Princeps-II

Princeps II

Rev dear Rev: What of the Playboy Princes and Princesses - what future for the GB Monarchy after such shenanigans?

Shenanigans - the word betrays the underlying Noraid leanings of the questioner, this one from a bitter zone of Irish americanism in California in San Diego. But, let us begin elsewhere. Let us go back to the Falklands. The British Reconquest of the Falklands over and against an American dictatorship brought huge resentment down on all concerned, since with the victory in the Falklands, the British turned the tide of history and healed the humiliations and embarrassments of the drug induced army of the Americans in Vietnam. The whole of the West recovered. Communism too was halted. It did not go unnoticed. Resentments simmered, especially toward the young prince that had the courage to go down there and fight with the army and navy against very dangerous odds and very brave and reckless pilots. Andrew was brave, he not only saved the reputation of the Navy, he also saved the Royal Family, and with them also the reputation of the whole nation. It was not forgotten, not by Argentines, they knew his value, but surprisingly by allies, by republicans in the Americans. Resentments bubbled. there would be an opportunity especially among hardened socialist republicans of the Irish Noraid kind to profit from all of this sudden saving of the British Royal Family and the sudden plucking of the British Empire from the jaws of defeat when their turn came round again. Since that time, a scandal after a scandal has hit town for the royals and been exacerbated by that hard rump of socialist republicans in the Irish media. Andrew had his work cut out for him, just to survive. But also the Americans resented being saved by a small island power from the jaws of general ribald laughter about Vietnam - they resented this victory in the South with great vociferous revolt. In a distant country plans were laid to humble that monarchy and especially that prince. Case after case throughout the 90s and 00s and 10s revealed just what a hardened rump of republicans could do to powerful figures in American government and in American republican courts. Monica, Meghan, Francesca - a series of exposees humbled even American presidents. This formed the background noise to that distant resolve. The pursuit of huge financial penalties was also envisaged in these thinly concealed organised civil actions if not outright prosecutions. Soon playboys emerged who became key players, and one of them was Epstein, Jewish. Israeli. Another republic. Secular too. So even Diana discovered what socialiste newspapers and socialiste secret services were capable of doing to humble royal families. She died at their hands maybe. Prudent advice was not followed, especially about holidaying there in the Med. So too young Andrew. But let us not cast the first stone. I showed my various papers to a young journallor and she said - "Bad advice - no good and solid friends. Also he looks probably innocent, there might be some double standards, but it all looks too cosy and suspicious to be true, and there is the unquestionable role of gold digging - another republican Hollywood girl - probably engineered into this by voices in the background and huge amounts of republican money from an Irish-american non profit called Noraid." So not everyone is easily duped by the prima facie innocence of the case. But at the end of the day, the Master it was who said - "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." That should keep us all prudent in our speeches. It can happen to anyone. Even a black judge like Clarence Thomas. Even a popular president like Bill Clinton. Even an old president not so good on his feet, like Joe Biden. Dark forces can coagulate for a specific purpose. Andrew discovered this to his cost, once he made the decision to defend his old friend there in Jamaica and out of it.

The argument about this case is a bit like the syllogism that is well known to logicians and professors of logic. It goes like this:

First Premise - The King of France is bald;

Second Premise - All men are bald;

Conclusion - Ergo all men are kings of France.

Di per se, the instrinsic logical rules of the syllogism without any physics to corroborate it commends it to students of logical reason - it functions well inside its own parameters - it cannot be undermined or contradicted because it is a logical syllogism. But obviously some physics is required to ascertain whether all men are in fact bald. And so the internal logic might commend it, but on balance with verification it does not hold. This is like the legal arguments in a puritan America this last while about assault and predatory behaviour and sexual misconduct - it all functions along its own narrow kind of premises and presumptions like the syllogisms above, but it is all an abstract discussion which does not take into account the evolution of the history of the nation, nor in this particular example, the wider generic politics of such sensitive cases. The broader context is the physics of the syllogism. Political factors do have a sway on the logic of the issue. So too with the prince - he has a right to a fair trial - he simply will not get one in a country that is violently foresworn to eradicating monarchies at end of the barrel of a gun, period. That is what 1776 is all about. The trial though in NYC must show that something happened “beyond reasonable doubt” which is something stronger than simple certainty and stronger than moral certainty. Trying a prince of a European royal family in republican America though is like introducing a large and corpulent missionary to a tribe of hungry cannibal pygmies. The result is a foretold conclusion, a foregone conclusion.