Last weekend the post that included the above graphic (and very little else) caused a series of arguments here that went on for several days. A number of people took exception to the inclusion of the Queen in that rogues’ gallery. With the trial of Tommy Robinson looming, and numerous other matters occupying my attention, I didn’t have time to get back to the issue until now.
The important question is this: What legitimate constitutional obligation, if any, does Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II have in these matters? Is she required to rectify to the best of her ability the manifold legal injustices that are currently oppressing her subjects?
When I lived in England back in the 1960s — when there was still somewhat of a swashbuckling free-for-all in the media concerning political matters — the Queen was fair game, like everything else. Evidently things have changed in the decades since.
Before we argue any further about all this, let’s have a look at the coronation oath taken by Queen Elizabeth II in Westminster Abbey on June 2, 1953:
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
Regardless of what one’s opinion of these matters may be, Queen Elizabeth is in clear violation of her Coronation Oath — she has allowed to occur during her reign those things which she solemnly swore to prevent.
Even if she is only a figurehead, and may do nothing to alter the course of political events, Her Majesty could surely speak out against the failure of “Law and Justice, in Mercy” in the Realm. She is not obliged to remain silent. In fact, given the content of her oath, a case could be made that she is constitutionally required to speak out.
One might adduce any number of reasons for the Queen’s silence. Perhaps she never pays attention to the news, and has no idea what is going on.
Or maybe that silly old oath given more than sixty years ago was something that she never meant, just a form to be gotten through, words without meaning to be recited by rote.
Or perhaps she has succumbed to post-modern madness and has deconstructed the text of her oath, so that all meaning has been removed from it.
Or maybe it’s as simple as this: “That was then. This is now.”
Once upon a time a man’s word was his bond. To shake hands on a promise and then renege was considered a deep violation of his honor. And to break a solemn oath taken with one’s hand upon a Bible was the deepest violation of all — a violation of the sacred.
Maybe it’s different for women. Maybe a woman doesn’t feel the tug of honor the way a man does.
However, if words have any meaning, then the Queen is an oath-breaker.
It could be that she doesn’t believe in an Almighty before whom she must soon stand to answer for her actions in this life, for sins known and unknown, deeds done and left undone.
If she does, she should be breaking out into a cold sweat right about now.