Today I thought I would see what is going on in the world so as I often do I typed “news” into Google and along with various other sites up came the online version of Daily Mail. Now the Daily Mail is generally considered to be a “conservative” paper (despite the ever-presence of bikini clad celebrity stories). Sadly, like the rest of the British media, it is nowadays polluted by the poisons of anti-traditionalism. The anti-traditionalists spend much of their time attacking religion, the Monarchy is their second favourite target.
In line with this trend the first article that I noticed was a snidey article on Prince Charles. To me it tasted of thinly veiled contempt disguised with a minimal sugar coating of fawning in quote marks. This uncomfortable piece gave hints at Charles committing crimes so severe as pointing out that as the British Empire no longer exists it is silly to continue handing out OBE honours (Order of the British Empire) and as suggesting that after honours are handed out that the recipients should be invited to a party at Buckingham Palace, amongst other things.
The accompanying photographs seem maliciously chosen and the article slipped in the constant press-mantra that he is “a prince often accused of meddling in national affairs”, but what is a prince to do other than to seek to influence national affairs for the better? The reality is that the critics of Prince Charles wish he were a Madam Tussaud’s waxwork and nothing more. They don’t want a Monarchy, they want a tourist attraction.
The type of anti-Royalty coverage mentioned above has been going on for a long time, even in papers with a Monarchist readership (indeed 80% or more of British people are Monarchists), but I was a little surprised to see just how low things can get. The site featured an aggressive article attacking Princess Beatrice without a hint of balance or any attempt to hide its republican agenda.
So what did the article try to paint this grand daughter of the Queen as?
“Royal critics have likened Princess Beatrice to a ‘benefits scrounger” – Yes they have but they are very silly to do so and with equal accuracy we could liken them to cannibals.
“she has taken three holidays abroad in barely a month.” – Of course she has, she’s a princess. These people don’t object to their pantheon of celebrities living the jet set high life, just to the sixth in line to the British Throne.
“Anti-monarchy campaigners say she should not receive public subsidies unless performing royal duties” – So? who cares what this collection of Marxists and Europhiliacs think.
The article quoted Graham Smith of Republic who described the Princess as a “royal scrounger” and suggested that she give up her Royal title and stop living in the palace. In fact if he may as well have written it himself for all the fairness and balance that it showed.
The Treason Felony Act of 1848 made advocacy of republicanism in Britain a crime. It is still on the statute books. Luckily for the modernists like Graham Smith no one has been sent to jail for his type of treason since 1879.
So why is it that most British newspapers run a predominantly negative line about the Monarchy – when the overwhelming majority of the British population believe in it as an institution?
Why is it that no mainstream British newspaper takes a really strong pro-Monarchy position anymore? One that goes so far as to avoid spreading dirt and malicious gossip about the royals despite the fact that that type of story sells newspapers?
Dark forces are at work.