“A Lie Is Halfway Round the World Before the Truth Has Got Its Boots On.”
That seems to apply to the ratings headlines about the funeral of Elizabeth Windsor. Papers like the Daily Mail, but other sources that are genuine news outlets, repeated that 5 billion would watch the funeral. Given the population of the world is only 8 billion that seemed really high.
That is 62% of the world’s population which seemed crazy to me – after all to the Dar East it would happen in the small hours of the morning and to the far West late at night. In Europe (and the rest of the world) people would have been at work. There are people in the world who have no access to a TV (or streaming services); countries where it was not shown (China anyone?) and countries where the Royal Family is not admired.
In the UK it was shown on every BBC, ITV and Sky labelled channel (though not on Comedy Central, UK Gold, etc). Despite this the viewing figures were under 29 million. Even allowing for streaming it will not be 30 million. This means that, despite giving an extra bank holiday and blitzing the channels, the viewing figure is lower than the European Championship final last year.
It is about 44% of the UK population. Now I think that it is incredibly unlikely that other countries are actually more interested than the UK in this event. The genuine figure may be somewhere around 2 billion viewers worldwide, that is high but not the record-breaking level being screamed about in advance. Things have definitely gone quiet about figures post funeral.
(Also more people were on the streets in London for Notting Hill Carnival, the Rejoin march and the Pride Paarade than the funeral).
Why does this matter? The figure is used to show how popular the monarchy is and how anyone protesting about the blanket coverage is wrong. It also buys into a myth of British exceptionalism that is so dangerous as this country somehow thinks rules do apply internally or externally.
Which leads me to the coverage in general. I still do not understand why channels have to show it on every station – either on the day of her death or the funeral. Surely BBC1 and ITV1 can show it and have a banner on other channels? It is 2022 not 1901. The TV stations were criticised in 1997 for this blanket coverage of Diana’s funeral and stated that they had misjudged the situation and would not do it again (it was the most complained about in history at that time). There is a lot of vague stuff about Respect – why do we have to show it this way? There was no necessity to cancel sports activities or stop showing comedy on BBC – yet football stopped and no comedies were seen.
We laugh at North Korean coverage of their leaders – a huge number of people do it in the UK without the threats. Sheep are easier to keep under control.
I have written about my total incomprehension at this mourning for someone you have never met https://fivemilesout.home.blog/2020/04/10/weve-all-gone-crazy/ and I still remain totally bemused. 96 year old woman dies is not news – 96 year old woman lives another year maybe news. Diana’s was more understandable as she was young and her death not anticipated – it was blatantly obvious that this death was on the cards given medical reports (if you do not read Private Eye you may not have known – just goes to show that you should).
The whole mourning period acted as an unquestioning act of support for the monarchy – this is important as the Royal firm is fully aware of the fact that Charles is far less popular than his predecessor. People who protested were arrested with the either “it is the wrong time” or “you should not protest at anyone’s death” as the lines taken (interestingly none of the people who usually scream about cancel culture or freedom of speech had a word to say – only freedom of speech for right wing views it seems, though David Davis MP is an honourable exception to that).
The first of these “reasons” sounds just like the Republican Party in the USA when there is a school shooting – the wrong time, yet it is exactly the time because later the emotional impetus is gone. The second “reason” misses the point that if other people die it is not turned into a public event; once you make it a public event the public have a right to disagree. Idiots who were online saying it was disrespectful to post anything but slavish adoration because it might upset the Royal Family – really? They read my Facebook feed? They read groups like Tegan Delete This FFS? No way.
I admit I am a Republican. I wrote a blog about it https://wordpress.com/stats/post/2213/fivemilesout.home.blog
Remember these points.
- The Royal Family are not rich in their own right. Everything they have really belongs to the British State – Norman Baker has written about this extensively. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not theirs and they have used funds from the Civil List to invest when they should have been returned to the nation when not spent. Do not argue about it until you read the books.
- Royal wills are sealed. David McLure in https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Legacy-family-passed-wealth/dp/191019865X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=4E9PZDAQSUCJ&keywords=a+royal+legacy+david&qid=1663834932&sprefix=a+royal+legacy+david%2Caps%2C70&sr=8-1 shows how this has been used to avoid tax. On a prior royal death the estate was valued at £50 million – though no one could see the will. Very soon afterwards a fraction of the jewellery collection was sold for more than this (let alone the other assets) – though this lead a to a capital gains tax it meant that vast amounts of inheritance tax were lost to the state forever. This was not investigated. The sale also showed that items that belonged to the nation were being treated as personal wealth by members of the royal family – many had to be removed from the sale and it still mad that money.
- The monarch gets prior approvals of bills that may affect them and their wealth. Why do equality and animal legislation not apply on royal land in royal property? 160 separate pieces of legislation do not apply.
- One argument for a monarch is that they are independent in a way that no elected person could be. On the one occasion that she had to stand up the Queen agreed to prorogue Parliament illegally – showing a monarch is no constitutional barrier to a liar and corruption narcissist like Johnson.
- Elizabeth paid off the accusers of the Prince who can not sweat. That is £12 million pounds of our money so that he is safe and can still go to Pizza Express in Woking.
- The Queen was complicit in the overthrow of the legal government of Australia in 1975 and huge amounts of money were spent trying to hide this – see this book by Jenny Hocking https://smile.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B089KT97BB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o03?ie=UTF8&psc=1
- Just remember when they talk about how cheap the monarchy they do not include any security costs. We are still providing round the clock coverage for minor royals – it costs phenomenal amount when police forces cannot even respond to crimes like burglary.
So, we get to pay for a huge funeral event while the country is in massive debt and people cannot afford food or heating. Homeless people get no state support but people queuing to file past the coffin get blankets handed out? What a bloody disgrace. And we will get more next year when the coronation happens. When we crown a king who takes bags of cash from dictatorships.
Keep the monarchy as a kind of British Disney spectacle but take away constitutional powers and their embezzled wealth. Make it self-funding, including security costs then I will not care if the sheep want to play the game, just let the smart people not have to pay for this shit.
This is a track by Rainbow, sung by one of my favourite vocalists – Ronnie James Dio.
NOT MY KING
Five Miles Out 