A Bourgeois Liberal writes...
First Issue    Editorial    A Bourgois Liberal Writes..    Have You Seen the New Kurosawa    Universal Chaplin    Weimar artist's Social Satire    Rejection    An Autumn Evening in Hertfordshire    Holding a Candle to the True Gothic    Forthcoming Feature    Thought Page		This humble scribe feels proud, nay honoured, to be given the opportunity of writing, modestly, about that great reverential British institution- the Monarchy. No doubt there are a loony minority reading this who will, after consulting trendy subversive texts, begin to pour scorn upon this faithful servant of the Crown. These 'republicans' will, no doubt, find the year 1688 a cause for celebration. Luckily there remains many, like myself, who believe in defending the British Monarchy; I also find myself in such esteemed company as Paul Johnson and Giles Brandreth. I shell begin proper with a patriotic defence of so-called 'criticisms' of the British Monarchy. Firstly, as I am sure most of the more informed males reading will agree, the Monarchy is biased towards the male gender. Monarchical succession is therefore in order of precedence of males; illuminating the emotionally centred species. That said, if none [males] exist then the female gender must be employed, and what a grand job those ladies have done in overcoming their natural biological disadvantages. Critics of our Royal Family have pointed out how most crowned monarchs are inherently stupid. What these simpletons fail to understand is that, as Social Darwinism has emphatically proved, there are, unfortunately, inherent standards of cast in our society. The aristocracy, in my opinion, are discriminated against by a teaching profession seduced by a socialistic ideology; how else does one account for such obvious intellectuals as Edward Windsor attaining A-level grades of 1D and 2E's; or the Duke of Westminster who obtained two passes at O-Ievel. How else, I wonder, with the best education money can buy, and from parents of obvious mental agility does such occur? Fortunately, Edward Windsor still gained entry to Cambridge University- some may call this privilege I prefer the term 'entrance by birthright'. Now on to the matter of taxes. Why, oh why, should that most gracious of all people, Queen Elizabeth II, be put through the indignity of the Inland Revenue scrutinising her private income. If such were to occur, God forbid, then our poor Monarch would be reduced to hiring expensive accountants and lawyers in order to avoid what are at present extortionate levels of tax. Before one points the finger of hypocrisy let us remember how many of 'us' already do such a thing! Moreover would we again witness that good old British Bloke- the London cockney, ever vociferously urging his fellow low-castes to sing "Three cheers for the Queen". If such deference were to dissipate from the labouring classes then surely anarchy would reign? The Monarchy is head of our armed forces, therefore, a safeguard exists between ourselves and a dictator seizing control and making himself ruler over our gallant service of air, land and sea. Surely it is preferable to have a ruler deemed worth through blood-ties than one that attains power, but still remains unelected by the common people? The Royal Family is hard working. This is a fact. This Royal Family of moral and sexual fidelity. Before the reactionary feminists launch an ill-informed attack I shall justify 'royal transgression'. What red blooded male would seriously deny Prince's Andrew and Charles their pre-marital liaisons which act, much like the wooden horse at public school, as physical education? Prince Charles was correct in requiring Lady Diana's uncle to testify to her virginal status before embarking on marriage. Let us not forget that Lady Diana's lineage includes Georgina Spencer, some time 'acquaintance' of George IV, and Fox and Grey the Whig politicians, not forgetting the Duke of Bedford; these relationships were, I am sure, platonic as her husband of that time the Duke of Devonshire, would have testified. The charge of racism and the Royal Family is completely unfounded. Queen Elizabeth II, as is well known, frequently enthuses over 'those funny looking tribal people'. Her love of the Commonwealth dates back to the days when, as a young girl, she frequently met these colonial peoples as they brought in numerous silver trays, and again as they would collect her plates. Queen Victoria was another admirer of the Commonwealth Empire after Disraeli made her a gift of it. Finally, the British Monarchy upholds the finer points of heritage and tradition. Our present Queen can even boast of British blood; through her Scottish mother. How the Republicans wallow in trivialities such as the dynastic name 'Windsor' being chosen as late as 1917 at the height of the Great War with Germany. The present Royal Family cannot be blamed for wanting a more accessible surname, this was probably done in order to alleviate their servants of the linguistic difficulties of 'Hanover-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha'. If I may leave you with one final thought. quote, by a Frenchman granted, but still relevant: 'Toute nation a le government qu'elle merite.' I myself would slightly modify the above to: 'Every country has the monarchy it deserves.' I rest my case. ABL