Now thats what I call Class!Home by Mike Cunningham September 29, 2012 21 1 min 9 yrs Tweet Sixty-odd years, and I still remember watching this young lady take the burden on to her shoulders. Fantastic! Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Royals Post navigation Previous postNext post 21 thoughts on “Now thats what I call Class!” Republicans would say they were sixty odd years…. The treasonous bitch has been handing over authority to the EU for 60-odd years to such a point that the British Prime Minister, instead of being a statesman dealing with national affairs, is reduced to being a guest on Letterman. I’m not opposed to a Royal Family, but I am opposed to this Royal Family: they degrade thenselves and my country. It’s a fine person who can transcend their era – and her time in the public eye has gone from the Blitz to the iPhone5. Any person, monarchist or republican, must doff their hat to her for dogged perseverance alone. Allan and Pete have attacked the Queen for signing Acts of Parliament relating to our membership of the EU, but what do they think would have happened to the monarchy if the Queen had challenged the elected governments ? Colm – She’d have been doing her job. If you mean that she’d have been out of a job, well she committed and effectively abdicated when she signed the European Communities Act anyway. Sovereignty must, by definition, be absolute and unqualified. Either a country is sovereign or it is not. Either a monarch is sovereign or not. The title, rank and style “King” is recognition of the physical embodiment of the nation’s sovereignty. It bears no compromise. She successively signed away the sovereign powers to the point John Major boasted that the British monarch is a European citizen. Now I suspect that if she had stood up to her Parliament, sacked errant ministers and revealed their treachery – as is her legal and moral duty – she’d have had more support than you imply. //Now I suspect that if she had stood up to her Parliament, sacked errant ministers and revealed their treachery – as is her legal and moral duty // Pete, that cause was lost back in 1829 when, after he and his father had brought down three English administrations over the matter, the king finally yielded to massive political pressure and very reluctantly signed Catholic Emancipation into law. Pete If a British Parliament approved an Act of Parliament removing the UK from the EU and the Queen ratified it then we would no longer be in the EU and no other authority outside the UK needs to approve such an act, therefore we are still a Sovereign nation. Loss of Sovereignty only applies where you permanently lose independent power. The UK is not in that position. It is a voluntary member of the EU not a conscript member. Colm – Many provinces voluntarily joined the Roman Empire. They still had to bow to Rome. Likewise, the Queen and Parliament have delivered Brussels where EU “Law” is supreme. If you must bow to foreign law you are no longer sovereign in your own land. Pete Do you understand the difference between choice and compulsion ? There has not been any loss of UK Sovereignty whatsoever. And I say this as someone who opposes the UK’s EU membership. Colm – We dancing around that point. You said: “If a British Parliament approved an Act of Parliament removing the UK from the EU and the Queen ratified it then we would no longer be in the EU ..” Not true. The Lisbon Treaty sets out procedure for withdrawal, which requires the consent of the European Parliament and Council, which states that the Council will set the terms for withdrawal and that the member state leaving will have no say on those terms. If (when) we leave it will have to be a hostile act by seceding from the Lisbon Treaty first. Pete Yes in terms of International obligations it’s appropriate to seek agreement with the rest of the EU with regards to the practicalities of seccession, but in terms of Sovereign UK law all it takes is an Act of Parliament signed by the Queen. UK law still has, as has been the case for centuries the same 3 steps only to effect legislation, ratification in the Hose of Commons, the Hose of Lords, and signed by the Monarch. We may have voluntarily pooled our sources of power but our Sovereignty remains wholly national. And anyway talking of issues surrounding Sovereignty and the Queen I am surprised David hasn’t put up a post on today’s Ulster Covenant centenary celebrations. Colm – he is too busy explaining to Troll that Johnny Carson isn’t the Carson who led the movement. The Queen and other ‘Royals’ have the power of veto over the UK’s legislation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/25/government-fights-release-royal-veto-guidelines – In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills, on various issues from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, energy, planning, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, and housing and regeneration. In Charles’s case, the little known power stems from his role as head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which provides his £18m-a-year private income – The Monarch has apparent power but has retained this as a front for the real power which is the Corporation of the City of London. Allan, Pete The royals have long lost all power. They exist as symbols of national unity. Their signing off on legislation is itself symbolic. Leave her alone. Oh let them use their imaginations. On so many issues, they are the most furious , militant misunderstanders of reality. ” Treasonous bitch “. Yeah, right. Epic fail, looks nothing like QE2 and she looks suicidal, mustve realised the only serfs still loyal to her are from ‘norn iron’ Phantom – “The royals have long lost all power.” Since Parliament is a domain of Her Majesty, and since ministers swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, and since a Bill cannot become law until Royal Assent is given, I’d suggest that the power to legislate remains still with the monarch. Unless you can be specific and name the events, laws and processes which stripped these powers from the monarch, it would be best to back out. No I will remain in. Parliament as a domain of the Crown, and all that jazz has been a polite fiction for a long time. You might even say that the Crown is a domain of the Parliament as far as actual power is concerned. Don’t be the last person in England to realize this. You actually have more power than she does, since you, presumably, vote in elections, and she, who must be seen as neutral, does not vote. Personally I love this picture. The Queen is the latest incarnation of our Constitutional Monarchy. As a human being she is no better nor worse than any human being. It is her role and responsibilities that mark her out as special and worthy of respect. Special because she embodies our cultural history, Over 1000 years of gradual development. Special and worthy because she has applied herself with all diligence, respect and loyalty to the role. I would argue that our Queen should have been more forceful in asserting her responsibilities as Head of the Church of England, and as Representative of her peoples. It would have been greatly to her credit and relevance had she insisted in making her views clear on some issues of national importance. Personally I am disappointed that she seems to have allowed herself to be used as a rubber stamp figurehead and a tourist attraction. For me though, this picture accurately and respectfully captures a woman who has taken on her slender shoulders national and cultural responsibilities which most of us would have preferred to avoid. I admire the woman, and if ever I met her I would bow my knee out of respect, not servility. Comments are closed.