|Letters to the Editor||Reader's views on monarchy and media|
SIR: In my view, Frank Kimbal Johnson's opinions on the Monarchy (The Monarchy: another view, July issue) are very naïve if he really believes that Her Majesty the Queen and HRH Prince Charles are unconcerned that Britain is being dismembered and mongrelised into several impoverished provinces of a synthetic European super-state.
Mr. Johnson provides no evidence to contest my claim that the Monarch is currently a prisoner in the citadel and that it is the job of the British people to effect a rescue.
In the meantime, our Sovereign, I believe, is required to exercise the greatest of diplomacy simply to prevent the Hidden Power from mounting a successful agitation for a republic.
That she is still felt by the British people to represent them is manifestly shown by the composition of the massive crowds that turned out to celebrate her Golden Jubilee - as you note in your editorial comment last month.
Mr. Johnson has condemned Her Majesty for not exercising a power which she does not possess. Moreover, the British National Party currently gains only a small vote at national elections, so it is unrealistic to expect her to act like a BNP mouthpiece. Other European powers have lost their monarchs during the last two centuries; and the Royal Family must be very cautious in that context.
British nationalists should support the Monarchy to the hilt, while not ignoring the failings of particular monarchs. There is no substitute of remotely comparable potency to act as the focus of a future national revival.
SIR: I very much appreciated your comments on the racial realities of the Jubilee. I myself noticed earlier in the year the almost total absence of non-Whites in public demonstrations in my locality in sympathy with the llth September victims in America and the death of the Queen Mother.
The visual evidence was there, out in the open, and everyone who had eyes to see could get the obvious message: that the Monarchy is an institution by and large beloved by the indigenous British peoples; it is part of our island history and bound up with the very soil we tread. No wonder the dusky newcomers stayed away in droves from all national manifestations of loyalty and affection.
The reality of the situation no doubt deeply dismayed the republican race-mixers, who decided this wouldn't do at all. A new strategy was speedily devised, and was plainly seen in action when the Queen visited this town on the 3rd July.
Hours before her scheduled arrival, Asian schoolchildren were bussed en masse into the town centre, given free Union Jacks by Council officials, and marshalled to be on camera at the Parish Church where the Queen was to be welcomed by civic dignitaries. And so the lie was captured by the media and broadcast nationally: "Here is a happy multi-ethnic town where the Asians are keen Royalists!"
Bunkum! If the school-kids had been given the day off and been free to choose for themselves, hardly a coloured face would have been seen anywhere near the church. We know it and they know it.
SIR: An interesting article appeared in the Jewish Chronicle of May 31st 2002 Headed "Monarch who merits a mazeltov: why the Elizabethan era is golden for Jews."
The article started with the usual bleatings about persecution at the hands of English monarchs over the centuries: "Henry III even dictated that no Jew remain in England unless he do the Kingly service," (how terrible!) and: "From the hour of birth every Jew, whether male or female, serve the King in some way." Also: "Edward I expelled all Jews from England, the first time that a country had driven out its entire Jewish population."
Then the article went on to contrast the horrible Henry and Edward, et al, with the present nice Elizabeth II, whose "five decades have been a time of stability and prosperity for British Jewry." Elizabeth II became "the patron of the Council of Christians and Jews, the organisation dedicated to bettering relations between the two faiths; she was the first monarch to do so."
But it was the next part that caught my attention. The Queen wanted to ingratiate herself with the Jews still further, so: "For many years it was the Queen's decision to have all her sons circumcised, which contributed to a positive attitude to the custom in the country at large. Rather than use the court surgeon, she used traditional Jewish mohalim, considering them more expert. She asked Dr. Jacob Snowman, and later his son Leonard, to circumcise the three princes."
According to the article, various members of the Royal Family, such as Margaret, Charles, Edward, Fergie, Anne, Alexandra, the Queen Mother, Diana and the Duke of Edinburgh, et al, "have attracted considerable attention from Jewish charities in recent years," and it concluded with the insightful comment that "for their part, Jews of all denominations have regularly been praying for the health and welfare of the Queen every shabbat (sabbath) for the last fifty years."
SIR: Those who talk of the USA as Britain's ally ought to reflect on a piece in The Mail on Sunday financial page on the 7th July. There, powerful Americans plead guilty to the charge that they consider Britain as only a satellite.
The Americans are corporate executives of three firms with influential share ownership in the holding company that owns the Daily Mirror here. The USA's Fidelity, Capital Group and Tweedy Browne together own 31 per cent of the Mirror Group.
The Mail on Sunday's New York correspondent reports that they are incensed that the Mirror last week called the USA "a rogue state ignoring international law" in its activities in the Middle East.
"We made our views known as major shareholders," The Mail on Sunday quotes Tom Shrager as saying. "We felt that (Mirror) management should know how we view such editorial matter."
One may agree or disagree with the Mirror's articles. But whether foreign businessmen should control what British newspapers print is quite another issue. We can stand back when the USA treats Somalia or Afghanistan as colonies, but not when it treats Britain that way.
Things like this would not happen if British law required all shareholdings in key activities like the media or defence industries to be owned by British people or institutions. Persons holding positions of power in such bodies should be required to be of exclusively British national allegiance. Can you imagine aliens being allowed such influence in Japan, Israel or elsewhere?
J. R. Henderson