I have lost count of the number of times I've heard from sundry eurosceptics about the role of the Queen in protecting the sovereignty of our nation – the importance of her coronation oath, how she is the last resort, etc., etc.

View full article here

I wonder who costs us more, our erstwhile Head of State or our Provincial Governor, Mandelson??

Is there anyone writing anything worth reading on the actual constitutional role of the monarch within the context of EU governance (i.e. not the usual theoretical tripe trotted out by the legion of plummy voiced, dim-witted apologists for the sorry farce that is the monarchy who are usually employed to bamboozle us - why, when the monarchy must be explained to us plebs do they always trot out some flabby, expensively educated buffoon)?

I confess that, like so many, I am almost completely ignorant of the monarch's actual duties and responsibilities in the present situation. What is her role where laws are enacted by statutory instrument for instance (does she have one)? What will be her position in relation to the armed forces as our services are merged with those of Europe?

In an ideal world our so called 'quality' broadsheets would have examined these issues and many, many more a long time ago but, as things are, information is hard to find and the masses know sweet FA, and seem to care less.

There has been for generations much that has been hidden about the role of the Monarchy. On the face of it, they were once our leaders and rulers, but many things changed in many ways, and amongst them, their original reason for being. It's a long, complicated, and for the vast majority of people, an unbelievable story. One which will be dismissed as science fiction in preference to that which has been told all our lives, and all the lives of our predecessors, for we are far more comfortable with pictures of the monarchy waving to crowds, or wielding a spanner. As we are duped by authority, we are also duped by ourselves.
http://lifeinthemix2.co.uk/the_house_of_windsor.html
http://lifeinthemix2.co.uk/world_war_i_ii.html
The latter is particularly relevant to the World War scenario. Deny or dismiss it, what alternative fits? Authorised history?

Exactly. So the Queen's age is irrelevant and your use of the term "geriatric" merely offensive.

Not "merely", surely?

Should I have said "very rich old lady instead"?

There's some very strange stuff being smoked around here...lousy weekend?

"Is there anyone writing anything worth reading on the actual constitutional role of the monarch within the context of EU governance "

There most certainly is! For some years now one John Bingley has been writing clear, soundly researched, factual information about the British Constitution in general, and in particular as it relates to the succession of treacherous EU 'treaties' and the role of HMG.
His best imo is his "UNLAWFUL GOVERNANCE", a relatively short paper, and a superbly concise summary of British Constitutional principle and its legal standing and authority for the governance of the UK today. (unpublisjed afaik)
It is all about the 'rule of law (that is of course, OUR law - not the usurping avalanche of EU diktats). His arguments are trenchant, unremittingly logical, and irrefutable. As we know all such arguments are simply ignored or by passed by our 'Parliament', and it would appear by HMQ.
She has had ample opportunity to fulfill her role as the Constitutional Head of the country to uphold before Parliament and the country the laws of which she swore before God and the people to so do in 1953. she has consistently failed to do so ever since, and from the inception of the Treaty of Rome, through Maastricht, and every other disgraceful 'treaty' signed by a succession of treacherous government ministers from Heath through Major, Blair, Brown, and now Cameron.
SHE HAS HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, IN EFFECT, "I WILL NOT SIGN THIS"
All she needed to say to any PM when presented with the latest treaty takeover was-
Mr Prime Minister we HAVE our Bill of Rights. It is still law. It remains the primary Constitutional document in our well filled locker. Read it. Understand it. Get over it! But she never has done so for the past 35 years of EU treaty making. By failing to do so she has placed the Monarchy (pace Charles 1st) ABOVE the law. For that he lost his head.

Once clinching argument re the worn out claim that HMQ "must" accept the advice of ministers is as follows:
"The Monarch will accept the advice of ministers, but nevertheless (he/she) is under clear constitutional restraint not to accept that which is plainly unconstitutional, which of course should not be proffered in the first place."

There is much merit here. We accept the Queen because she is head of state in what is supposed to be (but is no longer) a constitutional monarchy. This is more than a ceremonial role ... in the absence of a consitutional court, she is the ultimate defender of the constitution. If she chooses to abrogate that role, then she just becomes a rich old lady, living off the state. Tough call, but it is her choice. And the "respect" goes to the head of state, not the person. The Queen can't have it both ways ... she should do her job, or get off the pot.

And of course cricket is similarly played fairly. I'm tired of my country's constitution being made up on the hoof by people whose main aim is not to scare the horses, ie change the status quo away from their interests. I want a constitution where sovereignty resides with the individual citizen and is delegated upwards to government. A written constitution setting out the bare bones would be complemented by compulsory referendums. The Head of State would still be selected from Joint Helicopter Command.

The Queen is indeed a very rich old lady, the richest lady in the world with a known wealth of over £1 billion. What is of concern to those of us who were monarchists is how this wealth was acquired because she can't be considered apolitical when the political landscape which she goes some way to create is that which generates her wealth.
Her financial advisor is Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and the enormous, uncountable wealth of his family is due the control that his banks and corporations have over the national currency, the national debt, and the government of all shades. The Queen is a participant in this looting and will do nothing to stop it.

We sidelined the monarchy many years ago which left the present bible believing Queen impotent to make any significant input into the political arena. So we have a secularist agenda that continues to lead us to depravity. Buckingham Palace is a state owned property that should be maintained, and heated. If we don't want a monarchy let the people decide. Until then she is entitled to winter fuel allowance as I am. Until the Clegerons take it away.

And a free TV license ... don't forget the free TV license ... Oh! And the bus pass.

And the free prescriptions and the free eye tests .... apart from them, what have the Romans done for us? And the plant -talkingHeir to the Throne intends to be Defender of Faiths? Thank goodness for an alleged secularist (or the state has no business in my private life) agenda in that case.