Think tank chief warns over Prince Harry posturing: ‘grassroots conservative support for royal family is conditional’

Prince Harry and other royals who “feed the progressive agenda” are signing the British monarchy’s death warrant, the head of Britain’s oldest conservative think tank cautioned.

Speaking on Breitbart News Daily, Bow Group chief Ben Harris-Quinney praised Queen Elizabeth II for remaining strictly neutral on political matters, but warned that her heirs are showing less respect for the convention.

“The Royal family is supposed to be apolitical, but what we’ve seen in recent years is the Duchess of Cambridge editing left-wing blog the Huffington Post,” he told SiriusXM host and Breitbart London Editor in Chief Raheem Kassam.

Pointing to Prince Harry’s politicised interview with Barack Obama on the BBC’s flagship news programme Wednesday, in which the former president launched a thinly-veiled attack on President Donald Trump, Harris-Quinney blasted the royal for “clearly politicising” his role in the family.

“More significant than this radio interview I think, is his insistence on inviting Obama to his upcoming wedding, which will be a state event, and making a point to snub Donald Trump.”

…“What these people don’t seem to realise is their support lies among conservatives, and they might enjoy dinner parties a bit more in taking left-wing positions, but ultimately they will see their own dissolution,” he told Kassam… many members of the Royal family don’t want to know about Donald Trump,” he said. “They want to know about Barack Obama, a guy who hates the British Empire, hates British history, hates the monarchy.”

Share
  • Ed

    I think the technical term is “pussifaction.”

    • felis gracilis

      What the British really need to do is dismiss this degenerate branch of the royals and bring back Harald Hardrada! There was a guy who had his priorities right!

      “His reputation for crushing enemies and his continuous warfare in Denmark earned him the nickname ‘Hardrada’, Hard Ruler. Harald believed that, as the successor to the Danish kings, he also had a claim to the throne of England.”
      http://www.historyinanhour.com/2012/09/25/harald-hardrada-summary/

  • Tooth&Claw

    Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. The royals don’t seem to remember the French Revolution too well.

  • Charles is worse and soon will be king. No one wants to pay smarmy scolds.

    • Manual Paleologos

      He may become the Last Monarch.

    • andycanuck

      He’s not liked by the Left either so I think Parliament will skip to William. They have done that in the past about six or so times and not just over Edward VIII.

    • Art Deco

      He’s neither smarmy nor a scold.

      The reaction to Charles among the chatterati is another indication that high school never ends for some people.

    • barryjr

      I think he is the reason Her Majesty is hanging on to the crown.

      • Art Deco

        The reason she’s hanging on to the crown is that she’s not senile and she’s not dead. She’s still able to make daily public appearances, which is extraordinary at age 91.

        • barryjr

          I have to agree with you she is an amazing person.

  • Millie_Woods

    They’re acting like a bunch of retarded inbreds….oh wait..

    • Blacksmith

      Dang, your on a roll.

  • Manual Paleologos

    The Brits need to remember that they need us more than we need them. It would be premature now, but if the Royals or the Government try to put it in our eye a couple of times, Trump might like to say some kind words about the Argentines’ claim to Las Malvinas.

    • k2

      If they did a repeat of their 80s? invasion now, I suspect the response from the failing UK would be rather less … forceful than before.

      • Manual Paleologos

        They don’t have the capability to mount a Falklands War, even against the Argies.

  • Dana Garcia

    Too bad about Harry. He seemed decent when he was in the army.

    • andycanuck

      Fifth or six in line so this doesn’t bother me that much. And he’s also doing it because of pussy.

      • barryjr

        We know who cracks the whip in that relationship.

  • Blacksmith

    Charles and Harry to real strong reasons to end the crown.

  • ntt1

    this won’t be the first institution infiltrated by left wing ideology and destroyed if both harry and prince chuck lean left then that will alienate remaining supporters who are conservative, and kill the monarchy.

  • ismiselemeas

    It stands to reason. When your lot in life is pointless you try to find meaning in other ways.

  • The British will never abandon the monarchy ever. They would be lost without it.

    • WalterBannon

      they are already lost with it, and will be an islamic state in two generations

    • Watchman

      A toxic Royal Family might do it. Elizabeth II’s solid performance during her reign as monarch was instrumental in preserving the monarchy, the craziness of Charles is possibly the one reason she had not abdicated to let Charles reign. There are a lot of monarchists who hope that Charles never becomes king, because they know this would kick off a movement for the UK to become a Republic.

      • How many toxic royal families have there been? Henry Tudor? Any one of the Charles’? That Nazi guy?

        Britons have had the monarchy for so long that they could not sneeze without it.

  • Art Deco

    The Bow Group is a Tory wet outfit.

    Harry’s done some imprudent things lately. I hope they don’t blow up in his face. His uncle and his brother were quite careful about who they courted, as was his cousin Peter Phillips. He’d have been wise to have gone with what works.

    Charles is an eccentric whose personal concerns do not map very well to contemporary political cleavages. It’s fairly arrogant of politicians and civil servants to bitch and moan about having to reply to his memoranda. Journalists make hay to sell papers or to vent. It merits no attention.

  • WalterBannon

    The royal douches are no longer needed, and frankly the socialist UK Labour party should be calling for the nationalization (confiscation) of all their property and wealth which in reality was stolen from the public.

    • Art Deco

      How was it ‘stolen’?

  • Felix_Culpa

    Don’t forget that leftist radicals are in complete control of society–education, entertainment, health care, the legal system, etc.–and they’ve been in control for quite some time now. They have used this to change the mentality of most people in Western society to, more or less unconsciously, look at things from a leftist perspective. This colours many modern royals a bit pink.

    Some of this is self-preservation. Leftism is anti-hierarchichal and anti-monarchy by definition. So, to keep even their minimal ceremonial positions, monarchs have to be careful not to let their comments or actions stray too far outside the “Overton window” of what is acceptable to the leftism of modern society. At worst, today’s Royals live in a permanent Stockholm Syndrome and have actually bought into the leftist worldview because they’ve been schooled in the modern world that sees leftism as self-evident.

    The Mad Monarchist blog had a good article covering this subject in detail:
    http://madmonarchist.blogspot.ca/2016/10/reaction-to-politicizing-royals.html

    Mad Monarchist notes a couple of exceptions to this general leftism: Queen Margrethe II of Denmark “…spoke up, bravely but still guardedly, about the need to defend Danish values and not be afraid of being called ‘racist’ or ‘intolerant’ for doing so. Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein… has openly and publicly taken positions that are opposed by most of western European society such as his advocacy of capitalism and Austrian economics and his staunch opposition to abortion in his country.” He notes that the only other royals taking traditional conservative perspectives are non-reigning such as Archduke Imre Emanuel of Austria who is strongly pro-life or Prince Bertrand of Brazil who is “well known for his support for private property rights, free market economics and his opposition to socialism and radical environmentalists.”

    He argues that we should still support monarchy as a political system even when actual members of Royal families are seeming leftists. Monarchy as a political system danger of being wiped out, and we can’t be overly purist about individual royals. Keep the overall goal in mind: traditional conservative society has to be re-established. He says: “This is something which, frankly, seems to be a weakness unique only to western, European, Euro-descended people from what I have seen. No one else seems to have this problem of demanding nothing less than perfection at the outset, before committing themselves.”

    If the political climate changes back to some form of sanity–and one could argue that the leftism is getting close to running itself headlong into the absurdity at this point–then the actual members of the Royal families will themselves return to sanity as well.