It will doubtless be regarded by some as churlish and mean-spirited, as well as unpatriotic, to question Nigel Jackson's eulogy last month of the Royal Golden Jubilee. According to him - and I quote:-

‘Monarchy provides a continuity and stability of political order for our people. The sovereign stands beyond and above the differences of religious and political faction which otherwise threaten the unity of the nation. Her Majesty also bestows protection on her people from the powerful interest groups and corporations which are the barons of today.’

All of which is received wisdom among direct beneficiaries of the Establishment and royalist groupies everywhere. Leaving aside all the pageantry and obsequies, however, respect for the monarchy has to be contingent upon its proven success in maintaining intact those crucial features which define the nation and its place in the world, namely:-

• The territorial and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom comprising England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster.
• The racial composition and character of the indigenous population, whose ancestry created the nation.
• The sovereign independence if Britain as a wholly self-governing nation-state.
• Support of the two-parent family as the essential foundation of any viable society.

Lamentable performance

So how does any authentic British patriot assess the Monarchy's performance to date in relation to the above fundamentals of noblesse oblige? In a word, lamentable. Making all due allowance for constitutional constraints on the royal prerogative, there is nothing to prevent the Monarchy reminding politicians and the public at large as often as necessary that the above four pillars of our nationhood must be defended at whatever cost and regardless of shifts in governmental attitudes and preferences.

And certainly that pledge and reaffirmation should govern what can and cannot be included in the Queen's speech to Parliament. Instead, all we get is a party political spiel through a royal amplification system. And in the intervening periods, no hint of royal protestation at the manifest treacheries contemplated and enacted by a succession of unpatriotic governments since World War II.

Accordingly, we are obliged to ask people like Nigel Jackson a very pertinent question: Since the Monarchy appears unconcerned that Britain is being dismembered and mongrelised into several impoverished provinces of a synthetic European super-state, what exactly are we supposed to be celebrating at the Golden Jubilee?

Naked

Failing any real answer to this question leaves us in much the same plight as the innocent child in Hans Anderson's fable observing a naked king being cheered by the multitudes for his royal finery. Nigel Jackson at least shows some cognisance of this problem in his well-intended but hopelessly unrealistic call for restitution of some royal powers to constrain governmental policies within certain fundamental parameters. But the Monarchy already has all the status and influence it needs to guarantee overwhelming public support in its defence of the four fundamentals set out above. And it seems undeniable that given the esteem in which the present sovereign is held by the general public, no government could survive without the explicit royal assent it is given via the Queen's Speech at the opening of Parliament.

It is also undeniable that certain major elements of governmental policy are repugnant to most of the British people, whose real wishes and needs are persistently ignored by a political oligarchy with extremely dubious democratic credentials. The most superficial inspection of actual voting statistics exposes the fraudulent claims by the present Government to any sort of democratic mandate. It is precisely these circumstances which demand exercise of the Sovereign's inherent power and influence to protect the national interest against fundamentally seditious elements at work in all our major institutions as well as Parliament.