There are far more sinister aspects of the Royal parasite that HER subordinate media fail to address is how her freemason henchmen
are directed by her loyal lieutenant the Duke of Kent to instigate persecution campaigns against ANYONE who dares rock the
FULL ARTICLE HERE
'That the Queen blocked a bill about the procedures by which the state decides to go to war, one of its most serious acts, is almost beyond belief.'
Even more extraordinary than the fact that a veto over new laws and proposed bills exists and is exercised by a ceremonial monarchy in what we erroneously believe to be a modern meritocratic democracy, is the fact that this item has not made the front page, has escaped editorial comment and has not made the national news (Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills, 15 January).
That the royal family has power to subvert the parliamentary democratic process in such areas as military authority and civil partnership is, to say the least, surprising. That they also have direct influence over "laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall" is surely relevant to the debate over tax evasion, tax avoidance, and now, bankers' bonuses deferred to reduce tax.
The royal family is the manifestation of the enduring privilege that lurks within the institutions of our nation, so perhaps we should not be surprised. But we should be surprised and disappointed that this has not made more waves in the media, especially the Guardian. It should matter to everyone, especially when the Cabinet Office has gone to such lengths to avoid revealing matters that are of such far-reaching public interest.
• Given that a court order has exposed the lie that the Queen's powers are purely ceremonial, can we now expect the Queen to receive the same criticism and vilification Tony Blair has had over the invasion of Iraq?
After all, she was the unelected monarch who used her royal prerogative to block Tam Dalyell's bill, which attempted to transfer power from the monarch to parliament for military action. Her refusal to grant consent for this bill to be debated in 1999 surely makes the Queen equally as guilty as Blair et al in unleashing the bloodshed that followed this insane enterprise?
Can we now expect to see her answering questions before a parliamentary committee to justify her part in the invasion of Iraq? Or will her supporters still lay claim to the lie her role was ceremonial? Her decision had a direct impact for the untold thousands of deaths that followed, and justice must extend even to a monarch. Or are some people more equal than others?
• That it should require real investigative persistence with freedom of information requests to uncover the role of the Queen and Prince Charles in approving legislation passed by parliament is extremely disturbing. To learn that, in what we thought was a constitutional monarchy, the Queen blocked a bill about the procedures by which the state decides to go to war, one of its most serious acts, is almost beyond belief.
Less serious, but still breathtaking, is the fact that the two royals appear, as landowners, to have been able to entirely dictate the rules covering their own, enormous, landholdings. The need for a written constitution, transparently implemented, has never been clearer.
Natalie Bennett Leader, Green party
• If it hadn't already proved difficult, it is impossible to continue believing
that we live in a democracy. The royal family, supported by the civil service, have supremacy over parliament,
to their own benefit.
Jefrey G Pirie
• Thanks to Tanya Gold for having the guts to expose the limitations and dangers of the privileged royalty (Our voodoo monarchy, 12 January). But simultaneously the Guardian gives extensive sycophantic coverage to the Duchess of Cambridge. And this is nothing compared with what will follow once the baby is born.
Time to recall Labour's bravest leader, Keir Hardie, in his response to a royal baby in 1894. Parliament and the press lavished praise on the Duke and Duchess of York on the birth of a son while barely making a mention of 250 men and boys killed in a pit disaster on the same day. Hardie alone refused to join in a vote of congratulations to the royals saying: "I owe no allegiance to any hereditary couple." Other MPs howled and screamed at him while the press treated him as a figure of hate. Yet he received so many letters of support that he had to hire helpers to undo them. Moreover, he later became Labour leader.
Hardie attacked the royals because they were undemocratic, reinforced inequality and supported war. If the Guardian is really leftwing, it should take the lead in campaigning for a republic.
• It is interesting to note that when it comes to funding the monarchy, the government is happy to spend tens of millions on royal travel, royal residences and policing, yet when asked to explain how royal powers have been used to alter legislation they claim to do so would be too expensive (Ministers accused of exploiting royal veto to block embarrassing legislation, 16 January).
If Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith believes revealing details of how royal consent has been exercised or withheld is a cost too far then I will make this offer: tell us how much it would cost and Republic will raise the necessary funds through public donations and pay for the exercise ourselves.
Chief executive officer, Republic