HMQEII: Useless but ours, and 10x better than any (s)elected president

Sean Gabb

Parts of the speech are rather moving. I note particularly the implied criticism of those two dreadful wars. I also note the Great War cigarette box beside her. I wish she had taken her duties more literally since 1952. But there is nothing to be done about that now. I will only say that, compared with the sort of scum who make it to the top in republics, she is a light in the darkness. And, as said, she is ours. Her family has been lording it over us for 1500 years that we know about. Indeed, some of her ancestors may have been leading ours in raids across the Rhine on the Roman Empire. I suppose that ought to mean something. SIG


  1. I fail to see how Elizabeth II is more useless than any other constitutional monarch. Constitutional monarchies are sometimes called “crowned republics” for a reason.

    What precisely is it that Queen-bashers are expecting of Her Majesty?

    • Just back from Boxing Day lunch with my mother, so not much of a reply. However, the old dear could at the least have ordered a military coup c1960 and ruled by decree for the next half century. I don’t think the people at large would have complained overly.

      • Merry Christmas to you and all at the Libertarian Alliance.

        It has been said to me before that if the Queen ever interferes with politics, she will find the monarchy abolished by disgruntled MPs (and probably with the will of the general public too). She reigns but she does not rule. A constitutional sovereign’s powers are a mere formality rather than an exercise in political preference. The Queen’s role is almost completely ceremonial.

        As such, I see no reason to criticise the Queen qua constitutional monarch; perhaps constitutional monarchy itself ought to come under scrutiny. Monaco and Liechtenstein, for example, have executive monarchies in which the Sovereign wields significant, but not absolute, power, and are involved in day-to-day politics.

        • The constitution of a country is whatever gets practical acceptance. If HMQ had stood up for the older rules with any consistency since 1952, either we would now still be reasonably free, or we’d have been required to give active consent to our enslavement under the new rules. In either event, she wouldn’t now be a decaying fig leaf.

          • How specifically do you believe the Queen could have stood up for the older rules without overstepping the limits of her largely ceremonial, non-interventionist, rubber-stamp role?

  2. It looks to me that the Queen went along with the transformation and wholeheartedly put her name behind it with the aid of her children. If she has some buyer’s remore now that’s just a sign she was short-sighted or easily lead. As to what she could have done about it, with the powers of the Crown there’s probably alot if only she had tried.

  3. Yes, she’s relatively OK and benign (like most respectable elderly people); but she has betrayed her coronation oath: particular in regards to doing everything in her power to uphold the “laws of God” and the Protestant Gospel, as well as not to give any power or sovereignty to foreign powers- in the Bill of Rights. It is clear that her current powerless position was a downward evolution from the more active position of previous British monarchs. Considering the madness of Prince Charles, this might not be a bad thing; providing he accepts the role as he inherits it, without attempting to regain a more active role.

    • Coronation oaths are pomp and ceremony; they are not legally binding and any action upon the oath that involves political interference is simply a no-no in a constitutional monarchy. It is still unclear to me what precisely you people expect the Queen to do that is both within her power and publicly acceptable.

      A constitutional monarchy is a crowned republic, and Her Majesty a mere figurehead. Has a constitutional monarch in this country ever interfered in the political process, beyond what is expected as a formality of our present Sovereign? Besides, for all we know, the Queen might hold liberal views in private.

      It would be more productive to have a discussion on the system of constitutional monarchy. An executive monarchy à la Monaco and Liechtenstein would be no bad thing, in my view.

  4. Quite a lot of the comments made above are confirmed within my website http://www.camrecon.demon We gathered over 1/2 miilion signatures in 1970s believing that our right to petition the Queen against the EC under the Bill of Rights would have some effect. Not so.Even the Queen is supposed to obey the law as are politicians so technically what they did should have been impossible. We are indeed a “crowned republic” and that is what Bagehot said we should be so that the real government could be carried on by others..On the site I have done my best to expose democracy as a sham and Lord Hailsham’s description “elective dictatorship” is most aposite.
    The terrible thing about “democracy” is that most people vote for a government for a few reasons and the then government can claim it has a mandate based on the whole “package” otherwise known as a manifesto. This is exactly what Heath did in 1970. Given a majority by unsuspecting Tories for all the usual reasons he then used that mandate to commit treason and only the Queen could have stopped him but she failed in her duty. By the look on her face she bloody well knows it too.

  5. I agree entirely with ‘Vabadus’, and made similar comments when this topic first appeared on the LA a year or so ago. The Queen is effectively powerless, the result of decisions of the British people since the trial and execution of Charles 1 (1649), with George 1 becoming the first constitutional monarch (1714? – – almost inevitable since he did not speak English).

    Perhaps someone will point out PRECISELY which part of her Coronation Oath the Queen is supposed to have broken? The relevant part would appear to be “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain …according to their respective laws and customs?”. Laws always over-ride customs, and, as a result of the transformation from constitutional monarchy to cabinet government, laws are created by elected legislators / politicians, not by the monarch (and the USA fought its War of Independence ostensibly precisely for that purpose – according to its myth). So, in her oath the Queen effectively promised to govern according to laws created by elected legislators, and if they legislate to take the UK into the Common Market, then she was BOUND by her oath not only not to oppose such legislation, but TO FOLLOW IT, as for any other legislation.

    I thought the original article on this read like an essay of a fifth former on the social ‘sciences’ track – someone at the stage where they have acquired the false confidence to think they can think, and so are educated, but actually have nothing but a superficial understanding of the facts.

Leave a Reply