104 thoughts on “Who Will Rid Me of This Turbulent Chav?”

      • I am not ashamed of what I am.Do not lump me and a few million others in my beloved country with the incompetants and greedy people who purport to govern us. It is only recently we have become aware of what has been happening here and we are Angry. Our MSM is corrupt we do not get the truth- only spin and lies. We are learning quickly. The British tend to like to do things by the rule of law so many millions of us are waiting for our Referendum.Then you will see the changes. I hope it is not too late for Tommy Robinson.

        • How is it possible that you “have only recently became aware of what has been happening?” I knew Western Europe was in deep trouble a decade ago and I don’t really focus on you people that much.
          You should have known you were being led to slaughter when they took your guns and started importing muslims.

        • I love your country too, but from now on I have only memories of the England that was. Gone. Probably forever.
          I, in Canada, knew what was happening 20-30 years ago, (mainly through what was happening in Norway, my wife’s country, but the same thing was happening in England too–not difficult to see.) you must have been blind.

          And yes, it’s happening here in Canada too; in fact speeding up, courtesy of the moslem-hugging dolt my countrymen were stupid enough to vote in as PM.

        • Westerners of every country in the West should be ashamed of their countries and sociopolitical culture, with regard to how they are mishandling the problem of Islam. One intelligent hallmark of this proper shame is recognizing that most of the people are remiss in informing themselves about Islam. Don’t try to pawn this Problem-of-the-Problem off on those Dastardly Elites. Millions and millions of Ordinary People are also being impermissibly irresponsible about this increasingly exigent matter, and they can’t deflect responsibility onto some nameless shadowy “Elites”. We who have woken up (or who are still stirring awake) then have a responsibility to shake our fellows out of their pleasant beauty sleep (still hitting the snooze alarm on their 1990s digital alarm clock radio playing soothing pop music and flashing 9:11, dreaming about the last episode of Seinfeld in those halcyon Fukuyama 90s…)

  2. And I had so wanted to visit again the land of my forefathers but as it is fifteen years since my last visit I am afraid I would no longer recognise the country. Better to spend my retirement travel dollars elsewhere

  3. I wish the Queen would turn PATRIOT and help her people rid themselves of the ISLAMIC hoard descended onto them!

    • Yes, I was thinking that Queen and other monarchs in Europe can reclaim control of the armies whenever they want. That may not help the situation in Europe by much, but at least those people in North Africa and Middle East can take a breath for a while. (am I fantasising too much?)

    • I’m not British (I’m French) but if the Queen suddenly announced the whole truth, in plain unfiltered words, it would reach the people, the informed and uninformed alike.

      She definitely doesn’t seem to care, and I don’t really understand, even if she’s a figurehead doesn’t she not care at all for her people, or she’s a globalist but I just don’t understand their endgame, what is the point of flooding the world with low IQ Muslims, what kind of grand plan could it possibly accomplish except a global Caliphate, and I just don’t see what they would gain from that.

      • I think that the people doing this are the real racists, they just don’t believe that the brown-skinned people from North Africa & the Middle East have it in them to challenge them for power, & that once these poor benighted not-so-noble savages have done what they were brought over here to do, & destroyed our moral system, our religion, our … yes, I’m going to say it … social cohesion. Then they will be put in their proper place. By the elite. Boy are they in for a shock!

      • “I’m not British (I’m French) but if the Queen suddenly announced the whole truth, in plain unfiltered words, it would reach the people, the informed and uninformed alike.”

        THE POINT.

    • She is not allowed to. Through laws passed centuries ago she is only the titular head really, she is not allowed to have any real say in our political system. I’m not sure but this might go back to the Magna Carta.

      • She’s a living sentient being who will have to stand before God one day real soon. She’s getting on, and she really ought to be more worried about that prospect, which is on the near horizon, rather than ‘not being allowed’ to ‘have any real say’ about ‘our political system’. Besides, it’s not about ‘our political system’ as such it’s about our country. And she gives a speech every Christmas about our country & the state it’s in. So there’s nothing stopping her. As for that daft loon of hers, he’s supposed to be the defender of the faith, and we don’t hear a damned thing from him either. It’s pathetic.

      • She won’t be saying anything. You don’t see her at the grocery store for a reason. Besides, the government would threaten to take all her freebies away and that would be that.

      • I seem to remember that the monarch can be called upon for one single political purpose: to resolve a constitutional crisis. In the US the Supreme Court would have this role.

        • Well, the Supremes are traveling that paved road to hell, ignoring the Constitution. People are still asking how they managed to invoke the commerce clause to save ObamaCare. They declared it a TAX, thereby saving Obama’s skin – and never mind that he swore on a stack o’ bibles it wasn’t a tax.

          [That ruling was so outrageous that people are still asking what kind of “leverage” Obama had over the Chief Justice, since that’s the only reason they could’ve ruled the way they did on the constitutionality of the so-called “Affordable Care Act”. Someday we’ll know the truth. Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free…” But he didn’t add that sometimes the truth makes you miserable first – when it’s the ugly truth, anyway.]

          • Didn’t some enterprising reporter challenge O by saying that according to the dictionary, a tax was … only to be interrupted by O saying, oh well if you’re going to start using a dictionary … (shakes head patronsingly as if only children would ever bother doing such a thing …)

          • Obama does that a lot. I can’t bear to listen to his condescension anymore. Massa Obama gon’ tell us how things be on his plantation.

            He’d be a joke except for the fact that his reign has been truly incompetent and destructive. Poor MENA.

        • …the monarch can be called upon for one single political purpose…

          But that doesn’t pre-empt her from offering sympathy to her subjects. If some huge natural disaster befell Britain – I mean one where many thousands died in, say, an earthquake – she’d be free to offer her condolences to her subjects.

          Same principle. No one has to “call on” her – nothing beyond the promptings of her own heart and normal human sympathy.

          • I don’t disagree, my point was just that the monarch in a constitutional monarchy does have some real official power especially in situations where everything is falling apart. Anyone who thinks that the monarch is just totally 100% symbolic would seem to be misinformed.

  5. “Who will rid me….” not so uncommon a phrase, apparently, and coincidentally familiar to the threat posed:

    Tabari VII:94
    “The Prophet said, ‘Who will rid me of Ashraf?’ Muhammad bin Maslamah, said, ‘I will rid you of him, Messenger of Allah. I will kill him.’ ‘Do it then,’ he said, ‘if you can.’”

    One of the things that makes Islam lethal is that men are ever ready to kill on the prophet’s command.

    • In your effort to equivocate what the believers of any religion are prepared to accept as an adherent to that religion – so as to guard its tenets and to preserve its bona fides – you forget that the person who uttered that memorable phrase had one particular person in mind, not a whole tribe, country or religion, and though he was of the same faith as was his perceived tormentor, he was still prepared to murder him for the sake of his own security which goes against his own faith.

      If you bother to study Islam you will note the many references within the Qu’ran of the necessity to rid the so called ‘Islamic scholar’ of the many ‘pests’ who really only raise common sense objections to the Islamic scholar’s interpretations but, who dare to question their authority on pain of death.

      And that to me is a totally different scenario as to the one you have raised.

      You have not raised this but I will, If there is hope by her followers that the English Queen will some how find her voice to speak out at what is so obviously occurring to what was once Great Britain -and even maybe to those who sit, watch, and listen to a media that is geared to deceive can appreciate that now fact of life – I have some bad news for you, because whether or not the Queen is parley to what is now occurring within her own realm (and I doubt that given all the evidence she is not aware) I can tell you she is not prepared to speak out against what even the village idiot can now recognize is occurring and is harmful to your own health.

      Her family comes first, not you and yours!

      • When will you understand she is not allowed to? – all she is allowed to do is to give her private thoughts on the matter to whomever is her prime minister of the day in their meetings. If she only reads or watches the MSM she won’t even know what is going on anymore than the majority here who have been lied to. Trust me we are waking up. She takes her duties to the country very seriously I understand even for a person of 90, but if the truth is being held back? In any case this has all happened so quickly (especially the finding out) – we in the UK are shocked now by what is going on.

        • If she only reads or watches the MSM she won’t even know what is going on anymore than the majority here who have been lied to.

          If.

        • As I said already, she gives a speech every Christmas in which she talks about the state of the country, on TV, to the whole country.

          So she is not silenced in a manner which only allows her to converse with the PM of the country at the time, and no one else, ever, under any circumstances.

          And who cares anyway? The Baron asked right at the beginning of this thread, and no one has answered: What exactly can Cameron and his gang actually do about it, if the queen speaks her mind about what’s happening to her country?

          Cameron’s hardly going to have the queen strung up from the nearest lampost now, is he? She’s not going to be banged up in a jail full of rampant Mohammedans & she’s not going to have one of them throw boiling water laced with sugar over her face. So in the final analysis, there’s nothing for her to be afraid of. In reality, she’s untouchable.

          Isn’t that right?

          • Let’s all have a whip round and see if we can get one for her, & help her sort that potential problem out … 😉

  6. Cammy is in trouble over the Panama papers, Ironic; a taste of his own medicine. Or does what goes round come around.

    • Well they wanted a ‘snooper’s charter’ and they like nothing better than to eavesdrop on everyone else & see what they’re up to, how they’re spending their money, where their money comes from, etc etc.

      Dynamic Dave has just had a taste of his own medicine.

  7. An example from Australia:
    The manager of a NSW prison has been stood down after a young Islamic State supporter allegedly attacked a former Australian soldier in a jail cell.

    “It is believed the 18-year-old attacker choked the 40-year-old and carved ‘e4e’ into the front and back of the victim’s head.
    The teen then allegedly placed a towel over him and poured boiling hot water on him.
    ….. severe wounds to his neck, head and face.
    The former …soldier was rushed to the …Hospital and put in an induced coma….”

    “I am appalled that these two inmates were placed in the same cell.”
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/31312858/aussie-digger-critical-after-savage-attack-by-isis-supporter-inside-nsw-prison-cell/

    • The article states that the attacker’s extremist views weren’t taken seriously – typical denial and downplaying of threats. It’s not hard to imagine the same excuse being used if TR is harmed in prison.

      And, how is it that inmates have access to sharp weapons and boiling water? I understand that weapons can be created from other objects – but surely boiling water shouldn’t be easily accessed.

  8. Is this the new morality,called tax avoidance,forget Gods laws its tax we should focus on(i am being sarcastic).If anyone thinks for one second that the government are after billionaires money they must be mentally ill.There is only one purpose to this concotted story,there will be no tax havens anywhere on earth,but a global taxation at one level by a global government,for the masses otherwise known as communism.
    Since when was it ok to steal private details about bank accounts and publish them throughout the world,there is only one goal from all of this,no privacy at all and a cashless society.Revelation 13 v16-18.

  9. Baron, I’m not sure you’re being fair to the Queen by including her in the picture. If Tommy is a representative British chav on issues related to the Queen, he would not like the Queen being blamed either. The formal monarch, she is very limited in her real power. And many chavs love her like a grandmother.

    • Notice the ambiguous expression on Her Majesty’s face. She could be cross. She could be disapproving. Or she could be distressed and despairing. It’s not completely clear what emotion lies behind that expression.

      Cousin Theresa and Dave, on the other hand, are unambiguous in their anger and self-righteousness.

      • Unfortunately, Baron, those subtleties will probably be lost on most and the meme just won’t go viral where it most needs to move, in the UK, because of the Queen’s presence in the picture. It’s just too jarring emotionally, for too many British people.

        • The Queen should be in the picture, because she should intervene. Constitution be damned — the current regime has long since abandoned the Constitution, so the Queen should do the same and speak out. I put her in the picture deliberately for that reason.

          If the Queen were to state publicly that a political prosecution such as this one is a travesty, and should be abandoned, it would be a game-changer. Overnight the monarchy would regain the esteem in which it used to be held by the people.

          What could the tyrants and usurpers who govern Britain now do to her? I suppose they could cut off her funds, and the younger royals would have to go out and get a job like other Britons. I think that would be a small price to pay for reversing the destruction of Britain.

          Queen Elizabeth can remember a time when Britain was a different place (as can I). If she doesn’t have the courage to do something to try to restore it, then a pox on her!

          • ‘A pox on her’

            Are you being deliberately offensive Baron? I have noticed a lot of hating of the British, most especially the English on the threads lately. Are we no longer on the same side? I for one (and millions of my countrymen) do not see our monarchy as something to be despised – on the contrary we see the Monarchy as a symbol of representation of our island race going back a thousand years or more. If we did not have kings we would have heads of state or presidents and they don’t seem much better do they?

          • I am an Anglophile, and have been since I lived in Yorkshire, back in my youth.

            That is why I am calling on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second to speak out on behalf of her oppressed countrymen, and in particular one oppressed countryman.

            She doesn’t have to “interfere” in the political process. All she has to do is call a BBC camera crew to Buckingham Palace, put her mouth close to the microphone, and state the simple truth: “The prosecution of an ordinary citizen, one of my subjects, for his political opinions, is a travesty and an abomination. It is a violation of the rule of law. And it is an offence against our ancient liberties, which have been established in this realm for a thousand years, and which have now been abused and usurped by inferior charlatans who have no competence to manage a soup kitchen, never mind one of the world’s greatest and most admired nations.”

            That’s all it would take. And then everything would change, despite the fact that the Queen has no actual political power.

            If she can’t do something of this nature, then she has my contempt, and she deserves it.

          • If we did not have kings we would have heads of state or presidents and they don’t seem much better do they?

            I thought your argument was that kings (and queens) were powerless, couldn’t even open their mouths, never mind do anything effective, therefore we actually do have ‘heads of state or presidents’ & that is where the power resides, because all the so-called ‘queen’ is at the end of the day is some fantasy granny for people to dream nice things about, as they’re being gang-raped by ‘Asian’ sex criminals, or having boiling water laced with sugar thrown in their faces.

          • Damned well said, Baron! I agree the Queen (we call her the halal Queen) SHOULD speak out, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

        • Isn’t it rather telling how Scots are much more open than the English are to the idea of the queen actually doing something useful here – something that would help get us out of the hole we’re in – instead of seeing her as their favourite ‘grannie’ or some such nonsense, & given an easy ride in life?

          • Baron, I kind of agree with LG here. I still think you’re too hard on the Queen. (I know I said ‘OK’ above, but I was not agreeing with everything).

            Baron said: She doesn’t have to “interfere” in the political process. All she has to do is call a BBC camera crew to Buckingham Palace, put her mouth close to the microphone, and state the simple truth … etc.

            Baron, that is *exactly* a *huge* interference in the political process in this context, by the Queen. Yes, in this arrangement, she does lose her normal ‘free speech’ rights. The problem is that any such thing done by her would in practice have huge political weight, as you admit yourself. That’s exactly what she is not allowed to do, constitutionally. One of her most important constitutional duties is biting her lip, and I mean that not just as a joke.

            You see Baron, here’s the problem: I’m not sure you’re seeing this through the ‘shoe on the other foot’ test. In a thought experiment, what if she ‘interfered’ by publicly making strong pronouncements contrary to what the democratic process had produced and you (as an Englishman) TOTALLY DISAGREED with what she was saying? Would you not call that an abuse of the ‘constitution’? If she did speak now in the way you want her to speak, many English people would be in the position you would be in the thought experiment I mention.

            Unfortunately, like free speech has to be pretty much absolute, non-interference by the Monarch has to be pretty much absolute.

            She *is* a Granny to the nation, Baron, and one who has a democratic duty to the nation to bite her lip. Don’t blame her for doing what the nation requires of her.

          • These are exceptional times that call for exceptional acts. She is watching her country and her people being systematically destroyed. No matter how isolated she is, she cannot be unaware of it. She’s not that stupid.

            At this point, I don’t think that the disagreement of some of her people outweighs the grave danger faced by her country.

          • Agree with the baron, I am an Englishman and I say a pox on the old traitour-most ture Brits below the age of 70 agree, she has done nothing for us and everything for herself, the one justification for a Consitutional Monarchy was precisely to avoid tyranny which the old witch has SINGULARLY failed to do, I am much more proud of our Cromwellian and Miltonian tradition (although some previous monarchs were also great men and women such as Alfred the Great) and despise those who lick the monarchies boots as they kick us in the face (by CONSTANTLY making public statements in favour of the multi-cult) Long live the British PEOPLE -Down with the traitorous establishment!

          • “She *is* a Granny to the nation, Baron …”

            No.
            She.
            Isn’t.

            How on earth can you believe such [material that I deprecate]? You sound like a Muslim defending his false prophet. Talk about idol worship,

            Again: The queen is a living sentient being, and therefore a moral agent. She is quite elderly and will one day soon be standing before her Creator. When that day comes she will have to answer for what she has done in this life – and just as importantly, what she has failed to do.

            She really ought to be more concerned with that event, which is on the near horizon, as she considers whether to say something about what is happening in the UK today, rather than worry about what the likes of Dynamic Dave might do to her, which will be nothing much, in the final analysis.

            I mean if you have to worry about standing before David Cameron to explain yourself … or standing before Almighty God to explain yourself … well, I know which scenario would be of greater concern to me.

    • I questioned it, too, at least at first. Why she’s just a nice little grandmother who has reigned longer than Victoria. But then again this nice little grandmother has permitted her country to be turned into a soviet state. When her citizens were promised a vote on the EU referendum and were betrayed, she just stood by in silence.

      Besides, that’s the whole point of this historical reference: it was the monarch who wanted to be rid of his ‘troublesome’ subject originally. So it wouldn’t make sense without her.

      The thing is, Mr. Cautious B-B, when creating a meme that you hope spreads in aid of your cause, you have to be somewhat accurate in your rendering.

      • Dymphna, as I understand it anyway, in the UK the tacit agreement has been for centuries that we pretend (and keep it formally) a monarchy, but that it is in all real power senses to be a democracy. Part of this, as I understand it, is that the monarch is not allowed to poke his/her nose into political affairs except with the approval of the democratic leaders. If it has ever happened that a monarch pushed heavily against a prime minister, I’d love to hear about it — I think it’s not supposed to happen and is considered to be verging on a constitutional abuse. If she ‘spoke out’ against immigration (which was the policy of the democratically elected government), while I would agree with what she would be saying, I would also have to agree that democracy (as understood) was not being observed. So, basically, as I understand it, her hands are tied.

        On the point of ‘accuracy’, you could *intend* the meme to be about political leadership only, and not require the connection to the king.

        • I totally agree with what you are saying. She is not allowed to interfere -for all who might agree with any such interference there are as many who would disagree. I think many Americans do not understand our laws and constitutions at all because they base them on their own ‘rights’ in the US. I personally think the Monarchy should keep well out of it (mouthing off about anything political) It’s not their business – it’s Our business.

          • And yet the problem is that the political system as it stands is not working, and the politicians who are supposed to represent us are betraying us.

            So it’s not exactly business as usual … and if the so-called queen can’t speak her mind when her own country is going down the tubes, when civilisation itself is about to go bye-bye, then we may as well cancel the Sovereign Grant altogether, because as someone else just said, what good is a so-called queen if she can’t put a check on the radical excesses of an out-of-control political elite? What are we paying for, exactly? Because I don’t need a third grannie, and I certainly don’t need an English/German/Transylvanian cultural ‘figurehead’.

            The so-called queen doesn’t have long to go on this earth, and she’ll soon be standing before her Creator, and she’ll have to account for her actions, and her inactions too.

            A criminal gang of treasonous ‘politicians’ have knowingly betrayed the good citizens of Britain by importing obsolete 7th century Islamic software (aboard ambulatory hardware, aka Muslims) then forced us to try to run it on our own Judeo-Christian operating system – a project that was bound to fail because Islamic software is incompatible with our own.

            Whenever anyone (such as TR) stands up and speaks out about the inevitable incompatibility issues, the state uses its power to visit harm upon them.

            The so-called queen will have to explain why she, as a sentient being and therefore a moral agent, not only did nothing but said nothing, about any of this.

            If the prospect of facing her Creator means less to her – and to you – than her having to stand up to the likes of the empty vessel that is David Cameron, then that is a sad state of affairs indeed.

          • Yes, Americans are usually going to try to apply their own cultural assumptions to things so I understand that frustration. And no, the monarch is not a pop star who can just say whatever. I realize that.

            I can’t really say what the monarch should do as I’m just trying to understand what’s going on and how things are supposed to work. From what I have read, the monarch does have a political role which is limited to resolving political crises when other means (not involving the monarch) have been exhausted. It sounds as though it would undermine confidence in the constitutional part of the constitutional monarchy if a monarch were to try to do anything before other means were exhausted.

            I do actually make an attempt to analyze British underlying assumptions and I do notice inconsistencies in assumptions vs reality or what people are saying. For example, there seems to be the assumption that all responsibility for security lies with the state because the traditional primary duty of the state is security of the subjects. Therefore, for example, a ban on private weapons is reasonable. After all, a traditional monarch would repel invaders, etc., so no need for everyone to necessarily be armed.

            Problem is that the opportunists to which power has been delegated by the monarchy aren’t exactly traditional monarchs and it seems rather unclear that they care about any traditional anything. So I really have to wonder if there is actually some sort of British assumption that the monarch will step in to prevent Britian from turning into Airstrip One if the opportunists manage to sufficiently manipulate the population into allowing it without any procedural crises occurring before that happens.

            So, instead of an armed insurrection, are British subjects expecting God to save the Queen and the Queen to save them or is there just some belief that “democracy” is so uncorruptible that Airstrip One will never happen?

        • So whats the bleeding point of her then!?!? (actually, if you research the history of the Constitional, as opposed to absolute monarchy, William of Orange the glorious revolution etc, you will see that it was precisely in order to INTERVENE to preserve British men and womens fundamental rights to freedom of speech/religion etc all of which dear old lizzy has entirely failed to do-yes it might involve some risk to precious old Queeny but we common muck are going to have to risk EVERYTHING soon to protect our culture, way of life and our childrens future, so a pox on all the Royalist bootlickers-long live the patriotic counter revolution, England for the English! (Scotland for the Scots etc etc)

      • Dymphna I also take offence at the implication Tommy is a ‘chav’. We tend to use this term for mainly out of work low lifes who breed like rabbits, who take everything they can from the benefit system, and are pretty thick to boot although we do sometimes reserve the word for dodgy sportsmen(footballers?) and their wives. I think something is getting lost in translation here but hey it is your site.

        • Tommy has often been referred to as a “chav” by those who consider themselves better than he is. Dymphna and I know what the word means, and we know why they use that against him — to dismiss him as an ignorant low-life.

          We have similar terms here in the USA: “redneck”, “cracker”, “trailer-park trash”, etc.

        • I suggest you spend the money and buy Tommy’s book so you can read it and see the numerous times he refers to himself as a chav. NO ONE is more aware than Tommy that the evil persecution he experiences at the hands of government is due to his class vulnerability.

          The class distinctions in England are just that – distinct and almost totally unbridgeable.

          Nothing was “lost in translation” at all. It may be your own lack of knowledge of English history and Tommy’s point of view on this subject, not what you perceive to be our “denigration” – a denigration that exists in your own understanding of what we’re about rather than what we’re actually doing with this.

          Surely you are most familiar with the famous saying, probably apocryphal but nonetheless well-known, i.e., “Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” – you know that one, yes? And if you know it, then surely you get the play on words here re Tommy’s tough situation??

          As for the snarky comment, “but hey it is your site” … Do you really think we’d host an on-going fund-raiser for Tommy and insult him while we’re at it? Srsly?

          You have commented on GoV at least 46 times previous to this – at least that’s how often our records show. Certainly by now you’re not as unknowledgeable about our comments section as you appear to be?? I’m utterly baffled by your words and your suspicion of our bad faith. It is a suspicion we do not deserve.

          Madam, in addition to reading Tommy’s book [available in the UK here: http://tommyrobinson.co.uk/%5D I suggest you bone up quickly on English history so you’ll know what monarchs have done eternally done to their ‘troublesome’ citizens – and none moreso than English monarchs:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket

          We are NOT picking on the British; we are recording events and putting our take on them. It’s Tommy and the Chavs (that would be a good name for a band) vs. the whole of government. If the noose tightens it could be your turn next…or have you not noticed the changes going down in the last thirty years?

          After reading Tommy the Chav’s book, I suggest you begin re-reading Shakespeare, particularly his History Plays. My personal favorite is Richard II, especially the lines:

          This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
          This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
          This other Eden, demi-paradise,
          This fortress built by Nature for herself
          Against infection and the hand of war,
          This happy breed of men, this little world,
          This precious stone set in the silver sea,
          Which serves it in the office of a wall
          Or as a moat defensive to a house,
          Against the envy of less happier lands,–
          This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

          Always careful of his own neck, clever William never put the monarchy in a bad light. Richard II came to his bad end in Shakespeare’s version because of his hubris…WS would *never* stick out his own neck during the troubled times in which he lived, times where one had to know when to jump to Henry’s Church (also Edward’s, briefly) and back to Mary’s bloody R.C. reign, only to jump to the next rock, i.e.,to Elizabeth’s rules. I may have forgotten a few…

          In those turbulent times, a man could write the magnificent Book of Common Prayer and still end up beheaded. As Thomas Cranmer’s life so sadly demonstrates, there are only so many political moves a man can made and still keep his head…even an Archbishop.

          IMO, you have maligned us, LG. You have ignored the Baron’s motive in building a meme that, should it spread, might help save Tommy. You have declared us to be anti-British. At least I presume that’s what you mean by ‘denigration’ – By the way, that’s not a word you can use here in the U.S. ‘Denigrate’ is racist: see the three letters there – i.e., ‘nig’? Use any word containing those three in consecutive order, and you’ll be called out for being anti-black. No, I’m not kidding. One govt worker in D.C. was fired for using the word “niggardly” –

          http://www.adversity.net/special/niggardly.htm

          • Dymphna, you and the Baron are brave soldiers and you’re making a real difference. Sometimes I wish I could help you relax a bit and let some of the prickles of internet comments just wash away, because you have better things to be doing than letting them get to you, and then escalating them a bit. You’re soldiers for the counterjihad! Much braver than I am. You take risks akin to fighting lions, then waste energy on beetles that I would myself shake off.

            Unfortunately, Dymphna and Baron, the Queen is a very emotional symbol with the British. There is probably really no equivalent for an American, but the flag might be the closest.

            I admire your attempt to get a meme working for Tommy. The tryptych effect at the top is cool, but with the Queen on the right, it really just won’t work in the UK. The reality is, my friends, that it won’t help Tommy much in the UK with the Queen on the right. Could you possibly find a third British person to replace the Queen? I have no idea who would be an appropriate fit.

          • I am not in charge of meme-generation ’round here, but I get your point. In fact, it was mine own last night when the meme was being made. I am well aware of the love many Brits have for Queen Elizabeth, no doubt including Tommy Robinson himself, thus I argued for putting no-longer-so-bonny ol’ Charles up there, he who has summarily decided he will be The Defenders of the Faith(s). The gall of the man!

            However, his action shows that indeed a monarch has some leeway on what my be said. The Queen is still the Defender of the Faith and as such has the authority to speak out. Queen Margrethe of Denmark finessed it easily in an address (and a book). She took on the blame, holding herself and her subjects accountable re immigration, saying “we have been lazy, not demanding enough from those we permit to come in”. Or words to that effect. Denmark then tightened up the “family reunification” scam and has seen less public strife as a result.

            That’s all it would take, in her speech: one small sentence. And it’s legal.

            No, we don’t have an equivalent position here in the U.S. When America was founded some wanted George Washington crowned after the long grueling slog against the British. But GW was adamant that he’d not fought so hard for freedom from a monarchy in order to create the evil of dynasties in this new country.

            Yes, we still see the regressive dynastic impulse – e.g., the Kennedy phenomenon, the Clintons’ plans for Hillary AND their grooming of Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea. [It is accepted in many quarters that Chelsea’s father is not Bill. Google it if you’re interested in her paternity. Before her plastic surgery, her visage was far more telling than it is now). For a look at what the Clinton family plans, see here:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders/424623/

            The Bush family did the same thing. Grandfather Prescott was a life-long pol, his son George H.W. Bush was prez 41, followed by GW, prez 43, and then the various machinations of up-and-coming Bush DNA, e.g.,

            http://www.bustle.com/articles/143190-whats-next-for-the-bush-family-the-political-dynasty-has-a-new-generation-waiting-in-the

            IMHO, dynasties have outlived their usefulness in much the same way that tribal affiliations are no longer helpful. It’s interesting to watch the class distinctions in Britain and ponder whether or not the deep chasms between classes arise from the existence of royalty and ‘noble’ families. Denmark doesn’t seem to have the nobility appendage beyond the royal family; maybe that’s a good thing? The practice of ennobling pop singers and such seems harmless enough.

            That said, I still believe in the idea of sovereign nations with their very long cultural histories. That’s why I think the EU is such a big mistake. Britain was going to be eradicated under the Lisbon Treaty; it would’ve been part of Region IX. One GOOD thing that came out of mass immigration is that nationalism – love of country – has come back in force. Tommy Robinson is a martyr for English nationalism.

            In another turn of the kaleidoscope we are seeing the bloody results of a world-wide refusal to grant the Kurds their own distinct boundaries. They are indeed a nation, a people; they lack only the land they need. When the Brits and French carved up the Middle East after WWI, that omission – no Kurdistan – proved to be deadly. The recent bombing in Turkey is a just one more marker of national Kurdish rage. [Of course, when the Kurdish state is finally formed out of whatever pieces of Turkey, Iran, and Iraq anyone is willing to give up, then those same Kurds will turn on one another. They’ve not had the chance to move forward so it will be bloody.]

            Anyway, my argument re Charles vs. Mum turned out to be right for those people very attached to their queen. I agree with them but I also think the Queen has been remiss in her total silence re the fissioning of her country. She would be well within permissible limits to remark in her address, as Denmark’s queen did, “we have been remiss”.

          • Well Dymphna I am surprised at this reply although you probably get as hot under the collar as I do. I have NOT maligned you as anti-British – just some of your commentators. As for ‘snarky comments’ re ‘it’s your site’ this was NOT snarky certainly not intended to be but just stating a fact, though you have for some reason taken it to be so – I mentioned it to someone the other day who had chosen to use a swear word on your site and said ‘it was your site’ so you have the final word. This was a statement. As far as the history of this country is concerned, I know as much as many and more than some. Almost all British schoolchildren were taught about Becket back when I was a child. I also know some Shakespeare having studied some of his works at University in London. You mention the word ‘denigrating’ which you have said I have used about you specifically – I have NOT but was referring to comments across sites generally- and believe me I have noticed this -the comments across sites. See my comment posted which is now further down although it was posted earlier. I have no idea what the word ‘denigrating’ comes from – only that it has been in use here in the UK for a long time and does not have any connotations of race here as far as I am aware – I thought it came from the root ‘deny’ it’s all getting too stupid and politically correct to the point where language is now being airbrushed or changed for any old reason. Re ‘niggardly’ surely this just means small ? as the other word has an e not an a before the r? I appreciate in the US that words have different meanings and people are more sensitive to this. You are right I have not yet read Tommy’s book -that doesn’t mean I won’t. I did not therefore know that Tommy calls himself a Chav – strange really as I understood the term originated in Chatham, Kent and Chav was short for Chatham and was mainly used by Travellers of themselves. Of course I could be wrong. I am glad Nick above thought his mum in her 70’s had earned the right to her opinion as I am in my 73rd year, but perhaps if I were a Queen in my 90th year I might not want to come out fighting but leave it to my people. Anyway good luck to you all. Here we continue to fight the good fight through working for the Referendum in June to Leave of course –this might help Tommy’s cause too.

    • I think the Queen “gets it.” But even a monarch is limited in her power when “social cohesion” and “community harmony” are bestowed with such elevated status as they are in the UK. In her last Christmas address (if I remember correctly) she spoke about the Christian character of Britain – something that hadn’t been mentioned for several years.

      But, the royals have never visited Israel, yet fawn over the Arabs (lowering the Union Jack on the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example). No doubt they are pressured and pulled in many directions, but Elizabeth II still has much influence on her Parliament. I hope she uses it more – and soon – to change the tide of enforced multiculturalism that is ruining her country.

      • My old Mum is in her seventies, and I tell her continually that she has earned the right to tell people exactly what she thinks, & if they don’t like it, that’s too bad.

        The queen has also earned that right. She’s getting on now, and she really oughtn’t to give two hoots about anyone or anything else. There’s nothing stopping her from speaking her mind, not really.

  10. To hear something to inspire us that there are some people speaking the truth please listen to Trunews 02/29/16 Dr Peter Hammond called ISLAM THE MILITARY ARM OF SATAN,a must listen.

  11. She may be in the middle of negotiations with the Saudis to sell Buckingham Palace and Saint James for a cash deal. That’s right now. Maybe later.

  12. I am very sad that the Baron has not left me the space to reply to his comment. Whatever happened to the principle of free speech? You may not like what I have to say about My Country and My Queen but it was a valid opinion. I was offended and am offended by people not living here and who do not understand that we try to abide by the Law until the time comes when it is no longer possible. We do not like anarchy here – we had a civil war remember? As there seems to be so much denigration now of the English perhaps I’d better not post again.

    • What are you talking about? You have all the space you want to reply to me!

      If you mean the fact that the “reply” button eventually quits appearing, that’s because replies may be nexted no more than five deep. But you can still respond — just use the “reply” button on the next level above. That’s what I do.

      • My apology then Baron I only saw there was no reply button. I do get hot under the collar about the ‘bashing’ of the Queen not because of what she is but what she represents to us the people of the country – she is a figurehead to represent our common history and our place on this patch of earth. Our roots if you like. I think a recent poll said 80% of the people here would keep the monarchy although not sure if that would be the case for Charles and William. We can’t all trace our ancestors back a thousand years – she sort of does it for us. We have had some dreadful monarchs in the past and occasionally they got their come-uppance from The People. It is not the Queen in Europe we need to worry about in spite of what the NWO folk would have us believe – it is the undemocratically elected EU. These are the people who are creating the horrible totalitarian federal state flooding us with aliens and with frightening brownshirt style police forces and dodgy new laws. Theresa May (conservative) pushed through Harriet Harman’s(Labour) law on hate crime – this was so insane it must have been deliberate to cause mayhem I still say we need to keep together for safety so we cannot be picked off one by one. Tommy Robinson is a brave man as is Geert Wilders and others but these are the guys who ‘go over the top’ on our behalf – the rest of us have to keep doing what we can do to change this horrible and frightening state of affairs in Europe.

        • I am English and personally I find it quite offensive the way you Royalists gone on as though the Queen was some beloved and cherished figure by the majority of, true, British people. In fact the majority are indifferent, the informed majority (especially the working class who have had to live with the [odiferous material] Lizzy didn’t bother using her consitutional powers to stop) are generally hostile and a small, but vocal minority of bootlickers carry on as though loving the useless Windsors were all there was to being British (not Dickens, Milton, Purcell, Tolkein, Rugby, football, village greens etc etc) YOU LOT are the real traitours who would sell your own people out through sheer snobbery and cowardice, when the time for action comes I GUARUNTEE none of you will be any where to be seen defending our land and people as lovely old ‘Queenie’ and the cultural ‘icons’ (read maggots) you have been taught to worship will be demonishing all of us as ‘white trash’ and ‘Nazi extremists’

          • I am not a ‘Royalist’ – but I believe you are right about the Queen being treated ‘ like some beloved and cherished creature’ – usually in the main stream press which is stupid. All that stuff about what they wear for example- just a red herring to ingratiate themselves. I don’t think the majority who voted in a poll for the monarchy to remain believe for a minute it is about her per se but about continuity,a ‘figurehead’ to represent our history for good or ill. Would you prefer a Juncker or a Merkel type lording over us? For what it’s worth I’m ‘working class’ (by birth) but hoped to be classless through education. I think you do not understand what I have been trying to say -did you read my 4.42 post?. I am not the traitor here quite the opposite – I feel a part of my history and the country of my birth, as my ancestors gave their blood and bones for this country. I don’t worship the Queen or the cultural icons you mention (but what are these?) but I do have some respect for the rule of law and for the sacrifices made by my ancestors until it is the time for us to fight (by Us I mean the old ones). Tommy Robinson is fighting now in the way that he can. Women of my age (70’s) fight how we can. At the moment that is trying to protect the younger ones from the jackboot of a totalitarian state. If it means using a pitchfork or my stick then so be it.

      • Baron, it seems that the software only allows a limited number of reply cycles, so I could not reply above to your point that exceptional circumstances require exceptional measures.

        Not in this case, not in the eyes of the UK constitution. In exceptionally important matters, the voice of the Parliament elevates in importance just as much as that of the Queen, and must still remain above her. This was true during WWII on matters of existential importance. These matters in question are also arguably of existential importance and the same principle applies.

        She’s not supposed to over-ride the determinations of Parliament, Baron. Ever. For whatever reason. That’s the UK constitutional view of the situation. You can disagree with it, but it is what it is, and she’s following it, as she sees it as her duty. She might not be doing the right thing as you see it, but she certainly is being principled as she sees it.

        • Cautious BB —

          Well, Parliament and the prime minister have already abrogated the Constitution (as have the president and Congress in this country), so I don’t think she is bound by any of that any longer.

          In any case, such matters must be put aside when the nation is in grave mortal danger. Which it is.

    • I don’t know how you get to ‘so much denigration of the English’ from someone saying that the Queen standing up and speaking about what is happening would be a game-changer.

      It would.

      And she should.

      One day, and it won’t be long now, she will have to stand before her Maker and give account for what she has done in her life. And what she has not done.

      • I did not say that there is so much denigration of the English lightly. Every single day I read the comments on sites like Breitbart-London, here on Gates of Vienna and others, many others, and it seems to me that as soon as someone can get a pop at the English they will. I for one will not be visited by the sins of my fathers etc etc and for your information we also get this subtle hatred of the English on our own MSM especially TV. It also seems to me that there is the Divide and Rule system going on here – our friends in the Minarets are especially good at this but perhaps it is Mr S pulling the strings? What could be better than for the Americans to turn against the British, the French against us too, European against European and what easier way than to do it through the internet? What easier way than to have a go at the Monarchy (and I’m not getting at you here Baron there are too many others doing it) On the threads the British and the English especially are constantly being accused of cowardice (amongst other negative traits). I think it might’ve been Rudyard Kipling who wrote a poem about the English being slow to rise but when their anger was hot their eyes grew cold and hard and determined. We do not need a Queen to fight our battles – we shall fight them. And I say again – good luck to you Tommy – you are the modern Wat Tyler -but you need a good barrister not an intervention by a monarch.

        • I was not having a go at the Monarchy; I was criticizing one particular monarch who has failed in her monarchical duty, which is to defend her nation and the Christian faith.

        • “We do not need a Queen to fight our battles – we shall fight them.”

          How’s that working out so far?

          • Do you want the UK to skip Democracy and revert to Monarchy then? That is what you and Baron are (partially) pushing for, but you do not realize it. Queenie pulls rank over parliament when she determines that it is important enough for her to do so.

          • If the Queen were to publicly state her opinion, she would be overturning Parliament? That doesn’t follow.

          • “Do you want the UK to skip Democracy and revert to Monarchy then? That is what you and Baron are (partially) pushing for, but you do not realize it. ”

            See Baron’s response.

            “Queenie pulls rank over parliament when she determines that it is important enough for her to do so.”

            Kind of the point, eh.

          • Well in that case everyone ought to start heading out to the hardware store to buy pitchforks assuming they’re still legal.

        • I’ll tell you what, this [material I deprecate] that you’re coming away with is only going to encourage people to ‘have a pop’ at the English. What [material I deprecate], really. Have you heard yourself? Oh dearie me, the old ‘Queenie’ isn’t allowed to say anything about her country going to hell in a handbasket … the good old Queen is like everyone’s grannie, and we shouldn’t expect them to get involved in politics now, should we, really …

          WHAT [material I deprecate]!

          If somebody – anybody – who is a position of power and is also untouchable btw – sees what is happening to Tommy Robinson in particular and to our country in general, and as a sentient being and therefore a moral agent, makes the conscious choice to do SFA about it, and to say nothing about it either, then the Baron is quite right.

          As for the likes of you saying that someone in that position mustn’t say anything about what is happening to our country, because oh dearie me, that just wouldn’t be cricket … well that is just pathetic.

          If your queen can’t do something useful under these circumstances, then what good is she? I mean, what is her function? To sit around and pretend to be everyone’s granny?

          Get a grip FFS!

    • “We try to abide by the law until the time comes when that is no longer possible. We do not like anarchy here–we had a civil war, remember?”
      As Americans would say, ‘are you for real?’
      You seem to be saying England is law-abiding; I wonder if Tommy Robinson thinks that?
      Last year my wife and I cancelled a trip to your ‘law abiding land’ because the English bobby is no longer to be trusted in the event one inadvertently ‘offends’ one of your beloved moslems–they invariably take the moslem’s side.

      You have how many ‘no go’ areas in England now, areas that used to be part of England, that you paid for, but have now been taken over by the trash! Is that legal and law-abiding?

      Seems to me you need another civil war to get rid of the rabble. BTW, the late Princess Diana was reported to have said of her broken marriage:
      “That’s what I get for marrying into that German family”, or words to that effect.

  13. First, I notice gratefully for Tommy, that Tommy Robinson has reached his first goal for proper defense funds, and is on his way to his second goal, future defense needs, BOTH ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL IN THIS WORLD. What a wonderful piece of news, THAT SO MANY ARE INTERESTED IN TOMMY’S WELLBEING, AND IN THEIR OWN THUSLY, AS WELL, IN LIBERTY, AND ALL ITS ASSOCIATED PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM.

    In order to inject a note of historical perspective on Britain’s finest moments, into this thread, I CAN REMEMBER A TIME, IN THE GRANDNESS, THE GREATNESS THAT ONCE WAS BRITON, when such special productions of Briton, special citizens, held UNCOMMON WISDOM, AND WERE ARTICULATE AND DISCIPLINED ENOUGH TO EXPRESS IT FOR ALL PUBLIC to understand, uncommon displays of Johnny Bull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bull) with leadership, such as:

    When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in August 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill chose the hymns. He chose “Onward, Christian Soldiers” and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:[7]

    We sang “Onward, Christian Soldiers” indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men OF THE SAME LANGUAGE, OF THE SAME FAITH, OF THE SAME FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, OF THE SAME IDEALS … it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, OF SAVING THE WORLD FROM MEASURELESS DEGRADATION. — Winston Churchill

    A grand portrait as ‘homage’ to that grand special ‘Iron Lady’, Margaret Thatcher, of Britain, who proudly held Liberty’s torch, also, as had Churchill, among Britain’s finest of history. Among her best observations are in this skilled portrait, by Bosch a great homage paid by this former muslim, a rare man, a great skill……

    Among Thatcher’s illustrated quotes,(http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/185129/thatcher-bosch-fawstin): ‘I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end, good will triumph’; ‘You cannot lead from the crowd’; ‘Defeat? I do not recognise the meaning of the word!; ‘Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, you get knocked down by traffic on both sides!’; ‘You don’t win by just being against things, you only win by being for things, and making your message perfectly clear!; ‘Europe will never be like America. Europe is a product of history. America is a product of PHILOSOPHY!’

    (I say: “America is a product of God given, “NATURAL”, learned, ideals and principles, the noblest, “APPLIED”, AS A “REPUBLIC” form of Democracy!)

    Some of Bosch Fawstin’s favorite quotes, (also mine, yours) here:
    “IF LIBERTY MEANS ANYTHING AT ALL IT MEANS THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR.” -George Orwell
    “He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” -Thomas Paine
    “BAD IDEAS MUST BE FOUGHT AT THEIR ORIGINS – AND AT EVERY MOMENT THEREAFTER.” -Heather McDonald
    “Muslims are the first victims of Islam…….To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him.” -Ernest Renan
    “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” -P.C. Hodgell
    “To fear to face an issue is to believe that the worst is true.” -Ayn Rand

    Where and when will their replacements be making heroic returns?

    • Missing the source of the Winston Churchill quote, it is this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onward,_Christian_Soldiers

      Recall, the source of the Hymn, is worthy to remind all, as written in mid 1800’s not as a Battle Hymn of the Republic, but rather as a processional hymn, for children at worship services, in an English Church, and even originally had a different more descriptive name, (“Hymn for Procession with Cross and Banners.”) and was actually merely in reference to Biblical quotes (II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.”) relating to how Christians had to be aware, life would not be a bed of flowers as a Christian, but required the strength, the fortitude, the resilience, of soldiers, as an alliteration, amply illustrated many ways in the Bible, and with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, 3 days later!

      Popularly, with a public that is highly lazy, and low information, and unwilling to research and learn, it is thusly incorrectly, in a sick politically correct globe, assumed to be a Crusade or war song, in which this piece puts truth to the lazy power of deceitful evil, of the sucker’s of the pc crowd!

    • “The prime minister brilliantly stage-managed his part of the Placentia meeting, himself choosing hymns for the Sunday church service beneath the huge guns of Prince of Wales, before a pulpit draped with the flags of the two nations—‘ Onward Christian Soldiers’, ‘O God Our Help in Ages Past’ and ‘Eternal Father Strong to Save’. Scarcely a man present went unmoved. ‘ My God, this is history! ’ muttered a fellow clerk ‘in a hushed, awed voice’ to Corporal Geoffrey Green.”

      (Max Hastings, Finest Years, Kindle Loc. 3282)

      Interestingly, Harry Hopkins had joined WSC at Scapa Flow as he was about to set off across the Atlantic. Hopkins had been in Moscow, where he had engaged with the Soviets and promised to help them fight the Germans etc. So during the war, Harry Hopkins met Stalin before Winston Churchill met Roosevelt.

    • “On Sunday morning, August 10, Mr. Roosevelt came aboard H.M.S. Prince of Wales and, with his Staff officers and several hundred representatives of all ranks of the United States Navy and Marines, attended Divine Service on the quarterdeck. This service was felt by us all to be a deeply moving expression of the unity of faith of our two peoples, and none who took part in it will forget the spectacle presented that sunlit morning on the crowded quarterdeck – the symbolism of the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes draped side by side on the pulpit; the American and British chaplains sharing in the reading of prayers; the highest naval, military, and air officers of Britain and the United States grouped in one body behind the President and me; the close-packed ranks of British and American sailors, completely inter-mingled, sharing the same books and joining fervently together in the prayers and hymns familiar to both.

      I chose the hymns myself – “For Those in Peril on the Sea” and “Onward, Christian Soldiers”. We ended with “O God, Our Help in Ages Past”, which Macaulay reminds us the Ironsides had chanted as they bore John Hampden’s body to the grave. Every word seemed to stir the heart. It was a great hour to live. Nearly half those who sang were soon to die.”

      (Winston Churchill, The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 345.)

      • Isn’t it interesting to consider the Atlantic Charter, which apparently listed the principles for which we were fighting:

        “The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

        First, their countries seek no aggrandisement, territorial or other.
        Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.
        Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

        (WSC, The Grand Alliance, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 352.)

        Could it not be said that Tommy Robinson has been forcibly deprived of his sovereign rights, namely his right to freedom of speech, and his right to live his life in freedom from fear and want (See Article 6 of the Atlantic Charter)?

        Was this what our grandfathers fought for in WW2?

        No it certainly was not!

    • I like the way that wiki can select out for just the UK. It says,

      United Kingdom

      In the UK, the Monarch has numerous theoretical personal prerogatives. In practice however, except for the appointment of a prime minister there are few circumstances in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. The full extent of the Sovereign’s prerogatives has never been fully disclosed; however in 2004 the Government made public the following prerogatives:

      [emphasis in original].

      What is intriguing to me is the passage The full extent of the Sovereign’s prerogatives has never been fully disclosed…

      I am amazed that such an issue has not been nailed down in all this time.

      The examples on that wiki of not-so-long-ago history are most intriguing. Thanks for the link.

      And notice that it’s up for edit, so I think they expect people to start re-writing the section,.

    • It’s quite right; there’s nothing wrong with it.

      The UK does not have a written constitution, so the full extent of the Monarch’s powers ( or limits on those powers) is not clearly set out in a single document.

      The list of powers noted at the link you’ve provided comes from a document issued by the UK government to provide guidance for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on issues for which the consent of the Queen or the Prince of Wales is required.

      The document is available in PDF format at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/queens-or-princes-consent

      The Queen and the Prince of Wales have power to veto certain bills (which affect them ‘personally’), and this power clearly gives them a chance to affect / control the content of certain bills before they reach Parliament (or perhaps to determine whether a bill ever actually reaches Parliament).

Comments are closed.