It serves some purpose in describing some of the discussion of social and political issues that have evolved from my personal quest for legal justice to recount an anecdotal answer I made to a friend of mine who recently asked me, "Kevin, why is that there are so many stories about the Royal Family constantly in the Daily Newspapers ?" "Well," I said: "If you want a short answer it's because the whole world turned inside the mind of the young Princess Elizabeth about half way through the military tumults of the mid century last." Having offered to expand on the comment I found myself being rather smugly pleased with the lucidity of the minor exposition which followed. "It's all about Democracy and Consensus in a historical context," I said. " Think about all the literate Middle Classes and Workers who had toiled endlessly throughout the Industrial Revolution and the Great War and the fact that legal justifications for inequalities of wealth among different social classes, had by the late thirties as they all too arguably largely still are, been coached in some pretence of Consensual Government and a Democracy that means almost anything to anyone; and the fact they had unmistakeably found themselves acquiescing in the abandonment of the Flagship Democracy that the Spanish Republic was, under the sinister direction of an international political elite that had never really thought of Democracy as anything other than a device by which any sort of social justice could be obfuscated. In broad terms," I said, "the Princess Elizabeth became an Icon of national redemption, a means by which the Royal Family and Domestic Establishment collectively evaded the sort of embarrassing questions about for instance, this obvious conflict between imperial and democratic ambition which the rise of the Middle Classes had made inevitable."

I continued saying .........
"Many may have had separate sorts of motives besides this particular perspective on our so called Democracy for insisting on a genuine war effort by the later part of 1940, but the Princess Elizabeth was if you like, the device by which the Establishment of George 5th sought to respectably distance itself from the Totalitarian tide which swept over most of the civilised Old World in the aftermath of the Great War. Think about it, "I said. "Anyone who was anybody among these proud civilised nations whom might happen to have a cute little Daughter or maybe even two, was going to have an awful lot of red faced and embarrassing facts to explain in respect of finding explanations for their treatment of their fellow man after generations of twaddling on about religious asceticism and political altruism, if Churchill hadn't successfully inspired and enervated the Nation to the enormous effort that defeating the Axis powers required in the Spring of 1940. If that hadn't happened, if the British hadn't awakened to the real danger, not only to their own independence but to the cause of free thought, free speech and personal liberty in general, Society as we know it today wouldn't exist at all. The recording of real history would have likely ceased altogether, and the world would probably be ruled over by a sort of paternalistic shadowy elite of German, Japanese and Italian Militarists with members of ethnic minorities wiped out in all but a few Zoo like establishments."

I furthermore continued saying ..............
"Whilst preceding facts do tend to legitimately manufacture subsequently occurring ones, this personal element in mid 20th century history continues to explain a lot of what has subsequently occurred on the world stage in subsequent decades much better than other conventional causist theories. It significantly explains why successive Labour Governments have found themselves aligned with the second Elizabethan Monarchy on various social and economic issues, and given the miraculous effect the Holocaust had on the US Economy and the strategic position of the US in world affairs, it tends to explain why the so called liberal establishment in the US tends to accept it has to remain a close ally of the UK, despite the fact that traditional ideological constraints and considerations tend to suggest it should be more supportive of Irish Republican ambitions than it has."

The culminating comment of this minor dissertation tended to the conclusion .........
"That striking single fact probably means that we are presently tending to exaggerate the significance and utility of the yadayadayada so called Royal Family as a decisive influence in Politics and Society to anything quite like the extent it was during especially the middle of the 20th century. It's difficult to say, in that such an equation could easily be altered significantly, even radically, by relatively small changes in the social environment. What is unfortunately of the remark that endless fawning on the Monarchy in every right of centre Newspaper to the extent that it has overwhelmed meaningful discussion of almost every other social and political issue, presents a really strange and quite sinister sort of irresponsibility when they're practically falling over each other in some perverse looking attempt to wear the most expensive dresses: it may amuse the well to do of old London Town but if you want my opinion it isn't really chiming in harmony with the Nation in general. The Labour Movement seems convinced that the Two Party First Past the Post voting system that is laughably termed Democracy, is of some utilitarian value to the nation at large, rather than just a means by which its Leadership Cabal can feign to be a controlling creative intellectual force whilst turning on the Welfare taps for a few years occasionally and personally accruing enormous private wealth, only to taint and discredit any prospect of serious alternative Government to a Tory party that has increasingly gotten over the horrible shock it endured in the mid 20th century. A lot of what we hear about Democracy is therefore all too arguably, at least superficially, a load of empty nonsense, without Electoral Reform and some sort of system of Proportional Representation the UK is much more like an Oligarchy rather governed by its invisible supporting army of morally imbecilic lawyer creatures than elected Officials."
"I think Prince Charles has perhaps a rather exaggerated idea of the kind of role he's going to be playing in the coming years! Insofar as the Duke of Sussex aka Harry, is clearly illegitimate, he's obviously (argues that it's only tacit) lied to the whole World about something as serious as parentage of his own children. Such a situation can never bode well for any Country in that the would be Arbiter of parliamentary faction ought to be someone evidencing personal probity and strength of character. Since the Media Machine in this country is so ruthlessly effective at persuading people that they don't need a PR system based on the notion of the single transferable vote (ranking parties by preference on the ballot) which every other significant European State does, that makes for the main singular reason there isn't much alternative to his pending role as titular Monarch: that and the fact his Son is a huge well built brutish looking skinhead."

Next Question ?