Printer Friendly

Royals should not be kept above the law of the land.

Byline: Will Batchelor

A COUPLE of Royal revelations got my non-blue blood boiling this week.

Firstly, it was alleged that Prince Andrew clipped a police officer with his Range Rover while driving into Buckingham Palace. The officer, who suffered severe bruising, has told "friends" - a phrase which, in this context, usually means "newspaper reporter with chequebook" - that he suspects a cover-up.

Secondly, Jack Straw was criticised for plans to ban people using the Freedom of Information Act to reveal anything about senior Royals. This comes after an FoI request revealed how Charles used his influence to scupper a redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks.

Charles not I am certain that you will find these stories as disgusting as I do.

piddling I mean, how dare some uppity police officer complain about being pensioner protecting struck by the Prince's car, right? And how double dare he demand an investigation? her If anything, it is a privilege to be knocked over by the fourth-in-line to the throne. The correct response would be to leap to one's feet immediately, tug one's forelock and thank Master profusely for honouring your worthless body with the steely kiss of his noble carriage.

You may have to shout, mind, as he roars off into the distance while you do it. Places to go, golf to play.

As for Jack Straw, the former left-winger should be applauded for his brave stance in protecting Charles and Co from the impudent meddling of commoners. If the Prince wants to prevent a lawful development, why on earth should he follow the same procedures as everyone else? He is not some piddling pensioner seeking to protect her petunias from a neighbour's sun-blocking extension.

He is the future king. He should be able to do what he likes, right? is some Right? Because, if you believe in having a Royal Family, then you must surely believe in the power that put them onto the throne in the first place. Monarchs are said to have been chosen by God as His vice-regent on earth. They are subject to no authority besides Him. Not the Courts, not the Church, and certainly not some traffic cop from the Metropolitan Police or a pencil-pushing clerk on a town planning sub-committee.

This theory, called the Divine Right of Kings, was officially dropped following the English Revolution, but it clearly lives on in spirit.

As a staunch Republican, I would like to see it officially re-instated.

For, as long as the Monarchy is hidden behind a veneer of apparent modernity - "Ooh, they're just like us, they even obey most of our laws and pay taxes on the land their ancestors grabbed a thousand years ago" - we will not see it for the superstitious, Medieval anachronism that it is.

CAPTION(S):

Buckingham Palace guards were always wary of their feet when Prince Harry brought the tank home
COPYRIGHT 2010 MGN Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Daily Post (Liverpool, England)
Date:Mar 24, 2010
Words:475
Previous Article:Timeto tighten our belts.
Next Article:lexiconor lexicoff?

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters