You've always done your duty (with the possible exception of a failure to send Heath and Blair to the Tower ... admittedly it would have been controversial at the time, but a monarch's place is to think of the survival of the nation, not just the institution. I guess you could respond that we voted for them, after all).
7 comments:
As a monarchist, I must admit that given the state of the nation, I am not convinced she has done her duty. How did she get on with Thatcher, the only PM in 60 years who seemed to care about this nation. Has she defended our sovereignty and the Established Church? The only times she seemed moved was when Windsor caught fire and she lost the royal yacht.
What I will say is that UK 2011 is a sad contrast with UK 1953. Her reign will go down (in what history books are written) as one of continual - indeed accelerating - national decline. Nonetheless I wish her well.
" Laban said...
What I will say is that UK 2011 is a sad contrast with UK 1953. Her reign will go down (in what history books are written) as one of continual - indeed accelerating - national decline. Nonetheless I wish her well."
It's been an utter disaster
Industry gone
Third World invasion
So much for the second Elizabethan Age
"As a monarchist, I must admit that given the state of the nation, I am not convinced she has done her duty. How did she get on with Thatcher, the only PM in 60 years who seemed to care about this nation. Has she defended our sovereignty and the Established Church? The only times she seemed moved was when Windsor caught fire and she lost the royal yacht."
Thatcher was a creature of malignant financial interests
However I would agree in the sense that a constitutional long stop who never goes for the ball is pointless, indeed dangerous
Still England is a monarchical country; maybe Prince Harry could head up a coup
"However I would agree in the sense that a constitutional long stop who never goes for the ball is pointless, indeed dangerous"
Indeed.
She should have dissolved parliament rather than let them nod through the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties. A subsequent general election in the atmosphere of a constitutional crisis would at least have permitted us to have some sort of say in whether the country was given away over our heads, as in fact happened.
It might have destroyed the monarchy, but at least it would have been destroyed in a good, loyal, patriotic cause.
Having said all that, and having met the old dear once, I am a total fan and wish her the very best and many more of them.
Happy Birthday, ma'am!
The first Elizabeth would not have put up with any of the insane crap that Liz II has put up with. She's a nice lady who always does the ceremonial stuff she's required to do, but that's about it. Liz I was always on the look-out for threats to her realm; that's why she never married, as she was always afraid that a foreign prince or even a home-grown noble) would steal her throne (with good reason, look how Darnley tried to steal her cousin's crown).
You British are past the point where a Churchill can save you; you need a Cromwell or a Bolingbroke to stop the madness. I really believe now that martial law is the onlly way to stop the complete destruction of the Mother of Parliaments. God bless you and good luck. As a Yank I am grateful for all the things you wonderful, brilliant, courageous people have given to both us and the whole world; too bad you don't love yourselves as much as your children do.
Maria
Many thanks for your best wishes, at this low ebb in our fortunes they are much appreciated
As well as obviously malignant leftists much of our travail is the result of upper class degeneracy - of which the ever so posh Charles Moore is a good example
"Most of us do not want immigration on this scale. That is shown by every poll. But, in another sense, most of us do. You and I want someone to serve us in a bar and clean the hospitals and make cheap clothes. I want someone to drive me across town so that I can make my Colonel Blimp remarks to a friendly audience"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8454662/Will-there-always-be-an-England-whatever-the-origin-of-its-people.html
They have looked askance at the English working class, as Orwell said they luxuriate in a "warm bath of snobbery" - and now thanks to their supine betrayal we are all up the creek without a paddle.
"All this need not be a total disaster. It is possible, though hard, to forge a United Kingdom made up of many ethnicities. Leaders like Mr Cameron are right to try to insist on common standards and better rules, rather than to despair. But whatever it is, and however well it turns out, it cannot be England. Perhaps when I am very old, my grandchildren will ask me what England was. It will be a hard question to answer, but I think I shall tell them that it seemed like a good idea while it lasted, and that it lasted for about 1,000 years."
Not a total disaster(really?) Moore has given up, capitulated - without so much as firing a metaphorical shot
he typifies his class
100% wet
100% effete
100% bloody useless
Yes we need a Cromwell. Better plain men than none, as Oliver himself said - it were better that gentlemen came to do the work, but none came....who would have hindered then? Same old story
Bolingbroke?
Henry IV
Well no doubt the contemporary equivalents of Richard II richly deserve a similar fate, though I had been thinking of a Prince Hal myself as another possibility.
The case is desperate indeed
I sincerely agree with Laban on that, there a huge difference between the UK 2011 with the UK 1953, but we have to take into account that times have considerably changed for better or for worse!
Post a Comment