Death Benefit Request Form - Whitehall Group: Fill & Download for Free

In my personal case as a Scottish Brit, I’m very conflicted.I may like the Royal Family, but they are hugely problematic.I’ll explain my concerns on three bases:Democratic ConsiderationsThe Black Spider MemosQueen’s ConsentDemocratic ConsiderationsCall me old-fashioned, but I don’t like antidemocratic institutions.Nobody is “born better”. Some are born into wealth and influence, while others are born into squalor and degradation. Many fall somewhere along these two extremes. But in a democratic society, there should be no (or few) favours given to anyone who is born with a specific lineage; the model of personal responsibility demands that, while your parents and your lineage can and do help you out, there be no state-level favouritism.A monarchy subverts that democratic principle, and it harms both the lesser people and the recipients of the benefits. For the lesser people, many of our population have to live in ridiculous dingy flats and survive on the lowest budgets, faced with a government and most parties who either don’t care about human suffering or don’t quite understand that the common man can’t exactly exist on tuppence from the benefits system. The flipside is that “if we give people too much, they’ll never work!”, but that’s a rather damning indictment on the nature of work and its conditions too.It’s not a good idea to work people into the grave!We’ve just been conditioned to see our worth as tied to work!And essential services are often degraded as “lesser”.So, take those “lesser” people, and show them this:Buckingham Palace.The Royal occupants work for their upkeep, I’m not denying that at all. But to say that their work is more important as figureheads than, for example, the doctors and nurses who risk their lives daily in the COVID-19 pandemic, the essential workers in Tesco who have to keep the peace with mouthy Karens claiming that they’re “exempt” from masks, I find that Buckingham Palace as a place of residence for the sole purpose of “born better” to be absurd.And that’s not all that we have to examine.From The Sun:HARRY and Meghan’s refurb of their Frogmore Cottage home has so far cost taxpayers a whopping £2.4million.The couple’s new residence now boasts a designer kitchen — part of a taxpayer-funded refurb which will cost nearly £3million when all the costs are added.[…]Their five-bedroom property — a gift from the Queen — is said to have required a “substantial overhaul” before they were able to move in, including new heating, wiring and utilities.The Royals don’t just have their Palace, they also have cottages paid for by Queen Elizabeth II herself and renovated from public funds. Again, these people are mostly figureheads, the rallying figures for British spirit, who greet diplomats and foreign leaders. It’s a good job, pretty much a culturally vital one, but it doesn’t merit that amount of money and power on the basis of being “born better” into that family line! I’m annoyed at footballers who get paid millions to kick a ball (don’t give me the “they worked so hard” line, they’re performers), but at least they did work through the ranks!This level of automatic prestige is almost unparalleled.Especially with state funding and backing.We could say “but what about those who inherit from billionaires?”, and you’d be right. There’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire, and I am firmly in favour of wealth redistribution enterprises (while not leaving those poor billionaires destitute and without work incentives, of course). But there’s a world of difference between giving entrepreneurs and business owners a leg up in the tax stakes (again, ridiculous), allowing people to pass on their funds to their children upon their deaths, and full-on creating a privileged position of prestige and power for one family within an entire democracy.There’s no such thing as a perfect state of equality.Somebody’s always going to have more.But this instance is state-sponsored.That situation flies in the face of an egalitarian democratic system.And ironically, the whole situation hurts the Royals as well.For all of the millions upon billions of pounds in taxpayer money that they receive, the Royals often forced into roles that they might not want to play from the moment of their birth. They’re automatic celebrities. We’ve had a camera in the face of Prince George from the moment he was able to walk properly. Harry and Meghan’s fallout from the Royals’ grace had to be spectacularly published across every trashy tabloid, the same ones that had hounded Meghan with secret stories and her DAD COMING TO CLAIM VENGEANCE IN THE NAME OF THE MARKLE CLAN and WHEN WILL THEY FINALLY REVEAL THE TRUTH THAT MEGHAN IS PLAYING HARRY:And in an era in which we’re supposed to have abolished the military draft in Britain, we have this barbaric practice enduring for the Royals:Royals are expected to serve their country in more ways than one–and while enlisting in the military isn't a requirement for royalty, it's certainly expected. Traditionally, those who enlist and serve also wear their uniforms on their wedding day.Like, what?How can we square that with the democratic principles of freedom and of self-determination? While we can say that it’s not a “requirement” for them to sign up, it’s also not a “requirement” for kids to follow in their parents’ religious footsteps, and yet by and large it happens because the situation raises the kid in that environment to the point of passive indoctrination. Just like a kid goes and numbs their mind to a sermon, the Royals grow up in the knowledge that the whole “equality” shtick doesn’t work for them, that they’ll be off in a fighter jet before long, lest they risk the ire of Royal followers.We funnel so much of our money and attention into the Royals as a blatantly undemocratic institution, while eliminating and eroding the members’ own rights and freedoms at the same time. It’s an institution that really should have been extinguished upon the advent of a full democracy, in which men and women were allowed to vote on the same basis (not by land or age disparities), but the Royal Family has held on, to the detriment of both the taxpayer who has to support them and the Royals themselves.At a time in which we’re supposed to make stupid mistakes in our twenties, the lens will have been on Prince William and Harry, just as it will be now on Prince George. The Internet era is hard enough on my generation without the instant celebrity status; I have some followers on here, but at least people millions of miles away aren’t commenting on my blog over breakfast as if it were the most important thing in their lives!(If you are doing that, for the love of God, get a life.)So, let’s recap.The undemocratic nature of the Royals, coupled with considerations of being “born better” and “blue blood”, negatively impact on both the people who have to watch our institutions bend over backwards to accommodate this archaic form of leadership and the Royals themselves. The recipients of the fame and fortune will often be made celebrities out of for no good reason; it’s the Kardashian “famous for being famous” model. I don’t approve of the Kardashians at a flat rate, considering that they’re a ridiculous institution in their own right, but at the very least the state leaves them alone to hoodwink their followers.The Kardashians are a private enterprise.The state actively and publicly promotes the Royals, though.I have a hard time accepting that in a democracy.The Black Spider MemosIf you’re not familiar with British politics, allow me to explain this mess.This is Prince Charles.Prince Charles is known as the Prince of Wales.Prince Charles is heir to the Crown, after Queen Elizabeth II.Prince Charles is a big letter writer.He writes many letters, including to Members of Parliament and to the Prime Minister himself (at the time, Tony Blair).Now, our Royals are expected to keep their traps shut about their political opinions. This is an essential give-and-take to allow them to continue in their roles at all, lest the whole system collapse into irreparable harm. Again, one may point to this as a major problem for the people born into the monarchy, since the institution prevents these people from exercising the rights to free speech that the majority of the populace will take for granted in life.But the Royals are people who have the ears of Parliament, and they can twist arms and borrow ears to their hearts’ content if they wish. It is therefore vital to have constitutional principles in place that stop unscrupulous Royals from abusing this position of trust for their own benefit.Enter Prince Charles.Here is a sample exert from his dealings with Prime Minister Blair:Finally, I did raise an entirely different subject to do with the resources available for our Armed Forces… The aim of the Ministry of Defence and the Army Air Corps to deploy this equipment globally is, however, being frustrated by the poor performance of the existing Lynx aircraft in high temperatures. Despite this, the procurement of a new aircraft to replace the Lynx is subject to further delays and uncertainty due to the significant pressure on the Defence Budget. I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources.If you want to read the other letters, here’s the link.[1]The war in Iraq was (and is) a highly contentious political affair. one that should have been left to the Parliament. Parliament is, of course, beholden to the people, who later expressed their outrage at the invasion force and called for the whole thing to be brought to a halt. We are their bosses. Even today, Prime Minister Blair is considered in some circles to be a war criminal, though the possibility of his prosecution as such is very slight indeed.But we’re not the monarchy’s bosses.They're beyond our control.So, “We, the people”, cannot lose any more of our control to that monarchy.Prince Charles wrote many other letters to many other influential people, some more than others breaching his Royal and constitutional duty to be neutral in his politics. Those letters became known as the Black Spider Memos, owing to the scrawling nature of the Prince’s handwriting.Rather than admit that the letters existed and letting the public view them (as is their right to transparency), though, there was a furious court battle to release them under a Freedom of Information request from The Guardian newspaper. This battle lasted for the best part of a decade, culminating in a Supreme Court decision to force their publication. The Guardian itself noted a high level of governmental interference in the case:Gordon Brown [Prime Minister of Britain between 2007–2010] has ordered a block on the disclosure of correspondence sent to ministers by members of the royal family and today his clampdown on attempts to expose the scale of the prince's lobbying was boosted when Christopher Graham, the information commissioner, who adjudicates in secrecy disputes, blocked the release of an earlier set of correspondence which involved Tony Blair.Why do this, you ask?Let’s ask the Attorney General at the time, one (aptly-named) Mr Dominic Grieve, who vetoed the publication of the memos in direct conflict with a Freedom of Information tribunal’s ruling on the issue:Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect [Prince Charles,] the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank.They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality.In summary, my decision is based on my view that the correspondence was undertaken as part of the Prince of Wales's preparation for becoming king. The Prince of Wales engaged in this correspondence with ministers with the expectation that it would be confidential. Disclosure of the correspondence could damage the Prince of Wales's ability to perform his duties when he becomes king.No fucking duh, mate.He shouldn’t have written the memos at all.We should have seen the memos before a constitutional crisis broke out.Prince Charles’ interests were, on the whole, rather strange and benign. He had some terrible moments, such as his interference in the Iraq policy (the issue of helicopters is benign in isolation, but the surrounding context of the issue is a very severe one), but other areas (such as his mentions of badger culling) are unlikely to trigger any major instances of political dispute. But the principle remains; there should have been absolutely no interference beyond simple discussion, and a letter from a Prince (again, as undemocratic as that sounds) can alter a minister’s opinions exponentially.What happens, say, if we get another Black Spider Memo crisis?One in which the intentions of the princely writer are far less benign?Already, the government has created a huge precedent for protecting the Royals from having to face up to their iniquities, shielding them from the public scrutiny that they rightly deserved. It might have all just been a big nothingburger, but the public have a right to know about these things. We place our trust implicitly in our power structures (a common flaw across our species), and when things happen that would shake our faith in them, we have to be able to understand the issue. One cannot understand the issues without a free and fair press, and the Black Spider Memos almost destroyed the public’s confidence in an impartial government upholding that freedom.In 2018, Prince Charles had this to say:I'm not that stupid [to meddle in the affairs of legislation]. I do realise that it is a separate exercise being sovereign. So of course, you know I understand entirely how that should operate.I agree with Prince Charles’ interest in environmentalism.By and large, he’s a pretty decent guy in that sense.But the fact that he had to have this constitutional principle rammed home to him after the scandal is concerning. If he weren’t as benign, we would be seeing a lot more problems in this case. The memos, while largely benign, should never have been made at all; this oppressive silence is the price that the Royals pay for the continuing antidemocratic nature of the establishment that they run as a family together, lest democracy fall to hell. Indeed, it’s not inconceivable that a less benign Royal will come along and take advantage of our government’s total spinelessness in dealing with the monarchy.If they want their speech rights, the monarchy has to be reconsidered.Along with their powers and their influence.Honestly, the fact that Prince Charles should even have to assure the British people that he won’t be “meddling” if he should ever become King in the wake of the Black Spider Memo scandal should concern us all.Queen’s ConsentThis is a tough one to explain.It’s a very recent scandal, and it’s still unfolding.The excellent website Legal Cheek notes the following here:Not to be confused with the ‘Royal Assent’… Queen’s consent is a power that has been in place since the 1700s and relates to specific bills that might impact on her private interests.The Guardian published a database of the laws that have been subject to the bizarre consent procedure. They cover a very wide range of subject areas (including data protection– lucky her…).There are also reports that the Queen was allegedly able to lobby behind the scenes for changes in a few of the bills that parliament had sent to her: the most startling example is evidence that appears to suggest that the Queen used the procedure to make changes to a 1970s law in order to prevent some of her private wealth becoming public knowledge.If this ain’t sending warning signs blaring through your noggin, I don’t know what will. If these reports are true (and The Guardian has a good track record of holding the Royals to account, as noted in the Black Spider Memos), then Queen Elizabeth II herself has abused her position in order to keep herself covered in the political arena. There is nobody else who can lobby so directly on laws that affect them; we can lobby, for sure, but not to that extent.There’s little to be done here, other than to remove the Queen’s Consent power. The power will affect her ability to keep her private dealings secret, but for all of this influence and all of her antidemocratic subversions inherent in her position, that’s the price to pay (or we could, I dunno, do away with the monarch if she’s not happy with that arrangement…?). Maybe that will have an impact on her ability to keep herself impartial in terms of her politics, but that’s not problematic when it comes to our treasured transparency; we expect the same standards from our elected officials, after all.Weren’t we all keen to see Donald Trump’s taxes?The Guardian notes in its coverage:If government lawyers advise that consent is required, the minister handling the bill writes to the Queen’s private secretary, explaining how the law will affect her and formally requesting her approval. On occasions, ministers have stated that it was their “humble duty” to request her consent to bills, according to Whitehall documents.Copies of the draft law are enclosed with the request, which is also sent to the Queen’s private solicitors, Farrer & Co, who examine the draft bill and advise her. At least two weeks are given for the royals and their lawyers to scrutinise the draft law.No.Not acceptable.Not in any democracy.The principle of “But it’s the QUEEN!” holds no water. If an unelected head of state is wielding such a high level of influence over the democratic process of law-making, there has to be an investigation into their affairs. This revelation forfeits her right to privacy in her private affairs (which is part and parcel of the monarch’s role in the age of transparency anyway). I may not care to go through Queen Elizabeth II’s private wealth in my spare time, but that information should be as publicly available as the government’s budget is.Like it or not, the Queen is not a private entity; by virtue of her position, and that of every other Royal, she is a public entity in almost every aspect of her life. This is the nature of her role, which she is perfectly entitled to leave at any time if she so chooses to by abdicating. Her role is in her own hands, and if she remains in the role, the responsibility that she bears to her subjects is that she remains open and transparent in a democratic country that has long since moved away from her form of governance, who will tolerate and even love her as a figurehead leader, but nothing more than that.Again, as noted by The Guardian:The Guardian has identified more than 1,000 instances when the Queen has been given an opportunity to shape draft legislation to suit her private wishes – far more occasions than had been previously imagined.[…]You might think the Freedom of Information Act would help establish the facts. But, in a very British catch-22, that also required Queen’s consent, and the upshot of that is that the ability to extract information about the royals is subject to exemptions and restrictions that apply to no other part of the public sector. And they are part of the public sector. They carry out public duties (well, some of them do) and are lavishly funded by the public purse.Now, “an opportunity to shape” does not equal “shaping”.The vetting process may have turned up no changes.But that the opportunity was there at all is democratically horrifying.To see the list of vetted laws, see here.[2]I don’t think that it’s fully fair to insinuate that Queen Elizabeth II is using her position solely to enrich herself, given the decades of devoted service that she has given to Britain. She even worked as a driver and mechanic during World War Two, which is an impressive feat. To deny that she is devoted to her country is a disgrace, and I think she would be saddened that people would assume the worst of her on the basis of this power.But the fact remains that she has exercised it to her own benefit, where no other person in the whole country would have been able to secure such consideration. We scrutinised Health Secretary Matt Hancock for spending £47,528 on takeout food for his staff, which he justified as the best value for money (his staff, in fairness, will be pulling a lot of overtime during COVID-19). If we can quiz him on television and ask him to justify that, then we can also demand to know Queen Elizabeth II’s private worth as a public (and allegedly neutral) individual who is largely supported by taxpayer money.According to British Heritage:A Sovereign Grant report showed that the royal household received £7 million from the Royal Collection Trust in 2018, with total royal expenses from the family coming in at £67 million.Accounts for the Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen and her household’s official expenses, show the monarchy cost the taxpayer £67m during 2018-19 – an increase of almost £20m in the previous financial year.The Royals may be giving a lot to the economy (more than they currently take), but they do take a lot. Us paying to do up their residences eats into the public purse a fair bit. As such, their expenses and private funds become a source of interest when the taxpayer is footing the bill for renovating their properties (not to mention their overall impact on the democratic legislative process elsewhere). One of these days, we’re not going to have a year in which another bloody Royal wedding happens or another Royal baby pops out to cover the taxpayer costs that they take out from the pot.We don’t let anyone else in politics (the Royals, despite their “neutrality”, are aggressively political when it comes to their interests) get away with such hiding. Hell, an excess of £6,000 spent by a yet-unnamed government official on goods from Hotel Chocolat (spelled correctly) recently made headline news. The card that this official used to purchase the chocolate was funded by the taxpayer. We have had expenses scandals and Cash for Honours scandals, and we have expected our governments as public figures in every instance to account for their actions as both private and public individuals.The Royal Family is not exempt from this scrutiny.It cannot be exempt.And it’s not even just their financial affairs; they have the right to review any laws which have any impact on their interests.The Queen’s Consent, if The Guardian have been accurate in their reporting (and they have the letters and the documents to back up their claims), is a constitutional crisis which must be dealt with immediately. It is clear that the monarchy has been profiting enormously off of their close connection with those in official power. There’s a lot more power to the Queen beyond that of her figurehead role, and this calls for either an overhaul of the monarchy as it stands or an eventual replacement of its standing in society.As with the Black Spider Memos, I must qualify this by saying that lobbying itself is not wrong. Professional lobbying groups are often successful in swaying governmental action, and they are important voices to be heard when taking a decision that will affect the people that the lobbyers represent. But these groups are comprised of private individuals with no way to enforce anything like the Queen’s Consent. There’s no “Lobbyer’s Consent”, where the British Heart Foundation has to give the green light on any action pertaining to the fight against heart diseases. And more to the point, most lobbyers do not have to be neutral as a matter of constitutional security.Our monarchy does, though.That’s the deal if they want to keep their positions in a democracy.And even Queen Elizabeth II is flaunting that rule.So, what do we make of all of these issues?The monarchy is old, outdated, and it is mired with issues.In other words, it’s quintessentially British.It’s not all bad, of course.According to The Sunday Post:The royals, in fact, brought in £430 million more than they cost us last year [2018], leaving other royals such as the Spanish or Belgian ones lagging far behind.This is the main finding of new research looking into royal expenditure, what they cost us and the UK’s financial benefits.Overall, in 2018, the British royals contributed £595m via tourism, merchandise and the arts, while costing £165m.This, apparently, makes them 18 times more profitable than Belgium’s royals, and an amazing 29 times more than the Spanish monarchy.In the past five years, in fact, they have contributed £2.8 billion to the UK economy.Whenever the Royals have a big event, they bring in revenue and generate interest in British affairs. Whether it’s a wedding, or the birth of a child, or whatever else the tabloids and Royal followers will eat up, they’ll always be a massive money-spinner. That’s no small thing, especially in the wake of what seems to be a tumultuous Brexit process that’s going to cost the country a hefty sum, and the Royals should be commended for their contributions there. But they also cost a lot in upkeep, and when weighed against the democratic principles, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with them being treated with the deference that they are given at the moment.FullFact notes the following:The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. But the Crown Estate isn’t the royal family’s private property. The Queen pays tax to government on her other private incomes.Historically the Queen received a grant from the government based on 15% of the income from the Crown Estate, but this has gone up to 25% to pay for refurbishments to Buckingham Palace. In 2019/20 this will equate to about £82 million.There is no other family that receives this level of financial support.At least she pays her taxes?While hiding her enormous worth, of course.It’ll cost a lot more to get rid of them than to keep them, and I am very much a pragmatist first and foremost. There is no basis for removing them at any great speed, and to be frank, we need the Royals to continue generating the revenue that they bring to our economy, through tourism and nationalistic fawning over new kids and weddings and whatever else. The post-Brexit economy needs all the cash it can get. But if I were able to make a decision on this issue without my hands being tied by pragmatism, I would argue either for the removal of the monarchy, as an antidemocratic institution which has no reason for persisting into the twenty-first century and is awash with controversies, or for a complete reconsideration of their funding, powers, and their access to those in political office.And it’s not like the cost of their upkeep is a constant:From Statistica:Taxpayers in the United Kingdom are paying more money than ever for the Royal Family. The latest Sovereign Grant accounts show that the monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19 - a 41 percent increase on the previous financial year. One interesting aspect of the accounts is that Frogmore Cottage cost £2.4 million of public money to renovate. The official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the cottage was given to the couple as a gift by the Queen.They’ve requested attribution, which I’m normally too lazy to do, but here.[3]What happens if (when) Buckingham Palace needs another multi-million pound renovation, and Prince William and Duchess Catherine haven’t had their next bundle of joy to generate national and international buzz?The monarchy is running out of Royals to marry off!There’s ways to make money off of the Royals without having them as actual political entities. They don’t need to leave public life forever. The government could wholly manage their properties. Hell, most people visit Buckingham Palace not with the intention of snapping a selfie with Her Majesty, but to see the architecture and displays. And there’s no reason to cancel the Queen’s Speech on Christmas Day; that would be a very cruel thing to do. Even as a non-monarchist, I appreciate the grace and poise with which Queen Elizabeth II has always conducted herself in her televised speeches.But I consider the Royals to be as antidemocratic as the House of Lords.For the non-Brits, the House of Lords is a chamber in our legislature that has no democratic mandate, and is completely composed of unelected members, who can demand legislative changes from the elected House of Commons. Much like American Presidents stuffing the Supreme Court with their chosen judges to enact their views long after the Presidential term is over, the House of Lords serves as a similarly concerning role. Religious presences mar the separation of church and state, hereditary peers perpetuated the Royal line of “born better” (with the power to inherit peerages discontinued only in 1999), and resigning Prime Ministers can ‘recommend’ peerages.In this day and age, that’s unacceptable.No legislature should be made up of the unelected.Not even half of that legislature.And judging by the growing Royal interference in politics, complete with tacit governmental support in spite of their required neutrality, we’re seeing similar issues from Royals as unelected officials. As such, the monarchy either needs an entire rethink, or even an abolition once we have our finances under control post-Brexit. That’s the nuclear option though, and I would much rather that the family be rethought before taking such a drastic step.As a money-making revenue, the Royal Family is excellent.As a political entity, the monarchy is very dangerous indeed.Nobody even wants to scrutinise them.Nobody wants to think ill of the Queen.Look how cute she is with her great-grandson!But without that willingness to scrutinise, they can get away with anything. There will be people who would defend Prince William if he was found in a back-alley stabbing a puppy. He’s a symbol of Britain, like Captain Sir Moore and beans on toast! You don’t criticise symbols! You venerate them and bow down before them without engaging any of your critical thinking skills! If you apply those skills, you’ll see the end of everything, you’ll see it all as nothing but an absurd cosmic joke that makes no difference on a universal scale!The cult of personality has to come to an end. We can’t afford to handwave away the dangers to democracy that the Royals present, even if we love little Prince George jumping in puddles as his parents look proudly on. We’re not living vicarious lives here; we’re living our own, and idolising these people as untouchable is a mistake. They’re involving themselves too much in politics, they’re breaking the constitutional deals, and it was only thanks to Queen Elizabeth II’s assent that Prime Minister Johnson was able to prorogue Parliament in order to push through a no-deal Brexit, a plan that was only stopped by the Supreme Court’s last-minute intervention.It’s customary that the Queen act on the Prime Minister’s advice, but it’s not like custom has proven itself effective these days. Custom dictates that the Royals keep their traps shut on political matters, but that didn’t stop Prince Charles from writing all of those lovely memos. It’s also customary that the Queen will act on the instructions provided to her:“In theory yes, but in practice no,” [Professor Ronan] McCrea said earlier today [on whether or not the Queen could refuse to prorogue]. “The queen acts on the advice of the Privy Council, which is her senior ministers. So in this case, the queen will follow the advice of her prime minister and ministers to prorogue parliament.”In “theory”, the Black Spider Memos shouldn’t have happened either.In “theory”, Queen’s Consent shouldn’t even be a power in a democracy.But we’re still dealing with their fallout now.Besides, the proroguing was noted as “unlawful” by Supreme Court judge Lady Hale. I’m sure that there must be some form of recourse to consider the logistics of an act of proroguing if the legal outcome would be considered as “unlawful”. Either Queen Elizabeth II just acted on autopilot in dealing with Prime Minister Johnson to grant the request, which shows a worrying lack of good judgement, or she was herself complicit in the “unlawful”ness.Remember the situation; Prime Minister Johnson couldn’t get an agreement on his Brexit deal. He was clearly looking to stop Parliament from scrutinising the leaving arrangements, and he turned to Queen Elizabeth II to make sure that the Parliament’s could not scrutinise him. Any fool could have told the Royals that this was a clear power grab, and while it would have been very hard to do, the best course of action would have been to recognise the power grab for what it was and to refuse to prorogue Parliament.If the news analysts could come to that conclusion and be vindicated by the Supreme Court, so could Queen Elizabeth II have managed.She’s an astute political player, even in her “neutrality”.Even Professor McCrea notes a situation in which she could say no:“The only issue that might affect that is if parliament indicates it has lost confidence in Boris Johnson, but that hasn’t happened yet. She will almost certainly just accept the request, that’s what she has to do.”I doubt his whole “only” thing here.The proroguing was deemed “unlawful” by the highest court in the land.And nobody is above the law in a democracy.Except, apparently, for a ruling sovereign.In any case, whether Queen Elizabeth II was acting on autopilot or in concert with the plan to subvert democracy and push forward an amoral Brexit resolution, both she and Prime Minister Johnson are to blame. Even if she is exempt from criminal and civil prosecution, as another horrifying subversion (and another instance of “one rule for you, one rule for me” that we’ve seen on full display in the enforcement of the COVID-19 lockdown rules, as seen in the disparity between the common-folk and the politicians), that does not excuse her when it comes to her justifying herself to her public.We have to come to a realisation that this isn’t tenable.We have to recognise that the monarchy isn’t fit for purpose.Not in Britain’s ostensibly democratic society.Footnotes[1] Read the Prince Charles 'black spider' memos in full[2] Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent[3] Infographic: The Royal Family Is Costing UK Taxpayers More Than Ever