A N Wilson recycles old porkies about Monarchy and Stability

Reading my dad's Daily Mail yesterday I find establishment toady A N Wilson pushing the same old porkies about Monarchy saving us from the tyranny suffered by other European countries.  The biggest whopper is that Italy somehow went fascist because it had no King when Victor Emmanuel II was in position for the whole of the Mussolini regime - only being given his cards in 1946.

Neither was Spain without a Monarchy when Franco booted them out in the Civil War although it could be argued they became a symbol of resistance until they returned as constitutional heads of state during the transition to democracy but that was one long interregnum.  Anyway prevent the rise of Fascism in Spain they did not. 

As to Russia it was hardly going to remain a democracy under the Tsar when it was never one in the first place.  Their usefulness in resisting Bolshevism wasn't that great.  Lenin shot them.  And Stalin came to power because someone shot Lenin. 

The only country one could argue that didn't have a King during the rise of a 30s dictatorship is Germany and the restoration of the Keiser would hardly have helped things as he was almost as unpleasant as Hitler.  There's a reason Lloyd George's rallying cry was "hang the Keiser" and the Royal Family changed their name to Windsor. 

Wilson's solution to the Monarchy's problems is sack some of the minor Royals.  There are, of course, too many of them.  This is largely the fault of the Queen living so long and lifespans being longer.  The Queen, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward are all outliving George VI.  But of course the wide family tree which intermingles with the aristocracy is the entire point of them.  A lot of people profit indirectly from their contacts and relations with Britain's Nationalised Family.  Prune the branches of the Sussexes and the Yorks and a lot of establishment support will fall away with them.  There is a reason Andrew is supported to the last possible moment, Fergie being so in debt they have to grovel to Epstein is tolerated and the Sussexes are still Royal despite being more critical of his stepmum and dad and bro than most Republicans... 

Politically they've never made any sense to me.  From a socialist perspective they're the embodiment of unearned privilege and from a capitalist perspective shouldn't we let Adam Smith's invisible hand decide who is at the apex of society rather than have a Nationalised Family?  I admit there's something interesting about watching people from birth to death... But is it really healthy...?