bbc northampton phone-in on the british monarchy 28/10/2009

8/14/2019 BBC Northampton Phone-in on the British Monarchy 28/10/2009

1/23

BBC Northamptonshirephone-in on the monarchy - a transcriptPrepared by Steve Smedley ([email protected])

suffolkcoastalrepublic.org

On 28th October 2009 BBC Northamptonshire broadcast a phone-in programme,

hosted by Stuart Linnell, discussing the pros and cons of the monarchy. The

programme went out between 13:00 and 14:00. As well as calls, text messages and

emails from the public, the programme featured contributions from a number of

experts (in order of appearance):

Michael Ellis: a barrister with over 15 years' experience, specialising in criminal law.

Michael has extensive broadcasting experience in royal and constitutional matters and

subjects relating to the monarchy and the law. In December 2006 Mr Ellis was also

selected and adopted as the Conservative Partys Prospective Parliamentary Candidate

for the constituency of Northampton North.

Graham Smith: Campaign Manager and Executive Officer of Republic, an

independent pressure group campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy in favour

of a new republican constitution. Previously Graham has been involved in local and

community politics both in the UK and in Australia, where he lived for most of his

twenties. Graham is regularly on TV and radio and writes articles about the monarchy

and constitutional reform for the Guardians Comment is Free site. He is also studying

politics and development with the Open University.

Caroline Aston: a writer and broadcaster who regularly features as a royalty

specialist on BBC Radio Leicester, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire. She has also

broadcast on Radio 4, 5 Live and BBC Scotland. With Anne Davies she also appears on

stage as Aston and Annie, performing historical-themed skits.

Richard Barber: a prominent British historian who has writes and publishes in the

field of medieval history and literature. His other major interest is historical biography.

He has published on Henry Plantagenet and among his other books is the standard

biography of Edward the Black Prince, Edward Prince of Wales and Aquitaine .

Page 1 of 23


2/23

The presenter, Stuart Linnell has been in local radio since 1970 and has worked on

both commercial and non-commercial stations in Birmingham, Coventry, Derby,

Sheffield, Leicester, and elsewhere. Among other awards he has received three Sony

Awards, including a Gold Award in 1997 for the best speech-based breakfast show.

Disclaimer

Every effort has been made to ensure that this transcript is as accurate as possible.

However, this document should not be taken as a definitive record of what was said by

any of the participants during the show.

Note

Althorp House, family home of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and the Spencer

family, is in Northamptonshire. The views expressed by some of the callers to the

show might be expected to reflect the particularly close links that the local area has to

the Spencers in general, and Diana, Princess of Wales, in particular.

Page 2 of 23


3/23

The transcript

[Broadcast begins shortly after13:00]

[Stuart Linnell ]:"Taking your calls now, then, between one o'clock and two with our phone-insequence on the monarchy. Is it relevant? Does it still have a place in our society today?

[Break]

"Carol and Peter have both called to point out that my maths - my spelling might be alright but mymaths are hopeless. Price Charles is, indeed, 61 next month not 63, you're quite right, he is 61 nextmonth but the point is: the Canadians say he's out of date and out of touch. The Australians aren'tkeen on the Royal Family so should we be? Is the monarchy irrelevant? Is it pointless? Should we

just dispense of [ sic ] it? Do call and tell us what you think.

[Break]

[SL]: "Sometimes, perhaps, the Prince of Wales gets up in the morning and thinks he just can't win.He's going to take his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, to Canada very shortly for a twelve-dayroyal visit and just as they're preparing to set off a group of people called "Friends of the RoyalFamily in Canada" - bear that in mind, "Friends of the Royal Family in Canada" - have conducted asurvey which shows that he is out of date and out of touch."

[Break]

[SL]: "So we're asking today about the monarchy. Canada thinks that they should not be a king or queen as head of state. They think the whole point of the monarchy is, well, it's lost its point, really.

Now Australia, as we know, has been campaigning for some time, factions in Australia, to removethe monarchy's role or reduce the monarchy's role in terms of that country. They don't want to

know, so maybe we should follow suit. Maybe we should just say that we should consign the royalfamily and the monarchy to the dustbin of history. Let's just get rid of the royal family altogether if people really think like that. What do you think? That's what we'd like to know. Is the royalfamily, is the monarchy irrelevant? What's the point of the Prince of Wales? We'd like to hear your thoughts, please."

[Break]

[SL]: "How relevant is the royal family? Are they just a waste of time and money?"

Page 3 of 23


4/23

[Break]

[SL]: "Miss Frost and Anna B. working on the show with us today taking your calls at the moment.Anna what's your thoughts about the royal family? I mean, do they have a relevance today? Do

they resonate in your life? Do they mean anything to you?"

[Anna B. ]: "I think they're quite important to Britain because of the tourism factor. I think we get alot of people coming to visit Britain because of the royal family. So in that case, I think they are,they are still relevant."

[SL]: "Does that make them, because tourists come here to see Buckingham Palace, to see thechanging of the guard, maybe catch a glimpse of the queen, that makes it worthwhile keeping themon, does it?

[AB]: "Well, it's all that pomp and ceremony, isn't it, and that's what Britain is famous for."

[SL]: "What do you think Miss Frost?"

[Miss Frost ]: "I think, I'm quite for them but I think maybe there are too many, I think that kind of they've lost, they've lost their, kind of, the significance, and the, you know when they were a bit moreremoved and a bit more, kind of, you know, respected in society, they were good but now they'rekind of falling out of night clubs and, you know, like, you know about Harry and Chelsea, and, it'sall become a bit, you know, I just think that maybe they've kind of, lowered the tone of the royal

family a bit."

[SL]: "So the younger ones have let the queen down basically?"

[MF]: "I think so, and I think that, you know, I just think that if there was a smaller group of themthat were kind of respected and revered more it would be more, it would have more, you know, theywould have more kind of significance. But I think now there's just too many of them, and they're abit more, they've turned into celebrities now instead of like royalty which I think is a different thing."

[SL]: "So do you think we should, in that case, just say that, because the younger members of theroyal family do what they've done, do you think we should say "enough's enough, let's call time onit"?

[MF]: "I wouldn't be as extreme as that, but I think that definitely, you know, there should only be,they should be kind of whittled down, definitely."

[SL]: "Reduce the numbers of the members of the royal family that are around, that's Miss Frost'ssolution. But should we just discard the monarchy altogether? I'd like to hear what you think."

[Break]

[SL]: "Well joining me now on the programme is Joan Berry, and Joan, you've got particular views

Page 4 of 23


5/23

about the Prince of Wales, haven't you?"

[Joan Berry ]: "Yes, very strong views about Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles."

[SL]: "Why are your views so strong, what views do you hold particularly?"

[JB]: "Because of the way he betrayed his wife, having an adulterous affair behind her back, and she's the same, she betrayed her husband, and as far as I'm concerned he's not fit to be king."

[SL]: "Do you not think we should let bygones be bygones and put the past behind us and allowthem to get on with their lives?"

[JB]: "No. Let them get on with their lives, as long as it doesn't involve running our country. Yes,by all means. I don't see why he, him and her should be going out to Canada. All that, all that they're doing is Prince Charles is taking her out there, he's trying to get her accepted because

people will not accept her, even though they've been married four years she will, the opinion pollsin the papers still show she will never be accepted."

[SL]: "So even if the day comes when Prince Charles, who is of course, he's facing his 63rd birthday very shortly, when the day comes that he does become king you don't think that she wouldever be accepted as Queen Camilla?"

[JB]: "Definitely not."

[SL]: "What if that were to happen, what if, what if, what if the Prince of Wales becomes KingCharles and then his wife then is regarded as the Queen, she's called the Queen? What would youdo about that Joan? What would your attitude be?"

[JB]: "Well I'd, I, I'd certainly write to the government about it because they have a lot of input in it and I just hope and pray the queen, she's just, as far as I'm concerned where the queen is she'sdoing a sterling job for her age, she's marvelous, and I just hope and pray she can keep going aslong as she can because I don't think the queen doesn't, I think the queen doesn't think Charles is fit to be king or I think she would have retired before now. "

[SL]: "Do you really think so? Do you really think she'd have stood aside and let him take over?"

[JB]: "Yes, I do. If he'd have been fit. If he'd have been married to Diana, still married to Diana, I think she would have retired now and, and Charles and Charles and Diana would have taken it on

but the queen knows how much backlash there is in this country and abroad against Camilla and that's why she is keeping going. And I admire her for that."

[SL]: "Do you not think the monarchy in general is out of touch and irrelevant, though, I meanshould we just not dispense with the whole lot of them?"

[JB]: "Well yeah, yeah, I think once queen [...] there does goes to and touch wood god willing I don't want anything to happen to her till any ... the queen's given up and then get rid of it altogether because they're nothing only a bunch of leeches, sponging on us, I mean this trip they're going onwe're we're coughing up for it all."

[SL]: "So you think that when our present queen finally does leave us, and as you say let's hope

Page 5 of 23


6/23

there's a long time before that happens, but when it does occur you think that's the end of the linefor the British monarchy?"

[JB]: "Yes, because, I mean, they're nothing only a bunch of leeches. I mean, Andrew, alright, he'svery good, he's brought his children up but I mean the money he spent, spends on, out of taxpayers for going abroad, hiring jets to go and play golf is, it's outrageous. We can't do it. We

can't do it. If we want to go abroad for our holidays we have to cough up ourselves."

[SL]: "We do, we do. So you think the Canadian people, when this poll says only one in fiveCanadians would make an effort to go and see the Prince even if he was nearby, you think thatthey're, they've got it right, do you?"

[JB]: "Oh definitely, my husband has sisters living in Canada and Australia and they have no time for any of the royals."

[SL]: "Joan thank you very much indeed for joining us on the programme, been a pleasure to talk toyou."

[JB]: "You're welcome."

[Break]

[JB]: "Yeah, and I know, before you tell me, I did say, I said it again that the Prince of Wales is 63.He's not, he's 61 next birthday. But even so, you, you heard Joan's views there. The queen, shethinks, would have stepped down long since if she felt Prince Charles was "fit", in Joan's words, to

become king, and that the country would not tolerate Camilla as queen and, in any case, when theend of the line comes with Her Majesty as we now have the queen then that should be the end of it.Too many of them leeches says Joan. What do you think?"

[Break]

[SL]: "Michael Ellis is a constitutional expert and, Michael, I feel that maybe you would take adifferent view to Joan?"

[Michael Ellis ]: "Well, Stuart, good guess, I do take a very different view. I think the position, of course, is much more complicated than, than Joan has said. What we have to compare is, of course, how many people would go and take the trouble to go and see a passing politician if theywere coming by. It's all very well to look at an opinion poll and say 20%, or only a fifth of Canadians would go and see Prince Charles if he came by. If we had a Presidency instead of amonarchy, how many people would take the trouble to go and see a passing President Tony Blair,

for example, come by? So we have to bear in mind that the royal family do bring in a great deal tothis country. They bring in a unifying spirit, they're very much more in touch, sometimes, than some

politicians are."

[SL]: "Joan's, Joan's point is quite the reverse, isn't it, that they are leeches and, I mean, many

people feel this, that the taxpayers are funding a lifestyle for this, this privileged family that is just a

Page 6 of 23


7/23

million miles removed from anything remotely relevant to our lives?"

[ME]: "Well of course, the taxpayer does pay towards the royal family but it was calculated relatively recently that the entire sum that's given over towards the monarchy is the same amount asis spent on the DVLA in Swansea. And I think a lot, I think a lot of people would take the view that the monarchy is more of a unifying force, more useful to the country than the DVLA. The reality is,

of course, that hundreds of millions of pounds a year are brought in in tourism, and if we didn't have the monarchy a lot of the expenses of the monarchy would still exist."

[SL]: "Such as, I mean what sort of things would still remain if we didn't have a monarchy,Michael?"

[ME]: "Well, Stuart, if you, if you had a president rather than a monarchy you'd still need to put the president up in a presidential-style palace, and if you didn't have royal residences in occupation you wouldn't knock them down and build a car park. You'd have to maintain them as museums.They would still need the expense of being maintained. The president would not be driving around in a Mini Metro, I suspect. He'd also need security, he'd also need to be flown about, and you'd

probably have to pay the president a salary as well. So there would actually be almost the sameamount of expense in maintaining a republic as there would in maintaining a monarchy but youwouldn't get any of the tourism - no one travels anywhere around the world to go and see a

president - and you'd, you wouldn't get the same unifying spirit. I mean, look how [the] military, for example, look towards our monarchy and our sovereign as, as the head of the armed forces and look how she maintains the dignity of head of the Church of England. And these things are not things that you would get with a president. They are very much a force for good in this country and a way of showing appreciation, for example, for the outstanding service of many British people is,in the honours system, those who have served for many years in any field really appreciate thehonours that they, that they get whether it be in medicine or in science or in academics."

[SL]: "Would you, do, do you really think that, that the population of this country today still feelslike that about the monarchy? Do they, have we not got to the stage where, you know, once upon atime this was essentially a Christian country. Now it's, it's almost, without reservation, a secular country. People don't go to church. They don't worship in the same way as they used to and valueshave changed by the same token. They don't respect the royal family they just regard them, at best,as more celebs to be featured in the glossy magazines and to follow this lifestyle that we, Miss Frostalluded to earlier on, where they're falling out of night clubs in the early hours of the morning,getting drunk and off their face on pavements, you know, and, and, you know, and yet, you know,they're still there living this privileged lifestyle."

[ME]: "It's a difficult one, isn't it Stuart, because if we went the way of the western Europeanmonarchies, the "bicycling" monarchies then there would be those that say that there's no point inhaving a monarchy if they live and provide no, no panoply of state in what they do. And therewould be those who criticise retaining a monarchy if they had the expense of that but with none of the surrounding pomp and circumstance. But if they maintain a distance then they'll be those whocriticise them for being too remote. I think that with one breath we want our younger royals toknow what it's life, like to live a real life in the modern world and not to be too cloistered and the

younger royals like William and Harry want to serve their country and have - Prince Harry, as weall know, in the military field - and should we criticise them for living the life of a young man in histwenties when we don't, we don't necessarily, we wouldn't necessarily take that approach withanyone else?"

Page 7 of 23


8/23

[SL]: "What about Prince Charles specifically then, Michael? I mean 61 as we've said, I've beencorrected, he's 61 not 63 next month, off to Canada, the Canadians obviously don't rate him and weheard Joan's extreme view: she will never respect him because of what he did to Princess Diana."

[ME]: "I think if we look back in history, human beings what they are, and royals being part of our long history, most, can I go far as to say that most of our sovereigns of the last several hundred

years have had extramarital affairs, have had relationships outside of marriage, sometimes highlycontroversial, it wouldn't necessarily be unusual to have a king who has had that type of colourful background "

[SL]: "But because it's happened in the past is that any reason to excuse it now?"

[ME]: "It's not a reason to excuse it but I think we have to understand that if we're going to replacethe monarchy with a republic would you necessarily expect a politician to behave any differently?"

[SL]: "Well we've seen some of the politicians across Europe, of course, who behave far moreoutrageously don't they, but there we are. Michael thank you very much indeed for your time, verygood to talk to you."

[SL]: "Thank you very much."

[ME]: "Michael Ellis, constitutional expert joining us on the programme and indeed a supporter of the monarchy. What about you, do you think the monarchy should be maintained? Should we keepit? Should we just scrap it, wind it up, throw it away, say we don't need it any more, we can't affordyou, we don't want you, you're pointless and out of date which is what the Canadians andAustralians appear to be saying?"

[Break]

[SL]: "Would we, would we respect the Prince of Wales, would the Canadians respect the Prince of Wales a bit more if he'd stopped at Watford Gap for beans on toast and a bit of brown sauce and acup of tea now and again? If he, if he turned up while Anna B. was filming there and had - "I'llhave beans and chips please, twice, one for me and one for the Duchess"? What do you think? Imean, do you, are they, are they really in touch with us? Isn't that the problem? That they just seemso remote. Maybe we want them to be remote because they are "the royal family". Maybe that's

part of the mystique, part of why we need them. Terence, what do you think?"

[Terence ]: "Well I think your lady contributor, the republican, should learn what the truth of thematter is. The queen is a very religious person ..."

[SL]: "Oh she is, yes."

[T]: "... and to resign would - for the queen to resign would be a violation of her coronation oath sothat get's that out of the way."

[SL]: "Right. So you don't think she would ever stand aside unless, perhaps, she was particularly inill health, for the Prince of Wales?"

Page 8 of 23


9/23

[T]: "I - it - no, because it's her duty to go on. She said: "this is a job from which I cannot retire". Now, without a monarchy we should be a declining banana republic of Europe, open to virtual real dictatorship. If Churchill was happy to serve under our brave queen - king in the war, and our lovely and gracious queen later, why should we consider any of the political pygmies who arearound today as worthy of being a president?"

[SL]: "So whereas Joan earlier on said the royal family are leeches, you're saying any alternativewould be political pygmies?"

[T]: "Absolutely and would bring - be the end of this country 'cause it's - as one of your contributors has said, it - the monarchy is about the only thing we've got left."

[SL]: "Terence, thank you very much indeed."

[T]: " I haven't ... "

[SL]: "Go on."

[T]: "I haven't finished yet. And a typical American we met at Charlcutt(?) in the Clinton years ..."

[SL]: "Yes?"

[T]: "... gave his opinion that having a king or queen was better than a president with a zipper problem. The monarch should hold together the English-speaking and derived peoples as was theCommonwealth and previous empire. But as far as Prince Charles is concerned, he is probably themost outstanding person to talk common sense in this politically correct crazy depressing day."

[SL]: "Even over our architecture, Terence?"

[T]: "Yes, absolutely. My wife and I agree with him wholeheartedly. He is concerned with the future, of the planet and that's what a lot of people aren't."

[SL]: "Terence, thank you, I'm going to have to stop you there, because of time, but thank you verymuch.

[Break]

[SL]: Ted's on the line. Hello Ted."

[Ted ]: "Hello there."

[SL]: "What do you reckon?"

[T]: "Well, I phoned in, oh, maybe twelve months, eighteen months ago about the royal family. I said they were dysfunctional and I still - I'd like to make the same statement. The queen: I think she's OK but the Duke of Edinburgh has proved that with some of his raceless [sic] remarks he'smade ..."

Page 9 of 23


10/23

[SL]: "He's, he's put his foot in it again the other day didn't he?"

[T]: "Well ... and ..."

[SL]: "There was a, there was an Asian - for people who haven't read it in the paper, there was anAsian gathering at Buckingham Palace, I think it was, maybe it was Windsor, and the Duke of

Edinburgh went up to a Mr Patel, a businessman, and said 'a lot of your family here, I notice'. AndMr Patel has actually taken it in good part but once again it's been reported as another gaffe by theDuke of Edinburgh. So what do you make of that, Ted? What are you saying? When you say'they're dysfunctional' what do you mean by that?"

[T]: "Well, as I was going - I mean, the queen, I think she's straight enough, but the Prince of Wales was an adulterer, we know that, that's a fact, that's not libel or anything, the - PrincessMargaret, I mean she was an alcoholic and it killed her eventually, the Queen Mother was a -known for her very - gambling with her horses, etc ..."

[SL]: "What's wrong, what's wrong with an, an elderly lady enjoying a flutter on the gee-gees?"

[T]: "Well there's nothing wrong with that, no. But they're all looked to as if they're god, they're something. Then the youngest of the princes smoke the wacky baccy doesn't he?"

[SL]: "Well, allegedly, allegedly. Look Ted, let ... Ted, let me ask, let me ask you this, taking the point that other people have made very, very eloquently already: if we, if we remove the royalfamily today which you seem to be advocating, what would we be left with, what would we have inits place?"

[T]: "Well I think, I think I should have us (?) a republic they seem to do it better than we're doing at the moment.

[SL]: "Well name one, name a republic that's doing better than we are."

[T]: "Alright, America, (?) ..."

[SL]: "America?"

[T]: " ... Germany, France ..." [SL]: "Hang on, hang on, hang on. America is doing better than us? Have you seen what's

happening in America? Their economy is the one that started us down the road towards thisrecession. They have a new president who's supposed to be there to save the world. He's spent, he'sspent ..."

[T]: "Yeah, he will do, he will."

[SL]: "Hang on, he's spent more of his time playing golf in the short time he's been president thanGeorge Bush did in eight years. And you're, and you're, you're .. they can't sort out their health

problems, you're citing to me America as a better example of a country than we are?"

[T]: "Well, alright then, what about France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium?"

Page 10 of 23


11/23

[SL]: "What - go on, then, yeah, hang on, hang on, what about France? You're telling, you're tellingme France is a better, in a better state than we are? Look at the, who's leading their country, wouldyou look up to him?"

[T]: "Well, all I can say, I still - it's my belief and I live in a democracy and I'll say what I like ... "

[SL]: "Of course you can, Ted."

[T]: "I think the royal family, all of them , even - I mean, Prince Andrew, he don't pay for his golfing lessons, does he? Or his - he, he uses a - that plane, I mean, using helicopters to go to a stag night.

Now, I'm sorry, (?) my argument, I think. The royal family are a load of parasites. I'm sorry but that's just my opinion."

[SL]: "And you're entitled to say so, Ted, and that's what this programme's about. Thank you for calling. Do you agree with Ted? Are - is the royal family parasites? But you start citing to me, andwhatever your view about the monarchy, you start citing to me America, France as alternatives thatare upstanding countries in the world alongside this country at the moment? I'm sorry, but that'swhere I disagree. You're entitled to your view, Ted, but I disagree when you start quoting examplesof countries that clearly are dysfunctional now, whether they have been historically or not. I'd liketo hear your point of view."

[Break]

[SL]: "The good thing about this country is that Ted can come on and express his point of view onthis programme and he's perfectly entitled to do so and I would defend to the last his right to do so.I don't have to agree with him. And when he starts citing to me America and FRANCE as better examples of countries than we are and the people who are heads of state - just, just have a look atwhat's in the news in - about France today. Right? The French president Nicolas Sarkozy, accordingto auditors who looked into the accounts of a Mediterranean summit that he held during France'ssix-month presidency of the EU have discovered that in the grand palace in Paris President Sarkozyhad a custom-built shower installed. Have you read about this? Quarter of a million pounds,276,000 euros. It wasn't used once. He preferred to wash in the Elysee Palace ten minutes away.Immediately after this three-day event for which the shower was installed at considerable expenseand trouble because they wanted it to, to fit the building it was going into, into this palace, it had to

be right, it had to look right - immediately afterwards, at the cost, bearing in mind, of a quarter of amillion pounds, the shower was demolished, removed, gone, down the drain with the money. Do

you think the queen would behave like that? I don't think so, somehow. Mike, hello."[Mike ]: "Hello."

[SL]: "Mike in Northampton, what do you want to say?"

[M]: "Disband the whole lot of them."

[SL]: "Why?"

[M]: "They're intruders anyway, they're of German descent."

Page 11 of 23


12/23

[SL]: "Well you - hey, come on."

[M]: "They are."

[SL]: "Well - you - so they maybe. Where are you from, Mike?"

[M]: "I'm from Northampton."

[SL]: "Where was your father from?"

[M]: "My father?"

[SL]: "Mmm."

[M]: "What's that got to do with it?"

[SL]: "Well, what - exactly, so what's it got to do with anything that the queen's got Germandescendants?"

[M]: "The thing is, she's not true English, is she? I mean, there is - I bet you there's no recession inthat household is there?"

[SL]: "Have you seen the breakfast tray that was in the papers yesterday?"

[M]: "No, I don't read the dailies."

[SL]: "Tupperware containers to carry the food to her, mixed crockery, she's not exactly living alavish style, lifestyle in terms of, you know ... "

[M]: "Oh, she's not, is she, oh. So she's poor, then. I've got the wrong idea, then."

[SL]: "What, what - Mike, she - of course, she lives a lifestyle that's appropriate to being our queen,what's wrong with that?

[M]: "So why is it they're chucking out a hundred year-old people from old age pensioners' homesand chucking them out on the streets? Why can't they, why can't they chuck that lot out and put old age pensioners in there to live out the rest of their lives?"

[SL]: "So you, so you'd - what would you do with the queen?"[M]: "Well, couldn't they live in a two-bedroom flat? There's only two of them."

[SL]: "Now you're being silly aren't you?"

[M]: "No, I'm not."

[SL]: "You're being silly."

[M]: "No, no ..."

Page 12 of 23


13/23

[SL]: "She's the queen, she's the monarch of Britain and the Commonwealth."

[M]: "Well what's she done for me?"

[SL]: "What has she done for you?"

[M]: "What has she done for me? Nothing."

[SL]: "She represents you around the world. She represents you to other heads of state."

[M]: "No, no, she doesn't, no. She's a waste of space."

[SL]: "So you'd get ... "

[M]: "Parasites. A waste of space. Like the other callers have said, parasites. They're all, they'reall, they're all parasites."

[SL]: "Mike, ..."

[M]: "The whole lot of them."

[SL]: "... thank you for your call. Let's talk to Mick in Islip. Hello Mick."

[Mick ]: "Ha, ha, god, oh dear, I don't, I don't know where to start, now."

[SL]: "Well start, go on, off you go."

[M]: "Well the first thing about Charles and Camilla. I mean, not only did he have an affair, but Camilla helped choose Diana as a suitor. I mean ..."

[SL]: "So we're told, so we're told. But, yeah, probably true, probably true."

[M]: "Yeah, and you're saying about Sarkozy now, the audit - what about the audits for the EU? And what's going to happen with the queen when the EU takes over, when the Czechs sign thetreaty?"

[SL]: "Very good question. Very, very good question."

[M]: "I think parliament will disband and I think that's why there's all this trouble with the MPs.They're falling away like flies and there'll be no parliament in two years time."

[SL]: "So we lose, we lose our parliament and we lose inevitably, therefore, the monarchy anyway because we're going to be governed by President Blair, is that what you're saying?"

[M]: "Yes, I think we are, god help us. Now regarding Prince Andrew, the other day he was saying that the bankers' bonuses is minute in the great scheme of things, and here's somebody who's

sponging of us, flying around the world doing what he's supposed to do and playing golf, and thenhe's, he's, he's defending the bankers."

[SL]: "Now, you see, Joan earlier used the term 'leeches' about the royal family, and you said that

Page 13 of 23


14/23

they're sponging off us. Let me put this to you. The revenue, the income from the Crown Estates,the land that the queen and the royal family own and manage, is more, considerably more than, andthey hand all that money over to the Treasury, it's considerably more than they get back in what'scalled the Civil List to pay for the royal family. So we owe them, actually."

[M]: "Oh well, we'd, we'd better give them our wages, then, and, and ..."

[SL]: "Well we do give them our wages, that's the Civil List, what it's about.

[M]: "Give them all our wages then they can give us a bit back for pocket money."

[SL]: "Mick, thank you for your call."

[SL]: "Let me give you this definition. You'll find it on the Prince of Wales' very own website:www.princeofwales.gov.uk: 'The Prince of Wales, as heir to the throne seeks, with the support of hiswife, to do all he can, to use his unique position to make a difference for the better in the UnitedKingdom and internationally'. That's his job. That's his job definition, it's on his website. I'll read itto you again: 'The Prince of Wales, as heir to the throne seeks, with the support of his wife, to do allhe can, to use his unique position to make a difference for the better in the United Kingdom andinternationally'. So when you say to me 'what is he doing for me?', that's what he's doing. It thengoes on to talk about the fact that he has a wide range of interests, he enjoys gardening, sports,

performing arts, painting in watercolours, and criticising architects. No, it doesn't say that last bit, but that's what's on the Prince of Wales' own website. So that's what he does for you and what hedoes for me."

[Break]

[SL]: "Now Graham Smith is from an organisation called Republic, is that right Graham?"

[Graham Smith ]: "That's correct, yes."

[SL]: "Yeah, and, and you campaign, effectively, for the end of the monarchy anyway, don't you?"

[GS]: "That's absolutely right, yeah, and I can give you another much better website address to goto: republic.org.uk which will put you straight on a lot of things I've heard people saying in the last ten, fifteen minutes. I mean, I will pick up on a couple of the things 'cause I've been listening to

what you've been saying to (?) ... " [SL]: "Right .."

[GS]: "I mean, one, you've been going on about Sarkozy and spending a lot of money on the shower ..."

[SL]: "Yes."

[GS]: "... which is obviously disgraceful. But, you know, you said that the queen wouldn't do that sort of thing. The queen does do that sort of thing. I mean, she's going to Blackpool for the royal

variety performance, they're spending around 4000 on a toilet just for her, and a couple of years

Page 14 of 23


15/23

ago she went to Romsey. Romsey Town Council spent about 60,000 just for that one-day visit, that pretty much broke the bank of the local town council,"

[SL]: "And I - let me - Graham, Graham, Graham ..."

[GS]: "... and in that 60,000 was 5000 for a toilet that she didn't use, so ..."

[SL]: "Well hang on a second ..."

[GS]: "... this kind of behaviour does go on in the world."

[SL]: "... hang on a second, hang on a second, I hear that and, of course, when the queen goes tovisit Blackpool or Romsey or wherever it is, of course they're going to want to tart the place up andmake it look right for the royals ..."

[GS]: "'But 5000 for a toilet ..."

[SL]: "Hang on, hang on, hang on. ... "

[GS]: "... that's not tarting it up, that's wasting an awful lot of taxpayers' money."

[SL]: "Well, let me put this to you: nine times out of ten, I'm not saying it happens every singletime, but nine times out ten when they spend money to make the place look right and feel right for aroyal visit, the facilities they provide continue, they're not just thrown away immediately afterwardslike Sarkozy's shower. They're there for the benefit of the local community longer term."

[GS]: "Well there might be a little bit of tarting up but 5000 for a toilet, that is, about, you know,5000 more than you'd need to spend on a toilet."

[SL]: "And maybe, maybe ..."

[GS]: "I mean, new toilets are fairly cheap."

[SL]: "Well maybe, maybe they need new toilets in Blackpool?"

[GS]: "And look, you know - well, it's not a toilet that's going to be used by anyone else, it's just there for the queen. Now the point - another point that you picked up on, you were asserting as fact that the Crown Estates offset the cost of the monarchy. Now that isn't - that simply isn't how it

works. The Crown Estates has never been the personal property of the royal family. It is there to provide the money to the state and always has been. And that exchange that took place a few, acouple of hundred years ago when we swapped it for the Civil List, as part of that exchange the

government took over from the Palace the responsibility for paying for the state. So if we swapped that back again and, you know, gave them the Crown Estate they would then have to pay for the

NHS, the military, you know, the welfare state and everything so I don't think they're really doing too badly out of it."

[SL]: "No, because, because the arrangement we know have is a realistic one, more realistic than itused to be ..."

[GS]: "It's not any more realistic ..."

Page 15 of 23


16/23

[SL]: "... and it's, and it's appropriate to the modern age but what happens with the Crown - whathappens with the Crown Estates is that they are, they're subject to good management and goodhusbandry by, by people who understand them and led in many, many cases ..."

[GS]: "Absolutely, but that's got nothing to do with the royal family."

[SL]: "Well it is, though, because in many cases it's led by the Prince of Wales, for example."

[GS]: "No it's not, what are you talking about? The Crown Estates is completely separate from the Duchy, OK? The Prince of Wales only has any involvement in the Duchy of Cornwall. The Crown Estates is completely separate, it is a corporate body, managed, governed by legislation and managed by an independent authority. It is essentially a quango designed to look after propertythat raises funds that goes into the Treasury ..."

[SL]: "And you're saying the royal ..."

[GS]: "... and that will still be the case in a republic. It would not change."

[SL]: "And you're saying the royal family, the royal family have no say in the management and thehusbandry of the Crown Estates?"

[GS]: "Absolutely, yeah, yeah, there is, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Crown Estates is. There is, there is other property where they do have some involvement, I mean Buckingham Palace is not part of the Crown Estate, Sandringham is not part of the Crown Estate ... "

[SL]: "Sure, sure."

[GS]: "... the Crown Estates is quite different and has got nothing to do with them. Now ..."

[SL]: "So, so you would disband the monarchy. Let's cut to the chase, you'd disband the monarchystraight away? Immediately?"

[GS]: "Yeah, absolutely, absolutely, well ..."

[SL]: "And replace them, and replace them with what?"

[GS]: "Well, well, you replace them with a system where the people will have a choice in who their head of state is and a constitution that is based on the idea that the people are in charge ..."

[SL]: "OK ..."

[GS]: "... and this is not just about who your head of state is, it's about the fundamental problemsabout the constitution which is hugely undemocratic."

[SL]: "OK, I hear that ..."

[GS]: "We need a system that is based on popular sovereignty."

Page 16 of 23


17/23

[SL]: "OK, I hear that, let's, let's say we agree on that - we clearly don't, but let's, let's assume we do- you're putting your trust in who to make this happen, and the reason I ask that question, 'cause

please bear in mind we have a Prime Minister at the moment who has never subjected himself to the people to be voted on as a leader of the country in political terms."

[GS]: "Well, we have a parliamentary system, so we never have elected any Prime Minster ..."

[SL]: "No, but come on, he doesn't have a mandate from the people, does he?"

[GS]: "Well, that's a completely separate argument. But the point is, what, that the people who need to make this decision are the people of Britain and it needs to be done by a referendum. The

politicians need to give the people that opportunity to change ... "

[SL]: "So you would have a referendum now on whether the monarchy continues, would you?"

[GS]: "I would love to have a referendum now, but I mean, obviously it needs to be after a period after which we've had a proper open and intelligent debate on it. So, ... but, I mean you could haveit in a few months time, it doesn't take too long to get a serious debate up and running but, I mean,

you know, we need to change the way politics is done in this country and the reason why it is sodysfunctional, the reason why people don't, you know, have a lot of faith in politics is because it isbased on this top-down paternalistic structure that is based on the Crown. The reason why Gordon

Brown can sign the Lisbon Treaty without asking anybody about it is because of the Crown. Youknow, the reason why we can go to war without anybody agreeing that it's a good idea is because of the Crown. And the monarchy simply serves as a, as a kind of a royal veil to deflect attention fromthe very serious issues with the way politics is conducted in this country - the, the vastly centralised

power that is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the government."

[SL]: "Graham, thank you very much for joining us on the programme ..."

[GS]: "Thank you."

[SL]: "... thank you for your time. Graham Smith from the organisation Republic campaigning for the end of the royal family. What do you think?"

[Break]

[SL]: "Dorothy, what do you reckon?"[Dorothy ]: " I am disgusted."

[SL]: "With what, with what?"

[D]: "With the callers, running down the royal family."

[SL]: "Do they not have a point?"

[D]: "No they don't not in the way they've been talking. That last caller of yours, he wants to go

and vote for the BNP and see how he gets on with that. I tell you what, kid, we have got the finest

Page 17 of 23


18/23

queen in the world."

[SL]: "Yeah?"

[D]: "I know they've got their faults, and I love my Diana."

[SL]: "What about the Prince of Wales?"

[D]: "He's, he's, he's alright. He doesn't do much out of place apart from Camilla."

[SL]: "Would do you be happy about him as king, if the day came?"

[D]: "No, I think I'd like William as king, to be honest."

[SL]: "So you'd like to skip a generation, would you?"

[D]: "I think so. I think also Edward and Andrew don't deserve their place in the royal family."

[SL]: "Because?"

[D]: "Because , they just, they don't do a proper - well, Andrew, I know he, he served in the Falklands for a little while, Edward I've never known him do anything. He paid himself out of thearmy, didn't he when he went in?"

[SL]: "He did, he did."

[D]: "Yes, he did."

[SL]: "So you haven't got much time for them but you support the queen?"

[D]: "I love the queen. I think she's the best thing that's ever happened in this country."

[SL]: "Dorothy, thank you for your call."

[Break]

[SL]: "Joan in New D-, in, in Duston aren't you Joan, are you in Duston?"[Joan ]: "I am indeed, Stuart."

[SL]: "What do you want to say?"

[J]: "Well I'll get the can-can skirt on in a moment [a reference to something in the break], but that'sbeside the point. I think people have lost the plot of your question ..."

[SL]: "Go on."

[J]: "... inasmuch that, should the royal family discontinue once anything happens to our dear

Page 18 of 23


19/23

queen in respect of Charles and Camilla? Well, the royal family should continue. Our queen is awonderful person, and so is the Duke of Edinburgh. He's been her rock as she often says ..."

[SL]: "Despite all the gaffes that he's well known for?"

[J]: "Well, that, that is how he talks. And in a lot of respect to him, he says these things and there is

a lot of truth behind some of them. So, you know, he's, he's what you see what you get. And so inrespect of should it continue with Charles, definitely not, there should be a gap, it should pass onto, let's face it, William."

[SL:]: "Why do you say that?"

[J]: "Why? Because I think Charles gave up his right to be known as heir of the throne when heruined his own marriage, married a lady that ruined her marriage, and, you know, that lost him lotsand lots of values and, you know, I'm sorry to say it, but his wife does nothing for him, does nothing

for the country."

[SL]: "But they love each other."

[J]: "Pardon?"

[SL]: "They love each other."

[J]: "No, they don't know the meaning of it, because that's why they fluffed it up all around and, youknow, she goes out on his arm, or with him and beams her big smile to people and it doesn't get her anywhere. And I'm afraid that's where Charles lost his right to that title of heir to the throne."

[SL]: "So do you think that's why the Canadian people have come out with this poll today, then?"

[J]: "Absolutely, absolutely."

[SL]: "And you think that because of that, that the monarchy itself is being, shall we use the term brought into disrepute, that people are questioning the monarchy because Charles is the next in line,Charles will become king when the time comes?"

[J]: "At this moment in time, sadly to say, yes he would, and I think there should be something tooverride this, and ... "

[SL]: "But, you see, there won't be, will their Joan, because ..."[J]: "Well ..."

[SL]: "... because you're talking about a huge, huge change to the constitution if that were tohappen. He could voluntarily do so, I suppose, he could, he could say 'I'm not going to pursue mydestiny and I'm not going to become king', but if - that ain't gonna happen, is it? That's not reality."

[J]: "And then people would admire him for having the guts and the courage to do it. Bow out, youknow, I'm not going to say like Uncle Edward, but, you know, bow out, make a clean break, let William come on board, and wouldn't his mother, god rest her, wouldn't she be jolly proud of that

and she'd get her HRH back, that's right?"

Page 19 of 23


20/23

[SL]: "Well yes, indeed, but, I mean, let's, let's just assume that that isn't going to happen, that it isCharles that is in line to take over. At that point, taking the view of some of our earlier callers, if that is going to be the case, bearing in mind what you've said, should we just call it a day and say:'that's it, no more monarchy'?"

[J]: "No, because I think Charles would probably do the right thing and, yes, he would have that crown put on his head, heaven forbid not on hers and - I really do mean that - and then I think hewould allow his son to step in."

[SL]: "OK Joan, thank you very much indeed."

[J]: "Thank you."

[SL]: "Good to talk to you. I - I do find, you know, some of this anti-Camilla stuff unfair, I reallydo. Because, yes of course, we know what we've read about, that apparently, allegedly went on inthe time prior to Diana's death, and indeed of course they knew each other long before. They

perhaps, arguably, should have got married in the first place but they didn't, they went their separateways. But do you not think that it's time now to say: 'look, stop vilifying Camilla, let her continueto do her role. She is now married to the heir to the throne.' Shouldn't we respect that? People whomeet her say how charming and lovely she is and they - and she does win them over, so isn't itabout time we stopped Camilla bashing?"

[Break]

[SL]: "Caroline Aston is BBC Radio Northamptonshire's royal watcher, hello Caroline."

[Caroline Ashton ]: "Hello there."

[SL]: "You're very pro the royal family, obviously."

[CA]: "Not necessarily, I watch them with great interest but then I watch lots of things with great interest that I'm not particularly pro."

[SL]: "But are you pro the royal family?"

[CA]: "I've been listening to some of the comments and there seems to be an ignoring of history and also an ignoring of one very crucial thing here. It always, as far as Prince Charles is, is bound, toboil down to his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles. Now, approve of that or not, yes it wasdifficult, it created an absolute tsunami of difficulties for the royal family. But he is heir to thethrone, and very rarely are there many things that he does in his role as Prince of Wales mentioned.The Prince's Trust, all of the charities, all of the organisations that he takes a very much hands-oninterest, and that isn't to say I condone certain sides of his character, but if you look back at Britishroyal history, believe you me, he's pretty mild compared to some of the princes and kings we've had in the past. George the Third's sons were notorious old roues and letchers but they didn't resign the

job they got on with the fornication, wore the crown and then passed it on."

[SL]: "So, I mean, what you're saying is that the - when, when people make the point as many did

Page 20 of 23


21/23

earlier on that the only real positive you get out of them is tourism, there's a lot more to the royalfamily and what they do than just that?"

[CA]: "Well, this is it. To me as an historian, there is a distressing tendency today to deal only withthe here and now. Don't let's forget that Canada and Australia - our country, Britain, had a hugeinput in those countries, and yes you could say that they've moved on now, they're sophisticated

entities in their own right, they no longer need a largely on-paper historical connection. But youcan't just brush history under the carpet and being the monarch of this country is not a nine til five

job that you retire from. Prince Charles' birthright is to be monarch whether we like him, loathehim, love or hate Camilla and in the royal family the very word 'abdication' still causes quiversbecause of the horrors of 1936."

[SL]: "Yes."

[CA]: "Don't underestimate that."

[SL]: "So there's no, there's no chance, is there, Caroline, that the queen is going to step aside at any point until she can no longer physically do the job?"

[CA]: "I take you back to when she was a young girl and gave her 21st birthday broadcast: 'Mylife, however long or short it shall be will be devoted to the country'. She's in it for life. She is thecreation of Queen Mary as much as anything. And the idea of anyone formed by her giving up onthe job, reneging on duty, believe you me, is just a dream."

[Break]

[SL]: "Caroline thank you much, good to talk to you. Bye bye."

[CA]: "Bye, bye."

[SL]: "Peter, hello."

[Peter ]: "Hello Stuart".

[SL]: "Yes, Peter?"

[P]: "About twenty-five years ago, round about then I was a big, big, anti-royal family, in fact I used to come on here now and again and have a real go at them. BUT, as the years have gone by I havekind of changed my mind. And I'll tell you what, especially with this government being in, and I agree a lot with Mick from Islip and, I tell you, I wouldn't trust - I tell you what, I'd trust the royal

family more than the politicians in this country, and they're the ones I would not trust, and, and,and this government especially, they want to get rid of all our history, all our heritage, and everything, and I, I feel that the, the only thing, near enough the only thing we've got left are theroyal family. I'm not much one of the hangers on and can I say about Phillip what he said, to me,that was very, very funny. I mean, I don't think it's racist or anything like this, I just think it's very

funny. I think people keep bringing up the old racism every time someone says something like that. I think that's stupid, I do."

Page 21 of 23


22/23

[SL]: "And I tell you what, you know Peter, in all seriousness: when people turn round and makefun of the Duke of Edinburgh and call him 'Phil the Greek', isn't that racist?"

[P]: "Yeah, yeah, yeah, completely. But I don't, I don't think think he says that, does he?"

[SL]: "Probably not. Peter, thank you very much, it was good to talk to you. A text here from

somebody with a little sense of humour. Says: 'What would we do, Stuart, without Queen? We'dhave no pop music.' Yeah, thank you very much. Vivian in Northampton, hello Vivian."

[Vivian ]: "Hello Stuart."

[SL]: "Yes, what do you want to say?"

[V]: "Well, put it like this. OK, Charles is the direct the, you know, going to be king whether we likeit or not, but, as I say, I'm for the royal family but when you think back in time, Queen - whenQueen Victoria met - married Albert, he was never made king, but she made him his [sic] consort."

[SL]: "He was the consort, that's right."

[V]: "Now what this, what that royal correspondent and that lady who was on about Edward, youknow, King Edward the Eighth, he would have been King Edward the Eighth. Now he gave up thethrone to marry Wallace Simpson ..."

[SL]: "Yes .."

[V]: "... because she was a divorced woman."

[SL]: "She was, and an American."

[V]: "Yes, an American, so, you know, so what, so OK we all know descendants of, of, when's thequeen descended like German, 'cause Albert, Prince Albert was German, and that, because I'vewatched that film so many times and I reckon it's a beautiful film. Anyway, getting back to what wewas on about. Why then - OK, we're on about, obviously Camilla's had a bashing, whether we likeher or not, whether she's the queen or not, we're not really going to have much say in it. But thething is, she's a divorced woman. So, why - I'm getting myself a bit tongue-tied - Charles, yes,Charles married Camilla, Edward married Mrs Simpson ..."

[SL]: "Yes ..."

[V]: "... but she - he gave up the throne .."

[SL]: "Yes."

[V]: "... so yes, possibly - well, he won't skip a generation for William. So why wasn't - so why wasCharles allowed to marry Camilla? 'Cause she was a divorced woman. I know it's history and

parliament ..."

[SL]: "But then Charles, Charles was not on the point of becoming king, even though he's heir tothe throne. Vivian thank you for that. We must move on because time is against us and I do want a

quick word, if I may, with Richard Barber who is a royal commentator, celebrity journalist. Hello

Page 22 of 23


23/23

Richard."

[Richard Barber ]: "Good afternoon."

[SL] "Thank you for joining us on the programme. What do you think should happen to our monarchy because I know you've got particular views."

[RB]: "Yes, I'm in favour of the monarchy but I think it should be pared down. I think in this dayand age the queen is a beacon, you know, she's - I like the fact that she's not political and I likeliving in a country where you have a figurehead like that and I'm a big fan of hers, but I really think in this day and age we don't need Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, for instance. Princess

Anne did it right. She married a commoner but she didn't allow her two children to be a prince and a princess. Well, Prince Andrew married a commoner, but no, they had to be princesses and I mind about that, because it means that you and I have to pay for bodyguards to trail round after those

girls all around the world and I just don't think, you know, that it's appropriate."

[SL]: "Let me just ask you very quickly, Richard, because time is our enemy here. The point thatother people have made several times that we should now skip a generation and Charles should stepaside and let William become king next."

[RB]: "Oh, I don't agree with that. I'm the same age as Charles, it must be fantastically frustrating for him to have waited all his life to do a job he hasn't yet been able to do. Of course he doesn't want his mother out of the way, but you can imagine the frustration. But I part company withCharles when he starts meddling in public affairs. You wouldn't find the queen criticising a newoffice block or whatever..."

[SL]: "And maybe when, maybe when he's king he'll no longer be able to do that?"

[RB]: "Well that's right ..."

[SL]: "Yes ..."

[RB]: "... that's right, but yes, no, I don't think it should go to William. It should go to Charles and then to William in that order."

[SL]: "Richard thank you very much indeed for your time. Richard Barber, royal commentator withus. Thank you for your calls. Mick in Kingsley on a text says: 'Why can't we have a tick box at the

bottom of our next voting slips at the general election: Monarchy, yes or no?' That would get a

widespread volume of opinion.' It certainly would. Thank you for all your calls today. Whether you like it or not, you'll wake up tomorrow morning, you'll still be part of a monarchy, not arepublic where somebody can spend a quarter of a million pounds on a shower they never use. Just

be thankful for that."

[Ends]

Page 23 of 23

bbc northampton phone-in on the british monarchy 28/10/2009

Documents