PDA

View Full Version : Queen fury at BNP



Beorn
10-26-2009, 08:38 PM
THE QUEEN has declared WAR on the BNP.

She's furious at the party for using Winston Churchill to promote its racist image and has ORDERED all the royals to join forces with her to unite Britain against hated BNP leader Nick Griffin. A senior royal aide told us: "The Queen thinks it is a disgrace that the name of such a courageous leader in our hour of need has been hijacked in this way.

"She believes it is important the royal family redoubles its efforts to stem the tide of this division. It is unhealthy and not British."
The Queen erupted when the BNP were allowed to use Churchill's image - including archive footage from World War II - in a party election broadcast.
Her anger was further fuelled when Griffin quoted the wartime leader's famous "blood, toil, tears and sweat" in his party's manifesto.

And the last straw came during his controversial appearance on Question Time last week when he claimed Churchill hated Muslims and would have been a BNP member.
The high-ranking courtier said: "Her Majesty is a symbol of what is good about our nation.
"We are a country that has always prided itself on the tolerance and common sense of its people. She is and always will be above party politics. But she is appalled that Churchill's name should be used to spread division."
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said he could not comment on private conversations of the Queen and members of the royal family.

But yesterday Prince Charles' former Press Secretary Colleen Harris - the only black person to become a member of the Royal Household - backed Her Majesty's decision. She said: "I am not surprised the Queen is taking such a clear stance. One of the royal family's key roles is to put the united back into the United Kingdom. The Queen has been performing that unifying role impeccably for years, always rising above issues of colour, religion and race. She is absolutely right to galvanise every member of the royal family to play their part in uniting the country at this time."

The Queen has always held the deepest respect for her old friend Churchill. He was her first Prime Minister when he returned to office for a second term in 1951.
After he died in 1965 she decreed that he should have a state funeral - the first for a non-royal family member since 1914.

When she opened the Cabinet War Rooms museum in his honour in 2005 she said: "It was the unique quality of his leadership that so inspired the British nation and free peoples throughout the world, as well as those suffering under Nazi occupation. That quality continues to inspire us today and should forever do so."


Source (http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/565763/Queen-fury-at-BNP-Outrage-at-Nick-Griffin-Churchill-hijacking.html)

Cato
10-26-2009, 08:53 PM
The royal family is entirely irrelevant in the modern day. If an old bag like Liz wanted to benefit the people of her nation she'd follow the example of her royal forbearer Alfred and seek ways to revitalize the prestige of her nation.

http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps124.shtml

"Alfred lived and ruled over 1,000 years ago. Yet his historic vision for his people, personal courage, spiritual devotion, and treatment of his enemies, offer profound wisdom for political leaders of any age -- including our own. Winston Churchill noted when looking back over the centuries at Alfred's life that, "we are witnessing the birth of a nation." It is an exhilarating story."

Osweo
10-26-2009, 08:59 PM
Well, that's nice after the most damaging reign the country has ever seen. Maybe on the scale of Vortigern's turn at the helm.

Although it is just some 'courtier' talking to one of the most disreputable rags the country has, after all...

Cato
10-26-2009, 09:03 PM
Pampered blue bloods are out of touch with the world.

Tony
10-26-2009, 09:54 PM
Theoretically the Queen should be super partes, right?
or at least leaning toward those policies who advocate traditional values such as national sovereignity , demographic stability , the preservation of racial and cultural identity etc
wasn't so then it would be an institution totally useless for the Britons , if not openly detrimental.

Osweo
10-26-2009, 10:04 PM
Theoretically the Queen should be super partes, right?
or at least leaning toward those policies who advocate traditional values such as national sovereignity , demographic stability , the preservation of racial and cultural identity etc
wouldn't be so then it would be an institution totally useless for the Britons , if not openly detrimental.
You would hope so, aye. But arguably, the Queen is worthy of our scorn for allowing things to have gone as far as they have, without speaking out. There are rumours her father was becoming worried at the changes to the population pushed by governments even in HIS day. The monarch is perhaps the only official constitutional role that can halt our downward spiral into genocide. We were taught in school that your old King simply dismissed old Benito when things had gone all wrong, and our Queen herself could likewise step in if a government were acting blatantly against the good of HER subjects. But she does nothing that I've ever heard of. :mad:

Liffrea
10-26-2009, 10:40 PM
There is no actual law baring the reigning monarch from making political comments or engaging actively in political debate. Since 1689 the monarchy has been neutralised from any significant legal control in running the state yet history shows that many monarchs since then have exerted extraordinary influence over Prime Ministers and cabinets (remember the UK government is an “administration” ruling in the name of a monarch).

Queen Elizabeth 11 is something of a left winger according to some (I see no reason to doubt this assessment). Personally I don’t give a damn about the Queen’s opinion on anything but she has the right to state it, even though, prudence, would suggest she should be more sympathetic to those who have supported BNP if she is really that interested in fostering “harmony” a million or so alienated subjects aren’t likely to be won over by off the cuff remarks.

RoyBatty
10-26-2009, 11:01 PM
Pampered blue bloods are out of touch with the world.

Or conversely, they could be more in touch with how the modern world (at least in the "West") is shaping up than most of us are and are positioning themselves to take full advantage of this.

If this were the case of course they'd be in a position to know what's happening and why it is happening (because they move in the right circles) while us plebians can only speculate....

Cato
10-26-2009, 11:41 PM
Or conversely, they could be more in touch with how the modern world (at least in the "West") is shaping up than most of us are and are positioning themselves to take full advantage of this.

If this were the case of course they'd be in a position to know what's happening and why it is happening (because they move in the right circles) while us plebians can only speculate....

So Liz wants her progeny to ceremonially rule over a nation of towelheaded mongrels and other assorted trash? A part of me wants to believe that this isn't the case but a part of me also wants to wretch because it might be true. Blahhhhh.

Beorn
10-27-2009, 12:07 AM
You need only look at what she has signed away in recent years to realise that she is certainly not particularly concerned for her subjects.

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/#Queen

Lysander
10-27-2009, 12:13 AM
Who cares what the queen says? The Duke of Edinburgh should sit on the throne instead!

Some funny quotes:
Do you still throw spears at each other?

* Said in 2002 to a Indigenous Australian businessman; "Prince Philip's spear 'gaffe'", BBC, March 1, 2002.; "Long line of princely gaffes", BBC, March 1, 2002.

n the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

* Foreword to Fleur Cowles, If I Were an Animal

Fortis in Arduis
10-27-2009, 04:35 AM
The idea of her being furious is quite scary. :eek: