PDA

View Full Version : Sixty Years of Elizabeth


Tyburn
02-06-2012, 09:19 PM
On February 6th 1952 Princess Elizabeth would have received a very important phone call. At the time she was on Tour of the commonwealth...meanwhile back in England, her Father, poor George 6th, died.

George was a man who had never wanted to be King, and he had worked himself, quite litterally, to an early grave. The Man who was going to live a quiet life as a Minor Royal had been dramatically forced, completely unprepared onto the phone, right between the Great Depression, and the Advance of Nazi Germany. It is said that when King George 5th was being carried to Westminster Hall, the State Crown atop of it fell off the coffin and crashed to the floor infront of the new King Edward. He saw this as a bad omen. It was. Edward, whilst King never made it to coronation. He abdicated before it occured.

When George became King...Elizabeth, as Heir was only just a teenager! Early records show, that Elizabeth wasnt too worried because her Father was only in his forties and would of course rule for a very long time.

But there was a nasty side effect to pushing George onto the Throne. He basically mimicked what happened to Prince Albert. He worked too hard and became to stressed. He died well, well before his time.

Suddenly, the Queen that never should have been anything in History but a name discovered she was Queen...Sixty Years to the day, she is still going strong as the Oldest Monarch the Kingdom has ever seen in 2000 years...and if she is still here a few years from now, she will also become the longest Reigning Monarch to boot.

Tyburn
02-06-2012, 09:54 PM
So what is the point in the Monarch?

In short...she is what "the Gladiator" was in the UFC introits.

She isnt a Prime Minister, She isnt a President. Infact she is FAR greater...for Prime Ministers and Presidents come and go...but the Monarchy is an unbroken line.

She is continuity in a time of change, above party politics, and beyond a Law maker.

She knows everything, she hears from everyone.

However shyty the Parliament becomes, she is kind of beyond that. apart, in that she knows everything, but she is untainted by the Government, because she is not actually in it.

Aparently, all the prime ministers say that there weekly meetings with her, are kind of like visiting a therapist. She is the only person that they can speak to in total confidence, and the only time they can get completely neutral feedback.

The Monarch is the embodiment of the Nation. Every Nation is emboidied by something, but almost no Nations are embodied by someONE. So the Queen is to England Exactly what the Constitution and the Flag is to the United States of America...Governments come and go...but the flag and constitution have seen it all. How exciting is it that for British people, our Embodiment is interactive in a way that a flag can not be...a flag might be able to provide solice...but can it provide advice??

She is a pure ideal, representing not just herself, but every Monarch that has gone before her, and all our history throughout all time :D

flo
02-07-2012, 05:39 AM
I think she's done a very good job representing the monarchy for Great Britain. It can't have been easy for her to take over at such a young age, suffering the sudden loss of her father. If I recall correctly, they were very close.

I haven't agreed with some of her actions (for example, she didn't have the same closeness with her own children and I think their emotional relationships suffered because of it). But I think you are right, Tyburn, in saying she is a pure ideal in representing the Monarchy throughout time. I glad she chose not to turn things over to Charles, he's insufferable. From what I can tell, William will be a far better King than Charles (and hopefully a much better husband as well).

Long live the Queen!

Tyburn
02-07-2012, 12:42 PM
I think she's done a very good job representing the monarchy for Great Britain. It can't have been easy for her to take over at such a young age, suffering the sudden loss of her father. If I recall correctly, they were very close.

I haven't agreed with some of her actions (for example, she didn't have the same closeness with her own children and I think their emotional relationships suffered because of it). But I think you are right, Tyburn, in saying she is a pure ideal in representing the Monarchy throughout time. I glad she chose not to turn things over to Charles, he's insufferable. From what I can tell, William will be a far better King than Charles (and hopefully a much better husband as well).

Long live the Queen!

One thing we can be absolutely sure of With Elizabeth is, short of senile dementia, she will not permit a Regency whilst she still lives. There will be no handing over to anyone until the day she dies. This will really be a matter of duty for her, she would perceive surrendering her abilities as quiting the service of her Country, and I think she recognises the damage that can do, because she would have understood that from her Father who was indeed very close to her, He saw an abdication which, unless forced out of office through conquest, is unheard of...it goes against everything the Monarchy could ever be, because it is the ultimate rejection of public service.

Unfortunately, as things stand, she is powerless to keep her son off the throne once she dies. As it stands Prince Charles WILL succeed her, short of some kind of constitutional crisis. She was a little hesitant in changing the order of succession to permit women to have first claim if born prior to a man, I think she forced the vote to be unanamous in all commonwealth countries if she was to sign off on that. I Think it happened in the end, but sadly for us, Prince Charles was born BEFORE Princess Anne, so it wouldnt make the difference, and besides of which, if it did, then it would wipe out Prince William, in favour of Princess Annes children.

Only one thing would stop Prince Charles from reigning, and that would be for his death to occure prior to Elizabeth. If she could out live her Child, Her Grandchild would inherit the Kingdom, as I believe that the clause for Equality with Women, when agreed upon can only come into place from Williams Offspring onwards.

it DOES mean that if Catherine were to bear child, first a Women, that she would be second in line to the Throne regardless of if Catherine then went on to have a male child.

For Elizabeth I'm sure seeing all her personal power diminish has also been a little sad. it must be frustrating to know that half the country you serve no longer thinks you are worth keeping :sad: You spend your life in their service to hear that as time passes they move from considering you devine, to openly talking about whether you are a waste of public funds.

Which leads me to the worry in all of this. noone, not even many Royalists think that Prince Charles would be a good idea. For several reasons, first a foremost because they absolutely detest his Wife. Secondly, I would strongly reccomend, like many a King, that he consider choosing one of his Second names to go by...the name "Charles" on the Throne of England has a very unpleasent history attached to it...namely, the English Civil War. The final worry is, would it get so bad that due to Charles Regnant, people really would turn on the Monarchy once and for all, and the final revolution occure?

Well...at least we know if/when he gets to the Throne, he cant hope to reign more then a decade or so...because he is already far advanced in age.

Our

flo
02-07-2012, 07:11 PM
Unfortunately, as things stand, she is powerless to keep her son off the throne once she dies. As it stands Prince Charles WILL succeed her, short of some kind of constitutional crisis. She was a little hesitant in changing the order of succession to permit women to have first claim if born prior to a man, I think she forced the vote to be unanamous in all commonwealth countries if she was to sign off on that. I Think it happened in the end, but sadly for us, Prince Charles was born BEFORE Princess Anne, so it wouldnt make the difference, and besides of which, if it did, then it would wipe out Prince William, in favour of Princess Annes children.
So that did happen, Dave? That's fascinating, I had no idea it was in the works. So it is now law? You have a great range of knowledge about the monarchy in Great Britain, it's a subject I know little about but am very interested in. Thanks!

Tyburn
02-07-2012, 08:23 PM
So that did happen, Dave? That's fascinating, I had no idea it was in the works. So it is now law? You have a great range of knowledge about the monarchy in Great Britain, it's a subject I know little about but am very interested in. Thanks!

Yes....IMHO it was a sad day.

Let me explain what is known as The Act of Settlement. The Reformation in England caused such a massive problem that something had to be done, the warring within Christondom itself, Catholic and Protestant eminated from King Henry all the way to Charles II

During that time everytime a Monarch changed, so did the laws regarding Religion, and from the Dissolution of the Monistries, to the Battlefields of the Civil War, people were killed because of it.

When the Kings AFTER the Restoration of the monarchy once again began to slide into this Roman Vs Anglican war the Government put its foot down once and for all with something known as "The Glorious Revolution" which, whilst almost completely bloodless in its occurence is what basically removed the Crowns rule for the absolute. This happened with Acts of Parliament that began to regulate several things about who could and who could not rule as Monarch. Mary was a Protestant, and she said she would only Rule if her Husband rulled as Equal King to her Queen...the ONLY co-rule of Monarchy in British History.

The pair basically left no heirs...and this gave Parliament the golden opportunity to make several rules.

Firstly they reaffirmed that Male is dominant over female irrespective of birth chronology.

Then they said that as from this point the Monarchs MUST all be Anglican. They were not allowed to be Roman Catholics, NOR were they even permitted to marry Roman Catholics. Any Child born outside of Wedlock is not permitted to Reign.

They considered marrying someone who had been devorced a scandle. I think that Monarchs are not permitted to marry devorcees, but Royals that marry devorcees prior to being Monarchs do not automatically forfit the crown. So Prince Charles marrying Camilla for example is frowned upon, but not a direct violation of his Rights to rule. The Queen did give her approval in law, but expressed her dissaproval in person by refusing to attend the wedding of Charles and Camilla.

the final stipulation was that the Judicial Service which for so long had been the Crown itself was to be diss-established and made independant of it.

Just to explain what impact this Act had. It basically was part of The Act of Union which united England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. It transfered the English Crown into the British Crown. It might be interesting to note that the ideal of revoking the Act of Settlement in part, comes at the same time as a move to basically revoke the Act of Union all together.

When Queen Anne died with no immediate heir, Parliament went down a list of family, and they crossed off each person that did not conform to this Act. So the Coronation of King George 1st and the opening of The House of Hanover, was NOT the next in line...it skipped over 100 Roman Catholics to get to the closest living Protestant Relative. Essentially, the Monarch was chosen by the Government on the basis that they were the closest living Anglican who was not married to a Roman Catholic.

So what happened to those 100 Roman Catholic heirs? Well...they were distant enough not to really care about being skipped over...all the same...that is the biggest jump of the line since William the Conqueror. I suppose at least George was related to Anne, however distant. William was not related to Harold period. Which is why there is some confusion about when the English Crown began. in terms of pure blood, it began with William, in terms of a Single Crown then it existed well before that...in terms of a bloodline to that eventual single crown...well it goes all the way back to the collapse of Rome...then you have to backtrack through Rome, and thats where you end what is factual history...because the one thing that we dont really know is, who was King in England when the Romans first set foot on the land? That is why historically speaking, I suppose the British are the decendants of Rome.

On October 28th 2001, the British Commonwealth voted unanimously to revoke parts of the Act of Settlement. They aggreed that Birth Chronology will supercede Gender for the Succession. They also aggreed that the Monarch Will be allowed to Marry a Roman Catholic. These are to come into effect for any Future Heirs following William and Catherine. They did not however lift the ban on the Monarch being Anglican, nor give any powers of Judiciary back to the Monarch, nor relent on the importance of a legitamate heir comming from a marriage only.

There is one final thing you should know about the Act of Settlement. In accordance with the American Declairation of Independance written about 70 years LATER...The King they claim is a Tyrant, CAN NOT do one thing that they EXPRESSLY claim is a standard of Freedom. It helps to explain why the Queen was powerless to stop Tony Blair in 2003. The Monarch is NOT permitted to "make war" which according to the American ethos is an essential freedom for any civilized Nation. the ability to make war and peace at their own decision.

The Monarchs from 1700 were NOT allowed to declaire War without the permission of the Government...and in the same way...therefore, the Monarchs could NOT effectively STOP their Government from declairing war. Consider this...suppose King George had decided to Grant the collonial powers Freedom...What do you suppose would have happened to him, in the event of his Government dissagreeing with him?

its not that prior to 1700 the Monarch had the power that is my issue. My issue is that, simply put, the right to be dictator was given to the Monarchy by GOD

When you understand that you discover that the problem with Democrasy is that, frankly, it is not GOD-like. Many Christians seem to act as though when Christ Returns he will open up a Congressional Republic. Let me tell you right now, that Christs return will not be a matter of debate for Christians. You wont get a say in how the Millenial Rule is organised...and we can tell you that it will be an absolute dictatorship, with Christ, himself as King. The Mirror of that is Monarchy. So I dont have a problem with the power to create such things as The Act of Union or The Act of Settlement...what I have a problem with is WHO should have that power.

At what point did GOD EVER give THAT right to a Parliament?

You want to know the real Tyrany of Englands History...your reading it. The body that is able to create The Act of Settlement and Act of Union...and the body able, at will, to revoke both. That has NEVER been the Monarch...not in 1776, and not in 2012.

Tyburn
02-07-2012, 08:33 PM
That has NEVER been the Monarch...not in 1776, and not in 2012.

but maybe it was in 1699 :ashamed::laugh: