The kinds of things that upset, and don’t upset, the British
(Note: the comments in this entry deal with the question of how much power Queen Elizabeth really has.)
I’m not much of a fan of Queen Elizabeth, as she has silently allowed and accommodated—and, with her appointment of and leaving in office the present Archbishop of Canterbury, actively advanced—the destruction of Britain. But this photo of her, from her July 2007 garden party at Buckingham Palace, is charming.
The photo appears in a piece about the latest tempest in a teapot, that a BNP member of the London Assembly, all of whose members are invited to the Queen’s annual garden party, has invited, as his guest, BNP leader Nick Griffin. Excuse me, but the last I heard, the BNP was a legally operating political party in that country. In 2005 the Queen knighted the loathsome Iqbal Sacranie, an outspoken enemy of Britain and apologist for Islamic terrorists, and no one, except for Melanie Phillips, protested. But for Nick Griffin to attend a garden party that includes hundreds of guests is a big scandal.
- end of initial entry -
Jack S. writes:
Regarding the Islamist Sacranie, the Queen does not select who is chosen to receive honors. That is determined by party running government (Labour) at the time. It would be theoretically possible for her to refuse to give her assent but that would be very bad form and a breach of precedent. It is felt that a constitutional crisis would arise if the Queen were to express a politcal opinion or inteject herself into the affairs of the party in power
There’s an excellent BBC documentary about life at the Windsor Castle that touches upon the honours selection process. The Queen is not interviewed (she does not speak to the press) but Prince Phillip has an extensive segment in which he expresses some very conservative views.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is selected by a complicated process detailed here The Queen’s role is one of assenting to a selection made by others.
LA replies:
The Queen has no say even over the persons to whom she grants a knighthood?
And she—the HEAD of the Church of England—has absolutely no say over who is the Archbishop of Canterbury? No matter what outrageous and damaging things he says, there’s NO influence, direct or indirect, she could exert to nudge him out?
Jack S. replies:
Of course I’m no expert on the matter but I have read several books on the subject and the situation is as I describe it. As the head of state but not of governemtn she is the living embodiment of the nation of Great Britain and cannot publicly take a political stance. The monarch has not taken a political stance since the last of the Hanover Kings in the early 19th century. This may be due to the fact that the young Queen Victoria was no match for her experienced prime ministers and was forced into this figurehead role that previous monarchs had not tolerated. The kings and queens that followed Victoria have not strayed from the purely symbolic role of head of government.
Personally I do feel that a future king might be a good leader and lightning rod stimulating the rebirth of GB as a white European nation. There is no hope that Charles will take such a role as he appears to be a simpleminded leftist. His son, having been immersed since birth in the same politcal atmosphere is likely to be little better.
LA replies:
It is not my understanding of Victoria’s power that she was nothing but a symbolic head of state. She had two prerogatives: to be informed about everything going on in the government, by the prime minister, and to advise the prime minister. Further, I had the impression that by the time of Queen Elizabeth, those prerogatives had shrunk to one, to be informed. However, I guess I assumed that when it comes to things that are directly related to the Queen’s own powers and person, such as conferrng a knighthood or appointing the top archbishop of the Church of which she, the monarch, is the HEAD, she would at least have some advisory powers, and that if something were truly desired by her or truly objectionable to her, she could exerit some influence in that direction. The notion that she is utterly powerless in these areas is hard to swallow.
JJM writes:
I have often wondered, what do you think of the concept of constitutional monarchy as a system of government?
Many self-proclaimed traditionalist conservatives in Britain, Canada, Holland, and elsewhere are staunch defenders of the system, and see the continued existence of a permanent royal family as a vital keystone of their civilization. One particular justification is that by maintaining a royal household the state is essentially holding up a model and saying “This is what our national ideals look like when personified by a single family.” Those ideals, in turn, are obviously racially and religiously exclusive, which is why monarchies anger many on the left, who believe an exclusive royal family who obviously embody the traditional, historic identity of the national population and not the supposed “multi-cultural” reality of today, are anachronistic, discriminatory, and oppressive.
On the other hand, royal families are, at the end of the day, merely composed of people, and often weak and pampered people at that. Growing up royal does not make you immune to the liberalism of the larger culture, and today we see much evidence that Western royals have lost much interest in their historic obligations and roles in favor of the pursuit of their own selfish pleasures. [LA replies: there’s the understantement of the year.] One needs only look to the insane new-age, anti-Christan, anti-Western, eco-hippydom of the empty-headed Prince Charles, or the soulless skirt-chasing of his sons, or the even more appalling affairs of some of Europe’s other royal families (such as the current Prince of Monaco, who remains on the throne of his country despite the fact that he has openly admitted to fathering two separate illegitimate children with two different mistresses, one of whom was a Tongalese flight attendant, see this).
Similarly, when a constitutional monarch is little more than a rubber-stamp on whatever insane decrees or appointments left-wing politicians put forward (as you noted, Queen Elizabeth has approved all sorts of evil knighthoods and religious appointments), it’s very hard to argue that this system of government offers some unique degree of maturity or traditionalism that a republican government lacks.
LA replies:
You’ve stated the problem so well, what can I add?
I’ll just say this. When I was in England (my last visit was over ten years ago), I had a profound experience of the meaning and value of a monarchy and an established church. These things add a transcendent dimension that somehow informs every aspect of the society, something that America lacks. Obviously a monarchy would be totally unsuited to America, as it goes against our entire tradition. But in a country to which iti is suited, I’m in favor of it.
At the same time, when the monarchy becomes completely decadent and serves mainly to advance the prevailing liberalism, it loses any reason to exist.
May 22
Graye writes from England:
I was going to reply to your article on Her Majesty to clarify that she has no political power whatsoever, but your reader Jack S. did that already. Yes, the royal family has a role as a model family to fulfill. But it is not just their own shortcomings that render that almost impossible. Some from the generation of Her Majesty’s parents make in their depravity the antics of the current generations look like childish pranks. The point is that there wasn’t a ubiquitous media yet. Not that this excuses those “antics,” however, it shouldn’t be forgotten.
As a staunch defender of the royal family, I beg you to take into consideration that the sons of the Prince of Wales are not just the sons of their father who may be a weak and gullible man but who plays his part with an extraordinary sense of duty and a great sense of humour. They are the sons of an irresponsible and undutiful mother as well.
May God save our Queen and grant her a long life.
Jack S. writes:
It’s interesting to note that William IV (reigned 1830-1837), the last Hanover king and the third son of George III of revolutionary war fame, was the last king to appoint a prime minister against the wishes of parliament. Before he became King, William IV was the Duke of Clarence who is referenced repeatedly in Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey Maturin novels.
The linked article discusses Conservative Party leader David Cameron’s relationship to that king. He is a descendant of one of William IV’s bastards by the actress Dorothy Jordan
Upon the the death of William IV, 18 year old Victoria became Queen in 1837 and for 120 out of the last 172 years the monarch has been a woman. This feminization of the monarchy could explain in some part the downfall of the British. When patriots ruled the governement the presence of a weak-willed woman on the throne didn’t matter too much. In the present day, when traitors are dismantling Great Britain, a weak Queen meekly assenting to every new leftist outrage hastens the nation’s demise.
LA replies:
Is Elizabeth the Second to Elizabeth the First what Romulus Augustulus (little Augustus)—the last western Roman emperor, deposed by a Germanic barbarian king—was to the great Augustus?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 21, 2009 09:02 AM | Send