Should a monarch be passive, neutral or active? In many contemporary constitutional monarchies, the republicans are more than thrilled with having a monarch that is relegated to passive figurehead irrelevance - if they cannot outright abolish the monarchy.
I'm sure Labour is quite thrilled in the United Kingdom at the Crown's unwillingness to "attract controversy". It is true that there have been certain embarrassments to the Crown and certainly no one, whether monarch or commoner, would like to see their family attract negative attention, but this does not imply that a monarch must stay out of public life or be completely passive in state matters. It's understandable, really. I cannot blame Her Majesty for Labour's constant attacks upon Her Divine Right to rule, nor the media's constant snooping into her personal matters.
What I am concerned about about, however, is Her Majesty's unwillingness to step in and stop the unconstitutional onslaught by the Labour dictatorship of the past 11 years. The quasi-Trotskyist socialist Labour Party has done everything in its power to dismantle just about every institution that has existed in Great Britain since the Saxon monarchs, including removing many constitutional rights of the Lords Temporal and the Lords Spiritual. They've totally disarmed the public, they've created an out-of-control bureaucracy, surveillance at every turn, stripped the powers of the only parliamentary institution capable of putting a halt to their marxist agenda - the House of Lords, turned the UK into a multicultural mess... need I go on? And its not just internal matters but also international matters: Iraq, antagonizing Russia, and now Kosovo.
My dear friends, by neutrality I don't mean being passive while a socialist dictatorship of the prime minister usurps the God-given rights and powers of the Sovereign. And by "active" I am implying a Sovereign that actively engages in the day-to-day affairs of government and state. This is not the purpose of the Crown, nor has it ever been such. But also do not confuse my meaning of "active" to imply a "politician" in the republican sense.
No, the Crown is beyond such petty bickering, debating and scheming. The Sovereign must be neutral as in not taking particular sides in day-to-day government affairs, but active in restoring and protecting the constitution against incursion. The least that a Sovereign should be is passive. That would mean that the Marxist/socialists win.
I thank Irish Tory for providing me with the inspiration for this article. His comments yesterday were dead-on.
0 comments:
Post a Comment