Published On: Fri, May 18th, 2018

Establishment and media in Royal Wedding propaganda exercise

Share This

The headline is actually from another piece, written in April 2011, that first appeared at the forerunner of this site. As we are on the eve of another procession by which the British are invited to consent to Government through veneration of its dignified part, as Bagehot explained all those years ago, something was necessary to demonstrate that nothing changes. The reader may well have first thought that, from the headline, he was about to read of how Henry had elevated an actress into another sort of theatre, but all one really needs to do is read one set of names for another, and a Royal Wedding is always the same story, and amounts to the same thing. Hence the re-presentation of an old bit of writing.

As it turns out, the body of this piece is a revisit to the summer of 2011, and the joining together of His Royal Gormlessness and Kate Middleton, sometimes referred to in these pages as the Duchess of See-thru-nightie, which is a statement, to be understood by long-time readers here, about the apparent price by which the British throne can be purchased.

This year there doesn’t seem to be the same great promotion of the “nationwide street party” as a way of generating a greater effect from the bread and circus through the immersion into, and the visceral participation in a “national celebration” by Joe Subject. It was quite the different matter in 2012 [the 60th anniversary of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II], for which the Middletons’ marriage was a warm-up. The Royal events of 2011 and then 2012, we can now see on hindsight, were intended by the British Government as a feel-good spectacular to numb the pinching pain and nagging irritation caused by being in a European Superstate ahead of an EU Referendum. It was an Olympics year, remember? Only the insanely gullible could now believe that that was a coincidence (remember that the July 7th bombing happened the very next day after London was announced as the host?) It was noticed, when looking back through all this material, that on Saturday, May 19th [2012] there was a military parade in Windsor for the Queen’s Jubilee. Six years later, the very same day sees another grand procession. There must be something astronomically significant about the date.

In the author’s town, the most high profile street party (a road in the city centre will be closed) also seems to be taking place in an area where, on the surface, people voted to stay in the EU in the referendum of 2016. Now, the first impulse one gets is to think that this type of folk is confused – but they aren’t. It makes perfect sense that they would lead the way in the deep deception involved in equating the Monarchy with expressions of British identity. At a future time, there will be more on the deal between General Monck of the Parliamentary Army and the City of London ahead of the Restoration of the Crown, and the loss of the Commonwealth, which could have served as a pool for welfare distribution without recourse to taxation. Instead, the Corporation, for whom the Queen is the front, reaps all the rewards, and more besides.

The very basic criminality of the people, who get cheered from the pavements as they ride around London (or Windsor) in golden carriages in special processions designed to encourage re-submission to the fraud, is something that the British are somehow just not able to grasp. There needs to be exposure, not adulation. At FBEL, over the years, we have tried to do our part. Please peruse the articles shown immediately below – the ones about the Queen and the EU subsidies and wind farm scam remind that there is no empathy at Buckingham Palace for Brexit, and the Monarch is not the patriot’s friend; we’ll be revisiting the issue soon to get up to date. The promised archive article starts underneath the list.

The Monarchy: Conspiring with the EU against the British? (link)
Corporate-sponsored royal couple on tax-revenue funded US trip swap down-at-heel Anglesey for “cash-for-access” lifestyle (link)
Profligate, anti-British, dangerous nincompoop watch (link)
Renewables Obligation: a conspiracy to steal by British Government criminals (link)
All in it together? Prince Philip denounces competitors’ wind farms, then MPs act to increase the Royal bonanza derived from Charles’ much-loved EU Green Energy diktats (link)
Queen’s Jubilee: a massive psychological operation (link)

Establishment and media in Royal Wedding propaganda exercise

While a national polling company was reporting that over 50% of Britons would watch the Royal Wedding, large numbers of respondents to regional online newspaper polls on the day before the event were signalling that they had no interest in the occasion whatsoever. In that light, the MSM seemed to be engaged in a grand effort to shape the perception of Britons to make them believe that interest in the marriage of William (Battenburg-)Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Kate Middleton was some kind of irresistible phenomenon.

The big number being used from the Ipsos Mori poll to form headline news was the 56% of respondents who said that they were likely to watch the event. However, when that figure is compared with the 22% who said they would definitely watch it, the difference in the two numbers (that could represent any circumstance from mild curiosity to being made to watch by family) is quite a considerable one. Indeed, a quarter of respondents said that they were not at all interested in the event.

Furthermore, samples from online local newspaper polls taken on the afternoon of 28th April showed the following (please click on links to see the data):

This is London: 73% wouldn’t be celebrating
This is Bristol: 74% wouldn’t be celebrating
This is Nottingham: 72% wouldn’t be celebrating
This is Derby: 68% wouldn’t be celebrating
This is Staffordshire: 72% wouldn’t be celebrating

The Ipsos Mori poll showed that women and Conservative voters featured high as the sort of demographic group that would be most interested in the wedding. Speculation suggests that women might be drawn to the social aspect of the event, whereas the appeal to Conservatives is political and reflects a delusion that the pantomime has a bearing on the well being, identity and future of what is now the European Union province of Britain.

Another indicator of lack of interest was the paltry amount of applications received by councils up and down the land to close vehicular access to roads in order to stage street parties.

On the weekend before the wedding, the Daily Mail was claiming that 5500 street parties would be held across the country – a figure also reported by Channel 4 news the day before the wedding.

The applications show a decisive split between the south east of England and the rest of the country with London hosting the most street parties at 800. However, this is miniscule compared with the 4000 held in the city for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee in 1977.

In contrast, the BBC cites Bolton as an example northern town (and possibly the largest town in the country) which had 427 parties for the Jubilee and more than 100 for Charles and Diana’s wedding; only four applications for a street party for this most recent event had been received by the council at the beginning of April.

In the Midlands the people of Birmingham, the second city, only made 25 applications – that’s one party for every 41,000 residents.

In the South West, Bristol was singled out by the Daily Mail as a hotbed of patriotism where 54 street parties had been planned. This number would make the ratio 1 party for every 8,000 residents, and although on one hand this is hardly demonstrative of a population that is engaging with the event, it does fall below the national average of one party for every 10,000 citizens. This could be the grounds by which the Mail praised Bristol as especially patriotic.

However, what the Mail did not mention is that Bristol currently seems to be an experiment for government efforts to implement the Big Society and community organising. Streets Alive, a national not-for-profit company that was key in organising 150 street parties in Bristol in 2010, has a mission statement that declares they are interested in “changing the country from the street up”. Moreover, Communities Minister and Liberal Democrat MP, Andrew Stunell, hinted at Bristol as some kind of government showcase when he declared last year that Bristol was the “street party capital” of Britain.

The blanket press coverage for the Royal Wedding was obviously designed to give Britons the impression that there is an independent British identity and a loyalty for an institution that has betrayed the country by being complicit in acts of treason regarding the handing of British sovereignty to the EU. Rather like some tin-pot dictatorship that urges supporters on to the streets in times of trouble, the British establishment has used this wedding as a piece of political propaganda. The very fact that police had arrested people who had stated an intent to use the occasion to demonstrate peacefully, and that the arrests had been made before any crime had been committed, only reinforces this very obvious reality that unfortunately so many choose to deny.

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.
Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Steven says:

    I remember the Luilekkerland days fondly.

    Even a recent yougov poll showed that the majority of the respondents were not interested in this Royal Wedding. Although we can probably take those polls with a pinch of salt.

    I often wonder if the people who turn up in Union Jack outfits and camp out for days to catch a look these dog and pony shows are paid extras.