The Queen cares more about being “Head of a Church” than…


…looking after her Subjects’ sovereignty.

David Davis

This actually upset me as well as making me realise that the Queen must have deliberately given assent to things like ROME, the SEA, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon.

If a “Senior Adviser” to the Queen has asked for a meeting with the Asse-Hatte “Rowan” Williams”, then it must mean that the Queen asked for it to take place.

The Pope is perfectly entitled to try and “poach” “Anglicans” from England into the Universal Church, if he can. He’s a classic aggressive campaigning battling Christian Pope of the Old School, and good luck to him: he’s also fun to watch, and smiles often, which makes you want to like him as a person.You can imagine him on a destrier, in full armour, wielding his flanged mace (so as not to shed blood while killing) in the middle of the Battle of Hastings.

Equally, by sovereign constitutional precedent and settlement, the Queen as the Anglican Boss is entitled to try and hold on to her “farm animals”. She might also care to think about defending our liberties sometimes. But what she’s clearly doing right now is a harmless game that has no bearing on how we real individuals live our lives, which are our own: this is one of the few real comforts available to us in a darkening and less free world.

But the Queen – rather than get exercised about playing harmless games – ought to have spent most of the last 50 years resisting far far more dangerous and important threats, both to our status and hers: such as the encroachment of the fascist EU upon especially and in particular British Sovereignty – no?

About these ads

7 responses to “The Queen cares more about being “Head of a Church” than…

  1. Paul Robinson

    You could well be right (about the Queen), but look at it from her point of view – any serious resistance to the wishes of her government (any party) and she’s likely to be an ex-monarch fairly quickly. President Brown, anyone? #shudder#

  2. But if she did that, then at least it would not be Brown, but someone who came after.

  3. She could have had any president she wanted, in terms of when to decide to try a show of force. Like Thatcher for instance. Or Callaghan or Wilson, both of whom she liked.

    And if that’s what we think the system is programmed to do, such as blow down the Monarchy and put in a republic automatically, then it’s the wrong system.

  4. And people ask why I’m a republican. It’s because of this, because the one bloody thing the Queen is still good for in Britain – and in theory I imagine here too – she’s simply not done. She might have her reasons but I’m past caring. Republic, please.

    Slightly off topic, what would happen if the UK became a republic before the various other countries that Mrs Windsor is still queen of? Would they pitch up here asking when the emu shooting season starts?

  5. I don’t know, Angry old fella – I never thought of that! I always thought that at least Australia and then New Zealand would leave The Queen behind as an idea, and become republics before we ever would, but, then again perhaps not…?

    The attractions of it however for me are probably short term. I am not impressed with the libertarian records of most republics I have studied, such as France for example. And the USA does not exactly stand tight scrutiny either – Haiti’s record is better since 1807.

    If we became a republic, what would Australia do? Follow suit I guess, by default? What else could you do? Does it even matter in the end? All Statists are statists in the end.

  6. You could always adopt the Queen – but I doubt that you would.

    Why need to? Just more hassle.

  7. The Queen doesn’t get involved in politics. A President would do nothing but get involved in party politics.

    As someone who sees politics and politicians as the problem i say Thank God for the Queen.