Confessions of a closet monarchist

It was so gratifying to read, after six years of blogging on the topic, Matthew d’Ancona admitting the real enemy:

The monarchy is doing fine – the problem is the oligarchy.

Look, I’m well aware that the Queen is a Welf and that the Welfs are the bloodline which has much to answer for. Leaving lizards and dragons aside for the moment, is the trouble stemming from them or are they just caught up in it?

Looking at the way the aristocracy behaves in Belgium, one wonders.

And yet, as Matthew d’Ancona states, the monarchy is still popular, it offers hope and many people at work yesterday were saying it actually brings people together, particularly in the form of the Queen mother and the Wills and Kate show. Whatever you might personally think of them, that wedding was one of the best going and there’s no doubt the mood of the people was one of hope.

Sure, any hope will be inevitably dashed and it’s bleedin’ obvious why. It’s also obvious that when you elevate the Blairs and Cleggs way beyond their station, then dire banality will follow – the incompetence, arrogance and greed of the tin god. One commenter:

This self-styled meritocracy tells us it is in charge because it merits the fact. This is total rubbish as it is in charge because it is in charge and devil take the hindmost. It is arrogant, aggressive, money-grubbing and wholly out of control.

This is what you get for elevating the children of the petit-bourgeois above their station. You don’t get equality, you don’t get the social democratic utopia, you don’t get justice. All you get is vulgarity, manipulation and exploitation.

The time is now well-overdue that these treacherous clerks are stuffed back into their dark box and the more timeless realities of this beautful country made manifest. Power to the common folk and God Bless our Queen!

I’m sorry but a reading of history tracing that family would indicate, I think, that G-d is not going to bless that bloodline and yet the sentiment is admirable. People want strong leadership. Christianity itself is all about that – an exemplary person showing the way. Every football club needs its leaders and we want them exemplary – strong, fair, firm and friendly. Every army needs that in its generals, not lions led by donkeys.

My own football club has the commentators saying: “When the chips were down, its leaders stood tall and delivered.” It makes a person feel good to know that there are such people and that they can be counted on. It is demoralizing to see the “leadership” at Westminster and in Washington and know just how spineless and corrupt it is. Yet there are sedition laws to prevent us saying this.

The very best model is a society where there is a bold, educated and compassionate leadership – that leadership bound by constitutionality and empathizing with the citizens.

For someone such as yours truly who believes this utopia is the ideal and is far happier as a loyalist rather than as a malcontent, then this quote is hard to take:

Privileged to have a traitor who signed away our sovereignty on the Lisbon Treaty, who oversaw the economic and social downfall over 60 years by politicians when she could have done something about it?

It’s hard to take because it’s unfortunately true to a great extent and yet the Queen is bound by her constitutional position. You can’t have it both ways – do you want an arbitrary monarch who can control your every action, your very life or do you want a constitutional leader? If you choose the latter, then she is bound by parliament in real terms.

And if that parliament is corrupt, paying a tithe to Tavistock and the round table groups, then what chance the nation? Another good comment:

Who in his right mind would suggest replacing the monarchy with a politician as our Head of State?

Unless events catch us up beforehand, I’d put my money on the Queen staying on to thwart Charles and to get her record over Victoria in September, 2015, eventually dying and giving Charles maybe ten years, a la Edward VII, to be followed by a Wills and Kate in their 40s. My betting is that if there is an antiChrist, then that’s where he might pop up, as the narrative states that the aC won’t know it until the actual time.

Just a thought and I don’t insist on it.

10 comments for “Confessions of a closet monarchist

  1. June 4, 2012 at 11:49 am

    A thought passed through my slowly waking mind this morning; when the Queen visited the Republic of Ireland a while back, to such good effect, and laying to rest apart from in the minds of the last few fanatics all that had passed between us and Ireland (my father was a Dubliner, coming to Manchester in 1929) was washed away by this visit.

    Now, had it been (God forfend), President Blair making that trip, it would have been meaningless.

    I’d far rather have the Queen as Head of State than some slimeball President. Sarkozy. Blair. Obama Beach. No thank you.

  2. June 4, 2012 at 11:50 am

    ps. Fantastic photo. She was a stunner. And a pretty stunning old lady.

  3. BJ
    June 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Well said JH – I’ve come to the same conclusions.

    People forget that charters and bills of right had to be more or less forced on to the monarchs at that time.

    Kings/Queens can be as capricious as parliaments – it should be the people who keep both in check; that’s the part that has gone wrong IMHO.

  4. Tarka the Rotter
    June 4, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    No, the Queen is a Wettin, not a Welf, of the House of Saxony…Queen Victoria was a Welf….Prince Philip is an Oldenburg…

    • June 4, 2012 at 3:47 pm

      The version of the proclamation released in December 1958 did not have Guelph, granted but the version before then did. Not as Welf but as Guelph. Wettin was adopted in the middle ages and came from the castle.

      The proclamation of 17th July 1917 changing to Windsor did have a name in the text as well as Saxe-Coburg and that was Guelph.

      • Tarka the Rotter
        June 5, 2012 at 2:48 pm

        Names of the British royal house

        Ernest I’s younger son, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, became Prince Consort to Queen Victoria, Ernest’s niece through his sister Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. As a consequence of their marriage, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha became the dynasty of the British Royal Family from the accession of Edward VII in 1901 until changed to Windsor by King George V in 1917, during the United Kingdom’s war with the German Empire.

        Contrary to common belief, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was not the personal surname of either Prince Albert, his wife or their descendants. Queen Victoria launched an inquiry to identify her surname. After an exhaustive search her advisors concluded that Prince Albert (and thus the Queen—by virtue of her marriage) had the surname Wettin.[citation needed]

        George V changed both Wettin and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor by proclamation in 1917.

        In 1947 Princess Elizabeth (now Elizabeth II) married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who also had German heritage, being descended from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, and whose surname since shortly before his marriage has been Mountbatten—anglicized during WWI from “Battenberg” of the Grand Duchy of Hesse. The Queen’s marriage to Prince Philip raised the issue of the surname and dynastic name to be carried by the Queen’s descendants, including future monarchs. An Order in Council in 1960 decreed that the name and dynasty of Elizabeth II would remain “Windsor”, as would that of her children by the Duke of Edinburgh (save that of any of their daughters who married). The order stipulated, however, that those of their male-line descendants who do not bear the title of prince or princess and the style of Royal Highness would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor. In fact, some of Elizabeth II’s children have also chosen, on occasion, to use that designation on legal documents.

  5. June 4, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    And yet, as Matthew d’Ancona states, the monarchy is still popular, it offers hope and many people at work yesterday were saying it actually brings people together, particularly in the form of the Queen mother and the Wills and Kate show. Whatever you might personally think of them, that wedding was one of the best going and there’s no doubt the mood of the people was one of hope.

    Can you show numerical evidence to show that the mood of the people was increased as a result of the wedding?

    • June 4, 2012 at 11:25 pm

      Not in the least – purely subjective feeling. 😉

  6. ivan
    June 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    This is the comment I posted over at nourishing obscurity on the same post.

    How to start? Those that complain the Queen should have done this or not done that obviously don’t know how much she is constrained by the constitution.

    I have always thought that the Monarch should have more power over the politicians and their handling of the country’s affairs. Things like saying NO to signing some bills and kicking out of office obviously incompetent ministers.

    A monarchy will always have the advantage over an elected president. Anyone elected will always be looking out for themselves first, their friends and hangers on second and the general people last. Then there is the turmoil and ‘all change’ when a new person is elected.

    The monarch should be the peoples backstop with the constitutional imperative to keep the politicians honest and doing what is good for the nation. I can hear a lot of republicans screaming that an unelected person shouldn’t have that much control of the political process to which I reply, why not if it is limited by the constitution. I would also ask them to show me an instance of an elected ruler (president etc.) that has not screwed the people in some way or other. It is inherent in politicians make up to screw the general public – that’s why they are politicians.

    Just a thought on the Queen continuing on. She should and hopefully Chuckles will have the sense, but I doubt it, to pass the throne to Wills and Kate.

  7. Single Acts of Tyranny
    June 4, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    “People want strong leadership”

    Speak for yourself. I prefer to think for myself ‘leadership’ is not wanted, required or useful.

Comments are closed.