Prince Charles Snubs President Trump—But Visits Cuba and Proudly Poses with Che Guevara Backdrop

“Royal family snub President Trump during UK visit: Prince Charles and Prince William were unwilling to meet Donald Trump on his visit to Britain, leaving the Queen to greet the US president alone.” (London Times, July 18, 2018.)

Well, what could be more fitting than British royals snubbing the upstart leader of an upstart former British colony—and one who was elected by “deplorables” to boot?

The phrase “faithful Bolshevik protégé” is not flippant. The Bolsheviks, lest we forget, sadistically murdered an entire family of Prince Charles’ royal relatives (the Romanovs) in cold-blood, including the women and children, as they screamed in terror and pleaded for mercy.

In case Prince Charles somehow “forgot” that terrifying historical datum, perhaps a famous song by a famous subject of Prince Charles (Mick Jagger) can remind him of the famous atrocity:

“I stuck around St. Petersburg, when I saw it was a time for a change, killed the czar and his ministers, Anastasia screamed in vain.” (Sympathy for the Devil, 1968.)

Nonetheless, according to Britain’s ambassador to Cuba Anthony Stokes, the royal visit to Bolshevik Cuba was a jolly-good show: “I think it’s been a wonderful visit and the first official royal visit to Cuba – I think that’s highly significant.”

“The solution to the world’s problems lie behind the Iron Curtain,” wrote Che Guevara who often signed his correspondence “Stalin II!” In fact, so fanatical was Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla’s photo prop’s devotion to the Bolsheviks that he even applauded the Soviet slaughter of Hungarian freedom-fighters in 1957. All through the horrifying Soviet massacre, Che dutifully parroted the Soviet script that the workers, peasants and college kids battling Russian tanks in Budapest with small arms and Molotov cocktails were all “Fascists and CIA agents!" who all deserved prompt execution.

Throughout the royal visit Duchess Camilla, a world-renown “women’s rights activist,” seemed enchanted to be photographed graciously meeting the KGB-trained apparatchiks and admiring the handiwork of a regime which ranks as the Western Hemisphere’s top jailer, torturer and murderer of (genuine) women’s rights activists.

In fact, the regime that so enchanted Duchess Camilla jailed and tortured 35,150 Cuban women (and girls) for political crimes. This ranks as a totalitarian horror utterly unknown—not only in Cuba, under those unspeakable “right-wing dictators!” you always hear about in the Fake News Media--—but in the Western Hemisphere. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.

“Chirri was just a kid,” recalled one former Cuban prisoner named Ana Lazaro Rodriguez about one of her cellmates, “Barely 18. Tiny blonde and beautiful, she should have been going to high school dances. Instead because her father had been involved in a plot against Castro, she was squatting in a dark filthy cell, wallowing in menstrual blood and excrement.”

Jailing, torturing and murdering people (particularly females) for the crime of being related to “enemies of the Revolution,” by the way, comes straight from the Bolshevik playbook. The practice was started by the Soviet Cheka and greatly expanded upon by Stalin during the Great Terror. Naturally the Castros and Che Guevara adopted the practice with their own brand of gusto.

The victim had been a 13-year-old girl raised in a Havana Catholic orphanage founded in 1705. Castroite commissars, perfectly mimicking their Bolshevik mentors, had taken over the orphanage and began hectoring the girls on how the nuns who had been raising them were actually witches preparing to sell them into prostitution. Many of the barely pubescent girls broke a blackboard and some desks in protest against the Bolshevik insults against the only home and mothers they’d ever known.

So the Soviet-mentored Castroite police yanked the little girls from the orphanage, hauled them down to the women’s prison and threw them into the cells with common prisoners.

Can someone out there puh-leeze inform all those tourists to Cuba and all those visiting dignitaries-- from Obama to Prince Charles and Duchess Camilla-- that the building with Che the mass-murderer’s mural they love to pose with as a backdrop is the headquarters for Cuba’s KGB-founded and mentored ministry of the interior (i.e. secret police)?

“Always interrogate your prisoners at night,” Che Guevara ordered his torturers during the early days of the revolution, “a man’s resistance is always lower at night.” That today the world’s largest Che mural adorns Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior, the headquarters for Cuba’s KGB- and STASI-trained secret police strikes many of us as perfectly fitting.

It would actually be relatively easy to abolish the monarchy outright and turn Great Britain into a full Republic without the need to have a government coup and overthrow their useless figurehead Queen, and also without having some kind of national referendum vote to kick out the royal family.

Pretty much all they have to do is wait until the Queen dies and the position of monarch is vacant. The House of Commons has the ultimate authority to declare who is the new monarch, and rather than decide on who is the new King, they'd just leave the office vacant forever and pass some sort of British version of the "No Titles of Nobility Amendment" that the United States tried to pass (and ultimately failed to pass, but it became a non-issue here because we didn't invent any 'titles of nobility' to grant) that would prevent the government from making ANYONE ELSE into a Duke, Lord, Earl, Prince, etc., etc. I suppose the existing dukes, lords, earls, princes, etc. would be able to keep their titles for life (it would be considered tacky and demeaning to strip Prince Charles of his lifelong "Prince" status), but it would have no power, and as they died off, eventually there would no one left holding "british honours". Thus it would be quietly phased out over the decades.

Then they'd just have to pass some minor technicality changing the country's political identity as the "Commonwealth of Great Britian and Northern Ireland" (remember, the monarchy would be vacant, so this new law wouldn't conflict with the previous rule that all government institutions are bound to obey the crown) and that Parliment has the ultimate authority, with the Prime Minister being the final arbitrator on whether a bill becomes law, rather than "royal assent". They already created a "Supreme Court of the UK" in 2010, I have no idea what it does, but they could copy the United States version and give them the ability to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament, and just copy their offspring the USA further by remaking the House of Lords as a U.S. style upper house (they can copy Australia if that's easier). Again, basically like the Oliver Cromwell era, minus an Oliver Cromwell type figure running things.

There needs to be a head of state. The Regent would be no different that the Presidents of Ireland, Germany, or Italy.

My plan would call for only a modest budget and small honorarium.

Avoids having to change the structure of the government, a divisive debate on republicanism (that unlike Australia, almost no one on the right over there supports, so it would never be on the table unless the government was hard-left), and millions in administrative costs in changing the name of the country.

Franco technically restored the Spanish Monarchy and made himself regent for life.

Crowmell was King (and was even followed by his son! Though he refused the crown ala Caesar) but in name so I’d dispute they were ever “really” a republic.

Re Grania’s point, I don’t see why, given the nature of the position, there would be a problem getting someone approved. Canada and OZ don’t see to have any trouble picking Governors-General. If need be ditch my supermaj requirement.

The alternative would be what, have the PM directly elected by the Commons and having them be Head of State ala the President of South Africa?

>> There needs to be a head of state. The Regent would be no different that the Presidents of Ireland, Germany, or Italy. My plan would call for only a modest budget and small honorarium. <<

I don't see why you're so hung up on replacing one useless ceremonial regal-sounding post with another useless ceremonial regal-sounding post. The vast majority of nations around the world, and indeed, in Europe itself, transitioned to becoming full Republics WITHOUT the need of a middle man like that. For example, look at the UK neighbor's Iceland. It was very much like the UK before World War II. Useless ceremonial monarch as head of state and head of the Church of Iceland, prime minister holding the actual governing power, and parliament. Iceland just voted to abolish their monarch outright and become a Republic. POOF! Gone. No need to hire a "Regent" in his place and give him/her a taxpayer funded salary to cut ribbons and grant "royal honours"

>> Avoids having to change the structure of the government, a divisive debate on republicanism (that unlike Australia, almost no one on the right over there supports, so it would never be on the table unless the government was hard-left), and millions in administrative costs in changing the name of the country. <<

Let's address these three-fold:

1) Changing the structure of the government is the whole point of abolishing the monarchy, and it isn't difficult given the Queen has virtually no "official" powers in the first place. If you don't, then the "Regent" would just inherit the same flawed system of entitlement. Is the "Regent" ALSO going to be the lead religious power in the country, head of the Church of England, "defender of the faith" in Great Britain, and are Catholics still going to be barred from being head of state? Is the Regent still going to be able to grant "Royal Honours" so they can Knight people like Kevin Spacey? (he currently carries the title of "KBE" thanks to the Queen) Will the House of Lords continue to exist with a bunch of unelected "Lords Spiritual" making decisions over the government by virtue of the fact they're bishops in the Church of England? These are all reasons I'd want to abolish the nobility system of the UK in the first place.

2) They'd have to change the name of the country anyway if they didn't have a king, since they'd no longer be a KINGdom. They'd be one of those quasi-monarchies like United Arab Emirates or Japan where's no "King" or "Crown", per say, but the country is still a monarchy with an appointed ceremonial leader. They'd most likely be renamed Principality or Commonwealth of Great Britain, with the royal "Regent" as nominal head of state.

3) By nature, conservatives are "don't rock the boat" types who prefer preserving countries traditions and history, so its not surprising very few conservatives in the UK favor abolishing the monarchy. On the other hand, NONE of the "major" parties in the UK endorse abolishing it either, there is little motivation to do so since the Queen has no power. Hypothetically if there was a campaign to abolish the monarchy you'd probably get a small handful of Conservative MPs to endorse it, as they did with Brexit when most of Labour was vehemently against it but a handful of rogue "LabourLeave" MPs attached their names so the supporters could claim it was a "bipartisan" effort.

>> The alternative would be what, have the PM directly elected by the Commons and having them be Head of State ala the President of South Africa? <<

I think that would be fine and doable. As I noted, Kingdoms are very rare these days and the vast majority of FORMER monarchies turned Republics have gone that route (or created a useless ceremonial "President" to serve with the Prime Minister", which sounds better than "Regent"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_date_of_transition_to_republican_system_of_government

BTW, I haven't seen the "WE'RE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!" crowd weigh in on this thread, or start touting their imaginary definition of a Republic as "a nation where the rule of law is supreme and an individual's rights are guaranteed to be protected by the government". Guess they don't want to reminded of the REAL definition of the word being a nation with a monarch as head of state. ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.