Counter-Currents
1,916 words
I’ve written before about my peculiar love for the British Royal Family. But I’m now officially out of love, and even tending toward republicanism. The final straw, of course, is the recent announcement of Prince Harry’s engagement to the mulattress Meghan Markle. Let’s sum up the problems: (1) She’s half black, (2) She’s American, (3) She’s divorced, (4) She’s an actress (which, to the Queen Mother’s generation basically meant the same thing as whore), (5) she was on General Hospital (for only one episode, but that’s enough), (6) she’s not that pretty, and (7) to top it off, she’s three years older than Harry. At 36 she is not exactly at her most fertile. Well, at least there’s one slim silver lining in this half-black cloud.
The rumor, however, is that Meghan is pregnant. Only the more questionable rags are reporting this, so there may be nothing in it. If false, it’s probably a function of people’s desire to answer the great why? that surrounds this engagement. It is the most inexplicable royal match since Edward VIII abdicated the throne to marry hard-as-flint Wallis Simpson. This is a man who could have had any woman in the world and he chose . . . this? (I mean both Edward and Harry.) Of course, we do not live in an age of shotgun weddings. And there is a long tradition of male royals producing bastard children (just ask Prince Albert of Monaco). So, there was no compulsion in Harry making this match. Was he compelled by love? One imagines so (at least some form of madness must explain it). But he needs the consent of the Queen to marry, and she could have said no.
We might console ourselves by saying that Harry doesn’t matter much. At the moment, whatever half-breed child he produces will be sixth in line to the throne. And the gap will widen as William and Catherine produce more children (as they are expected to), and as their children produce children. Of course, one could also make the argument that we ought not be caring anything about this family in the first place. Indeed, this is likely what some of my readers are thinking – as well as Counter-Currents readers who saw the topic of this piece and gave it a pass.
Should we give a damn about the royal family? Yes and no. Not giving a damn has to be for the right reasons, however. For years I’ve made a point whenever I meet a Brit of steering the conversation around to the monarchy just to see where they stand. I have yet to meet one who said anything good, but I suspect many of them are telling me what they think I want to hear. I suppose they must think that Americans consider them quite daft for still having a monarchy. The usual pejorative they employ for dismissing the royals is “parasites.” This is hardly fair, considering that royals like the Queen and Prince Phillip and their four children spend almost the entirety of their lives working for the state and for charity. It’s quite clear – especially with the Queen and her husband – that they recognize that with privilege comes a great many duties.
Nor is it permissible for someone on the Right (people like us, that is) to dismiss the royals because (as someone once put it to me) “they actually think they’re better than other people.” This is precisely one of the reasons I’ve always admired them. As I said in my earlier essay on the monarchy, I find it refreshing that somewhere in this treacly age of odious egalitarian mushiness someone still thinks they were born better than others. An egalitarian right-winger is a contradiction in terms: that there are natural hierarchies is one of our basic convictions.
Still, I am torn about one issue. The idea behind hereditary monarchy is that nobility as a quality of character runs in families. This may be true, but it seems to have a way sometimes of skipping a generation – or two or three or four. Perhaps the National Socialist model might be better, where the idea was that certain institutions (like the Napola schools) could be created that would allow natural superiority to display itself, no matter what “class” it sprang from, and be assigned its rightful place in society. (Actually, one doesn’t have to look to the Third Reich for such a model: it’s in Plato’s Republic.) Again, I am torn between the two systems – and, to be still-more-honest with you, I halfway think my support for monarchy has a lot to do with the fact that I take a perverse pleasure in its pissing off the right people.
So, what is a legitimate reason to write the royals off? Well, I can offer two. First, some years ago I confessed my fondness for the royals to a well-travelled British right-winger who I’ve met on many occasions. “I’m quite fond of the royal family,” I said. “Yes, Americans always are,” he replied, with some weariness. When I asked him why he was rather less fond, he explained that the Queen “won’t do anything” about the multicultural catastrophe that is ruining Britain. I defended Her Majesty gallantly: “But she’s a constitutional monarch. She’s not supposed to express political opinions” (which is quite correct – this is how the British system of constitutional monarchy has worked for the better part of two hundred years). “That’s just the point,” replied my friend. “Because the royal family can’t express political views they serve to legitimate whatever or whoever is in power. As such, their influence is pernicious. They are there to give their official imprimatur to whatever politically correct nonsense the government wants to enforce.”
Here was a point I really couldn’t argue with. My British friend was entirely correct. The Queen won’t speak out because she can’t speak out. She must sit back and watch her country fall apart. Or must she, really? It’s asking this question that causes one’s evaluation of the royals to get even dimmer. Because the Queen actually could speak out if she really wanted to – in the 1980s she allowed stories to be leaked to the press about her disagreement with Thatcher’s policy on Apartheid in South Africa. When the Manchester bombing occurred earlier this year it was the Queen and not the PM who visited the wounded in the hospital – Mrs. May citing “security concerns.” I had a reverie when I heard about this. In my mind I saw the mother of an injured little girl say to the Queen “Why are they allowing this, Ma’am? They never asked us if we wanted this!” And in response, I fantasized the Queen taking a breath and – finally – speaking out. I saw it creating (as it would) an absolute sensation. I saw the Brits rallying around the Queen, and the politicians scurrying around like terrified rats.
But, you see, that’s not going to happen. For a couple of reasons. First, you must understand that the monarchy is the Queen’s family business (her father, King George VI, referred to their family as “the Firm”). She doesn’t want to screw things up for Charles and William, and the rest of the brood. Because, gentle reader, if the Queen spoke up, then all the knives – uncountable knives – would be out. Suddenly we would see staunch Establishment monarchists transformed into republicans over night. For the British Establishment – who or what rules Britain – has nothing to do with Garter knights, castles, and the College of Arms. As Oswald Mosley once said, “It’s nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with the British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government. The power of money and of money alone!”
The Queen, of course, knows this. Years ago when butler Paul Burrell (who had served Princess Diana) left the royal household, he claimed to have had a lengthy meeting with the Queen, during which she warned him “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.” (Burrell’s account of this meeting was widely reported and was never disputed by Buckingham Palace; it was eventually used to exonerate him in a criminal trial.) However, there is another reason that the Queen is never likely to “speak out,” and that is that by all accounts she may very well agree with the diversity baloney.
How else does one explain the Queen’s notorious 2004 Christmas Broadcast, with its cringeworthy message of “cultural diversity.” But this should be unsurprising: Her Majesty is a devout Christian. “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” she tells us in that same broadcast. And who is our neighbor? “Everyone,” the Queen says. And how else does one explain her aforementioned objections to Thatcher’s South Africa policy? (The Queen wanted sanctions.) Charles is no better, by the way. But isn’t he a Traditionalist? Yes, but the mushy kind who thinks all faiths (including the cancer of Islam) are equally wonderful. You may have heard that when he is crowned king he wants to be known as “Defender of Faiths,” rather than “Defender of the Faith.”
All this brings me now to my second major reason to write the royals off for good – and back to Meghan Markle.
You see, one reason I (and others) have looked up to the royal family in the past is because I saw them as guardians of tradition and standards. While everyone and everything else was falling apart, they seemed to be the last traditional family, doing things the right way, conducting themselves with dignity and class. By God, they even dress for dinner! But this image of the royals – as maintainers of standards – has been eroding for many, many years. While the Queen has been untouched by scandal, it’s hard to think of any other royal who hasn’t. Things took a big nosedive with Fergie, but she seems like real princess material compared to the coming Princess Meghan. Up until this point one could still say that at least the royal family was untouched by miscegenation – the last bulwark against it (aside from some whispered rumors of a few Semites in the woodpile).
What little credibility the royals had left as the last bastion of tradition and whiter-than-white, stiff upper lip Englishness is now dead and gone. So too is my fondness for them. (And, to all my friends – fine, go ahead, say “I told you so.”) One wonders how the Queen – whose attitudes were formed, after all, in a very different age – is going to feel when she hears the pitter patter of little nappy-headed babies up and down the long halls of Buckingham Palace.
So, why didn’t the Queen tell Harry no? Well, given what I’ve already mentioned it may well be that she has no problem with the match at all. Perhaps she thinks its “progressive.” The absolute worst, most obscene possibility is that the match was actually encouraged by the Queen (or Charles) to improve the family’s image and make them seem more “diverse,” in a “changing Britain.” Almost too terrible to contemplate – but it’s actually quite possible, folks. Truly, it makes me very sad to see another much-loved institution fall to modern decadence. But isn’t it better this way? My British friend was right: the royal family are fully complicit in the system that is destroying their country and most of Europe. And it’s all going to have to come down.
Off with their heads! I will spare only the corgis.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
41 comments
As a staunch British Monarchist I would like to thank Jef Costello for his sensitive appraisal of the issues surrounding the Royal Engagement of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle.
Of course, apart from anything else, the rot truly set in when Prince Harry’s mother, Princess Diana started, with what her own mother, Frances Shand Kidd, described as “messing around with … Arabs”. More recently, many of us were appalled when Prince Harry undermined the whole concept of noblesse oblige by publically announcing that “no one in the Royal Family really wants to be king.”
Before first joining the British National Front in 1968 I wrote to the then Chairman, A K Chesterton, questioning the Front’s policy on the monarchy. He replied that whilst there have been “bad kings and mad kings” the principle of monarchy lives on.
Hopefully this is true. Hopefully Prince Harry’s engagement to Meghan Markle will sound the alarm bell and call time on the whole issue of miscegenation. More likely, our Western Society will continue to drift downwards as the boundary between nobility and celebrity blur even further. In which case we might echo Mr. Costello’s words, “Off with their heads”, and hope that another Royal House will emerge after and through our British revolution.
“… A K Chesterton replied… that whilst there have been “bad kings and mad kings” the principle of monarchy lives on.”
That is precisely the point I was going to make. Why destroy an institution that is fundamental to Britishness.? And replace it with what? A president?
From the New Zealand point of view the Crown is the only remaining tie to Britishness, without which we become a banana republic without the bananas; without the final vestige of an identity . A New Zealand President would be somebody of total, mind-numbing inanity, such as an ex-sports ‘celebrity’. Like we have for decades had Governors General drawn from nowhere and nothing.
One would presumably have instead of a monarch in Britain an elected President? How would that be an improvement?
Or we could retain the Crown but select a figureheads on rotation from the white British aristocracy, perhaps among hereditary peers in a revived House of Lords – something beyond the old Saxon Witenagemot and similar to the Stadtholder system that existed in the early modern Dutch Republic.
Seems like the kind of system that would discourage stagnation and decay.
That should read ‘blurs’ , with an s, even further.
I remain an advocate of hereditary monarchy. Humans may even genetically be monarchists, while evolutionarily inclined towards hereditary authority as you see in traditional families. What you disagree with is the politics of a dynasty, but that is no critique of hereditary monarchy. I can mention policies of numerous Chinese dynasties that I disagree with, but that does not mean I criticise the institution of monarchy. A dynasty can be changed. Any dynasty can become too unfit to rule. The Chinese even have a concept to explain dynasty changes: the Mandate of Heaven. If you lose that Mandate, you lose the right to rule, and therefore you are overthrown and replaced by another dynasty.
My point is just that you disagree with the politics of this dynasty. If you dislike the dynasty, then why not advocate a dynasty change? But do not throw out the baby with the bathtub: monarchy can stay, and it is good if you have a traditionalist family guiding the people. There are two options for a monarchical renewal: (a) get someone who has distant royal blood but better political views to overthrow the current monarchy, or (b) opt for radical change and replace the current dynasty with a new one. Option (a) is conservative and maintains some continuity which is good, but it all depends on whether you can find a suitable political candidate within the family (perhaps distantly related to the royals). However, option (b) is extremely radical and will usher in a new era. A dynasty chanhe as envisioned by option (b) is not only a herculean task but also a cataclysmic event which alters a people’s destiny entirely. I recommend caution with such radical change, but if it is inevitable, then it should be embraced. The royals may have lost the Heavenly Mandate, and if that is so, then their family must be replaced by a better, more English family. After all, the royals should be the most ethnic….They should the most native people you can find, for they must represent your ethnicity.
Very good article, but it leaves out one of the core reasons for keeping the monarchy, and that is the separation of powers that it allows. Basically the British monarch controls the armed forces, thereby preventing them from being abused by a politician – no matter how popular and powerful he or she may become. In other words, it is the monarch´s power to prevent others from doing things that is important, rather than their power to actually do things themselves.
Although this system is never going to be foolproof, it has largely worked to date is one of the reasons that Britain has enjoyed relative peace within its borders when compared with the likes of France and Germany
By the way, Jeff, I have been trying to get in touch with you – please check your FB messages!
“The rumor, however, is that Meghan is pregnant.”
If so, the Queen should require a DNA test. Dunno where you’re writing from, but here in America, paternity fraud is a serious issue. This became very real to me when a friend of mine had a baby with a questionable woman and it came out…let’s just say darker than he is. Granted, his wife is part Hispanic, but to my eyes, this baby is half black. He has blond hair. Time — or DNA — will tell.
Nice column overall, esp. the Fergie comment.
Talking of DNA tests are he sure Harry isn’t a non-royal bastard? Then the WHY of the matter becomes – 1) the Royals don’t care as he is not really one of them (and not directly in-line either) or 2) Pawning off a Dianna’s bastard for political reasons… (what was the price?)
At least I have the principle!!
So, when it comes down to choosing between a principle of monarchy, and the tolerance of miscegenation, the alt-right chooses the racialist principle, hence distinguishing it from traditional paleoconservatism, in which the racial or ethnic principle is subordinated to the religious one.
“[I]n which the racial or ethnic principle is subordinated to the religious one…”
Says who? I imagine that almost every person who identifies as paleoconservative gets a sour taste in one’s mouth, and places a certain emphasis on racial preservation. I think the term you’re looking for is “religious democrat.”
*sour taste in one’s mouth at the thought of miscegenation, especially by a leader
The British Royalty has never been known for its intellectual prowess. Why is this a surprise? They don’t even realize that once England turns majority brown and its politicians likewise, the royalty becomes a piece of archaic curiosity.
Ethnic/White Nationalists who, like myself, once wandered the swamps of garden-variety “conservatism” will doubtless be aware of “O’Sullivan’s First Law”, which states that all organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I would apply this line of thought to propose another idea (which surely has been propounded by others): all organizations or institutions that aren’t conscientiously (and somewhat zealously) fortified with perpetual consistency will necessarily decay in both power and moral quality.
The British royal family, what with being toothless as far as I can gather, is now an inherently vacuous organization – it exists as a facade about which nobody, inside or out, has any delusions. For all intents and purposes, they are actors. Just like the degenerates who pursue acting in movies and plays, their lives are more or less meaningless falsities. It should, therefore, be unsurprising to witness the fall from grace and class. An *actress*? How low could a prince sink? A teenager watches a movie or TV show, sees an attractive woman on screen, and fantasizes about bedding or marrying her. I would want my nation’s prince – if it had one – to be more discerning about his choice of mate. E.g., choosing a woman who doesn’t choose a life of being gawked at by every Tom, Juan, and LeBron.
For me, too, this was the final straw with respect to appreciation for the tradition of Britain’s “royal family.” It’s not really about family lineage for me; it’s more about the class inherent to the chosen bride. The miscegenation element is, of course, an even greater embarrassment. The Prince couldn’t find a pretty White woman in his own country?
The whole thing is a joke. The modern world exerts no pressure on “royalty” to act as such, and we witness the consequences.
I am of the British race and have been a staunch monarchist all my life but I can no longer identify with them.
They are human like the rest of us but with all the privileges Harry has there is no need for him to undermine the family by marrying a divorcee and for him to marry outside the race has him abandoning me; not me abandoning the monarchy. Its a step too far.
I am not amused.
Good piece. A little emotional there towards the end. I share in the disappointment. But I would not hinge my support or affection for the Royal Family, and much less, support for the monarchic principle, on the mid-life decisions of a prince.
I agree entirely with your list of objections to this woman: and I would add one more – the whole thing overall has a tawdry, pedestrian feel. One wonders what his old staff at Clarence House are saying now behind his back.
In his defense, he has had a badly traumatic childhood. He seems charming but not that clever. His mother was not only an erratic woman but she also but had a brownishly exotic taste in her men as well – bizarrely that Pakistani doctor, and of course Dodi. His mother wed young – and then lost her mind and almost took down the whole Firm. I wonder to what extent he is playing it safe with a older, worn-in woman. And he gets a bit of the maternal bit he may have missed as a teen.
And thankfully this isn’t some sort of Edward VIII crisis: like you said Prince Henry of Wales it seems to me waited until there were no fewer than four (five?) healthy & viable heirs in front of him before settling down with this woman. No coincidence there. The Queen wouldn’t have approved it otherwise I’d bet, and he wouldn’t have gone for it.
Have a look at one the of photos of HRH Catherine with the Irish Guards, or with her children – beautiful, noble sights they are
And in contrast – returning to the actress/whore dyad – I wonder how often Markle got Weinsteined, and by whom?
I think this was inevitable. As the article says, they don’t actually have any power to disagree with the establishment. What does that do to their worldview over time? Monarchs are supposed to independent decision makers, when they can’t be they are just a useless figurehead. They as well be a costumed mascot.
My biggest disappointment is that the Nobility was supposed to do good works and act as a shield for the lower classes. The model was for the Nobles to act as a firm ground for the lowers to aspire to, to lead them in times of trouble (as military officers do) or to point out and fund a defense of social ills.
What do we have here? A good start for the Royals. Both sons joined the Military and were either fighter pilot or Scout/Snipers in the Commando’s, not an easy row to hoe. The queen Mother has held on to the position to prevent Charles from taking his liberal/Environmental Prat ways too far.
But then the English flooded their Country with browns. Wave after wave of sickening browns that regularly detonated themselves to cries of “Allah AkBar”. Deafening silence from the upper classes. No leadership, no help and “no comment”. Worse they have watched their Country descend into darkness while cheering on the feral State religion of “Diversity” and “inclusion” and now, with Harry, Race mixing.
The “Noble” model is a failure.
Monarchism was part of the whole “evil beest thou my good” of the Neo Reactionary / Alt Right movement.
From an empirical standpoint, republics with limited franchises are by far the winners of history.
Let’s be the good guys; let’s win this thing.
Is Britain a monarchy? Do they actually have any authority?
Yes. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
No, Britain in recent decades appears to be a social-democratic republic in the standard EU mold, with a certain celebrity family that continues to occupy several of the larger palaces. The USA in contrast appears to be a functional monarchy, with a periodically elected sovereign.
What was that Tea Party in Boston all about again?
For many people in the West old European Royalty, especially British Royalty, is implicitly a symbol of “whiteness”. By dating first a Paki and then an Arab, princess Diana disturbed this symbolic function, but now by marrying a mulatta her son Harry will have spoiled that function for good. Bye bye Mulatto Royals, we don’t want you any more !
My “inner conspiracy theorist” suspects some Jewish scheming behind the scenes here. The promotion of the mulatto Obama to POTUS was definitly a Jewish plot to insult white America, is there a Jewish plot here too ? Well the person who connected prince Harry with his mulatta is a JEWISH woman, Misha Nonoo from Bahrain. For further information, see : https://www.forward.com/…/meghan-markle-prince-harry-jewish-matchmaker-misha-nono…
As always : cherchez le Juif.
I’m all for placing appropriate responsibility on Jews for their anti-White activities, but to propose that this embarrassing pairing is a Jewish conspiracy is ridiculous.
The Forward is an embarrassment on a personal level, but to post refutations on their inane articles requires a paid subscription, and I refuse to support those anti-White parasites.
I was just thinking how similar this is to that small part of Raspail’s “Camp of the Saints” where the British prince has to marry some Pakistani girl while every major institution goes multicultural.
I doubt the Queen and Charles are happy about it. They didn’t seem to be enthusiastic about it….Just a “I wish the the best” type attitude in front of camera.
I’ll bet money they “allowed” it because if they did not they would have take a huge hit by the Progressives and left wing extremists. And in this climate they could not take any chances. So they went along with it.Charles recently took a huge hit regarding views on Israel.
That sounds like a reasonable perspective. After all, they are as much prisoners of the System as you are unless you stand up together. They can’t do it alone nor can you. It is about unity, and at the moment there is no united English front seriously challenging the Establishment. I believe it will come but reawakened ethnocentrism is still slowly and gradually rising up – it used to be completely dormant. We must not forget ethnocentrism and monarchism have been linked since ancient times.
Thank you Mr. Bolton, it’s gratifying to have an endorsement from suchan esteemed source.
You’ve heard of Lord of the Flies? Behold the Prince of the Bugmen.
Important information to take into account in this context. German and English elites were systematically re-educated:
“Maximilian spent the rest of his life in retirement. He rejected a mandate to the 1919 Weimar National Assembly, offered to him by the German Democratic politician Max Weber. In 1920, together with Kurt Hahn, he established the Schule Schloss Salem boarding school, which was intended to help educate a new German intellectual elite.[2]” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Maximilian_of_Baden#Later_life_and_death
“He had been private secretary to Prince Max von Baden, the last Imperial Chancellor of Germany. From 1920 to 1933, Hahn was the first headmaster of Schule Schloss Salem, a private boarding school in Germany, founded by Hahn in cooperation with Prince Max. Hahn was raised as a Jew and served as the Salem School’s headmaster during Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. Hahn began his fierce criticism of the Nazi regime after Hitler’s storm troopers killed a young communist in the presence of his mother. When he spoke out against the storm troopers, who had received no punishment, Hahn spoke against Hitler publicly. He asked the students, faculty and alumni of the Salem school to choose between Salem and Hitler.
[…]
Hahn settled in Scotland, where he founded Gordonstoun on similar principles to the school in Salem. Later, Hahn converted to Christianity and became a communicant member of the Church of England in 1945 and preached in the Church of Scotland. ” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Hahn#Early_life
“Gordonstoun has a few notable alumni.[4] Three generations of British royalty were educated at Gordonstoun, including the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales.[5] Due to Dr. Hahn’s influence, the school has had a strong connection with Germany.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordonstoun
Monarchy is the oldest form of government known to man and probably the most successful. The ideal of monarchy still stands however far the actuality falls short. One powerful argument for it is that the Jews have always felt uneasy living under a Monarchy, even a Constitutional one, (unless its a Jewish monarch of course), as there is far too much danger of getting a Jew-wise monarch, e.g. Edward I or Edward VII, and therefore they have always tried to get rid of it, subvert it, or rebel against it, e.g. the vital part played by financier (((Haym Saolomon))) for example in the American Revolution.
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/The-Jew-who-Financed-the-American-Revolution.html
They’ve certainly done well and are pleased in pairing off Harry off with this philo-semitic, half-caste, soft-porn star. Harry also seems to be being directed into being the member of the Royals responsible for ethnic minorities.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/prince-harry-hails-inspiring-former-child-refugee-and-medical-student-who-are-winners-of-queen-s-a3710526.html
One alternative to getting rid to the monarchy outright is to back the Stuart line of succession, but Franz, Duke of Bavaria, the current Stuart claimant to the British throne may not be much better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria
It is not all doom and gloom though for the House of Windsor. The Queen immensely helped the pro-Brexit campaign during the Referendum when her remarks to a dinner party ‘Can anyone tell me what use the European Union is?’ were widely reported in the British press. It would be interesting to see what the Royal Family’s stance would be to an elected White Nationalist government in Britain – I am reliably informed that it would be no different to any other elected government. In Britain The Armed Forces swear allegiance to the monarch and not to the government, so, conceivably, if there were to be any breakdown in civil order/outbreak of anarchy inevitably leading to a race war/civil war situation, then the stance of the royal family could well be decisive. In the 1960’s/1970’s the Queen over-ruled other royals and rejected proposed military coups; coups, be it noted, that would have essentially freed Britain from Zionist control & political correctness, stopped coloured immigration, speedily repatriated the coloured immigrant communities here, and generally ushered in a patriotic, traditional, authoritarian common sense regime. Her ostensible reasoning, (feminine thinking perhaps playing its part), for refusing to give her blessing to such a coup, was that it would have led to far too much bloodshed. The bitter irony, of course, is that NOT having a military coup back then, has led to far more bloodshed than would ever have been caused by the coup itself.
Further points sent to me relating to this topic. subject.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie,_Hereditary_Princess_of_Liechtenstein
Failing the birth of a male heir, the Jacobite claim to the thrones of England, Scotland, Ireland and France will pass to Sophie following the demise of the current holder, her childless uncle Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and of her own father, who has no sons. Jacobites would then recognise her as “Queen Sophie” in both England and Scotland, without numeration, as neither Kingdom has had a monarch of that name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banz_Abbey
The estate of the former monastery, including vast forests, is today owned by Duke Max Emanuel’s eldest daughter Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein.
At Banz Abby in autumn 2015, Angela Merkel’s conservative Bavarian allies fêted hardline Hungarian leader Viktor Orbán as the guardian of the EU’s external borders — a direct rebuke of the chancellor and her refugee policy.
In the Bavarian monastery-turned-congress center, where a wooden crucifix still hangs in every room, warnings from Hungary and other Eastern European countries that Christian culture is at risk from the mostly Muslim migrants struck a chord.
https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-bavaria-hardline-hero-seehofer-migration-borders/
Royalty sometimes take an anti-Jewish line and sometimes take a pro-Jewish line as The Shepherd’s Crusade of 1320so aptly illustrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherds%27_Crusade_(1320)
First off, Harry obviously is not Charles’ son, so he is not of the Windsor bloodline, which means the queen could probably care less. Second, didn’t we fight a damn bloody war 240-some years ago to not give one damn about the royal family, on anything England for that matter?
First off, Harry obviously is not Charles’ son
What do you mean by “obviously”? You are going along with the suggestion that James Hewitt is Harry’s dad? Prince Harry has Charles’ little close-set eyes, just for starters. James Hewitt has far-apart eyes. As for the red hair, there are redheads in the royal family going way back; also, Diana’s brother and sister are redheads. And on & on. So, until we see the results of paternity tests, it looks like Harry is the real deal.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/615232/Prince-harry-james-Hewitt-Diana-affair-Charles-ginger-pippa-middleton-wedding
By obviously, I mean the obvious lack of resemblance to any other Windsor, and I am not referring to the hair color. Mainly, the lack of horse face that is so prevalent in that inbred family. As for paternity tests, I guess it would be impossible for the royal family to release a fraudulent document. Another thing I mean by obvious is the fact that he actually saw combat duty. If he was truly a Windsor, I highly doubt the queen would have allowed that. But hey, I could be wrong. But one thing I am absolutely certain of is the second part of my previous comment. We fought a bloody war to not give a damn about those scum.
Second, didn’t we fight a damn bloody war 240-some years ago to not give one damn about the royal family, or anything England for that matter?
Well, yes. So is it not interesting that the English were the only Europeans to enthusiastically adopt infant circumcision? It is not good enough to say that jewish doctors talked the English/British royal family and aristocrats into this ugly thing around the middle of the 19th century (as a “health measure”), followed of course by the hoi polloi doing the same to their boys. All the other European nations – southern, northern, central, eastern – were living with jews for centuries, including jewish doctors – yet all of these people had the good sense to not want to denature their own boys right at birth. Only the residents of that shitty little island.
Further, the British tribes who had emigrated to the New World (and Australia & South Africa) couldn’t wait to do the same thing to their sons soon as they heard it was being done back home, even though they had in essence rejected the monarchy and its influence in the old country.
So, what is going on here? What on earth is wrong with the British/English? To this day, non-English European peoples have not adopted this unspeakable practice. Now, it is true that the rate of infant circumcision has decreased greatly in England but only because their National Health Service stopped funding it, not because the population suddenly grew a working set of brains.
Was not aware of all of that, but is certainly intriguing. And certainly does cause one to wonder why that barbaric practice was so widely accepted. Things that make you go hmmmm???
Prince Harry’s decision to wed an American mulatta has obviously and rightly caused outrage among racial-nationalists here in the UK. My friends Jeremy Turner, convenor of the London Forum and John Bean, a prominent and veteran nationalist since the 1950s, have both expressed opinions about the Royal Family/Monarchy as an institution with which I do not agree and I e-mailed them about this.
Jeremy has drawn my attention to Jef Costello’s article “I am officially done with these people” and has suggested that the text of my e-mail might be a suitable item for the comments section of Jef’s article. So here it is:
[quote]:
Today or tomorrow I’ll scan two or three items in today’s Jewish Chronicle and send you the same in Jpg format. They gloat over what they have done to the Royal Family. One top Hebe suggests the Happy Couple should honeymoon in Israel.
All this may be a Jewish revenge attack on Britain’s monarchy after:
1) Steadfastly refusing, on Foreign Office advice (thus far) to allow a monarch’s State Visit to Israel until the issue of establishing a Palestinian state is resolved;
and
2) Not providing the Queen (or at the least the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales in the event of the Queen’s illness) to host a banquet at Windsor Castle six or seven years ago “to honour British Jewry” at which the late Shimon Peres, then President of Israel, was scheduled to attend. When Peres learned that the Head of State of the UK would not be present to host that banquet he, as Head of State of Israel, petulantly withdrew his decision to attend.
The Jews thought that by announcing the wish and intention of Israel’s President to attend the event, the Queen, in observance of protocol, would have to attend it and that the function would presage the Jews’ much-and-long desired State Visit of the Queen to Israel, which they see as a final seal of respectability for the Jewish state.
I think the nationalist movement has so many enemies that it is foolhardy to open up a new front of hostility by attacks on the current Royal Family (despite Harry — who may well not be of the royal blood-line).
The monarchy is supported by the vast majority of ordinary patriotic folk, especially the Queen, who is by far the most admired and respected person in the world among the general public. Criticism should be confined to Harry for HIS decisions. Harry’s personal decisions should not be made the pretext for attacks on the monarchy as a whole.
Remember, Harry is currently only the sixth — and will soon be the seventh — in line to the throne.
[unquote]
No human institution is perfect. I would far rather have a constitutional monarch as Britain’s Head of State and focus of patriotism and national identity than America’s system of an elected President. While our monarchy has thrown up some bad apples from time to time, this has not happened with the same frequency as America has had to endure rotten / corrupt / Jewry-owned / barking mad Presidents.
Best wishes to all my American friends,
Martin Webster.
“No human institution is perfect. I would far rather have a constitutional monarch as Britain’s Head of State and focus of patriotism and national identity than America’s system of an elected President. While our monarchy has thrown up some bad apples from time to time, this has not happened with the same frequency as America has had to endure rotten / corrupt / Jewry-owned / barking mad Presidents.”
I generally agree. However, I believe that the (landed and/or hereditary) aristocracy is of greater importance than the monarch.
Sean Gabb has done good work explaining and defending the British (landed and/or hereditary) aristocracy.
The real problems started with Margaret Thatcher and people like “Lady” Porter (nee Cohen), in my opinion.
“Shirley Porter said: “In a week when the son of a trapeze artist [John Major] has been battling to become Prime Minister… the courts have ruled that we must remain wedded to an outdated class system.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_City_Council_v_Duke_of_Westminster#Reactions
“Lady” Porter feels no real loyalty and allegiance towards the native British working class because she is no part of the native British people – nobles like the Duke of Westminster are – and that is also why she and people like her wanted to get rid of “an outdated class system”. Native elites are a protective mechanism which prevents foreign elites, which usually do not have the natives’ best interest at heart, to take over their countries. The U.S. does not have as rigid of a class system as Britain and therefore it is more vulnerable to hostile takeovers by non-native elites/groups/cultures.
London Journal; Now It’s Noblesse Oblige vs. the Trickle-Downers
“But some onlookers say the fight is actually a much larger contest in which the free-market principles and enterprise culture of modern-day Thatcherism are squaring off against the old-school noblesse oblige of Britain’s patricians.” – http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/31/world/london-journal-now-it-s-noblesse-oblige-vs-the-trickle-downers.html
Sean Gabb – Margaret Thatcher – Hero or Villain? (PFS 2016)
Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v4uzETyBN8
Why have a House of Lords if there’s not a single lord left in it?
The last thing we need is a second chamber filled with yet more professional politicos.
“As Enoch Powell put it, when he combined with Michael Foot in 1969 to see off the then plan for Lords reform, normal people are better than highly educated ones at recognising the power of the sentence: “It has long been so, and it works.”” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8998391/Why-have-a-House-of-Lords-if-theres-not-a-single-lord-left-in-it.html
Why the Hereditary Peers Should Stay in the House of Lords
by Sean Gabb
“As promised and as expected, the Queen today has announced plans to remove the hereditary Peers from the House of Lords. Though her annual speech to Parliament is normally heard in silence, this part of it was received with combined groans and cheers. What may be the last constitutional crisis in English history has begun.
As some of my readers may not be aware of English ways, I will explain. England possesses a mixed constitution, with elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Sovereign power is divided between the Crown, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The first of these is entirely hereditary. The second is largely so, being composed of Peers who sit by right of inheritance and Peers who are nominated for life. The last is an entirely elected body. Together, these make up the Crown in Parliament, and—as in a Jury – power can be exercised only with the consent of each coordinate body.
[…]
There is no pressure that can be placed on him—no orders sent out to a constituency association, no newspaper campaigns to discredit him before the electors. He owes his position to accident of birth and nothing else. This may sometimes throw up legislators who are mentally subnormal or even insane, but it will also throw up men of incorruptible honour.
And that is why the hereditary Peers are being expelled from the Lords. It is their independence, not their birth, that makes them so objectionable.” – https://archive.is/20120909153318/http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc024.htm
Sean Gabb “The Case for the Landed Aristocracy” (Libertarian Alliance)
Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjmTrVS61Y
Interesting. Thanks for posting that. I had no idea that there was this tension between the UK and Israel at the highest (at least ceremonial) levels. I had always assumed that the high end of British Jewry was by now so streamlined into London upper crust, a la Lord Rothschild, etc that getting what they want in the UK would have been as easy as ordering a bagel in New York.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment