Fuck the Queen.
We must ask readers to forgive our quite abrupt language, but a short and sharp “fuck the Queen” is frankly the best antidote to the nauseating reverence with which the mainstream media have decided to treat the monarch and royal family in the wake of the decision by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to step back from their royal duties.
There is no room for questioning the actions of the monarchy and royal family, nor any time for exploring the true reasons for Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back and look to move abroad, it is instead the outpouring of a deranged royalist cult.
The focus of the press is not on what circumstance has brought the couple to this desperate stage of affairs, namely the absolute state of British society, the royal family and the press themselves, but the focus instead is on the reaction of the Queen.
Burn Meghan the witch. Cast out Harry the blasphemer. God save the Queen.
Imagine a cross between the mafia and The League of Gentlemen and you have the British royal family.
The royal family is not nicknamed “the firm”without reason. Their mafioso like behaviour was on full display during the Prince Andrew sex trafficking outrage, Buckingham Palace all too willing to threaten media companies in the United States, and no doubt Britain, to keep their mouths shut. Leaked audio recordings from ABC News in America revealed that Buckingham Palace placed excessive pressure on news outlets to squash the story of Andrew’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, ABC concerned that they would lose access to Prince William and his wife Catherine if they didn’t comply.
It seems unlikely that the Palace ever extended the same “protection” to Harry and Meghan, given the relentless assault that both, particularly Markle, have suffered at the hands of the British press. The level of vitriol seen in the media can only be described as psychopathic as they appeared to revel in the obvious distress caused to the royal couple.
While there are people homeless and starving throughout the country, it might be difficult to feel sympathy for a Prince, yet make no mistake, the forces that are aligned now against Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are ones that all good socialists stand against. When fascism comes for you, they do not ask whether you are a prince or a pauper, only the “crime” you have committed.
Make no mistake, this negative coverage comes from a place of racism and classism, the press outraged that Harry dared to love and marry somebody black. That is his crime. He is, to the far-right, a race traitor. The level of abuse directed at the couple for the offence of being interracial has echoes of the American deep south, with the duo now looking to flee to somewhere they might be better accepted. It is a situation that interracial couples have faced for a century.
These problems with race and class are ones that the royal family certainly have in abundance, perhaps explaining their evident reluctance to put a lid on the rabid press. However, given the level of control that the family appears to have wielded over the Prince Andrew scandal, perhaps the origins of many of the anti-Meghan stories might now need to be questioned.
Indeed, the treatment offered to Harry and Meghan stands in shocking contrast to that offered to the aforementioned Prince Andrew, the Queen and Buckingham Palace doing their upmost to either ignore or whitewash his behaviour. Given all we know of the royal family, not least the Epstein affair, why exactly would any sane person wish to raise a family inside its confines?
Palace of Scandal
Andrew’s behaviour, however, is merely the tip of the iceberg. While Jimmy Savile’s relationship at the Palace and links throughout the British establishment are well known, he’s certainly not the only paedophile that has links to Buckingham Palace and the Royal Family. Indeed, the amount of child abusers who do have links to the Palace is alarming.
Here are a mere five examples over recent years.
In 2006, former royal butler Nicholas Greaves was jailed or possession of 473 images and videos of child abuse, images said to have included torture. Greaves was said to have been a favourite of the Queen and was on hand at state functions and important events, including the monarch’s 80th birthday celebrations at Windsor Castle.
In 2008, another royal butler by the name of Paul Kidd, who had worked for both the Queen and the Queen-mother, was revealed to have run a paedophile ring while working at the Palace. On one occasion Kidd took one of his grooming victims to have tea with the Queen Mother at Clarence House. He was found in possession of 19,000 pornographic pictures and videos of children.
In 2015, Prince Charles came under criticism for his relationship with disgraced Bishop Peter Ball after Ball was jailed for abusing 18 teenagers and men over three decades. His relationship with Charles involved the exchange of over 50 letters and the two men praying together at Highgrove. Ball used his friendship with Charles to continue his ministry despite receiving a police caution in 1992.
In July 2018, visitor services warden for the Royal Collection Trust Tony Aslett was jailed for nine months after being caught in possession of 15,000 indecent images and videos of children.
In December of the same year, it was revealed that the Queen’s chauffeur Alwyn Stockdale sexually abused a 10-year-old boy in the royal household quarters at Buckingham Palace Mews and assaulted a second boy under 14 at a relative’s home.
The biggest untold story, however, is the “perversion” of Lord Mountbatten, uncle of Prince Philip and “honorary grandfather” and mentor to Prince Charles upon who he was an immense influence during the years of his upbringing.
The FBI believed that Lord Mountbatten was a paedophile, with files released via a Freedom of Information request revealing that the 1st Earl of Burma and his wife Edwina were “persons of extremely low morals” with Mountbatten having a “perversion for young boys.”
The dossier began as far back as 1944, with a statement by Baroness Decies, Elizabeth de la Poer Beresford stating that he was unfit to lead as the new supreme allied commander of southeast Asia.
“She states that in these circles Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife are considered persons of extremely low morals… She stated that Lord Louis Mountbatten was known to be a homosexual with a perversion for young boys… In Lady Decies’ opinion he is an unfit man to direct any sort of military operations because of this condition. She stated further that his wife Lady Mountbatten was considered equally erratic.”FBI dossier on Lord Mountbatten
A 2019 book by the historian Andrew Lownie, The Mountbattens: Their Lives & Loves, also revealed a relationship with former 1970s male sex worker Anthony Daly, Daly stating that his Lordship had a taste for boys.
“Mountbatten had something of a fetish for uniforms — handsome young men in military uniforms (with high boots) and beautiful boys in school uniform.”Anthony Daly
The claims are further supported by a statement from Norman Nield, his driver from 1942–43. Nield has said that he transported boys between the ages of 8 and 12 for Mountbatten and was paid off to ensure his silence.
While the official story of Mountbatten being a war hero is the only picture that the establishment care to give of the favourite and cousin of the Queen, the truth is that Mountbatten was one of the most dangerous individuals in Britain until his death in 1977.
Frequently mentioned as a key part of the plots to overthrow the democratically elected Harold Wilson as Prime Minister, it is alleged that only the personal intervention of the Queen stopped Mountbatten from carrying out a plan to carry out a military coup d’etat on British soil. Mountbatten’s treason takes on an entirely new perspective when his links to Anthony Blunt and Tom Driberg become known. Anthony Daly, the aforementioned sex worker who had of Mountbatten as one of his clients, was in a relationship with Labour MP Tom Driberg who has been suggested as a KGB agent and also a paedophile himself.
Indeed, Lord Mountbatten appears to be at the centre of many paedophile scandals that surround the British establishment, not only obviously having extensive links to royalty and the British establishment, but being friends with Jimmy Saville and linked to sex abuse at Portora Royal School and the Kincora Boys’ Home scandal.
Shortly before her death, Princess Diana spoke of “dark forces” at play after the discovery of a listening device at Buckingham Palace, stating her belief that she was being monitored by an unnamed agency.
“They were words she used to me – ‘There are dark forces’ – and never really expanded on that in any way”Grahame Harding, security expert
Diana, like her son Harry, was engaged in an interracial relationship, the Princess having become involved with Dodi Fayed, the son of Egyptian entrepreneur Mohamed Al-Fayed. Fayed’s former spokesman Michael Cole has claimed that Diana and Dodi were engaged to be married, with Mohamed having always strongly maintained that the couple “were executed by MI6 agents” as the royal family, primarily Prince Philip, could not countenance Diana married to a Muslim with potential Muslim children.
The phrase “dark forces” would be used again, with former royal butler Paul Burrell claiming that the Queen herself warned him of “dark forces” after Diana’s death, the Queen allegedly saying that “there are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.”
Just what exactly did Prince Harry mean when he said “I will always protect my family… if anyone else knew what I knew…”
Buckingham Palace’s reaction to the decision by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to step back from their royal duties speaks volumes about the way the royal family acts and is run. Talk of the Queen “allowing it” if they accept a deal is the behaviour not of a monarch but a mafia don. The reaction is a stark contrast not only to the cotton wool which surrounds Prince Andrew but also the silence from the Palace on a series of child abuse scandals from other prominent members of the royal household, a mere five that was touched upon here.
There is a constant need amongst both the press and public alike to excuse the behaviour of the Queen, to delude ourselves that she didn’t have a good old laugh with Donald Trump, doesn’t want a jolly old Brexit and didn’t want to see Boris Johnson at Number 10. These delusions are a comfort blanket, a need to assure ourselves that no matter how terrible Britain gets, we still have one last form of protection against the horrors of the night. The truth, however, is that these horrors are frequently supported and endorsed by a Buckingham Palace that believes it is above the norms of society and above the law.
Labour leadership contender Clive Lewis has suggested that it is time for a referendum on the future of the royal family and while we have no confidence that the media and establishment wouldn’t once again ensure the “right” result was achieved through ceaseless propaganda, the debate surrounding the future of the royals is one that now needs to be placed squarely at the forefront of the socialist and national agenda.