RIP Liz II
This lady has died today after living a posh, eventful and long life.
bigger
Despite all controversies about the British royals, their public roles and riches, many people in the United Kingdom have had some genuine love for her as a person.
I doubt that her successors will ever gain similar sympathies. Indeed the UK may over time wean itself off from such an undemocratic, and very expensive, institution as the monarchy is.
Another recent picture from Britain, on the current cover of the New Statesman, depicts the other Liz at the bow of an ocean liner.
bigger
What will the people of the British Islands do when they find out that they are indeed on the Titanic with a captain who does not understand that the economic icebergs drifting in front of the ship are an imminent danger?
Posted by b on September 8, 2022 at 17:41 UTC | Permalink
« previous pageThanks, b, for your eulogy here. My comment this morning is that I would like to see the monarchy remain in a new way, and I think it will. As I read again what you wrote, the word 'posh' came forward - it is short for 'starboard out-port home', those being the best sides for a sea voyage out from England. If that could be set along with China's 'belt and road' message, it would be a good one to think of as Queen Elizabeth II's legacy.
And I am happy to also recall that some years back I stood near the outer edge of the
estuary that is Dunedin Harbour in the South Island of New Zealand as the great liner "Queen Elizabeth II" steamed up the narrow channel to the city - just me out there on the tidal stretch, paramoana, waving at passengers as they bemusedly got their glimpse of the Otago shoreline far back from the ship's deep causeway itself.
I was nearly on my way back to the US, and as I was departing the great ship was being held in place against the mighty Southerlies that were blowing against the bow, two little tugs at her stern to keep her from breaking her moorings and stranding on my side of the harbour. It was a close thing, but they held.
'Starboard out - Port home.' Don't lose sight of those two little tugboats, Britain. They are all you've got to avoid disaster.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 9 2022 15:54 utc | 202
@208 Port out starboard home juliania. You would have an uncomfortable voyage.
Posted by: dh | Sep 9 2022 15:58 utc | 203
@208 Port out starboard home juliania. You would have an uncomfortable voyage.
Posted by: dh | Sep 9 2022 15:58 utc | 209
Thank you, dh! You can tell my home was in the antipodes !! My apologies!
Posted by: juliania | Sep 9 2022 16:12 utc | 204
@210 Happy to help. I didn't mind a bit of discomfort in my younger days. I would probably have travelled deck class.
Posted by: dh | Sep 9 2022 16:18 utc | 205
Elizabeth lived long. Diane died young.
Elizabeth sat upon a throne. Half the world have no home.
Elizabeth took the jewel of Africa. Africa will not get it back.
Why does the world mourn for her?
Posted by: Rizali | Sep 9 2022 16:31 utc | 206
Scorpion, on the Russian Orthodox view of the monarchy (my little church was/is Russian Orthodox on US soil) I would say that the Russian Federation as presently constituted already embodies that. Earthly governance is always a reflection, an icon, of true monarchy, in that view - better or worse, but not the real thing. When the early Russian travelling emissary of the Tsar came to the great Constantinople church they did not know if they were in heaven or on earth, so great was the majesty of that church and its liturgical celebration. That glory did not depend on the surrounding governmental functions, though those were assuredly contributary at the time and in future new renditions of that earthly beauty.
It has been my experience that the humblest forms of such a liturgy can be filled with a similar, (perhaps even greater because of humble origins), manifestation of that same glory. I have seen it. That is a great gift, and it doesn't depend on earthly monarchy. After all, Christ was born in a cave. The only church in Antarctica has been a Russian Orthodox one, with the same name as my own little church. I am confident the same glory visits it as did Hagia Sophia in Constantinople back in that day.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 9 2022 16:40 utc | 207
Of all the commentary on the passing of the Queen, Russell Brand captures, most eloquently the myriad of emotions surrounding Britain's longest sitting monarch. My respect for Brand grows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPT-2nUA1s
Posted by: ld | Sep 9 2022 17:06 utc | 209
another viewpoint
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/thats-enough-monarchy-now/
Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 9 2022 17:19 utc | 210
Juliana, thank you for your reply. It is a pleasure and privilege to converse with a Russian Orthodox person.
"When the early Russian travelling emissary of the Tsar came to the great Constantinople church they did not know if they were in heaven or on earth, so great was the majesty of that church and its liturgical celebration....
It has been my experience that the humblest forms of such a liturgy can be filled with a similar, (perhaps even greater because of humble origins), manifestation of that same glory. I have seen it. That is a great gift, and it doesn't depend on earthly monarchy."
1. That glory experienced does not come only from the church but also the person perceiving/witnessing/experiencing that Church from faith-full perspective which includes sacred outlook.
2. Similarly, as you say, the monarchy is not the source of such glory, rather one particular expression and manifestation of it, specifically regarding leadership functions.
The people all together, leaders and followers, create their culture. Some cultures value sacred perception, which attunes them to the Good, some don't.
For example, you could write liturgies in New Mexico to invoke sacred presence in the hills, the earth, the rains, the people. And as such would be manifesting the monarch principle in however humble and straightforward a fashion. Writing liturgies is one of my favorite hobbies. I recommend the practice!
And so it goes...
Is the British Monarchy really that expensive?
If we compare to say Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan - cost $US90m, the cost of the monarchy is a bargain by comparison.
Posted by: MrV | Sep 9 2022 17:48 utc | 212
Is the British Monarchy really that expensive?
@MrV | Sep 9 2022 17:48 utc | 218
---
How much does an organized crime syndicate really cost?
Posted by: too scents | Sep 9 2022 17:51 utc | 213
My respect for Brand grows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqPT-2nUA1s
Posted by: ld | Sep 9 2022 17:06 utc | 215
Mine as well. Thank you, ld.
Posted by: juliania | Sep 9 2022 17:59 utc | 214
Posted by: Rizali | Sep 9 2022 16:31 utc | 212
Piracy,looting,ethnic removals and exploitation are always respected
didn't you know?
Posted by: LuBa | Sep 9 2022 18:16 utc | 215
Posted by: ld | Sep 9 2022 17:06 utc | 215
Very good, thank you.
A credit to both his Great British working class and noble and tribal ancestors!
@222 Brand is worth millions. Sounds like he's angling for a knighthood.
Posted by: dh | Sep 9 2022 19:41 utc | 217
I wonder if having a "KING", will change the cultural face of England.
A masculine face. Charles is no Marlboro man, but it always seemed FEMININE,
soft, to have a Queen all these years, and no king. Maybe even lesbian.
A women who just doesn't want a man? I wonder if that effects a national culture.
What other purpose does having a royal family serve?
Posted by: SweetPie88 | Sep 9 2022 19:57 utc | 218
charles will continue his 2 namesakes legacy and start new civil war. bank on it.
Posted by: yhwh | Sep 9 2022 20:14 utc | 219
@224 Brexit was as close as Britain will get to civil war. Charles might knight John Lydon to show how cool he is.
Posted by: dh | Sep 9 2022 21:08 utc | 220
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juYzbb9WcR4
Never liked her but she gave a great speech today in tribute in House of Commons. (Bojo's earlier one was more somber but also excellent.)
Pacifica_Advocate@200
You are mistaking the institutions of a capitalist state with the tattered regalia of a feudalism.
The land owners, for example are of various backgrounds but their power is derived from their wealth and their control over the economy. Their titles, or not, have nothing to do with it.
..The idea that she herself doesn't wield power...ever heard of "The House of Lords"? Ever heard of that Good Ol' Boys' club "The British Aristocracy"? "Landed nobles"? That exclusive group of people are riddled throughout the British military, police, and intelligence agencies, as well as occupying many of the highest offices throughout the British government and the NGO landscape.
"They all answer to her. They all quite literally swear an oath of allegiance to do her bidding whenever they take office or convene. To openly act against her expressed wishes is to literally commit treason..."
The 'her' in this argument is the key- the 'person' to whom these royal servants answer is a fictional "Queen in Parliament" in fact the government of the day. It is very convenient for the Tony Blairs of this world and the capitalist class which directs them that people should believe that they are not responsible for their actions- "The Queen did it!"
It is sad that Americans seem to have little difficulty in believing that their Presidents are puppets of the oligarchs, the Deep State or imperialism but they cannot catch up with the change in the powers of the British monarchy which began in the 1640s. Of course part of the problem is the nonsense they are taught to the effect that George III personally directed the war against Congress and that the British Empire sprang full armed from the girlish brain of Victoria.
"... the idea that she didn't wield enormous political power is just absurd; there are too many examples in the world that prove it, as well." Cite a single one of them, then.
Posted by: bevin | Sep 9 2022 21:49 utc | 222
It astounds me just how many ignorants are pontificating on the Rule of Monarchy in Great Britain when they obvious are entirely ignorant of what that is and who holds power. Clue : it's not the Monarchy. Also to all you greater fools...the country does not finance an expensive exploitive Monarchy. The Queen is self-funded. Parliament provides a stipend to cover all of the Head of State engagements, just as Congress does here in the US, for diplomatic outreach. But Parliament does not cover the rest of the Queens expense. She did. The Queen is probably the largest land owner in the World, larger than the Roman Catholic Church. She is also the wealthiest women in the world, but you won't read that in Forbes. Grow up, people, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The Queen remains an example of tireless duty and selfless dedication. She represented All the British people, nobly, all of her life. God Save The Queen... ! !
Posted by: Element | Sep 9 2022 22:07 utc | 223
@Pacifica_Advocate@200
"You are mistaking the institutions of a capitalist state with the tattered regalia of a feudalism.
The land owners, for example are of various backgrounds but their power is derived from their wealth and their control over the economy. Their titles, or not, have nothing to do with it.
..The idea that she herself doesn't wield power...ever heard of "The House of Lords"? Ever heard of that Good Ol' Boys' club "The British Aristocracy"? "Landed nobles"? That exclusive group of people are riddled throughout the British military, police, and intelligence agencies, as well as occupying many of the highest offices throughout the British government and the NGO landscape.
"They all answer to her. They all quite literally swear an oath of allegiance to do her bidding whenever they take office or convene. To openly act against her expressed wishes is to literally commit treason...""
+++++++++++++
I look forward your answer to bevin:
""... the idea that she didn't wield enormous political power is just absurd; there are too many examples in the world that prove it, as well." Cite a single one of them, then."
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Your statement hints at the power Her Majesty did wield whilst describing an arena in which she didn't wield much at all.
The House of Lords. Ever been in it? VERY hard to stay awake!! As many of the Peers evidence. The main way they stay awake is scratching the flea bites they get from wearing those funny old wigs!
More seriously, I think part of the reason she became such a presence in the life of the nation, even during the 60's, the 70's, the 80's and so on is because she was a woman. Moreover a woman wielding a type of power that is now what can be called 'feminine lineage.' The British monarch does not wield traditionally masculine power - armies, executive control, power of veto and so forth. They are not even allowed to make their own speeches to Parliament when they deliver speeches. They are written by the Prime Minister for them to read. If they voice personal political opinions about topical subjects, let alone a crisis issue like war, strikes, riots, famine etc, they will be reprimanded first verbally, then by letter, then in Parliament and then deposed which Parliament I believe has the power to effect.
But they do wield significant soft power, except the word wield is inappropriate. They can greatly influence both key individuals - especially the Prime Minister with whom they hold weekly private conferences that are strictly confidential - and the nation as a whole by their example, by how they carry themselves, express connection, concern, compassion, class, humour, stoicism, family values whatever. So a Queen has a natural advantage in the soft power art of being a constitutional Monarch for the United Kingdom and her Commonwealth of Nations.
Charles III has observed his mother for decades and been prepared to step up since boyhood so we'll see how well he's understood these things. He has given many signs over the years that he has not, that he wants to be more dynamic and assertive. That is quite understandable but he will be kicking against the system and by doing so giving them plenty of reasons to kick back which will be counterproductive and might even spur republican movements in the realm. That said, he does understand the role very well and he might even find ways to be more dynamic without breaking the rules. Time will tell.
But I think your notion of the Queen's power was too materialistic. No doubt there were some things done in the background but mainly, I suspect, dealing with initiatives involving individuals, scandals and suchlike, not policy, politics, official administration. The House of Lords is basically a bunch of lawyers shuffling sentences around. Some of what they do might sometimes be a little significant but not much.
Anyone who knows more please correct me if this is wrong.
It is very convenient for the Tony Blairs of this world and the capitalist class which directs them that people should believe that they are not responsible for their actions- "The Queen did it!"
That's very interesting, bevin.
You see I've read and heard, a thousand times in the press and on TV, that the Queen is a figurehead, and has no power. So can safely be ignored.
It seems your experiences differ. So can you show me some examples of how Tony Blair or the capitalist class that directs his like has promoted this view that "The Queen did it!"
Thank you.
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 9 2022 22:15 utc | 225
@Posted by: Element | Sep 9 2022 22:07 utc | 228
So you believe that the Queen became "the wealthiest women in the world" through the practice of "selfless dedication"? Is that correct?
Can you explain how that works? Thank you.
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 9 2022 22:24 utc | 226
Charles loved Camilla before Diana, one problem. Camilla was Catholic and the Queen would not allow it.
Hence the unhappy marriage of Diana and Charles.
Anyway, I have to endure wall to wall Liz for the next few weeks. Not just every TV & radio channel but every company website.
Posted by: Mighty Drunken | Sep 9 2022 22:28 utc | 227
Mighty drunken no.232
"Anyway, I have to endure wall to wall Liz for the next few weeks. Not just every TV & radio channel but every company website."
It's your choice to endure them. You could simply turn them off.
Posted by: ThusspakeZarathustra | Sep 9 2022 22:43 utc | 228
I have never met the Queen, but I have seen her at Epsom Racecourse, about 10 years ago, from the cheap side (free to get in) through binoculars.
From someone else, I trust, who has seen her at close quarters, she was very small more than 50 years ago, and her nickname was "Lilibet"
I can't stand most of The Royal Family, but I did once see the Queen Mother at close quarters in Hyde Park in around 1982, and thought she was sweet.
I was gutted when Princess Diana was Assassinated, though I never met her either. She did however go to the gym, right opposite where I worked, for 13 years and she did take her kids to the South Bank to see the English National Ballet with her kids at the same time as my wife and I took ours - and she sat in the same cheap seats (my wife spotted saw her - no one made a fuss)
I was elated when the Team I was supporting won The Queens award for Industry, about the year 2000, but I wasn't invited (techie not inclined to wear a suit)
She didn't choose the job, she found herself doing, but I think she, and most English people, think she did an absolutely fantastic job.
Tony
Posted by: Tony_0pmoc | Sep 9 2022 22:51 utc | 229
"... the idea that she didn't wield enormous political power is just absurd; there are too many examples in the world that prove it, as well." Cite a single one of them, then.
Queen Elizabeth operated a worldwide protection racket. She provided legal sanctuary to all manner of crooked enterprises - for a fee.
She controlled the country through the legal system and the judiciary.
All judges - in fact ALL civil servants of whatever stripe - promise to serve and obey Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I've written about this here on this site several times, and provided all the links.
She has exported this system of control throughout the English-speaking world and throughout Europe.
If you want a specific example of this protection racket in operation then take a look at what I've posted here in the past on the matter of BCCI versus The Bank of England, where Queen Elizabeth was forced to come out of her lair.
Anything else?
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 0:33 utc | 230
The worst Queen of England in history. The day she took the throne England was 99.7% White English. She leaves this world with White English a minority of the population in London.
Posted by: leclerc | Sep 10 2022 3:01 utc | 231
Satan is reaping his spawn. I hope her eternal hell is exactly that.
Posted by: LM | Sep 10 2022 5:15 utc | 232
Many countries have retained the monarchy. The British system still beats the American system where a King (no Queen yet) is elected every four years. The British value their monarchy and it is their choice if they continue to pay for it.
Posted by: Roslyn Ross | Sep 10 2022 6:10 utc | 233
That picture of the young QEII kind of reminds me of the German FM Baerbock.
Posted by: Bemildred | Sep 10 2022 6:30 utc | 234
@ Roslyn Ross (239, at 6:10 utc)
I kinda thought that the closest analogue to US presidents would be UK prime ministers, not monarchs. Hopefully someone here can confirm or dispute this.
Posted by: joey_n | Sep 10 2022 8:00 utc | 235
@bevin:
No, I am not "mistaking" anything.
You are in abject denial that elite social functions of the elite class" are a critical layer in the governance that rules our societies. The Bilderberg organization, along with entities like the CIA and FBI, actively colludes to choose our leaders for us. These are the groups that set government policies--the self-same policies which rational people object to the most. Think regressive taxation, a permanent underclass, "insured" health care in the US, the "forever war" that is the War on Terra, and now these idiotic sanctions on Russia.
There is an elite oligarchy in the US; it is not a democracy. The EU never has been a democracy, and it was built that way by the people personally chosen, in no small part, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.
I am in no way "confused" or "mistaken" about these things: you are simply in fearful denial of the fact that elite, exclusive society is, in itself, a stark, undeniable political tool used to select who will be allowed access to the levers of bureaucratic power that Government represents.
The Queen was one of the international guards and judges regarding who would or would not be allowed entry into those exclusive halls of dinners and chats. You may pretend as if that is not an incredibly powerful position to hold, but if you do then you would be better off remaining silent.
Posted by: Pacifica_Advocate | Sep 10 2022 9:34 utc | 236
That picture of the young QEII kind of reminds me of the German FM Baerbock.
Posted by: Bemildred | Sep 10 2022 6:30 utc | 240
Don't Drive until you get your eyes checked !
Posted by: Paul Greenwood | Sep 10 2022 10:45 utc | 237
Posted by: Element | Sep 9 2022 22:07 utc | 229
You are right, but expecting prejudice to be tempered by knowledge is not to be expected on blogs like these which attract some deranged and vituperative types unaccustomed to insight.
In 1760 the British Crown surrendered The Crown Estates to Parliament in return for a Civil List. Prior to this The Crown had paid salaries for the Civil Service and Government from its revenues from The Crown Estates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
It would probably be advantageous to repeal the agreement and return The Crown Estates to the Monarch who could then use the £14,000,000,000 endowment to live a regal existence from own means rather than dealing with Crown Commissioners.
Since very few people on these blogs have any understanding of History and think that mass media is the research source for everything when even the death of The Queen revealed just how pig ignorant journalists and commentators are when discussing constitutional issues and that an ordinary man in the street understood more 60 years ago than the over-indulged and over-credentialised half-wits pontificating on screens today
Posted by: Paul Greenwood | Sep 10 2022 10:53 utc | 238
If you want a specific example of this protection racket in operation then take a look at what I've posted here in the past on the matter of BCCI versus The Bank of England, where Queen Elizabeth was forced to come out of her lair.
Anything else?
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 0:33 utc | 236
Sought but didn't find. Would like to learn more. Also degree to which personal agency in the mix versus custom and practice and degree to which Crown is beholden to City. Have assumed that Crown is more used than using but never tried to penetrate...
Although not convinced that democracy has lived up to its billings, and though a fan of monarchy in principle, the British constitutional (aka castrated) version makes little sense to me although clearly millions in the realm resonate greatly notwithstanding and that is no small thing though the wealthy might sneer. That said, the Windsors have always felt much too bourgeois to me so I never paid them much attention apart from Charles's excellent attack on ghastly post-war architecture and advocacy for organic farming.
And there is inherent faerie magic in monarchy; neither the Windsors, the City or Parliament made those twin rainbows over Buckingham Palace and another over Windsor Castle shortly after her passing.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’
That picture of the young QEII kind of reminds me of the German FM Baerbock.
Posted by: Bemildred | Sep 10 2022 6:30 utc | 240
Don't Drive until you get your eyes checked !
Posted by: Paul Greenwood | Sep 10 2022 10:45 utc | 243
I always wear glasses when I drive. The law says I must. Nearsighted.
Posted by: Bemildred | Sep 10 2022 12:34 utc | 240
Sought but didn't find. Would like to learn more.
Ok. I checked it out using the name of the BCCI brief (Gordon Pollock QC) and nothing returns.
I knew that b had deleted my First Affidavit posted back in March; it seems the pruning has been more extensive than I had understood.
I could give you a synopsis of what happened, but first I wish to understand what is meant by your final two paragraphs
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 13:10 utc | 241
Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 10 2022 13:12 utc | 242
apologies for very long url, just go to caitlin johnstone's site.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 10 2022 13:13 utc | 243
She seemed to lead an honorable life especially when compared to others in her family. PJW and Russell Brand had nice "eulogy" videos. But the monarchy is still an anachronism. The rest of the family should abdicate for the good of the country.
Posted by: curtis | Sep 10 2022 14:28 utc | 244
I could give you a synopsis of what happened, but first I wish to understand what is meant by your final two paragraphs
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 13:10 utc | 247
Aha! Blackmail. I just meant that although many good arguments can and are made against monarchy in general and the Windsors version etc in particular also there are qualities it brings that nearly all other systems lack which, simply put, involve what can be called magic. The word faerie was added for whimsy reminiscent of Midsummer Night's Dream before segueing into the much darker Hamlet. Fact is those rainbows appeared over both her London region palaces. That's an ordinary natural type of magic what Tibetans call 'auspicious coincidence.' Explaining it impossible, denying it fruitless.
PS. And magic was a shorthand way of referring to sacredness which majesty involves. Have posted about that earlier...
I find the silence to be deafening.
Why is it @bevin (along with his new friend, @Scorpion, who writes an awful lot much like @Nemesis Calling--and let us not forget, @NemesisCalling is an open, undisguised Hitler-loving Nazi--and here we are, reflecting upon the possibility that @Scorpion may be @Nemesis Calling under a different name--@juliana, would you like to step in and mediate?) is no longer responding?
Posted by: Pacifica_Advocate | Sep 10 2022 16:23 utc | 247
I clearly underestimated the number of total and utter arseholes commenting in this place.
It’s a mistake I won’t make again.
Posted by: PalmaSailor | Sep 10 2022 16:27 utc | 248
And let's not forget that @bevin pretty much only ever responded to @Nemesis_Calling, and the various accounts associated with that Nazi scumbag.
Yes: the US and it's puppetmaster, the "uk", are afflicted by "narcissistic personality disorder". As much a pseudoscientific diagnosis as has ever been invented.
So if psychology cannot be trusted, what can?
Truly: what can be trusted? Psychology?
Economics?
"Political Science"?
Posted by: Pacifica_Advocate | Sep 10 2022 16:28 utc | 249
I apologize for making it hard for you to keep track of who is labeled as what. Must be very trying...
What can I say to make it up to you? I know:
Life is tough;then you die!
@Scorpion
Thank you for your reply.
If you truly believe in the magic of the monarchy then I am afraid there is no basis for discussion between us.
@Pacifica_Advocate
bevin always runs away when I turn up. Sorry about that.
@Melaleuca
Thank you :)
@all
I have written countless times about the Treason Felony Act, and of how that legislation is the foundation of dictatorship within the United Kingdom.
The key point to grasp is that this law was written specifically for Queen Victoria. In 1848, who else but her could be represented as "our Most Gracious Lady the Queen"? Nobody in parliament was thinking beyond the reign of Queen Victoria, yet here we are more than a hundred and twenty years after her death, and the Treason Felony Act is still on the books, still the law of the land.
With the death of Queen Elizabeth that should be the end of the matter.
Yet now Charles, as I predicted back in 2004, is trying to create his own queen so that he in turn can utilise this legislation (through his "wife") and thereby continue the dictatorship. And so prevent the truth from emerging.
You recall that Wallis Simpson was rejected as a potential queen because, in the eyes of the Anglican Church, there can be no divorce. Therefore Wallis was still the wife of Ernest Simpson.
Camilla Parker-Bowles, in the eyes of the Anglican Church, remans wed to Andrew Parker-Bowles. Yet, because it is convenient for the Mountbatten-Winsor gang, apparently Camilla is suitable material for queendom. And the Anglican Church will go along with it if they know what's good for them.
Please read my post on this vey thread
Whatever happened to the concept of precedent within the common law system? Is it there that the "magic of the monarchy" comes into its own?
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 18:37 utc | 251
Please read my post on this vey thread
Whatever happened to the concept of precedent within the common law system? Is it there that the "magic of the monarchy" comes into its own?
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 18:37 utc | 257
Thank you for your reply. Have no problem discussing things with those who think differently from myself, in fact I prefer it, but if that's your position so be it.
Probably am a little thick but I don't understand the significance of the Act you cite even though I do understand the inference, that Charles has to have a Queen by his side to use as protection and after their split Diana made his marriage to one impossible. Makes sense. But so what? What protection does that Act give in practical terms?
I guess the real issue is what sort of powers does the English monarch(y) wield? Are they there as fronts for the City providing cover (as I have always assumed)? Or are they active in all sorts of nefarious ways themselves and their middle class Protestant/CoE sanctity is a charade?
Btw I feel similarly about the Queen as I do about Trump or any other prominent secular leader: the individual character of the leader in question is of little concern, rather am far more interested in the aspirations of their followers - not the fanatics (all public figures have fanatics) but the mainstream, core followers who in both cases seem to be sort of in-the-middle citizens/subjects, and the degree to which such a person furthers those aspirations and society in general. These days, it is rare to find an example of a good leader. Putin is the only one that comes to mind for me right now, also Viktor Orban in Hungary. Maybe Xi in China but those lockdowns are weird; I don't trust him.
Btw, to me where any magic in monarchy resides is in the aspirations and good wishes of the people who project majesty onto a monarch and then experience such majesty reflected back which in turn can benefit them and society as a whole. This has little to do, in principle, with who that monarch actually is, although of course some monarchs inspire more such devotion/projection than others and some periods are generally more uplifted and sane than other periods.
I don't understand the significance of the Act you cite even though I do understand the inference, that Charles has to have a Queen by his side to use as protection and after their split Diana made his marriage to one impossible. Makes sense. But so what? What protection does that Act give in practical terms?
The Act is used indirectly to control the bureaucracy ex ante, and very much behind the scenes. I think the last time a prosecution was brought directly was about 1880.
The last challenge to this law was brought by the Guardian newspaper in 2000.
The Law Lords returned their verdict in 2003.
They described the TFA as incompatible with the Human Rights Act (one judge described it as delusional)
HOWEVER they stated it was NOT the place for the Law Lords to chivvy Parliament into repealing outdated legislation.
They left it at that.
Now, some twenty years later it is still extant, still the law of the land. Still the lynchpin of the dictatorship.
SOMEBODY does not want it repealed.
So let us be clear: Charles III can remove the shadow cast upon him by the convenient "death" of his wife by simply telling Parliament to repeal this "outdated legislation".
But he will never do so.
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 20:57 utc | 253
The Act is used indirectly to control the bureaucracy ex ante, and very much behind the scenes. I think the last time a prosecution was brought directly was about 1880.
Posted by: John Cleary | Sep 10 2022 20:57 utc | 259
Thank you for your reply. I remember very much enjoying 'A very British Coup' in which Harry Perkins, a true socialist Labour leader is elected PM but has his premiership sabotaged by the British Deep State which goes back 'yay, unto the Middle Ages' as the Head of Intel, the anti-Perkins ringleader, confesses to him when he thinks he's got him by the short and curlies and a forced resignation will be forthcoming in a matter of hours. But plucky, devious Perkins outfoxes him, for he 'has ancestors too,' and in response he publicly describes on national television the nature of the allegations against him (instead of announcing his resignation as expected) and calls for a General Election which he wins in a landslide. Good tale. But the monarchy didn't come into it.
So was that 'yay even unto the Middle Ages' line correct?
If so, whom do they serve or what is their agenda? Control? On behalf of the Crown? Or the City? Would be grateful if you could describe more. So far it's mainly legalese inuendo...
[MUNCHKINS]
Ding-dong! The Witch is dead
Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding-dong! The Wicked Witch is dead
Wake up you sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead
She’s gone where the goblins go
Below, below, below
Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding-dong’s the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead!
————————————————-
[Mayor]
As mayor of the Munchkin City
In the county of the land of Oz
I welcome you most regally
[Judge]
But we’ve got to verify it legally
To see
[Mayor]
To see
[Judge]
If she
[Mayor]
If she
[Judge]
Is morally, ethically
[Munchkin 1]
Spiritually, physically
[Munchkin 2]
Positively, absolutely
[Munchkin Men]
Undeniably and reliably dead
[Coroner]
As Coroner, I thoroughly examined her
And she’s not only merely dead
She’s really most sincerely dead
[Mayor]
Then this is a day of independence for all the munchkins
And their descendants
Yes, let the joyous news be spread
The wicked old witch at last is dead
[Munchkins]
Ding-dong the witch is dead
Which old witch, the wicked witch
Ding-dong the wicked witch is dead
Wake up you sleepyhead
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up the wicked witch is dead
She’s gone where the goblins go
Below, below, below
Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out
Ding Dong’s the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead…
Posted by: Wyatt B So | Sep 10 2022 23:23 utc | 255
The war had just ended, on May8th. We had to leave our house for an English Officer and his stuff to live in.
My Mom was pregnant with her third child. She was very big with my younger brother who was due on May 31. When the officer saw my mom he asked her when the child was due. She told him and we were allowed to stay in our house till she gave birth to my baby brother and some days more. I still think that was nice of him. We all got Cadbury schokolade and the English Gentlmen helped with the move. I still think this was a nice gesture. We moved into a small farmer's cottage not far away and kept visiting the Englishmen for some schokolade. We were too small to understand what it was all about and we liked them a lot.
About 10 years later we were keen to cut out all the pictures about the coronation and the beautiful young woman who was going to be Queen Elizabeth ll. We knew the carriage as it was exactly the one in our book of fairy tales by Hans Christian Andersen, illustrated by Ruth Koser Michaels.
Posted by: Lily | Sep 12 2022 16:28 utc | 256
I think it was his staff rather than stuff.
We lived in a small town in North Germany near Hamburg and most nights we heard British Bombers going on to Hamburg.They entered Holstein via the Büsum Bay and flew directly across our house.
Posted by: Lily | Sep 12 2022 16:35 utc | 257
This always resonated with me...
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
But she doesn't have a lot to say
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
But she changes from day to day
I wanna tell her that I love her a lot
But I gotta get a belly full of wine
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
Someday I'm gonna make her mine, oh yeah
Someday I'm gonna make her mine
Posted by: john | Sep 13 2022 9:32 utc | 258
The comments to this entry are closed.
Posted by: Melaleuca | Sep 9 2022 11:02 utc | 199
Go fuck yourself, cunt, and learn to read besides.
Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Sep 9 2022 15:14 utc | 201