Having savaged Liz Truss (Rider on the Storm) on her accession—I had to use that word, because so many people, bemusingly, write “ascension”—to the First Ministry of the UK, Tom Luongo offers a very interesting retrospective on the role that QE2 has played in recent years. Especially with regard to Brexit. The monarch is supposed to pretty much butt out of affairs of state, but at a crucial moment QE2 lent her support to Brexit.
I don't follow English politics or society much at all. But to think that an anti-Communist Queen could rule England for 70 years and keep it out of the grips of such seems to be almost a miracle. It speaks to her character and perseverance and patriotism. As for Truss, at least she is showing some sanity and a sense of nationalism by wanting to open the North Sea to oil and gas leases. Perhaps she wants to retain her new position longer than the useful idiot leaders on the continent? That will make her an enemy of Davos all by itself.
I'm not a Monarchist but neither am I a Republican. I've lived with the Queen being part of the nation's fabric my whole life. I took the oath to serve her and honoured that oath. The Queen was held in very high regard and it's clear to me that she existed in a world of forces that were largely beyond her control. Let's not forget she was a female born in a time when women were raised to be wives and mothers and whose opinions were largely discounted. I'm not a rampant feminist but it was no mean feat for the Queen to have earned the respect of 'the men in grey suits' to the degree that she did. Charles is not popular. He is weak. He is ill tempered and obviously compromised. It is clear to everyone with eyes that while he may be happy to be King, he will be happy to rule over a realm far less populated and with his subjects less wealthy and more subjugated to his religion of 'sustainable' living. He is currently in a period of grace, having just lost his mother and with a populace who have been shaken by the loss of their only constant in this rapidly changing world. People are currently clinging to the traditions of the country because everything about their past 'reality' is shifting under their feet. This period of grace will likely last a while but will vanish rapidly should he expose himself as an adherent to climate change zealotry while his people freeze and struggle financially. It will add to what we already know of him - his tax avoidance, his willingness to be bought for cash by any despot who pays for access, his weakness toward his son Harry who has insulted the people of the UK. Having said all that what would a UK republic look like? A republic potentially resided over by an elected president such as Tony Blair or Michael Hesseltine or Lord Adonis - all rabid Europhiles. A UK republic would likely be swallowed up once more by the EU and hurriedly so before the eventual tearing down of systems in order to build back better. I'm neither a Monarchist or a Republican but at least with our current system there is some kind of barrier between us Brits and the Davos crowd and with the Royal family we know who we are getting as opposed to the gamble of elections every 4 years - and our Royals know they rule at our pleasure - their existence and priviliges are bestowed upon them by our consent. Ultimately their priority is the survival of their family heritage as proven by King George V leaving his Russian cousins to die in the revolution. I'm not happy about the current set up but it's better than having our version of Zhou Biden installed in fake election. May God rest Queen Elizabeth. She did her best in the circumstances.
There's no perfect form of government, since they all ultimately rest on the character of the nation as a whole. The need for, or at least the practical value of, a leading figure who is a representative of the nation has manifested itself throughout history--including American history. The tendency of elective forms of government to degenerate into partisan squabbling is also a lesson of history. The American constitution was intended to combine the strong points of each, but has struggled in some respects. Of late, it appears to be breaking apart, and the one man who can credibly claim a leadership role is beset by moral pygmies representing no more than self interested groupings and transhumanist radicals. These are reasons I call for moral and spiritual reform as the basis for political and national reform.
I 100% agree, particularly regarding the character of a nation - it seems to me that both the British and American peoples have been subjected to a decades long attack on their psyche to the point that both countries are suffering a crisis of identity. The parallels in how our systems of government, education, media and institutions have been ideologically captured point to the fact we are living through a globalist coup.
I would argue, and have, that the crisis of identity goes far deeper in history than just a few decades. The spectacular technological, military, and economic dominance of the West over the last several centuries has masked its spiritual crisis, but those chickens are now coming home to roost with a vengeance.
Here's a thought. Henry VIII was arguably the first truly totalitarian ruler in the West. By subjecting--against the will of the mass of the people--religious and spiritual authority to himself he arguably undermined the spiritual foundations of English society for the long haul. The monarchy as an institution has long been in decay from Henry's time, but his destruction of that spiritual foundation has progressed. That is the historical background for the American republic, for good and ill.
The same thought occurred to me while reading CJ Sansom’s stupendous 7-tome historical novels, known as the “ Shardlake series,” after the main character, a hunchback lawyer named Matthew Shardlake. The series begins with the dissolution of the monasteries, through the long and bloody reign of Henry, to the last volume, set in Norwich. The writing is scintillating and the story is - history! Main problem: everything else falls by the wayside…so don’t read unless you can be stuck to your armchair!! I wonder if Amanda knows these books…
Agreed. Also his decision to create his own church in opposition to the Pope directly led to the colonisation of Ireland and the subjugation and enslavement of its people; a tactical move to protect England from a back door onslaught from the furious Spanish. So many threads of recent history can be traced back to him. Likely there would have been no British Empire had he remained quietly married to Catherine and kept Anne as his bit on the side. What would the world look like now if things then were different?
What Might Have Been?: Leading Historians on Twelve 'What Ifs' of History (Phoenix Paperback Series) https://amzn.eu/d/aweA5K6
I think the Tories will lose badly the next election, and Brexit will be undone. The only way it doesn't happen is if the EU collapses this winter, which isn't impossible right now.
I don't follow UK politics closely, but from what I recall seeing the Laborites are in even worse disarray than the Tories. The prediction is that the Right--whatever that means--will gain a crushing victory in Italy. Germany is nearing a terrible winter.
But King Charles loves Davos. At June 2020 Davos virtual meeting, then Prince Charles gushed that they could use the excuse of Covid to enact Great Reset: "“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” he said."...https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/prince-charles-covid-19-a-golden-opportunity-to-reboot-the-econ.... The Queen may have backed Brexit, but that was the only good thing about her. In more than 1,000 instances the Queen and her lawyers have via “Queen’s Consent” been able to shape draft legislation to suit her private wishes...“You might think the Freedom of Information Act would help establish the facts…but that also required Queen’s consent.” in UK, they’re “still officially subjects, not citizens.”...Feb. 10, 2021, “Queen’s consent is a constitutional outrage – parliament must abolish it,” UK Guardian, omy.html.
I don't follow English politics or society much at all. But to think that an anti-Communist Queen could rule England for 70 years and keep it out of the grips of such seems to be almost a miracle. It speaks to her character and perseverance and patriotism. As for Truss, at least she is showing some sanity and a sense of nationalism by wanting to open the North Sea to oil and gas leases. Perhaps she wants to retain her new position longer than the useful idiot leaders on the continent? That will make her an enemy of Davos all by itself.
I don't but thanks for the recommendation - I shall add to my list :)
I'm not a Monarchist but neither am I a Republican. I've lived with the Queen being part of the nation's fabric my whole life. I took the oath to serve her and honoured that oath. The Queen was held in very high regard and it's clear to me that she existed in a world of forces that were largely beyond her control. Let's not forget she was a female born in a time when women were raised to be wives and mothers and whose opinions were largely discounted. I'm not a rampant feminist but it was no mean feat for the Queen to have earned the respect of 'the men in grey suits' to the degree that she did. Charles is not popular. He is weak. He is ill tempered and obviously compromised. It is clear to everyone with eyes that while he may be happy to be King, he will be happy to rule over a realm far less populated and with his subjects less wealthy and more subjugated to his religion of 'sustainable' living. He is currently in a period of grace, having just lost his mother and with a populace who have been shaken by the loss of their only constant in this rapidly changing world. People are currently clinging to the traditions of the country because everything about their past 'reality' is shifting under their feet. This period of grace will likely last a while but will vanish rapidly should he expose himself as an adherent to climate change zealotry while his people freeze and struggle financially. It will add to what we already know of him - his tax avoidance, his willingness to be bought for cash by any despot who pays for access, his weakness toward his son Harry who has insulted the people of the UK. Having said all that what would a UK republic look like? A republic potentially resided over by an elected president such as Tony Blair or Michael Hesseltine or Lord Adonis - all rabid Europhiles. A UK republic would likely be swallowed up once more by the EU and hurriedly so before the eventual tearing down of systems in order to build back better. I'm neither a Monarchist or a Republican but at least with our current system there is some kind of barrier between us Brits and the Davos crowd and with the Royal family we know who we are getting as opposed to the gamble of elections every 4 years - and our Royals know they rule at our pleasure - their existence and priviliges are bestowed upon them by our consent. Ultimately their priority is the survival of their family heritage as proven by King George V leaving his Russian cousins to die in the revolution. I'm not happy about the current set up but it's better than having our version of Zhou Biden installed in fake election. May God rest Queen Elizabeth. She did her best in the circumstances.
There's no perfect form of government, since they all ultimately rest on the character of the nation as a whole. The need for, or at least the practical value of, a leading figure who is a representative of the nation has manifested itself throughout history--including American history. The tendency of elective forms of government to degenerate into partisan squabbling is also a lesson of history. The American constitution was intended to combine the strong points of each, but has struggled in some respects. Of late, it appears to be breaking apart, and the one man who can credibly claim a leadership role is beset by moral pygmies representing no more than self interested groupings and transhumanist radicals. These are reasons I call for moral and spiritual reform as the basis for political and national reform.
I 100% agree, particularly regarding the character of a nation - it seems to me that both the British and American peoples have been subjected to a decades long attack on their psyche to the point that both countries are suffering a crisis of identity. The parallels in how our systems of government, education, media and institutions have been ideologically captured point to the fact we are living through a globalist coup.
I would argue, and have, that the crisis of identity goes far deeper in history than just a few decades. The spectacular technological, military, and economic dominance of the West over the last several centuries has masked its spiritual crisis, but those chickens are now coming home to roost with a vengeance.
Here's a thought. Henry VIII was arguably the first truly totalitarian ruler in the West. By subjecting--against the will of the mass of the people--religious and spiritual authority to himself he arguably undermined the spiritual foundations of English society for the long haul. The monarchy as an institution has long been in decay from Henry's time, but his destruction of that spiritual foundation has progressed. That is the historical background for the American republic, for good and ill.
The same thought occurred to me while reading CJ Sansom’s stupendous 7-tome historical novels, known as the “ Shardlake series,” after the main character, a hunchback lawyer named Matthew Shardlake. The series begins with the dissolution of the monasteries, through the long and bloody reign of Henry, to the last volume, set in Norwich. The writing is scintillating and the story is - history! Main problem: everything else falls by the wayside…so don’t read unless you can be stuck to your armchair!! I wonder if Amanda knows these books…
Agreed. Also his decision to create his own church in opposition to the Pope directly led to the colonisation of Ireland and the subjugation and enslavement of its people; a tactical move to protect England from a back door onslaught from the furious Spanish. So many threads of recent history can be traced back to him. Likely there would have been no British Empire had he remained quietly married to Catherine and kept Anne as his bit on the side. What would the world look like now if things then were different?
What Might Have Been?: Leading Historians on Twelve 'What Ifs' of History (Phoenix Paperback Series) https://amzn.eu/d/aweA5K6
I think the Tories will lose badly the next election, and Brexit will be undone. The only way it doesn't happen is if the EU collapses this winter, which isn't impossible right now.
I don't follow UK politics closely, but from what I recall seeing the Laborites are in even worse disarray than the Tories. The prediction is that the Right--whatever that means--will gain a crushing victory in Italy. Germany is nearing a terrible winter.
Right or wrong, the party in power will pay at the ballot box (at least where the elections are fairly run). In the UK, that is the Tories.
But King Charles loves Davos. At June 2020 Davos virtual meeting, then Prince Charles gushed that they could use the excuse of Covid to enact Great Reset: "“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” he said."...https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/03/prince-charles-covid-19-a-golden-opportunity-to-reboot-the-econ.... The Queen may have backed Brexit, but that was the only good thing about her. In more than 1,000 instances the Queen and her lawyers have via “Queen’s Consent” been able to shape draft legislation to suit her private wishes...“You might think the Freedom of Information Act would help establish the facts…but that also required Queen’s consent.” in UK, they’re “still officially subjects, not citizens.”...Feb. 10, 2021, “Queen’s consent is a constitutional outrage – parliament must abolish it,” UK Guardian, omy.html.
Here's a good one:
https://news.yahoo.com/prince-charles-accepted-3m-cash-124605305.html
Britain's fake democracy: what you need to know.
https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/britains-fake-democracy-what-you