Sunday, December 19, 2010

Stamps and the Queen’s head


The Mail on Sunday carries a story today which discloses that the Government have omitted to ensure that the sell-off or Royal Mail is made on condition that whichever company wins the bidding war to run the institution organisation, the Monarch’s head will still feature upon every postage stamp, just as it has done since the 1840 penny black.

If you ignore the usual Mail hysteria of ‘anger’ and ‘frantic talks’ at Buckingham Palace, and the puerile speculation of delaying the sell-off until after the Diamond Jubilee to ensure that Her Majesty’s head features prominently (why would anyone not feature the Queen on stamps designed to commemorate her own jubilee?), the only substance to this story is that the Government have left a ‘loophole’ in the legislation which permits any new company to remove the Queen’s head should they so wish.

But His Grace is rather perturbed by the response of the Postal Affairs Minister Ed Davey to this. Mr Davey told the BBC: "Any company would be absolutely stark staring mad to decide not to have the Queen's head on its stamps… I'm extremely confident that the Queen's head will remain on our stamps."

His Grace would like to know why a foreign company should have the right to use the Queen’s image at all?

The Royal Mail has a long and distinguished history going back to to 1516, when Henry VIII established a ‘Master of the Posts’. Its Royal Charter is symbolic of its national importance and significance. The UK invented the postage stamp: we are therefore privileged by being the only country in the world not obliged to place the country’s name upon our postage stamps. The Royal Mail has a foundation of five centuries of English and British sovereignty fused with five centuries of Royal patronage.

It is a little disturbing to think that the Sovereign’s head is being traded like a worthless token amongst the postal companies of Europe. There was a time when the head of Caesar was symbolic of sovereign political authority.

But then it is reported that the frontrunners to buy Royal Mail are expected to be German and Dutch operators.

The Royal Family is both German (through Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) and Dutch (through William of Orange).

So perhaps the German mail operator Deutsche Post or the Dutch TNT would wish to retain the historic link as an assertion of their own sovereignty; a reclamation of their own royalty.

Either way, it is the end of another great sovereign British institution. But when the Queen is no longer sovereign in her realm, why persist with the façade of sovereignty? When national identity is so muddled, and murky multiculturalism has subsumed the traditions, culture and heritage of this once-great nation, perhaps a Royal Charter is as meaningless as a British Empire Medal.

Let us not forget that this Conservative-led Government is selling off Royal Mail because the EU has decreed that they must. The European Postal Services Directive (2002 and 2008), which was agreed by Labour, forces the liberalisation of European postal markets across the EU to permit EU nations to compete in national mail markets.

From Royal Mail to Europost: perhaps it is germane that Germany’s Deutche Post may finally place a vassal monarch upon an impotent throne.

42 Comments:

Blogger Crusader said...

One could always place the head of CharlesI on a stamp! Surely a more dignified place for it than a basket at Whitehall.

"I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."

Or should I say 'Saint Charles Stuart' or 'King Charles the Martyr' as canonised by the Church of England and venerated throughout the Anglican Communion?

19 December 2010 at 12:52  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Since the queen foreswore her coronation oath and became part of the treasonous political edifice that sold this country down the river who gives a toss if she's on the stamps or not? Most of the damn country is owned or ruled by bloody foreigners anyway so why not this?

Crusader, we're going to need more than one basket...

19 December 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous Sandy Jamieson said...

The Uiversal Postal Union requires all nations issuing stamps to indicate their name on the stamp. With one exception- the UK. It was accepted the monarch's head was sufficient to identify a British Stamp. In the late 1960s this was often replaced on commerorative stamps by the monarch's profile and on definitives by the Machin designed head profile

Were the head no longer to be a feature of UK stanps, the UPU would be justified in revoking that derogation

19 December 2010 at 13:03  
Blogger KINGOFHIGHCS said...

It appears that we are being dismantled as a Nation before our very eyes.

'Since the queen foreswore her coronation oath and became part of the treasonous political edifice that sold this country down the river who gives a toss if she's on the stamps or not?'

She is a little different than the political edifice you rightly condemn. She does appear to have forgotten her oath before God and our nation! But it would be a serious step to interfer politically!

Should our sovereign use her royal perogative to abolish a corrupt political house, would she not be condemned as abusive of 'Her Power' as it would most definitely be stated by secularists and republicans.

Maybe we should demand a definitive referendum to decide the EU Project and show the strength of feeling regarding this utterly corrupt political entity and how our own politicians have colluded in undermining our nation.

What company is not forced to declare its accounts as verified and legal?

ALARM BELLS SHOULD BE PEELING ACROSS OUR NATION.

So Says KINGOFHIGHCS

19 December 2010 at 13:18  
Blogger Crusader said...

Gnostic

Now, now .... I would never take up arms against my State.

What was the false oath taken by Queen Elizabeth at her Coronation? Surely this is a treasonous claim?

I've just remembered too that Charles head was sown back on his body before burial. Seeming an honour granted him by Cromwell.

19 December 2010 at 13:24  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

KINGOFHIGHCS
Gnostic

Are you both advocating the unchecked 'Divine Right' of the Monarchy? Your comments are suggestive of this. What would you have Queen Elizabet do, pray tell?

As always,
God's Servant First.

19 December 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Crusader said:
"What was the false oath taken by Queen Elizabeth at her Coronation? Surely this is a treasonous claim?"

Crusader. There is no "false oath".
The issue is whether or not HMQ has honoured in the letter and in the spirit her rightful Oath in 1953 to uphold the law of the land.
This was set out in the Pdetition of Right and Bill of Rights (1689) which is still in force.
What has happened is that HMQ has, for unknown reasons, failed to uphold her Oath which is part of our Constitution AND STILL VALID.
It states that it is a permanent element in our Constitution for all posterity and with the additional very important clause for those who allow a usurped EU law to take effect:
"The Oath shall in like manner be administerd to every King & Queen that shall succeed to the Crown ...
ANY LAW, STATUTE, OR USAGE NOTWITHSTANDING".
The wording of the Coronation Act is clear enough.
Thus "EU law" is illegal. There is therefore every legitimate cause for legal rebellion against such a regime, which incidentally is also laid down in our Magna Carta.

19 December 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Royal Family is both German (through Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) and Dutch (through William of Orange)."

Eh? Come off it, Rev. William of Orange left no direct descendants. On his death the crown remained with Mary II and on her death descended to Anne, on hers to the King of Hanover - a protestant heir of the Stuarts, as required by the Act of Settlement. Describing the Royal family "German" is the sort of petty, rather nasty, name calling which puts me off an otherwise often interesting and sensible blog.

Matt London

19 December 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger Crusader said...

In my earlier responses I forgot to say it would be a great shame to replace the Queen's head on the stamp with some symbol of republicanism.

By the way, the promises made by the Queen have not been foresworn.

Charles, on the other hand, given his expressed desire to be 'Defender of Faiths', might have a job swearing:

"... to the utmost of your power maintain ... the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?"

Is disestablishment on its way?

19 December 2010 at 13:48  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

But when the Queen is no longer sovereign in her realm, why persist with the façade of sovereignty?

Answer; no type of good, or logical reason at all.

Strange, is it not, that we hear nothing whatsoever from the Queen or the Royal family on this or any other issues concerning national sovereignty, including the seemingly invisible British Constitution?

One would imagine that the royals would be concerned about performing their sworn job of protecting the British constitution for the benefit of their much suffering and historically self-sacrificing subjects.

The exact opposite would appear to be the case. The Prince of Charlie's for example, has nothing but praise for the EU and all that goes with it.

How can this be?

Could it be that the figure head of The British Empire no longer considers The UK to be part of her British Commonwealth or indeed Corporate Empire, therefore ultimately no longer her direct responsibility?

Answer, very likely YES.

After all the Queen and her hangers-on own at lot more then just 60 odd million, barely half educated, therefore ever more useless peasants, now pointlessly cluttering up what would otherwise be a rather nice looking country side.

Why not give the whole load of rubbish to some wholly fascist foreign body to help her family clean up the mess, they themselves very much helped to create?

It makes you wonder why they did not simply stand back and allow their much beloved and financed 3rd Reich to finish off the job 75 years ago.

It is a matter of record that many of our Royal family, including prospective monarch, would have been very happy to have done so, as far back as the early 1930's.

The truth is MONEY RULES everything. Therefore those that control the money, as well as hold title to the vast majority of the worlds real wealth, also own YOU.

Therefore passionately believe rightly, or wrongly, that they have a divine right to do whatever they want, whenever they damned well please.

The Queen does not have to answer to her own people. In fact our constitution forbids her from doing so. ( The Queen only seems to obey the British Constitution when it suits her bankers for her to do so. )

Which is rather handy, to say the least, when the Royal Family are very likely directly conspiring to abdicate from all responsibility towards their own people.

19 December 2010 at 13:51  
Blogger Crusader said...

Graham wOOD

Eh?

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples ... according to their respective laws and customs?"

This was intended to CURTAIL the power of Monarchs by ensuring there would be no royal interference with the law. He or she cannot unilaterally INTERFERE with Parliament.

19 December 2010 at 13:58  
Anonymous Bede said...

We must be the only country in the world that is prepared to sell off its national (and often vital security) assets and utilities to the highest bidder. When will Kent, Rutland, Cornwall etc. be sold off to an oil rich arab state? Perhaps Norfolk will be sold to the Chinese sovereign fund so that all its food production can be sent to China. It would pay off all our debts.

19 December 2010 at 14:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

… why persist with the façade of sovereignty?

To fool the people, Your Grace. The people must be fooled into thinking that Britain is still a sovereign, independent nation lest they begin to understand the ultimate purpose of being in the European Union: the eradication of their country.

So, the Queen pretends to reign, Parliament pretends to legislate, the Supreme Court pretends to be our supreme court, the BBC pretends to tell the truth, and we pretend we’re living in a parliamentary democracy.

If luck is on the politicians’ side, the people will continue to be fooled until it’s just too late for them to save their nation.

19 December 2010 at 15:01  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

This was intended to CURTAIL the power of Monarchs by ensuring there would be no royal interference with the law. He or she cannot unilaterally INTERFERE with Parliament.

Yes, but this is a double edged sword, as well as a double headed axe, rapped within a bundle of wooden sticks, as far as the ordinary people of The UK as well as many of the rest of the world are concerned.

For the JOB of the Queen is to protect The British Constitution. She obviously cannot be expected do this, if she has no constitutional power over the parliament that does.

However the Queen is our head of state, and therefore has all of the powers that usually go with such a title, and in the queens case many more.

The power of the most powerful monarchy within the known universe does not reside in any direct power over our elected House of Commons, or indeed unelected House of Lords.

Her power comes from supposedly independent entities such as The Corporation of London, along with all of the Internationalist banking, assurance, and insurance institutions contained within it.

Many various Royal institutions such as The Royal Institute of International Affairs, British Freemasonry, The secret and civil services, The Tavistock Institute, and many other so called top educational establishments, including Oxford and Cambridge universities.

Add that of her own personal wealth to that of the perfectly enormous Crown estates, and that of The Commonwealth.

However, last but not in anyway least, control over all of the above, along with two extremely large multi-national conglomerates, by her most favored banking family.

Sounds pretty powerful to me, at least in theory, what do you think?

Why would our monarchy, along with their aristocracy, need to directly control some stupid provincial parliament, when the things that they or perhaps far more importantly their bank managers personally control, have long since essentially done so?

19 December 2010 at 15:15  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

But when the Queen is no longer sovereign in her realm, why persist with the façade of sovereignty? When national identity is so muddled, and murky multiculturalism has subsumed the traditions, culture and heritage of this once-great nation, perhaps a Royal Charter is as meaningless as a British Empire Medal.

Why persist indeed? The monarchy is an outdated anachronism. Whilst the current Queen has some undoubted personal qualities Banaly Prince Charley with his penchant for talking to plants and homeopathy is little more than a joke. We must do away with all this backward looking sentimentality and embrace a new British Republic.

The failed multicultural experiment notwithstanding the British people are not to be written off, we do not need the continual reinforcement of Christianity, conservatism, the monarchy, and continual reference to our past “glories” to know who we are.

I don’t care if the Queens head is on a postage stamp or not. What matters are not symbols but realities. Of course we have seeded much too much power to the EU but the reality of power is economic might, just as it has always been. We are slipping down the league table because others are moving up. Our days at the top table are numbered. We will continue to punch above our weight for some time, partly the result of history and partly due to the ubiquity of the English language.

So stop crying over spilt milk, its not as bad as you make out.

19 December 2010 at 15:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Graham Wood @ 13.39

Well said Sir! I believe, heart, soul and mind, that you are correct. Not only in your assertion of the facts, but in the spirit of your assertion too!

There can be no equivocation here. All else is pettifogging blether, which serves only to delineate the 'men from the boys' on the wider, parent subject of allegiance.

There is not, nor ever can there be, any EU directive/law/dictat that supercedes the ulitmate Sovereignty of these Isles.

Crusader @ 13.58 : when Parliament aborts its responsibilities, where then lies the oath?

Pertaining to the issue at hand, my old alma mater was founded by Thomas Wright Hill, the father of Sir Rowland Hill. As a grubby second former I've sat at the very desk of the incipient Sir Rowland.

It might be said (but carefully!) that my sense of life, the universe and everything, was imbued via the rubbing of those same boards, as from the nascent buttocks of the Master!

From whence that 'seat of learning' I daily inculcated the almost 'Arthurian' significance of Her Majesty's Postal Service, the Royal Mail!

Let those beware, who would tinker with such a 'ley-line' embodiment of the national psyche.

My thoughts wonder to those images of another would-be European dictator, hanging head-first, from a lamp-post...

19 December 2010 at 15:46  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Graham Davis @ 15.39:

I retract! Trust you to partly ruin it!

19 December 2010 at 15:50  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

Such mordid and defeatist introspection!

And such an absence of respect for your institutions.

Are you all so unwilling to engage with the political processes instead of expressing all this negativity?

Seems to me a country gets the Parliament it deserves.

In this age of diversity and multiculuralism, whatever these terms mean,is there still a law prohibing a Roman Catholic ascending to the throne?

19 December 2010 at 16:15  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Being as Ed Davy was the one who led his party out in protest over Lisbon , I find it a little difficult to entrust him with such an important matter "I think we might have" is not really the understanding of the cultural significance of Royal mail .

Whilst the EU may be in the business of reducing any symbolic icons of nation state , and Labour handed great wedges of postal work to the new postal companies that propsered under its spin client state , we should a forget a few important things about this .

1 The universal service has a number of advantages when applied to postal and parcel work , in that the quantities can enable economies of scale to make the universal service work . If you think half full vans run by competitors will make postage cheaper , well just wait and see.

2 The city to city structure is in place and more importantly the door to door and collections end , which is begining to become a poor relations of the system .

3 The problems of inefficency have been highlighted as being in the machinery bit of sorting , however Mr Crozier was no slim cat and The post office lost some work and had a lot of fiddly bits , not really taking account of the changes to post volumes but increased parcels due to internet trading.

4 The interlated nature of post office and royal mail could be improved , but it is clear that it should pay for itself and not be state run , but run in a special kind of way , perhaps via a permit of fit for job which would subject the whole board or two boards if you include post office to firing if badly run . Pension pay would have to be end final salary , but equally for managers and board members . A special permit would enable the Queens head to be used , a universal service and attention to keeping meaningfull costs and accounts to present to parliament. What it should do with profits is an intresting question , it perhaps firstly should pay its current pension liabilities , which are considerable as it was a highly staffed business , beyond that a mix perhaps of employee shares and a stable returns fund for UK pensions industry , but certainly not CEOs owning big slices in wage deals . It should make money and is a national service and should be run as such .If it could be run as such it may well help us get out the mess labour left long term .

5 It shouldnt compete with courier services who have there own markets , but returning basic postal service ie letters to it being the sole UK service would help with collection and delivery capital utilisation . Bulk post rates could be formally agreed so as to be fair to all business or public services.

Apart from the loss of our Philatellic history and our art outlet for themed stamps , the main institution origins of the service remain , a trusted postal service , a coded effective delivery/collection service , a national service that is used by everyone at many times of there life and business with very little fuss to the user or business user.

The post office is a little more difficult , but not impossible in part as its revenues and cost are diverse/variable , my local crown office is very busy with 6 tellers and I think I would miss the information on posting correctly , class required and safe wrapping/labelling for carriage , let alone the community aspects of the smaller ones . There are the security aspects as well for both international and home mail.

19 December 2010 at 16:17  
Blogger Crusader said...

Off with the heads of these weak, lilly livered traitors!

19 December 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous len said...

I suggest that the Queens head on our stamps be replaced with the head of Richard Dawkin`s as a symbol of our secularisation.
And put no address on the envelope as he has no idea where he is going or how to get there.

19 December 2010 at 16:38  
Anonymous not a machine said...

awe my post has dissapered , thanks CIA or who ever .

Basically no , to losing unversal service and yes to making it sustainable and cost effective with no corpratist troughing like with some other privatisations

19 December 2010 at 16:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The clue is in the title...ROYAL mail. Even now (however tenuous) mail is sent under protection of the Crown. If a private company undertake to do the job that Royal Mail are failing to do (provide an efficient postal service) then all references to the monarch should be removed as the service will be provided for profit, NOT in the name of the Crown.

19 December 2010 at 16:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

If these missing posts continue, this blog will shift platform.

Mr Not A Machine:

not a machine has left a new comment on your post "Stamps and the Queen’s head":

Being as Ed Davy was the one who led his party out in protest over Lisbon , I find it a little difficult to entrust him with such an important matter "I think we might have" is not really the understanding of the cultural significance of Royal mail .

Whilst the EU may be in the business of reducing any symbolic icons of nation state , and Labour handed great wedges of postal work to the new postal companies that propsered under its spin client state , we should a forget a few important things about this .

1 The universal service has a number of advantages when applied to postal and parcel work , in that the quantities can enable economies of scale to make the universal service work . If you think half full vans run by competitors will make postage cheaper , well just wait and see.

2 The city to city structure is in place and more importantly the door to door and collections end , which is begining to become a poor relations of the system .

3 The problems of inefficency have been highlighted as being in the machinery bit of sorting , however Mr Crozier was no slim cat and The post office lost some work and had a lot of fiddly bits , not really taking account of the changes to post volumes but increased parcels due to internet trading.

4 The interlated nature of post office and royal mail could be improved , but it is clear that it should pay for itself and not be state run , but run in a special kind of way , perhaps via a permit of fit for job which would subject the whole board or two boards if you include post office to firing if badly run . Pension pay would have to be end final salary , but equally for managers and board members . A special permit would enable the Queens head to be used , a universal service and attention to keeping meaningfull costs and accounts to present to parliament. What it should do with profits is an intresting question , it perhaps firstly should pay its current pension liabilities , which are considerable as it was a highly staffed business , beyond that a mix perhaps of employee shares and a stable returns fund for UK pensions industry , but certainly not CEOs owning big slices in wage deals . It should make money and is a national service and should be run as such .If it could be run as such it may well help us get out the mess labour left long term .

5 It shouldnt compete with courier services who have there own markets , but returning basic postal service ie letters to it being the sole UK service would help with collection and delivery capital utilisation . Bulk post rates could be formally agreed so as to be fair to all business or public services.

Apart from the loss of our Philatellic history and our art outlet for themed stamps , the main institution origins of the service remain , a trusted postal service , a coded effective delivery/collection service , a national service that is used by everyone at many times of there life and business with very little fuss to the user or business user.

The post office is a little more difficult , but not impossible in part as its revenues and cost are diverse/variable , my local crown office is very busy with 6 tellers and I think I would miss the information on posting correctly , class required and safe wrapping/labelling for carriage , let alone the community aspects of the smaller ones . There are the security aspects as well for both international and home mail.

19 December 2010 at 17:08  
Anonymous Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur said...

Cranmer,

You display surprising ignorance on the German origins of the Royal Family. Albert of course was a johnny-come-lately in these terms - Queen Victoria's own forebears were in the House of Hanover which assumed the throne in 1714 in the form of George I who had also been the ruler of Hanover since 1698.

This lineage both predates and is far stronger than the later bolted on albert

19 December 2010 at 17:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Lady Virginia Droit de Seigneur,

His Grace was not talking of 'origins' (which are veritably diverse): he merely referred to the most recent 'injection' of Germanic genes into the Royal Family. You only have to read the thread above to discover that some consider that by referring the 18th century Hanovers as 'German' is considered 'petty' and 'rather nasty'.

19 December 2010 at 17:47  
Anonymous JayBee said...

His Grace would like to know why a foreign company should have the right to use the Queen’s image at all?

YG, according to the Daily Telegraph the draft legislation already contained provisions requiring a future private operator to get Royal approval before issuing new postage stamps bearing Her Majesty’s image.

This implies that Her Majesty will retain control over the use of her image even if a foreign company is involved, but I have a feeling that government will find an excuse to meddle.

19 December 2010 at 17:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Graham Davis (15:39)—Phillip Blond makes a defence of monarchy in this essay. He says:

❛Monarchy helps to sustain the democratic process by mixing a power other than that of democracy with democracy. And in this respect, mixed constitution—the combination of the rule of the many, the few and the one—is more effective than the division of powers in preventing elected tyranny.
[…]
Twentieth-century tyrannies abandoned this legacy of mixed constitution. Both communism and fascism were examples of how democracy thought of as self-sufficient collapsed into tyranny.
[…]
But in Britain we never fell into extreme tyranny because we always thought that beyond the will of the people lay absolutes not invented by human will, but which human will, individually and collectively, can ceaselessly try to discern. Certain inherited institutions: the king, the lords and the church, representing the one, the few and the transcendent; stood guard over the notion of the objective good and the common good.

By doing so they did not subvert but rather upheld democracy. They protected the rôle of the many in trying further to work out the nature of the good life. So to defend democracy, we need more than democracy.❜

19 December 2010 at 18:06  
Anonymous Ed P said...

If the Royal part of the name is retained, so also must be the Queen's head.

19 December 2010 at 19:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Royal Mail was the impediment to privatisation before and now that has been obviated. The EU wanted this so that the dominant Post Office becomes renamed EU Mail as a future monopoly.

The amusing thing will be to get letters from IoM or Canada with the Queen on the stamp but not within the UK.

The eventual goal is to print stamps at filling stations using those new self-weigh machines which print a black and white stamp so there is no role for the monarch's head.

It should help Australia move towards a republic and the Commonwealth disintegrate.

Those Tories in Berkshire and Bucks and Surrey that voted to make David Cameron their leader should revel in his Europhilia./ After all his Politics tutor at BNC was Vernon Bogdanor who advised Geoffrey Howe on his Destroy-Thatcher Speech to the H of C.

Britain is a nation "in Abwicklung" ie deconstruction. It is unstoppable and inexorable. The self-immolation of an island people which has systematically elected dictatorial governments to destroy their nation state

19 December 2010 at 19:30  
Anonymous non mouse said...

ty Mr. Rottenborough.


As for the rest, it just makes me ill; we MUST get rid of the euSSR.

I deeply resent paying any euros for anything. I refuse to buy anything that I know comes from them. Of course --- we can't be sure, any more...

As for the hegemony they've already seized over our mail, I need the few things I must send to reach their destinations. That's the reason I don't write anti-eu slogans on the envelopes. This is the trouble though. They deprive us of our voice; for them we have no right to speak, let alone act or act. Heaven's what even makes us imagine we're capable of thinking?

The situation is dire. The sooner we find a way to take back control, the better.

**********************
btw, on HM. Mabye she was unable to do other than B&B demanded. They may have made threats we know nothing about; and, like Cleggeron, they purported to represent the will of the people. Thus, she could (and should) not gainsay the People without causing even more trouble; so perhaps she played for time rather than plunge us into immediate crisis. Or maybe she left it to the People to make their own move for Independence.

We're nearly out of time now, though.

19 December 2010 at 19:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Rottenborough

"But in Britain we never fell into extreme tyranny because we always thought that beyond the will of the people lay absolutes not invented by human will, but which human will, individually and collectively, can ceaselessly try to discern."

Tell that to the subjects in Ireland! What a tale of subjection, neglect and brutality.

19 December 2010 at 19:37  
Anonymous Anon 2 said...

Anon @ 19.37 --- Oh for crying out loud. So you just don't admit that the Irish continually invaded GB throughout all the centuries before the frogule normans took over? You just don't admit that we represent a large share of your Irish Celtic genes? You just don't admit that the frogule normans turned round and used us against each other?

No -- you'd rather get with said frogules... who are now oppressing you from the other side .... and work with them against your own.

That's them on the winners podium again, then.

19 December 2010 at 20:47  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

The Queen’s head would be removed from our stamps by the owner of any privatised ex-Royal Mail, an owner which would probably be a foreign company and might very well be a foreign state. A foreign state, it matters not which one, owning our postal service. The only comparable situation is the Israeli control of telecommunications in the United States, something of which most Americans are entirely unaware, but which means that the Israelis are listening in on every telephone call into and out of their country.

Let battle commence for national sovereignty. For rural communities. For age-old features of our national life. For the monarchy’s direct link to every address in the Kingdom. And against the essentially or entirely foreign forces of global capitalism and the EU, which are marching in with a view to destroying the Royal Mail. An EU directive requires full competition in postal services by 2012, so that the Royal Mail must deliver its competitors’ letters as if they were its own First Class ones, yet for less than the price of First Class post. This necessitates cuts, both in postmen’s pay and in Post Offices.

Meanwhile, the “free” marketeers seriously propose privatising something that has never been in the private sector, having been in what would now be called public ownership ever since it was created by Charles II in 1660, and representing the most significant direct link between the monarchy and every household, business, organisation and institution in the land. Nothing could better indicate how utterly unconservative the “free” market ideology really is. Neoliberal economics, a total disregard for our heritage and institutions, and European federalism: all of a piece, of course.

Yet even Margaret Thatcher, a fanatical if incoherent heritage-destroyer and European federalist in accordance with her barely understood economic ideology, specifically ruled out privatising the Royal Mail, “because it’s Royal”. Just for once, she was right. Not merely foreign companies, but companies actually owned by foreign states as such, are now circling our postal service.

If this is not a conservative and Tory cause, then what is? It echoes the cry of “King and People” against the Whig magnates. It even expresses loyalty to the legacy of the Royal House of Stuart. Those who believe in publicly owned public services, in strong unions, and in rural communities must unite with those, very largely the same people, who believe in national sovereignty (both as against the EU and as against the foreign acquisition of a key national asset), in the monarchy’s direct link to every address, and in rural communities. Public ownership and strong unions are in fact safeguards of national sovereignty and of the countryside, and thus of that other such safeguard, the Crown.

Together, trade unionists and paleocons gave Thatcher the only Commons defeat of her Premiership, when she tried to introduce a free-for-all in Sunday trading. Together, we can save our Post Office. Let battle commence.

19 December 2010 at 21:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ non mouse (19:36)—Maybe she was unable to do other than B&B demanded.

At her Coronation, the Queen promised to govern Britain and her other realms ‘according to their respective laws and customs.’ As far as I can see, she has kept that promise. The laws and treaties binding us to the European Union may be highly regrettable but they have been made by governments elected by the people, and could be unmade if a UKIP government, for example, were elected.

When the Queen made her oath in 1953, no one could have foreseen that a new class of spiv politician would emerge, intent on destroying this country. If the oath had said: ‘according to Britain’s laws and customs, and on the strict understanding that the legislative function of Parliament will never be ceded to a foreign power’, we could not have joined the Common Market without the Queen breaking her oath.

19 December 2010 at 21:55  
Blogger DAD said...

Recently, I wrote a letter to Her Majesty pointing-out that she had, again and again, broken her Coronation Oath in signing away Her sovereignty and my protection under the law of this land. (Note the 'law' which she promised to uphold is the 'Common' law which makes this country special. This 'law' is not Statutes or Acts of Parliaments.)

Section 61 of the Magna Carta says that it is OUR DUTY to enter into Lawfull Rebellion with any Monarch who fails his/her people.

I finished the letter with these words :-
Failure to act on Your part will, I am sure, result, sometime in the near future, in rebellion of the British people. This rebellion may be lawful and peaceful or, I fear, violent and bloody. The mood of the population is very anti-EU, anti-politicians, anti-government and anti-parliament. Democracy is in danger. Thankfully most of us are very supportive of You, but not, necessarily, other members of your family.

I urge You to act now, act swiftly, act decisively, and act ruthlessly.

20 December 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Crusader says -

Charles, on the other hand, given his expressed desire to be 'Defender of Faiths', might have a job swearing: "... to the utmost of your power maintain ... the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?"

I'd say Charles could well become Defender of Faiths if Rowan Williams is able to keep the CofE together. A remnant of Anglo-Papalists on one side, moving through the same-sex union brigade to the vinegary prots on the other side, with 57 varieties in between.

Hard to preserve that lot inviolably and even harder to put it all on a commemorative stamp. Perhaps it will have to come down to "Vee heff vays"!

20 December 2010 at 10:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As quoted by the gnostic one near the top - Since the queen foreswore her coronation oath and became part of the treasonous political edifice that sold this country down the river who gives a toss if she's on the stamps or not? Most of the damn country is owned or ruled by bloody foreigners anyway so why not this?

I wholeheartedly agree, what is the point of a queen who has no power or loyalty,a queen who has visited about 20 plus islamic nations but never bothered with Israel what is the point of an elected government if it has to do whatever its unelected foreign masters and judges in europe tell it to do. I look to Christ alone, this world is passing away, we are governed by crooks, they are all the same, they promise this and that but once they get their feet under the table they forget and change their minds.

20 December 2010 at 11:08  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Anon 11:08

Not sure that its right to blame Her Majesty for avoiding Israel.

This is worth a read:
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/8719

The Middle East is a dangerous place and she would be a high value target.

20 December 2010 at 13:23  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

They can use my arse if it helps stop letters being stolen and tampered with by their staff.

20 December 2010 at 14:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Either way, it is the end of another great sovereign British institution.

As indeed is the intention. Once all great sovereign British institutions are ended, so will Britain. The union is dissolved. Wales, Northern Ireland and London have their EU ordained assemblies, as does Scotland, save that it is deceptively styled ‘parliament’ for now. England herself must be destroyed utterly to fit into the EU as nine autonomous regions, none with any power to challenge the EU.

Westminster will be redundant and eventually binned along with any remnants of British institutions and culture.

And we allow our governments to do this to us.

DP

20 December 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a thought on Royal identity - William and Mary had no children to inherit - on his death the throne passed to his sister-in-law, Queen Anne. I don't think that the monarchy can be said, therefore to be Dutch on account of William, though I have no doubt common ancestry can be traced as the crowned heads of Europe tend to be related!

22 December 2010 at 15:52  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older