Episcopal hypocrisy and the bankruptcy of republicanism

What is it about republicans which forces them to support their position by levelling puerile personal insults at members of the Royal Family?

My own answer to that that question is that their arguments are so bankrupt and devoid of logic that childish personal abuse is all they have to support their infinitesimally small minority view.

Take for example, the drivel written about the recent Royal engagement by the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev ‘Pete’ Broadbent, on his Facebook and Twitter pages, in which he likens Prince William and Kate Middleton to “shallow celebrities”, adding that the Royal Family was full of “broken marriages and philanderers”. That may or may not be true, but philanderers or not, those in glass houses should beware of throwing stones, because I cannot remember any Royal sex abuse scandals, whereas the Church of England positively bristles with them such as here, here, here and here, to name but four.

Not content with blackguarding the happy couple personally, he goes on to suggest – and remember, this is a Bishop of the Church of England making these remarks - that their marriage will not last above seven years; hardly the position one would expect from a senior member of the church in which William and Kate will marry, is it?

I wonder how many other ‘ordinary’ couples’ relationships he has openly suggested will not last more than seven years, even if he may well have thought it?

But he reserves his true bile for William’s parents, observing that, “I managed to avoid the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll, and hope to avoid this one too.”
Let me remind you again that the author of these remarks is a Bishop in the Church of England; the church of which the Queen is the Supreme Governor, as all her predecessors have been since Henry VIII’s split with Rome in the early Sixteenth Century. So isn’t ‘Pete’ Broadbent – who was appointed to his bishopric by the very Queen he effects to despise – nothing more than a hypocrite?

Because, if he feels so strongly about his republicanism, I’m sure he could easily resign his episcopacy, go back to calling himself ‘Pete’ without it being a glaring and grating affectation and find himself a more egalitarian church in which to worship.

Or could it be that he enjoys the ‘fawning deferential nonsense’ shown to him as a bishop of the established church and so clings on to his position for personal aggrandisement?

I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know that peevish personal attacks such as Broadbent’s recent splenetic nonsense, serves only to display the bankruptcy of the republican argument, so I suppose as an ardent monarchist, I should thank him for his contribution to the royal cause.

Of students, fees and riots...

Wasn't it wearily predictable that today's student tuition fee protest would descend into anarchy and violence?

Please don't take that as a criticism of the initial 'light touch' tactical response from the police; after the noisy shellacking (hat tip B H Obama Esq.) they took after the G20 protest - much of it from the usual suspects, it must be said - they could have hardly done anything else, irrespective of what the Daily Wail may suggest in their incresingly tedious campaign of vilification of the police who, it seems in the curious world the Wail inhabits, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

And I don't blame the NUS, either, for that matter. Their entirely sensible president summed up their position very succinctly in observing that a small minority of protestors had hijacked their march, whilst describing the violence as 'despicable'.

No, I lay the blame fairly and squarely at the feet of the criminals (how else would you describe them?) who forced their way into the building at Millbank and did all kinds of damage, including setting fires in what is a multi-storey office block, before accessing the roof and throwing items down on the heads of police and protesters alike beneath them.

From what I have seen on the evening news, many of those who forced their way into the building and committed the offences I have referred to, have been corralled on the ground floor by the police. I trust that each and every one of them will be arrested and where the evidence justifies it- frankly their presence should suffice, given the circumstances - prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Oh, and in the event that any of them actually happen to be students, that on conviction - and only then - they are summarily excluded from their university and any other such institution in this country for life, in addition to the (more than likely derisory) penalty the courts choose to impose.

I wonder what sort of response Sir Paul Stephenson will arrange next time there is a large demonstration in London? G20, Millbank or an as yet unidentified 'middle way'?

Doubtless we'll find out in the fullness of time, and with the same weary predictability I mentioned at the beginning of this post, doubtless the Daily Wail will criticise that as well...

The Daily Fail...

Compare and contrast these two articles, both of which purport to report the details of the case brought by the Candy brothers against Qatari Diar Real Estate over the collapse of the proposed development at site of the former Chelsea Barracks.

This one, from the increasingly shrill and irritating Daily Mail, would have us believe that the trial judge, Mr Justice Vos, personally 'admonished' the Prince of Wales for his 'unexpected and unwelcome' interference in the deal.

Really?

Let's have a look at this one from the far more reliable Daily Telegraph. As you will have seen, this article actually quotes the words used by Mr Justice Vos, which were " [the partners in the development] were faced with a very difficult position once the Prince of Wales intervened in the planning process".

"His intervention was, no doubt, unexpected and unwelcome."

You will appreciate the difference without the need for my emphasis. The judge wasn't personally calling the Prince's intervention "unexpected and unwelcome", he was paraphrasing what he saw as the attitude of those who had seen their hopes of a deal with the Qataris dashed.

More deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, in my view from the idle sensationalists at the Mail.

Why does anyone buy it any more?

Update

Half an hour after publishing this post, I read this, similarly inaccurate, drivel on the BBC news page. More lazy and dishonest journalism in search of a cheap headline. I'm just sorry I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading it.

How sharper than a serpent's tooth...

Apparently, Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice has let it be known that her younger sister, Her Royal Highness the Princess Eugenie is a 'reluctant royal' who would apparently 'give it all up tomorrow', adding that if she could choose any other life, then it woud be one without the public duties and, to paraphrase slightly, the sacrifices which come with the suffocating blanket of royal status. Furthermore, it is clear from her comments that she has a good deal of sympathy with her younger sister's position vis-a-vis the difficulties of being a princess.

Well, I have a solution for the two of them, and it is one wrought not too far away from their own gilded cage, by their aunt Anne. Her children by Capt. Mark Phillips, Mr Peter Phillips and his sister Zara, are, as the Queen's grandchildren, every bit as Royal as Beatrice and Eugenie; but as you will have noticed, neither of them prefaces their name with the title of His or Her Royal Highness and nor are they styled Prince Peter or Princess Zara either.

I think you may see where I'm going with this, and to reinforce my point still further before I even make it, barring an absolute disaster, these two girls, fifth and sixth in line to the throne respectively, will never be called upon to serve the country as its queen.

As such, and bearing in mind their status as 'reluctant' royals, why don't they both simply renounce their titles and divest themselves of the encumbrance of royal nomenclature in the process? I'm sure the appropriate paperwork to facilitate such a process could be drawn up in very short order. Their renunuciations would then be publicised with a strongly worded request to the press and media in general to apply a self-denying ordinance as regards publishing any other material either identifying them, or discussing their lives, from that point on.

Hands up anyone who thinks that these two really rather ordinary-looking and clearly spoilt young women would actively consider adopting such a course for more than a nano-second.

No, I didn't think so.

All this outburst has served to demonstrate is that both Beatrice and Eugenie (or should that be Beattie and Jean in their new, egalitarian world?) want the cake of wealth and prestige of Royal status, whilst simultaneously and childishly resenting having to pay the ha'penny of scrutiny which is its inevitable corollary.

As I have written here many times before, the Throne is an unapologetic supporter of the English monarchy, both as an institution and in the person of the present incumbent; but I'm afraid that stories such as this are manna from Heaven for the abolishionists, and I dare say, extremely irritating for their grandmother, a life-long paragon of duty and self-sacrifice.

Shame on them, their childishness and their nauseating self-pity: and may I wish them the very obscurity they both so richly deserve.

Post script:

As soon as I posted this story, the link to the article in the Daily Mail was disabled, sorry. there again, you've probably got the gist of it anyway...

There's no pockets in shrouds...

I suppose that by now, virtually everyone in the Western world has had a bad experience with a call centre; I know I have. But the story I reproduce below, which there's no surprise for guessing originates in America, must just about take the biscuit.

A lady died this past January, and Citibank billed her for February and March for their annual service charges on her credit card, and added late fees and interest on the monthly charge. The balance had been $0.00 when she died, but was by now somewhere around $60.00.

A family member placed a call to Citibank. Here is the exchange:

Family Member: 'I am calling to tell you she died back in January.'

Citibank: 'The account was never closed and the late fees and charges still apply.'

Family Member: 'Maybe, you should turn it over to collections.'

Citibank: 'Since it is two months past due, it already has been.'

Family Member: 'So, what will they do when they find out she is dead?'

Citibank: 'Either report her account to frauds division or report her to the credit bureau, maybe both!'

Family Member: 'Do you think God will be mad at her?'

Citibank: 'Excuse me?'

Family Member: 'Did you just get what I was telling you - the part about her being dead?'

Citibank: 'Sir, you'll have to speak to my supervisor.' Supervisor gets on the phone:

Family Member: 'I'm calling to tell you, she died back in January with a $0 balance.'

Citibank: 'The account was never closed and late fees and charges still apply.'

Family Member: 'You mean you want to collect from her estate?'

Citibank: (Stammer) 'Are you her lawyer?'

Family Member: 'No, I'm her great nephew.' (Lawyer info was given)

Citibank: 'Could you fax us a certificate of death?'

Family Member: 'Sure.' (Fax number was given ) After they get the fax :

Citibank: 'Our system just isn't setup for death. I don't know what more I can do to help.'

Family Member: 'Well, if you figure it out, great! If not, you could just keep billing her. She won't care.'

Citibank: 'Well, the late fees and charges do still apply.'

Family Member: 'Would you like her new billing address?'

Citibank: 'That might help...'

Family Member: ' Odessa Memorial Cemetery , Highway 129, Plot Number 69.'

Citibank: 'Sir, that's a cemetery!'

Family Member: 'And what do you do with dead people on your planet?'

And you thought our call centres - or should that be Indian call centres - were bad!

Ps. The title of this post is a Lancastrianism roughly equating to "You can't take it with you."