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)
Monday, August 22, 2005
Loyalty is to Crown, Country and Commonwealth
The debate concerning the multiple (contradictory) loyalties of Canada’s vice-regal designate sparked an interesting column in the National Post this morning on the Commonwealth by the conservative stalwart, George Jonas. Says Jonas: “Fancying a hidden anglophilic agenda (or perhaps a francophobic one) behind my ruminations [that the G-G cannot be both loyal and a citizen of France], a reader responded with an interesting question. Would Mr. Jonas be concerned… if Ms. Jean were a dual citizen of the U.K. and Canada?” To this Mr. Jonas responds, “I wouldn’t be as concerned”, and then goes on to provide a ranking index of national compatibility:
1. United Kingdom (least concerned for obvious reasons)
2. France (though a republic, homeland of one of Canada’s founding peoples)
3. Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth Realms
4. Aspirant Commonwealth democracies in Asia and Africa (i.e., India)
5. United States (almost indistinguishable though regional economic interests clash)
6. Western Europe nations
7. Eastern Europe nations…
Dead Last. North Korea (“a Canadian-North Korean G-G would be scraping the bottom of the barrel”).
A few observations on this: First, I have a really hard time swallowing France above the United States in the no-conflict-department (though I can understand why this might be the case for French Canadians). Common sense and our own common long-term interests imply that our foreign policy objectives should ostensibly be aligned with America, not France, since the latter is predominantly focused with its own vainglorious pursuits, rather than a serious commitment to ridding the world of its residual wickedness.
Second, how are Canadian loyalties different from the UK’s, if our mutual undivided allegiance is to the same Queen? The only way to say that they would be different at all would be to prove that the Crown itself is somehow divisible. Yes, the Queen in right of Canada, but the Queen in right of Australia is ultimately the same Queen. So is the Queen in right of Ontario. As is the Queen in right of Queensland. One person. Multiple hats.
Third, the Crown Commonwealth countries should all be lumped under one umbrella, since there is no difference between the UK, ANZ and the gentile Commonwealth realms of the Caribbean. As constitutional monarchies, we all share the concept of the Crown and our passports invoke the name of Her Majesty. One wonders why we don’t just formalize these similarities and reciprocate the recognition of joint citizenship if we share a singular devotion and allegiance to the same Sovereign.
I leave you with this thought: George Jonas came to Canada as an immigrant from Hungary in 1956. So how does he square his love of ancestral homeland with that of his adopted country? He explains it this way: “A person can be in love with two (or more) people but can be faithful to only one…Affection can be shared, but fealty cannot…Loyalty isn’t divided. If it is, it isn’t loyalty.”
Jonas gets it. Too bad so many others don’t.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:26 p.m. | LINKS |
The debate concerning the multiple (contradictory) loyalties of Canada’s vice-regal designate sparked an interesting column in the National Post this morning on the Commonwealth by the conservative stalwart, George Jonas. Says Jonas: “Fancying a hidden anglophilic agenda (or perhaps a francophobic one) behind my ruminations [that the G-G cannot be both loyal and a citizen of France], a reader responded with an interesting question. Would Mr. Jonas be concerned… if Ms. Jean were a dual citizen of the U.K. and Canada?” To this Mr. Jonas responds, “I wouldn’t be as concerned”, and then goes on to provide a ranking index of national compatibility:
1. United Kingdom (least concerned for obvious reasons)
2. France (though a republic, homeland of one of Canada’s founding peoples)
3. Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth Realms
4. Aspirant Commonwealth democracies in Asia and Africa (i.e., India)
5. United States (almost indistinguishable though regional economic interests clash)
6. Western Europe nations
7. Eastern Europe nations…
Dead Last. North Korea (“a Canadian-North Korean G-G would be scraping the bottom of the barrel”).
A few observations on this: First, I have a really hard time swallowing France above the United States in the no-conflict-department (though I can understand why this might be the case for French Canadians). Common sense and our own common long-term interests imply that our foreign policy objectives should ostensibly be aligned with America, not France, since the latter is predominantly focused with its own vainglorious pursuits, rather than a serious commitment to ridding the world of its residual wickedness.
Second, how are Canadian loyalties different from the UK’s, if our mutual undivided allegiance is to the same Queen? The only way to say that they would be different at all would be to prove that the Crown itself is somehow divisible. Yes, the Queen in right of Canada, but the Queen in right of Australia is ultimately the same Queen. So is the Queen in right of Ontario. As is the Queen in right of Queensland. One person. Multiple hats.
Third, the Crown Commonwealth countries should all be lumped under one umbrella, since there is no difference between the UK, ANZ and the gentile Commonwealth realms of the Caribbean. As constitutional monarchies, we all share the concept of the Crown and our passports invoke the name of Her Majesty. One wonders why we don’t just formalize these similarities and reciprocate the recognition of joint citizenship if we share a singular devotion and allegiance to the same Sovereign.
As Jonas puts it, the affinity between our countries is “current as well as historical. It includes the official language of Canada’s majority and membership in the British Commonwealth. [Our] laws derive from the same legal tradition. The majority of [our] inhabitants come from the same Anglo-Celtic mix of ethnic stocks. [We] share not only the memories of common causes and battle-forged alliances, but a plethora of customs, institutions, civic habits and current political interests. Last but not least, there’s the balm of precedent: Canada used to be British, and a number of Canada’s governors-general were Brits.”
I leave you with this thought: George Jonas came to Canada as an immigrant from Hungary in 1956. So how does he square his love of ancestral homeland with that of his adopted country? He explains it this way: “A person can be in love with two (or more) people but can be faithful to only one…Affection can be shared, but fealty cannot…Loyalty isn’t divided. If it is, it isn’t loyalty.”
Jonas gets it. Too bad so many others don’t.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:26 p.m. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
