Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Good Queen Second-Rate Bess

A cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE.
Most of us here in the US have the impression that at one time the British Monarchs really were in charge of the country and made all the decisions, or delegated them, much like a modern dictator. Well, that's sort of true, except that they had to deal with the nobility, who often had their own ideas and were jealous of their own power in their respective bailiwicks. But it's a good approximation to say that the really did rule the place. And our impression is also that, over time, the Monarch kept losing or ceding power to Parliament, and today the Queen has no political power at all.  Big difference then, between Elizabeth I, who did run the show, and Elizabeth II, who just watches the show. But that's not entirely true either. We're used to the powers of political executives being comparatively clearly laid out in the law, but in the UK, it's always a little more organic than that, with nobody ever really tossing the old system out and replacing it with a systematic new one. So it's not a deal where you can just peek at the Constitution (the Brits often say they have a constitution, but they really mean they have a whole bunch of documents and court decisions that sort of serves that way) and see who has the power to do what.  It's more complicated than that. You can read what Wikipedia has to say about it HERE. Reading that, you'll see that, for example, the Queen appoints the Prime Minister.  Her choices are constrained by custom, but are they constrained by law?  Beats the hell out of me. Elizabeth would never violate tradition, and I'm sure Charles never will, but maybe (I secretly hope) William will come to the throne and toss the government the hell out and pick his own damn PM and tell him to run the place right. Sean Gabb would be a good choice.

Over at the Libertarian Alliance, David Davis seems to be of the opinion that Elizabeth has always had considerably more power than she's chosen to exercise, and that it's a damn shame.  Do go to the original post HERE, and read the comments, which add a lot:

Queen Elizabeth-the-Useless failed in the execution of her Coronation Oath. But I expect we will all cry sincerely when she passes on.

David Davis
I am not always precisely in tune with my colleague Sean Gabb, regarding the failings of Elizabeth-the-Useless. Although he is quite correct in stating that she _could have_ blocked Rome, the SEA, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon at any time when these were issues. On any one of these – and the earlier the more chance of success – The Queen could have refused to assign her signature to any of this pretentious socialist rubbish, could have forced a General Election, and prevented the Franco-Collectivisto-Gramscian re-Nazification of Europe, saving her own subjects hundreds of billions of Sterling, not to say even trillions, in the process. We might even have got our managed-fisheries back before they were destroyed utterly (ask my father, who worked in the 70s for the MAFF, and who is now dead.). And at least up to Nice, she might also have got away with it. It would have been wise to resist early on.

But she continues to continue to soldier on, probably because she reminds the masses of their favourite great-aunt (I also have one, my aunty Betty who is actually a real aunt for I am rather old now and who even looks and sounds like the Queen a lot, and is only slightly older) or Grandmother.

As the Queen is old, and as she is a woman, and as it is not suitable to impeach or charge women for high treason – at least not “directly” – I would like to cleave to the position that “The Queen has been very, very badly advised, continually, for 61 years, in the matter of her constitutional dealings with theEuroNazis of the EUSSR”.

Any incoming British Libertarian administration would, I am quite sure, want to retain a Constitutional Monarchy in the United Kingdom. It’s all very well to be Democratic-People’s-English-Revolutionary-Liberalists, as is right and good: this party will appear and soon, whether I but _//Revolution//_ means “A Turning Back To” times when things were properly ordered. GramscoStaliNazis, and even their lackeys and running dogs the GramscoFabiaNazis, get this tragically upside down, totally. They think that “revolution” means “doing something in the future”. It does not.

Human affairs are blind to the future, like “art”. That is why to a first approximation, 100% of all “modern art” or “post-modern” art or “avant-guarde-art” (whatever that may be) is unviewable crap and shit, and is thus rubbish and strategically-unexhibitable, for “art” is blind to the future that it can’t know or see. I mean, to think it could do so is a tautology. (I didin’t mean to talk about art here right now, sorry – the Chimpanzee Type-writers got carried away in ducktape, howling about some Joan-Miro thing that had upset them about 20 years ago.)

Sod the art: To get back to the constistional Monarchy of the United Kingdom…the Queen has always been “allowed to maintain” the position that she is “above politics”. With hindsight, I’m not sure what that was supposed to mean – or, given that the incumbent was hopefully intelligent and aware – whether he/she should have had no input. We learn, through a glass darkly, that she didn’t like Margaret Thatcher at all, and liked Harold Wilson and James Call-Again rather a lot. I don’t know what the position is with David Camera-On yet even though he’s been in the apprenticeship for over three years now, but it would be interesting to know.

The English Civil War gave our country a rather interesting and untypical position for the time, among advanced modern states. We did get rid of the Monarch, we temporarily substituted a sort of committee headed by a strongish proto-political-liberal (who might not have been so liberal in other ways however) and then we got tired of it after about a decade. We let back the son of the ex-Monarch as a King under certain conditions which he more or less fulfilled – although his people’s treatment of the remnants of the “committee” was shameful. Perhaps he couldn’t be everywhere at once, having so many women to shag and so little time.

Teflon of course comes to mind here. Teflon Tony, as we all know, now runs the world and carries no traces of the crud, or even the smell, of taking us into Iraq and Afghanistan, where we lost collectively thousands of soldiers for no reason, to advanced weapons (not makeable by babies or children) such as roadside IEDs provided by Pakistan, Russia, France and others with none of whom are we supposedly at war.

It would not be right really, to do anything at this stage to upset Elixzabeth-The-Useless, I suppose, as there will be no point. It is also sadly improbably that Charlie-the-Chav-Criticiser will be little or no improvement. Please rememmber that Prince Charles is on record as saying “_people have got to get over their obsession with cheap food“_ .

At least Elizabeth-the-Useless has not committed herself yet ot the “food debate”. This is about whether people ought to be allowed to buy the foods they like, any sorts of foods, from whom they like, and if willing sellers ought to be allowed to sell it to willing buyers.

we can be thankful for small mercies.


  1. The queen called for the extermination of 6 BILLION of the 7 billion on the planet.
    THat is "g e n o c i d e" on a very large scale...http://rense.com/general64/pordc.htm

  2. Bess is a figurehead, not a monarch.