The basis of this Special Report is a Commentary published by @ZoomerHistorian on YouTube entitled “The Queen Elizabeth II Myth.
Unfortunately, Zoomer Historian’s YouTube Channel appears to have been, like those of most of the exceptional (read: truth-telling) content creators, terminated:
The Zoomer Historian’s take in this Commentary isn’t at all wrong: despite possessing the Legal and Lawful Capacity to intervene in favour of preserving the Traditions and Customs of her Subjects, Queen Elizabeth II simply stood by while Her Ministers wrecked not only Her Foremost Realme, but her Canadian, Australian, and New Zealandic Realmes as well.
It IS in fact the case that Monarchy in its Modern Formulation is Duty Bound to act as a “Bulwark against Tyranny.”
Her Britannic Majesty’s Realme in particular properly entered “tyranny” territory with the accession of now Sir Anthony Blair to the Office of First Lord of then Her Britannic Majesty’s Treasury in 1997. If Her Late Majesty was looking for a precise moment to intervene and course correct during the Blair Ministry, that time would have been to withhold the Royal Assent to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.
This Key Blairite Reform separated the Judiciary from Parliament with the establishment of the “Supreme Court of the United Kingdome” and transferring the Appellate Authority of the House of Lords (Law Lords of Appeal in Ordinary) thereto, and furthermore, the removal of the Authority of the Lord (High) Chancellor as Head of the Country’s Judiciary (and thus, to make recommendations to the Crowne regarding Judicial Appointments), and to serve as the Speaker of the House of Lords.
As “Separation of Powers” is not a historical, traditional or customary element of the Westminster System, the Royal Assent should have been legally withheld to the 2005 Act simply because such Reforms are un-Constitutional.
If Her Late Majesty were looking for a moment prior to the Blair Ministry to intervene and course correct, that time would have been to withhold the Royal Asset to the European Communities Act 1972 – the Act of the Queen in Parliament under God which resulted in the legal accession of the Palace of Westminster as a member state of the fore-runners to the European Union (the European Economic Community, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Atomic Energy Community) and the Incorporation of the Judgements of the European Court of Justice, and the various Treaties, Regulations, Directives, and Decisions of the European Union and its fore-runners, as well as the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, into British Domestic Law.
The Royal Assent should have been withheld to the 1972 Act because the Act in question removes Sovereign Authority from the then Queen in Parliament in God and moves it to Supra-National Organisations.
I therefore cannot make a legal argument for @ZoomerHistorian being incorrect because the British Crowne, as the “Dignified Element” of the British Constitution, being “imposing, [olde] and venerable,” leverages such attributes not only to “generate public reverence and awe through their grandeur, pageantry and long history,” but to Preserve, Protect and Defend said Dignity which relies on not only great displays of “grandeur and pageantry” but a projection of the past into the present and future through Custom and Tradition – Constitutional and otherwise.
Instead, I want to offer an “avante garde” perspective: Queen Elizabeth II, as a feminine woman, should NOT have been expected, nor permitted, to Reign & Rule as a Queen Regnant.
Allow me to explain.
While there are a few instances in European History where men Reigned and Ruled as Kings Consort, the Custom is for men to Reign and Rule as Kings Regnant. By contrast, while there are instances in European History where women Reigned and Ruled as Queens Regnant, the Custom is for women to Reign and Rule as Queens Consort.
In Manosphere speak: a King can make a woman a Queen, but a Queen cannot make a man a King.
It was, after all, the then English Parliament, not Queen Mary, that raised Philip of Spain (Queen Mary’s husband) to the states of King of England and Ireland.
Monarchies where women can Reign and Rule as Queens Regnant creates a type of tension that we have yet to properly address.
As the “Pax Americana” winds up and is replaced with Nationalism and Civilisational States (think: the Anglopshere), what will happen to those Sovereign Capitals where women serve as Head of State? Unless such a woman is a “Queen Elizabeth I” Type – who remains un-married and childless and throws herself wholly and completely into the task of serving as a Leader, thereby absolutely forfeiting the non-performative aspects of her femininity – most women who find themselves in a position to exercise “the Regnant Powers” will fail simply because most women want the Benefits and Authority that come along with Masculinity and Manhood sans the Responsibility – and we, as a society, still find it deeply problematic to hold women accountable for their actions, despite almost sixty years of implementing “equalising policies.”
That does not and will not make an adequate Regnant in the emerging Nationalist Worlde. More crucially, what will a feminine woman, such as Her Late Majesty, do when she finds herself in a situation where she is required to wield the very masculine powers of a Head of State?
Nothing.
“To do nothing is the hardest job of all and it’ll take every ounce of energy that you have. To be impartial is not natural, not human. People will always want you to smile or agree or frown. And the minute that you do, you will have declared a position – a pointe of view. And that is the one thing as Sovereign that you are not entitled to do. The less you do, the less you say, or agree or smile – or think, or feel, or breathe, or exist – the better.”
The now defunct Constitution of the ahistorical House of Windsor is built on this assertion of refraining from actions that may indicate preference.
In the stead of Monarchs who can and will exercise “the Regnal Powers,” we had, in Queen Elizabeth II, and now have, in King Charles III, Monarchs who were either incapable of doing so or simply decided not to so despite being capable of doing so.
In other words: the current members of the British Royale Family appear to ardently believe that “…[the publique] barely [needs] humanity” from them.
But whether this attitude is workable depends on the sex of the Monarch and the time period.
Her Late Majesty acceded Saint Edward’s Chair at a time when the Pax Americana was Highly Potent, and the British Empire was being wound up and the Commonwealth taking its place. Under those specific circumstances, Her Late Majesty was able to get away with acting as though she were a Queen Consort.
Even in the 1970’s and onward as it was starting to become apparent that the Global Order that had been erected by the White House in the 1940’s had, as its object, “the univeralisation of everyone,” Her Late Majesty was able to “Keep Calm and Carry On” as a Queen Consort, virtually ignoring the cracks that were beginning to appear in the British State and British Society alike, simply because people wanted to be comforted and Her Late Majesty, being on the Throne for more than two decades as the 1970’s rolled on, came to represent what Britain was in the past – “imposing, [olde] and venerable” – and not what it was becoming, or alternatively, had become due to her not exercising, for whatever reason, the Regnal Power in 1972 and again in 2005.
In other words: Her Late Majesty leveraged her femininity and gave us feminine Leadership as a Queen Consort.
Conditions are nowhere near the same for King Charles III.
Note my previous reference to “the now defunct Constitution of the ahistorical House of Windsor.”
At a time when the Rules Based International Order (read: the Pax Americana) is de facto defunct and is in the process of being de jure dissolved and Nationalist/Civilisational sentiment rising to replace it, Leaders who elect to “do nothing” and worse yet, fail to put their Nations First, will not survive in their Leadership roles for very long as Nationalist/Civilisational sentiment increasingly becomes the order of the day.
This is the first reason that the Constitution of the House of Windsor is defunct.
The second reason is: Charles III is a man, and as such, is expected to exemplify Masculine Leadership given the circumstances at current.
It is not at all hyperbole or an understatement to state that Charles III has yet to exemplify Masculine Leadership, in any regard, such that his inability to Lead as a man would, given the circumstances, will, barring an Act of God (or, more likely for the British, Parliament) effect the conclusion of the Monarchies of the Commonwealth Realmes.
Related to the fact that Charles III is a man is the name of the Name of the Sovereigne & Royale House of the Commonwealth Realms: Windsor.
Let me explain.
When Her Late Majesty’s Household released the above image, most people saw the current Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms and her three most immediate Heirs.
I saw something far more profound: the turn away from Matriarchy and towards Patriarchy.
If Charles III Reigns & Rules for another 20 years and the Prince of Wales then Reigns & Rules after him for 30 years, His Royale Highness Prince George of Wales will be either the first Monarch of the Commonwealth Realms of the 22nd Century or the father of such an individual.
The stability of knowing “who will be next” is part of Monarchy’s appeal. The Line of Succession to the Thrones of the Commonwealth Realmes features just a hair over 5,000 individuals:
http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/2011.html
Anyone legally and lawfully descended from Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hannover, who is of the Protestant Faith, stands in line to Inherit the Crownes of the Commonwealth Realms.
When the then Parliament of England made Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hannover the Heiress Presumptive to the English Throne with the passage of the Act of Settlement 1701, it created an issue that hadn’t been very prevalent throughout English History: Heirs to the Throne being Foreigners (read: from without the British Isles).
In order to resolve this issue, the then Parliament of England passed the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 which declared the legal and lawful issue of the body of the Dowager Electress to be “natural” Englishmen and Englishwomen. Despite the 1705 Act being superseded by the British Nationality Act 1948, the provisions of the 1705 Act are applicable to all individuals in the Line of Succession prior to it being superseded by the 1948 Act.
Enter: His Late Royale Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark.
Borne in Greece in 1921, His Late Royale Highness, in a bid to prepare for life as a member of the British Royale Family, ceased using his Greek and Danish Honours in 1947 and became a naturalised British Subject. As part of that naturalisation process, he changed his surname from Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg to Mountbatten – an Anglicisation of Battenberg, his mother’s surname.
When the then Duchess of Edinburgh acceded the British Throne, there was talk of changing the name of the Sovereign and Royale House from Windsor to Mountbatten.
While custom was not deployed as the sole reason for rejecting this idea, it should have been. When Her Royale Highness Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent and Strathearn acceded the Throne, the name of the Sovereign & Royale House did not change from Hannover to Saxe Coburg Gotha upon her marriage because she was, by blood, a member of the House of Hannover. If we go back even further in history, the name of the then Kingdome of England’s Sovereign & Royale House did not change from Tudor to Hapsburg upon the marriage of Mary I because she was, by blood, a member of the House of Tudor.
NOTE: the proper convention is for a covered woman to be referred to as Mrs. [Husband’s Full Name], as a sort of Courtesy Style, not to legally change her surname. For a woman to legally change her surname is to set aside her paternal ancestry.
Given that Her Late Majesty’s Consort was borne in 1921, and given that His Late Royale Highness stood in line to Inherit the Throne in his own right – though, much further downe in the Succession (in the 500’s, I believe) – His Late Royale Highness was in fact covered by the 1701 Act at the time of his Marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth.
The consequences of this, are as follows:
- His Late Royale Highness’ revocation of his Greek and Danish Honours is invalid. Therefore, Her Late Majesty, the male – line issue of His Late Royale Highness, and the wives of the male issue of the body of His Late Royale Highness, are all, by Right of Marriage or Birth, respectively, entitled to the prefix “His/Her Royale Highness” and the style “Prince/Princess of Greece and Denmark.”
- The surname of all individuals identified in pointe one is “Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg.”
Last time I checked, no Measure of the Church of England and/or Act of Parliament was required to legitimise Her Late Majesty’s issue. Her Late Majesty gave birth to all her issue within the confines of Matrimony and thus, did not require such legal instruments.
Why, then, is the name of the Sovereign and Royale House of the Commonwealth Realms still Windsor?
Windsor itself is a fiction devised by Her Late Majesty’s Grandfather (George V) in a bid to make what is effectively a German Family appear more “English.” I posit that any Royale Family that changes its surname for such a reason isn’t at all noble, and should thus not be sitting on a Throne anywhere.
Some would take umbridge with my assertion that the name of the Sovereign & Royale House of the Commonwealth Realms really is or should be Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg and would argue in favour of “Mountbatten-Windsor.” My rebuttals to this would be as follows:
- Mountbatten is the Anglicised version of “Battenburg” – His Late Royal Highness’ mother’s surname. Unless His Late Royale Highness was borne a bastard, there was no legitimate reason for him to adopt his mother’s surname as his own. To boot, the members of his mother’s family who migrated to the United Kingdome adopted the surname “Mountbatten” for the same reason that George V changed the name of the Sovereign & Royale House of the Commonwealth Realms from “Saxe Coburg Gotha” to “Windsor.”
- “Windsor,” as previously explained, is a fiction.
This is not just a thought exercise.
Recall that at the onset of this portion of this Commentary, I asserted that what I saw when I first laid eyes upon the image I’ve utilised as the basis of this portion of this Commentary is the conclusion of Matriarchy and the commencement of Patriarchy?
A Patriarchy cannot and will not create order when the surname of the Patriarchs is a fiction.
A Patriarchy cannot and will not be respected if the Patriarchs don’t bear their true ancestral surname name.
Righteous (read: feminine) women are dis-honoured when men are not recognised and acknowledged as the Stewards of their Families.
In an age where everything is inauthentic and shallow, Monarchy and Royale Families have a real opportunity to provide authenticity and depth. However, a Royale Family that fails to honour is paternal ancestry is itself part of the decay taking place in Western Civilisation – and cannot itself provide any authenticity or depth.
While Charles III and the other members of the British Royale Family have given Good and Right Thinking Men ample reason to cease supporting them, the reason that resonates with me is this issue of the surname of the Sovereign & Royal House of the Commonwealth Realms.
Happy Queen Elizabeth II Day.