British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their Best.com, English country scene

Blog Home | All Posts

Royal comparisons

Iain Murray says that the President's State of the Union compares unfavourably with The Queen's Speech -

The Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament also lays out the priorities of the executive for the year. The difference is that, despite all the splendor (crown, throne, Lords walking backwards, Silver-Stick-in-Waiting, Black Rod, etc.), it actually downplays the content of the speech and provides little glory to the government. Her Majesty reads the speech from paper in a flat monotone, while the chap who actually wrote it has to stand crammed in a small alcove literally rubbing shoulders with his worst political enemy (or, in Gordon Brown's case, the Leader of the Opposition). Advantage the Constitutional Monarchy there, I think . . .

Yes, the flat delivery is a relief, but the role of the Sovereign, long part of Britain's Constitution, has been usurped by the Prime Minister and House of Commons. There is no longer an independent monarch, sworn to defend the people's laws and liberties, who can check the power of Parliament.

During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Britain's big political parties established an increasingly bossy and wasteful government apparatus, and Parliament bricked into place a series of foreign treaties that ceded Britain's independence to the European Union. This makes The Queen's speech a masquerade for a government increasingly without power and dictated to by the EU to which it supinely sends £billions every month. Sounds like a splendid fantasy, doesn't it?

Post a comment

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)

COPYRIGHT