We ought to say; God Bless The Queen, although she has been somewhat useless


David Davis

It is reasonable to say that the Director’s view about Elizabeth-The-Useless is sound. She has done nothing much to reverse the loss of sovereignty of the British People, whether against the EU or whether against our own BritishPolitical-EnemyClass.

The Sovereignty of the British People is critical to the survival of libertarianism globally. It is a necessary but also not sufficient condition for this thing.

But she has tried, insofar as it was allowed in her power, to maintain some sort of relationship – which may yet prove useful – between Her Realms. Not all of these places are useless socialist dross. This is quite unlike any other collection of post-imperial territories on this planet. Here she is visiting 265 of them.

3 comments

  • There’s no point in having a monarch if they’re not prepared to do anything – if they’re not prepared to take a stand. Had she taken a stand years ago the British people would probably have supported her. I understand why she feels she should not become involved in politics and in normal circumstances that would be correct. But the last 50 years has not been normal circumstances.

  • She is useless because her job is to be useless: she is a constitutional monarch. Constitutional monarchies are not known as “crowned republics” for nothing and, as such, her powers are largely ceremonial in nature. An outspoken, politically biased and involved Queen Elizabeth would find her role rather quickly abolished by politicians, don’t you think?

    If the role of the constitutional monarch is not satisfactory, then advocate a transition to a full democracy with an elected head of state, or an absolute monarchy (personally, I am very warm on the political arrangements of Liechtenstein and Monaco, which has been unofficially described as “executive monarchies”, although to be very pedantic and proper, H.S.H. Prince Hans-Adam II and H.S.H. Prince Albert II are absolute monarchs); don’t castigate a constitutional monarch for not doing what constitutional monarchs are not meant to do.

  • I would agree that the Queen does not, for example, seem to have said any single thing that anyone remembers.

    However her Coronation Oath stated that she would serve us to the end of her days, or something like that. This arguable implies that she ought to have defended the interests of her Sovereign People, which clearly she hasn’t; for example, in the matter of the Treaties of Rome, the SEA, Maastricht, Lisbon and so forth. She could probably have got away with sacking Parliament at the time of the awful Ted Heath and calling a general election, for there were then still enough people in Britain on the right side to make a difference; this of course would not be the case now since almost all of those have since died.

    It’s also arguable that Charles would be worse; perhaps mainly because he went to a university and got corrupted by anthropology dons and so forth.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s