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, October 31, 2005
Briser Les Solitudes
Why I am not a multiculturalist
If multiculturalism merely referred to a free expression of one's personal culture and identity (which I totally support), which in the aggregate viewed each culture or sub-culture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture, then I would have no issue. But since the official policy uses state power and intervention to preserve the distinctions between cultures at the expense of social integration, of establishing cultural solitudes at the expense of national solidarity, of accentuating—instead of overlooking—our differences through political programs so that politicians can cavort across this country and engage in a quite detestable game of ethnic pandering, then we are talking about something intentionally destructive to the social order and good. In this sense, multiculturalism is just a cleverly concealed name for an ethno-culturally segmented society—apartheid, in other words.
The latter notion is an affront to the pluralistic ideals and traditional values of our country, “glorious and free”. Civically, we are a great nation because we are a free, open, diverse and prosperous people. But this reality has nothing to do with multiculturalism, which is not a civic value and right like freedom, but a utopian ideology that views all cultures equally. The problem with such an ideology is that it requires us to be morally neutral, to tolerate the intolerable, such as abiding by the oppression of women in Islamic cultures. It requires us to eschew our common set of beliefs and assume a posture of indifference. It requires us to forget our shared history because immigrants of Japanese or German ancestry might be offended to learn what we had to do as a people to defend our values. It requires us to forgo traditional Halloween festivities in the classroom because it might offend Wiccans, who might interpret dressing up for trick or treating as a "Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs". It requires us to lose our Sovereign because "hereditary monarchy is inconsistent with the egalitarian values of a multicultural society". It requires the English to shun their flag so as to not upset British-Muslim prisoners with the Cross of St. George. Eventually, it requires us to lose our identity altogether; to look in the mirror and see the world instead of our country.
The Governor-General doesn’t support this ludicrousness. Her coat of arms was deliberately designed and intended to break apart the solitudes (“briser les solitudes”). Maybe we should take her lead and reaffirm our patriotic loyalty to the one. God save Her Sovereign Majesty the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Why I am not a multiculturalist
If multiculturalism merely referred to a free expression of one's personal culture and identity (which I totally support), which in the aggregate viewed each culture or sub-culture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture, then I would have no issue. But since the official policy uses state power and intervention to preserve the distinctions between cultures at the expense of social integration, of establishing cultural solitudes at the expense of national solidarity, of accentuating—instead of overlooking—our differences through political programs so that politicians can cavort across this country and engage in a quite detestable game of ethnic pandering, then we are talking about something intentionally destructive to the social order and good. In this sense, multiculturalism is just a cleverly concealed name for an ethno-culturally segmented society—apartheid, in other words. The latter notion is an affront to the pluralistic ideals and traditional values of our country, “glorious and free”. Civically, we are a great nation because we are a free, open, diverse and prosperous people. But this reality has nothing to do with multiculturalism, which is not a civic value and right like freedom, but a utopian ideology that views all cultures equally. The problem with such an ideology is that it requires us to be morally neutral, to tolerate the intolerable, such as abiding by the oppression of women in Islamic cultures. It requires us to eschew our common set of beliefs and assume a posture of indifference. It requires us to forget our shared history because immigrants of Japanese or German ancestry might be offended to learn what we had to do as a people to defend our values. It requires us to forgo traditional Halloween festivities in the classroom because it might offend Wiccans, who might interpret dressing up for trick or treating as a "Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs". It requires us to lose our Sovereign because "hereditary monarchy is inconsistent with the egalitarian values of a multicultural society". It requires the English to shun their flag so as to not upset British-Muslim prisoners with the Cross of St. George. Eventually, it requires us to lose our identity altogether; to look in the mirror and see the world instead of our country.
The Governor-General doesn’t support this ludicrousness. Her coat of arms was deliberately designed and intended to break apart the solitudes (“briser les solitudes”). Maybe we should take her lead and reaffirm our patriotic loyalty to the one. God save Her Sovereign Majesty the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, October 29, 2005
The age of chivalry is gone
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like the morning star full of life and splendor and joy. 0, what a revolution! and what a heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream, when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor, and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult.
But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom! The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone. It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.
Edmund Burke - 1793
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then the dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like the morning star full of life and splendor and joy. 0, what a revolution! and what a heart must I have, to contemplate without emotion that elevation and that fall! Little did I dream, when she added titles of veneration to those of enthusiastic, distant, respectful love, that she should ever be obliged to carry the sharp antidote against disgrace concealed in that bosom; little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor, and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded, and the glory of Europe is extinguished forever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom! The unbought grace of life, the cheap defense of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprise is gone. It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honor, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.
Edmund Burke - 1793
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, October 28, 2005
Giuliani Speech
I heard former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani speak last night and have an account of his remarks on my blog
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I heard former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani speak last night and have an account of his remarks on my blog
POSTED BY: adams AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Witches, Goblins and Multicultural Ghosts
The multicultural poltergeist has once again reared its ugly head. Now the Toronto District School Board wants to ban one of North America’s favourite traditions because, wait for it, they’re worried it might offend Wiccans: Teachers should abstain from traditional classroom Halloween festivities because “many recently arrived students in our schools share absolutely none of the background cultural knowledge that is necessary to view 'trick or treating,' the commercialization of death, the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs, as 'fun.'…"Halloween is a religious day of significance for Wiccans and therefore should be treated respectfully."
Okay, so Halloween is a “Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs” because we what, some kids dress up as witches? I don’t get this because Halloween is an ancient Celtic pagan ritual that predates even Christianity. If anything, the Wiccans should feel at home with it given their own religious beliefs. Yes, Christianity had an influence from All Hallows Eve (i.e., Halloween, which comes from All Hallows Day marked every November 1 otherwise know as All Saints Day in the Catholic Calendar). But who cares? Are we dressing up to make fun of the pagans or are we all out to have a good scary time.
Sheesh. If the multiculti correct had their way, there’d be no Christmas, no Easter, no Halloween, no Queen, no nothing. Just Squaresville. Boring, godless and God awful lowest common denominator Squaresville. The kids are not going to put up with this one, methinks. Ever.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:28 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The multicultural poltergeist has once again reared its ugly head. Now the Toronto District School Board wants to ban one of North America’s favourite traditions because, wait for it, they’re worried it might offend Wiccans: Teachers should abstain from traditional classroom Halloween festivities because “many recently arrived students in our schools share absolutely none of the background cultural knowledge that is necessary to view 'trick or treating,' the commercialization of death, the Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs, as 'fun.'…"Halloween is a religious day of significance for Wiccans and therefore should be treated respectfully."Okay, so Halloween is a “Christian sexist demonization of pagan religious beliefs” because we what, some kids dress up as witches? I don’t get this because Halloween is an ancient Celtic pagan ritual that predates even Christianity. If anything, the Wiccans should feel at home with it given their own religious beliefs. Yes, Christianity had an influence from All Hallows Eve (i.e., Halloween, which comes from All Hallows Day marked every November 1 otherwise know as All Saints Day in the Catholic Calendar). But who cares? Are we dressing up to make fun of the pagans or are we all out to have a good scary time.
Sheesh. If the multiculti correct had their way, there’d be no Christmas, no Easter, no Halloween, no Queen, no nothing. Just Squaresville. Boring, godless and God awful lowest common denominator Squaresville. The kids are not going to put up with this one, methinks. Ever.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:28 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Memo to Anglosphere free-loaders: Stop it.
There’s a debate going on over at Albion’s Seedlings, Jim Bennett’s team blog (For those that don’t know, James Bennett is the author of the Anglosphere Challenge and founder of The Anglosphere Institute. You can get a good primer on his thesis here), about Canada’s, New Zealand’s and Ireland’s history of defence free-riding. Lexington Green made what I thought was a spectacular claim: namely, that except for World War I, Canada has performed poorly in its military history owing to its chronic unwillingness to prepare during peacetime. Whatever specific merits there are to this claim, this is, of course, an odd, even absurd generalization to make in regards to the country's victorious WWII achievements and critical contribution in saving Britain (1939-41) and Europe (1944-45) from Hitler and the Nazis.
But getting to the heart of the issue, we are presently a bunch of shameless free-loaders. Not only free-loaders, but free-loaders of the worst kind; the selfish, “morally superior” kind. We have replaced the virtues of our grandfathers, the virtues of the “greatest generation”, with our own. Because this America-hating generation knows better. They think not in moral terms, but in relativistic terms, that the War against Islamism is a matter of preference, not necessity. They’re too brain dead to see that the entire Middle East needs to be transformed into something more constitutionally moderate and free, lest the incubators of Islamo-fascist terrorism continue to imperil our security or worse; blow us to smithereens. The truth is that this generation is not morally superior, they are morally neutral. They are indifferent to the long-term plight of the Middle East.
I’m not saying that the neo-cons are more virtuous, that they are doing all of this out of the goodness of their hearts. But make no mistake; whether it is for the wrong reasons, they are doing the right thing and the necessary thing. Quit your Bush and Blair bashing, folks, we don’t have a choice here. Whether we are talking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya…all of these governments need to be fundamentally transformed. Just because you live in New Zealand, Canada and Ireland under the protective envelopes of larger powers does not mean that it is not in your interest to do some heavy lifting here.
To all my fellow Canadians I say just wait for the day when another terrorist incident takes hold, which turns out to have been instigated from north of the border. You don’t think all hell’s going to break loose? Our only saving grace will be if we are seen to be a staunch ally, have hard assets in the field and are making a meaningful contribution to the war of our generation. Get over yourself, folks. Start cheering. Make us proud. Pick up a rifle and join your country's army. God save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
There’s a debate going on over at Albion’s Seedlings, Jim Bennett’s team blog (For those that don’t know, James Bennett is the author of the Anglosphere Challenge and founder of The Anglosphere Institute. You can get a good primer on his thesis here), about Canada’s, New Zealand’s and Ireland’s history of defence free-riding. Lexington Green made what I thought was a spectacular claim: namely, that except for World War I, Canada has performed poorly in its military history owing to its chronic unwillingness to prepare during peacetime. Whatever specific merits there are to this claim, this is, of course, an odd, even absurd generalization to make in regards to the country's victorious WWII achievements and critical contribution in saving Britain (1939-41) and Europe (1944-45) from Hitler and the Nazis. But getting to the heart of the issue, we are presently a bunch of shameless free-loaders. Not only free-loaders, but free-loaders of the worst kind; the selfish, “morally superior” kind. We have replaced the virtues of our grandfathers, the virtues of the “greatest generation”, with our own. Because this America-hating generation knows better. They think not in moral terms, but in relativistic terms, that the War against Islamism is a matter of preference, not necessity. They’re too brain dead to see that the entire Middle East needs to be transformed into something more constitutionally moderate and free, lest the incubators of Islamo-fascist terrorism continue to imperil our security or worse; blow us to smithereens. The truth is that this generation is not morally superior, they are morally neutral. They are indifferent to the long-term plight of the Middle East.
I’m not saying that the neo-cons are more virtuous, that they are doing all of this out of the goodness of their hearts. But make no mistake; whether it is for the wrong reasons, they are doing the right thing and the necessary thing. Quit your Bush and Blair bashing, folks, we don’t have a choice here. Whether we are talking Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya…all of these governments need to be fundamentally transformed. Just because you live in New Zealand, Canada and Ireland under the protective envelopes of larger powers does not mean that it is not in your interest to do some heavy lifting here.
To all my fellow Canadians I say just wait for the day when another terrorist incident takes hold, which turns out to have been instigated from north of the border. You don’t think all hell’s going to break loose? Our only saving grace will be if we are seen to be a staunch ally, have hard assets in the field and are making a meaningful contribution to the war of our generation. Get over yourself, folks. Start cheering. Make us proud. Pick up a rifle and join your country's army. God save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Birth of Kings, Feast of Saints, Death of Heroes
O God, who didst call thy servant Edward to an an earthly Throne that he might advance thy heavenly kingdom, and didst give him zeal for thy Church and love for thy people: Mercifully grant that we who commemorate him this day may be fruitful in good works, and attain to the glorious crown of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
-- Traditional Prayer of King Edward the Confessor, the King who became a Saint
The Monarchist will endeavor to always keep the faith, to commemorate the birth of our Christian kings and worship the valour and sacrifice of our fallen heroes. Hence, at a place reserved in special honour at the top, there will always be the marking of such a birth and such a sacrifice. This year is the celebration of our 1,000 year old King Edward and the 200th anniversary of the Immortal Memory of our Lord Nelson. Next year this will change to the 80th birthday of our present Queen Elizabeth and a yet to be determined hero of yore. Nominations are always welcome.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
O God, who didst call thy servant Edward to an an earthly Throne that he might advance thy heavenly kingdom, and didst give him zeal for thy Church and love for thy people: Mercifully grant that we who commemorate him this day may be fruitful in good works, and attain to the glorious crown of thy saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.-- Traditional Prayer of King Edward the Confessor, the King who became a Saint
The Monarchist will endeavor to always keep the faith, to commemorate the birth of our Christian kings and worship the valour and sacrifice of our fallen heroes. Hence, at a place reserved in special honour at the top, there will always be the marking of such a birth and such a sacrifice. This year is the celebration of our 1,000 year old King Edward and the 200th anniversary of the Immortal Memory of our Lord Nelson. Next year this will change to the 80th birthday of our present Queen Elizabeth and a yet to be determined hero of yore. Nominations are always welcome.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
On Fighting Referendums
Referendums are in the news, and the question of why a defeated referendum against the monarchy is not considered binding has been raised and I want to weigh in on the issue.
If the Australian Constitutional Monarchists are serious about preserving the monarchy, and more importantly the Anglo Saxon tradition of government, then they need to be proactive.
First they need to take the war of language to their enemies. The word republic is a proud one with a long history among our people. But it is not a word that belongs to the anti monarchists alone and they should not be allowed to steal it. Australia IS a republic. It has always been a republic.
The English speaking people have been ruled by republics for almost the entire history of our nation. Since Magna Charta at the latest, England has been a republic. The UK has always been a republic. If that is you mean a system that is not an absolute monarchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy.
In fact, the word Commonwealth as in “the Commonwealth of Australia” means republic. Commonwealth is a calque, a word for word translation, of the Latin res publica which means “the public things” or “the public matters.”
The question is not weather Australia should be a republic, that question was settled centuries ago. The question is weather the Head or State should be Elizabeth, by the grace of God of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, or some political hack who can get two thirds of parliament to vote for him.
Second, imply quite rightly that the reason the anti monarchists don’t know that Australia is and has always been a republic, albeit a crowned one, is because they don’t give a hoot for the history and traditions of the people of Australia or the larger English speaking nation to which they belong.
Further point to the fact that the anti monarchists real goal is not equality before the law, but the replacement of the monarch who is a symbol of the whole people with a either a political hack who can compromise his way to power or a partisan politician who will be beholden to one party or the other.
Thirdly, if as looks likely, another referendum is going to happen anyway, then the monarchists need to get out in front and demand one and demand the wording that they want.
The goal of this should be two fold, first, to get a wording that will likely uphold the monarchy, and secondly, to insert wording that will preclude another referendum for a full generation.
If I were writing the referendum it would read something like the following:
That the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Australian Territories relying on the blessings of divine providence do proclaim their continuing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth of Australia, Queen and the free and equal system of laws of the English speaking people and their desire that after the aforementioned Elizabeth her heirs and successors according to law shall be King or Queen of Australia. They proclaim their desire that the King or Queen of Australia shall in the future reside within the Commonwealth of Australia during one year in ten and that during that time there shall not be a Governor General. They do further proclaim their desire that henceforth the Governor General shall be chosen, if the monarch does not desire to appoint one of her children or siblings to that post, as follows. All subjects of the Australian crown who: have won the Nobel Prize, have won the gold medal at the Olympic Games, have earned the rank of brigadier, commodore, or air commodore or above in the Royal Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force respectively, or have served as governor of one of the states, shall be candidates and the people of Australia shall elect one of them as Governor General using a single transferable ballot. The people of Australia do further proclaim that they do desire that this question be closed for the next 25 years and that no amendment affecting the monarchy be brought before them during that time.
Then, the supporters of the monarchy have to get out there and fight, not to defeat their opponents measure, but win passage of their own. They have to immerse themselves in the great political tradition of our people, the monarchists and the anti monarchists. Locke, Sidney, Blackstone and yes John Adams. A great place to start this research, though it is an explicitly republican site is here.
I don’t say this course of action will necessarily be successful, but if the monarchy is going to be preserved for future generations it has to be fought for. If the supporters of the Constitutional Monarchy are to win, they need to deserve to win and that means being willing to dare.
POSTED BY: adams AT 9:11 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Referendums are in the news, and the question of why a defeated referendum against the monarchy is not considered binding has been raised and I want to weigh in on the issue.
If the Australian Constitutional Monarchists are serious about preserving the monarchy, and more importantly the Anglo Saxon tradition of government, then they need to be proactive.
First they need to take the war of language to their enemies. The word republic is a proud one with a long history among our people. But it is not a word that belongs to the anti monarchists alone and they should not be allowed to steal it. Australia IS a republic. It has always been a republic.
The English speaking people have been ruled by republics for almost the entire history of our nation. Since Magna Charta at the latest, England has been a republic. The UK has always been a republic. If that is you mean a system that is not an absolute monarchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy.
In fact, the word Commonwealth as in “the Commonwealth of Australia” means republic. Commonwealth is a calque, a word for word translation, of the Latin res publica which means “the public things” or “the public matters.”
The question is not weather Australia should be a republic, that question was settled centuries ago. The question is weather the Head or State should be Elizabeth, by the grace of God of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, or some political hack who can get two thirds of parliament to vote for him.
Second, imply quite rightly that the reason the anti monarchists don’t know that Australia is and has always been a republic, albeit a crowned one, is because they don’t give a hoot for the history and traditions of the people of Australia or the larger English speaking nation to which they belong.
Further point to the fact that the anti monarchists real goal is not equality before the law, but the replacement of the monarch who is a symbol of the whole people with a either a political hack who can compromise his way to power or a partisan politician who will be beholden to one party or the other.
Thirdly, if as looks likely, another referendum is going to happen anyway, then the monarchists need to get out in front and demand one and demand the wording that they want.
The goal of this should be two fold, first, to get a wording that will likely uphold the monarchy, and secondly, to insert wording that will preclude another referendum for a full generation.
If I were writing the referendum it would read something like the following:
That the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Australian Territories relying on the blessings of divine providence do proclaim their continuing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth of Australia, Queen and the free and equal system of laws of the English speaking people and their desire that after the aforementioned Elizabeth her heirs and successors according to law shall be King or Queen of Australia. They proclaim their desire that the King or Queen of Australia shall in the future reside within the Commonwealth of Australia during one year in ten and that during that time there shall not be a Governor General. They do further proclaim their desire that henceforth the Governor General shall be chosen, if the monarch does not desire to appoint one of her children or siblings to that post, as follows. All subjects of the Australian crown who: have won the Nobel Prize, have won the gold medal at the Olympic Games, have earned the rank of brigadier, commodore, or air commodore or above in the Royal Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force respectively, or have served as governor of one of the states, shall be candidates and the people of Australia shall elect one of them as Governor General using a single transferable ballot. The people of Australia do further proclaim that they do desire that this question be closed for the next 25 years and that no amendment affecting the monarchy be brought before them during that time.
Then, the supporters of the monarchy have to get out there and fight, not to defeat their opponents measure, but win passage of their own. They have to immerse themselves in the great political tradition of our people, the monarchists and the anti monarchists. Locke, Sidney, Blackstone and yes John Adams. A great place to start this research, though it is an explicitly republican site is here.
I don’t say this course of action will necessarily be successful, but if the monarchy is going to be preserved for future generations it has to be fought for. If the supporters of the Constitutional Monarchy are to win, they need to deserve to win and that means being willing to dare.
POSTED BY: adams AT 9:11 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, October 24, 2005
Victory of the human person
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
[A] king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world - the accident of birth - Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.
-- Jacques Monet, Canadian historian.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:45 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK[A] king is a king, not because he is rich and powerful, not because he is a successful politician, not because he belongs to a particular creed or to a national group. He is King because he is born. And in choosing to leave the selection of their head of state to this most common denominator in the world - the accident of birth - Canadians implicitly proclaim their faith in human equality; their hope for the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interest; for the victory of the human person.
-- Jacques Monet, Canadian historian.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:45 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, October 23, 2005
All cultures are not equal
The great fallacy at the heart of multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures are equal and possess qualities and virtues that are of inherently equal value. This presumption is basically akin to what the proponents of appeasement believed: namely, that all nation-states value peace equally and are equally disposed to ensuring its outcome. History, to say nothing of common sense, shows these presumptions to be dead wrong.
The bicentennial of the Battle of Trafalgar reminded me of this after reading Adam Nicolson's "Four and a half hours that changed the world" in Friday's National Post (article way back on page 24 in the print edition). Neither the Globe and Mail nor the Toronto Star, the two most widely read dailies in Canada, thought to even take a moment to report it, and consider the consequences for the English-speaking world had such a crucial battle gone differently. Having invented multiculturalism back in the early 1970s, Canadians are now too weak-at-the-knees, politically ashamed to remember and celebrate their predominantly Anglo-saxon heritage.
But the remarkable thing that Nicholson wrote was contained in his last sentence: "Trafalgar...was not only a meeting of fighting men, but a meeting of cultures." As this was also a determining influence of the battle's outcome:
So there you have it. Not to sound overly ethnoculturally chauvinistic or anything, but the British won because, well, they were British. They were possessed of certain attributes that were, on the whole, superior to their enemies and thankfully prevailed because of it. Gerhard Schroeder can rail against the Anglo-saxon economic model all he wants, but at least it has one thing going for it: it works. Just like our stable structure of government and, in spite of multiculturalism, our still very highly assimilationist civic societies. Our strengh as a culture is that we are the most open, free, moderate and inviting society on the planet. Our weakness is our fanatical level of tolerance, that we are prone to tolerating the intolerable. The French and even the very liberal Dutch seem to be imbued with more common sense than us in this regard. Did you hear? They now have a Minister of Integration. Barring some extraordinary event, there's just no way that would ever happen in Canada.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The great fallacy at the heart of multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures are equal and possess qualities and virtues that are of inherently equal value. This presumption is basically akin to what the proponents of appeasement believed: namely, that all nation-states value peace equally and are equally disposed to ensuring its outcome. History, to say nothing of common sense, shows these presumptions to be dead wrong.The bicentennial of the Battle of Trafalgar reminded me of this after reading Adam Nicolson's "Four and a half hours that changed the world" in Friday's National Post (article way back on page 24 in the print edition). Neither the Globe and Mail nor the Toronto Star, the two most widely read dailies in Canada, thought to even take a moment to report it, and consider the consequences for the English-speaking world had such a crucial battle gone differently. Having invented multiculturalism back in the early 1970s, Canadians are now too weak-at-the-knees, politically ashamed to remember and celebrate their predominantly Anglo-saxon heritage.
But the remarkable thing that Nicholson wrote was contained in his last sentence: "Trafalgar...was not only a meeting of fighting men, but a meeting of cultures." As this was also a determining influence of the battle's outcome:
The Spanish, products of a country still largely stuck in a pre-modern, aristocratic ideology, behaved with dignity and courage but little effectiveness. Their vast and beautiful ships, commanded by grandees who had no idea how to sail, for whom a good defeat was just as good as a victory, and largely manned, as one of their officers said, "by peasants and beggars," were mashed by their more professionally staffed British enemy.
Half the French fleet, acting to the strictly authoritarian codes of the Napoleonic navy, looked for signals from their admiral which never came or were invisible through the smoke, and so sailed away from the battle, irrelevant to it.
Only the British, driven by zeal and their hunger for prize money -- (ps)10,000 for each captain, perhaps the equivalent of US$2-million today -- thrived as the entrepreneurs of this most savage form of battle. It was battle as market, a place in which Britons already imbued with a distinctly modern, Atlanticist set of values -- commercial, libertarian, amoral and aggressive -- would be sure to emerge the victors.
That is one of the most striking aspects of Trafalgar: the deep, underlying and persistent differences between British, French and Spanish frames of mind appear to have been the governing factors which decided who won and who lost.
So there you have it. Not to sound overly ethnoculturally chauvinistic or anything, but the British won because, well, they were British. They were possessed of certain attributes that were, on the whole, superior to their enemies and thankfully prevailed because of it. Gerhard Schroeder can rail against the Anglo-saxon economic model all he wants, but at least it has one thing going for it: it works. Just like our stable structure of government and, in spite of multiculturalism, our still very highly assimilationist civic societies. Our strengh as a culture is that we are the most open, free, moderate and inviting society on the planet. Our weakness is our fanatical level of tolerance, that we are prone to tolerating the intolerable. The French and even the very liberal Dutch seem to be imbued with more common sense than us in this regard. Did you hear? They now have a Minister of Integration. Barring some extraordinary event, there's just no way that would ever happen in Canada.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:22 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Uniting the Crowns
Keeping alive the grandiose vision of a united Commonwealth Monarchy can be a hopeless chore in the absence of a vehicle through which to support it. Alas, for traditional subjects of Her Majesty, there is no such thing as a Crown Commonwealth Society or a Commonwealth Monarchist League to defend it.
I am not a member of the International Monarchist League. Its goals are too broad and not specific to the interests of preserving the British Monarchy. Conversely, I am not a member of the Monarchist League of Canada either (of which I am only a reluctant supporter), because its goals are too narrow and self-interested, even to the point of being detrimental to the continuation of the Crown in right of Canada. Far from ensuring its perpetuation in this humble scribe’s opinion, the inward-looking efforts of the monarchist leagues and their smaller chapters across the Commonwealth have devalued the monarchy by promoting a limited, insular and nationalist view of it. By compartmentalizing the crown into national silos, by jealously carving it up into smaller pieces instead of sustaining its grander whole, we have diminished the prestige and patriotism that was once the embodiment of our shared British and Commonwealth Monarchy.
But of course, this has been the political programme all along. Throughout our living memory (for those under 40), politicians and prime ministers have progressively sought to ignore it, undermine it, overlook it, commandeer it, estrange it from our daily lives, minimize it, belittle and even publicly mock it, as Pierre Trudeau did when he pulled off a cockamamie pirouette behind the Queen’s back in the late 1970s, a move that makes Helen Clarke’s contemporary anti-Royal antics appear dignified and stately in comparison. Indeed, under their leadership, we have experienced the very opposite of an honest attempt to understand it, safeguard it, encourage it, value it, educate the public about it, defend it, properly represent it and be loyal to it. True respect in other words. Sincere appreciation and admiration.
Believing that they have finally estranged it to the point of ensuring its inevitable demise in this country, they are now beginning to do something quite unprecedented and astonishing: They are starting to imitate it! Why, because since the recent tenure of “Queen Adrienne”, they have begun preparing the Office of Governor-General, Crown property wholly owned by Her Majesty, for a little friendly, regicidal takeover. Because deep down they now believe that they can own it, control it, make it part of them. For the first time the “progressives” have revealed themselves to us. They are monarchists. Of the untraditional, absolutist sort mind you, the kind that embraces the politician as kingmaker. All this time it was never really about the monarchy at all. It was about the next coronation. Like Bonaparte, they intend to clutch the Crown at the appropriate moment and place it atop their own head. Pretenders and usurpers the lot of them. This is our fight. This is where we are soon headed. You mark my words.
This was not the vision of our Founding Fathers. This was not their understanding of monarchy’s permanence. They were not inward-looking. They were not Canadian monarchists. They were not even monarchists. They were just naturally loyal subjects. Sure they were Canadian, sure they often jealously defended the country’s interests, but the British Crown and tradition was sacred and untouchable. They would never have imagined that the institution could be politically cheapened and divided against itself in this way. For them it was a symbol of continuity and unity that gave Royal sanction to their own good works, their own fatherly creation. In short, they believed in it. They believed in it, because they understood what it represented; because they believed in themselves; because they believed in their permanence. Which is what it all comes down to. When we run from ourselves, when everything gets sacrificed on the altar of progress, we have no faith. Monarchy was always about faith. Without it, we cannot exist.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Keeping alive the grandiose vision of a united Commonwealth Monarchy can be a hopeless chore in the absence of a vehicle through which to support it. Alas, for traditional subjects of Her Majesty, there is no such thing as a Crown Commonwealth Society or a Commonwealth Monarchist League to defend it.I am not a member of the International Monarchist League. Its goals are too broad and not specific to the interests of preserving the British Monarchy. Conversely, I am not a member of the Monarchist League of Canada either (of which I am only a reluctant supporter), because its goals are too narrow and self-interested, even to the point of being detrimental to the continuation of the Crown in right of Canada. Far from ensuring its perpetuation in this humble scribe’s opinion, the inward-looking efforts of the monarchist leagues and their smaller chapters across the Commonwealth have devalued the monarchy by promoting a limited, insular and nationalist view of it. By compartmentalizing the crown into national silos, by jealously carving it up into smaller pieces instead of sustaining its grander whole, we have diminished the prestige and patriotism that was once the embodiment of our shared British and Commonwealth Monarchy.
But of course, this has been the political programme all along. Throughout our living memory (for those under 40), politicians and prime ministers have progressively sought to ignore it, undermine it, overlook it, commandeer it, estrange it from our daily lives, minimize it, belittle and even publicly mock it, as Pierre Trudeau did when he pulled off a cockamamie pirouette behind the Queen’s back in the late 1970s, a move that makes Helen Clarke’s contemporary anti-Royal antics appear dignified and stately in comparison. Indeed, under their leadership, we have experienced the very opposite of an honest attempt to understand it, safeguard it, encourage it, value it, educate the public about it, defend it, properly represent it and be loyal to it. True respect in other words. Sincere appreciation and admiration.
Believing that they have finally estranged it to the point of ensuring its inevitable demise in this country, they are now beginning to do something quite unprecedented and astonishing: They are starting to imitate it! Why, because since the recent tenure of “Queen Adrienne”, they have begun preparing the Office of Governor-General, Crown property wholly owned by Her Majesty, for a little friendly, regicidal takeover. Because deep down they now believe that they can own it, control it, make it part of them. For the first time the “progressives” have revealed themselves to us. They are monarchists. Of the untraditional, absolutist sort mind you, the kind that embraces the politician as kingmaker. All this time it was never really about the monarchy at all. It was about the next coronation. Like Bonaparte, they intend to clutch the Crown at the appropriate moment and place it atop their own head. Pretenders and usurpers the lot of them. This is our fight. This is where we are soon headed. You mark my words.
This was not the vision of our Founding Fathers. This was not their understanding of monarchy’s permanence. They were not inward-looking. They were not Canadian monarchists. They were not even monarchists. They were just naturally loyal subjects. Sure they were Canadian, sure they often jealously defended the country’s interests, but the British Crown and tradition was sacred and untouchable. They would never have imagined that the institution could be politically cheapened and divided against itself in this way. For them it was a symbol of continuity and unity that gave Royal sanction to their own good works, their own fatherly creation. In short, they believed in it. They believed in it, because they understood what it represented; because they believed in themselves; because they believed in their permanence. Which is what it all comes down to. When we run from ourselves, when everything gets sacrificed on the altar of progress, we have no faith. Monarchy was always about faith. Without it, we cannot exist.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:26 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The character of Kings is sacred
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad---based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will...They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself. It is this view of Kingly rule that alone can keep alive in a scoffing and licentious age the spirit of ancient loyalty, that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive to noble daring, and a salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish, and contemptible.
-- John Healy, Catholic Archbishop of Tuam
Hat tip: Charles Coulombe
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:07 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
THE MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad---based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will...They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself. It is this view of Kingly rule that alone can keep alive in a scoffing and licentious age the spirit of ancient loyalty, that spirit begotten of faith, combining in itself obedience, reverence, and love for the majesty of kings which was at once a bond of social union, an incentive to noble daring, and a salt to purify the heart from its grosser tendencies, preserving it from all that is mean, selfish, and contemptible.-- John Healy, Catholic Archbishop of Tuam
Hat tip: Charles Coulombe
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:07 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, October 17, 2005
Welcoming Miss Brontë
It is our distinct privilege at The Monarchist to welcome our very first lady contributor, Miss Charlotte "Jane Eyre" Brontë, to our growing team. We wait with anticipation to find out more about Miss Brontë, who she is, where she's from, and to refresh ourselves with the greatness of her literary achievements. She brings new perspective to TM and makes a brilliant addition to our overall organisation and collective mission.
With that, please join me in welcoming Miss Brontë!
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
It is our distinct privilege at The Monarchist to welcome our very first lady contributor, Miss Charlotte "Jane Eyre" Brontë, to our growing team. We wait with anticipation to find out more about Miss Brontë, who she is, where she's from, and to refresh ourselves with the greatness of her literary achievements. She brings new perspective to TM and makes a brilliant addition to our overall organisation and collective mission.With that, please join me in welcoming Miss Brontë!
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, October 14, 2005
Maggie Thatcher: Anglosphere Heroine
The following tribute was written from New Zealand by my Commonwealth friend, William Pitt, at The Radical Tory:
It is Baroness Thatcher's 80th birthday today. You can read the Daily Telegraph tribute here.
Margaret Thatcher is one of my political heroes. While I was formulating my political philosophy (and I won't tell you how young I was at that stage), I read her memoirs, The Path to Power and The Downing Street Years . I freely admit that at that stage, I didn't understand much of her economic theory, aside of course from the shocking mismanagement of SOEs. But I did understand her values, her pride in Britain, her unshakable resolve to back the workers and not the shirkers, her devotion to duty, hard work, thrift, and the values of a Methodist upbringing. She said Conservatism was not so much a programme, more a way of life. She said Communism was a godless and wicked ideology. She said Galleitri was a tin-pot General, and a playground bully, who would not tyrannise over the Queen's subjects while she was the Prime Minister. She quite simply, saved Britain from Socialism, and with Mr. Reagan, the West from the Soviet Union. She always gives him the Lion's share of the credit, but it was Maggie he turned to, Maggie who backed him, pushed him, supported him. Maggie deserves at least half the credit. A tough, passionate, and Conservative Lady, she has changed the world. In her memoirs, she has a number of regrets. But the Iron Lady dealt the death blow to Socialism, crushing Scargill and his malcontent shirkers, saving the economy, she put the Great back into Great Britain. She writes now that the challenges facing the West are great. Terrorism, rogue States, the break-down of family, the expansion of the government into family life. Welfare reform, standards in education, the reconstruction of civil society. These are our challenges, and we could go a long way without finding a better model of solving them than Margaret Thatcher.
The Old Testament prophets didn't say 'Brothers, I want consensus'. They said "This is my passion, my vision. If you believe it too, come with me! If you want consensus, vote Labour. If you want the passion and vision to get Britian right, vote Conservative
Margaret Thatcher, Cardiff, 1979
Baroness Thatcher, you are a Conservative heroine. The Radical Tory salutes you on this, your 80th birthday. Light the Torch of Freedom!
POSTED BY: PITT at THE RADICAL TORY
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:23 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The following tribute was written from New Zealand by my Commonwealth friend, William Pitt, at The Radical Tory:It is Baroness Thatcher's 80th birthday today. You can read the Daily Telegraph tribute here.
Margaret Thatcher is one of my political heroes. While I was formulating my political philosophy (and I won't tell you how young I was at that stage), I read her memoirs, The Path to Power and The Downing Street Years . I freely admit that at that stage, I didn't understand much of her economic theory, aside of course from the shocking mismanagement of SOEs. But I did understand her values, her pride in Britain, her unshakable resolve to back the workers and not the shirkers, her devotion to duty, hard work, thrift, and the values of a Methodist upbringing. She said Conservatism was not so much a programme, more a way of life. She said Communism was a godless and wicked ideology. She said Galleitri was a tin-pot General, and a playground bully, who would not tyrannise over the Queen's subjects while she was the Prime Minister. She quite simply, saved Britain from Socialism, and with Mr. Reagan, the West from the Soviet Union. She always gives him the Lion's share of the credit, but it was Maggie he turned to, Maggie who backed him, pushed him, supported him. Maggie deserves at least half the credit. A tough, passionate, and Conservative Lady, she has changed the world. In her memoirs, she has a number of regrets. But the Iron Lady dealt the death blow to Socialism, crushing Scargill and his malcontent shirkers, saving the economy, she put the Great back into Great Britain. She writes now that the challenges facing the West are great. Terrorism, rogue States, the break-down of family, the expansion of the government into family life. Welfare reform, standards in education, the reconstruction of civil society. These are our challenges, and we could go a long way without finding a better model of solving them than Margaret Thatcher.
The Old Testament prophets didn't say 'Brothers, I want consensus'. They said "This is my passion, my vision. If you believe it too, come with me! If you want consensus, vote Labour. If you want the passion and vision to get Britian right, vote Conservative
Margaret Thatcher, Cardiff, 1979
Baroness Thatcher, you are a Conservative heroine. The Radical Tory salutes you on this, your 80th birthday. Light the Torch of Freedom!
POSTED BY: PITT at THE RADICAL TORY
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:23 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 13, 2005
The decline of loyalty
In a new “diversity study” released today by the Centre for Multicultural Worship, 58% of Canadians believe that a strong immigrant attachment to country of origin hurts loyalty to Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Dominion. The good news is that a majority still demand and believe that loyalty to country matters. The bad news is that only 58% now believe this. That this number is not even remotely close to the 95% one would expect, is clear evidence the multicultural mob has made serious inroads.
Even more disturbing is the other number. In the very same breath, an even bigger majority (68%) believe that “a multicultural society guards against extremism”. What are we all smoking up here, anyways? When in our collective history did we ever exhibit or foster a level of extremism that needed to be guarded against? How has our free society ever been a threat to immigrants who freely chose to come here, and who did so because they were escaping the very extremism that was prevalent elsewhere? Presumably if we were a threat to immigrants, they would have never come. Many came to our shores because, like our American and Commonwealth partners, we were the beacon of freedom and prosperity they eagerly sought, because we fought against tyranny and liberated populations from the extremism that were the hallmark of other societies.
What doesn’t guard against extremism is multiculturalism, the kind of suicidal self-immolation that threatens to destroy our heritage and birthright in the name of national tolerance. Policies that promote a lack of integration into the larger society create the very conditions that extremist cultures and religious elements need to exist and thrive. Lack of cohesion creates divided loyalties. Divided loyalties in turn destroy pride of belonging, a sense of community and common purpose. Divided loyalties often mean divided values. Divided loyalties create political and multicultural correct paralysis that will ultimately turn the country into a fragmented, international free zone. It is a sarcoma that threatens to submerge us all.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:53 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In a new “diversity study” released today by the Centre for Multicultural Worship, 58% of Canadians believe that a strong immigrant attachment to country of origin hurts loyalty to Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Dominion. The good news is that a majority still demand and believe that loyalty to country matters. The bad news is that only 58% now believe this. That this number is not even remotely close to the 95% one would expect, is clear evidence the multicultural mob has made serious inroads.Even more disturbing is the other number. In the very same breath, an even bigger majority (68%) believe that “a multicultural society guards against extremism”. What are we all smoking up here, anyways? When in our collective history did we ever exhibit or foster a level of extremism that needed to be guarded against? How has our free society ever been a threat to immigrants who freely chose to come here, and who did so because they were escaping the very extremism that was prevalent elsewhere? Presumably if we were a threat to immigrants, they would have never come. Many came to our shores because, like our American and Commonwealth partners, we were the beacon of freedom and prosperity they eagerly sought, because we fought against tyranny and liberated populations from the extremism that were the hallmark of other societies.
What doesn’t guard against extremism is multiculturalism, the kind of suicidal self-immolation that threatens to destroy our heritage and birthright in the name of national tolerance. Policies that promote a lack of integration into the larger society create the very conditions that extremist cultures and religious elements need to exist and thrive. Lack of cohesion creates divided loyalties. Divided loyalties in turn destroy pride of belonging, a sense of community and common purpose. Divided loyalties often mean divided values. Divided loyalties create political and multicultural correct paralysis that will ultimately turn the country into a fragmented, international free zone. It is a sarcoma that threatens to submerge us all.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:53 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
The Monarchist nominated for best blog post
Walsingham has been nominated by Small Dead Animals, fellow Blogging Tory and one of the most popular political blogs in North America, for penning the best blog post this year. The Tipping Point, which alone has been read by more than 10,000 readers, garnered a hundred comments and was mentioned in the MSM since it was written last May, seems to be in a close three way race with Captain's Quarters and Eject! Eject! Eject! for the lead. The polls are now open and will be until October 21, so please go on over, scroll down to the bottom category and vote. The early results are promising:
Best Blog Post
1. Tipping Point (The Monarchist) 27 (22 %)
2. Were the Liberal Party's finances 'audited' (mkbraaten.com) 7 (5 %)
3. It's the tyranny, stupid (Right Thinking People) 3 (2 %)
4. Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open (Cptn's Quarters) 35 (28 %)
5. Blogversary Post (Gods of the Copybook Headings) 9 (7 %)
6. King's County Absentee Ballot Audit Trail... (Sound Politics) 4 (3 %)
7. Tribes (Eject! Eject! Eject!) 34 (28 %)
8. What 'wating for Gomery' really means (Gin and Tonic) 2 (1 %)
9. Sanctuary (Eject! Eject! Eject!) 0 (0 %)
Total votes: 121
Update: The Western Standard is holding an editorial writing contest that could win you a cool grand. I highly recommend that Sir Walsingham and Mister Pitt apply before the deadline of October 23, 2005.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:13 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Walsingham has been nominated by Small Dead Animals, fellow Blogging Tory and one of the most popular political blogs in North America, for penning the best blog post this year. The Tipping Point, which alone has been read by more than 10,000 readers, garnered a hundred comments and was mentioned in the MSM since it was written last May, seems to be in a close three way race with Captain's Quarters and Eject! Eject! Eject! for the lead. The polls are now open and will be until October 21, so please go on over, scroll down to the bottom category and vote. The early results are promising:
Best Blog Post
1. Tipping Point (The Monarchist) 27 (22 %)
2. Were the Liberal Party's finances 'audited' (mkbraaten.com) 7 (5 %)
3. It's the tyranny, stupid (Right Thinking People) 3 (2 %)
4. Canada's Corruption Scandal Breaks Wide Open (Cptn's Quarters) 35 (28 %)
5. Blogversary Post (Gods of the Copybook Headings) 9 (7 %)
6. King's County Absentee Ballot Audit Trail... (Sound Politics) 4 (3 %)
7. Tribes (Eject! Eject! Eject!) 34 (28 %)
8. What 'wating for Gomery' really means (Gin and Tonic) 2 (1 %)
9. Sanctuary (Eject! Eject! Eject!) 0 (0 %)
Total votes: 121
Update: The Western Standard is holding an editorial writing contest that could win you a cool grand. I highly recommend that Sir Walsingham and Mister Pitt apply before the deadline of October 23, 2005.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:13 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, October 06, 2005
A bloody war or a sickly season
COUNTDOWN TO TRAFALGAR 200 (BOT minus 16 days)
Today is Thursday, so it seems fitting in honour of our immortal Lord Nelson to offer up Thursday’s traditional naval toast, to a bloody war or a sickly season, in defiance of the pampered politically correct who would consider such a gesture as “a grisly reference to making room for more promotions through the deaths of individuals higher up the chain of command”. It is true that naval officers gloried for the coming battle, and that if not, the hope remained that ageing admirals would die off rather than clog up opportunities for advancement. But so what? Good on them that they were ambitious. Big deal if they were blunt about it. What I admire is how we English can make a crude adage sound so artistically and blissfully expressive and eloquent. A bloody war or a sickly season. Why it’s just downright Shakespearian.
So you can imagine how shocked, shocked I was when I learnt that Her Majesty’s Canadian Navy had changed most of the traditional toasts back in 1999 in order to bring them “into a form that echoed current Canadian values”. I left my ten year stint as a bridge watchkeeper back in 1997, so I had no idea that they had done this. It is one thing for politicians to clamour for change in this way, but for Admirals? Just listen to this vintage performance straight from National Disgrace Headquarters:
Yes, t’is a sickly season in this part of the Anglosphere. It is laughable that they would propose such reforms under the rubric of “Project Pride”. It is offensive to veterans that they would institute such sacrilege effective on the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic, Sunday, May 2, 1999. So what did they replace it with? Our Navy. Why? Because they no longer consider it Her Majesty’s, I suppose.
Oh what a bloody season or a sickly nation this is. When we are offended by the past.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:24 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
COUNTDOWN TO TRAFALGAR 200 (BOT minus 16 days)Today is Thursday, so it seems fitting in honour of our immortal Lord Nelson to offer up Thursday’s traditional naval toast, to a bloody war or a sickly season, in defiance of the pampered politically correct who would consider such a gesture as “a grisly reference to making room for more promotions through the deaths of individuals higher up the chain of command”. It is true that naval officers gloried for the coming battle, and that if not, the hope remained that ageing admirals would die off rather than clog up opportunities for advancement. But so what? Good on them that they were ambitious. Big deal if they were blunt about it. What I admire is how we English can make a crude adage sound so artistically and blissfully expressive and eloquent. A bloody war or a sickly season. Why it’s just downright Shakespearian.
So you can imagine how shocked, shocked I was when I learnt that Her Majesty’s Canadian Navy had changed most of the traditional toasts back in 1999 in order to bring them “into a form that echoed current Canadian values”. I left my ten year stint as a bridge watchkeeper back in 1997, so I had no idea that they had done this. It is one thing for politicians to clamour for change in this way, but for Admirals? Just listen to this vintage performance straight from National Disgrace Headquarters:
In a recent report Chief of the Maritime Staff Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison explained that traditional daily toasts originated in the wardrooms of the Royal Navy, and some reflected the values of another age…In his report VAdm Maddison said that "We all know there is a degree of change fatigue and that some people will object to this change in principle. Let us not gripe about 'change for change's sake' or 'doing away with sacred traditions' or 'eating away at our ethics'. Let us celebrate our own traditions, take pride in being Canadian and move on into the future, proud of where we have come from, but confident of who we are as Canadians."
"I would like to ask all members of the navy, and particularly those who have served in the past, to approach this in the spirit in which it is intended. Changing the toasts is not a fundamental break with our heritage, it is just a small way of improving on a tradition which we wish to retain."
Yes, t’is a sickly season in this part of the Anglosphere. It is laughable that they would propose such reforms under the rubric of “Project Pride”. It is offensive to veterans that they would institute such sacrilege effective on the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic, Sunday, May 2, 1999. So what did they replace it with? Our Navy. Why? Because they no longer consider it Her Majesty’s, I suppose.
Oh what a bloody season or a sickly nation this is. When we are offended by the past.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:24 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
God is an Englishman
In his famous 1970 novel, God is an Englishman, R.F. Delderfield spoke metaphorically about the extraordinary entrepreneurial progress and industrial transformation of Britain during the Victorian era; a period during which British wealth and power rose to its zenith, when a full quarter of the world’s population fell under the civilising dominion of Anglo-imperial rule; when a people “relative to their numbers, contributed more to civilisation than any other people since the ancient Greeks and Romans”. With Pax Britannica and preconceived notions of greatness still fresh in the minds of a people who witnessed it, small wonder the ageing Victorian romantic was not only irresistibly drawn to the author’s work, but to an unembroidered interpretation of it. To Churchill’s generation, God was an Englishman.
While I can empathize with the merits of this partly conceited Anglo-Saxon point of view, and I fervently hope the book will one day find a prominent place in my proud collection, such a belief does regrettably possess a minor logical drawback: all Englishmen are natural subjects of Her Majesty, a detail that turns on its head the ancient conviction that monarchs derive their due authority from the Deity.
Quite obviously this cannot be, since the consequence of believing so would upset our whole civilising experience, where the two most reverent and exalted of earthly institutions – monarchy and the church – would no longer be ordered on mortal man’s deference to God. Kings are not gods - they are servants. Our love for the majesty of kings is dependent on them serving us and serving Him. "God creates the world out of nothing. God creates man out of the ground. God creates woman from man...God gives them a king". Evidently, God is a monarchist.
God is an Englishman? Yes, tongue-in-cheek. God is a monarchist? Yes. No tongue. No cheek.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In his famous 1970 novel, God is an Englishman, R.F. Delderfield spoke metaphorically about the extraordinary entrepreneurial progress and industrial transformation of Britain during the Victorian era; a period during which British wealth and power rose to its zenith, when a full quarter of the world’s population fell under the civilising dominion of Anglo-imperial rule; when a people “relative to their numbers, contributed more to civilisation than any other people since the ancient Greeks and Romans”. With Pax Britannica and preconceived notions of greatness still fresh in the minds of a people who witnessed it, small wonder the ageing Victorian romantic was not only irresistibly drawn to the author’s work, but to an unembroidered interpretation of it. To Churchill’s generation, God was an Englishman.While I can empathize with the merits of this partly conceited Anglo-Saxon point of view, and I fervently hope the book will one day find a prominent place in my proud collection, such a belief does regrettably possess a minor logical drawback: all Englishmen are natural subjects of Her Majesty, a detail that turns on its head the ancient conviction that monarchs derive their due authority from the Deity.
Quite obviously this cannot be, since the consequence of believing so would upset our whole civilising experience, where the two most reverent and exalted of earthly institutions – monarchy and the church – would no longer be ordered on mortal man’s deference to God. Kings are not gods - they are servants. Our love for the majesty of kings is dependent on them serving us and serving Him. "God creates the world out of nothing. God creates man out of the ground. God creates woman from man...God gives them a king". Evidently, God is a monarchist.
God is an Englishman? Yes, tongue-in-cheek. God is a monarchist? Yes. No tongue. No cheek.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Edward the Confessor turns 1,000
Any monarchist worth his salt celebrates the birth of kings. That's what monarchists do. Especially when the birth of this king -- the king who became a saint -- took place a thousand years ago, marking the halfway point between our own lives and the birth of another king -- Jesus Christ.
St. Edward the Confessor was born a thousand years ago this year (or thereabouts), and Westminster Abbey is commemorating the occasion. And for good reason, since it was Edward, last of the Anglo-Saxon kings, who founded the “west minster” to distinguish it from St Paul’s Cathedral (the east minster) in the then medieval town of London. Unfortunately, when the new church was consecrated on 28 December 1065 the King was too ill to attend and died a few days later. His mortal remains were entombed in front of the High Altar.
Westminster Abbey, the "House of God, House of Kings", has been the site of every coronation since 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. For legitimacy reasons, William wanted to be coronated there, since unlike Harold, William I was at least related to Edward and was eager to press this point as occupier of England. Today, the principle royal crown is still referred to as St. Edward's crown and the Coronation Chair is still sometimes referred to as St Edward's Chair.
King Edward, we are told, was in many respects a pathetically weak, powerless and indecisive monarch, but his creation is the bedrock of the English throne and institution we revere even today, a thousand years later.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:33 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Any monarchist worth his salt celebrates the birth of kings. That's what monarchists do. Especially when the birth of this king -- the king who became a saint -- took place a thousand years ago, marking the halfway point between our own lives and the birth of another king -- Jesus Christ. St. Edward the Confessor was born a thousand years ago this year (or thereabouts), and Westminster Abbey is commemorating the occasion. And for good reason, since it was Edward, last of the Anglo-Saxon kings, who founded the “west minster” to distinguish it from St Paul’s Cathedral (the east minster) in the then medieval town of London. Unfortunately, when the new church was consecrated on 28 December 1065 the King was too ill to attend and died a few days later. His mortal remains were entombed in front of the High Altar.
Westminster Abbey, the "House of God, House of Kings", has been the site of every coronation since 1066, when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. For legitimacy reasons, William wanted to be coronated there, since unlike Harold, William I was at least related to Edward and was eager to press this point as occupier of England. Today, the principle royal crown is still referred to as St. Edward's crown and the Coronation Chair is still sometimes referred to as St Edward's Chair.
King Edward, we are told, was in many respects a pathetically weak, powerless and indecisive monarch, but his creation is the bedrock of the English throne and institution we revere even today, a thousand years later.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:33 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
