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)
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Jamaica gets first female PM
After 14 years of PJ Patterson's premiership, Her Majesty swears in Portia Simpson, as Jamaica's first ever female prime minister.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
After 14 years of PJ Patterson's premiership, Her Majesty swears in Portia Simpson, as Jamaica's first ever female prime minister.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:20 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Private Robert Costall: A son, a father, a husband, a soldier of freedom
Yet another Canadian (and American) soldier killed in Afghanistan today and three more casualties to boot. And it's still March. God bless Pte. Robert Costall and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Let those who come after see to it that his name be not forgotten.
Update: First Canadian soldier to be "killed in action". Full story of fierce firefight with the Taliban here. Commemoration Scroll now taking shape above. Currently adding all British soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and in time links to their own individual heroism.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Yet another Canadian (and American) soldier killed in Afghanistan today and three more casualties to boot. And it's still March. God bless Pte. Robert Costall and the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Let those who come after see to it that his name be not forgotten.
Update: First Canadian soldier to be "killed in action". Full story of fierce firefight with the Taliban here. Commemoration Scroll now taking shape above. Currently adding all British soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and in time links to their own individual heroism.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Australia's republican cartel
Australia’s Health Minister, Tony Abbott, is spot on when it comes to his nation’s media. The crown commonwealth country doesn’t have one, not one, metropolitan daily that is 100% unashamedly monarchist. The viewpoint of papers there range narrowly from begrudging, momentary or weak-kneed tolerance, to outright truculence in their constitutional deference for the Queen of Down Under. As a class, they form a republican cartel – opinionated, instinctively churlish in their royal reporting and blithely unrepresentative of the mainstream:
"As a class, it seems that journalists can scarcely contain their rage against a monarchy that represents the instinct for continuity and ceremony. Mike Carlton called monarchists "a dwindling band of laughing cavaliers". Mark Baker ( The Age's op-ed page editor, writing on his page) described expressions of affection as "tosh" and declared the Queen should be sent packing "on the next winged tram out of the MCG"...
You can read all of Tony Abbott here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:16 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Australia’s Health Minister, Tony Abbott, is spot on when it comes to his nation’s media. The crown commonwealth country doesn’t have one, not one, metropolitan daily that is 100% unashamedly monarchist. The viewpoint of papers there range narrowly from begrudging, momentary or weak-kneed tolerance, to outright truculence in their constitutional deference for the Queen of Down Under. As a class, they form a republican cartel – opinionated, instinctively churlish in their royal reporting and blithely unrepresentative of the mainstream:
"As a class, it seems that journalists can scarcely contain their rage against a monarchy that represents the instinct for continuity and ceremony. Mike Carlton called monarchists "a dwindling band of laughing cavaliers". Mark Baker ( The Age's op-ed page editor, writing on his page) described expressions of affection as "tosh" and declared the Queen should be sent packing "on the next winged tram out of the MCG"...
You can read all of Tony Abbott here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:16 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Australia wins Commonwealth Games
Quelle surprise. We always knew Australia was every bit the summer sports powerhouse as Canada is winter. We didn't have to wait until the conclusion of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games to find that out. What is not so well known perhaps is that even so, some Australians are still strangely insecure in their "national pride, national identity and national resolve". Presumably because the rest of the world is denied the opportunity to look up in awe to an Australian president:
"For a country as powerful on the sporting field as Australia it seems inconceivable that we can flog the English in the medal tally but offer them up our top constitutional position on a platter...
But hopefully through our magnificent athletes we can learn something about national pride and national identity. National pride and identity means the Australian people demanding an Australian head of state now and not at some inevitable time way off into the future. Thirty-seven of the 53 Commonwealth nations have made this leap of faith and have forged their own destiny. Australia led the pack in securing our independence from Great Britain, and we should now join the pack in formalising it. Our national pride, our national identity, and our national sovereignty demands it."
Does Peter van Vliet actually lack national self-confidence just because Prime Minister Howard is not president? Really? Is that what all of this is about? Do you think he lies awake at night dreaming of saluting his own President; that his own national self-esteem actually depends on it? Does he really believe the rest of the world even cares?
And they say monarchists speak from the heart, whereas republicans speak from the head. Is that why Peter here would foresake most of glorious Australia in a false bid to conciliate his own nationalist feelings? Is he willing to say goodbye to the fiercely proud Royal Australian Navy and all of "Her Majesty's Australian Ships"? Is he willing to let go of the Royal Australian Air Force and every one of the Queen's Australian Regiments? How about the Royal Australian Mint? The Royal Australian Chemical Institute? The Royal Australian Institute of Architects?...et cetera. How much more of Australia's royal and national pride would Peter wreck? Believe me, we're just getting started here folks.
All for what? All for a political president? King Edward's thousand year throne for a republican child? Peter, say it isn't so. You and your republican mates have got to be joking.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Quelle surprise. We always knew Australia was every bit the summer sports powerhouse as Canada is winter. We didn't have to wait until the conclusion of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games to find that out. What is not so well known perhaps is that even so, some Australians are still strangely insecure in their "national pride, national identity and national resolve". Presumably because the rest of the world is denied the opportunity to look up in awe to an Australian president: "For a country as powerful on the sporting field as Australia it seems inconceivable that we can flog the English in the medal tally but offer them up our top constitutional position on a platter...
But hopefully through our magnificent athletes we can learn something about national pride and national identity. National pride and identity means the Australian people demanding an Australian head of state now and not at some inevitable time way off into the future. Thirty-seven of the 53 Commonwealth nations have made this leap of faith and have forged their own destiny. Australia led the pack in securing our independence from Great Britain, and we should now join the pack in formalising it. Our national pride, our national identity, and our national sovereignty demands it."
Does Peter van Vliet actually lack national self-confidence just because Prime Minister Howard is not president? Really? Is that what all of this is about? Do you think he lies awake at night dreaming of saluting his own President; that his own national self-esteem actually depends on it? Does he really believe the rest of the world even cares?
And they say monarchists speak from the heart, whereas republicans speak from the head. Is that why Peter here would foresake most of glorious Australia in a false bid to conciliate his own nationalist feelings? Is he willing to say goodbye to the fiercely proud Royal Australian Navy and all of "Her Majesty's Australian Ships"? Is he willing to let go of the Royal Australian Air Force and every one of the Queen's Australian Regiments? How about the Royal Australian Mint? The Royal Australian Chemical Institute? The Royal Australian Institute of Architects?...et cetera. How much more of Australia's royal and national pride would Peter wreck? Believe me, we're just getting started here folks.
All for what? All for a political president? King Edward's thousand year throne for a republican child? Peter, say it isn't so. You and your republican mates have got to be joking.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, March 25, 2006
The King Edward Accord, Queen of the North and our royally obtuse pacifists
Canada is teeming with monarchist heritage alright, but the happenings of the past week may have the country's loyalists reaching for their smelling salts.
First off the King Edward Accord, so dubbed because the Liberal Party of Canada was bringing party bigwigs together and unveiling its manifesto at the King Edward Hotel in downtown Toronto. The purpose was to bring together the warring factions and heal old sores and wounds in the party, after a defeat in the federal election by the Harper Tories sent the Liberal government packing. Unfortunately for Canadian Conservatives the love-in fest was apparently somewhat successful.
Second, the Queen of the North, a large British Columbia passenger car ferry, actually sunk like the Titanic in the middle of the night after hitting a shoal during a routine voyage through the scenic Inside Passage near Prince Rupert. Two passengers apparently went down with the vessel. So much for our reputation as a first world country.
And finally, Burkean Canuck says it all regarding our criminally stupid pacifists:
"This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, writ large. A pacifist, anti-military group relies, first, on armed forces for their rescue, then are moved to a safe area of Iraq secured by armed forces, then they are given transport by armed forces back home. Meanwhile, people from among those they travelled to Iraq to help, first, kidnapped them, held them virtually incommunicado in threat of their lives, killed one of their number, and held them some more.
And yet, these same people have nothing but thanks and appreciation for their captors, and nothing at all for their rescuers and protectors."
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:06 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Canada is teeming with monarchist heritage alright, but the happenings of the past week may have the country's loyalists reaching for their smelling salts. First off the King Edward Accord, so dubbed because the Liberal Party of Canada was bringing party bigwigs together and unveiling its manifesto at the King Edward Hotel in downtown Toronto. The purpose was to bring together the warring factions and heal old sores and wounds in the party, after a defeat in the federal election by the Harper Tories sent the Liberal government packing. Unfortunately for Canadian Conservatives the love-in fest was apparently somewhat successful.
Second, the Queen of the North, a large British Columbia passenger car ferry, actually sunk like the Titanic in the middle of the night after hitting a shoal during a routine voyage through the scenic Inside Passage near Prince Rupert. Two passengers apparently went down with the vessel. So much for our reputation as a first world country.
And finally, Burkean Canuck says it all regarding our criminally stupid pacifists:
"This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, writ large. A pacifist, anti-military group relies, first, on armed forces for their rescue, then are moved to a safe area of Iraq secured by armed forces, then they are given transport by armed forces back home. Meanwhile, people from among those they travelled to Iraq to help, first, kidnapped them, held them virtually incommunicado in threat of their lives, killed one of their number, and held them some more.
And yet, these same people have nothing but thanks and appreciation for their captors, and nothing at all for their rescuers and protectors."
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:06 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, March 24, 2006
First female minister in the British Empire
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
March 24, 1921
Mary Ellen Smith was sworn in as the first female Cabinet minister in the British Empire, as minister without portfolio in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. She subsequently became the first woman to hold the position of Speaker in the British Empire.
From wikipedia: "She was also an activist in her own right as a member of the Suffrage League of Canada, president of the Women's Canadian Club and of the Women's Forum, regent of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, and an executive member of the Canadian Red Cross. She also raised money for war veterans, and helped establish factories to employ blind children. She founded the "Laurier Liberal Club", and was an active Methodist."
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORYMarch 24, 1921
Mary Ellen Smith was sworn in as the first female Cabinet minister in the British Empire, as minister without portfolio in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. She subsequently became the first woman to hold the position of Speaker in the British Empire.
From wikipedia: "She was also an activist in her own right as a member of the Suffrage League of Canada, president of the Women's Canadian Club and of the Women's Forum, regent of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, and an executive member of the Canadian Red Cross. She also raised money for war veterans, and helped establish factories to employ blind children. She founded the "Laurier Liberal Club", and was an active Methodist."
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:17 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Needless to say, this is good news. British and Canadians freed. The Christian peace activists must be delighted that no shots were fired in their rescue.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:27 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:27 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Commonwealth diverges on "Where the bloody hell are you?". Apparently Brits are more offended by bloody, and Canucks take more offence to hell. And Aussies, well, take offence that we take offence. Read: "Bloody Canadians reject a hell of an ad". Or even better are the Sydney Morning Herald blog comments at Has the world gone mad?
UPDATE: And The Mirror has the Earl of Wessex as The Bloody Prince.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
UPDATE: And The Mirror has the Earl of Wessex as The Bloody Prince.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Fear'd by their breed and famous by their earth
MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
-- Shakespeare's John of Gaunt in Richard II
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
MONARCHIST QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"This royal throne of Kings, this scepter'd isle,
This Earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi~paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself,
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this Earth, this Realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear'd by their breed and famous by their earth."*
-- Shakespeare's John of Gaunt in Richard II
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:15 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Cash for Peerages
Well, well, well…if it isn’t the return of Lord Moneybags.
The chickens have really come home to roost on the political fortunes of Tony Blair, haven’t they. By the way, that’s His Royal High-mindedness, The Prince of Parliamentary Reform to you. Now that T.B. has successfully ended 800 years of parliamentary tradition through the soon-to-be completed total abolition of hereditary voting rights, who exactly is Lording it over the British now, eh? Why, it isn’t Lord Marlborough anymore, is it. It isn’t those embarrassing old relics, heroes hanger-on types like Lord Nelson or Lord Wellington. It isn't antiquities like The Marquess of Bath or His Grace, The Duke of Norfolk, or any of the other 750 or so extant proud towers of the United Kingdom.
No, of course not. Hereditary peers are just way too independent for controlling prime ministers, just way too ancient for the fashionable tastes of modern men. Besides, they can't be bought or sold - they're notoriously useless as an easy source of cash for the political elite. So what do we get in return for abolishing the representatives of great familial lineage and history? We get the Friends of Tony, folks. Great reform, that. Real improvement.
It's now only a matter of time before they all become His DisGrace, Lord Moneybags. Last September 18, 2003, Lord Falconer announced the government’s plan to expel the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the upper house "when parliamentary time allows". How delicious it all must be. The Friends of Tony must be really salivating at the patronage prospects here. I’m sure that’s 92 more life peers that Tony can create at his leisure in return for “loans” for Labour, on top of the staggering 300 he has created since he came into power - a number that is 50% more than any other British prime minister in history!
Meanwhile, apart from those honours that Her Majesty still retains direct control, has the Queen’s "Fountain of Honour" descended irretrievably into a laughing farce? Just how far does the rot really go, anyways? Is it only “cash for peerages”, or was it a wider casino than that? Did it include knighthoods, OBEs and God knows what else? We can only surmise the size of the stink, but this much is for sure: Whatever the democratic drawbacks of a mostly hereditary House of Lords, a politically appointed one can only be worse.
In Canada I stand for an elected Senate. In Britain, I now stand for an elected Lords. The foxhunting ban illustrates the urgent need for the liberty and livelihood of the countryside to be protected from the likes of Tony Blair, who predictably no longer supports an elected upper chamber. Well, too bad, I say. You had your chance, Moneybags. You blew it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Well, well, well…if it isn’t the return of Lord Moneybags.
The chickens have really come home to roost on the political fortunes of Tony Blair, haven’t they. By the way, that’s His Royal High-mindedness, The Prince of Parliamentary Reform to you. Now that T.B. has successfully ended 800 years of parliamentary tradition through the soon-to-be completed total abolition of hereditary voting rights, who exactly is Lording it over the British now, eh? Why, it isn’t Lord Marlborough anymore, is it. It isn’t those embarrassing old relics, heroes hanger-on types like Lord Nelson or Lord Wellington. It isn't antiquities like The Marquess of Bath or His Grace, The Duke of Norfolk, or any of the other 750 or so extant proud towers of the United Kingdom.No, of course not. Hereditary peers are just way too independent for controlling prime ministers, just way too ancient for the fashionable tastes of modern men. Besides, they can't be bought or sold - they're notoriously useless as an easy source of cash for the political elite. So what do we get in return for abolishing the representatives of great familial lineage and history? We get the Friends of Tony, folks. Great reform, that. Real improvement.
It's now only a matter of time before they all become His DisGrace, Lord Moneybags. Last September 18, 2003, Lord Falconer announced the government’s plan to expel the remaining 92 hereditary peers from the upper house "when parliamentary time allows". How delicious it all must be. The Friends of Tony must be really salivating at the patronage prospects here. I’m sure that’s 92 more life peers that Tony can create at his leisure in return for “loans” for Labour, on top of the staggering 300 he has created since he came into power - a number that is 50% more than any other British prime minister in history!
Meanwhile, apart from those honours that Her Majesty still retains direct control, has the Queen’s "Fountain of Honour" descended irretrievably into a laughing farce? Just how far does the rot really go, anyways? Is it only “cash for peerages”, or was it a wider casino than that? Did it include knighthoods, OBEs and God knows what else? We can only surmise the size of the stink, but this much is for sure: Whatever the democratic drawbacks of a mostly hereditary House of Lords, a politically appointed one can only be worse.
In Canada I stand for an elected Senate. In Britain, I now stand for an elected Lords. The foxhunting ban illustrates the urgent need for the liberty and livelihood of the countryside to be protected from the likes of Tony Blair, who predictably no longer supports an elected upper chamber. Well, too bad, I say. You had your chance, Moneybags. You blew it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Give England a Song
As a Canadian supporter of our shared British Commonwealth Monarchy, I am strongly opposed to a future England formally adopting God Save The Queen as its national anthem. GSTQ is not the chattels of any particular British nation or Commonwealth country, but the historic and patriotic property of every one of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, throughout all 17 of her remaining realms. The Royal Anthem belongs to not just Britain, but to all of us, even if under constitutionally nominal and nostalgic pretenses.
The recent kafuffle over the playing of GSTQ in Australia during our Queen’s official opening of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games was a fresh case in point, which perfectly illustrated just how confused and out of touch we have become over the roots of our common identity. Many Australians now apparently believe that their royal and national anthems cannot co-exist, that there is a contradiction in the traditional dual allegiance we pay to Crown and Country, presumably because the Royal Anthem is also used unofficially (and unfortunately) as the national hymn of the United Kingdom. We are not British they tell themselves, we are Aussie. Advance Australia Fair should take precedence in Australia, even over that of the anthem of the Queen of Australia! It’s all so wonderfully misunderstood.
The incident highlights the need for reform and statutory recognition: The need for Britain to denationalise GSTQ and adopt it in its proper royal context; the need for England to shed its quango state image and formally adopt a national anthem like Scotland and Wales; and the need to recognize an ever increasing important reality – that our once shared and still receding Britishness has been, and is being, supplanted by a deeper fealty and affection and native attachment to our respective nations and lands.
Now I don’t believe in nationalism – the heart that beats to the nationalist drum can be repulsive and partly savage. But I do believe in a proud, gentile and emblematic attachment to country and an equally symbiotic and patriotic connection to crown, as a lasting, indeed permanent, symbol of our collective identity. We should embrace the bonds that bind without sacrificing our shared institutions. The best way to do this, in my outside humble opinion, is to officially recognize the existence of England in a federal Britain; a federal Britain that is outside Europe and firmly inside the Commonwealth. For the real tragedy is not whether Britain loses its Britishness (its national identity), but whether it loses its britishness (its cultural identity).
As for England’s national anthem, that is for England to decide. I may be an Anglophile, but I am not English enough to be of any use in that department. Just keep your dirty palms off the Queen’s anthem. Oh, and stay well clear of Zadok The Priest. That one belongs to God.
CROSS-POSTED TO ANTHEM 4 ENGLAND
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
As a Canadian supporter of our shared British Commonwealth Monarchy, I am strongly opposed to a future England formally adopting God Save The Queen as its national anthem. GSTQ is not the chattels of any particular British nation or Commonwealth country, but the historic and patriotic property of every one of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, throughout all 17 of her remaining realms. The Royal Anthem belongs to not just Britain, but to all of us, even if under constitutionally nominal and nostalgic pretenses.The recent kafuffle over the playing of GSTQ in Australia during our Queen’s official opening of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games was a fresh case in point, which perfectly illustrated just how confused and out of touch we have become over the roots of our common identity. Many Australians now apparently believe that their royal and national anthems cannot co-exist, that there is a contradiction in the traditional dual allegiance we pay to Crown and Country, presumably because the Royal Anthem is also used unofficially (and unfortunately) as the national hymn of the United Kingdom. We are not British they tell themselves, we are Aussie. Advance Australia Fair should take precedence in Australia, even over that of the anthem of the Queen of Australia! It’s all so wonderfully misunderstood.
The incident highlights the need for reform and statutory recognition: The need for Britain to denationalise GSTQ and adopt it in its proper royal context; the need for England to shed its quango state image and formally adopt a national anthem like Scotland and Wales; and the need to recognize an ever increasing important reality – that our once shared and still receding Britishness has been, and is being, supplanted by a deeper fealty and affection and native attachment to our respective nations and lands.
Now I don’t believe in nationalism – the heart that beats to the nationalist drum can be repulsive and partly savage. But I do believe in a proud, gentile and emblematic attachment to country and an equally symbiotic and patriotic connection to crown, as a lasting, indeed permanent, symbol of our collective identity. We should embrace the bonds that bind without sacrificing our shared institutions. The best way to do this, in my outside humble opinion, is to officially recognize the existence of England in a federal Britain; a federal Britain that is outside Europe and firmly inside the Commonwealth. For the real tragedy is not whether Britain loses its Britishness (its national identity), but whether it loses its britishness (its cultural identity).
As for England’s national anthem, that is for England to decide. I may be an Anglophile, but I am not English enough to be of any use in that department. Just keep your dirty palms off the Queen’s anthem. Oh, and stay well clear of Zadok The Priest. That one belongs to God.
CROSS-POSTED TO ANTHEM 4 ENGLAND
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The Heroic Duke of Edinburgh
Prince Philip is a Nazi sympathizer alright. There's nothing ridiculously torqued up about that phrase whatsoever, is there. Obviously knowing what we know, if you were alive back in the 1930s, you likely fell into one of three camps: an appeaser, a sympathizer, or worse, an active partaker slash collaborator. It tarnished every nation, every government, and with the notable exception of a certain Sir Winston Churchill (God bless his soul), every public figure at the time. It tarnished even the neutrals (how could the Swiss and Swedes stand by?), even the King (what the hell was Edward thinking?), even the Pope. Yes, even His former Holiness, the Vicar of Christ. So spare us the continuing grief.
Besides, between the time the Nazis came to power and the British Commonwealth declared war, he was between like 12 and 18 years old. And we all know what happened when he turned 18, don't we - he joined the Royal Navy. As a dashing and courageous naval officer in his youth, the man became a war hero overnight. He served in the Mediterranean Fleet and was engaged in the battle of Matapan against the Italian fleet, for which he was mentioned in despatches and awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour. He later served in the Pacific, and was present in Tokyo Bay for the Japanese surrender on 2nd September 1945.
Since then the Duke of Edinburgh has distinguished himself with a lifetime of public service to the Commonwealth. The official record in this regard is absolutely breathtaking to behold. I encourage you, indeed challenge you, to read the whole thing. It'll knock your socks off.
Prince Philip is an inspiration to the world's youth, the leading war veteran of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League and the most elegant man on the planet. I take great issue with anyone who unfairly associates this gentleman royal consort with the despicable Nazis of the past.
POSTSCRIPT: Not sure if this bolsters his image any further, but most incredibly the islanders of Tanna in the South Pacific apparently worship Prince Philip as a god.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:21 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Prince Philip is a Nazi sympathizer alright. There's nothing ridiculously torqued up about that phrase whatsoever, is there. Obviously knowing what we know, if you were alive back in the 1930s, you likely fell into one of three camps: an appeaser, a sympathizer, or worse, an active partaker slash collaborator. It tarnished every nation, every government, and with the notable exception of a certain Sir Winston Churchill (God bless his soul), every public figure at the time. It tarnished even the neutrals (how could the Swiss and Swedes stand by?), even the King (what the hell was Edward thinking?), even the Pope. Yes, even His former Holiness, the Vicar of Christ. So spare us the continuing grief.Besides, between the time the Nazis came to power and the British Commonwealth declared war, he was between like 12 and 18 years old. And we all know what happened when he turned 18, don't we - he joined the Royal Navy. As a dashing and courageous naval officer in his youth, the man became a war hero overnight. He served in the Mediterranean Fleet and was engaged in the battle of Matapan against the Italian fleet, for which he was mentioned in despatches and awarded the Greek War Cross of Valour. He later served in the Pacific, and was present in Tokyo Bay for the Japanese surrender on 2nd September 1945.
Since then the Duke of Edinburgh has distinguished himself with a lifetime of public service to the Commonwealth. The official record in this regard is absolutely breathtaking to behold. I encourage you, indeed challenge you, to read the whole thing. It'll knock your socks off.
Prince Philip is an inspiration to the world's youth, the leading war veteran of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League and the most elegant man on the planet. I take great issue with anyone who unfairly associates this gentleman royal consort with the despicable Nazis of the past.
POSTSCRIPT: Not sure if this bolsters his image any further, but most incredibly the islanders of Tanna in the South Pacific apparently worship Prince Philip as a god.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:21 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Was Prince Edward Right to Feel Aggrieved In Australia? Why yes he was. He's a Prince of the Royal Blood eagerly going about his public duties and the buffoon he was talking to was a disrespectful lout who broke every rule of manner and good taste to get a little cheap international publicity for himself. I'd say it would have been far more right if His Royal Highness clocked him one and then let his bodyguards teach him a little gentlemanly manner. But that's just me.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:46 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:46 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, March 17, 2006
Send Her Victorious
"Send her victorious? Send her packing — on the next winged tram out of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games", welcomes Mark Baker of The Age. I suppose this is the respect Her Majesty deserves for merely doing her duty, to be called after each succeeding trip "a cargo of even greater antiquity - a queen from the other end of the world and her crusty consort...who authorized this tosh?" A little note at the end of the article tells us that Mark Baker also reported the Australian royal tour of 1975. One wonders how that went. Was there Windsor hating trash talk by this baby boomer back then too? Did he ponder how the "rest of the world can only wonder about [Australia's] apparent insecurity and immaturity"?
Send her packing? You know, let's send the boomers packing. That would solve everything, wouldn't it. The latest polls Down Under do show the monarchy predominantly supported by the young and the elderly, but (predictably) not the middle-aged. Prime Minister Howard may have implied neutrality on the question of Charles becoming King of Australia, but the problem is not really Prince Charles - it's his generation. That generous lot who gave us drugs, draft dodgers and deficits. Orgies. Abortion on demand. Assisted suicide. Etcetera. You really think something as quaint as the monarchy stands half a chance with this egotistical demographic? Unless the Queen can offer up a little satanic progress of her own, not very bloody likely.
No, there is only one way for Commonwealth monarchists to win this thing; and that is for the Queen to outlive this selfish bunch. Not necessarily live longer, but at least long enough to see their merry narcissistic selves out of power and into permanent retirement. Long may she reign over us is how we will send her victorious.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:10 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Send her victorious? Send her packing — on the next winged tram out of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games", welcomes Mark Baker of The Age. I suppose this is the respect Her Majesty deserves for merely doing her duty, to be called after each succeeding trip "a cargo of even greater antiquity - a queen from the other end of the world and her crusty consort...who authorized this tosh?" A little note at the end of the article tells us that Mark Baker also reported the Australian royal tour of 1975. One wonders how that went. Was there Windsor hating trash talk by this baby boomer back then too? Did he ponder how the "rest of the world can only wonder about [Australia's] apparent insecurity and immaturity"?Send her packing? You know, let's send the boomers packing. That would solve everything, wouldn't it. The latest polls Down Under do show the monarchy predominantly supported by the young and the elderly, but (predictably) not the middle-aged. Prime Minister Howard may have implied neutrality on the question of Charles becoming King of Australia, but the problem is not really Prince Charles - it's his generation. That generous lot who gave us drugs, draft dodgers and deficits. Orgies. Abortion on demand. Assisted suicide. Etcetera. You really think something as quaint as the monarchy stands half a chance with this egotistical demographic? Unless the Queen can offer up a little satanic progress of her own, not very bloody likely.
No, there is only one way for Commonwealth monarchists to win this thing; and that is for the Queen to outlive this selfish bunch. Not necessarily live longer, but at least long enough to see their merry narcissistic selves out of power and into permanent retirement. Long may she reign over us is how we will send her victorious.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:10 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Harper's Leadership
It became joyfully apparent to me this past week that for the first time in my almost four decades of life, I finally have a prime minister who I can be unambivalently proud of. I really mean that. I really mean it when I say it is a rare thing in this country to have a prime minister who exhibits the qualities of real leadership, who unreservedly comes to the fore during a moment of trial on an issue of crucial importance to the nation, and to the long-term security interests of the West. Not so rare in the proud parliamentary tradition of Great Britain, or in the broadly held geopolitical interests and responsibilities of the United States - but in this country, a country that over time had increasingly come to believe it could cede the heavy-lifting to others knowing (now falsely given the nature of this war) that it would always be shielded and protected; such leadership has been a rare thing indeed.
So what are those qualities of leadership that we speak of and have been so starved? As Walsingham wrote in a long ago previous post, "those qualities include: an understanding of history and its great lessons; an ability to distinguish friend from foe; the possession of a rational and manly loyalty to the one, and an equally rational and manly willingness and determination to fight the other; the intelligence to realize that a necessary war against a serious, determined, intelligent and ruthless enemy cannot be waged without loss, sacrifice and mess; the courage to lead and be unpopular where that is required; and the ability to think and speak clearly."
It is a testament to Harper's leadership that these qualities immediately surfaced when they needed to: following a high number of military casualties in Afghanistan, the subsequent calls by members of parliament to debate and vote on the issue, the confused fallout among the Canadian populace about why we were even there, and the consequent effect this had on the morale of our troops on the ground. To this Harper not only went to Afghanistan and provided clarity about our mission and our leadership in that mission; not only did he boost troop morale, instill the confidence of our allies and shore up support at home; not only did he argue persuasively about our own security interests - he inspired us and challenged us. He appealed to our moral purpose and historic duty. He reminded us who we are and what we should never become. That's leadership. It's been a long time coming.
THREE EXCELLENT RECOMMENDATIONS:
Andrew Coyne - Harper's Mission Statement; David Warren - Afghan Wilds and Hail the Chief.
ONE TOTALLY UNDIGNIFIED WINDBAG: Antonia Zerbisias - A White House visit by way of Kandahar
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
It became joyfully apparent to me this past week that for the first time in my almost four decades of life, I finally have a prime minister who I can be unambivalently proud of. I really mean that. I really mean it when I say it is a rare thing in this country to have a prime minister who exhibits the qualities of real leadership, who unreservedly comes to the fore during a moment of trial on an issue of crucial importance to the nation, and to the long-term security interests of the West. Not so rare in the proud parliamentary tradition of Great Britain, or in the broadly held geopolitical interests and responsibilities of the United States - but in this country, a country that over time had increasingly come to believe it could cede the heavy-lifting to others knowing (now falsely given the nature of this war) that it would always be shielded and protected; such leadership has been a rare thing indeed.So what are those qualities of leadership that we speak of and have been so starved? As Walsingham wrote in a long ago previous post, "those qualities include: an understanding of history and its great lessons; an ability to distinguish friend from foe; the possession of a rational and manly loyalty to the one, and an equally rational and manly willingness and determination to fight the other; the intelligence to realize that a necessary war against a serious, determined, intelligent and ruthless enemy cannot be waged without loss, sacrifice and mess; the courage to lead and be unpopular where that is required; and the ability to think and speak clearly."
It is a testament to Harper's leadership that these qualities immediately surfaced when they needed to: following a high number of military casualties in Afghanistan, the subsequent calls by members of parliament to debate and vote on the issue, the confused fallout among the Canadian populace about why we were even there, and the consequent effect this had on the morale of our troops on the ground. To this Harper not only went to Afghanistan and provided clarity about our mission and our leadership in that mission; not only did he boost troop morale, instill the confidence of our allies and shore up support at home; not only did he argue persuasively about our own security interests - he inspired us and challenged us. He appealed to our moral purpose and historic duty. He reminded us who we are and what we should never become. That's leadership. It's been a long time coming.
THREE EXCELLENT RECOMMENDATIONS:
Andrew Coyne - Harper's Mission Statement; David Warren - Afghan Wilds and Hail the Chief.
ONE TOTALLY UNDIGNIFIED WINDBAG: Antonia Zerbisias - A White House visit by way of Kandahar
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:58 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Her Majesty opens Commonwealth Games
Or, in the modern parlance of the young and hip, Globe and Mail, an old-fashioned lady resurrects yet again that embarrassing and decrepit fossil:
"While many consider the Commonwealth but a fossil of the old British Empire, Wednesday night's kickoff to 11 days of competition by 4,500 athletes in 16 sports was anything but old-fashioned. The Queen's message had made its way around the world contained on a microchip encased in a high-tech baton equipped with a global positioning system and built-in cameras to display its path on a dedicated internet site."
Forget all that boring old stuff, that broad sure knows how to throw a great party, eh. How cool was that. Do you totally dig it, or what. Bring it on, man. Entertain me. Time to kick some serious butt Down Under.
POSTSCRIPT: One wonders why the Globe and Mail still carries this daily quotation from Junius on their editorial pages: "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Do many still consider consider the Globe but a fossil of its predecessor, the old Mail and Empire?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:25 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Or, in the modern parlance of the young and hip, Globe and Mail, an old-fashioned lady resurrects yet again that embarrassing and decrepit fossil:
"While many consider the Commonwealth but a fossil of the old British Empire, Wednesday night's kickoff to 11 days of competition by 4,500 athletes in 16 sports was anything but old-fashioned. The Queen's message had made its way around the world contained on a microchip encased in a high-tech baton equipped with a global positioning system and built-in cameras to display its path on a dedicated internet site."
POSTSCRIPT: One wonders why the Globe and Mail still carries this daily quotation from Junius on their editorial pages: "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures." Do many still consider consider the Globe but a fossil of its predecessor, the old Mail and Empire?
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:25 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
With monarchists like these...
"I think it is very unlikely the country will become a republic while the present queen is on the throne."
But when it came to Prince Charles, Prime Minister Howard offered: "Well that is a matter for the Australian people, if they want to change the rules they will."
In other words, not very likely, given how hopelessly divided Australia is on the issue. And as for what kind of ripple effect this would cause elsewhere, let's just safely assume for the moment that as Australia goes, so goes the Commonwealth. But you know what they say, it ain't over till it's over. The problem is when they start saying it ain't over till it's over - it's over.
UPDATE: No republic after Queen's reign, says Australian Health Minister, Tony Abbott. But Liberal Party Senator Alan Eggleston says he believes it would be a natural time for Australia to become a republic. Good lordy, even Australian Liberals are divided.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"I think it is very unlikely the country will become a republic while the present queen is on the throne."
But when it came to Prince Charles, Prime Minister Howard offered: "Well that is a matter for the Australian people, if they want to change the rules they will."
In other words, not very likely, given how hopelessly divided Australia is on the issue. And as for what kind of ripple effect this would cause elsewhere, let's just safely assume for the moment that as Australia goes, so goes the Commonwealth. But you know what they say, it ain't over till it's over. The problem is when they start saying it ain't over till it's over - it's over.
UPDATE: No republic after Queen's reign, says Australian Health Minister, Tony Abbott. But Liberal Party Senator Alan Eggleston says he believes it would be a natural time for Australia to become a republic. Good lordy, even Australian Liberals are divided.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:01 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Honouring Churchill
Readers will now notice the uppermost place of honour we have reserved for our "Blog Patron", Sir Winston Churchill, victorious leader of the free English-speaking people and probably the greatest statesman to ever walk this world. To my mind at least, he is the greatest of all our heroes; greater than England's Nelson and Wellington, greater than America's Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Somehow, he belonged to all of us.
There are no great shrines to Churchill: no Lincoln Memorials, no Trafalgar Squares. Indeed, he spent his later life resisting them. He turned down aristocratic overtures and the Queen's offer of a Dukedom, and refused the privilege of being buried in Westminster Abbey. It is telling that the final resting place of France's greatest hero is centred under the Dome des Invalides, what Orest Ranum described as "the most ostentatious tomb in the world, except perhaps for the Great Pyramid in Egypt" - surely a fitting tribute to Napoleon's insufferable pomposity. Even more telling of course is that it is actually that man who is France's greatest hero.
Not for us. Not for the English Nations. Not for the freedom loving world. In the end, as we all know, Churchill chose to be buried in Bladon under the shade of a tree in a simple plot of land, a worthy modesty for a truly great man and one more reason to worship his achievements as a human being. Suffice it to say, he will never be removed from the position of honour we have accorded him here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Readers will now notice the uppermost place of honour we have reserved for our "Blog Patron", Sir Winston Churchill, victorious leader of the free English-speaking people and probably the greatest statesman to ever walk this world. To my mind at least, he is the greatest of all our heroes; greater than England's Nelson and Wellington, greater than America's Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Somehow, he belonged to all of us.There are no great shrines to Churchill: no Lincoln Memorials, no Trafalgar Squares. Indeed, he spent his later life resisting them. He turned down aristocratic overtures and the Queen's offer of a Dukedom, and refused the privilege of being buried in Westminster Abbey. It is telling that the final resting place of France's greatest hero is centred under the Dome des Invalides, what Orest Ranum described as "the most ostentatious tomb in the world, except perhaps for the Great Pyramid in Egypt" - surely a fitting tribute to Napoleon's insufferable pomposity. Even more telling of course is that it is actually that man who is France's greatest hero.
Not for us. Not for the English Nations. Not for the freedom loving world. In the end, as we all know, Churchill chose to be buried in Bladon under the shade of a tree in a simple plot of land, a worthy modesty for a truly great man and one more reason to worship his achievements as a human being. Suffice it to say, he will never be removed from the position of honour we have accorded him here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, March 13, 2006
I'm not making this up
This is so unprecedented in "postmodern" Canada, I'm suffering from political shock. The Prime Minister, our prime minister, is right now actually visiting our troops in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Our troops. Soldiers with guns. In a war zone. As we speak. I'm not making this up.
When was the last time this ever happened? Did the Right Honourable Martin or Chretien ever visit our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. No, they just sent them there. How about Mulroney during the first Guld War? In his sixteen years in office, did Trudeau ever visit our troops in Europe? How about Pearson? How far do you have to go back? I do know that Sir Robert Borden visited our frontline troops during the Great War - this much I'm convinced. But is this how far back you have to go? I don't know, I'm just asking the question.
Obviously, Prime Minister Harper is a different kind of leader. And the soldiers, low and behold, are grateful to see that kind of political support close up.
UPDATE: It would appear that I am mistaken. Prime Minister Chretien visited the troops in Kabul only a couple years back. Not sure why my memory fails me on this one, but my thanks to Rob in the comments for setting me straight.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This is so unprecedented in "postmodern" Canada, I'm suffering from political shock. The Prime Minister, our prime minister, is right now actually visiting our troops in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Our troops. Soldiers with guns. In a war zone. As we speak. I'm not making this up.
When was the last time this ever happened? Did the Right Honourable Martin or Chretien ever visit our troops on the ground in Afghanistan. No, they just sent them there. How about Mulroney during the first Guld War? In his sixteen years in office, did Trudeau ever visit our troops in Europe? How about Pearson? How far do you have to go back? I do know that Sir Robert Borden visited our frontline troops during the Great War - this much I'm convinced. But is this how far back you have to go? I don't know, I'm just asking the question.
Obviously, Prime Minister Harper is a different kind of leader. And the soldiers, low and behold, are grateful to see that kind of political support close up.
UPDATE: It would appear that I am mistaken. Prime Minister Chretien visited the troops in Kabul only a couple years back. Not sure why my memory fails me on this one, but my thanks to Rob in the comments for setting me straight.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Commonwealth Day 2006
For the first time ever, the traditional Commonwealth Day observance is being held outside of London. HMQ is in Syney, Australia today and will offically open the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne on Wednesday. Appropriately, this year's theme is Health and Vitality:
COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
...In Melbourne, in just a few days’ time, I will be opening what are known as "The Friendly Games". Commonwealth athletes will gather once more in a spirit of goodwill and fellowship, and will strive to achieve new heights of excellence. As we watch our finest sportsmen and women compete, we will see clearly what exercise at the very highest level can contribute to both body and spirit.
There is a traditional proverb which says, ‘He who has health has hope, and he who has hope has everything.’ This year, as governments search for new ways to tackle these important challenges, we as individuals can also play our part so that, in pursuing health and vitality for all, we bring hope to the world.
Elizabeth R.
13 March 2006
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:05 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
For the first time ever, the traditional Commonwealth Day observance is being held outside of London. HMQ is in Syney, Australia today and will offically open the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne on Wednesday. Appropriately, this year's theme is Health and Vitality:
COMMONWEALTH DAY MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
...In Melbourne, in just a few days’ time, I will be opening what are known as "The Friendly Games". Commonwealth athletes will gather once more in a spirit of goodwill and fellowship, and will strive to achieve new heights of excellence. As we watch our finest sportsmen and women compete, we will see clearly what exercise at the very highest level can contribute to both body and spirit.
There is a traditional proverb which says, ‘He who has health has hope, and he who has hope has everything.’ This year, as governments search for new ways to tackle these important challenges, we as individuals can also play our part so that, in pursuing health and vitality for all, we bring hope to the world.
Elizabeth R.
13 March 2006
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:05 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Roundhead values, Cavalier tastes
The Edge of England’s Sword nails it. Unfortunately I can't link to Ian Murray's blog anymore as the domain no longer exists, but suffice it to say that he coined the phrase nicely to capture the essence of his political philosophy. As anyone who knows the history of the English Civil War, Cavalier is the word that preceded the term Tory, which was used to describe the Royalists who supported King Charles I in the war against Parliament. The bad connotation of that word (in uncapitalised form) still survives as something denoting arrogance and haughtiness, a self-important inconsiderate who cares more for his personal glory and vanity than for the welfare of his fellow man.
But Cavaliers didn’t see themselves as swaggering gallants, and in the main, weren't: The chaplain to King Charles, Edward Simmons, described a Cavalier (from the French word, chevallier, meaning knight) as a “Child of Honour, a Gentleman well borne and bred, that loves his king for conscience sake, of a clearer countenance, and bolder look than other men, because of a more loyal Heart.” It was meant as a derogatory and vulgar term, but the flamboyantly dressed, well-groomed and long-haired Royalists quickly adopted the title as a badge of honour.
“Roundhead”, on the other hand, was the pejorative and contemptuous term the Cavaliers gave to the plainly clothed and hair cropped Puritan, who backed Parliament against the undivided powers of the Catholic-minded king. Their efforts, as we all know, led to the beheading of Charles, and eventually to the adoption of a mixed constitution and a more limited monarchy. For better or worse, in the titanic struggle between King and Country, the country prevailed, and Sir Robert Filmer's defense of one-man rule in The Natural Power of Kings, forever received its death knell.
And so I like the phrase. Roundhead values means we celebrate freedom and true progress, and recognize the inate dignity of every human being. Cavalier tastes implies that we continue to hold reverence for our traditions, heritage and institutions, while showing our disdain for those who attack these. In the old meaning of the word it also implies that we reserve our contempt for the tasteless: the ill mannered, insufferable gasbags of this world, and take on those who offend our sense of self-respect and personal dignity. There is no contradiction here. We hold that society, for all its egalitarian and proletariat rhetoric, could still use a little class.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:02 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Edge of England’s Sword nails it. Unfortunately I can't link to Ian Murray's blog anymore as the domain no longer exists, but suffice it to say that he coined the phrase nicely to capture the essence of his political philosophy. As anyone who knows the history of the English Civil War, Cavalier is the word that preceded the term Tory, which was used to describe the Royalists who supported King Charles I in the war against Parliament. The bad connotation of that word (in uncapitalised form) still survives as something denoting arrogance and haughtiness, a self-important inconsiderate who cares more for his personal glory and vanity than for the welfare of his fellow man. But Cavaliers didn’t see themselves as swaggering gallants, and in the main, weren't: The chaplain to King Charles, Edward Simmons, described a Cavalier (from the French word, chevallier, meaning knight) as a “Child of Honour, a Gentleman well borne and bred, that loves his king for conscience sake, of a clearer countenance, and bolder look than other men, because of a more loyal Heart.” It was meant as a derogatory and vulgar term, but the flamboyantly dressed, well-groomed and long-haired Royalists quickly adopted the title as a badge of honour.
“Roundhead”, on the other hand, was the pejorative and contemptuous term the Cavaliers gave to the plainly clothed and hair cropped Puritan, who backed Parliament against the undivided powers of the Catholic-minded king. Their efforts, as we all know, led to the beheading of Charles, and eventually to the adoption of a mixed constitution and a more limited monarchy. For better or worse, in the titanic struggle between King and Country, the country prevailed, and Sir Robert Filmer's defense of one-man rule in The Natural Power of Kings, forever received its death knell.
And so I like the phrase. Roundhead values means we celebrate freedom and true progress, and recognize the inate dignity of every human being. Cavalier tastes implies that we continue to hold reverence for our traditions, heritage and institutions, while showing our disdain for those who attack these. In the old meaning of the word it also implies that we reserve our contempt for the tasteless: the ill mannered, insufferable gasbags of this world, and take on those who offend our sense of self-respect and personal dignity. There is no contradiction here. We hold that society, for all its egalitarian and proletariat rhetoric, could still use a little class.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:02 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, March 09, 2006
The Queen's Cavalry
Just finished watching The Queen's Cavalry on CBC. If you haven't seen it already, and you have a soft spot for soldierly duty and stately pomp, I highly recommend that you do. It is a four-part documentary on The Life Guards and the Blues and Royals, the British Army's two most senior regiments that make up The Household Calvary. The Household Cavalry, or more generally the Household Division (not all the Queen's guards are mounted), is a Commonwealth term that denotes our most elite and senior regiments, and those directly associated with the ceremonial and security functions of the Crown. In Canada they are the Governor General's Horse Guards, the Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards; and in Australia, Australia's Federation Guard assumes this role.
But if you think the Queen's soldiers sit around Buckingham Palace all day and rotate guard duty, think again. That's what they do in their off-time. Her Majesty's Household Regiments are in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. They fought in both world wars, the Napoleonic Wars (most famously at the Battle of Waterloo), the Seven Year's War...they fought for King and Country in all our wars. I dare say these regiments are politically untouchable. Doing away with them, would be like the Americans doing away with the United States Marine Corps. A caring public would never let it happen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Just finished watching The Queen's Cavalry on CBC. If you haven't seen it already, and you have a soft spot for soldierly duty and stately pomp, I highly recommend that you do. It is a four-part documentary on The Life Guards and the Blues and Royals, the British Army's two most senior regiments that make up The Household Calvary. The Household Cavalry, or more generally the Household Division (not all the Queen's guards are mounted), is a Commonwealth term that denotes our most elite and senior regiments, and those directly associated with the ceremonial and security functions of the Crown. In Canada they are the Governor General's Horse Guards, the Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards; and in Australia, Australia's Federation Guard assumes this role.But if you think the Queen's soldiers sit around Buckingham Palace all day and rotate guard duty, think again. That's what they do in their off-time. Her Majesty's Household Regiments are in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. They fought in both world wars, the Napoleonic Wars (most famously at the Battle of Waterloo), the Seven Year's War...they fought for King and Country in all our wars. I dare say these regiments are politically untouchable. Doing away with them, would be like the Americans doing away with the United States Marine Corps. A caring public would never let it happen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:59 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Anne of Great Britain
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
March 8, 1702
Queen Anne accedes to the throne and later becomes the very first Sovereign of Great Britain following the 1707 Union of England and Scotland. Anne inherited the throne upon the death of King William III, who died of injuries sustained after falling off his horse. The King received only a broken collar bone but a jolting coach trip back to Kensington Palace worsened the untreated injury.
The reign of Anne was marked by the growing influence of ministers and a decline in the influence of the Crown. In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent from a parliamentary bill. Although politics was dominated by the Whigs, the era was unmistakably Tory in spirit with writers such as Pope, Defoe, Swift and Johnson sympathising with the Jacobite cause.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
March 8, 1702
Queen Anne accedes to the throne and later becomes the very first Sovereign of Great Britain following the 1707 Union of England and Scotland. Anne inherited the throne upon the death of King William III, who died of injuries sustained after falling off his horse. The King received only a broken collar bone but a jolting coach trip back to Kensington Palace worsened the untreated injury.The reign of Anne was marked by the growing influence of ministers and a decline in the influence of the Crown. In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold Royal Assent from a parliamentary bill. Although politics was dominated by the Whigs, the era was unmistakably Tory in spirit with writers such as Pope, Defoe, Swift and Johnson sympathising with the Jacobite cause.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:09 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Witenagemot Club
Today we joined the English patriotic blogroll called the Witenagemot Club to add our voice to the growing chorus for a separate Parliament for England. In my opinion this is a basic matter of democratic justice, and one wholly in keeping with the British tradition of devolution to parliaments constitutionally established in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...to say nothing of the ones now established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let’s face it: we owe England much. England was not only the backbone of British power and prestige that once protected our settlements over the world’s palm and pine – it bequeathed us our whole system of parliamentary democracy following a thousand year struggle that predates even the Model Parliament of 1295; to the Witenagemot, the local wise-men (witans) assemblies that organized and administered Anglo-saxon kingdoms prior to England’s unification, and that served as a valuable check on royal power.
An English Parliament will no doubt cause an even further receding of our collective British memory into the foggy mist of history, but that is not England’s fault so much as Westminster’s. Governing structures based on the over-centralization of political power are not natural end states, and must eventually reform or see their power erode over time. The British Empire ended because the imperialists could not foresee sharing power with mere colonials; they could not confederate the Commonwealth before the nationalists started to clamour for independence.
A true lasting union requires the voluntary coming together of equals to do the business that one cannot effectively do on one’s own. Things like defense, trade and foreign affairs. But the rest can be done by the locals thank you very much. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no business telling England how to run their domestic affairs.
It is not unBritish for England to ask for its own Parliament, for Englanders to take control of their own destiny. On the contrary, it would be unBritish to deny them this.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Today we joined the English patriotic blogroll called the Witenagemot Club to add our voice to the growing chorus for a separate Parliament for England. In my opinion this is a basic matter of democratic justice, and one wholly in keeping with the British tradition of devolution to parliaments constitutionally established in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...to say nothing of the ones now established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Let’s face it: we owe England much. England was not only the backbone of British power and prestige that once protected our settlements over the world’s palm and pine – it bequeathed us our whole system of parliamentary democracy following a thousand year struggle that predates even the Model Parliament of 1295; to the Witenagemot, the local wise-men (witans) assemblies that organized and administered Anglo-saxon kingdoms prior to England’s unification, and that served as a valuable check on royal power.
An English Parliament will no doubt cause an even further receding of our collective British memory into the foggy mist of history, but that is not England’s fault so much as Westminster’s. Governing structures based on the over-centralization of political power are not natural end states, and must eventually reform or see their power erode over time. The British Empire ended because the imperialists could not foresee sharing power with mere colonials; they could not confederate the Commonwealth before the nationalists started to clamour for independence.
A true lasting union requires the voluntary coming together of equals to do the business that one cannot effectively do on one’s own. Things like defense, trade and foreign affairs. But the rest can be done by the locals thank you very much. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no business telling England how to run their domestic affairs.
It is not unBritish for England to ask for its own Parliament, for Englanders to take control of their own destiny. On the contrary, it would be unBritish to deny them this.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Our British readers will be delighted to know that Peter Hitchens now has his own blog over at the Daily Mail. He is bar none, my favourite hardline pro-monarchy traditional Tory columnist in Britain today.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:38 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Honour their sacrifice by staying the course
Not a good week in Afghanistan. The Canadian Expeditionary Force currently in command of the southern part of the country suffered what seemed like a relentless stream of casualities during the last few days over a number of separate incidents - something approaching an American casualty rate with three deaths, a dozen seriously injured and another soldier who was brutally attacked from behind with an axe across his head as told in this gripping tale.
And sure enough all the weak-kneed politicians start clamouring for our soldiers to pony up and get out. A national poll indicates that only 52% still think we should stay (this number is well above 60% though if we ignore traditionally pacifist Quebec), so there are plenty of votes to be had for sounding all wishy-washy. Of course when soldiers are dying the decent thing to do is to stand four-square behind them and honour their sacrifice. That would be the decent thing to do.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Not a good week in Afghanistan. The Canadian Expeditionary Force currently in command of the southern part of the country suffered what seemed like a relentless stream of casualities during the last few days over a number of separate incidents - something approaching an American casualty rate with three deaths, a dozen seriously injured and another soldier who was brutally attacked from behind with an axe across his head as told in this gripping tale. And sure enough all the weak-kneed politicians start clamouring for our soldiers to pony up and get out. A national poll indicates that only 52% still think we should stay (this number is well above 60% though if we ignore traditionally pacifist Quebec), so there are plenty of votes to be had for sounding all wishy-washy. Of course when soldiers are dying the decent thing to do is to stand four-square behind them and honour their sacrifice. That would be the decent thing to do.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:32 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, March 03, 2006
"An outcrop of Western civilisation"
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is marking ten years in power. For those ten years he has resisted the prescription of his predecessor, Paul Keating, who favoured abolishing the monarchy and turning Down Under into a republic, in furtherance of the misguided notion that Australia should Asianize its identity and distance itself from its historical relationship with Britain and the West.
Bollocks to that. "We are an outcrop of Western civilisation, we are geographically in the Asia-Pacific region, we have very close links with North America...What I've tried to do has been in no way to downgrade our relations with Asia, rather to further improve them, but to bring back to proper perspective our relations with the United States, Britain, other European countries," Howard said.
So congratulations to Mr. Howard, my favourite Commonwealth leader. Here's hoping the staunch monarchist leads Down Under for another ten years and longer.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:29 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Australian Prime Minister John Howard is marking ten years in power. For those ten years he has resisted the prescription of his predecessor, Paul Keating, who favoured abolishing the monarchy and turning Down Under into a republic, in furtherance of the misguided notion that Australia should Asianize its identity and distance itself from its historical relationship with Britain and the West.Bollocks to that. "We are an outcrop of Western civilisation, we are geographically in the Asia-Pacific region, we have very close links with North America...What I've tried to do has been in no way to downgrade our relations with Asia, rather to further improve them, but to bring back to proper perspective our relations with the United States, Britain, other European countries," Howard said.
So congratulations to Mr. Howard, my favourite Commonwealth leader. Here's hoping the staunch monarchist leads Down Under for another ten years and longer.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:29 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
St. David's Day
My paternal grandfather was born in Wales, so this day has ancestral significance for me. Though he spoke it himself, unfortunately he never taught me Gaelic, so I am unable to understand what Her Majesty is going on about here. But the highlight of the day was the opening of the new Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.
Oh, and speaking of the Queen, it's Her Majesty's 80th birthday this year. You can check out the newly released official site here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
My paternal grandfather was born in Wales, so this day has ancestral significance for me. Though he spoke it himself, unfortunately he never taught me Gaelic, so I am unable to understand what Her Majesty is going on about here. But the highlight of the day was the opening of the new Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.
Oh, and speaking of the Queen, it's Her Majesty's 80th birthday this year. You can check out the newly released official site here.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
