The Prince of Wales celebrates 100 years of the 'Royal' Canadian Navy

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall visited Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, the Headquarters of the Canadian Pacific Fleet, in Victoria, British Columbia 9 November 2009 to mark the upcoming centennial of the Canadian Navy (1910-2010). Readers will know this is very dear to me, the navy there being my former occupation and home port. If you listen closely, he actually called it the Royal Canadian Navy.



His Royal Highness wore the uniform of a Canadian Vice-Admiral, which unlike its older equivalent in the Royal Navy, sadly lacks two rings of gold lace above the thick admiral braid, a fourth row of nautical buttons and the all-familiar Elliot's Eye. (It is worthy to note that almost all of the seagoing nations of the world wear the Elliot's Eye, except France, Canada and the United States).

The Prince told the guests about his time in the British Navy and how on a number of operations he served alongside Canadian sailors, including on his way back from a posting in the West Indies where he and the crew of his vessel received a warm welcome in Halifax.

During the event, dignitaries watched as one of the naval base's more prominent warships, HMCS Winnipeg, sailed past with all its crew stood on deck.

Read More »»

The Queen of Australia holds private audience with Trooper Mark Donaldson, VC

The Queen receives Trooper Mark Donaldson at Windsor Castle, 10 November 2009. The Australian soldier received the Victoria Cross, the military's highest honour, in January after displaying extraordinary gallantry under fire in the southern Afghan province of Oruzgan in September 2008.

Photo © Press Association

More from Professor David Flint.

Read More »»

Col. Cy Peck, VC

A Canadian original:

Of United Empire Loyalists stock, Peck commanded the 16th (Canadian Scottish) Battalion in the First World War (a regiment that boasted four VC winners), and led his unit from the front in 10 major battles of the Great War with his personal piper at his side.
When the 16th Battalion left Vancouver for France in 1915, its strength was 1,125 all ranks.

With reinforcements, the unit suffered 1,412 killed and 3,292 wounded in 3½ years of fighting — a toll that puts our casualties after seven years in Afghanistan into perspective.

Cy Peck’s story is told in a new book by his son, Edward. Titled simply Cy Peck, VC: A Biography of a Legendary Canadian(itls), it’s a short book (210 pages) available at Chapters/Indigo or www.cefbooks.ca).

What’s unusual about Peck, as colonel of the regiment, is not only fearlessness (leading his men under heavy machinegun fire and pointing out targets for tanks), but at age 47 he was the oldest Canadian ever to win the VC.

Bravery on the battlefield matched with moral courage:

Peck finally reported for duty in Parliament on March 4, 1919, taking his seat as the member for Skeena. He arrived just in time to hear Sir Sam Hughes, the ousted minister of defence, attack Sir Arthur Currie, the former Victoria school teacher who had led the Canadian corps from June 1917 to the end of the war.

That brought out the warrior in Peck, and his maiden speech as an MP was in defence of Currie, who was respected by the men who had served under him. Peck's speech was eloquent and from the heart, dealing with Currie's decisions, the accuracy of Hughes' attack and the high price of war.

It included these words:

"There are thousands of bleeding hearts that will never be healed; thousands of mothers, fathers, sisters, wives and sweethearts who are listening in vain for that footfall upon the garden path that will never sound again."

Read More »»

Their Lordships

The Monarchist reported a couple of weeks ago on the 10^th anniversary of Their Lordships' approval of the House of Lords Act 1999.

The House of Lords Chamber

Today is the 10^th anniversary of this infamous act's Royal Assent.

November 11 is also the anniversary of the guns of the Great War falling silent, and thus it is the anniversary of the armed conflict part of the crusade to make the world safe for democracy. It was on this very same day that the Emperor of Austria signed a declaration of renunciation of power.

November 11 is too the anniversary of the famous quote from Winston Churchill:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Yet, few know that Winston Churchill was speaking against what would become Parliament Act 1949 in the speech that quote is from. Winston Churchill in that same speech explicitly supported the Parliament Act 1911, which he had been an active parliamentary supporter of at the time of its debate.

November 11 thus becomes an important date in democracy's march forward. Unfortunately, on that march, decency and liberty are at the boot heels.

Read More »»

Smoking Story about Queen Mary

Her Majesty the Queen Mary, Colonel-in-Chief of the Queen's Own Rifles
with Officers of the 1st Bn, Mandora Barracks, Aldershot, 10 September 1941.
This wonderful anecdotal story involving Queen Mary illustrates the close bond that the monarchy has maintained throughout history with Commonwealth regiments:

Queen Mary, widow of George V, was colonel-in-chief of the Queen's Own Rifles, and, immediately before the regiment's departure from England for the beaches of Normandy in June 1944, attended a dinner in their honour.

Steve Harris, chief historian at National Defence, remembers his father, Jack, an officer in the regiment at the time, telling him of the Queen's post-dinner cigarette.

"Queen Mary smoked," Harris says, "and there were the typical stamped metal 'Drink Moosehead Ale' ashtrays in the officers' mess.

"So there's this kind of tawdry blue-and-gold, metal ashtray," he continues. "It's after the dinner, they're going to have a cigarette, and that's the nearest ashtray. She begins to use it, and somebody — because they had one crystal ashtray — very quickly tried to replace the 'Drink Moosehead Ale' ashtray with the crystal one, and her answer was — and my father heard her say it:

'No ... if it's good enough for my soldiers, it's good enough for me.'"

Read More »»

First Sunday Remembrance without the sombre presence of Great War Veterans

Queen Elizabeth arrives at the Cenotaph with Prince Andrew, Prince William, Princess Anne, Prince Harry and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Members of the Royal family formed up to the left of the Cenotaph in Whitehall, Westminster, London, as part of the annual Remembrance Sunday service.


Her Majesty lays a wreath at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday, followed by the Lord's Prayer during a Remembrance day service and parade in Whitehall, London, 8 November 2009.


Standing in for father, Prince Harry makes his sombre debut at the Cenotaph and lays a wreath on behalf of Prince Charles, who is in Canada.


† Amen

Read More »»

On the Plains of Abraham

Desmond Morton takes a new look at 1759 and all that:

Were they? What about the Canadien militia, on their bellies on the battlefield? No one had told them to flee, though doubtless some did. The rest stood behind trees where they were, shooting, like Wolfe’s men, as fast as they could reload, and hitting their obvious targets. The Frasers, sent to annihilate Montcalm’s terrified regulars, were stopped, not just once but five times by the Canadiens. So were other regulars, sent under General James Murray to stop the French retreat. Thanks to the Canadiens, Montcalm’s regulars reformed their ranks at Beauport and marched to meet the Chevalier Lévis and the rest of the French army. They then withdrew to Montreal, leaving their militia comrades to fend for themselves. On Apr. 27, 1760, at the battle of Ste. Foy, they would take on Murray’s garrison in a return engagement. They would beat the British as convincingly as Wolfe had defeated Montcalm. If a French fleet had come up the St. Lawrence, the Battle on the Plains of Abraham would hardly be worth remembering. Quebec would be French.

Read More »»

The Prince of Wales in Toronto

Prince Charles, the future King of Canada, inspects the Toronto Scottish Regiment before a Presentation of Colours Ceremony in Toronto November 5, 2009. Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, are currently on a 11-day cross-country tour of the country. Below, His Royal Highness inspects the Royal Regiment of Canada, of which his is also Colonel-in-Chief.

Read More »»

Burial of the Unknown Warrior

King George V arriving at Westminster Abbey for the burial of the unknown soldier, the unknown British warrior who represents all the Fallen of World War One, 11 November 1920. On the second anniversary of the armistice, the Unknown Warrior was drawn in procession to the Cenotaph. This national war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by His Majesty. At 11.00am there was a two minutes silence and the body was subsequently taken to Westminster Abbey for burial. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother laid her wedding bouquet on the grave at her marriage service in 1923, a tradition followed by Princess Elizabeth who sent her bouquet to be laid on the grave the day after her wedding in 1947.

Photo © Press Association

Read More »»

O Valiant Hearts

Thanks to Padre Benton at Piddingworth for "the hymn of our grandfathers & fathers following World War One, presented with the shadows of war amid the cemeteries & cenotaphs that hallow their sacrifice. A haunting reminder of the legacy of the generations whose 'name liveth forever' even as, in this generation, so many more 'valiant hearts' go to war."

Read More »»

Abide With Me

Read More »»

Has the Palace decided the republicans are toast?

Friday the 6th of November marks the 10th anniversary since the referendum proposal to abolish the monarchy in Australia was defeated. Herewith a few points on the prospects for the monarchy in Australia going forward.

But before we do, it is important to remember the seriousness of the defeat that republicanism faced at the referendum in 1999. If you have a passing interest in Australian psephology, I strongly recommend this article on the referendum results by leading electoral analyst Malcolm Mackerras here. Additionally, this article explains the propensity of Australians to vote “no” – regardless of the issue at hand.

That was ten years ago. So what lies ahead for the monarchy in Australia?

First, republicans know they don’t have a model that they know can win. They know that a president chosen by politicians is a vote loser. But they seem unwilling to commit to a president chosen by popular vote. Why? Because such a change would be even more radical than the 1999 proposal – and would probably go down to a substantial defeat after being subjected to the white heat of a referendum campaign. Direct election is apparently popular now – but other referenda proposals have had high levels of support that evaporated in the lead-up to a vote. This conundrum ties the republicans up in knots.

There is also no political will to revisit the issue. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull (both republicans) have said that the issue is not a priority. In fact Turnbull has gone further by saying that the time is not right for a republic during the reign of the present Queen. This policy shift by Turnbull – who led the republicans before and during the 1999 campaign – is extraordinary.

Even then, as retired Major-General Mike Keating, head of the Australian Republican Movement says: "…if Charles and Camilla take over, the old Aussie ethos will say: he's in there now and maybe he won't be such a big dolt now that he's the monarch; it's only a fair thing to give the man a go …"

Finally, I have my own theory. Despite having a notionally republican Prime Minister, we have had a large number of royal visits this year. In January, we expect Prince William on a brief tour of Sydney and Melbourne. It has been reported that Prince William’s visit is his own initiative, and was then approved by Rudd’s office. Usually royal visits are at the initiative of the government at the day, but this one has come from Buckingham Palace. Why? Because I think the Palace now believes that due to the reasons above, if all things remain equal, William will almost certainly be the King of Australia one day, regardless of the government of the day. Pleasingly, it seems the Windsors are on the verge of returning to a normal transmission – of sorts.

Read More »»

Remember, Remember the 6th of November

The antipodean hills are alive with the sound of republican defeat on the 10th anniversary of Australia's referendum to depose the Queen. Her Majesty won a resounding mandate, handily taking every state in a contested result that politicians can only dream of matching at the ballot box.

A plethora of media articles commemorating the 10th Anniversary are listed below:

Australia has stuck us with the Queen
Toronto Star - Martin Regg Cohn - ‎Nov 3, 2009‎
I would like nothing more than to dump a head of state who lives in another state, a multi-tasking Queen who reigns over 15 other sovereign countries. ...
Ten years after the referendum, we are no closer to a republic
The Australian - Mike Steketee - ‎Oct 30, 2009‎
TEN years ago republican campaigner Phil Cleary celebrated a glorious referendum defeat by saying that "very soon" Australians would have the republic they ...
On her own head
Sydney Morning Herald - ‎Oct 30, 2009‎
After 10 years in the wilderness, the republican movement is looking for a way out of the woods. David Marr reports. On the day of her death, flags will be ...
A statement Australians need to make
The Age - ‎1 hour ago‎
TEN years after the defeat of the referendum on the subject, the Australian republic has come to resemble spelling reform. A good idea, many will agree ...
'Most Australians' Would Dethrone Queen
Sky News - ‎5 hours ago‎
Ten years to the day since Australians voted to keep the Queen as head of state, a new opinion poll suggests that 59% of them now want a republic. ...
Anniversary reignites debate over Australia becoming a republic
Times Online - ‎5 hours ago‎
The debate over whether Australia should keep the Queen as head of state was reopened today, ten years to the day after the country voted against the idea ...
Republicans call for new referendum
The Age - Julian Drape - ‎7 hours ago‎
A leading republican says hardcore monarchists are a dying breed, but if a rally in Canberra is any guide, the push for an Australian head of state is a ...
Republican fires still burning a decade on
ABC Online - ‎20 hours ago‎
A decade on from a referendum defeat, republicans are again calling for a change to Australia's constitution. On November 6, 1999, almost 55 per cent of ...
Ten years on, republic rivals maintain the rage
Sydney Morning Herald - Phillip Coorey, Damien Murphy - ‎Nov 5, 2009‎
THE awkward relationship between Malcolm Turnbull and Nick Minchin is unlikely to be improved by Senator Minchin celebrating today's 10th anniversary of the ...
Direct election way to go on republic, says Keneally
The Age - Misha Schubert, Damien Murphy - ‎Nov 5, 2009‎
TEN years after the defeat of the republic referendum, leading ''Yes'' campaigner Tom Keneally says it was a mistake for the republican movement not to ...
It's time to grow up, and revive the republican cause
Sydney Morning Herald - ‎Nov 5, 2009‎
NATIONS tend to be spoken of as if they were individuals, marching through a lifetime of experience. The narrative is one of progression; nations are born, ...
No republic while Queen on throne: Howard
Sydney Morning Herald - Damien Murphy - ‎Nov 4, 2009‎
There would be no Australian republic while the Queen remained on the throne, former prime minister John Howard said today. Speaking in Sydney, Mr Howard ...
Republic not a priority for Rudd
The Age - ‎Nov 4, 2009‎
Kevin Rudd hasn't given republicans much hope that Friday's anniversary of the 1999 referendum defeat could kickstart a new republic push. ...
Republic debate expected
Sky News Australia - ‎17 hours ago‎
Debate over whether to become a republic is expected to flare again with today marking the 10th anniversary of the referendum defeat. ...
Unpalatable choice sank the republic
WA today - Ray Cassin - ‎Nov 5, 2009‎
WHOSE fault is it that Australia is not a republic? Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, who led the Australian Republican Movement (ARM) on this date 10 ...
Less passion now for republic: Howard
NEWS.com.au - ‎Nov 4, 2009‎
Australians are less passionate about a republic now than they were during the 1999 referendum, former prime minister John Howard says. ...
Now is not time for republic - Turnbull
NEWS.com.au - ‎Nov 4, 2009‎
THE end of the Queen's reign will be the best time to restart the republic debate in Australia, Federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says. ...
Leaders challenged on republic debate
Sky News Australia - ‎15 hours ago‎
There are very few hard-core monarchists left in Australia and they are dying off every day, a prominent republican says. Friday marks the 10th anniversary ...
10th Anniversary of Republic defeat
Sky News Australia - ‎14 hours ago‎
And even if it was, our political leaders, republicans tried and true, are in no hurry to put the heart surgery of constitutional change back on the agenda. ...

Read More »»

Field of Remembrance

The Duke of Edinburgh stands before the Field of Remembrance at Westminster Abbey after formally opening it by placing the first cross, 5 November 2009. The crosses represent fallen soldiers and are placed in the field by veterans, dignitaries and members of the public.


The scene at Westminster Abbey where a sea of 30,000 crosses covered the Field of Remembrance


© Press Association † Amen

Read More »»

Shall Never Be Forgot

ALMIGHTY God, who hast in all ages shewed thy power and mercy in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of thy Church, and in the protection of righteous and religious Kings and States, professing thy holy and eternal truth, from the wicked conspiracies and malicious practices of all the enemies thereof; We yield thee our unfeigned thanks and praise for the wonderful and mighty deliverance of our gracious Sovereign King James the First, the Queen, the Prince, and all the Royal Branches, with the Nobility, Clergy and Commons of England, then assembled in Parliament, by Popish treachery appointed as sheep to the slaughter, in a most barbarous and savage manner, beyond the examples of former ages. From this unnatural conspiracy, not our merit, but thy mercy; not our foresight, but thy providence, delivered us: And therefore not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be ascribed all honour and glory, in all Churches of the Saints, from generation to generation, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

—A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving; to be used yearly upon the Fifth Day of November for the happy Deliverance of King James the First, and the Three Estates of England, from the most traiterous and bloody-intended Massacre by Gunpowder

Read More »»

First Moncton, Then the World

Quot'd points to 1920s and 1930s era Canadian and American defense plans, in case either of us decided to invade the other

The main zones of operation discussed in the plan are:

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick:

Occupying Halifax, following a poison gas first strike, would deny the British a major naval base and cut links between Britain and Canada.

The plan considers several land and sea options for the attack and concludes that a landing at St. Margarets Bay, a then undeveloped bay near Halifax, would be superior to a direct assault on the longer overland route.

Failing to take Halifax, the U.S. could occupy New Brunswick by land cut Nova Scotia off from the rest of Canada at the key railway junction at Moncton.

Imagine, Moncton might have been the key to the British Empire. Though how American politicians would have explained to the public invading a country one-tenth their size, with an army smaller than the New York City Police force, is not explained. Images of anti-war protesters flooding the Mall in Washington with signs reading: "No Blood for Maple Syrup!" or "Coolidge=Kaiser" or "Make Hockey Not War."

The rationale for the plan was that Japan and Britain were allies. In event of war between the United States and Japan, Britain would be at war with America. It's highly unlikely Britain would have risked war with America over the Japanese alliance. It's even less likely the Canadian government would have allowed itself be dragged into an incredibly stupid war. The Canadian defense plan was even more outlandish, we would have launched a surprise invasion of the northern United States.

Read More »»

Dave's Churchillian moment: The United Kingdom will now be pushed all the way into the cesspit of continental European integration

We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality...but we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. — Winston Churchill, 1946

Oh, what a hopeless romantic Churchill appears in retrospect. Britain does not have its own dream or task in the world today; the great global British project has been replaced by a continental European one instead. Britain is no longer just in Europe, of Europe and for Europe, they are now under Europe too, thanks to the undemocratically deceitful handiwork of their political masters. They are not merely interested or associated or linked; but combined, absorbed, entrenched and entangled, perhaps now, irretrievably. With the passing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the United Kingdom will now be pushed all the way into the cesspool of continental European integration.

And for what? Is it really possible to suppose that whatever integrated Europe could ever evolve from the cesspit of unrepresentative and irresponsible corruption, of undemocratic, anti-Christian, weak-at-the-knees bureaucratic paralysis, that currently defines its governmental apparatus; could possibly be better for Britain, than what Great Britain has evolved for itself over the course of a thousand years?

For the life of me, I cannot think of one single net positive likely outcome of this effort. Britain has, throughout its history, been secured as the constant incubator of civil liberties, parliamentary democracy and liberal economy; by the distance which it has physically enjoyed, and which it has strategically, politically and militarily nurtured; from the continent of Europe. What circumstances have changed, that should conspire to direct Britain's core interests and decisions in precisely the opposite direction from the compass north it has observed throughout its entire history, I know not.

In this respect, I ask the exactly same question as Sir Winston Churchill in his speech of March, 1936 to the Conservative Backbench Foreign Affairs Committee. In that speech, Churchill pointed out that throughout the course of almost four centuries, and in the face of four successive mortal threats to its free security from a rising and belligerent continental power (Philip II's Spain, Louis XIV's and Napoleon I's France, and Wilhem II's Germany), Britain always chose the hard but correct path of steadfast opposition to the power which - animated by principles vastly different from those of liberal Britain - could and would, in victory and in the achievement of hegemony, only diminish or destroy Britain's essence. Churchill asked: what has changed, that we should, in 1936, regard our proper response to the rising power of Adolf Hitler's Germany in a different manner?

The answer was, of course, nothing at all; and that Churchill was able to persuade his fellow countrymen of that fact, changed the course of history for the immeasurably better.

What was true in 1936 is, in my view, true today. That is not to suggest for a moment that there is any country or power on the continent of Europe today, which constitutes a belligerent and militaristic threat to Great Britain in the classical sense. Most European countries are today, at least nominally, liberal democracies. I suppose it is this very fact which leads many in Britain to think that the magnetic north pole of Britain's strategic self-interest has moved, and that that move justifies a submersion of Britain's hard-won independence and long-evolved institutions, into a European institutional hodge-podge without history, accountability, checks and balances, or record of performance.

Yet the risk David Cameron runs by refusing to retreat from a now constituted, sovereign and presidential European republic — on behalf of all Britons and, by extension, all Commonwealth subjects — should be self-evident from this description. What I find truly confounding is that there is nothing whatsoever that I can see to justify taking this risk, even assuming that integrated Europe should somehow acquire an effective, representative and responsible government. Britain already has one of those. So, too, does it have free trade and free flow of goods, workers and other economic constituent components and forces, between itself and its European neighbours.

And in terms of that other ancient worthy, the British Monarch, hitherto the highest ranking supremo in our shared socio-political hierarchy — just what kind of hereditary King answers to an unelected president, just what sort of Imperial Crown serves a foreign republic and just what good, pray, is a Sovereign that is no longer sovereign?

— Walsingham

Read More »»

First female Beefeater bullied from protecting Crown Jewels?

No longer a strictly male military bastion, it was only inevitable this would happen. No doubt traditionally minded men of the ancient corps despise the intrusion, and a couple are now paying the price - with their jobs.

Yeoman Warder Moira Cameron, left, poses with male colleagues, at the Tower of London, Monday Sept. 3, 2007. Cameron, 42, was the first female protector of the Crown Jewels, famously known as Beefeaters of the Tower of London, since the corps of Tower guards was created in 1485. It is revealed Monday Nov. 2, 2009, that Two male Beefeaters at the Tower of London have been suspended for allegedly bullying their female colleague, Cameron, and a third is subject to an internal investigation over alleged harassment.

Read More »»

Knighted by the Prince

Actor Christopher Lee is knighted by The Prince of Wales at an Investiture at Buckingham Palace, 30 October 2009. His Royal Highness held the ceremony on behalf of The Queen.

Photo © Press Association

Read More »»

Breaker Morant

Read More »»

Would that I had such simple orders as "sink, burn or take her a prize"

Read More »»

All Saints' Day

For all the saints, who from their labours rest,
Who thee by faith before the world confessed,
Thy Name, O Jesus, be forever blessed!"

—For All the Saints William H. How, Ralph Vaughan Williams

After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen."

—Revelation 7:9-12

Read More »»

Beaverado

"Attack it immediately."

Churchill had asked for advice, he got it. The French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir was in danger of falling into German hands. On July 3rd, in an act as ruthless as it was necessary, Churchill ordered the destruction of the French Fleet. He is said to have wept on giving the order. His interlocutor was not so moved. The Minister of Aircraft Production had reasoned that the French fleet might be blackmailed by the Germans, perhaps by a threat to destroy Marseilles, into joining their weight to the Italian navy, tipping the balance against the Allies in the Mediterranean. The minister's strategic logic was sound. Churchill knew that. He had appointed him to cabinet over the howls of many members of his war-time coalition. In the vital summer of 1940 the RAF was desperately short of Spitfires and Hurricanes. Britain needed pilots and planes. The volunteers were not lacking, their tools were.

A production miracle was needed, Churchill turned to Max Aitken, 1st Baron of Beaverbrook. Max was an old friend. He was also the most powerful press baron in the Empire. His Daily Express sold 3.7 million copies, the largest circulation of any paper in the world. He also had an uncanny knack for finance, making him, his associates and investors very rich. In four months he produced 6400 aircraft for the British war effort. Quadrupling the rate of production. His critics charged he was exaggerating the number of aircraft. Probably. Max had a tendency to do that. He had cut his teeth in the business world selling bonds door to door in rural New Brunswick. The hyper-active salesman never left him. He often went too far in making promises, in saying things he shouldn't. Yet what he did deliver was nothing short of brilliant.

As part of a series of books on influential Canadians, under the guidance of former GG consort John Ralston Saul, the noted New Brunswick novelist David Adams Richards has produced a thin one volume biography of Lord Beaverbrook. Written in a chatty manner, that might be irritating to some, Richards provides what is really a longish personal essay, on arguably the most influential Canadian of the twentieth century. Another son of the Miramichi, Richards intersperses his chronological narrative with personal and family encounters with Beaverbrook. What emerges is a character somewhere between Horatio Alger and Duddy Kravitz, yet on a grand scale. A smooth operator with sharp elbows, always thinking several moves ahead of the opposition.



It was said of his contemporary, TE Lawrence, that he had a habit of backing into the limelight. So did Max, except he would usually bump into some famous personage of the day, or soon to be, as well. He ran R.B. Bennett's first election campaign, while he was not yet of voting age. He promised voters things that R.B. couldn't, or wouldn't deliver, which did not amuse the future Prime Minister. Yet when Bennett moved west, and ran for Parliament, there was Max with his impish grin and fast moving 5ft 5in frame. You could never quite stay mad at him. No matter how many times he committed adultery, or bent the facts just a wee bit too much, he usually got away with it. Because he could charm, yes. Because he was often right, even when he was wrong, yes. Above all, because people needed Max. He was smarter than they were.

He talked his way into a job with the powerful financier John F Stairs, who put the bright young lad - just in his twenties - to merging a smaller bank to Stairs' Union Bank, then to running Royal Securities. Soon Max was in Montreal, the centre of Canadian Edwardian capitalism. The venerable Sir Sanford Fleming was in distress. His interests in concrete were threatening the pioneering engineer with bankruptcy and disgrace. Lead by the President of the Bank of Montreal, and assisted by the Who's Who that was then the board of the CPR, the great and good of Canadian business asked that Max Aitken figure something out. It was a trap. The fast rising Aitken was a threat, and one with a slippery reputation. The collapse of Fleming's interests in concrete seemed ordained. Best that the blame might be placed on the pushy cad from nowhere New Brunswick. Max had the last laugh. He saved Fleming's fortune, introduced a sweeping consolidation of the Canadian concrete industry - which had been crippled in the wake of the Panic of 1907 - and made his own fortune into the bargain. Yet the whole thing has been just a bit too slick. There were rumours. Max, now a millionaire (pounds not dollars) while not yet thirty, headed for the epicentre of power and finance, London.

Arriving with his beautiful wife - daughter of a Major-General - in England, he set up in great country estate - his neighbour and new friend was Rudyard Kipling. Marital bliss was fleeting. Richards argues that Beaverbrook was chasing love most of life, in the arms of this lovely and that, in the respect of a series of father figures. Among the most influential of the latter, was a fellow Canadian, Andrew Bonar Law. A prominent Conservative, Law was engineered into the leadership of the party by Beaverbrook, a newly minted MP, in 1912. Aitken revered Law, deciding that his friend must become Prime Minister. The Liberals, under H.H. Asquith. were weak. An expected election in 1914 or 1915 would topple them. Sarajevo intervened.

Another one of Aitken's new friends, Winston Churchill, had wanted an Liberal-Tory coalition to fight the war. The Liberals refused. Yet the government's popularity waned. Asquith was to be overthrown through a parliamentary coup in late 1916, among whose leading plotters was Aitken. Law was denied the premiership, instead made number two to another new friend of Max's, David Lloyd George. Though their politics were rarely compatible, they were both in a sense actors. Lloyd George, however, was a professional and Aitken just starting. Dropping hints of a cabinet position, as Minister of Trade, Lloyd George secured Aitken's support.

In expectation of office, Aitken resigned his seat and started campaigning for re-election - as was required by British law at the time. Lloyd George, through Law, instructed Aitken not to run again, allowing the seat to go to "a Georgian" loyalist who would be made Minister of Trade. As consolation Aitken was raised to the peerage. According to legend, Kipling talked him out of becoming Lord Miramichi, on the grounds that Englishmen would be unable to pronounced it. The new Lord Beaverbrook had to console himself with PR work. First promoting the job Canadian soldiers were doing on the Western Front, then as Minister of Information in the war-time cabinet. Dreams of revenged never left him. From the end of the war in 1918 until 1922, Beaverbrook plotted again, to remove Lloyd George and replace him with Law. He succeeded only to have Law resign shortly after from throat cancer.

In the midst of the intrigues surrounding Asquith's fall, Beaverbrook had acquired control of a failing paper called the Daily Express. Lord Northcliffe had told him he would lose his fortune keeping it afloat. Instead he revolutionized the industry. He introduced the first women's section and crossword. No expense was spared on photography and layout. The modern tabloid was born. As the paper grew in importance, Beaverbrook's reputation as a pushy cad never left him. The Establishment found his enthusiasm and energy aggravating. The mixture of envy and hatred that is directed from old money to new money. From self-made men to the scions of great names. Being a colonial didn't help. The British elite were not completely averse to outsiders, the Empire would never have lasted without the ruling classes talent for co-opting rising stars. Disraeli had been Prime Minister the year Beaverbrook was born. Dizzy, however, was a witty novelist and insanely charming dinner guest. The Maritime accent, and manners, hung too closely to the backwoods baron.

They hated him, but they needed him. Nor was the hatred expressed in ordinary terms. That great worshipper of the upper classes, Evelyn Waugh, mocked his former employer as Lord Copper in Scoop. My own personal suspicion for years has been that Rex Mottram, the amoral materialist from Canada in Brideshead Revisited, was another dig at Beaverbrook. Isolated again, he sought out more women and more business ventures. The lure of politics remained. In a quixotic gesture he founded the short-lived Empire Party in 1930. Disgusted with the defeat of the Tories under Stanley Baldwin, who had succeed Law as leader and PM. Never an admirer of the famously pragmatic Baldwin, the Empire Party was a political blunt weapon to be used to take down Baldwinite Tories. The ideas was dropped, but not the party platform. Since coming to England, Beaverbrook had been a highly vocal advocate of Imperial Preference, a free trade zone within the Empire. This was a first step toward some kind of greater imperial unity, which he never defined.

Imperial Preference faded, after a brief vogue during the Ottawa Conference of 1932. Like many middle aged men, Beaverbrook's world view had frozen in his youth. Then the idea of some kind of imperial federation was widely discussed in the first decade of the twentieth century. The idea of empire, however, was fading. The colonial boy made good found himself, so to speak, being more royalist than the king. The centre had no interest in holding. If his views didn't always carry the day in the councils of state, his dominance of the press was unquestioned. He almost single handedly kept news of Edward VIII's relationship to Wallace Simpson secret - in Britain - for much of 1936. Eventually the Daily Express did break the story, once it was clear Edward was set on abdication. If he couldn't prevent a constitutional crisis in the 1930s, he could at least give a platform to his old friend, Churchill, to warn of the gathering storm. Few in late 1930s Britain were interested in what Churchill had to say. The Times and the BBC effectively banned him for long stretches of time. When war came, and in time his appointment as PM, Churchill remember Beaverbrook's aid and comfort.

The post-war world proved disappointing to Beaverbrook. He had resigned from the cabinet in 1942 when Attlee was made Deputy PM. The age of socialism and decolonization was alien to Max. He made a few attempts to resettle in New Brunswick, but England was now his home. In all this he found time to write books. Richards describes his writing style as "Beaverado."So was his life. In his last public appearance, an interviewer asked him if he was disappointed in the ultimate failure of imperial preference. The old man replied quietly: "I was unworthy." Yet again he was exaggerating. Not from hubris, but undeserved humility.

Read More »»

Republicans Put Foot in Mouth

Some people's desperation to defame the monarchy knows no bounds:

Prince Philip reportedly made one of his notorious gaffes by joking with a British-Indian business leader about his name. During a reception at Buckingham Palace for 400 influential British Indians, Prince Philip, pictured, greeted Atul Patel by glancing at his name tag and saying, "There's a lot of your family in tonight."

My guess is that the Duke had probably greeted several Patels by that point in the evening, thus the joke. How on earth is that even remotely racist? Patel is an extremely common Indians surname. It's a small talk joke. He could easily have made the same one about people named Smith. The gentleman in question was not offended. Being modern Britain others are offended on his behalf. We used to call these people busybodies. Naturally, the usual suspects are trying to get as much mileage out of this as possible.

But Republic, a group campaigning to abolish the monarchy, said it was "deeply embarrassing." "Making a joke about people called Patel is deeply embarrassing.... At best it's a comment that shows he's out of touch and out of date," said its spokesman, Graham Smith.

Sorry. Not buying it. Embarrassing it is not. What is embarrassing is the existence, in Britain, of a group that makes political hay out of small talk. It's not the sort of thing gentlemen and ladies do, distorting chat into character assassination. In the unlikely event that Graham Smith is interested in how actual ladies and gentlemen conduct themselves, we ask that Mr Smith pay attention to the life and manners of Her Majesty and her consort. At times I wonder what the Duke makes of all this. A sailor from the days when so much of the world was still pink. Decency and sense, England hath need of thee.

Read More »»

Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports

On 14 August 1946 King George conferred upon Sir Winston Churchill the ancient honor of appointment as Lord Warden and Admiral of the Cinque Ports. Above Churchill inspects a line of soldiers at his installation ceremony as the new Lord Warden and Constable of Dover Castle at Dover Kent.

Read More »»

"I am writing a very beautiful book..."

Knowing Waugh, he was probably being a wee bit ironic. Yet he did write "a very beautiful book."

On March 13, 1944, Evelyn Waugh informed his friend Lady Dorothy Lygon: “I am writing a very beautiful book, to bring tears, about very rich people, beautiful, high born people who live in palaces and have no troubles except what they make themselves and those are mainly the demons of sex and drink which after all are easy to bear as troubles go nowadays”. This book would be published the following year as Brideshead Revisited, and would portray a family not unlike the Lygons of Madresfield Court in Worcestershire, who were indeed rich, (mostly) beautiful, high born and had more than their fair share of troubles with sex and drink, which they in fact found quite hard to bear. Paula Byrne’s object in writing Mad World was “to find the hidden key to Waugh’s great novel, to unlock for the first time the full extent to which Brideshead encodes and subtly transforms the author’s own experience”.

Read More »»

Wither the Lords

Ten years ago today, the House of Lords passed the abominable House of Lords Act 1999, altering the upper chamber beyond recognition. The Act provides firstly that "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."

There are over seven hundred peers who hold titles that may be inherited; only ninety-two are now permitted (surely a temporary measure) to sit in the House of Lords, although this reduction has been challenged in the — ahem — European Court of Human Rights.

Hat tip: Wilson Revolution Unplugged.

Read More »»

Insurrectionists With Pedigree

One takes so much for granted, but not even things we once ‘knew’ to be epochal are fixed anymore. It is a wonder we trust the very stars in the skies, and men do not wander about with reinforced umbrellas. One does not expect to have to perform the Industrial Revolution twice. It is not as if, praise God, the von Schlieffen plan must be fortnightly rebuffed.

But it pleases God for some great advances in the happiness of man, which so many millions once thought to be as dependable as air, to have to be striven for and won more than once. The Reformation, that great movement which recovered His name and true religion from the mistakes of a wayward and corrupted priestcraft, must be begun again. Somewhere, perhaps, new Calvins are being ordained, new Luthers are cooing in their cradles, and Tyndales and Cranmers are striving to learn their letters in the modern warzone of an English schoolroom. We are presently at that grim stage, however, where error is still advancing with tremendous ease and claiming whole swathes of the field to itself.

The blithe assumption in the mainstream press and public that return to Rome is the orthodox, traditional, pious, true choice of honest Anglican Christians, is extraordinary.

The particular 'traditionalists' in this instance, as articles have called them, are no such thing. The Anglo-Catholics' buildings are C of E, but that’s usually all they inherit from the old Anglican ways; everything else is imported, under the toleration, but not sanction, of long-maintained law. Their liturgy, sacraments, vestments, and beliefs are all Roman; more Roman, indeed, than many a post-Vatican II RC church. And their entire sect is based on defying Anglican tradition: in the 19th century they were so radical and defiant of law and tradition, that their priests were arraigned before courts, and convicted of fraud and dishonesty. For these first steps were not steps of conscience: the Roman church might have been honestly adhered to. Instead men took oaths they did not mean, and could not keep, in order to acquire the pay and prestige of a church which they only intended to subvert and Romanise against explicit law. Now they still do not preach the ancient Church of England, rescued and revived in the Tudor and Jacobean Reformation. They are insurrectionists with pedigree: don’t let the second half of that occlude the first.

We are witnessing the slow victory of ignorance, propaganda and apathy. The real Anglican church, catholic and reformed, established by law, has a rich legacy - lost, alas, and forgotten in many places. But not easily effaced, and readily recoverable in the age of the web. Lest anyone be deceived, and think the Church of England nothing but Henry VIII and lesbian motorcyclist priestesses, with nothing in-between, the works of William Tyndale, Matthew Parker, Richard Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes, John Donne, George Herbert, Jeremy Taylor, John Tillotson, Jonathan Swift, etc, etc, (you get the picture) are witnesses to facts quite contrary. Lord Black admits to having been a superficial protestant. No kidding. This was never more evident than in his reckless writing off of all these centuries in a contemptuous manner, I may say, befitting a prisoner of Her Majesty, but not one of her Lords.

An orthodox, traditional, pious, true Anglican would not go over to Rome any more than he would go over to the Methodist church’s weekly nude yoga class for the bisexual. Both are lurches away from the catholic (i.e. universal, apostolic, primitive) religion of Jesus Christ, which is founded rather on the mercy, Word, love and praise of God. The Church of Rome, filled with many and good people, hath sadly erred from, or added grievously to, this (though perhaps not as badly as the nude bisexual yoga class attendees).

Every true Anglican ought not to see the Pope's act as generous. I believe it is well meant, but it is, considered aright, a monstrous condescension. It is they, not we, who have rings to kiss. The canons, creeds and catechism of the Church of England are still, as John Wesley said, "more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety" than all others. The Church of Rome's are not - very sadly, but very definitely, not. Suffice it to say, the true religion of the Eternal Godhead is plainly not in "old miraculous dolls" any more than it is in dressing your womenfolk in black tents. We ought to pray for them, and our leaders, as for all men; and for the vindication and propagation of God's truth in every land, starting with our own. It was never more needed.

Read More »»

Don't Forget Your Old Shipmates

Read More »»

As the Good Lordship Put It...

The recent Head of State nonsense, in what was once known as the Elder Dominion, has smoked Canadian republicans out of the wood work. There are not many Canadian republicans, they are a small and rather predictable breed whose central criticism is that the monarchy is old and British derived. So are habeas corpus and free speech, the latter of which allows many republicans - who are overwhelmingly journalists - to earn a living. Even if only a scribblers living. While reading one of these screeds I was mentally preparing a rebuttal, then I struck gold. The author pointed to a recently declassified report by Lord Moran, Britain's High Commissioner to Ottawa in the early 1980s. The reference is a ham fisted attempt to portray Lord Moran, whose father was Winston Churchill's personal physician, as a condescending British toff.

Back in 1982 when I was the Star's bureau chief in Ottawa, I met Lord Moran, who then was the British high commissioner to Canada.

Our meeting was cordial, but I got the distinct impression that Lord Moran, whose real name is John Wilson, was completely bored with our session, as well as with Ottawa, Canada and Canadians as a whole.

From his pompous attitude, which stuffy Brits like Lord Moran carry off so well, it was clear he saw most Canadians as inferior colonials with limited talents and even less curiosity.

Turns out my first impression was right, as evidenced by a 1984 dispatch that Lord Moran, who was high commissioner from 1981 to 1984, sent to London on his departure from Ottawa.

The letter, obtained by the BBC from the British Foreign Office under Freedom of Information legislation and made public earlier this week, trashes Canadians in general, our politicians, especially the late Pierre Trudeau, our writers, actors and even our skiers.

Reading the six-page letter, titled "Final Impressions of Canada," reminded me of that meeting with Lord Moran.

It also made me wonder why, if top British diplomats like him hold us in such low esteem, Canada continues to cling to its British colonial roots, complete with having us acknowledge Queen Elizabeth as "the Queen of Canada."

Heavens. I wouldn't be surprised that Lord Moran was bored stiff talking to Bob Hepburn (which I guess is not his full name). I've never met his lordship, he might very well be a pompous toff, though I rather doubt it. After nearly four decades in the British Foreign Service, it's unlikely anyone lacking in tact and some measure of humility would have been posted to some of the most sensitive areas of world, notably Africa in the wake of decolonisation. Britishers often come off as condescending and superior by virtue of their accent and bearing. Posture is still insisted upon in the betters schools (Moran attended Eton), so is the Queen's English. Victims of our proletarianized North America culture - not that Britain is so far behind now - might very well mistake manners and education as pomposity. Bobby Hepburn (since we are not to stand on formality and call him Robert) goes to some trouble to destroy the monarchy on the basis of one meeting.

I'm exaggerating only slightly. I'm sure anything involving hierarchy, formality and restraint are an anathema to Bobby. Which is why the living embodiment of such traits is obnoxious to him. The victim of this drive-by smearing, Lord Moran, has not commented and is unlikely to do so. The article does perform one invaluable service, it points us to the former High Commissioner's report. Rather than being condescending, it is a frank and honest assessment of Canada's virtues and faults. I've read very few professional hand-wringers of Canadian identity, a modestly profitable cottage industry here, that capture Canada so well as Lord Moran. Thin skinned nationalists can complain, the honest patriot should make time to review the report here. Ironically the report describes Bobby Hepburn without citing him.

One of Lord Moran's complaints, though he does not say it explicitly, is that Canadians are quite provincial in their attitudes. One of the symptoms of provincialism is overacting to criticism from the metropolis. The Big Time calls you Small Time and you jump up and down about how Big Time you really are. There's a reason people like Michael Ignatieff, whom I do not like, spent so much of their career in London. The former Imperial Capital is a much bigger stage than Toronto or Montreal. An honest man can admit that, a pompous old scribbler will find it harder.

Read More »»

Men of Harlech

Read More »»

Have you news of my Boy Jack?

“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind —
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

Hat tip: The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Read More »»

Anglican Catholic Reconciliation? Old Fat King Henry must be rolling in his enormous grave

So this is how long schisms last. It's the 500th anniversary of King Henry's accession to the throne (1509-2009), and Pope Benedict is saying all is forgiven.

Forgetting for just a moment the troubles the Church of England is currently embroiled (lack of leadership, lack of unity, lack of orthodoxy), here are three historical reasons why traditional Anglicans might welcome His Holiness's extremely generous "a church within a church" offering of Anglo-Catholic reunification:

1. The chronically adulterous wife-murderer Henry VIII has never been a very compelling religious leader;

2. Parliament's illegal dethroning of James II for his Catholicism and religious tolerance was a shabby pretext for a so-called 'Glorious Revolution', and;

3. Anglicanism has been more a measure of well-placed cultural faith in the English-speaking upper classes, institutions and work ethic, than a worldly portal to the kingdom of God.

Lord Black, a once nominal Anglican, explains why he finally became a Catholic:

I had always had some problems with Henry VIII as a religious leader. That he apostacised to facilitate marriage with a woman whom he soon beheaded on false charges of adultery, seized the monasteries to finance his wars in France, and required his puppet parliament to give him back the title "Defender of the Faith", (still on the Canadian coinage in honour of the present Queen), that the pope had given him in recognition of a canonical paper Erasmus had ghost-written for him, never filled me with confidence in the legitimacy of the Church of England. More and Wolsey were more morally compelling figures than the Henricians, and many of Britain's great pre-Wren Anglican churches were seized from Rome.

Nor was I convinced that the replacement of the Stuarts with the House of Orange was the "Glorious Revolution" that MacAulay and the Trevelyans and other talented Whig myth-makers have claimed. James II was a blundering monarch, but his Toleration Act, promising religious freedom for Jews, Roman Catholics, disestablished Protestants and non-believers, was not subversive or ignoble, and was a shabby pretext for a revolution.

The Anglicans, as Newman had written, had an impressive lower clergy, but it seemed more (to me) a measure of well-placed cultural and ethnic faith in the British and American upper classes and institutions, and a contingent, sectarian insurance policy, than the earthly portal to the kingdom of God. The Anglicans have never really decided whether they are Protestant or Catholic, only that they "don't Pope", though even that wavers from time to time.

Yes, my Lord, how true. That "we-don't-Pope" thing is wavering yet again today.

Read More »»

Britain's new Supreme Court? My grandmother had better looking china than this

Here is the crest of the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, a circular floral emblem that looks more like a decorative dinner plate, than the usual royal coat of arms represented in courts across the country.



So this is suppose to imbue people with a sense of awe and terror over the might, justice and antiquity of The Law. You call this heraldry?

Even the court's own formal logo, which carries an image of the royal crown, has been relegated to the front entrance and official documents and communications.

Instead a less formal emblem, which only contains national flowers and vegetables representing each of the home nations, features throughout the building and in the three court rooms – in a bid to be more accessible to the public.

Officials at the court, which began work on Monday, insisted the move "in now way" undermines the relationship with the Crown and the presence of the royal crown and coat of arms emphasised that the Monarch is the source of the court's authority.

It is the latest in a series of rows over the down grading of royal symbols and allegiance under Labour.

Read More »»

Queen awards Chrétien Order of Merit

Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, accompanied by Mrs. Chretien, is presented with the Order of Merit by The Queen at Buckingham Palace, 20 October 2009. "It is a big honour because there are very few of us — 24, including Prince Philip and Prince Charles — and very few people from political background," Chrétien told CBC News.


The honour, created by King Edward VII in 1902 and awarded in the sole gift of the Sovereign, is bestowed on "individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service". Above is the Insignia of the Order of Merit awarded by The Queen to the former Canadian Prime Minister today at an audience at Buckingham Palace.

Photos © Press Association

Read More »»