A Monarchy in Danger
By WJHII Posted in User Blogs — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A Monarchy in Danger
Freedom Today Magazine
The United Kingdom
By
William John Hagan
New Labour has become the greatest threat to the future of the British Monarchy since Oliver Cromwell. The only people to blame for this current state of affairs are those most loyal to the Crown who have somehow failed to confront the issue of public antipathy, illogically hoping that the problem would just disappear. It won't, as long as today's incarnation of British Labour controls Parliament.
I will say this only once: what works for the United States will not work for the United Kingdom. However, Tony Blair's constant pursuit of unbridled power is leading Britain down a slippery slope that is destroying her most important institutions, such as the role of the House of Lords. This metamorphosis will result in the eventual subjugation of the British people to a continental European authority. The damage Blair has already done to Britain can still be corrected, but those loyal to Her Majesty and her rightful heirs must act now or the future will be bleaker than any of Orwell's nightmares.
The plot to destroy the Monarchy began with the disenfranchisement of the Peerage and the emasculation of the House of Lords. In 1997, when Labour ended twenty years of Conservative Party rule in Britain, the Peers served as a partial check on the powers of the Lower House of Parliament. Between 1997 and 1998, the Lords rejected Labour's bills thirty-nine times. As we know such a rebuff was, in reality, only a one-year impediment as a result of the Parliament Act of 1949. Still, however negligible, this political check was on the Commons and it allowed the mostly Conservative Peers to slow down the wheels of Tony Blair's vision of a socialist Britain.
Blair's response to the Lord's opposition was particularly dictatorial. He pushed through the House of Lords Act of 1999, which effectively destroyed the minor political check the Peers held over potential abuses by the Commons. Today, only 92 elected Peers remain in the House of Lords; the remaining seats have been principally packed with Labour cronies who have been more then willing to rubber stamp the actions of an all- powerful, Labour controlled Commons. The House of Lords Act has, in effect, left Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as the only remaining check on the Presidential ambitions of Tony Blair and his Labour zealots.
As powerful as the Blair dictatorship has become, he is currently in no position to remove the Queen and vest himself with powers as Head of State. I suspect, however, that he would like nothing more than to proceed to just that finale. Considering the mature age of Her Majesty, I must broach a subject that we all dread having to confront. The day will come when Queen Elizabeth II's reign will achieve its natural end and Prince Charles will ascend to the Throne of England.
A corrupt media and the whispers of Republican and Labour leaders have questioned the fitness of the Prince of Wales to serve as King. In reality, they see his perceived weaknesses as the ideal opportunity to turn Britain into a Republic. And what a Republic this would be: a parliamentary system with absolutely no check on the power of its Head of State who would control a majority in Parliament. In effect, Tony Blair or his successor, would have unrestrained power over the British people without the powerful counsel of the Queen. This is not an outlandish scenario but rather a probability with the passing of the Monarch.
It is the duty of every member of the Conservative Party to repair the defamatory misconceptions that Prince Charles is unfit to assume the throne. As an American, allow me to be politically incorrect and point out that Prince Charles is not a villain but a victim. He is not the one who violated the Statute of Treasons which outlaws having sexual intercourse with the wife of the Monarch's heir. Under this law, if the illicit relations are consensual then both participants are equally guilty of the crime of High Treason. True, the Prince used unusually poor judgment by having his own affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, however, in doing so, he violated no laws and certainly did not subject the Royal Blood line to the peril of illegitimacy. The reality is that history is want to name one English King who did not have a mistress. This is not an issue that disqualifies Prince Charles from becoming King.
When the time comes, I suspect Labour will use Prince Charles' diminished popularity to attempt to eliminate the Monarchy in favor of a Republic. Ironically, it would take the signature of the future King Charles II to convert such an Act into Law. The membership of the Conservative Party must now be fervently dedicated to the removal of New Labour from 10 Downing Street. Only then, can a proper system of checks and balances be returned to the United Kingdom. With the grace of God, a Conservative Prime Minister will one day return to power and it should be his or her first act to repeal the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, as well as the House of Lords Act. Only with these proper restraints on the absolute power of the Commons can Britain be protected from an ideological dictatorship of the left and the dissolution of the Monarchy.
I certainly hold no brief for Tony Blair, but it is a matter of public record that the House of Lords has blocked legislation on vastly more numerous occasions since the Hereditaries were removed than before. Blair may well like to emasculate it, but he certainly hasn't managed it thus far. The best he can do is go back on his promise to introduce direct elections to it.
If you think that Blair is attempting to abolish the monarchy, you are simply not living in the real world. The monarchy enables him to enjoy powers - via the royal prerogative - that no elected head of state would enjoy. Why would he want to slay the golden goose?
It really is very sweet of you to be concerned about the plight of a small band of UK based penioners but your concerns seem somewhat misguided.
While personally I wouldn't have a problem with the UK being a republic you misunderstand Tony Blair if you think he is the person to deliver one. Aside from anything else he enjoys wielding the unaccountable powers of the royal prerogative far too much to end the monarchy.
Also if you want to defend the hereditary peers or even argue for their reintroduction you are going the wrong way about it. The House of Lords has been much more willing to use the powers that it has and challenge conventions which limit its powers such as the Salisbury Convention since the removal of the hereditaries.
Anyway I am glad that Prince Charles has such good friends in the USA and perhaps if he should fall on harder times you may consider inviting him back?
Re: Ironically, it would take the signature of the future King Charles II to convert such an Act into Law.
Which would be rather difficult since King Charles II been in his tomb for more than three centuries now.
More to the point Charles when/if crowned, will be King George VII.
I'm surprised that such an "expert" in the UK constitution did not know this.
It may be a legal fiction, but Parliament exercises its powers by the authority of the queen. She could dissolve Parliament if she wanted to, and rule alone. The only thing the sovereign needs Parliament for is to approve new taxes, so as long as current revenues are sufficient, there would be no need to convene another Parliament.
The queen can disband the army, sell the navy, pardon all the criminals, and make every Englishman a lord. And British soldiers swear loyalty to her, not Tony Blair.
How does your position on the monarchy change if, as Daniel Pipes writes, Prince Charles has converted to Islam?
If Charles was to convert to Islam he would have to give up his place in line to the throne. However there is no chance of this happening.
She has the legal enforcable authority to do this?
Actually, legally it's only an issue if he converts to Catholicism. The Act of Settlement doesn't make any reference to Islam.
Yes, and he's chosen George. That's the point!
To call him anything else is treason. Or something.
Legally, the Act of Succession grants the inheritance to Electress Sophia of Hanover and her successors while Protestant. Her eldest son became George I.
Doubt Britons will go for it.
I doubt they see great loss in removing the Royal House.
Um, since when does the Royal house have any actual power. I thought UK royalty is mainly for show. I heard Britons reffer to it as Disneyland of UK cause of the cash flow it brings from tourists.