After coronavirus (which might be quite a long way away), or at least when the world settles down to a new normal, there are some things that I’d like to be different. So over the next days and weeks I’m going to write them down. They will mostly be to do with our relationship with the natural world (but not exclusively).
If you would like to have a go at writing a guest blog on a thing that you would like to be different then please take notice of these general guidelines for guest blogs and send it to me at [email protected] for consideration. I’ll give priority to offers that relate to the natural environment, and/or to those that are well-written (IMHO).
A modern Royal Family
When you look across the Pond at Trumpland then there is quite a lot to be said for having a hereditary Head of State compared with where they have ended up. And I have quite a lot of time for 90-something year-old women as my own mother and mother-in-law both have their 94th birthdays soon. Those two women were respectively one of the first NHS nurses and a Land Girl after the war and the tales of their lives span an awful lot of change in the country, but I wouldn’t look to them to be symbols of the present day UK. And that is true of our present monarch but more generally of the family which she heads.
Whereas being in London during the Blitz could be seen as sharing the plight of one’s subjects, being holed up in palaces and castles during Covid-19 doesn’t look quite the same. I’m not suggesting that Prince Philip should be heard making off-colour jokes on intensive care wards but just pointing out that the whole bunch of Royals are either decamped in Canada, dodging the possibility of going to the USA or simply invisible these days – days of national and international crisis. It feels like an institution that has lost its way, partly because some of the players are pretty hopeless. But, better than Trump, I freely admit.
The Royal Family seems to me to have lost its way and when we return to a new normal what will their role be? The Royal Family is just another grouse-moor owning and Pheasant-shooting rich landowner that talks about conservation being important, but when it comes down to it, that conservation is mostly large mammals abroad rather than the pressing problems at home.
And, of course, in the area of raptor persecution the Royal Family is compromised by a mixture of not speaking out clearly against wildlife crime (except abroad) and an imperfect record on its own land (though no suggestion here that any particular individuals are to blame).
Sandringham has been the location of a few actual, alleged or suspected wildlife crimes including those two Hen Harriers in 2007, a Marsh Harrier many years earlier, a gamekeeper being fined for setting an illegal trap, and the strange case of the missing body of a satellite tagged Goshawk (and also see here). And Balmoral is, I understand, as empty of Hen Harriers as everywhere else on Deeside (I blame the neighbouring and regional estates, of course) and promotes to visitors the great things that grouse shooting offers to the world;
… and participates in Mountain Hare culls.
The attitude of the Royal Family to shooting and raptor persecution (keen on the former, silent on the latter) simply positions it at the head of a bunch of large landowners who are not seen to have moved into the twenty-first century from the nineteenth as far as I am concerned.
It would be good to see some rapid and radical change of position on this subject, because it is close to my interests and is topical, but it is also indicative of how, at heart, the Royal Family is way out of touch with the reality of these days.
[registration_form]
As I don’t read royal supporting newspapers I don’t know how much the younger royals are in favour. My guess is that current support is for the queen herself rather than the royal family overall and that when she dies this unquestioning loyalty will also die.
But if we have an elected head of state do we go for a French presidential leader model or a more Irish, figurehead model? I would go for a ribbon-cutting, medal-presenting role and while we’re at it could we find another name for our honours than * of the British Empire?
I’ve never been one for the royal family and find the claim that they can trace their ancestry back to Alfred the Great (848-899) laughable. There are several complete breaks that would need explaining. I have always thought that we would be far better having a ceremonial president like the Germans or Greeks, we could still have all the pomp and history but without the cost of maintaining the pinnacle of inherited inequality. How can we as a country strive for a more equitable and fair society whilst WE pay to maintain them the richest family in the land, it not as if they do anything really useful and necessary is it.
It used to gall me enormously that the press( even the Mirror and Guardian) used to call Constantine the exiled King of Greece because the Greeks have become a democratic republic, as we should, he is the ex king of Greece. Indeed I would very much favour following the Greek model.
I can’t say I’m a great fan of the monarchy, but I do think Prince Charles seems to be a good steward on the estates he has autonomy over. If only every estate/large farm was as half as sustainably managed as his Highgrove and Dumfries House estates then I’m pretty sure the nations farmland biodiversity would be in a much better state.
He also seems to be doing a pretty decent job with the Duchy Future Farming programme which is funded by the profits of the Duchy Organic brand.
It didn’t stop him blooding William and Harry. I believe William’s first kill was a dik-dik, only bloodthirsty big dicks kill dik-diks.
I fully agree with what you say Mark, however I do think Prince Charles is a fair bit better than the average. He has a particular interest in Plant Life and as far as I know not he is not a keen shooter. The rest I think you have summed up very well. I really do think the head of state should not go on after say 70 and should then retire much as the Queen of the Netherlands did some years back.
One does not like to criticise an old lady but she has not moved royal and national attitudes forward over the years much, if at all.
Like other royal family’s remaining in Europe I would just have the head of state and his/ her children with titles but get rid of all the dukes and duchesses and other titled persons and just make them Mr.and Mrs “whatever.”
This wil probably be seen as treason in some quarters, but there we are.
Mark an interesting article which I am completely in tune with both you and Lyn.
From your experienced standpoint, do you think that the RSPB would be better off in the future with or without royal patronage?
Mike – quite honestly the ‘royal’ tag has no impact whatsoever on the RSPB’s policies and practices. Really? Well, I honestly cannot think of any time when it did in my time at the RSPB (and much of that time I would have been likely to know). It must have a tiny, tiny influence to be fair, but that would be all it would be.
But I do think that the RSPB would be better off without the ‘R’ simply because it would at a stroke give a slightly more modern image. The process of ditching the ‘Royal’ would be a big deal, a divisive one I guess with a conservative membership (small ‘c’).
The BTO has Prince Philip as its Patron, an honour they share with GWCT of course. I notice that when you search for any mention of the Duke of Edinburgh on the BTO website he is pretty difficult to find but I tracked him down on p45 of this http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends52/0000216652_AC_20190331_E_C.PDF In contrast, GWCT seem rather more pleased by their relationship https://www.gwct.org.uk/about/trustees/
P45!
I must say, I am a staunch fan of the British Monarchy. Long live King Francis II, I say. The King, ladies and gentlemen, O’er the Watter.
The current bunch of grifters and chancers are just a bunch of guillotine dodgers that need kicked out on their overprivileged backsides.
Just a thought, but many advocates for the Royal Family cite the benefits the monarchy brings to the economy through overseas tourism, for me that’s always been the best reason for keeping them.
But, now that the tourist industry is on it’s arse, and is likely to remain so for some time, surely there is a big case for the Sovereign Grant being adjusted accordingly? Say 90% reduction, with the savings directed to homeless charities etc.
“Say 90% reduction”
And finishing after August
I ought to be a republican if my politics were consistent. But then I think of President Thatcher and President Blair and am pragmatically grateful. Other countries may manage to have a non divisive, non party political figureheads, but can you really imagine the UK doing this?
President Chris Grayling , please step forward.
JBC you are right to an extent we certainly don’t need an executive president as the Americans or French but a nonexecutive President as the Irish, Germans or Greeks would be a huge improvement on this sad lot of dysfunctional overprivileged parasites.
Can’t help but agree with most of what you have written Mark. I’ve thought for a long time that as a modern functioning democracy removing any constitutional role for the Royal family would be a massive step forward.
Unfortunately a large proportion of the UK population seems to enjoy “doffing” their metaphorical caps to a privileged upper class, never mind the irony that they also wanted Brexit in some part to keep “foreigners” out but seem content to have a Royal Family whose roots are far from British!
The Royal Family perpetuate a class system whereby power and influence are gifted to individuals by the circumstances of birth, rather than their won endeavours, something that cannot be acceptable in modern society.
I’d favour the system being completely revised with the demise of the current Queen and a non political non executive president elected say every 5 years.
I’m sure the tourists would still flock to see the historical buildings and we could still keep a ceremonial monarch to wheel out for those grand displays celebrating the days when the “plebs” knew their place in society!
I too found the support of the Royals by the hard line Brexiteers whilst predictable lamentable in their grasp of history. We haven’t had a ruling king or queen of the same ethnicity or ethnic origin since Harold and he died in 1066!
I should of course have said ” the same ethnicity or ethnic origin as the general population”
Henry Tudor, or Henry VII as he was known in England, was ethnic Welsh, and the Stuart line with James the Sixth and First was ethnic Scots. Modern foreign Royals began with the Dutch conquest of England in Sixteen Eighty-Eight due to the sectarian bigotry of the native English population.
I have only ever been in favour of the royals because I have seen first hand the value of the tourist buck they have bought in to the country. As Ernest says, this is now irrelevant, today at least.
Today they are costing us a fortune that could be given to nurses.
Scrapping the royals but keeping the associated buildings would not see much of a reduction in tourism if any.
However, if we are keen to get shot of the royals, why do we then need to talk of a President, non-exec or not. Why this human need for a figure head to look up to? Surely in 2020 we need to start building a more equal society, not inventing a new hierarchy.
Regards any prospects for a change in Royal attitudes to grouse moors and raptors, any hopes invested in the younger Royals are going to be bitterly dissapointed. Judging by the company they keep and moors they shoot on as guests, sorry to say the direction of travel is very much the wrong way.
That’s an interesting post, and has given me a clearer insight on your personality and probably changed my opinion of you. What this post exposes are the fragilities, limitations and gullibility’s of blogs such as this.
I look forward to your other changes; perhaps you might care to write about the scandalous corruption within our environmental charities, of the one-off payments and out of court employee settlements that have been made? I would certainly find that a lot more interesting than a swipe at the Royal family that can’t answer back at its critics.
But, that an opinion, same as my view on National Hunt Racing, a sport you clearly enjoy, but that exploits animals for your financial gain and pleasure. Which is exactly the same for what you campaign against in another ‘sporting’ pastime. Somehow I see the kettle calling the pot black, but that’s an opinion.
You have enjoyed playing verbal opinionated Ping-Pong with the Gilruth’s of this world, you regard him as a prat, likewise he regards you as one, and so the status quo continues.
Whereas I regard you both as clowns, but, that’s just my opinion.
Don’t worry your head about this because all Mark has to do is post two more blogs and this thread will go to page two and no-one will read it or comment ever again until, and if, he decides to resurrect it, viz. driven game shooting or lead ammunition. Such is the nature of blogs, they are only current when you don’t have to look for them which is a sad indictment of the users and the world in general: passionate in the here and now but forgotten tomorrow.
Austringer – this is the third name you’ve used on this blog. Can you just choose which name you’re going to use please? Ta.
With pleasure. Austringer it is, because that is what I do.
Would you care to enlighten us on some of the ‘scandalous corruption’ within conservation charities, Thomas. It’s easy to throw out nebulous accusations which may be entirely without substance but if there are cases to answer, then, perhaps, they should be subject to debate in an open manner.
Would you like to look at the scandalous corruption in government? The effects of their lies, deceit and maladministration of both the economy and the environment make everything else, including the increasingly dirty deals of some environmental organisations, pall into insignificance.
You do not do well to defend an elderly lady on the grounds that she cannot defend herself. She does not need to as she is given a free rein (reign) by everyone, including people who undoubtedly rail against everyone else born with the proverbial silver spoon
She continues to allow the persecution of raptors on her estates and holds huge amounts of land which are half empty of life to preserve her right and that of her guests to kill living things, for which she is rarely held to account, while people are mobilising, quite rightly, against the less exalted landowners who allow or require that crimes are commiteed against native “protected” wildlife in defence of their elitist sport.
The difference between other racegoers and Mark Avery is that the others have done very very much much less for wildlife and the proper administration of justice in the countryside than he has. For that reason I am sure that many, like me, will cut him some slack.
“the tourist industry is on it’s arse” wrote the Sage of Ottle.
Yeah but that’s OK – emissions-obsessed leaders of the tourist industries were stumbling around in the dark looking for non-existent net-zero pathways to their imaginary climate heaven that wouldn’t damage their bottom lines too much so the Covid thing has sorted it for them by default and given them a convenient Bogeyman.
While day-tourists flocked to decorate lovely places with huge amounts of domestic garbage they accumulated during Lockdown, as the reality of bankruptcies and redundancies bite I wonder whether any average Peeps will have sufficient Moolah left over to travel beyond Argate.
The Dear Leaders of the Net Zero Fan Club are in a wicked bind. Covid is a disaster from which societies wish to recover yet it has brought about what the Dear Leaders wanted. Emissions have fallen drastically under the severe economic contraction it has produced but have we seen anyone claiming credit for this – despite it being an essential part of The Plan to be repeated year after year forever to save The Planet? Nope.
I have asked Dearly Beloved to add Popcorn to the Ocado order. Lots and Lots and Lots of it.
As a republican (lower case!), I find it very frustrating when a defence of the monarchy rests on a comparison with the USA. That is not only model for an elected Head of State, and indeed is not the model advocated by Republic (the UK pressure group to replace the monarchy with an elected president), nor is it the model employed by most European republics. These generally have both a figurehead President, and a Prime Minister who actually runs the country, as ours does. The problem in the US is that they have an executive President, who combines the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. Why not look at our closest neighbour, Ireland, to see how they do things? A read of the Wikipedia entries of the last four Irish presidents (I haven’t gone further back than that yet) should prove quite illuminating to those who think we’d necessarily end up with a Trump of our own.