Oath? What Oath? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Oath!

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.

69 thoughts on “Oath? What Oath? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Oath!

  1. Be prepared, Baron: the wroth of the English re anyone’s denigration of the longest-serving monarch on that green isle will be great indeed.

    But you’re wrong on one point, sir: a woman’s oath is every bit as sacred as a man’s. So are her vows. [Which is what makes divorce, though sometimes utterly necessary, so very wrong. Just ask the children of divorce, they’ll tell you…]

    I feel sorry for the Queen. She took that oath when times were ‘normal’. In her old age, the times have changed so much that her son has the gall to announce he will be known as “Defender of Faith(s)”. Let’s see him work that bit into this section —

    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?

    Maybe he could have Mum amend it before she passes on. It could say, perhaps,

    Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law along with Islam in all its varieties? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, along with whatever mosques are established for our Muslim citizens and maybe the odd synagogue or two and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England plus whatever fatwahs and a sura or two to keep our Muslim citizens happy?

    Yeah, I know the Bonny-Charlie-oath will require some further amendments to make it fully diverse; I haven’t even dealt with the transgendered and their needs. But by the time we get to William’s reign the Saudis will be in charge anyway so genderism will be moot. And since those Princes are Sunni the blood will flow even more than what that Enoch Powell fellow ever predicted.

    Perhaps by then we’ll have a Clinton dynasty in place here in the US and the Chinese will be in charge…

    • It is hard to believe that the two of you live in the same house sometimes, given your replies to the Baron. I’m sure some of it is meant to be read by your readers but sometimes some of it seems like it should have been a chat beside the stove.

      The Baron is absolutely correct to bring up the oath that QE took. And to point out that she has broken it. I’m sure there will be a lot of Britons who react bravely to scold the post, but who are cowering from the combined force of their government and their Muslim population. There will also be many who agree, and some who strive to explain the things we can’t understand without living there. The number who will actually do anything to change matters is the fewest still: Tommy, Kev, Nigel Farage are all exceptions to the rule.

      To be a brave leader of the free in England: “Follow me men…men? I could swear there were some men here a while ago…where did they all go?”

      • Oh dear.

        Rick, when I see this:

        It is hard to believe that the two of you live in the same house sometimes, given your replies to the Baron. I’m sure some of it is meant to be read by your readers but sometimes some of it seems like it should have been a chat beside the stove.

        I realize how difficult it is to convey tone in a blog comment, but I assure you we’ve had this conversation about the monarchy many times, even while standing at the stove…Or driving somewhere…Or working in the garden…Or eating supper…

        Thus, I opened my response to the B with a tongue-in-cheek remark and then expanded my own point of view on this subject, a p.o.v. he’s heard many times…I *was* surprised about his feeling that women don’t take the subject of oaths as seriously as men do. We agreed to disagree on this one: women’s ‘oaths’ are often of a different order than men’s (unless they serve in the military).

        We don’t have a TV, don’t listen to radio, and except for church, community stuff and such, guess what?? Y’all are it. We spend a lot of time talking to all of y’all but not before we’ve pretty much run the subject into the ground between the two of us. Like many of you have mentioned, we’ve also experienced estrangement from others – friends and family members – for our political and cultural views. But we put them right out here in front of God and everybody…and we’ve been saddened to see friendships vanish – or more slowly evaporate.

        Anyway, I have no argument with the Baron’s position on this subject; I thought that was obvious. I only put in the teasing proviso about blow-back to short circuit some of the more predictable ireful remarks re Americans daring to talk about a monarchy, a thing which we have not got (<- There. See that clause? It's a reference to a WWI [English] poem that the Baron is sure to see and will laugh when he does. We spend a lot of time here talking to y'all so that kind of thing happens).

        It's unfortunate you find my "conversation" with the B offensive. Or whatever.
        BTW, you forgot to mention Paul Weston in your list about change (but thanks for the mention of Kev – man, I'll bet that's one happy cousin!). Paul and Tommy, iirc, are collaborating on PEGIDA. Which reminds me: surely the next PEGIDA march will give us some indication of how the wind's blowing post-court date?

        • “It’s unfortunate you find my “conversation” with the B offensive. Or whatever.”

          Oh no! Not offensive at all. I was just wondering if you put this out there for us, or talk first. You both inspire me, inform me, and some times scold me. I guess it’s not that hard to believe you live in the same house after a bit of thought.

          Paul Weston was a little late to step up, and it only happened after a bit of scolding on him. I’ve read Tommy up through chapter 12. That’s all the way through the chapter, “We Need To Talk About Kevin Caroll.” I should have such a cousin.

          I thought I was full of piss and vinegar, and I reckon I’m more than half Scots-Irish within the last three or four generations. You beat me. And I also have 3 or 4 TV’s in a single man’s house. I know how to avoid having the screens brain wash me, but NOT having a TV should not be a virtue. Superbowl anybody? Treasure of The Sierra Madre on a 60″ screen? Don’t be afraid of the TV. You can be its boss.

    • I think phrases like ‘to the utmost of your power’ are merely formal. As other commenters have mentioned, the Queen has very little actual power in the modern age; perhaps a disapproving frown at the serving Prime Minister is about the size of it, and only then if the PM cares what she thinks.

      So I think including the Queen in the rogue’s gallery, is maybe a little unfair.

      Unless we want absolute monarchy again?

      Certainly I wouldn’t want HRH Charles, Prince of Wales as an absolute monarch. He probably *would* install one of his chums from the Saudi royal family as Duke of Lutonistan.

  2. Hello Baron,

    I’m not British, but since I was one of the main defenders of the Queen in the comments of the post you mention, I’ll restate my position as I understand it. I don’t claim to be an expert in British constitutional law, I’m just stating things as I understand them and am willing to be corrected by someone with more expertise.

    BTW, the British ‘constitution’ is not written like the American one. There is consensus on what it is.

    The British constitution contains, essentially, a sort of charade or pretense. The pretense is this: Britain remains formally a monarchy. In practice, and in all power senses, it is to be a democracy. The Queen has a really big platform in practice, and she is NOT to use it in a manner inconsistent with democracy, or in a way which pushes against democracy.

    For the Queen to strongly speak out against the democratic determinations of parliament, is seen constitutionally as a political interference by her in the democratic process. Baron, in some of our discussions, you said that she should make an exception for matters of extreme importance, especially of existential importance. I maintain that the constitutional position is that this is wrong–in matters of great importance, the opinion of parliament elevates in importance just as much as that of the Queen, and she has to remain below it.

    Points have been made that she addresses the nation every year, and could state her counter-parliament opinions then. That is one of the most important times for her to keep her counter-parliament opinions to herself. My understanding is that these addresses are jointly arrived at, and her speech gets government vetting and approval to make sure that she is not interfering with the democratic process.

    Comparisons have been made to Queens of other countries in Europe, Denmark I think, ‘speaking out’. I am not sure that they actually ‘spoke out’ against their parliament, but in any case, that is their country with their constitutional rules, and they are not necessarily the same as England’s.

    As regards, is she breaking her oath? Well, it depends on how you see things. Recall that the constitution is in a sense a pretense. The oath requires her to ‘govern’. She does not govern, period, that is a pretense. If, between the lines, you insert what you believe to be implicity, ‘govern within constutional limits’, then she is keeping her oath.

    I’m not defending the constitution of the UK. I’m defending the Queen of the UK. As she sees it, and understands it, her constitutional duty is to bite her lip when parliament is going in a direction she disagrees with. To speak out against the determinations of parliament is a violation (by her) of the principles of democracy. Yes, this does mean that she does not have ‘free speech’ any more, not on matters which go against parliament. Her ‘free speech’ goes away with the pretense system, and by virtue of the strong and powerful platform which she has.

    What we have here, Baron, I believe, is a highly principled woman who is following principles that you do not agree with. While you will probably never agree with those principles, you may be able to recognize that they are her principles. As an American, blame the constitutional monarchy of the UK for this situation. But don’t blame the Queen. It is very ironic that an American is blaming her for reigning in her monarchical powers and letting democracy run its course.

    • I concur with your precis on the British constitution and the queen’s role and responsibilities, and for this very reason the English should abolish the monarch completely. The monarchy is a red herring that distracts from the true destiny of representative democracy. How many Brits have semi-consciously assumed the idea that, “Well, since the Queen doesn’t speak out against these matters, things mustn’t be so bad.” Even with the monarch gone, there is still a ton of tradition and glory to go around.

      • ANY competing moral or political authority is healthy so there’s little to be said for abolishing the monarchy, especially in view of the, to be kind, unbearable nothingness of Blair and Cameron who made conspiracy against white Britons their signature tune. Oh, yes. Away with the Queen, however useless she’s proven to be. Hors de combat with knobs on.

        Elizabeth could convey her views to select spokesmen who could weigh in publicly on her behalf. She could provide them with visible support to enhance their prestige. She could sponsor “seminars” on shariah law and the status of women, slaves, and infidels thereunder. Also, she could highlight in this manner the odd inconsistency of vigilante killing, FGM, shariah patrols, welfare parasitism, and Wahabbi doctrines with British values.

        Or she could just come right out and say that Islam has no place in the West, that a constitutional crisis has arisen, and white Britons need to rise up and undo decades of Immigration and political treachery with the aid of all loyal men at arms.

        Britain is about to be lost to Islamic subversion and political class treachery. Is this a true statement or not?

    • It is not the Queen who is breaking her oath. It is her servants in political and public office who are putting her in violation of her oath. By aiding and abetting the Islamisation of the United Kingdom, they (and not the Queen) are participating in statutory and common law crimes of treason, treason felony, and seditious misconduct in public office.

      • ALL of them are breaking their oaths. The Queen and everyone else who put their hand on a Bible.

        • There is a distinction Baron. The Queen has a “consititutional duty” to keep her mouth shut on this matter — the others don’t. Most of the others are keeping their mouths shut for careerist reasons.

          Again, Baron, you may not agree with this constitution. And I’m not defending it. But given what it is, the Queen is keeping it. And if we interpret her oath as having an implicit coda “within constitutional limits”, then she’s keeping her oath too. In fact, it goes further–if you interpret the oath as having an implicit coda “according to the constitution” then she would be BREAKING her oath if she did what you want her, which is to speak out against the democratic determinations of parliament.

          • When the democratic functions as expressed in Parliament have failed — as they manifestly have — then the country is in a state of emergency, and the customary rules and procedures no longer apply.

            Queen Elizabeth is witnessing the destruction of her Realm. It is the complete defeat and occupation of Britain by enemy aliens. Under those circumstances, is Her Majesty still obliged to go through all the customary motions and constitutionally-prescribed niceties, even as her nation is destroyed around her?

            I think not. In fact, I believe her oath requires her to take extraordinary action in defense of the Realm, whatever action might prevent the looming disaster.

            Otherwise, to paraphrase Mr. Bumble, “The constitution is a ass — a idiot.”

        • Here’s a thought experiment for you Baron. Think this one through.

          Suppose you were reigning king of England just before the outbreak of WW2. Suppose you BELIEVED that England had no chance against Nazi Germany and was doomed to destruction if it did not reach an accommodation with Hitler.

          The first observation here is that that position was not at all unreasonable at the time–Hitler eventually made big mistakes which could not have been predicted, such as opening up a second front in Russia, and it was unknown that the US would come to the aid of Britain. But the rightness or wrongness of the idea is not the issue. The important thing is that you BELIEVE exactly what I said you believe, namely that England has no chance against Nazi Germany and is doomed to destruction if it does not reach an accommodation with Hitler.

          Now, Baron–do you follow you constitutional duty to the democracy of the UK and keep you mouth shut, in the face of what you fear may be the destruction of your country? Or do you breach the constitution and use your Monarchical weight to push your views strongly against the democratically determined ones?

          Please give a well-thought-out and honest answer to this thought experiment question. I think it will be revealing.

          • I don’t think your example is applicable, since it involves the monarch’s taking action based on an anticipated and predicted course of future events, rather than acting to amerliorate horrific conditions in the present.

            What I am describing is not the future — it is taking place NOW. The United Kingdom is in the process of being destroyed. In fact, it may be too late — it may be impossible for the Queen or anyone else to turn this juggernaut aside. This may be the end of the Kingdom that has lasted for more than a thousand years, since the reign of Alfred the Great. Britain will shortly become a lawless nightmare, divided up into sharia-ruled stans interspersed with relatively civilized pockets of white people who pretend that things are normal whilst going about their increasingly circumscribed and impoverished daily business, and being preyed upon more and more by the feral Muslims at the edges of their zones.

            I’ll repeat what I have said countless times before: Her Majesty the Queen is not required to sit idly by, keeping her mouth shut and deferring to her treasonous ministers, while her kingdom is being destroyed around her.

            Her oath is between herself and God — not the ministers or the constitution or the BBC. She did not lay her hand on the Bible and take a solemn oath to let her ministers defend the country; she vowed to do it herself.

            Time is short. The moment for honoring her oath has arrived.

          • Your thought experiment is not applicable. It has several serious disanalogies.

            More applicable would be something such as; If the Nazis had launched Operation Sealion and had been assisted by traitorous British politicians, and were now in the process of taking control of Britain.

            Establishing concentation camps along the lines of Dachau, throwing British citizens who had spoken against the Nazis in the past into those camps & generally implementing their policy of Gleichschaltung here in Britain as they had in Germany.

            So rather than try to construct a thought experiment based on the situation a monarch might find themselves in given the possibilty of some day in the future, just maybe, you never know, having to deal with an ‘invasion scenario’ it would be more accurate to set one up that has a monarch in the position where the invasion has happened and is now well under way.

            Your thought experiment doesn’t work.

    • Now I get it : British royalty is a toothless-lion symbol with only a ceremonial function that has nothing to do with the cultural, religious or political well-being of Britain. Constitutionally speaking they are not supposed to voice any uncensored opinion even when their entire Domain’s citizens (esp. children) are being raped upside-down, skewered, quartered with Arab-owned Ferraris or dunked in pens to be torn apart by satanic cultists.

      What then is the point of maintaining their existence to the tune of $millions just in designer underwear alone ? As if their presence is required anymore for rubber-stamping any amendments when the law-makers themselves regard tradition as expedient in the face of Arabian Realpolitik .

      • “Now I get it : British royalty is a toothless-lion symbol with only a ceremonial function that has nothing to do with the cultural, religious or political well-being of Britain.”

        Yes and no. To the extent that her Majesty’s opinions are expected to be other than a ‘toothless lion’, then Yes, you are right.

        It comes down then to whether you see the ‘symbol’ in itself as having value or not, with her Majesty’s opinion taken out.

        BTW, the monarchy is HUGELY revenue-positive for the UK, due to its tourist value. So be fair to it and don’t look on it as a taxpayer expense, because it is not.

        • The Sovereign Grant has been cancelled, has it?

          I don’t need to pay 37.5 mill each year to have a pretend Transylvanian grannie, pal.

          And if any British business can’t operate without said Transylvanian grannie, they don’t deserve to keep their doors open.

          As the Baron has indicated, the queen is quite elderly and will soon be standing before her Maker, & she will have to answer for what she has done in this life (make the oath cited by the Baron, for example) and for what she has not done in this life (honour it).

          I put it to you that she ought to be more concerned with that scenario, which given her age is on the near horizon, rather than the non-existent penalties that will never be imposed upon her by the likes of the ridiculous David ‘Hypocrite’ Cameron.

  3. She may have long reigned over us, but her reign has seen the church diminish to a shadow while overseeing the mass migration of moslems into the UK. So much for confounding knavish tricks.
    The Rotherham scandal should have prompted some sort of demand from her to protect the children if nothing else.
    As a former royalist, I feel it’s long past the time for that family to be given the boot. Keep the ceremonial traditions with the parades, changing of the guard, but stop the farce of the royals who care nothing for defending the traditions of the British people nor even the people themselves.
    She has ruled over a church where the previous number one bishop was inducted as a druid while being in the number one position and the number two guy is a bongo playing African rather than an English bishop.
    Political correctness rather than tradition rules currently and I see no interest from the royals in changing this.

    • “Bongo playing African”, Daniel? He’s a member of the wordwide Anglican communion; I hold no brief for them, but if I understand their founder (ie, Jesus) correctly, he’d have had no truck with your sneering racism.

      • Who is the prelate in question, Mark? I don’t keep up anymore. As far as African Anglicans go, they now send missionaries to the U.S., seeing us as in bad need of missionary work. I think they are confined mostly to the environs of Washington D.C.

        • Dr John Sentamu, Ugandan-born Archbishop of York, ie second-in-command to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

          I don’t agree with all of his opinions, but this is beside the point; DanielK’s comment seems to me a snide, racially motivated slur, which I believe Jesus would have deprecated (to put it mildly).

          • Thanks for the information, Mark. Our small church belongs, kinda sorta, to the Diocese of Southern Virginia. In turn the diocese is part of the larger national Episcopal Church of the United States of America – aka ECUSA. I *think* ECUSA is part of the global body of the Episcopal/Anglican Union which answers in some way to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

            We really are a tiny minority of a southern American diocese whose main focus is on the large urban congregations. In Southern Virginia, that means the churches well to the east of us. The city slickers don’t think much about the small rural outposts, though they do cater to the historically black congregations. The diocese is/was devoted to racism workshops, but they never ever touch the overly-sensitive, somewhat suspicous black parishes. Those folks do NOT want to integrate in any way: no white Episcopalians except as visitors, thankyouverymuch. In ECUSA, blacks even have their own hymnal and white parishes are encouraged to use it also.

            Lift Every Voice and Sing II Pew Edition: An African American Hymnal

            I like some of the Holy Week spirituals and some of the Christmas hymns. But the old AME black churches (when you see a church sign with “AME” or American Methodist-Episcopalian you know you’ve happened upon a place that goes back to Emancipation days, before the Baptist conventions took over much of the black population), which are not part of ECUSA, have their own hymnal…somehow that seems more foundational and kosher than the 1993 book ECUSA put out so we could get with the program. We’re stuck in “let’s see who’s more sensitive” games…

            I will look up Dr. John and get back to you. I bet I’ll figure out which of his opinions you don’t like 😉

  4. Quote:

    “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.”


    “…brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop

    The above quotes trigger questions from one who is asking from the other side of the great pond, here in the US.

    1. Does the Queen of England reaffirm said oath during her reign?
    2. Not sure when or how frequently such oaths are made/reaffirmed. My recollection of the bewhiskered recent Arch-bishop Rowan Williams reflects one very influential man of the cloth up in UK heirarchy was hardly loyal to such oaths as well, given this BBC report as well as others suggesting: The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”. How loyal can one be under circumstances when even the Church of England proposes ‘no contest’?!

  5. There is the cop-out: “to the utmost of your power”. Nothing in this ‘oath’ is an absolute, everything is relativized.

    • Exactly. I’m glad you spotted that. And this is equivalent to what I called the ‘implicit coda’ above, which can also be read as ‘and according to the constitution of the United Kingdom’.

  6. I think everyone should consider one ramification, in particular, of the queen potentially breaking precedent and speaking out now or at any time on any given issue.

    Elizabeth will be 90 soon, and her son, Charles will, at some point, succeed her. Charles is already outspoken on many things, green issues amongst them. But more troublingly, he seems to have a strong attraction to the RoP. He has also said that he does not wish to be Defender of the Faith, but a watered down version, a “defender of all faiths”.

    I’m just speculating, but it may well be that HMQ keeps quiet in the hope that her successor will carry on in the same tradition.

    • There is no certainty regarding Charles being successor to the throne. I don’t think Elizabeth favours him.
      There are many who are Loyalists, but that is contingent on the subjects feeling that the ruling Monarch fulfills his or her duties to them. It is a covenant.

  7. Her oath was meaningless back then. The British empire had first been reduced to 2nd tier status after WW1 then eliminated following WW2 . It’s sort of like the high school jock returning to his 40th high school reunion; he likes to talk about how things used to be and how they should be now, but no longer influences the sport. It wouldn’t make a hill of beans if she took a conservative position now anyhow; she watched this mess crumble for decades and did what?

    • “She did what? ” She signed every single document that ceded power from Parliament to the EU up to and including Lisbon. Clearly the opposite of any form of protection for her citizens.

  8. The monarch’s power to rule is exercised by her ministers. There is nothing she can do about perceived injustices. If she speaks in public, she not only tries to remain above party politics, she avoids matters that are properly the concern of elected politicians.

    Prince Charles is different, and speaks out on many issues (but less so nowadays than he used to). When it was discovered that he had wanted a referendum on the Channel Tunnel because it would end our status as an island nation, most people thought he had gone mad. In fact, he was more far-sighted than we could imagine.

    • The Tunnel is a convenience; it commits us to nothing, and could be easily blocked in time of war.

  9. Her Maj pledged to serve her country but she has consistently served her treacherous ministers instead. I wondered sometimes how she didn’t choke on the words of her speech at the opening of Parliament. Much has been made of the fact that she is constitutionally forbidden to make political statements or interventions, but that is not actually true. The Kings of England were politically active not long ago and furthermore, by playing her part, the Queen confers legitimacy on criminals such as Blair & Cameron. She could and should have spoken out on behalf of the British people.

    The underlying problem is that the famous unwritten constitution is not worth the paper it isn’t written on.

  10. It is plain and clear, she is in dereliction of her solemn oath, to speak and act.

    However, I constantly wonder, what the distant relationship to a muslim in the family plays as a role, in their behavior. Is the whole royal family lazy dolts, spoiled brats, low IQ or what. Does anyone have a clue on that issue? How can the whole of the governing regime seem to be so similarly massive losers, by obvious evidence of behavior, to the islam knowledgeable portion of the globe.

    If any of them read and studied merely these simple entries, they could if spinally equipped, know the requirement to physically resist and prepare to fight to the death, the worthless evil patty cake islam pals with which they are playing in the sandbox.


    These two above sources are from unquestioned publicly and historically intelligent global experts, likewise they could learn the absolute additional detailed and balanced straight truth from this one whom they dared to ban on the usual UK trumped up lies of hate speech, showing again UK’s stupidity, even though they deeply cater to the most hateful group of gang members in history, worse then their earlier nemesis, hitler and his nazis, a mini islam.

    They can note that even though Churchill, as with some others, who were observant and could speak and see true reality, so far as they could see, many notables did not as fully as properly condemn absolutely. with no value whatsoever, as pure fraud and deceit of evil, the vile bandit gang that is satan’s own, islam. Churchill however, did have his mind well ordered, as a patriot, with superb backbone, as here:

    Perhaps the greatest quote of all in life, true for so much situations of live is this spectacular criticism of Chamberlain:

    “YOU WERE GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN WAR AND DISHONOR. YOU CHOSE DISHONOR, AND YOU SHALL HAVE WAR!” – Churchill’s remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler

    “Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valor, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar.” – Prime Minister Winston Churchill

    “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. . . . You ask, what is our policy? I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air. War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs – Victory in spite of all terrors – Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.”
    – Winston Churchill

    in his initial speech as Prime Minister to the House of Commons (10 May 1940)
    “Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.” – Winston Churchill

    And an aside from these quotes is one that reminds of Trump’s comment related, “A prisoner of war is a man who tries to kill you and fails, and then asks you not to kill him.” – Sir Winston S. Churchill, 1952. (The Observer) Not quite as disdainful as Trump, but in same vein, preceding all selected from: http://www.military-quotes.com/churchill.htm

    And here: Of the doomed Washington conference Churchill writes:
    no event could have been more likely to stave off, or even prevent war than the arrival of the United States in the circle of European hates and fears. To Britain it was a matter almost of life and death. No one can measure in retrospect its effect upon the course of events in Austria and later at Munich. We must regard its rejection-for such it was-as the last frail chance to save the world from tyranny otherwise than by war. That Mr. Chamberlain, with his limited outlook and inexperience of the European scene, should have possessed the self-sufficiency to wave away the proffered hand stretched out across the Atlantic leaves one breathless with amazement. The lack of all sense of proportion, and even of self preservation, which this episode reveals in an upright, competent, well meaning man, charged with the destinies of our country and all who depended upon it is appalling. One cannot today even reconstruct the state of mind which would render such gestures possible. (p. 229) from an excellent analysis of the workup to WW2, avoidable as it was, but for stupidity of Chamberlain otherwise said to be “hitler’s spy and enabler” see here: http://desip.igc.org/Hitler-Chamberlain/Chamberlainswar.html for more

    Now consider this, Robert Spencer exists as perhaps the worlds foremost, consistently purely professional behaving expert on the truth of the evil that is islam, UK’s pals. See the full lecture here: Robert Spencer in Ottawa April 13: The real motive for Islamic migration to the West https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lOGHgPK0ug

    She, queen, or the rest of the family should reorder the whole damn corrupt regime, the whole kingdom, and if she is suffering dementia, than one of the family ought to take over, or be officially appointed, and reverse the idiocy of what is left of the nation, before it is no more, which is certain to come, sans major reversal of present course. For the danger faced is greater than even hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini.

    I know, I know, I’m not nuts, but very angry, though: stiff upper lip, pip, pip, order and decorum, lie low and all that BS Brit s***. Damn it, get it done, make it happen Britain, get off your collective [fundaments], show the world some Churchillian back bone and toughness-resilience! Lead don’t follow and cower, open your damn real koran, hadiths, and siras and learn what is in store for your women, children, men, both sexes. Unimaginable bad, all that islam is, always, savage forever.

    Remember Thatcher’s leadership. Mostly she was moral, ethical, and really, really intelligent, and determined! More backbone than today’s British men, at least all those in government. A must see is the excellent and courageous Bosh Fawstin, ex muslim, with his excellent salute to Margaret Thatcher here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/185129/thatcher-bosch-fawstin#.UWT1Hv0dMTg.facebook

    I hope […] this serves to remind the empire’s people of strength, resilience, courage, determination, bravery, and resolve, and that fighting for God, Nation, and Liberty, and family is worth risking life, and limb, for, always. And never forget ”BLESSED BE THE LORD, MY ROCK, WHO TRAINS MY HANDS FOR WAR, AND MY FINGERS FOR BATTLE” -Psalm 144:1 Turning the other cheek does not apply to mortal enemy of satan, and his crazed devils, ever.

  11. I think in the search for blame for Britain’s present problems, they are primarily caused by poorly thought through immigration policy. At the time of the Queen’s coronation Britain was a much different place. It was politicians who enabled the members of the commonwealth countries to have easy residency in Britain in the 1960’s. The young Kiwi’s, Aussies and Canadians largely eventually went home. The Pakistanis and Bangladeshi didn’t. Immigration from Muslim nations increased during the Labour years of Blair and Brown. And the rest is history. As the Queen is a constitutional monarch whose official role is signing the laws Parliament passes, not making the laws, it is a little rough to lay the blame for the decline of Christianity in Britain, or the rise of Islam at her door. Several of the C of E Arch Bishops would be a better target. The Queen has private meetings with the Prime Minister and in that setting she may express her concerns about things occurring in society, but the convention of the monarchy remaining above political debate is a little like the way Americans enshrine and cherish the idea of “separation of church and state”. It’s unlikely to change and there is little call for it to change.

    • As the head person of the church the ultimate responsibility for church policy does fall on her. Allowing large numbers of a competing and hostile religion to settle in the UK without comment is a failure on her part as Supreme Governor of the Church.
      I realise that the UK is essentially an atheist realm, but that notwithstanding, if the Queen wants to maintain a shred of legitimacy for these appellations she has, then she must verbally oppose the mass settlement of non-Christian religionists in the UK.
      Speaking out on religious grounds is not the same as interfering with parliament.

  12. The Islamic invasion continues and who are we blaming here? Why a ninety year old monarch who has served her country well.
    It’s up us Brits ourselves to start the resistance to the invasion and we haven’t even got a political party or movement of any size going that is putting the case to the public at large. Even Ukip needs more support than it is getting to have much of an impact. Much as I admire both Tommy Robinson and Paul Weston they do not have substantial followings. Let’s not carried away!
    That is not the fault of the Monarch. The attacks on the Queen seem to be not only a diversion but a very ill informed one. To halt the Islamic tide and Islamification is going to need intelligent politics and people of action. I respect the right of those Brits who don’t want the monarchy to continue, they have been around for as long we have had a monarchy. However I, as a loyal Brit, see our monarchy and our system as something that I want to defend and resent seeing her up on that photo alongside the likes of ghastly David Cameron and Teresa May.
    Right now we divide ourselves with attacks on Christianity by self-indulgent atheists who think they can defeat Islam and Christianity at the same time. (By the way I am not a Christian but I respect it as a religion and a force for good.) At the same time we weaken British resistance by attacking the monarchy. There are enough socialists and anarchists doing that sort of work already.
    And anyway it is no time to be quibbling over the finer interpretations of a document. What next? =”How many angels can stand on the point of a needle”?
    We should know who and what the enemy is. And it certainly isn’t Her Majesty.
    Hands off.

    • Well said. HM acts on the advice of her Ministers = the Ministers do all the acting. They are chosen (mostly) from the members of the governing party in Parliament, elected by the people. The eighteenth-century division of power between the King and Parliament exists only in the USA, where the King is replaced by the President. The Queen can’t get a head chopped off on her say-so–that power was long since devolved to her legally qualified judges. (Don’t think the lay magistrates have that much power!)

    • Intelligent politics and people of action are sorely lacking in today’s Britain. Rather what is manifest are cowering, power hungry hypocrites who dishonour the once proud name of British. The country is weak and ready for a take-over by whomever cares to do so.

  13. When the Windrush docked in 1948 to provide us with our first large dose of “much needed” foreign Commonwealth labour there were,according to government figures, 800,000 Brits on the dole. Last year there were over 800,000 new national insurance numbers issued to people from abroad. We’ve been suckered. QE 2 is party to this in that she has signed every single document that has ceded power from Parliament over to internationalists that now control our borders and are now succeeding in dismantling our legal system.

    The 1949 Denning report inspired the decriminalisation of blasphemy. Now look…Blasphemy laws are on their way back courtesy of Islam and the internationalists that our Queen has enabled through placing her signature on these documents.

  14. I agree with the Baron, that the Queen could and should speak out. True, her words may have no political ramifications, but she is respected, loved by some, and taken seriously–the British public hangs on her every word.

    She has sat and watched her country deteriorate, when a speech by her could rouse the people, who in turn could demand changes–if sufficient numbers of people demanded that. There is nothing to stop the Queen from talking to her subjects.

    re. the succession, it is to be hoped William, and not the ‘royal twit’ be chosen. The only other royal who could/should be considered is Edward, who is grossly under-estimated.

  15. Perhaps we should judge people by their deeds and not by their words.

    The Collegiate Church of Saint Peter at Westminster, also known as Westminster Abbey, is a Royal Peculiar; as such, what happens there is directly under the control of the Sovereign as Head of the Church of England. It has strict protocols and formalities for the flying of various flags which can be found on its website.

    In particular, “The Royal Standard is flown whenever the Sovereign is within the Abbey or its Precincts. It is also flown whenever the Sovereign opens Parliament, a privilege granted by King Edward VII.”

    Now, when a king of Saudi Arabia died last year the Royal Standard was flown at half-mast from Westminster Abbey; a privilege which could only be granted by the Sovereign.

    So we have our Sovereign flying our Royal Standard at half-mast at our Abbey for a foreign prince. She may not speak but she may be judged by her deeds.

  16. As far as I am concerned she has invalidated her oath when she signed the Lisbon treaty.

    The UK has a constitution, which came down over a long extended period, most notably the fight by the Angle-Saxons against the Normans overlords.

    She signed away that constitution when signing the Lisbon treaty into law.

    In terms of the persecution of Tommy Robinson, that is something she could have also stood up for by putting pressure on the government at the highest level, but she did not.

    Though in all I hope she continues to live a long time because if people think she is bad, her son Charles is a raving loon.

  17. I am British and I am of the opinion that Elizabeth I would have had Elizabeth II’s head on a spike for what she has allowed to happen during her reign. Good Queen Bess very wisely banned “blackamoors and other infidels” from settling in her realm. The Queen has a voice and she should have spoken out instead of just sitting on her hands or waving through a carriage window.

  18. The queen is hands off? Served her country well? It’s time people grew out of this fetish. The fetish with Kate’s pregnancy, and on and on. The queen is head of the church and its citizens have to pay money whether they want to or not. When she dies the son, who goes to mosques, will become the slobbering chinless sympathizer of Islam. The prince’s official job description as king will be ‘defender of the faith,’ he has more than once said that publicly, another indication of the amazing conceit he has developed over the decades of performing the only job allowed him by the hereditary principle: that of waiting for his mother to expire.

  19. Again, I can’t continue a thread up there because there is a limited cycle of replies allowed by the software. This is a continuation of a conversation between me and the estimable Baron, in which he last said:”What I am describing is not the future — it is taking place NOW. The United Kingdom is in the process of being destroyed.”

    Unfortunately, Baron, while you see it that way, and, actually I see it that way too, and many others see in that way, especially here on this blog, the number of people who see it that way in the UK is still I believe in small/(very small?) minority. There is no saying where Her Majesty’s opinion exactly lies. There is a very good chance that she simply doesn’t see it that way. In the light of that, she isn’t breaking her oath. It’s all about ‘to the best of her ability’. (That is not an exact phrase from the oath, but it’s implicit.)

    Many people do hold out a hope for a peaceful solution. I don’t. You don’t. But I have to deal with the FACT that other people do. They (naively I say) expect a reversal in ‘radicalization’ and the existence/development of a ‘moderate Islam’.

    It is not that easy for people to break out of this fog of multicultural denial. The whole culture is in this denial and is systematically enforcing it with bullying and non-lethal, but career-damaging terror, ‘fascist’ and violent repression of street demonstrations, and even attempted political murder on the part the government, such as of Tommy Robinson. There is a huge fog of misinformation and propaganda to support it, coming largely from media, government and academia. The fact that it is hard to break out of it is proven by how few have broken out so far.

    You’re too hard on the Queen, Baron.

    This multicultural denial is a form of mass madness. The culture is a lunatic asylum, and the sane are branded insane sufferers from ‘hate’ and ‘phobia’. Unfortunately, Her Majesty is unlikely to be entirely immune from this mass madness.

    Oh, the ironies are boundless. This self-styled opposition to ‘hate’ shall prove to have been the ultimate cause of mass suffering for huge numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and to be the stupidity which ultimately unleashed an inferno of real hate.

  20. Even as a member of one of what were the commonwealth countries, I and many others feel betrayed by Queen Elizabeth. Our kindergarten class used to sing God save the Queen everyday and we were trained to look to her for protection. What has happened to all of us throughout Europe and the entire Anglosphere is blatant and planned treason. Will she not say even one word in our defense?

  21. I think this is one of those situations where it does not pay to over-complicate with detail. I was born and brought up in England in the 50s/60s and lived in various parts of the UK for 60 years. My understanding of the Queen’s role is that it is apolitical, and that has very much been the reason for its success during that period. The Monarch is the solid rock around which the turbulent waters of politics swirl and leave untouched. Everyone can like, and connect to the Queen (and most seem to do) precisely because she does not espouse a political view for them to disagree with.

    In these stressful times I do not think she can be expected to suddenly become something else. King George did not take charge of the Kingdom when we faced the Nazis, Churchill did. And that is what Britain needs – another Churchill, to battle the turbulent waters while the Monarch remains the people’s metaphorical rock.

    The current rabble of muslim sycophantic appeasers needs to be replaced by a real man, intelligent enough to identify the enemy and tough enough to take it on. And I don’t think we can afford to care if he tramples on a few precious Lefties in the process.

    • Spot on. If I were in a position to give advice to the Queen I would counsel against getting involved. It wouldn’t help at all. Not the slightest bit. I am surprised so many people can’t see that. Parliament has held the power since 1688. The Queens popularity is due in part to the constitutional role of the monarchy. Nobody with any political nous seriously expects her to intervene.
      I will say again, Britain needs to build a large popular movement among the people. With such a backing new Churchill could arise. No one person can do it alone even a Monarch.
      I am a great admirer of GOV and would hate to see it become a Britain vs America blog it is too valuable to degenerate towards this. Baron, take my advice, when fighting a campaign against great odds look for allies, not new enemies.

      • This website will *never* be a Britain vs America blog. The Baron lived there too long for that to be possible. It won’t ever be an America vs Europe blog either. Which was part of the reason the B quit writing for Breitbart’s “Big Peace” (the precursor to their actual presence in Britain now). The comments there weren’t moderated and inevitably within the first three opinions someone would say “Europe is done, stick a fork in it”…just wasn’t worth the effort.

        When we started out even otherwise intelligent essayists like Dr. Sanity actually asked “is Europe a country or what?”

        I’m glad he had his chance to return to his old haunts in Yorkshire after one of the first Counterjihad Conferences. He got to see old friends and catch up on people’s lives. It pleased him that Harrogate hadn’t physically changed that much. Oops…I may be conflating this with another trip he took with the future Baron so the latter could see his Dad’s old haunts and have the unalloyed pleasure of drinking Theakston’s Old Peculier in situ.

        Funny, that all his old friends from high school thought he was the least changed of them all. Not sure what that says…

      • I will say again, Britain needs to build a large popular movement among the people. With such a backing new Churchill could arise. No one person can do it alone even a Monarch.

        How do you propose that Britain do this – i.e., “build a large popular movement among the people”. I take it you mean the middle class people: we’ve seen what they do to the chavs – as Tommy refers to himself.

        Britain is a soviet state. That’s why Tommy’s book title: “Enemy of the State”.

        cameras everywhere. Foster care girls sacrificed to groomers so social workers could avoid being called RAAACISTS, thereby losing their jobs and any hope of future employment.

        Even the trash is monitored. The UK is a totalitarian democracy in much the same way that Norway is…keep your head down or they’ll come after you.

        We know of at least two people in Londonistan who were “outed” by a newspaper for their private opinions and subsequently lost their jobs: one was a private, part-time job held for decades but the owner was warned by his customers to get rid of the employee or face severe business losses. This owner felt badly about it, but “what can I do?” Bye, bye job. The other was a local govt position and the person was let go so fast you’d think she had a communicable disease…I don’t know if either was ever able to secure another job. Who wants to hire a pariah?

        So I don’t blame people for keeping their heads down and their mouths shut, but from where precisely is this “large popular movement” going to arise?? Especially since you can be written up for what you say out loud in a pub.

        You’re saying that “with such a backing [a] new Churchill could arise”. But where will this popular movement “live and move and have its being”? Chavs get persecuted, working stiffs lose their jobs, and most people are terrified of being called “racist”. The horror that used to be reserved for treason is now applied to “racism”. That was what allowed the grooming of pubescent (and younger) foster care girl. They were pimped out with the full knowledge of their social workers; the latter were terrified of that tar baby, Racism so they shut up.

        Happens here, too. The two San Bernandino jihadists were known to their neighbors to be acting out of the bounds of normal behaviors – lots of men coming and going at all hours, strange Arab-looking guys. But THE NEIGHBORS WERE AFRAID OF THE TAR BRUSH SO THEY ALL SHUT UP. THEY DIDN’T DISCUSS IT WITH ONE ANOTHER. NOPE, THEIR SILENCE WAS VOLUNTARY. Hillary has warned us what happens to those who speak up: shame and isolation is her idea for overcoming these “hatreds”.

        We also had the experience in 2009, of a large popular uprising – the Tea Party. It’s catalyst was an angry reporter on the Chicago stock trading floor. In short time, the media and politicians pushed back against these bitter clinger “populists”. Couldn’t call them racists since a number of black people joined.

        The reason Trump is able to run today is because the reporter, Rick Santelli, fired the shot heard ’round the country and the people who were terrified of Obama’s promised “radical transformation” got behind Santelli’s idea. He never organized anything.

        Could that realistically happen in Britain?

        • Let’s be realistic. Britain is not a soviet style state. It never has been. (If it had the first thing to go would be the Monarchy and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.) It is true that at the moment it is showing signs of operating in ways very similar to the former eastern bloc. Very disturbing signs. But so does every country in Western Europe to some extent and that is because of the mass lunacy called political correctness. The people who support this totalitarian ideology have had a free run up till now. It wasn’t quickly imposed. It came upon us bit by bit and was perhaps at first seen as just good intentions. A lot of us welcomed some of the aspects. But it morphed into a monstrosity that people were slow to wake up to. Increasing numbers are now awake across the continent as you know. This is true even in sluggish Britain. And they are speaking out. Tommy Robinson was slightly ahead of his time and had few allies. Times have changed. Of course the PC brigade are demanding harsher laws and restrictions! But they’ve been doing that all along actually. The difference is that now they are on the back foot and doing it from a position if not yet of weakness, then of grave concern. The resistance can grow. The British system does allow it.
          I cannot comment on the American system because I don’t understand it. But it is unlikely that a ‘Trump’ would arise in the UK or the ANZAC countries but another sort of person could well. Me, I’m not the sort of person to sit around waiting for messiahs. Get the movement going and they’ll turn up when they’re ready.

          • “But so does every country in Western Europe to some extent and that is because of the mass lunacy called political correctness.”

            That is not the primary reason for the current state of affairs. The Brussels EU is illegitimate to begin since it was founded on lies and deception that goes back at least to 1945 and involves many actors.

          • Very neatly put Farranger. I am inclined to agree with your assertion that the PC Lefties are getting on the back foot. I see writings these days being treated quietly, or even favourably, that not very long ago would have had their authors ‘hanged in the village square’ by a screaming mob of the usuals.

            There is a saying “Beware the fury of the patient man”, and I do think the patient men of Europe might be getting close to the cusp of that fury. Such honourable people bend over backwards to give the other side the benefit of the doubt; but when there is no longer any doubt they erupt. Bring it on.

            I also agree wholeheartedly with Carax about the loathsome EU, as removing my children from its vile influence was part of why we moved from England to New Zealand. My researches indicate that it was initiated about 1943 by senior Nazis who could see the writing on the wall. They were shrewd enough to realise that while bombs and bullets tended to toughen the enemy’s resolve, stultifying bureaucracy and addling welfare would do the opposite.

        • Dymphna, I think the survival DNA in the indigenous Europeans will start kicking in at some point and will change Europe. There will be regime change, and I think it will be democratic.

          Of course I could be wrong…..

      • I agree with SleepyJohn and Farranger here wrt the Queen, and I have made the case in detail above.

        The Baron does not intend to alienate the British. I give him credit for not just giving up on Europe in contempt. What I see is just an unfortunate mistake on his part in blaming the Queen. Yes, I think his blaming the Queen is counterproductive. It does alienate *some* of the British in a counterproductive way, and it certainly won’t get the Queen to change her tune. But he sees it otherwise, and will likely continue until/unless he sees it as counterproductive.

        We need to keep the Western Judaeo-Christian alliances strong. That requires political savvy as well as idealism. Unfortunately, various counterjihad centers have a tendency to swipe counterproductively at other nationalities or identity groups, or otherwise undermine the unity in the counterjihad. The Baron is IMHO entering unwittingly and unintentionally into this counterproductive area.

  22. Isn’t it interesting to see so many English people cling to their long-gone fantasies of ‘the establishment’ as if any of them gave two hoots about any of you!

    [DELETED for gross incivility and lack of courtesy to other readers.]


    It’s absolutely no concern of mine […]

    [If it is truly of “no concern” this comment didn’t need to be made. Please check the commenting rules for this website. It’s no surprise that you chose to be anonymous for this rude attack.– ADMIN]

Comments are closed.