As a lifelong Royalist, it was with great and deepening dismay that I heard and read of your speech at the banquet in Germany on 24th June.
As a member of UKIP, the only political party that campaigns to leave the EU, my heart sank as I realised to what extent you had given comfort and support to the pro-EU campaign prior to the Referendum.
No matter how many denials are issued by Palace spokespersons, the speech was of political significance, uttered in Merkel’s Germany at a time when our pro-EU Prime Minister is seeking his so-called ‘reforms’. The undemocratic EU is not about peace and prosperity: it is about power and we need to free ourselves before its stated aim of ‘ever closer political union’ is achieved.
I spent the first 26 years of my life in a free, independent sovereign state, happy to be a subject of our sovereign Queen, but by your words you seem to endorse our absorption into the EU Superstate and negate your Coronation oath.
In 1997 you found yourself out of step with the population as a whole in under-estimating the strength of feeling about the death of Princess Diana. I am afraid that you or, more likely, your advisors, have miscalculated again and uttered words that will jar on the ears of millions of Britons who want to be friendly with Europe, but not ruled by the EU.
I hope that further consideration will lead to an explanatory retraction of the speech, making it clear that there was no intention of offering support to the interests of the EU over the interests of the UK; and bearing in mind the fact that the terms ‘Europe’ and ‘EU’ are used interchangeably and indiscriminately by those who prefer to confound their opponents.
The letter has been posted. No doubt it will be opened by a secretary or lady-in-waiting and added to a number of letters expressing similar views. I hope that the ‘disapproval’ pile is higher than the ‘approval’ one. That is all I hope to achieve by sending it. If we say nothing, the Queen may go on believing that her foreign affairs advisers (pro-EU to a man and woman I am sure) are steering her in the right direction.
To those who have criticised my letter as lese-majeste, or untoward, I say context is everything and to say what she did in Germany in front of Merkel, Schulz & Co in the first month or two of the Referendum campaign, with Cameron doing his rounds begging for some leeway from the 27 ‘partners’ is tantamount to a highly political statement. If Cameron had persuaded her to say it in support of his ‘reforms and re-negotiations’ at a crucial moment, this is a highly political gesture in support of a Conservative pro-EU PM.
The Queen cannot have it both ways: either she is above politics to avoid controversy, or she reveals her views and attracts criticism. Her speech is so heavily laden with sub-text at this time in our national life, and in Germany of all places, that it was bound to be controversial. Her advisers had better rein themselves in unless they want to damage the monarchy.
The British people, not the Queen, will decide what is best for our country. If they get it wrong, the monarchy may not endure in any meaningful form beyond the middle of this century.
I think the penny has already dropped with the British People Pamela the majority of Sovereignty has already gone, by implication the Queen`s sovereignty is also diminished, as to be in effect non-existent..
Her words may cause flutters in European pigeon coops, but a growing proportion of the British can see right through this charade (at least 4 million)
As I have said the Queen is “captive” – “hostage” if you like There`s a well known phrase you cannot break wind against thunder, neither can the Queen..
She may indeed be guilty of “denial”, but please leave her alone and reserve your wrath for the real “criminals”(they know who they are – let`s keep reminding them)
Your argument simply validates the views of the ‘Republic’ group. If the Queen is nothing but a cypher, what is the use of her or any heir to the throne? Please don’t say tourism.
As the Head of State, Elizabeth II should be as steadfast as Elizabeth I in pouring foul scorn on any foreign alliance that dares to threaten our country’s freedom, independence and sovereignty.
But she isn’t.
,You are right, I may validate some of the views of the “Republic” and for all I know all sorts of other odd people, but that is even more reason to work to restore our freedom and the Monarchy, imperfect as it was, is and always will be.
I cannot for a moment put my brain in enough agony to consider who could be President.
Anyway, thinking about it I am all for “divisiveness”, apparently Nigel has it in spades – to me it`s the ability to recognise inconsistencies in policy, behaviour and effects etc. and tell the truth about them, even if it doesn`t suit all parties and particularly upsets the Establishment and their overweening insistence on adhering to their manufactured “Right” (right to impose) solution on others.
Isn`t the Queen allowed to be `divisive` every now and again?
Not if she wants loyalty and allegiance from her subjects, the ones who don’t want a republic or a president, among whom I counted myself until the Queen read her partisan speech. I don’t look forward to Charles’s reign (if he makes it) because he displays far too much sympathy toward muslims for comfort in today’s UK. So I’m hoping William and Kate will be true Brits on the throne, not sign any treaties with foreign alliances and put Britain, not Europe, first. It’s not much to ask of one’s king or queen, is it?
But isn`t this where we came in?
Restoration of Royal freedom of operation and responsibility is predicated on restoration of full Sovereignty until then Royalty,our government, our Parliament and the British people remain puppets dancing on our strings to whatever tune EU calls.
It`s common for victims to “Go Native” and isn`t there also the Patti (?) Hurst (?) effect??
Many of our citizens have “bought” in
I would like to reply to Pam Preedy’s article on the Queen!
I have written to her Majesty on a number of occasions in the mistaken belief she has the best interests of her subjects at heart, to find she is a ‘Constitutional Monarch’, i.e. she does as her government tells her and is just a rubber stamp! The ‘divine right of kings’ finished with Charles I.
Like Pam Preedy, I was of the belief the Queen had some input and there are still people who believe that when the ‘great pretenders’ in Westminster really foul the whole thing up, that
she will coming riding to our rescue! Wrong!!
I wrote to her about the use of her troops for the invasion of Iraq and
the signing of a number of treaties giving away our sovereignty,
specifically the Lisbon Treaty. She replied that being a ‘Constitutional
Monarch’, she does as her government requests and for the issue of the
Lisbon Treaty, referred me to her government led by Gordon Brown. I
wrote to Gorden Brown and he referred me back to the Queen, as she had
signed the document on the 19th of June 2008! Both of them playing the
‘not me gov’ game, obviously the treaty being such an embarrassment
nobody wanted to take the blame!
The Queen’s speech Pam Preedy spoke about, was obviously no amazing coincidence and was planned alongside dilettante Dave’s futile attempts to make an appearance of moving the
EU from it’s already stated intransigent position! Barroso did intimate on a TV interview that concessions could be made if we moved on such issues as the Euro and gave with one hand while they take with the other!
I think anybody who really believes we have any chance of being self governing while in the EU, or have any chance against an organisation that is quite willing to see one of it’s members
collapse into chaos, poverty and despair, for the sake of adhering to it’s rigid stipulations, must be so deluded they should be put into care for their and our own protection!!!
Gerard Batten MEP’s blog tends to support Pam’s views:
I have read this and completely agree with Gerard Batten, whom I regard as one of our most astute MEPs. Nigel also describes the speech as ‘very poorly-advised’.
The Queen and Prince Philip have just been lunching with their German relatives. Is the Queen making a bid to be an European monarch “ruling” over Germany as well? Or at least trying to be a unifying figure at the heart of Europe? Apparently Putin in also considering bringing back the Russian royal family which also has strong ties with the British monarchy.
Well Pam Preedy got that one totally wrong – what a pity she did not think about the matter a little more deeply before putting pen to paper or indeed even opening her mouth to voice such lightweight sentiments.
The Queen is the most experienced, diplomatic statesman in the world. She does not say anything by mistake and has a sound touch. She has an uncanny ability to understand what is in the UK’s best long-term interest and completely accepts the will of her people as long as they have considered the matter really carefully. She is also an unswerving supporter of the Commonwealth.
A little bit more careful consideration of whom exactly HM was addressing her words and their timing in relation to Her PM’s programme should have lead PP (who usually displays better judgement) into a more rational reaction and tearing up this unfortunate outburst before it ever saw the light of day.
I hope it does not colour anybody’s impression of the general quality of perception among UKIP activists.
I’m sorry, but what a load of sycophantic twaddle.
Pam Preedy is absolutely spot on with this, no matter that you may think HM always has our best interests at heart she is supposed to be apolitical. This was anything but!
Well I am not going to spell it out for either of you if you can’t work it out for yourselves!
I suppose you have read what HM said carefully?
Who were her hosts and how many of HM’s relatives died in conflict with them?
Don’t be so patronising, I’m quite well aware of history. You may think that excuses what she said, I don’t.
Cairo, what are you saying, for goodness sakes?! I am a royalist, and I am devastated that the Queen had anything to do with this! I want OUT and I feel that she is being too involved in a political situation, when she is supposed to be impartial! I am changing my views about being a royalist!
Don`t waste your breath ,the Queen will not see this article or any of your comments
Maybe not but she will be told it is UKIP generated.
Couldn’t agree more. A very sad day for the Royal Family and their allegiance to the UK. Ardent royalists are generally loyal subjects – how can one be now that Her Majesty has virtually declared her allegiances elsewhere? She really didn’t stand up for her own realm – despite the objections from the palace that her comments were “misinterpreted”.
Shame.
Why the surprise? After all she is of the Saxon-Gettenburg house.
I disagree strongly with Pam Preedy.
The Queen’s words (quoted by Breitbart) even in the context of a visit to Germany are not in the least pro-EU nor a blow to EU-sceptics. They in no way imply that political union between Britain and any European power is a good thing. Au contraire they mean sovereign nations joining in common cause which is simply the definition of an ally. they speak of political and cultural links and so on. As an EU-sceptic I should hope the Queen would say nothing less of Germany.
There will be much more of this leaping from statements of common sense and goodwill to the illogical conclusion of ‘political union’ over the next year or two. Accepting the illogical leap as Pam Preedy has done is falling into the EU-phile’s trap. Now Pam Preedy is even hostile to her own monarch! Not a good place to be Pam.
What Pam Preedy should be doing is explaining and promoting the Queen’s words as an argument for Britain being ‘with’ not ‘part of’ the EU as Churchill put it, a good friend and ally but sovereign and, if forced to choose, Britain must always choose the sea.
Cameron and the EU-philes are forcing Britain to choose, not the Queen, so let’s choose the sea.
I agree. I’m ashamed to say that I initially wrote that I agreed with Pam’s article – but that was before I had listened to the speech! Her Majesty simply praised Anglo-German cooperation. We’re not living in 1940. Let’s cooperate with Germany to build a better Europe. The first step is to dismantle the existing EU.
Thank you Mike. It is really important that we argue that outside the EU we would have a better relationship with the countries of Europe. The EU as a supra-national government is essentially and necessarily anti-democratic. It will fail by internal division among the ruling elites who will drag their countries into conflict with each other. Cooperation but sovereign decision and policy making is a good neighbour guideline.
Mike, we are living in worse times than in 1940 because we could see the enemy then and fight it, no holds barred. Now we are in the toils of a dictatorial superstate dominated by a Germany that has achieved everything AH wanted, but by far subtler Eurocratic means than warfare. What on earth makes you think that Germany wants to dismantle the existing EU when it is very much top dog in that Union with Merkel calling the shots?
If I recall my history correctly, the pre-WW2 Reichs Chancellor (you know who) was anxious for Britain to co-operate with Germany ‘to build a better Europe’. Of course, that meant looking the other way while he rampaged through every nation thought should belong to his ‘volk’. But we chose not to.
That European Army they keep dreaming about ….wonder who would organise and lead it?
Sorry Pam, all you say is true but I don’t think you had any reason to criticise the Queen. I had the impression from your that she was actively promoting the EU.
She wasn’t at all. She was saying the sort of thing she always says on a foreign visit, which is “Your country and mine should work together in friendship”. It was quite harmless and I think you were over-sensitive.
I must be as over-sensitive as Gerard Batten, Nigel Farage and most of the news outlets then.
I hope that you are right Peter. It does demonstrate though just how divisive the EU is. Even the Queen is being dragged into the firing line as people interpret her words. Of course we will never get to the bottom of it because the Queen cannot be questioned to explain her position. As you rightly point out any over reaction to this is “falling into the EU-phile trap”.
Exactly the same thing occurred in the Scottish referendum when she expressed a view that she hoped we would consider the matter very carefully. The ill-intentioned politicians and media claimed that she was taking sides when her words were what any sensible person (of either view) would have said on the matter. The majority heeded her advice and did think it through very carefully and we voted NO on the evidence before us.
Even the SNP (although they would never admit it) must be relieved. Had it gone the other way, we would now be less than a year from Scottish independence day and probably in a worse economic position than Greece.
Perhaps it’s a pity they didn’t vote “yes” and the realisation of their position, looking into the abyss would have created the greatest volte face ever and thereby really settle the issue once and for all. As for the Queen, her Scottish roots are if anything stronger than her English ones and knowing that the SNP are Republican she was quite rightly worried about the implications of a “yes” vote. Remember what slippery Dave said “her Majesty purred”.
I agree your sentiment over Scotland but once the vote was made there was no going back. Punishment is not the best way to educate an electorate.
Same for European Referendum – we in UKIP are sure that the best future for UK is outside the EU – if the nation is hoodwinked by Cameron’s post dated cheque promises (no-doubt they will all be cast iron ones!) we will not get another chance for a generation to get out. The ‘ever-closer union’ efforts will then make it impossible to extract ourselves. It is going to be difficult enough as it is negotiating with that bunch of prevaricating Europhiles and apparatchiks – eels come to mind!
There will be no retraction; just be satisfied that we now have final confirmation that she is a traitor.
Her Coronation Oath lies in pieces never to be remembered.
Had one thought-
Why did the Queen do it then?
Could it be that during the weekly meetings when the Queen is allowed to “advise” Cameron has played “The great I am” and she is just firing a shot across his bows.
I just couldn’t believe it when I heard the Queen speak, like the author my heart sank and I began to question my lifelong loyalty to our Queen and our monarchy. This was without a doubt a most misguided reading of the feelings of the British people and I’m afraid to say it, but she may rue the day she spoke.
I agree with every word of this article.
The Queen may be a constitutional monarch but she need not allow herself to be used for party political purposes, as she has done. She can decline to speak such words. I thought that she was wise ?
I have been a strong Royalist, but if even the Royals are cooperating in the absorption of our country by the power crazy pro-EU politicians, then I shall have been betrayed.
If push comes to shove I’d prefer to be a free, patriotic Republican than a Royalist supporter of our national demise.
If The Monarch does not support Britain I will not support her – Britain first, Monarch second. Needs must !
It is so sad that such an article which, as a very strong Royalist myself, I find myself embarrassed to be in full agreement with! It is a speech which SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE! I can’t express just how wrong it feels, to be effectively arguing with, correcting, my Sovereign Lady! But I find that if I were to concur with her expressed sentiments, I would be UNFAITHFUL TO HER RULE! As a law-abiding British ‘citizen’ (we THANKFULLY don’t actually HAVE any such thing!) I cannot be a true SUBJECT OF HER MAJESTY, AND HER RULE OVER THIS REALM! So which am I to be? As an ‘Old Coldstreamer’, Army Pensioner, and a law abiding Christian, I AM NOT INCLINED to accept that MY Parliament IS BUT ‘rubber-stamping’ decrees originating IN AN UN-ELECTED ‘COMMISSION’ based (so far as we know) in Brussels! Nor do I happily (or otherwise!) accept that a British Subject (for SUCH WE ARE!) may be arrested, detained, and DEPORTED FROM HIS OWN COUNTRY, because a person in a foreign land has made a complaint against him! THIS WITHOUT A LEGAL ARREST, (which would properly SHOW THE CASE AND PRIMA FACE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM/HER) BEING MADE TO THE SATISFACTION OF AT LEAST A MAGISTRATE of a viable case being presented! NONE of which is now being CONSIDERED sufficiently adequate to proceed, yet IS proceeded with!.
DO WE HAVE ANY RIGHT OF APPEAL TO YOUR MAJESTY FOR JUST RULING?SADLY, EVEN THAT IS BEING DENIED US ON THE RULING OF THESE ANONYMOUS COMMISSARS – WHICH IS NOW SEEMINGLY CONSIDERED TO BE A HIGHER AUTHORITY THAN THAT OF YOUR MAJESTY!
(Can we simply hope that you occasionally READ A NEWSPAPER and thus WILL HEAR THIS PLEA?)
Have you listened to the speech?
I am sure many of us know that the Royal lineage has ancient roots in Germany and the Queen would not want to cause them a problem. The House of Windsor became first used by our Royalty after 1917. It was originally created from the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert
in1840. He was the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Germany. The Duke of Edinburgh who uses the name Mountbatten-Windsor is also of German extraction. He too is from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. This family are well known to have been supporters of Hitler and the Nazis.
Sadly, I feel that our ‘British’ Royal Family have more German
roots in the House of Hanover than we are lead to believe. Is it no wonder then that Queen Elizabeth 2nd is a committed EUphile.
Sean Gabb calls her Elizabeth the Useless. He is too kind. She is Elizabeth the Venal.
I too am a life-long Royalist. I always assumed that there was nothing the Queen could do to defend her subjects in this dreadful surrender of our country and it’s people to the European Union and that privately she was appalled at what was happening. The Queen’s speech in Germany changed all that; I felt bereft on hearing it, and utterly betrayed. Her words have changed my opinion of my Monarch but not of the European Union.
So who should we “elect” as President?
Well I am not a lifelong Royalist because in this nauseating and suffocating age of political correctness, the royal family are a complete and utter anachronism and a hereditary monarchy cannot be justified for the long term. The only reason it currently works is out of respect for the current Queen which I agree with but it will not last long after her demise.
The reply will be interesting probably for its expected non committal position.
This is the text of the letter I have written to the Queen, but my introductory remarks have been omitted. I made the point that her speech could be interpreted in different ways, but after considering it from different angles I regret the Queen saying anything about ‘Europe’ at a time when it can be (and will be) construed as supporting the ‘Yes’ vote.
I’m afraid I cannot agree with apologists who regard her as ‘captive’ and impotent. She could and should have refused to say anything controversial in Germany, even if the visit had been planned months ahead (before the referendum was announced) and could not be postponed. No one can FORCE her to say things she doesn’t agree with, so we are forced to conclude that she does agree with the sub-text of her speech, ie: It is better to stay in the EU for the sake of peace in Europe, adhering to the narrative of its founders that its purpose is to avoid war between European countries.
We now know that that was not its sole purpose by any means and probably not even the most important one; we had the wool pulled over our eyes by this and the ‘Common Market’ myth in 1975, but have since come to realise that power-grabbing is the present-day EU’s raison d’etre , personified by ‘President’ Martin Schulz and his hateful comments claiming the UK for the EU as if he is the arbiter of this.
I believedthat the Queen stood for everything UKIP wants to protect and defend from the political traitors of the last 40 years. There have even been jokes and cartoons depicting her as privately supporting UKIP. Sadly, those jokes are not funny anymore.
She could have refused to sign off the Lisbon treaty presented to her by Brown and those that preceded it.
She is playing for the other side.
Pam Preedy, you are getting this completely wrong. For Heaven’s sake stop and think.
The Queen’s words (which I read as quoted by Breitbart) even in the context of a visit to Germany are not in the least pro-EU nor a blow to EU-sceptics. They in no way imply that political union between Britain and any European power is a good thing. Au contraire they mean sovereign nations joining in common cause which is simply the definition of an ally. they speak of political and cultural links and so on. As an EU-sceptic I should hope the Queen would say nothing less of Germany.
Britain, specifically England, has been engaged in Europe for centuries.
You should read this:
http://forbritain.org/demosessays.pdf
There will be much more of this leaping from statements of common sense and goodwill to the illogical conclusion of ‘political union’ over the next year or two. Accepting the illogical leap as you have done is falling into the EU-phile’s trap. Now you will be portrayed as hostile even to your own monarch! Not a good place to be, Pam.
What you should be doing is explaining and promoting the Queen’s words as an argument for Britain being ‘with’ not ‘part of’ the EU as Churchill put it, a good friend and ally but sovereign and, if forced to choose, Britain must always choose the sea.
Cameron and the EU-philes are forcing Britain to choose, not the Queen, so let’s choose the sea.
Have Ukippers so quickly forgotten Nigel Farage’s ‘Love Europe, loathe the EU’?
Britain outside Europe will cooperate and have a better relationship with the nations of Europe. That is what you should be arguing and nothing in the Queen’s speech contradicts that. In fact it supports it and you should say so.
I agree with every word, Pamela.
I agree with your letter Pamela, but as I mentioned in the “Courant” thread, I feel she is “Captive”, as in just reading Government words at the opening of parliament..
Poor kid, is there no limit to Cameron¬s overweening power crazy ambition? unfortunately she is in the same position as Maggie was over the single EU act, arm stuffed up her back by the traitorous acolytes in her government.
This is what loss of Sovereignty actually means, not only have we lost the independence and democracy of Parliament and the ability to make our own laws and defend our borders, it means the Queen is only Sovereign in name, we previous subjects are “Citizens” of the EU, she has no power at all over GB. Commonwealth I`m not sure about – even that title may only be titular.
I notice Cameron isn`t very hot about the Commonwealth!!!