Death Of A Nation

As Archbishop Cranmer is noting, the grant of Royal Assent to the European Union (Amendment) Bill passed with virtually no comment. Reflecting upon our Monarch's spineless acquiescence to the wishes of our un-elected First Lord of the Treasury, Cranmer says:

"Her Majesty the Queen has received petitions from the Lords, thousands upon thousands of letters from her subjects, and sworn affidavits withholding and withdrawing allegiance and obedience to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, until such time as she is free to exercise her lawful authority.

"And still she gives her assent to a Bill about which she can be in no doubt with regard to its contentious nature, the illegality of its implementation following the Irish rejection, or its illegitimacy under our Common Law birthright.

"Is Her Majesty a committed Europhile? Is she complicit in this whole sordid agenda of ‘ever closer union’ to create a country called Europe? Is she guilty of placing her people in bondage to a foreign, unelected and unaccountable power?

"And if not, why does she not follow the example of David Davis and abdicate on a point of principle, and thereby precipitate a constitutional crisis, the outcome of which would be a referendum to let the people decide?"

Whilst I cannot claim to have any inside knowledge to explain the bizarre actions of Her Majesty, it behoves me to point out that abdication was not the only option available to her.

There is a long-standing precedent that the Monarch should take advice (obey) the wishes of Her Ministers, as reflected by these comments upon the official website of the British Monarchy:

"As a constitutional monarch, The Queen cannot make or pass legislation, and must remain politically neutral. On almost all matters The Queen acts on the advice of ministers."

This is mere precedent, however, not Constitutional fact. Her Majesty does indeed have the authority to withhold Assent, as this is one of the reserve powers fully vested in the Monarch.

Why, then, might she not have exercised it?

A possible, if unflattering, explanation might be found if we understand that Her Majesty's grasp of, and interest in, the history of our nation is vacuous, and largely does not extend beyond her immediate ancestry. Following the completion of his Monarchy series, the historian David Starkey painted a grim picture:

Her lack of curiosity extends, [Starkey] thinks, to the history of the monarchy itself. In 2003 Starkey was asked to curate an exhibition on Elizabeth I at the National Maritime Museum. After it was hung, he had lunch with the Queen. It was not a success for either of them. She was piqued - as he tells it - because her gin and Dubonnet did not arrive quickly enough; he was piqued because she showed no interest whatsoever in his show. It took him a while to work out why. "I didn't realise that she had no interest whatever in her predecessors. Her history begins with her great grandfather. That is it. It really is it."

Historically, the most compelling argument put forward by monarchists in their support of the Crown has always been that of the Monarch as having a longer term interest in our nation than the members of the political classes, who come and go on a regular basis. Of course, this argument only stands if the Monarch is actually prepared to exercise their powers in the national interest.

Those seeking to absolve Her Majesty of her neglect in this matter by claiming, as the British Monarchy website does, that the Monarch "doesn't do politics" would do well to bear in mind the words of Albert, the Prince Consort, as recorded in Bogdanor (1995):

"Nowhere does the Constitution demand an indifference on the part of the sovereign to the march of political events ... Why are princes alone to be denied the credit of having political opinions based upon an anxiety for the national interests and honour of their country and the welfare of mankind? Are they not more independently placed than any other politician in the State? Are their interests not most intimately bound up with those of their country? Is the sovereign not the natural guardian of the honour of his country, is he not necessarily a politician?"

Shame. The honour of our country, along with the sovereignty of our nation, was far too easily signed away this week.