BREAKING NEWS: Barbara Cartland isn’t dead. She writing for a monarchist blog using a pseudonym “Professor David Flint” and she’s as prolific as ever. Barry Everingham comments.
Well, it’s not true of course but Flint is going over the top these days. He’s obsessed by William of Wales and his live in girlfriend Kate Middleton and their doings.
Kate and Prince William in Belfast—gush!
Childhood pictures of Kate—gush!
William to visit Australia and New Zealand alone—gush!
Gillard branded untrustworthy monarchist—gotcha!
And the child monarchist Jai Martinkovics: more knowledge of monarchy is favoured—unadulterated crap.
But that’s just for starters.
Flint positively salivates about the results of a Newspoll showing Gillard is losing ground over the carbon tax issue and likens the findings to his perception of the public’s attitude to the monarchy.
Err...what?!
Without a skerrick of shame he declares, hand-on-heart, that his organisation (ACM is jointly owned and controlled by the Indonesian-born Flint and the London-born Tom Flynn) doesn’t take sides in politics.
Come again?!
Their site reads like a far-right fact sheet—David Flint himself is a paid-up member of the Liberal Party’s looney rabid right. And, of course, Tom Flynn is deeply involved with the Young Liberals: note picture below.
Flint sees the world through a royal lorgnette—anything royal is OK by the professor.
He even predicts the return to power of the Kings of Libya, Egypt and Iraq.
What was that?!
That couldn't possibly happen and Flint knows it (if he doesn't know it he's completely bonkers).
We haven’t heard him on the current very serious allegations surrounding the Duke of York—4th in the line of succession to the “throne of Australia”. And we haven’t heard just half of what the second son has been up to—yet. Flint’s spin will be interesting indeed.
The good professor might do well to read Jeremy Paxman’s description on the aftermath of Spain’s Carlos II, whose death without an heir triggered the War of the Spanish Succession.
That the Spanish court did all it could to keep upon the throne a man who was so pitifully incapable (‘Many people tell me I am bewitched,’ the poor man once said, ‘and I well believe it, such are the things I suffer’) demonstrates the first essential thing about kings.
This is that what they do is less important than the fact that they exist at all.
Kings may be good or bad, saintly, lecherous, wise, stupid, athletic or indolent.
All will be tolerated because those who believe in the hereditary principle necessarily accept that their head of state will not be there by election, talent or ambition.
No other area of human activity is so easily reduced to the three essential transactions of birth, marriage and death.
AUSTRALIANS TAKE NOTE!
