The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Crown Commonwealth: RIP?
Why should the Crown Commonwealth come together? If it isn't already patently obvious, read this. Because it's nearly all over, that's why. The monarchy, the commonwealth, Britain, Canada...finished.
Without a larger vision in a shrinking world, we are all headed towards geopolitical insignificance, particularly with the rise of China, India and a federal Europe. The turning point will be a year from now when Britain makes the ultimate choice: Europe or the Commonwealth. At stake is Britain itself; England, Scotland and Wales will be fine, but britishness will die a terrible death under the grandiose aspirations of the EU. And not only them, us too. If Britain retreats into provincialism, so will we all.
For Canada, it means more cultural insecurity, declining sovereignty and the gradual envelopment inside fortress North America. Without Britain, the Anglosphere is the U.S. with appendages. Simply put, we will lose our footing in the world.
I will have a lot to say on this in the coming year. Because everything, and I mean everything, is at stake.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:56 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Why should the Crown Commonwealth come together? If it isn't already patently obvious, read this. Because it's nearly all over, that's why. The monarchy, the commonwealth, Britain, Canada...finished.
Without a larger vision in a shrinking world, we are all headed towards geopolitical insignificance, particularly with the rise of China, India and a federal Europe. The turning point will be a year from now when Britain makes the ultimate choice: Europe or the Commonwealth. At stake is Britain itself; England, Scotland and Wales will be fine, but britishness will die a terrible death under the grandiose aspirations of the EU. And not only them, us too. If Britain retreats into provincialism, so will we all.
For Canada, it means more cultural insecurity, declining sovereignty and the gradual envelopment inside fortress North America. Without Britain, the Anglosphere is the U.S. with appendages. Simply put, we will lose our footing in the world.
I will have a lot to say on this in the coming year. Because everything, and I mean everything, is at stake.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:56 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Debunking the militants on SSM
It may come across as a surprise to hear a living, breathing anachronism admit this, but as a traditionalist I'm decidedly mainstream on the issue of same-sex marriage. A mainstreamer being not so much a hardcore advocate for either side, as a hardcore skeptic through and through.
All traditionalists fret over the consequences to society that will come about as a result of changing this and that; that's what they do. That's what we all should do. What we should not do is label them as bigots, since we pretty much know what happens to the quality of debate when we do, don't we. We pretty much know how one damned thing after the next can quickly degenerate into one bigot after the next. Because... Lord knows, there's a lot of us out there.
Jay Currie, socially liberal Conservative, is by no means a unique example of this. He is part of a large band of vocal, militant egalitarianists sweeping across Canada, demanding radical change to our social fabric behind a chorus of lower ranking courts and the Charter, whilst shouting down those who dare oppose it as dumb and ignorant. He may not be as militant as some -- he can live with benign indifference (which I from time to time lapse into) on the SSM issue -- but skeptics, those who by definition are active non-believers, he has nothing but scorn for. We are all, in his view, engaged in the politics of pandering to the baseless homophobic fears of the largely ignorant electorate.
Which brings me to what this issue has been portrayed to be principally about: the equality of marriage. How can anyone be against equality, right? After all, what we are merely talking about here is the equality of homosexuals to be granted the same rights before the law as heterosexuals for state-sanctioned marriages. What societal consequence is there in that?
As it already turns out, plenty. What it means in the larger scheme of things is a society without distinction, and the longer term inability to refer to each other as man and woman, husband and wife, brother and sister etc, the deliberate extinction of familial nomenclature..as evidenced by this and this. And just to deflate the laughing assertion that there is no slippery slope here, what will surely follow SSM is SSA, i.e., same-sex adoption, and the also necessary statutory removal of mother and father from the lexicon of politically correct legislation. Gays and lesbians cannot fulfill the dual role of mother and father, so the rest of us can't too. Such is the tyrannous nature of state-enforced equality.
There's a way out of this madness, but disturbingly nobody seems to have the where-with-all to lead us there. You don't have to undermine the beliefs of the majority in order to satisfy the will of a minority. The government could simply have said that it will only sponsor state-sanctioned "civil unions", no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple, and that all religious-sponsored marriages, again no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple, would also have to register themselves as a civil union. That way everybody is happy, marriage is not redefined and the government is not resorting to mass coercion and group think.
It's called freedom, stupid. If only the bigot slanderers could understand this, we'd all be a lot better off.
__________________________________________________________________
Update: After belatedly reading Jay Currie's various articles on this subject going back to 2003, I must admit that his default position on SSM is virtually identical to my own. Absent that choice though, he would rather opt for Liberal state coercion over the Tory position of improving the status quo through the adoption of civil unions for gays. One choice ends any possibility of revisiting it later, while the other at least holds out the possibility of improving on it in the future. One is impatient, the other prudent. And that, the name-calling aside, is the big difference here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:13 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
It may come across as a surprise to hear a living, breathing anachronism admit this, but as a traditionalist I'm decidedly mainstream on the issue of same-sex marriage. A mainstreamer being not so much a hardcore advocate for either side, as a hardcore skeptic through and through.
All traditionalists fret over the consequences to society that will come about as a result of changing this and that; that's what they do. That's what we all should do. What we should not do is label them as bigots, since we pretty much know what happens to the quality of debate when we do, don't we. We pretty much know how one damned thing after the next can quickly degenerate into one bigot after the next. Because... Lord knows, there's a lot of us out there.
Jay Currie, socially liberal Conservative, is by no means a unique example of this. He is part of a large band of vocal, militant egalitarianists sweeping across Canada, demanding radical change to our social fabric behind a chorus of lower ranking courts and the Charter, whilst shouting down those who dare oppose it as dumb and ignorant. He may not be as militant as some -- he can live with benign indifference (which I from time to time lapse into) on the SSM issue -- but skeptics, those who by definition are active non-believers, he has nothing but scorn for. We are all, in his view, engaged in the politics of pandering to the baseless homophobic fears of the largely ignorant electorate.
Which brings me to what this issue has been portrayed to be principally about: the equality of marriage. How can anyone be against equality, right? After all, what we are merely talking about here is the equality of homosexuals to be granted the same rights before the law as heterosexuals for state-sanctioned marriages. What societal consequence is there in that?
As it already turns out, plenty. What it means in the larger scheme of things is a society without distinction, and the longer term inability to refer to each other as man and woman, husband and wife, brother and sister etc, the deliberate extinction of familial nomenclature..as evidenced by this and this. And just to deflate the laughing assertion that there is no slippery slope here, what will surely follow SSM is SSA, i.e., same-sex adoption, and the also necessary statutory removal of mother and father from the lexicon of politically correct legislation. Gays and lesbians cannot fulfill the dual role of mother and father, so the rest of us can't too. Such is the tyrannous nature of state-enforced equality.
There's a way out of this madness, but disturbingly nobody seems to have the where-with-all to lead us there. You don't have to undermine the beliefs of the majority in order to satisfy the will of a minority. The government could simply have said that it will only sponsor state-sanctioned "civil unions", no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple, and that all religious-sponsored marriages, again no matter the sexual persuasion of the couple, would also have to register themselves as a civil union. That way everybody is happy, marriage is not redefined and the government is not resorting to mass coercion and group think.
It's called freedom, stupid. If only the bigot slanderers could understand this, we'd all be a lot better off.
__________________________________________________________________
Update: After belatedly reading Jay Currie's various articles on this subject going back to 2003, I must admit that his default position on SSM is virtually identical to my own. Absent that choice though, he would rather opt for Liberal state coercion over the Tory position of improving the status quo through the adoption of civil unions for gays. One choice ends any possibility of revisiting it later, while the other at least holds out the possibility of improving on it in the future. One is impatient, the other prudent. And that, the name-calling aside, is the big difference here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:13 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, March 18, 2005
Commonwealth soldier wins Victoria Cross
The Victoria Cross, awarded for conspicuous gallantry and extreme devotion to duty, is not only the Crown Commonwealth's highest award for bravery, it is the most sparingly awarded military decoration on Earth. So it is a little surprising to say the least, even shocking, in our day and age to read valour like this, this, this and this exemplified on today's battlefield. Private Johnson Beharry is to be commended for his great courage.
This is the first VC awarded in over two decades and the first one to have been awarded to a living recipient since two Australians won it in 1969. It is the first of the 21st Century; one wonders, if it will be the last.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:41 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Victoria Cross, awarded for conspicuous gallantry and extreme devotion to duty, is not only the Crown Commonwealth's highest award for bravery, it is the most sparingly awarded military decoration on Earth. So it is a little surprising to say the least, even shocking, in our day and age to read valour like this, this, this and this exemplified on today's battlefield. Private Johnson Beharry is to be commended for his great courage.
This is the first VC awarded in over two decades and the first one to have been awarded to a living recipient since two Australians won it in 1969. It is the first of the 21st Century; one wonders, if it will be the last.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:41 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, March 14, 2005
Happy Commonwealth Day
TEXT OF THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE 2005
Of the nearly two billion citizens of the Commonwealth, more than half are under the age of twenty-five. That provides our association with a strong foundation for the future. Of course, we all face significant challenges. Some people live in conditions of conflict or insecurity. Others have suffered the impact of natural disasters, such as flooding or hurricanes, which can cause great damage to their communities and countries. Quite how destructive this can be became apparent with the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and the hurricane in the Caribbean last September.
Overcoming these global challenges, whether as individuals or nations, depends on human ingenuity and commitment. It involves young people in particular having the chance to develop their talents and their abilities - without being held back by inequality. In my lifetime, I have often seen that when people are encouraged to develop their skills of writing and reasoning, they are well placed to contribute their ideas and energies towards building a better future.
The key to unlocking human potential, and creating opportunity, is education.
Education is sometimes described as the golden thread that binds the Commonwealth. Our shared use of a common, world language - English - has underpinned a long and rich tradition of educational co-operation. With our shared practices and similar systems, an extensive network of scholarships, and many examples of excellence, much has been achieved.
That work continues as the Commonwealth responds to today's new challenges. In our association, where around 75 million children lack access to basic education, one clear objective is the UN Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education by 2015. Another is mitigating the effects of HIV and AIDS, two-thirds of whose sufferers around the world are Commonwealth citizens, and which in some member countries each year causes the death of more teachers than can be met by newly qualified replacements. A third objective is to expand distance education, through bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning - based in Canada - which encourages Commonwealth countries to pool their expertise. Knowledge-based economies are the key to future prosperity, and overcoming technological and other inequalities will be much in the minds of Commonwealth Heads of Government when they meet in Malta in November.
For all of us, knowledge is a life-long journey. Education is a precious gift which should be available to everyone, young and old. Not only does it equip us with the skills and the intellect to overcome the problems we face; it also increases our understanding of - and respect for - other people, whatever our differences may be. Perhaps Nelson Mandela put it best when he said, "education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world".
To everyone throughout the Commonwealth who is working towards this worthy goal, I extend my heartfelt thanks.
ELIZABETH R.
14 March 2005
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:31 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
TEXT OF THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE 2005
Of the nearly two billion citizens of the Commonwealth, more than half are under the age of twenty-five. That provides our association with a strong foundation for the future. Of course, we all face significant challenges. Some people live in conditions of conflict or insecurity. Others have suffered the impact of natural disasters, such as flooding or hurricanes, which can cause great damage to their communities and countries. Quite how destructive this can be became apparent with the devastating Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, and the hurricane in the Caribbean last September.
Overcoming these global challenges, whether as individuals or nations, depends on human ingenuity and commitment. It involves young people in particular having the chance to develop their talents and their abilities - without being held back by inequality. In my lifetime, I have often seen that when people are encouraged to develop their skills of writing and reasoning, they are well placed to contribute their ideas and energies towards building a better future.
The key to unlocking human potential, and creating opportunity, is education.
Education is sometimes described as the golden thread that binds the Commonwealth. Our shared use of a common, world language - English - has underpinned a long and rich tradition of educational co-operation. With our shared practices and similar systems, an extensive network of scholarships, and many examples of excellence, much has been achieved.
That work continues as the Commonwealth responds to today's new challenges. In our association, where around 75 million children lack access to basic education, one clear objective is the UN Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education by 2015. Another is mitigating the effects of HIV and AIDS, two-thirds of whose sufferers around the world are Commonwealth citizens, and which in some member countries each year causes the death of more teachers than can be met by newly qualified replacements. A third objective is to expand distance education, through bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning - based in Canada - which encourages Commonwealth countries to pool their expertise. Knowledge-based economies are the key to future prosperity, and overcoming technological and other inequalities will be much in the minds of Commonwealth Heads of Government when they meet in Malta in November.
For all of us, knowledge is a life-long journey. Education is a precious gift which should be available to everyone, young and old. Not only does it equip us with the skills and the intellect to overcome the problems we face; it also increases our understanding of - and respect for - other people, whatever our differences may be. Perhaps Nelson Mandela put it best when he said, "education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world".
To everyone throughout the Commonwealth who is working towards this worthy goal, I extend my heartfelt thanks.
ELIZABETH R.
14 March 2005
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:31 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, March 07, 2005
BBC: New Zealand to ditch the monarchy
Helen Clark does a John Manley: Shamelessly exploit the monarchy's visit to promote your own political agenda. This, in a nutshell, demonstrates the difference between Monarch and politician - one exemplifies class, and the other is totally without it.
One was born with manners, the other has the manners of a goat.
Note: Helen Clark is the current prime minister of New Zealand. John Manley was the deputy prime minister of Canada who openly mused about Canada becoming a republic during the Queen's Golden Jubilee visit to Canada in 2002.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:42 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Helen Clark does a John Manley: Shamelessly exploit the monarchy's visit to promote your own political agenda. This, in a nutshell, demonstrates the difference between Monarch and politician - one exemplifies class, and the other is totally without it.
One was born with manners, the other has the manners of a goat.
Note: Helen Clark is the current prime minister of New Zealand. John Manley was the deputy prime minister of Canada who openly mused about Canada becoming a republic during the Queen's Golden Jubilee visit to Canada in 2002.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:42 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Two kinds of monarchists
Given that there is comparatively little literature on monarchist ideology in general (that is, relative to other relevant political and economic theories that abound), such as the particular differences that co-exist within it, it's always a pleasure to come across intelligent, well written and well thought out articles when one finds them.
One such piece was penned by Theodore Harvey two years ago, an American royalist and monarchy supporter (another astonishing discovery: Americans who seem to have more reverence for monarchy than their own celebrated form of constitutional government), who makes a valiant articulation of the differences between paleomonarchists (hardline monarchists who advocate for a more traditional and empowered monarchy that usurping politicians can't use as "window-dressing for socialist tyranny") and neomonarchists (the softer, more gentle variant who are more at home with multiculturalism and modernity) .
Like the author, my own view lies somewhere in between. The Canadian experience has been to watch self-aggrandizing prime ministers gradually increase the visibility of our "Head of State" (whom they choose), while deliberately undermining the constitutional position of our Monarch (whom they don't); naturally, they abhor the institution having any pretense of political independence, not to mention the whole concept of its legitimate position as the true representative of the people. The bottom line is that the people's representative should, at the very least, be seen to be a figurehead, not a puppet. And that's the problem: without more constitutional safeguards, the trend is towards the latter, rather than the former.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:24 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Given that there is comparatively little literature on monarchist ideology in general (that is, relative to other relevant political and economic theories that abound), such as the particular differences that co-exist within it, it's always a pleasure to come across intelligent, well written and well thought out articles when one finds them.
One such piece was penned by Theodore Harvey two years ago, an American royalist and monarchy supporter (another astonishing discovery: Americans who seem to have more reverence for monarchy than their own celebrated form of constitutional government), who makes a valiant articulation of the differences between paleomonarchists (hardline monarchists who advocate for a more traditional and empowered monarchy that usurping politicians can't use as "window-dressing for socialist tyranny") and neomonarchists (the softer, more gentle variant who are more at home with multiculturalism and modernity) .
Like the author, my own view lies somewhere in between. The Canadian experience has been to watch self-aggrandizing prime ministers gradually increase the visibility of our "Head of State" (whom they choose), while deliberately undermining the constitutional position of our Monarch (whom they don't); naturally, they abhor the institution having any pretense of political independence, not to mention the whole concept of its legitimate position as the true representative of the people. The bottom line is that the people's representative should, at the very least, be seen to be a figurehead, not a puppet. And that's the problem: without more constitutional safeguards, the trend is towards the latter, rather than the former.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:24 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Prince Charles to say he'll not be King of Australia
This just sticks a dagger through the hearts of fellow monarchists. I mean what would possess His Royal Highness to say such a thing. He should not be giving republicans any measure of hope, but doing his darn best to preserve the institution of monarchy across the Crown Commonwealth.
It appears that this was all media speculation by the Sydney Herald Morning; monarchists can rest easy and I apologize for my over-vigilance.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This just sticks a dagger through the hearts of fellow monarchists. I mean what would possess His Royal Highness to say such a thing. He should not be giving republicans any measure of hope, but doing his darn best to preserve the institution of monarchy across the Crown Commonwealth.
It appears that this was all media speculation by the Sydney Herald Morning; monarchists can rest easy and I apologize for my over-vigilance.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:13 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
More "progress" in the state of rotten
DearSir Person:
We regret to inform you that you are henceforth no longer to be referred to as a man or a woman, a husband or a wife, a widower or a widow, or, and just as soon as we can arrange it, a mother or a father: you are now an indistinct being, an inoffensive neutral entity, you're now an it.
For more information on your new genderless, lowest common denominator status, you may refer yourself to the following family-biased special interest group or, for a more impartial point of view, please visit us directly at Ontario's website. Be advised that more provinces will likely follow suit with similar legislative amendments in the near future.
__________________________________________________________
What was all that about how changing the traditional definition of marriage would not lead us down a slippery slope?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:48 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Dear
We regret to inform you that you are henceforth no longer to be referred to as a man or a woman, a husband or a wife, a widower or a widow, or, and just as soon as we can arrange it, a mother or a father: you are now an indistinct being, an inoffensive neutral entity, you're now an it.
For more information on your new genderless, lowest common denominator status, you may refer yourself to the following family-biased special interest group or, for a more impartial point of view, please visit us directly at Ontario's website. Be advised that more provinces will likely follow suit with similar legislative amendments in the near future.
__________________________________________________________
What was all that about how changing the traditional definition of marriage would not lead us down a slippery slope?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:48 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
