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)
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Not exactly the Queen's English
You know that things are going downhill in this country when a Tory Member of Parliament is compelled to call it as he sees it, that the Liberals are "whores":
This is not just unparliamentary language, this is basically referring to your political opponents as pondscum. Now there's probably some merit to this observation, but it is a pity to see how far we have fallen, that we cannot even debate each other civilly anymore given the moral debasement and disgraceful conduct of the Liberals over the past decade. There continued presence in government no longer invites any respectful discourse on any issue.
There is scarcely little more that can be said of them now. They are, pardon my language, whores.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:02 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
You know that things are going downhill in this country when a Tory Member of Parliament is compelled to call it as he sees it, that the Liberals are "whores":
"They're whores," said B.C. Tory John Reynolds. "I don't like to call them that because there are probably some whores who are nice people." The Liberals will do anything to try and scare people in Ontario and other parts (of the country)," Reynolds said. "I think Stephen Harper as prime minister will make damn sure Quebec stays in the country."
This is not just unparliamentary language, this is basically referring to your political opponents as pondscum. Now there's probably some merit to this observation, but it is a pity to see how far we have fallen, that we cannot even debate each other civilly anymore given the moral debasement and disgraceful conduct of the Liberals over the past decade. There continued presence in government no longer invites any respectful discourse on any issue.
There is scarcely little more that can be said of them now. They are, pardon my language, whores.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:02 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Our multicultural Commonwealth
I admit it: I'm a monoculturalist. Come to think of it, I'm mono a lot of things, loyal as I am to one wife (monogamous), one country (monoculturalist), one queen (monarchist) and one God (monotheist). As we say, a rational loyalty to the one. Things just seem a lot clearer that way.
That's not to cast a jaundiced eye on the issue, or treat the matter as black and white - far from it. But on the spectrum between total assimilation (extreme monoculturalism) and flat out cultural apartheid (extreme multiculturalism), I'm thinking it might be more prudent to error on the side of a policy that emphasizes integration over segregation. We need only look at the appalling living conditions on the numerous and isolated Indian Reserves sprawled out across this vast territory of ours, some of them nefariously governed gasoline-sniffing ghettos, to see the result of government-sponsored segregation run amok. Great policy, that. And all in the name of "tolerance".
The Liberals have had a monopoly on the tolerance industry ever since Pierre Trudeau invented official government multiculturalism for the world in 1971. Since that time, we have come to understand that the political appeal lie not in promoting social cohesion in an immigrant-dependent country, but in the political dividends parties receive from ethnic pandering and vote-buying manipulation of our immigrant communities. What is clear by now is that radical multiculturalism is essentially an intellectual leftist project, a project that so far hasn't gone astray thanks only to the enduring strength and inherent assimilationist tendencies of our civil society. What the ethnic panderers don't understand is that with strong civil societies such as ours, immigrant individuals and families can be amalgamated quite readily without state intervention, while safeguarding the freedoms they require to follow their own customs, religion and culture. But hey, that doesn't square nicely with leftist virtues, now does it.
Amazingly, multiculti political correctness has now moved to Australia and Great Britain, even receiving a kind of Royal Assent from our Queen, who embraced it for the first time in an officially recognized way during her Christmas address to the Commonwealth in December, 2004. I'm not sure what brought this on, but presumably she's atoning for imperialism's past sins, the assumption of cultural superiority Her Majesty's predecessors inflicted on us poor colonials back in the days of a paternalistic empire.
Well, t'is all for naught. Has any of the Queen's advisors bothered to explain to Her Majesty that self-hating multiculturalists largely seek to abolish the monarchy in the belief that this is the most comfortable way to accomodate new immigrants to our shores? Apparently they believe this because most immigrants are not of British descent, and so it would be the "tolerant" thing to do. That's the gross fallacy in this madness: the misguided belief that the country should be assimilated by immigrants rather than the other way around. Now I have to ditch the Queen? I've had it. This is a declaration of war.
POSTSCRIPT: Hat tip to Canadianna for leading me to Salim Mansur, who has an excellent article in today's Toronto Sun right here on the fundamental boneheadedness of our multicultural kingdom.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:29 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I admit it: I'm a monoculturalist. Come to think of it, I'm mono a lot of things, loyal as I am to one wife (monogamous), one country (monoculturalist), one queen (monarchist) and one God (monotheist). As we say, a rational loyalty to the one. Things just seem a lot clearer that way.
That's not to cast a jaundiced eye on the issue, or treat the matter as black and white - far from it. But on the spectrum between total assimilation (extreme monoculturalism) and flat out cultural apartheid (extreme multiculturalism), I'm thinking it might be more prudent to error on the side of a policy that emphasizes integration over segregation. We need only look at the appalling living conditions on the numerous and isolated Indian Reserves sprawled out across this vast territory of ours, some of them nefariously governed gasoline-sniffing ghettos, to see the result of government-sponsored segregation run amok. Great policy, that. And all in the name of "tolerance".
The Liberals have had a monopoly on the tolerance industry ever since Pierre Trudeau invented official government multiculturalism for the world in 1971. Since that time, we have come to understand that the political appeal lie not in promoting social cohesion in an immigrant-dependent country, but in the political dividends parties receive from ethnic pandering and vote-buying manipulation of our immigrant communities. What is clear by now is that radical multiculturalism is essentially an intellectual leftist project, a project that so far hasn't gone astray thanks only to the enduring strength and inherent assimilationist tendencies of our civil society. What the ethnic panderers don't understand is that with strong civil societies such as ours, immigrant individuals and families can be amalgamated quite readily without state intervention, while safeguarding the freedoms they require to follow their own customs, religion and culture. But hey, that doesn't square nicely with leftist virtues, now does it.
Amazingly, multiculti political correctness has now moved to Australia and Great Britain, even receiving a kind of Royal Assent from our Queen, who embraced it for the first time in an officially recognized way during her Christmas address to the Commonwealth in December, 2004. I'm not sure what brought this on, but presumably she's atoning for imperialism's past sins, the assumption of cultural superiority Her Majesty's predecessors inflicted on us poor colonials back in the days of a paternalistic empire.
Well, t'is all for naught. Has any of the Queen's advisors bothered to explain to Her Majesty that self-hating multiculturalists largely seek to abolish the monarchy in the belief that this is the most comfortable way to accomodate new immigrants to our shores? Apparently they believe this because most immigrants are not of British descent, and so it would be the "tolerant" thing to do. That's the gross fallacy in this madness: the misguided belief that the country should be assimilated by immigrants rather than the other way around. Now I have to ditch the Queen? I've had it. This is a declaration of war.
POSTSCRIPT: Hat tip to Canadianna for leading me to Salim Mansur, who has an excellent article in today's Toronto Sun right here on the fundamental boneheadedness of our multicultural kingdom.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:29 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, April 25, 2005
Anzac Day - April 25, 1915
Some days are just too important to leave off of the monarchist calendar. I have no problem ditching Woman's Day, Earth Day, Human Rights Day, Save the Whales Day and other historically insignificant abominations; but Anzac Day? I'm afraid that one's a keeper, especially given that today is the 90th anniversary of the great sacrifice by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (i.e., ANZAC) on the beaches of Gallipoli. There is no better way to explain this battle to Canadians, than to say that Gallipoli was Australia's very own Vimy. The Australian nation awoke on April 25, 1915.
Far be it for me, as a Canuck, to go into what Anzac Day means for Aussies and Kiwis. That's best left to Australians like Tim Blair, who does a superb job of that here.
I would only add that it would be wrong to understand that Gallipoli was a total waste. For it was the experience there, like the experiences of Ypres, the Somme, Vimy and Passchandaele that turned the Anzac and Canadian Corps - which, unlike other British formations of comparable size, actually stayed together throughout the entire war - into the two most ferocious fighting formations on the Western Front. Striking together on August 8, 1918, at the Battle of Amiens, it was they who delivered a "Black Day" to the German High Command, spearheading the way for the final 100 day Allied push of the Great War and humanity's fighting farewellish "Goodbye to All That".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Some days are just too important to leave off of the monarchist calendar. I have no problem ditching Woman's Day, Earth Day, Human Rights Day, Save the Whales Day and other historically insignificant abominations; but Anzac Day? I'm afraid that one's a keeper, especially given that today is the 90th anniversary of the great sacrifice by the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (i.e., ANZAC) on the beaches of Gallipoli. There is no better way to explain this battle to Canadians, than to say that Gallipoli was Australia's very own Vimy. The Australian nation awoke on April 25, 1915.
Far be it for me, as a Canuck, to go into what Anzac Day means for Aussies and Kiwis. That's best left to Australians like Tim Blair, who does a superb job of that here.
I would only add that it would be wrong to understand that Gallipoli was a total waste. For it was the experience there, like the experiences of Ypres, the Somme, Vimy and Passchandaele that turned the Anzac and Canadian Corps - which, unlike other British formations of comparable size, actually stayed together throughout the entire war - into the two most ferocious fighting formations on the Western Front. Striking together on August 8, 1918, at the Battle of Amiens, it was they who delivered a "Black Day" to the German High Command, spearheading the way for the final 100 day Allied push of the Great War and humanity's fighting farewellish "Goodbye to All That".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, April 23, 2005
England and Saint George
On the Roman Catholic calendar, April 23rd is St George's Day. St. George is, of course, the Patron Saint of England, and is celebrated as one of "The Seven Defenders of Christendom", along with:
Scotland - St. Andrew
Ireland - St. Patrick
Wales - St. David
France - St. Denis
Spain - St. James
Italy - St. Anthony
What is not so widely recognized is St. George's other areas of patronage, they being too many to list here, but including other countries such as Germany and Canada, not to mention popular outfits like the Boy Scouts and the prestigious Order of the Garter which, incidentally, is actually the Knights of the Order of Saint George.
About the man himself, we know little. What we do know is that he was a soldier and a martyr, that he was tortured and beheaded in 304 AD, that he didn't become popular in Europe until the 10th century, that his feast day was as popular as Christmas by the 15th century and that he was not officially recognized as Patron Saint of England by the Roman Catholics until the 18th century pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV.
For a celebration of St. George's day, don't look to me, look to Throne and Altar, who makes a more appropriate blogging tribute in all the right font. You should also visit the many Society's of St. George which are prominently featured in the large Anglosphere cities of New York, Toronto, Vancouver and, most especially, London, which brings me to this final thought:
That great writer and orator, Sir Winston Churchill, who was made a Knight of the Garter, boasted that of all the words in the English dictionary, England was far and away his favourite. By George, you don't say.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:31 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
On the Roman Catholic calendar, April 23rd is St George's Day. St. George is, of course, the Patron Saint of England, and is celebrated as one of "The Seven Defenders of Christendom", along with:
Scotland - St. Andrew
Ireland - St. Patrick
Wales - St. David
France - St. Denis
Spain - St. James
Italy - St. Anthony
What is not so widely recognized is St. George's other areas of patronage, they being too many to list here, but including other countries such as Germany and Canada, not to mention popular outfits like the Boy Scouts and the prestigious Order of the Garter which, incidentally, is actually the Knights of the Order of Saint George.
About the man himself, we know little. What we do know is that he was a soldier and a martyr, that he was tortured and beheaded in 304 AD, that he didn't become popular in Europe until the 10th century, that his feast day was as popular as Christmas by the 15th century and that he was not officially recognized as Patron Saint of England by the Roman Catholics until the 18th century pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV.
For a celebration of St. George's day, don't look to me, look to Throne and Altar, who makes a more appropriate blogging tribute in all the right font. You should also visit the many Society's of St. George which are prominently featured in the large Anglosphere cities of New York, Toronto, Vancouver and, most especially, London, which brings me to this final thought:
That great writer and orator, Sir Winston Churchill, who was made a Knight of the Garter, boasted that of all the words in the English dictionary, England was far and away his favourite. By George, you don't say.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:31 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, April 22, 2005
Welcome, Your Excellency
The Governor-General of Canada visited The Monarchist at precisely 1:03:15 EST today. Or maybe it was her Vice-Regal Consort, her Secretary or another member of her tiny retinue. At any rate, how many bloggers can say the Office of the GG has ever paid them a visit? Anyone, Bueller?
Her Excellency, or one of Her Excellency's staff, spent at least 45 seconds reading this here Blog, which is the Site Metre time measured between the first page view and the second. There's just no way of telling how much time was spent reading the second page though, or whether or not the Queen's representative in Canada has bookmarked me for future reference.
But here's the really interesting part: the way in which I was discovered. She or they were doing a Google search for "francie ducros" gomery. As you can see, and very mysteriously so since I have never written anything remotely connected to Francie Ducros, the former Communications Director to Prime Minister Jean Chretien who called Bush a moron, I am the third hit, just above andrewcoyne.com.
One wonders: Is Francie up for the Order of Canada, and they want to make sure she's not implicated in all this? Most probably not, but Her Excellency has just made my day. I just want to say, Maam, that you're a great foil for Her Majesty The Queen. Please feel free to stop by any time.
I have the honour to be, Maam,
Your most humble and obedient servant.
The Monarchist
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Governor-General of Canada visited The Monarchist at precisely 1:03:15 EST today. Or maybe it was her Vice-Regal Consort, her Secretary or another member of her tiny retinue. At any rate, how many bloggers can say the Office of the GG has ever paid them a visit? Anyone, Bueller?
Her Excellency, or one of Her Excellency's staff, spent at least 45 seconds reading this here Blog, which is the Site Metre time measured between the first page view and the second. There's just no way of telling how much time was spent reading the second page though, or whether or not the Queen's representative in Canada has bookmarked me for future reference.
But here's the really interesting part: the way in which I was discovered. She or they were doing a Google search for "francie ducros" gomery. As you can see, and very mysteriously so since I have never written anything remotely connected to Francie Ducros, the former Communications Director to Prime Minister Jean Chretien who called Bush a moron, I am the third hit, just above andrewcoyne.com.
One wonders: Is Francie up for the Order of Canada, and they want to make sure she's not implicated in all this? Most probably not, but Her Excellency has just made my day. I just want to say, Maam, that you're a great foil for Her Majesty The Queen. Please feel free to stop by any time.
I have the honour to be, Maam,
Your most humble and obedient servant.
The Monarchist
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Her Majesty's Pompous Government
As Andrew Coyne so aptly put it, the Holy Liberal Party is neither Holy, nor Liberal, nor even a Party. I mean, what do you call a political party that thinks its own misfortunes are inextricably tied to the fortunes of the country at large, that Canada is doomed because the Liberals are doomed. The Toronto Sun's Linda Williamson gets it right:
The arrogance of this Party is just boundless. And what a spectacle it is for a Prime Minister on hands and knees after 12 years of government thievery pleading for more time. After 12 years of political corruption, cronyism and organized criminal activity, grossly enriching their friends and appointing court judges in return for Party favours. [Allegedly, of course, but at what point are we no longer obliged to use that word?]
What possible moral rationale exists to prop this government up today? What, because some of the testimony might be refuted, that some of the Liberals might still not go to jail over this, that it might not be quite so bad as it is currently being portrayed. Is that the new standard for governments today: the party in power has to be found guilty of deliberately conspiring against the people and the public interest in a court of law (whose judges were appointed by Liberals)?
Ladies and gentlemen, now you know why I'm a monarchist. Her Majesty's constitutional position as Sovereign of Canada and Her residual powers of State, the most important of these being the power to dismiss governments and dissolve Parliament, is perhaps the only reason why we are not today a "Banana Republic". You see, monarchy's not so quaint after all.
UPDATE: Every monarchist will love Andrew Coyne's comparison of Prime Minister Martin's extraordinary action yesterday to France's King Louis XVI's 1791 flight to Varennes here in today's National Post article, "Serving the party, not the nation".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
As Andrew Coyne so aptly put it, the Holy Liberal Party is neither Holy, nor Liberal, nor even a Party. I mean, what do you call a political party that thinks its own misfortunes are inextricably tied to the fortunes of the country at large, that Canada is doomed because the Liberals are doomed. The Toronto Sun's Linda Williamson gets it right:
Watching Paul Martin address the nation last night, I couldn't help thinking of all the times he and his predecessor didn't speak to Canadians directly. Not after 9/11, even though 24 of our countrymen were murdered by terrorists. Not when we joined the war in Afghanistan. Not when we declined to back the U.S. in Iraq; not when we naively rejected the U.S. missile defence program. Not when the government refused to compensate thousands of victims of the tainted blood scandal, many of whom are dying as they continue to await justice today (despite a hasty Liberal flip-flop on the issue Wednesday night, which will change little). Not even when the government decided to redefine the institution of marriage. No, none of those things were deemed important enough for the Liberal prime minister to address the nation. But hey, through all of those events, the Liberals were doing fine in the polls. Now, of course, thanks to AdScam and evidence at the resulting Gomery inquiry of corruption too repugnant to ignore, the Liberals have fallen behind the Conservatives for the first time since the late 1980s. So naturally, it's a national crisis!
The arrogance of this Party is just boundless. And what a spectacle it is for a Prime Minister on hands and knees after 12 years of government thievery pleading for more time. After 12 years of political corruption, cronyism and organized criminal activity, grossly enriching their friends and appointing court judges in return for Party favours. [Allegedly, of course, but at what point are we no longer obliged to use that word?]
What possible moral rationale exists to prop this government up today? What, because some of the testimony might be refuted, that some of the Liberals might still not go to jail over this, that it might not be quite so bad as it is currently being portrayed. Is that the new standard for governments today: the party in power has to be found guilty of deliberately conspiring against the people and the public interest in a court of law (whose judges were appointed by Liberals)?
Ladies and gentlemen, now you know why I'm a monarchist. Her Majesty's constitutional position as Sovereign of Canada and Her residual powers of State, the most important of these being the power to dismiss governments and dissolve Parliament, is perhaps the only reason why we are not today a "Banana Republic". You see, monarchy's not so quaint after all.
UPDATE: Every monarchist will love Andrew Coyne's comparison of Prime Minister Martin's extraordinary action yesterday to France's King Louis XVI's 1791 flight to Varennes here in today's National Post article, "Serving the party, not the nation".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Happy Birthday Your Majesty
Her Majesty The Queen turned 79 today.
Our Gracious Queen, in all Her Coronation Glory.
Long may She reign over us. God save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:27 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Her Majesty The Queen turned 79 today.
Our Gracious Queen, in all Her Coronation Glory.
Long may She reign over us. God save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:27 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Don't poop on the Pope
What utter pap. If we are to believe the mainstream media, the new Pope Benedict XVI is too conservative, too orthodox, too doctrinaire, too controversial... the viewer comes away with the astonishing conclusion that the Supreme Roman Pontiff may even be too Catholic.
For the apostates, perhaps. Personally, I'm glad there's at least one institution on the planet that unequivocally and unapologetically still represents the moral ideals of yore, that still believes certain things are sacred in life, even if the vast majority of us are unable to live up to them. From a purely moral standpoint, it may not be too much of a stretch anymore to think that the Pope personifies our last great hope as a civilisation.
My own view is that if any future pontificate wavers in these staunchly held beliefs, that if it betrays its own theological underpinning in order to embrace the newest generational fetish, then the very notion of Catholicism - it's universality - the belief that there are certain universal truths to be defended at all cost, would be put at grave eternal risk.
You almost get the impression that these so-called progressives want to reform the Church from top to bottom, and then make it repent for its past sins. Memo to all non-believing Catholics: The Church of Christ is the House of God, and as such, does not sin. Considering that there already exist plenty of other variants of and protestations to the Catholic form, it would be highly advisable to either get out, or get with the Program. The choice is yours.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
What utter pap. If we are to believe the mainstream media, the new Pope Benedict XVI is too conservative, too orthodox, too doctrinaire, too controversial... the viewer comes away with the astonishing conclusion that the Supreme Roman Pontiff may even be too Catholic.
For the apostates, perhaps. Personally, I'm glad there's at least one institution on the planet that unequivocally and unapologetically still represents the moral ideals of yore, that still believes certain things are sacred in life, even if the vast majority of us are unable to live up to them. From a purely moral standpoint, it may not be too much of a stretch anymore to think that the Pope personifies our last great hope as a civilisation.
My own view is that if any future pontificate wavers in these staunchly held beliefs, that if it betrays its own theological underpinning in order to embrace the newest generational fetish, then the very notion of Catholicism - it's universality - the belief that there are certain universal truths to be defended at all cost, would be put at grave eternal risk.
You almost get the impression that these so-called progressives want to reform the Church from top to bottom, and then make it repent for its past sins. Memo to all non-believing Catholics: The Church of Christ is the House of God, and as such, does not sin. Considering that there already exist plenty of other variants of and protestations to the Catholic form, it would be highly advisable to either get out, or get with the Program. The choice is yours.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Kings outrank presidents
Just in case you thought that the republican system of government was on a par with monarchy. We get this from no less an authority than from the solemn, ostentatious and meticulously planned funeral arrangements of the late Vicar of Christ himself.
I thought it was quite telling to witness a seating order where the front row was reserved exclusively for royalty with the exception of the President of Italy. I don't think I've ever witnessed a serving President of the United States, or for that matter, a serving President of France, conspicuously relegated to the second row at any state public function of any significance anywhere in the world.
So yes, monarchical sovereigns outrank republican heads of state. What, you think you know better than the Pope?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:56 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Just in case you thought that the republican system of government was on a par with monarchy. We get this from no less an authority than from the solemn, ostentatious and meticulously planned funeral arrangements of the late Vicar of Christ himself.
I thought it was quite telling to witness a seating order where the front row was reserved exclusively for royalty with the exception of the President of Italy. I don't think I've ever witnessed a serving President of the United States, or for that matter, a serving President of France, conspicuously relegated to the second row at any state public function of any significance anywhere in the world.
So yes, monarchical sovereigns outrank republican heads of state. What, you think you know better than the Pope?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:56 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, April 18, 2005
Throne and Altar
It's time to return the favour. Throne and Altar, who is very worthy of our praise, thinks I'm pretty solid on the throne part, but could use a little work on the altar thing: "It seems pretty solid and has a good number of links. Not Catholic, but nobody's perfect."
He should know that "The Monarchist" is not only me, but also Walsingham who is proudly Catholic. So methinks we deserve part marks here. In any event, insofar as the Pope is concerned, there is only One Holy and Apostolic Church that claims to be the cathedral of all God-loving Christians. So maybe I'm not too far behind in that quarter of life after all.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
It's time to return the favour. Throne and Altar, who is very worthy of our praise, thinks I'm pretty solid on the throne part, but could use a little work on the altar thing: "It seems pretty solid and has a good number of links. Not Catholic, but nobody's perfect."
He should know that "The Monarchist" is not only me, but also Walsingham who is proudly Catholic. So methinks we deserve part marks here. In any event, insofar as the Pope is concerned, there is only One Holy and Apostolic Church that claims to be the cathedral of all God-loving Christians. So maybe I'm not too far behind in that quarter of life after all.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Hung, Drawn and Quartered
The squalid Liberal Government of Canada that is. Hung by the Gomery Commission, drawn irresistibly into a likely early election call and quartered mercilessly by four burgeoning political parties salivating at the prospect of taking on a deeply wounded foe: namely, the conservatives, the separatists, the socialists and the greens, each of whom can probably smell electoral victory of one sort or another.
It's one thing for the Liberal Party to have to fight their way through something like this (devastatingly eery, ain't it); it's quite another to be squeeze-flanked by a socialist party and a conservative party, when one actually goes out of its way to imply that it can find common cause with its ideological polar opposite. An NDP-Tory coalition?
I don't think it's possible for me to overstate what this means for the Grits. We may be on the verge of a new era in Canadian politics.
POSTSCRIPT: So much for that theory. The NDP, true to form, is apparently now willing to turn a blind eye to corruption if it means taxing jobs and swindling a few more billion from hard-working taxpayers.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:09 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The squalid Liberal Government of Canada that is. Hung by the Gomery Commission, drawn irresistibly into a likely early election call and quartered mercilessly by four burgeoning political parties salivating at the prospect of taking on a deeply wounded foe: namely, the conservatives, the separatists, the socialists and the greens, each of whom can probably smell electoral victory of one sort or another.
It's one thing for the Liberal Party to have to fight their way through something like this (devastatingly eery, ain't it); it's quite another to be squeeze-flanked by a socialist party and a conservative party, when one actually goes out of its way to imply that it can find common cause with its ideological polar opposite. An NDP-Tory coalition?
I don't think it's possible for me to overstate what this means for the Grits. We may be on the verge of a new era in Canadian politics.
POSTSCRIPT: So much for that theory. The NDP, true to form, is apparently now willing to turn a blind eye to corruption if it means taxing jobs and swindling a few more billion from hard-working taxpayers.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:09 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
More Tory than conservative
Occam's Carbuncle, a hearty libertarian and enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada, loathes the word "Tory" so much, that he refuses to be linked to the fast growing group of political web loggers called the "Blogging Tories".
In fact, I would be willing to wager that most Conservatives are at least mildly uncomfortable with the term, given the lengthy bout of bastardization [does anyone even remember what Toryism means, anymore?] the brand has suffered since Dalton Camp's "Red Tory" riff raff deep-sixed Diefenbaker & Company. Stephen Harper certainly is, but he's willing to downplay it in the interests of party unity, given the party's large coalition of democratic reformers, neoconservatives, monarchists, social conservatives, libertarians, marriage traditionalists, PCs, ...knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
I'm a little (or a lot) of all those things, but above them all I staunchly remain a traditional, uncoloured Tory. We're a dwindling band of has-beens that still clutch to the British spirit of this country, and more specifically to the great English tradition of parliamentary debate. All politicians debate with varying degrees of success and enthusiasm, but Tories revel in it; that is their one and only vocation.
We admire men like Pitt, Burke, Disraeli, Churchill, and in this country, McDonald and Meighen. We're the oldest party in the Anglosphere, which has its roots going all the way back to before the Glorious Revolution in 1688, when the principals of hereditary succession to the crown (without intervention from Parliament) and non-resistance to the monarch were fiercely fought and debated, a losing struggle for the devine right of kingship that lasted for more than a hundred years before the Tories finally admitted defeat.
Today, the Tory political philosophy is simple: Reform the ills, preserve the good. You don't kill the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force to more fully integrate the Canadian Forces. You can accomodate non-traditional relationships without undermining traditional morality and killing the traditional definition of marriage. You don't end a 500-year-old monarchy in order to "Canadianise" our Head of State. In a word, "respect" for our common past and institutions. It's that simple.
For those interested in some authentic Tory spirit, you won't find it in Britain's or Canada's official Conservative Party anymore. Now you have to join the private clubs, such as the Carlton Club, or the Rideau Club or, and here's a good one, The Tory Party at Yale University. Check this out to get into the proper spirit of things, Tory.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:54 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Occam's Carbuncle, a hearty libertarian and enthusiastic supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada, loathes the word "Tory" so much, that he refuses to be linked to the fast growing group of political web loggers called the "Blogging Tories".
In fact, I would be willing to wager that most Conservatives are at least mildly uncomfortable with the term, given the lengthy bout of bastardization [does anyone even remember what Toryism means, anymore?] the brand has suffered since Dalton Camp's "Red Tory" riff raff deep-sixed Diefenbaker & Company. Stephen Harper certainly is, but he's willing to downplay it in the interests of party unity, given the party's large coalition of democratic reformers, neoconservatives, monarchists, social conservatives, libertarians, marriage traditionalists, PCs, ...knuckle-dragging neanderthals.
I'm a little (or a lot) of all those things, but above them all I staunchly remain a traditional, uncoloured Tory. We're a dwindling band of has-beens that still clutch to the British spirit of this country, and more specifically to the great English tradition of parliamentary debate. All politicians debate with varying degrees of success and enthusiasm, but Tories revel in it; that is their one and only vocation.
We admire men like Pitt, Burke, Disraeli, Churchill, and in this country, McDonald and Meighen. We're the oldest party in the Anglosphere, which has its roots going all the way back to before the Glorious Revolution in 1688, when the principals of hereditary succession to the crown (without intervention from Parliament) and non-resistance to the monarch were fiercely fought and debated, a losing struggle for the devine right of kingship that lasted for more than a hundred years before the Tories finally admitted defeat.
Today, the Tory political philosophy is simple: Reform the ills, preserve the good. You don't kill the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force to more fully integrate the Canadian Forces. You can accomodate non-traditional relationships without undermining traditional morality and killing the traditional definition of marriage. You don't end a 500-year-old monarchy in order to "Canadianise" our Head of State. In a word, "respect" for our common past and institutions. It's that simple.
For those interested in some authentic Tory spirit, you won't find it in Britain's or Canada's official Conservative Party anymore. Now you have to join the private clubs, such as the Carlton Club, or the Rideau Club or, and here's a good one, The Tory Party at Yale University. Check this out to get into the proper spirit of things, Tory.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:54 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The RCMP can't be trusted?
Can you believe this? I'm going to post this full story because it indicates the appalling extent of corruption that has taken hold in Canada over the past decade:
And with that, I have only four words to add: Time. To. Clean. House.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Can you believe this? I'm going to post this full story because it indicates the appalling extent of corruption that has taken hold in Canada over the past decade:
Canada's national police force can't be trusted to conduct a wide-ranging investigation into new criminal allegations made at the Adscam inquiry, Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay suggested yesterday. MacKay points to RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli's "perceived" cosy relationship with the previous government of Jean Chretien and the fact the force was itself tangled up in the ad scandal.
"There's already been significant examples of where the RCMP have been too -- and I emphasize 'too' -- closely linked to the Prime Minister's Office," MacKay said, recommending either the Quebec or Ontario provincial police conduct a probe instead.
He cites the involvement of Jean Chretien's senior staff in the RCMP handling of protesters at a 1997 Asia-Pacific leaders' summit in Vancouver, the force's decision not to investigate Chretien's alleged actions in the so-called Shawinigate affair and the costly, failed probe of former Conservative PM Brian Mulroney and Airbus.
The RCMP also received more than $3 million from the disgraced sponsorship program, some of it channelled through a non-government bank account.
"In all of those instances, there were questions in the minds of the public about (the RCMP's) proximity to the government, including the commissioner's close ties, both socially and professionally to Francie Ducros (Chretien's former communications director) and members of the PMO staff," MacKay said.
Zaccardelli, however, hinted yesterday the Mounties could broaden their investigation into Adscam, including a request by the Liberal Party that it may have been the target of "fraud or other harmful acts."
And with that, I have only four words to add: Time. To. Clean. House.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
I'm a monarchist, not a royalist
Paul Tuns, author of "Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal", and contributing host of Shotgun over at the Western Standard magazine, criticized me over the weekend for my "strange silence" on the day of the royal wedding.
So let me break my silence right here, right now, by offering this assessment of the televised wedding: Yawn.
I'm a monarchist, not a royalist, and certainly not a royal watcher. In fact, I despise royal watchers with the appropriate amount of contempt that all celebrity-crazed people deserve. Yes, many (soft) monarchists over at the League - gentlemen and ladies, all of them - are also royalists, but I believe it is wrong to assume that all monarchists are royalists or to understand that the two words are somehow interchangeable. They are not.
Monarchy is not skin deep; it is not merely window-dressing for state occasions. And it's more than just the people, traditions and institutions that make up the royal establishment. Properly understood, it is much, much more deeply rooted than that.
Fundamentally, it's a cultural allegiance and religious connection to our shared past, to our forefathers and to their sacrifices, as beautifully epitomized by Australian Spirit. As a Canadian when I look at the Bronzed Aussie, I'm perfectly at home here. This is what I mean and this is what I'm defending as a monarchist. More on this in the coming year.
Full disclosure: The Monarchist is not a member of the Monarchist League of Canada.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:39 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Paul Tuns, author of "Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal", and contributing host of Shotgun over at the Western Standard magazine, criticized me over the weekend for my "strange silence" on the day of the royal wedding.
So let me break my silence right here, right now, by offering this assessment of the televised wedding: Yawn.
I'm a monarchist, not a royalist, and certainly not a royal watcher. In fact, I despise royal watchers with the appropriate amount of contempt that all celebrity-crazed people deserve. Yes, many (soft) monarchists over at the League - gentlemen and ladies, all of them - are also royalists, but I believe it is wrong to assume that all monarchists are royalists or to understand that the two words are somehow interchangeable. They are not.
Monarchy is not skin deep; it is not merely window-dressing for state occasions. And it's more than just the people, traditions and institutions that make up the royal establishment. Properly understood, it is much, much more deeply rooted than that.
Fundamentally, it's a cultural allegiance and religious connection to our shared past, to our forefathers and to their sacrifices, as beautifully epitomized by Australian Spirit. As a Canadian when I look at the Bronzed Aussie, I'm perfectly at home here. This is what I mean and this is what I'm defending as a monarchist. More on this in the coming year.
Full disclosure: The Monarchist is not a member of the Monarchist League of Canada.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:39 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Taking on the Prince of Darkness
Contrary to popular belief, Warren Kinsella is more than a royal pain in the ass. A wickedly antagonistic and rather thuggish political operative of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Kinsella has earned a reputation for being a staunch loyalist to Jean Chretien and fierce defender of his years in office. He is to the former prime minister what - and we have to go all the way back to the 16th century for a suitable comparison - Sir Francis Walsingham was to Queen Elizabeth I in his day: a charming and fanatically loyal protector and hatchet man.
Only he lacks the power to send his victims to the Tower or cut off their heads; the manifestations of wielding influence having thankfully progressed since Walsingham's time. In this day and age what you do, especially if you're a fanatical Grit, is openly ridicule your political enemy's religious beliefs, or smear them with accusations of racism. Less brutal for sure, but often no less devastating and effective, something Mr. Kinsella has perfected to a tee. His latest attempted victim is fellow Tory blogger, Small Dead Animals , but as you can see, she's having a better time of it than her predecessors, since he and his Liberal ilk have lost almost total credibility in the wake of the Gomery Commission's revelations.
Kinsella repeatedly calls it the "Gomer-Pyle" Commission in a desperate bid to undermine the Inquiry's work, which is mysterious since he's been pretty emphatic all along that he has nothing to hide. What is becoming shockingly clear though is that the Liberal Party has had something to hide, and that if the testimony is to be believed, we've been governed by a criminal organization for the better part of a decade now.
Not too long ago, Mr. Kinsella wrote a book explaining the Liberal's success in winning three back-to-back majority governments entitled, "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics". That book is now ripe for re-releasing as "Kicking Back in Canadian Politics", due to the millions in kickbacks the Liberals supposedly received in exchange for lucrative government advertising contracts.
The awarding of those contracts was the work of bureaucrat, Chuck Guite, who owes his job to a grossly inappropriate intervention by Mr. Kinsella himself, then Executive Assistant to the then Public Work's Minister, David Dingwall, who suggested to the Deputy Minister at the time that he be hired for the position. When a Deputy Minister receives a "suggestion" from his political masters, needless to say, it puts said Deputy Minister, a career civil servant, into a very difficult position. Unsurprisingly, Chuck Guite got the job.
And the Liberal mobsters lined their pockets...
So one wonders, what was it that Kinsella and Dingwall noticed in Guite that forced them to take the unusual position of recommending a civil servant for promotion, when the bureaucracy is supposed to be independent from political staffers. Was it Dingwall's belief that Guite wouldn't rat on them? The inferences are certainly not pretty. We'll have to wait for Justice Gomery to report his findings before we know the answer to that one.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Contrary to popular belief, Warren Kinsella is more than a royal pain in the ass. A wickedly antagonistic and rather thuggish political operative of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Kinsella has earned a reputation for being a staunch loyalist to Jean Chretien and fierce defender of his years in office. He is to the former prime minister what - and we have to go all the way back to the 16th century for a suitable comparison - Sir Francis Walsingham was to Queen Elizabeth I in his day: a charming and fanatically loyal protector and hatchet man.
Only he lacks the power to send his victims to the Tower or cut off their heads; the manifestations of wielding influence having thankfully progressed since Walsingham's time. In this day and age what you do, especially if you're a fanatical Grit, is openly ridicule your political enemy's religious beliefs, or smear them with accusations of racism. Less brutal for sure, but often no less devastating and effective, something Mr. Kinsella has perfected to a tee. His latest attempted victim is fellow Tory blogger, Small Dead Animals , but as you can see, she's having a better time of it than her predecessors, since he and his Liberal ilk have lost almost total credibility in the wake of the Gomery Commission's revelations.
Kinsella repeatedly calls it the "Gomer-Pyle" Commission in a desperate bid to undermine the Inquiry's work, which is mysterious since he's been pretty emphatic all along that he has nothing to hide. What is becoming shockingly clear though is that the Liberal Party has had something to hide, and that if the testimony is to be believed, we've been governed by a criminal organization for the better part of a decade now.
Not too long ago, Mr. Kinsella wrote a book explaining the Liberal's success in winning three back-to-back majority governments entitled, "Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics". That book is now ripe for re-releasing as "Kicking Back in Canadian Politics", due to the millions in kickbacks the Liberals supposedly received in exchange for lucrative government advertising contracts.
The awarding of those contracts was the work of bureaucrat, Chuck Guite, who owes his job to a grossly inappropriate intervention by Mr. Kinsella himself, then Executive Assistant to the then Public Work's Minister, David Dingwall, who suggested to the Deputy Minister at the time that he be hired for the position. When a Deputy Minister receives a "suggestion" from his political masters, needless to say, it puts said Deputy Minister, a career civil servant, into a very difficult position. Unsurprisingly, Chuck Guite got the job.
And the Liberal mobsters lined their pockets...
So one wonders, what was it that Kinsella and Dingwall noticed in Guite that forced them to take the unusual position of recommending a civil servant for promotion, when the bureaucracy is supposed to be independent from political staffers. Was it Dingwall's belief that Guite wouldn't rat on them? The inferences are certainly not pretty. We'll have to wait for Justice Gomery to report his findings before we know the answer to that one.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
A wedding and a funeral
Needless to say, the funeral of the Pope eclipsed the wedding of our future King, and for monarchists especially, it was an unfortunate study in contrast. To be perfectly frank, I couldn't help but feel uneasy watching the civil ceremony, uneasy about the future of our shared commonwealth monarchy.
For Monarchs in our day and age must be loved or respected if they are to survive, unlike our political class who can repeatedly rob us blind without jeopardizing the democratic institutions they represent. John Paul II was loved immensely, as was the Queen Mom, and so too her husband, King George VI. Queen Elizabeth II has also been an inspiring example and will be remembered as such. All of them have clearly put duty ahead of their own wants and desires, a sacrifice which has been of tremendous service to the future of monarchy.
You can read Mark Steyn's take, another staunch monarchist, to get a mostly agreeable viewpoint on our newest Royal couple. As for my unease, this is what I mean. My hope is that this wedding is not the beginning of a long funeral on monarchy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:16 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Needless to say, the funeral of the Pope eclipsed the wedding of our future King, and for monarchists especially, it was an unfortunate study in contrast. To be perfectly frank, I couldn't help but feel uneasy watching the civil ceremony, uneasy about the future of our shared commonwealth monarchy.
For Monarchs in our day and age must be loved or respected if they are to survive, unlike our political class who can repeatedly rob us blind without jeopardizing the democratic institutions they represent. John Paul II was loved immensely, as was the Queen Mom, and so too her husband, King George VI. Queen Elizabeth II has also been an inspiring example and will be remembered as such. All of them have clearly put duty ahead of their own wants and desires, a sacrifice which has been of tremendous service to the future of monarchy.
You can read Mark Steyn's take, another staunch monarchist, to get a mostly agreeable viewpoint on our newest Royal couple. As for my unease, this is what I mean. My hope is that this wedding is not the beginning of a long funeral on monarchy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:16 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, April 07, 2005
A 21-gun salute to Captain's Quarters
Now that the laughably unenforceable publication ban at the Gomery Inquiry has been finally lifted and relieved of its embarrassing ineffectiveness (hello, the internet is borderless; what may be illegal in Canada is not legally enforceable anywhere else), we are now allowed to hear what everyone has already heard and what everyone already knows or suspected, thanks be to this Minnesota man, Captain Ed, who was getting 400,000 hits daily, mostly from north of the border, during said "publication ban".
That an entire country should be left in the dark over their own affairs, or pretend that we are, or pretend that it is even possible, or that this is even desireable for the accused it is supposed to protect, particularly when the rest of the world is allowed to learn - ahead of us - that we may be habitually governed by a party of gangsters and thieves, that calls into question the very legitimacy of the last three elections, speaks volumes about the authoritarian culture of our society. It is criminally stupid in a free society to gag-order a country, to threaten us with prosecution for so much as linking to Captain's Quarters or Kiwi Pundit in New Zealand to find this out. We shouldn't have to be frustrated and angry in the Great White North.
As for getting to the bottom of this cesspool of rotten skank, Andrew Coyne makes fun of the RCMP's ability to always get their bagman. It is boggling that the tentacles of this corruption would reach so far - even to the PQ separatists it was intended to combat. The mobster Grits, it would appear, cannot even act criminally, competently. Thankfully, the whole thing is shaping up to be quite the puss-filled carbuncle for the Liberals, which should afford us the rarest of opportunities to finally clean up this disgraceful, disgusting government.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:40 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Now that the laughably unenforceable publication ban at the Gomery Inquiry has been finally lifted and relieved of its embarrassing ineffectiveness (hello, the internet is borderless; what may be illegal in Canada is not legally enforceable anywhere else), we are now allowed to hear what everyone has already heard and what everyone already knows or suspected, thanks be to this Minnesota man, Captain Ed, who was getting 400,000 hits daily, mostly from north of the border, during said "publication ban".
That an entire country should be left in the dark over their own affairs, or pretend that we are, or pretend that it is even possible, or that this is even desireable for the accused it is supposed to protect, particularly when the rest of the world is allowed to learn - ahead of us - that we may be habitually governed by a party of gangsters and thieves, that calls into question the very legitimacy of the last three elections, speaks volumes about the authoritarian culture of our society. It is criminally stupid in a free society to gag-order a country, to threaten us with prosecution for so much as linking to Captain's Quarters or Kiwi Pundit in New Zealand to find this out. We shouldn't have to be frustrated and angry in the Great White North.
As for getting to the bottom of this cesspool of rotten skank, Andrew Coyne makes fun of the RCMP's ability to always get their bagman. It is boggling that the tentacles of this corruption would reach so far - even to the PQ separatists it was intended to combat. The mobster Grits, it would appear, cannot even act criminally, competently. Thankfully, the whole thing is shaping up to be quite the puss-filled carbuncle for the Liberals, which should afford us the rarest of opportunities to finally clean up this disgraceful, disgusting government.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:40 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Prince Rainier of Monaco dies
Breaking news from the BBC:
Having reigned for even longer than our own Queen Elizabeth, the Prince of Monaco passed away today at the age of 81.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:43 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Breaking news from the BBC:
Having reigned for even longer than our own Queen Elizabeth, the Prince of Monaco passed away today at the age of 81.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:43 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Our rightful King is a republican living in Australia?
A British expat living in Canada has supposedly stumbled across the legitimate heir to the British Commonwealth throne; one Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, on the grounds that King Edward IV(1442-1483) was a bastard son of the Yorkist, Richard Plantagent.
For a loyalist like myself this is, of course, blasphemous to even contemplate, and thankfully the War of the Roses is a dynastic feud we don't have to get into again. The only interest for me is how an hereditary peer of Great Britain and a non-claimant to the throne, came to believe it was his duty to vote with the republicans in the last Australian referendum. We can thank God that this man is not our King.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:19 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
A British expat living in Canada has supposedly stumbled across the legitimate heir to the British Commonwealth throne; one Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, on the grounds that King Edward IV(1442-1483) was a bastard son of the Yorkist, Richard Plantagent.
For a loyalist like myself this is, of course, blasphemous to even contemplate, and thankfully the War of the Roses is a dynastic feud we don't have to get into again. The only interest for me is how an hereditary peer of Great Britain and a non-claimant to the throne, came to believe it was his duty to vote with the republicans in the last Australian referendum. We can thank God that this man is not our King.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:19 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, April 04, 2005
The repugnance of political spin
This just in from the Globe and Mail:
So the Liberal Party now believes that it may have been a "victim" of Adscam. Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be to consider -- particularly if it is calling in the RCMP to investigate itself -- whether or not it was the main criminal here, whether or not it was defrauding citizen taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars for political gain, whether or not it was engaged in an elaborate money laundering conspiracy involving politicians, political staffers, the bureaucracy, party members, ad executives and organized crime. That would be one way of looking at it.
Memo to the Liberal Party of Canada: Get a lawyer.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This just in from the Globe and Mail:
In the wake of explosive testimony by ad executive Jean Brault before the Gomery inquiry, the Liberal Party has asked the RCMP to investigate whether the party was the victim of fraudulent activities. [Emphasis added]
So the Liberal Party now believes that it may have been a "victim" of Adscam. Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it would be to consider -- particularly if it is calling in the RCMP to investigate itself -- whether or not it was the main criminal here, whether or not it was defrauding citizen taxpayers out of tens of millions of dollars for political gain, whether or not it was engaged in an elaborate money laundering conspiracy involving politicians, political staffers, the bureaucracy, party members, ad executives and organized crime. That would be one way of looking at it.
Memo to the Liberal Party of Canada: Get a lawyer.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:56 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Death watch: Government of Canada
Fellow Red Ensign blogger, Bound by Gravity, has been busy pooling and cataloguing enough links to alleged Grit Party skank to kill the Liberals for a generation...
As of now however, they are only unsubstantiated rumours. Hold onto your shirts everywhere.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:18 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Fellow Red Ensign blogger, Bound by Gravity, has been busy pooling and cataloguing enough links to alleged Grit Party skank to kill the Liberals for a generation...
As of now however, they are only unsubstantiated rumours. Hold onto your shirts everywhere.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:18 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Pope is dead, long live the Pope
Of the three great enduring monarchies on Earth, the Roman Catholic one is far and away the most impressive; the other two being the shared British Commonwealth monarchy and the relatively new monarchical Republic of the United States, which I would argue is only nominally a republic. Monarchies being more properly defined as powerful and majestic state systems founded upon great ideological purpose, endowed with a strength of religious spirit and seemingly invinceable in their continuity.
Those are the three qualifiers: purpose, religious spirit and continuity. It's not the Sovereign per se, it's what the Sovereign represents. Knock one of the three pillars off or weaken them and you have something less than a true monarchy. The Papacy has all three in spades, America is next with its imperial President and Constitution followed by the impressive though still diminishing British Monarchy. I've ranked them in this order since it is now an open question whether or not the monarchies in the Crown Commonwealth will survive the present Queen's passing, although it seems certain to endure in the United Kingdom. [Aside: Despite the monarchical aspirations of the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada's success as a state is very much owed to being greatly influenced by all three, though Liberal dogma, Liberal statism and Liberal formidability may yet eclipse them].
Others, mainly the extant European monarchies, are only nominally so given their tendency to over-embrace "progress", and cultivate a celebrity-like culture and identity. This may not kill off the figurehead anytime soon, but it does effectively undermine the true nature and authenticity of monarchy.
In short, monarchy is about believing and sustaining that belief. That is why the Catholic Church with its continuing rituals and religious orders is the greatest ever, that is why it is the oldest monarchy in the world, and that is why it will likley outlast all others. Nothing is nearly as invinceable as that which was founded on the Rock of Saint Peter; it's in a class all of its own.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:36 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Of the three great enduring monarchies on Earth, the Roman Catholic one is far and away the most impressive; the other two being the shared British Commonwealth monarchy and the relatively new monarchical Republic of the United States, which I would argue is only nominally a republic. Monarchies being more properly defined as powerful and majestic state systems founded upon great ideological purpose, endowed with a strength of religious spirit and seemingly invinceable in their continuity.
Those are the three qualifiers: purpose, religious spirit and continuity. It's not the Sovereign per se, it's what the Sovereign represents. Knock one of the three pillars off or weaken them and you have something less than a true monarchy. The Papacy has all three in spades, America is next with its imperial President and Constitution followed by the impressive though still diminishing British Monarchy. I've ranked them in this order since it is now an open question whether or not the monarchies in the Crown Commonwealth will survive the present Queen's passing, although it seems certain to endure in the United Kingdom. [Aside: Despite the monarchical aspirations of the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada's success as a state is very much owed to being greatly influenced by all three, though Liberal dogma, Liberal statism and Liberal formidability may yet eclipse them].
Others, mainly the extant European monarchies, are only nominally so given their tendency to over-embrace "progress", and cultivate a celebrity-like culture and identity. This may not kill off the figurehead anytime soon, but it does effectively undermine the true nature and authenticity of monarchy.
In short, monarchy is about believing and sustaining that belief. That is why the Catholic Church with its continuing rituals and religious orders is the greatest ever, that is why it is the oldest monarchy in the world, and that is why it will likley outlast all others. Nothing is nearly as invinceable as that which was founded on the Rock of Saint Peter; it's in a class all of its own.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:36 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, April 01, 2005
Pope John Paul the Great
Pope John Paul II, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.
He may yet earn "the Great" after his name given his acomplishment as the third longest reigning pontiff in the Church's history (that's out of 264 over a 2,000 year period), not to mention more than successfully leading Catholicism into the 21st Century and our own "post modern" age of mass media. That would be the same mass media that by comparison seems to be eating our own Royals alive. Nope, the Pope did real good.
I am not yet a Catholic, but given where Anglicanism is headed, there seems to be every indication and likelihood that that's where I may end up.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:30 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Pope John Paul II, the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.
He may yet earn "the Great" after his name given his acomplishment as the third longest reigning pontiff in the Church's history (that's out of 264 over a 2,000 year period), not to mention more than successfully leading Catholicism into the 21st Century and our own "post modern" age of mass media. That would be the same mass media that by comparison seems to be eating our own Royals alive. Nope, the Pope did real good.
I am not yet a Catholic, but given where Anglicanism is headed, there seems to be every indication and likelihood that that's where I may end up.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:30 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
