Queen’s Death Highlights The Dysfunction Of The British State And Ireland's Relationship With It
The death of the ‘British Queen’ has unleashed a long-predicted tsunami of global media coverage. In newsrooms across the world, texts, images and videos that were prepared years ago in anticipation of her passing, were dusted off, updated and published.
And just as predictably that media coverage has been overwhelmingly positive, focusing on the longevity of Elizabeth Windsor’s reign, her personal traits, her family life, and her contribution to the British state and British interests over the last eight decades.
In the English speaking world, in particular, the wall-to-wall media coverage of Windsor’s death has amounted to a master class of media servility and uncritical, unquestioning support for the ancien régime.
Ireland’s corporate media pushed a united, unquestioning pro-Windsor narrative, one that echoed the line taken by the corporate and state media across much of the globe
As pervasive as this pro-monarchy media snow job might be, it cannot hide the deep dysfunction that exists at the very heart of the British state and wider British society. No amount of sympathetic, soft focus coverage can change the bizarre reality that the British head of state remains an inherited position that passed from Elizabeth Windsor to her eldest son upon her death.
And thus Charles became the British head of state without an interview, without vetting, without any competition and most importantly without a single vote being cast by anyone. Charles only needed two qualifications to become the British head of state, to be the first born child of Elizabeth and not be a Catholic.
Having met both of these rigorous qualifications Charles became the British head of state upon the death of his mother. And as a bonus he also became the head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The current British royal family claims a bloodline that traces back through almost 40 generations and over 1,200 years to ‘King Alfred The Great’
Irish apologists for the British royalty routinely trot out the line that the British head of state is ‘only’ a ceremonial and symbolic role and that the incumbent monarch has ‘no real power’. How they do this with a straight face remains a great mystery to Irish republicans.
We republicans understand that ceremony and symbolism are hugely important tools in the formation of national and individual identity. For many in Britain, the royal family are inexorably linked and central to their sense of British identity — an unbroken familial line and institution that have ‘guided their people’ for over 1,200 years. For royalists, to a greater or less extent, the monarch is Britain. And by extension, a Britain without a monarch would not be really be Britain.
Loyalty to the monarch has been carefully nurtured to transcend loyalty to prime ministers, governments, political parties and even individual self-interest. For centuries the British establishment have used that loyalty to entrench their positions within Britain and to project British soft and hard power across the globe. The cutting edge of that hard power is, of course, the British military, of which the sitting monarch is Commander-in-Chief.
Philip Mountbatten and his grandson Harry Windsor. Like generations of royals before them, both men spent time in the British military, further deepening the links between the cornerstone institutions of the British state - the British royalty and the British military
During her long reign, millions of British soldiers swore a personal oath of loyalty to Elizabeth Windsor and to her successors. And from the moment of her death, every new British soldier will swear the following oath of loyalty below to her son, Charles.
“I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the officers set over me.”
A personal oath of loyalty to Charles and his successors. Not an oath to the British people. Not an oath to a British constitution. Not an oath to an elected government. Not an oath to a particular set of values or principles. No, they swear a solemn oath to a man who became the British head of state because he is the first born of Elizabeth Windsor and not a Catholic.
British Army feeling the wrath of the local population in Basra, Iraq in 2005. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, like all other British military operations before and since, was carried out in the name of King/Queen and Country
It isn’t just the foot soldiers of the empire that swear personal loyalty to the British monarch. So too do the British police, British judges, the clergy of the Church of England and those seeking British citizenship. Even British boy scouts and girl guides take an oath of allegiance to their monarch.
And so too does every member of the British Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. Those parliamentarians who refuse to swear the oath are denied their salaries and cannot take the seats to which they were democratically elected. Senior members of parliament swore a new oath of allegiance to Charles within 48 hours of Elizabeth’s death. So much for the mother of all parliaments.
The British establishment fully understand the psychology behind the oath of allegiance and the nature of the power relations involved in a subject explicitly pledging their allegiance to their monarch and the descendants of that monarch.
They also understand that the swearing of the oath also carries an implicit allegiance to the the status quo, to a system of governance based on inherited privilege and position, to a system based on inherited property and wealth, to a system based on class and caste.
Windsor delivers the ‘Queen’s Speech’ in Westminster. The ceremony, symbolism and pomp of such occasions is designed to project the stability and permanence of the status quo - such it has always been and such it will always be
The roots of today’s British system of governance stretch back to the late 1600s when the ‘glorious revolution’ kickstarted the incremental transfer of power from the British monarch to Westminster. In the intervening three centuries, as other European nations executed or otherwise disposed of their royal families, the British royal family has remained central to the British political system, public life and national identity.
This happened as a result of a foundation pact between the elite of the old feudal order and the elite of the new order that replaced feudalism. Instead of risking revolution and systematic rupture, the British aristocracy struck a deal with the merchants, traders, bankers and other commoners whose political power and wealth was in the ascent in the late 1600s. These nouveau riche commoners were thus absorbed into an expanded and changed British ruling class.
When the industrial revolution later created a new class of super-wealthy captalists, they too were absorbed into this hybrid British ruling class. The mutually beneficial pact between the old feudal elites and the new capitalist elites allowed both to share in the spoils of the industrial revolution and the global plunder that flowed from the British Empire in the 1700s, 1800s and into the 20th century.
And just as importantly it allowed them to act as one when it came to suppressing radical dissent within Britain and in denying British workers a fair share of the immense wealth that their labour created.
Throughout the centuries the British royalty has played a critical role in maintaining a rigid social order which kept the vast majority of the population in unnecessary and often grinding poverty — a social order that created a continuous flow of fresh working class meat for the mines, mills, factories, steelworks and shipyards. And a steady flow of working class recruits the British military.
The industrial revolution generated unprecedented levels of wealth and dramatically changed the nature of British society. The British royal family played an important part in managing the systematic transition from feudalism to capitalism, projecting continuity and stability during this period of immense upheaval
The model of British ruling class that was taking shape by the early 1700s delivered spectacular results. It oversaw the creation of a British Empire which by 1922 controlled one quarter of the world’s landmass and ruled over one quarter of the world’s population. The expansionist agenda that built that vast Empire was motivated by an insatiable greed for territories, natural resources, labour and markets.
From the outset the British state and private British companies worked in close collaboration with each other to build the Empire — an early example of public private partnership. The first British toehold in North America was established in 1607 by the Virginia Company of London acting under royal charter. Six years later the notorious East India Company opened its first factory, again under royal charter, on the other side of the world in Surat, India.
In the three centuries that followed, thousands of British corporations funnelled untold riches back to Britain — riches that flowed from the slave trade, the theft of natural resources and the exploitation of hundreds of millions of people. This was asset-stripping on an unprecedented scale. Made legal by British law and royal consent. Carried out by private British corporations. And enforced by the British military as required.
The modus operandi of British foreign policy has remained largely unchanged for four hundred years, as the invasion of Iraq in 2003 dramatically demonstrated. The bogus excuse for the invasion, the whipping up of British jingoism, the prominent royal support for the attacking British troops, the deaths of countless innocents and the awarding of multi-billion-euro oil and gas contracts to British corporations by the pro-Western, post ‘liberation’ Iraqi government were all standard moves from the British imperial playbook.
The transatlantic trade in African slaves was given royal consent by Kind Charles II in 1663. In the 150 years that followed British slave traders transported several million Africans to North America to work in the cotton fields and other labour-intensive settings
The pact between the old and new elites has served both parties well. Today the aristocracy and gentry still own 30% of land in England, with the royal family directly owning a further 1.4%. A further 35% of English land is owned by corporations, city bankers and oligarchs. In total, more than two-thirds of England’s land is owned by less than 1% of the population. And it’s the similar story when it comes to all other forms of riches in Britain, where income and wealth is heavily concentrated into a tiny percentage of the population.
Of course, Britain isn’t unique in this regard. Capitalism, by it’s very nature, concentrates wealth into a relatively small section of the population. But in the case of Britain this concentration is particularly acute and the ruling elite includes many aristocratic families that have retained their wealth for hundreds of years. And it isn’t only in the retention of land and wealth that the aristocracy have triumphed.
Almost three and a half centuries after the ‘glorious revolution’ the British legislature remains a tripartite composed of the Monarch, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Of these three pillars, only the House of Commons is directly elected by the people.
The Monarch remains an inherited position, while 92 seats in the House of Lords are retained for members of the aristocracy. The remaining seats in the House of Lords are filled by 26 Bishops from the Church of England (of which the reigning monarch is also Supreme Governor) or by appointment of the monarch on the advice of the prime minister. The same British prime ministers are themselves formally appointed by the reigning Monarch.
Liz Truss as she was appointed British Prime Minister by Elizabeth Windsor. While the appointment function is largely ceremonial, it is reinforces the idea that a democratically elected leader must attain the approval of an unelected monarch
The British royal family and its associated aristocracy have shown themselves to be capable of adapting to changed realities — most particularly when that change is necessary to ensure their own survival. They met the great challenge posed by the emergence of capitalism by coopting the capitalist elite into the ranks of the British ruling class.
Today the elites that gained their wealth and position from feudalism and the elite that gained their wealth and position from capitalism act as a single entity. Together they have designed and entrenched the economic, political and social structures of modern Britain — structures that protect their own wealth and position, as well as their ability to pass their wealth and position to their offspring.
Through their control of the formal structures of power and the informal networks that flow from their public schools and private clubs, the British elite have rigged the game in their own favour — to the permanent detriment of the rest of the population.
While access to the formal and informal circles of power may be largely closed to the bulk of the British population, they are fully open to the international oligarchs, bankers, brokers and other assorted parasites that are channeling hundreds of billions of euro through the City of London. Their money is welcome, with no questions asked, just as the money that flowed from slavery and the pillaging of the British Empire was once welcomed.
Former Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and David Cameron both attended Eton College, where the fees run to circa €60,000 per-year per student. Graduates of Eton and other public schools have been overly represented in high political office in Britain for generations
As Britain’s first overseas colony, Ireland was used as a testing ground for many of the colonial tactics that would later be deployed with devastating effect by the British in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. Over the course of several centuries the British royalty and wider ruling class sought to not only control and asset-strip Ireland, but also to eliminate every aspect of Ireland’s indigenous society and culture.
The phrase ‘ethnic cleansing’ may be of recent origin, but it perfectly describes what the the British ruling class repeatedly attempted to do in Ireland - to physically remove the native Irish from Ireland, through killing them in place or transporting them to the Caribbean, the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and many other countries.
In their place they aimed to create an Ireland in the image of England — in law, in language, in religion, in economics, in social order and in loyalty to the monarch. This article does not allow the space to go into the fine detail of this centuries-long project of national replacement. It is enough to understand that it is impossible to overstate the catastrophic impact that British colonialism had on the development of the Irish nation.
If British interference in Ireland’s affairs had ceased a century ago, a decade ago or even a single year ago, the process of normalising relations would already be underway. But British interference in Ireland has not ended.
The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was perhaps the most extreme and blatant example of British ethnic cleansing in Ireland. By its conclusion the native Irish population had been decimated through a combination of war, pestilence and transportation to the Caribbean and elsewhere
No matter what spin the British and Irish establishment put on it, the British state continues to illegally occupy the Six Counties — an occupation that is underpinned with more than 10,000 British troops and paramilitary police.
Despite the re-establishment of Stormont in 1998, all meaningful political power continues to reside in Westminster. The fact that Stormont has been in a state of suspension for four of the last five years confirms its utter irrelevance.
While the Irish establishment never miss an opportunity to talk about the ‘new relationship’ between Ireland and Britain, the British establishment has no such illusions. For them it’s business as usual. Their objective is the same as it has always been — to retain as much control and influence over Ireland as possible.
At a fundamental level the British establishment still regards all of Ireland as being within its legitimate ‘sphere of influence’. One need to look no further than their approach to Brexit to see how little value the contemporary British establishment places on their ‘treasured friendship’ with Ireland.
The Irish establishment went into a state of euphoria when Elizabeth Windsor spoke a few words of Irish at a lavish banquet in Dublin Castle in 2011. This gesture cost Windsor nothing, but bought Britain a priceless narrative about British goodwill toward Ireland that the Irish establishment have been pushing ever since
Events which the Irish political establishment have trumpeted as seismic political shifts - such as the Windsor state visit to the Twenty-Six Counties in 2011 - are in reality just cynical British chess moves designed to increase British influence in Ireland. The British are global masters at using such soft power to advance their selfish interests.
While the British and Irish establishments both used the 2011 state visit served to concretize the constitutional status quo, it also represented something much more profound for a very significant section of the Irish ruling class.
For them the Windsor visit was a personal vindication — the fulfillment of a lifelong ambitions to bring Ireland back into the British fold. This deep pining for recognition from the British ruling class was also on full display back in 1995 when the then Taoiseach John Bruton made headlines with his craven behaviour during a visit to Dublin by Charles Windsor.
Following the death of Elizabeth Windsor, the Irish establishment again went into full blown royal fever, competing with each other to issue the most hysterical public statements of condolences and solidarity with the British royals.
John Bruton’s behaviour in the presence of Charles Windsor was cringe-inducing to behold and so noticeable that even The Times of London described it as “embarrassingly effusive”
These Irish apologists for the British royalty do all in their power to suppress any serious conversation about the British royal family, the wider British state and the occupation of the Six Counties. Instead they would have you focus on Elizabeth Windsor’s personality or some other snippet of gossip from the royal soap opera.
Whether Elizabeth Windsor was a good mother or a terrible one is utterly irrelevant. Whether she loved her Corgis or hated Meghan Markle is equally irrelevant. What matters is the fact that the British Monarch is also the British Head of State and the Commander-in-Chief of the British military. The Monarch is integral to, and inseparable from, the modern British state that conquered a quarter of the world and continues to occupy six of Ireland’s counties.
When Elizabeth Windsor was required to pin medals on the chests of the paratroopers who slaughtered the innocent in Bloody Sunday in Derry, she did so without question. And when she was required to speak the cúpla focal at a banquet in Dublin, she this too without question.
As British head of state, Windsor did what was required of her to advance the self-interest of the British ruling class at a given point in time. She did so because she fully understood the nature of British state and the pact that lies at the heart of the British ruling class. Charles Windsor will be no different.
The Irish establishment will not accept the inconvenient truths about the dysfunction of the British state and its toxic relationship with Ireland. Instead they choose to push ludicrous narratives about ‘shared histories’ and ‘agreed futures’ — narratives that fundamentally undermine the very concept of Irish nationhood and Irish independence.
Éirígí led opposition to the 2011 state visit of Elizabeth Windsor was met with an unprecedented security operation involving thousands of Gardaí and members of the Twenty-Six County military
For more than 230 years Irish republicans have advocated for the principles of Equality, Liberty, Community, Democracy, Sovereignty and Justice. Those principles are fundamentally irreconcilable with the concepts of inherited position, power and wealth. There is no grey area between republicanism and royalty. And those who claim that there is serve only the interests of the latter.
Éirígí does not lament or mourn the passing of Elizabeth Windsor. Instead we stand in solidarity with the people without number across the globe who suffered at the hands of the British state during her 70 year reign. From Belfast to Baghdad, the victims of British imperialism deserve remembrance and justice.
We understand that a new Irish Republic will not come from cosying up to the British or Irish establishment. Nor will it come from compromising on core republican principles or blind trust in great leaders.
No, the New Republic will only come through the building of a new mass movement anchored in the people and in the timeless principles that first put down Irish roots in the 1790s — a movement that will serve neither King nor Banker nor Landlord.
Éirígí is already building just such a movement in communities across Ireland. If you’re ready to join the fight for the New Republic, join us today.