Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Queen of Duty. In an era of irresponsibility, Elizabeth II always does what is expected of her
National Review ^ | 06/05/2012 | Rich Lowry

Posted on 06/05/2012 5:53:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

It rained on the grand flotilla on the Thames marking the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. How appropriate. It meant that at the center of all the pageantry of the 1,000-boat extravaganza, an 86-year-old woman stood in the elements and waved to her subjects for hours, without betraying a hint of discomfort or complaint.

Queen Elizabeth is a miracle of dutifulness. In an era of irresponsibility, she always does what is expected of her. In an age of self-expression, she has subsumed herself in her institution. In a time of informality and ill manners, she observes all the rules, with grace and dignity.

Who knew that the British monarchy would assert its continued relevance by remaining so admirably out of step? The queen personifies almost everything disdained in our hyperdemocratic times when the “new new thing” is always celebrated. She is tradition incarnate, and — despite, by all accounts, a dry wit — unfailingly abides by the unwritten command that she never do or say anything interesting.

No PR person, no politician would ever counsel acting like the queen. A stuffy devotion to propriety isn’t supposed to sell. Yet her approval ratings in Britain are nearly 80 percent. She is adored throughout the other 15 countries she formally rules. The Thames flotilla drew 1 million people, and her jubilee was the slightly jarring spectacle of a 21st-century celebration of a centuries-old institution.

In the 1990s, Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to nudge aside the timeless Britain represented by the queen with his “Cool Britannia,” a new, hipper Britain held together less by the monarchy than by execrable shlock. Now, it is Blair’s formerly with-it projects that are fit for a time capsule. He claimed his Millennium Dome, a vast structure housing an exhibition to celebrate the advent of the third millennium, would be “a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity.” The dome turned out to be one of the world’s great white elephants, an expensive waste that demonstrated the essential callowness of its creators.

What the monarchy has that can’t be simulated or invented on the fly is legitimacy. It is the accomplishment of Queen Elizabeth to have preserved and marshaled it. She knows that she is a national symbol, “a living flag,” to use Lenin’s phrase in explaining why the Romanovs had to be eliminated as a standing threat to the Bolsheviks. Even Britain’s silly royal rituals — the queen owns all the mute swans on the Thames, which are tallied up for her every year — have a whiff of majesty on account of their ancient pedigree.

If the makers of the European Union and its misbegotten experiment of a common currency had studied the British monarchy, they might have quit their foolhardy exercise in seat-of-the-pants nation-building long before they brought the Continent to the edge of the abyss. They might have understood the organic and distinctive nature of nations and the limits of deracinated bureaucratic rule, with no meaningful symbols, no long-standing traditions, no hard-earned legitimacy.

None of this is a brief against change. The British monarchy has lasted so long because it has been so supple and adaptive, in an expression of the pragmatic British temper. Robert Filmer, the 17th-century theorist of the divine right of kings, would look on the diminished role of the British monarchy with contempt. Queen Victoria, dubbed “the grandmother of Europe” because her relations were spread around so many royal houses, would view the shrunken influence of the crown with alarm. But Elizabeth is still queen, and in a few years could pass Victoria as the longest-reigning monarch in British history.

That is a testament to her work — some 2 million hands shaken and countless ceremonies endured — and her devotion to the role appointed her by history. In other words, she did her duty. “God save the queen,” the British sing. In Elizabeth, they have a queen worthy of the saving.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 King Features Syndicate


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: jubilee; queen; queenelizabeth; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Queen Elizabeth II during the Diamond Jubilee celebration
1 posted on 06/05/2012 5:53:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

When I’m 86, I’d like to look so distinguished with a mushroom on my head ...


2 posted on 06/05/2012 6:04:52 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

AMEN!! She is a FABULOUS LADY!! Wish we had some of her dignity.


3 posted on 06/05/2012 6:05:16 AM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The queen was well taught by her parents.

She is, perhaps, the only thing left in UK worth admiring.

God bless her!


4 posted on 06/05/2012 6:08:43 AM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

They should give her a veto a see what she does with it.


5 posted on 06/05/2012 6:17:12 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Unlike many today, she learned the importance of duty when she was very young.

6 posted on 06/05/2012 6:18:31 AM PDT by jmcenanly ("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It must be a heavy burden to have such a dud for a son!


7 posted on 06/05/2012 6:20:35 AM PDT by Voltage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

William and Kate have the class to carry on the tradition. Sorry Charlie!


8 posted on 06/05/2012 6:23:31 AM PDT by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmcenanly

Learning about her WWII service impressed me a lot.


9 posted on 06/05/2012 6:23:31 AM PDT by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I just heard that Prince Phillip is in the hospital. Does anyone know the details? Quite surprising that Camilla is seated next to the Queen. I wonder if she is now liked than her own weenie son!


10 posted on 06/05/2012 6:33:34 AM PDT by CAluvdubya (I just try to stay out of the fray...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
Who do the Brits prefer...

THIS...


OR THIS....

11 posted on 06/05/2012 6:34:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Duty, Honor, Country”. Gen. D. MacArthur. Different world, different time. Don’t find much of it today- Outside our military


12 posted on 06/05/2012 6:35:26 AM PDT by capt B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

Queen Elizabeth II failed utterly in her most important duties:

1) she did not produce a suitable heir (even William openly shacked up with his future wife)

2) she has lead her church to become a New Age multicultural gay yoga club


13 posted on 06/05/2012 6:38:54 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (Christ Jesus Victor, Ruler, Lord and Redeemer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Her uncle abdicated the throne.

Coming into the role from that perspective, and coming into it young yet old enough to understand what went on that brought her to it, must have made an enormous impact on her.

She is the exact opposite of her uncle’s “thinking only of myself and what I want” attitude.

What else to explain why she wore THAT hat?

Must have been something about it she thought the occasion called for.

UGH.

My only other comment when I think of her - it’s really too bad how her kids turned out...


14 posted on 06/05/2012 6:42:34 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya
It was reported that Philip has a bladder infection.

Elizabeth II is only the second British monarch to reign for 60 years (after Queen Victoria). George III just missed (reigned 59 years and 4 months).

15 posted on 06/05/2012 7:04:20 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

God bless her....a remarkable woman.


16 posted on 06/05/2012 7:11:35 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

LOL


17 posted on 06/05/2012 7:12:23 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

First, William isn’t her heir. He’s her son’s heir.

Second, she’s hardly a dictator. If anyone could have instilled the duty value into her own offspring, she would’ve been the one. There’s no more inescapable example of devotion to duty, honor, country than her life and reign. But her children did not absorb that when it came to their personal lives. They did do so when it came to serving in Britain’s military.

Charles put Camilla first. Married a very young girl who was deeply in love with him, while remaining in love with Camilla, and Diana was emotionally fragile and went nuts over it.

Andrew married Fergie, of all people, and was himself a playboy type.

Edward apparently has done the most expected thing, marrying and living quietly as far as what we hear, although many thought that wouldn’t happen because to them he seemed the “gay” type. But Edward is irrelevant.

Ann, whose personal life was messed up, even more irrelevant.

If you think the queen had dictator like clout, because as head of the royals she could’ve controlled their decisions and behaviors by threatening to cut off their allowances or exile them from the family, you don’t understand it doesn’t work that way. Once you’ve gone public with something like that, the entire royal mystique is ruined and people say to **** with the lot of you.

As for the church of England, she’s the head of it about like she’s the head of the government...oh wait, she’s really not.

She’s the SYMBOLIC head of it.

There was a thread recently how the queen is totally absent from the gay rights debate. She has never once recognized that there are such people whose status is based on their sexual orientation. And they predict she never will. That speaks for how she really feels, because she speaks of all sorts of other groups of her subjects all the time.

What amazes people about her is that no matter the chaos or conditions around her, family or society, she “carries on”.

And that’s how she has preserved the monarchy.

Which is her real duty, as she saw it, and did it.


18 posted on 06/05/2012 7:14:47 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

Maybe it’s waterproof.


19 posted on 06/05/2012 7:15:07 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Victoria reigned for 63 years and 7 months, which is longer than that of any other British monarch and the longest of any female monarch in history.

We shall see if Elizabeth can surpass her record.

The longest reigning monarch ever recorded was King Sobhuza of Swaziland from 10 December 1899 to 21 August 1982.

I doubt if Elizabeth can reign that long...


20 posted on 06/05/2012 7:17:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
because as head of the royals she could’ve controlled their decisions and behaviors by threatening to cut off their allowances or exile them from the family

George III did a lot of that, with his siblings and his children, and it didn't turn out any better than just letting the chips fall, as the Mountbatten-Windsors have done. Queen Victoria became Queen because there wasn't a legitimate male heir in the line.

I have a soft spot for Camilla - she's behaved with great dignity since marrying Charles, and Michael Yon, the "Milblogger," said she is exemplary in her personal support of the troops.

21 posted on 06/05/2012 7:21:26 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Make sure you notice when I'm being subtly ironic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I can’t help but laugh.

A Queen? Really? What makes her so special?

Why do the British people, think that she has right to rule over them? The whole concept of monarchy should have been expunged centuries ago.

BTW- British Parliament draws its authority from a grant from the queen, unlike the US government which draws its authority from the consent of the governed with powers delegated to the government from the people.


22 posted on 06/05/2012 7:24:36 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

A mitigating factor, certainly...


23 posted on 06/05/2012 7:33:18 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Your children and grandchildren are your heirs - you are wrong right off the bat.

It goes without saying her kids are not suitable heirs. I mentioned William only to make the point that he is not suitable, either.

If you are a Christian, you have a duty to publicly decry evil, especially evil propragated in the name of God, such as giving official public approval and blessing to homosexual acts - and the homosexual acts of church leaders.


24 posted on 06/05/2012 7:34:51 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (Christ Jesus Victor, Ruler, Lord and Redeemer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional, and I believe it’s the celebration of that history and tradition which makes the British people want to keep their royal family. It’s their choice.

I think she IS special in a sense, though, in that she is extremely dedicated to her duty in a manner not often seen these days. She’s a devout Christian woman who was anointed with holy oil and took an oath to God to serve her country until her death, and she takes it very seriously. That’s deserving of respect, IMO.


25 posted on 06/05/2012 7:37:56 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

A woman who took such a special oath and had such a special annointing would publicly decry the evil that is the official prayer and policy of her own church.

She has failed miserably in that basic and simple duty to Christ and fellow Chritsians.


26 posted on 06/05/2012 7:41:32 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (Christ Jesus Victor, Ruler, Lord and Redeemer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

...except raise decent children. She’s a regal failure in primary duty.


27 posted on 06/05/2012 7:41:39 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (I won't vote for Romney, period. Voting for "the lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding
Queen Elizabeth II failed utterly in her most important duties:

1) she did not produce a suitable heir (even William openly shacked up with his future wife)

While imperfect, the Future Duke and Duchess were making the best of a bad situation. Had they just been a normal couple without the inherent problems of Royalty and modern celebrity culture on their relationship, they would have been married years ago.

2) she has lead her church to become a New Age multicultural gay yoga club

You can't put that on the Queen. While nominally apppointed by her, the bishops are actually nominated by a committee which sends a nominee to the Prime Minster, who then sends it to the Queen. She has no direct control of the process.

28 posted on 06/05/2012 7:47:36 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

I agree with your sentiment!

To add a little thought here - The Kennedys should never have been given the title of the American Royalty! They are all losers, manipulators, and murderers!


29 posted on 06/05/2012 7:56:15 AM PDT by jcsjcm (This country was built on exceptionalism and individualism. In God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

You might want to read up on where British Parliament draws its authority to govern. It is from the Queen.

Any people that believe that the Queen is empowered or even approved by God to a position of authority over them deserve ridicule. (That is so 1700’s.)


30 posted on 06/05/2012 7:56:59 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

RE: She has no direct control of the process.

In other words, her role is simply to rubber stamp the process, even if she personally disapproves of those nominated?

If the answer is yes, why can’t they just replace her with a robot?


31 posted on 06/05/2012 7:59:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (bOTRT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
From a Scots UK mutt over here at GMT -4 .. Bravo Mum !
32 posted on 06/05/2012 8:06:54 AM PDT by tomkat (:^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple
I can’t help but laugh.

A Queen? Really? What makes her so special?

Why do the British people, think that she has right to rule over them? The whole concept of monarchy should have been expunged centuries ago.

BTW- British Parliament draws its authority from a grant from the queen, unlike the US government which draws its authority from the consent of the governed with powers delegated to the government from the people.

Wrong, way wrong. Absolute monarchy died starting with the Magna Carta, when the first restrictions on Royal power were imposed by the Barons on King John.

An attempt to reassert Royal preogotives By King Charles I, led to a Civil War, the execution of Charles I, a republic, military dictatorship, the restoration of the Crown, and the deposing of a second King, James II & VII by Parliament and replacing him.

Parliament is sovereign, not the Queen, though the Queen is nominally part of Parliament along with the Lords and the Commons. Only the elected body, the House of Commons has any real power today. And the Queen must always act on the advise of her ministers, who must be supported by the House of Commons.

Her role today is as Head of State,,the symbolic leader of the nation, not the Head of Government (The Prime Minister), who actually sets policy.

33 posted on 06/05/2012 8:11:18 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

“Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional”

Yes and no. The “Royal Assent” to bills passed by Parliament is a mere formality, but she does have the option of refusing to sign them. In this case there would be a showdown and she could essentially be fired from her job by the government. It’s the kind of thing that she would only do in the most dire emergency, like a coup d’état. King Juan Carlos of Spain had to do it once, and saved his country by doing do.


34 posted on 06/05/2012 8:27:02 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

“Elizabeth doesn’t “rule”, she has no real power. Her position is largely ceremonial and traditional”

Yes and no. The “Royal Assent” to bills passed by Parliament is a mere formality, but she does have the option of refusing to sign them. In this case there would be a showdown and she could essentially be fired from her job by the government. It’s the kind of thing that she would only do in the most dire emergency, like a coup d’état. King Juan Carlos of Spain had to do it once, and saved his country by doing do.


35 posted on 06/05/2012 8:27:02 AM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Triple
"You might want to read up on where British Parliament draws its authority to govern. It is from the Queen."

I have read about it. Her authority is symbolic in nature. Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.

"Any people that believe that the Queen is empowered or even approved by God to a position of authority over them deserve ridicule. (That is so 1700’s.)"

Well, tell the British folks that you don't approve of their choices. They might listen.

36 posted on 06/05/2012 8:35:55 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ccmay

Yes...from what I have read, if she refused to sign any of them, it would be considered a huge scandal. She remains politically neutral (officially).


37 posted on 06/05/2012 8:37:38 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

From Yahoo! Answers UK and Ireland:

Technically in the UK the Queen has all the following powers:

In domestic matters, the Royal Prerogative covers

* the issuing and withdrawal of passports
* the appointment and dismissal of ministers
* the appointment of Queen’s Counsel
* the granting of honours
* the appointment and regulation of the civil service
* the commissioning of officers in the armed forces
* the dissolution of Parliament
* the calling of elections

In foreign affairs, it covers

* the declaration of war
* the making of treaties
* the recognition of foreign states
* the accreditation of diplomats

However in reality the Queen wields these powers on behalf of the government of the day and if she tried to use them by herself under normal circumstances then it would cause a constitutional crisis. However under the right conditions. Say the current coalition refused to step down at the end of their term and seized parliament. Then the Queen could officially sack the government and command the army to overthrown the coalition and then restoring democracy dissolve parliament and call a general election.

++++++++++++++++++++++
The “Crown” still holds the seeds of power in British Government. The armed forces swear an oath to the Queen.


British military oath

” (your name), swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”


Wanna go another round?


38 posted on 06/05/2012 8:45:44 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert; jmcenanly

She didn’t do WWII service, that was a fake thing for publicity and propaganda.

That photo would have been taken during the three week Transportation course she took a short distance from Windsor Castle, largely isolated from others, she ‘enlisted’ just before turning 19, in March 1945. Hitler killed himself in April.

“She was enlisted as 230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, the ATS, [March, 1945] and sent to train as a transport officer at Camberley. The course was three weeks and Princess Elizabeth did not associate too closely with her fellow trainees.

She lunched in the officers’ mess and slept the night at Windsor; 50 years later, her grandsons would eat cadet food, iron their own uniforms, polish their own boots and be shouted at on the drill square.

Despite her kid-glove treatment, Princess Elizabeth greatly appreciated her spell in the ATS, believing it gave her a confidence she had previously lacked

The war in Europe was now drawing to a close and on May 8, 1945, the two princesses were allowed out of the Palace with their Guards officer friends to mingle with the crowds in the Mall and join in the shouts of “We want the King”

The entire WWII experience as a military member for Princess Elizabeth seems to have consisted of weeks when she lived in Windsor Castle, enlisted as a Lieutenant, attended a personalized 3 week course, had some photos taken of her touching trucks, never left living at Windsor castle, was promoted to Captain and was quickly finished with the entire exercise.

She had been a Colonel before.

“In keeping with her power and status of high birth, on her 16th birthday she was appointed Colonel of the Grenadier Guards during WWII (during 1942).

The Grenadier Guards training element was stationed at her home, Windsor Castle as security and personal escorts for her.”


39 posted on 06/05/2012 8:46:52 AM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP now goes for it's Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In other words, her role is simply to rubber stamp the process, even if she personally disapproves of those nominated?

Yes, constitutionally she has to act on the advice of her ministers in all public acts.

But, She does serve two vital functions. As an impartial, non-political Head of State she "separates patriotism from politics". The Queen and the Royal Family, by being a living symbol of the constitution and the focus of national celebrations and mourning, prevents great and small ceremonial events from being politicized. She acts by her existence to give politicians some humility. The Prime Minster may be able to lauch nuclear weapons, set national policy and even modify the Constitution, but he just a politician, and must be respectful to the Queen.

Also, by virtue of her reserve powers she is the last resort in a constitutional crisis. In a true crisis, with the legitimacy of the goverment in doubt, she can dissolve Paliament and force an election, sending the issue to the people to decide.

40 posted on 06/05/2012 8:57:21 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon

“Parliament holds the power to make and enforce laws.” CA

Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it...

The Crown.

Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate.

BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction.


41 posted on 06/05/2012 9:00:01 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Triple

All of which MUST be done on the advice of her Minsters. Who MUST command the support of a majority of the House of Commons.

As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.

Also, remember Parliament determines the Crown, it has deposed one King (James II & VII), and a Government forced a second to abdicate (Edward VIII). It goes both ways.

Hence the concept of Crown-in-Parliament. Soveregnty is vested in the Parliament, consiting of the Crown, Commons, and Lords, all of whom are directly or indirectly answerable to the people.


42 posted on 06/05/2012 9:08:00 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Triple
"Yes, and that power was granted to Parliament by ...wait for it... The Crown."

Yes, but how many hundreds of years ago? About 700? This is a different world. Again, Elizabeth has no real power at all.

"Parliament can also be dissolved by the Queen. Although that would be an extreme measure, the Queen has the military to back her. As a practical matter, it is unlikely to happen, but that is not the debate."

I commented on this in an earlier post.

"BTW - My ancestors served in both the revolutionary war, in Washington’s army, and in the war of 1812 with distinction"

That's wonderful, truly. But I'm not quite seeing the bearing of it on this discussion....?

43 posted on 06/05/2012 9:15:58 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

“As I stated in my previous post, the reserve powers exist, but would only be used in a Constitutional Crisis in which the existance of Britsh democracy and constitutional government was at stake.” -GLC

Ok - I will settle for that...

(BTW - I notice you didn’t comment on the British military oath. Not needed. I am declaring victory on this and not looking back.)


44 posted on 06/05/2012 9:18:58 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Triple
One of the more pervasive misunderstandings of the British system among Americans is a gross overestimate of the powers of the monarch. Academic constitutional lawyers may indeed have endless fun debating the status of entirely theoretical and anachronistic reserve powers: but entirely theoretical powers they remain, and have no meaning in practical reality. The military oath, on which you seem to set great store, is another example. Because the Crown is dependent on the will of Parliament, the chain of authority for the military, as for everything else, ultimately leads back to the sovereign Parliament, as GreenLanternCorps has explained. What is important for the constitutional balance of power is that military loyalty is not directly to an ephemeral government and the will of politicians, but to national values which transcend them and which the crown symbolises. Do you really suppose that the monarch, let alone her heirs and successors, can or would give military orders? The system works, for goodness' sake, and there is no military in the world with as long a history of willing loyalty.
45 posted on 06/05/2012 10:12:46 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Swearing an Oath to the Queen is effectively swearing an Oath to the British Constitution. The Queen functions as a living symbol of the Constitution. The oath is sworn to a non-political monarch and LAWFUL heirs and successors as opposed to the government of the day. Which also means that if a King were removed by parliament and replaced, Like King James II & VII was, then the oath transfers to the new King, and the deposed King has no claim on their loyalty.

(Unlike, for example, the Oath sworn by Heer officers to Adolf Hitler, a personal oath to a politician, which had disastorous real world consequences.)

Also, the test of the Oath sworn by the Army, Royal Marines, and Royal Air Force, is set by Act of Parliament and can be changed by them at any time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)


46 posted on 06/05/2012 10:24:33 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

Except our military, esp the army, pound for pound, the finest in the world. And our history, our culture....


47 posted on 06/05/2012 10:58:18 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Good on you, mate! Good points!

Thanks for the post!


48 posted on 06/05/2012 11:15:13 AM PDT by RexBeach (Mr. Obama Can't Count.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
The crowned head embodies the entire apolitical substance and spirit of a nation, particularly in our forbears of Egnland. Rejecting that allegiance, on April 18, 1775, our forefathers, in driving the British troops back to Boston, proclaimed another loyalty: "No King but King Jesus!"

From that initial Spiritual loyalty to which they subjugated their fortunes, honor, and lives, their progeny have fallen through malfeasance, irretrievably beyond redemption, IMHO.

49 posted on 06/05/2012 11:50:53 AM PDT by imardmd1 (Choose you this day whom ye will serve ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CAluvdubya

He has a bladder infection.


50 posted on 06/05/2012 10:36:16 PM PDT by kalee (The offenses we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson