Pointless Monarchy?

This is something I have been meditating on for quite a while,what is the point of a consitutional monarch?

If they are a ‘consitutional monarch’, what good can they do?

I know the arguments in favour, they deny the symbolic pinnacle of power and patronage to a politician, yes, but the reality is that the Prime Minister holds all that power and wields it eagerly.

There is the connection with the past, the sense of timelessness, yes, but, it looks more pathetic and tenuous to me all the time.

If by consitutional one means there are laws, traditions and balances to the power of a monarch, then I would agree that all Christian monarchs have been ‘consitiutional monarchs’, if on the other hand one means a powerless symbol, then I would have to say I would rather not be involved.

A monarch is a symbol, but they must always be more than that, if that is all they are, then we may as well have a president. Not that I’m saying we should get rid of monarchies, only that our monarchs need to rule as well as reign!

The idea that it is wrong to have a hereditary head of state because they are hereditary, is a shallow argument! I could say it is wrong to have lots of stupid and uninformed people chosing the head of state, I could say it is wrong that an assembly of 27 men can decide who is the new European Emperor! Hereditary leaders are not that uncommon in the history of men, and they are far from ‘wrong’ or ‘stupid’ as many meritorcrats would have us believe.

The fact that they tell us, teach us and brainwash us through the media every day of our lives, should tell us that they are probably wrong. Why do business men and politicians constantly go on about ‘equality’, ‘meriticracy’ and ‘democracy’? Because they control the system, they control who stands in elections, they control who chooses those who stand in the elections, they control the voting systems and who counts the votes and how they count the votes, they control which parties are allowed to exist, they control the media which portrays the contest as something other than irrelevant and they control the money.

A hereditary king who had the power to rule could be a liability to their power, a hereditary king would not have to owe anyone anything for getting into his position, he could decide to oppose certain money-making schemes, he could upset the way things were and if his people backed him, he could be more powerful then all the money men together. A real king, with real power is something they will not tolerate, that is why I want a real king with real power, not some powerless ‘consitutional monarch’!

The comment bellow was left on a Telegraph story about the Duke of Windsor’s apparent desire to return to his position after the war.

‘The present ‘monarch’ has singularly failed to protect the sovereignty of the British people against corrupt government. Some observers would conclude it has been by her deliberate choice.

She has done this since at least 1973, treaty-by-treaty. We are actually part of an end-game now, not some radical transformation.

There is no other single individual who has had better advice, nor greater responsibility. It has been her signature, and hers alone, which has ultimately denied us our nation. She knew, when she gave assent to the Treaty of Rome, what the ultimate outcome would be, because she was advised on the constitutional consequences. Now we have the ridiculous position that she is presently sovereign of thirty-odd nations, but not the one she lives in.

Given there have been so many European treaties since our accession to Rome, one must conclude that her culpability goes way beyond mere accident. In fact she is the only common factor in all of them, and ought by now to be a world expert on constitutional law, especially with respect to the EU!

It is deeply ironic, therefore, to read ‘royalists’ banging-on thoughtlessly about what great service she has done for the country in her reign. In reality, she has protected her family from the worst ravages of republicanism, in a Faustian contract that cannot last, and little else. The dynasty remains fabulously wealthy though, and even were her descendants to be exiled or deposed (as is likely, for the EU brooks no competition!), they will be well provided for.

For us, however, her once-loyal subjects, there is subsumation into a Fascist and totalitarian state, that will demonstrably stop at nothing to control all aspects of our lives. Our queen had OUR sovereignty in her protection, for her lifetime, for that was the contract between monarch and people, to which she agreed at the Abbey.

She gave it away so readily, to our certain enemies, as if it was a thing of no worth at all. It might have been a mistake, but, in all the years since, we have no hint she believes that, nor cares a whit.

Some would say it was the action of a ‘constitutional’ monarch, but to others, myself included, the right word begins with “T”, and has strong associations with Tyburn.

I no longer care who lives in Buck House. I do care however that my children are growing up in a police state, where their own country is no longer theirs and their ancient freedoms are taken from them.’

Although I am not a ‘republican’ in the Irish nationalist meaning of the word, I can still understand the commenters frustration with his Queen, for all the talking, she has not stood up for her country, and perhaps she can’t, but as some other commenters put it, what is the point if she is only window dressing? Why not go the whole hog and have some drab appointed politician or an elected politician? Why does the Queen not decide, no, I will not go along with this, I would rather lose my throne, which has now become something behind which the most repulsive radicals hide their evil deeds and expose them for what they are?

Is it not better to go out in a blaze of glory, rather than being stained with the same treason that is being committed against her people, by her politicians? Is it not better to be remebered for taking a stand and perhaps in the long term ensuring the survival of her house?

It is strange, but if there is upheaval in the years to come, Britain may end up a republic, not because they hate the idea of a monarch, but because the present queen was too good at being a ‘constitutional monarch’.

Sometimes one needs to take a risk, sometimes it is good to remain quiet, This is not the time to be quiet, if Queen Elizabeth II wants her house to continue, now may be the time to abdicate and allow someone who is not affraid to make his oppinions known, to succeed her to the crown, The Prince Charles!