It's still on...

The Royal Baby has been named George Alexander Louis which means that it's still on. Our next three Kings, unless one or more does a regnal name change, will be Charles III, William V and George VII. If we can somehow ensure Baby George's first-born is a boy and is named Henry then he will be Henry IX.

III, IV, VII, IX = 3, 5, 7, 9

Could that be more mathematically pleasing?

Yes I am a little odd, as are the above numbers.

The sequence will end at 9 as Henry and Edward are the only Kings of the United Kingdom to reach eight so far.

'... it's a black boy'

The strangest reaction to the news of the birth of 'the Royal Baby... Most odd!

The royal birth, it's a boy so please call it George

NotaSheep MaybeaGoat (@notasheepagoat) tweeted at 8:35 PM on Mon, Jul 22, 2013:
It's a boy so name him George,  for the numerics. Next three Kings would be Charles 3, William 5 & George 7. If we could then have a Henry 9
(https://twitter.com/notasheepagoat/status/359396381858856960)

It's a prime reason

Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge must name their first born child George and he must in turn name his first born Henry.

Why?

That way the run of Kings and Queens from the current Sovereign would run:
Elizabeth 2
Charles 3
William 5
George 7
Henry 9

2, 3, 5, 7, 9 - a run of prime numbers that I doubt could ever be repeated.

The Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) topless

It's rather odd today, just like the other week there are some royal photos available to see on the web, this time of a topless Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton) rather than a naked Prince Harry. Once again the photos are easily locatable to anyone armed with Google (other search engines are available), I wonder if this time a British newspaper will publish these photos 'in the public interest'.

I must admit that I somewhat more interested in seeing Kate Middleton's breasts than Prince Harry's pubes, well to be honest most breasts are more interesting than male pubes.

So should I publish the photos here? Somehow I don't think so.

The BBC deliberately making a mountain out of a molehill

I only heard some brief headlines about the security staff left to 'sleep under a bridge' and assumed from that that they had been left overnight to sleep under a bridge. This would have been totally wrong and I would have been willing to protest on their behalf re shoddy treatment by the company that was using their labour. However this morning I discover that despite the BBC trying to turn this into a major scandal, they even inviting John 'chipolata' Prescott onto the Radio 4 Today programme to whine about the affair, the group were left for just two hours under a bridge due to a logistical error. As this was a two hours wait why was the headline all about 'sleeping under a bridge'.

This is a nothing story, given prominence by a BBC desperate to get government cuts back on the agenda and boost some anti-establishment sentiment following an incredibly popular Diamond Jubilee.

Today I discovered that Mark Steele, the nasty socialist and anti-Israel 'comedian who the BBC use on far too much of their output, has had a little anti-Jubilee rant on his blog:

'But the oddest part is no one can explain what we were supposed to be celebrating. She’s been the Queen for sixty years, but all she has to do to be Queen is to be. As long as she exists, she’s the Queen, that’s how it works, it’s not like a boxing champion that has to keep seeing off challengers. If you’ve been an electrician for sixty years that’s worth celebrating, because you have to keep rewiring stuff to be one, but as long as she exists she’s the Queen. In effect people are spluttering ‘Isn’t she marvellous, still existing for us. Most of us wouldn’t have the stamina to keep on existing, but even at her age she puts in a full days existence seven days a week’.

That’s why royalists get in a tangle when they claim she’s doing a marvellous job, as if she’s earned her position on merit, having worked her way up after starting out as a humble princess.'

That's the trouble with so many lefty types, they just don't understand why their views are such a minority view. Here's what I posted on his comments page, still awaiting moderation apparently:

'notasheepmaybeagoat says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 6, 2012 at 7:10 am

Since the alternative to the monarchy would be an elected President, surely a nice lady who waves a lot and asks ‘Have you come far’ is preferable to a past their sell by date politician. President Tony Bliar must fill everyone with dread as must President Mandelslime. The point of a monarch is that they embody the country and don’t have political affiliations. By not having elections the role of monarch is non-confrontational and so easier for all parties to support.

The foaming at the mouth of certain republicans has amused me this last month. It must be upsetting to realise how small a minority you really are. With even the BBC having to sheath its pro-republic sentiments, even that ally was lost, albeit temporarily, to your cause.'

I wonder if Mark Steele allows free speech on his site, as I do on mine, or is he the sort of radical socialist that only allows views that match his own to be made public?

I am so proud, well sort of!

Unfortunately on inspection it seems that @HM_Elizabeth_II may not be the real deal; so it looks like my MBE will be on hold a while longer.

"Oh my god, has the Duke of Edinburgh died"

"Oh my god, has the Duke of Edinburgh died" was the cry that came from Mrs NotaSheep as she got ready for work whilst listening to the Radio 4 Today programme, something that I have not done for over a month now with a resultant improvement in my blood pressure.

"No" I replied, it's his 90th birthday today (actually it's tomorrow, the 10th, but I was dozing at the time); unless he has died overnight of course"

"Thank God" Mrs NotaSheep called back, "I suppose I must really like him too, as I felt really worried and upset".


Yes I must out myself as somewhat of a fan of the Duke of Edinburgh. I find his comments, what the BBC would call 'gaffes' quite endearing.  I think he often tries to make people feel at ease by cracking wisecracks that in another age, the age in which he was born and brought up, would have been considered slightly off-colour but disarming. Of course now in our increasingly humourless, politically correct, society these comments are considered at best rude and more often racist, sexist or some other 'ist.

Whilst thinking about this post I considered how the BBC portray 'Royals' and really the only ones that were/are accorded any respect are the Queen, Diana Princess of Wales, Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge (formerly Catherine Middleton). Apart from the Queen who even the BBC have to concede is beyond reproach and the new Duchess of Cambridge who is too new to the royal family and who was in any case not herself 'royal' before marriage, the other acceptable royals are either Diana, Princess of Wales or the fruit of her loins. Each and every other royal is disparaged by the BBC whether it be by picky news coverage, snide comments on the comment programmes or 'hilarious' put downs and insults on topical news programmes and 'alternative' comedy shows. Prince Charles is portrayed mad, talking to plants and a hypocrite on green matters. Prince Andrew is portrayed as being not far from a fraudster with dodgy friends. Prince Edward used to be portrayed as a probable homosexual and idiot at business, now he's often just ridiculed for being pointless. Princess Anne is portrayed as sour-faced, frumpy and not as pretty as pretty as 'Princess Diana'. The list goes on and on via Prince Harry, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice etc. etc. etc.

The BBC also love to report how much the royal family 'cost' us, ignoring some salient facts. Here's what I have written on this matter in the past:

'This sort of attitude is actively assisted by the reporting of such as The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC who keep reporting on the 'costs of the Royal Family. I did demolish this one-sided argument last November, here's how:

'The BBC and various anti-monarchist groups are misrepresenting the cost of the UK monarchy again and this has annoyed me. This piece repeats the familiar misrepresentation that:

'The total cost of keeping the monarchy was £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year, a drop of 7.9% (£3.3m) on the previous year.'

This looks at just one side of the equation: the costs of the Civil List which is soon to be replaced by the awfully named "sovereign support grant". The other side that is as usual ignored is that in 1760 it was decided that the entire cost of the Civil List should be paid by Parliament in return for the monarch surrendering his hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate to Parliament for the duration of George III's reign. This agreement with some alterations is still in place today.

So how much is the The Crown Estate worth to the UK taxpayer? The last figures I saw was around £190 million a year.

So why does the BBC insist on repeating the cost of the Royal Family <£40 million a year but ignores the income forgone by them in return for the civil list of around £190 million?'

In my view most of the royal family do a good job in difficult circumstances, I have the utmost admiration for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh - I fond their work rate and politeness rather remarkable especially bearing in mind their age and  the scrutiny they come under. Prince Charles's views on modern architecture and organic farming chime with mine, although I find his views on Islam somewhat worrying for the future Head of the Church of England and King.  Princess Anne I admire for her hard-work, 'stuff you I don't care what you think of my clothes' attitude and seeming determination to keep a hairstyle for longer than anyone I know. Prince Andrew I am not too sure about but most of the things he is criticised for I can see displayed worse by a number of former senior Labour politicians, who get much less criticism form the BBC. Prince Edward suffers from having no role; the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh produced the requisite heir and a spare and also even a daughter as well, so his role was never to be a major one.

I could go on and on but even I am tiring now. In essence, the royal family is a good thing, doesn't cost the public purse as much as the income that they have forgone and is so much better than the alternative - King Simon Cowell and/or Queen Cheryl Cole? King David Beckham and Queen Victoria Beckham? Worse of all King Tony Blair and Queen Cherie or Queen Peter.  Just because a system is not perfect it doesn't automatically mean that any alternative system will be better.


So Happy Birthday for tomorrow The Duke of Edinburgh, there's at least one household in London who wish you well.

Congratulations your majesty

Congratulations your majesty; todat Queen Elizabeth II overtakes George III to become the second longest-reigning monarch in British history.

Still quite a while to go before she catches Queen Victoria though, 4 years and 117 days I think.

Sensible lefty comment of the day 'it doesn’t matter whether everyone has a fair and equal shot at power; it matters that power is not abused. And constitutional monarchy is as good a guarantee of that as we have so far come up with'

For more of Tim Collard's reconciliation of left-wing views and support for the monarchy his Telegraph article is a good read.

'I am happy to live in a country where the highest dignities of the state cannot be acquired by anyone with sharp elbows and/or a lot of money. When people condemn the monarchy in the name of “meritocracy” my blood boils. The rich (who have the real power) don’t get rich on grounds of merit, and is anyone seriously arguing that democratically elected politicians get where they are by being particularly meritorious?

And what’s so marvellous about republics, which all the worst 20th-century tyrannies have been? Even amongst democracies there are two kinds of republics; those with an executive president and those with an honorary one. With the first kind, you get a Head of State who is viscerally hated by at least 49 per cent of the population (as in the USA); with the second, you get a superannuated politician tolerated for his/her harmlessness but commanding little real respect. You can make your own guesses as to who might become President of a British Republic. And shudder.

...

... Prince William, with every imaginable opportunity to turn into a ghastly Hooray and rich aristocratic waster, has got his head down, got some service in, and become the admirable and level-headed man he clearly is. And, mutatis mutandis, the same goes for the new Duchess of Cambridge.

God bless them both, and let us hope that the horrendous pressures of the job don’t drive them apart. Of course I know that the wedding isn’t the really significant occasion. That will be the birth of an heir, whose reign I hope I will never see; but, as an Englishman and a socialist, I will die happy knowing that one is in place.'

So why was Tony Blair not invited to the Royal Wedding?

Three interesting possibilities:
1) From this 2007 Mail article :

'For a modern monarch to rebuke a serving Prime Minister is extremely rare.

The Queen has done it only once in her reign - and the object of her disfavour was Tony Blair. The telling-off came in the early days of the Blair premiership.

The occasion was the State Opening of Parliament which followed a few days after the 1997 election.

In a massive challenge to the authority of the British monarchy, Tony and Cherie Blair sought to capture the event for themselves.

They made the unprecedented decision to walk from Downing Street to Parliament while the Queen arrived in her royal coach.

This decision mattered deeply because the drama of the state opening is all about the Queen: her departure by stagecoach from Buckingham Palace, her arrival in Parliament through the Sovereign's Entrance under the Royal Tower, the putting on of the crown and robes of state before the final entrance to the House of Lords' chamber.

...

An air of understated but definite menace at all times lay behind New Labour's dealing with the monarchy.

In 1997 the New Labour manifesto gave an assurance that "we have no plans to replace the monarchy".

This undertaking - as the more intelligent courtiers grasped - would not have been made had an attack on the British monarchy not been on the agenda.

Plans to get rid of the Royal Yacht were at the heart of the election campaign, sending out what pollsters called a "dog whistle" message - not heard by everyone - that the party was opposed to the Royal Family.

In private briefings with allies in the Press, New Labour in government was openly hostile, with senior figures inside Downing Street freely attacking the Royal Family.

In private the Blairs and their official entourage showed a startling lack of respect.

For the first time since the Queen acceded to the throne in 1952, relations between senior members of the Royal Family and the Prime Minister became actively unpleasant.

This reflected a new attitude from the Prime Minister and those around him. His aides were capable of great impatience with royal procedures, often going beyond rudeness.

The worst offenders were Tony Blair's wife, Cherie, and his adviser Alastair Campbell. She would refuse to curtsy when she met the Queen, and was capable of blanking out senior members of the Royal Family when she encountered them.

She made no pretence at all that she enjoyed royal occasions, and often, through physical and other signals, made it clear that she would rather be elsewhere.

This private lack of respect towards the Royal Family came to be reciprocated. Once Cherie Blair told Princess Anne to "call me Cherie". "Mrs Blair will do," replied the Princess Royal.

...

Shortly after he was appointed Foreign Secretary in 2002, Jack Straw gave an interview to the Guardian in which he referred twice to Tony Blair as "head of state".

At one stage the Downing Street website described how the Queen enjoyed audiences with Tony Blair, and not the other way around.

The Treasury moved fast to remove the royal coat of arms from its logo and drop the initials HM from its official title. The change was said to "reflect a modern image under Gordon Brown's stewardship".

During a visit to Kosovo Tony Blair referred to "my" armed forces, oblivious to the important constitutional fact that British troops owe their allegiance to the monarch as head of state.

Meanwhile the Government set out to write the monarchy out of British public life, an audacious task involving the unravelling of 1,000 years of history.

The most important example of this was the very serious attempt by the Labour government to create a new national identity.

This involved disregarding the institutions of the state that had historically been at the heart of Britain, and replacing them by others, such as a new national day.

In a series of public statements Labour ministers argued that Britain should be defined by abstract values such as fairness. They never mentioned the monarchy.

A series of speeches by Gordon Brown about "Britishness" - an ugly and artificial word - systematically excluded the British monarchy, even though the Queen is head of state and the monarchy encapsulated Britain's long history better than any other institution, including Parliament.

...

Attempts to intrude on the territory of the monarch were to become a repeated feature of the Blair period in office.

The death of Diana, Princess of Wales in August 1997 gave a massive opportunity for the Prime Minister.

The words he uttered on the morning after the tragedy, in which he expressed his devastation at the death of Princess Diana, were brilliantly chosen and widely praised for expressing the mood of the nation.

Members of the Royal Family had been trained from birth to suppress their emotions, exercise restraint and show dignity.

The political philosopher David Marquand noted that when Diana died "the royals behaved as they had been taught to do: as symbols of the state, quintessential inhabitants of the public domain, with all its emotional austerity and self-control".

Previous generations of politicians, had shown comparable restraint (and the Tory leader William Hague was criticised for an inadequate expression of grief when he made his statement about the Princess's death).

Tony Blair, in his response, was at his most formidable as a politician. By showing open grief, and by using the phrase "people's princess", he was opening up new ground and massively extending the territory of the Political Class.

Five years later, following the death of the Queen Mother, the Prime Minister sought to intrude once again into the public domain occupied by the British Royal Family.

Within 24 hours of the Queen Mother's death on March 30, 2002, Tony Blair was seeking to enlarge his public role in the funeral.

Downing Street officials persistently rang Lt-General Sir Michael Willcocks, known as "Black Rod", putting pressure on him for the Prime Minister to play a more prominent part than had originally been planned, including the astonishing proposal that Tony Blair should break with precedent and walk from Downing Street to Westminister Hall in order to meet the Queen Mother's coffin. This pressure was rejected.

Sir Michael also faced intimidation in the wake of the funeral. He refused to endorse the false Downing Street claim that Tony Blair had not tried to muscle in.

After he withstood constant pressure, Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell vowed that "we'll get him one day".

The problem for Tony Blair and New Labour is simple to explain. The ten-day remembrance period for the Queen Mother left him without a central role.

At state events such as the Queen Mother's funeral, the Prime Minister of the day ranked lower than politically far less significant figures such as the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons.

This was not, of course, a threat to the Government: the funeral of the Queen Mother had nothing at all to do with politics as it had conventionally been practised.

But it was a challenge specifically to New Labour, because the commemoration period for the Queen Mother claimed back a part of British public life, normally outside politics, that New Labour has asserted as its own.

This meant that the queues for the lying-in-state were almost as disconcerting for New Labour as the grief for Princess Diana had been for the Royal Family five years previously.

The great celebration of the Queen Mother's life was an affront to the Political Class because it was a reminder of the existence of a Britain whose loyalties and allegiances went far deeper than party, but had everything to do with the love of Queen, country, village, school, town and family.

These allegiances were wholly compatible with voting Labour, Liberal Democrat, Tory or any number of other political parties.

They are not, however, compatible with totalitarian politics, which lays claim to space that lies well outside party politics as it has always been practised in Britain.

There is little doubt that New Labour in power yearned to make a full-frontal and lethal attack on the British monarchy. There is little doubt that only the sustained popularity of the Queen prevented it from doing so.

Extracted from THE TRIUMPH OF THE POLITICAL CLASS by Peter Oborne'

2. Alex Masterley thinks there might be another explanation:

'Rules for wedding invites, particularly Royal ones

...

Which leads us to the issue of the preferment of Arab dictator princelings to Scottish ex-prime ministers. Now let's face it, if it came down to a personality test, it would probably be a dead heat, but that isn't what counts. Forget protocol (there is none), and consider the feelings of the young couple.

Which would they rather have at their wedding? The one who isn't just going to give them a full dinner service, but also a pair of his and hers matching Lamborghinis and a year's supply of petrol. With some wedding guests, excessive lavishness is de rigueuer.

... but not Phoney Bliar and Prudence McDoom.'

3. Or was it Prince William's decision:

'A prominent historian has claimed that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was not invited to Friday’s royal wedding because Prince William dislikes the politician and not of political things.

“I think the plain truth is that for all sorts of reasons, (Prince) William developed a powerful dislike of Mr Blair,” David Starkey told Sky News during a debate on the monarchy.

“Particularly the way in which he intervened at his mother’s funeral service. These are not political at all, they are personal choices,” he said.'

Whatever the reason I must say that it was pleasant not to have see the unbearably smug Tony Blair and his ever grasping wife, Cherie, sitting in the Quire/Choir. I presume that the Metropolitan Police were also relieved at not having to accommodate his personal protection team as well as not having to keep an eye on Cherie in case she decided to acquire some souvenirs to sell on eBay...

Congestion Charge problem

I tried to pay the London Congestion Charge for Prince Charles' Aston Martin DB6 Volante but oddly got the above message... Congestion Charge Exempt as it runs on wine or are Royal cars except or just not stored on database?

To celebrate the upcoming wedding of prince Willian and Catherine Middleton

'I could have married Kate' - a brillinat satirical song by Barbershopera



Thanks to Theo Spark for the spot.

Congratulations (?) Prince Charles

Today Prince Charles overtakes the then Prince Edward who acceded to the throne as Edward VII, to become the longest-serving heir-apparent and the longest-serving Prince of Wales, so far 59 years, 2 months and 14 days.

William and Kate's big day

It looks as though Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding day is going to turn into a bit of a brawl. First I heard that the protesters in Parliament Square will not be evicted in time and so will form an interesting backdrop to the wedding procession, second I hear rumours that UK Uncut and/or their comrades are planning a large protest on the day of the Royal Wedding (April 29) and then finally I read that Islamists are threatening even worse (my emphasis):

'On 29th April 2011, what is probably one of the most anticipated events in recent years will be due to take place at Westminster Abbey; Prince William and Kate Middleton, will soon exchange matrimonial vows, in the presence of a global audience.

Unfortunately, Britain's continued interference in Muslim lands is showing no signs of abating; the plundering of resources, the murdering of innocent (Muslim) men, women and children and the forced indoctrination of the satanic democratic creed have become hallmarks of a brutal regime led by a very brutal dictator.

In the backdrop of all this, we find that one of the biggest advocates of British imperialism, Flight Lieutenant Prince William, wishes to enjoy an extravagant wedding ceremony, ironically at the expense of the tax-payer.

His direct involvement with the murderous British military and eagerness to inherit the reigns of a kingdom built on blood and colonialism clearly demonstrate what type of legacy he wishes to leave.

In light of this, sincere Muslims have decided to organise a forceful demonstration, to once again highlight that as long Britain continues in its quest to occupy Muslim land and wage war against the religion of God (Allah) that we too shall continue in our efforts to undermine their regime and condemn all of their representatives, military or otherwise.

We strongly advise Prince William and his Nazi sympathiser, to withdraw from the crusader British military and give up all affiliation to the tyrannical British Empire.

We promise that should they refuse, then the day which the nation has been dreaming of for so long will become a nightmare and that it will inshaa'allah (God willing) eclipse the protests in Barking, Downing Street and the events of November 11.'

That last sentence sounds like a threat to me so will the British police be asking their American colleagues to ask some questions or maybe arrange the extradition of the owner of that domain: 'Abdullah Muhammad, c/o Dynadot Privacy, PO Box 701, San Mateo, CA 94401, United States'?


All in all it looks as though Prince William and Kate Middleton's big day may be in jeopardy; I wonder if it is too late to change their plans and fly off to Barbados and have their wedding on the beach there?

Tasteful?

Crown Jewels Condoms ask us to 'Lie back and think of England' as they announce that:

'To celebrate the engagement of Prince William of Wales to Ms. Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, Crown Jewels Condoms of Distinction has commissioned a unique heritage edition Royal Wedding Souvenir boîte de capotes.

Combining the strength of a Prince with the yielding sensitivity of a Princess-to-be, Crown Jewels condoms promise a royal union of pleasure. Truly a King amongst Condoms.

* Presented in a timeless souvenir heirloom collector's box.
* Contains three individually wrapped condoms.
* Includes a collectable portrait of the Royal Couple as they might appear on their wedding day – exclusively created for Crown Jewels.'

Tasteful, very tasteful. And then the pretty unnecessary disclaimer:

'Crown Jewels Royal Wedding Souvenir Condoms are not supplied to, or approved by, Prince William of Wales, Catherine Middleton or any member of the Royal Family.'

I am shocked!  And not just by the misspelling of collectible...

Also bear in mind that:

'Crown Jewels Royal Wedding Souvenir Condoms are a novelty condom not suitable for contraception or protection against STDs.'

pardon my ignorance but other than preventing pregnancy or avoiding STDs why would you wear a condom? Patriotism excepted!

The Queen's visit to Ireland, the BBC's choice of guest to comment - Gerry Adams - and a complaint

Further to this and this I have lodged a complaint with the BBC:

 

Complaint type: BBC News

Location: England

What is your complaint about: Radio News

Programme title: 5Live 10pm news bulletin Friday 5 March 2011

Transmission date: 05/03/2011

Complaint category: Offence

Complaint summary: Choosing to intreview Gerry Adams re the Queen's future visit to Ireland

Full complaint: BBC 5Live 10pm News carried a piece about the upcoming visit by the Queen to Ireland. The BBC chose one person to interview about this visit; not the BBC's royal correspondent but Sinn fein's Gerry Adams. So for an opinion on the first royal visit to Ireland for 100 years the BBC choose the man who lead an organisation (Sinn Fein), in the public's mind, intrinsically linked with the terrorist organisation (the IRA) that blew up and killed the Queen's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, in 1979. Did anybody at BBC 5Live News wonder if it might be a trifle tasteless to interview a leading figure in Sinn Fein about the visit of the Queen to Ireland bearing in mind that history?

Receive a reply: Yes

Contacted us before: Yes

Complaint related to previous contact: No

Title: Mr

First name: NotaSheep

Surname: MaybeaGoat

Email address: notasheepmaybeagoat@gmail.com

Under 13: No

 

I wonder how long I will have to wait for a reply and how the BBC will justify their choice of guest... Somehow I doubt that they will accept a breach of taste.

The murder of Lord Mountbatten and the comments of Gerry Adams - Please read the whole of this piece

My post of last night has caused some upset, from people who say that I have forgotten the others that were killed by the IRA on that day in 1979. I would like to reassure you all that I have not forgotten them but was trying to point out the callousness with which the BBC invited Gerry Adams to comment on the Queen's upcoming visit to Ireland.

In case you are unaware of what happened on that day in 1979 this might help. The Provisional IRA blew up the boat on which Lord Mountbatten was sailing; killed on that day were Lord Mountbatten, Nicholas Knatchbull (his nephew) and 15-year old crew member Paul Maxwell. Baroness Brabourne">Baroness Brabourne, Lord Mountbatten's elder daughter's 83-year-old mother-in-law was seriously injured in the explosion and died from her injuries the following day. Also seriously injured in the explosion but who survived were Nicholas Knatchbull's mother and father and his twin brother Timothy.

On the same day that the IRA murdered Lord Mountbatten, the IRA also ambushed and killed eighteen British soldiers, sixteen of them from the Parachute Regiment at Warrenpoint in what became known as the Warrenpoint ambush.

So 21 people not just one died on the 27th August 1979, a bloody day that the BBC choose not to remember, unlike Bloody Sunday which they v=can barely leave alone.


The BBC's interviewing of Gerry Adams re the upcoming visit of the Queen to Ireland is thrown into even starker relief by this quote I found on Wikipedia; it's what Gerry Adams reportedly said of Lord Mountbatten's death:

'The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furore created by Mountbatten's death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people; and with his war record I don't think he could have objected to dying in what was clearly a war situation. He knew the danger involved in coming to this country. In my opinion, the IRA achieved its objective: people started paying attention to what was happening in Ireland.'

The BBC have managed to excel themselves over this choice of interviewee, not that I think they feel any shame. I would lodge a formal complaint but what is the point?

Only the BBC...

BBC 5Live 10pm News and a piece about the upcoming Queen's visit to Ireland. So who do the BBC call upon for their expert commentary? Not the BBC's royal correspondent but Gerry Adams. Yes for an opinion on the first royal visit to Ireland for 100 years the BBC choose the man who lead an organisation in the public's mind intrinsically linked with the terrorist organisation that blew up and killed the Queen's uncle, Lord Mountbatten, in 1979. Only the BBC, only the bloody BBC would think that was a good idea.

I cannot believe that it was a mistake, surely someone would have said 'hold on a minute' is that a good idea, is that in any way tasteful? Oh my mistake it was the BBC where Gerry Adams is something of a hero and the death of a member of the royal family is of no moment.


It has taken me 15 minutes to write this piece as I carefully considered how to describe the relationship between Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and the Privisional IRA. So here is part of Wikipedia's entry on Sinn Fein's 'links with the IRA:

'Sinn Féin is the largest group in the Republican wing of Irish nationalism and is closely associated with the IRA, with the Irish Government alleging that senior members of Sinn Féin have held posts on the IRA Army Council.^[48] However, the SF leadership has denied these claims.^[49]

A republican document of the early 1980s states, "Both Sinn Féin and the IRA play different but converging roles in the war of national liberation. The Irish Republican Army wages an armed campaign... Sinn Féin maintains the propaganda war and is the public and political voice of the movement".^[50]
Sinn Féin organiser Danny Morrison at the party's Ard Fheis (Annual Conference) in 1981, said:

"Who here really believes we can win the war through the ballot box? But will anyone here object if, with a ballot paper in this hand and an Armalite in the other, we take power in Ireland?"^[32]

The British Government stated in 2005 that "we had always said all the way through we believed that Sinn Féin and the IRA were inextricably linked and that had obvious implications at leadership level".^[51]

The robbery of £26.5 million from the Northern Bank in Belfast in December 2004 further scuppered chances of a deal. The IRA were blamed for the robbery^[52] though Sinn Féin denied this and stated that party officials had not known of the robbery nor sanctioned it.^[53] Because of the timing of the robbery, it is considered that the plans for the robbery must have been laid whilst Sinn Féin was engaged in talks about a possible peace settlement. This undermined confidence within the unionist community about the sincerity of republicans towards reaching agreement. In the aftermath of the row over the robbery, a further controversy erupted when, on RTÉ's Questions and Answers programme, the chairman of Sinn Féin, Mitchel McLaughlin, insisted that the IRA's controversial killing of a mother of ten young children, Jean McConville, in the early 1970s though "wrong", was not a crime, as it had taken place in the context of the political conflict. Politicians from the Republic, along with the Irish media strongly attacked McLaughlin's comments.^[54][55]
...

Gerry Adams responded to the IMC report by challenging the Irish Government to have him arrested for IRA membership, a crime in both jurisdictions, and conspiracy.^[59]
On 20 February 2005, Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell publicly accused three of the Sinn Féin leadership, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris (TD for Kerry North) of being on the seven-man IRA Army Council which they later denied.^[60][61]

On 27 February 2005, a demonstration against the murder of Robert McCartney on 30 January 2005 was held in East Belfast. Alex Maskey, a former Sinn Féin Mayor of Belfast, was told by relatives of McCartney to demand that Maskey "hand over the 12" IRA members involved.^[62][63][64] The McCartney family, though formerly Sinn Féin voters themselves, urged witnesses to the crime to contact the PSNI.Three IRA men were expelled from the organisation, and a man was charged with McCartney's murder.^[65][66]

Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern subsequently called Sinn Féin and the IRA "both sides of the same coin".^[67] The ostracism of Sinn Féin was shown in February 2005 when Dáil Éireann passed a motion condemning the party's alleged involvement in illegal activity. US President George W. Bush and Senator Edward Kennedy refused to meet Gerry Adams while meeting the family of Robert McCartney.^[68]

^...

In March 2005, Mitchell Reiss, the United States special envoy to Northern Ireland, condemned the party's links to the IRA, saying "it is hard to understand how a European country in the year 2005 can have a private army associated with a political party".^[70]'

Those delightful 'lefties', how much nicer they are than the 'nasty Tories'

These posters have started appearing in North London and show the sheer loveliness that spews from many leftists. Could this sort of poster be seen as incitement, or would a court see it as free speech?

This sort of attitude is actively assisted by the reporting of such as The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC who keep reporting on the 'costs of the Royal Family. I did demolish this one-sided argument last November, here's how:

'The BBC and various anti-monarchist groups are misrepresenting the cost of the UK monarchy again and this has annoyed me. This piece repeats the familiar misrepresentation that:

'The total cost of keeping the monarchy was £38.2m during the 2009-10 financial year, a drop of 7.9% (£3.3m) on the previous year.'

This looks at just one side of the equation: the costs of the Civil List which is soon to be replaced by the awfully named "sovereign support grant". The other side that is as usual ignored is that in 1760 it was decided that the entire cost of the Civil List should be paid by Parliament in return for the monarch surrendering his hereditary revenues from the Crown Estate to Parliament for the duration of George III's reign. This agreement with some alterations is still in place today.

So how much is the The Crown Estate worth to the UK taxpayer? The last figures I saw was around £190 million a year.

So why does the BBC insist on repeating the cost of the Royal Family <£40 million a year but ignores the income forgone by them in return for the civil list of around £190 million?'

Thanks to Archbishop Cranmer for the poster spot.