The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
English Flag (1272) Scottish Flag (1286) King's Flag (1606) Budge Flag (1707) Grand Union Flag (1776) United States of America Flag (14 June 1777) United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland (1801) UK Red Ensign UK White Ensign (1864) UK Blue Ensign Australian Flag (1901) New Zealand Flag (1917) Canadian National Flag (1965)

[+] 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'

[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)

Friday, December 30, 2005
Blair trumps Churchill

The Times of London reported today that Blair has now exceeded Churchill in tenure as British Prime Minister. The paper goes on to quote a University of London professor who states that Tony Blair's legacy has now been assured: “It is always tricky even to begin to write the longer-term history of a premiership before it is over and properly laid to rest, yet one thing can be said with certainty about the Blair premierships: the remaking of the British constitution with devolution, the Human Rights Act and in a mild way the Freedom of Information Act, means that he is a prime minister who has presided over a profound and enduring change."

I'll say. The real story here is how Blair's premiership has undone Churchill's. Nobody talks about the Commonwealth anymore because Mr. Blair has almost completely estranged Great Britain from it. Really, just how great is Great Britain without it? Just how united is the United Kingdom with devolution? Just how British are the British Isles as a province of Europe? Less great, less united and less British. That's Blair's legacy. One premiership is all it took to kill off Churchill's Britain.

That's the irony I'm pondering at the end of 2005. In the ever increasing smallness of our global village, why does it feel that Britain gets more distant from us with each passing year?

Sunday, December 25, 2005
The Queen's Christmas address to the Commonwealth

The day after my last Christmas message was broadcast, the world experienced one of the worst natural disasters ever recorded. The devastating tsunami struck countries around the Indian Ocean causing death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. This was followed by a number of vicious hurricanes across the Caribbean and the inundation of the city of New Orleans. Then in the autumn came the massive earthquake in Pakistan and India. This series of dreadful events has brought loss and suffering to so many people - and their families and friends - not only in the countries directly affected, but here in Britain and throughout the Commonwealth.

As if these disasters were not bad enough, I have sometimes thought that humanity seemed to have turned on itself - with wars, civil disturbances and acts of brutal terrorism. In this country many people's lives were totally changed by the London bombings in July.

This Christmas my thoughts are especially with those everywhere who are grieving the loss of loved ones during what for so many has been such a terrible year.

These natural and human tragedies provided the headline news; they also provoked a quite remarkable humanitarian response. People of compassion all over the world responded with immediate practical and financial help.

There may be an instinct in all of us to help those in distress, but in many cases I believe this has been inspired by religious faith. Christianity is not the only religion to teach its followers to help others and to treat your neighbour as you would want to be treated yourself.

It has been clear that in the course of this year relief workers and financial support have come from members of every faith and from every corner of the world.

There is no doubt that the process of rebuilding these communities is far from over and there will be fresh calls on our commitment to help in the future. Certainly the need for selflessness and generosity in the face of hardship is nothing new. The veterans of the Second World War whom we honoured last summer can tell us how so often, in moments of greatest trial, those around them seemed able to draw on some inner strength to find courage and compassion. We see this today in the way that young men and women are calmly serving our country around the world often in great danger.

This last year has reminded us that this world is not always an easy or a safe place to live in, but it is the only place we have. I believe also that it has shown us all how our faith - whatever our religion - can inspire us to work together in friendship and peace for the sake of our own and future generations.

For Christians this festival of Christmas is the time to remember the birth of the one we call "the Prince of Peace" and our source of "light and life" in both good times and bad. It is not always easy to accept his teaching, but I have no doubt that the New Year will be all the better if we do but try.

I hope you will all have a very happy Christmas this year and that you go into the New Year with renewed hope and confidence.

Friday, December 23, 2005
Blessed Christ Mass to the King of Kings

May the Kingdom of Heaven guide us to peace on Earth and goodwill towards men (and women). Joy to the world between all peoples of all nations, of all languages, of all cultures and all faiths. In the name of our heavenly Father and Son, and to the birth of our everlasting King, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas to you all. Amen.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Monarchist view of a Red Tory

First, I wish to say that I very much enjoy the Monarchist Blogsite. In particular I enjoy the well researched articles that span centuries, even millenia.

However, the very concept of Monarchy implies that the institution is "above politics". While it is useful to understand and study history, it is also vital to apply the lessons of history.

For example, very often people here will talk about the "British" or the "English", or the "United Empire Loyalists", or even "British Subjects". But the whole idea of the Monarchy is far broader than a unifying force in a single ethnic or cultural group.

In your post you asked what was "multi-culturalism". I will answer. In a nutshell, its the gateway to our Monarchy. Its the "admission ticket" to a civilized and peaceful society that is based upon the Rule of Law, guaranteed by the Crown, under God.

Sometimes I have found that people abuse "multiculturalism" as a thinly disguised form of racism. We have, for example, seen the uproar in the Royal Canadian Legion and how some members (which is to say veterans) were being racially abused through phony "house rules" that related to "no turbans". It took nothing less than a personal intervention of Her Majesty in Vancouver, who personally walked over to some of these veterans to formally thank them for their contributions to Canada, and to make a "statement louder than words" to some of the racists in the Canadian Legion for this furour over "turbans".

Her Majesty's action DEMONSTRATED with DEEDS exactly what "multiculturalism" is all about. Its how freedom loving people "join" Canadian Society.

Now my second point relates to Americans. I have always regarded the American Revolutionary War as a great tragedy because of its abrupt and revolutionary break with the flow of history, culture and tradition. No one should ever forget that America was Britain's "first child" and it was poorly treated as a child. Had Britain been more forthcoming to the American Colonies, the tragedy of the American Civil War might have been averted, a tragedy that had to square the circle of the contradictions at the very heart of American Republicanism, a tragedy that persists to this very day in their political life, where the government cannot even deliver the most basic of emergency services to its citizens.

I have one other observation, and that is about Canadian "Conservatives". For the most part, today, they have abandoned the path of traditional and civilized "tories" such as Sir John A. MacDonald, or the silver tongued Sir Edmund Burke. Indeed, they have abandoned even such American Conservatives as Wm. F. Buckley, instead following the siren call of the "neocons", those atheists most recently organized by such fascist intellectuals as Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Hayek and Freedman. Today's "conservatives" led by Mr. Harper are like a team of two horses pulling in opposite directions. In the one direction are the "monetarist" conservatives, folks that are basically atheists who believe that the "value" of things exist separately and apart in the form of "money". Pulling in the other direction, under such leaders as Preston Manning, are the "social conservatives" comprising mostly of "fundamentalist Christians" who rarely study or question their own convictions and beliefs, and who "stand on the Living Word of God", not-with-standing that its an English Language translation of a Latin text, that itself was a translation of an earlier Latin text, that itself came from the first Latin text of the original Scriptures first set down in Business Greek and Aramaic. Within the political establishment of the "conservative" tent, this second group has been fundamentally deceived by the first, by such suspects as "Lord Black" and his charming wife Barbara Amiel. Ever the "monetarist", Lord Black had himself appointed to the "Colonel" of the Governor General's Guard, which is something I to this day, do not completely grasp and understand. Lord Black of course, was a two gun totin, cussin supporter of Emperor George Bush II.

As Canadians, we were fortunate to have Prime Minister Jean Chretien see through the deceptions and deceit from south of the border, something that could not be said for Britons and Aussies, whose Prime Ministers have considerably less experience, and who themselves did not avail themselves fully of Her Majesty's advice and experiences. It would no doubt shock a lot of people on this site to know that Mr. Chretien was a strong supporter of the Monarchy, not unlike John Diefenbaker. As for comments about Mr. Manley, he is no longer in government in any capacity, and so its not proper to attack his party over such a phoney "issue" as Mr. Manley's "position" on the Monarchy in the Canadian Constitution.

COMMENT POSTED BY JOE GREEN

Monday, December 19, 2005
The Phony Patriotic Party

This resonates with The Monarchist big time. David Warren, one of the last remaining Canadian journalists preaching true, honest-to-God Toryism strikes a chord with this note, while registering his usual disgust with the Liberal Party. Go ahead and spew your phony patriotism, says David, but don't insinuate we are any less Canadian because we reject it:

"I AM Canadian. This is something no Liberal government can take away. Yet, something they've been trying to take away for a long time. And which they now mock, and teach people to mock.

I was born, in Toronto, of generations of Canadian parentage on both sides. A British subject: it was inscribed in my first passport, as the mark of my freedom. This was part of what being a Canadian entailed. I am not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh, but Canadian, and therefore as British as the rest. The Liberals took that away -- the inscription in my passport -- by a parliamentary trick. They took away the proud title of the Dominion of Canada, by another trick. They've stripped my Queen off public walls, by administrative orders; they've covered the lion and unicorn with their paper maple leaves; and that before turning the moral order akimbo. They speak as if my very loyalty to the Canadian order in which I was born, removes me from participation in their "new Canada". Notwithstanding: Civis Britannicus sum.

They have created fake, paper-thin values for a fake country -- a country they made up to replace a real one. (“Multiculturalism” -- what’s that?) They have zombified much of the population, buying people off with their own money; made free men and women into dependents of the state. But I remain, while I live, a British subject, and a Christian citizen of the Dominion of Canada. For they cannot take away what I am."

Friday, December 16, 2005
And then there were three...

Only three Canadian Great War veterans now alive. William 'Duke' Procter died yesterday. He was 106.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005
The Old Flag. The Old Policy. The Old Leader.

Whatever our differences as a country in the now underway Canadian federal election, we would universally agree that everything has changed since the election of 1891. Way back then it was the Conservatives under Sir John A. MacDonald who shamelessly wrapped themselves in the flag to hide their political weakness and enfeeble their opponents, who were antagonistically anti-American in their national outlook and policy, who were corrupt to the core and drunk with power. It was the Liberals who offered a fresh face, who campaigned on a bold theme of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. So bold in fact, that even today, 115 years later, we still don’t have complete unobstructed mobility of people and trade across our shared border.

And yet, while we can say that the roles have completely reversed, that today’s Conservatives are yesterday’s Liberals, today’s Liberals are not yesterday’s Conservatives. In terms of rampant cronyism, corruption and a culture of entitlement, in terms of being incorrigibly paternalistic and autocratic, yes. But that’s where the similarities end. For all of their faults as a crusty tired old government, the Tories back then were at least wedded to something nobler than themselves. They were at least rooted to notions more rousing and virtuous than their own squalid oligarchy. There was religious devotion for one, there was an unbridled reverence for our institutions, and there was an inspiring grand vision for a rapidly developing nation, which in turn fed people with confidence and a healthy optimism for the country’s future. There was also a layer of government above the federal parliament under the British imperial system that people and politicians felt patriotically attached. These were all things that were the sole property of the people, which transcended the political party and occupants in power. Liberal dominance throughout the 20th century changed all of this. The Liberals have somehow managed to confuse, if not entirely replace, all of this with themselves.

This makes their arrogance and misconduct all the more fetid. We have a Prime Minister today so gutless he cannot even call a Christmas wreath by its own name, even when lured by reporters. Christmas gets turfed in favour of Liberal multiculturalism, a politically correct state policy that reduces the spoken choices of people in the political sphere, while enhancing group think and Liberal power. Stay-at-home parents get cut out of the Liberal nanny state. The Conservative’s Choice in Childcare Plan, whereby $1,200 annually would go to parents for every child under six, gets derided by the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman as money that will just get blown on “beer and popcorn”. Get that: money should go to more government regulated childcare spaces (currently used by 13% of the population) because only Liberals can look after our kids. Parents should not be given the choice because they can't be trusted to spend the money responsibly. The Liberals react to a string of murders in the Toronto area by promising to ban all handguns across the country, thereby limiting the freedoms and choices of law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to effectively deter and fight crime. Liberal driven same-sex marriage. Once again, instead of offering a range of free choices for people who will engage in traditional or non-traditional partnerships, they lump the whole thing under a re-definition of marriage that violates the religious beliefs of most people. The list goes on.

Issue after issue, policy after policy, the Liberals prove that they are all about limiting the traditional freedoms and choices of people. They have proven time and again in the early days of this election campaign that they are the champions of more unwieldy government, fewer choices, less tradition, that they will not stop until all of what’s left of the Old Canada gets sucked into the expanding Republic of Liberaldom. Not a moment too soon, I say. Now is the time to send the scoundrels packing. In the name of God, go.

Monday, December 05, 2005
Renovating T.M.

Not a major renovation or anything, I'm just going to concentrate on cleansing, re-ordering and re-populating the right sidebar. This was never constructed up to snuff in the first place, but hastily thrown together and therafter mostly forgotten. Not anymore. This will be one of my priorities this week, as I try to make the folders operational for Firefox users, and the content reflective of a more joyous order.

AUS NZ UK CAN US

Saturday, December 03, 2005
The proper role of tradition in Civil Society

This essay by John Fox (our very own William Pitt) was the winning entry in the New Zealand based Maxim Institute’s 2004 competition. Taking as their starting point Sir Isaac Newton’s proposition, “If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”, entrants were asked to consider how our present culture, laws, institutions and values are built upon the ideas of the past. What role does Civil Society play in preserving and passing on heritage? Can progress and preservation of virtues in society co-exist?

“The mark of insanity is reason without a root, reason in a void.”
-- G. K.Chesterton, Orthodoxy

“In this Voyage of thy Life, hull not about like the Ark without the use of Rudder, Mast or Sail, and bound for no Port. (Rather) let iterated good Acts and long confirmed habits make Virtue a most natural or second Nature to thee.”
-- Sir Thomas Browne, Religio Medici, 1635


Karl Marx wrote, “A people without heritage are easily persuaded”. Tradition, wrote Edmund Burke, is “our anchor”. In this instant age, in which individualism and relativism hold sway, we have lost sight of the important role that our ancestors, their experience, and their institutions can play in the fabric of Civil Society. By abandoning our heritage in favour of transient ideological fashion, we have lost sight of the concept of true progress, substituting for it an unrealisable utopian ideal, based on relativism, which, while pretending to exalt man, degrades and destroys him.

A proper appreciation of tradition, heritage and historical institutions is a vital part of the foundations and maintenance of Civil Society. Recognising the role of tradition in the creation of institutions that maintain social order is tremendously important. Civil Society plays an important role in the preservation of heritage; by heritage virtue; and by virtue, true progress. I shall briefly examine the importance of tradition to Civil Society: as a source of experience, as a creator of institutions, and as a source of inspiration.

It has become fashionable to act as if the 21st century is somehow more enlightened than previous centuries. This is particularly the case in so-called “progressive” politics, which seeks to “liberate” society from what Thomas Paine called “the manuscript authority of the dead.” In his frenzied response to Edmund Burke, Paine put it this way: “The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.” By this thinking, the “competence” of the present generation is enough to over-rule the traditions of all the previous ones. This view is alive and well in New Zealand. MP Moana Mackey said of marriage and Civil Unions: “One (marriage) has behind it thousands of years of interesting tradition and history; the other’s history begins here today.” That is, the competence of this generation is enough to “change” marriage, and the traditions of our forefathers are merely “interesting”. In the light of this philosophy, it is important to examine the arguments for the continuation of tradition.

Its first importance is as a source of experience. St Cyprian wrote, “Art thou unsure as to a matter? Let the Fathers be asked.” Tradition is a treasury that must be consulted, so that in our moral and social decisions we are not guided simply by fashion, but by a deep sense of what it is to be a moral human. Chesterton called this moderating influence “the democracy of the dead.” People in the seven millennia of recorded history struggled with the same issues we do. A simple example of the commonality of human nature across time can be found in famous “youth of today” quotations: “The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for their parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint” (Peter the Hermit, 1100 AD). “Our young men have grown slothful,” wrote Seneca in the 1st century AD. “I see no hope for our people in the youth of today,” wrote Hesiod in 8 BC. Across time and culture, humanity wrestles with the same problems. The restraint of power. The promotion of public virtue and suppression of vice. The education of the young. It is madness to have available records of solutions tried, failed, discarded, adapted over thousands of years and not use them. “We (should be) afraid to put men each on his own private stock of reason; the stock in each man is small. The individuals would do better to avail themselves of the capital of nations and of ages.” When we destroy the institutions of our fathers, we will have all their work to do again.

Our ancestors did not randomly associate in political arrangements. Our parliamentary system, our moral and legal codes are the result of thousands of years of distilled experience. Our institutions are organically grown from the trials, tribulations and experiments of our ancestors. They were not imposed from above to recognise created rights, but grew from below as recognitions of rights already existing. For instance, the right of trial by jury was created because our ancestors saw that a man could not impartially judge his own cause. The Petition of Right of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 state, “Whereas experience hath shewn”, and go on to recognise the fundamental rights of British subjects, rights which form the basis of our legal system. Institutions like Parliament, the law, the freedoms of religion and so on are thus all recognised not only by law but developed by tradition, rooted firmly in the village green. It is these traditions which progressivism as a philosophy seeks to challenge, not on the grounds of reason, but of ideology. The Privy Council, for instance, is “anachronistic” in the present government’s view, not because it fails to deliver a high standard of impartial justice but because it is a symbol of our dependence on the United Kingdom, which the government rejects as “infantile”. Progressivism hates the institutions of organic tradition because, as C.S. Lewis puts it, “they give the individual a standing ground against the state.”

Heritage also produces inspiration and identity. The proper appreciation of heritage inspires us to take up the trust given to us by our fathers and make it our own. In the proper teaching of not only New Zealand but also British history we will find an appreciation for our institutions, and the inspiration we need to defend them. Spenser recognised the value of heroes when he wrote, “It is better to teach by example than by rule.” Civil Society has always recognised a life well-lived when it saw one; it has been left to the cynicism of our modern age to turn from praising exemplars of faith, courage and fortitude to cynicism and sniping. Since we have abandoned virtue as an objective standard, we rush to declare the virtuous of yesterday to be villainous, and the villains heroes. We now have books like The da Vinci Code and films which portray Churchill as a drunk, and Austen (or even Queen Victoria) as lesbians. We have begun to revise history in our own image, one which cuts heroes down to size and exalts in feet of clay. This is only possible, of course, because of the widespread ignorance of actual history in our society. As The Screwtape Letters have it: “We have arranged it so that no-one reads old books any more, and those that do are precisely those who get no benefit from them.” The popularity of films like Spiderman or Hornblower shows precisely the longing for heroes which is deep in the heart of everyone. In a classical framework, historical heroes would fill this void. Without tradition, it is filled by the “competence” of this generation: gangs, gangsta rappers and film stars. Without tradition, identity fails and is replaced by alienation and despair.

The simply ancient is not the source of Edmund Burke’s “anchor”, however. It is, rather, a sense of the moral law which the institutions formed by tradition give us. As Burke puts it: “We have implanted in us ideas, rules, of what is just, fair, honest, which no political craft, nor learned sophistry, can entirely expel from our breasts.” It is a connection with the moral law that our traditional institutions give us, a connection with an external standard. Certain things are implanted, transmitted and recognized by our institutions as a vital part of our heritage. Actions are “virtuous” because they conform to the external standard of absolute morality, which we have received. Whatever the origin of the standard, it binds us, and it is transmitted by traditional institutions. This is not to say that all traditions are, ipso facto, virtuous. But tradition, because it is made up of people, is the story of our engagement with the moral law. Tradition thus enhances and sharpens the moral tools for discernment of good and evil, and our traditional institutions have an integral part to play in learning virtue. We have embraced relativism, which judges moral issues as simply a matter of preference and feeling. In this, we have parted company with several millennia of tradition, in which virtuous actions were virtuous not because they were convenient, but because, as Plato put it, they conformed to the “eternal form” of virtue.

It is the business of a Civil Society to transmit virtue to its citizens, to encourage them to conform their conduct to the moral law. This is done in all three spheres of traditional institution—namely, in the civil government through the law and education; in the family through the transmission of values and modelling of standards of conduct; and in the religious sphere. When all three institutions work in harmony, the moral law is tied into a coherent values system. The weak are protected. The strong are restrained. When they are in competition, the moral fabric of Civil Society begins to unravel. Many times the traditional spheres have not always practised the moral law, but they all recognised it. It has been left to the last 100 years to unravel all three. The civil authorities now see themselves as, “Not in the business of Victorian morality.”

We have a values-neutral government. This departure from the moral law has produced a laissez-faire attitude to what used to be called vice, and has resulted in the government deciding moral issues not, as traditionally, on the basis of morality, the common good, or even the views of the people, but on the basis of an ideology of individualism. Without an external standard, all things are permissible. Likewise, the education system, which classically was concerned with promoting virtue in the hearts and minds of the young, has come undone. The Ministry of Education states that both morality and educational quality “vary with context”. Traditional criteria, as found in the Rhodes Scholarship, carry the ring of another moral age: “Truthfulness, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak….; exhibition of moral force of character and of instincts to lead” are out, and “tolerance, respect for others, and a good sense of self” is in.

Similar considerations apply to the family. The Pope has restated that which our ancestors took for granted: “The family is the basic cell of human society… it is there that children best learn the dispositions and skills which they require, (There) they best learn the truth of what it means to be a person…challenged by rights and duties.” It is a measure of how far we have drifted from our moorings that despite our horrendous rate of family breakdown, the Pope was attacked as “intolerant of differing ways of doing family” by several members of the government.

Progress and tradition are often seen to be opposed, but they are not. T. S. Eliot responded to the claim that “We know more than our ancestors did” with the answer “and they are that which we know.” That is, tradition is and ought to be living. Progress comes from what Eliot called “the historical sense”, an awareness that “We are not the owners of the earth, but are trustees with life-renewing lease.” Tradition thus can only be renovated when it is understood. It is by proceeding “upon the principle of reverence to antiquity analogical precedent, authority, and example” that we may find a way forward. What does this mean in practice? Take the Privy Council. Our ancestors retained the right of appeal to the Privy Council in order to give us distance from local affairs, and impartial justice and experience. By preserving these things, our ancestors protected the rule of law from corruption. The government’s reform, in abolishing a traditional institution, ought to have at least secured the benefits which tradition offered in its alternative model. It does not.

Ideology divorced from virtue and tradition is brutal, and draws on a destructive utopian tradition which devalues the human person. To renovate a traditional institution, whether it be the family, the courts, or the schools, one must first have an understanding of its purpose. Too often, liberalism has not only a relativistic morality, but an agenda for the traditional institutions at variance with their original purpose. For instance, the traditional purpose of marriage is set out in the Book of Common Prayer : the procreation of children, to avoid fornication, and mutual comfort and help. This institution has been hallowed by 5000 years of tradition. When one examines the reasons for change, they take no account of the first two purposes. They ignore the procreation of children by saying that children don’t need a mother and father and do just fine in “alternative families”. There is no reference to the monogamous nature of the union, since the government is no longer in the business of Victorian morality. Only “mutual comfort and help” is referred to, and it is only this “purpose” of marriage that the law will now recognise. Conversely, when one speaks from within a tradition, as did Newton, one is in a position to critique its bad points, point out changes in “sovereign circumstance”, and to hand on to the next generation a greater tradition than one has received. As Chesterton puts it, “with a fixed heart, we have a free hand.” Without one, we can no longer be free, and we cannot have real progress. We are not only no longer right judges of tradition, we are no longer able to judge value at all.

The challenge of our generation is ably phrased by William Pitt, who said: “Let us examine what is left, with manly and determined courage. The misfortunes of individuals and kingdoms that are laid open and examined with true wisdom are more than half redressed.” It is the challenge of “examining (and rescuing) what is left” which confronts us today. The future of our country depends upon our response.

POSTED AT MY BEHEST WITH KIND PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR, WILLIAM PITT THE YOUNGER

Friday, December 02, 2005
America is not officially styled a Republic

This very worthy comment comes courtesy of James C. Bennett, founder of the Anglosphere Institute, author of The Anglosphere Challenge and blogger at Albion’s Seedlings.

America was not as anti-monarchist at the time of the end of the Monarchist Period of its history as is generally thought today. There was a bloc of hard-core Commonwealth-men in New England itching for revenge in 1660, but in the middle states and the South the temperament was moderate-Whiggish and fully accepted the settlement of 1688. In fact, the general consensus of moderate Whigs was that republicanism had been tried during the Commonwealth period and found wanting, and many people were mildly nervous about a republican experiment.

The problem was more of a lack of suitable candidates for an American throne than a diehard republicanist ideology. Had Washington had direct heirs, he might indeed have been made King, but the Founders were wary of a succession crisis. Given the lack of suitable candidates, and the diehard opposition of the New Englanders, a non-monarchist Union was the least objectionable solution.

Incidentally, one trace of the mindset of that era is reflected in the wording of the Constitution. The USA is nowhere officially titled a Republic. It is, technically speaking, a Federal Union of republican states. This is our counterpart to the fact that there was never any such thing, officially, as the British Empire. The adjective Imperial properly only applies to the Empire of India, whose Emperor also happened to be the King of the United Kingdom. Most people on this blog probably know the latter fact, but few think about the former.

Forward the Anglosphere!

Thursday, December 01, 2005
Liberty and Morality

Stephen Harper, the next Prime Minister of Canada, is once again under attack for saying that he would support another free vote in the House of Commons to re-accommodate the traditional definition of marriage. Some social libertarians interpret this to be a case of homophobic bigotry, that he is assiduously assaulting the constitutional rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth.

If this is an assault on the freedom of minorities, it is equally an assault on the freedom of the majority who support the traditional definition of marriage and family. By changing marriage’s definition, the State has replaced ancient traditional morality with a new one, an untested one, a risky one; one that is turning us into a coldly indistinct people by removing connecting familial nomenclature like wife, husband, widow, widower, mother, father…from society altogether. This is not freedom. This is a totalitarian imposition that undermines the moral fabric of society.

If these libertarians were really consistent and concerned with the social freedoms of people, they would advocate the privatization of morality and not the imposition of it. They might support a law that recognizes civil unions for all and leave marriage to churches, temples and synagogues. But Christ no, they insist on telling the majority that they must change the definition of marriage, change their view of morality to accommodate the minority.

As a Christian, I view this imposition by the State to be destructive to the traditional family and, therefore, to the common good of society. It is a hostile attack on my faith and moral beliefs. It is a belligerent swipe at the longstanding notion that a free society needs not only a commitment to the ideal of liberty, but also a devotion to the common good. By God, I resent it deeply.

Elizabeth the Great

The Royal Arms of Canada, 1921

email: themonarchist@rogers.com

[+] LOYAL PROCLAMATION Queen's Personal Flag

[+] THE TORY MANIFESTO Tory Blue

[+] THE WHIGGISH RABBLE Liberal Red

[+] DEFENDERS OF THE REALMS (*)


DEFENDER OF THE FAITH Jerusalem Cross

[+] GOD SAVE THE QUEEN Royal Standard

[+] CHURCH OF ENGLAND England

[+] PATRON SAINTS

[+] THRONE AND ALTAR


KING AND COUNTRY Royal Arms of UK Royal Arms of Canada Royal Arms of Australia Royal Arms of New Zealand

[+] SOVEREIGN OF STATE

[+] FOUNT OF JUSTICE (*)

[+] QUEEN-IN-PARLIAMENT (*)

[+] COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF UK Joint Services Flag

[+] COLONEL-IN-CHIEF British Army Flag

[+] HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS Naval Ensign

[+] FOUNTAIN OF HONOUR Most Noble Order of the Garter

[+] PATRON OF THE ARTS

[+] HEAD OF COMMONWEALTH Queen's Personal Flag


LORD OF THE BLOG

[+] BLOG PATRON

[+] GENTLEMEN SCRIBES

[+] DISTINGUISHED GUESTS

[+] HEREDITARY PEERS British Union Jack

[+] BLOGGING TORIES Canada

[+] RED ENSIGN BRIGADE Red Ensign

[+] KIWI BLOGS Red Ensign

[+] WITANAGEMOT CLUB England

[+] ROYAL ARCHIVES Royal Standard