Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A prisão de Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor por suas associações ao escândalo Epstein está repleta de aspectos peculiares, tanto num sentido simbólico quanto num sentido histórico. A prisão foi realizada no dia do 66º aniversário de Andrew, em 19 de fevereiro de 2026, 666 dias depois daquele estranho evento em Londres, em 24 de abril de 2024, no qual um cavalo branco ensanguentado se soltou e cavalgou pelas ruas da cidade. Coincidência? Quem sabe?

A acusação, especificamente, envolve inúmeros relatos e evidências, deduzidos a partir dos e-mails de Epstein e de depoimentos de testemunhas, de que Andrew teria participado, acompanhado e colaborado no abuso sexual de mulheres de diversas idades, inclusive meninas potencialmente pré-púberes, e na tortura, também, de crianças e adolescentes – tortura com conotação ou contornos sexuais. Definitivamente, um comportamento atroz e repulsivo.

Andrew, que não é mais príncipe, duque, conde ou barão, tendo perdido todos os seus títulos e os direitos a eles associados, não obstante segue sendo irmão do Rei Carlos III, atual soberano do Reino Unido.

Se estamos nos referindo a polêmicas envolvendo a família real britânica, porém, a figura de Carlos III nos remete rapidamente à estranha morte da princesa Diana, que por um tempo foi esposa do rei britânico quando ele ainda era o príncipe de Gales.

Diana foi princesa de Gales e esposa do atual Rei Carlos de 1981 até 1996, quando se divorciou dele. Nunca saberemos os motivos reais do divórcio, para além das explicações dadas publicamente, as quais passam, por exemplo, por traições do príncipe, bem como pressões constantes da família real sobre ela. Mas aí então há aqueles que insistem que parte das tensões de Diana com a família real envolve segredos muito mais profundos sobre os quais a princesa teria tido conhecimento, incluindo aí o envolvimento de membros da família real com pedofilia e abuso sexual.

Não temos como ter certeza sobre qualquer coisa desse tipo, mas a amizade de Jimmy Savile com membros da família real britânica é, certamente, desconcertante. Jimmy Savile, falecido em 2011, foi um DJ e personalidade midiática britânica que trabalhava na estatal BBC. Mas ele é mais conhecido como sendo um pervertido aberrante que teria abusado sexualmente de centenas de crianças ao longo de décadas. Muito convenientemente, a mídia britânica esperou o falecimento de Savile para expor os seus “podres”. Quase como se todos já soubessem de tudo…

Savile teria conhecido pessoalmente o rei Carlos, quando ele ainda era príncipe, nos anos 70 do século XX, em eventos de caridade. Mas ele rapidamente teria se tornado surpreendentemente íntimo da família real, atuando como conselheiro em inúmeros temas. Segundo Diana, Carlos à época via Savile quase como um guru, um mentor. Savile chegou a dizer, porém, que ele conhecia a família real britânica há ainda mais tempo, desde os anos 60; tendo sido introduzido nos negócios da família real pelo lorde Louis Mountbatten, ex-governador de Burma…e notório pedófilo com predileção por menininhos.

Savile, porém, não era apenas um “consumidor”, ele era também um “fornecedor”. Pelo menos é o que diz seu sobrinho, Guy Marsden, que afirma que Savile organizava festas orgiásticas nas quais o diferencial era a “oferta” de crianças – meninos e meninas – a membros da elite britânica. O sobrinho de Savile diz crer que a maioria das crianças vinha de orfanatos e abrigos. Isso situa Savile numa função semelhante – ainda que talvez de menor envergadura – a Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, aparentemente, não era tão próximo de Andrew quanto ele era do príncipe de Gales, mas o próprio Andrew, numa entrevista infame realizada em 2019, afirmou ter passado muito mais tempo com Savile do que com Epstein.

Retornando a Louis Mountbatten, o tio-avô do rei Carlos III, além de amigo de Jimmy Savile, recentemente alguns vazamentos de arquivos levaram ao conhecimento público o fato de que ele teria abusado de dezenas, ou mesmo centenas de meninos. Uma parcela dos abusos teria ocorrido na Irlanda do Norte, no lar de crianças de Kincora, em Belfast – local em que o orfanato, aparentemente, servia como “bufê” de crianças para membros da elite política e militar britânica, tudo operado pelo MI5. O orfanato foi fechado em 1980, 1 ano após o lorde Mountbatten ser justiçado pelo IRA.

Não há muitos outros escândalos envolvendo pedofilia em conexão com a família real britânica, mas nem por isso deixa de haver outros escândalos sexuais graves.

Se voltarmos ainda mais no tempo, para o final do século XIX, chegaremos à época dos famosos assassinatos de Whitechapel. Canonicamente, 5 mulheres foram assassinadas, com o mesmo modus operandi, por um homem que tornou-se notório no folclore macabro como “Jack o Estripador”. Ninguém nunca foi preso, nenhum culpado foi descoberto, e as teorias abundam.

Uma das mais notórias, é a teoria que conecta os assassinatos à figura do príncipe Alberto Vítor, Duque de Clarence. Alberto, cuja reputação já foi historicamente afetada pela revelação de que ele frequentava um bordel masculino na rua Cleveland, em Londres, passou a ser considerado, com o passar do tempo, o principal suspeito de ser o notório serial killer. O seu conhecimento de caça seria suficiente para dar conta da parte técnica das mortes. Ademais, recentemente ficou comprovado que ele padecia de sífilis e/ou gonorreia, doenças sexualmente transmissíveis que, se não tratadas, levam à insanidade.

As teorias, em cima dessa hipótese, se bifurcam. Há alguns que alegam que o próprio assassino era o príncipe, acometido de surtos de insanidade que o levavam a retaliar contra prostitutas, vistas talvez, enquanto classe, como responsáveis por seu sofrimento. Outros alegam que os assassinatos, na verdade, teriam sido cometidos a mando da família real com o objetivo de ocultar escândalos sexuais nos quais o príncipe Alberto teria estado envolvido, incluindo um possível casamento secreto com uma plebeia, realizado numa taverna e testemunhado por prostitutas.

Diferentemente dos casos mais recentes, a verdade sobre Jack o Estripador e suas possíveis conexões com a família real britânica dificilmente virão à luz, especialmente por todo o tempo que já passou.

Ainda assim, certamente há algo de podre fluindo nas profundezas do Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The imprisonment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for his associations with the Epstein scandal is replete with peculiar aspects, both in a symbolic sense and in a historical sense. The arrest was carried out on the day of Andrew’s 66th birthday, February 19, 2026, 666 days after that strange event in London, on April 24, 2024, in which a bloodied white horse broke free and rode through the city streets. Coincidence? Who knows?

The accusation, specifically, involves numerous reports and evidence, deduced from Epstein’s emails and witness testimonies, that Andrew allegedly participated in, accompanied, and collaborated in the sexual abuse of women of various ages, including potentially prepubescent girls, and in the torture, also, of children and adolescents — torture with a sexual connotation or overtones. Definitely atrocious and repulsive behavior.

Andrew, who is no longer a prince, duke, earl, or baron, having lost all his titles and the rights associated with them, nevertheless remains the brother of King Charles III, the current sovereign of the United Kingdom.

If we are referring to controversies involving the British royal family, however, the figure of Charles III quickly brings us to the strange death of Princess Diana, who was once the wife of the British king when he was still the Prince of Wales.

Diana was Princess of Wales and wife of the current King Charles from 1981 until 1996, when she divorced him. We will never know the real reasons for the divorce, beyond the publicly given explanations, which include, for example, the prince’s infidelities, as well as constant pressure from the royal family on her. But then there are those who insist that part of Diana’s tensions with the royal family involved much deeper secrets that the princess allegedly became aware of, including the involvement of royal family members with pedophilia and sexual abuse.

We cannot be certain about anything of that sort, but Jimmy Savile’s friendship with members of the British royal family is certainly disconcerting. Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, was a British DJ and media personality who worked for the state-owned BBC. But he is better known as an aberrant pervert who allegedly sexually abused hundreds of children over decades. Very conveniently, the British media waited for Savile’s death to expose his “dirty secrets.” Almost as if everyone already knew everything…

Savile allegedly met King Charles personally, when he was still a prince, in the 1970s, at charity events. But he quickly became surprisingly intimate with the royal family, acting as an advisor on numerous topics. According to Diana, Charles at the time saw Savile almost as a guru, a mentor. Savile even said, however, that he had known the British royal family for even longer, since the 1960s; having been introduced to the royal family’s affairs by Lord Louis Mountbatten, former Governor of Burma… and a notorious pedophile with a predilection for little boys.

Savile, however, was not just a “consumer,” he was also a “supplier.” At least, that’s what his nephew, Guy Marsden, says, claiming that Savile organized orgiastic parties where the unique feature was the “offer” of children — boys and girls — to members of the British elite. Savile’s nephew says he believes most of the children came from orphanages and shelters. This places Savile in a role similar to — albeit perhaps on a smaller scale — Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, apparently, was not as close to Andrew as he was to the Prince of Wales, but Andrew himself, in an infamous 2019 interview, stated that he spent much more time with Savile than with Epstein.

Returning to Louis Mountbatten, the great-uncle of King Charles III, besides being a friend of Jimmy Savile, recent leaks of files have brought to public knowledge the fact that he allegedly abused dozens, or even hundreds, of boys. Some of the abuse allegedly occurred in Northern Ireland, at the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast — a location where the orphanage apparently served as a “buffer” of children for members of the British political and military elite, all operated by MI5. The orphanage was closed in 1980, one year after Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.

There aren’t many other scandals involving pedophilia in connection with the British royal family, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other serious sexual scandals.

If we go even further back in time, to the end of the 19th century, we arrive at the era of the famous Whitechapel murders. Canonically, five women were murdered, with the same modus operandi, by a man who became notorious in macabre folklore as “Jack the Ripper.” No one was ever arrested, no culprit was discovered, and theories abound.

One of the most notorious is the theory connecting the murders to the figure of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Albert, whose reputation was historically affected by the revelation that he frequented a male brothel on Cleveland Street, London, came to be considered, over time, the prime suspect for being the notorious serial killer. His knowledge of hunting would have been sufficient to account for the technical aspect of the deaths. Furthermore, it has recently been proven that he suffered from syphilis and/or gonorrhea, sexually transmitted diseases which, if untreated, lead to insanity.

Theories based on this hypothesis then diverge. There are some who claim that the killer himself was the prince, afflicted with bouts of insanity that led him to retaliate against prostitutes, seen perhaps, as a class, as responsible for his suffering. Others claim that the murders were actually committed at the behest of the royal family in order to cover up sexual scandals in which Prince Albert had been involved, including a possible secret marriage to a commoner, held in a tavern and witnessed by prostitutes.

Unlike more recent cases, the truth about Jack the Ripper and his possible connections to the British royal family is unlikely to come to light, especially given all the time that has passed.

Even so, there is certainly something rotten flowing in the depths of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

One almost feels sympathy for the good-for-nothing Charles, who seems determined on the Crown’s behalf to commit institutional suicide even before he formally ascends to the throne and his brief reign commences. After an interminably long and frustrating wait comparable to that of his predecessor Edward VII, errors of judgement borne of impatience should perhaps be treated leniently. However, Charles’ looney coronation plans demonstrate that after the decades he has had to prepare for his tasks and maturely think them through, he has in fact forgotten everything that his mother’s courtiers must have taught him, or, even worse, that he learned nothing from them. If this assessment is correct, he and his dynasty are destined for oblivion like the Bourbons, whose colossal obtuseness he is foolishly replicating.

To the extent that anyone is interested in the forthcoming coronation, the topic that has caught the imagination of the British public is not the act itself, but Charles’ gratuitous intent to rock the monarchy’s boat by radically reconfiguring the traditional coronation ceremony. To the consternation of many and strong disapproval of the Church of England, of which he will become the head once he is crowned, Charles has decided that for him it is too confining to be merely the “Defender of faith” (whatever even that may mean in the Anglican context). He now wants to extend his spiritual jurisdiction by acting as the “Defender of faiths,” in the plural. Before the obvious question is even raised, what exactly is that supposed to mean, Charles has supplied the answer. He wants to scrub the unmistakably Christian character of the traditional coronation ceremony and to substitute for it a rite that would be a pot-pourri of diverse “faiths” that henceforth the British monarch should presumably act as the defender of.

Indisputably, Britain today does not resemble, even remotely, the country that over seventy years ago crowned as its Sovereign Charles’ mother, the late Queen, and no one in their right mind would assert that the changes have been for the better. As British writer Paul Kingsnorth frankly points out, Britain now is a post-Christian society (a situation Kingsnorth has been fortunate to escape by becoming an Orthodox Christian). It is true that British society now consists of numerous non-Christian constituencies, that religious indifference and dabbling in eastern and sundry cults are rampant, and that those who still profess the Christian faith (and Anglicanism in particular) are a small and timid minority. But will it help Charles and the monarchy to secure their position in a changing world if in the maniacal quest for relevance the king insists on dissolving the historic identity of the very institution he personifies?

Another way of putting the same question is to ask of what benefit has it been to the Catholic Church to pursue relevance by removing the props from under its traditional teaching and practice? The answer is self-evident today, sixty years later, in the form of the disarray into which that ancient institution has collapsed.

Sober minded Britons, who still care about the preservation of their country’s traditions and its cultural coherence, are trying to tell Charles as much. The monarchy by definition must be anchored in tradition, which makes it incompatible with modernity. Moreover, as even the avowed unbeliever but staunch traditionalist, royal historian Prof. David Starkey (who with British humour described himself as a “High-Church atheist) cogently points out, “the coronation is utterly and absolutely explicitly Christian in the sense of the body of the service.” Theologian and believing Christian Dr. Gavin Ashenden ominously agrees with Starkey that should Charles frivolously contaminate his coronation liturgy with invocations of other “gods” and “faiths,” he will be cutting the monarchy’s roots from Jesus, “at his own peril.” Disillusioned British armed forces veterans are considering breaking their oath should such an abomination ever come to pass. That over half of polled Britons are unwilling to pay for Charles’ coronation from the public treasury certainly adds to the awkwardness of the festivities, but it is the least of the king’s problems right now.

The tempest which Charles’ ill-advised and ill-timed tinkering with tradition is causing suggests that at least a part of the British public are not brain dead. It is encouraging testimony that there still are some glimmers of hope that England may not be entirely lost. Its spirit surely is broken however if hare-brained ideas that only recently no sensible member of the British Establishment would have dared to whisper are now casually bandied about, and in the highest circles.

That it is even conceivable that Shiva or Gaia might be honoured with equal reverence that is accorded to Jesus Christ, in this or some future British coronation, indicates the gravity of the moral and identitarian crisis that is eroding the foundations of the once seemingly impregnable British system of custom and governance. Whether the new “Defender” upholds or discards the objections of the Church of England, a body whose own fidelity to tradition and moral and theological rectitude leaves far too much to be desired, the suggestion has been tabled and the genie has now been let out of the bottle. And that was done precisely by the party who should have been the most keenly interested to keep it safely in.

What all this plainly amounts to is a breakdown of the system, from the very pinnacle on down.

The simple truth is that under the allure of modernity the royal family’s disintegration began while the late Queen, who probably was the last model of selfless and unconditional service the British monarchy will ever again produce, was still alive. Her unworthy progeny have failed dismally and in every sense to emulate her. The Queen was a creature of transcendence and tradition, her children and grandchildren are creatures of shallow modernity and spoiled narcissism. Not a single one of them has managed to carve out a useful role or to find a stable partner with whom to maintain an enduring marriage. Their lurid scandals have brought the institution they represent into irreparable disrepute. Indeed, as has Charles, the current head of that dysfunctional household, they also, and without exception, have succumbed to the siren call of modernity, which inevitably brings the monarchy to ruin.

It would be inaccurate to say that the disarray evident in the top echelons is proof that the Perfidious Albion is no more. Elements of the nefarious machine that has brought death and misery to many nations will continue to function to the detriment of mankind for a while longer, or at least until a well-aimed Poseidon puts Britain out of its misery. But the human factor, which had once made Britain “great” although in the most negative sense of that word, is now in full and irreversible decay.

The imbecility of the ruling class makes the established system unsustainable. It would be a mistake to underestimate its remaining potential for wickedness, but it would also be an error to attribute too much to it based on past, unrepeatable exploits. Professor Panarin naively committed that error when he suggested that Harry’s ostensible separation from the royal family and migration to the West Coast with his stupid wife (compared to Meghan, Wallis Simpson was a sophisticated intellectual) is actually more than meets the eye, a clever intrigue, cover for a secret mission entrusted to him by MI6.

No, there is a more natural hypothesis to explain it. Harry is not a secret British operative on a mission but an incompetent moron, like the rest of his royal relatives and fellow members of the Establishment. He is not on confidential assignment and has no covert mission to perform. His actual and very public mission, like that of his presumed father and his half-brother, is to complete Britain’s self-destruction.

No doubt millions of people felt a heartfelt attachment to the Queen, which will be displayed fully in the next few days. But the anachronistic nature of monarchy is also fully on display, in the obvious absurdities and pantomime procedure, with Heralds Pursuivant and Royals buckled with the weight of their unearned medals.

Yesterday some BBC stenographer had to type with a straight face the strapline “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Are Now the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge”, which would even fifty years ago have already been absurd enough to be a line in a Monty Python sketch. Still more absurd is the millions in feudal income that goes with that title, all real money paid by actual ordinary people as feudal dues.

The plans for the Queen’s demise were organised decades ago, and it shows. The BBC, ITV and Channels 4 and even 5 stop all entertainment in favour of pre-prepared sycophancy, as though we still lived in a world where people could not switch over and watch Gordon Ramsay on Blaze instead – and that’s ignoring Netflix, Amazon and the entire internet.

I watched a few minutes of the BBC last night, up until a “royal commentator” said that people were standing outside Buckingham Palace because the nation needed to draw together for physical comfort in its great grief. There were a couple of hundred of them. Broadcasters kept focusing on a dozen bouquets left on a pavement, in a desperate attempt to whip up people to produce more.

I do not doubt this will all work and there will indeed be big crowds and carpets of flowers. Many people felt a great deal of devotion to Elizabeth II, or rather to the extraordinarily sanitised image of her with which they were presented.

I witnessed her at very close quarters working on two state visits which I had a major part in organising, to Poland and to Ghana. She was very dutiful and serious, genuinely anxious to get everything right, and worried by it. She struck me as personally pleasant and kindly. She was not, to be frank, particularly bright and sharp. I was used to working with senior ministers both domestic and foreign and she was not at that level. But then somebody selected purely by accident of birth is unlikely to be so.

Key staff organising a state visit get by tradition a private, individual audience of thank you. They also get honours on the spot. I turned down a LVO (Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order) in Warsaw and a CVO (Commander of …) in Accra. Because of the unique circumstance, I am one of very few people, or possibly the only person, who has ever refused an honour from the Queen and then had a private audience at which she asked why! I must certainly be the only person that happened to twice.

(I had earlier in my career been asked if I would accept an OBE and said no. As with the vast majority of people who refused an honour, I very much doubt the Queen ever knew that had happened.)

Anyway, in my audiences I told the Queen I was both a republican and a Scottish nationalist. I should state in fairness that she was absolutely fine with that, replied very pleasantly and seemed vaguely amused. Instead of the honour, she gave me personal gifts each time – a letter rack made by Viscount Linley, and a silver Armada dish.

I later auctioned the letter rack to raise funds for Julian Assange.

The purpose of that lengthy trip down memory lane is to explain that I found the late Queen to be personally a pleasant and well-motivated person, doing what she believed to be right. We are all shaped by our environment; I would have turned into a much more horrible monarch than she had I been born into it, certainly a great deal more sybaritic (as the rest of her family appear to be).

So there is no personal malice behind my prognostication that the party will be over very soon for the monarchy. It is not only that the institution and pageantry seem ludicrous in the current age; so does its presentation. The BBC is behaving as though we are in the 1950’s, and apparently will do so for many days. The entire notion of a state broadcasting platform is outmoded, and I suspect a lot more people will see that.

29% of the people of the UK want to abolish the monarchy, excluding Don’t Knows; in Scotland that is 43%. In the UK as a whole 18 to 24 year olds are 62% in favour of abolition of the monarchy, excluding Don’t Knows. They will be further alienated by the outlandish current proceedings. Only the loyal will be reinforced – a large section of the population will snigger as the absurd pomposity grows. I found myself yesterday on Twitter urging people to be a bit kinder as the Queen lay dying.

Think seriously on this. 29% of the population want to abolish the monarchy. Think of all the BBC coverage of the monarchy you have seen over the last decade. What percentage do you estimate reflected or gave an airing to republican views? Less than 1%?

Now think of media coverage across all the broadcast and print media.

How often has the media reflected the republican viewpoint of a third of the population? Far, far less than a third of the time. Closer to 0% than 1%. Yes, there are bits of the media that dislike Meghan for being black or are willing to go after Andrew. But the institution of the monarchy itself?

There can be no clearer example than the monarchy of the unrelenting media propaganda by which the Establishment maintains its grip.

The corporate and state media are unanimous in slavish support of monarchy. Thailand has vicious laws protecting its monarchy. We don’t need them; we have the ownership of state and corporate media enforcing the same.

One final thought; I do not expect this will amount to much, but it is fun to speculate. King Charles III has let it be known he intends to attempt to wield more influence on government than his mother. He comes to power at the same moment as a new government under Liz Truss, which is utterly anathema to Charles’ political beliefs.

Charles is a woolly liberal environmentalist with a genuine if superficial attachment to multi-culturalism. He has let it be known he deplores deportations to Rwanda. He is now going to be fitting into his role while government in his name is carried out by crazed right-wing ideologues, who want a massive push to produce more fossil fuels. Could be worth getting in the popcorn.

craigmurray.org.uk

In 1629, frustrated by the unwillingness of Parliament to grant him taxation power, King Charles I of England dissolved the body and had nine members arrested. He did not recall Parliament for over a decade. The intervening period, known as Personal Rule, saw Charles I govern as a de facto dictator, with only a body of councilors to advise him. In 1640, forced by military necessity from Scotland, Charles I recalled Parliament in order to raise money to pay the military; shortly thereafter, stymied by Parliament, he dissolved the body again. But necessity encroached once again, and Charles I finally recalled Parliament. This would be the beginning of the end of his monarchy: the Long Parliament, as it would later be called, directly opposed many of Charles I’s initiatives, and that opposition would devolve into the English Civil War — a war that ended with Charles I’s execution.

All of this should serve as a brief reminder that when a chief executive ignores checks and balances, he may maximize his authority temporarily. But after a while, the royal saddle tends to chafe.

We are now approaching an inflection point in the United States: Do we want an elective monarchy, or not? A great many Americans seem perfectly comfortable with such a system, so long as the president is of their party. Today, the president of the United States is elected once every four years; he mouths platitudes about respect for norms and institutions; and then he proceeds to do what he wants, using the authority of the administrative state as his scepter. The legislature has become a vestigial organ, delegated only the power to fund enormous omnibus packages. True rule-making authority lies with the chief executive.

Thus, former President Barack Obama declared more than 20 times that he did not have the authority to unilaterally suspend elements of immigration law. That did not stop him from doing just that with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. President Joe Biden recently declared he had no power to extend an eviction moratorium via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That did not stop him from pursuing precisely that policy. Biden and his administration stated repeatedly that they did not have the power to unilaterally mandate COVID-19 vaccination. That power was to be exercised by the individual states. That did not stop Biden from mobilizing the vague grant of power under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to dictate that every business with more than 100 employees had to test its unvaccinated employees once per week, or vaccinate them, or fire them, or pay $14,000 per violation.

There are only two institutions standing in the way of full-fledged presidential monarchy: the courts and the states. Biden has pledged to override the states: “If these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.” And while Biden has pledged not to stack the courts, his prior institutional pledges have lasted only as long as his power remains unchallenged; he repeatedly suggested he would not seek to destroy the filibuster but has now apparently flipped on that subject.

The problem with elective monarchy is that it destroys the feedback mechanisms that help balance a pluralistic, decentralized society. Charles I could reign under the precepts of Personal Rule just so long as his impositions were moderate and his foreign policy peaceful. The minute serious complications arose, Personal Rule began to collapse.

The same will hold true in the United States. Charles I had the authority of kingship, but not consolidated compulsory control. That made his dictatorship unstable. The lesson for us is simple: We may want change, and we may want to carve a path through the checks and balances that obstruct that change by granting near-total power to an elective monarch. But unity won’t follow. Chaos will.

creators.com

I despise modern European monarchies. Words cannot put to screen just how repulsive this 21st century aristocracy is to me personally. At first, one would think that this opinion comes from the fact that I am American, you know whole Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and that 1776 thing. But that is simply not the case, when it comes to hereditary monarchies my big ideological problem comes from the “hereditary” part, not so much the “monarchy” part. My hatred for today’s impotent Euro figurehead is derived from watching them waste their massive potential on a daily basis. Every remaining noble could be a force to build a better Europe, but ultimately they do nothing at all with their lives, content to sit and stare as the last embers of their relevance are stuffed out forever. But, to my surprise at least, Prince Charles may have finally started to wake up to this fact after decades of mental slumber.

Recently, the Prince of Wales decided to do something absolutely unthinkable for a 21st century noble – actually attempt to try to lead their people for the betterment of their own society. Farming in the U.K. in 2020 is having some difficulties. The Coronavirus Pandemic has shut down borders, meaning that being able to use hordes of people from destitute nations to fill the function in society that serfdom did, is temporarily not an option. This means that for the British, there will be no farm hands coming from the loser nations of the EU to work for a shilling a day. And so in this context Prince Charles took it upon himself to be the face of the “#PickForBritain” campaign which is designed to get local average Brits to go out into the fields and give a helping for the good of the stomach of the nation. Despite the fact that the promotion of this project was not handled very well and that it will probably fail, it stands out as a very rare attempt from a member of the European nobility to look relevant to the masses and actually do something, anything other than smiling and waving to crowds.

Some may argue that this plan actually makes royalty look even more out of touch because Prince Charles’s plan purposely invoked the idea of the Land Army that came together to save the U.K. from starvation with all the boys being busy across the Channel. For someone from the WWII generation this was probably very memorable and the get the reference, but for someone who is 18 years old now, who can pick more veg than someone in their 80’s, they probably only have loose idea as to what he is referring to. Although the PickForBritain website makes this very clear, the raging bloggers and media outlets angry at Prince Charles, fail to mention that this farm work is actually going to be paid for in accordance with the British minimum wage. So unlike the spirit of the promotion #PickForBritain is not a volunteer project, instead it is more like an explosion of minimum wage jobs that need to be filled thanks to some promotion by A-lister, which is, to be honest, a much easier sell to the population.

Additionally, rather than showing himself leading by example (and working for minimum wage the first and only time in his life) the Prince of Wales presents himself in promotional material wearing clean clothing asking others to step up and put in all the effort. When you call on the nation to take action you should probably do at least some leadership by example. This seems like an obvious flaw in the promotion that should have been caught in advance. The PR side of this idea seems to have been a total failure which is shocking given the British Royal Family’s resources to hire a top notch firm.

Yes, as stated above this could have been handled better. As a man in his 60’s we shouldn’t expect Prince Charles to be walking with 100lbs. sacks of potatoes on his shoulders, but he could have pledged to put in X hours of work Y days per week as an example. He could have also gotten some lesser nobles (still young men of privilege) to make a guest appearance doing the more dirty brutal work that we associate with farming at least on camera. Furthermore, we live in a time where community is dead and the majority of us are urban dwellers who do not know their neighbors, expecting the British to rise up and act like their ancestors to work the fields for Her Majesty, who were born into a different cultural universe than we live in today is naive to say the least.

But the key thing is, and the reason that I chose to write about this is, that pigs have finally flown and a European noble actually tried to do something for his society with his position appealing to people to rise up and take action. This isn’t Princess Diana whining for money to clear landmines in far off nations, but the future King of England trying to rally the masses to resolve a real domestic problem and Europe is certainly facing many challenges in this 21st century that could require some “rallying”.

The remaining nobility has it in their own self interests to restore their relevance, if not their direct political power. If Europeans with the right genetic luck were to get the proper PR and strategy behind public moves like #PickForBritain then they could quickly restore the meaning behind their positions which may save their skins in the long run. Figureheads look like a waste of taxpayer money and invoke jealousy/anger from the population who dreams of doing nothing and getting paid for it. The question of doing away with the nobility becomes more and more relevant every year because the nobility keeps allowing itself to become less relevant.

As long as Prince Charles, or any other member of the aristocracy can convince the Heartland of their nation that he is “their guy” then the relics of the past will remain on the pound note, keep their castles and be protected as a symbol of the state. In an increasingly atheistic and individualist Europe why should the monarchies get anything at all from taxpayers? This is probably why Charles has started to make appeals to the suffering of Christians worldwide. For if there is no God, then there is no Divine Right for him to rule by when his mother passes. Monarchs are a symbol of a European Right Wing Christian outlook on life and they really need to play to prop up their base before it vanishes into history along with them.

Too often even the Alternative Media is too apt to jump on anything they don’t like. Yes Charles’s plan for Britons to rise up and pick beets was badly managed, but the overall strategy was right. An irrelevant monarchy ends, a relevant one will continue (unless murdered by revolutionaries) and in the long run this flawed but improvable PR move should be taken as a wakeup call to monarchs across Europe.

In summation…

If nobility does not demonstrate relevance it will be phased out.

It is the people in the Heartland of a nation who willing to support the monarchs most so they need to be appealed to first.

European monarchy rests on Christianity which they have let die out and need to revitalize.

Generally it is the European Right that sees value in monarchy the nobles must also revitalize this segment of the population. It is their base.

Nobles need to create action in their countries for their own subjects not cry crocodile tears for Africa. A British monarch may only weep for Britain.

Badly framing the idea of #PickForBritain as volunteer work, when it is actually paid work, is what is killing the idea. This project could yet be a success proving that migrant labor is not really needed.

Perhaps some nobles may have been trying PR moves that I am not aware of but successful PR by billionaires gets attention.

Any attempts to show relevance for the sake of-self preservation are worth it for those like Prince Charles. They still have a few decades before the sun finally sets on the British Empire.

Europe’s postmodern monarchs simply have the resources to do everything and yet they (seemingly) do nothing, absolutely nothing, when the foundation of their wealth relies on them being relevant. As long as some government project can convince its financiers that it is needed, even if it is completely worthless, so it can continue to waste money providing some dubious social service. In a way Europe’s monarchies have become like one of these social programs/charities yet they almost never do anything to try to convince the public that they deserve their manors and titles. Feminist organizations are still screaming that women are horribly oppressed so they can get that sexy grant money. D.A.R.E. continues to exist decades after proving that it does nothing to prevent drug use in America but they sure know how to beg to keep that financing coming. Europe’s decrepid nobility doesn’t seem to get this fact.