Royals serve no purpose in democracy
Dave MacFadyen, Cross Gates
When it comes to those we term “royalist” they always defend their sycophantic position with muddled gibberish.
There’s no other way it can be defended. I see an attack (YEP Letters, September 24), on a previous letter by Phillip Crowther (YEP, September 12), which is certainly no exception to this rule.
In the September 24 letter, I see no obvious connection to the issues raised in Mr Crowther’s excellent letter.
The social, economic and political issues raised by Mr Crowther are in fact rooted in a fairly rigid class system which is epitomised by the current monarch “Her Majesty the Queen”.
They are not, as D S Boyes suggests (and many others believe) in the September 24 letter, separate issues.
The letter ends with the age old excuse “no one asks to be born royalty” in a futile attempt to defend the undefendable. Boo hoo. This should not be read as a get at DS Boyes letter. It is aimed at all royalists. If they find it offensive they must bear in mind that many find royalism offensive too.
It surely also must follow that no one asks to be born into deprivation with no chance of escape.
They cannot opt to “abdicate” from poverty and absence of opportunity to “get on”, as David Cameron chants. In most cases, as with royalty, their position within the class system was dictated centuries before they were born.
If you were able to choose which of the above lives you would prefer, which would you choose? Don’t ask us for sympathy for the people you choose to call “royal”.
There is a strong arguement to suggest that the subservient mindset of royalists is, in fact, the main cause of the economic and social beleaguerment of “the lower classes”.
As Mr Crowther rightly observes: “The establishment keep up the aura of royalty because it suits their purpose to keep the masses brainwashed.” And sadly, the brainwashed will be the last to see clearly and will always blame the wrong culprit, often the bogeyman.
It is indeed a clever trick to have the masses frothing at the mouth, in anger, as they defend the very system, opitomised by the existence of a monarch, which allocates them a subservient postion at the bottom of the heap, with the monarch at the top and the House of Lords in between.
I have no personal grudge against the current monarch as a person, or against any members of her family.
That is not the issue here. We do not need a monarch if we seriously strive towards true democracy.
They serve no purpose in a true democracy. It appears, from an article published in the Independent on September 24 that the current monarch did intervene deliberately and in a planned way to influence the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum.
That is not acceptable if we want a true democracy.This anachronism clearly needs to end.
Then we can join the democratic world in the twenty-first century.I rest my case. For now anyway.
Expressing views of the majority
Anthony Craven, by email
I applaud Dave Macfadyen’s letter “Royals serve no purpose in democracy”(YEP, September 28) and Ernest Lundy’s letter commending the Queen’s commitment but dismissing the other Royals as self-indulgent layabouts (YEP, September 29).
I suspect that they express the views of the majority in the UK, mere “subjects” of the monarchy, even though throughout history they have kept the monarch in power, often by giving their lives “for king and country”!
I almost sympathise with William and Harry, as they try to justify their position. Sadly others suffer from their efforts. When they were Royal Air Force pilots, they deprived two bona fide pilots of salaries for doing what they really wanted. The same applies now that William is flying air ambulances in East Anglia.