A tale of two Elizabeths

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 29 December 2004 23:09.

To be simultaneously Queen of the Britons and Head of the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has come to Britain is a schizophrenic occupation. Evidently, though, for the Sufferer it is made less onerous by the incapacity to see any conflict therein. One side of the divide is, after all, cast down into the mud. It hates, or so they say. The other is graced by expedience and favoured by the conviction that liberal sanctimony is the measure of all decent men. Much of the expedience, never forget, consists in the sure knowledge that the latter choice will assist the corporate survival of the Monarchy itself.

We do not, therefore, expect much race awareness or plain-speaking from our Sovereign. How could the Head of the Commonwealth, Queen of Antigua & Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Solomon Island and Tuvalu, among others, other than genuflect before the great shibboleths of tolerance and diversity? If she failed in that how could she possibly discharge her political duty in the world and honour her Crown? Furthermore, how could she act as Supreme Governor of the Church of England while defying the political morality which has come to colour its worldview?

So yes, expedience and sanctimony are no less than we expect. But Her Majesty (or, more likely, whichever Master of the Yellow Quill and holder of the Liberal Order of Anti-Merit actually wrote “that” speech) has now gone a very great distance beyond these understandable if regrettable facts of modern political life. She has thrown in her lot with the diversifiers and the diversified.

In doing so she has raised the loyalty stakes in England in a fundamental and hitherto unprecedented way. She has chosen for herself as her ultimate, earthly loyalty – and commended us to do so too - humanity at large. Well, not so much at large as here, actually. She has placed tolerance and diversity above the ancient bonds of fealty from and service to her English subjects.

She said, “It is vitally important that we all should participate and cooperate for the sake of the wellbeing of the whole community. We have only to look around to recognise the benefits of this positive approach in business or local government, in sport, music and the arts.”

Well, this is all untrue. There is no vital importance in the sense she means it because there is no “whole community”. Multiculturalism does not aim at wholeness but equality by the dismantling of white hegemony. As for these precious benefits for which we are constantly told we must be grateful, what are they? Filipino hospital cleaners? Indian (ie, often Ugandan-Asian) businessmen? Black runners, footballers and what-have-you? And then, apparently, there are the wondrous benefits of racial diversity in the Arts? Surely Her Majesty can’t be referring to Chris Ofili’s elephant turds … much less the low-IQ, heavily-sexualised, beat-ific moaning that is black music.

Further, Her Majesty opines, “Some people feel that their own beliefs are being threatened. Some are unhappy about unfamiliar cultures. They all need to be reassured that there is so much to be gained by reaching out to others; that diversity is indeed a strength and not a threat.”

Well, let’s be charitable and conclude that, ensconced in the safety of one or other of her family’s ten palaces, Her Majesty is a stranger to real life. Apart from the word “threat” everything she says here is pure, sub-Clintonite bullshit. It is astounding that a reigning British Monarch can get any of these sentiments out of her mouth.

No others would ever have done so. Her great predecessor and namesake* had the Egyptian Act of 1562 passed into law so the bane of gypsies could be removed from her people’s lives.

She didn’t take any more kindly to Africans, either. Small numbers had begun arriving in England due to our involvement in the slave trade. But Gloriana was for racial purity and made no bones about it. She issued an open letter* on 11 July 1596 which read:-

Her Majestie understanding that there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie … Her Majesty’s pleasure therefore ys that those kinde of people should be sent forth of the lande, and for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile were brought into this realme the nomber of tenn, to be transported by him out of the realme. Wherein wee require you to be aydinge and assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, therof not to faile.

Evidently fail they did because in 1601 Elizabeth issued a proclamation which declared herself to be “highly discontented to understand the great numbers of negars and Blackamoores which are crept into this realm.” Her common bond of humanity with these diverse souls didn’t cause her to waver in her duty to her own people. The negars et alia “are fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of her own liege people … should be with all speed avoided and discharged out of this Her Majesty’s dominions”

What a gal! What a pity dear Mr Blair wasn’t born into her times.

* With acknowledgements to Tony Linsell and his book, An English Nationalism, available on-line here.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by Geoff Beck on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:08 | #

Your Queen is old enough to remember a time before PeeCee, she ought to know better.

We face a world in which the pillars of our civilization have betrayed ( strong word, I know ) their own people, and the traditions they are bound to defend.

That is why extremists - whose message is deplorable - shall flourish in the coming years.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 01:52 | #

And let’s not let Prince Charles off the hook. He’s as much to blame as the Queen for not speaking out—maybe more so. He’s spoken out against crappy modernist architecture and one or two other modern plagues. He should now be speaking out vehemently against Blair’s policies aimed at replacing Britain’s traditional mix of races with wholly incompatible races drawn from the non-white Third World.

Thirty years ago, who would’ve dreamt we’d be saying to each other today what I just said in the last sentence? Who’d have dreamt we’d be facing what we’re facing? No one in their wildest dreams. That’s the bad news. The good news is, what can be done can be undone. We need only roll up our sleeves and get to work. Didn’t Elizabeth I show us the way?

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:16 | #

That is why extremists - whose message is deplorable - shall flourish in the coming years.

I think rather that PC flourishes because reasonable men have been decried as extremists.

And no, betrayed is not in any way too strong of a word for what has happened.

For example, John Jay Ray is now on record expressing delight that his racial kin (“yobbos”) will soon be replaced with aliens: “I personally think that replacing a lot of Australian and British yobbos with polite Indians would be a distinct improvement—and one that will no doubt happen.”

From the standpoint of Australia’s working classes, whose wages and living conditions will be driven down to nothing, and for the rest of us, for whom numerical preponderance, civilizational confidence, and filial solidarity is destroyed by the constant and omnipresent media bloviations of JJR-types, is this betrayal?

It’s a fair question.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:21 | #

Full text of the address, for the curious:

Her Royal Majesty’s Christmas Day Message

My most faithful and loyal people, wherever you are:

It makes me so proud to have such a wonderful, extended family, the Commonwealth. I’ve been very fortunate to have had lots of members of that family to tea this past year. We really are one great harmonious community, with shared values such as having milk with our tea, and white sugar. Mind you, I don’t think I’ll be returning all the visits, as the menu in the remoter regions of my Commonwealth can be a little exotic for my taste, but you’ve got to let the dear little jigaboos and booglies have their head (if you’ll pardon the pun). Mugabe was so charming when he came to visit and I’ve no sympathy for those common Boers who are getting shot up in Zimbabwe at the moment, I’m sure Robert is doing his best. As my government is doing such a marvellous job of importing more jigglies and wogrots, soon everyone will be able to have one or two to tea, won’t that be super? We almost had little gippos crawling over the Windsor carpet, but for Dodi and Diana’s awful car accident. We all have our burdens you know, even me. Though I’m sure Davina will do us proud.

Now a million of you have written to me with a petition, to say that you are not happy about Great Britain being made into an arrondisment (excuse my French!) of Brussels, and our Prime Minister signing away British sovereignty to be subordinate to a new European Constitution. Well, I will try to explain it very simply, because these matters of constitutional law are terribly complicated and not at all easy to follow. Lord Woolf and that nice Mr Levy have gone through it very patiently with me, and I understand most of it I think, so I will try to explain.

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:21 | #

You see, according to the Constitution I really do have to repeat every treasonous word my government puts in front of me. I really am quite powerless to interfere. I just wave and smile and can’t do very much at all except go round meeting all these awfully nice people and, well, look the part.

My Coronation Oath to uphold and protect the rights and interests of my subjects, and Magna Carta, and all those other fuddy-duddy laws and statutes passed “in perpetuity” are very, very old now and not at all appropriate today. The lawyers are quite adamant on this point. You’re not my subjects any more I’m afraid, but citizens. It’s like the money – my head may be on it, but that’s just a vestige from the days when the Crown controlled it, backing it with precious metals in Sterling weight. Now our money is created on computer screens and printed by private bankers, who lend it to us at interest. It’s all very modern (even if the people behind it aren’t).

So all I can do is ask Mr Blair to hold a referendum. And another, and another, and so forth until he gets the result he wants. Nor can I do anything about that “other palace” on the Thames which spies on everyone and puts in agents to wreck any organisation which threatens the money supply, although I’m sure I don’t know where all the money goes. I don’t carry any, don’t you know.

But sadly here I must come to the end of my traditional Christmas speech, and I’m afraid I have some more bad news. I have to inform you that this will be my last Christmas Day message as it is being replaced from next year by an extended holiday coinciding with Hanukkah. This is a bit sudden I know, but we all have to move with the times and it’s a quid pro quo for not having William and Harry circumcised by Rabbi Snowman. However I have been promised most solemnly that I will still be allowed to appear on TV and wave to you, and that’s really all that matters, isn’t it?

I wonder what my new identity card will be like? I must take care not to ask any more questions about the money supply or foreign police might come to arrest and extradite me!

Your Queenie,

Liz

http://www.heretical.com/British/main.html

Posted by John Ray on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:42 | #

For example, John Jay Ray is now on record expressing delight that his racial kin (“yobbos”) will soon be replaced with aliens: “I personally think that replacing a lot of Australian and British yobbos with polite Indians would be a distinct improvement—and one that will no doubt happen.”

You have missed important context: Australia DOES control its immigration intake so the immigrants we get here are generally pretty worthwhile. I certainly would not want many of the types that Britain lets in

Posted by wintermute on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:31 | #

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1518504&postcount=19

Dear Sir/ Madam

A full day has passed since I watched the 2004 Christmas speech by the Queen and I am still recovering from the shock.

I never thought I would live to see the day when I would witness a British monarch surrender a kingdom and its dominions to alien creeds and cultures that are in no wise compatible with our Hellenic-Christian heritage.

I am very disturbed that on the 90th anniversary of the Chritmas Truce on the Western Front, the traditional Christmas speech by the Christian Sovereign would be used to support the multicultural creed that has historically brought bloodshed, poverty and despair to any nation foolish enough to adopt it.

I find it sadly ironic that the Christmas Truce on the Western Front gave the soldiers on both sides a short rest from a war that had its origins in the ethnic discord of the multicultural Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yet, Her Majesty chooses to support the policy of successive British governments that would bring this curse to these shores.

What the British soldiers would have done had they been shown a film of this speech by a post-Imperial British monarch, I can only guess: I doubt that there would be many men left in the rat-infested trenches willing to fight for King and Empire.

I feel that the red carpet has well and truly been removed from under the pillars of our once proud nation.

May God save the British people and their kin across the globe from the horrors of the multicultural Third World that awaits them.

I was, Her Majesty’s obedient servant,

......... ..............

Posted by DissidentMan on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:32 | #

Liz I may not have been a paragon of virtue. Here is how she dealt with her foes.
When Anthony Babington and his collegues were convicted in 1586 of a conspiracy to murder Elizabeth with the approval of Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth wished the judges to sentence the convicted traitors to be executed by such means as the Privy council should determine, so that they could be made to suffer a more painful death than hanging, drawing and quartering. She abandoned her demand when Lord Burghley concincer that such a sentence would be illegal. and that if the sentence of hanging, drawing and quartering was properly carried out, it would be very painful and prolonged. She soon changed her mind, as she so often did, and after she had been told of the agaony which Babington and three of the other traits had suffered during their hanging, drawing and quartering, she ordered that the remaining traitors who were executed next day should be allowed to hang until they were dead<i>
—the tudor age p. 81

And it’s reported that Liz I greatly enjoyed seeing bear baiting (torturing captive animals for amusement).
<I>Soon after she became Queen she attended a bear-baiting with the French ambassodor and enjoyed it so much that she stood watching it for several hours until six o’clock in the evening.

- the tudor age p. 269

Although you guys are holding Liz I up as some kind of heroic figure it might actually be the case that she merely followed the fashions of her day, much like Liz II, who shows no compunction about expressing crude PC propaganda.

Posted by DissidentMan on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:03 | #

I conclusion it is possible that glorification of such figures as Liz I is symptomatic of what’s wrong with modern day conservatism. Sure her words are un-pc today, but if Liz I were alive today she’d probably be just as PC as Liz II. Some of these people from history simply are not men (or women) of character. The only thing remarkable about Liz I was that she was born queen, not that there is anything <I>wrong<i> with that but it’s a bit like being a commoner who happens to have a royal robe and lots of attendants.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:38 | #

DissidentMan,

Elizabeth was not born to be Queen. That was her elder half-sister, Mary 1st.

She, a Catholic, became known as Bloody Mary, and for good reason. The Marian Persecution against the Protestant reformers was a dreadful horror. 288 were burned at the stake during the last four years of Mary’s reign.

She also suppressed Wyatt’s rebellion in 1546 and quite lacked mercy in the aftermath. You can read about it here:-
http://www.born-again-christian.info/foxes.book.of.martyrs/foxes.11.htm
Maybe mercilessness was one of those conventions that interest you.

As for Elizabeth, she of “the heart and stomach of a king” was a breaker of convention. Her reputation may be a little overdone in the various pop-histories we regularly see on TV these days. Her Court laid the foundations for this with their promulgation of the Gloriana myth, which followed upon the equally powerful myth of the Virgin Queen. So, this was no ordinary little lady who happened to be born to rule. I do NOT consider her so insubstantial as to be only the creature of her times. She moulded her times, not always for good it must be said. But she was a real Queen and you won’t find very many Englishmen who think otherwise.

Posted by DissidentMan on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 04:05 | #

Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. She succeeded Mary because Mary died of cancer and Elizabeth was next in line. Therefore she became queen by accident of birth and for no other reason.

I’m personally opposed to the death penalty BTW and some say that’s very woolly minded of me but but supposing that the death penalty is actually a positive thing insofar as upholding morality and social order, surely we could stop at that point. I am not prepared to believe that savage spectacles are ever good things. I’ll be blunt too, good people do not (i repeat) do not, have anyone or anything drawn and quartered ever. Unfortunately this may disqualify a lot of kings and queens from consideration as heros, but that’s too bad.

Posted by wintermute on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:09 | #

Therefore she became queen by accident of birth and for no other reason.

That, and the Divine Appointment of God Himself.

From James I, On the Divine Right of Kings

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself are called gods.

What on earth are they teaching children in schools nowadays?

I’ll be blunt too, good people do not (i repeat) do not, have anyone or anything drawn and quartered ever.

James also addresses this question:

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy….so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power.

I hope this clears up any remaining questions you have on the matter. Let us hope that one of Walsingham’s spies have not overheard you . . . they are everywhere!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:38 | #

“I’ll be blunt too, good people do not (i repeat) do not, have anyone or anything drawn and quartered ever.” (—DissidentMan)

You wouldn’t even make exceptions for Garth Brooks and Michael Bolton?