World
Declan Hayes
September 13, 2022
© Photo: REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne

Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister.

And so, with Queen Elizabeth II, having reigned for an incredible 70 years, being now gone, it is time to assess her contribution to both the efficient and the dignified institutions, those two strands of British public life, that together are the real Constitution and urn of ideas that keep Albion afloat. First off, the British can be happy that she was, as their national anthem prays, long to reign over us and that she stayed in harness until the very end, when the frailties of old age quickly saw her off in a most dignified way commensurate with her long and very unique life of service.

If we move on to the second verse, things get a bit stickier, as the anthem sees the monarch as being the bulwark defending Albion against her enemy’s “knavish tricks”. The third verse, in a Masonic nod to the late Queen’s pet Commonwealth project, prays that the “Lord make the nations see, That men should brothers be, And form one family, The wide world o’er”. Having shoehorned 56 supposedly sovereign nations into that dubious grouping, the late Queen, “our mother, prince, and friend”, has not performed too badly by her own beliefs.

It is, however, in the final verse that the anthem comes a cropper as it prays that “May she [the Queen] defend our laws”. Though we can write that off to poetic licence, it was not the function of the late Queen and nor is it the function of her son, King George III, to do any such thing. Should King George think otherwise, he will, like others before him, be quickly brought to heel.

His function is to emulate his mother, to zip the lip, to wear the Crown jewels Crown forces looted from South Africa and India, to shoot grouse in Scotland and, in general, to show that they are a cut or two above Albion’s great unwashed. Though Queen Elizabeth did a fine job of all of that, she did seem, on summary glance, to slip up near the end, doing impish skits with James Band and Paddington Bear.

But that is not the case at all. Queen Elizabeth’s charades were to build bridges for the rest of the Royal Family’s inner circle, folk like King Charles and Andrew and Fergie of Royal Knockout infamy and, much like the Emperor’s new clothes fable, to allow the Royal charade continue beyond her death.

The British regime cancelling all professional football matches to mark the passing of this frail nonagenarian is a part of this effort to perpetuate their Royal fraud and is in stark contrast to the 1952 passing of the relatively young King George V1, when all football matches went ahead.

For, whatever the late Queen’s sense of duty and of needing to provide for her dysfunctional family, she was, at day’s end, but a bauble in the great British scheme of things. And that is not just my opinion but it is that of Walter Bagehot‘s 1867 classic, The English Constitution, which is one of the very few books British Royalty ever bother reading. In it, Bagehot differentiates between the twin tracks of British governance, between the efficient institutions which govern, and the dignified institutions which beguile the ignorant in kitschy pomp and circumstance.

Albion’s efficient institutions are the Cabinet and Parliament which make up the rules of the land as they go along. The dignified institutions include the Royal Family and the Anglican cult, which King Charles now heads, which beguile the plebs into accepting Albion’s caste system.

Cast your eyes on the Famine Queen visiting Dublin, which then boasted Europe’s worst slums, at the height of the Boer genocide. Look at her armies of outriders and flunkeys cheering her on. Behold King George V and Queen Mary visiting Dublin in 19II, just a few short years before their flunkeys became fair game. Now see the British Army surrender Dublin to their flunkeys in 1922 and marvel at the soft power of their orderly retreat.

King Charles no more directs policy than did King George V during those years. Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. Should King Charles decide to broadcast his concerns any wider, not only would he be breaking one of his late mother’s cardinal rules but he would be inviting a severe rap on his Royal knuckles.

This is precisely what happened in 1912 with King George V when Prime Minister Henry Asquith wrote to him in no uncertain terms to keep his opinions on Albion’s Irish Home Rule fraud to himself. And it was precisely because George V was taught to keep his opinions to himself that, during his reign, British constitutional monarchy reached its maturity and that the role of the monarch as a politically impartial eunuch came to be clearly defined. This allowed not only the monarchy but the entire British system deal with the advent of the first Labour government in 1924 and to survive an era that saw the fall from power of five emperors, eight kings and eighteen other dynasties.

And what of the wayward King Charles, the Anglican cult’s new Defender of the Faith, an honor first bestowed on King James 1V by Pope Julius II and which the serial killer Henry VIII used to justify the sticky fingered Anglican cult he founded on his own carnal needs? Charles, like a chip off the old block, is now trying to redefine his Royal role as being a defender of all faith, and not just the Anglican cult. But, as my review of one of their books here shows, the Anglican cult is the enemy of religion in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere as well. The Anglican cult, which King Charles III now heads, is an integral part of Albion’s dignified institutions, which allow Albion’s efficient institutions keep their fraud show on the road. Without it, England’s bitter weeds might become more toxic to Charles III, just as they became fatal to Charles 1 and almost fatal to Charles II, who both fell foul of Oliver Cromwell.

And so, as King George III ascends the throne and the Princes William and George await their turn in accordance with the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement (no Popeheads need apply), those money, media and military moguls who pull the strings behind Westminster Parliament and Buckingham Palace must work out how their elaborate charade, with its efficient and sullied institutions can continue to pull the wool over the masses not only in England’s green and pleasant land but far beyond where people should really know better.

Elizabeth Regina: The Legacy

Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister.

And so, with Queen Elizabeth II, having reigned for an incredible 70 years, being now gone, it is time to assess her contribution to both the efficient and the dignified institutions, those two strands of British public life, that together are the real Constitution and urn of ideas that keep Albion afloat. First off, the British can be happy that she was, as their national anthem prays, long to reign over us and that she stayed in harness until the very end, when the frailties of old age quickly saw her off in a most dignified way commensurate with her long and very unique life of service.

If we move on to the second verse, things get a bit stickier, as the anthem sees the monarch as being the bulwark defending Albion against her enemy’s “knavish tricks”. The third verse, in a Masonic nod to the late Queen’s pet Commonwealth project, prays that the “Lord make the nations see, That men should brothers be, And form one family, The wide world o’er”. Having shoehorned 56 supposedly sovereign nations into that dubious grouping, the late Queen, “our mother, prince, and friend”, has not performed too badly by her own beliefs.

It is, however, in the final verse that the anthem comes a cropper as it prays that “May she [the Queen] defend our laws”. Though we can write that off to poetic licence, it was not the function of the late Queen and nor is it the function of her son, King George III, to do any such thing. Should King George think otherwise, he will, like others before him, be quickly brought to heel.

His function is to emulate his mother, to zip the lip, to wear the Crown jewels Crown forces looted from South Africa and India, to shoot grouse in Scotland and, in general, to show that they are a cut or two above Albion’s great unwashed. Though Queen Elizabeth did a fine job of all of that, she did seem, on summary glance, to slip up near the end, doing impish skits with James Band and Paddington Bear.

But that is not the case at all. Queen Elizabeth’s charades were to build bridges for the rest of the Royal Family’s inner circle, folk like King Charles and Andrew and Fergie of Royal Knockout infamy and, much like the Emperor’s new clothes fable, to allow the Royal charade continue beyond her death.

The British regime cancelling all professional football matches to mark the passing of this frail nonagenarian is a part of this effort to perpetuate their Royal fraud and is in stark contrast to the 1952 passing of the relatively young King George V1, when all football matches went ahead.

For, whatever the late Queen’s sense of duty and of needing to provide for her dysfunctional family, she was, at day’s end, but a bauble in the great British scheme of things. And that is not just my opinion but it is that of Walter Bagehot‘s 1867 classic, The English Constitution, which is one of the very few books British Royalty ever bother reading. In it, Bagehot differentiates between the twin tracks of British governance, between the efficient institutions which govern, and the dignified institutions which beguile the ignorant in kitschy pomp and circumstance.

Albion’s efficient institutions are the Cabinet and Parliament which make up the rules of the land as they go along. The dignified institutions include the Royal Family and the Anglican cult, which King Charles now heads, which beguile the plebs into accepting Albion’s caste system.

Cast your eyes on the Famine Queen visiting Dublin, which then boasted Europe’s worst slums, at the height of the Boer genocide. Look at her armies of outriders and flunkeys cheering her on. Behold King George V and Queen Mary visiting Dublin in 19II, just a few short years before their flunkeys became fair game. Now see the British Army surrender Dublin to their flunkeys in 1922 and marvel at the soft power of their orderly retreat.

King Charles no more directs policy than did King George V during those years. Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. Should King Charles decide to broadcast his concerns any wider, not only would he be breaking one of his late mother’s cardinal rules but he would be inviting a severe rap on his Royal knuckles.

This is precisely what happened in 1912 with King George V when Prime Minister Henry Asquith wrote to him in no uncertain terms to keep his opinions on Albion’s Irish Home Rule fraud to himself. And it was precisely because George V was taught to keep his opinions to himself that, during his reign, British constitutional monarchy reached its maturity and that the role of the monarch as a politically impartial eunuch came to be clearly defined. This allowed not only the monarchy but the entire British system deal with the advent of the first Labour government in 1924 and to survive an era that saw the fall from power of five emperors, eight kings and eighteen other dynasties.

And what of the wayward King Charles, the Anglican cult’s new Defender of the Faith, an honor first bestowed on King James 1V by Pope Julius II and which the serial killer Henry VIII used to justify the sticky fingered Anglican cult he founded on his own carnal needs? Charles, like a chip off the old block, is now trying to redefine his Royal role as being a defender of all faith, and not just the Anglican cult. But, as my review of one of their books here shows, the Anglican cult is the enemy of religion in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere as well. The Anglican cult, which King Charles III now heads, is an integral part of Albion’s dignified institutions, which allow Albion’s efficient institutions keep their fraud show on the road. Without it, England’s bitter weeds might become more toxic to Charles III, just as they became fatal to Charles 1 and almost fatal to Charles II, who both fell foul of Oliver Cromwell.

And so, as King George III ascends the throne and the Princes William and George await their turn in accordance with the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement (no Popeheads need apply), those money, media and military moguls who pull the strings behind Westminster Parliament and Buckingham Palace must work out how their elaborate charade, with its efficient and sullied institutions can continue to pull the wool over the masses not only in England’s green and pleasant land but far beyond where people should really know better.

Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister.

And so, with Queen Elizabeth II, having reigned for an incredible 70 years, being now gone, it is time to assess her contribution to both the efficient and the dignified institutions, those two strands of British public life, that together are the real Constitution and urn of ideas that keep Albion afloat. First off, the British can be happy that she was, as their national anthem prays, long to reign over us and that she stayed in harness until the very end, when the frailties of old age quickly saw her off in a most dignified way commensurate with her long and very unique life of service.

If we move on to the second verse, things get a bit stickier, as the anthem sees the monarch as being the bulwark defending Albion against her enemy’s “knavish tricks”. The third verse, in a Masonic nod to the late Queen’s pet Commonwealth project, prays that the “Lord make the nations see, That men should brothers be, And form one family, The wide world o’er”. Having shoehorned 56 supposedly sovereign nations into that dubious grouping, the late Queen, “our mother, prince, and friend”, has not performed too badly by her own beliefs.

It is, however, in the final verse that the anthem comes a cropper as it prays that “May she [the Queen] defend our laws”. Though we can write that off to poetic licence, it was not the function of the late Queen and nor is it the function of her son, King George III, to do any such thing. Should King George think otherwise, he will, like others before him, be quickly brought to heel.

His function is to emulate his mother, to zip the lip, to wear the Crown jewels Crown forces looted from South Africa and India, to shoot grouse in Scotland and, in general, to show that they are a cut or two above Albion’s great unwashed. Though Queen Elizabeth did a fine job of all of that, she did seem, on summary glance, to slip up near the end, doing impish skits with James Band and Paddington Bear.

But that is not the case at all. Queen Elizabeth’s charades were to build bridges for the rest of the Royal Family’s inner circle, folk like King Charles and Andrew and Fergie of Royal Knockout infamy and, much like the Emperor’s new clothes fable, to allow the Royal charade continue beyond her death.

The British regime cancelling all professional football matches to mark the passing of this frail nonagenarian is a part of this effort to perpetuate their Royal fraud and is in stark contrast to the 1952 passing of the relatively young King George V1, when all football matches went ahead.

For, whatever the late Queen’s sense of duty and of needing to provide for her dysfunctional family, she was, at day’s end, but a bauble in the great British scheme of things. And that is not just my opinion but it is that of Walter Bagehot‘s 1867 classic, The English Constitution, which is one of the very few books British Royalty ever bother reading. In it, Bagehot differentiates between the twin tracks of British governance, between the efficient institutions which govern, and the dignified institutions which beguile the ignorant in kitschy pomp and circumstance.

Albion’s efficient institutions are the Cabinet and Parliament which make up the rules of the land as they go along. The dignified institutions include the Royal Family and the Anglican cult, which King Charles now heads, which beguile the plebs into accepting Albion’s caste system.

Cast your eyes on the Famine Queen visiting Dublin, which then boasted Europe’s worst slums, at the height of the Boer genocide. Look at her armies of outriders and flunkeys cheering her on. Behold King George V and Queen Mary visiting Dublin in 19II, just a few short years before their flunkeys became fair game. Now see the British Army surrender Dublin to their flunkeys in 1922 and marvel at the soft power of their orderly retreat.

King Charles no more directs policy than did King George V during those years. Though King Charles might, like George III or the Famine Queen before him, have his own ideas, opinions and concerns, the only channel he may express them is through his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. Should King Charles decide to broadcast his concerns any wider, not only would he be breaking one of his late mother’s cardinal rules but he would be inviting a severe rap on his Royal knuckles.

This is precisely what happened in 1912 with King George V when Prime Minister Henry Asquith wrote to him in no uncertain terms to keep his opinions on Albion’s Irish Home Rule fraud to himself. And it was precisely because George V was taught to keep his opinions to himself that, during his reign, British constitutional monarchy reached its maturity and that the role of the monarch as a politically impartial eunuch came to be clearly defined. This allowed not only the monarchy but the entire British system deal with the advent of the first Labour government in 1924 and to survive an era that saw the fall from power of five emperors, eight kings and eighteen other dynasties.

And what of the wayward King Charles, the Anglican cult’s new Defender of the Faith, an honor first bestowed on King James 1V by Pope Julius II and which the serial killer Henry VIII used to justify the sticky fingered Anglican cult he founded on his own carnal needs? Charles, like a chip off the old block, is now trying to redefine his Royal role as being a defender of all faith, and not just the Anglican cult. But, as my review of one of their books here shows, the Anglican cult is the enemy of religion in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere as well. The Anglican cult, which King Charles III now heads, is an integral part of Albion’s dignified institutions, which allow Albion’s efficient institutions keep their fraud show on the road. Without it, England’s bitter weeds might become more toxic to Charles III, just as they became fatal to Charles 1 and almost fatal to Charles II, who both fell foul of Oliver Cromwell.

And so, as King George III ascends the throne and the Princes William and George await their turn in accordance with the 1689 Bill of Rights and the 1701 Act of Settlement (no Popeheads need apply), those money, media and military moguls who pull the strings behind Westminster Parliament and Buckingham Palace must work out how their elaborate charade, with its efficient and sullied institutions can continue to pull the wool over the masses not only in England’s green and pleasant land but far beyond where people should really know better.

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

See also

December 10, 2022
November 7, 2022

See also

December 10, 2022
November 7, 2022
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.