Queen & Country

Loyal to Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors!

Monday, May 01, 2006

Sedition & rebuttal

I ahve been accused of being dishonest in my last section on sedition & accused of supporting "dictatorship". The Queen & the monarchy must be held above the rest of the great unwashed society becuase they are the "personification of our state".

Well; let me simply say that the monarchy is indeed a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship of honour and loyalty; & is a mutual partnership between Her Majesty and Her Loyal Subjects. The Crown is justified in punishing those who break this partnership; a partnership on which our country depends.

It is also a partnership between members of the Crown Commonwealth; the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Australia, Canada and of Course NEw Zealand. This partnership runs deep between all of us English-speaking peoples; and cannot be broken by republicans and their 'liberty' carry on. Our bonds are deeper than that.

I have managed to upload another picture which exalpins why I support the continuance of such bonds.



Blogger Pitt said...

Oh. dear. Lord.

Do the words "British Liberties" mean anything to you?

The Petition of Right 1688? (I assume you aren't a Jacobite), the Act of Settlement? The Treaty of Waitangi and its "rights of British subjects?" These construct a Constitutional framework which means that the Monarchy is, in fact, not a dictatorship.

If you were actually a Monarchist, you would know that the Queen swore to uphold British liberty in the Coronation Oath. The fact that you are throwing around words like "dictatorship" means that either you are

(a) Not serious and taking the mickey


(b) You haven't thought through what happens when the Royal Prerogative is absolute.
(James II).

10:45 AM  
Blogger Bill Wilmot said...

Taking the micket!? I AM A LOYALIST!!

I most certainly do beleive in British Liberties, Mr Pit!!

Else I woudl call myself a republican. My reference to 'dictatorship' was on the issue of sedition; which a writer said was what the monarch is.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Bill Wilmot said...

I beleive in the royal prerogatives; or the restoration of the powers to Her Majesty to rule over us. Monarchy is Godly Mr Pitt!

1:12 PM  
Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

Bill: so, which royal prerogatives? The "right" to rule rather than merely reign? The "right" to rule without Parliament or (in a broader sense) the consent of the people? The "right" for the monarch to have their own system of private, partial courts to try "traitors" (the infamous Star Chamber)? The "right" to appoint Ministers without their being either responsible to the House or drawn from it? The "right" to pass laws by royal decree rather than through a democratically elected body?

This is all Seventeenth Century stuff, and "rights" we are well rid of.

1:07 PM  
Blogger mike sweetman said...

hahahahahahahahahahaha! You're like a bah-humbug conservative version of Socialist Worker, with a hint of the Onion, just for balance. This sure is some funny typing.

8:53 PM  
Blogger Pitt said...

I believe in the Royal prerogatives too, Bill. But they have to be balanced by Parliament, otherwise you get a situation like 1688, where James II is attempting to subvert the Constitution.

The monarchy is ordained by God, but the Queen is still a fallen and sinful being, who requires restraint. The same as we all do. That is what the Police power is for, and the balanced Constitution.

10:32 AM  
Blogger Genius said...

The queen is pretty good as monarchs go.
Better she rules us than we be ruled by those unwashed masses.
I've met some of them (the masses) and they were pretty stupid, most of them couldn't govern their way out of a paper bag.

10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home