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)
Friday, September 30, 2005
The Commonwealth at the U.N.
I am reposting this from my blog because I think you might enjoy it
I was thinking to myself today about how to find something to write for this blog and it occurred to me that the Commonwealth probably had something on at the United Nations which is about 2 miles from were I live.
So I called the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations reasoning that they could put me in touch with who ever represents the Commonwealth at the UN. I spoke to a nice young man who was for some reason unable to help me. He suggested that I, (this is a paraphrase though it is in quotes) “call the embassy of a commonwealth country (pause) which you have obviously done (pause) I mean call another one.” He really was very nice and tried to help, I just couldn’t resist relating the story and I hope this doesn’t cause him any trouble.
Being the intrepid soul that I am, I was not deterred by this spot of confusion. I hopped on a bus and headed down to the United Nations were I figured the person at the information desk could help. It turned out I was right, but first I had to explain to the nice lady that I didn’t want the Commonwealth of Independent States, which I explained used to be the USSR, but rather the Commonwealth of Nations, which I explained used to be the British Empire. After digging around her computer for a while she asked if I meant the Commonwealth Secretariat, which I told her yes was indeed what I wanted.
(The weirdest part of that is that the term Commonwealth Secretariat had confused the nice man at the British Mission)
The information lady then carefully wrote down the address and phone number of the office I wanted. (She also told be where to apply for UN press credentials which I plan to do)
So I headed over to 800 Second Avenue Suit 400A which is not only home to the Commonwealth Secretariat representative to the UN, but is the location of the Joint Office for Commonwealth Permanent Missions to the United Nations. (Evidently some of the smaller commonwealth countries have decided rather intelligently to share office space to keep costs down.) Here I meet Janet G. John who is the front person for the whole operation. She was very nice and gave me a nice stack of brochures most of which dealt with the Commonwealth Plan of Action for Gender Equality, but also included an interesting brochure on the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, an interesting pamphlet titled “About the Commonwealth Foundation,” and smallest of all a leaflet on the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Program on the Harare Declaration of 1995.
Ms. John also told me that there are Commonwealth Caucus meetings that are open to the public and told me to use the Secretariat Web sit to get information on this. It seems the Caucus tries to promote democracy, good government, and the rule of law. I am hopping to start covering the Caucus meetings regularly as I think it would be interesting for everyone.
I want to thank Ms. John for her help, she was a gem.
POSTED BY: adams AT 7:40 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I am reposting this from my blog because I think you might enjoy it
I was thinking to myself today about how to find something to write for this blog and it occurred to me that the Commonwealth probably had something on at the United Nations which is about 2 miles from were I live.
So I called the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations reasoning that they could put me in touch with who ever represents the Commonwealth at the UN. I spoke to a nice young man who was for some reason unable to help me. He suggested that I, (this is a paraphrase though it is in quotes) “call the embassy of a commonwealth country (pause) which you have obviously done (pause) I mean call another one.” He really was very nice and tried to help, I just couldn’t resist relating the story and I hope this doesn’t cause him any trouble.
Being the intrepid soul that I am, I was not deterred by this spot of confusion. I hopped on a bus and headed down to the United Nations were I figured the person at the information desk could help. It turned out I was right, but first I had to explain to the nice lady that I didn’t want the Commonwealth of Independent States, which I explained used to be the USSR, but rather the Commonwealth of Nations, which I explained used to be the British Empire. After digging around her computer for a while she asked if I meant the Commonwealth Secretariat, which I told her yes was indeed what I wanted.
(The weirdest part of that is that the term Commonwealth Secretariat had confused the nice man at the British Mission)
The information lady then carefully wrote down the address and phone number of the office I wanted. (She also told be where to apply for UN press credentials which I plan to do)
So I headed over to 800 Second Avenue Suit 400A which is not only home to the Commonwealth Secretariat representative to the UN, but is the location of the Joint Office for Commonwealth Permanent Missions to the United Nations. (Evidently some of the smaller commonwealth countries have decided rather intelligently to share office space to keep costs down.) Here I meet Janet G. John who is the front person for the whole operation. She was very nice and gave me a nice stack of brochures most of which dealt with the Commonwealth Plan of Action for Gender Equality, but also included an interesting brochure on the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, an interesting pamphlet titled “About the Commonwealth Foundation,” and smallest of all a leaflet on the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Program on the Harare Declaration of 1995.
Ms. John also told me that there are Commonwealth Caucus meetings that are open to the public and told me to use the Secretariat Web sit to get information on this. It seems the Caucus tries to promote democracy, good government, and the rule of law. I am hopping to start covering the Caucus meetings regularly as I think it would be interesting for everyone.
I want to thank Ms. John for her help, she was a gem.
POSTED BY: adams AT 7:40 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Our new G-G is no Liberal
I’m embarrassed by my earlier criticisms of our new Governor-General, but in my defense, I didn’t know who she was, what she believed in, how she felt about the country and its history – and I certainly didn’t know she could come across so convincingly and so effortlessly as a compelling monarchist. Yesterday, Liberalism temporarily died in this country under her vice-regalness and the pageantry of our British past.
I now admit the Liberals made a stellar choice. I had no idea they were going to pick a conservative as the Queen’s representative. But apparently neither did they, for they could not have been too amused by the message of her gracefully delivered investiture speech. I only got around to reading it this morning, but that speech put them all to shame.
She talked about freedom, “how precious that freedom is”, her “lesson in learning to be free”, that “freedom has marked our history and our territory, it has marked our summer breezes and our howling winds, that every “Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away – of that I have no doubt.”
She talked about adventure, how freedom “helped create the spirit of adventure that I love above all in this country”, how “that spirit of adventure drove women and men to cross the ocean and discover a new world elsewhere”; “today, we are the sum of those adventures.”
Freedom and adventure? You mean not tolerance and diversity? You mean not public healthcare? You mean not modernism, which to every Liberal means a little bit of colour here, a little bit of orientation there, as Mark Steyn recently quipped. No politician ever talked about freedom and adventure in this manner, at least not since the Fathers of Confederation did back in the 19th century. Christ Jesus, it sounded almost American. It was probably only a speech an immigrant could make, so comfortable and granted we who were born here take our privileged lives. But not her, she actually believes it. She actually means what she says. She remembers what it was like living under the tyranny of a ruthless dictatorship.
I also just learnt that she is on the public record of being against multiculturalism, how it lends to the ghettoization of society. Her speech was about “looking beyond our differences”, about eliminating “the spectre of all the solitudes” and promoting “solidarity among all the citizens”…what? I say what? Is she not reading the script? Didn’t the Liberals vet her speech? I thought we were a mosaic of peoples, not a melting pot. Whatever the hell is she talking about?
I could go on and on. She talked about duty. Duty? What’s that? She talked about her respect for Her Majesty. She talked about the sacrifice of our veterans. She talked about the opening of markets. She talked about the sense of honour and trust in the self-reliant West, about how she admires that it’s still possible to conclude a business contract in those parts with little more than a handshake…
I don’t want to exaggerate here. Madam Jean may not be a conservative. But a God damn Liberal she is not. No Liberal that I know ever spoke the words that she did yesterday. In one speech, she cut through so much B.S., I can’t believe my ears. Or my eyes. Did you see her outfit during last night’s evening gala. She looked like a Roman chariot godess. My my, who is this lady? What has she done?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I’m embarrassed by my earlier criticisms of our new Governor-General, but in my defense, I didn’t know who she was, what she believed in, how she felt about the country and its history – and I certainly didn’t know she could come across so convincingly and so effortlessly as a compelling monarchist. Yesterday, Liberalism temporarily died in this country under her vice-regalness and the pageantry of our British past.I now admit the Liberals made a stellar choice. I had no idea they were going to pick a conservative as the Queen’s representative. But apparently neither did they, for they could not have been too amused by the message of her gracefully delivered investiture speech. I only got around to reading it this morning, but that speech put them all to shame.
She talked about freedom, “how precious that freedom is”, her “lesson in learning to be free”, that “freedom has marked our history and our territory, it has marked our summer breezes and our howling winds, that every “Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away – of that I have no doubt.”
She talked about adventure, how freedom “helped create the spirit of adventure that I love above all in this country”, how “that spirit of adventure drove women and men to cross the ocean and discover a new world elsewhere”; “today, we are the sum of those adventures.”
Freedom and adventure? You mean not tolerance and diversity? You mean not public healthcare? You mean not modernism, which to every Liberal means a little bit of colour here, a little bit of orientation there, as Mark Steyn recently quipped. No politician ever talked about freedom and adventure in this manner, at least not since the Fathers of Confederation did back in the 19th century. Christ Jesus, it sounded almost American. It was probably only a speech an immigrant could make, so comfortable and granted we who were born here take our privileged lives. But not her, she actually believes it. She actually means what she says. She remembers what it was like living under the tyranny of a ruthless dictatorship.
I also just learnt that she is on the public record of being against multiculturalism, how it lends to the ghettoization of society. Her speech was about “looking beyond our differences”, about eliminating “the spectre of all the solitudes” and promoting “solidarity among all the citizens”…what? I say what? Is she not reading the script? Didn’t the Liberals vet her speech? I thought we were a mosaic of peoples, not a melting pot. Whatever the hell is she talking about?
I could go on and on. She talked about duty. Duty? What’s that? She talked about her respect for Her Majesty. She talked about the sacrifice of our veterans. She talked about the opening of markets. She talked about the sense of honour and trust in the self-reliant West, about how she admires that it’s still possible to conclude a business contract in those parts with little more than a handshake…
I don’t want to exaggerate here. Madam Jean may not be a conservative. But a God damn Liberal she is not. No Liberal that I know ever spoke the words that she did yesterday. In one speech, she cut through so much B.S., I can’t believe my ears. Or my eyes. Did you see her outfit during last night’s evening gala. She looked like a Roman chariot godess. My my, who is this lady? What has she done?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Swearing in of Canada's 27th Governor-General
Newly sworn-in Governor General Michaelle Jean and her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond listen to proceedings. What surely must have been quite the sacrifice, our new G-G relinquished her French citizenship only a couple of days ago to serve as the Queen's representative in Canada. And the French were only too happy to oblige apparently, as can be imagined, a French citizen faithfully serving the Queen of England is an intolerable constitutional situation. You know I meant Queen of Canada, but my apologies if the French don't see it that way.
Anyways, I understand it was quite the regal show. All the red carpetry pomp and music befitting a vice-royal investiture. Just not sure if all that red in the Senate Chamber is monarchist red anymore. It's beginning to look a lot like Liberal red. Really, really much so.
UPDATE: I just watched the ceremony on television and really appreciated the pageantry of it all. For all our faults as a country, we do still get some things right. The Governor-General's Foot Guard, the Mounties on horseback and carriage, the 21 Gun Royal Salute, Speech from the Throne...all the requisite symbols are there. And low and behold the people, the crowds on Parliament Hill, really appreciate it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Newly sworn-in Governor General Michaelle Jean and her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond listen to proceedings. What surely must have been quite the sacrifice, our new G-G relinquished her French citizenship only a couple of days ago to serve as the Queen's representative in Canada. And the French were only too happy to oblige apparently, as can be imagined, a French citizen faithfully serving the Queen of England is an intolerable constitutional situation. You know I meant Queen of Canada, but my apologies if the French don't see it that way.Anyways, I understand it was quite the regal show. All the red carpetry pomp and music befitting a vice-royal investiture. Just not sure if all that red in the Senate Chamber is monarchist red anymore. It's beginning to look a lot like Liberal red. Really, really much so.
UPDATE: I just watched the ceremony on television and really appreciated the pageantry of it all. For all our faults as a country, we do still get some things right. The Governor-General's Foot Guard, the Mounties on horseback and carriage, the 21 Gun Royal Salute, Speech from the Throne...all the requisite symbols are there. And low and behold the people, the crowds on Parliament Hill, really appreciate it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:47 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Nelson vs Napoleon 200 years on
So I was checking out the antique shops in downtown Toronto today, and came across one stuffed to the rafters with Napoleon this and Napoleon that, quite the fulsome display of despot worshipping to say the least. So I says to the keeper: "Got any Nelson, monsieur? I'm somewhat culturally antagonistic to all this Napoleon, but if you have anything in Nelson, we can definitely talk price." By this, I could tell I had tweaked a nerve as he was obviously a den worshipper who stood in awe of the man, an older gentleman who probably had studied all his battles, read countless books,...besides this was Canada and why wasn't I being characteristically docile. "No I have nothing in Nelson and nothing English", was the curt but friendly reply.
He went on: "Did you know that Napoleon was a bigger man than Nelson?". How is that possible, I thought, Nelson won. But he was talking about physical stature, that Napoleon was a taller and heavier man in size. I knew that Nelson was only 5 foot four, but I had no idea that Napoleon was two inches taller. I thought the guy was a total midget, like 5 foot nothing at the most, but there I was conceding to a Frenchman that Napoleon was a bigger man than Nelson. Even when they lose, the French somehow know how to declare victory. What a glorious bunch. Yeah, Napoleon's a bigger man than Nelson, alright. In your dreams, Frenchee.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
So I was checking out the antique shops in downtown Toronto today, and came across one stuffed to the rafters with Napoleon this and Napoleon that, quite the fulsome display of despot worshipping to say the least. So I says to the keeper: "Got any Nelson, monsieur? I'm somewhat culturally antagonistic to all this Napoleon, but if you have anything in Nelson, we can definitely talk price." By this, I could tell I had tweaked a nerve as he was obviously a den worshipper who stood in awe of the man, an older gentleman who probably had studied all his battles, read countless books,...besides this was Canada and why wasn't I being characteristically docile. "No I have nothing in Nelson and nothing English", was the curt but friendly reply. He went on: "Did you know that Napoleon was a bigger man than Nelson?". How is that possible, I thought, Nelson won. But he was talking about physical stature, that Napoleon was a taller and heavier man in size. I knew that Nelson was only 5 foot four, but I had no idea that Napoleon was two inches taller. I thought the guy was a total midget, like 5 foot nothing at the most, but there I was conceding to a Frenchman that Napoleon was a bigger man than Nelson. Even when they lose, the French somehow know how to declare victory. What a glorious bunch. Yeah, Napoleon's a bigger man than Nelson, alright. In your dreams, Frenchee.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:58 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Subject or Citizen
One of the more contemptible red herrings used by republicans is their taunt that it is more dignified for individuals to be citizens of a state than subjects of a sovereign. This of course conveniently ignores the reality that, whether we reside in a constitutional monarchy or an enlightened republic, we are all citizens of the modern democratic nation-state. It also ignores the reality that loyalty to state, whether we pledge allegiance to a king or a flag, is only one aspect of citizenship – the national aspect, but it is common to both. In both cases, individual citizens are subject to the collective will of the people, regardless of whether that collective will is represented by a reigning monarch or not.
The other aspects of citizenship include the constitutional (our legal status as equal citizens under the law with certain inalienable rights), the political (our desire as taxpayers to be engaged participants of the political sphere), the cultural (our natural inclination to preserve our heritage and identity) and the social (our responsibility to contribute to the well-being of civic society and the social good by being economically self-reliant, providing for our families and freely giving to charitable causes). Given the breadth of the meaning and notion of citizenship then, are we really to believe that none of this applies to us because we are “subjects” of the Queen?
Besides, the idea of an enlightened citizenry is not a modern invention as some republicans claim, but a comparatively ancient Athenian one, older than even the Dark Ages, when as liegemen we were once little more than peasant slaves, living for scarce other reason that to serve and obey our feudal masters. No longer are we mere vassals of the state, where our survival is dependent on an absolute deference and loyalty to our lord protector. Society has come a long way since the Dark Ages alright. In fact, we have been re-empowered as individuals so much so, that we seem to be moving past the whole concept of citizenship altogether.
An argument can be made that we have degenerated from subjects and citizens to spectators and consumers; spectators of the political scene and consumers of government services. Why do you think we can be bought with our own money when the time actually comes for politicians to “consult” us? Because we let them, that’s why. Because it’s easier to be a customer, than it is to be a citizen. Because it’s easier to allow the state to serve you, than it is for you to serve the state. If this is true, we are no longer citizens then. We are subjects of the state.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
One of the more contemptible red herrings used by republicans is their taunt that it is more dignified for individuals to be citizens of a state than subjects of a sovereign. This of course conveniently ignores the reality that, whether we reside in a constitutional monarchy or an enlightened republic, we are all citizens of the modern democratic nation-state. It also ignores the reality that loyalty to state, whether we pledge allegiance to a king or a flag, is only one aspect of citizenship – the national aspect, but it is common to both. In both cases, individual citizens are subject to the collective will of the people, regardless of whether that collective will is represented by a reigning monarch or not.
The other aspects of citizenship include the constitutional (our legal status as equal citizens under the law with certain inalienable rights), the political (our desire as taxpayers to be engaged participants of the political sphere), the cultural (our natural inclination to preserve our heritage and identity) and the social (our responsibility to contribute to the well-being of civic society and the social good by being economically self-reliant, providing for our families and freely giving to charitable causes). Given the breadth of the meaning and notion of citizenship then, are we really to believe that none of this applies to us because we are “subjects” of the Queen?
Besides, the idea of an enlightened citizenry is not a modern invention as some republicans claim, but a comparatively ancient Athenian one, older than even the Dark Ages, when as liegemen we were once little more than peasant slaves, living for scarce other reason that to serve and obey our feudal masters. No longer are we mere vassals of the state, where our survival is dependent on an absolute deference and loyalty to our lord protector. Society has come a long way since the Dark Ages alright. In fact, we have been re-empowered as individuals so much so, that we seem to be moving past the whole concept of citizenship altogether.
An argument can be made that we have degenerated from subjects and citizens to spectators and consumers; spectators of the political scene and consumers of government services. Why do you think we can be bought with our own money when the time actually comes for politicians to “consult” us? Because we let them, that’s why. Because it’s easier to be a customer, than it is to be a citizen. Because it’s easier to allow the state to serve you, than it is for you to serve the state. If this is true, we are no longer citizens then. We are subjects of the state.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Nelson would be appalled
I was in Ottawa over the weekend and popped into the Rideau Club for its 140th anniversary, a black tie affair whose guest of honour happened to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was quite the shindig I have to say, though probably not nearly as much as the Rideau Club Trafalgar Day dinner promises to be next month. At least those were my thoughts until one of the conversations that evening turned to the politics of celebrating Nelson’s victory over the French, and how such an event might be perceived by French Canadians. Suddenly I imagined how dreary it all could turn out, without the obligatory, jeering French jokes such an occasion should naturally inspire.
Such is the confused state of our citizenship, however, where the national, legal, political and cultural dimensions of our shared identity collide to produce nothing patriotic whatsoever. It is times like this that we are reminded that in a collective sense, we Canadians are a mere geographical expression, a fragmented lot, a community of convenience, rather than of common belonging. I’m all for convenience, I suppose. Right up to the point where we are told to forget our history, erase our traditions and disregard our heroes.
Damn the French. And damn us to bloody hell, if our apprehensions prevent us from honouring the immortal memory of men like Nelson.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:16 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I was in Ottawa over the weekend and popped into the Rideau Club for its 140th anniversary, a black tie affair whose guest of honour happened to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. It was quite the shindig I have to say, though probably not nearly as much as the Rideau Club Trafalgar Day dinner promises to be next month. At least those were my thoughts until one of the conversations that evening turned to the politics of celebrating Nelson’s victory over the French, and how such an event might be perceived by French Canadians. Suddenly I imagined how dreary it all could turn out, without the obligatory, jeering French jokes such an occasion should naturally inspire.
Such is the confused state of our citizenship, however, where the national, legal, political and cultural dimensions of our shared identity collide to produce nothing patriotic whatsoever. It is times like this that we are reminded that in a collective sense, we Canadians are a mere geographical expression, a fragmented lot, a community of convenience, rather than of common belonging. I’m all for convenience, I suppose. Right up to the point where we are told to forget our history, erase our traditions and disregard our heroes.
Damn the French. And damn us to bloody hell, if our apprehensions prevent us from honouring the immortal memory of men like Nelson.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:16 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, September 16, 2005
Wellington needs a Duke
You might be thinking that in the spirit of the times, and the lead-up to the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, I would be referring to the Napoleonic Wars. But I'm not. I'm talking about New Zealand's election tomorrow, and how I fervently hope that Prime Minister Helen gets her Waterloo and becomes politically exiled to -- you guessed it, St. Helena. Oh Lord, we humbly beseech thee.
Tomorrow night, all eyes of the Commonwealth will be on New Zealand. Far better that New Zealanders dispense with this communist-lite interloper and restore Helengrad back to the Wellington we all know and love. Wellington needs a Duke. Let that man be the good doctor, Don Brash. The man who will bring back knighthoods. The Tory of our times. The Kiwi of our hopes.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:07 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
You might be thinking that in the spirit of the times, and the lead-up to the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar, I would be referring to the Napoleonic Wars. But I'm not. I'm talking about New Zealand's election tomorrow, and how I fervently hope that Prime Minister Helen gets her Waterloo and becomes politically exiled to -- you guessed it, St. Helena. Oh Lord, we humbly beseech thee.
Tomorrow night, all eyes of the Commonwealth will be on New Zealand. Far better that New Zealanders dispense with this communist-lite interloper and restore Helengrad back to the Wellington we all know and love. Wellington needs a Duke. Let that man be the good doctor, Don Brash. The man who will bring back knighthoods. The Tory of our times. The Kiwi of our hopes.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:07 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Fair Winds and Following Seas
LEAD-UP TO THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR
On this day 200 years ago:
- September 15, 1805
- Departed Portsmouth, England previous day.
- At Sea: VAdm. Nelson and Capt. Hardy with Ship's Company
- Aboard His Majesty's Ship Victory.
- Flagship of the British Mediterranean fleet.
- Enroute to assume command of the fleet off Cadiz, Spain.
- Presently commanded by VAdm. Cuthbert Collingwood.
The King's Mission in Nelson's Words:
"The national emergency continuing, and the Combined Fleets of France and Spain having united and taken refuge in Cadiz, I have now been prevailed upon by the Prime Minister and all the Chief Officers of the State, to take command of a special force intended for their destruction."
Nelson's oft-repeated quote: "Depend on it...I shall yet give M. Villeneuve a drubbing!"
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:35 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
LEAD-UP TO THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAROn this day 200 years ago:
- September 15, 1805
- Departed Portsmouth, England previous day.
- At Sea: VAdm. Nelson and Capt. Hardy with Ship's Company
- Aboard His Majesty's Ship Victory.
- Flagship of the British Mediterranean fleet.
- Enroute to assume command of the fleet off Cadiz, Spain.
- Presently commanded by VAdm. Cuthbert Collingwood.
The King's Mission in Nelson's Words:
"The national emergency continuing, and the Combined Fleets of France and Spain having united and taken refuge in Cadiz, I have now been prevailed upon by the Prime Minister and all the Chief Officers of the State, to take command of a special force intended for their destruction."
Nelson's oft-repeated quote: "Depend on it...I shall yet give M. Villeneuve a drubbing!"
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:35 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Duty is the great business of a sea officer
Sheeesh, can't a guy take a break? One week away, and not a single post? Where is everybody? Pitt? Catesby? Walsingham? Nelson? My Lord Nelson, I did what you asked of me, now it's time to show us the way, to take us down the path of duty, just as you did 200 years ago; show us what you actually did in the service of King and Country in the days leading up to October 21, 1805.
The letter you wrote your wife in 1786, explaining your years at sea as one of duty, that "duty is the great business of a sea officer, all private considerations must give way to it, no matter how painful it may be", was pounded incessantly into my and Walsingham's head, day after day after day, week after week after week, month after month after month, as we countlessly marched or doubled past your plaqued words at Royal Roads, 200 years after you wrote it.
Ah, Royal Roads. What a gorgeous, stunning piece of Canadian England. What a fine naval and military institution if there ever was one. No longer extant. As dead as the Nelsonian ethic that it enshrined. Dead, but not forgotten. Forgotten only when we are dead.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sheeesh, can't a guy take a break? One week away, and not a single post? Where is everybody? Pitt? Catesby? Walsingham? Nelson? My Lord Nelson, I did what you asked of me, now it's time to show us the way, to take us down the path of duty, just as you did 200 years ago; show us what you actually did in the service of King and Country in the days leading up to October 21, 1805. The letter you wrote your wife in 1786, explaining your years at sea as one of duty, that "duty is the great business of a sea officer, all private considerations must give way to it, no matter how painful it may be", was pounded incessantly into my and Walsingham's head, day after day after day, week after week after week, month after month after month, as we countlessly marched or doubled past your plaqued words at Royal Roads, 200 years after you wrote it.
Ah, Royal Roads. What a gorgeous, stunning piece of Canadian England. What a fine naval and military institution if there ever was one. No longer extant. As dead as the Nelsonian ethic that it enshrined. Dead, but not forgotten. Forgotten only when we are dead.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The power of the county
Like most people in the world who are not hard-hearted, I have been moved to tears by the images of destruction and suffering in New Orleans. Despite the ambivalent attitude most Canadians have regarding the United States, I am the descendant of Loyalists who lived 150 years in New England prior to the Revolution. I am also the descendant of settlers in New France - the same stock from whom the Cajun people and culture of Louisiana are drawn. After making an online donation to the American Red Cross, I began to consider the ramifications of this event.
The physical and financial fallout are always the first to become fodder for the ruminations, but I am a political scientist and activist. Naturally, my orientation is toward such esoteric questions.
It is not ironic that amid the destruction of the American South, the end of the current political order in Washington will end. What is ironic is that it is not the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina that I speak of, but the destruction wrought by war over a century ago. That is, quite possibly, the undoing of the Presidency of George W. Bush was planted in 1878.
The title of this post, "The power of the county," is a rough translation of a Latin phrase that, I believe, Americans will become as familiar with as Monica Lewinsky, blue dresses, or taped phone calls - Posse Comitatus.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the US Army occupied much of the former Confederacy in order to stabilize the region. It was, of course, not without its controversies. Beyond the sheer cost of maintaining such a large mobilization, many argued that reintegration into the Union would be held back. Those in the south legitimately concerned about "carpetbaggers" and others with less noble motives regarding newly emancipated slaves, found voice under the rubric of "States Rights."
In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed, with the effect of placing a wall between the federal government and deployments within the United States. Simply put, Posse Comitatus prevented the President from deploying US forces in any state without the explicit consent and request of the Governor. Natural disasters, riots and the like were the domain of the states, meaning the deployment of National Guard troops by command of the Governor.
So why is this important today? Plainly put, it has already been intimated by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and others that the 4 day delay in federal action in New Orleans was due to the constraints of Posse Comitatus.
This naturally creates the question of whether you believe Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco did, or did not, make a clear and formal request early on. Complications to this include the fact that Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin are not of the President's political party, that up to 1/3 of the National Guard troops from those affected states were deployed to Iraq by the federal government, and that poor African-Americans seem to suffer disproportionately to others.
America returns to the polls in 2006 for midterm elections - including the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. For this political prognosticator, it is not impossible to see a resurgent Democratic party - benefitting from anger over this tragedy, and the protracted action in Iraq - take control of both houses of Congress.
Should this come to pass, all Americans will become very familiar with Posse Comitatus. A bill passed to heal the rift in a war against the states will become the weapon of choice in the new war between the parties over control of the White House
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:44 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Like most people in the world who are not hard-hearted, I have been moved to tears by the images of destruction and suffering in New Orleans. Despite the ambivalent attitude most Canadians have regarding the United States, I am the descendant of Loyalists who lived 150 years in New England prior to the Revolution. I am also the descendant of settlers in New France - the same stock from whom the Cajun people and culture of Louisiana are drawn. After making an online donation to the American Red Cross, I began to consider the ramifications of this event.
The physical and financial fallout are always the first to become fodder for the ruminations, but I am a political scientist and activist. Naturally, my orientation is toward such esoteric questions.
It is not ironic that amid the destruction of the American South, the end of the current political order in Washington will end. What is ironic is that it is not the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina that I speak of, but the destruction wrought by war over a century ago. That is, quite possibly, the undoing of the Presidency of George W. Bush was planted in 1878.
The title of this post, "The power of the county," is a rough translation of a Latin phrase that, I believe, Americans will become as familiar with as Monica Lewinsky, blue dresses, or taped phone calls - Posse Comitatus.
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the US Army occupied much of the former Confederacy in order to stabilize the region. It was, of course, not without its controversies. Beyond the sheer cost of maintaining such a large mobilization, many argued that reintegration into the Union would be held back. Those in the south legitimately concerned about "carpetbaggers" and others with less noble motives regarding newly emancipated slaves, found voice under the rubric of "States Rights."
In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed, with the effect of placing a wall between the federal government and deployments within the United States. Simply put, Posse Comitatus prevented the President from deploying US forces in any state without the explicit consent and request of the Governor. Natural disasters, riots and the like were the domain of the states, meaning the deployment of National Guard troops by command of the Governor.
So why is this important today? Plainly put, it has already been intimated by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and others that the 4 day delay in federal action in New Orleans was due to the constraints of Posse Comitatus.
This naturally creates the question of whether you believe Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco did, or did not, make a clear and formal request early on. Complications to this include the fact that Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin are not of the President's political party, that up to 1/3 of the National Guard troops from those affected states were deployed to Iraq by the federal government, and that poor African-Americans seem to suffer disproportionately to others.
America returns to the polls in 2006 for midterm elections - including the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. For this political prognosticator, it is not impossible to see a resurgent Democratic party - benefitting from anger over this tragedy, and the protracted action in Iraq - take control of both houses of Congress.
Should this come to pass, all Americans will become very familiar with Posse Comitatus. A bill passed to heal the rift in a war against the states will become the weapon of choice in the new war between the parties over control of the White House
POSTED BY: Anonymous AT 10:44 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, September 02, 2005
Our Growing Team
Contributing authors to The Monarchist from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms are represented by a self-chosen nom de plume, in line with a deliberate theme of this blog to honour heroes and great figures of British Commonwealth, American and Roman history. Listed below in the order of their joining are the author profiles of:
We are always looking for new recruits who identify with our Churchillian theme. Kindly email The Monarchist if you are interested.
God for Elizabeth, the Commonwealth and for the United States of America!
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Contributing authors to The Monarchist from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms are represented by a self-chosen nom de plume, in line with a deliberate theme of this blog to honour heroes and great figures of British Commonwealth, American and Roman history. Listed below in the order of their joining are the author profiles of:
- Sir Winston Churchill (Blog Patron)
- Lord Baron of Beaverbrook (Blog Founder)
- Sir Francis Walsingham (Joined April 6, 2005)
- William Pitt the Younger (Joined June 6, 2005)
- James Madison (Joined June 7, 2005)
- John Adams (Joined June 8, 2005)
- Robert Catesby (Joined June 17, 2005)
- Lord Viscount of Bolingbroke (Joined June 25, 2005)
- Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger (Joined July 10, 2005)
- Lord Earl of Beaconsfield (Joined July 15, 2005)
- Admiral Lord Earl of Dundonald (Joined July 23, 2005)
- Captain James Cook (Joined July 31, 2005)
- Sir Robert Menzies (Joined August 1, 2005)
- Sir Samuel Griffith (Joined August 1, 2005)
- Admiral Lord Viscount of Camperdown (Joined September 2005)
We are always looking for new recruits who identify with our Churchillian theme. Kindly email The Monarchist if you are interested.
God for Elizabeth, the Commonwealth and for the United States of America!
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:33 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The French Quarter Needs the Anglosphere!
As anarchy has apparently and unbelievably gripped New Orleans and the surrounding area, it is past time that friends of freedom come to the rescue, as Walsingham's parents succinctly articulate in the letter below to the Premier of Saudi Alberta, by far the most generous and richest province of Canada.
Dear Sir:
Re: U.S. GULF COAST EMERGENCY
It is difficult for us to imagine the destruction and suffering being endured by the people in the affected area. It seems as if the recovery will take billions of dollars and several months if not years.
This country and province try to provide assistance to people anywhere on the globe where situations such as this occur. Now our great and good neighbour, who is called upon and responds quickly and magnificently to trouble anywhere on earth, is itself in need of assistance.
My wife and I are very conservative, but we feel that we owe the people of the U.S. a great deal. (They provide our defence enabling our Liberal government to destroy our military for one thing.) We feel that the Province of Alberta should make a cash donation to the U.S. government (directly to the President or Vice-president) from the people of Alberta to help alleviate the suffering in the affected area.
One billion? Half billion? Certainly no less than 100 million U.S.
It would be a grand gesture if you would deliver the cheque yourself.
Mr. & Mrs. Walsingham
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:03 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
As anarchy has apparently and unbelievably gripped New Orleans and the surrounding area, it is past time that friends of freedom come to the rescue, as Walsingham's parents succinctly articulate in the letter below to the Premier of Saudi Alberta, by far the most generous and richest province of Canada.
Dear Sir:
Re: U.S. GULF COAST EMERGENCY
It is difficult for us to imagine the destruction and suffering being endured by the people in the affected area. It seems as if the recovery will take billions of dollars and several months if not years.
This country and province try to provide assistance to people anywhere on the globe where situations such as this occur. Now our great and good neighbour, who is called upon and responds quickly and magnificently to trouble anywhere on earth, is itself in need of assistance.
My wife and I are very conservative, but we feel that we owe the people of the U.S. a great deal. (They provide our defence enabling our Liberal government to destroy our military for one thing.) We feel that the Province of Alberta should make a cash donation to the U.S. government (directly to the President or Vice-president) from the people of Alberta to help alleviate the suffering in the affected area.
One billion? Half billion? Certainly no less than 100 million U.S.
It would be a grand gesture if you would deliver the cheque yourself.
Mr. & Mrs. Walsingham
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:03 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
