Do not touch our House of Lords

May 05, 2018

        In the same effort of executing its coup it does not have the power and the right to do, the council wants to destroy our House of Lords. The goal being aiming to transform our Kingdom in a Republic since the only one who has the right to the throne is Prince Charles. And its pupates do not even  have the right to be members of the Royal Family. 

     To reach its goal the council has launched an online petition for having the Parliament to discuss and vote the project. The petition has gathered 100,000 signatures. But many experts and well informed sources declared that the number of signatures is far less than the number given, and even the few that signed it are mainly people under the direct control of the council. Those experts declared they are even paid to sign the petition. Still, the council which already has a huge control on the government uses its created   alibi to declare that the Parliament will be discussing the matter on Jun 18.

       It is to be noted that the Parliament does not have the power, to abolish an institution that it did not create and that was anterior to it.  To take such historic and great consequence decision for our Kingdom a referendumis the only one way to take it. But even a referendumcannot end our Subjects opposition to such measures regarding a so popular institution andhistoric pillarof our country.  The greatest supporters of the House of Lords, are the rural areas Subjects, the men of faith, the distinguish people, the old and women. The experts think people will be suspicious regarding a favorable result of a referendum declaring the House abolished.

   To come back to the Parliament how can a so corrupts institution by the council as among many made of dead MPs replaced by hired people under the control of the council, and MPs who are not even British citizens as we reported it in our previous article on the council rule of Unethical and Immoral abolished a so sacred and important Institution. 

       Moreover, abolishing the House of Lords is disconnecting our Royal Institution, the monarch from the Parliament or the popular voices of our Subjects. Because, we all know that the Queen in Parliament as sitting in the House of Lords during the historic opening of the Parliament make thelink between the two Houses: one being the voice of the past, the religion, the monarchy, the distinguish British through their accomplishments to the development of our Kingdom, and the other being the popular voice, or the voice of our Subjects as expressed by the political discourse that we all know most often lacking any few regard for our tradition, religion and secular values. Then  Clearly, abolishing this House means given a serious blow to our Royal Institution,  to our religion, and to what characterize the very concept of Brutishnessa secular nation with some popular aspirations as expressed by our Parliament. 

         Some opponents of the House of Lords,  enemies of our Kingdom think that respecting and loving the House of Lords means giving the impression that the aristocracy is important. This is wrongly worded the points, because all the greatest democracies of this world have an equivalent of our House of Lords that inspired them. Where is for example the American Senate, though the Senators are elected it is the Senate in its form and spiritemanates from the same principle of the House of Lords. And if in America the Senators were elected instead of appointed it is simply because America is a sacred democracy, it is not Constitutional Monarchy as our country. 

    But the American democracy cited so often as one of the greatest democracy is most importantly based on the Senate, being the root of the American democracy. That is a point underlining the importance of the House of Lords. The tenets of this anti monarchy sysstem ( the monarchy is intimately linked to the House of Lords) do not straight calling for the abolishing of this fundamental House but they suggest its members to be elected, everything that is the same as abolishing it. Because the deep soul of the House of Lords is the fact that its members are appointed by the Monarch. From the moment its members come to be elected we have a second Parliament when already we have one, which even more than ever has been corrupted by the council. There are even many countries in which the members of the Senates are appointed by the President, to emphasis clearly its link to the House of Lords, and the image oftranscendentalsupra leadership in the core centre of democracy. 

     Beside even this aspect in our Constitutional Monarchy, two parliaments are too much when, the first is already  more than enough and is resolutely destroying our country, because corrupted and as any democracy without strong divine and ethical check it opens the door to lobbyists  that only aim  to destroy the Kingdom. It is to be noted that in our Kingdom history all the moments that it faces crisis as the one we live in recent past the Parliament became powerful and the monarchy weak. That is how from the 1960s to the 1980s crisis our country experiences are due to the fact that the Parliament became powerful and the Royal Institution weak. It was even then this harmful council's notion of the Monarch reigning and having honorific power emerges. On the other hand for example the socio political, and economic stability and progress that our Kingdom experienced during the reign of Queen Victoria is only due to the fact that the Royal Institution was strong, the Monarch had lot of power, and the Parliament weak. It is not for nothing that the super greatness of our country then is qualified of Victorian era one of the greatest period of socio cultural and economic development in our Kingdom history.  The 20th Century hardship we faced is linked also to the gradual weakening of our Royal Institution in the same way. 

   There is another point that is to be noted also, from example the reign of my mother, Queen Elizabeth II can be divided  in two periods: moment of socio political and economic crisis from 1960s to 1990, and  socio political stability and economic resurgence and rebirth  from the 1990s to 2000s. The glorious moment is due mainly to the strengthening of the Royal Institution. The first period problem is only linked to the fact that the Parliament became more powerful than the Monarch who was even titled of honorific and ceremonial leader and that period is marked by the powerfulness of the council. Remember it was in 1983 that the Palace temporary coup happened with the kidnapping, deportation and hostage keeping of Prince Charles. As years go on, the Queen regaining her sacred, legal and legitimate power, playing more than before her sacred, historic and Constitutional role of Supreme Leader. In the same logic if those two faces of our Kingdom were not attributed directly to Queen Elizabeth II, it is only because the council strives to paint the Royal Institution as a relicof the past, with honorific and sacred power, and the Parliament and the ruling Party is the one to be credited of the success and crisis of our Kingdom. That is how the 1980s resurgence of our country is qualified of Thacherianera, but the Subjects do not attribute to any Prime Minister the incredible bouncing back of our Kingdom in the 1990s and 2000s because any one is responsible of it. Of course it is because the Queen is responsible of that, thing the council strives not to be underlined.  Still all those periods are The Second Elizabethan era and people need to emphasis that as well. 

   Nevertheless always in the same logic of destroying our country the council and anti monarchist groupsdissociate that strengtheningand politico economic stability of our Kingdom from the real author Queen Elizabeth II. We talk about anti monarchists, through that we do not mean Republican movements or group, no. Today the anti monarchistsare not the Republican , but the council aiming to transform our Kingdom in a Republic that fits its agenda of dictatorialregime. Whereas, the Republicansas odd that may appear to a non political experts back the monarchy, their movements only aim to counter the council instrumentalisation its fewcontrol on the monarchy to destroy our country. Because the first period of the Elizabethan Second era problems have been done by the council which gradually destroy the power and grip of the monarchy on our country through the power it had in Queen Elizabeth II's reign. 

    People or anti monarchists, are striving to have seen the House of Lords as an anti egalitarian institution giving lot of power to the aristocracy. To think so along with those politicians who know clearly their goal and how to reach it is very naive, and bad for even our Subjects. Whywill you say so? Our country being a monarchy with a Royal Institution and Royal Family with its circle of hereditarynobles, the House of Lords is the only institution through which mainly our Subjects, especially the notorious among them who did great contributions for our Kingdom and the world can integrate the nobility circle, and then extended circle of the Royal Family.  The House of peers is de facto House representing the 'knighted'.

   Abolishing or making elective this fundamental institution will create an inegalitarian society because the monarchy will be separated from the Subjects. There will not be social promotion everything that created apolarizedsociety. Whereas with the House of Lords the monarchy sacred and historic is connecting to the Subjects, the present and the future of our Kingdom because the monarchy has its power from God, and the Subjects through their attachmentsto their religion and their Kingdom. Because we must not forget that in the entire world there is only one Anglican Church ours (through Anglican Church understand also the Scottish, or the welsh, and even somehow the Irish Churches different at all regard from all the different Churches in the world from the Protestant to refer to the Scottish and Welsh Churches, and the Catholic to refer to the Irish. Indeed the Irish Catholicism is largelydifferent to the continental European Catholicism though ranked inside. It has everything to have with Anglicanism being the great ensemble of all those Churches which are political, cultural and philosophical movements. Then through Anglican Church understand the British Church in its variances and all emerging from the same island through centuries of relations and interactions, always in opposition with the continental Europe) .

       More globally in the world almost all the greatest countries, greatest and stable they are when tying the past to the present and the future and having great sacred elements in their democratic systems. That made there is no properly any egalitarian democracy or country in the world. The degree of creation of social stratifications are the fundamental factors of the powerfulness and stability of a country and democracy. To understand what we mean, you need to take the American democracy consider as one of the greatest in the world, and which lead still  to one of the most polarizedcountry in the world, with a strong sense of class spirit. For example in America the society is divided in two the common people and VIP. It is in aircraft  there is the economic, the business, and the VIP class. If it is stadium there are the same divisions not only proper to American societybut to the entire world.

         The common people fight to be in the privilegedgroup of VIP, and the latter being the group of those who succeed in life through their intelligenceand working. In that group you have the successful businessmen, the famous scientists, the sportsmen, the musicians, the famous politicians, theSenators, theCongressmen, Governors. All have one thing in common their social success characterizedalmost always by the economic success that comes from it. Thesociety comes to be divided in two also: the common people and the celebritiesall those who succeed in life. Still with all those inequalities cited by many odd intellectuals, it is not in a classical  egalitarian countriesas Norway or Sweden ( monarchistsand then class countries as well) that people of the entire world want to go but in the qualified inegalitarian country as America.

      Because in America, and Europe globally with hard working you succeed in life. There is no fix class but classes in constant movement, then we cannot talk about class at all. The major case is France an example of egalitarian country along somehow with Germany though there are relatively great differences between the two. In France also thesocietyis divided under the same lines of sacred monarchic classes that those who do not understand the world dynamism and soul qualified of class dividedsocieties. France has created its own Senate a monarchist and sacred institution deep in the soul, to show among many the current tendency is toward monarchist ideas and societies.

   France has lot of class institutions, as for example the French Academydefenderof the French language, guardian of the past and the culture of the country and this institution has all the characteristic of a monarchic institution. It is by no way different of our British Royal Societies. It is as much as the same as our nobility, with the group of knighted. To be member of this academy, the person needs to distinguish itself in the world of literature. And even in France the non privilegedFrench with few sense of the French culture, and history comes to see it as a monarchist institution, as they feel somehow exclude from it by the misfortune of their non privilegedsocial classes that made them incapable of speaking the language of their country as it is agreed by convention . Another  institution is the French Pantheon where the famous French  (statesmen, famous musicians, businessmen or personalities) are buried. This system is purely monarchist in its dynamism, also.

   Democracy by itself is against even an egalitarian country, democracy as a political institution is purely a monarchist system in its soul and flesh, and more you dissociate it from the monarchy or its default form the religion more there is no democracy at all. Do not forget man is a being of instinct that made pernicious  deedand evil in its own intelligenceand power, if there is not monarchist and religious values to balance his nature. He will use only its intelligenceto create weapons and laws to be more powerful by destroying the others from whose exploitation and exercise of power he fulfills his ambition of power and economic success.  

    Democracy historically is a monarchist system. Where was it born if not in the monarchist Athena, and even its champion the Plato and Socrates do not develop it to criticizethe monarchist nature of their society but to strengthen and develop it.  It aims to reconcile the people with their monarchy and religion, but not to dissociate and split them. We must never forget that  Socrates never claim to be atheist, or aiming to remove religion from politics or democracy, but what they claim is even the opposite using the good values and virtues of religion to purify their monarchy, to empower their own people through their metaphysical thinking (philosophy) to be true worthy actors of their Kingdom. And those philosophers always claim having a superior metaphysical and religious moral, all their analysis started and ended with religion.

      Then if in Europe through the corruption of religion for political instinctive end as that emerge in the middle ages with the great power the Pope andthe local European Churches had,supportedthe then local power (monarchic then but not to God as in our country, but to the Pope that almost appoint the monarch and support his reign); it is not religion that is to be faulted but thepoliticizationand instrumentalisation of religion. With even all those consideration even in Europe and France, the Christian identity and culture of France and Europe is not a matter of discussion. It is recognizedand protect by all as matter of proud and defense of a civilization: the guardian of the socio economic stabilityof the countries and the continent.

       We talk about classes as relevant to our Kingdom, but it is  to be noted that monarchy by definition is against division of the society in classes, it is against any class conscience. Due to our monarchy we are the most classless nation on earth, just as Sweden and Norway are for the same reasons.  Because monarchy unifies the society by dividing it in two. How will you say? In our Kingdom there is only two classes: the Royal Family and its extended circle the nobilitydown to the House of Lords, and the Subjects united to their Royal Family through their faith (belonging of the Anglican Church in its variances)  which are not all. The monarch being anointedby the Church is both crowned by God to be His Deputy on earth,  and by the Subjects that believe in the Anglican faith. Therefore, they do not see their Royal Family and its extendedclass as another class different of theirs, because the Subjects through their hard working and accomplishment enter in the nobility. Making elected the peers will polarizeour Kingdom in many classes it will even destroythe House of Lords. It will weaken and even destroy the monarchy. 

     Because in such scenario we fall in the case of America that many British and tenants of this class conception of the society sees as an inegalitarian country.Destroying the monarchy and the House of Lords come de facto to divide our societies in two in function of the economic power of those who make it. Whereas in our Kingdom once again, there is no such division in function of economic power, butin function of the religion and pragmatic united division of head and body. Because the head and the body of a human being are connected. It is not even for nothing that in our British political system, we do not use words as president, director, but we use term as 'head', or 'board' as Head of State, Head of an organization.We do not accept and do not see any class division in our Kingdom. Whereas terms as director, or President refer to classicalsubdivision.  For example the President presides, he is above all and lead from above without beingconnected in the spiritwiththosehe leads. Whereas in our case, we talk about head in relation of the body, meaning the leaderis not more important than those he or she leads but just ahead for practical  leading purpose.

       Due to the monarchicalsystem of our Kingdom any class conscience cannot emerge. Because the feelings and the realities of class conscience emerges from a sentiment of being superior to the others based on your wealth, and position that you think to make you superior of the others around you in the society.  Whereas, in our  Kingdom there is almost any British that thinks himself superior of the others for his title because our society is not divided in class. For example any member of the Royal Family, or the House of Lords or the nobility in general can pretend being superior, or feeling superior because the position the person has is not rooted in him beingsuperior tothe others. It is based in the person beinguseful for the others.

        Then here also the criteria of given the title is based on values not in material advantage. A personisawarded of the title of Lord, or Sir because he hasdone something good for the Kingdom (the Subjects) and the world. And the Subjectsdo not see himas superior to them and awarded unfairly, but as someone that deserve their love and respect because the person hasbeen useful to them through hiswork. Logically there is not a feeling of being in a given class either favored or unfavored, but you feel as living in a society of values, where every one is fighting to reach the higher values. 

    The other class by itself if you forced yourself to call it so is a class of high value, in serving God as doing good to others. It is not aclassof those superior to the others fortheir material advantages as it is the case in class society. You are not in it for using your instinct, or sinfulbad tactics to become rich , or famous in saddening and torturing the others. Consequently, in our Kingdom few billionaire or wealthy men are knightedor are seen as people to copy. The goal of our society is not developing and reaching economic success but values success. In our country, social value as based on monarchy (religion) does not create room for the person to be excessivelyrich. Our Subjects do not want it as it is not ourcriteria of success. Nevertheless, no oneprevents a person to beexceptionally rich through serving the others. Most often due to the different suspicionlinked to wealth and ways to get it (most often people think you get your wealth through deceiving the others) our Subjects come to see as not something good to be than being wealthy. Being knightedis  everythingevery one wants be. 

   In addition, we refer to the knightedas member of the extendedmembers of the Royal Family because it has hereditary aspects. Then in facts and spirit the person andhisdescendantsbecome members of the Royal Family. Even in case the title is nothereditarythe children of the person will be known as being from a person who was member of this group of values with the classical, son of 'Sir x or Lord X). 

     The members of the Royal Family do not feel themselves as superior to the others because they are tied to  a higher standardthan even the Subjects. As they are members of the first family; the family and the group that should be the guardians of the respect and appliance of ourvalues that of the stability and development of the Kingdom. The first feeling a member of the Royal Family feels is living a life of duty and responsibility, not of enjoying a given material advantage or respect.  

       The lack of classes in our Kingdom made we havechampioned the defense of human rightsand fight all the different injustices. We abolish slavery, we were the first to love and protect the disadvantagedgroup as people withdisabilities andthe women. Indeed, due to our monarchy and its strong sense of values, we are the first country to respect and protect woman's right without falling in mental shortcut of feminism, before even the concept emerge in somecountries by lack of solid and virtuous societies. Thus on all formula coming from our government, administration, private and public businesses, in literature, everywhere you see the respect of gender. 

      It is all odd, and unpractical to have the members of the House of Lords being elected in such case, the soul and flesh of the House is lost, and will be just as a second Parliament, when the one we have already is more than enough. How can the members of the House of Lords being elected, when they are supposed to be God blessed in our Kingdom asknightedby the Monarch, the Head of the Church, who is God Deputy on earth. That is the all meaning of the House of Lords, identifying among our Subjects those who for their dedicationsto the Kingdom and the world in their different work, deserve to be thanked  by the behalf of God and the people. Those knighted were not for achieving a material success, but for doing what is helpful for the Subjects and mankind. They can be famous scientists, footballers, musicians, politicians who changed life in the communities. They are men of faith, who through their virtue deserve to be thanked by God's behalf. 

   Indeed the members of the House of Lords though appointed by the Prime Minister it is in consultation with the reigning Monarch. Just as the the same peers  of the House of Lords through their nomination committee chooses new peers always indirectly and directly in consultation with the Queen. She is even the one to confirm their appointment. Then the House of Lords is the soul of our Constitutional Monarch, abolishing it is splitting the Royal Institution and the popular Institution championed by the Parliament.    

    The petition to be discussed inthe House of Lords reads  “The House of Lords is a place of patronage where unelected and unaccountable individuals hold a disproportionate amount of influence and power which can be used to frustrate the elected representatives of the people.” Of course, though mentioned in the description of the petition it does not call for the abolition of the House of Lords. But the petition title does include having the peers being elected. The position of BCST is clear we are totally against either the abolition of the House of Lords or having its peers being elected everything that is the same as abolishing it. And by the way even though the council arrives to plotto have it abolished, Prince Charles promises the movement and our Subjects the first thing he does as Monarch is having it restored just as it was before in its true nature. It goes without saying that abolishing the House of peers will only motivate and encourage  us inmilitating for the respect of our laws, customs, and traditionsregarding the succession to the throne, just as this point is the soul of our movement. 

      But why did the council decided to launch this debate on the historic House of Lords, symbol of the British exceptionalism in common sharing as the most stable political system in the world? There are two main reasons. We have already announced the first reasonin this article, which is the council determination to execute its coup that it does not have the right to do, by setting someone who does not have right to the throne, instead of Prince Charles, the only son of Queen Elizabeth II, the only legitimate and legal heir to the throne. The second reason is the fact that the council lost its considerable past influence on the Royal Institution with Queen Elizabeth II distancing herself from it and is only working for the good of our Kingdom and the respect of its laws and charts. There is even news that Queen Elizabeth II, the longest serving monarch in ourKingdom historyand the world may be awarded of the NobelPeacePrizefor her 66 years dedication to peace, freedom and love between nations, especially with the Commonwealth. The Monarch by being the Head of States of 53 nations in the world, reduces considerablygreat antagonism between those nations that made the organizationand therisk of military conflicts between those nations. In this context the council does not have no more enough power on the Royal Institution to have largelythe peers appointed, therefore it cannot control it. 

        The council targeting to abolish the House of Lords far before, and to achieve that uses its power in the Royal Institution, and the different Prime Ministers it controls to appoint a record number of peers by the same way corrupting the soul of the House  by extendingit instead of consolidating its historic strength being its orientation towards the Lords Spiritual, and the classical peers, and less political peers. Over years, it arrives to transform the sacred House of Lords in the second biggest assembly in the world, just after the Chinese popular committee.But, our country does not have 2 billion inhabitants as China did to have a so big assembly. 

      In the same process of weakening and abolishing the House of Lords, the council plot to take a considerable part of its power being its role of supremecourt in our Kingdom, by creating a SupremeCourt.  Whereas, the House of Lords did quite well the function for centuries and contribute among many to make our Kingdom the stablest in the world. In the same effort of reducing the power and symbol of the House of Lords the council removes the attribution of the peersto be only judged in the House of Lords. Doing so is not only banalising, humiliating them and what they represent in our Kingdom, but depriving them of any single symbolic power.  Because, from example even in countries where there are Senates, as in United States, the Senators are not judgedby classical tribunals, but by their peers, and even that to happen their immunityneedsto be removed. We are talking here about America a sacred democracy, not even a Constitutional Monarchy.

      The council always in the same consistenteffort of destroying the power and the symbol of our House of Lordsmadeappointedlot of female peers. It goes without saying that BCST is for the respect of women' rightsand giving them great representation in all the different spheresof our Kingdom. Still not such way to deprive our country of its soul because the House of Lords is made of the three greatest voices that made our country: 1) the spiritual voice made of the Church with the Lord Spiritual; 2) the popular voice made of political peers; 3) the Temporal voice made of the nobilityas championed by feudalism.Here we come to the same issue of the place of women in the ruling of the Church as Archbishopetc. The council already determines todestroy our Kingdom moves to have appointed lot of femalearchbishops without even caring asking the point of view of the Subjects as it uses democratic political perspective to make the move, especially by calling a referendum on the issue. Whereas, by following the normal procedure females archbishops and bishops shouldnotbe appointed because nominated by Monarch the voice of God, not of the people. And the Monarch as the Head of the Church should not adopt decision contrary to the position of the Church opposed through even its followers against appointing femalesleaders of the Church. Then, here as always there is a problem of  laws, charters and traditions not respected otherwise the council could not have the monarch appointing female members. 

       When we say Monarch, a very important distinction is to be made, the council always in its long time strategy of transforming our Kingdom in Republic, has used its influence to create a second crown, by hiring a person who carried a plastic masks to play the sacred role of our only, Monarch Queen Elizabeth II. This fake and illegal monarch did speeches, visits, and even took decision in behalf of the Queen without her consent.This is no more no less than doing a silent rebellionagainst the authority, the Supremeauthority that of the Monarch as anointedby God. That does not honorour  Kingdom and Subjects giving to our Subjects.

   There is even a technical problem that of a lower House decides of the faith or a higher House. There is also conflict of interests regarding the House of Common, whose MPs think that the peers of the House of Lords reduced their power andchallenged their authority. The upper House has the responsibilityto pronounce itselfin last resort  oneither to accept or reject a laws the House of Commons vote. Then, clearly giving the Parliament the capacity and the possibilityto pronounce on a House  that it thinks antagonistic to it, is giving it the opportunityto take its revengeon it by abolishing. Whereas in every striving and dynamic democracy there should be check and balance system, everything that will be missed in our Constitutional Monarchy. Here is how we will have a very hegemonic House of Commons that many British and even some MPsqualified ofcorrupt. The logical result of such move will lead inevitably to the destruction of our Kingdom in its socio political and economic stability and progress. 

    The principle of the Parliament being not able to pronounce on the existenceof an House that is superiorto it is just as giving the American  Congress the capacity to abolish the Senate. In such case we do not only have the check balance system, but also independent and strong institutions, everything needed in a democratic system.  Without saying that the American Congress does not have the power to abolish the Senate. In a striving democracy as ours there should not even be, debate of abolishing a strong, supremeand useful institution as the House of Lords.  That debate shows the authoritarian slide the council is leading our Kingdom in.

   If there is a possibility of abolishing the House of Lords it is only through Referendum, still even then a result of cancelingit will only divide our Kingdom without leading to its abolishing. Because the Monarch has divine and political authority to declare it not abolish.

   For all practicalreason it is important to ask ourselves how can in all scenarios the House of Lords being abolished when our country is a Constitutional Monarchy. Imagine for only the matter of reasoning that the House of Lords is abolished, then what will the council made of the nobility,and the religiousside of our society? They will simply and clearly being left non represented and we can no more talk about democracy when a great, useful, secular and important voice as that of the nobility being let non represented. We will only have the dictatorship of one side ofour society onthe other. More specifically the dictatorship of the common on the nobility, the religions and the distinguished British either on the political, scientific and cultural sides. When there should be any antagonism between the two sides, when there is no even difference between them in our British context. 

     Beside that the main problem it creates with be a big division in our Kingdom that is united through this ingenious System between the commons and the nobility, the sacred and the distinguished. As  the Monarch will lose a House to sit for opening the Parliament, as according to the laws and traditions, she does it in the House of Parliament. Abolishing it, is simply preventing the Monarch to open the Parliament and to participate indirectly in the political life, as she cannot sit nowhere else beside the natural and appropriate House of Lords, not even in the Parliamentas she is not a political figure, but a religious, noble and popular figures all together, one cannot being split from the others.

       Many experts think that the council is attempting to have abolished an Institution on which it is losing its control with its lost of influence on my mother, Queen Elizabeth II's reign. So what to do if not striving to have it abolished. Because the House of Lords is very important in our Constitutional Monarchy, it is the upper House that though cannot prevent a law to become one, can annul it by delayingvoting it. That is exactly what the council does not want because it hampers it having comprehensive power as it already  has a relative big control on the House of Common. Whereas with Queen Elizabeth II strengtheningher legal, legitimate, and sacred authority on our country, the conditions of consolidating the socio economic and political lives are all gathered, and all allow our Kingdom to strengthen its position of super power among super powerfulnations.