A tale of two Queens….

Yesterday, on St. Andrews Day, at 9:00PM, Channel Four showed a “docu-drama” about the Queen. It was a mix of archive footage and drama with the actress Samantha Bond playing HMQ. The programme covered the period of the late 1960s and the early 1970s during the premierships of the late Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and of the arch traitor Heath.
The programme was most instructive as it enabled one to look back and reconsider the chief question we now ask ourselves: Why did not the Queen act according to the requirements of the British constitution and warn of the constitutional problems vis-à-vis U.K. membership of the European Community?
The answer having reprised the situation is clear. In a word, Money. That is not to say she was bribed. Far from it.
Cast your mind back to the time of Britain’s entry into the European Community. Forget for a moment this momentous aspect of the situation but consider the economic situation. During the later part of Lord Wilson’s administration and the whole of Heath’s inflation was rising. The programme centred on the issue of the Civil List and that the Civil List had not been significantly altered from the time of the Coronation and that the Royal Household was in financial difficulties. The programme looked at the political difficulties faced both by the Royal Household and also the governments of the day for there were calls from the left for a cut down monarchy or even republic. Remember Willie Hamilton?
It was against this backdrop that the Queen’s advisers will have considered the issue. Clearly the Queen came to the conclusion that she could not take on Heath and have an increase in the Civil List. The tide of republicanism was rising and as such the Queen will probably have felt constrained to do anything about it.
Let us consider what the Queen should have done and what she should not have done:
The monarch has a duty to warn. This is what the Queen should have done. That is not to say she should have told Heath that joining the European Community was a bad idea. No. That would have been getting involved in politics. What she should have done was to advise Heath who was her Prime Minister that the government’s policy of joining the European Community was against the British Constitution and that if the government wanted to pursue this policy [of joining the European Community] then the constitutional aspects would have to be addressed first. This would involve: (i). drawing up a new treaty to replace the 1688/1689 Declaration/Bill of Rights, to enable laws to be passed by the monarch WITHOUT the consent of Parliament; (ii). Changing the Privy Council oath to ALLOW a foreign prince, potentate and powers to HAVE PRECEDENCE in this land; and (iii). To amend the Queen’s own Coronation Oath to allow her to govern us IN WAYS OTHER than our own laws and customs.
Let us restate this: this would not be the Queen saying that joining the European Community was a bad idea. She could AND SHOULD remain neutral on the issue. No. It would simply be the monarch doing her duty of advising the government of practical, procedural difficulties in implementing their policy.
Clearly the Queen did not do this. And we are now paying the price. Clearly had the Queen had done her duty then Heath would have had two choices.
1. Propose to make the constitutional amendments necessary to ensure that the U.K. could join the European Community LEGALLY.
2. Abandon the idea of joining the European Community.
Given that Heath would have had less chance of persuading Parliament and the British People of formally subjugating the county to Europe than Osama Bin Laden has of winning the Nobel Peace prize, he would have chosen option 2.
The Queen would have known this. She would also have known that Heath was a bitter and twisted man – caused largely by his own problems coming to terms with his homosexuality and would have inevitably sought revenge on the Queen. The old saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” applies even more so to homosexual men. The Queen will have known this too.