I don't like the Royal Family and I firmly believe that Prince Charles is a jug-eared fuckwit of the highest order. But I cannot get excited or angry about the fact that he is costing the taxpayer more money. It's not because I think he deserves the money (the opposite is true), but rather because the money stolen by the government is spunked away on pointless projects like the Prince on an ongoing basis. It is too tiring to be angry about all the wastage of our money that goes on. If you tried, you'd spend all of your time enraged until you dropped dead of a massive stroke.

So Prince Charles is costing us more money, like a welfare recepient on the take but magnified onto a massive scale. Plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.

From the chap producing a coin to celebrate Prince Philip's 90th:

Sculptor Mark Richards, who designed the coin, said: "The challenge for me, in creating this design, was to capture a man who gives great support to the monarch and the country, while remaining largely in the background.

"Therefore I have focused on a close-up of his face with all its accumulated dignity, wisdom and experience."

What, seriously, the "dignity, wisdom and experience" of this man? I think Richards' description is stretching credibility well beyond breaking point...

*Retches*

Royal engagement bullshit

Helpfully, The Daily Mash has put together a list of the most gushing, fawning tripe written in the aftermath of the announcement of the royal engagement. It is reproduced in full below - be warned, though, dear reader, you'll need a strong stomach to get through it all:

Each and every one us will be deeply affected by the looming royal marriage... (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

In an important sense, this betrothal has far more to teach a new generation about relationships - and fidelity, too. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail)

For Kate and William, their engagement has profound national significance. They will help form our collective imagination. They are now part of what we are as a nation, how we define ourselves as individuals. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph)

As somebody whose business it is to study the human heart.. (Bel Mooney, Daily Mail - she actually wrote those words)

Today we are wiser and perhaps more humane. The unrealistic expectations that destroyed Charles and Diana have gone. (Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph - he's playing a blinder)

It is rare these days that we glimpse broad sunlit uplands, but this is one such moment. (Daily Telegraph editorial - sweet fucking Jesus)

And the winner is (obviously)...

Diana, the bride at every royal funeral and the mourner at every royal wedding, was present in more than just the engagement ring which sat so heavily on the hand of this young woman who must now walk a mile in her bloodied shoes, on a road leading who knows where. (Julie Burchill, The Independent)

And the worst thing? People are paid to write this tripe...

The royal engagement

In its slightly gushing and sickening article on the coming royal wedding, the BBC asks:

What is your reaction to the news of the Royal engagement? What message would you like to send Prince William and Kate Middleton?

First question first, I think. What is my reaction to the news of the royal engagement? Well, the curiously ambivalent feeling of irritation and apathy. Apathy because I don't much care about a couple who I don't know, don't care about and will never meet getting engaged. Irritation because the whole world is going to bang on about this marriage right up until the day it dominates the UK's TV schedules and the two actually get married. I don't want to have to care about the royal wedding - I'd rather just forget about it. But the media, and the unthinking, dumb royalists who lap up this sort of shit, will almost certainly not let me.

As for sending a message - well, in the highly unlikely event that William and Kate care in any way, shape or form about my opinion, I'd like to send them individual messages. Kate - are you sure about this? With every passing day, William looks more like his father. And have you seen his father recently? You're going to end up married to a jug-eared oaf who wears a constant rictus grin on his face. He's not going to look better with age. And William - I'd just like to say that I think you are your family are an unacceptable burden on this country, and I really wish you would all have the dignity of pissing off out of the limelight and ending your dependance on the public purse.

I can't stomach the royal family - never been able to, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Particularly since it appears that this latest bout of regal nuptials is going to force so much attention on such an undeserving family.

Foot in mouth disease from a Labour candidate:

A Labour election candidate may be sacked after calling the Queen a "parasite" and "vermin" on a website.

Now, I don't like the Royal Family. At all. And I can slate them as much as I like as I am running for precisely nothing, and represent no-one other than myself. However, you are a little dumb if you are seeking election and slating the oddly popular unelected head of state. Particularly if you do on to say this:

Mr White said the Queen "milks this country for everything she can".

He may be correct; but then again is a member of a party that has not just milked this country but also effectively razed it to the ground over the past decade and a bit. As much as I dislike the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family, I have to say that when you compare them to the Nu Labour government then they really do come across as the lesser of two evils. By some way.

I Hate the Royal Family....

...but fair play to Prince Harry.

The Right Decision

Prince Harry shouldn't go to Iraq, and the army is right to prevent him.

Now, the republican in me wants Harry out there. The fact that he is a member of the Royal Family should not prevent him from being treated as a normal soldier - so if his unit is going out to Iraq, then so should Harry. And to his credit, Harry seems to want to accompany his troops into the War Zone. But to insist on Harry going out there to prove a point about equality in the army would not only be obtuse, but also moronic.

The simple fact is that Harry would be the ultimate scalp for the insurgents. They would make every effort to take the Prince, parade him on camera if they captured him, and no doubt execute him on film if their (almost certainly grossly unreasonable) demands were not met. And Harry would not be the only person to suffer. The insurgents have shown their ruthlessness time and time again - so not only would Harry suffer, but so would those around him if he was captured. The risk is simply to great for him and for those he would serve with.

If Harry does want to serve the country that has elevated him to the status of prince by an accident of birth, then there are far more sensible and sane ways for him to do it - both inside the army and in other areas of society.

I want my money back!

Apparently the Queen/Royal Family only costs each person in Britian 62p a year. Not a lot, I hear you say. Well, I don't care. It is my 62p and I want it back.

It is not often that you hear the Nameless Tory express a left wing opinion, just as (thankfully) you don't often hear the Nameless Tory refer to himself in the third person. But here it is - I don't like the Royal family. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the Queen, aside from the fact that she appears to be strikingly dull. Her husband is a boorish loudmouthed racist, but I guess with his background you can't expect anything else. Likewise Prince Charles - a wet, unrealistic toff - but what else could he be when he is the heir to the throne? No, my problem lies with the concept of the Royal Family.

I mean, for Christ's sake, we live in the twentieth century people! Why are we still funding a family whose sole qualification for their immensely priviliged position is that they were born to it? Why should we this family command £37.4m of public funds owing to an accident of birth?

The argument you often hear is that the Royal Family are good for tourism. Well, you could have opened up 25 Cromwell Street to the public, and I am sure that people with a love of the macabre would have flocked to it. Being good for tourism is not enough of a reason to spend public funds on something.

And here is the fundamental question - if the Royals are so good for tourism, and if they are so cheap to the public, why can't they fund themselves?

Because with the increasing problems in the NHS, the failing education system, the poorly equipped troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the multitude of other problems in the UK, I really think we could find something else to spend that £37m on.

Anyway, that is my red moment over with. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.