It is all change in the United Kingdom.

No other period in history has had such a profound effect upon the people of this country than the period that began with the swearing in of our shiny new prime minister, Liz Truss.

Normally, the monarch’s acceptance of the new prime minister took place at Buckingham Palace in London, but there was “concern” for the health of the other Liz, Queen Elizabeth II. So, with great reluctance, the people behind the scenes decided that Ms Truss should travel to Balmoral, the royal castle in Scotland, for the ritualistic meeting between Her Majesty and the prime minister.

There is no video of the event, but some photographs; and when those photographs were released later in the day (September 6), they were shocking.

Just three months on from the Platinum Jubilee celebrations, Queen Elizabeth had looked the picture of health back in June in comparison with the tiny, frail stick insect that stood before her 15th prime minister. The arm that reached out to shake Ms Truss’ hand was covered in purple bruising, a clear sign of “mottling,” which occurs when the heart is unable to pump blood to the vital organs in the body. The monarch’s face was puffy but smiling, and the final photo of the Queen, standing alone in front of the fireplace, was the saddest and most shocking of all. It was indeed clear that the end was nigh.

Quite how nigh it was came as a shock to both the Royal Family and to the country as a whole. Initially, the Queen’s children and grandchildren continued life as normal, perhaps burying their heads in the sand in respect of just how seriously ill their matriarch and the country’s head of state was. As someone who has gone through the death of a parent, as I’m sure one, if not both, of my readers have as well, I can’t blame the Royal Family for this, because I did the same thing, too, when my mother died.

Within 48 hours of the meeting of with Liz Truss, Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth for 70 years and 214 days, was dead. As a news reporter said on the day of the Queen’s death, she was the rock upon which modern Britain was built. Three out of every four people in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the rest of the Commonwealth, did not know of life with any other monarch except Elizabeth.

I am no monarchist. I instinctively find the idea of an hereditary monarchy abhorrent. Why should we curtsey and call someone “Sir,” or “Ma’am,” just because someone else has decided that these people should be born into a higher position in a society than me? Nobody bows and scrapes in front of me just because I can play Paul McCartney’s “Blackbird”?

But I also love history – and, in the case of England, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, France, Germany, Spain – indeed, just about any civilised or uncivilised society in the history of the world, has or has had some form of monarchy at its head. Some nations have replaced their monarch with a president, i.e. they have become a republic, but that president is still treated with the same degree of reverence we give to royalty, so what’s the difference? Ah yes, it’s the fact that they were voted into office, no matter how corrupt the election process was, they still had an election process.

And if you love history, you’ve got to deal with a history of various monarchies, and monarchic dynasties. No matter how disgusted you might feel about the idea of it all, you have to deal with it, because you cannot change the past by hating it. I know – I’ve tried.

Anyone with a pulse will know that for the 10-day period of “official mourning”, the United Kingdom came to a virtual standstill. Well…that’s not strictly true, life did carry on to a certain degree, I still got my Morrison’s shopping delivered, went to the dentist, and so on, but let’s say life continued but with a black tie on.

On Monday 19th September 2022, an extra Bank Holiday was declared in the UK, ostensibly to allow the public to watch the state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II on the telly. And watch it they seem to have done – 28 million of us, that’s almost half the country – watched the funeral according to preliminary viewing figures. That would be equivalent to about 150 million in the United States, or 800 million in China. I haven’t heard those kind of viewing numbers since the Morecambe and Wise Christmas TV specials in the 1970s.

So now we have a new sovereign, King Charles III, the first with that moniker since the father/son team in the 17th Century. Charles’ first namesake is remembered in our history as being the only monarch to have been beheaded by his subjects as a traitor for proclaiming the Divine Right of Kings and, for 11 years at least, England (and Scotland and Wales) became a republic.

In 1660, however, Charles II returned and the monarchy was restored – with some changes, of course, which eventually led to the monarch’s current status as a constitutional one; seen more as a figurehead and used more or less as a mascot for state occasions rather than being one who actually made any meaningful decisions on how the country is run. The monarch merely gives his or her assent to the decisions made by the government of the day. But the monarch is still in his or her position by birth-right, you still have to bow and scrape, but you know who’s really in charge.

At no other time in the history of these islands has there ever been a change of prime minister and a change of monarch within 48 hours of each other.

These are indeed extraordinary times, and while King Charles III still looks a little like a rabbit in the headlights, not being sure and being guided as to what to do next, Liz Truss has hit the ground running, and has made it abundantly clear as to who she is going to cut taxes for, and who she is going to send into abject poverty with rising oil prices, rising cost of living, and longer and longer queues for medical appointments at NHS hospital, for which she will pretend that she can do nothing.

We know who really is in charge, don’t we? x

Just recently, I watched a video on YouTube by the historian Dr David Starkey. He is an expert in tying up the events of the past in Britain’s history with those of the present. Historians have an annoying habit of speaking about historical events in the present tense, as though they are happening now; but in Dr Starkey’s case, there is at least an obvious reason for it. It’s because it is happening now.

On September 8, 2022, an innocuous-sounding date on its own, an historical event occurred: the death of the longest-reigning monarch in English – or British – history, the late Queen Elizabeth II. The list of historical events that have taken place during her reign is eye-watering: our American friends may be interested to know who their president was when we last had a change of monarch: it was Harry S. Truman, the only president – in fact, the only leader in the history of this planet – to use nuclear weapons in anger.

Whatever your interest or area of expertise in life, have a quick think back to who its leading light was back on February 6, 1952, the date of the last accession to the throne of a British monarch. Have a little look back on how much your little corner of knowledge has changed, or developed, since the lyrics of ‘God Save the King’ became ‘God Save the Queen.’

Now that those lyrics have changed back again, much is uncertain; but was is certain is that the new King Charles III will not reign, if that word can still be applied to a ceremonial figurehead, for as long as his mother did. And, even if he does, I will not be around to be proved wrong.

But hang on, you hear me cry, what has 1707 got to do with anything? First of all, let me establish something: there is certainly longevity in the genes of our beloved British monarchy: King Charles III is only the thirteenth accession to the “throne” of Britain since Queen Anne did so on 1 May 1707.

When Queen Anne, the last surviving monarch of the House of Stuart, became queen of Great Britain and Ireland in 1707, she had already been monarch of England, Scotland and Ireland for over five years.

Huh???

I said, when Queen Anne, the last surviving monarch of the House of Stuart…

Listen, I’m not deef, I heard you the first time. I just think you’re spouting gibberish!

I’m not spouting gibberish; I assure you I’m making perfect sense. In 1707, Queen Anne signed the Acts of Union – that is, she signed the second of the two Acts of Union which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, effectively dissolving itself, and forming what we know know of as Great Britain – the union of the three states of England, Scotland and Wales, all governed by the Parliament at Westminster. Ireland, like Scotland had before it, remained a separate state but sharing, for the time being at least, its monarch with the new Great Britain.

The first Act had already been passed by the English parliament in 1706, so Queen Anne already knew she was going to have to surrender one of her crowns to herself. The first Union of the Crowns, in 1603, occurred when the outgoing English monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, died without issue, leaving her throne to her double first cousin twice removed, King James VI of Scotland (thence King James I of England). But this so-called Union, despite its being referred to as a single crown, was nothing of the sort – merely an acknowledgement by the monarch to reign over two states as though they were one, but in fact they weren’t. Despite Great Britain’s existence on paper, it didn’t really exist in practice.

When James I became king in 1603, I believe it was his intention to unite England and Scotland completely. But the English parliament in Westminster – and, probably, with some justification – feared that it was the King’s intention to rule over England with the same degree of absolutism as he was used to in Scotland. Westminster said, “No!” The king tried again in 1610; Westminster said, “No!” The king died in 1625 and his son, Charles I, tried several times and each time Westminster said, “No!” In fact, they said no with increasing ferocity, to the point where, in 1642, a civil war erupted between the King’s troops and the Parliamentary ones. Parliament was ultimately triumphant and, in 1649, it cut off its monarch’s head. If ever England was without a Head of State, it was then.

After an 11-year interregnum, the late King’s son, who had fled to The Netherlands or France or somewhere, was restored to the English, and Scottish, throne(s), as Charles II, in 1660. But, although united, the English and Scottish crowns were still separate ones. And, to make matters worse, Charles II died in 1685 without any legitimate children. It fell to the late King’s brother, as James II, to assume the throne(s).

But, there was a problem that someone forgot to foresee. James II was Catholic.

Arrrgghhh….if he was only anything else but Catholic. It turns out that, while your average Joe on the street (if they could be called streets – those muddy, plague-ridden dirt tracks that passed for streets in those days) was largely tolerant of someone’s religion, that already over-privileged band of men elected to Parliament weren’t.

Don’t forget, at that time, England and Scotland – despite sharing a monarch – were still separate sovereign states. That’s important to remember for the time being. Anyway, both Parliaments flatly refused to pass any of the king’s measures into law. James II returned to the old mantras that had served his father Charles I so badly, and basically told his parliaments, I am your king, appointed by God, no man can get in the way of that, you’ll do as you’re told.

Oh, here we go again, said the parliaments.

When James II had a son, James, on 10 June 1688, both England and Scotland breathed a sharp-intake of breath, as the prospect of a Catholic dynasty became a reality that no Parliamentarian seemed to be able to stomach. His daughter, Mary, already 26 years old, was Protestant. I told you it was complicated.

Within weeks of the royal birth, James had seven bishops tried for seditious libel. This was even more complicated. Despite being staunchly Catholic, King James issued a series of Declarations of Indulgence, in which citizens of both England and Scotland could all enjoy the same liberties in religious practice whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Scottish Presbyterian, whatever.

Yet the established churches, the Church of England and the Scottish Presbyterians, both objected to it, despite the fact that they could have enjoyed much more tolerance from their Catholic monarch. They objected to it because the Declaration had no specified limitations; in other words, you could be any denomination you liked – or, worse still, Jewish, Islamist, Buddhist or Jedi*. (*Just kidding. There was no such thing as Jedi then.)

The king then tried the old classic trick of, we are the King, we have Supreme Authority, you will obey us without reserve. The king had already gotten rid of both the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1685 and 1686 respectively, and now he attempted the same with the established churches. Seven bishops who refused to read the king’s Declaration in church were tried for sedition, which is basically an attempt to lead people against the ruling authority. They were acquitted on 30 June 1688, but it was already too late. The King’s authority was gone. Another civil war seemed inevitable; only the arrival of William of Orange and his wife Mary (remember? James II’s Protestant daughter) on British shores in November 1688 prevented that war, and James was kicked off the throne.

This restored the relative stability in Britain, or so they thought. It wasn’t over yet. Mary II seemed fit and healthy, yet she contracted smallpox in 1694 – but even that was complicated. At first, she seemed to recover, and it was thought that she had suffered from a minor form of the illness, or perhaps even measles. But it was not the case – her illness had simply turned inward and she died on December 28, leaving her husband William to rule alone. This he did until 1702, when he too died, leaving the country without issue once again. Why can’t anything be simple, eh?

So it was up to his sister-in-law, cousin and heir Queen Anne to take the throne and try to introduce some stability in this country for a change, which she did by signing the Acts of Union in 1707. All Anne had to do was get pregnant…

Anne had a whopping seventeen pregnancies during her lifetime, and of these, sixteen were dead before the age of two. The seventeenth, William, duke of Gloucester, died at the age of 11 in 1700, the same year Anne experienced her final stillbirth pregnancy, all before she became queen. Whether she or Parliament expected her to expect again, she was to die in 1714 without further issue, causing the Privy Council to look to Germany for the next monarch, George I of Hanover.

George I became king because the other claimant, James Stuart – remember, son of James II? – was Catholic, and therefore not the rightful heir. William III had signed the Act of Settlement in 1701, meaning that subsequent claimants to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland could only be Protestant.

And it was upon that basis that King Charles III signed his accession to the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (added later; a whole other story) last Friday.

So Charles III has vowed unequivocally to uphold the values of the Protestant Church of England – despite fact that he must surely be at loggerheads with his own church leaders by being the first monarch in English history to ascend the throne as a divorcee. It seems they have gotten round this by proclaiming Charles’ wife, Camilla, not as Queen but as Queen Consort. Oh, that’s all right, then…

In case anyone is wondering why I am anti-monarchist, it is for the above, and other, reasons. I don’t, as some do, object to them as people; I’m sure they’re all great at parties. Indeed, I happen to think that William, the future William V, would make an excellent king. But it is the sheer level of hypocrisy behind the scenes merely for the sake of keeping the tradition of a constitutional monarchy going, allowing a hapless family to live a life of luxury and privilege for which all they have to do is shake hands with us ordinary folk all day long.

Therefore, when I see videos go viral just because Charles is waving dismissively at his staff to remove a pen case off the table, I just place my metaphorical head in my metaphorical hands and go, you don’t know the half of it. If that’s the best you can do to demand that King Charles III abdicates the throne then you need to go back to your history books and study them carefully.

It always happens to the Charles’, doesn’t it. Charles I was beheaded for demanding the Absolute Right of Kings, Charles II died without issue leaving James II demand the Absolute Right of Kings and force his own abdication…and Charles III told someone to remove a box of pens.

Many dismiss Dr Starkey’s gifts as a historian because of his tendency to over-dramatise even current events, never mind historical ones, but I happen to think he is an excellent historian, one of our greatest, with a magnificent ability to tie the events of the past with those of today and make us understand the truths of what is unfolding right in front of our eyes.

The last time we had a coronation, in 1953, there was no Elvis, there was no Beatles. There was no Clint Eastwood, there was no Olivia Newton-John. Albert Einstein, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Jean Sibelius and Igor Stravinsky were all still alive. Even the great Cliff Richard was only 12. Thus it is little wonder that much of the Commonwealth – and indeed the rest of the world that knew and recognised Elizabeth II as a Head of State – is looking on with dazed amazement at the events unfolding in the United Kingdom today. Anyone under the age of 75 is not likely to remember any other sovereign except Queen Elizabeth II.

Yet the machine that took over once she breathed her last at Balmoral last Thursday afternoon was as well-oiled and well-rehearsed as any that has been invented or created in the last 70 years, because they have had centuries of tradition upon which to base their actions. And don’t forget one group of individuals who are as stunned as we are – not one of them doesn’t look as though they have been hit by a 50-ton truck in recent days – and that is the royal family themselves. Not one of them looks as though they have the slightest clue what is going on, or what is supposed to happen next. Thank goodness they have that well-oiled machine working in the background for them to point them in the right direction. x

Dearest Reader(s):

We are about to become victims of the biggest robbery this country – and possibly the world – has ever known.

We have been warned – threatened – by the UK government that our energy prices are about to go through the proverbial roof from October. This is on top of the increases that many have experienced for most of 2022, if not before.

This has struck terror in the hearts of many citizens of the UK, as they wonder how they are going to find the money to pay for this same energy that, just one month ago, cost significantly less.

In the UK, there is a so-called ‘regulator’ for energy supplies, and, like all other British ‘regulators,’ it begins with the letters ‘Of’ – in this case, Ofgem. As I’ve said already, many households in the UK have experienced massive price rises already and, instead of looking out for the consumer like a regulator is supposed to do, it raised its cap on energy prices – in other words, the maximum amount an energy company could charge its customers.

On 26 August 2022, Ofgem announced that it was raising its price cap from an average of £1,971 per household to £3,549! That’s a rise, in one go, of around 80%.

This is unbelievable. But, you know what, instead of saying, you know, our customers are paying enough as it is for something that is essentially intangible, so we’ll keep the prices as they are for now, you could almost hear the drools of saliva hit the floor as the shareholders and senior executives saw just how much money they could make instantly.

It’s out-fucking-rageous.

I would like to ask our brand spanking new prime minister Liz Truss – rhetorically of course – a few questions.

First – is this almost nightmarish price hike a piece of fake news, designed so that your first act as prime minister will be to find a mythical £100bn of public money – tax-payers’ money – to fund payments to every household to cover this hike, so that they will feel more inclined to vote for you should you decide to call, I don’t know, a snap election in the near future and guarantee yourself five years as an elected prime minister with an elected government and a mandate?

Secondly, and giving you the benefit of the doubt on the first question, and assuming this £100bn to be genuine, which is scary, where is this money coming from? From government borrowing, eh? Adding it to the national debt, eh?

This question in itself invokes so many sub-questions, it is difficult to know where to begin. First of all, isn’t that precisely the sort of fiscal policy that might be suggested by someone like, I don’t know, Jeremy Corbyn, the most arch-Labour leader Labour has had since the days of Wilson and Callaghan, ie, pre-new Labour, and the leader that put that party back forty years from which it still stands no chance of recovering? That leader they’ve got now, sounds like the school bully in the year above moaning to the teacher while his voice is just breaking. Gimme an ‘H’! Gimme an ‘-opeless!’ What have you got? Sir Kier Starmer.

I digress, as ever. Apparently, the man tipped to be Ms Truss’ new chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, wrote recently in the Financial Times that to pay for the PM-elect’s plan, the growth rate of the economy will just magically be increased to pay for the extra burden of debt, partly funded by…oh God, I can barely bring myself to write these words…shrinking the public sector.

Christ! The British public is now exactly where the Tories want them – too cynical and jaded to even get upset beyond writing a few cheap and insulting comments on BBC News, or perhaps a blog such as this one. There’s too much at stake – too much telly to miss, too many liberties are at risk if you were to take to the streets and protest, for example. No, the time for that is gone, and the Tories know it. That’s why the government is allowing Ofgem, on behalf of the energy suppliers, to get away with this.

Of course, we have to be careful when we say ‘energy suppliers,’ because we are actually just talking about a few men and women at the top – not the actual energy suppliers who come to your home and turn on your energy, and/or fix it when it inevitably goes wrong. And, doubtless, they take 99% of the misdirected heat from the customers too afraid to tackle the people who will really benefit from all this.

Make no mistake – just because your energy bills will be going up 80% in October, after the 24% rise here and the 37% rise there – your energy is not going to be 80% better quality, is it? You’re still going to have to call out the engineers just as often, wait in call centre queues for just as long, or tied to ridiculously lengthy contracts just because they gave you a nice pen.

Ofgem’s website (https://www.ofgem.gov.uk) is, unsurprisingly, rather low-key about the destruction they are about to wreak on the finances of many households in Britain. You can get help, they say, or maybe even a grant, if you can’t afford your energy bills. They recognise the fact that everybody needs to use energy of some sort, but their automatic right to take your money regardless whether the price hike is worthy or justified is a given.

I actually LOL’ed (Laughed Out Loud, for the less clued-up to the lingo) when I saw Ofgem’s definition of the price cap as a “backstop protection from the government, calculated by Ofgem.”

Since gas prices are suddenly at a 30-year high, (that’s the excuse that the government’s ‘regulator’ are using (I’m sorry, I just cannot write the word ‘regulator’ without ‘inverted commas’ around it) and our bills are going up by around 80% of what they are now (that’s after the other rises), does this mean the following:

• That everything that needs energy to be manufactured – bread, cars, jewellery, puppets, Elvis wigs – are going to go up by a similar percentage so that those manufacturers can cover their own costs?
• That all of the staff who work for the energy companies – the engineers, the fitters, the call centre staff, are all going to have their wages increased by anything like 80%? No, of course not! You’re lucky if you can squeeze 1% out of them! Funny, that…
• That the salaries of the staff that we have really needed over these past two and a half years – doctors, nurses and other hospital staff – will be increased by anything like 80%? No! We saw how the government, and the local NHS Trusses (ho, ho! I bet that joke will come up at some point in the tabloid press – you’re welcome!) have thanked their staff for all their hard work and commitment.

Oh, and back to this squeezing of the public sector that Mr Kwarteng wrote about in his recent article? We know that the Conservatives will use any and every excuse to do exactly that – sack one more librarian, one more road sweeper, one more rubbish bin operative. How is that going to help when the smell of shit starts wafting through Windsor, Kew, Westminster, and rural Sussex? Your collective Tory turds are going to be blocking up your pipes because there’s no-one to fix your drains.

The very same CEOs of these energy companies are going to have to make use of their new yachts to escape the smell of their own shit – but make sure you have returned your library books and put them back on the shelf yourself, otherwise the machine will generate an automated notice of a small fine on it, and your world will come collapsing around you.

And what’s going to happen when COVID comes back, as it inevitably will, because it’s never gone away, has it? Where will all the district nurses be to administer whatever vaccine is the flavour of the week? You’ll be asking for even more volunteers to do the job for no pay.

There we are. Welcome to post-Brexit Britain. Yes, energy prices are rising sharply across Europe, but the UK still holds the 2nd place for the highest cost of electricity per unit in Europe. How this equates with the gas prices I don’t know. All I do know is that there will be many people across the UK who will be struggling to feed their families – not just because of the price hikes themselves, but because of the tax and inflation that is sure to follow.

Hopefully, the British public will wise up to the fact that they can no longer trust the major political parties to look after them and put their best interest first; we need to take a chance and elect the GREEN PARTY who will convert all our energy to renewable, and give Putin the middle finger with his blackmailing and grabbing us by the balls. x