The Queen is Gaddafi, Says Morrissey
Morrissey attacks Queen Elizabeth and the Monarchy as she makes an historic visit to Ireland:
The full meaning of the Monarchy is, like the Queen herself, a complete mystery to most people. It is protected from any investigations by ridiculous stories of trivia and wedding dresses and on-again-off-again soap-drama romances. The most revealing statement came from Commander Christine Jones of the Metropolitan Police last month, when she warned that any British people carrying anti-royal placards who are "seen in the vicinity of the royal wedding would be removed under the Public Order Act." This means that any political dissent in England is silenced in order to protect the royals, which in itself goes against every principle of democracy.
The very existence of the Queen and her now enormous family – all supported by the British taxpayer whether the British taxpayer likes it or not – is entirely against any notion of democracy, and is against freedom of speech. For a broad historical view of what the Queen is and how she "rules", examine Gaddafi or Mubarak, and see if you can spot any difference.
You won't be able to.
"The last British monarch to visit Ireland prior to the Queen's historic visit this week was George V exactly 100 years ago," according to the Telegraph.
Watch a clip of the Queen's first visit to Ireland, AFTER THE JUMP...
They are a parasitic lot, Morrissey's right. "Name another European country that is partly controlled by its neighbor," he asks. He's right about that too.
His Irish ancestry, and his democratic principles, asserting themselves. I don't mind a bit that he's bombastic, he wants to make a larger point.
And he's the best singer/songwriter since the other pair with Irish ancestry Lennon/McCartney.
Posted by: yonkersconquers | May 18, 2011 10:05:38 AM
The UK controls Northern Ireland by the same right that the USA controls Texas; By right of conquest.
And she is not paid by public funds, she is paid out of the income earned from the Crown Estate, properties that her ancestors owned. Most of that income goes to run the government and SOME goes to her and her family:
In 1760, one ancestor, George III, reached an agreement with the Government over the crown estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment – what we call today the Civil List.
Posted by: pete | May 18, 2011 10:15:16 AM
I agree with him 100 percent. Another note, I love her dress and hat.
Posted by: brent | May 18, 2011 10:16:05 AM
Morrissey's comment would make sense if the Queen actually had any power or control over the direction of her realm.
Posted by: Marc | May 18, 2011 10:17:18 AM
pete
the "surplus" goes to UPKEEP of the crown estates and the government picks up the rest of the cost of UPKEEP that the 'surplus" does not cover
Use logic man, if the crown estates were profitable then her ancestor woul never have given them over in the first place let alone would she allow the government to keep them. She would want them back to keep the profit so logically they are not profitable after UPKEEP costs are factored in
Posted by: mstrozfckslv | May 18, 2011 10:26:04 AM
That's rich coming from a racist (Morrissey).
I am of Irish descent and no friend of the British monarchy, but come on. The Queen is a figurehead with symbolic power only. Parliament has been supreme since they chopped off King Charles II head.
The British people overwhelmingly support the monarchy.
I think the British should get out of Northern Ireland, but Morrissey is a demagogue.
Posted by: Lars | May 18, 2011 10:27:21 AM
Morrissey here is shrill and shockingly misinformed.
Criticize the monarchy -- or even the Queen -- all you like, I suppose, but not because the monarch "rules" like Gaddafi or Mubarak.
First, the Queen REIGNS, she does not RULE, and second, whatever you call what she does it does not involve torture, the forcible imposition of a ruthless poverty or midnight, babbling broadcasts to the nation (although the latter would be something to see...).
Posted by: Pinky | May 18, 2011 10:31:27 AM
The British people do not 'overwhelmingly' support the monarchy.
About 30% of the British population are republican (with a small 'r').
And even though the queen has no real power, the fact remains that Britain has an unelected head of state.
That is undemocratic no matter which way you look at it,
Posted by: MaryM | May 18, 2011 10:32:54 AM
Look don't get me wrong,i am not a monarchist,but these people are born into that life & know nothing else.They feel it is their duty to carry on the tradition as do many persons they "reign" over regardless of status.There always has & always will be people more privileged than others,sadly.Will the first born of Will & Kate be resposible for others living in poverty in the future?
Morrisey must be a real depressing person to be around.Yikes.
Posted by: John | May 18, 2011 10:32:59 AM
I'm confused - which one is the old, doddering, poe faced queen here?
Posted by: Stewart | May 18, 2011 10:34:21 AM
Honestly, who gives a damn what Morrissey has to say? Every time he comments on the monarchy, animals, food, fasion, music, etc, it end up in the news, but I haven't seen him doing much to contribute to culture or the arts, politics, or anything else in any serious way in a number of years. It's like he's just bitching for the sake of bitching.
Posted by: Joey Y | May 18, 2011 10:36:10 AM
"the "surplus" goes to UPKEEP of the crown estates and the government picks up the rest of the cost of UPKEEP that the 'surplus" does not cover"
Your logic here is the same logic used by Repubs to defund Planned Parenthood.
I typically like your posts, but I find your constant bashing of the British monarchy to be so odd, particularly for an American. The monarchy is pageantry, nothing more. I can think of hundreds of better things to get upset about.
Posted by: nodnarb | May 18, 2011 10:39:22 AM
I personally don't get his assertions. She is nothing like Gaddafi, because she has no actual law making power. She only has symbolic power, and as a rule she is politically neutral and essentially just a figurehead.
It's not like she is ruling for an iron fist or anything. If anything she is at the mercy of public opinion, far more so than Gaddafi.
Great britain is taxed 1 british pound per person for the monarchy. If he is so bent out of shape over something that brings millions of dollars to the country in tourism, i can send him a pound via paypal if he likes. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Imagine tourism in the British Isles without the monarchy?
Posted by: BrandonJD | May 18, 2011 10:53:21 AM
Comparing an 85 year old woman with no actual political power to a brutal dictator who suppresses any dissent is more than a stretch. It is laughable. When the police removed anti-royal protestors from the wedding route, it probably wasn't even done at the Queen's request - it was likely done to keep the peace, and certainly not the equivalent of dropping bombs from airplanes on the residential neighborhoods of people who want you out of power.
For all the complaining about the Queen receiving taxpayer money, I haven't seen any mention of how much the Royal family adds to the tax revenue through its very existence in terms of tourism.
Posted by: Chadd | May 18, 2011 11:07:02 AM
eh...Morrissey is just jealous. He's also a racist.
Earth o Andy, we don't care about your hard-on for this trash. Keep it to yourself from now on, please. Nothing he has ever said or done has been relevant to anyone, anywhere.
Posted by: Tim | May 18, 2011 11:10:13 AM
So, out of all the people on earth that His Highness Morrissey could criticize, who does he go after? Asians and the British Royal Family?? He sure knows how to pick his battles.
LOL.
Posted by: Danny | May 18, 2011 11:14:01 AM
The British people do not 'overwhelmingly' support the monarchy.
About 30% of the British population are republican (with a small 'r').
Hey MaryM,
Maybe you skipped out on political science class in school, but when 70 percent of any population supports one side of an issue over the other, that is an overwhelming majority. If any election for president here had those type of numbers, people would never hear the end of it. Hell, when a president approaches greater than 53 percent (Obama) of the popular vote, that's considered a modern day landslide. Point being, it's virtually impossible to get more than 50 percent of any group to agree on anything, especially a in country (the UK) where about 35 percent support wins you control of the government.
Leave the old lady alone. She does far more good than harm.
Posted by: James C | May 18, 2011 11:18:01 AM
Poor, unfortunate Morrissey. When will the ungrateful, uneducated 'sub-species' of the world stop worshiping golden cows and realize that it is YOU who is the rightful Queen of England? *Sigh*
Posted by: Mani | May 18, 2011 11:33:36 AM
Not to split hairs with Lars, but he needs a history lesson (like so many of you here). Charles II wasn't beheaded. His father, Charles I was. A de facto parliament-led government took over after Charles I was beheaded and lasted less than five years. Parliament then re-instated the monarch by inviting Charles II back to the throne AND conceded all powers that his father held back to him. The monarchy lost zero power with the beheading of Charles I.
The monarchy was only weakened significantly when James II vacated the throne (was thrown out by Parliament) and Mary was invited to rule with her husband William. They were forced to sign a Bill of Rights recognizing certain rights held by the British people. But even then, their power was greater than what the Queen has today. Then you have a reign of the Georges, the first two of whom were German and spoke nearly no English. This vastly weakened the monarchy to the benefit of a Whig-controlled Parliament.
The weakening of the power of the monarchy wasn't any one singular event, but culminated over a century.
The fact is the "people" of England could dissolve the monarchy tomorrow if they really wanted to. And the Irish could be "set free" from British control if the British people wanted them to be. But they don't. Stop blaming a Queen that has almost no power and blame the actual democratic body that could change the entire system through the will of the people they serve. Blame the people they serve for preferring to live under a monarchy and to continue to assume control of Ireland.
Ireland will never be free from England. It is time to move on.
Posted by: Sam | May 18, 2011 12:20:59 PM
I like Morrissey's music for the most part, but I can only laugh at his ill-informed and bombastic politics...
Posted by: ColinATL | May 18, 2011 12:50:34 PM
The monarchy is slowly disappearing, but it hardly fits with a 21st century nation mindset. We should know better by now that it is an anachronism. It's like a modern country where women are not allowed to vote.
Posted by: anon | May 18, 2011 1:39:41 PM
@Sam--true, but you certainly argue that whacking off the king's head sent a discouraging message to any future monarch who attempted to rule as an autocrat and randomly dissolve parliaments, and gave Parliament the confidence to assume that it could expel James.
Posted by: Konrad | May 18, 2011 2:28:29 PM
Read more about the stinking leeches the royals are in this Huffington Post article regarding a documentary on the same!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/16/cannes-diana-film-slams-u_n_862286.html
Posted by: Gandalf The Grey | May 18, 2011 2:57:17 PM
Oh, Moz. Love his music; roll my eyes at his public statements. If the people of any Commonwealth country voted to ditch HMQE2 then she'd go-- not dig in for a bloody civil war like Gaddafi has.
Posted by: Derek Pearce | May 18, 2011 6:06:20 PM
@PETE Texas wasn't made part of the U.S. by conquest, it was annexed, with the request and approval of the Texas legislature, way to prove yourself a dumbass.
Posted by: perezti | May 18, 2011 6:20:36 PM