Posted on 09/10/2022 8:16:51 AM PDT by SuzyQue
Yes, the writer does make that point.
So....you didn’t actually read it, but are here commenting on it...
Agreed! Long but worth the read.
Some symbols carry more weight than others.
The meaning of some symbols changes over time to become antithetical to their original meaning.
As a symbol, I’d say the royal family (Chuck pi$$y about his pen stand, his partner in adultery stumbling to his side, the painfully obvious photo-op with the warring Cambridges and Harkles) has morphed into something that should be relegated to history.
Thanks for pointing me to this author's earlier essay. It puts into one place all of the concerns non-neocon/non-Booyah Freepers have expressed over the past couple of years.
He is very humble about his "predictions", and they really don't amount to predictions so much as reasonable conclusions from widely available data.
If you had read the article you would have seen that this was not the point the essayist was trying to make.
There is no sentiment expressed in this article. No sentiment to be spared.
The limitations of the current monarchy are recognized by the author and addressed in his essay.
If the author is an American, then there’s nothing stupid about what he wrote. He lives in a country that owes its existence to a bunch of men who revolted against the English royalty and everything it stood for.
Strange that the leftists call her the “colonizer”. A much more accurate name would be the “un-colonizer”.
It was under her 70 year “reign”, that most of the British colonies became indipendent - to the detriment of the natives, I might add.
During her time what got, and continues to be colonized at breakneck speed, is Britain, Europe, the US and what we call the “west”.
At this rate if whites don’t regain a sense of common self preservation and backbone, we’ll become the new Neanderthals.
No, he has a superficial at best knowledge of UK history. Most of his criticisms are either wrong, or better directed at Parliament, local authorities, or the political parties.
The Rhodesians cut their own throats with the UDI in 1965. Had they tried the 1979 internal settlement in 1965. They would have had a peaceful and successful integration of the country. Instead they provoked a civil war that became unwinnable when the Portuguese withdrew from Angola and Mozambique in 1975.
Don’t get me started on the Boers in South Africa who managed screw the pooch repeatedly and throughly throughout their history.
Most of his criticisms are either wrong, or better directed at Parliament, local authorities, or the political parties.
But....she never really tried. At least not in public. Part of it might have been a fear of politicizing the Monarchy which could have led to restrictions or even its its elimination.
I understood that the monarch can also dissolve or dismiss parliament. Back in the Commonwealth days she did do to slow down Australia’s very left wing PM, Gough Whitlam
It’s hard to accomplish something when you don’t actually rule.
Ah...you didn’t read it either.
Say we had an unelected figurehead king or queen here, and he or she said everything "John Carter" wanted said. Would we really listen to him or her? Would we really keep a monarch around if he or she interfered with our elected officials?
Read enough to know the guy is holding her responsible for things she had no control over. The office has not had any actual power in her lifetime. He tries to make a case, but his case is hollow. She had no power. And she took over at a time when the world was turning hard against monarchs. If she’d tried any of the crap the fool says she should have the monarchy probably would have been ended (which, of course, it should have been before she was even born). At various points in her “reign” there was very strong anti-royal sentiment.
Oh look at this one: The monarch is meant to be the champion of the people. BWAHAHAHAHAH The guy is an idiotic, the monarch is NOT the champion of the people, the monarch is the last remains of a dead aristocracy, desperately hoping the people don’t realize how completely useless they are and seize all their palaces.
The guy is quite simply wrong. There was never really a chance to have a legacy. His “queen who should have been” shouldn’t have been, couldn’t have been, and never will be.
Yeah, you missed the point.
There was the 1975 Constitutional Crisis (Australia).
The Queen did not take part. One of the Queen’s secretaries opined that the Governor-General had authority to dismiss the government based on the Australian Constitution when the House and Senate were deadlocked.
The Queen didn’t know about it until after it happened.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/queens-australia-rep-assured-power-75-crisis-71766590
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.