God Help The British Monarchy

One of the problems of hereditary office is that you risk to have someone in office who is a total moron, but still more or less entitled to the office because of birth. Whilst several ways have been historically devised to deal with the problem – a stupid or cowardly King would have had a great deal of trouble in keeping the loyalty of his influential subjects, and would have run a constant risk of being sent to an early grave – the matter has become more evident as the hereditary office has become less important or, as in the case in question, irrelevant to all intents and purposes – with the exception, perhaps, of a bit of pomp and circumstance.

Here in the United Kingdom, the British subjects are living a very special drama now, with the increasingly more disquieting realisation that a moron of stellar proportions is to become, very probably, the King one day.

Said moron has given today another example of his astonishing lack of basic intelligence, by letting the world know that the human race risks to cause its own extinction. Now, if said heir to the throne had had an intelligence higher than the one of a seven-years-old child, he would have known that as Defender of the Faith – what he will be called to be – he is just attacking the faith he is supposed to defend if he thinks that Jesus might be fooled by those little human beings, who are simply faster than Him and deprive Him of the Last Judgment he has promised, and all this out of sheer unwillingness to listen to a moron. No gnashing of teeth anymore, no Judge coming down from the same direction whence he went on Ascension day. “From thence He shall come, to find the planet inhabited”, says the Creed of the Royal Moron. I wonder if even the other Head Moron, Al Gore, would show such basic lack of common Christian sense.

As things are, the probable end of the already rather weakened monarchy in this Country can be avoided only in one of three ways:

a) the Prince of Wales makes all of us a favour and extinguishes himself in an environmentally friendly way by kicking the royal bucket before his long-suffering mother; this reduces Co2 emissions, too;
b) the Prince of Wales refuses the Crown for some reason particular to him – say, that it is not made of hemp as he requested; or that he is not allowed to become the Defender of the Friends of Biggus Dickus, see video above -, or
c) that the Privy Council decides that the man is too much of an idiot even for a role who doesn’t require anything more than smiling and kissing the odd child, and decide to offer the Crown to the infinitely more representative, popular and reliable William for manifest lack of suitability – and brains – of the first in line.

On days like this, it feels so good to have been born in a Republic.


Posted on September 8, 2011, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. The British monarchy isn’t a real monarchy anyway. All the leading European liberals in the 18th century were ardent Anglophiles and held up England as the model liberal nation. Montesquieu and Voltaire wrote books extolling the British Constitution and both became Freemasons in London. In many ways the French Revolution was just an attempt to transplant the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89 onto a French context. Britain’s had it coming for a long time, my friend.

    • I fully agree, Shane.
      It is astonishing to me how the British insist on attributing to the monarchy a power it hasn’t held for a long time. Even Queen Victoria’s role was reduced to a merely symbolic one, the last King who sacked him prime minister was William IV, If I remember correctly Victoria tried to do the same and it almost cost her the crown.

      The role has been a purely ceremonial one for a long, long time. Some honours, the garden party, things like that. In Italy and France the president is infinitely more powerful (in Italy he is very powerful, but in a rather subtle way), I think in Germany the role is rather similar to the English one, but it’s because of Hindenburg of course.


  2. Mundabor, had Hindenburg not made a certain mistake in 1933, he would probably have been remembered as a great defender of the Republic, which he rather reluctantly was until then. But the historical memory of Germans is as defunct as in many other countries, if not more so, and people remember him today just as an enabler of Hitler (if they even know him at all). The presidency in Germany is therefore mainly ceremonial, but the President can (and does sometimes) refuse to sign legislation he believes is unconstitutional.
    Regarding the British Monarchy, I think you are right. But the probable President of a British Republic would be Cameron – which is not a real improvement in competence, is it? In a (meaningful, not just ceremonial) Monarchy, you sometimes get a good and competent King if you’re lucky – but the foolishness of the majority makes this circumstance nearly impossible in a Republic (at least today in Europe).

    • Catocon,
      I think that irrespective of the merits and demerits of Hindenburg, the post-war German legislators recognised that the constitutional framework of the country should be put in such a way as to protect them from the repetition of the 1933 events.

      What I personally like a lot is the Italian system, with a powerful President acting as a balance to the power of the government, but still elected from the Parliament. The duration in office for seven years (at least last time I looked) does encourage – and this has always happened in the past – the election of prestigious men seen as independent from the government of today – or of tomorrow -.

      And the Italian president can do a lot, including disbanding the parliament and send everyone to vote at the first government crisis, picking the prime minister – or disband the parliament if his man doesn’t get the majority, as happened in 1971; or simply send everyone to vote because he considered the parliament not representative anymore, as happened in 1993 -, refuse to sign laws he deems unconstitutional, refuse to sign laws he deems without financial covering, picking (as an office) five life senators and, far more importantly, one third of the judges of the Constitutional Court.

      In addition to that, he is the head of the secret services, the head of the armed forces, and the Carabinieri swear their oath of allegiance to him rather than to the Republic, as every other civil servant does.

      Furthermore, he is the supreme guarantor of the Constitution, which means that he can have the prime Minister arrested if he thinks he is guilty of high treason (which is why the Carabinieri swear allegiance to him, and why the Dwarf King, whose role was largely similar, sent the Carabinieri to arrest Mussolini). In 2006, when Berlusconi insisted in not declaring defeat like he was the next African wannabe strong man, it was the President to give him an ultimatum to either accept the results or be arrested for subversive activity against the institutions. All made in a finely suggestive way in the public, and in a rather brutal one in the corridors.

      The system is very sophisticated, and works rather well. It makes of the President a powerful Ueber-uncle away from the daily exercise of power, but whose long shadow is permanently over the government.

      Charles wouldn’t have a chance.


  3. Chucky is the result of too many years of inbreding with other inbred royal families. The Winsdors should start breding with vigorous English peasant stock to revitalize the Royal family! LOL!

%d bloggers like this: