The Monarchist 1.0
Defending the British Crown Commonwealth and the English-Speaking Peoples
[+] HONOURING OUR PATRON, SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL, VICTOR OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES
[+] HONOURING OUR QUEEN, ELIZABETH THE SECOND, ON THE 80TH YEAR OF HER BIRTH (1926 - 2006)
[+] HONOURING OUR KING, SAINT EDWARD THE CONFESSOR, ON THE 1000TH YEAR OF HIS BIRTH (1005 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR HERO, LORD NELSON, ON THE BICENTENNIAL OF THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (1805 - 2005)
[+] HONOURING OUR SONS, THE QUEEN'S COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS KILLED IN THE 'WAR ON TERROR'
Chief Warrant Officer Robert Girouard, 46, Royal Canadian Regiment, Nov 27, 2006 (Afstan)
Staff Sergeant Sharron Elliott, 34, Intelligence Corps, Nov 12, 2006 (Iraq)
Private Jacob B. Kovco, 25, Royal Australian Regiment, April 21, 2006
[+] HONOURING OUR VETS ON THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE VICTORIA CROSS (1856 - 2006)
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Abolish the Premiers, not the Senate
The Provinces are constitutionally protected under Confederation, but the Constitution says nothing about the Premiers. The Queen of Canada may be in her rights just to dismiss them all and let her Lieutenant Governors carry out the daily ritual of provincial whining on their behalf. As representatives of the Crown, they would at least be able to perform this function with a little grace and refinement.
They really are a sad lot, those Premiers, especially that indolent fart sack of a “Tory” (no friend of federal Tories) from Saudi Alberta, whom the media, an even sadder lot, dub “King Ralph”. The media and the Premiers certainly love each other – they both act and believe they are the Loyal Opposition to the federal government. The collusion may be understandable; the media get to feast on regular bits of provincial puffery in return for reporting the Premiers’ latest ransom demands on the federal store, but there’s no reason why the rest of us have to accept this as news.
Some of the Premiers now want us to abolish the Senate. Why, because Harper wants to reform it, make it more democratically accountable and legitimate. In the long run, attaining the miracle of an elected, equal and effective Senate to represent the regional interests of Canada, in competition with the popular interests reflected in the House of Commons, would put a dagger into any presumption the Provinces do this, and the Premiers know it. The Premier of British Columbia would rather do the talking, and not let BC Senators do this for him. Ditto for Ontario. Ditto for Quebec. Especially Quebec. Nobody but the “Prime minister” of Quebec speaks for Quebec. Get it.
So there you have it. Abolish the Senate and you get the Premiers in your federal face all the federal time. Reform the Senate, and you effectively abolish the Premiers from the federal scene forever. You want inspiration. There it is. Now get to it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Provinces are constitutionally protected under Confederation, but the Constitution says nothing about the Premiers. The Queen of Canada may be in her rights just to dismiss them all and let her Lieutenant Governors carry out the daily ritual of provincial whining on their behalf. As representatives of the Crown, they would at least be able to perform this function with a little grace and refinement. They really are a sad lot, those Premiers, especially that indolent fart sack of a “Tory” (no friend of federal Tories) from Saudi Alberta, whom the media, an even sadder lot, dub “King Ralph”. The media and the Premiers certainly love each other – they both act and believe they are the Loyal Opposition to the federal government. The collusion may be understandable; the media get to feast on regular bits of provincial puffery in return for reporting the Premiers’ latest ransom demands on the federal store, but there’s no reason why the rest of us have to accept this as news.
Some of the Premiers now want us to abolish the Senate. Why, because Harper wants to reform it, make it more democratically accountable and legitimate. In the long run, attaining the miracle of an elected, equal and effective Senate to represent the regional interests of Canada, in competition with the popular interests reflected in the House of Commons, would put a dagger into any presumption the Provinces do this, and the Premiers know it. The Premier of British Columbia would rather do the talking, and not let BC Senators do this for him. Ditto for Ontario. Ditto for Quebec. Especially Quebec. Nobody but the “Prime minister” of Quebec speaks for Quebec. Get it.
So there you have it. Abolish the Senate and you get the Premiers in your federal face all the federal time. Reform the Senate, and you effectively abolish the Premiers from the federal scene forever. You want inspiration. There it is. Now get to it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Mrs. Windsor"
Who could forget it? I will never forget the childish "blasphemy" of Welsh Assemby Member, Ms. Woods, for as long as I live, for it was the moment in time when TM was hatched into existence. Words like blasphemy, treachery and sedition may be anachronistic in our day, but it was nice to know that in December 2004, "Her Majesty" was not. The Welsh Assembly, including its Labour members, certainly found it shockingly offensive enough to expel her from the premises. And rightly so. The Queen is the Queen. No deviations are permitted.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:12 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Who could forget it? I will never forget the childish "blasphemy" of Welsh Assemby Member, Ms. Woods, for as long as I live, for it was the moment in time when TM was hatched into existence. Words like blasphemy, treachery and sedition may be anachronistic in our day, but it was nice to know that in December 2004, "Her Majesty" was not. The Welsh Assembly, including its Labour members, certainly found it shockingly offensive enough to expel her from the premises. And rightly so. The Queen is the Queen. No deviations are permitted.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:12 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, May 29, 2006
Fix bayonets. The Painette Rabble has crossed the Atlantic and is now spreading its cancer throughout the Mother Country.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 8:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 8:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Was Churchill a conservative? Depends on what you mean by conservative. Discussion moderated by Tory Historian at one of my favourite blogs, the blog dedicated to the study of British Conservative history at the Conservative History Group.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:46 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 7:46 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Saturday, May 27, 2006
It is surprising to see a member of the editorial board of a firmly Liberal paper like the Toronto Star come across with apparent openness to the Anglosphere concept. Read: PM looking comfortable in Anglosphere club. The boys at Albions Seedlings will be interested in this one.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 9:48 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, May 26, 2006
Artillery Day
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
May 26, 1716
The Royal Artillery is 290 years old today, and once again is burying one of their own. I believe Captain Goddard is the first female artillery officer to be killed in combat in British Commonwealth military history.
From the Royal Artillery Historical Society:
Before the 18th century, artillery 'traynes' were raised by Royal Warrant for specific campaigns and disbanded again when they were over. On 26 May 1716, however, by Royal Warrant of George I two regular companies of field artillery, each 100 men strong, were raised at Woolwich. On 1 April 1722 these companies were grouped with independent artillery companies at Gibraltar and Minorca to form the Royal Regiment of Artillery, commanded by Colonel Albert Bogard. The regiment expanded rapidly and by 1757 had 24 companies divided into two battalions, as well as a Cadet Company formed in 1741. By 1771 there were 32 companies in four battalions, as well as two Invalid Companies comprising older and unfit men employed in garrison duties. In January 1793, two troops of Royal Horse Artillery were raised to provide fire support for the cavalry, joined by two more in November 1793. All RHA personnel were mounted. The Royal Irish Artillery was absorbed in 1801.
The regiment was under the control of the Board of Ordnance until the Board was abolished in 1855. Thereafter the regiment came under the War Office along with the rest of the army. In 1861 the regiment also absorbed the artillery of the British East India Company – 21 horse batteries and 48 field batteries – which brought its strength up to 29 horse batteries, 73 field batteries and 88 heavy batteries. On 1 July 1899, the Royal Artillery was divided into two groups: the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery comprised one group, while the coastal defence, mountain, siege and heavy batteries were split off into another group named the Royal Garrison Artillery. The three sections effectively functioned as separate corps. This arrangement lasted until 1924, when the three amalgamated once more. The Royal Horse Artillery, which has always had separate traditions, uniforms and insignia, still retains a separate identity within the regiment, however, and is considered (by its members at least) to be an élite.
Captain Goddard was an officer of the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
ON THIS DAY IN HISTORY
May 26, 1716
The Royal Artillery is 290 years old today, and once again is burying one of their own. I believe Captain Goddard is the first female artillery officer to be killed in combat in British Commonwealth military history.From the Royal Artillery Historical Society:
Before the 18th century, artillery 'traynes' were raised by Royal Warrant for specific campaigns and disbanded again when they were over. On 26 May 1716, however, by Royal Warrant of George I two regular companies of field artillery, each 100 men strong, were raised at Woolwich. On 1 April 1722 these companies were grouped with independent artillery companies at Gibraltar and Minorca to form the Royal Regiment of Artillery, commanded by Colonel Albert Bogard. The regiment expanded rapidly and by 1757 had 24 companies divided into two battalions, as well as a Cadet Company formed in 1741. By 1771 there were 32 companies in four battalions, as well as two Invalid Companies comprising older and unfit men employed in garrison duties. In January 1793, two troops of Royal Horse Artillery were raised to provide fire support for the cavalry, joined by two more in November 1793. All RHA personnel were mounted. The Royal Irish Artillery was absorbed in 1801.
The regiment was under the control of the Board of Ordnance until the Board was abolished in 1855. Thereafter the regiment came under the War Office along with the rest of the army. In 1861 the regiment also absorbed the artillery of the British East India Company – 21 horse batteries and 48 field batteries – which brought its strength up to 29 horse batteries, 73 field batteries and 88 heavy batteries. On 1 July 1899, the Royal Artillery was divided into two groups: the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Field Artillery comprised one group, while the coastal defence, mountain, siege and heavy batteries were split off into another group named the Royal Garrison Artillery. The three sections effectively functioned as separate corps. This arrangement lasted until 1924, when the three amalgamated once more. The Royal Horse Artillery, which has always had separate traditions, uniforms and insignia, still retains a separate identity within the regiment, however, and is considered (by its members at least) to be an élite.
Captain Goddard was an officer of the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:00 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, May 25, 2006
"Human Rights"
Howler of the day. What hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to the United Nations will get you. Apparently a UN Committee has lambasted Canada for its poor human rights record. No, I'm not talking about Harper's new medical program to harvest people's organs while they sleep, I'm referring to the deliberate way we "permit the poorest people in the country to live at a level of misery that undermines their human dignity and violates their fundamental human rights". We could do so much better than this if we just tried, says the UN. Okay, thanks for the report, guys. Her Majesty regrets this miserable performance. Needless to say, the cheque's in the mail.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:45 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Howler of the day. What hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to the United Nations will get you. Apparently a UN Committee has lambasted Canada for its poor human rights record. No, I'm not talking about Harper's new medical program to harvest people's organs while they sleep, I'm referring to the deliberate way we "permit the poorest people in the country to live at a level of misery that undermines their human dignity and violates their fundamental human rights". We could do so much better than this if we just tried, says the UN. Okay, thanks for the report, guys. Her Majesty regrets this miserable performance. Needless to say, the cheque's in the mail.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:45 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Another fraternal friendly with a loyal heart and wise countenance comes to the defence of our shared glory. Warmest greetings to New Zealand Monarchy.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:42 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
We seem to be experiencing recurring problems with the comments on this blog. Checking into it.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:34 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:34 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, May 22, 2006
Happy Victoria Day
Victoria Day is the Queen's official birthday in Canada. As a constitutional monarchy, it is fitting that we observe this day and pay our loyal respect – and reverence – to the sovereign that gave Royal Assent to Canada, the mother monarch who gave birth to our country by consenting to confederation through the British North America Act of 1867. If we still believe – as surely we must – that every nation needs to subscribe to a history, it seems only proper that we continue to reserve one day of every year to commemorate the institution that goes to the very core of our narrative and identity as a people. The story and spirit of Canada is every bit as much tied to the national significance of May the 24th, as it is to the significance of July the 1st and November the 11th, the three occasions which respectively evoke the memory of King, Country and those who died for it.
Here is the Royal Proclamation of 1957:
QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY
Proclaimed for Celebration
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
To All To Whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may in anywise concern — Greeting:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas Our birthday falling on the twenty-first day of April it is thought fit to appoint the first Monday immediately preceding the twenty-fifth day of May as the day on which Our birthday is to be officially celebrated in Canada in 1957 and each year thereafter.
Now Know Ye that we do hereby proclaim and declare by this Our Proclamation that the first Monday immediately preceding the twenty-fifth day of May is hereby fixed for the celebration in Canada of Our birthday in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven and each year thereafter.
Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In Testimony Whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor, Vincent Massey, Member of Our Order of the companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House in Our City of Ottawa, this Thirty-first day of January in the year of Our Lord, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven and in the Fifth Year of Our Reign.
By Command,
C. STEIN,
Under Secretary of State.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Victoria Day is the Queen's official birthday in Canada. As a constitutional monarchy, it is fitting that we observe this day and pay our loyal respect – and reverence – to the sovereign that gave Royal Assent to Canada, the mother monarch who gave birth to our country by consenting to confederation through the British North America Act of 1867. If we still believe – as surely we must – that every nation needs to subscribe to a history, it seems only proper that we continue to reserve one day of every year to commemorate the institution that goes to the very core of our narrative and identity as a people. The story and spirit of Canada is every bit as much tied to the national significance of May the 24th, as it is to the significance of July the 1st and November the 11th, the three occasions which respectively evoke the memory of King, Country and those who died for it.Here is the Royal Proclamation of 1957:
QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY
Proclaimed for Celebration
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
To All To Whom these Presents shall come or whom the same may in anywise concern — Greeting:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas Our birthday falling on the twenty-first day of April it is thought fit to appoint the first Monday immediately preceding the twenty-fifth day of May as the day on which Our birthday is to be officially celebrated in Canada in 1957 and each year thereafter.
Now Know Ye that we do hereby proclaim and declare by this Our Proclamation that the first Monday immediately preceding the twenty-fifth day of May is hereby fixed for the celebration in Canada of Our birthday in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven and each year thereafter.
Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these Presents may concern are hereby required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
In Testimony Whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Counsellor, Vincent Massey, Member of Our Order of the companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House in Our City of Ottawa, this Thirty-first day of January in the year of Our Lord, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven and in the Fifth Year of Our Reign.
By Command,
C. STEIN,
Under Secretary of State.
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:55 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Get "Their Say" Commenting
Readers, commenters and contributors to The Monarchist will notice that we use a superior commenting system on this blog, superior relative to anything that Blogger itself has come up with. "Their Say" is superior because it operates within a single integrated window (Blogger launches a separate window for comments), allows for full editing of comments, banning of commenters and an impenetrable firewall against spam. I find this to be a much better solution than having commenters first register their comments before having them posted, a process which I personally find frustrating and, quite frankly, not worth it. Not so with Their Say. I'm allowed to refer up to 25 people for this service, so if you're interested, please drop us a comment, and I will forward onto the owner and creator of this superb system. Get it while you can. Let them have their say with Their Say.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:16 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Readers, commenters and contributors to The Monarchist will notice that we use a superior commenting system on this blog, superior relative to anything that Blogger itself has come up with. "Their Say" is superior because it operates within a single integrated window (Blogger launches a separate window for comments), allows for full editing of comments, banning of commenters and an impenetrable firewall against spam. I find this to be a much better solution than having commenters first register their comments before having them posted, a process which I personally find frustrating and, quite frankly, not worth it. Not so with Their Say. I'm allowed to refer up to 25 people for this service, so if you're interested, please drop us a comment, and I will forward onto the owner and creator of this superb system. Get it while you can. Let them have their say with Their Say.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 2:16 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The bi-weekly Red Ensign Standard is up at RootleWeb. It is now encumbant of all Brigade members to link to the Standard when a fellow Ensigner hosts it. This has always been assumed the case of course, but there was a general falling out over the past several months, The Monarchist included. So here's pledging a renewal of our commitment right here, right now, to fellow Brigadiers.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:20 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, May 21, 2006
1st Anniversary of the Tipping Point
Andrew Coyne says it was a week where politicians went about trashing parliament. I agree with him. But I would submit that it was a mild trashing compared to what we witnessed with Paul Martin one year ago, who wilfully went about suspending Canadian parliamentary democracy for what surely were two of the most disgraceful weeks of Parliament's history. Walsingham's "seminal" post, The Tipping Point (at least that's how one columnist described it in the Ottawa Citizen), summed it up brilliantly:
So you want trashing parliament? There, that's trashing parliament. Nothing like a little T.P. in May. Walsingham's only mistake was to refer to this T.P. as a tipping point, since things have tipped back nicely over the past year. In hindsight, trashing parliament would have perhaps been a much better title.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Andrew Coyne says it was a week where politicians went about trashing parliament. I agree with him. But I would submit that it was a mild trashing compared to what we witnessed with Paul Martin one year ago, who wilfully went about suspending Canadian parliamentary democracy for what surely were two of the most disgraceful weeks of Parliament's history. Walsingham's "seminal" post, The Tipping Point (at least that's how one columnist described it in the Ottawa Citizen), summed it up brilliantly:
We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.
As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.
So you want trashing parliament? There, that's trashing parliament. Nothing like a little T.P. in May. Walsingham's only mistake was to refer to this T.P. as a tipping point, since things have tipped back nicely over the past year. In hindsight, trashing parliament would have perhaps been a much better title.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:51 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Friday, May 19, 2006
God Bless Senator Cools
The Senate of Canada, our politically-appointed embarrassment, might have a well deserved reputation as a mostly absent body of superannuated party hacks, but this little motion put forward by Conservative Senator Anne C. Cools (my favourite, by the way), and adopted in time for the Victoria Day Weekend, the Queen's official birthday in Canada, has definitely improved the upper chamber's luster.
The Honourable Anne C. Cools:
Honourable senators, I rise to join today with colleagues in wishing Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, a happy birthday. Queen Elizabeth turned 80 on April 21. Next Monday, May 22, commonly described as the Queen's birthday, or Victoria Day, Canadians will formally celebrate the Queen's birthday.
Honourable senators will know that I am pained by the systematic erosion of the monarch and the monarchical system in Canada, and that I uphold the Royal Family at all times. My commitment to Her Majesty began when she was still a young woman and I a young child. I recall most vividly her coronation in 1953. Her Majesty too then took an oath, the Coronation Oath, swearing a commitment to her subjects, to mercy, to justice and to God.
I was then a child of nine years, in Barbados, the British West Indies, in the first form of my school, Queen's College, the oldest girls' school in the British Empire. The school was situated on many acres of land, with games fields, hockey fields and three tennis courts, named Queen's College in honour of Queen Victoria.
In honour of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, my school, Queen's College, staged a pageant, an outdoor play, in which one student, an upper form girl, dramatically mounted side-saddle on a horse, played Queen Elizabeth I delivering her inspiring address to her own troops poised for battle at Tilbury in 1588, as they awaited the approach of the Spanish Armada. Queen Elizabeth I said:
Queen Elizabeth I then told her troops that leadership is about heart and stomach, lion-heartedness in duty and service to God, Queen and country.
Honourable senators, those words influenced my life profoundly. At the time of that pageant, in celebration of the coronation in 1953, I had one particular school mistress who had actually attended the coronation ceremony at Westminster in London, on June 2, 1953. I vividly recall her accounts of the event. That school mistress was Grace Adams, the wife of one of the leading political figures of Barbados, later premier, and later Sir Grantley Adams, when she became Lady Grace Adams.
Honourable senators, my childhood was dotted with her accounts of great public men, public service and civic responsibility. I also vividly remember that same school mistress giving accounts of the great British social reformers, parliamentarians like William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury.
Honourable senators, I am an ardent supporter of Her Majesty, and of our system of government known as constitutional monarchy. The Queen, Her Majesty, is the actuating power in our Constitution. For all bills that we pass she is the enacting power. It is Her Majesty's Royal Assent that gives the bill the force of law. The seat of government in Ottawa is Government House. The Parliament of Canada is the Senate, the House of Commons and the Queen. Her Majesty the Queen is the caput, principium, et finis, that is, the head, the beginning and the end of Parliament, hence the term the Queen in Her Parliament.
Honourable senators, I have looked for a quotation that embodies the importance of Her Majesty in Parliament in our Constitution. I would like to put on the record a statement from Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the late 1800s. In his 1852 book, Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography, he described the true force and meaning of the enacting power of the Royal Assent by the Queen. He wrote:
Honourable senators, I always try to make the point that the actuating power in our Constitution is Her Majesty and it is very real: It is no vestige, it is no ornament and it is no ceremonial fact.
Honourable senators, I should like to wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, a very happy eightieth birthday. I should also like to take the opportunity to wish her many more happy birthdays.
I thank her, her husband and her family for the many decades of dedication, commitment and service to her people, subjects in Canada. I also thank her and her family for the leading role that they played during the Second World War in sustaining the British people and the British Empire people who carried that war by themselves for several years. I thank her for all of that.
Honourable senators, Canadians young and old, veterans and non-veterans, men and women, hold Her Majesty in deep affection. I say, "God bless the Queen." I say, "Long may she reign over us," — very, very long — and I say, "She has a special place in my heart and in my head," and I would submit in the hearts and the heads of many Canadians.
If honourable senators doubt that, we should have witnessed Juno Beach a couple of years ago when all eyes of our veterans were on Her Majesty. All eyes were on Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, because of her long connection to history, her long connection to Canada, and the role that she herself and her parents especially, the Queen Mother and King George VI, played in sustaining Canadians through a terrible time of warfare when Canadian men and women were engaged in the theatres of war.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:28 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Senate of Canada, our politically-appointed embarrassment, might have a well deserved reputation as a mostly absent body of superannuated party hacks, but this little motion put forward by Conservative Senator Anne C. Cools (my favourite, by the way), and adopted in time for the Victoria Day Weekend, the Queen's official birthday in Canada, has definitely improved the upper chamber's luster.
The Honourable Anne C. Cools:Honourable senators, I rise to join today with colleagues in wishing Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, a happy birthday. Queen Elizabeth turned 80 on April 21. Next Monday, May 22, commonly described as the Queen's birthday, or Victoria Day, Canadians will formally celebrate the Queen's birthday.
Honourable senators will know that I am pained by the systematic erosion of the monarch and the monarchical system in Canada, and that I uphold the Royal Family at all times. My commitment to Her Majesty began when she was still a young woman and I a young child. I recall most vividly her coronation in 1953. Her Majesty too then took an oath, the Coronation Oath, swearing a commitment to her subjects, to mercy, to justice and to God.
I was then a child of nine years, in Barbados, the British West Indies, in the first form of my school, Queen's College, the oldest girls' school in the British Empire. The school was situated on many acres of land, with games fields, hockey fields and three tennis courts, named Queen's College in honour of Queen Victoria.
In honour of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, my school, Queen's College, staged a pageant, an outdoor play, in which one student, an upper form girl, dramatically mounted side-saddle on a horse, played Queen Elizabeth I delivering her inspiring address to her own troops poised for battle at Tilbury in 1588, as they awaited the approach of the Spanish Armada. Queen Elizabeth I said:
I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king and of a king of England too; and think foul scorn that Parma and Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm.
Queen Elizabeth I then told her troops that leadership is about heart and stomach, lion-heartedness in duty and service to God, Queen and country.
Honourable senators, those words influenced my life profoundly. At the time of that pageant, in celebration of the coronation in 1953, I had one particular school mistress who had actually attended the coronation ceremony at Westminster in London, on June 2, 1953. I vividly recall her accounts of the event. That school mistress was Grace Adams, the wife of one of the leading political figures of Barbados, later premier, and later Sir Grantley Adams, when she became Lady Grace Adams.
Honourable senators, my childhood was dotted with her accounts of great public men, public service and civic responsibility. I also vividly remember that same school mistress giving accounts of the great British social reformers, parliamentarians like William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury.
Honourable senators, I am an ardent supporter of Her Majesty, and of our system of government known as constitutional monarchy. The Queen, Her Majesty, is the actuating power in our Constitution. For all bills that we pass she is the enacting power. It is Her Majesty's Royal Assent that gives the bill the force of law. The seat of government in Ottawa is Government House. The Parliament of Canada is the Senate, the House of Commons and the Queen. Her Majesty the Queen is the caput, principium, et finis, that is, the head, the beginning and the end of Parliament, hence the term the Queen in Her Parliament.
Honourable senators, I have looked for a quotation that embodies the importance of Her Majesty in Parliament in our Constitution. I would like to put on the record a statement from Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the late 1800s. In his 1852 book, Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography, he described the true force and meaning of the enacting power of the Royal Assent by the Queen. He wrote:
As a branch of the legislature whose decision is final, and therefore last solicited, the opinion of the sovereign remains unshackled and uncompromised until the assent of both houses has been received. Nor is this veto of the English monarch an empty form. It is not difficult to conceive the occasion when, supported by the sympathies of a loyal people, its exercise might defeat an unconstitutional ministry and a corrupt parliament.
Honourable senators, I always try to make the point that the actuating power in our Constitution is Her Majesty and it is very real: It is no vestige, it is no ornament and it is no ceremonial fact.
Honourable senators, I should like to wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, a very happy eightieth birthday. I should also like to take the opportunity to wish her many more happy birthdays.
I thank her, her husband and her family for the many decades of dedication, commitment and service to her people, subjects in Canada. I also thank her and her family for the leading role that they played during the Second World War in sustaining the British people and the British Empire people who carried that war by themselves for several years. I thank her for all of that.
Honourable senators, Canadians young and old, veterans and non-veterans, men and women, hold Her Majesty in deep affection. I say, "God bless the Queen." I say, "Long may she reign over us," — very, very long — and I say, "She has a special place in my heart and in my head," and I would submit in the hearts and the heads of many Canadians.
If honourable senators doubt that, we should have witnessed Juno Beach a couple of years ago when all eyes of our veterans were on Her Majesty. All eyes were on Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, because of her long connection to history, her long connection to Canada, and the role that she herself and her parents especially, the Queen Mother and King George VI, played in sustaining Canadians through a terrible time of warfare when Canadian men and women were engaged in the theatres of war.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 3:28 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Twin nations separated at birth
"Politically, we share an enduring affinity to the crown."
Prime Minister Howard addresses joint sitting of the Parliament of Canada:
We are, as the Prime Minister said, kindred nations. We’re both in a sense children of the enlightenment, that period of rational inquiry, progress and modernity, which burst out of Europe, but indeed found some of its more fertile acceptance in the nations of the new world.
We share many values, we share the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. We are both federations, Canada coming together in 1867 and Australia in 1901. We have shared many sacrifices in war. We remember the sacrifice of Australians and Canadians, particularly in those terrible battles of World War I at Passchendaele and elsewhere. And in World War II it will ever be to the credit of Canada and Australia and Great Britain and a small band of countries, that they stood together alone against the tyranny and horror of Nazi Germany for one whole year when all appeared to be lost...
We do believe in the same things, we Australians and Canadians. We are people that do share so much common history and common experience. And in the new challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century I believe that with that shared history and shared experience there is more indeed that we can do in the future not only for the betterment of the people of Australia and the people of Canada, but for the betterment of all the peoples of the world.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
"Politically, we share an enduring affinity to the crown."Prime Minister Howard addresses joint sitting of the Parliament of Canada:
We are, as the Prime Minister said, kindred nations. We’re both in a sense children of the enlightenment, that period of rational inquiry, progress and modernity, which burst out of Europe, but indeed found some of its more fertile acceptance in the nations of the new world.
We share many values, we share the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. We are both federations, Canada coming together in 1867 and Australia in 1901. We have shared many sacrifices in war. We remember the sacrifice of Australians and Canadians, particularly in those terrible battles of World War I at Passchendaele and elsewhere. And in World War II it will ever be to the credit of Canada and Australia and Great Britain and a small band of countries, that they stood together alone against the tyranny and horror of Nazi Germany for one whole year when all appeared to be lost...
We do believe in the same things, we Australians and Canadians. We are people that do share so much common history and common experience. And in the new challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century I believe that with that shared history and shared experience there is more indeed that we can do in the future not only for the betterment of the people of Australia and the people of Canada, but for the betterment of all the peoples of the world.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:15 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, May 18, 2006
We will remember them
Captain Nichola Goddard of the 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery was killed in action yesterday, among scores of Afghans fighting the Taliban enemy. (You will note that the media doesn't use the word "enemy" in its reporting, since this would mean they would be taking sides. They prefer "insurgents".) This is the first female combat casualty for Canada since WWII, and one that hits closer to home as she was a fellow ex-cadet of the Royal Military College of Canada.
The commemoration scroll above has been duly updated to include the latest casualties, along with all those Brits who died in that helicopter crash near Basra on May 6. In our culture, war is the Queen's business, and so I make no distinction between favouring Canadian deaths over Brits and others of the Crown Commonwealth. We are all in this fight together; if I had the time, I would include American and other coalition deaths as well, but one must draw the line somewhere. No better place than Her Majesty.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:25 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Captain Nichola Goddard of the 1st Royal Canadian Horse Artillery was killed in action yesterday, among scores of Afghans fighting the Taliban enemy. (You will note that the media doesn't use the word "enemy" in its reporting, since this would mean they would be taking sides. They prefer "insurgents".) This is the first female combat casualty for Canada since WWII, and one that hits closer to home as she was a fellow ex-cadet of the Royal Military College of Canada. The commemoration scroll above has been duly updated to include the latest casualties, along with all those Brits who died in that helicopter crash near Basra on May 6. In our culture, war is the Queen's business, and so I make no distinction between favouring Canadian deaths over Brits and others of the Crown Commonwealth. We are all in this fight together; if I had the time, I would include American and other coalition deaths as well, but one must draw the line somewhere. No better place than Her Majesty.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:25 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Harper giving Pearson the boot
John Ibbitson is guilty of plagarizing my thoughts on Australia and the Anglosphere, and what Prime Minister Howard's official visit to Canada signifies for future relations with our traditional Allies. It is no accident that Howard is the first "foreign" head of government to be invited here. What this represents overall is a deliberate shift from the ineffective neutral internationalism espoused by Pearson, to a more robust foreign policy based on taking sides, providing leadership and concentrating effort. This may be new and shocking to Pearsonian Liberals, but it is definitely reverting to the old ways most will be unaccustomed to. And in the long run, the world will be better off for it.
Update: Read the Australian and Howard's new best friend.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
John Ibbitson is guilty of plagarizing my thoughts on Australia and the Anglosphere, and what Prime Minister Howard's official visit to Canada signifies for future relations with our traditional Allies. It is no accident that Howard is the first "foreign" head of government to be invited here. What this represents overall is a deliberate shift from the ineffective neutral internationalism espoused by Pearson, to a more robust foreign policy based on taking sides, providing leadership and concentrating effort. This may be new and shocking to Pearsonian Liberals, but it is definitely reverting to the old ways most will be unaccustomed to. And in the long run, the world will be better off for it.
Update: Read the Australian and Howard's new best friend.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 10:34 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Oh, what sunshine is this? Just a little confirmation here from the politically invincible Howard that will prove as bad for Australian Labor as it will prove bad for Australian republicans. Three elections and one referendum later, do we hear a fourth? Oh, yes. Oh, sweet. How very sweet this is.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:22 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 5:22 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, May 15, 2006
English 'don't want a Scot as Prime Minister'
This is really bad news for Gordon Brown, Tony Blair's self-assumed successor. But that's what happens when you go all overly pro-European on us, when you diss the Anglosphere concept and ignore the traditional Commonwealth; when you weaken and undermine your global and independent Britishness with national devolution and progressive federal continentalism. He's a little Johnny-Come-Lately in pleading his Britishness now, if these poll numbers are anything to go by. Talk about reaping what you sow.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:39 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
This is really bad news for Gordon Brown, Tony Blair's self-assumed successor. But that's what happens when you go all overly pro-European on us, when you diss the Anglosphere concept and ignore the traditional Commonwealth; when you weaken and undermine your global and independent Britishness with national devolution and progressive federal continentalism. He's a little Johnny-Come-Lately in pleading his Britishness now, if these poll numbers are anything to go by. Talk about reaping what you sow.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 6:39 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
With Tory eloquence and smarts, Gerald Warner lashes into Freud, Darwin and Marx, to him all peas of the same nihilistic pod. Thanks to our media age, the influence of famous men long outlive their credibility.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:49 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:49 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, May 14, 2006
If you are a Conservative, the Prime Minister runs a tightly focussed ship. If you are a Liberal, the Prime Minister is a "Big Daddy" control freak.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:45 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:45 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Harper to Honour Howard
After thirteen years of Liberal rule and countless "Team Canada" trade missions to China, we did not once invite Australia's Head of Government to Canada for a "State Visit" (not really a state visit if we both share the same Head of State, now is it). Yet, only three months in office, Prime Minister Harper has already extended the courtesy. Finally, we just might see free trade between our two Commonwealth Realms, between arguably the two most similar nations on the planet, more similar I would argue, than even that between Canada and the United States.
See Prime Minister of Canada press release here, Prime Minister of Australia press release here. Now why is it only happening now, you wonder? Because there is nothing more antipodean to Canadian Liberals than Australian Liberals, hence the inexusable omission all these years. But Harper and Howard are political soul mates, and both have the same rational, perhaps Anglospherist outlook with respect to the historical and traditional position our two countries should be taking in the world. So prepare for a real meeting of the minds next week, and a kickstart to a more deliberately focussed mutual relationship based on free trade, shared values and common goals. It's about time. Australia and New Zealand should be at the forefront of our national stance in South East Asia.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:18 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
After thirteen years of Liberal rule and countless "Team Canada" trade missions to China, we did not once invite Australia's Head of Government to Canada for a "State Visit" (not really a state visit if we both share the same Head of State, now is it). Yet, only three months in office, Prime Minister Harper has already extended the courtesy. Finally, we just might see free trade between our two Commonwealth Realms, between arguably the two most similar nations on the planet, more similar I would argue, than even that between Canada and the United States.See Prime Minister of Canada press release here, Prime Minister of Australia press release here. Now why is it only happening now, you wonder? Because there is nothing more antipodean to Canadian Liberals than Australian Liberals, hence the inexusable omission all these years. But Harper and Howard are political soul mates, and both have the same rational, perhaps Anglospherist outlook with respect to the historical and traditional position our two countries should be taking in the world. So prepare for a real meeting of the minds next week, and a kickstart to a more deliberately focussed mutual relationship based on free trade, shared values and common goals. It's about time. Australia and New Zealand should be at the forefront of our national stance in South East Asia.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:18 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Her Majesty's youngest and newest loyal subject. Some preoccupations are obviously much more important than blogging.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:07 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:07 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Defending monarchy on purely rational grounds
The Gods of the Copybook Headings have delivered a thoughtful and rational defense of monarchy and tradition that both loyalists and republicans would do well to read and learn. This is a valuable piece of work because conservatives are not naturally prone to defending tradition on rational grounds, and sometimes need to be shown the way. I find it intriguing how my own beliefs and values intersect with the scribes of this fantastic blog, yet it is difficult to trace a Burkean bone in the body of their writing. Everything, tradition, symbols - even emotion, is defended quite matter of factly without the usual sentiment and nostalgia:
In other words, what the symbol is is not terribly important, so long as it connects us to the things that matter. It doesn't say "I am a monarchist", it says "I am a free man" and the crown is useful as a reminder of that freedom. To dispense with it, to rid ourselves of our symbolism and identity, would be irrational because they hold meaning in our lives beyond the merely abstract. More on this perhaps later.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
The Gods of the Copybook Headings have delivered a thoughtful and rational defense of monarchy and tradition that both loyalists and republicans would do well to read and learn. This is a valuable piece of work because conservatives are not naturally prone to defending tradition on rational grounds, and sometimes need to be shown the way. I find it intriguing how my own beliefs and values intersect with the scribes of this fantastic blog, yet it is difficult to trace a Burkean bone in the body of their writing. Everything, tradition, symbols - even emotion, is defended quite matter of factly without the usual sentiment and nostalgia:
A symbol is a concretization. Every human being, even the most depraved of the moderns, needs something tangible, something to point to and say to themselves and others: "This is what I believe," or "this is what I am." The thing being symbolized, and it must be a thing, an abstract thought does not serve the same function, itself has little intrinsic value or meaning. A flag is a piece of cloth, a crown a golden trinket, we imbued these things with meaning because we need the hard fact before us. The thing itself is almost incidental, it needs to be a thing but what kind is open. We could idolize a rock, many cultures have, but few sophisticated cultures choose to do so. It helps if the symbol chosen tells a story.
In other words, what the symbol is is not terribly important, so long as it connects us to the things that matter. It doesn't say "I am a monarchist", it says "I am a free man" and the crown is useful as a reminder of that freedom. To dispense with it, to rid ourselves of our symbolism and identity, would be irrational because they hold meaning in our lives beyond the merely abstract. More on this perhaps later.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 1:26 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Thursday, May 04, 2006
The Iron Man
In my rush to debunk Squire Gwyn’s conflicting assertion (see post below) that Harper is both a “conservative Conservative”, and potentially the most radical Prime Minister Canada has ever had, I did not give the issue the fullness of response it deserved. Obviously when the closest thing to a Thatcherite (Harper, the Iron Man) bursts on the Canadian scene with a political vengeance, it is rational for “Trudeaupians” to feel threatened and to react with words like “radical” and “extreme” and “right-wing” and “ideologue”. But it is equally obvious that this is nothing more than a fear-mongering reaction, and not a proper reflection of who Harper truly is or what he truly represents.
Let me state it again: it is impossible to be both conservative and radical. The traditional enemy of conservatism is not liberalism or socialism, but radicalism. True conservatism is not an ideology, nor is it right or left wing – it is older than democracy. It came about consciously as a reaction to the radical supporters of the French Revolution, who were forcefully opposed by Edmund Burke. Burke, the Father of Conservatism, defined the philosophy as “a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve”. It was Burke, the Old Whig and new Tory, who stood against the Whig elites of 1789, the radicals who favoured uprooting the established order and embracing the Age of Reason.
Unfortunately everyone has a different stock in reason, which makes it a false anchor. There is something deeply abnormal about today's rationalists who emphasize a society based on abstractions like “equality”, “diversity” and “tolerance”, rather than the more rooted and universal concepts of duty, sacrifice and responsibility. The former is a utopian fantasy (i.e., Trudeaupia) with a political ideology (i.e., multiculturalism); the latter is not a political doctrine at all, but “a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living”- RJ White. In a word, conservatism.
And that’s what Harper represents: the desire to return us to our senses, to get the federal government out of our daily lives, to take our responsibilities seriously and restore the country back to its once great, original condition. That means not pursuing “national dreams” or collectivist social projects; not moralizing as an international do-gooder while making no tangible contribution globally; not insisting on peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep; not banning handguns when they are already banned; not signing onto Kyoto with no idea of how to realistically implement it – on every issue the Trudeaupians seemed to exist on some imaginary planet, unable to come to grips with basic reality, accountability and responsibility.
Trudeau himself was not always like this. He could be firmly anchored on occasion, and was when it came to the terrorist FLQ or the national unity issue (Mulroney, on the other hand, was in some grandiose Never Never Land on Meech and Charlottetown), but an Iron Man can be dangerous (read: NEP) when he is not properly rooted in the natural order of things - when he is not a true conservative. (Hitler and Stalin were of course downright evil, and the furthest thing possible from the normal state). Much better to have a weak, vacillating ditherer like Martin at the helm, than an ethically challenged second world strong man like Chretien, or an arrogantly resolved idealist like Trudeau.
But a man firmly grounded in conservative principles is an Iron Man we can trust. And the reason for this is quite obvious; a real conservative by definition is someone who is moderate and cautious and believes in incremental change (unless the State is overdue for a political correction); who exhibits the manly virtues of restraint and prudence and humility in the face of the unknowable, versus the elitist assumptions inherent in “Canadian values” or the undefined superiority of “progressive politics”, both of which are completely vague and ungrounded.
The progressives are the radicals with the "hidden agenda", because we don’t know what they’ll do next. Is polygamy just around the corner? Are they going to dump the monarchy with a neat trick? We don't know - we can't trust them. A conservative, on the other hand, is tethered to the traditions of our society and so we know where he stands. What is new to our political experience is an Iron Man who is resolute in defending and restoring them. We've never had a Thatcher. We do now.
On a Related Topic: See Thatcher's 1976 Speech that caused the Soviets to dub her the "Iron Lady".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:34 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
In my rush to debunk Squire Gwyn’s conflicting assertion (see post below) that Harper is both a “conservative Conservative”, and potentially the most radical Prime Minister Canada has ever had, I did not give the issue the fullness of response it deserved. Obviously when the closest thing to a Thatcherite (Harper, the Iron Man) bursts on the Canadian scene with a political vengeance, it is rational for “Trudeaupians” to feel threatened and to react with words like “radical” and “extreme” and “right-wing” and “ideologue”. But it is equally obvious that this is nothing more than a fear-mongering reaction, and not a proper reflection of who Harper truly is or what he truly represents.Let me state it again: it is impossible to be both conservative and radical. The traditional enemy of conservatism is not liberalism or socialism, but radicalism. True conservatism is not an ideology, nor is it right or left wing – it is older than democracy. It came about consciously as a reaction to the radical supporters of the French Revolution, who were forcefully opposed by Edmund Burke. Burke, the Father of Conservatism, defined the philosophy as “a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve”. It was Burke, the Old Whig and new Tory, who stood against the Whig elites of 1789, the radicals who favoured uprooting the established order and embracing the Age of Reason.
Unfortunately everyone has a different stock in reason, which makes it a false anchor. There is something deeply abnormal about today's rationalists who emphasize a society based on abstractions like “equality”, “diversity” and “tolerance”, rather than the more rooted and universal concepts of duty, sacrifice and responsibility. The former is a utopian fantasy (i.e., Trudeaupia) with a political ideology (i.e., multiculturalism); the latter is not a political doctrine at all, but “a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living”- RJ White. In a word, conservatism.
And that’s what Harper represents: the desire to return us to our senses, to get the federal government out of our daily lives, to take our responsibilities seriously and restore the country back to its once great, original condition. That means not pursuing “national dreams” or collectivist social projects; not moralizing as an international do-gooder while making no tangible contribution globally; not insisting on peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep; not banning handguns when they are already banned; not signing onto Kyoto with no idea of how to realistically implement it – on every issue the Trudeaupians seemed to exist on some imaginary planet, unable to come to grips with basic reality, accountability and responsibility.
Trudeau himself was not always like this. He could be firmly anchored on occasion, and was when it came to the terrorist FLQ or the national unity issue (Mulroney, on the other hand, was in some grandiose Never Never Land on Meech and Charlottetown), but an Iron Man can be dangerous (read: NEP) when he is not properly rooted in the natural order of things - when he is not a true conservative. (Hitler and Stalin were of course downright evil, and the furthest thing possible from the normal state). Much better to have a weak, vacillating ditherer like Martin at the helm, than an ethically challenged second world strong man like Chretien, or an arrogantly resolved idealist like Trudeau.
But a man firmly grounded in conservative principles is an Iron Man we can trust. And the reason for this is quite obvious; a real conservative by definition is someone who is moderate and cautious and believes in incremental change (unless the State is overdue for a political correction); who exhibits the manly virtues of restraint and prudence and humility in the face of the unknowable, versus the elitist assumptions inherent in “Canadian values” or the undefined superiority of “progressive politics”, both of which are completely vague and ungrounded.
The progressives are the radicals with the "hidden agenda", because we don’t know what they’ll do next. Is polygamy just around the corner? Are they going to dump the monarchy with a neat trick? We don't know - we can't trust them. A conservative, on the other hand, is tethered to the traditions of our society and so we know where he stands. What is new to our political experience is an Iron Man who is resolute in defending and restoring them. We've never had a Thatcher. We do now.
On a Related Topic: See Thatcher's 1976 Speech that caused the Soviets to dub her the "Iron Lady".
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 11:34 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
A conservative by definition is not radical
I have a bone to pick. Richard Gwyn, long-time columnist for the Toronto Star and medievalist-looking English squire (the resemblance is too striking for words), collapsed today under a mountainous contradiction with his "Steely PM taking Canada down radical path" warning:
Obviously Mr. Gwyn forgot to do a thought-check on his column before he sent it off, and obviously nobody at the Star thought to read the column before printing it. How could he state unequivocally that Harper is a “conservative Conservative”, while in the very same breath tell us that the PM is taking Canada down “the most radical path in our entire political history”?
A conservative, in case Mr. Gwyn wasn’t aware, is someone who is inclined to preserve the existing order of things, who respects tradition, who is moderate and cautious - someone who, by definition, opposes the very radical change he so mysteriously talks about. Harper may be stone cold focused and steely and even arrogant, but he is not radical.
If you are going to say a Prime Minister is radical, then it behooves you to back that assertion up with evidence. Because from where I’m looking, all I’ve seen is someone who sticks to tradition and protocol; makes announcements to Parliament before the media; pulls back on 15% per year increases in Liberal spending; improves on US relations to already tangible benefit; demonstrates respect for the military and respect for the monarchy. All the radicalness of an extreme centrist.
So much for the Squire Gwyn bunk. God Bless the Conservatives. God Save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:57 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
I have a bone to pick. Richard Gwyn, long-time columnist for the Toronto Star and medievalist-looking English squire (the resemblance is too striking for words), collapsed today under a mountainous contradiction with his "Steely PM taking Canada down radical path" warning:
“[I]t's becoming increasingly clear that we have undergone the most radical political change in decades, and, arguably, although only potentially, the most radical in our entire political history.
First, because Harper is a conservative Conservative. That doesn't mean he's a raving neo-con. It does mean he's a true-believing conservative.
The last genuinely conservative prime minister we had was three-quarters of a century back, in the 1930s. That was R.B. Bennett, who wound up with a title living in Britain.
None of his Conservative successors was a conservative. John Diefenbaker was a prairie populist. Joe Clark was a bright red Red Tory. Brian Mulroney was a political chameleon who adored corporate tycoons but who also had a soft spot for those who came from the wrong side of the tracks, like himself. Harper, by contrast, comes to the office with an ideological belief in conservatism.”
Obviously Mr. Gwyn forgot to do a thought-check on his column before he sent it off, and obviously nobody at the Star thought to read the column before printing it. How could he state unequivocally that Harper is a “conservative Conservative”, while in the very same breath tell us that the PM is taking Canada down “the most radical path in our entire political history”?
A conservative, in case Mr. Gwyn wasn’t aware, is someone who is inclined to preserve the existing order of things, who respects tradition, who is moderate and cautious - someone who, by definition, opposes the very radical change he so mysteriously talks about. Harper may be stone cold focused and steely and even arrogant, but he is not radical.
If you are going to say a Prime Minister is radical, then it behooves you to back that assertion up with evidence. Because from where I’m looking, all I’ve seen is someone who sticks to tradition and protocol; makes announcements to Parliament before the media; pulls back on 15% per year increases in Liberal spending; improves on US relations to already tangible benefit; demonstrates respect for the military and respect for the monarchy. All the radicalness of an extreme centrist.
So much for the Squire Gwyn bunk. God Bless the Conservatives. God Save the Queen.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 4:57 p.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
Monday, May 01, 2006
The Taliban get what's coming to them. It's always nice to see a little payback.
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
POSTED BY: The Monarchist AT 12:35 a.m. | Author | Works | Permalink | COMMENTS () | LINKS |
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
