“Make Elizabeth the Last” Wokists have the abolition of the monarchy in their sights

British anti slaving ship overhauls a slaver

While the Queen is alive wokists are keeping mum, but as soon as she dies and Prince Charles ascends the throne they will demand he abdicates. Their charge? The Royal Family’s history of involvement in slavery from the Tudors until Abolition during which it is alleged the Crown made huge profits or licensed others to do so. Instead, the monarchy’s detractors will say,  of wasting money on a coronation the royal estates should be sold and the money given to today’s descendants of slaves.

An accusation that your ancestors were involved in slavery is the modern equivalent of pointing the bone among the Australian Aborigines. There is no defence against it, you just have to crawl away and die.

The notion of blaming the monarchy for slavery may fall on fertile ground. Many children come out of school under the impression that the British invented slavery. No single country invented  slavery. Slavery was once so universal that you may as well ask the entire world to pay reparations to everybody else. There are parts of Africa where it has still not being abolished and the history of slaving in Africa between Arabs and Africans is appalling.

The unique British contribution to slavery was to abolish it, a moral insight it gained before any other nation.

Wokists are not interested in moral insights. They want to get rid of the monarchy because it is  the working class wants to keep it. For the latter a monarch is infinitely preferable to a middle class president who will only represent her fellow bourgeoisie, by further encouraging the NHS to be slowly bled to death by administrators, or backing a rental market so overburdened with regulations and regulators – the latest £10,000 green imposition on private landlords is a good example – that people are now sleeping in vans and backs of cars.

Overseas, the Commonwealth is in trouble. Most of the West Indian islands – their money grabbing rulers, not their people – want to become republics in exchange for cash from the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. China needs harbours and missile silos to attack the soft belly of the United States in case of war. Dominica has already thrown herself into China’s arms.

Remainers see the monarchy as an obstacle to rejoining an EU ruled by the unelected leader Ursula Von Der Leyen and her successors. Leyen has that grey, second rateness of the super bureaucrat, a political ladle holder doling out the contents of the gigantic pork barrel that is the EU. But since we left Britain’s elites have been turned away with empty bowls. Read this mean-minded article by Polly Toynbee in the Guardian to see what is in the wind.

Subscribe to Digital magazine

Subscribe to Print Magazine

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

14 Comments on “Make Elizabeth the Last” Wokists have the abolition of the monarchy in their sights

  1. You dont need a monarchy to protect the middleclass. That is why we have a bill of rights. Socialism doesnt help the middleclass. Historical England and other nations are replete with money grubbing thugs sitting on the throne, many had no interest in their people. If they did, they wouldn’t start incessent wars, bankrupt the exchequer, then tax the people until they chased them out of town. But there is no doubt that the monarchy holds a revered place in British history. Queen Elizabeth has been a great monarch, and deserves a great deal of respect. It seems to me the woke are more interested in trying to destroy history. Part of the marxist playbook is to tear down the existing culture.
    Btw, when are we going to see an article from the editor condemning the bombings of a maternity hospital in donbass? When will the marxist, statist, media cover this horrendous act of violence against so-called “innocent civilians”? This is what we call “selective & suvjective reporting”. You cant virtue signal your superiority when the Russian military bombs hospitals, but then turn a blind eye when NATO does it. For the record, I don’t think their were civilians in either building. I dont think the Russians intentionally kiled innocents, and I dont think NATO did either. But the point is that when you write about war, you should cover it objectively. Remove your hatred of Russian ethnicity from the equation and recognize that both sides employ pyschops. Both sides use hospitals and schools as makeshift bases, then send out reports of atrocity when its bombed. Its lart of the game. Its part of winning he hearts and minds. If you are going to write about fictious bombings of ukraine innocents, when the truth is that Kiev militants are using the hospital as cover, then you should also write about fictitious killings of donbass innocents when NATO bombs militants using a hospital as cover. You have been helping the marxist, mercantilists, and totalitarian globalists, not fighting them.

    • I’m afraid the Russians have form here, as in Aleppo and Grozny: Bomb the shit out of the civilian population.
      PS Do you think the rape of Ukrainian women by Russians is also fictitious, or perhaps just unintentional?

    • As a monarchist and patriot, I am concerned about the deteriorating support for the institution; a poll published by the “New Statesman” showed that republicans numbered about one third of the monarchists. HMTQE2 fairly good in public, but not so much in private. I must admit a sneaking admiration for the scene in “Charles III” when Tim Pigott-Smith comes into Parliament and in Shakesepearean prose dismisses the lot of them; Shaw wrote a similar play.

      As for the forthcoming Land War in Europe that our Army Chief wants, all I can say is: I don’t want tactical nukes and escalation. “The blood of the Martyrs is the Seed of the Church” (Tertullian). “The blood of the Ukrainians [30% of whom have Russian as their mother-tongue] is the Salvation of the Boris” (Ashton).

  2. I agree with everything bar the final paragraph. That’s silly. You do know, don’t you, that 6 member states of the EU are monarchies? Plus, her name is “von der Leyen” and she does not “rule” the EU. You ruined an otherwise fine piece with this tosh.

    • J Jires. You don’t seriously believe that Leyen was elected do you ? On what ballot paper did I see her name or that of the previous office clerk who occupied the office of President of the Union of Placemen ? As for there being monarchies in the EU , yes if you mean the bicycling among the people sort of monarchs. You show a poor grip on political reality.

  3. There are monarchists at all social levels and in all locations, and even politics (see e.g. Louise Perry, New Statesman, 10 June 2022, p.36). The only organisation which both supports loyalty to the Monarch and also legally represents the English people within the UK and the “Commonwealth” is The Royal Society of St George (readers, see details & please join online asap).

    As regards the Heir to the Throne, he has supported many English interests from the Anglican prayer book to the English countryside and farming. He said he wanted to be Defender of FAITH (not faiths in the plural, from Asatru to Zoroastrianism, Shia to Sunni to Sufi, Orthodox and Liberal Judaism, the Latter Day Saints and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Christian Science and Christian Voice, Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Catholicism etc) – in other words a defender of spiritual values. He has also made an few necesarily oblique criticisms of “political correctness”. It is OUR JOB to see that the electorate provide ministers who give genuine advice to future kings. Incidentally, Prince William has referred in a negative context to the impact of explosive overpopulation in black Africa on The Planet.

    • This article is way off. Slavery doesn’t have much to do with campaigns for a republic. “They want to get rid of the monarchy because it is the working class wants to keep it.” I don’t think the “woke” care about the monarchy that much. Have a look at The Critic and UnHerd for their recent articles praising the monarchy for being anti-nationalist and pro-multiculturalism. Prince Charles has privately described the Rwanda deportation plan as “appalling”. I imagine the “wokists” will find plenty to live about the monarchy and the Commonwealth. The campaign for a republic largely centres around the lack of democracy and accountability. The monarchy has failed to protect the British way of life since Elizabeth came to the throne. A democratic alternative is needed.

      • @ Daniel Goldstein
        You do not need to replace the Monarchy but to ensure that we have the politicians, media people and civil servants who will advise the monarch on protecting or restoring the British way of life in the United Kingdom of four nations. This means electing democratic alternative MPs. The problem is not with the Widow of Windsor but with the political system.
        The republicans are mostly multiculturalists and globalists.
        Personally I feel closer to Saxons, Normans and Romans than to Somalis, Nigerians and Rwandans, but then our royalty has always been a European and white institution, its German strain being a particular asset.

  4. ”But since we left Britain’s elites have been turned away with empty bowls.” That alone justifies leaving the EU. Such a pleasant and satisfying image of the woke, entitled elites being turned away from the gravy train. It makes me smile.

  5. A few observations by the influential Austrian Economist Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950). Schumpeter argued that the success of capitalism (rather than its failure) would lead to socialism.

    “Capitalism pays the people that strive to bring it down”

    “Unlike any other type of society, capitalism inevitably and by virtue of the very logic of its civilization creates, educates and subsidizes a vested interest in social unrest…”

    “…the intellectual group cannot help nibbling [at the foundations of capitalist society], because it lives on criticism and its whole position depends on criticism that stings.”

    “Capitalism creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many institutions, in the end turns against its own; the bourgeois finds to his amazement that the rationalist attitude does not stop at the credentials of kings and popes but goes on to attack private property and the whole scheme of bourgeois values.”

    • @ invitis
      Marx made similar observations, but international communism was not and is not the answer. State intervention to prevent the worst excesses of capitalism, such as the competitive exploitation of overseas labour, within a self-contained economic system, plus national credit control, was proposed as a third alternative by some naughty boys before WW2.

      • Correct me if I am wrong but Marxists eagerly await the ‘inevitable’ failure of capitalism, not its success.

        Schumpeter’s observation, made long ago, is borne out by the woke takeover of many Western institutions and corporations.
        To repeat:
        “Capitalism creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many institutions, in the end turns against its own.”

        Destruction of moral authority has been an effective weapon in the hands of the West’s enemies – mostly the ‘enemy within’. Our achievements are dismissed as tainted with those intersectional favourites: racism, sexism, homophobia, white supremacy, white patriarchy. We tell the world that we deplore inequality – our enemies hold up the mirror of our own values to us. With breathtaking arrogance and ignorance they demand we look into that mirror and deplore our own history as riddled with social inequalities.

        An example of that critical frame of mind turning against its own: for years feminists have been claiming that sexual differences are of minor importance – a woman can do just about anything that a man can do (only better). Man/Woman – Woman/Man, why make distinctions? Transgender activists have taken this notion to the next level – much to the chagrin of feminists who thought they’d had the last word on gender.

        • The “problem” with monarchy even in its “constitutional” form is that it stands in principle for nationhood and heredity; it is ipso facto opposed by “equality, diversity, inclusion” aka “race, gender, class”. Our own royal family has some pretty weird predecessors, but some good eggs like Alfred the Great, Charles I Martyr, Prince Albert and George VI. The most sustained attack on our own royals, especially the admirable Prince Charles, has come over many years from the so-called right-wing “Daily Mail”. The trouble is that “Headship” of the “Commonwealth” has been an albatross around the national neck, because HMTQ sees the African in terms of Bigwigs like her dancing partner Kenneth Kaunda or cheering chilren waving the flag. She does not share the worldly wisdom of her Mother and late Husband, and of course has no idea of the muggin’, steamin’, shankin’, rappin’ n rapin’ in the darker corners of her realm.

          • @N.J. Casper
            The Wokists prefer not to notice “the muggin’, steamin’, shankin’, rappin’ n rapin’ in the darker corners of her realm” (certain districts of Britain’s major cities for instance). The Wokists also vehemently object to anyone who dares draw attention to these things (without factoring in white, post-colonial, culpability). I can’t imagine even “the admirable Prince Charles” challenging that taboo.