Home > General Politics > The Royal Wedding Conspiracies

The Royal Wedding Conspiracies

My opinion of the Monarchy and the royal wedding is nothing you wouldn’t expect from a republican lefty. Conservative estimates say that if we go out and spend our money on 29 April 2011 then £1bn will be injected into our economy, though the wedding itself is to cost nothing short of £5bn – a loss no less.

Surely the Middleton’s can pay for a sizeable wedding and honeymoon, worth – as they are – £30m themselves. Our royal family is worth an inestimable amount of money, and yet next Friday falls upon us – the prolls. Too much money is used to subsidise these unelected tosspots and all for what?

Trade and tourism? Don’t make me laugh; our next door neighbour France is the second largest economy in Europe, fifth largest in the world, and attracted 78.95 million foreign tourists in 2010, making it the most popular tourist destination in the world. They’ve a peculiar government, sure, but no monarchy. The whole thing is a nonsense, and hopefully Kate and William’s wedding will be the last for the royals.

In fact, I mirror what Christopher Hitchens has recently said about the wedding, and in particular Kate Middleton:

Myself, I wish her well and also wish I could whisper to her: If you really love him, honey, get him out of there, and yourself, too. Many of us don’t want or need another sacrificial lamb to water the dried bones and veins of a dessicated system. Do yourself a favor and save what you can: Leave the throne to the awful next incumbent that the hereditary principle has mandated for it.

Though of course I would go slightly further, idealistically of course, and call on Ms Middleton to do everything she can to ensure there is no next incumbent.

The conspiracy theorists have already got themselves excited about the marriage – this has been spurred on by the fact that the wedding falls on the same day as the birthday of David Icke – the man who believes a secret group called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, a group which includes George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.

Hitchens in his article on the wedding said: “For Prince William at least it was decided on the day of his birth what he should do: Find a presentable wife, father a male heir (and preferably a male “spare” as well), and keep the show on the road.” The nutters on David Icke’s internet forums have taken this determinism a little too far. One commenter, Hawk944, said:

even more strange is that old footage of her when she was young doing a play for her school in which she (kate middleton) was marrying prince william?

coincidence! not sure, i think she was chosen just like diana before she was even born…

A comment from infinite777, back in June 2009, had similar to say:

Alright most of us know what happened with princess diana and how she was a sacrifice, but what about kate middleton? Somethings telling me that down the line she will suffer the same fate as diana did in a similar way. I mean I don’t know “how much” she is connected to their whole agenda, but it does seem pretty plausible to me. What do you think?

When the silly little buggers found out that William and Kate are cousins and both related to Sir Thomas Leighton, an Elizabethan soldier, diplomat and, for 40 years, the cut-throat Governor of Guernsey, they went berserk.

But rather than the “chosen one” theory that these wombats seem to have clung onto like a German badger clings onto the last batch of scrumpy, I prefer my own conspiratorial theory about the royal wedding. 

As we know the wedding falls on the same day as David Icke’s birthday. Icke was born in 1952, the same year that King George VI died. King George, or Prince Albert as he once was, who the film The King’s Speech was made about, will forever be known as the reluctant King. When King George V died, Prince Edward, brother of Albert, was presumed to take the throne. Though because Edward had no children King George had reservations. Less than a year after King George’s death, when Edward was Edward VIII, he married his mistress Wallis Simpson – a recent divorcee. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin told him he could not remain King while wed to a divorcee, so in 1936 he abdicated, leaving the position open to his brother.

Albert, having reservations about stepping up to the role wrote in his diary, the day before visiting his Mother, Queen Mary:

“When I told her what had happened, I broke down and sobbed like a child.”

An article about the royal wedding and The Kings Speech film noted:

The [sic] has been some speculation as to whether or not the couple will be ‘re-titled’ following the marriage, as Prince William has reportedly said that he does not wish to inherit a dukedom, in which case his wife would be made duchess

As recent news would have it, Prince William has now decided on taking a new title (possibly because in not having one, not only would he upset his Grandma – who has the last say anyway – but Kate would have to be re-named something ghastly like Princess William) – but not without hesitation. For the moment we should consider him the reluctant Duke.

Like Prince Albert, Prince William was reluctant to change, but realised he was powerless, and the public may notice that Kate wears the trousers if the decision was taken by her to make title changes. Though perhaps Kate has all the power here. The Sunday Express is already taking polls from the public on how:

60% of people favoured a change to the current system, which would allow Prince William and Kate Middleton’s first child to succeed to the throne regardless of gender.

If Kate now decides against having children with old horsey face, then maybe this whole monstrosity can stop for good – we’ve only got to get her on side (Prince Harry is clearly the lumpenproletariat in disguise so no worries there). The royal family is a stupid, unnecessary institution and should be gotten rid of immediately. But if William is anything like Prince Albert, perhaps his reluctance can spell damage to the Monarchy. And why wouldn’t William take Albert’s original judgement on board? After all, it is David Icke’s birth that really separates them.

This is part of the Carnival of Republicanism series

  1. April 25, 2011 at 4:23 am

    The succession reform really shows what’s wrong with liberal identity politics. For a hypothetical child of Billy and Kate to be denied the opportunity to become head of state just because she’s female, that’s clearly wrong, but reaching such a conclusion requires that we adopt an egalitarian premise. If such a premise is applied consistently then is it not equally if not more unacceptable for a person to be denied the opportunity to become Head of State because they are not a descendent of Sophia of Hanover?

    Truly nothing demonstrates the idiocy of British politics like the ownership of the state by a single family by birthright.

  2. April 25, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Princes Diana was a great princes everyone will say this she was kind hearted but she is no more now anyway we shall see Middleton will fulfill her role.

  3. Christopher Butler
    April 25, 2011 at 11:20 am

    I say to the royals, ditch the tax payers money and get sponsors on board. Yes, let’s privitise the Royal Family.

    We could have rename Buckingham Palace as the The o2 Palace and rent it out as the new Big Brother house, let Legoland expand into Windsor Castle, make ‘Pepsi presents Prince Andrew’ be the face to Injury Lawyers 4 U and have the Queen endorsing Iceland.

  4. Duncan
    April 25, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    On the impact of the Windsor’s on tourism, people still visit the Palace of Versailles. That’s all I’m saying.

  5. April 25, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Very good indeed – and some freaky photos to go with it. How did you take that one of Hitchens in the shower?

    We still have all yer royal hangers-on the colonies – a governor-general (ultimate waste of space) in NZ who takes up a lot of room in a very well-appointed pile somewhere in Wellington and then all these not-so-glam second-raters like Prince Ed & The Duchess of Whatsit who get to come and stay a while and add a bit of pizazz to NZ’s ribbon-cutters, etc. Nice little industry if you can get into it. All a bit difficult to sell in these times of austerity but hey – it doesn’t look like they’ll be on their way out anytime soon.

    Probably I’m jealous.

  6. April 25, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Simon #1

    You’re right of course, but what worries me is how I perceive myself politically, now that Daily Express readers are reformists – Stalinist might be too left-liberal a term from now on.

    Prasad #2


    Christopher Butler #3

    That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen for a while, putting out the royal family to tender – how very big society

    Duncan #4

    You mean tourists visit places without a sitting Monarchy – what’s the point? At least when you visit Britain you know you’ll be invited into Buckingham Palace for a scone and a corgi stroke!

    Kate Belgrave #5

    Let’s just say I’ve entered Hitchens’ intimate ring!

    The real jealousy should be theirs; after all we’ve been to some right swanky soirées in our time, no?

  7. Christopher Butler
    April 26, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Thanks Carl! It inspired me to write this http://sotherentbecamewhisky.tumblr.com/

    • April 26, 2011 at 5:06 pm

      That’s brilliant – I think it’s a cracking idea!

  1. April 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: