So, who else would the Queen like to have arrested?

Yesterday, another chink of illuminating light broke through the facade of British representative democracy; a facade which may only be paper-thin and increasingly fragile, but nevertheless throws an extensive and pitch-black shadow of ignorance upon the fumbling and groping masses beneath it. Yesterday, we learnt that the Queen contacted a member of the Cabinet to urge action and obtain an outcome that was personally desirable for her (the Guardian described the Queen’s approach as “lobbying”, and the reader will come to note that there are many interchangeable terms and phrases that are used to mean the same thing in terms of the Monarch’s relationship with, and position in the Executive branch of British Government).

We can perhaps safely say that if she did it once – and on the occasion under scrutiny, a few years ago but precisely when is unknown, she took it upon herself to urge whichever Home Secretary it happened to be at the time to bring about the arrest of Abu Hamza – then it’s a good bet that she is “dropping hints”, about all sorts of things that she would like to see done, to Her Government all day, week and year long.

The only way that we now are able to suspect the Queen in this respect is because, as the Daily Mail put it at least, “BBC defence correspondent Frank Gardner broke royal protocol by revealing his private conversation with the Monarch in which she disclosed her feelings”. In a moment I’ll cover the little issue about how the corporate-media likes to style “indirectly issuing instructions” as “expressing feelings”, but first let us comprehend a little fact about this so-called royal protocol.

A particular aspect of Royal Protocol, it seems, permits the Monarch to indirectly issue instructions to members of Her Government without the people – those who are meant to shape Government through democratic tools – ever finding out about it. The BBC called this aspect of Protocol “a breach of confidence” in its grovelling apology to Buckingham Palace, and thus gave us another handle on it; this aspect of Royal Protocol is also conspiracy between the instrument of Establishment power that is the corporate-media, and the Monarch, so that the people never find out that it is the Monarch, after all, who runs the country. The reader will also have heard of Royal Protocol in other forms, such as how commoners are not allowed to touch Royalty as if they are gods who otherwise would be tainted. Of course, it is a strategy to inspire awe and a sense in the commoner of the otherliness of the Monarch; seen through the filter which we should now apply, it is a means to avert a slippery slope which starts at contact, and ends, after discovery that the Gracious Majesty is not only just a human being, but something distinctly morally lower and habitually criminal, with the offering of the monarch up, with commoners’ hands, to the hangman’s noose.

It is, after all, the People, who, by Natural Law ever since God created us (there is no King but God; i.e. the government is the people according to the Law), and by precedence in English law (set 1649: the King is not above the Law but answerable to the people) are sovereign over our own commonwealth. This is the reality of how it should be, but a false legal level has been inserted between us and our sovereignty; and most of us are blissfully unaware. Most of us are led to believe that the bargaining to bring about the Restoration, and measures that were seemingly put into practise in later developments, meant that, even though the Monarch was Sovereign in name, actual sovereignty rested in Parliament because it had authority over the Monarch. The obvious incongruity is generationally shrugged off, and I am certain that most people would say that the Queen has no power at all, and if they know about the Royal Prerogative to dissolve Parliament, they think of it as some technical part of Government that she is isolated from in reality. People also think that because they vote for the Parliament, then it represents them and does their bidding (even when it clearly does not).

Sovereignty does not rest in Parliament, because Parliament does not represent the people. Power, on the other hand, rests in the Executive branch of Government, and with the Monarch. In the British Monarchy, the people, or at least our submission to the system (which is won by wowing us with jewel encrusted vehicles, garments and being able to get soldiers in red tunics to parade across their property, while always, of course, impressing upon us a sense of our own inferiority), are represented by the Monarch. This is the only representation that we have, and it’s thanks to the average Britons’ historical appetite for willing slavery, or so it seems. The Monarch then sustains Parliament, not only as a decoy to placate duped Britons, but also as a means to distribute the trappings of power with individuals and placemen for organisations who otherwise would present a challenge to the Monarch’s hegemony. This is the situation as it stands; this is the legalism that, because it is not Lawful, provokes the Establishment to have Protocol, or conspiracy, or a fudge called an unwritten constitution, so that we, the sovereign people, do not find out about it, and do not worry that we have been usurped by villains.

Speaking of that unwritten constitution, here it is cited as cause, via the Washington Post, by British Government who would not hand over details of Prince Charles’ own lobbying activity when asked for it:

Several government departments had refused to divulge them [letters from Charles to seven government departments], arguing it might breach unwritten constitutional rules on the relationship between the monarchy and the government, and that it would discourage the prince from speaking frankly.

Prince Charles is a notorious meddler as evidenced here. The following is from that linked-to article:

Prince Charles was personally consulted by George Osborne about a controversial change to the law which has significantly boosted the Royal Family’s finances.

The back-story to this is how the Guardian newspaper had taken advantage of a loophole, open since 2005, but now closed because of how the Freedom of Information Act has been made recently not to apply to the Queen, Charles and William, to request details of Charles’ plotting with Government ministers. Obviously, the requests were stonewalled, but as it turns out, the three judges on the eventual FoI tribunal in the case ordered that information be released; they decided that it was in the public interest “for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government.”

Of course it is. And influencing government is what Charles does when he lobbies, or, “speaks frankly in confidence” – which is the euphemism for “making oneself understood” that the Establishment likes to use.

Which brings us neatly back to the point about the corporate-media styling the Queen’s interference as “expressing opinion”. Her involvement in the Abu Hamza case may have been a “who will rid me of this turbulent priest?” moment, but it wasn’t that scene in Blackadder when Brian Blessed, lunching on a horse’s leg, is overheard by two drunken knights as he retells the story of Thomas a Beckett to the Prince Edmund’s mother. Here is the account of events as told by the BBC’s Frank Gardner, as reported by the Mail:

 [The Queen] was upset that her country and its subjects were being denigrated by this man [called Britain a toilet; was incredibly anti-British] who was using this country as a platform for his very violent, hateful views… [and] that there was no way to arrest him.

She couldn’t understand – there was surely some law he had broken. Well in the end, sure enough, she was right. He was eventually convicted and jailed for seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred.

She spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said my goodness, why is he still at large?

The Queen, by the looks of it, made a point of telling the Home Secretary that she didn’t like Abu Hamza, and indicated that she thought that he must have committed a crime that deserved his being arrested. Of course none of this looks like a direct order, but that could all be lost in the translation; the way that Frank tells ‘em – as an old comedian used to say. There is, however, something about the story which suggests that the Queen would give orders like a gangster boss being careful to avoid incrimination.

So, there is a question that we have to ask ourselves – if we can get past the simplistic narrative being ladled out by corporate-media, and commentators within it, that Abu Hamza is a nasty Islamic type and the Queen a mouthpiece of the common people (Abu Hamza fought in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, which itself suggests that he may have been an asset of the Queen’s own intelligence agencies – but that is something to be investigated in these pages later). Abu Hamza is not the real issue here. The question that we have to ask is this: who else would the Queen like to have arrested? I suppose that she would count criticism of the Monarchy as an act of denigration of thqueen_polle country, so are opponents of the Queen on a wish list for internment? Are they unwittingly careering towards a day when they will have been deemed to  have “must have broken the law by now”?

Finally, please consult the graphic on the left that demonstrates the shocking ignorance of Telegraph readers; people who are supposed to be thinking consumers of corporate-media. Surely, by now, a reality should be self-evident to such people that gives an account as to why the Queen, even though she appears to be committing treason, doesn’t have a problem with signing off all the EU treaties (she wants Britain to be in the EU). Sadly, instead, everyone seems to think that the Monarch – and the Telegraph uses an amusing version of the official euphemism which pretends that MPs have expertise in soundly running a country – can “speak in confidence to experts about her concerns”. Everybody loves dictatorship.