Long to Reign Over Us.

Jubilee

Congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on achieving the milestone of 60 years devoted service.  Sixy years ago a young woman was high up in an African tree watching the wildlife, when many miles away her father passed away, beginning the reign of one of the most devoted heads of state the world has known.  Even during her early days, with the death of her father still so fresh, she quickly established her determination to serve, and is still doing so into her late 80’s.

As human as the rest of us I’m sure she has made mistake, although I can’t think of any!  some will say she put duty before family as they grew up, usually the same voices who criticised her for putting family first when Diana died.  I certainly can’t see how a president Wilson, Blair, Thatcher, or Johnston would have tread the diplomatic path so carefully over the years or added to the alure of the country that still makes London the greatest city on earth.

I am looking forwards to the official celebrations in June, with street parties, dinners, services and the like all happening locally.  Any excuse for a party as the saying goes, but I think this one is well worth marking. 

Long may she continue to reign.

  • dantheman

    I never stop laughing at Unionists subservience to an unelected monarch.

    Get off you bellies, you serfs!

  • lover not a fighter

    I suppose she deserves credit at least for longevity.

    Its pretty worrying that she does not have any faith in the hereditory system herself.

    Her lack of faith in the abilities of Prince Charles is a sad indictment on allowing an accident of birth as the means to choosing a head of state.

    I would suggest that she may be calling for an elected head of state on her deathbed such is her opinion of Charles.

    Just to add, that how insecure that Monarchies are in that as soon as one pops their clogs the next must be sworn in immediately lest any might suggest are they absolutely necessary ? ? ?

  • Jimmy Sands

    Sure you put enough bait on that hook?

  • Neil

    LOL @ Jimmy. Thought comment one might spark the debate.

  • quality

    It worries me that anyone truly holds warm feelings for these reptilians.

  • As it is obviously a day which means a lot to Drumlins Rock, to unionists and to British people, it would be churlish of me not to at least recognise their esteem, affection and even love for their monarch.
    There are plenty of other days when I can be cynical, even hostile.

    I recall writing several years ago, probaably in the context of the 50th Anniversary, that English “republicans” have a difficult task.
    To criticise the institution of monarchy it is at times a criticism of a family……eg Andrew, Anne, Charles & Camilla.
    Yet to criticise the family is to criticise the institution itself.

    There is something 1950 ish about it all. As if Time has in some way stood still for sixty years ago. And paradoxically the stability that the current monarch has given the British nation might be a doubled-edged sword when the transition to a new monarch takes place. There is a kind of built in nostalgia with the current monarch, shared experiences so to speak.

    However thats another discussion and inappropriate today.
    I can be republican today and every day. But not good manners to broadcast it too loudly today.

  • tacapall

    We are all entitled to our own opinions DR but a great many others both locally and around the world will look on her reign differently than your good self. The perception of anyone born with privilege and entitlement to reign over others is as outdated as the flat earth theory. While I have no doubt she is human and is prone to the odd mistake like standing by while her government and armies which she is head of; pillaged other nations natural resources and in the process were responsible for the deaths of 100s of 1000s of innocent victims, others think she is somehow faultless. Maybe you should read The Enemy Within, maybe people would get a different perspective on why the royal family holds £6 billion worth of shares in a Uranium mine. People should read up on the effects of depleted uranium in places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

  • Obelisk

    I love my country deeply. It is not too much of a leap to imagine myself as a Briton getting misty eyed at this time, had I been born an Englishman maybe I’d have been a stout monarchist.

    Whilst the title of Drumlin Rock’s post does seem almost designed to provoke a rather nasty and acrimonious debate I think Fitzjameshorse has the correct approach those of us who don’t wish to share in the festivities should adopt.

    So I wish all those who are celebrating this occasion well, and may this be a happy time for you.

  • I take the point that the title of the post SEEMS provocative. I choose to think that DR is not the type of guy to troll, looking for trouble. His record here suggests the complete opposite.

  • between the bridges

    as DR says many of us will use it as excuse for a party/celebration and as obelisk says those who don’t should just let us get on with it..shared future and all that…

  • Has she done a good job? Even republicans will (grudgingly) admit that she has, and rightly so. Does this make the institution of monarchy immune from criticism? Absolutely not. The throne is not the same as the person sitting upon it, nor should the person be confused with the attitudes of others towards her. The problem with the monarchy is not that it is some great injustice upon the people (I feel more sorry for the poor souls born into the royal family than anything else). It is a reflection of the deferential instinct that still exists within British culture, our collective hunger for a cult of personality that can’t quite be filled by pop stars and sports celebrities.

    So I look forward to the day we no longer need a monarchy. But until then, long live the Queen.

  • Drumlins Rock

    The title is a quote from the National anthem, (second last line first verse ) and a reflection that it has indeen been a very long reign.

  • salgado

    It should also be noted that it’s possible to be British / Unionist and not care about this at all. She’s done a good job, but the concept of monarchy still isn’t particularly appealing.

  • Scáth Shéamais

    Sixy years ago a young woman was high up in an African tree watching the wildlife, when many miles away her father passed away

    I’m sure Elizabeth Windsor fit in nicely with the people at the Treetops, where any Africans found in the vicinity got shot on sight.

  • JR

    Aontaím le FJH agus obelisk. Ní mhothaím go bhfuil sé i gceart ach aithním go bhfuil sula mór sa tuisceart atá gealta leis an banríon.

  • socaire

    Ní íocaimid ach 3p an ceann chun an fiasco seo a choinneáil beo. Sladmhargadh atá ann. Agus lá saor bainc fosta.

  • Banjaxed

    Speaking (1) as a Scottish-born, British object, I have always looked forward to the day that the grand old lady, Betty Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Windsor, would be last monarch of the Hanoverian dynasty to reign over the United (?) Kingdom and, that after her demise, the UK might become a full parliamentary democracy without the trappings of the class system the royal family epitomises.

    And speaking as a ‘non-violent republican (UK)’ I can only watch in amazement as Alastair MacDonnell digs an even deeper hole of historical oblivion for himself and his party by shamelessly brown-nosing the British aristocracy. I can only wish him the best in his imminent retirement as leader of the SDLP and offer him a larger shovel to quicken the end. Well done, that man!

  • Drumlins Rock

    Bajaxed, to be more accurate Lizzie Oldeburg (or Oldcastle) would be the more accurate name, however as we allow people to change names whenever they fancy in this country, Elizabeth Windsor it is.

    As for the Parlimentary democracy, we already have one as no one doubts she could continue to reign without the support of parliment.

    I listened to Alastair’s tribute, although welcome it was rather clumsy.

  • carl marks

    I think FJH has got it right on this. No matter my opinion of monarch’s or monarchy (no prizes for guessing what it is) the present incumbent has carried out he duties with decorum and has managed in a changing world kept what is in effect a outdated and unnecessary institution going.
    Don’t confuse the person with the positon, She has been exceptional among the various crazies and villains who in the past have held the post.
    I wish her luck as a person and would welcome her to a 32 county united Ireland as a honoured guest.

  • I dont really know what Alasdair McDonnell said today. And to be honest I dont care.
    Its always an awkward kinda day for a nationalist and necessarily he cant win with anything he says. If Martin McGuinness said something nice it would be hailed as far sighted and statesmanlike by republicans (I discount the lunatic frnge of course) but if a “moderate” nationalist mutters a few platitudes, it appears “brown nosing”.

    Clearly I will have to bear this in mind when the 70th anniversary rolls around and I am leader of the SDLP.(Memo to Self……take to bed with diplomatic flu and say nothing).

  • Comrade Stalin

    Has she done a good job? Even republicans will (grudgingly) admit that she has, and rightly so.

    I respect Elizabeth Windsor as a person as well as in her role as head of state (much as I feel any friendly head of state near or far should be respected) and I can accept that she does do a good job, accounting for the fact that “job” is to follow orders and do what the government speechwriters and elected agenda-setters tell her to do, the kind of thing that could be done by any other mid-level civil servant.

    What I do not understand is, in an environment where there is public debate over the sums of money bankers are paying themselves, how the government can justify forking out many tens of £millions to cover the security and expenses of one of the richest women in the world. All of that against a background where Royal expenditure is kept secret and where, crucially, we are all denied a say over who the next head of state should be.

    Whenever I see the Royals on TV I see a crude obscenity; a drain on the resources of this country, and it really is time we pensioned them all off and confiscated the whole thing into the National Trust.

    fitz:

    Its always an awkward kinda day for a nationalist

    I don’t see why it should be awkward for anyone. If you’re a monarchist, great, you’re having a fun day. If you’re not a monarchist I don’t see why there should be any awkwardness in expressing the view that the monarchy is an anachronism, and knowing that it should be right that this view can be held without disrespecting the country’s head of state.

    Part of that awkwardness may, on some level, be related to the effects of the huge pro-Royal propaganda and revisionism that has come our way in the past ten years, most recently through movies such as “The Queen” and “The King’s Speech”.

  • MrPMartin

    Republicans, in the general sense, erroniously assume that the existance of a constitutional monarch is the opposite to republicanism. It’s not.

    Originally, during the days of absolute monarchy, those who wanted to replace monarchy with democracy, used the words democracy and republic interchangeably. They did not concieve of the idea of a titular, constitutional monarch. To them, the monarch represented everything that was undemocratic.

    Now, centuries later, we do have democracy in the UK. It is de facto, a republican form of government. The true power rests with Parliament, lower and most powerful house wholly elected by the people. The upper house does play the scallywag now and then but it never seriously reverses the programme of government of the lower house.

    As for monarchy, its powerless. The Queen maybe named as head of the armed forces but we all know in reality, its not her who declares war. Power rests completely with the people.

    So, I often smile when I hear about republicanism being peddled as a political philosophy that is yet to be implemented. Look around you, republicanism is everywhere. Elections are the expression of a republican form of government.

    Surely republicanism isn’t just about changing one powerless head of state from a hereditary one to an elected one? Elections in themselves are not necessarily the litmus test of democracy. East Germany had them. North Korea evern has them.

    Rather, the true test of democracy/republican form of government is whether or not there is a free and fair election to elect those who exercise true economic and social legislation. In the UK, we did just that in 2010 in the General Election. Therefore, the UK is a democratic republic

  • Well thats the awkwardness.
    Clearly it would be churlish to rain on someone elses parade. Theres no big deal in hoping monarchists/British/unionists have a nice day.
    I am of course not a politician……yet.I await the call.

    So theres no consequence to anything I say.
    If you lead a political party and make a public statement it is kinda awkward, not least because opponents and rivals will parse the statement for any hint that it departs from republican orthodoxy.
    And perhaps other parties would seek to suggest that a statement is “too republican”.To some extent, the opinion that you are voicing here is “unpolitical” (which I welcome) ……..you dont appear to have a favourable opinion of the monarchy or monarchy in general……but I suggest that if you had ambitions of being MLA for Alliance in East Antrim……it would be better to be less upfront.

  • CS:

    I don’t see why it should be awkward for anyone

    It is awkward because one must be careful to distinguish between the office, the person in office, and the state the office represents. Not everyone manages to do this successfully, especially considering that the essence of monarchy is the blurring of these distinctions.

    MrPM:

    The unique constitutional nature of the UK is due to it absorbing republican principles into its pre-existing structure. In modern terminology, the UK is a democratic, parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Just because it increasingly approximates a republic does not make it the same thing. Also, the terms “republican” and “democratic” have themselves changed meanings over the years. The Federalist Papers, for example, use the terms to describe opposing political philosophies, which makes their arguments sound arcane to modern ears.

  • Mr P Martin expresses an opinion also shared by legitimist monarchists” …….that the British state is a defacto republic…..that the “legitimate” rights (sic) of monarchy have been so reformed as to be worthless.
    They hold that the function of the current British monarch is merely to give a (false) degree of legitimacy to the British Republic.

  • tacapall

    Maybe you should read this then Mr P Martin, not execising powers and not having them are two different things.

    http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/The%20British%20Constitution/index.php

  • MrPMartin

    Mr Gallagher:

    So if the UK replaced the Queen with President Cowell tomorrow morning, and assuming nothing else changed ; would you then say the UK would still not be a republic because a republic, is a form of government where the majority are held in check whereas a democracy is where the majority rule ok.

    This is a very good article on the subject:

    http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

    The US then, going by this, would be the world’s only Republic due to the checks and balances that it’s tripartite system of government works within.

    However, Italy, Ireland, Iceland etc, are not republics but mere democracies because despite not having constitutional monarchs as heads of state, their executives are wholly derived from the majority slate of elected representatives and thus can pass any law they want. I know these countries have constitutions and laws that contravene their constitutions can be challenged but they can be passed none the less and enforced none the less pending such constitutional challenges (which are not known for their swiftness to hearing and brevity of consideration) but all other laws, within bounds of the consitution, can be passed which can be of a purely majoritarian nature.

  • Mark

    It was her kids really who gave her such a bad rep in the 70 / 80’s with Anne and her Irish pigs comment ( spinned as an Irish jig ) , Andrew with his taste in women , Edward and his taste in men and finally Charles and his mistreatment of the People’s Princess .

    Her Grandkids especially Harry have helped repair the royal brand in her twlight years and while I cannot understand the doormat mindest of a royalist , if I had to have a queen , if I absolutely had to , if my life depended on it …….I’d pick the Queen ( it goes without saying that I’d pick Kate as well a course )

  • Comrade Stalin

    Mr P Martin,

    The UK is a constitutional monarchy, it has a hereditary monarch as the head of state.

    You may well think that you can redefine political science as you see fit, but I hope you’re not too surprised when people tell you that you’re talking out of your arse.

    The position of the monarchy is a very serious one given the national embarrassment caused by the moronic outbursts of both the heir apparent and that fool Prince Andrew (although it has improved from the days of the regular tabloid exposees on the antics of the family) and the significant cause to the exchequer of keeping them where they are. So far, I make it £7.9m for the civil list, + £14.9m for upkeep + £13.2 from the Duchy of Lancaster + £17.8m out of the Duchy of Cornwall which comes to £53.8m. None of that includes the security, costs incurred by the army or navy for Royal travel or security, etc.

    Andy:

    It is awkward because one must be careful to distinguish between the office, the person in office, and the state the office represents. Not everyone manages to do this successfully, especially considering that the essence of monarchy is the blurring of these distinctions.

    It’s kind of funny that because the UK deliberately blurs the distinction between a very rich bunch of not very special individuals and the head of state, that it’s everyone else’s problem to ensure they don’t offend anyone.

  • Comrade Stalin

    MrPMartin,

    Where are you getting this rubbish from ? The definition of a “republic” is a country which power is derived from the citizenry. You are confusing this with American-centric definitions which go beyond this.

  • MrPMartin

    Comrade Stalin

    Please desist from ungentlepersonly language. Just because you see a definition of a word one feels inately familiar with, expresse in a different way, does not mean that it’s rubbish.

    But anyway, if that’s your definition of a republic, then yes, the UK is a republic as its power is derived from its citizenry. Even if the Queen went barmy and declared war on Slovenia, not one soldier would lift a gun because the army, de facto, takes its orders from No 10 Downing St.

  • tacapall

    Can anyone initiate legal proceedings against the Queen, can she be charged in a court of law with any offense ?

  • Comrade Stalin

    But anyway, if that’s your definition of a republic

    Collins English Dictionary says :

    1 a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power
    2 a political or national unit possessing such a form of government
    3 a constitutional form in which the head of state is an elected or nominated president
    4 any community or group that resembles a political republic in that its members or elements exhibit a general equality, shared interests, etc ⇒ the republic of letters

    Oxford English dictionary :

    a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

    Macmillan dictionary :

    a country that is ruled by a president or other leader that people vote for, rather than by a king or queen

    Look up any dictionary you want. It shows that you are wrong.

    , then yes, the UK is a republic as its power is derived from its citizenry.

    Power in the UK is not derived from the citizenry. It is derived from the monarch (whose power is, in turn, derived from God). Parliament exists because the monarch permits it to pass laws in her name.

    Even if the Queen went barmy and declared war on Slovenia, not one soldier would lift a gun because the army, de facto, takes its orders from No 10 Downing St.

    Just because my house pet isn’t a dog, does not mean it must be a cat.

    tacapall:

    Can anyone initiate legal proceedings against the Queen, can she be charged in a court of law with any offense ?

    Nope.

    It is also illegal to attempt to advocate the removal of the monarchy. The Guardian attempted to bring a test case over this matter a few years ago.

  • MrPMartin

    Comrade Stalin

    The Queen does not have power invested on her by God. I take my politics from Bagehot, not Blackadder.

    Regarding my hypothesis on the Queen declaring war on Slovenia, the army wouldnt budge. Your assertion that a housepet which is not a dog does not necessarily lead it to being a cat, is of course true but is a non sequiter.

    Power in the UK may have originally been gifted from the monarch down to the people in the manner you describe back in the 17th century onwards but through common usage and custom, power very much rests with the people today and should the monarch or Parliament try to wrest it away, it would find it trying to budge a mountain with the nose of a dog or a non-dog.

  • galloglaigh

    MrPMartin

    I take it you didn’t read Tacapall’s link?

    “In any constitution, power has to come from somewhere and must reside with someone. In Britain it comes from the Crown and resides with the government and parliament. The people barely get a look-in, being given only the occasional chance to participate in the formal political process.

    “The Queen herself retains four key constitutional powers. Only the Queen herself may exercise these powers. No minister or advisor may exercise these powers on her behalf:

    (1) The power to appoint the Prime Minister

    (2) The power to dissolve Parliament

    (3) The power to dismiss the Government

    (4) The power to withhold royal assent to legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament

    “Even if some of these powers have not been exercised in the United Kingdom in many years, do not be fooled. Legally, they still exist. Several of them have been much more recently exercised by the Crown in Australia (where the Queen’s appointed representative dismissed the democratically elected Government of the day in 1975) and in Canada (where the Queen’s appointed representative prorogued Parliament for several weeks in late 2008, preventing it from performing its democratic and constitutional functions).”

    The only power the people have, is the power of the vote.

  • Parliament exists because the monarch permits it to pass laws in her name.

    And the monarch can be deposed by Parliament. This was established by Cromwell and reinforced by William.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Also reinforced by the Queen’s Uncle, Edward VIII, who was essentially deposed by parliment over his marriage plans. It was perfectly clear in that case the monarch only ruled by the will of the people as expressed through Parliment.

  • Drumlins Rock

    As to the “monarchy or republic” debate, the commonwealth countries are sometime called Crowned Republics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic ,which is not far of the mark, certainly North Korea is not a republic, nor is Syria, with the likes of Kazakhstan pushing it too, so maybe we need to rethink who we apply these titles.

  • Banjaxed

    Drumlins Rock

    As I said in my earlier post, ‘full democracy’ was what I meant. Even though a lot of the subservience and arse-licking is symbolistic, it still defines each ordinary member of the population of a monarchy as a subject and not a citizen. Neither does it deflect from the rottenness of the class system in which the monarch is its apotheosis. It also copper fastens the other discredited aspect of monarchy – that of the honour system. It may be that most of those are political awards but the fact that the government uses the monarchy as a convenient shield discredits and demeans both. God, when I read that Fred the Shred lost his title because he brought the honour system into disrepute, I nearly drowned the dog lying at my feet.

    As for Alasdair MacDonnell, ‘clumsy’? Never! For even a ‘non-violent republican’ to say ‘The Queen’ instead of ‘Queen Elizabeth’ presents his opponents with an open goal. But then again, it could have been another failure with the lights.

    Regarding Edward VIII & his missus, there appears to be solid evidence that the marriage provided yet another handy shield for dumping that unsavoury pair. There was that rather close relationship with Hitler and the Nazi party which raised more than a few eyebrows.

  • Harry Flashman

    Given that her reign has witnessed the greatest loss of British territory in history and the abandonment of national sovereignty to the same people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of her late father’s subjects I’m not so sure there’s much to celebrate for a British patriot.

  • As a republican I would obviously prefer an elected Head of State with approximately the powers that the UK monarch possesses. Having said that, Her Majesty has conducted herself honourably. But that is no guarantee that another monarch won’t interfere in politics. It was a great shock to many of us democrats when the Queen’s representative in Canada allowed herself to be manipulated by a Prime Minister to prevent a democratic vote in parliament.

  • Mick Fealty

    Some thoughts on the bare able lightness of the modern monarchy from last year (badly spliced): http://audioboo.fm/boos/362239-the-bearable-lightness-of-a-modern-monarchy

    Romance and civility seems to me to be part of the monarchist deal.

  • Banjaxed

    ‘Civility’, Mick?
    Would you bite the hand that feeds you and your tribe of spongers?

  • Banjaxed

    Heh! Of course, I don’t mean your good self, your esteemed sponginess, Mr Fealty, sur! 🙂

  • Banjaxed,

    it still defines each ordinary member of the population of a monarchy as a subject and not a citizen

    ‘Subject’ is merely archaic terminology. Since 1983, it is also effectively obsolete. We are all citizens now.

  • Banjaxed

    Why is it, I wonder, when one mentions words like ‘democracy’ and ‘subject’ in relation to the British ‘Constitution’, the only defence seems to be that ‘Oh, don’t worry, we have a democracy anyway, the Queen doesn’t really matter’ or, as in Andrew G’s post above, that “‘Subject’ is merely archaic terminology”. Perhaps he could explain the reasons for the curtsies and the bows, then, and the need for the ‘Your Majesty’, ‘Your Royal Highness’, etc. Their practice might be quaint, old-fashioned – ‘archaic’ even – but try tearing them up and you’ll find who is the subject and who is the ruling class. My point is that it’s not merely a demonstration of ‘good manners’; it’s pure servility.

    I would also refer you to Comrade Stalin’s post above (6 Feb, 9:21 pm) in which, among other things, he mentions:

    “It is also illegal to attempt to advocate the removal of the monarchy. The Guardian attempted to bring a test case over this matter a few years ago”.

    Doesn’t sound to me like it’s ‘archaic’ or ‘obsolete’.

    As someone else (not a monarchist! ;-)) nearly said, ‘It hasn’t gone away you know’!

  • Banjaxed,

    Straw man alert. My post wasn’t a defence of anything, I was just pointing out that you were thirty years late in attacking the legal status of “subject”. I’ve already given my opinion of the culture of deference. Try to keep up.

  • Banjaxed

    Apols, Andrew. I had overlooked that section of your post.

  • Comrade Stalin

    PMartin:

    The Queen does not have power invested on her by God.

    HMQ is “Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the grace of God”. It’s God’s decision that she gets the job.

    (I don’t believe this rubbish, you understand. But it’s the law. )

    I take my politics from Bagehot, not Blackadder.

    Where does Bagehot say the UK is a republic ?

    Regarding my hypothesis on the Queen declaring war on Slovenia, the army wouldnt budge.

    I did not challenge that hypothesis.

    Your assertion that a housepet which is not a dog does not necessarily lead it to being a cat, is of course true but is a non sequiter.

    Just because the monarch has no real power does not make the UK a republic.

    Power in the UK may have originally been gifted from the monarch down to the people in the manner you describe back in the 17th century onwards

    Why stop at the 17th century ? The Magna Carta placed a restriction on the absolute power of the monarchy.

    None of that alters the fact that the UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. Unless you mean to argue that the UK has been a republic since 1215, which is the conclusion which flows from the bunkum you are trying to pass off here.

    but through common usage and custom, power very much rests with the people today and should the monarch or Parliament try to wrest it away, it would find it trying to budge a mountain with the nose of a dog or a non-dog.

    This is all straw man stuff. The UK head of state is a monarch. Therefore the UK is not a republic. The UK cannot be a republic until the monarch’s official role is terminated.

    Andrew:

    And the monarch can be deposed by Parliament. This was established by Cromwell and reinforced by William.

    Please point to the statute that authorizes the removal of the monarch by Parliament.

    DR:

    Also reinforced by the Queen’s Uncle, Edward VIII, who was essentially deposed by parliment over his marriage plans. It was perfectly clear in that case the monarch only ruled by the will of the people as expressed through Parliment.

    Please refer me to the Act of Parliament which forced the abdication of Edward VIII.

    As to the “monarchy or republic” debate, the commonwealth countries are sometime called Crowned Republics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowned_republic

    They wouldn’t be crowned republics if they had to pay for the privilege of having the monarch as their head of state.

    ,which is not far of the mark, certainly North Korea is not a republic, nor is Syria, with the likes of Kazakhstan pushing it too, so maybe we need to rethink who we apply these titles.

    Just because a country describes itself as a republic does not mean it actually is, although the term is certainly accurate in the case of those countries who have overthrown (peacefully or otherwise) imperial rule.

  • CS:

    Please point to the statute that authorizes the removal of the monarch by Parliament.

    There is no such statute, but British constitutional law does not require statutes, merely precedent.

  • carl marks

    Harry Flashman (profile) says:
    7 February 2012 at 1:17 am

    Given that her reign has witnessed the greatest loss of British territory in history and the abandonment of national sovereignty to the same people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of her late father’s subjects I’m not so sure there’s much to celebrate for a British patriot.

    Sorry harry you seem to be a bit confused.
    History tell us that it was her father’s troops who done the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands, and even with their better weapons and technology were still beaten by those who fought for freedom in their own country against the colonial power.
    there’s plenty of books on the subject at the library, or you could look at the latest revelations coming out of Africa.

  • Reader

    carl marks: History tell us that it was her father’s troops who done the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands,
    I’m pretty sure Harry means Germany, the Bundesbank, and WW2. It’s amazing the way the worst crisis of the 20th Century is almost invisible to republicans.
    And since Lizzie’s dad only ruled from 1936 to 1952 you must have had to squint really hard to miss WW2.
    I hope you aren’t hankering after the military option? It really didn’t work out as well as you seem to think – especially locally.

  • carl marks

    The Germans are holding British Territory since ww2 where!
    The Bundesbank killed 100’s of 1000’s when!
    Wonderful how Unionists can miss the whole loss of empire thing.
    And how did you get the strange notion that I’m hankering after he militarily option,

  • carl marks

    Reader
    Harry said “her reign has witnessed the greatest loss of British territory in history and the abandonment of national sovereignty to the same people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of her late father’s subjects ”
    I believe her reign started after ww2. but dont you let the facts disturb you

  • HeinzGuderian

    I’m not sure carl is getting the hang of this history thing ?

    Long live HM THe Queen. 😉

  • carl marks

    HeinzGuderian (profile) says:
    7 February 2012 at 7:50 pm

    I’m not sure carl is getting the hang of this history thing ?

    Long live HM THe Queen. 😉

    you mean her reign started before ww2, my god all the history books are wrong.

  • Reader

    carl marks: I believe her reign started after ww2. but dont you let the facts disturb you
    Precisely – her late father’s subjects died between 1936 and 1952, mostly at the hands of the Germans. The loss of territory happened after the war. National sovereignty has been lost to the EU from the component countries, as the Irish have noticed recently.

  • carl marks

    Harry Flashman said
    “I’m not so sure there’s much to celebrate for a British patriot.”

    by the why Harry is spot on with this bit

  • Comrade Stalin

    There is no such statute, but British constitutional law does not require statutes, merely precedent.

    There wasn’t a precedent when Cromwell did it, so did that make it illegal ?

  • carl marks

    Reader i refer you again to Harrys post.

    Given that her reign has witnessed the greatest loss of British territory in history and the abandonment of national sovereignty to the same people who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of her late father’s subjects I’m not so sure there’s much to celebrate for a British patriot.

    As im sure you can see he refers to the present monarch’s reign so there goes your argument on territory,and i think that comparing the E.U to Adolf and his crew may well be a example of Godwins law and also quite offensive to modern germany, france, and the rest of the EU.
    and excuse me but did the germans not take over when one of her ancestors got the job.

  • carl marks

    So reader just before I go out lets summarise.
    You said
    “I’m pretty sure Harry means Germany, the Bundesbank, and WW2.
    You have finally admitted that the territory lost during her reign was due to the various wars of liberation and the fall of empire and not the Second World War.
    And you also said
    “National sovereignty has been lost to the EU from the component countries, as the Irish have noticed recently.”
    I trust you also now understand the difference between the E.U. and the nazis and while you may oppose the concept of a European union, I’m sure you can agree that it has not killed 100’s of 1000’s of British subjects.
    It would appear that you’re not as sure as you thought you were.

  • carl marks

    H.G.

    How am i doing on the history thing now?

  • Alias

    “…while you may oppose the concept of a European union, I’m sure you can agree that it has not killed 100’s of 1000’s of British subjects.”

    Not yet, but give it time. It is a territorially expansionist regime, and will undoubtably persue its expansionist agenda by militant means when it forms its own army.

    By that time the UK will be just another region of the EU and will have to supply its citizens in military service of the EU, so you’ll become involved in its wars whether you want to or not.

  • There wasn’t a precedent when Cromwell did it, so did that make it illegal ?

    All revolutions are illegal at the time.

  • HeinzGuderian

    ‘How am i doing on the history thing now?’

    Abysmal.

    You’ve had umpteen tries of trying to comprehend Harry’s post,and you STILL haven’t grasped it.
    Reader spelled it out for you,sweetly and succinctly,and you STILL don’t get it.

    Ho hum. I retire to bed in the knowledge that The Union is safe,if this is the extent of irish republican ‘deep thinking’.

    😉

  • HeinzGuderian

    Alias,it’s a bankrupt regime,whose idea of expansionism is casting costly countries adrift.|

    The EU Rump will consist of Germany and France………..I give that particular Union about two weeks.

  • Harry Flashman

    Holy sheeite, Carl, you over-analyse too much, trust me the post wasn’t meant as a doctrinal thesis in comparative global perspectives. It was a slightly sardonic piece masking a bigger point meant to get a rise out of a few readers.

    You parsed and analysed it half a dozen times and yet you still utterly failed to get it. Do I really need to go through it line by line with you?

    Everyone else seemed to understand what I was alluding to.

  • weidm7

    What price would royalists put on the worth of the Queen?

  • carl marks

    Harry
    Your post was inaccurate and to be honest appeared to be pampering to the worst type of wrap the flag round me patriots,
    The everybody else you referred to was as far as i can see two people, one of whom was just trolling as is his wont.
    The casual comparison of the E.U to the Nazi’s was to be honest sick.
    Perhaps in future when you come out with this sort of thing to be on the safe side you should use some sort of sign to let us know not to take you seriously.

  • Harry Flashman

    Jesus Carl, get a life son.

  • HeinzGuderian

    😉

  • carl marks

    Harry
    take a good look at the sort of person that supports you, and you may consider getting a life.
    im sorry you have taken this personaly but it is a blog for debate, maybe next time you will think before you post.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Harry lad,
    forgetting the Jerries for now, most of the empire was gone by 1952, the only chunks left were in Africa, ( South Africa Lybia & Egypt had already gone too) and by then it was a question of how and when the rest were ditched, not if. It wasn’t much of an Empire for the young lass, but then she has never been an Empress.

  • Harry Flashman

    A fair chunk of the West Indies, Africa and don’t forget Asia was still in British hands in ’52, although in population terms losing India was probably the biggest blow to the Empire and she can’t be blamed for that.

    However, and now we must get all po-faced in case I upset Carl (by the way what’s wrong with the people who “support” me? I didn’t realise I had any supporters). The signing over of huge tranches of sovereignty to “Europe” is certainly a very serious blot on her copybook. HM the Q is very adamant about how seriously she takes her coronation oath, handing over the rights and liberties of her subjects to foreign control was not part of that oath.

    Carl I take very little personally on this blog (with a few very serious insults to my family), I frankly don’t understand why my harmless wee post upset you so, but you know what? I’m a big guy, I’m sorry if it bothered you.

  • tacapall

    Obviously not all The Queens subjects share the same views of her.

    http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24688

  • HeinzGuderian

    If you could just take responsibility for your own inability to comprehend a post carl,all would be well.

    An apology to my good self,Reader and Harry wouldn’t go amiss either.

    Harry,I’m not sure HM the Q had much say in the giving away of sovereignty to the EU,as I’m sure you know.

  • HeinzGuderian

    ———-
    Michael James, an English republican patriot, is a blacklisted former freelance journalist resident in Zionist-occupied Germany since 1992 with additional long-haul stays in East Africa, Poland and Switzerland. He advocates a Leaderless Resistance to destroy the Soviet European Union and prays for a free and independent England, shorn of all alliances with the EU, UK, NATO, the UN, WTO, IMF, Israel and any other treacherous international cabal or entity.

    tacas link……………….oh dear.