Queen Elizabeth II Dies - End of an Era

[MJF]

With the accession of King Charles III there is likely to be a renewed campaign by republicans for the abolition of the monarchy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and even the United Kingdom itself (which may soon fragment with the Scottish Nationalists pushing for a new independence referendum). However, I read the following article today by the writer and commentator A.N. Wilson, which makes a number of good points as to why a constitutional monarchy works for the UK and safeguards the country from possible dictatorship.​

A.N. WILSON: Queen's death is moment republicans have been waiting for

A.N. WILSON: Throughout the Queen's reign, there have been those who have said: 'This outmoded institution will last Queen Elizabeth's time.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Alejo]

Russell Brand made a good video on Queen Elizabeth II passing:

That was very nice, thanks for sharing Andrian.

He is one of these public figures that has surprised me over the years. I remember thinking of him as s simple funny actor, drugs, money, etc. And he probably was, but he seems to have made such a turn in his life, that even if I don't agree with everything he says, it's endearing and commendable.

 

[Laura]

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

 

[Vulcan59]

Doesn't look like a good start.

WATCH: King Charles Sparks Global Outrage by Shooing Away Servant While Taking British Throne

“Imagine respecting anyone who treats another human being like this,” wondered one of a half-dozen viral tweets which racked up close to 10 million views within hours of being posted.

sputniknews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568613603288154112

 

[Il Matto]

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

That was a very interesting essay, thank you for the link.
I think John Carter describes the relationship between the British people and the Monarchy in a very interesting way:

"This dynamic between Crown and pleb is rarely articulated but instinctively felt, and is why the monarchy inspires such passionate devotion. Peasant revolts are rarely against the king, but more often in the name of the king, against those intermediary powers whom they consider to have perverted the positions granted to them by the king. They revolt not to rid themselves of the king, but to get the king’s attention, that the king might set things right"

Although the reference here is historical, and as we know, the modern monarchy has very little in the way of 'clout' politically, it certainly suggests why so many respond in an openly emotional way to almost, well, anything to do with the Monarchy - there is a deeply rooted need for someone in a high position to do something to curb the destruction.. Sadly, I feel certain that ole'Charlie will do nothing to rectify his mother's inaction.. he may even have been holding the reins that kept her fettered, who knows?

 

[Jefferson]

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

This essay makes some solid points as Elizabeth II could have intervened but she didn't - we just don't know the real reasons why she did not. It may say something about the decline of civilization we are seeing, as John Carter points out at the end of his article, commenting on his mainly indifferent attitude towards the Queen's death:

She never did anything to actively hurt us, but neither did she do anything to actively help us; and so, her passing is an emotional blank spot, a simple registering of a neutral fact about reality. Given the long and intimate ties between the institution of monarchy and my people, an intertwined history that disappears into the mists of the Northern European bronze age, the echoing nothing of this yawning indifference is a more scathing commentary on the fallen state of our dying civilization than any merely political outrage.

 

[Jones]

Here is a part of the Queens 1957 Christmas address where she indicates limits of her powers:

“I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

The articles mentions that military oaths are sworn to the crown, the same is true of police oaths. However, one of the legal maxims is The contract makes the law. A private contract is held as superior to a public oath. The military and police swear a public oath, then they sign a private contract - an employment contract that can demand things that are in conflict with the oath that was sworn.

The Crown’s formal political power may be limited, it is true, but it is not non-existent. Further, the Crown’s social power is immense. What should have been the reaction, one wonders, had Elizabeth II spoken publicly about the unfortunate events in Rotherham? To ask the question is to answer it: public opinion would have united behind her, and the authorities would have scrambled to set things right. Better: what might have happened if, decades ago, Elizabeth had voiced even a mild criticism of the replacement immigration policies of Tony Blair? A political crisis would have ensued, to be sure. Nativist sentiment would have united behind her and become an indomitable political force. It may have led to an effort to remove her as monarch, yes; but on the other hand, it would have been possible for her to indicate that Blair and his coven were themselves morally illegitimate, to have then dissolved his government, called a new election, and if Blair had resisted (as well he might), well ... the armed forces of the United Kingdom make their oaths of service not to Parliament, but to the Crown. Military men take their oaths seriously. And they were no fans of Blair.

I dunno. I think that if there were sufficient signals from police and military during the COVID operations to indicate that there may have been sufficient numbers to actually support and protect her and the people if she did speak out, maybe she would have. Perhaps that's one of the things she was hanging on so long for - apart from working towards Chuck having the shortest possible reign. That could be an overly idealistic take on the matter.

Part of her Royal title was 'Defender of the faith'. A lesser known detail of British monarchs since the time of Henry VIII is that they also hold the position of Supreme Govenor of the Church of England. As such the Queen also attended synods and regularly met with world religious leaders. She didn't mention her faith much in her early speeches, but was apparently encouraged by Prince Phillip to speak out about it more and her later speeches reflect this.

One of the reasons that Henry VIII started the Church of England was because he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't grant him one. Church of England was more lenient when it came to divorces.

 

[Gwenllian]

I don't know if it means anything, but just in case it does...:

• Jet was due to leave for Balmoral at 1.30pm but took off at 2.39pm, reports say
• Princes William, Andrew and Edward - and his wife Sophie - were on board
• Prince Harry was not on the plane and had to make his own journey to Scotland
• Experts suggest this is because a crash involving a plane carrying both Prince William and Prince Harry would have sparked a constitutional crisis

Prince William and other senior royals faced a mysterious hour-long delay as they rushed to see the Queen before she died on Thursday.

The RAF jet - which also had Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and his wife Sophie on board - had taken off for Balmoral at 2.39pm despite being scheduled to leave at 1.30pm, The Sun reports.

At 3.50pm the plane, a Dassault Falcon, landed at Aberdeen airport. The reason for the last-minute hold-up at RAF Northolt in South Ruislip is not yet known.

Prince Harry was not on the plane and had to make his own journey to Scotland because a crash would have sparked a constitutional crisis, experts have suggested.

Mystery over delay before jet flew senior royals to Queen's bedside

A jet with Prince William and other senior royals aboard had been set to take off from RAF Northolt at 1.30pm but only left for Balmoral at 2.39pm, reports say.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I would think that this delay had nothing to do with a possible constitutional crisis. Harry could have just taken a later flight, which he did.

 

[Niall]

A most interesting essay by John Carter which lays out what Elizabeth MIGHT have done had she been more - what, courageous?

Lament For the Hollow Crown

Elizabeth II’s empty legacy

barsoom.substack.com

Interesting articulation of 'what-might-have-beens', but the author's lament regarding 'racial justice for our people' spoil his overall point.

Contrary to current 'trad trends', Zimbabwe and South Africa would not have been 'fine, but for letting those darkies take over'.

Yes, the Empire (British/American) 'let the darkies take over' on the surface level, but they retained controlling influences in the former colonies by deeply financially indebting them and operating remotely-controlled 'dirty tricks' campaigns.

British Guardian backs CIA dirty tricks in Zimbabwe

In its most outspoken statement yet on Zimbabwe, the Bush administration has made it clear that it is taking steps to bring down President Robert Mugabe’s government. US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Walter Kansteiner announced the shift in US policy in a statement on August...

www.wsws.org

Regarding the queen's failure to do anything to stop postmodernism, the removal of civil liberties, and the destabilization of society through mass immigration, etc., yes, that's tragic. She basically 'folded' to the dominant paradigm, the 'current thing', rather than stand up for the values that people projected onto her.

But the type of 'radical counter-intervention' required to prevent 'leftist radicalism' from taking over and permeating everything is the role of an absolutist monarch.

People today don't understand what that is. They think it's essentially a dictator who controls everything and everyone in a whimsical, tyrannical way. No, it's someone who is 'above politics', like the current British 'constitutional monarch', but who occasionally and punctually intervenes as 'tribune of the plebs' - as Carter puts it - when it's clear that the popular will is being ignored and rail-roaded by the nobles.

And that is why the English were turned against the Stuarts in the 17th and 18th centuries. The nobles projected onto the last 'absolute monarchs' the very crime they themselves intended to commit (unfettered rule by decree). It was a psy-op to do away with the people ever again having a 'tribune of the plebs'. The incredible grief people felt over this loss of a 'symbolic-yet-potent-protector' comes down to us today in the form of dozens of beautiful and haunting songs and ballads.

So, while I'm sympathetic to Carter's overall lament, it's misplaced by two centuries. I'm afraid that 4DSTS was 'way ahead of the game' when it did away with (real) monarchy 2-300 years ago, robbing people of their best defensive 'armor' against ponerization.

 

[unkl brws]

Doesn't look like a good start.

WATCH: King Charles Sparks Global Outrage by Shooing Away Servant While Taking British Throne

“Imagine respecting anyone who treats another human being like this,” wondered one of a half-dozen viral tweets which racked up close to 10 million views within hours of being posted.

sputniknews.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1568613603288154112

King Charles signals to aide to remove pens during signing of oath​

 

[Debra]

King Charles signals to aide to remove pens during signing of oath​

This video clip is the one that creeped me out, glad you posted it.
I slowed it down and grabbed this facial expression he makes.
Facial expressions say a lot, at least, according to the research and material compiled by a large body of research into “micro expressions”.
In times of stress, overwhelm and confusion it becomes impossible to “mask” or fake a personality.
These genuine “facial clues” reveal a set of universal emotions, and are considered to be shared with humans as well as all sentient mammals on this planet, as per the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, and his fellow researchers.
I see a vicious, primal “threat to bite”, a glare of loathing, and dismissal, once the offending pen case is removed, all coming from the inner primal nature of ol Chuckie.

What do you all see?

 

[loreta]

This video clip is the one that creeped me out, glad you posted it.
I slowed it down and grabbed this facial expression he makes.
Facial expressions say a lot, at least, according to the research and material compiled by a large body of research into “micro expressions”.
In times of stress, overwhelm and confusion it becomes impossible to “mask” or fake a personality.
These genuine “facial clues” reveal a set of universal emotions, and are considered to be shared with humans as well as all sentient mammals on this planet, as per the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, and his fellow researchers.
I see a vicious, primal “threat to bite”, a glare of loathing, and dismissal, once the offending pen case is removed, all coming from the inner primal nature of ol Chuckie.

What do you all see?

View attachment 63818

I agree. His facial expression is beastly, like the face of a predator. And at the same time it is so pathetic, so clowneske, from a dark clown, evidently.

 

[SOTTREADER]

This video clip is the one that creeped me out, glad you posted it.
I slowed it down and grabbed this facial expression he makes.
Facial expressions say a lot, at least, according to the research and material compiled by a large body of research into “micro expressions”.
In times of stress, overwhelm and confusion it becomes impossible to “mask” or fake a personality.
These genuine “facial clues” reveal a set of universal emotions, and are considered to be shared with humans as well as all sentient mammals on this planet, as per the findings of Dr. Paul Ekman, and his fellow researchers.
I see a vicious, primal “threat to bite”, a glare of loathing, and dismissal, once the offending pen case is removed, all coming from the inner primal nature of ol Chuckie.

What do you all see?

View attachment 63818

I see frustration, a tint of anger and self containment as he was in a room full of people. He clearly didn't have enough space and would have preferred the assistant read his mind and remove the case. I think he should have picked it up and held his hand out for the assistant to come pick it up and say "thank you" as the assistant took it and walked away. Naturally, of course this is projection from my part

 

[SOTTREADER]

Btw, can King Charles actually do anything? If the position is symbolic, then won't he just kind of be in that position as a figurehead who occasionally makes some speech but actually can't do anything to change or influence events?

 

[Natus Videre]

What do you all see?