samuel Pepys, I have been reminded of the chaotic conditions pertaining within the British Monarchy, following the 1662 restoration of Charles the Second to the throne of Great Britain. Charles himself was a notorious rake and womanizer, who had spent his most formative years at the degenerate French Court of Louis xlv. His reign set the “tone” for public morality in England for the next hundred years. Charles was surrounded by an host of opportunistic suppliants, all bearing high-sounding titles of distinction and seeking to enrich themselves, at the expense of the Community. Little revenue was collected and much of that was usually dissipated, in the form of gifts to Charles’ Mistresses and favourites. Public Officials, of whom Pepys himself was one, were often unable to obtain payment of their lawful salaries and were forced to engage in blatantly corrupt practices, in order to survive. The Diarist Evelyn mentions in one of his entries, visiting the Court, one Sunday night, when the King and three of his mistresses, plus numerous other parasites, were having an enjoyable evening, carousing and playing, in extraordinary luxury and indulgence, with over two-thousand pounds in gold as a stake on the gaming tables. This at a time when the Nation had been involved in a disastrous war with the Dutch Federation; had lost a third of the population from the Bubonic Plague and had just experienced the Great Fire of London (1666).

The British “Revolution” of the 17th Century, had been brought about by discontented aristocrats and upper-middle class folk, who had no interest in the condition of the dispossessed lower classes. These were, for all intents and purposes, little better than “serfs”, subjected to arbitrary maltreatment at the hands of their social “superiors”. As a result, the Revolution was bound to fail, when those responsible for the establishment of the “Commonwealth“, fell victim to very human failings of pride and greed. Following the death of Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, Government deteriorated into anarchy. Ordinary folk realized that they were no better-off than they had been under the King, who at least had a nominal obligation to protect his people from the rapacity of public officials.

The lower classes in Britain, at that time, were far too ignorant, being largely illiterate, to think about little more that their immediate personal needs: those being the essential necessities of life. Religious reform had begun to instruct the people in elementary reading skills, encouraging small groups of individuals to question the propriety of the established religious and social systems. These “levelling” groups were vigorously suppressed: even the Quaker’s under their charismatic leader, George Fox, only surviving when it was realized by the Country’s rulers, that they, of all the Non-Conformist bodies, were entirely harmless and whose insistence in absolute non-violence were beneficial to the maintenance of “Law and Order”.

Charles the Second did not have the almost absolute powers claimed by his father, Charles the First (of sad memory), murdered by Parliamentary Conspirators in 1645 (?). His return marked the commencement of a course of reform that, eventually, led to the Parliament-controlled “Constitutional” Monarchy of the present day.

Up until the reign of Henry V111, English Kings maintained despotic rule, with power of life and death over their subjects. The Catholic Church had collaborated in the maintenance of the myth of “The Divine Right of Kings”, by confirming that Monarchy is a Divinely appointed institution, subject only to the supervening influence of the Church itself. In England, the absolute and unlimited power of the King had been modified, slightly, during the reign of King John by the signing of Magna Carta, by which certain guarantees were given to the Barons, in return for their continued support of the King. Later Magna Carta which provided for essential legal processes to be observed, in the case of the individual, was extended to include the people as a whole.

It is clear that despotic rule was the norm throughout the history of humanity, both within Eastern and Western Societies. Kings were, in fact, totally above the “Law” and, indeed, the King’s “Will” was actually translated into law by the mere fact of its utterance by the Supreme Lord. It follows that the person who was most likely to become the ruler was the strongest, most belligerent and ruthless character in any society. History gives numerous examples of the typical tyrant, whose principal characteristics reveal an utterly ruthless and cynical disregard for all human values.

In Europe, for a thousand years, Monarchy was developing in all the Nations. It became the pattern for those of an elite social status to seek a partner for life, from within the ranks of the aristocracy, residing within the various European Nations. Indeed, marriage outside this group became unthinkable. This pattern continued, until, by the opening of the 21st Century, we find that most of the members of the International Monarchist Set are related to one another. Hence, the Russian Tsar, Alexander 11, (assassinated in 1916), was a cousin to King George V of England and also to King William 11 of Germany. (All sharing a grandmother in Queen Victoria of England). Such relationships extended right throughout Europe and even into the Balkan and Mediterranean States. It became, and remains, an exclusively elite class of individuals, all of whom live a parasitic existence, and who prey upon their own respective nations. For hundreds of years, the accumulated wealth of nations has been channelled into the hands of these folk, to the exclusion of the masses of the people of every nation upon Earth.

Reference to the Asian Nations reveals an even more despotic situation, with the Emperor of China being regarded as a “God” in his own right. Marco Polo had some difficulty in convincing the Chinese that their Emperor was not, in fact, Supreme King of all the World. A Divine status is held by the Emperor of Japan, down to the present day.

Nowhere is the influence of the “Crown” more fully demonstrated, than within Great Britain itself, where the present Queen, Elizabeth 11, is titular head of the Nation and even of the Church of England. A descendant of George 1, a German Prince, imported into Great Britain on the occasion of a vacancy in the job, following the death of Queen Anne.(?), in 1723 (?) There have been successive rulers since that time, the most significant of whom was Victoria, who reigned for over 60 years in the 19th Century, at a time of great military expansion. Not, of course, that Victoria, herself, actually went to War. No, No! She left that to her Generals to work out. She only shared the spoils. By the time of her death in 1901, Great Britain thought that it was the “Ruler of the Waves”, but was merely deluding itself. America had come along to steal the cake of Empire; surpassing by far the most fantastic aspirations of the British. (However, that is another story).

Co-existent with the Monarch was a body of aristocratic individuals, who, by virtue of inherited privilege were in a position to control both the wealth and political power of a Nation. Intrinsic to this caste system was the idea that the “Divine Right of Kings” somehow flowed down through the ranks of the higher aristocracy, until it petered out in the vain aspirations of the ordinary “Commoners”, being persons of no consequence whatever in the scheme of human existence. The “Lords” are the descendants of those powerful Barons who supported the “Conquerer” in the year 1066. (Or at least, they would like to consider themselves such). However, the vicissitudes of life have ensured that frequent rebellions, wars and civil tumult have result in the extinction of many of the originally illustrious houses of the elite classes. In spite of these changes, the aristocracy still clings to considerable wealth and power, in the shape of the land: much of which remains under the control of the Monarch and the landed gentry. The Capitalist system, that has prevailed throughout the developmental period of modern trading organizations, has ensured that property remains substantially in the hands of the few.

The fact that in the early 21st Century, we find the world totally dominated by the United States of America and its “Globalized” system of international commerce, does not affect the privileges of “Caste” in any way, other than to transfer the reigns of power into the hands of the Capitalist Warlords. In fact, “Commerce” recognizes the necessity for the maintenance of Monarchist systems of Government, as a check to the growth of levelling movements: momentarily discouraged by the sustained barrage of anti-socialist propaganda from the various media outlets, controlled wholly by rabid anti-communist tycoons. Monarchy, as an object of popular infatuation, in which the lives and activities of the supreme social models in Western Society are carefully monitored and recorded by the visual media, serves as a wonderful tool, with which to divert the limited intellects of the majority of the population, from more important and pressing matters affecting the lives of all folk.

It must be conceded that such diversions as the pursuit of Film Stars, Aristocratic personalities, Sporting identities, charismatic politicians, etc., all helps to detract the attention of the electorate from pressing matters of international or local importance. Such propaganda comes under the general heading of “Sop for the Masses!” Thus throughout the 20th Century, successive wars have been fought, with the support of the masses on all sides, by the simple expedient of brain-washing the ordinary individual with a torrent of lies, calculated to induce people to believe that what their Governments are doing, is serving the interests of “National Security”. In the case of the British people (and their Colonial supporters) the person of the Monarch figured largely in the propaganda machine. King George V, in the War of 1914-18, (Cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany) was the very image of British National Pride. “For King and Country!” was the cry. The aspiring volunteer, about to go to his death in the trenches, swore to serve the “King and his Heirs and Successors.” The “Oath of Allegiance” has been used for many generations to entrap men, by the fear of Divine retribution, in addition to the highly effective tools of the Law.

For Centuries, persons convicted of the abominable crime of “Treason”, were subjected to the most horrific of all forms of execution, in the British Isles. If not actually “Peers of the Realm”, (as Lords are generally termed) they were liable to be sentenced to be “Hung, Drawn and Quartered”. This involved the guilty person being hung until half-dead, then drawn through the streets on a hurdle to the place of execution. There he was butchered: his body parts being placed on display in a Public Place, for the deterrence of all “like-minded” felons. It was rather a nasty sort of treatment for the ordinary rebel. Lords, on the other hand, were merely decapitated.

It is my understanding that the offence of “Treason” is still on the Statute Book, both in the United Kingdom and here in Australia. Just what this constitutes is not clear, although these notes themselves, would, perhaps, at one time, have placed me in jeopardy for such a charge. Certain it is that few or no persons have been executed for this offence since William Joyce was hung in l945, for this very crime. He was, indeed, a very wicked fellow! Joyce was, popularly, known as “Lord Haw Haw!” to members of the British Public and his radio broadcasts in support of the German War effort were familiar to me as a child and lots of other children. We all thought he was a great “joke”. However, in spite of this, he was rounded up in Germany when the War ended and, after an appropriate show trial on the charge of “Treason”, he was hung by the neck until he was dead. He had dared to make insulting remarks about the King and other members of the Royal Family.

Here in Australia, where I have lived for almost fifty years, the Queen of England is nominally head of state. Most Australians, including those of Catholic Irish origin, hate the very idea of the British Monarch occupying such a position, albeit merely a nominal one. Lots of folk support the concept of a Republic and wish to withdraw Australia from the British Commonwealth of Nations, or, at least, remove the Queen as top-dog, substituting a Republican form of Government in its stead. My own feelings are mixed, regarding this question, as I see a Republican form of Constitution, although desirable for Australia, as another breach with the United Kingdom: another rupture of the essential ties of blood that unite Briton and Australian in a symbolic brotherhood.

The media, in Australia, controlled as it is by International Capitalist interests, support the idea of a Constitutional Monarchy with great vigour. Indeed, while we have abolished all forms of aristocratic designation, such as, for instances, Knighthoods and Peerages (once eagerly sought by Colonial Aussies who could afford the fees), we still have one or two “Lord Mayor’s”, here and there. (A simple “Mayor” would be much too plebian a title). In spite of our nominal rejection of titles of distinction, we are, as a “Multi-cultural” Society, very much aware of the influence of our Social Superiors, within our midst. We no longer accept British Empire Queen’s Birthday Awards, such as, eg. “The Order of the Garter: British Empire Medal”, etc., but now have our very own “Orders of Australia”, no doubt, in various degrees and levels.

Social events, involving International Aristocrats, are very much part of our scene. We have been privileged, of late, to observe the transformation of a young lady from Tasmania, into a very real “Princess Mary” by her marriage to the eldest son of the King of Denmark. Now this, in itself, would not appeal to Socialists or Australian Republicans, but, if we believe, the evidence of our own eyes, is a matter of great importance to the people of Australia. As such, it received great media attention and continues to do so.

It is a well-known fact, that aristocratic personalities, of whatever country from which they derive their origin, are frequently the object of great media attention, whatever the form of media involved. One might ask, “What social virtues do they possess or what possible contribution have they apparently made, towards human evolution, to warrant such a degree of attention from the media, from political figures and those who have the management of affairs, generally, within Western or Eastern Communities. The answer to such a question can only be; that they happen to represent interests calculated to divert the attention of ordinary folk, away from their own, often tedious, humdrum and hopelessly boring lives.

Such a situation has been exacerbated, within the last half-century or so, by the tremendous growth of visual media outlets. Not so long ago, the only vehicle of distribution of information was the newspaper, followed by the radio in the early 20th Century. Systematic management and control over these avenues of information, has resulted in some half a dozen or so International Companies controlling the propaganda machines of the whole world. In my lifetime, I have witnessed the demise of the Socialist press, bought up and eliminated by such “Tycoons” as Rupert Murdoch, who now controls a vast information empire, devoted to the formulation and direction of world-opinion. In other words, the masses of the people are incapable of thinking for themselves and are saturated in a daily barrage of visual and intellectual rubbish, over which they have no control, nor any interest in changing things. In such an atmosphere, international world opinion is manipulated to suit the interests of Global Capitalism.

“Monarchy” is merely one instrument in the maintenance of the global control over the nations of the Earth.

So long as there are unscrupulous individuals, bent upon controlling and exploiting their fellow men, so long will such corrupt systems prevail in our world.