Myth Busters

I think I've sussed a couple of things, like the reason for the Gobshite Press' continual attacks on Prince Harry and his wife, along with the Culture War against truth that's being waged by the right. The solution to the conundrum is the fact that both the UK and the Royal Family are built on massive and magnificent illusions that are revered by identical cohorts.

Britain is no longer an imperial power, nor is it anywhere near as powerful and important as it likes to think itself, which is why any light that's shone on the true manner in which it became great and powerful, or lost its pre-eminent position, is met with accusations of rewriting history - a history that's evidentially and incontrovertibly documented. Exploding myths is not rewriting history; quite the reverse - it's the myth that rewrites history.

Balzac once wrote; "The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed." That applies in spades to the British Empire, and pointing out how it was actually executed, as attested by documentary evidence, is forbidden and tantamount to 'rewriting history', in the eyes of the true believers.

The Empire has been replaced with an illusion of Empire - the Commonwealth, which is a very poor relation. It achieves very little and is a bit of an anachronism, but at least the Queen is at its head and it therefore serves its magical purpose in bolstering a nation that's in decline. Britain, but especially England, has gone the full King Arthur.

Another symptom of this is our preoccupation with pageantry. Ceremonial dress, whether military or judicial, is stuck in imperial times and hasn't moved forward one iota. It still provides the aura of when the world map was predominantly pink and Britannia ruled the waves. It's not stuck at the point when the Empire was at its largest extent, which was 1922, but when it was aggressively expanding.

In respect of the Royal Family, they rely on mystery and the oath of Omertà; a Southern Italian code of silence and honour that places importance on silence in the face of questioning by authorities or outsiders. Loius XIV, the Sun King, equated himself with France and everything he did, from dawn to dusk, was designed to enhance identification with France and its Gloire, whether true or a falsified illusion. The pageantry surrounding the Royal Family is exactly the same, but perhaps not quite as focussed. 

Harry is a whistleblower and has alerted the world to the fact that the Royal Family is actually just as dysfunctional as the rest of society, and we all know how whistleblowers are treated by the organisations they blow the gaff on. Similarly, those who collude in the conspiracy of silence will attack the whistleblower for exploding the myths they hang on to to cover their insecurity.

At a time when Harry needed family support due to his wife was being mercilessly attacked by the Gobshite Press, for one reason or another it was denied. The section of the press that was doing the attacking was, and remains, that section that revels in literally wrapping itself in the flag of a rather unattractive colour of aggressive,  nationalistic exceptionalism that doffs its cap and tugs its forelock to aristocracy and that totem and pinnacle of aristocracy - the Monarchy. Is it any wonder that the Gobshite Press attacks anyone who has the temerity to point out that the aristocracy has no clothes anymore?

We're always told that the Royals work very hard, but that's also a myth that's perpetuated by a colluding press. By totalling various members' official engagements, the of the number of days they actually work has been estimated. Princess Anne is the hardest-working royal, putting in a total of 167 days. Prince Charles records 125 days of official duties. The 93-year-old Queen herself worked 67 days, but she is 93. The average UK citizen works 228 days a year so, overall, the Royals don't actually work that much for the life of privilege they have and the free run of the equivalent of a National Trust property with a plethora of staff, although they do work beyond the usual pension age, but it's not exactly arduous work.

Monarchy tells us that it's OK to discriminate: that certain people get millions from the state, are respected, revered even, and that their needs and opinions are important, even if they don't do a proper job. Others are forced to scrape by on a pittance, ignored and rejected, doing unpleasant work or with none at all; and all for the trivial reason of birth in certain positions in an hierarchical construct largely based on myth. 

The media, especially on the right, ruthlessly promotes them, generation after generation, in the most appallingly fawning manner. They are associated with the military, flag waving patriotism and the institutions of the state. They are also at the apex of a system of landed privilege and class distinction and this fact sits uncomfortably with our democratic history. 

Because of the Monarchy we are burdened, as subjects, with an unwritten constitution and nebulous constructs such as 'For Queen and Country' that can be whatever the establishment wishes it to be. Not having clearly defined rights, freedoms and obligations as citizens, with a clear constitution, seems a heavy price to pay for pomp and ceremony. 

The throne upon which the sovereign sits, with the crown upon her head, is but a symbol of the establishment: the gravy train of corruption that keeps power among the elite, rich, powerful and aristocratic.

Monarchists maintain that the Royal Family provide more than they cost in tourism revenue but, of the top 10 UK tourist attractions, only one is a palace - Hampton Court - where the Royal Family doesn't even live. It's the home of dead Kings and Queens.

The truth is that we prefer our Kings and Queens dead and larger than life, if you'll forgive the oxymoron. The Hanoverian branch of the pan-European firm has been distinctly lacklustre compared to the preceding branches as larger than life characters. We like hero Kings (Richard I, Henry V, etc.), scheming Kings (John), dissolute Kings (the Prince Regent / George IV, Charles I), butcher Kings (William I, Henry VIII); Kings and Queens with no actual power hold no interest. 

If the Monarchy provides much needed tourism revenue, imagine how much more there would be without having to pay for it. Also, most of the Kings and Queens were those of England only; most can't even remember the names of any Welsh or Scottish King or Queen, unless it's in association with an English one who either beat seven bells out of them, or had them killed.