|
| + Visit Burnley FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Not only is it sanctimonious tripe, it is old sanctimonious tripe written when Trump was serving his first spell as POUS.
Consequently, there is no mention of the Autopen etc. because dear old Joe was not in 'power' at the time.
AT least BT's submission was not begging for money so that is always a bonus.
"Negative arguments against removing monarchs, however powerful, are not sufficient. There are weighty positive reasons for preferring monarchies. They are so familiar that I will not weary readers by laboured exposition. The most obvious is continuity. Heredity, which the eigh****th-century republican Thomas Paine thought irrational (”as absurd as a hereditary doctor or mathematician”) gives certainty, and limits constant jockeying for power. Having the occasional idiot or criminal long seemed a price worth paying.
In today’s world, monarchies are generally the best (or least badly) governed states. The Arab monarchies, warts and all, are far preferable to theocracies or military dictatorships. In democratically governed monarchies such as ours, the Crown can provide a non-partisan focus of loyalty for crucial institutions such as armed forces and police.
The Crown keeps important powers out of politicians’ hands, including the prestige of representing the nation at home and abroad. It provides a backstop in case of real emergency, such as war. The Royal family is also an important galvaniser of civil society through its extensive involvement in charitable work, and simply by its presence at so many collective events. Republics realise this power, which is why so many try to transform themselves into quasi-monarchies, using family members in political functions and even trying to found political dynasties – the antithesis of republican principle.
Above all, the Crown symbolises the nation – the nation of Britain, and its constituent nations too. We are a monarchy because that is what our history, in its triumphs and disasters, has made us. We have not in any simple sense chosen it. It is the product, and the token, of what the Irish political thinker Edmund Burke termed the partnership between the living, the dead and the yet unborn. He warned against tearing up this partnership, because without it government would increasingly rely on compulsion.
Some readers will think we have passed that point already, with confidence, trust, freedoms and pride collapsing. All the more reason to strengthen the barriers against dissolution, of which the Crown is one. It labours for unity and continuity in an age of tribalism and disruption.
I suspect that those who attack monarchy do so for this very reason: as part of a general assault on our history and identity. They reject all that gives us distinctiveness, even uniqueness. Their preference is to become “citizens of nowhere” in “an island of strangers”. The Crown, on the contrary, is a perpetual reminder of place, history and common loyalty. This is a struggle the King was born to fight."
Or as the blessed St Margaret used to say,
"Better keep a hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse."
Once your Firm starts sacking its own the end is nigh. Not in my lifetime I'm sorry to say, but this anachronistic nonsense will end soon.
Sacking Andrew will do nothing to maintain the dignity of the British monarchy who, let's be said are German and also the current custodians of the House of Windsor. By sacking one of their own the family of $hitbags have shown they owned a person who lacked a moral compass and confirmed it by exiling the kiddy fiddler to Norfolk.![]()