The Monarchist 1.0

LOYAL PROCLAMATION

2006-12-15T12:55:00.000-05:00

WHEREAS the longstanding tradition of representative monarchy as constitutionally practiced by the independent peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Realms of the Crown Commonwealth is continuously threatened by the unrelenting regressive forces around them, that left unchallenged will cause the venerable institution of monarchy, the most splendid form of constitutional government to have evolved on this Earth, to degenerate into a pathetic shadow of its former glory and inevitably or suddenly wither away;

AND WHEREAS a defeat for monarchy and for the people in any one Realm, is a defeat for monarchy and for all our peoples in all our Realms, we do hereby mutually proclaim therefore that any further acts of disloyalty carried out against our peoples as represented by their Sovereign, or any further encroachment by the political elite on their residual powers of State, or any further attempts to undermine the legitimacy, independence and dignity of their office, shall no longer be tolerated with gradualist abandonment, but fought vigilantly and honourably with dutiful obligation, bound by our undying affection, loyal devotion and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

...Commissioning the New

2006-12-13T16:22:00.000-05:00

Click here to return to the new Monarchist: The Monarchist 2.0

Decommissioning the Old...

2006-12-12T22:52:00.000-05:00

Right. I'm tired of this here old blog. It's slow, it's clunky, it's partially inoperable. It's difficult to get in and make repairs. The html is all in longhand because I'm not a website design wizzard. I'm sick of the red lines and the sidebar buttons that won't open. Too much colour. Too little simplicity. Not enough elegance. Must take advantage of the accelerated design features of Beta. Besides, it's been almost two years now. I think it's high time we decommission T.M. and bring in version 2.0. What d'ya say? Should we throw the baby out with the bath water?

2006-12-12T12:07:00.001-05:00

Mark Steyn writes: "If Pinochet is guilty then so is Her Majesty the Queen."

75th Anniversary of the Statute of Westminster

2006-12-11T01:27:00.000-05:00

Today is the 75th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (sometimes referred to as the Treaty of Westminster outside the UK, though it was not in the form of a treaty), which came into effect on December 11, 1931.

The Statute is of historical importance because it effectively marked the independence of the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. Its current relevance is that it sets the basis for the continuing constitutional relationship between the Commonwealth Realms and the structure of the British Crown:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

Most interestingly, on April 17, 2003, when Tony O’Donohue took Her Majesty to court over certain provisions of the Act of Settlement, 1701, on the grounds that they discriminate against Roman Catholics, and are in violation of the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Justice Rouleau ruled the case not justiciable:

The impugned positions of the Act of Settlement are an integral part of the rules of succession that govern the selection of the monarch of Great Britain. By virtue of our constitutional structure whereby Canada is united under the Crown of Great Britain, the same rules of succession must apply for the selection of the King or Queen of Canada and the King or Queen of Great Britain. As stated by Prime Minister St. Laurent to the House of Commons during the debate on the bill altering the royal title:

“Her Majesty is now Queen of Canada but she is the Queen of Canada because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. . . It is not a separate office .. it is the sovereign who is recognized as the sovereign of the United Kingdom who is our Sovereign. . .” Hansard. February 3, 1953, page 1566.

These rules of succession, and the requirement that they be the same as those of Great Britain, are necessary to the proper functioning of our constitutional monarchy and, therefore, the rules are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

In the present case the court is being asked to apply the Charter not to rule on the validity of acts or decisions of the Crown, one of the branches of our government, but rather to disrupt the core of how the monarchy functions, namely the rules by which succession is determined. To do this would make the constitutional principle of Union under the British Crown together with other Commonwealth countries unworkable, would defeat a manifest intention expressed in the preamble of our Constitution, and would have the courts overstep their role in our democratic structure.

Clearly the Act of Settlement and the Statute of Westminster are still central pieces of British legislation that carry constitutional weight for the Crown Commonwealth and its citizen subjects. They determine the core of how the monarchy functions, a continuing symbol of our fraternal unity and allegiance. We are now independent nations - have been for 75 years - but 75 years later we are not independent from the British Crown. The sentiment is gone, but the reality persists. Either we rediscover some of that lost sentiment, or we will discover a new reality.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931

2006-12-11T00:01:00.000-05:00

CHAPTER 4 OF THE STATUTES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 22 GEORGE V

An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930.

11th December, 1931

WHEREAS the delegates to His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland, at Imperial Conferences holden at Westminster in the years of our Lord nineteen hundred and twenty-six and nineteen hundred and thirty did concur in making the declarations and resolutions set forth in the Reports of the said Conferences:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion:

And whereas it is necessary for the ratifying, confirming and establishing of certain of the said declarations and resolutions of the said Conferences that a law be made and enacted in due form by authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

And whereas the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland have severally requested and consented to the submission of a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom for making such provision with regard to the matters aforesaid as is hereafter in this Act contained:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:--

1. In this Act the expression "Dominion" means any of the following Dominions, that is to say, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland.

2. (1) The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion.

(2) No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule, or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion.

3. It is hereby declared and enacted that the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.

4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

5. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion.

6. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, section four of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (which requires certain laws to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure or to contain a suspending clause), and so much of section seven of that Act as requires the approval of His Majesty in Council to any rules of Court for regulating the practice and procedure of a Colonial Court of Admiralty, shall cease to have effect in any Dominion as from the commencement of this Act.

7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

(2) The provisions of section two of this Act shall extend to laws made by any of the Provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such Provinces.

(3) The powers conferred by this Act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the Provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or of any of the legislatures of the Provinces respectively.

8. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand otherwise than in accordance with the law existing before the commencement of this Act.

9. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to make laws on any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to require the concurrence of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any law made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with respect to any matter within the authority of the States of Australia, not being a matter within the authority of the Parliament or Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, in any case where it would have been in accordance with the constitutional practice existing before the commencement of this Act that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should make that law without such concurrence.

(3) In the application of this Act to the Commonwealth of Australia the request and consent referred to in section four shall mean the request and consent of the Parliament and government of the Commonwealth.

10. (1) None of the following sections of this Act, that is to say, sections two, three, four, five, and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion, and any Act of that Parliament adopting any section of this Act may provide that the adoption shall have effect either from the commencement of this Act or from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act.

(2) The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any section referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

(3) The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and Newfoundland.

11. Notwithstanding anything in the Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "Colony" shall not, in any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act, include a Dominion or any Province or State forming part of a Dominion.

12. This Act may be cited as the Statute of Westminster, 1931.

Blogger 2.0 has arrived

2006-12-10T23:27:00.000-05:00

This was a Christmas present in the making, knowing that Google now has the honour to be our most humble and obedient server, after teaming up with Blogger. T.M. has been converted over to Blogger Beta from Blogger, which is a significant improvement for those who have tried it. When I made the switch, I didn't realize at the time that all our scribes would have to make the change too, so my apologies for the inconvenience. All I ask is that when following your invite to Beta, please make sure to keep your "display name" as is (in all lower case letters). Thank you.

Have to beat Beaverbrook with this....

2006-12-09T21:31:00.000-05:00

A painting by Churchill entitled View of Tinherir in honour of George Marshall and the cooperation between Britain and America has been revealed to the world, and is expected to fetch US$500,000.

It was painted in 1951 and is being sold at Sotheby's by Kitty Winn, granddaughter of US General George Marshall, to whom Churchill gave the painting as a gift in 1953 as a symbol of Anglo-American solidarity and has remained in the family since, explaining the fact no one was aware of it apparently.

"With such an amazing provenance - it was given to one of the most historic
families - it's all the more remarkable that it was missed," said Ms Thomas.

It was in Morocco in 1943 that Churchill first met General Marshall who he came to revere as "the last great American."

Ms Thomas said: "Churchill took up painting very late. He saw it as a hobby, he
didn't see himself as a professional painter. It was something that he really
loved doing.
"Most importantly, he found relief from all the pressures of
his work in his painting. It was quite a therapeutic act. He would paint while
mulling over speeches and decisions.

Two other paintings by Churchill were recently sold for more than £300,000 each at auction with this one going under the hammer at Sotheby's in London tomorrow.

Chinese Activists Salute PM Harper

2006-12-09T06:24:00.000-05:00

I've written before of my regard for Harper's principled stand against fascist regimes in support of his country's values. Here is what Chinese activists in Canada have said:

Announcement in Response to Canadian PM Harper's Statement

On November 15, Prime Minister Steven Harper spoke about his private meeting with China's President Hu Jintao. He said "I don't think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values -- our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights ... They don't want us to sell that out to the almighty dollar.'' Harper's stand on not selling out on human rights is progressive and courageous. We wish to express our support and admiration.

The Chinese government, attempts to utilize its economic strength to convince other countries that they should change their attitude. In fact, some countries have given up their condemnation of China's human rights situation in exchange for lucrative business contracts.

China, with its huge economic force and population, has been identified by more and more progressive politicians as a potential threat to world peace. China often works in solidarity with other totalitarian countries to oppose the democratic world. It is vital that all freedom-loving nations unite against China.

Ironically, it was Canada's Liberal Government in the 1990s who initially developed the policy of separating human rights from trade in order to help China resolve its diplomatic troubles due to the Tian'anmen Square Massacre. But now, the Chinese Government tries to claim that trade and human rights are linked in an attempt to influence the Canadian Government's foreign policy. In fact, China is trading with Canada more than ever before.

The Prime Minister holds a minority government. Therefore, it is truly a brave stand that it has taken. Harper must tolerate a great deal of pressure from Canadian industrial and commercial groups. We call upon all Canadians to support Harper's appeal for human rights to be linked with trade in China.

Federation for a Democratic China, Canada

Commonwealth takes action, UN does nothing

2006-12-08T10:49:00.000-05:00

That didn't take long. The 53 member nation British Commonwealth has just suspended Fiji following the bloodless coup there a couple of days ago that ousted the sitting prime minister, highlighting once again the superiority of the Commonwealth over the United Nations as an effective world organization.

I'm assuming it's business as usual over at the UN, where thug and semi-thug states hold a majority in the General Assembly. No doubt they're pleased to welcome in another to their esteemed ranks. Her Majesty's Commonwealth, on the other hand, is not so pleased, and is proving a useful instrument of promoting (and defending) Commonwealth values of democracy, development and good constitutional government. The Commonwealth's track record may not be perfect, but it has something of a record in this regard.

Long live the Commonwealth!

2006-12-07T11:03:00.000-05:00

David Warren shares a charming story of his youth: Christmas in England.

Official US acknowledgment of British help in Iraq

2006-12-07T05:06:00.000-05:00

I've been scanning through the Iraq Study Group Report and found the following salute to the British on page 32 which I thought I'd share:

"The United Kingdom has dedicated an extraordinary amount of resources to Iraq and has made great sacrifices. In addition to 7,200 troops, the United Kingdom has a substantial diplomatic presence, particularly in Basra and the Iraqi southeast. The United Kingdom has been an active and key player at every stage of Iraq's political development. U.K. officials told us that they remain committed to working for stability in Iraq, and will reduce their commitment of troops and resources in response to the situation on the ground."

2006-12-05T22:44:00.000-05:00

Yes, there's more where that came from. Here are the Durham Monarchists.

The Oxford Monarchists

2006-12-05T00:49:00.000-05:00

Gentlemen, to the ancient prestige of Oxford and the Oxford Union, we add the Oxford Monarchists.

Hat tip: My thanks to their Prefect, Mathew Allen, for sending me this link.

The Queen's English losing Queen's Accent

2006-12-04T13:17:00.000-05:00

Must be a slow day for the scribes. The Associated Press is reporting that the Queen's tone is losing its aristocratic edge, according to a speech expert who has studied Her Majesty's pronouncements over the past more than 50 years:

London — The Queen sounds more like her subjects than she did a half century ago, when she first assumed her royal “dutays,” according to an academic study released Monday.

“In 1952 she would have been heard referring to “thet men in the bleck het.” Now it would be ‘that man in the black hat,”' said Jonathan Harrington, professor of phonetics at the University of Munich, who conducted the study.

“Similarly, she would have spoken of the “citay” and “dutay,” rather than “citee” and “dutee,” and “hame” rather than ‘home.' In the 1950s she would have been “lorst,” but by the 1970s this became ‘lost.”' Mr. Harrington said the Queen is unique in having a good quality archive of recordings for every year since 1952, in similar formal settings.

“It means that we can monitor sound changes without having to worry about the influence of speaking styles,” he said.

The changes in her speech, he said, probably were not a conscious attempt to come closer to her subjects.

“One of the principal changes that has happened in the English community is that the accent now sounds slightly less aristocratic than it did 50 years ago.

“This is to do with the fact that 50 years ago there was a much more demarcated class structure.

“Of course, in the 1960s and the 1970s there was something of a collapse in the rigidity of that class structure and this was also reflected in the change of accent.”

Her Majesty's Loyal Oppositions

2006-12-04T10:27:00.000-05:00

Her Majesty received two new ("loyal") opposition leaders over the weekend, one in the Great White North, and one in the Great Down Under.

Canada's Liberal Party once again chooses a Quebecker (though very much the anti-establishment candidate) to lead them, one Stephane Dion who holds uncertain prospects against Stephen Harper in the months ahead. On the flip side of the planet, Australia's Labor picked Kevin Rudd over Kim Beazley to take on John Howard in the next election down there.

Add to this the fact that John Key just took over the opposition reigns in New Zealand, and that the untraditionalist David Cameron is just barely a year through his tenure as opposition leader, and you get to wondering about the future of the monarchy. Just who are these people? Just how loyal are they?

The man from Helensville to do battle in Helengrad

2006-12-01T10:21:00.000-05:00

So John Key and Bill English, new leader and deputy of New Zealand's National Party, are to do battle against Helen Clark. Key, having assumed the mantle of the Party on November 27, has just announced his shadow cabinet.

[By the way, what the hell is this: "Pansy Wong gets ACC and Ethnic Affairs." Ethnic Affairs??]

The inevitable question being: who is this man? The article in Wikipedia is pretty thin gruel. We are told that he is more centrist than gentleman Don Brash, particular on social issues, which would possibly indicate a better showing in places like Auckland and Wellington. But to what degree would we see a hollowing out of conservatism to bridge the Kiwi urban-rural divide?

Is he, I don't know, a monarchist? A supporter of New Zealand's traditional flag? This doesn't sound good: The "Political Correctness Eradication role, established by Brash, has been "eradicated", said Key." The man from Helensville may have Helen shaking in her boots, but how about us? Should we be shaking too?

I'll be checking in from time to time to hear what our Kiwi readers have to say.

2006-12-01T10:10:00.000-05:00

Thomas Courchene believes Sir John A would not be surprised on the asymmetrical development of Canada.

On the quality of magnificence, a gentleman does not count the cost

2006-12-01T01:58:00.000-05:00

Ode to a knight. David Warren pays homage to a gentleman, pioneer journalist Larry Henderson, who was the face of CBC television in the 1950s, and who on the uncompromising issues of the day, was a man as great in stature and decency as George Grant.

I admire the introductory wisdom of the article: "As Aristotle taught us, writing on the quality of magnificence, a gentleman does not count the cost." You could extend this to the magnificence of an institution, and apply it against the bellyachers who whine that the monarchy costs too much. By all means cut the government down to size, but when it comes to the Crown we should spend lavishly. The majesty of the Crown, not the welfare of the government, should be the centre of national life. On the quality of our magnificent country, citizen subjects should not count the cost.

Winston Churchill turns 132

2006-11-30T02:26:00.000-05:00

Well, he would have. Today is his birthday. My thoughts are here.

A "nation" of stranded colonists

2006-11-29T13:59:00.000-05:00

I knew it was only a matter of time before I'd get to quote Colby Cosh:

"I don't know anymore what the majority of Canada's intellectuals think they mean by "nation," though they're very clear on what it doesn't mean, and they'll set themselves on fire rather than concede that a French-Canadian might belong to any nation other than, or along with, Canada. I think I understand the true source of their anger. French Canada's claims to nationhood on genetic, historical, and cultural grounds are very strong indeed--arguably stronger than China's, for instance, and much stronger than the Ukraine's. To be an English Canadian, by contrast, is to be a stranded colonist, floating untethered on the plane of human varieties. Our ties of continuity with the past were cut in the hope that the French would cooperate and drift toward us; it is indeed terrible to contemplate the betrayal of that hope and our consequent state--so terrible, in fact, that Coyne can write that "[Quebeckers] have as much or more in common with other Canadians as they do with each other" and not even recognize that he has been driven totally round the bend by horror vacui.

I have to admit, that whole "community of communities" thing is looking better every minute. (And if we promise to be on our best behaviour, can we please have "Dominion of Canada" back?)"

Democracy does not unite us

2006-11-29T10:18:00.000-05:00

I knew the Australian republicans would take all but one day to respond to this. But how, pray tell, does democracy unite us, as Greg Barns absurdly insists in The Melbourne Age this morning? Elections are inherently divisive affairs that bring out policy differences and political disagreements between opposing camps, all of which inevitably results in a fractious parliament.

By all means oppose the monarchy and follow your freedom to dissent, but spare us the transparently ridiculous assertion that democracy, warts and all, unites us. It just doesn't. And it never could.

2006-11-29T01:29:00.000-05:00

Remember that 80s song, who shot the sheriff? Well who shot Musharraf? Accept defeat by Taliban, Pakistan tells Nato....Nato to Pakistan: Say again, over?

The height of Parliamentarianism

2006-11-29T00:35:00.000-05:00

Although he has come out against monarchy in the past, I'm really glad to see that Mader Blog understands the distinguishing features of the British parliamentary system:

A Parliamentary party is a collection of MPs who, on balance, support a common platform. A government is a ministry; it is a body of MPs who advise the executive as to the administration of the nation (ahem). It is necessary that all members of a government vote in for that government; it would be inconsistent for a member of the government to vote against the government of which he or she was a member. When a conflict of principles arises - as really ought to arise far more frequently than it appears to - the appropriate action for a minister is to resign from government and withdraw to the back benches. There is no shame in such an action; on the contrary, it is the very height of Parliamentarianism.

Rather than vote against the Government of Canada (of which he was a member) on its parliamentary motion recognizing the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada, Michael Chong, the former minister of intergovernmental affairs, did the honourable thing and resigned in order to abstain on the issue. He resigned on the principle that while he was still loyal to his leader and his party, he was loyal first to his country, and in all good conscience could not vote on a matter that gave recognition to an ethnic nation. It's moments like this that we can tell the difference between politician and parliamentarian. A politician is a populist, a man of the people. A parliamentarian is a man of honour.

That being said, Michael Chong is probably making too much of the issue, just as I had done earlier before understanding the finer points of the resolution. The government and parliament were not recognizing the province of Quebec as a nation, nor were they recognzing all Quebeckers. They were clearly recognizing only the French speakers of that province, les Quebecois, the ancestors of the first settlers of New France. Yes this is recognizing ethnicity, but it is no different from recognition of the other First Nations of Canada, such as the Cree, the Huron or the N'isga. So Canada lives. In all its tribalistic glory.

Islamic sharia law is gaining foothold in Britain

2006-11-28T22:42:00.000-05:00

According to this article in today's Telegraph, a Somali working in Britain as a youth worker told a BBC radio 4 programme that

he felt more bound by the traditional law of his birth than by the laws of his adopted country. "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law," he said. "It's not sharia, it's not religious — it's just a cultural thing."

Not British culture of course, which is where this is taking place. So much for people coming to Britain out of respect for its culture and traditions, including that of English Common Law that was adopted by so many all over the world, now a barrister warns that "there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade."

At the same time as the UK unravels at the seams, Tony Blair has written to a black community newspaper, New Nation, that Britain's role in the slave trade was "shameful." Next year is the bicentenary of Britain's abolition of the slave trade, when it used its Royal Navy to actively fight the practice, and according to Blair: ‘[T]he bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened.’As Iraq continues to become more and more chaotic, and the management of the NHS back in England become more a fi\ocus of concern, it is reassuring to know that Blair is against a practice that was abolished nearly 200 years ago. By the way, I remember when he had also 'reflected' on the deaths caused by the Irish Potato Famine whatever that meant...

The heart has reasons that reason cannot know

2006-11-28T10:07:00.000-05:00

Australia's Professor David Flint, the head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, is coming out with a new book on the Queen (Her Majesty at 80), and one I will certainly look forward to acquiring once it's available. He is the leading public proponent in Australia for maintaining our shared Commonwealth sovereign, and so we naturally are honoured that he has noticed and commented on this blog in the past.

Tony Abbott, staunch monarchist and a minister in John Howard's government, reviews the book and concurs that the case for monarchy is strong, but much less frequently put as republicanism "as it relies on instincts that are deeply felt but not easy to justify in a relentlessly utilitarian age":

"The very idea of the monarchy offends people accustomed to think in aggressive slogans. It's "foreign", although that has never been held against other institutions to which great deference is offered (such as the United Nations). It's shared with other countries, but so is our language and no one (so far) wants to change that. It's hereditary (like looks, intelligence, aptitudes and even property). It embodies irksome notions of allegiance, duty and hierarchy (as if any society can exist without them)...

At the opening of the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne this year, young Harry White paid the Queen a simple but heartfelt 80th birthday tribute: "You have been the glue that held us all together in good times and bad times. The love and great affection that we all hold for you is spread across one-third of the world's population."

The monarchy is profoundly at odds with the spirit of this age (and gloriously impervious to the fads of all times), which is why contemporary intellectuals are republicans almost to a man and woman...[still] monarchy is unlikely to disappear while human beings retain their respect for order, continuity, ceremony and that which summons us to be our best selves."

China and India poised to conquer the world

2006-11-27T17:52:00.000-05:00

That's the claim made by the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn. He warns that it will come before we know it and will radically alter the shape of our world. The West will have to get used to a world where the Chinese and Indians call the shots. It won't be pretty.

Wealthy countries were failing to understand the impact of the invevitable growth of the two Asian powerhouses, Wolfensohn said in the 2006 Wallace Wurth Memorial Lecture at the University of New South Wales at the weekend.

"It's a world that is going to be in the hands of these countries which we now call developing," said Australian-born Wolfensohn, who held the top job at the global development bank for a decade until last year. Rich nations needed to try to capitalise on the inevitable emergence of what would become the engine of the world's economic activity before it was too late, he said.

"Most people in the rich countries don't really look at what's happening in these large developing countries," said Wolfensohn, who is now chairman of Citigroup International Advisory Board and his own investment and advisory firm.

Within 25 years, the combined gross domestic products of China and India would exceed those of the Group of Seven wealthy nations, he said.

"This is not a trivial advance, this is a monumental advance."

United we stand...

The DisUnited Kingdom

2006-11-27T15:15:00.000-05:00

SPEAKING OF NATIONAL UNITY: The United Kingdom should be broken up and Scotland and England set free as independent nations, according to a huge number of voters on both sides of the border.

A clear majority of people in both England and Scotland are in favour of full independence for Scotland, an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.

There is also further evidence of rising English nationalism with support for the establishment of an English parliament hitting an historic high of 68 per cent amongst English voters. Almost half – 48 per cent – also want complete independence for England, divorcing itself from Wales and Northern Ireland as well. Scottish voters also back an English breakaway with 58 per cent supporting an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish one. The poll comes only months before the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union between England and Scotland and will worry all three main political parties. None of them favours Scottish independence, but all have begun internal debates on the future of the constitution.

The dramatic findings came as Gordon Brown, the favourite to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister, delivered an impassioned defence of the Union at Labour's Scottish conference in Oban yesterday. In an attack on the Scottish National Party, against whom Labour will fight a bitter battle for control of the Edinburgh-based parliament next May, the Chancellor claimed: "We should never let the Nationalists deceive people into believing that you can break up the United Kingdom."

The ICM poll told a very different story, however, with 60 per cent of English voters complaining that higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland were "unjustified", compared to 28 per cent claiming they were justified. Even among Scots, 36 per cent said the system was unfair, with only 51 per cent supporting it. Voters also had serious concerns about the so-called West Lothian Question, the ability of Scottish MPs at Westminster to vote on solely English matters while many purely Scottish issues are decided in Edinburgh. Sixty-two per cent of English voters want Scottish MPs stripped of this right and even 46 per cent of Scots agreed. The poll showed that the English are more likely to think of themselves as British than the Scots are. Only 16 per cent of English people said they were "English, not British", compared to 26 per cent of Scots who said they were "Scottish, not British." In the sporting arena, 70 per cent of English people said they would support a Scottish team playing football or rugby against a nation other than England. But, when the question was put to Scots, only 48 per cent said they would back England with 34 per cent supporting their opponents, no matter which country it was.

There was good news for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, when voters in England were asked who they would back in a general election held tomorrow. The Tories were on 37 per cent, with 31 per cent backing Labour and 23 per cent supporting the Liberal Democrats. Mr Brown said: "There is a debate to be had about the future of the United Kingdom. But I think when you look at the arguments — at the family ties, the economic connections, the shared values, the history of our relationship which has lasted 300 years — people will decide we are stronger together and weaker apart." Mr Cameron said: "The union between England, Scotland and Wales is good for us all and we are stronger together than we are apart. The last thing we need is yet another parliament with separate elections and more politicians spending more money." Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, called for a "calm rational debate" on the role of MPs from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales at Westminster. "The last thing we need is knee-jerk opportunistic political responses." Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said: "In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does."

Strong, United, Independent and Free

2006-11-26T14:25:00.000-05:00

My my, maybe we should call this Tipping Point part III, for Walsingham believes Harper has just saved the country, by tipping confederation back to first principles and its original intent:

"I think you should all pay a little heed to Splendor Sine Occasu: he's the only one on target on this whole thread.

Harper has done nothing more than turn the implacable reality of the Quebec situation into a major lever of execution of his strategy (and it is a true and brilliant "blue ocean" strategy folks - go hit the business literature if you don't know what that means...) Contrary to the allusions of some on this thread, that strategy is all about a vision of Canada that is firmly rooted in clear principles. That that vision is so different from the Trudeau-esque one that has been accepted dogma in this country for forty years must be what is keeping people confused.

As Splendor says, Harper sees Canada as a confederation - and in many respects, as a rather loose one. He is deadly earnest about keeping Ottawa out of the provinces' hair on every matter that is not squarely the prerogative of the federal government. He is, equally earnest about his focus on those core areas of federal jurisdiction, and about keeping them under the exclusive federal purview. In all respects, this vision is 180 degrees opposed to the one that Liberals and Conservatives alike have cleaved to since... well, since almost forever. But it just happens to represent the only basis on which the continued existence of Canada is possible. And it is no accident that it took a Westerner as PM to see it.

The fundamental reality is this: to a large degree, the characteristics and interests of various parts of the country are mutually irreconcible, and the opposing forces are moving toward a critical point in a way they never have before. To the permanent and very real "separateness" of Quebec and the Quebecois we can now add the accelerating shift of the economic centre of gravity in Canada from Montreal-Toronto westward to Calgary-Vancouver. Those two realities cannot long coexist within Canada without some significant change in the political-structural foundations of the country. The only workable such change is the "devolutionism" which defines the Harper vision and strategy. Make no mistake folks: far from destroying Canada, Mr. Harper is doing the only thing possible to save it. Of course, the shape of the country that results will be different from the one we have been accustomed to, but get over it. Who was it that said, "facts can be difficult things?"

So call Quebec a "nation". More to the point, let them call themselves a nation. Let them call themselves a ham sandwich if they so desire. Ditto Alberta and everybody else. The confederalist structure will give everybody a lot of leeway. But none of this leeway will compromise the meaningful integrity of the country, because Mr. Harper has drawn a clear line in the sand. The wall around the areas of federal focus: international relations, defence and security, and basic economic policy; is now higher than ever. Whatever anybody thinks "nation" ought to mean in the context of this resolution, they will find out what it does not mean, at least in Mr. Harper's mind, if they attempt to breach that wall.

The important point in Harper's resolution was not the "nation" bit but the "within a united Canada" bit. It is entirely that latter part which is definitive in the whole thing.

The leeway which the move to a confederalist structure will create either will be, or it will not be, sufficient to satisfy Quebeckers. But the only possible further step for them is outright separation. Harper has made that more clear than ever before, which is precisely why Duceppe reacted so awkwardly in the immediate aftermath. Initially he was furious that, in a sense, the bluff had been called. Subsequently, he said, alright, separation it is. Whether Quebeckers as a whole will agree is another story - and he knows it."

POSTED BY WALSINGHAM

Ooogh! Cootchie, cootchie, cootchie!

2006-11-26T10:34:00.000-05:00

In an opinion piece that had me laughing in my seat, Gerald Warner tells David Cameron to remove the soother from his mouth on his first birthday as leader of the Conservatives. Ooogh! Cootchie, cootchie, cootchie! mocks Warner of the Baby King.

Also, be sure to read his Tory view on the unbridled libertarianism of Milton Friedman and his anarcho-capitalist son, David. This is a far cry from the swooning raves we heard earlier in the week.

2006-11-26T10:15:00.000-05:00

The incomparable Mark Steyn weighs in at the New Cultural Forum on the cultural defeat of Britain and Europe. I read this blog quite frequently, as it is right up our ally:

"In the last quarter of the 20th century, the Right decisively won the important economic arguments. At the same time, few would demur from the view that in the so-called Culture Wars, the Left were ultimately victorious. More and more are dissatisfied with the effects of political correctness and cultural relativism."

And that ladies, is why The Monarchist exists. Save our heritage. Defend our values. Preserve our way of life.

The greatest speech of the 20th century

2006-11-25T22:58:00.000-05:00

I'll be waxing Churchill for the next several weeks as I populate this blog with all the man's great speeches and quotes.

There are many speeches of the last century that I would characterize as "great", and all of Churchill's certainly were. But the three greatest in my opinion were all spoken within a month of each other, at the moment Britain was being written off as a chicken about to get its neck wrung. Even many of those closest to Churchill (Lord Halifax anyone), thought the situation hopeless, but Churchill gave them a backbone, first with Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat (our second runner up) in May 1940 that laid out Victory as the only honourable policy; followed by We Shall Fight on the Beaches on June 4th during the retreat at Dunkirk, when Winston was at his defiant best (first runner up); and finally Their Finest Hour on June 18th, as France capitulated leaving Britain alone and isolated against the Nazi menace:

"What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour." "

One Kingdom under God

2006-11-23T18:11:00.000-05:00

~~Canada died yesterday. She was 139 years old.~~

The longstanding confederated fact that Canada is one nation, that the people of Canada constitute a nation in their own right, is no more. The entire political class stuck a dagger through the heart of that belief yesterday with their treacherous lining up behind the prime minister’s motion to move that “Quebeckers are a nation inside a united Canada”. By the government’s own admission, Canada is a state, but no longer a nation.

Oh, sure the prime minister confounded the Quebec sovereigntists in Parliament yesterday, and denied them the opportunity to corner federalists on their own motion to recognize Quebec as a nation without so much as a mention of Canada. And yes he saved the opposition Liberals from imploding over the issue, threw a lifeline to the embattled Quebec premier, united the federalists and bolstered the Conservative’s flagging fortunes in la belle province in a brilliant masterstroke of political strategy that won him a standing ovation in the House of Commons from all parties except le Bloc Quebecois, not to mention wide applause from the country’s ink stained wretches. Oh, goodie. Wankfest galore. Nobody plays triangulation better than Stephen Harper, but what does it profit a man to gain the world and ~~lose his country?~~

First to the idiot savant who started this mess. Michael Ignatieff is Harper’s dream opponent, not because he shares a special affinity for the Americans and supported the Iraq War, but because Lord Iggy is a political klutz. The man comes waltzing in here fresh from thirty years of living in his ivory tower at Cambridge and Harvard, and opportunistically lunges for the altar of the Liberal Party of Canada (Mark Steyn said it was like watching a classical pianist at the burlesque) by recklessly wooing Quebec nationalists and promising to speak for those who believe that “Quebec is my nation, Canada is my country”. We just barely survived thirty years of constitutional wrangling and gnashing of teeth, only to have this wise fool promise us more. It was a stink bomb that needed to be contained. Harper, sensing danger for his Quebec caucus and the country at large, struck at the right moment to neutralize the separatist menace. (But did it? Just wait for the demands that a nation means special rights…) What rankles more than anything is to see Iggy all smiles with the press now, applauding Harper for following his leadership on the issue! Actually, Ig, Harper was going in for the kill. And the kill is you, come next election, but first he had to save you from losing the Liberal leadership.

But the damage has been done. Andrew Coyne believes we are headed for Belgiumhood now. What’s worse, we may be headed towards what Churchill called a House of Many Mansions, a direct reference to Europe during the Second World War when Hitler and his odious goose-stepping Gustapo were busy stamping out the Mansions all over Europe. But whereas Europe is now trying to make the House stronger than its Mansions, the reverse is happening in Canada.

There may be a way out of this nonsense, but it would take a little imagination, something beyond that six letter hoser of a word: C eh, N eh, D eh (Okay, three letters and three ehs). We might say that “nation” has never done justice to the idea of Canada, that the complexities of this country require a new word to describe who we are. A country that is predominantly British, French and American, one that Andrew Coyne calls “polyethnic, multilingual and transcontinental”, instead of that dreaded and divisive multicultural notion. For what we need is not something that segregates, differentiates, separates and alienates us, but a word that binds us together in loyalty and allegiance to the whole. Dominion was good in its day, Churchill’s “Great Dominion” even better, but I’m thinking of something less imperial and more federal in a way that still honours our former majesty. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you? Thy Kingdom Come to this glorious and free land we call Canada!

Gentleman Don resigns

2006-11-23T02:36:00.000-05:00

Well, New Zealand reports sad news, Dr. Don Brash has announced that he would step down as leader of the National Party, effective from Monday when a caucus meeting will elect a new leader. This is a real shame. Dr Brash was a breath of fresh air and a very clever man. It looks like the left have won again and we have lost a good man.

Dr Brash transformed National into a respected, potent and feared Opposition after it took a record drubbing in the 2002 election. He came within a sniff of winning the 2005 election, and would have won if Clark did not illegally spend over $800,000 of taxpayers money.

It's a total shame Dr Brash has resigned. He might not have been the "perfect politician" but his honesty and genuine concern for New Zealand would have made him a remarkable leader for this country. The media and all those small-minded dimwits creating scandals from nothing should be ashamed of themselves. I sincerely hope Helen Mugabe and her Welfare party are ousted next election

If Don Brash feels he has to resign then I think half of the Labour government should as well. If they are caught out they now legislate to make it legal. How come Benson Pope does not resign? What about Taito Philip Field?

Don Brash gets called a bigot, accused of only being interested in taking care of the interests of the wealthy, and of pandering to agenda of extremists. Why? For being an effective Leader of the Opposition and pushing alternative policies than the Government with the intention of making New Zealand better for all New Zealanders.

New Zealanders make a mockery of the entire concept of Democracy. Democracy is supposedly a system whereby citizens of a country make and informed decision on who is best to run the country. Personality should have nothing to do with the issue. Dr Brash is a highly educated man with a comprehensive knowledge of what makes an economy successful, the fact that he has some personal imperfections only makes him human. Apparently it is okay to be a homosexual, transvestite or any other 'special interest group' but heaven forbid you are just a normal bloke who (supposedly) flirts with another woman. As for the Exclusive Brethren - what have they actually done wrong? Would you all kick and scream so much if he had met with Muslims? Or Jews?

It seems that John Key will be the next leader, with a recent Auckland poll showing Key only 1.4 points behind Brash. Dr Brash's decision came with the Nationals ahead in the poll. The decision has left the party in crisis, set for their fifth leader in 9 years.

I have personally always favoured Dr Brash to Keys, Brash was a Gentlemen, a last of his breed and Dr Brash was always unfailingly courteous.

Gentlemen, it sadly looks like Helen Clark and the rest of her cronies have forced a great leader from Prime Ministeralship contention.

There goes a man of honour. Even in his resignation statement he stands up for the rights of the man responsible for the final nail.

But, to paraphrase the words of Voltaire, though I utterly reject Mr Hager's view of the National Party and of me, I defend his right to hold those views, and to publicise them.

Dr Brash would have made an excellent Prime Minister. Having the intellectual capacity to understand that people are entitled to hold different views. Unlike the current regime.

John Key will be the next leader of the opposition and good luck to him. He can expect all sorts of shit to be flung at him. But I think we can safely expect a National rise in the polls from here. It may not be sustained but unless New Zealanders have completely lost their sense of fair play they will realise that a very good man has been done down unfairly today.

B-P on Churchill

2006-11-22T13:03:00.000-05:00

From Baden-Powell, Indian Memories, 1915. Chapter III. The Sport of Kings and the King of Sports:

The inter-regimental polo tournament is the great event of the year for all regiments in India, and on one occasion it was held at Meerut while my regiment was stationed there. All the teams visiting the place for the occasion naturally made use of our mess, and we formed a very large and happy family. On the night after the final tie had been decided, we had a grand dinner to signalise the event. The health of the winning team was drunk collectively and individually with all honours, and each member of it in turn tendered his thanks to the assembled company. Then the winning team proposed the health of the losers, and they naturally returned their thanks in a similar way, and proceeded to propose the toast of the runners-up, and so it went on during the greater part of the evening until every team in the place had had its health proposed, and speeches had been made without number, all harping on the one topic of polo.

When all was over and a sigh of relief was going round, there suddenly sprang to his feet one of the members of the 4th Hussars' team, who said: "Now, gentleman, you would probably like to hear me address you on the subject of polo!" It was Mr. Winston Churchill. Naturally there were cries of: "No, we don't! Sit down!" and so on, but disregarding all their objections, with a genial smile he proceeded to discourse on the subject, and before long all opposition dropped as his honeyed words flowed upon their ears, and in a short time he was hard at it expounding the beauties and the possibilities of this wonderful game. He proceeded to show how it was not merely the finest game in the world but the most noble and soul-inspiring contest in the whole universe, and having made his point he wound up with a peroration which brought us all cheering to our feet.

When the cheering and applause had died down one in authority arose and gave voice to the feelings of all when he said: "Well, that is enough of Winston for this evening," and the orator was taken in hand by some lusty subalterns and placed underneath an overturned sofa upon which two of the heaviest were then seated, with orders not to allow him out for the rest of the evening. But very soon afterwards he appeared emerging from beneath the angle of the arm of the sofa, explaining: "It is no use sitting upon me, for I'm india-rubber," and he popped up serenely and took his place once more in the world and the amusement that was going on around him. I have often remembered the incident on occasions since then when in politics or elsewhere he has given proof of his statement.

Other incidents followed on that cheerful evening, such as polo pony races over jumps made up of furniture round the billiard room, and a musical ride on camels in the ante-room, but none of them made such an impression on my memory as did the first great speech of the future First Lord.

Churchill on B-P

2006-11-22T12:36:00.000-05:00

"B. - P. ", Winston S. Churchill, Great Contemporaries, London, 1938

THE THREE most famous generals I have known in my life won no great battles over the foreign foe. Yet their names, which all begin with a B, are household words. They are General Booth, General Botha and General Baden-Powell. To General Booth we owe the Salvation Army; to General Botha, United South Africa; and to General Baden-Powell, the Boy Scout Movement.

In this uncertain world one cannot be sure of much. But it seems probable that one or two hundred years hence, or it may be more, these three monuments that we have seen set up in our lifetime will still proclaim the fame of their founders, not in the silent testimony of bronze or stone, but as institutions guiding and shaping the lives and thoughts of men.

I remember well the first time I saw the hero of this article, now Lord Baden-Powell. I had gone with my regimental team to play in the Cavalry Cup at Meerut. There was a great gathering of the sporting and social circles of the British Army in India. In the evening an amateur vaudeville entertainment was given to a large company. The feature of this was a sprightly song and dance by an officer of the garrison, attired in the brilliant uniform of an Austrian Hussar, and an attractive lady. Sitting as a young lieutenant in the stalls, I was struck by the quality of the performance, which certainly would have held its own on the boards of any of our music-halls. I was told:

"That's B.-P. An amazing man! He won the Kader Cup, has seen lots of active service. They think no end of him as a rising soldier; but fancy a senior officer kicking his legs up like that before a lot of subalterns!"

I was fortunate in making the acquaintance of this versatile celebrity before the polo tournament was over.

Three years passed before I met him again. The scene and the occasion were very different. Lord Roberts' army had just entered Pretoria, and General Baden-Powell, who had been relieved in Mafeking after a siege of 217 days, was riding in two or three hundred miles from the Western Transvaal to report to the Commander-in-Chief. I thought I would interview him on behalf of the Morning Post and get a first-hand account of his famous defense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We rode together for at least an hour, and once he got talking he was magnificent. I was thrilled by the tale, and he enjoyed the telling of it. I cannot remember the details but my telegram must have filled the best part of a column. Before dispatching it I submitted to him. He read it with concentrated attention and some signs of embarrassment, but when he had finished he handed it back to me, saying with a smile, "Talking to you is like talking to a phonograph." I was rather pleased with it, too.

In those days B.-P.'s fame as a soldier eclipsed almost all popular reputations. The other B.P, the British Public, looked upon him as the outstanding hero of the War. Even those who disapproved of the War, and derided the triumphs of large, organized armies over the Boer farmers, could not forbear to cheer the long, spirited, tenacious defense of Mafeking by barely eight hundred men against a beleaguering force ten or twelve times their numbers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No one had ever believed Mafeking could hold out half as long. A dozen times, as the siege dragged on, the watching nation had emerged from apprehension and despondency into renewed hope, and had been again cast down. Millions who could not follow closely or accurately the main events of the War looked day after day in the papers for the fortunes of Mafeking, and when finally the news of its relief was flashed throughout the world, the streets of London became impassable, and the floods of sterling cockney patriotism were released in such a deluge of unbridled, delirious, childish joy as was never witnessed again until Armistice Night, 1918. Nay, perhaps the famous Mafeking night holds the record.

Then the crowds were untouched by the ravages of war. They rejoiced with the light-hearted frenzy of the spectators of a great sporting event. In 1918 thankfulness and a sense of deliverance overpowered exultation. All bore in their hearts the marks of what they had gone through. There were too many ghosts about the streets after Armageddon.

One wondered why B.-P. seemed to drop out of the military hierarchy after the South African War was over. He held distinguished minor appointments; but all the substantial and key positions were parceled out among men whose achievements were unknown outside military circles, and whose names had never received the meed of popular applause.

There is no doubt that Whitehall resented the disproportionate acclamation which the masses had bestowed upon a single figure. Was there not something "theatrical", "unprofessional" in a personality which evoked the uninstructed enthusiasms of the man-in-the-street? Versatility is always distrusted in the Services. The voice of detraction and professional jealousy spoke of him as Harley Street would speak of the undoubted cures wrought by a quack. At any rate, the bright fruition of fortune and success was soon obscured by a chilly fog through which indeed the sun still shone, but with a dim and baffled ray.

The caprices of fortune are incalculable, her methods inscrutable. Sometimes when she scowls most spitefully, she is preparing her most dazzling gifts. How lucky for B.-P. that he was not in the early years of the century taken into the central swim of military affairs, and absorbed in all those arduous and secret preparations which ultimately enabled the British Expeditionary Army to deploy for battle at Mons!

How lucky for him, and how lucky for us all! To this he owes his perennially revivifying fame, his opportunity for high personal service of the most enduring character; and to this we owe an institution and an inspiration, characteristic of the essence of British genius, and uniting in a bond of comradeship the youth not only of the English-speaking world, but of almost every land and people under the sun.

It was in 1907 that B.-P. held his first camp for boys to learn the lore of the backwoods and the discipline of Scout life. Twenty-one boys of every class from the East End of London, from Eton and Harrow, pitched their little tents on Brownsea Island in Dorsetshire. From this modest beginning sprang the world-wide movement of Boy Scouts and girl guides, constantly renewing itself as the years pass, and now well over two million strong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1908 the Chief Scout, as he called himself, published his book, Scouting for Boys. It appealed to all the sense of adventure and love of open-air life which is so strong in youth. But beyond this it stirred those sentiments of knightly chivalry, of playing the game - any game - earnest or fun - hard and fairly, which constitute the most important part of the British system of education.

Success was immediate and far-reaching. The simple uniform, khaki shorts and a shirt - within the range of the poorest - was founded upon that of General Baden-Powell's old corps, the South African Constabulary. The hat was the famous hat with the flat brim and pinched top which he had worn at Mafeking. The motto "Be Prepared" was founded on his initials. Almost immediately we saw at holiday times on the roads of Britain little troops and patrols of Boy Scouts, big and small, staff in hand, trudging forward hopefully, pushing their little handcart with their kit and camping gear towards the woodlands and parklands which their exemplary conduct speedily threw open to them. Forthwith there twinkled the camp fires of a vast new army whose ranks will never be empty, and whose march will never be ended while red blood courses in the veins of youth.

It is difficult to exaggerate the moral and mental health which our nation has derived from this profound and simple conception. In those bygone days the motto "Be Prepared" had a special meaning for our country. Those who looked to the coming of a great war welcomed the awakening of British boyhood. But no one, even the most resolute pacifist, could be offended; for the movement was not militaristic in character, and even the sourest, crabbiest critic saw in it a way of letting off youthful steam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The success of the Scout movement led to its imitation in many countries, notably in Germany. There, too, the little troops began to march along the roads already trampled by the legions.

The Great War swept across the world. Boy Scouts played their part. Their keen eyes were added to the watchers along the coasts; and in the air raids we saw the spectacle of children of twelve and fourteen performing with perfect coolness and composure the useful functions assigned to them in the streets and public offices.

Many venerable, famous institutions and systems long honoured by men perished in the storm; but the Boy Scout Movement survived. It survived not only the War, but the numbing reactions of the aftermath. While so many elements in the life and spirit of the victorious nations seemed to be lost in stupor, it flourished and grew increasingly. Its motto gathers new national significance as the years unfold upon our island. It speaks to every heart its message of duty and honor: "Be Prepared" to stand up faithfully for Right and Truth, however the winds may blow.

Tories take on Churchill

2006-11-21T21:49:00.000-05:00

The Guardian (sigh) reports today that Cameron is being urged to ditch Churchill for Polly Toynbee. In a paper being published today, Greg Clark, 'a shadow minister and confidant of the Tory leader' writes:

The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum - that poverty is absolute, not relative.
Churchill's safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century.

Canada's most important relationship?

2006-11-21T08:35:00.000-05:00

In decrying Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's brave and principled stand against Chinese fascism, Thomas d'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said: "The facts and the realities are these: If we continue down this road, we will seriously damage one of the most important relationships we have; we will render useless our voice and influence in effecting change in China."

Question: Who seriously considers the views of Canada?! The fact that this individual considers Canada's most important relationship to be with not the US or the mother country or the Commonwealth, or Europe but a country that spits on the values Canadians fought and died for is a disgrace.

Churchill takes on Rumsfeld

2006-11-21T00:02:00.000-05:00

Donald Rumsfeld is a guy the media loves to hate (not without some justification), so when the great pile-on happened two weeks ago, it seemed the best thing to do was just to ignore it. However, in announcing his resignation as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld paraphrased Winston Churchill, and the Churchill Centre -- those scholars charged with the special duty to guard and preserve his legacy for future generations -- is none too happy about it. The Centre's editor offers the correct version of the quotation, as well as advice for other politicians who might choose to quote Churchill:

-------

Dateline Washington, 8 November 2006. Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush's Secretary of Defense who resigned after the November election, has been "controversial" (to put it mildly) since things in Iraq started to go bad. When things were going better, in 2003 with coalition forces sweeping into Baghdad, the media doted on his every quip.

A strong admirer of Churchill, Rumsfeld has quoted him on many occasions lately, getting only into more hot water. In late August Rumsfeld said that his detractors reminded him of Hitler's appeasers: "Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last." New York Times critic Frank Rich shot back on September 3rd: "He can quote Churchill all he wants, but if he wants to self-righteously use [sic] that argument to smear others, the record shows that Mr. Rumsfeld cozied up to the crocodile of Baghdad as smarmily as anyone."

In his departure remarks at the White House on October 9th Rumsfeld said, “I call to mind the words of Winston Churchill, who said something like this: ‘I have benefited greatly from criticism and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.’” The Secretary quite properly admitted he was not quoting verbatim. The actual quotation is: "I have derived continued benefit from criticism at all periods of my life and I do not remember any time when I was ever short of it." (House of Commons, 27 November 1914).

Anorak, a British website "keeping tabs on the tabloids," took that up with a Churchill reference of its own: "As another wartime leader of old might have put it, he came, he saw, he almost conquered but lacked a viable and speedy exit strategy." Anorak referred to Churchill's comment on General Charles Monro, who took command of British forces at Gallipoli in October 1915 and supervised their evacuation: "General Monro was an officer of swift decision. He came, he saw, he capitulated." (The World Crisis II, 489).

We could have provided Donald Rumsfeld with much more pointed remarks:

"We do not resent the well-meant criticism of any man who wishes to win the war. We do not shrink from any fair criticism, and that is the most dangerous of all. On the contrary, we take it earnestly to heart and seek to profit by it. Criticism in the body politic is like pain in the human body. It is not pleasant, but where would the body be without it? No health or sensibility would be possible without continued correctives and warnings of pain." (House of Commons, 27 January 1940.)

And in tribute to the department he was leaving:

"I am going to do something that has never been done before, and I hope the House will not be shocked at the breach of precedent. I am going to make public a word of praise for the War Office. In all the forty years I have served in this House I have heard that Department steadily abused before, during, and after our various wars. And if my memory serves me aright I have frequently taken part in the well-merited criticism which was their lot." (House of Commons, 2 August 1944.)

We wish that Mr. Rumsfeld had come to us. We offer politicians of all persuasions a Churchillism for every occasion.

Richard M. Langworth, Editor, Finest Hour
The Churchill Centre
www.winstonchurchill.org

Archbishop of Canterbury rejects Prince Charles' multi-faith coronation proposal

2006-11-20T10:00:00.000-05:00

Two views from The Times of India:

The Church of England has asserted that it can't allow a multi-faith coronation ceremony for Prince Charles. The clergy has invoked tradition to justify its refusal.

Charles can argue that it is his right as an individual to demand the presence of non-Christian faiths when he is initiated to the throne. Institutions, especially the spiritual ones, have the tendency to demand that individuals should bow before long-held customs, traditions and beliefs. Time is a frozen entity for them.

In the case of Britain, the tradition of the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding over the ceremony is sanctioned by the peculiar relationship between the British Crown and the Church of England. The king of Britain is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That's the constitutional framework that the Archbishop has mentioned to caution Charles.

Why should this relationship be viewed outside the flow of time? Charles has suggested a multi-faith coronation to connect with the new Britain which has a significant number of practising Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. A multicultural, multi-faith Britain is a young nation. The coronation of Charles will be a first in its short history. It is welcome that the would-be king recognises the newness of the country he is inheriting from his mother.

He should also be applauded, and supported, for recognising the importance of reinventing traditions to suit the changed times and socio-cultural milieu. After all, the monarchy, even if its role is ceremonial, has to appeal to all sections of the popu-lation. If a multi-faith coronation ceremony can help it, let it be so. In our troubled times, initiatives that accommodate different faiths and cultures are welcome.

History has taught us that monarchies that refuse to read the writ of time are pushed into irrelevance and oblivion. The British monarchy realised it very early, and so survived the transfer of power to the people. It is this sense of history that has helped Charles to recognise the new Britain, and seek its presence at his coronation.

COUNTERVIEW:

Britain's monarch, besides being the ceremonial head of state, is also head of the Church of England, and this royal tradition has been carried on for years. Britain's royalty is the past living on as fairy tale despite the present.

So it's not Charles' call to worry about Britain's candybox monarchy reflecting the changing faith-composition of the increasingly multiracial, multi-religious UK. He should leave such concerns to members of UK's demo-cratically elected administrators. Britain's sovereign is supreme governor of the Church of England, leading through persuasion rather than diktat.

Yet, so long as the monarchy as a hoary and glamorous institution of British heritage and tradition continues to exist, it makes sense for it to retain its core features that are every bit a part of Britain's rich heritage as are its moors and dales, cathedrals and castles, puddings and preserves. For what differentiates Britain's monarchy from others is that it has retained its unique institutional brand value which is also its USP as an eminently entertaining curiosity despite its ceremonial nature. And whatever would Visit Britain, the tourism authority of UK, do if Britain's monarchy the staple of all tourists who flock to this country gives in to cookie-cutter eclecticism, ceasing to defend all that it stands for, though ceremonial?

Prince Charles the individual as champion of organic food, as one who recommends talking to plants, who regularly visits gurdwaras and mosques, who wins over the hearts of Mumbai's dabbawallahs, and who takes pride in Britain embracing people from diverse origins and faiths is a charming and appropriate symbol of the wonderful nature of ideal multicultural societies.

However, as Britain's sovereign-designate, he should avoid imposing his personal identity on to that of the institution he would be expected to represent, as that would mean diluting the very nature of what has come to be Britain's prime entertainment quotient.

We need a Marshall Plan to beat the Taleban, Pakistan tells Blair

2006-11-19T22:44:00.000-05:00

According to an article in today's Times,

Mr Musharraf attacked the West's strategy in Afghanistan yesterday, and said that the task could not be achieved by military action alone. He added that only Pakistan was implementing the right strategy. He called on the West to implement a plan of billions of dollars of aid to rebuild Afghanistan, just as the US spent billions of dollars rebuilding Europe after the Second World War.

This "right strategy" seems to me to be exporting the terrorists who learn their skills in Pakistan to old Blighty and thus removing the threat of "the Taleban crossing the border to safe havens in Pakistan's largely lawless northwest provinces". For this the Pakistanis appear to be demanding the Anglo-Americans pay up roughly 10% of their combined federal budget as with the Marshall Plan...

Guardian slams Starkey

2006-11-18T09:01:00.000-05:00

As a counterweight to this site's tribute to historian David Starkey, I would recommend a perusal of today's Guardian which says that monarchies survive "by that liberal sprinkling of holy oil which tries to turn an accident of history into a national myth," and that historians like Starkey "should be exposers of this cheap glamour rather than its cheerleaders." What I find most offensive in this opinion piece, which goes on to illustrate how the Gurdian seems now to be little more than a conveyor of unremarkable nobody's opinions than actually analysing real issues and news, is the fact it denounces monarchists in Wales and Scotland as 'quislings.'

2006-11-17T12:55:00.000-05:00

Andrew Cusack, in his customary gorgeous style, gushes: OLD DOMINION WILL RECEIVE HER MAJESTY

"Linchpin of the English-speaking world"

2006-11-17T11:07:00.000-05:00

Churchillian Quote of the Week

"Canada is the linchpin of the English-speaking world. Canada, with those relations of friendly, affectionate intimacy with the United States on the one hand and with her unswerving fidelity to the British Commonwealth and the Motherland on the other, is the link which joins together these great branches of the human family, a link which, spanning the oceans, brings the continents into their true relation and will prevent in future generations any growth of division between the proud and the happy nations of Europe and the great countries which have come into existence in the New World."

- Speech given at a luncheon in honour of Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, Mansion House, London, September 4, 1941.

England does not expect every man to destroy Great Britain

2006-11-16T11:45:00.000-05:00

Sir Michael Caine on England (From the Times: England Expects)

“I am very, very patriotic. Don’t get me started,” he warns. He frets that his beloved England is being overlooked as the other home nations enjoy devolution. His friend Sir Sean Connery has become a cheerleader for Scottish nationalism and Sir Michael is beginning to think he’s right. “I’m a very English man. And that doesn’t mean to say I don’t like foreigners and I hate all immigrants. I’m married to an immigrant. But I am not happy at the moment. Everybody seems to be represented but the English.

“There’s a possibility that a Scotsman is going to rule over me. A Scotsman who comes from a constituency where my member of parliament, who I elected, has no say whatsoever...

Sir Sean Connery on Scotland (According to Sir Michael)

And there is an answer, given to me by my friend Sean: give Scotland its independence. Gordon Brown can be the prime minister of Scotland.”

Queen to celebrate 400th anniversary of Jamestown

2006-11-16T01:19:00.000-05:00

The only item of interest from the Queen's Speech (her 55th) to the opening of Parliament yesterday, aside from the fact that it was another farewell to Tony moment, was this jewel of an announcement:

Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip, will visit Jamestown in May to celebrate the historic settlement's 400th anniversary.

The queen announced the visit in a speech today launching a new session of the British Parliament.

At about the same time, President Bush released a statement welcoming the royal couple "for a state visit to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown Settlement.

"The United States and the United Kingdom enjoy an extraordinary friendship that is sustained by deep historical and cultural ties and a commitment to defend freedom around the world," Bush said.

Virginia officials coordinating the ongoing Jamestown commemoration have scheduled an America's Anniversary Weekend event on and near Jamestown May 11, 12, and 13. It will mark four centuries since Jamestown's founding as the first permanent English settlement in America.

Jamestown, the first English settlement of North America, was established in the name of His Majesty the King, James I of England.

May I present to Your Majesty, Bond. James Bond.

2006-11-15T13:35:00.000-05:00

Fear God and maintain His Church

2006-11-14T13:55:00.000-05:00

Oh, dear. Sir Elton John, our hitherto most Christian knight, is apparently suffering from one of his mood swings again. The Englishman who knelt in good faith before Her Majesty not too, too many years ago, and was knighted by the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, now wants to finger God and destroy His Church. And just for good measure, all the other Churches too.

Now, this may be counter to the whole ideal of chivalry thing, the one Charlemagne inspired with "fear God and maintain His Church". It may not be in lockstep with the first two commandments of the Knights Code: "I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions; II. Thou shalt defend the Church..."; but let's not be too hard on the poor chap – he probably mistook his knighthood as just the English version of a modern Emmy, or an Oscar, or an MTV music award, or some other Hollywood stimulated trinket of courtly self-love.

Another good for business, bad-tempered publicity stunt? Bollocks! Sir John and the Hollywood establishment are chivalrous to the bone. Just look at all the causes they support, just look at their countless charities, their unstoppable efforts at protecting the weak and the defenceless. Up with Hollywood, and down with the Church!

The strange death of Tory England

2006-11-13T23:47:00.000-05:00

"Has the most successful species in British political history finally become extinct?" What is the state of English political liberties; where is the trust in slow historical progression, the loyalty and reverence to constitutional forms? Where is the spirit of Dryden, Johnson, Swift and Pope?

Like the Jacobites of an earlier era, Geoffery Wheatcroft illuminates how traditional British conservatives have been perennially displaced and marginalised in the UK of today and into the future:

The Conservative party dominated British politics for 120 years from Disraeli's victory in 1874, culminating in an unprecedented eighteen-year spell in government after 1979. And yet at the very end of the century the Tories imploded so disastrously as to suggest the party might be doomed to follow the Liberals into oblivion...

The Strange Death of Tory England goes on to show how the gradual eclipse of military virtues and patrician ideals came to discredit Toryism, how the party tore itself apart over Europe and how it suffered from the malign influence of a quasi-intellectual New Right which held sway in the Tory press. Wheatcroft demonstrates brilliantly how two profound truths explain the Conservatives' decline: that the Right had won politically, but the Left had won culturally; and that it was possible to win the battle, but lose the argument.

Get your copy at Westminster Books and shed a tear for England.

WHOSE PROVIDENCE?

2006-11-12T23:47:00.000-05:00

ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA AND THE IMPERIAL FEDERATION MOVEMENT

“THE KEYSTONE OF THE CANADIAN NATION IS THE FRENCH FACT; the slightest knowledge of history makes this platitudinous. English-speaking Canadians who desire the survival of their nation have to co-operate with those who seek the continuance of Franco-American civilisation”.

It has been written that John Diefenbaker’s great failure as Prime Minister after the Second World War – the last period in which ‘Britishness’ was seen as central to Canadian identity – was his failure to find this milieu for co-operation with French-Canadian conservatism. Between 1958 and 1962, Diefenbaker had fifty Quebec seats behind him, and yet found no Quebecois lieutenants. While it is true that he was unfortunate in the premature death in 1960 of J.M.P. Sauvé, who could well have become the first French-Canadian Tory PM, Diefenbaker’s failure was at root systemic, not contingent. Nor is it true that this failure to engage with French Canada was simply the manifestation of indifference. He, like all other Anglo-Canadian nationalists for more than a century, failed to appreciate that their vision of a united Canada was incompatible with that of Quebec.

This is to say, that Anglo-Canadians’ vision for the Dominion was involved “one united Canada in which individuals would have equal rights irrespective of race or religion…As far as the civil rights of individuals are concerned, this is obviously an acceptable doctrine. Nevertheless, the rights of the individual do not encompass the rights of nations…The French Canadians had entered the Confederation not to protect the rights of the individual but the rights of the Nation”. For them, equal rights in the sense usually implied in British political discourse were a recipe for being swallowed up by an amèricanisme saxonisante. The fact that the rhetoric and practice of multiculturalism in modern Canada has had no concomitant tendency to diminish Quebecois nationalism is a clear indication that this is so – showing respect for the residual customs of ethnic minorities such as Ukrainians and Koreans is one things, but the French-Canadians are concerned with being a nation-within-a-nation, an ambition for which treating every citizen equally would spell disaster.

What this also reveals is that the Quebecois have always shrewdly discerned a fact of which Anglo-Saxons the world over have often been only hazily aware, if at all: that whereas the Cape Dutch, the French Canadians, and other European colonial populations whom the British absorbed into their Empire tended to have no place in their hearts but for their own communities, British colonists the world over always felt part of a far-flung global community whose spiritual centre was the British Isles. From Britain’s earliest attempts at colonisation until well into the twentieth century, millions of people in the British colonial empire who had never, and would never, visit Britain itself continued to think of the British Isles as ‘Home’, tendebant manus ripæ ulterioris amorē.

Continue Reading Edward Harris - Whose Providence?

POSTED BY CATO, Edward Harris in London, England

Her Majesty today unveiled the New Zealand Memorial in London

2006-11-11T20:26:00.000-05:00

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as Queen of New Zealand accompanied by the Duke of Edinburgh has officially unveiled a memorial in Hyde Park to commemorate the long relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom as well as to honour New Zealand’s war dead.

The New Zealand Memorial will serve as a focus of remembrance of the shared sacrifice during the two World Wars and other military operations.

Several members of the Royal Family also attended the ceremony including Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince William, the Duke of York, the Princess Royal and the Duke of Kent.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark were also in attendance.

The memorial known as the Southern Stand, consists of 16 cross-shaped vertical bronze pillars - each one representing a different aspect of New Zealand life and inscribed with text, patterns and sculptures.

Thirty-two veterans and over 250 Service personnel from the New Zealand Defence Forces were present at the event - the largest contingent of New Zealand forces to be seen in the UK since Her Majesty’s Coronation in 1953

The Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William attended the event.

The Prince of Wales in his Royal New Zealand Air Force uniform.

Her Majesty the Queen meets her New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Maori welcoming ceremony.

Her Majesty the Queen inspecting the Royal Guard of Honour.

"The memorial is a symbol of our common heritage and of New Zealand’s distinct national identity," said Prime Minister Helen Clark in a speech.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh along with Prime Ministers Blair and Clark honour New Zealand's war dead.

The Queen greeted the 34 New Zealand veterans at the end of the ceremony.

FOR KING AND EMPIRE

2006-11-11T00:09:00.000-05:00

British broadcaster will not bow to "poppy fascism"

2006-11-10T13:05:00.001-05:00

Okay, now this is getting out of hand. Jon Snow, reader of the news on BBC Channel 4, vowed not to wear a poppy during his broadcast on tomorrow's Remembrance Day:

"I am begged to wear an Aids ribbon, a breast cancer ribbon, a Marie Curie flower. You name it, from the Red Cross to the RNIB, they send me stuff to wear to raise awareness, and I don't. And in those terms, and those terms alone, I do not and will not wear a poppy.

"Additionally there is a rather unpleasant breed of poppy fascism out there – 'he damned well must wear a poppy!' Well I do, in my private life, but I am not going to wear it or any other symbol on air."

That's it Jon-boy, link in poppies with just another Aids Benefit Day. Or is it worse than that - have we really become a nation of poppy Hitlers? Thankfully, the great W.F. Deedes takes a more solemn view of things.

Three cheers for Athabaskan!

2006-11-10T10:57:00.000-05:00

My former warship, HMCS Athabaskan, the one I served in (we serve in ships, not on them) during work ups to the first Gulf War in 1990, has made a great splash in the media over the past 24 hours rescuing stranded and shipwrecked Nova Scotians north of Bermuda.

HMCS Athabaskan had been operating in the region as part of an experiment, involving the Canadian naval task group, an air expeditionary unit and a landing force all working together, to explore the possibility of integrating a seaborne and sea-based combat force.

For these lucky Maritimers, talk about being in the wrong situation at the right place at the right time.

Hip hip hooray, to the officers and crew of Her Majesty's Canadian Ship!

Is Britain headed for cultural defeat?

2006-11-09T16:04:00.000-05:00

Read Douglas Murray at the New Cultural Forum. Speaking to the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Mr. Murray delivers a warning eerily reminiscent of our times:

‘Europeans are going to have to start asking: do we want to keep what we have? Do we want to salvage something? Or is there genuinely nothing which we wish to save?’ he said. ‘I recommend to you – go to Amsterdam and walk around. Look at the woman in the burkha, and the druggy baby-boomer running the cannabis café and ask yourself who is going to be running this place in twenty years time.’

Hat tip and thanks to Franck Guillory for sending me this news from London NCF.

Also read Melanie Phillips: The multicultural menace
And Melanie Phillips, author of Londonistan
Melanie Phillips: The British Broadcasting Jihad

2006-11-09T15:31:00.000-05:00

Hold the press, a brave leftist has joined the crusade against PC! Read: The red poppy is politically correct.

Loyalty and Fraternity

2006-11-09T13:13:00.000-05:00

Andrew Coyne takes a page from The Monarchist and declares we should do our duty For King and Country.

In a similar heartfelt vein, he also lays out his rationale for why we should dispense with dual citizenship and be forced to choose (renounce or pronounce) our loyalty to Canada. I agree with him with one important caveat: that we should also continue to recognize our fraternal loyalty to our collective Queen who is sovereign of 16 other nations, by reaffirming our status as Commonwealth citizens.

The 1977 Immigration Act already does this, when it renounced our status as British subjects, and that should continue. There is nothing inconsistent with that particular duality, since there is also the constitutional reality of our familial allegiance to the British Crown as recognized in the Statute of Westminster, which is more than a UK statute, but a treaty that we signed in 1931.

But then again, what's the point. If our status as Commonwealth citizens no longer confers any special advantages or obligations to one another in the larger context, then the gig is up. Read David Cameron: Conservatives commit to cut non-EU immigration. The Commonwealth is dead, long live the EU.

Year of the War Bride

2006-11-09T10:09:00.000-05:00

Eight Canadian provinces have designated 2006 as the Year of the War Bride.

60 years ago, 50,000 plus British war brides came through Pier 21 at Halifax Harbour following the end of the Second World War to settle in this country after marrying Canadian soldiers back in the Britain.

Yesterday, eighteen war bride couples renewed their marriage vows Wednesday in a ceremony near the famous pier on arrival, following an emotional and historical train journey that brought 200 war brides from across the country back to Halifax:

The brides, clutching bouquets of red roses, walked down the aisle of Pier 21 to the strains of Irving Berlin's Always, escorted by soldiers.

Their grooms, many wearing the medals they earned, patiently waited for their lifelong sweethearts. A barbershop quartet sang behind them.

They again repeated the words, "For better, for worse / For richer, for poorer."

Then they sealed their vows with a gentle kiss.

Meanwhile in Toronto, in a contrasting story that epitomises the fakeness of our times, shocked husband (fake throb, Kevin Federline) of bimbo bride ("Seriously, I just wanted to see what marriage was like"), Britney Spears, received an electronic text message from his wife declaring the marriage over. Her first marriage lasted 54 hours, the second not quite two years. Till death (or at least until the next text message) do us part.

No better quill than an irreverent one

2006-11-08T12:58:00.000-05:00

What do you get when you converge eloquence with irreverence? You get an entertaining read. Of all the reviews on The Queen, be sure to read A Royal Pain:

Decked out in oddly fashion-free hats and frocks, Helen Mirren offers an uncannily convincing portrayal of Elizabeth as a creature from another planet who nonetheless grieves and suffers like an earthling. The pain that flickers across her face when Prince Charles praises the physical affection his late wife showed the two little princes is even more poignant for being so obviously well deserved. So is her anguish at having to publicly humiliate herself in order to shore up the idea of the monarchy, and in her view the soul of the nation, against the assault of headlines screaming “Show Us You Care!” As the queen finishes delivering her funeral address, she wears the dazzled look of a martyr.

Earlier, when she wanders the spectacular royal estate at Balmoral, her eyes well up at the sight of a lordly stag. Her tears are not for Diana (that self-dramatizing blabbermouth) but for her own poor self, the embattled relic of a dying breed. Moreover, we feel her pain, because each of us can count on being confronted with our irrelevance sooner or later, even if we don’t have 40,000 acres in Scotland in which to feel sorry for ourselves.

While The Queen depicts the royal family as clueless troglodytes, it takes an equally cool view of populist politics as embodied in the moistly ambitious Blair (played with just the right dewy eagerness by Michael Sheen). the Queen’s stiff-necked belief in her own sanctity may be insane, but it’s based on some notion of principle, however retrograde. The same can hardly be said for Blair’s political arse-creeping of the Diana cult.

Say what you will about Elizabeth, but in The Queen she at least understands noblesse oblige—that the trappings of royalty carry some responsibility to the people whose necks you’re standing on. A dinosaur Elizabeth may be, but she recognizes that her servants and subjects are not the only ones with duties to perform.

Sacrifice of a Kingsman

2006-11-08T11:34:00.000-05:00

Our latest casualty over here in the United Kingdom was 19 year-old Jamie Hancock, a Kingsman serving in the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (Kings, Lancashire and Border) currently stationed in Basra, Iraq. (Her Majesty, the Duke of Lancaster, is of course the regiment's Colonel-in-Chief).

I stop to mention this because I had never heard of this rank before (essentially the equivalent of a private serving in the infantry), which today is limited in usage -- a unique honour bestowed upon privates serving in the King's Division, all of the regiments domiciled in northern England.

I stop to mention this to pay tribute to Jamie Hancock, a soldier of the War on Terror. T'is the season to honour the sacrifice of such men.

2006-11-07T23:31:00.000-05:00

My teenage son wrote an essay in high school on the symbiotic relationship between monarchy and democracy. You can read the whole thing here.

United we fall, Empty we stand

2006-11-07T18:08:00.000-05:00

Oh, what a pathetic weed the United Church of Canada has become. Their whole advertising campaign to win back Christians to their pews is to be sinfully provocative by poking fun at tradition, mocking Christ and endulging in the great orgy:

One includes statues of two grooms on a wedding cake and asks, "Does anyone object?" Another features a can of whipped cream with the question, "How much fun can sex be before it's a sin?" Still another depicts a bobble-head Jesus on a car dashboard and asks, "Funny. Ticket to hell. What do you think?"

What do I think? I think United is becoming a bit of a whackjob, but that's just me.

At the going down of the sun...

2006-11-07T12:00:00.000-05:00

Please sign the petition at The Dominion Institute to beseech the Canadian government to honour the last Great War soldier with a state funeral. Their goal is 50,000 signatures by November 11. I was number 8,866 at noon time today. Australia already had a state funeral for their last Gallipoli veteran, and Britain plans to hold a national memorial at Westminster Abbey for their last Great War hero. I think we would be sadly remiss if Canada didn't do the same.

LAST REMAINING BRITISH IMPERIAL GREAT WAR SOLDIERS:

1. Ross, John Campbell - last Australian digger
2. Clemett, Victor Lloyd - Canadian
3. Powers, Gladys - Canadian
4. Wilson, Dwight (Percy) - Canadian
5. Babcock, John F. - Canadian
6. Choules, Claude Stanley - British
7. Lucas, Sydney (Syd) - British
8. Young, William (Will) - British
9. Allingham, Henry - British
10. Bolaise, Violet - British
11. Cummins, Kenneth - British
12. Mayne, Phillip - British
13. Patch, Harry - British
14. Stone, William (Bill) - British

The Gentleman Prince

2006-11-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

The Crown Commonwealth's future King, and the royal party he was travelling with, were mistakenly denied entry into the filled VIP lounge onboard the Pride of Kent during a ferry crossing from Dover to Calais recently. Embarrassing for the ferry stewardess involved, hillarious snub for the onlooking ferry passengers. And Prince William of Wales, well, did he wail, did he pull royal rank? Apparently not, as it turns out:

They attempted to access the first-class lounge where, for an extra ￡10, ferry passengers can pass the 75-minute voyage in relative luxury.

Failing to recognize the 24-year-old prince, the stewardess checking tickets at the door refused them entry because the lounge was full. It was the first day of the school holiday and the ferry was packed with tourists.

Some members of the Royal family would have been furious, but not William. A passenger told The Times that the young prince stayed at the back of the group and did not "pull rank."

"So many men sacrificed so much for God, king and country..."

2006-11-06T12:24:00.000-05:00

The editorial in today's Globe and Mail was so astounding for that paper, I can scarcely believe I just read it. Read: Hold a state funeral for the last WWI veteran.

After the Great War, Canada was never the same. More than 600,000 of a population of barely eight million served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Of those, 60,000 were killed and another 154,000 wounded. Such losses are on a scale that Canadians today might find hard to fathom. Yet the enormous sacrifices made by our soldiers, and the fierce reputation they earned at places like Vimy Ridge and Passchendaele, not only helped to secure victory but earned Canada its place in the world.

Our living bond to the First World War has almost been severed. Only three veterans of that heroic Canadian army remain: Lloyd Clemett, 106, John Babcock, 106, and Dwight Wilson, 105. The government of Canada should commit now to provide a state funeral for the last of them.

A state funeral is the highest honour a country can offer any individual. But in this case, such a funeral would honour more than one man. Through him, it would honour all who served. So many men sacrificed so much for God, king and country during those terrible years, 1914 to 1918, and, despite the best efforts of veterans' organizations, so many passed away in recent decades without the accrual of honour they deserved. It is time Canadians owned up to the debt they owe that great generation, nearly passed. The way to accomplish that is not by a "national day of mourning" or a "day of commemoration" -- artificial constructs that would likely fall below the nation's radar -- but by a state funeral.

By tradition, state funerals are reserved for current or former governors-general, current or former prime ministers, or other eminences so designated by the government. This is one occasion when an exception to the rule is mandated. There are precedents. Australia held a federal state funeral for the last survivor of the Gallipoli campaign. Britain has not gone that far, but has announced that a national memorial service will be held after the death of the last known First World War veteran. That service will be held in Westminster Abbey and will be preceded by a memorial procession. It might not be called a state funeral, but it has most of the trappings.

There is but one way to impress upon the minds of every Canadian, old and young, the scale of what Canadian soldiers accomplished during the First World War. There is but one way to ensure that the concept of remembrance is more than a generalized duty to a proud military heritage and is recognized for what it is: a way to give thanks for the gift of freedom given many peoples and the attainment of nationhood for our own. And that is for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to offer a solemn, religious state funeral to the family of the last veteran resident in Canada of the Great War. Let Canada put one face on the sacrifice of a generation.

William to be regent prince

2006-11-06T09:59:00.000-05:00

This is a timely and smart strategy on the part of Buckingham Palace:

Britain's Queen Elizabeth is grooming her grandson Prince William to become the face of the British Royal Family.

The monarch reportedly plans to hand over the majority of her public duties to the 24-year-old prince over a three-year period.

According to Britain's The People newspaper William's name has already started appearing in the Court Circular, the index of the royal family's engagements, indicating that his involvement will increase when he completes his training at Sandhurst Military Academy in December.

The source added: "It is a clear sign, as his days as an Army cadet come to an end, that his role as the future king will grow significantly."

William's father Prince Charles will still succeed the queen as king, but it is thought that his son will be the real "jewel in the royal crown."

The source said: "Charles has a substantial ego. But even when he succeeds he will have to accept William is the public's favourite."

Keep the monarchy alive

2006-11-05T21:02:00.000-05:00

2006-11-05T13:50:00.000-05:00

Rod Amis over at the Atlantic Free Press - "Hard Truths for Hard Times" - plays the standard race card lie about the Anglosphere in The Balance of Power: China and Wal-Mart.

France blocks Nato bid to create a global terror force

2006-11-05T00:58:00.000-05:00

This is in this Sunday's Independent that opens the article with

Plans to boost Nato's co- operation with countries such as Australia and Japan in an effort to forge a partnership against terrorism have been blocked by France.

This strikes me as the inverse of what happened when it was the British in the early 20s who dashed French hopes of a worldwide army to act as an effective deterrent force.

It is instructive to understand the basis for French objections to extending NATO's growth and reach- "France has made it clear that it opposes a move it sees as part of a campaign to extend US influence." France sees the organisation, which it helped found through the Treaty of Brussels and then NATO itself the next month in 1949, as being dominated by the US.

To be honest, I don't know how much of this is more smear-tactics of the sort the British in particular used when they took Chirac's words completely out of context in the leadup to the war against Iraq. As America finds itself being pulled further away from Europe towards the Pacific, I can understand the French wishing to maintain "the fundamental nature of Nato which must...remain an euro-atlantic military alliance" and not "risk diluting the natural solidarity between Europeans and North Americans." Still, it seems strange that they value the organisation to that degree while criticising it at the same time as being a tool of the Americans. Besides, the French saw no problem joining SEATO after the Korean War...

Priorities

2006-11-05T00:10:00.000-05:00

If you log onto the Downing Street website you'll find listed 10 "Big Issues" affecting the Prime Minister. They are:

1. Northern Ireland
2. Energy
3. Climate Change
4. Africa
5. Respect
6. Welfare
and then without any other explanation:
7. International
8. Education
9. Health
10. Pensions

Nowhere will you find Iraq. Not a word about Afghanistan. That says it all about a Prime Minister sending its men into war on a lie without the tools to do whatever job he comes up with week by week. Brush it all under the carpet as more posts here at The Monarchist describe the increasing strains the military is under. Appalling.

Don't nuke the Duke

2006-11-04T23:01:00.000-05:00

Our Sovereign Lady is no duchess. By hereditary right, Her Majesty is the Duke of Normandy and the Duke of Lancaster and the Lord of Mann, some of her ancient masculine titles being older than England herself. In the wonderful words of William Gairdner, we should think twice before we nuke the Duke.

As a related note, I was surprised to read that The Economist once declared monarchy to be "the antithesis of much of what we stand for: democracy, liberty, reward for achievement rather than inheritance." Surprised, because I've been taking in that magazine for years - such insolence from a well respected British publication simply never occurred to me. And so all the more pleasure I suppose to hear Mr. Gairdner destroy with ease the false connection between democracy and liberty, between reward for achievement and inheritance, in favour of the transcedent ideal that is monarchy.

2006-11-04T08:45:00.000-05:00

Benjamin Disraeli on the Cost of Sovereignty:

The Loyalty Series (a continuing thread ...)

Gentlemen, there is yet one other remark that I would make upon our monarchy, though had it not been for recent circumstances, I should have refrained from doing so. An attack has recently been made upon the Throne on account of the costliness of the institution. Gentlemen, I shall not dwell upon the fact that if the people of England appreciate the monarchy, as I believe they do, it would be painful to them that their royal and representative family should not be maintained with becoming dignity, or fill in the public eye a position inferior to some of the nobles of the land. Nor will I insist upon what is unquestionably the fact, that the revenues of the crown estates, on which our sovereign might live with as much right as the Duke of Bedford, or the Duke of Northumberland, has to his estates, are now paid into the public exchequer. All this, upon the present occasion, I am not going to insist upon. What I now say is this: that there is no sovereignty of any first-rate State which costs so little to the people as the sovereignty of England. I will not compare our civil list with those of European empires, because it is known that in amount they treble and quadruple it; but I will compare it with the cost of sovereignty in a Republic, and that a Republic with which you are intimately acquainted—the Republic of the United States of America.

Gentlemen, there is no analogy between the position of our sovereign, Queen Victoria, and that of the president of the United States. The president of the United States is not the sovereign of the United States. There is a very near analogy between the position of the president of the United States and that of the prime minister of England, and both are paid at much the same rate—the income of a second-class professional man. The sovereign of the United States is the people; and I will now show you what the sovereignty of the United States costs. Gentlemen, you are aware of the Constitution of the United States. There are thirty-seven independent States, each with a sovereign Legislature. Besides these, there is a Confederation of States to conduct their external affairs, which consists of the House of Representatives and a Senate. There are two hundred and eighty-five members of the House of Representatives, and—there are seventy-four members of the Senate, making altogether three hundred and fifty-nine members of Congress. Now each member of Congress receives 1,000l. sterling per annum. In addition to this he receives an allowance called “mileage,” which varies according to the distance which he travels, but the aggregate cost of which is about 30,000l. per annum. That makes 389,000l., almost the exact amount of our civil list.

But this, gentlemen, will allow you to make only a very imperfect estimate of the cost of sovereignty in the United States. Every member of every Legislature in the thirty-seven States is also paid. There are, I believe, 5,010 members of State Legislatures, who receive about $350 per annum each. As some of the returns are imperfect, the average which I have given of expenditure may be rather high, and therefore I have not counted the mileage, which is also universally allowed. Five thousand and ten members of State Legislatures at $350 each make $1,753,500, or 350,700l. sterling a year. So you see, gentlemen, that the immediate expenditure for the sovereignty of the United States is between 700,000l. and 800,000l. a year. Gentlemen, I have not time to pursue this interesting theme, otherwise I could show that you have still but imperfectly ascertained the cost of sovereignty in a Republic.

nb: Delivered in Manchester in April, 1872, during a widespread discussion, precipitated by Sir Charles Dilke’s speech at Newcastle in the previous November denouncing the cost of royalty.

web source

2006-11-04T01:01:00.000-05:00

Is there no end to the seeming decline and transformation of Great Britain these days? Mass multicultural immigration, grave threat to British sovereignty, most endemic surveillance society in the Western world and now an armed forces 'intolerably' below strength. Sheesh.

Mind you it's not a total write off. At least we got rid of fox hunting.

2006-11-03T18:14:00.000-05:00

Andrew Cusack splendidly illustrates Children of a Common Mother.

BRITAIN: THE MOST SPIED ON NATION IN THE WORLD

2006-11-03T04:12:00.000-05:00

Have been spending the day showing students the trailers for the next Bond film (looks GREAT!) and came across this rather related topic. Privacy International, an organisation formed in 1990 in order to track surveillance and privacy invasion by governments and corporations, has just released the results of its 2006 international privacy survey. Britain comes in last place among Western countries when it comes to protecting its citizens privacy. This only fuels the charge recently in the Independent that claims that Britain is the most spied country on earth where at this very moment

* Video cameras monitoring buildings, shopping streets and residential areas. Automatic systems can now recognise vehicle number plates and faces.

* Software that analyses spending habits and the data sold to businesses. When we call service centres or apply for loans, insurance or mortgages, how quickly we are served and what we are offered can depend on what we spend, where we live and who we are.

* Electronic tags to monitor offenders on probation.

* DNA taken from those arrested by the police and placed on a database.

* Information stored about foreign travel.

* Smart cards in schools to determine where children are, what they eat or the books they borrow.

* Taps on telephones, e-mails and internet use that can screened for key words and phrases by British and US intelligence services.

When Tony Blair warns of the terrorists threatening to destroy British values and way of life, it sounds hollow when he has done more than any other to change the country as we know it, from demanding identification cards for all to ill thought-out national parliaments to replacing the House of Lords with his cronies, etc.

HMS Australia deploys force to Fiji

2006-11-02T23:18:00.000-05:00

"THE Australian Government has despatched a second warship to stand by near Fiji in case a mass evacuation is necessary following fears of a coup. Announcing the deployment of amphibious support ship, HMAS Kanimbla, from Townsville, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson tonight would not rule out military assistance from Australia if the Fijian Government asks for help. Australia sent the frigate, HMAS Newcastle, to waters near Fiji yesterday.

The Government also revised its travel advisory to Fiji tonight, warning Australians to exercise "a high degree of caution" ... because of increased tensions between the Fiji government and military, and the possibility of military action against the Government. Australia is discussing with its Pacific neighbours measures they might take to "discourage" a military coup in Fiji.

Prime Minister John Howard and his New Zealand counterpart, Helen Clark, phoned Fijian Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase today offering their support for his Government. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer warned today that the chances of a violent military takeover in Fiji were high."

2006-11-02T18:08:00.000-05:00

An interviewer’s standard question: “What drove you to enter national politics?”

A politician’s standard reply: “I felt and still feel that politics is the best way to make a difference in the lives of ordinary people”. [cringe]

The reality is that politicians go into public life for a whole host of self-serving reasons, which is fine so long as they understand that their principle duty is also to guard the public interest. Yet, you can bet dollars to doughnuts that when questioned on why they entered the public arena, political ambition is invariably defended and dressed up as activist drivel. Now I’m not too concerned about the motivation thing here; it’s natural for our political masters to seek the national spotlight, and it drives them to do a job that is necessary. But beware: “making a difference” is not the same thing as protecting the public interest. If our MPs understood the meaning of public service, the more truthful answer to that most important question would be: “I’m here to prevent other politicians from making a difference”.

But you never hear it because modern man has made a thoughtless and artificial virtue out of change – even campaigning on change for change sakes - when the natural instinct is to oppose and delay change for as long as possible. That’s the nature of true conservatism as Lord Salisbury understood it. The thrice prime minister of Great Britain in the late Victorian era put it this way: "Whatever happens will be for the worse and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible. The use of Conservatism is to delay changes until they become harmless" .

In fact this has been the political modus operandi for virtually the entire history of the British Isles (witness the graceful retirement from empire) until Tony Blair came along and started making a real difference. The United Kingdom is becoming a vastly different place under his decade-long stewardship – most troubling, Britishness is rapidly disappearing under the simultaneous pressures of English nationalism and EU provincialism. The national interest has been left in the lurch while New Labour systematically went about destroying Old Britain. And there he is, David Cameron, Blair’s successor-in-waiting, campaigning on a platform of change for change sakes. My God, where is the great burly Marquess of Salisbury when you need him.

Britain sees "largest wave of immigration in its history"

2006-11-02T13:13:00.000-05:00

Britain taking in 1,500 immigrants a day:

"A net inflow of 185,000 people last year saw Britain's population grow by about 500 people a day. Immigration figures released today by the Office for National Statistics show that a total of 565,000 people, or 1,500 a day, came to live in Britain for at least a year in 2005. That figure was offset by the 380,000 who left the country.

The largest group of immigrants was from 'New Commonwealth' countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, but Poles formed the largest single group of arrivals...The figures also show that in 2005, 68,000 people from the 'Old Commonwealth' - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa - came to Britain intending to stay for at least a year, while 121,000 came from other Commonwealth countries."

The most war prone nation?

2006-11-02T04:44:00.000-05:00

There is a site that claims that throughout its history, the British "sanctioned draconic penal code, considered the ‘license to kill’ a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, initiated the most wars, sanctioned piracy on the open seas, participated in the slave trade, and subjugated more people than any other nation". I have no idea from where this site originates, but reading it makes me proud that the British command such power; truly hitting above their weight! What is most curious to the author is its observation that although "themselves a hereditary monarchy, they champion democracy." This just after it claims it has done more than any other modern nation to enslave masses of people!

Look, don't waste time writing comments to this quibbling with the arguments ("yes, but far from sanctioning piracy, the British were the first to abolish slavery and used its navy to fight it"). Just bask in the glow that its role in history has been even more monumental than we had thought.

What most interested me was besides the claim that Britain had fought more 'major' wars than any other was its claim (never backed up with sources) that the British employed a matchless "skill in using others to attain their war goals, honed over centuries" as shown in this chart which points out that in both theatres of WWII, the British Empire lost 544,596 soldiers, about one for every 1,000 of its population while the United States lost 292,100 soldiers, about one in every 450 of its population. The Soviet Union lost about 5,000,000 soldiers, about one in 40 of its population (funny, as I had found myself agreeing with the wife of the owner of my local that 26 million Soviets had died...).

Lords of the Blog

2006-11-02T01:12:00.000-05:00

I wonder what future chance there is of The Monarchist grabbing just one of Her Majesty's many Lordships to contribute to this fine blog. There are a growing number of blogging barons in the UK, scribbling their thoughts across the Anglosphere from the House of Lords. Check out Lord Soley of Hammersmith for instance, or the hereditary peer, Lord Lucas. Try Lords Avebury; Garden; or Lucan. There's also Lord Hanningfield, not to mention my favourite -- by far, William Rees-Mogg, the Lord Baron Rees-Mogg of Hinton Blewitt, still writing for the Times of London after all these years, now with his very own weblog. Don't imagine there's a healthy chance at snagging him, but some of the lesser knowns, if they maintain some residual respect for the continuance of the British Monarchy, it just may be plausible to receive a passing courtesy of their interest.

Grave Threat to Britain’s Sovereignty

2006-11-01T07:55:00.000-05:00

First it was criminal law. Then national air space. But now the ultimate loss of sovereignty -- Britain's seas.

The EU is now in the process of creating a “common European maritime space.” As a result of this the EU alone will be in charge of members’ territorial waters.

Such a proposal was first threatened in a white paper earlier this year, and is now anticipating the reaction to it while preparing to put forward a draft of a formal proposal next year. Here's what the future would hold: crossing the English Channel would no longer be considered an international trip as the passengers would not be leaving EU waters.

The EU has already forced Britain to open up her fishing zones to European rivals and even threatening to discard the “Red Ensign,” a flag I worship and hold sacred from the merchant ships of Britain’s great empire since the 17th century to the convoys during WWII as they sailed from Canada. Instead, it would be replaced by the EU flag.

So much for Britannia ruling the waves, and its history cast to the wind. I remember the distaste I felt seeing Napoleon's vision of a tunnel linking Britain to Europe realised, and the chagrin I now feel to continually hear of its financial troubles.
Controlling the English Channel has been the key to England’s defence from invasion since the Armada. Again, it was Napoleon while massing his nearly half-million man Grande Armée along the Channel coast who wrote to an admiral: “If we can be the masters of the narrows for six hours, we shall be masters of the world.” Britain maintained mastery of its waters, turning back not only Napoleon but Hitler.

Britain is being expected to simply turn her back on her history and sacrificing the key to her security. On recent form. especially with the shameful attempt at betrayal of Gibraltar, this is a very real threat.

With the proposed EU Constitution demanding the Queen give up her role as of its constitution, Britain’s foreign policy and ability to make treaties will be decided for her, decide how her schools will be run, and formally make Britain's supreme court in Brussels.

It's up to the people to fight for their identity, laws, culture and heritage. Their politicians can certainly no longer be trusted.

2006-10-31T16:24:00.000-05:00

Now that the sun has been set for fifty years, it is worth looking back at how liberal elites ruined the British Empire.

2006-10-31T16:04:00.000-05:00

Sir John A. Macdonald on Canada and republicanism:

The Loyalty Series (a continuing thread ...)

"It is the fashion now to enlarge on the defects of the Constitution of the United States, but I am not one of those who look upon it as a failure. I think and believe that it is one of the most skilful works which human intelligence ever created; is one of the most perfect organizations that ever governed a free people. To say that it has some defects is but to say that it is not the work of omniscience, but of human intellects. We are happily situated in having had the opportunity of watching its operation, seeing its working from its infancy till now. It was in the main formed on the model of the Constitution of Great Britain, adapted to the circumstances of a new country, and was perhaps the only practicable system that could have been adopted under the circumstances existing at the time of its formation. We can now take advantage of the experience of the last seventy-eight years during which that Constitution has existed, and I am strongly in the belief that we have in a great measure avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution.

In the first place, by a resolution which meets with the universal approval of the people of this country, we have provided that for all time to come, so far as we can legislate for the future, we shall have as the head of the executive power the Sovereign of Great Britain. No one can look into futurity and say what will be the destiny of this country. Changes come over nations and peoples in the course of ages. But so far as we can legislate we provide that for all time to come the Sovereign of Great Britain shall be the Sovereign of British North America. By adhering to the monarchical principle we avoid one defect inherent in the Constitution of the United States. By the election of the president by a majority and for a short period, he never is the Sovereign and Chief of the Nation. He is never looked up to by the whole people as the head and front of the nation. He is at best but the successful leader of a party. This defect is all the greater on account of the practise of reelection. During his first term of office he is employed in taking steps to secure his own reelection, and for his party a continuance of power. We avoid this by adhering to the monarchical principle - the sovereign whom you respect and love. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to have that principle recognized so that we shall have a Sovereign who is placed above the region of party - to whom all parties look up; who is not elevated by the action of one party nor depressed by the action of another; who is the common head and sovereign of all.

With us the Sovereign, or in this country the representative of the Sovereign, can act only on the advice of his ministers, those ministers being responsible to the people through Parliament. Prior to the formation of the American Union, as we all know, the different States which entered into it were separate Colonies. They had no connection with each other further than that of having a common sovereign, just as with us at present. Their constitutions and their laws were different. They might and did legislate against each other, and when they revolted against the mother country they acted as separate sovereignties and carried on the war by a kind of treaty of alliance against the common enemy. Ever since the Union was formed, the difficulty of what is called "States rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each State was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each State, except those powers which by the Constitution were conferred upon the general government and Congress.

Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the general government. We have given the general legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures shall be conferred upon the general government and legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out, as it will be in full detail in the Imperial act to be passed if the colonies adopt the scheme, we will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with at the same time the guaranties for local institutions and for local laws which are insisted upon by so many in the Provinces now, I hope, to be united.

I think it is well that in framing our Constitution our first act should have been to recognize the sovereignty of Her Majesty. I believe that while England has no desire to lose her Colonies, but wishes to retain them - while I am satisfied that the public mind of England would deeply regret the loss of these Provinces - yet, if the people of British North America, after full deliberation, had stated that they considered it was for their interest, for the advantage of the future British North America, to sever the tie, such is the generosity of the people of England that, whatever their desire to keep these Colonies, they would not seek to compel us to remain unwilling subjects of the British Crown. If, therefore, at the conference, we had arrived at the conclusion that it was for the interest of these Provinces that a severance should take place, I am sure that Her Majesty and the Imperial Parliament would have sanctioned that severance. We accordingly felt that there was a propriety in giving a distinct declaration of opinion on that point, and that in framing the Constitution its first sentence should declare that - The executive authority or government shall be vested in the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and be administered according to the well-understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign personally, or by the representative of the Sovereign duly authorized."

nb: Delivered in the Parliament of the United Province of Canada in February, 1865, Macdonald (not yet Knighted) being then Attorney-General. Two years later, when the Union was effected, he became the first Prime Minister of the new Dominion of Canada.

web source

Popes, Queens and Tony Blair

2006-10-31T10:33:00.000-05:00

I learned much from this fascinating interview with Dr. David Starkey, Britain's gay Tory Protestant atheist monarchist historian (yes, you read that right) over at Pink News, even though I've been watching his television programs on the Tudor monarchs for years. Bottom line from "Britain's rudest man" is that monarchy will probably go on into the 22nd century “Because most of us have decided that politicians of what- ever stripe are such absolute awful shits, the monarchy looks to be quite safe just by way of a reaction against that.”

“If you are dealing with monarchical regimes, the personal is the political, as indeed it is within quasi-monarchical regimes like New Labour or Bush’s White House. They are not dead, I only wish court studies were dead, but they are alive and horribly well...Back in 1997 when Tony Blair was still fresh and washed behind the ears, it looked to be really quite at risk. Once that insidious sense of betrayal and dishonesty and warmongering became attached to Labour politicians then republicanism, which has never really been a significant movement in Britain, fades away again.”

His support of the Pope (remember, he's a "Protestant atheist") in the dispute with Islam is also noteworthy:

The tension between Western and Muslim values has become a major issue in recent years, and Starkey surprises me by being broadly supportive of the controversial comments made by Pope Benedict about the nature of Islam.

While pointing out that the Catholic Church has a lot of apologising to do before it starts to point the finger at Islam, citing the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Latin America among the many sins of the Roman Church, Dr Starkey thinks that Benedict’s point about the nature of Islam is correct.

“There is nothing in Islam that corresponds to “turn the other cheek”, to the pacifism that I think is the authentic tradition of the New Testament. “Islam spreads in a completely different way from Christianity, which spread through the Roman Empire by conversion and an almost willing acceptance of persecution. “Islam spreads by conquest. Mohammed even conquers Mecca. Also it has a very clear doctrine of holy war, and it does not make a distinction between church and state.

“Jesus, living under the Roman occupation, gave us the famous phrase: ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. That does not exist in Islam and I would argue that that distinction is the key to why Christianity and progress are so closely related.

“The separation of church and state is the spirit of freedom. It is somewhere that we can escape from the crushing weight of authority. This is why I think the history of Western Europe is a history of progress and the history of Islam is not.”

English-speaking nationalisms are not collectivist

2006-10-30T23:15:00.000-05:00

I know I link to this Kipling blog a lot, but their writings on history, politics, economics and philosophy are deserving of weekly attention. Nationalism is not a good thing they argue most recently, because as a collectivist ideology it essentially promotes a closed and culturally insecure society that is not confidently based on the talents, energy and character of the individuals who make it up. The nationalisms of the English-speaking countries are different, however:

"Nationalism in the English speaking world is an ambiguous term. The American naval commander Stephen Decatur's quote "My country right or wrong," is one part. The other part is captured by G.K. Chesterton's observation that: "My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" Quebec nationalists, like nationalists in most parts of the world, ascribe to the Decatur version of nationalism. The various English speaking nationalisms lean more toward the Chesterton approach. Certainly these nationalisms were guilty of bigotry, but that was not their overall tenor. These were cultures that welcomed, in time, immigrants from every nation and creed on earth. New York City, a century ago was more culturally diverse than any European city before or since. Toronto today is more so than any city in Asia, Africa or Latin America. At the heart of English nationalism is individualism, the belief that the character, talents and judgment of an individual override the accidents of birth and even upbringing. This is not the belief of Quebec nationalism, or of many of the groups that have come to settle Canada. Certainly they are atavistic in this, but their sin is not being out of step with an era dominated by the Anglo-Saxon spirit, it is in rejecting human nature and reason."

Lord Absurd

2006-10-30T12:26:00.000-05:00

Our absurd state of affairs is not so absurd when you consider the absurdity of the alternatives. And there is nothing so hypocritically absurd as an egalitarian Lord, a life peer yelping about unaccountable privilege - thankfully, many of the commentors following the article happily tear the author, The Lord Baron Roy Hattersley, a new one:

"Lord Roy, you chippy hypocrite. Please explain why you accepted a no doubt lucrative seat in that ultimate bastion of unaccountable privilege, namely the House of Lords. Especially after a political career as undistinguished as your own. Patronage favours people of all classes Woy."

Oh, some of the comments are good.

2006-10-30T11:22:00.000-05:00

So long to a fair and middling monarchist. May God grant his witty soul eternal life.

"Counter the Asian termites with a US-Nato free trade zone"

2006-10-29T07:08:00.000-05:00

I'm currently getting through Huntington's The Clash of Civilisations and found this article in today’s Der Spiegel à propos. According to it, the US and Europe must join forces to combat Asia, specifically China and India. A US-Nato free trade zone will allow us to insist on fair and open trade policies. Even more importantly, European and US cultures will converge at a time when we seem to be drifting apart while stimulating both economies on either side of the Atlantic.

Even if no one is prepared to say it outright, there are signs of a similar indifference to Western values all across Asia. But it is precisely that unspoken that separates the two worlds. Free labour unions are neither vilified nor permitted. Lip service is paid to the environment as something that should be protected, but at the same time it is torn apart like a car in a wrecking yard. Child labour is condemned even as it is actively tolerated. And a whole range of laws exist to protect Western intellectual property, but those rules are seldom applied.
The Asian elite politely brush off everything that matters to us -- the social framework surrounding daily working life, the idea of individual achievement and state-guaranteed fair competition. What we see as essential characteristics of a civilised society, they see as nothing more than bourgeois niceties.

All the more need to encourage the development of the Anglosphere.

The British Empire, 50 years dead

2006-10-29T01:04:00.000-05:00

50 years ago today, October 29, 1956, British and French-backed Israel invaded the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula and made rapid progress towards the Suez Canal. It was the beginning of the Suez Crisis, a response to Nasser's nationalization of the Canal against Western shipping interests. The disunited response - British, French, American and Canadian - turned into a collosal strategic error by the West that emboldened the Soviet Union; put the death knell into two imperial powers that gravely undermined the Nato alliance, of which France later left; fueled pan Arab hostility towards Israel in the Middle East that continues to this day; and gave the embryonic United Nations an active role in international affairs. Eisenhower later admitted, after retiring from office, that it was the biggest foreign policy mistake he made in office. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies, but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world.

This blog will of course observe sentimentally the passing of an empire, and sadly upon that day when Menzies of Australia and St. Laurent of Canada rebuked the mother country for Eden's presumption that the Commonwealth was automatically onside with Britain. But that is nothing compared to the embarrassing Canadian myth that considers this the highpoint of our historical national achievement; that we could be good honest brokers in the world with our Noble Prize winning invention, UN Peacekeeping. For what we began to lose after Korea was our country's soul, our values stemming from knowing what was right and wrong, instead of an independent and de facto neutral foreign policy that got us and the world nowheres. The British Empire, for all of its colonial paternalism, at least advanced a good chunk of the unsettled and uncivilized world in its own successful image.

2006-10-29T00:15:00.000-04:00

Just back from holidays in Beautiful British Columbia. My blogging absence has also been a product of my being involved in something of a dispute in New Brunswick, on the other side of the country, which I hope to settle in the near future. I am tickled though that my splurge of hiring of a few more Lordships prior to my absence is finally beginning to pay off, so thank you gentlemen for filling the void. But we need more. If you are interested in scribbling for The Monarchist, kindly send an email to themonarchist@rogers.com

Canada: Officer fights military over allegiance to Queen

2006-10-28T18:56:00.000-04:00

An officer in the Canadian Forces is suing Canada’s top soldier over a “degrading” policy that requires members of the military to toast the Queen and salute during the anthem, God Save the Queen.

Capt. Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (scroll down the faculty list to arrive at his email address), an associate professor of physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston... wants a court to overturn the requirement for Forces members to publicly display their loyalty to the British monarchy.

Canadian Monarchy. Not amused!

You might, as a military officer, wish to express your unity with those who served Canada during a particular war, but (not) . . . the obligation to recognize a foreign monarch as having a situation of authority over the Canadian Armed Forces."

What foreign Monarch?

The oath requires new members to swear they will be "be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada." The allegiance is paid to the Queen as head of state, not as head of the Canadian military. The Governor General, as the Queen's representative in Canada, is the commander-in chief of the Canadian Forces.

Representing the Queen of Canada as Head of the Armed Forces does not make him/her actual Head of the Armed Forces.

The allegiance may be contrary to his belief, but it is a fact that the Queen is not a foreign monarch and has been and remains the head of state for Canada.

Look at it this way: say I am an officer in the military and I voted for the Liberal party, then the Conservative party won the election. Should I be able to refuse to serve the federal government because I do not like who is in charge of it?

As "An angry rant" said "If a Member of Parliament has a problem with respecting the traditions of Parliament and the very structure of the Canadian political system, do not run for office. If a new citizen does not want to swear an oath to the Queen, move somewhere else and if a soldier cannot force himself to toast the Queen over a pint in the Officers club send him to Afghanistan where he may find he has more pressing things to occupy his thoughts."

Postscript: Captain Chainnigh, Assistant Professor of Physics at RMC can be reached at: kenny-h@rmc.ca (just scroll down the faculty list).

Prince Philip's surprise visit to Southern Iraq

2006-10-27T02:09:00.000-04:00

His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, Field Marshal of the British Army, made a surprise visit to British troops near the southern Iraqi city of Basra on Sunday.

The 85-year-old met soldiers from The Queen's Royal Hussars in his role as the regiment's colonel-in-chief.

Prince Philip told the troops he thought most people in Britain had "a great deal of sympathy for those of you at the sharp end who are trying to do your best to make life civilised and tolerable for the locals".

"And I'm quite sure that a great many locals do very much appreciate what you are trying to do for them…You have done a fantastic job, and I hope you all get home safely and have some well-earned leave."

The duke - sporting a desert combat uniform - spent six hours on the ground in Iraq, meeting troops and being briefed on the current situation by senior officers.

It was the prince's first visit to see British forces in Iraq and follows a trip by his daughter, the Princess Royal, to meet troops in Afghanistan.

The visit came just two days after he finished a whirlwind trip to the Baltics with the Queen.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "He wanted to visit the troops and show his support and praise their achievements."

One of the soldiers, L/ Cpl Dean Munn, 22, from Redditch, said: "It's good to see him out here in these hard conditions, taking the time to see us and how we're doing." During the visit the prince presented five promoted soldiers with new rank slides.

The Queen's Royal Hussars have been conducting anti-smuggling patrols along Maysan Province's isolated border with Iran.

They are set to finish their six-and-a-half month posting in a few weeks time.

Hat Tip: Holden Republic

George Galloway endorses David Cameron

2006-10-27T00:17:00.000-04:00

Oh. My. God. A measure of just how far the British Tories have fallen.

To the Immortal Memory of Lord Nelson

2006-10-27T00:08:00.000-04:00

Oh bloody hell. October 21st has come and gone, and I forgot to mention my namesake, after all that I put into last year's 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. The Monarchist has catalogued all my 27 posts here, which followed events as they unfolded down to the minute, exactly as they occurred 200 years ago (201 years now) off of Cadiz, Spain. It was as if I was there myself:

"May the Great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country, and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious Victory; and may no misconduct in any one tarnish it; and may humanity after Victory be the predominant feature in the British Fleet. For myself, individually, I commit my life to Him who made me, and may his blessing light upon my endeavours for serving my Country faithfully. To Him I resign myself and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen. Amen. Amen."

New flag for my room

2006-10-25T07:20:00.000-04:00

Too overworked at the moment to write a proper article; I think the Chinese regime has blocked all sites with 'blog' in the title because the only way I could access this site was through an illegal proxy server. Just wanted to share my latest acquisition with you all- a 1943 Canadian Victory loan flag, the fourth of nine produced during WWII. Each one had a different badge and motto; this one's was 'Back the Attack.' Got it today from a Swedish (!) enthusiast of the Empire and her flags to remind me of a time when Canadians were fighting a war they entered from day one to fight aggression and evil while the Americans waited to be attacked...

2006-10-21T23:42:00.000-04:00

Are people losing interest in the British Monarchy? Not if you consider the popularity of Her Majesty's official website: 13 million visits and 78 million page views per year! So much for the theory that monarchy is irrelevant in this day and age. The Queen still captivates our attention by the droves.

Lord Harris of High Cross (1924-2006)

2006-10-20T11:17:00.000-04:00

The architect of Thatcherism and a founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs suddenly died yesterday (photo right of His Lordship in the House of Lords taken just the day before). Albion's Seedlings has the passing of a great man:

"Ralph Harris was one of the people responsible for the intellectual underpinning of the Thatcherite revolution. His colleague, Arthur Seldon, died last year. (And, by a strange coincidence, I attended yesterday the memorial meeting for Sir Alfred Sherman, a somewhat more controversial figure but one whose achievements must not be overlooked. Lady Thatcher was present, looking fragile but well.) Sadly, that generation is going and we shall all be the poorer for it.

I have known Ralph since my late teens (though he actually thought he had known me as a young child) as my father attended the IEA lunches in the late sixties and early seventies, when their ideas were generally considered to be a brand of harmless lunacy at best. Even in those days Ralph cultivated his persona of the Edwardian gentleman, hats, moustaches, waistcoats and walking sticks included.

What mattered above all was not his mannerism, not even his fantastically ebullient personality – nobody could ever forget Ralph even after a brief meeting – but his hard-headed approach to Britain’s problems. Neither he nor Arthur Seldon would have been welcomed in the wishy-washy, condescending tory-toff Conservative Party of David Cameron..."

2006-10-19T10:53:00.000-04:00

Her Majesty The Queen, our collective Commander-in-Chief, has now lost over 200 Commonwealth soldiers in the 'War on Terror': 119 Britons in Iraq, 42 Canadians in Afstan, 40 Britons in Afstan, 2 Australians in Iraq, 1 Australian in Afstan and 1 Canadian serving in Lebanon during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

A Great Big White Waste of Time?

2006-10-18T15:26:00.000-04:00

ROY MacGREGOR believes Tony Blair is Johnny-Come-Lately to the whole Commonwealth vision thing:

"This is the way it is when you live in a country that still bites its nails.

Someone pays the slightest attention, and you can't stop shaking for excitement.

Tony Blair says its time for Britain and Canada to renew their magnificent historic relationship, time to throw their arms around each other once again and apologize for any past, unintentional neglect.

“The trouble with the good relationships in the world,” the British Prime Minister told a group of Canadian businessmen and businesswomen in London on Monday, “is that, if you're not careful, you spend little time actually celebrating and focusing on them precisely because they're good.”

Blair seemed actually nostalgic for the old Commonwealth relationship — pink maps, anyone? — and said it's time to renew those old bonds that inadvertently became strained and stretched over the years by such matters as the European Union, Canada's increasing fall into the magnetic draw of the United States and a slight disagreement over the importance of racing off to Iraq to find those Weapons of Mass Destruction — or was it Mass Delusion?

The British Prime Minister spoke of a “whole new horizon” opening up between his country and this country, those strained bonds tightening over trade and energy and environmental concerns and our common goals in Afghanistan. He did not, of course, add that those common goals, given the way public opinion seems to be turning and twisting in both countries, may soon be to get out.

All this attention is admittedly a bit of a shock to a country that got used to being called “The Great White Waste of Time” by British newspapers.

That Canada still feels something strong for Britain is irrefutable — just check out the theatre lines trying to get in to see The Queen these days. A Royal Tour in Canada is still a sight to behold, the crowds deep, the Union Jacks out and even a few hearty and loud renditions of God Save the Queen by people who still don't know the words to their own national anthem.

But when Tony Blair starts talking about the past as if it was always a wonderful, warm and caring relationship — once like a parent and child, then like equal partners — don't be fooled. A great many Canadians might have always felt very strongly about the British connection, and Britain certainly appreciated Canada in times of war, but the historical record suggests it has all been far more of a one-way street (or voyage) than perhaps the British Prime Minister realizes.

Many years ago, the late, great historian W. L. Morton gave a series of lectures at the University of Wisconsin in which he pretty much hammered Britain for a lack of interest that, ultimately, determined the fate of this Great White/Pink/Green Time Share that has been Canada's history.

Following the War of Independence, Morton claimed, the exhausted British simply wanted peace at any cost, details unimportant. John Jay of New York, negotiating for the victorious colonies, proposed cutting North America right along the 45th parallel, basically giving “Canada” a slice of Maine and various portions of what is today Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

The “United States,” on the other hand, would have ended up with Toronto and Ontario's rich Golden Horseshoe.

(Although, when you think of it, had this happened there would probably be no Golden Horseshoe, with its strategically-based manufacturing economy aimed at the southern markets. And as for the Centre of the Universe, it would more likely to be found along the banks of the Mississippi than the shores of Lake Ontario.) Had Jay's suggestion been picked up, Morton argued, and if all that rich land had gone to what would become “Canada,” then he believed that the new “Canadian” territory, “if populated, spelled continental supremacy in America.” The British, however, thought it wiser to follow the water line and then consider the 49th parallel a more appropriate split. In choosing the higher ground, Morton concluded, Britain doomed Canada to be “the country of the northern economy,” and continental supremacy went south.

It could actually have been even worse. At an earlier peace conference in 1763 that put an end to the Seven Years' War, there had been popular pressure in England to hand “Canada” back to France in return for Guadeloupe.

Guadeloupe, after all, had sugar and rum.

“The British,” novelist Hugh MacLennan once said of this pivotal moment in our history, “were so ignorant of North American geography they did not understand what they were giving away, and they had invited no Canadians to the conference who might have told them.” Prime Minister Blair, to give him his due, foresees a wonderful old relationship rekindled, one that is based on mutual concerns around the world, close friendship with the United States and shared “values that should inform globalization.” He also sees peace coming to the Middle East before he leaves office some time in 2007.

It's hard to say which one is the better bet."

Another Lesson from the Gods

2006-10-17T17:15:00.000-04:00

The Gods of the Copybook Headings continue to impress: (I find myself forced to copy much, given that the relevant chunks are lost within the span of a rather long permalink. My apologies to the Gods)

"One of the treads that binds the modern Right is a respect for tradition and history. The past, observed Edward Gibbon, is "little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." The modern Left's spin on this is that the register should be read along racial and class lines, a list of grievances to be used in mixed economy horse trading...

It's sometimes forgotten that Edmund Burke was a man of the Left, though the term would gain currency only after 1789. A staunch Whig, he was no admirer of George III, and walked very close to treason in backing the American rebels. Contrary to what some of his biographers, and devout enemies, would like us to believe he did not convert to conservatism, he was always the same. What changed were the times. The more radical Whigs, from perhaps the 1760s onward, adopted the fatal conceit of the continental Enlightenment, rationality without empiricism and its corollary materialism without spirituality. All the elements of the modern Left are present in that summation. A rationality that from first principles deduces elaborate theories of human behaviour, never descending to the level of data. Evidence of such an approach can be seen in the ruins of numerous "planned economies" and countless public housing projects.

More grimly we see a materialism without spirituality, a vision of man as a hunk of meat moved by instinct, bereft not only of free will, and necessarily freedom, but ultimately of humanity itself. Burke, in contrast, was a perfect representative of the 18th century English mind. Deeply suspicious of abstract theories, perhaps too much so, it functioned by a kind of rough empiricism and simplified Christianity. English intellectuals of the late 17th century had seen the Cartesian alternative that was developing to the Catholic Church. Going forward along this road they sensed something danger. Their strange little island had thrived as far as it had by chance. Their ancestors had made mistakes; the generations that had followed had striven to avoid repeating those mistakes. Even their faith was, by historical accident, pragmatic. The Anglican Church makes sense only as an English Church born of English circumstances. Its theology is otherwise inexplicable. This makes it no less worthy or effective a church, merely more historical than most.

This famous English pragmatism was not so much an eschewing of principles as prudent skepticism toward principles. Let's see what "works." What "works" is a loaded question however. What works depends on your values. Feudalism, Fascism and Communism "worked" too. Here the English, perhaps more so than other people, fell back, ironically, upon the greatest of Catholic Church Fathers, Aquinas. Here was a nexus of reason and faith that opposed both Platonic rationalism on the one hand and superstition on the other. The English were pragmatists within a Thomistic context. A good English compromise is only good and English when it presupposes certain values. Our Canadian aversion to extremes comes from this English belief in compromise. Like the English we sometimes forget that compromise "works" only within a context.

Those on the Right sometimes forget this, opposing all change, or opposing change on crude reactionary grounds. Compromise and change may be necessary within a context. In issues like marriage, if the vice of the Left is to drop context and denounce all values; the vice of the Right has been to focus on the Left's folly. That focus on the other guy's dumb ideas sometimes suckers the Right into opposing change outright. This is because the Right has conceded to the Left a monopoly on change, specifically the idea of positive change: progress. The Right needs to re-define progress on its terms; prudent, historically minded and pragmatic in the best sense of the word."