Written by James Goad
Looking at our constitutional monarchy, we have a parliament supposedly set up for the people, with the Crown as a figurehead. Is the latter bit true though? The Queen is head of state, head of the Church of England, its armed forces, head of the Commonwealth and the head of state of other countries.
The Queen sits within the English Constitution, made up of Magna Carta (1297), the Bill of Rights (1688-9), Act of Settlement (1700), Acts of Union (1707), Acts of Parliament (1911 and 1949) and the Coronation Oath (1953). Within this framework of statute, oaths and acknowledgement of rights, our Queen is in the position to wield power. She is one of the checks that is supposed to balance out Parliament. Amongst the tools at her disposal are the power to create governments and the power to sign, or not to sign, Acts of Parliament that come before her.
It is also within the Queen’s range of powers to replace the executives in any of the Commonwealth nations in which she is head of state. This includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Queen assented to Aussie PM Gough Whitlam’s dismissal by the Governor General in the 1975 ‘Dismissal’. It also includes the British Virgin Islands, where Her Majesty has recently assented to the removal of the Prime Minister there and the imposition of direct rule from London. The power is there, you see.
If you lived in the United Kingdom, you would be forgiven for thinking the Queen was a powerless figurehead. She seems there for Trooping the Colour and all that, which puts a colourful veneer on the fact that she has readily put her name to a range of atrocious laws. Dr Sean Gabb has labelled this as ‘Seventy Years a Rubber Stamp’. Examples of heinous betrayal of her people include the 1973 European Communities Act which, when presented to her the previous year, she should have refused to sign unless a referendum be held on the matter.
Her Majesty appears more than unwilling to confront the political forces represented by parliament. Dr Gabb argues that the Queen is actually a constitutional paperweight. She could refuse to sign into law any Act that erodes the fundamental principles of the English Constitution, amongst which are every Englishman’s inalienable rights. The proof is in the pudding regarding her failure in this most fundamental of duties, living as we now are in the soft tyranny of a burgeoning technocracy.
There are clearly instances in which the Queen has exercised her Constitutional powers. That she has not done so begs many questions, amongst which are the fitness of the institution of the monarchy, or the fitness of the incumbent to carry out its duties. When we complain about “rotten institutions” are we commenting on their range of functions, or the people in them not behaving as we would like?
The author has no special animosity toward the monarchy. Looking at republics across the world makes one think the alternatives are no better. The solution? Retain the monarchy. Expel the House of Windsor / Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and replace with a new dynasty.
James II was chased off into exile and replaced by the Dutch William and Mary. The Glorious Revolution prompted the creation of a new settlement with the English people as set out in the Bill of Rights. With monarchical wings clipped, under the new Constitutional arrangement this country underwent the most amazing of transformations – emergence from feudalism to a modern society.
This brings us to another question: who do we install? There is no one trustworthy at the top of society. They’ve all been feeding at the same trough forever. The King and Queen of the ongoing constitutional monarchy should be a commoner, a complete outsider. Bearing this in mind, I offer myself as the lead candidate.
My appointment would be desirable on the number of different levels. I would refuse to sign any Act of Parliament presented to me that conflicted in any way with the Bill of Rights. Bearding every politician within earshot about the tide of effluent flowing from the Houses of Parliament would be just the start. Being vocally pro-gun would make a point. Politicians would learn to live in fear. It would also be my pleasure to exert the power of the monarchy and replace any Commonwealth executive within the orbit of the Crown proven to be complicit in the COVID scam. Farewell Justin Castro…