Proceeding contribution from Dennis Skinner (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Sovereign Grant Bill.
Sovereign Grant Bill
First, I want to apologise for not being here in the earlier part of the day. I was at the hospital all day having some nuclear medicine, they called it. It is a new-fangled thing, and I would warn anybody, if you have got a chance to avoid it, avoid it. They stick a drug in you, and you feel like you are dying. What they are trying to do is put your heart under so much pressure that they can see whether you can stand the anaesthetic for a hip replacement in the near future. That is where I have been, and I missed all these wonderful contributions on the Queen's new allowance—her winter heating allowance, or whatever it is. I remember well, way back in 1971, being joined by a lot of people in the House who were on the left wing at the time in voting against the Queen's money. Quite a number of them are now in the House of Lords—[Laughter.] [Hon. Members: ““Name them!] I can't name all of them because I ain't got time. They are all there. I remember that occasion very well because they were dining and wining on the fact that they had just voted against the Queen's money, or the royal money. I am here today—I just managed to get back in time for Third Reading. My view about the monarchy has been pretty much the same all my life. I remember in the pit village of Clay Cross, when I was a bit of kid during the second world war—or maybe just a bit before—kids on the street saying that the royal family had blue blood, but I just could not buy that. My inquiring mind prevented me from being like the rest of the lads on the street. There is no doubt about it: the royal family were very popular in those days, notwithstanding King George VI not being able to speak properly on the radio. I heard all that, but notwithstanding, they were popular then, but there have been phases since when their popularity has waned, especially when Murdoch was the toast of the town—which he now ain't. We have been slagging off Murdoch all week and telling him to sling his hook back to America and all the rest of it, but his papers had an influence. I am sure that there were times when Murdoch newspapers made a reasonable contribution to the talk about the dysfunctional royal family and all the rest of it, but I also believe that Charles himself made a contribution, because quite frankly, he is not liked. Those hon. Members who are royalists know in their hearts that they do not really want to see him be the king. When I take people from the women's institute round the House of Commons and the House of Lords and show them the throne, they say, ““Who sits in that other seat? I say, ““Well, perhaps it's Charles, but eventually, he's gonna sit in the big seat.”” They say, ““Who will be in the other one?”” and I say, ““Camilla,”” and they say, ““No! We don't want her!””
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 531 c580-1
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Accountability Accountancy Crown lands and estates Crown Estate Finance Expenditure Historic buildings Minimum wage National Audit Office Travel Repairs and maintenance Royal family Royal household Sovereign grant Committee of Public Accounts
- Legislation
- Sovereign Grant Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:50:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764863
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764863
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_764863