Against the Windsor monarchy
With Rule Britannia, blue-covered passport and Churchill statues preserved, the traditionalist believes true Britain continues.
When the bunting goes up and the tributes are printed this week, marking the Platinum Jubilee of the accession to the throne of Queen Elizabeth II in 1952, I shall not be celebrating. That is a sad statement to make. I write that as someone who thinks that monarchy – not just a constitutional monarch but an actual ruling monarch who exercises effective power – is a valid, even fruitful, form of governance.
It is clear that over the last seventy years, the governments of this country have acted against the best interests of the population and in favour of the elite. It is the elite which sees itself as “anywhere” people rather than “somewhere” people and who see their liberalist, cosmopolitan worldview replicated in urban hubs across the world. Look at the members of the current government who have lived and worked abroad, who have closer links to foreign colleagues than constituents and expect to go on to foreign jobs after leaving politics. They also fear no consequences for failing their country. They will never be held accountable for lockdown, a criminal act of unparalleled gravity.
To allow such globalist elite nomads to run the country to their advantage (and not to ours) is an error perpetrated by many – not least, the monarch who swore to guard against this. When the Queen was crowned, she made oaths to God and subjects of the Crown by affirming the following:
“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?”
“Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?”
“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?”
These oaths Her Majesty has failed to uphold, by omission, commission and constraints imposed upon her. By sanctioning the legitimacy of successive governments which work against her subjects, the Queen has played a small part in the degradation of parliamentary rule of her domain. By assenting to the country joining the EEC, the power of the Queen (acting through her government) was diminished and so she was prevented from carrying out her oaths. As Tony Benn MP used to say, the first duty of any politician (or statesman) is to conserve and pass on to his successor any authority (and responsibility) that he has received. It is not down to any individual to decide to transfer power to another, especially if that other is not accountable to the group who gave that individual authority.
Worse still, the survival of the monarchy in neutered form, gives the impression to biscuit-tin nationalists that Britain remains unchanged and that improvement will come via more fealty to crown and flag. With Rule Britannia, blue-covered passport and Churchill statues preserved, the traditionalist believes true Britain continues. Yet this is all just gaudy window-dressing, which conceals demolition of institutional principles, rank corruption and governance by political lobbyists. The Windsor monarchy sustains the pretence that we govern ourselves and our nation is intact.
Patriots and conservatives anticipate the ascension of Prince Charles with apprehension. His commitment to environmentalist movements, globalist action and foreign NGOs – contrary to the wishes and welfare of his future subjects – make Prince Charles unsuitable for the throne. Sadly, Prince William is no better on those counts. Every monarchy should think of its fate as being tied to the people and the land; it must see no future for itself and its heirs outside of its own borders. Without such values, the monarchy becomes selfish or unreasonable – and the commitment to the elitist causes mentioned could be called “selfish and unreasonable”.
It seems increasingly clear to monarchists who value the principle of monarchy, the integrity of the nation under the Crown and the wellbeing of British culture, that the Queen has either largely failed in – or has been prevented from fully keeping – her vows. Her successors look much worse prospects. Under those circumstances, we need to think about alternatives to the Windsor monarchy. The Crown is not the property of the Windsors, they bear the Crown with our assent and we can withdraw that assent if they fail us. If the monarchy is to survive, the next monarch must be a true Defender of the Faith, not a Defender of the Faiths, as Prince Charles suggested. That successful monarch cannot be one of the Windsors.
I have admiration for the Queen’s dedication, as well as reservations about her judgement and definite criticisms of the results of her service. That it is why I shall be marking the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee with not gratitude but regret.
