Nicky Campbell is on holidays (Spending more time with his ego?) so his “Big Question” TV programme is presented by Kay Adams. She led a discussion entitled “Does the Queen deserve a pay rise” (last one being 20 years ago, but the BBC doesn’t do detail when it suits them). Adams suggested that the Queen might try cycling and open up her Palaces. Her Caledonian hatred of the Monarchy oozes through. This was a pro-Republican agenda dressed up as a topical “debate”. The audience, as ever, was composed of swivel-eyed Royal haters.
QUEEN BASHING..
Bookmark the permalink.
This is way off topic, but also to do with swivel-eyed haters. Have a listen to the incomparable Jeremy Taylor mocking the “liberal” left:
It was mentioned on the programme that it was twenty years since her last pay rise.
Actually the pint sized Scottish ponce is in South Africa living it up in a 5 star hotel (but avoiding those awful ‘blecks’) at our expense.
I am a republican but I am not “swivel-eyed”. I am perfectly rational and happen to believe that this country deserves a political system fit for the modern age.
Some people think that the monarchy makes Britain the envy of the world. The laughing stock of the world, maybe, but envious? No.
I find the people I meet overseas express a lot of interest in how long The Queen has reigned – and regard this stability at the centre of a nation’s constitution as something to be envied – not mocked.
And they often seem to draw a link between the “still centre” that has gravity but very limited real power with the fact that we never have any trouble changing governments at election times very quickly, that our “machinery” seems so well-oiled.
In so many other countries, there appears to be real tension between the office of Head of State (Presidency) and Prime Minister.
Yes, the Monarchy went through a low patch after the late 80’s – but I reckon there will be very warm support for the Queen in 2012, the 60th year since her accession. And personally I reckon that this further Jubilee is worth a Bank Holiday and the chance for street parties and razzamatazz in the Mall. Most of us plebs love it. But I expect the BBC types look askance at what us plebs like or feel.
Funny how Spain chose monarchy after Franco.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain
No doubt the BBC would like nothing better to end the monarchy – even though the present lot have sold out this country, they are still a symbol of Britain and the last vestage of a sovereign country.
I expect the BBC would be happy to have someone like Graham Norton as Head of State.
In his fine essay at the bottom of this page, Anthony Jay points out the indifference of the “liberal” media, of which he was a part, to the death of the Queen Mother and their bemusement when hundreds of thousands lined the streets to honour her.
And there was that BBC shmuck who faked a video to make it appear that the Queen was storming out of a photo shoot when in fact she was going in.
Yes, not everyone thinks like lefty fools with their tunnel vision and their sneering at authority and tradition.
You think the likes of John Prescott, say, (or pick from a long list of your own choosing from the last 10 years), is fit for 21st century government? I don’t. Thank goodness for the Queen, at least.
“ I am perfectly rational and happen to believe that this country deserves a political system fit for the modern age. “
And what political system is that.? Is it the post-democratic system beloved by Mandleson?
According to the constitution the monarchy is apolitical. The unelected President of the EU is not.
Also what is this obsession with “fit for the modern age”. If something has worked well for hundreds of years do you get rid of it because it is “out of date”? Yes its good and it works, but lets scrap it for something that is more modern. I know we will give all our descion making to a foreign country. Its a new modern way of running the country. We let foreigners decide our fate, all in the name of post modern democracy. It must be good because its modern.
Steve Smedley “The laughing stock of the world , maybe..”
I was under the impression that the Queen was well respected. Since you seem to have the world on your side, I’d be interested to see the evidence for this widespread mirth. I’ve travelled around a fair bit but somehow missed it.
I also wonder whether the EU is a political system “fit for the modern age”. If democracy is your primary concern, I think the monarchy is the least of our worries.
Well said, the EU is the most undemocratic organisation going. It’s corrupt from top to bottom, wasteful and heavily liberal.
Personally I’m happy with the current monarch but not with the idiot who will probably replace her (Charlie boy) but I really don’t want a President, Jesus could you imagine the sort of mong we’d get? Bliar, or Brown or Mandelson (he’d rather be Queen of course)
At first glance, I thought the “Queen” in the headline was Nicky Campbell.
Is this the same Kaye Adams who thinks she is working class?
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/01/one-shows-ppb-on-behalf-of-labour-party.html
This BBC “analysis” of Michael Gove’s idea to promote Britishness and encourage immigrants to join society is related to the topic of this thread.
Can the teaching of history make us more British?
Apparently, Gordon Brown’s half-hearted attempt before the election to have a national discussion about what it means to be British was cool, and the stupid Tories opposed it and are now sort of hypocrites for wanting to do something similar.
However, since it’s a Tory idea, the BBC has to come to a negative conclusion.
First, though, comes the obligatory class war attack and an assumption that the Tories want to promote an elitist past:
Some analysts fear that we might end up returning to a rather narrow version of our past: about institutions which might seem increasingly remote to a lot of people – a “top-down” story of kings, queens and parliaments.
Based on what evidence? None is provided here. It’s just an assumption. Then comes an ironic moment. The BBC has recently been denegrating the Tories’ plans to create independent schools, relying on the free market to create a better curriculum and education environment. But here, the BBC says this:
Professor Ferguson’s preference is for a free-market education, where the consumer, in this case the school, chooses the curriculum.
This seems to fit well with the whole thrust of the coalition’s education policy, which emphasises de-centralisation and local control.
By presenting Ferguson’s idea as the opposing view to something they’ve just presented as wrong, the BBC creates the context which suggests that it’s the correct idea. Funny how they suddenly see the positive side to the Tory scheme, with no bleating about how this will help only the wealthy, leave the poorest children behind, etc.
Then there’s this brilliant gem:
The education secretary might decide he is not prepared to grant state funding to, say, a Muslim-run school which teaches its children that their history is that of the Muslim ummah.
So they admit it. And see it as a flaw in Gove’s plan, rather than a flaw in Muslim education in the UK! Where are the reports about Muslim schools inhibiting integration and encouraging children born in the UK to view their home as the enemy? Awesome priorities, Beeboids.
In the end, though, the BBC must dismiss the idea out of hand, without offering a single scrap of evidence of exactly what kind of “Britishness” would be on the agenda. It’s sheer speculation, but since it’s a Tory scheme, the BBC defaults to this in the end:
Flags on the lawn may not be on the agenda but a more top-down approach to generating patriotism is.
As opposed to the top-down approach the BBC takes to Social Cohesion?
hmmm – not sure this counts as BBC bias as much as an anti royalist attitude by the BBC. Not the same thing.
the point of this web site as i understand it is that BBC does not give balance on certain issues. well that is palpably true on many occassions. not least their obvious anti israel bias, pro climate change bias and pro hamas bias and so on.
but in this case i feel this posting is based more on the posters support for royallty than any bias on the BBC’s behalf.
and thats the tightrope a site like that this has to walk. condemming the BBC for bias whilst at the same time not condemming it just because it puts out a view you dont agree with.
not an easy balance to find and this site does it pretty well most of the time. but just sometimes it veers towards just being irritated with a BBC prog because the poster disagrees with its point of view.
Sorry but the BBC is biased against the Monarchy. We’ve seen the queen in particular smeared by the BBC on several occasions.
The BBC’s leftist view is that we shouldn’t have a monarchy but replace it with a plastic President, no doubt some drug taking corrupt homosexual would be the ideal for the BBC.
There is no evidence that nations that have a President are any better off than one with a Monarchy. I’m not the biggest fan of the monarchy but I do believe the Queen has been an excellent steady force in our political system.
Replace the Monarch with an elected President (say Ken Livingturd) and you will have corruption, lies and political infighting.
How is an anti-royalist attitude not bias? Aren’t you just changing terminology?
It is the people they chose to attack that shows their bias.
Look at this.
Nigel Farage getting a grilling from a beeboid for his attack on Rompey- whats wrong with that you may ask, she is putting the other side. True. But then she talks to Dominic Lawson and nods and agrees with everything he says.
This is bias. If it was not she would be taking the contrary stance with Dominic Lawson but she does not.
Can you tell where she stands on this issue? Yes plainly. Therefore she is biased. QED.
Oh and on the subject of Rompey. “Should the unelected EU President gets loads of taxpayers money?”
Kevin,
But the BBC should not have a “view” on anything.
Millie
The Queen was unable to stop Brown avoiding the referendum he promised.
Royalts always argue but if we elect a head of state we might get…
Then name a very unpopular politician that almost nobody would vote for. Well if we did get who ever in a fair and open election I would accept that and hope for better next time.
Democracy will not always give thge result that you want yet most of us accept it as a way of electing a government.
How many people want Charlie boy?
But you’re not going to get who you want, you will get who Liebour/BBC want.
I don’t want Charlie boy as King, but I don’t want Mandelson, Brown, Bliar or some other mong as President either.
Ronald, Unfortunately, there is probably nobody we would actually want, if you look around our current crop of politicians and their cronies. So what we would get is almost certainly bound to be worse than the Queen and to command less esteem. Mind you, the prospect of Charles is almost enough to make me contemplate an elected president. Maybe we should give ourselves the option to elect or endorse the next offering from the monarchy.
How many people voted for Gordon the Moron as PM ? Agree with the comments about Charlie, but he will have no power. On the other hand , there may be some people who are influenced by his lunatic ravings but , he will have to cut them out if he becomes King.
The BBC have a great knack of finding ‘progressive’ types in their audiences – the sort of people who are anti-monarchist because it’s trendy. These people are also the ‘white guilt’, ‘British history guilt’ types I referred to the other day here – ashamed of any glorious part of our history. There’s no more traditional part of our history than the monarchy – so obviously these progressive types bash it. There was an awful, truly shocking, article in the New Statesman a while back, arguing that we could replace the monarchy with an elected President – who they described as a mix of Obama and Mandela. I’ll have to see if I can find it, I’m sure it was written by one of these regular BBC commentators.
It would have to be a “black”, female , muslim, lesbian, disabled, President to satisfy the trendies !
Millie
Yes it is hard to think of many people that would be popular with many people. If we had an election Charlie boy could stand and we would find out how popular he was.
We could always have an X-Factor type run off to find a President!!!!
The British monarchy serves several functions that an elected Head-of-State could never accomplish or at least not so well.
1) Tourist attraction. On my last visit to London I stood with several thousand spectators watching the Changing of the Guard. Two weeks ago I stood with probably one hundred spectators watching the Russian equivalent.
2) Emotional figurehead for the Commonwealth. Elizabeth is also Queen of Australia, Canada, etc. It’s only 60 yrs ago when such emotional attachment paid a major part in Britain’s defence against the Nazis.
3) Neutral and acceptable stand-in for the Prime Minister. That can come in handy at funerals, particularly of dubious foreign leaders.
4) Above all, icon. The Queen is the queen is the queen. Partly through longevity but mostly through status she is the face for the coins, tee shirts and oh-so-funny TV skits, some of them coming from the BBC.
Tourists will still come, how many tourists see the queen?
How much of the commonwealth wants Charlie boy ?
Any of 600 MPs could stand in for the PM anybody from deputy PM to a obscure backbencher dependind on the level of respect we want to indicate
Having an icon should not determin the way we are ruled.
Phil Long claims the tourism factor is the major justification for maintaining the monarchy.
Jubilee and the Divine Routes of Kings: Royalty, Tourism and Ceremonial
Phil Long
Sheffield Hallam University, UK (from September: Leeds Metropolitan University )
A dictionary definition of ‘jubilee’ is that these are ‘years for the release of slaves, the cancelling of debts and the return of property to former owners proclaimed by the sound of a ram’s horn.’ An interpretation of this definition is that a proper performance of jubilees should involve ‘…a return to the true principles of the biblical jubilee of Leviticus which occupied a central place within the language and imagery of radical culture…once in every fifty years the land had to be redistributed amongst the people.’ (Taylor, 1999:135)
The performances of pomp, ceremonial and festivity during Queen Elizabeth II’s Golden Jubilee year in 2002 did not of course reflect this radical view. Rather it was celebrated as an extended festival event and not least as a major element in the attractiveness of the UK as a tourist destination for international visitors during that year.
Beyond the jubilee, the British monarchy performs a major role in maintaining and personifying ‘traditional’ national identities and values. Members of the Royal Family repeatedly reflect and create national identity through impressively stage-managed performances of ceremony and (invented) tradition. Pomp, pageantry and ceremonial are centrally identifying characteristics of British royalty on a scale that is not found elsewhere. Indeed, the performance of ceremonials and the associated attraction of tourists may be seen as the chief function, and justification of the monarchy in the UK.
Royal performances have been the subject of theoretical analysis in relation to, for example; historical, textual and visual representations of royalty, the narratives of the monarchical ‘soap-opera’ and the development and portrayal of the celebrity / iconic characteristics of individual members of the royal family. Rather less research though has explored the relationships between royalty, tourism and royal ceremonial.
This paper considers the ‘festive’ aspects of royal ceremonial, and the ways in which tourists are encouraged to consume royal performances. It does so in historical perspective but with particular attention to the 2002 Queen’s Golden Jubilee Year.
Taylor, A. (1999) ‘Down with the Crown’: British anti-monarchism and debates about royalty since 1790. London: Reaktion Books
deegee: The Queen isn’t a stand-in for the Prime Minister. What an odd notion.
She doesn’t go to funerals, other than ones for members of her own family.