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)
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. | 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. | LINKS |
Comments:
Can't see the comments?If you are unable to see the comments, your browser may have javascript turned off or may not support javascript. Check your security settings. Otherwise you can click here to access to comments in regular HTML from the TheirSay! Comment Server.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
