Posted on 11/21/2005 10:11:23 PM PST by WJHII
A Monarchy in Danger
Freedom Today Magazine The United Kingdom
By William John Hagan
New Labour has become the greatest threat to the future of the British Monarchy since Oliver Cromwell. The only people to blame for this current state of affairs are those most loyal to the Crown who have somehow failed to confront the issue of public antipathy, illogically hoping that the problem would just disappear. It won’t, as long as today’s incarnation of British Labour controls Parliament.
I will say this only once: what works for the United States will not work for the United Kingdom. However, Tony Blair’s constant pursuit of unbridled power is leading Britain down a slippery slope that is destroying her most important institutions, such as the role of the House of Lords. This metamorphosis will result in the eventual subjugation of the British people to a continental European authority. The damage Blair has already done to Britain can still be corrected, but those loyal to Her Majesty and her rightful heirs must act now or the future will be bleaker than any of Orwell’s nightmares.
The plot to destroy the Monarchy began with the disenfranchisement of the Peerage and the emasculation of the House of Lords. In 1997, when Labour ended twenty years of Conservative Party rule in Britain, the Peers served as a partial check on the powers of the Lower House of Parliament. Between 1997 and 1998, the Lords rejected Labour’s bills thirty-nine times. As we know such a rebuff was, in reality, only a one-year impediment as a result of the Parliament Act of 1949. Still, however negligible, this political check was on the Commons and it allowed the mostly Conservative Peers to slow down the wheels of Tony Blair’s vision of a socialist Britain.
Blair’s response to the Lord’s opposition was particularly dictatorial. He pushed through the House of Lords Act of 1999, which effectively destroyed the minor political check the Peers held over potential abuses by the Commons. Today, only 92 elected Peers remain in the House of Lords; the remaining seats have been principally packed with Labour cronies who have been more then willing to rubber stamp the actions of an all- powerful, Labour controlled Commons. The House of Lords Act has, in effect, left Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as the only remaining check on the Presidential ambitions of Tony Blair and his Labour zealots.
As powerful as the Blair dictatorship has become, he is currently in no position to remove the Queen and vest himself with powers as Head of State. I suspect, however, that he would like nothing more than to proceed to just that finale. Considering the mature age of Her Majesty, I must broach a subject that we all dread having to confront. The day will come when Queen Elizabeth II’s reign will achieve its natural end and Prince Charles will ascend to the Throne of England.
A corrupt media and the whispers of Republican and Labour leaders have questioned the fitness of the Prince of Wales to serve as King. In reality, they see his perceived weaknesses as the ideal opportunity to turn Britain into a Republic. And what a Republic this would be: a parliamentary system with absolutely no check on the power of its Head of State who would control a majority in Parliament. In effect, Tony Blair or his successor, would have unrestrained power over the British people without the powerful counsel of the Queen. This is not an outlandish scenario but rather a probability with the passing of the Monarch.
It is the duty of every member of the Conservative Party to repair the defamatory misconceptions that Prince Charles is unfit to assume the throne. As an American, allow me to be politically incorrect and point out that Prince Charles is not a villain but a victim. He is not the one who violated the Statute of Treasons which outlaws having sexual intercourse with the wife of the Monarch’s heir. Under this law, if the illicit relations are consensual then both participants are equally guilty of the crime of High Treason. True, the Prince used unusually poor judgment by having his own affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, however, in doing so, he violated no laws and certainly did not subject the Royal Blood line to the peril of illegitimacy. The reality is that history is want to name one English King who did not have a mistress. This is not an issue that disqualifies Prince Charles from becoming King.
When the time comes, I suspect Labour will use Prince Charles’ diminished popularity to attempt to eliminate the Monarchy in favor of a Republic. Ironically, it would take the signature of the future King Charles II to convert such an Act into Law. The membership of the Conservative Party must now be fervently dedicated to the removal of New Labour from 10 Downing Street. Only then, can a proper system of checks and balances be returned to the United Kingdom. With the grace of God, a Conservative Prime Minister will one day return to power and it should be his or her first act to repeal the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, as well as the House of Lords Act. Only with these proper restraints on the absolute power of the Commons can Britain be protected from an ideological dictatorship of the left and the dissolution of the Monarchy.
Thank God that, in America, we said "No More Kings!"
However the modern American sheeple have recreated the monarchy in the form of the Professional Political Class.
America will fall as it began: in revolution against its rulers.
The trouble is that Britain's checks and balances were in the form of Sovereign vs. Lords vs. Commons. So when the monarchy and nobility lost their power that one house, the House of Commons, took a great amount of governmental power. It would be, in America, as if the president lost all power and the Senate and judiciary lost most of their power and the whole government was effectively run by the House of Representatives alone. Maybe the UK doesn't need a powerful monarch or nobility, but it does need some kind of system of checks and balances.
The British Monarchy is Ghey.
Time to join the democratic age.
Establish a Republic with a Constitution enshrined with enumerated powers and rights.
Not much diffrent from the Canadian senate, which is useless and not even ornamental.
Actually, now, the only ones elected were born into the position, rather than appointed by the Prime Minister
Britain certainly has a problem. That old Johnny Cash song about something 'coming down the track' comes to mind. That would be Charles with a towel wrapped around his empty head.
If you think the inbreeding is a disgrace in say West Virginia, check out the worlds "royalty".
Some people still actually believe in a British Monarchy? Kind of like reading Flat Earth society stuff to me. I had no idea anyone still believed.
If I had "King" Charles IV in my future I'd be making other plans too. What a boob!
Long live the Queen (Elizabeth II) !!
I read somewhere in an interview of Prince Charles that he might take the name George since he admires George III so much.
Are you forgetting that Prince Charles attended Ronald Reagan's funeral? Or that he condemmed the 9/11 attacks unequivicoally?
He is a great ally to his American cousins. Even if he does have some personal foibles.
Pretty sure it's George VI that Charles is thinking of honouring, not George III.
As for the chances of a republic, they're pretty slim-to-non-existent. The royal family are more popular then they have been for ages, and nobody is seriously talking about getting rid of them, as they were a decade ago. Even if some horrible scandal came up I think most people in the country would rather retain our ancient traditions, and any referrendum would founder on the question of what to replace the monarchy with as it did in Australia.
As for the Lords, the author of the piece seems to have forgotten that the chamber has actually been one of the government's most effective opponents in recent years, repeatedly throwing bills back to the Commons and making a general nusciance of itself. Not what Blair intended, but long may it continue.
And just to correct an irritating point in the article- there is no throne of England, and there hasn't been since 1707. Our Queen is the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc), not the Queen of England.
Thanks, I appreciate the info. Here's a question for you. Since the Stone of Scone was sent back to Scotland will it be brought back to Westminster Abbey for Charles' coronation? Or perhaps Charles/George might go to Scotland for a separate ceremony.
I lived in Vancover (of the People's Republic of Bristish Columbia) for a little over a year. The NDP (as close to Communist as you sill see without carrying party cards) was in charge at the province level then. The legislature would pass a bill and boom they were acting on it that afternoon--no waiting for the governor to sign it. The courts would rule something illegal and within days the legislature would redraft the law and it was back in effect.
Scary as hell. The Canadians around me just scoffed when I expressed my concerns that they were leaving the door open to totalitarian one party rule.
I have no love for the British monarchy and would not shed a tear to see it go. But the awesome power that one party can wield in a situation like that is pretty intimidating. Of course, in reality it is nearly that now.
The major oversight that I see with this article is that the author forgets that Tony Blair and New Labor (none of those Brit extra Us here) are ready to cede much more authority to the EU once they are in better control and can avoid a public referendum on the subject.
hmmm... interesting question. I expect the former. As I said, Charles wouldn't be the King of Scotland but rather the King of the UK , and any ceremony involving just the Scots would set an odd precedent.
Which isn't to say that Scots Nationalists wouldn't kick up a fuss about it... but then again they always do.
Whoops. Hit "post" before correcting typos. Pople= people. Sill = will.
"(none of those Brit extra Us here)"
Well the party is officially known as the Labour Party, so you should give into temptation and add one really- It is what it's called after all. Much as the Australian equivalent is called the Labor Party, just because I'm British doesn't mean I spell it the British way.
Sorry to be a pedant!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.