Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Elizabeth and Charles' Royal Scam

Michael Dickinson | 16.01.2013 21:35

"The royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate."




ELIZABETH AND CHARLES’ ROYAL SCAM

Michael Dickinson


“Charles? Charles, is that you?”

“Of course it’s me, Mummy. Who else would it be?”

“I’ve been trying to contact you for ages. Why was your phone switched off? What have you been doing?”

“Talking to my plants. Giving them a bit of a pep-lecture, actually. They’ve been a bit moody lately. I suppose it’s the weather.”

“Is Camilla there?”

“Not available. She’s in the den watching ‘The Killing’.”

“How morbid. I think it’s high time we all forgot about Diana, and moved on.”

“Not that killing. It’s a Danish TV crime thriller. Gladys is addicted to it.”

“I wish you’d stop calling her that. You’re married now. There’s no need to continue with those silly smokescreen aliases you used to cover up your affair. Does she still call you ‘Fred’?”

“Only in private. We’re a bit set in our ways. Anyway, Mummy, why are you calling? You sound a bit distressed. Has Daddy finally croaked?”

“Worse than that. It’s you and I, Charles. We’ve been rumbled.”

“They’ve discovered the truth about Diana?”

“Of course not, silly. That’s stitched up watertight. And will you please not mention her name again. You know how it makes me feel. No. It’s about our power to consent to or veto new government laws. It’s been exposed.”

“I thought your cousin David Cameron was supposed to be keeping that secret?”

“Only my fifth cousin twice removed. But loyal, yes, and Downing Street was doing its best to keep the lid on things, claiming publication would breach legal professional privilege, but that obnoxious little scholar John Kirkhope of Plymouth University has persisted in using the freedom of information act to ask for a full list of government bills that you and I have consented to, vetoed, or amended. Said he wanted to use them in his graduate research studies about your Duchy of Cornwall.”

“Nosey little twat. And?”

“Well, The Cabinet Office fought bravely against the request but the Information Commissioner has finally ordered the release of a confidential official Whitehall manual which advises ministers on how you and I are to be consulted before new legislation is introduced in order to ensure it doesn’t harm or affect our hereditary revenues, personal property or the personal interests of the Crown. It shows that ministers are obliged to consult us in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood, and warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and that even amendments may need to be run past us for further consent. Professor Kirkhope says that there has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually we have real influence and real power over government decisions – albeit unaccountable.”

“Well, I’ve only been asked to consent to about 12 draft bills during the past two Parliaments, and I’ve never refused to consent to any of them unless advised to by ministers. I have nothing to hide.”

“What were they about?”

“Oh, various issues. Bills relating to coroners, wreck removals, co-operative societies, housing and regeneration, energy, planning, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access. Quite naturally. My Duchy runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural environment. I am its bloody Duke, after all.”

“And don’t forget who gave you that position. How much are you raking in from it these days?”

“£18 million a year. Thank you, Mummy.”

“And what about me? You may be the Duke of little Cornwall, but I’m the Monarch of the whole bloody Kingdom! I retain my exclusive power to authorize military strikes, but how are my subjects going to feel when they learn that my seal of approval was given to scores of controversial issues which affect them, from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance, especially in this age of austerity? They’re going to blame me for the recession. This is going to open people’s eyes. I felt much more comfortable when they believed I was only a ceremonial figure. A Labour peer is accusing you and I of fiddling around with government bills to make sure they don't affect our private interests. And that Kirkhope man! Listen to these quotes from the newspapers -
“Why do parliamentarians tolerate a situation in which they introduce a bill in parliament and someone may come up to them and say you need the consent of the Queen or the Duke of Cornwall? It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. As a citizen of this country I have a proper interest in ensuring the process by which laws are made should be transparent and that those who are given special privileges should be accountable. That is demonstrably not the case with regard to the Duchy of Cornwall."

“The little traitor! ’Transparency’ seems to be the catch-phrase nowadays. The plebs are using it everywhere.”

“They’ll be wanting to investigate my private portfolio of share investments next! God forbid! This has got to stop. We need something to deflect public attention from all this snooping. Something to restore their confidence, respect and pride in the monarchy.”

“Your Diamond Jubilee did that, Mummy.”

“Yes, but that’s over. We need something new.”

“William and Kate are having their baby in July.”

“Too far away. We need something now, something sudden and dramatic to distract them and restore sympathy for me as their Queen.”

“Daddy’s sure to croak it soon.”

“I wouldn’t bet on it. The old goat might even outlive me. But yes. A big state funeral is always a winner. I have actually been working on a plan with a secret collaborator. It only needs my go ahead...”

“Something like the death of Diana?”

“Now, Charles, what did I tell you? I expect never to hear that name from your lips again. Goodbye, darling.”

“Mummy? Mummy? Oops. And I wanted to ask her if I could take her place at the next opening of Parliament. Oh well. Now, where were we? Ah yes. Now, you begonias, straighten up! Hold out those leaves! Spread out those roots!

Oh, hello Gladys! Has your TV programme finished? That was Mummy on the phone. She’s in a bit of a tizz about... What are you doing with that gun in your hand? Stop pointing it at me. Put it down! Back off! Gladys? Camilla? I said put it - ”

Michael Dickinson
- Homepage: http://yabanji.tripod.com/id8.html

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Most / All of this article is made up

16.01.2013 22:33

Like a lot of things in the 'news'

didnt read it properly / could of used time to cut my toenails instead


Duh...

17.01.2013 00:51

"Most / All of this article is made up"

Really? Fuck me. And there was me thinking it was written verbatim.

Ohmigod


Agony of the Reproductive Narrative

17.01.2013 15:18

It is a remarkable indication of the lack of confidence in the commercial culture of a nation harbouring a pre-capitalist form of state, when stories related to it do not stay within its mainstream but are being discharged into anticapitalist media. Tales about the rich and famous, in which cognitive dissonance is being tailored to distract from political interests behind market events, are only being produced for money. That they are being dumped on indymedia means somebody believed they could make money with them but no one wanted to buy the product of their efforts. When mainstream compatible comedians fail in the marketplace it is very telling about the unspoken mood there.

Internationalist Observer