Britannia Radio

Monarchy interference with government," 

This is another act of treason this time perpetrated by the
 judiciary who are supposed to speak for the Queen. They are
 effectively denying the sovereign freedom of speech.

It proves conclusively that the queen colluded in transfer of
sovereignty to Brussels.

The argument against what is, in effect, treason, is that she has been
bound by the constitution from speaking against the 'will' of
parliament, or refusing royal assent to bills. We have been told she
cannot 'interfere' in the democratic lawmaking process.

This is patently untrue. Interference goes on all the time. The monarch
clearly has a view on politics, and considerable influence, which she
and her family exert unaccountably and away from public view.

SHOULD SHE HAVE CHOSEN TO, she could have stopped the signing of the
Treaty of Rome in the 1970s. That she didn't could have been construed
as her being deliberately misadvised on her legal position with regard
to it.

However, since the early 1970s there have been many egregious measures
coming from Europe, and gross miscarriages of justice arising. The
destruction of UK fisheries and fishing fleets, the destruction of UK
border controls, the forced metrication attempts, and the whole 'green
energy' scam are but four which particularly stand out. There are so
many others we might argue for days pointlessly, simply about which were
worst!

In every case we saw the outworking of EU interference in perfectly
satisfactory ways of running our own affairs, usually to the benefit of
foreign money and to our own detriment. THERE IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS
BEEN, ANY NET BENEFIT TO THE EU, FROM ANY ORDINARY PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE.

At no time in this 'disarming' process has any measure been stopped by
the monarch, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN HER CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.

Any observer can see that, like any other, there are good 'uns and
rogues in the Royal Family. The overarching concept however seems to be
preservation of the line and its wealth and position in society. They
will do what it takes, and the Queen will do what it takes, for the
House of Saxe Coburg Gotha to remain on the throne for the longest
period possible. That objective trumps all others.

This is not, and never was, the intention of those who formed our
constitution from the bloodshed of the Civil War. The reinstatement of
the monarchy was for several well-understood reasons: to uphold
Protestantism and free speech in the land, in other words specifically
to prevent the external control of the country by foreign powers (then
in the form of the Catholic church), and to be a 'long-stop' against any
government becoming despotic. That is also the purpose of the hereditary
Lords, and why dismantling them was such a key step in the destruction
of the nation. There are others too, but those two are the reason free
Britons tolerate the existence of a 'royal' family over them as
individuals - that family is there to protect Britain's structure,
constitution and blood-purchased freedoms.

Yet, knowing this, our present monarch has failed to act. I cannot
believe she was never advised of the constitution: it is of more
significance to her than any other person. I reluctantly conclude SHE
HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE IT, in favour of the longevity of 'the firm', and
its wealth.

The evidence recently put before us is that the Royal Family feel it OK
to intervene in the democratic process, in some matters at least. This
entirely gives the lie to the insistence that they constitutionally
cannot do this (or would not), and lays bare the true agenda.

She may be old. She may be an ideal great grandmother. She may have been
thrust into the job unexpectedly and unfairly. She may have spent
decades smiling and shaking the hands of good people. She may be sincere
in her Christian faith. She almost certainly works harder than any other
person I can think of.

BUT she has failed to do the one vital thing required: to protect the
British constitution and way of life.

It is now apparent that this role is not important to her. There is a
crime associated with this, with a name I will not use here, but as a
consequence, Britons have had their country STOLEN from under their
feet. Quite literally.

I can no longer be a monarchist. I hold out no hope for a return to
Queenly (or Kingly) exercise of responsibility. We are betrayed.

-- S M