The Creeping Regicide of Elizabeth II

If the violence that the Liberal government has been doing to our parliamentary heritage and democratic processes in order to sustain themselves in power is not iniquitous enough, we might want to devote more time to that other ruthless Liberal pastime: the creeping regicide of Elizabeth II of Canada. Now Her Majesty would not be the first sovereign in history to be deliberately snuffed out of existence -- to be sure, regicide is as old as the monarchy. But monarchs like Mary Queen of Scots, Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France were all found guilty, rightly or wrongly, of serious transgressions against their people. Which begs the question: what, prey tell, has Queen Elizabeth done to us?

For although in her own regal way the Governor-General has in many respects been a great foil for monarchy, her disturbing disapproval last week (no doubt with the tacit understanding of the federal government) of the Alberta Premier’s desire to have the Queen grant Royal Assent to a piece of provincial legislation, confirmed for me what I and many have suspected all along: that Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson doesn’t see herself as our country’s viceroy (she has never, insofar as I have heard, used the word publicly); doesn’t see herself as representing the Crown in Canada (she routinely refers to herself as the “Head of State”); doesn’t see herself in a subordinate role to the sovereign (she declares, for example, on the vice-regal’s website that she’s the “Commander-in-Chief” of the Canadian Forces); doesn’t even see herself as acting in the name of the Queen (under the government’s recent amendment and with her concurrence, she now sends our Canadian ambassadors abroad in her own name and not that of Her Majesty); and now, on the public record of refusing to permit the Queen of Canada to grant Royal Assent to a piece of Alberta legislation because it would be "unprecedented and would not be consistent with the longstanding 'Canadianization' of our institutions". [emphasis added]

And so I asked myself: under what constitutional authority is she acting. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for example, states that the “Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.” Section 15 of the same Act goes on to state that “The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen”. Section 17 stipulates for us that “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.” None of these sections even mention the Governor-General, and none of these sections were subsequently repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982, or by any succeeding amendments thereafter.

Nevertheless, on the point of the sovereign granting royal assent to provincial legislation, Richard Toporoski, arch-monarchist and associate professor at the University of Toronto, surprisingly had this to say:

It is fundamental to remember that according to section 17 compared with sections 69 and 71, and section 91 compared with sections 92 and 88 of the Constitution Act 1867, the Queen, and very definitely not the Governor General, is part of the Parliament of Canada, but the lieutenant governors and not the Queen are part of their respective provincial legislatures. The logical conclusion therefore, which has always been held since it became a practical issue during the presence of King George VI in 1939, is that the royal assent can be given by the Sovereign in the Parliament of Canada but not in a provincial legislature, of which she forms no part.

Section 9 of the act declares the executive government of and over Canada to be vested in the Queen and the act is therefore emphatic in enacting (e.g. sections 72 (now spent) and 82) that lieutenant governors shall carry on executive functions in their provinces in the name of the Queen.

The logical consequence of section 90, however, which reapplies section 55 to the provinces, is clearly that in their strictly legislative functions, the lieutenant governors (as their title suggests) are representatives of the Governor General, even when giving what the act is clear in calling "the Queen's assent".

The Fathers of Confederation obviously desired that the Queen's overriding constitutional presence should be felt even at the provincial level, but it should be remembered that they intended to create a highly centralised union divided into provinces, not a federation of conjoined states, as in the United States or the later Commonwealth of Australia.

The Fathers of Confederation therefore purposely cut the provinces off from any direct connexion (at that time through the British Government) with the Queen. The provincial lieutenant governors were no longer to be appointed by the Queen but by the Governor General.

Assuming Professor Toporoski is correct in his interpretation, the implication is rather quite bizarre: that provincial lieutenant governors have authority to act in the name of the Queen, but that the Queen herself has no such authority. He goes on to back these assertions up with some concrete examples:

W. A. C. Bennett, Premier of British Columbia in the 1950s, requested that the Queen should open the Legislature of British Columbia and it was explained to him then that this was constitutionally impossible... As recently as 1987 the Queen held "court" in Vancouver and signed her royal warrant to augment the arms of British Columbia. But the proclamation, running in the Queen's name, bringing the arms into effect was signed, in the Queen's presence, by the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia.

So it would seem by this at least, that the Governor-General's claim that such an act by the Queen would be "unprecedented", was, in this case, actually a correct one. However, if constitutional legalities were the main preoccupation of Her Excellency, she should obey them fully, and disabuse herself of the notion that she's somehow our "de facto Head of State" and "Commander-in-Chief". Madame Clarkson is quite openly acting the role of a usurper and a pretender here, which is a direct assault on the Constitution and the Queen's position. It is also bunk of the highest order that Her Majesty should be seen to undertake less and less of her official duties in the Canadian context, in order to comply with the GG's bogus determination to "Canadianize" our institutions. This is code for de-monarchizing Canada and surreptitiously suffocating the royal establishment of its rightful, historical legtimacy.

And just to provide a sample consistent with long-term Liberal intentions, Ted McWhinney, a former Liberal MP, recently went so far as to suggest that our sovereign and constitutional system of government could be rendered obsolete through a deceitful act of Parliamentary omission, by simply not proclaiming the next king to be the rightful Sovereign of Canada:

A more practical and viable strategy, argues Mr. McWhinney, would be for the federal government to act "more subtly and by indirection, through creating new
glosses on the Law of the Constitution as written, without formally amending it. "That is, a future government of Canada would, after the Queen ends her reign,
cut ties with the monarchy "quietly and without fanfare by simply failing legally to proclaim any successor to the Queen in relation to Canada."

How convenient; for the Liberals that is. Does this sound like someone who could be trusted to preserve our democratic freedoms? ..."subtly and by indirection"..."quietly and without fanfare"... Not on your life. We should be deeply suspicious why they are attempting to remove the one person who can. This is what I have come to expect from the Liberals: the abuse of power, erosion of ethicacy, assault on our traditions, heritage and institutions, the bribing and cajoling of citizens and the annointing of hacks to rule over us in their own ungodly name. For Liberals in general, Her Majesty is nothing more than an impediment to their further disgrace. Her removal, however gradual, is undemocratic and unconstitutional at best and blatantly regicidal at worst.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The Monarchist becomes a "Large Mammal"

I woke up this morning to discover that The Monarchist had become a Large Mammal in the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem. Apparently, that's a big deal in the blogosphere, though we would have preferred a more medievalist class ranking system like peasants, squires, knights, lords and kings. That being said, we will gladly take large mammal over marauding marsupial any day, and carry forth towards the elusive goal of human mortality and higher being. Bloggers be warned: In the end, there can be only one.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Red Ensign Standard no. XXII

Just as Walsingham provided us with The Tipping Point (a classic stroke of brilliance) on the first Monarchist issue of the Standard, Walsingham now gives us Tipping Point - Part II, a follow-up analysis on the state of Canadian politics and unity that is not for the weak of mind.

This was intended as a Victoria Day Standard, but is quickly becoming a Memorial Day one instead. Out of respect for Temujin from West Coast Chaos though, who is hosting Standard no. 23 from our most Britannic province next week, the home province of the Monarchist, I won't go there, except to say that Canadian business leaders have argued in the past that Victoria Day would be better placed if it coincided with America's Memorial Day, which occurs one week later. Just as The Monarchist says hooey on changing the name, we say hooey on changing the date. Hey, while we're at it, why don't we change our July 1st holiday to coincide with America's July 4th; that way we might better coordinate trading activity on the North American market. They're all for history it seems, just so long as it doesn't prove too bloody inconvenient, and get in the way of economic continental integration. The Monarchist is all for business, free trade and profit, but we are also for heeding history and paying a little respect to our forefathers who crafted a society so that we might profit in the first place. Victoria Day should not be compromised, period.



That's not to say it hasn't evolved over the years as a national holiday. Although faithfully observed in Upper Canada since 1845, in the 1890's it became popularly known as Empire Day (and low and behold one ensigner actually called it thus: Rhetoricking with Myself mentioned it here) and stayed that way for half a century until 1947, when it was officially changed to Commonwealth Day. In 1977, it reverted back to Victoria Day, which has been a national holiday in Canada since 1901, the year the Empress passed away. One of the great institutions bequeathed to Britain and the Empire by Queen Victoria was that of the Victoria Cross. As Queen Victoria herself pointed out, it was not an Order, such as the Garter or the Bath. It offered no knighthood, bore no religious significance and contained no ranks within itself. It was intended solely as a decoration "to be highly prized and eagerly sought after by the officers and men of our naval and military services". Pensions were granted to all holders of the Victoria Cross below commissioned rank, and an expulsion clause allowed for a recipient's name to be erased from the official register in certain wholly discreditable circumstances, and his pension cancelled. Following the Great War, King George V felt so strongly that the decoration should never be forfeited that in a letter to his Private Secretary, Lord Stamfordham, on 26 July 1920, forcibly wrote:

"The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even where a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the gallows".

The Canadian Red Ensign emanates from the Victorian era as well. If we held a competition on who flies the most inspiring Red Ensign, it would have to be, hands down, Dust my Broom. I don't think we're courting too much controversey here by stating that it's the very flag that was flown at the Battle of Vimy Ridge and now sits in the Imperial War Museum. Just look at its faded, tattered honour:



Mind you, if there is one symbol of the old country that is even more magnificent than this, it is sitting at the top righthand corner of this blog. It's the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, circa 1921. I dare say it is the fiercest piece of heraldica ever devised in the British Empire, conceived as it was at its very height, when Britain held "dominion over palm and pine" over a quarter of this world. So long as I live, it will never be struck from its special place of worship.

Once again here we are hosting the Red Ensign Standard, which will attempt to emulate what the Foggers from London did last time around, only arrange the links according to subject, not blog. That being said, I don't know what got into The Monarchist the first time around, without so much as a single link to any of our kin. Silly us: It's not an opportunity for self-promotion; it's an opportunity to showcase the Brigade. It's a linkfest, not a me-fest. Boy, did we learn our lesson. In that spirit then, let's start off with the new arrivals to our spirited gang of patriots.

ON NEWCOMERS

We welcome with open arms to the Red Ensign brigade, Ryan at Blue Perspective (joined May 13), Aaron at Grandinite (joined May 13) and most recently, Anna (Canadi-anna) at Canadianna's Place (joined May 21).

Ryan J. King is a prolific blogger taking political science at the University of Western Ontario who, judging from his current photograph, very nearly resembles that late Victorian romantic and great defender of freedom, Sir Winston Churchill. Not only am I a Churchillian worshipper, The Monarchist would kill to have a last name like his: King. Welcome to the fold, Ryan, and we look forward to more of your blue perspective.

To call Aaron, who hails from Edmonton, a prolific blogger as well would be a rather ridiculous understatement. The man manages something like six blogs: There's Non-corporate Blogs, Alberta Blogs, Econometrix, Critter Crossings, Media Punsteer and, of course, Grandinite. And they're all busy!! How ever does he do it? Quite obviously, he's a hardworking Albertan, that's why.

Canadianna from Toronto may have a soft spot for Kennedy hair; I've never seen a photo of the Honourable Stephen Harper with hair so perfectly groomed as the one on her blog, right up there in the top righthand corner, reserved in a special place of honour. I detect a strong commitment and loyalty to her blogging -- an act of betrayal would quite simply be incomprehensible to her. She's a real trooper and fiercely devoted one lady truth squad.

ON MONARCHY

With Her Majesty The Queen in town, it's been an extraordinary period of blogging for the monarchy. Given the diversity of the RES brigade, I've been pleasantly surprised that there exists not one in our blogroll (so far as I can tell) who has been openly republican in their stance (If I am mistaken about this, kindly reveal yourself to me now so that I can ridicule you in front of the group). All kidding aside though, let's get into it, shall we:

Quotulatiousness, the quoter of quotes, quotes Mark Steyn on our deprived understanding of Victoria Day and the significance of still paying tribute to the "old gal". Q was thinking my thoughts precisely when I wrote on the issue last week.

Linda from multiple-scrolling "A Chick named Marzi" properly laces into Prince Harry (as opposed to the mass international hysteria that befitted it) here for his unroyal shenanigans, particularly in reference to his bewildering desert rat Nazi impersonation of one of General Rommel's Afrikan Corps. Whether or not you believe he was sent to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst for sensitivity training, sensitive he now is to the details of discipline and deportment. "Cadet Wales" is bound to come out of there, as Walsingham and I can both testify, a military leader respectful of setting an example few in life ever need to fathom. That is why, as Andrew Coyne put it a couple of years back, which I happily concur here, I'm all in favour of repatriating the monarchy with the cry, "God for Harry, Canada and St. Jude!"

Rue at Abraca-Pocus! delights in that other royal performer, the King of Rock and Roll. The King may be dead, but Rue is so profoundly moved by the Elvisness of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, that she readily proclaims the King is alive and well with "Long live the King!"

Angry at the very popular "Angry in the Great White North" muses on the affect the Queen's visitcould have on the Canadian political situation of last period. He wonders with the Queen in Canada, does the Governor-General, in effect, become Her Majesty's Executive Assistant. As the Dominion Chairman of the Monarchist League of Canada put it, "I don't know where people are getting this hoary idea". The GG never loses her authority to represent the Crown in Canada, even when the Crown is in Canada.

BumfOnline assists The Monarchist in saluting the monarchy big time here. Thanks, Bumf. (See also: ON POLITICS)

Keith at Minority of One is a monarchist of a narrow sort: He believes in the sovereignty of the individual, the King and I, where the King is him. We thank him for his endorsement of the tipping point.

Shiny Happy Gulag quotes Kipling's "A Servant When He Reigneth" Kipling, one of the great poet writers from the Victorian era.

I really appreciated this post from Paul at Ravishing Light. In honour of Victoria Day he calls to mind the Victoria Tower, the original centrepiece structure on Parliament Hill before the Peace Tower.

Peter at Rempelia Prime says the Queen can wait in regards to Her Majesty supposedly getting in the way of Canadian politics. Memo to Peter: The Queen of Canada need not wait for anyone. She's the Queen. Politicians can wait to see her though. That, I would agree with.

ON POLITICS

Walsingham summarizes the politics brilliantly for us: "We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada"

Babble On: Damian Brooks from Babbling Brooks declares for us that politics is hell, but manages to keep his chin up: "No matter what happens with Parrish's appendix, or Cadman's vote, or The Wicked Witch of Aurora's ice-cold knives, the sun will rise tomorrow. And we'll still be living in the only country I'd ever want to call home. We'll get it figured out, you'll see." Brooks then seeks therapy the very next day by taking in the latest Star Wars thriller, and then writing a lengthy post on it. Babble off.

BumfOnline registers his disgust here, here and here. As well as here and here.

Sometimes pictures are better than words when it comes to politics. Check out this ugly one of Paul and Belinda from Rebecca at doxology. Doesn't it do justice to them both? It represents, without any doubt, the perfect human convergence of bribery and betrayal.

John the Mad gets mad here, here and here. John, once a Liberal, is a Liberal no more. I was intrigued by this Magna Carta post, which of course, would have a been a good candidate for the monarchy section as well.

The three most prolific political bloggers in the Red Ensign group would have to be Stephen Taylor, the host of Blogging Tories, Angry from AGWN and Ben at the Tiger in Winter, although by the sounds of things, we'll be hearing less of politics from the Tiger in the future. Stephen will never give us less. The guy lives and breathes the stuff. For him, it's better than crack.

We've heard a lot about people reaching their tipping point regarding our government, but have people seen Tipper's point regarding the government. Tipper from tipperography has made it her future duty to move to Newmarket-Aurora from Indianna, to put Belinda out of her misery. Maybe her vote will prove to be the tipping point there. (SEE ALSO: ON LIFE)

Alan at OCCAM'S CARBUNCLE is of a disposition that is naturally befriending. He sounds like he could be everybody's great buddy. We appreciate his regularly offered lexicon and his tipping point critique: "view from the precipice", not to mention the comments they generated

Kateland at Last Amazon reflects on the horror and the sadness (notice how I said horror and not whore. Yes, we do pride ourselves on civility here at the Monarchist)

Absinthe & Cookies from California (apparently grew up close to where the Monarchist did...I wonder if that's her centre top?) was moved to muse about the end of Canada. She links to an American, who posts his own thoughts on the matter.

ON WAR

As in the defenders of peace. Given that Walsingham and I were both military men ourselves, we do appreciate and respect the interest some have in pursuing a career in the profession of arms. There are plenty of great sites to be visited on the Net, the most audacious and meticulous one I've seen is at REGIMENTS.ORG. This is a fantastic effort looking at the sheer dedication behind it.

There is more military activity over at Castle Argghhh! than there is at Canada's DND. Check out his Memorial Day (upon recent request) and this vintage muzzle-loading cannon: Apparently, it's a Rodman that was in use just post American Civil War.

DirtCashr over at Anthroblogogy gives us some great photos of the B-17 and B-24, which presumably he took near his home in Northern California.

Andrew at Bound by Gravity pays tribute to the Americans who pay tribute to the fallen Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

James at Hammer into Anvil laments that General Romeo Delairre has been bought off by the Liberals as well, and concurrs with Lewis MacKenzie's assessment that Delairre is watering down what actually needs to be done to properly fight the genocide in Sudan as a result.

Victor Wong at the Phantom Observer gives us a fantastic tour of the new War Museum in Ottawa. I mean, it's like we don't even have to visit it's so good.

ON LIFE

Tipper gives us the 15 facts of life. No, not those facts of life, these ones.

Alan at GenX at 40 calls himself a Generation Xer at the ripe age of 40. But we all know that a 40 year old was born in 1965, the tail end of the Baby Boomers. Alan, it would appear, is desperately holding onto his youth. I do like his photography; take a look at Gotham City.

Sue at Turning 30 and a half is also making a statement about her age. As in, she will always be "turning" 35. Unless, that is, she plans on changing the name of her blog, on each and every tormenting birthday henceforth. One wonders: why does she beat herself up over it? Oh dear, maybe she's in love, or something.

Speaking of love, Benjamin Bach at Skeet Skeet Skeet apears to be in love love love. Ben is quickly becoming the Red Ensign's new Ghost of a Flea.

ON LIBERTY

This one belongs exclusively to Jay Jardine at Freedom to Serfdom, the arch -- no, make that -- anarcho-libertarian. This gentleman is somewhere between anarchy and libertarianism (not sure which one is closer to his political philosophy), but I spent a good ten minutes pissing my way through "Elections BC Can Take a Giant Bite of My Ass", which for me symbolizes that, in fact, pretty much all authority can take a giant bite of his ass. Jay would love to see the government go the way of the monarchy: something nice to look at, but stay the hell out of my way. The Monarchist thoroughly appreciates the calibre of his defiance.

ON ANGER

Raging Kraut - As the name implies. This lover of Bismarck and Bavaria has the temperament of, well, a raging Kraut. Bismarck was the greatest of kingmakers, so we have to assume that the Raging Kraut is, like us, a staunch monarchist. With the close of a season that never was, RK laments the lack of hockey this year, and the NHL playoffs. RK loves hockey, especially the violence part.

Raging Ranter - Darryl from Raging Ranter rages incessantly on the dumbasses in Canadian politics. One dumbass he shows no mercy for is, you guessed it, the new Minister of Complex Files. He presents dumbass exhibit one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.... you get the picture (that last one was particularly not very pretty).

Just between us Girls has a May 14 article on that angry Harper guy. Just between us girls, you're really making the Monarchist angry not having working permalinks that I can post to this article on anger.

This made me angry, before Jason at Musing crafted an excellent response to fight this piece of Newfounland bribery. But that initial letter that Jason received pressuring him to support it, speaks to everything that is wrong with this country.

In a long moment of spite, Curt from North Western Winds creates a really evil and scary looking depiction of the Liberal Party of Canada. The poster quite literally gives me the creeps.

Chris at Myrick shows how couthless we can get when we get really angry. Let's just say, I'm not going to repeat it here.

canadiancomment did their best to control their anger over the vile hate spewing from British MP, George Galloway, at the recent US Senate hearings for the UN Oil for Food program

Angry in the Great White North - Nuff said.

ON LOW VOLUME

When I say low volume, I'm talking like one short post, maybe two. As it turns out, we're talking one Red Ensigner, maybe two who fit that bill:

We find out that the Green Baron is getting married, which probably explains why he's on low activity, trying to sort out his life between New York and New Orleans.

And then there's Trudeaupia, a great snag of a blog name if there ever was one, who gives us three great quotes to ponder:

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P.J. O'Rourke

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -- Thomas Jefferson

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. -- Ronald Reagan

Oh, and John at Hyphothesis gives us a hypothesis that quite frankly I can't get my head around. Can you?

Meatriarchy was on holiday for most of the period, but he did manage to open our minds to this oddball little rodent.

ON FORBIDDEN FRUIT

clicking on ESR-Musings was forbidden for some reason


ON HIATUS

The following Red Ensigners were totally unplugged throughout this edition of the Standard (May 9 to May 23):

All AgitProp, all the time - Still frozen in Montreal.
Blue Tory - Singing the blues, may be back Tomory.
Candepundit - No Cande from this Pundit.
ChrisCam - ChrisCame and then ChrisWent, nothing since has been sent.
Musings of a Canadian Slacker - No musing, just slacking.
Right Jab - No righting or jabbing of late.
Striving against Opposition - Opposing against Striving.
The Unwinding Road - The long, very long unwinding road back.

ON DEPARTURES

We say goodbye to Nathan from Soeul, who graced us (he's a monarchist too) with his continuous updates from South Korea for the better part of the Red Ensign's existence. Thankfully, Nathan is not leaving the blogosphere, so he will never be too far away. He leaves behind Red Ensign Standard XIV, a giant linkfest if there ever was one. Thank you Nathan and God bless.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

VICTORIA DAY

What an appropriate honour and privilege it is for “The Monarchist” to welcome in Victoria Day, the official birthday of the Queen of Canada and the actual birthday of Queen Victoria (1837-1901), our long ago Empress who was born on May 24, 1819. As a constitutional monarchy, it is fitting that we observe this day and pay our loyal respect – if not reverence – to the sovereign that gave Royal Assent to Canada, the mother monarch who gave birth to our country by consenting to confederation through the British North America Act of 1867. If we still believe – as surely we must – that every nation needs to subscribe to a history, it seems only proper that we continue to reserve one day of every year to commemorate the institution that goes to the very core of our narrative and identity as a people. The story and spirit of Canada is every bit as much tied to the national significance of May the 24th, as it is to the significance of July the 1st and November the 11th, the three occasions which respectively evoke the memory of King, Country and those who died for it…

At least that’s how I would have begun it. But the political melodrama and emotional butchery of the past period has left me too disillusioned to write anything further. As Walsingham confirms for us with "The Tipping Point", not even the grace and presence of Her Majesty The Queen can raise us to the point of affectionate despair. Like the Ottawa Citizen’s David Warren wrote after the gobsmacking events of last week, “I took in the final betrayal of Canada”. And just as he put it, nothing would more eloquently approximate our feelings on the matter than running this space blank. The trepidation of a blank page would at least offer up more sweat and tears in confronting the moral evisceration of our political culture, than the legions of whining “citizens” who would actually find it too taxing to vote a risibly corrupt government out of office. As I have written before, without a culture of dignity and respect there is no pride, there is no shame, there is no aspiration for greatness. There is only the descent of society into a bland smugness where truth is often murdered and people are ridiculed for their beliefs. Even, as it turns out, when those beliefs are as fundamentally basic as the principles of democratic accountability, of parliamentary confidence and integrity in government.

Is it no wonder that we no longer believe in anything then? Take Victoria Day for example. Only a people chronically ignorant and embarrassed of their past would seriously entertain such asinine amendments as “Heritage Day” or “Citizenship Day” as worthy replacements for a national occasion that has been faithfully observed in Upper Canada since 1845. These self-loathing remedies call to mind nothing; they induce stupidity and forgetfulness, they deprive us of history, culture, meaning and relevance and sap the country of its true patriot love. It is apparent that we have either forgotten or no longer care that patriotism is traditionally tied to the monarchy, that in this country we pay deference to the Queen – not the flag. The existence of the “Red Ensign” brigade is proof (“…and when you have a good proof it’s proven.”) that there exists no universal affection for our national flag and the Trudeaupian blandness that underlies it.

But of course there no longer exists any universal affection for the monarchy either. There was a time not too long ago in our history when people were instinctively monarchist, when displays of loyalty and respect to the crown were considered nothing more than time-honoured love of country. This was still true during the days of Diefenbaker for sure, but even as early ago as the 1980s, when tens of thousands lined the streets hours in advance just to catch a passing glimpse of the queen, a spontaneous demonstration of affection that today gets mocked as “royal watching”. To be denigrated in this way by the media, to insinuate that we “royal watchers” have latched onto some kind of quaint hobby horse here, illustrates just how far our impulses have reversed in recent years, to the point of ridiculing and undermining our own institutions. And so this year, like every year that Victoria Day comes along, even with Her Majesty “at home away from home”, the media invariably swallow pedestrians on the street with questions like: “is the monarchy still relevant in this country?” Well no, for a people that are permanently cemented in a state of non-belief, nothing can ever be relevant.

My apologies to our readers for not sounding very uplifting here, but after last week's disgraceful episode -- the most disgraceful I've seen in my 37 years on this planet -- I find myself too disenchanted to offer a more positive tone. I will say this however: The Monarchist was conceived as an act of defiance against the central establishment and we will continue, come what may, the good fight against it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

State of the Nation

On our leadership: "There are three signs of a hypocrite: when he speaks he speaks lies, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is trusted he betrays his trust."
~ Muhammad (570-632)
Arabian, founder of Islam, author of Koran
from Sayings of Muhammad. by Prof. Ghazi Ahmad

On our government: "A [Liberal] government is an organized hypocrisy."
~ Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)
British statesman, prime minister & writer

On our country: "To be deceived by our enemies or betrayed by our friends is insupportable; yet by ourselves we are often content to be so treated."
~ Duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Oh Belinda dear, you were never the heir apparent

What Belinda Stronach did yesterday to Stephen Harper, Peter Mackay, the Conservative Party and the country at large invites no civil discourse. And yet we must.

In the military we are taught that there is one rule that rises above all others in the ethos of professional conduct: don't blade your buds. In politics on the other hand, it is now that much clearer that that is how one gets ahead. It is a bloody joke for a so-called Parliamentarian to stand up in the House of Commons and vote no confidence in the government one day, and then not so much as a week later covort across the floor to join them, for no other reason than to be rewarded with a large government department to run. It is a slap in the face to Liberal backbenchers to witness a complete amateur take over a major portfolio like this, nevermind the backstabbing of the opposition, many of whom have been loyal and principled stewards waiting patiently in the political wilderness as far back as 1993.

Name-calling is not required here. Belinda Stronach was exposed by the media yesterday as an amoral (I'm not sure she's bright enough to be immoral), confused and completely inarticulate minister of the crown that would make even a high school cheerleader look good. The interview with Peter Mansbridge last night was devastating and embarrassing to watch. She has done herself a great disservice.

More from Andrew Coyne:

Oh, Belinda, when you stared into the mirror in the morning, wondering if you could go through with it -- knowing that you would, but liking yourself a little better for the struggle -- you must have felt a certain thrill. I’ve grown up, you thought. This is what grown-ups do; it’s what players do. You put away childish notions of honour and loyalty, and you do what you have to do, and that’s all there is to it. It’s nothing personal. It’s just business.

But Belinda, you do not know the people you are dealing with. You think your soul is black but you have no idea. You will hold your office for a couple of days, or perhaps a few months, but only for as long as you are useful to them. And then they will discard you.

David Warren beats out Coyne with this heart-tugging analysis:

From the lips of the lovely Belinda Stronach, Canada received her Judas kiss yesterday. It allowed a bottomlessly corrupt government to escape an election; to continue in office with an agenda that will tear to pieces what remains of our social fabric; which will radically advance the cause of separatism in Quebec, and spread it irretrievably to Western Canada; which will put the country on the fiscal skids. This should not be understated: our country has been delivered into the hands of the wreckers.

I am writing this column now because I do not believe I could persuade my editor to run the space blank. That would most eloquently approximate to what I thought at precisely 11:11 a.m., yesterday, when the news reached me. In a single image, I took in the final betrayal of Canada -- those two smiling faces.

On Saturday, I wrote that last week had been the most disgraceful in our Parliamentary history: the first time a government had ever refused to acknowledge that it had lost the confidence of the House of Commons. Nor can I find a precedent, in Canadian political history, for the act which the ditzy Ms Stronach so glibly performed.

Over the weekend, Paul Martin suckered (the word is not too strong) Stephen Harper into a Parliamentary “truce”, while Ms Stronach unsheathed the knife for Mr. Harper’s back. She had only waited for the opportunity to be presented; to get the timing just right...

I have entertained dark views of Ms Stronach since the moment she entered politics. I argued then, among Conservative friends, that she could be a Liberal Party plant, given her known previous close associations. I abandoned that position, when she ran for the Conservative leadership, thinking, “Surely she is playing her own game.” On balance, I conclude that she is playing her own game, but that is just what makes her a Liberal.

For the Liberals, by now, consist entirely of persons playing their own game, ruthlessly, for personal advantage. This goes beyond any passing mood I might indulge: I can no longer see how any decent person could retain membership in that party...

Bonus Question: What do Keith Martin, Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach all have in common? They were all Conservatives before they became Liberals. And they all left after losing their respective leadership bids. So don't tell me that none of this has anything to do with principle. It's just blind naked bitterness or raw ambition.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Don't imperil the Crown

The conniving cynics in the Shameless Party will obviously stop at nothing for political advantage. Now that a full week has gone by since they lost confidence in the House, it is clear that their ploy to use the Queen's visit as a stalling manoevre had nothing to do with respect for the institution; it was nothing more than a crass opportunity for a seven day pre-election campaign to dole out untold billions to every nook and cranny of the country to buy us off.

The fact that the prime minister would deliberately hide behind the popularity of the Queen shows what a cowardly, gutless disgrace he actually is. A man of no principle and even less dignity will use every means to save his wretched self. If that means denigrating the Crown in the process, so be it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:03 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

I am not a royal watcher

As a monarchist, it behooves me to announce that our Queen is about to enter into Canadian airspace and begin her Royal week-long visit today, as reported in the National Post:

Queen Elizabeth II arrives in Canada Tuesday, and royal watchers aren't letting this country's political woes spoil a good time. John Aimers, of the Monarchist League of Canada, says the monarchy is a unifying principle in this country, while partisan politics represents things Canadians disagree about.

Yes, but please don't refer to us as royal watchers. As I've written before, I despise this label with all the self-respect I can muster. The Queen of Canada is not a celebrity and I am not a celebrity worshipper. I do have a life.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 8:08 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Royal love, Republican hate

I came across this article by J.J. McCullaugh on the weekend that I think typifies the attitude of many a republican towards the monarchy, a view that I would characterize as irrationally abhorrent for something that is essentially benign in nature. The piece seems comprehensive and well-written enough, and while fundamentally flawed in argument that is somewhere beneath my ridicule, it is the tone of it that displays the greater weakness. Just witness this seething passage of fenian hate:

The fact that Canada still recognizes the Queen of England as our head of state embarrasses and disgusts me to no end. Every time I hear the term "crown counsel" or "crown land" I cringe. I find it offensive that my father was forced to take an oath of loyalty to the British monarch before he could work as a parole officer and that reciting this same oath is also the first act we ask of our nation's new immigrants. I hate the Governor General's stupid medals and the fact that she still has political power. I hate the Queen's face on our coins and the culture of our military, which still teaches our soldiers to worship a foreign monarch they will likely never meet. But most of all I hate how so many of my fellow conservatives in Canada eagerly line up to defend all this absurdity.

Wow, quite the exhibition of hate, ain't it. As a Tory, I do have a certain amount of consternation when other so-called conservatives (funny, I thought the key word in conservative was conserve) preach to the uncoverted on the issue, but not when they do it like this. This guy is his own worst enemy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:48 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The Devine Right of Liberals

Professor Michael Bliss of the University of Toronto (author, historian and appalling anti-monarchist), eloquently confirms the gist of my May 13 post in the National Post today, declaring the government-sponsored parliamentary crisis a "shocking act of proto-tyranny". Here it is via Andrew Coyne:

Canadians ought to realize that this week's breakdown of their Parliament is far more serious than any of the thuggish revelations from the Gomery commission. As of this weekend, we are in the historically unprecedented situation of having a Prime Minister who is clinging to office by recklessly disregarding the fundamental principles of our democracy. It is a shocking act of proto-tyranny, which justifies the extreme resort of intervention by the Governor-General.

I am not writing this lightly or with any knowledge of or involvement in any party's strategy. Nor do I think that most Canadians understand or perhaps even care about the complexities of the constitutional imbroglio that has unfolded since the opposition began defeating the government in the Commons last Wednesday. Canada this weekend has a government clinging to office against the repeatedly expressed wishes of a majority of the democratically elected members of the House of Commons.

In some countries at some times in their history, a situation like this would lead to citizens taking to the streets in protest. Instead, even those Canadians who notice the situation are content with the thought that it will probably only last until Thursday. Surely a few days of unconstitutionality can't matter.

But they do matter immensely, both for their immediate implications, and as precedent. The defeat of the Martin government on Tuesday came on a procedural, not a confidence motion, but it was such a clear sign that a majority of the House of Commons do not support the government that virtually all constitutional experts are agreed that an immediate test of the House's confidence was required.

Instead of doing this, the government proposed a nine-day delay, offering reasons for the delay so transparently bogus as to affront the intelligence of a 10-year-old. The British Columbia election has nothing whatever to do with the affairs of the Parliament of Canada. The visit of the Queen, a constitutional monarch whose activities are absolutely ceremonial and apolitical, cannot possibly in the 21st century take precedence over the need to resolve an impasse in our elected Parliament.

Paul Martin had a constitutional and moral responsibility to ascertain the confidence of the House of Commons on Wednesday. When he failed in this responsibility he was thumbing his nose at the conventions of responsible government and modern democracy. His government continued to disregard their constitutional responsibilities on Thursday and yesterday, leaving a frustrated opposition to demonstrate its lack of confidence repeatedly by taking control of parliamentary affairs in one vote after another. A government that has been shown to be unable to govern has stated that it will continue to stand in contempt of Parliament for the first three days of next week, but will finally face an explicit test of confidence on Thursday.

The problem with this strategy is that the unconstitutional delay in scheduling the vote of confidence saps it of its legitimacy. If the ministry, which is also manipulating all the levers of power every day it clings to office, wins the vote on Thursday the opposition will have every right to cry foul and continue to contest the government's legitimacy. It will almost certainly paralyze Parliament. At the very least the government's strategy is creating parliamentary bitterness and distrust such as we have never seen in the modern history of Canada. At worst, we are creating the kinds of precedents involving the erosion of our Constitution that in other countries have been initial steps on the road to dictatorship...

POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:23 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

One Crown short of dictatorship

Yesterday, it was the Gomer-Pyle Parliament. Today, it's no longer funny: parliament has descended into chaos. We are now into day three of a developing constitutional "crisis" in this country, an alarming precedence-setting event that should have been averted at the earliest possible opportunity, but that the government chose to willfully ignore to further its own minority interests. What we are witnessing is the unparalleled arrogance of a governing administration that continues to believe it can set the agenda without the democratic authority to do so; continues to believe it can govern without a mandate from a majority of elected members of the House; continues to believe it can spend billions in taxpayer's money without the confidence or approval of Parliament, as was witnessed just yesterday, when they signed another $400 million corporate welfare deal with Liberal friendly Bombardier, for no other purpose than to shore up their desperate electoral situation in Quebec.

This government is now mighty close to offending 800 years of parliamentary democracy and tradition, handed down to us by the blood soaked determination of our forefathers. Just listen to this statement from a senior government official: "The Governor General receives advice from her first minister. She doesn't tender it,". I beg your pardon. Assuming you don't have the time to educate yourself with Walter Bagehot and The English Constitution, maybe you would like to quickly glance at the theoretical reserve powers (theoretical, since the occasion to practice them at the sole discretion of the Sovereign are virtually nill) [Correction courtesy of Nigel at Kiwi Pundit] of the Crown:

1. the right to appoint a Prime Minister;
2. the right to dismiss a Prime Minister;
3. the right to refuse to dissolve Parliament;
4. the right to force a dissolution of Parliament;
5. the right to refuse or delay the Royal Assent to legislation; and
6. the numerable discretions inherent in the Royal Prerogative (some of these are oddly interesting, such as the power to order a subject not to leave the realm, or the royal dominion over swans on the Thames tributaries).

You know things are getting bad when the GG is starting to get involved. Check out these stories:

Hiding behind the Queen's skirts
Prime minister calls Governor General amid demands for her to step in
What the Governor General could do
Games continue in the House of Commons on Friday the 13th
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:44 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The Gomer-Pyle Parliament

Both Warren Kinsella and Rex Murphy have it wrong: it's the Gomery Commission and the Gomer-Pyle Parliament. Not the other way around.

Actually, to be more traditionally precise, that should be the "Royal Commission of Inquiry" into Adscam, for those who still care about such things.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:25 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Farewell to parliamentary democracy

Mader Blog has a good effort on the state of parliamentary democracy in Canada. He doesn't have permalinks yet, so you're going to have to scroll down to his May 10th posting to read his treatment of the matter. All of this is readily dismissed as hyperventilation from an insipid Voice of the Wilderness. Judging from the awful pea-soup blandness of his creation, he appears to be a "progressive"; you know, anything that smacks of tradition in this country needs to be turfed at the first possible opportunity, in favour of an uninteresting remnant devoid of historical context and meaning. Parliament? Monarchy? Who cares. Get a life.

I would say Mader is bang-on, were it not for this statment: "The fundamental flaw of parliamentary democracy is that it places free government in the trust of office-holders. There is no institutional mechanism to safeguard against an abuse of that trust. Today, that trust is abused. And there is no check." Well, there is a check, but it's the kind of check that American-style republicans like him have been undermining because they are fundamentally opposed to monarchy. It seems a little absurd to argue that we are losing our cherished system of democracy due to a lack of respect for Parliamentary tradition and conventions by the current occupants, when you are actively opposed to the existence of a constitutional monarch who is the very Head of Parliament.

I would argue that we need to strengthen monarchy to protect our democratic institutions, even though I still believe that a sitting prime minister acting unconstitutionally can be dimissed quite quickly and easily in the event of an unambiguous assault on our freedoms. Even more quickly than a sitting president.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:38 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Risking the Queen's visit

Her Majesty is coming to Canada on May 18 to mark the centennial celebrations of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The prime minister obviously knows this, which is presumably why he intentionally scheduled a vote of confidence in his government for May 19, the day after. We can only surmise that he wants the opportunity to formally greet the Queen, before being formally dismissed by her.

That is the generous explanation anyways, particularly when the governor-general is amply suitable - indeed more so - to fulfill the requirements of protocol here. The not so generous explanation is that the prime minister is deliberately and needlessly putting the Queen in a potentially difficult spot. What we have arguably, is a politician's desire to manipulate the occasion to his benefit, of using the Queen's presence to enhance his own image, and to do everything possible to make his government look good when things look bad. There is a pall of illegitimacy hanging over this government; what he should do is clear the air before the Queen even arrives, so as to not expose the monarchy to it. It is the responsibility of our politicians to protect our institutions, not to undermine them.

But hey, that would be way too much to expect from this bunch, wouldn't it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:52 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Crown and Parliament

What the Liberals don't seem to understand is that it is not for the government to determine if it has the confidence of the House, it is the members of the House who make that determination. And a majority of them have just voted for the government to resign on a procedural motion, which obviously constitutes a very serious challenge to the continued legitimacy of their authority to govern this country. The only way for them to get out of this mess now, is to seek clarification from the House at the earliest possible opportunity (as in today), that they still have the democratic and constitutional authority to carry on.

But what do they do instead, they provide some indefinite assurance that the House will have an opportunity in the future, most likely at the end of the month. Come again? Just who in the hell do they think they are? They seem to actually believe that they serve at the pleasure of themselves, not Parliament. Which begs the question: what if they continue to violate every Parliamentary convention in order to cling to power? What are our options? Eventually they would run out of money, but even this could be delayed for months, as the Cabinet could simply pass temporary Orders-in-Council to bridge-finance the government's operations, provided of course they could get the Crown-in-Council to sign these. No sure thing under the circumstances.

So what can be done now? The Queen, or the Queen's representative acting in the name of the Queen, does have certain residual powers, however, as John Aimers, the Monarchist League Chairman, has indicated, it "is not for the Governor General to parse the result of a particular vote in the House should there be some question about its meaning." Indeed, the worst thing Madame Clarkson could do right now is compromise her independence by "making herself useful" to partisan observers of the political scene. There may come a time for that, but now is not the moment. Now is the time to reflect on the importance of the Crown in these situations, and to imagine the dangers that would lurk in a system without it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:52 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The King-Byng Affair

The governing Liberals lost a confidence vote in the House of Commons today. This means that they have lost the short game, for even if they refuse to resign today or tomorrow, Parliament is now completely dysfunctional and they know it. An election is looming. The longer game is of course another matter, but I have a strong hunch we're in for another match of King-Byng:

The election of 1925 (2005) did not give McKenzie King (Paul Martin) the result he was after. The Conservatives, under Arthur Meighen (Stephen Harper), won the day (114 seat to 102) but not the government. Governor-General Julian Byng (Adrienne Clarkson) instead asked King (Martin) to form a government with the help of the Progressives (NDP).

Months later the coalition fell apart and King asked Byng to dissolve Parliament. Byng refused, citing the fact that Meighen had won the last election, and out of fairness should be given the opportunity to form a government. Well King got all uppity and huffed and puffed that only Liberals have the God-given right to govern Canada (some things just never change), as you can plainly sense from the following testy letter to Lord Byng, the Viscount of Vimy, the general who commanded the Canadian Corps at Vimy Ridge. I think we can chuckle in satisfaction knowing what the good general must have thought as he read the following impertinent letter addressed to himself: "why you lowly snivelling politician, where were you when the boys were dying at Vimy. How dare you lecture me!"

Letter from William Lyon Mackenzie King to Governor-General Byng, 28 June 1926

Your Excellency having declined to accept my advice to place your signature to the Order-in-Council with reference to a dissolution of parliament, which I have placed before you to-day, I hereby tender to Your Excellency my resignation as Prime Minister of Canada.

Your Excellency will recall that in our recent conversations relative to dissolution I have on each occasion suggested to Your Excellency, as I have again urged this morning, that having regard to the possible very serious consequences of a refusal of the advice of your First Minister to dissolve parliament you should, before definitely deciding on this step, cable the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking the British Government, from whom you have come to Canada under instructions, what, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, your course should be in the event of the Prime Minister presenting you with an Order-in-Council having reference to dissolution.

As a refusal by a Governor-General to accept the advice of a Prime Minister is a serious step at any time, and most serious under existing conditions in all parts of the British Empire to-day, there will be raised, I fear, by the refusal on Your Excellency's part to accept the advice tendered a grave constitutional question without precedent in the history of Great Britain for a century, and in the history of Canada since Confederation.

If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister, I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and, possibly, far-reaching crisis, I shall be glad to do so, and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.

Letter from Governor-General Byng to William Lyon Mackenzie King, 29 June 1926

I must acknowledge on paper, with many thanks, the receipt of your letter handed to me at our meeting yesterday.

In trying to condense all that has passed between us during the past week, it seems to my mind that there is really only one point at issue.

You advise me "that as, in your opinion, Mr. Meighen is unable to govern the country, there should be another election with the present machinery to enable the people to decide". My contention is that Mr. Meighen has not been given a chance of trying to govern, or saying that he cannot do so, and that all reasonable expedients should be tried before resorting to another Election.

Permit me to say once more that, before deciding on my constitutional course on this matter, I gave the subject the most fair-minded and painstaking consideration which it was in my power to apply.

I can only add how sincerely I regret the severance of our official companionship, and how gratefully I acknowledge the help of your counsel and co-operation.

Letter from Governor General Byng to Mr. L. S. Amery, The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, 30 June 1926

As already telegraphed, Mr. Mackenzie King asked me to grant him dissolution. I refused. Thereupon he resigned and I asked Mr. Meighen to form a Government, which has been done.

Now this constitutional or unconstitutional act of mine seems to resolve itself into these salient features. A Governor General has the absolute right of granting dissolution or refusing it. The refusal is a very dangerous decision, it embodies the rejection of the advice of the accredited Minister, which is the bed-rock of Constitutional Government. Therefore nine times out of ten a Governor General should take the Prime Minister's advice on this as on other matters. But if the advice offered is considered by the Governor General to be wrong and unfair, and not for the welfare of the people, it behoves him to act in what he considers the best interests of the country.

This is naturally the point of view I have taken and expressed it in my reply to Mr. King (text of which is being telegraphed later).

You will notice that the letter in question is an acknowledgement of a letter from Mr. King (text of which is also being telegraphed later) appealing that I should consult the Government in London. While recognising to the full help that this might afford me, I flatly refused, telling Mr King that to ask advice from London, where the conditions of Canada were not as well known as they were to me, was to put the British Government in the unfortunate position of having to offer solution which might give people out here the feeling of a participation in their politics, which is to be strongly deprecated.

There seemed to me to be one person, and one alone, who was responsible for the decision and that was myself. I should feel that the relationship of the Dominion to the Old Country would be liable to be seriously jeopardised by involving the Home Government; whereas the incompetent and unwise action of a Governor General can only involve himself.

I am glad to say that to the end I was able to maintain a friendly feeling with my late Prime Minister. Had it been otherwise, I should have offered my resignation at once. This point of view has been uppermost in my mind ever since he determined on retaining the reins of office (against my private advice) last November. It has not been always easy but it was imperative that a Governor General and a Prime Minister could not allow a divergent view-point to wreck their relationship without the greatest detriment to the country.

Mr. King, whose bitterness was very marked Monday, will probably take a very vitriolic line against myself -- that seems only natural. But I have to wait the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada, and have implicated no one else in my decision.

I would only add that at our last three interviews I appealed to Mr. King not to put the Governor General in the position of having to make a controversial decision. He refused and it appeared that I could do no more.

POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The mother country

David Warren had a good post on the weekend on Britain's election results. I share his sentiment that it was enjoyable just to hear the names of the English electoral districts coming in, if not particular enjoyable for the electoral results themselves. All in all, it was a "nice election."

This is not the time to get too far ahead of ourselves here - the mother country is not dead. The real election is next year with the referendum on the EU Constitution, which will serve as the determining moment for Great Britain's long-term freedom and future. Does she opt for the child, or does she continue to embrace motherhood. That is the question, and we only have another year to wait for the answer.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:45 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Jeffrey Simpson meets the Queen

Why Jeffrey boy all of a sudden sounds like a monarchist! This staunch republican, who for years has been lecturing the rest of us in his Globe and Mail columns on the backwardness and irrationality of monarchy, sounds absolutely delighted to have finally met the Queen. In fact, his enthusiasm, to say nothing of profound respect, leaps right off the words of his May 6th column. Love of queen and country can be irrational alright; my only hope is that more republicans get the opportunity to know what it is they are trying to destroy.

For this piece of heartfelt writing, I hereby invest Mr. Simpson as a Knight Grand Columnist. May he henceforth never revert to his old ways.

LONDON -- You wonder when you see that smile up close, if only in a flash.
The smile has got to be at least slightly fake, but it's too genuine for complete fakery. The smile can't be entirely real, either, because she doesn't know anybody, except her husband, a few family members and staff.

The smile looks partly as though it's bolted on the face, like a protective mask against intruders, a shield for secret thoughts; and yet warmth lies there, too. She invited us, after all, to her house. And she smiled an awful lot.

We, the lucky ones, were 300 Canadians whom the Queen had commanded her Master of the Household (or so the card said) to invite us to stop by for a drink and a chat at Buckingham Palace, the premise being that she was going to visit Canada shortly.

Perhaps she needed a warm-up on things Canadian, although she's visited the country 20 times before. Who knows? The gesture was appreciated, but it did raise protocol questions that many of the guests -- especially closet republicans -- could not precisely answer.

A few pros had done this routine before, and thus could answer obvious questions such as when, if or how to speak; whether to shake hands, curtsy or bow; whether to express political opinions; whether to offer congratulations on Prince Charles's second wedding and condolences on the first; whether to warn her, for the sake of her mental health, about the current inanities of Canadian politics.

The non-pros expected a quick briefing on such dicey matters. Instead, they were thrust into the uncertainties that can afflict commoners in the presence of royalty. And not just the presence of these royals, but the dozens of dead ones peering down from paintings and friezes on the walls.

The Queen has been doing this sort of thing since she succeeded to the throne 53 years ago. She's just passed her 79th birthday. She no more needs another reception for Canadians, or anybody else for that matter, than Britain needs another tabloid newspaper.

We wheeled quickly around the corner, nudged from behind by the palace's discreetly firm staffers, expecting to await the Queen's presence and perhaps a few remarks in an adjoining room -- only to find ourselves almost face to face with the Queen herself, and that smile.

It all happened so suddenly that no one -- at least among the amateurs -- really had time to figure out what came next. A woman did a half curtsy, as if not quite sure whether a full one or none at all was the right call. Another woman bowed, a rather gender-neutral move.

All of us grasped the outstretched, gloved royal hand and peered for a split second into that smile that had seen so much, yet revealed so little.

Any sensible person, or at least someone working for a different kind of institution, would have hung up the greeting gloves a long time ago. We really don't expect people to work into their eighth decade.

Yet, the Queen must keep going, the alternative being abdication, a great monarchists' horror that the rest of the world would call a well-earned retirement. If disease felled her, a regency would be declared. Perhaps Prince Charles would welcome it, but few others would.

She is chained to duty. How many thousands of events, or would it be tens of thousands, has she attended in her official capacity? Someone in the palace has likely kept track. It doesn't matter. She keeps going. She will be in Alberta and Saskatchewan from May 18 to 25 to help celebrate their centennials.

On a previous Canadian trip, she huddled under a blanket in a Bonavista Bay gale, freezing cold, no doubt. The next night, the official dinner concluded, she excused herself from a walkabout with guests. Who could have blamed her? We all feel lousy sometimes. She just can't show it.

Surrounded by these Canadians whom she does not know, she acts, well, royally -- and splendidly. The woman is a pro. She moves around the room, asking people where they're from, what they do, what they think about this or that, offering in return something between an opinion and a blank verse.

She is supremely good, it must be said, at putting nervous people at ease. She has had a lifetime of practice, with no end in sight.

POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:06 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Crown this man king

Prince Harry of Wales entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst yesterday as "Cadet Wales". Let the record show, that men of the royal blood generally do not take the easy road in life. As a graduate of the Royal Military College system myself, I know what of I speak. This young man has just embarked upon his recruit initiation phase: For the next year, the prince's life will consist of rising at 5:30 in the morning and undergoing strenuous training in military practice and theory, ABC News reports. "Prince Harry will be treated like every other cadet at Sandhurst," said a statement from Clarence House, the office of the Prince of Wales. "That's what he wants, and that's what Sandhurst wants." I don't imagine life is all that pleasant for Cadet Wales today.

God, make this man our future king. I now totally support Andrew Coyne's 2002 public call for the repatriation of monarchy, especially given Britain's current march of folly into a constitutional Europe, by crowning Harry the King of Canada on the passing of our current queen:

The chances may seem remote: London for Ottawa might not be everyone's idea of a fair exchange. But it's just possible he could be induced to take one for the team. Charles, by the Grace of God, will one day be king, and so in his turn will William. Harry, on the other hand, faces a future filled with photography, or furniture-making, or whatever it is that royal also-rans do with their time. How much more fulfilling to take on the role of Henry I of Canada.

The Queen could invest him with the title herself. Or, if the division of the Crown smacks of lese-majeste, we could simply adopt the convention that the office of Governor General should be held by Harry, his heirs and successors. Either way, no constitutional amendment would be required.

Imagine a country in which the Crown was not just a respected symbol, but a living presence. Imagine a king who grew up in Canada, spoke with a Canadian accent, played Canadian sports. Imagine Canada as our founders originally intended: not a republic, nor even a dominion, but a kingdom.

A lost cause? Bosh. The game's afoot. Follow your spirit, and upon this charge cry God for Harry, Canada, and St. Jude!

GOD FOR HARRY, CANADA, AND ST. JUDE!
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Victory in Europe Day

The "just give peace a chance" crowd is better than me in one respect: they are genuinely and thoroughly sickened by the thought of war. Myself on the other hand, I confess that I'm way too intrigued by it to actually hate it. I don't know if that makes me a bad person or not, but there's just no denying that I have maintained a steady and morbid curiosity for the subject all my life. Right or wrong, there's a part of me that believes that war - no matter how hellish - can be a glorious affair if the cause is demonstrably just, particular in the presence of a wicked regime hell-bent on enslaving and murdering whole populations. "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, ...and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things."

For me, it all comes down to a question of perspective, and the underlying attitude. Do you give more credence to the revisionist hooey that all WWII veterans were mere victims, hapless shmuks caught up in a hellish fate not of their choosing? Or are you more strongly of the view that they knew full well the horrors of war beforehand, that they made a conscious and determined choice to fight a totalitarian menace across the seas? Which do you favour: Victim or volunteer? Pawn or hero?

That has never been so much as a question to my mind. These men risked it all, sacrificed life and limb to make the world a safer place for succeeding generations. Let us never forget nor dampen their achievement. Let us never take away their victory.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:17 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Our finest hour

Sixty years ago today, Canada celebrated its greatest achievement as a nation - the liberation of another country. There have been other glorious and victorious moments in our history: the taking of Vimy Ridge (a battle so perfect in its orchestration), the Battle of Amiens ("Black Day" for the German High Command) or the last 100 days of that world conflict, where the spearheading four divisions of the ferocious Canadian Corps engaged/defeated forty divisions of the German Army. But nothing swells me with more pride as a Canadian than the certain knowledge that my country, which sent almost ten percent of its population overseas to fight a totalitarian menace, single-handedly liberated millions of starving people from Nazi occupation. It was without a doubt our finest hour. May God bless Holland and her forever grateful people.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:33 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

Parliament and politics

Blair lied. Those two words and the popularity of them, speak to the downright trampiness of that hussy, politics. Any lover of British tradition and institutions will say that Prime Minister Anthony Blair has done a remarkable amount of damage to the ways of Britain: be they the intrusive ban on foxhunting, the wholesale disbanding of ancient army regiments like the Black Watch, the termination of hereditary peers, the determined destruction of pomp through a watering down and elimination of British chivalric orders, the march of folly into a federal Europe,...but on the one thing he did right - the war in Iraq - vast swaths of people treat this important foreign policy accomplishment with lasting, utter disdain. As I say, that hussy, politics.

It is surely an irony that while we generally and naturally despise politics, we manage to maintain a good deal of reverence for the body that houses it, namely Parliament. The reason for that I believe is that over the centuries since the Model Parliament of 1295 first sat, the institution has evolved into more than just a legislative body, but has come to represent the sovereign power and central heritage and prestige of Great Britain and her facsimile nations. Indeed, while the prime minister is Head of Government and may command the confidence of the House of Commons, it is the Monarch who remains Head of Parliament. Even with the modern ascendancy of the Commons, it is the historical relationship of Commons and Lords with Monarch that provides Parliament with a level of respect and prestige that happily transcends the drudgery of everyday politics. Parliament and politics where Parliament remains king.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |

The ultimate republican

Three-hundred and sixty-five days of pro-monarchy bias on this blog each year is probably not really fair to the republicans. So I tell you what: I'm going to break protocol here and allow one of those days to be devoted to the other side. But not just any poor-spirited republican; only the very best will do. No one is better in my opinion than the great contrarian writer, Christopher Hitchens, the anti-religious zealot, British-born and British-accented American, who also happens to be a staunch supporter of Bush's war against - as he calls them - the Islamo-facists. (It fits in with his crusade against religion in general). To put it gently, Mr. Hitchens has a formidable pen and debating style; you cannot but admire someone who can take on William F. Buckley in a debate, while remaining intellectually honest to his Trotskyite ideals (his "better Red than dead" nonsense, and all that). He is absolutely fearless in the face of self-made controversy, witness his famed tyrade against Henry Kissinger, who he unsuccessfully provoked into suing him in the hopes of establishing an official forum to defend his Chomskyesque charge that Kissinger was guilty of crimes against humanity during the Vietnam War, nevermind his total chutzpah against Mother Teresa, a person who, in his opinion, was a genuinely wicked woman.

The following review on William Shawcross' "Queen and Country" was written by Hitchens for the Los Angelous Times almost three years ago to the day (May 5, 2002). I offer it once again as a tribute to my unworthy foes in the republican camp who, when not lacking in intelligence, are still basically a booring squaresville bunch committed to a booring squaresville future. Christopher Hitchens, never the boor, notwithstanding of course.

William Cobbett, a great English radical, dryly observed more than a century ago that there was something absurd in a system that referred to "the national debt" and "the Royal Mint." Thomas Paine, one of our less-acknowledged Founding Fathers, pointed out that a hereditary head of state made no more sense than a hereditary mathematician. The sheer, obvious rationality and justice of this critique is countered, by partisans of royalism, with numinous claims about the need for magical and mystical authority; for something to lift our everyday politics out of the drudgery of mere administration. "Fairy tale" is a term often employed (and rightly in my view, since I scorn to conceal my prejudice) by monarchists themselves.

A serious defense of monarchy or of a monarch might begin by recognizing this essential difference in approach. To take only a recent instance, the death of the queen mother provoked the writing of literally hundreds of valedictory articles, all of which dwelt on the supposedly gallant way in which she had visited bombed-out slum dwellers during the Nazi blitzkrieg. None of these moist tributes mentioned the unswerving support that the old lady and her husband, King George VI, had given to Neville Chamberlain a couple of years earlier. Now, "fairy tales" require that the emphasis should fall only on the first anecdote. But elementary journalism, to say nothing of scholarship, requires that the second point be noticed at least in passing. William Shawcross' "Queen and Country" simply omits it, along with much else.

I pause here to note another claim made by monarchists: that royalty provides a context of historical continuity and teaches the value of tradition and the past. This lofty objective is not to be accomplished by such air-brushing. In 1988, the tercentennial of the Glorious Revolution, which brought the ancestors of the current Windsor dynasty to power, there was a celebration in Westminster Hall--the same place where the queen mother's body lay in state. Anyone who has been to that great hall knows that it features a plaque commemorating the occasion in 1649 on which Charles I was tried there for crimes against humanity and lost his head on the wicked and fallacious proposition of the "divine right of kings." But during the 1988 festivities, this plaque was covered with a velvet cloak, as if the British lived in some Stalinist "people's democracy" or banana republic. Shawcross' courtier-style volume is in the same tradition.

It may or may not be true that royalty provides glamour, stability, pageantry and all the rest of it, rather than a wearisome parade of tax-dodgers, unexciting adulterers, chinless princes and frumpish ladies of the bedchamber. But the first belief, if only in the recent and glaring light of the second, does require a little argument. I was continually amazed by the flat, un-ironic, orthodox way that Shawcross relied upon mere assertion: The royal family is a force for political legitimacy. It does have the right to run the national state-supported church. It has enshrined itself in the hearts of a grateful people. Moreover, every gesture made by a monarch is either charmingly informal ("just like the rest of us") or magnificently regal ("the royal touch"). This does occasionally--no, make that repeatedly--become plain ridiculous:

"The Queen's faith has supported her throughout her reign in a job that is very isolating. In 1947, during the royal trip to South Africa, her father turned to Field Marshal Smuts and said, 'There she goes, alone as usual, an extraordinary girl.' It is a theme that painters such as Annigoni have picked up on. In his lovely 1954 painting he portrayed her standing quite alone."

Where to begin? In 1947 she was not yet queen (as her father's contemporary comment suggests). She has never taken a step, even as princess, without an enormous retinue of servants. And, despite the suggestion that Annigoni was on to something unheralded, most people do tend to sit for their portraits unaccompanied. Indeed, the word "portrait" rather implies a study of an individual. But our author is so awash in sycophancy that he cannot venture upon the most banal story without investing its object with quasi-supernatural properties. Indeed, he doesn't even bother to register the fact that a monarchic position, supposedly conferred by exclusive breeding, is by its own definition "sole." It's not dignified for a courtier to bow once to contradiction and once to tautology and then to collapse in a heap between the two.

Nor does Shawcross notice how often he contradicts himself. Describing the way in which the queen and the queen mother colluded with the archbishop of Canterbury and the prime minister to deny the late Princess Margaret the right to marry a divorced man, he writes that "in those days even the innocent party to a divorce was cold-shouldered." Only one page later, he records that the highly popular Daily Mirror conducted the first "royal poll" ever carried by a newspaper, asking its readers "if they thought the couple should be allowed to marry. The vast majority of the respondents were in favor." So what happens to his first assertion? In translation, it becomes his unexamined excuse for the extreme cruelty with which Buckingham Palace wrecked the lives of two people, in the cause of the fusion of church and state and in the name of "family values" that, it now turns out, few of the sulky royal brood seem able or willing to maintain.

In earlier days it was believed that the affliction of scrofula ("the King's evil") could be cured by a touch from the reigning monarch. (The great loyalist Dr. Samuel Johnson was taken to be "touched," but it didn't work for him.) Nowadays, this superstition seems to operate in reverse. Ted Hughes and Andrew Motion were quite good poets before they became poets laureate and began to write abject piffle in praise of the throne. Shawcross was an outstanding reporter and human rights champion before he took on this knee-weakening assignment. One day he will wake up, shake himself and realize that the attempt to breed a ruling family is as silly, and in some ways as sinister, as the attempt to breed a ruling race. Meanwhile, Paine's struggle against the Hanoverian usurpers has only, so far, been victorious in the former American colonies, where the descendants of George III are viewed with proper affectionate condescension as archaic celebrity freaks.

POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:27 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |