Even the BBC has named the King and the Princess of Wales as the people against whom Omid Scobie has made allegations, so his claim that those allegations would have been illegal in Britain is obviously rubbish. He meant that they would have been libellous in England.
As is Scobie's claim in England, so we would not be talking about libel tourism here, that his Dutch translator, Saskia Peeters, put in the names on her own. Obviously an excellent English-speaker, she should see him on the Strand. I do not relish the prospect of another journalist's being sued for libel, but even the land of the First Amendment has a law of defamation.
Scobie is of my own generation. We have been mixed-race a long time. He does not find questions about the skin colour of expected children to be at all shocking, any more than did an African-American who had been born in 1954. Has Oprah Winfrey never seen School Daze? Was there never an Oprah on shade? Nothing in either would have come as news to her. Or to me. Or to Scobie.
But they know that mores change. Ridiculous though it may sound, Scobie is trying to overthrow the monarchy. Well, if in 15 to 20 years' time, which will probably be when the King died, this country decided to have a politician as Head of State, heaven help us, then I would certainly be a candidate. For and on behalf of Hollywood liberalism in all its unbridled capitalist warmongering, how about him? I have already declared. So should he. Come on, Omid. When the King died, or even before that if necessary, would you be a candidate for President of Great Britain? I would. How about you? Put up or shut up.
Scobie could be the best thing to have happened to the monarchy this century.
ReplyDeleteUnless you believe the Taylor Swift story, then he is an obvious fraud.
DeleteThe King delivered the Green speech he's been giving for 50 years and his father used to give, wearing a tie covered in Greek flags. The people who love the monarchy should hate it.
ReplyDeleteIt will never be in any serious danger unless they did. But then it would be. Then it really would be.
DeleteSarah Vine today says the King should sue, as you say a huge thing to say against another journalist but there have to be limits.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, there do.
Delete“The people who love the monarchy should hate it.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s because you people never understand that it’s the institution they support rather than it’s various occupants-it’s the difference between a monarchist and a royalist.
It is supposed to embody certain things, and it just doesn't. Nor, in all fairness, has it ever claimed to. That is something that is projected onto it. But it does stop a politician from being Head of State, so there is that. The monarchist and the republican cases are both rubbish, so the case has not been made.
DeleteThe monarchist case is watertight-it prevents politicians becoming over mighty by preventing them ever occupying the special place in our hearts and our constitution occupied by the head of state. It matters immensely that our Armed Forces and police pledge allegiance to the Crown and not to the government.
ReplyDeleteDoes it? What practical effect does it have? And "in our hearts"? Give over. No, both cases are rubbish, so leave things as they are.
DeleteYes, the special place in our hearts that the monarch holds as we just saw at the days-long queues for the late Queen’s funeral and as we see at the crowds for the Jubilee-no politician will ever command that level of public love and a jolly good thing too. The monarch prevents politicians becoming over mighty since they must seek its permission to form a government or dissolve one, our armed forces and police swear allegiance to the monarch and not to politicians and our politicians can never be Heads of State.
ReplyDeleteResulting what, exactly? What difference does any of that make? "The monarch prevents politicians becoming overmighty"? You what? It has the opposite effect. People like you will let them do anything because at least the King is there. Just there. Not doing anything, not even preventatively. Just there. Of course, to some of us, that is the strongest argument for the monarchy.
DeleteThe late Queen commanded that level of affection, but that is not inherent in the institution. Very far from it, in fact.
The proof of the monarchy’s usefulness is that, unlike republics, we’ve never had a fascist or communist regime here or even a dictator/demagogue as the monarchy is an absolute safeguard against such things.
ReplyDeleteThe Italian one wasn't. And we have come pretty close. It has been the governing party's MPs who have in each case acted in the nick of time.
DeleteThe difference it makes is what it prevents rather than what it enables-reserving that public affection and that constitutional role for the monarchy prevents us having the kind of demagogues/dictators, fascist or communist regimes etc that characterise much of the world where constitutional monarchy doesn’t exist. Even a Trump or an Orban wouldn’t really be possible here. It shows how little the British know their luck that you don’t realise how rare it is in the world to live in a country that’s never endured such regimes. And we do not let politicians “do anything”-there are many other constitutional safeguards (such as the Petition of Right) that prevent Prime Ministers acting without recourse to Parliament.
ReplyDeleteYou are just on autopilot now. But so long as the continued existence of the monarchy keeps people like you sweet, then long may it remain.
DeleteI mean the fact that you compared us to Italy-which doesn’t have a constitutional monarchy-indicates you haven’t read much about this.
ReplyDeleteI am just going to leave that there.
DeleteAnon is right-by the time of the fascist regime, the Italian king didn't have the power to appoint a government.
ReplyDeleteI know. And that makes my point.
Delete"That makes my point."
ReplyDelete"From 1870 until 1922, Italy was a constitutional monarchy "
So it ceased to be one during the fascist regime-which rather supports Anon's point, no?
Quite the reverse.
DeleteThe point being that no country that constitutional monarchy cannot coexist with dictatorship (Italy ceased to be one when it became a dictatorship). Cromwell briefly tried that over here, but thankfully he failed. Of the seven longest-lasting law-abiding free democracies on Earth, five are constitutional monarchies.
ReplyDeleteAnd we are into "write all you know and hope for a B minus".
DeleteIt keeps politicians in check, ha ha.
ReplyDeleteYou are standing for President, aren't you?
If someone has to, yes.
DeleteRichard Tice wants Nigel Farage to be President.
ReplyDeleteNo later than January 2029, so as to be in office at the same time as Donald Trump. He has now said this twice, once to Laura Kuenssberg on 26th November, and again last night on Newsnight. It is not a joke.
Delete