Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Friday, 15 February 2008

I disagree with the Prince of Wales. There. I've said it. I await your charges of anti-royalism

This is a tough one for Beaverbrook. I'm not pleased that the Prince gave this speech, nor am I all that happy that Mr. Farage sat during a standing ovation for him, though I can understand why he did so. Perhaps he should have stood, forced a smile but not clapped.

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) led by Nigel Farage is the most highly principled political party in the English-speaking world, and is genuinely and rightly concerned about the future of a sovereign Britain. (Incidentally, the thoroughly repugnant, culturally corrupt, intellectually bankrupt and morally depraved Liberal Party of Canada is, in my unbiased view, the most unprincipled political party in the Anglosphere. Watching that Harper guy run circles around its leader has brought me considerable personal joy. But I digress).

Labour of course is overjoyed that the heir to the British Monarchy is advocating more power to the European Union, and is now happily heaping charges of anti-royalism on Mr. Farage. Though I strongly suspect he is loyal, I actually don't know where Nigel Farage stands on the monarchy question, but I do know he stands for a strong, independent, united and sovereign Great Britain, which is more than Labour can say. Who is the real loyalist, gentlemen, ladies? And who has done more to defend Her Majesty and the constitution of the United Kingdom?

17 comments:

Scott said...

You aren't anti-royalist at all. It is the Crown on his head we honour, not necessarily the words departing his mouth.

We have had bad kings before. The Bill of Rights forbids Charles to make the speech he made: according to its terms the Monarch must not allow any foreign power, treaty or legislature to have one ounce of sovereignty over our land.

He has now forfeited his right to the throne.

Of course, I am rather a partisan for the old divine right of kings, but that was rendered untenable several centuries ago, when Parliament first got ideas above its station.

Marquis Black said...

Agreed with Scott. The future King of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms should uphold the sanctity and sovereignty of the British nation, not throw it out of the window.

Next in line or not, he has officially gone too far. Let the Crown go to someone more loyal to the British nation. If Charles will not defend his country from foreign influence, then perhaps William will.

David Byers said...

Very sad, why on earth does he say these things! Maybe next time he comes to Australia he will push for a republic?

Stauffenberg said...

One may well argue about scientific findings on climate change. I am certainly not a Europhile and hoping for a referendum in the UK. But this is a storm in a teapot and largely a party political stunt.

Labour try to bang the monarchist drum against critics. Tells you a thing or two about the state they are in. If Mr Farage has chosen not to applaud HRH, then that’s all fine with me, as well.

Of course, Beaverbrook’s criticism is not illoyal and the Prince of Wales is not acting unconstitutionally. According to the BBC link kindly provided, HRH appealed for co-operation on a topic worth the attempt (as opposed to measurements of bananas or metric madness for instance).

This post just illustrates a certain inconsistency. Fair enough. None of us will be free from them, as there are royal interferences with politics that we like and ones that we are bound to disapprove of.

There was a fair amount of support the other week when Mr Welton reported about the Duke of York’s remarks on U.S. policies in Iraq. I am speculating, but I would say many of us would agree with The Prince of Wales’s public views on architecture, the community or on countryside issues such as hunting. I do, but I beg to differ on the faith issue.

One might argue that hunting or the National Gallery annexe do not prejudice issues of national sovereignty. However, diplomatic appeals for co-operation on an issue that cannot be solved locally (and most probably neither by the EU, nor the Anglosphere) by someone who is not the monarch are certainly not treacherous.

Either you have princes speaking their minds or you have not.

Anonymous said...

From what I understand, climate change is an international issue with ALL nations around the world. So on that one, there needs to be cooperation between all the nations of the world, including Britain and EU countries, as well as Russia.

Scott said...

I think Prince Andrew is a lecherous, useless, rather retarded fool. (But not as bad as a politician. That is why I am a Monarchist). He had a right to say his mind; all do, royal or not. No Royal has the right to give away British sovereignty, however. Our ancestors may have been worried about the Papacy and rival European powers; but this fits the bill quite as much.

Anonymous said...

Long may she reign... indeed!

Dundonald said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dundonald said...

It might have been a tough one for you Beaverbrook, but I had no such quandary. If Prince Charles wishes to laud the activities of the supreme government of EUrope, then he does not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. Anyone who does not believe in the sovereignty of parliament is not fit to be King.

Anonymous said...

My view is that Farage's behaviour was unacceptable. Regardless of wether one agrees with what was said or not, Prince Charles is the Heir to the Throne and hte Prince of Wales. Ergo, one shows some degree of respect.

As for the comments of Prince Charles himself, I am moderately pro Europe (to a degree), but even if he had proposed the opposite to what he did, I do feel it is good for our system as a whole for the Royals to be able to express their views freely, and to openly raise these and other issues that face the UK, because parliament cannot be guranteed to do so in any meaningful way.

Regardless of wether or not we agree with what is said, involvement is beneficial.

Viscount Feldon said...

Dundonald, so long as Charles realizes that Parliament can remove Britain from the EU, he's recognizing the sovereignty of Parliament.

In all things EU, Parliament is still supreme (which is why I don't buy into the whole "our sovereignty is at peril! The monarch must do as commanded by the Bill of Rights to save us from Brussels!" argument). They can abrogate at any time, they just see fit not to currently. So long as such association is voluntary, it does not take away from the legal sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Anonymous said...

As I said under the entry below on 'Major Views on the Monarchy', the European issue is a problem for conservative as opposed to socialist monarchists.

Every power which the EU has over us has been signed into law by Her Majesty, who will no doubt sign the "Lisbon Treaty". And as Scott says, for the Crown to sign away the powers of the British people's duly elected representatives to a foreign institution is expressly forbidden by the Bill of Rights and by other non-written ligatures of constitutional tradition.

I also used the example of the Americans to suggest that conservatives are also capable of turning to a republican solution, as they did in the 1770s when conservative elements came reluctantly to agree with the loonies in greater New England that British rights cold no longer be defended by the "gentleman's agreement" by which the legislature would never give a bill to the monarch for signature when signing it would be unconstitutional... what happens when the legislature ignores that agreement and sends a bill for royal assent which strikes at British liberties? The king won't refuse the bill for fear of a constitutional crisis, and and so little by little our ancient liberties - which the Crown embodies - are eaten away with the spineless connivance of the Crown itself.

Cato

Anonymous said...

I think people are being somewhat unfair on Prince Charles. Global warming is a very serious problem and something that he believes in passionately. The UK has already brought a number of measures to combat global warming but a number of members of the EU have not. Therefore does it not make sense to make a speech where he can make his point of view to all members of the EU at one time?

Sovereignty has always been given away in the past such as membership to the United Nations and even with the signing of international treaties. However all of these including membership to the EU can rescinded at anytime by Westminster so sovereignty is not really lost.

I have huge admiration for Prince Charles. People may not agree with what he says but at least he creates debate and surely that is not a bad thing. Organic farming, architecture and now global warming have all been put on an important footing for discussion and there have been many, and in my view, welcome changes. Organic farming is now big business and there are a lot more questions now before new buildings are constructed compared with the 1960s and 1970s.

Prince Charles also started one of the largest charities in the UK to help disadvantaged youngsters to set up a business and thousands have been helped. I understand that this is now being developed in the Commonwealth.

When the time comes I think Prince Charles will become albeit a different but at the same time an excellent monarch of all his realms.

Alan

Dundonald said...

Viscount Feldon, you may be aware the the Lisbon Treaty (aka European Constitution) establishes Declaration 17, which states:

"In accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States".

Thus, if the treaty is ratified (which it will be), our Parliament will effectively declare that our laws are subordinate to EU laws. This indeed does take away from the legal sovereignty of the United Kingdom. If the association is voluntary, why is there also a clause in the aforementioned treaty regarding seceding from the Union? If Parliament is to remain sovereign, such a clause would not be necessary.

Viscount Feldon said...

They have primacy, again, by the choice of the member state. If Parliament would want to make a law over the laws of the Union, then they can secede, which is now expressly allowed. So long as that can be done, any subordination is completely and totally voluntary. There may be negative effects as a result of such secession, but every action has consequences.

If anything, the clause allowing secession gives back what was given up on entry.

Dundonald said...

We never needed a clause on secession before, we could simply repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and our membership would come to an end.

The new clause effectively replaces unilateral withdrawal, with a negotiated exit on their terms; it's not a positive development as far as I'm concerned.

Beaverbrook said...

It was a tough one for me, because I knew it would be a tough one for (some) monarchists. I was attempting to build a bridge over the schism. Nigel Farage was put in an untenable position: how could he clap without endorsing the prince's message? And what are UKIP supporters supposed to think of their Prince of Wales now?

It's okay to talk broadly on the social ecology such as charity, architecture, organic farming, the environment, etc, but when you start advocating one way or another on central political issues of the day, you've gone too far. I'm sure Labour was up in arms when Prince Philip was defending foxhunting, but now they've got a royal on their side, they can't hide their beaming grins.