Thursday, March 1, 2007

Equality be damned

. Thursday, March 1, 2007

This is the second attempt at continuing the debate with Lewis Holden (President of The Republican Movement of Aotearoa New Zealand). In the way of all reconstructed posts, this has not the oratorical fire of the last one, but it will have to do.

Lewis's response to my last post kindly skates over a number of incoherencies and leaps in logic; the inevitable result of choosing too wide a scope and too short a space. I will try and fill in what I meant over the next few weeks. Let us begin with Mr. Holden's notion of "equality":

Republicans believe in political equality, and so reject the notion that the Crown, or any individual who gains their political office by genetic lottery, personifies New Zealand. But a nation is not an individual; republicans view all citizens as politically equal. Indeed, this is really the view of the wider New Zealand community - why else does a good number of New Zealanders bemoan the Maori seats? Political equality, that's why.
There are two forms of legitimate equality, which spring from the intrinsic dignity of all human beings. One is equality before a just Magistrate, and the other is the Last Judgment, where Emperor and beggar will alike give account to the Almighty. We are all under the law, not excepting Elizabeth Windsor, who, as a private person, pays taxes, and is subject to the law. Of course, as she is Elizabeth Regina, she also administers the law and collects the taxes; such are the prerogatives of Princes, who have two bodies, a private body and act as head of the body politic. As Bernard Woolley would say, it's all a matter of hats, Minister.

The Maori seats are targeted for abolition by some because they are viewed as conferring special privileges on one section of the population on the basis of their race, that is, they breach the principle of equality under the law, by dragging in race to the political equation. National calls this, rather crudely, "One law for all" for that reason. It is simply a question of whether race should be a determining factor in the allocation of political clout.

There is a flat difference between this sort of legal equality, and the social equality of Mr. Holden, which objects to hierarchies in principle.

The impulse of Republicanism is a levelling impulse, one which rejects being subject to anything, rejects what Hayek calls (disparagingly) "traditional frames of meaning". Hence the rallying cry of El Presidente and his cohorts: "Citizens, not subjects", which decorates the masthead of the Holden Republic at intervals. Mr. Holden has obviously not heard of "the rights of free subjects" so insisted upon by our ancestors, and thinks "citizen" and "subject" contradictory. What do they teach them in these schools?

Republicanism is another example of what C. S. Lewis called "pseudo-democracy", which says "I'm as good as you" and "what right have you got to tell me what to do?" and "I'll soon show you!" It's an attractive impulse. "Let us break their cords asunder, and cast aside their yokes from us".

But despite the ideology of Mr. Holden, a desire for reverence, for hierarchy, is deep in the human psyche. Hierarchies are found in every human and animal society. Talents and strengths are not equal. It is inevitable that some will rise above others, and Mr. Holden would probably not disagree that they should. After all, even the Communist League are Blairites now. I am not talking about the sort of meritocracy that we all agree upon. I am talking about the sort of natural hierarchy which makes people admire, reverence, respect, adhere, and love, sometimes very ordinary people, because of what they represent, what they are. Not because they are useful, or beautiful, or particularly talented, but because they are themselves.

It is natural to love our parents, whether they are talented and useful or not, and we continue to do so, even after we outgrow them. It is natural to respect our teachers, and our priests, even if they are flawed. It was a beautiful thing watching those Roman Catholics who knelt to the late Holy Father, even when he was so weak he had to be carried. It is beautiful to watch soldiers salute their Queen, or Scouts salute their flag, because by them we are reminded that we are part of some greater whole, part of a natural and organic order. How absurd to shoe-horn equality between a mother and her child, or a husband and his wife. How joyless is it for a family, for a church, for a society, to always be insisting upon equality! There is no insistence on equality in relationships like these. Even when it exists, it is irrelevant. There is only love, and service, and reverence, and a glad joining together in a greater whole.

These might be "useless friperies" to Mr. Holden. Thank God, I do not live in the starched and scrubbed world which calls a woman merely an animal, a bishop merely a man, or the Sovereign merely an anachronistic add-on.

Troilus and Cressida puts it "Shake degree, and Strength will rule imbecility... rude son will strike his father dead". The conventions which remind us we are not atomised robots, but holisitc human beings, are precious to us. Lewis chafes that a "genetic accident" puts the Queen above him. But these hierarchies, these solidarities which we do not choose, are the most important of all. For by them we are reminded that there are things above equality, some things more important than insisting on autonomy. There is what C. S. Lewis calls "a unity of place", a uniting influence which is precious precisely because it transcends talent and merit and use, and it is simply human. Mr. Holden does not recognise this. I challenge him to watch the funeral of Her Majesty the Queen Mother, and he will see it.

The choice is not, as Mr. Holden seems to think, between hierarchy and an egalitarian society. Let him pipe down with his panagerics on Our Better Britain and its egalitarian tradition. It is simply a choice of hierarchies. If we are denied our Queen, and taught not to honour our past, we will have film stars, and gansta rappers. We will gush over Britney Spears, and palpitate over JFK Junior. A "genetic accident" makes him an idol, from a famous family of psuedo royalty, but does Mr. Holden complain? We will invent myth about cherry trees and George Washington, we'll faint at the feet of Matthew Ridge and Nicki Watson, we'll reverence and construct new hierarchies to replace the old, and some new and worse oligarchy will usurp our allegiance. As Gilray put it, he who wishes to shake the crown is already measuring it for his own head.

So which will you have? The hierarchy based upon false and transitory values, or the one which identifies a simple human truth, and is a product of the transcendent?

I say "Equality be damned". I serve a God whose Service is perfect freedom, and I kneel to a Queen who commands allegiance. I am confident enough, as a free subject, not to be blathering about equality.

Let us serve God, honour Her Majesty our Queen, and have done with it.

Cross Posted at The Kiwi Examiner


BaronVonServers said...

I love this posting!

May I copy it and repost it on our web site?

James said...

Beautiful words! - able to capture the emotional side of monarchy, our monarchy, I should specify, in a way I could never properly articulate.

Of course, focusing on the more pragmatic, as I usually do, I can add that Mr. Holden demonstrates a belief in fantasy when he talks about this thing called "political equality." I think anyone not trying to hijack the word "equality" in the name of republicanism would see that politics is fundamentally opposed to equality - there can be no politics without contest, and there can be no contest amongst absolute equals. And, of course, in a contest, at least a political one, there is always a winner and a loser, between whom there is clearly a hierarchy established - which is where, I suppose, I link back to the subject of Swift's blog entry.

The point that our sovereign is chosen not through political contest is precisely why the office is non-partisan, unbiased, and why a monarch can say "my people" more honestly than a president. And if Mr. Holden thinks a president can be chosen without some sort of political contest (isn't any vote such a thing?), then he's dreaming.

James said...

Sorry for the double post! A glitch in the internet connection. I hope one can be deleted...

J.J. said...

I don't think I've ever read a post that says so much while saying so little. The point, once again, more or less just boils down to "the monarchy is magical and I like it."

I don't know how one can reasonably call this a "debate" since the monarchist side seems to not only reject rational logic, but actively embrace the irrational. And they seem to deeply resent even having to do THAT.

This is a nice blog for celebrating white pride and Anglophilia, but as a political discourse on an important discussion it is sadly lacking.

The Monarchist said...

I don't know about the monopoly that the other side has in the way of rational purity and restrained emotions, but I do know its takes a considerable measure of Irish or republican hate to reduce a thousand years of cultural history into little more than "white pride". There's political discourse for you. Nothing sadly lacking about that crude synthesis at all, is there.

Christ, what part of the reasoning above did you not understand? Monarchy represents the triumph of nature over political manoeuvre, over social and financial interests, which is a hell of a lot closer to human equality than the alternative. You may not like that reality, but it is a valid point of debate.

James said...

How well JJ has demonstrated the republican ability to close their eyes to anything that does not conform to their definition of what is "logical" and what is not.

Of course, it's pretty clear that to them republicanism is infallibly logical (though, how they can say this while hypocritically pushing illogical notions like "political equality" is beyond me) while monarchism is all whim and fancy. But, in the end, their slavish devotion to using equality, freedom, etc., as simple catchphrases (thin window-dressing to advertise the cause, so to speak) leaves them with no substantive argument against the points that not only are republics themselves dependent on inequality to operate, but to transform from a monarchy into a republic is simply replacing one elitism (based more on human and familial notions) with one based on selfish aspiration and competition.

Choosing which one of those two options sits better with the populace will never be a matter of simple, unemotional logic.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as "political equality" when you are talking about heirarchy. You either look up to a Queen, or you look up to the office of a president. To go from monarchy to republic, all you are adding is a dimension of political opportunity, that was otherwise not there before.


Kenneth Gardner said...

I'd like to say I appreciate posts like this. They're food for thought. I'm a republican living in the U.S. (though not a Republican). It's not often that I find a formidable argument from other political views, and I appreciate them when they come.

I just thought I'd peep in and say that as a republican. Not all of us are unable to recognize when others have strong arguments.

Swift said...


1. Your definition of reason is stuffed and overly narrow. I deliberately began with a few posts like this to expose the fact.

2. There are any number of pragmatic cases for the Monarchy, and I'll exegete Disraeli's one of these days.

3. Pride in our common-wealth of heritage has zilch to do with white pride. It embraces all races and creeds. India's Anglophilia is an example, but by no means the only one.

4. We're proud of our long and honourable history, history which includes all creeds, races, colours and political persuasions. Indeed, that diversity in union is one of the reasons we are proud. Pride in culture and heritage is nothing to be ashamed of, whether it is Bangladeshi Independence Day or Victoria Day. I suggest you get over it.

Neil Welton said...

Well, I am deeply offended by the quite irrational and unmagical remarks of JJ.

A good number of monarchists that I know come from ethnic minorities. Are they guilty of "white pride" too? Is this an example of your rational logic in action, JJ?

So what if the Monarchy is magical to those who are fortunate enough to gaze upon it and who are mature enough to appreciate it and to love it. Much better than a cold, calculating and sneering politician whose only magic is in the black arts - lies, corruption and deceit.

J.J. said...

Some responses:

1) Monarchists often pay a lot of lip service to the fact that their Commonwealth/empire contains "all creeds, races, colours" but the fact remains that in practice they are profoundly disinterested in anything that occurs outside of the white realms. Just look at the crest at the top of this very blog. United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand in big font, all the lesser brown countries in a smaller font. Yes yes, they’re in historical order, I know, but this blog never misses an opportunity to place those three at the top of the imperial hierarchy- grossly exaggerating the relevance of tiny New Zealand (a country smaller than Papua New Guinea and the collective Caribbean) in the process, by the way.

2) Likewise, I don't think I've ever seen this blog offer any serious attempt to cover any of the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures of any countries other than the white dominions. And even in the cases of the “big four” the focus is always exclusively on the most Anglocentric aspects of said countries, Empire this-or-that, loyalist such-and-such. What about the cultures and traditions of the non Ethnically-British who occupy such countries as well? Immigrants, natives, etc are/have been just as much a driving force in the evolution and society of these nations. To focus exclusively on the history of the Empire as the history of the white men with top hats does, in fact, suggest an unhealthy (though however benign) level of bigotry.

3) Beaverbrook’s use of the Lord’s name in vain notwithstanding, I will admit yes, I did not “understand” the sweet flowery nothings posted above. I just re-read it again now and I still do not get it. From what I can tell, the main thesis is basically this: “Monarchy is good because it’s based on hierarchy, and we all have an irrational ‘reverence’ for the concept of hierarchy, even when those who occupy our positions of adoration are unqualified idiots.” I think this is a very subjective point to make. I believe in today’s day and age more of us believe in the universal application of meritocracy in all walks of life, believing no institution or individual to be above criticism or re-examination simply because of the position or status held. Certainly parents, children, priests, soldiers, and even entire nations should not be afforded blind allegiance in all circumstances, and I would certainly hope we can all think of examples in which a subversion of allegiance to such figures would be justified. Love and loyalty can be beautiful things indeed, but I believe in almost all cases the love we hold for a “superior” stems from a sort of rational admiration- a combination of positive personal experiences, envy, and respect for success that all stem from measurable, concrete occurrences. Even monarchists admire the Queen more on the basis of who she is as a person- a kind, polite, dignified, grandmotherly, loving matriarch- than the political/historic office she holds. If say, the Queen was some drunken, foul-mouthed, child-beating adulteress I doubt even monarchists would fall over each other to offer her praise and allegiance, despite her status in the mythical hierarchy.

The Monarchist said...

It would appear our preening malcontent has a racial bone to pick, even to the extent of measuring our font size. Look at the United Kingdom in big bold capital letters, and poor tiny Tuvalu reduced to an embarrassing subscript. Are you for real, "white realms"?? Have you not been to London, Toronto, Vancouver or Sydney? I'd really like to debate you, but if race baiting is your pleasure, then kindly go fishing somewhere else. Humbug!

Sir Walter Scott said...

Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in every regard. Thank God in these times of terrible politicians that we still have a head of state above it all. I can't believe people would honestly prefer the ilk of M. Chirac to the House of Windsor.

Sir Walter Scott said...

Superb, Swift, genuinely superb. And correct in every regard. Thank God in these times of terrible politicians that we still have a head of state above it all. I can't believe people would honestly prefer the ilk of M. Chirac to the House of Windsor.

Neil Welton said...

Time to stop digging, JJ? Your comments are very offensive to me as a monarchist. Here is why -

1. Monarchists are "profoundly disinterested in anything that occurs outside of the white realms". Isn't this a bit sweeping? Just the other day in my latest entry here I mentioned Hong Kong, South Korea, Romania and the Lebanon. Some of these are not even monarchies!

2. Why should this blog cover "any of the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures of any countries"? This blog is supportive of monarchy and the British Monarchy in particular. If you want to establish your own blog about China or Iran - be our guest. Similarly if you want a blog about the "cultures and traditions of the non ethnically-British" then go ahead and set up a dedicated blog yourself. I will be the first to salute your passion and I'm sure your efforts will be admired and appreciated by us and others. Forgive me though if I choose to celebrate our collective loyalty and the history of our Empire via this blog. If this great celebration is nothing more than "benign bigotry", then please explain your peculiar reasoning to my racially diverse friends.

3. "Monarchy is good because it’s based on hierarchy, and we all have an irrational ‘reverence’ for the concept of hierarchy, even when those who occupy our positions of adoration are unqualified idiots." Considering that the mystery and majesty of birth is the qualification and that each Monarch is educated and trained not to be an idiot, I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Meritocracy is all well and good, even if it is based upon "envy", but be warned - you will only end up with President Bush, President Thatcher or President Blair as the reward for your fake new god.

I agree with you JJ that "no institution or individual should be above criticism or re-examination simply because of the position or status held". Nobody has suggested otherwise. Yet surely there is one individual or institution who is above criticism - God. The same God who creates and brings forth a baby Prince. Yet I feel you would judge yourself fit to criticise even Him. Attack He who made you and breathed life into you too.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post. Like Mr. Gardner, I am in the U.S. My father's side is English, but our family has been in the U.S. for 250 years. I love reading your blog; it makes me wish I was a subject of Her Majesty, the Queen. Still, I can keep her in my prayers.

God Bless,
Mrs. L

JJ said...


Please do not feign ignorance. You know exactly what I was talking about when I made reference to "the politics, history, anniversaries, or cultures" or other countries. I specifically meant the histories, etc, of those Commonwealth nations and Commonwealth realms which are not over 80% ethnically white.

Jamaica is a country enormously rich in culture and history, yet I don't believe I have ever seen mention of it on this blog. Ditto for the other nations of the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea, Belize, and so on. All monarchies, all conspicuously ignored. As I said before, the history of the empire and culture of the Empire is not exclusively the history and culture of white men in top hats, yet this is the impression one gets from reading this blog. I don't honestly believe any of you are racists, but I do think one can still be guilty of a sort of "racism by omission," especially when it is so blatant. Imagine any other site that was nominally dedicated to covering the affairs of an organization that had at least a 40% minority population. And imagine that same site focused exclusively on the affairs of the white majority, to the point where one was barely aware the significant minority population even existed. What kind of conclusions would be drawn?

As far as you latter points go, I am reminded of Tony Blair's line in the wonderful film "The Queen"- let's leave God out of this, shall we?

Neil Welton said...

Let me get this right. You want to debate monarchy but you also want to ignore "the guiding principle" and the very basis of its foundation - God. I'm not surprised you're a cartoonist. For surely cartoonists do what cartoonists have always done. Simplify, stereotype and then ridicule. Cheap shots, little of substance - as your posts demonstrate. For "racism by omission" is no better than "history by omission" - something you'd do by scrapping the Crown.

J.J. said...

I'm more interested in hearing a response to some of the specific points I raised, and don't want to get side-tracked on some discussion about God that you'd rather have.

I am to infer you still strongly believe in the divine right of kings, which is your right. But if this is not really a sensible grounds for debate, in my mind. If your entire root of support for the monarchy is based on presuming to understand God's will... then that is well beyond the realm of rational, political discourse and certainly beyond my will to contest.

adams said...


The following is part of an earlier post on this blog defending the idea that a hereditary head of state can be part of a rational political ststem. See if this makes you happier.

"As a republican, a defender of mixed and balanced government, I believe that there are several rational arguments to be made in favor of a constitutionally limited monarchy. I believe that when (to steal a line) in the course of human events a group of people must frame a government, there are reasons to consider a limited monarch.

First a hereditary head of state keeps the top job out of the hands of politicians. No mater the nobility of their intentions, all politicians want power. It is questionable weather it is a good idea to give the largest amount of state power and the prestige of Head of State to the same person and one who has fought hard to get it.

Second as you have noted, there is a definite (presumably natural) inequality among people. As many political observers have noticed, an aristocracy, hereditary or natural, is the repository of a great deal of talent and wisdom the tapping of which is in the interests of the republic, but an aristocracy is also the reservoir of a great deal of ambition which can provoke serious and destructive rivalry. [An example of the later is the last presidential election where two members of the American aristocracy (such as it is) squared off against each other. Both men are descended from the early British settlers and are something like 14th cousins twice removed.] A monarch lessens this rivalry because the top spot is filled.

Third the Monarch can serve as check on the elected legislature and executive. Just because the majority wants something it does not always follow that they should get it. Further elected legislators and executive officers do not always act in their constituent’s interests. Powers such as: a limited veto, the chairmanship of a committee to nominate judges, and the presidency of the upper house of the legislature can be safely vested in a hereditary head of state.

Fourth, a hereditary head of State is trained from birth to fulfill this roll. This obviously has many advantages over having a Head of State who is trained to win elections.

Fifth, a hereditary head of state has the advantage of a life term of office to gather a huge amount of experience. The difference in experience between say President Ronald Reagan President 1980-1988 and H.M. Elisabeth II (1952-to the present) is simply incalculable. Her reign has already spanned 10 presidencies and if her mom is any indication it will span at least four more. She knows everyone of importance. A monarch is able to use this experience to advise the elected head of government.

Sixth, a Hereditary Head of State has a longer term view of the interests of the nation than an elected politician. Though an elected head of state may have the best of intentions for the long run health of the nation, he has no interest beyond his term of office. A Hereditary Head of State has an interest not only in the nation prospering during his or her reign, but for the reigns of his or her children and grand children.

Seventh, in countries where monarchism is already established, it’s a tradition. The idea that a Hereditary Head of State is old fashioned is just a way of saying it is traditional. The only justification for changing a tradition is that it is a positive evil or that it obstructs a positive good. Changing the form of government because it is unstylish is silly. Habits are a powerful force in everything and politics is no exception. Why does the loser of an election accept the results? Because that is what we (democratic peoples) do.

Eighth, is a closely allied reason to the forgoing, sentiment. People feel a sentimental attraction to the Royal Family, because they are a family. They are people and the public knows about them, their triumphs and their foibles. The late Queen Mum is an example of the power of sentiment. Her death was front page news even here in the states. I am one of many Americans who were saddened by her death. Who can forget how she and her husband helped inspire the British People in freedom’s darkest hour. Some might argue that sentiment is no basis for a political system, but sentiment is a powerful political force. The U.S. veneration of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is a similar phenomena.

Some may think it strange for a republican (and a libertarian one at that) to write a defense of the idea of a Hereditary Head of State, which leads me to the last point I want make, the United Kingdom is a republic. It has been a republic for several hundred years. A republic, res publica, the public thing, is a government not controlled solely by the one, the few, or the many. It is not a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, but a blend of all three. This has described Britain since magna carta.

If it were true that monarchism could only be defended by reference to some realm of experience beyond rational human understanding than I would be an anti monarchist. Because this is far from the case, I hold that properly constrained (as all government must be constrained) a monarch can be part of a rational system of government.

Neil Welton said...

Quite - why not answer all that as well, JJ? For I have already more than adequately responded to all the original points you made. It would appear that it is you who is refusing to properly engage with any of your original arguments on this blog entry. What was it you said earlier? This blog is nothing more than "a nice blog for celebrating white pride and Anglophilia" and not at all a blog for "political discourse on an important discussion". It would appear you have now been proven wrong - on both counts. To suggest otherwise is surely blog "history by omission".

Swift said...


First, you moan because we're exaggerating the importance of little New Zealand, then moan because we don't pay enough attention to little countries like the Grenadines. Be consistent, please.

Second, the realms of Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand have the highest number of English speaking people. They also happen to be the most technologically literate. It makes sense, therefore, that the majority on a blog in English would be from those countries. To sustain your accusation of racism, you would have to demonstrate that we are somehow prejudiced against Tuvalu or PNG, something which is not true. I do not speak for my Lord Beaverbrook, but I dare say we would all be delighted to hear from any Belizians, or from the Falkland Islands, or the British Indian Ocean Territory. But we simply haven't had anyone from Saint Kitts or Nevis around lately to ask them what they think.

It is only the race-conscious who go about measuring font size and making assumptions, JJ. Likewise, what makes you think we are all white? Did you ask? In my immediate family, I have Maori and Pacific Islanders, all of whom are strong supporters of the Queen.

This blog is focused upon our common heritage, and that heritage is, in large part, European, albeit adapted for our diverse local conditions. It is that basic commonality we are celebrating. On individual blogs, you will find, I am sure, opinions upon local and indigenous issues. Your question is like coming to the Scots Festival and asking why there are so many kilts, and can't we see what everyone wears at home. It's nonsensical.

JJ said...

Well I'm at least happy to hear an open admission that this site is focused on "European heritage." That's fine and dandy, buy my argument was that it's rather superficial and unrepresentative for any blog that claims to be pre-occupied with the affairs of the Imperial Commonwealth to focus exclusively on the four European-dominated realms at the expense of all others. Or even to exclusively focus on the culture and traditions of ethnically European subjects within the "big four" themselves. It amounts to a racial-centric focus in practice, since, as has been previously noted, the "big four" are hardly racially homogeneous states in the first place.

Even from these replies I sense a great deal of smug indifference to the non-white realms, as if they are just trivial decorations tacked onto the Queen's crown for some exotic flavor. It's likewise the easiest thing in the world to simply blame a lack of coverage on the other realms as a byproduct of the fact that you have no authors from said realms. I strongly doubt your Kiwi authors are oblivious about the affairs of the United Kingdom, or your Canadian authors oblivious to what's going on in Australia. It's a conscious choice to ignore the rest of the Commonwealth.

And it's certainly does no service to the imperial history you supposedly strive to honor. Romantic coverage of the foreign and unfamiliar have always been a key competent of the British imperial experience. Celebrating the diversity and color of the monarch's varied subjects and nations. That Hitchens article about Toryism was great, and I am forced to make a similar lament here- is this what passes for imperial pride in the 21st Century?

Neil Welton said...

Buzz. What! Still here, JJ? Buzz. Buzz off.

Carl Sommerfeld said...

Okay, I agree with JJ, especially on the 'subtle rascism' point. I mean what is wrong with you people? You're obviously Anglophiles (yet for some reason I see nothing about anything English on this site other then the monarchy)...why not just come out and say it on your website instead of having all this crap about "Commenwealth realms"? I mean many people in Papua New Guinea will ever meet the Queen in their lifetime? Maybe then you wouldn't be accused of being rascists. Past that...learn to type like normal people! Either you're all over the age of 75 or you somehow think it's the year 1907. I found it hard to read half of what you guys wrote because of the language. If you want to be taken seriously, communicate in a way that EVERYONE can understand...not just your little elitist club.
Second Point: Now I am all for traditional values and remembering our heritage (I live in the USA and am a proud republican party supporter and I think what the liberals want to do in both the USA and Europe is awful and a threat to our society and our values.) But frankly I don't understand how having a monarchy helps preserve those values at all. In fact all it does in my eyes is cost the taxpayers loads of money...but high taxes would make you liberals...and we all know what you think of them.

Neil Welton said...

"Cost the taxpayers loads of money." How much is that war in Iraq costing again and how much does it cost to keep your lovely president safe from the consequences of his own actions? Please do tell. Is this language easier for you to understand, dear American, or should I use just three words per sentence. Forgive me then if I find taking lectures on "costing the taxpayers" a bit hard to swallow. After all, your whole argument is based upon sand. For monarchists come from all works life - as the Conservatives, just like Liberals, have all failed. Failing "the people" as they all have now done. So be in fear, Republican. People have rumbled your fake god. Now do tell - what is the turnout at your presidential election?

Wellington said...

There is no evidence that the monarchy costs the taxpayer one net cent. It would seem more plausible to me that the monarchy is a tourist revenue generating cash cow for the government.

JJ said...

Neil, honestly, is there anyone you won't insult? Your snide remarks and patronizing smugness is hardly becoming, and does very little for your argument. I'm sure you'll say that I'm just as bad, but I thought your side was supposed to be the "highbrow" one.

Also I'm increasingly captivated by your obvious left-wing leanings. I eagerly anticipate a lengthy article denouncing Lady Thatcher after she passes on.

Neil Welton said...

I just speak as I find JJ. I don't believe in pussy footing around or being "highbrow" or clever just because I can. I believe in speaking to the public directly and clearly in a language they will grasp and understand for the age they live in.

Everything I have said here is factual - that is why you haven't challenged a word of it and instead resorted to personal remarks. The first signs of a loser in a debate. For you play "the man" rather than "the ball" as you would do in your political games. Yet this tactic fails here because I am not personally standing for elected office. You are therefore forced to play "the ball". As everyone here has seen in these circumstances you are out of your intellectual depth. I'm therefore sorry if you find my intellectual certainty patronizing and smug. I feel it is your problem and one you need to address.

For I hold no brief for Left or Right. Some monarchists do, some monarchists don't. I don't. Instead I am a floating voter in a key marginal constituency. I decide who forms the Government. Far more important than being Left or Right. Indeed, I would suggest to you that it is very unwise to insult the intelligence and reasoning of floating voters. You will only pay for it at the ballot box. Thus my own view of Thatcher is based upon this more impartial viewpoint. For she had a rather mixed record in office. Some of it good, some of it bad. I would therefore not denounce her, nor would I praise her to high heaven and worship her. This is because I have not been politically indoctrinated. A subtle difference. Indeed, to read a more impartial, independent and balanced assessment of Margaret Thatcher's record in Britain just read this account:

look said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kiki said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rhoderick Gates said...

James said "And if Mr. Holden thinks a president can be chosen without some sort of political contest (isn't any vote such a thing?), then he's dreaming."

A republic with a head of state chosen by Sortition (random selection) is selection of a HoS without a political contest.

Post a Comment


Monarchist Labels

Monarchist Articles


Tony Abbott: Australia's 'mad monk' close to election victory
Dear Guardian: Get out of Oz or shuffle off the coil
Kid Genius: "All monarchists are either stupid or evil"
Republican Vultures: Australia should go republic after Queen dies?
Princess Royal: Hardest working Royal, Princess Anne, Turns 60
Much-Abused Imperial Poet: Rudyard Kipling unburdened
Admiral Cod: Wilfred Thesiger, Archeo-Traditionalist
Diamond Jubilee: Bring Back the Royal Yacht Britannia
On Flickr: The British Monarchy's Photostream
Buck House: No Garden Party tea for BNP leader, Nick Griffin
In Quebec: The Queen is still Wolfe in sheep’s clothing
Queen's PM: Australia will not vote on ties to British monarchy
Camelot: Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table?
Royal Neglect: Is Britain becoming a republic by default?
Monarchy or Anarchy? No third option explains David Warren
Charles vs Modernists: God Bless the Prince of Wales!
After Her Majesty: Who will wear the crown in Canada?
Bargain for Britain: And for the Commonwealth Realms
Queen's Prime Minister: Harper advised by "ardent monarchists"
Muddled Monarchist: A troubled and confused loyalist
Loyal Subject: God Bless Her Majesty!
Queen's Prime Minister: Harper really loves the Queen
Crown & Pants: She wears the crown and he wears the pants
The Maple Kingdom: The ‘iron cage’ of the colonial past dissipates…
The Crown Knows Best: It all Begins and Ends with Monarchy
White Rose Day: Burke's Corner on "Sorrowing Loyalty"
Happy B'day Grand Old Duke: It's a pity they don't make his kind anymore
Saved by the Crown: What monarchs offer modern democracy
Queen's Speech: Black Marks, Brownie Points at the State Opening
The Navy's 100th! Restore the honour 'Royal' Canadian Navy
Happy Birthday! Her Majesty The Queen turns 84.
Abolish the Commons: Suicidal tendencies of the modern political class
Labour Vandalism: Plans to abolish the House of Lords
Lord Black: "The ultimate degradation of the 'white man's burden'"
Old Etonian: Guppy the Ex-Bullingdonian speaks of his loyalty
Duchess of Devonshire: bemoans the demise of the Stiff Upper Lip
Queen Victoria: A film remarkable for its lack of anti-British prejudice
Climate Imperialism: Rich nations guilty of 'climate colonialism'
Bye Bye Britain: The UK officially not a sovereign state
Monarchy Haters: A Strange Form of Bitterness
Royal Intrigue: The secret plot to deny the Queen the throne
Never mind the Queen? Summing up Daniel Hannan in four words
Queen & Country: David Warren on a Big Lie finally corrected
Defending the Royals: Repatriate the Monarchy argues Andrew Coyne


Classic Warner: The other November the 11th
Brave Loyalist! Lone woman takes on anti-Royal mob in Montréal
Loyal Subject: Evaluating the monarchy against their own little worlds
Death so Noble: An 'almost divine act of self-sacrifice'
Crux Australis: Howard revisits his victory over the republic
Lord Ballantrae: The Would-Be King of New Zealand
Lord Iggy: Anti-Monarchist Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Old Etonian: A modern-day Lawrence of Arabia?
Sir Keith Park: The Commonwealth's Finest Hour
Buckingham Masjid: Buckingham Palace under the Shariah
The Maple Crown: Our ties to monarchy are bigger than the royals
His Tonyness: Holy Roman Emperor, Leader of Progressive Humanity
Young Fogey: Rafal Heydel-Mankoo on Chretien's Order of Merit
He's not a snob, Bob: Why does Canada cling to British colonial roots?
Fount of Justice: Crown sidelined from new Supreme Court
The Clown Prince: The world’s third longest-serving head of state
Hell, Britannia, you’re just nasty: Licence to make crass sexual jokes on the BBC about the Queen is depravity, not liberty
Loyal Subject: The Governor General can't take the Queen out of Canada
Save Our Dukes: Return peerage appointments to the Queen
Lord Black of Crossharbour: Why I became a Catholic
Not Amused: Her Majesty "appalled" at the direction of her Church
A Sad Day in Pretoria: When South Africa Lost its Star
The Queen Mother: Noblesse Oblige vs the Me Generation
Aristocrats: A review of Lawrence James's new book in the FT
Crown and Shamrock: Irish went underground to view coronation
Bye bye Camelot: Obituaries on Ted Kennedy here, here and here.
Scotch Whisky Do not boycott for ye Scots had precious little to do with it
Loyal Subject: God (and Young Liberals) saving the Queen
Aussie Monarchist: A good bloke calls it a day
Blog of the Order: This man can redesign our blog any time he wants
Lord Black: Much ado about the Republic of China
Stalwart Jacobite: But has no problem with Elizabeth II of Canada
Royal Commonwealth Society: Join the Conversation
H.M.A.S. Sydney: Inquiry blames captain for worst naval disaster
Imperial Constitution: Was the American Revolution avoidable?
Hero Harry Patch: Saying Goodbye to All That
King and Country: The 250th Anniversary of the Battle of Minden
King's College: Crosses Return to the Columbia Crown
Lord Salisbury: An interview with the 7th Marquess of Salisbury
Queen's Commonwealth: Quaint historical relic or meaningful bloc?
Queen's Prime Minister: Chrétien's perplexing gong
Why Ma'am Must Stay: The New Statesman is foaming at the mouth
Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day!
CinC: The Queen's Broadcast to Her Armed Forces around the World
Elizabeth Cross follows a tradition that started with Crimean War
Dominion Day: Canada was an act of divine loyalty
The "Whaddever Monarchy": A Prince and his indulgent public
English Constitution: A written constitution is not the answer
Rest in Peace: Roméo LeBlanc, former governor general, dies at 81
Prince of Wales: Who, apart from the Prince, speaks up for beauty?
Queen's Prime Minister: New Zealand restores Queen's Counsel
Why I accepted my OBE:Radical feminist Marxist accepts "cruel imperial order"
On Lord Loser: Modernist architects carry on where the Luftwaffe left off
The Puissant Prince: Thanks to Prince Charles for meddling
"It's our republic"? It's our monarchy, not a dance with republican elites
Grand Old Duke: Happy 88th Birthday to Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh
Warner: It is time for the Queen to dissolve Parliament.
Royal Fix: Prince Charles resolves diplomatic impasse.
Not Amused: France admits snubbing the Queen.
Useless Monarchy? Prince Charles is taking on the starchitects...and winning.
Vice-Regal Salute: Governor General of Canada least boring vice-regal ever
Loyal Subject: For genuine patriots pride in the monarchy is fundamental
Cranmer: The Mother of Parliaments has become a whorehouse of ill-repute
Poet Laureate: Will ignore royal events if they don't inspire her
Grand Old Duke: The longest-serving royal consort in British history.
Keep our Feudal Failsafes: Monarchy is not a game of 'fair'
Farewell to Helen Clark: "I deeply detest social distinction and snobbery"
Eco-Monarchy: A not completely irreverant look at the future King
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
The Equality Bill: A real nasty piece of work by the Lord Privy Seal
Laughter from the Gallery: Canada's a Republic, claim Australian politicians.
Peter Hitchens on America: Canada and America, two ideas of how to be free.
Let's Not: If the disappearance of newspapers is inevitable, let's get on with it.
Strange Bedfellows: No friend of monarchy, but...we admired the good bits
King Harper: A Parliament of Potted Palms.
Keep our Feudal Failsafes: Monarchy is not a game of 'fair'
Gentleman Royalist: Theodore Harvey is baptised an Anglican
Farewell to Helen Clark: "I deeply detest social distinction and snobbery"
Republican humour: Keeping monarchy means we don't have confidence
Eco-Monarchy: A not completely irreverant look at the future King
Catholic Tory: Amend the Act of Settlement - but not yet
Why you should still read The Guardian: Let's hear it for mad monarchy
Reform the Monarchy? Let's wait another century, says Lord Rees-Mogg
Not Amused: Mr. Rudd, and his totalitarian certainty
Irish Blues: Ireland out in the cold over British Monarchy debate
Act of Settlement: Here's a Tory view, and here's a Whig view
Lord Black: The magnificent absurdity of George Galloway
Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Gov Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's legacy. What legacy will America leave?
Oxford Concision: Daniel Hannan makes mince meat of Gordon Brown
Commonwealth Voyage: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
Royal Racism? Our intellectually febrile self appointed arbiters of modern manners
The Story of Bill Stone, RN: "Contented mind. Clean living. Trust in God"
Bill Stone: Last British veteran of both world wars dies
Reverse Snobbery: "Prince William and Harry are not very bright"
Poet Laureate: The English-Speaking Peoples need a poet laureate
Prince Harry: Much Ado about Nothing
H.M.A.S. Sydney: Australia seeks answers to its worst naval disaster
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower
Winnie-the-Pooh: Canada's famous bear, Winnie (Winnipeg), to be published in a sequel
Not Amused: Traditional fairytales are not politically correct enough for our children
The British Empire: "If you were going to be colonized, you wanted to be colonized by the British"
Gross Constitutional Impropriety: Without mandate for change, plebiscites work to undermine the system


Count Iggy: Michael Ignatieff takes the reigns of the LPC
Lord Black of Crossharbour: Harper and Ignatieff promise a rivalry for the ages
Strange Bedfellows: The monarchy is safe from this republican
Fount of Dishonour: The growing distinction of remaining an unadorned Mister
Republican Poet: Colby Cosh on that mute inglorious Milton
Church of England: The Conservative case for the Established Church of England
Liberal Secular Scrooges: A Blight on the Festive Landscape
Fount of Honour: The Queen's New Year Honours List
Act of Settlement: the last brick in a crumbling wall, by Philip Lardner
What next, Mr. Hannan, the conservative case for disestablishing the monarchy?
Hair to the Throne: Prince William's beard is fit for a King.
Canada's House of Lords: Why reforming the Senate is profoundly unwelcome.
Someone who gets it: The proper relationship between liberty and democracy.
More Pseudo Democracy: Keep on voting until you get it right.
Royal Christmas: Queen's Christmas Message still trumps seasonal schedule.
Archbishop Williams: A 'certain integrity' to a disestablished Church of England.
Loyal Subject: Debunking the antimonarchist claims of The Economist.
Royal Prerogative: Grand Duke says no to legalised murder assisted suicide.
Lord Iggy: The Nobleman versus the Doberman
It's Over: the day, the decision, the crisis, the coalition, and Dion’s leadership
Loyal Subject: Speak out Charles, our teenage politicians never will
Prince Charles at 60: 60 Facts About HRH, Prince Charles of Wales
Remembrance Day Hymns: O Valiant Hearts; Abide With Me
For Liberty and Livelihood! Duke of Norfolk leads hunt protest ban
Keating Remembers: "I have never been to Gallipoli, and I never will"
John Cleese a Republican? An anti-monarchist rant worthy of Monty Python
Balfour Declaration: The precursor to the Statute of Westminster
Beaverbrook's Grandson: SAS Major Sebastian Morley resigns in disgust
"His Mightiness": Yanks and the royals; the Eagle and the Crown
England Expects: The Hero of Trafalgar at 250
Harper and Howard: An embarrassing example of Anglosphere Unity
Crowning Insult: Labour's legacy will be its destruction of the monarchy
Her Excellency: An Interview with Governor-General Quentin Bryce
Age of Oversensitivity: Churchill wouldn't stand a chance in Canadian election
William of Wales: Prince chooses RAF career over that of a 'working Royal'
Australia's Loyal Opposition: Republican Turnbull now on Queen's side
Loyal Subject: The Age of Elizabeth II, by A.N. Wilson
Tory Icon? Daniel Hannan says British Tories should follow Stephen Harper
Chasing Churchill: Around the world with Winston
Her Majesty The Queen - A Life in Film
The Crown in Oz: Australia swears in first female governor-general
Lèse majesté? The Royal Australian Institute of Architects drops the 'royal'
Rest In Peace: David Lumsden of Cushnie (1933-2008), President of the 1745 Assn.
Monarchies Rule: Prominent Australian republican says monarchies are the best
Sir Don Bradman: Oz remembers The Don, the greatest cricketer batsman of all time
Padre Benton: The Living Tradition in Piddingworth
"Stodgy anachronism" More moist, vapid effusions from the Diana cult
Drool Britannia: London Summer Olympics 2012
Taki the Aristocrat: Unrepentedly wealthy and well mannered
Wanted: Uncorker Message in a bottle faster than Royal Mail
The Other St. George: Will Georgia restore its monarchy?
Gentlemen's Clubs: The Great Club Revolution of New York
The Laughing Cavalier: What an utterly absurd article
Health unto His Future Majesty: "Royalty dares to challenge the New Order"
"Grace, Your Grouse!" Better to kill a fellow gun than wing a beater
Boys will be adventurous: To Ulaanbaatar by London cab
A King's Breakfast: A trenchant defence of the full English breakfast
Republican beer: Forget Coopers, support Fosters
Trafalgar Square: Sanity prevails on the fourth plinth
The Empire Builder: How James Hill built a railroad without subsidies
"Harvard was not amused": Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1918–2008
Greatest Briton: Wellington is "greater than Churchill"
Death of the Necktie? A well-tied tie is the first serious step in life
Not Amused: The next Chief Justice of Australia to be a republican
Royal New Zealand Air Force: God Save N.Z. from the Cannibals
Why English Pubs are Dying: The totalitarian smoking ban.
Swooning over Princess Obama: A Coronation or the Second Coming?
Dreams of an Academic: Gough Whitlam to have the last laugh?
Joshua Slocum meet President Kruger: Yet another reason to love the Boers
Changing of the Guard: Annual Inspection at Rideau Hall
H.M.S. Iron Duke: A Foe for William and Sea Room
Fountain of Honour: Australian pop star gets Order of the British Empire
DOMINION DAY: Read David Warren's Lament for a Nation
Kiwi Tribalism: Sealords, Treelords, what are New Zealanders coming to?
Of Queen and Country: John Elder disects the current state of monarchy in Oz
Not Amused: The Olympic Games trump Buckingham Palace
CMR Returns: The Royal Military College of St. John
Hereditary peers overwhelmingly rejected the Lisbon Treaty
Archbishop Cranmer: Royal Assent given to the Treaty of Lisbon
Crown Commonwealth: Referendum confirms Her Majesty as Queen of Tuvalu
Duke of York: Prince Andrew Visits Troops in Afghanistan
Treaty of Lisbon: A Litmus Test for the British Monarchy
The Queen and I: The man who caused royal kerfuffle gives view of the monarchy
HMS Ontario sunk in 1780, found intact! at bottom of Lake Ontario
Hold the Lime, Bartender: Only lemon properly complements a gin and tonic
Elizabethans Down Under: Are most Australian monarchists merely "Elizabethans"?
Edwardian Gentleman: What To Do When You Find a Hohenzollern in Your Study
Hooray for Kid's Day!! Melbourne newspaper won't come of Age
Unhappy Kingdom: Why Liberal Democracy is Failing Us
Knightless Realm: The world yawns as John Howard is made an AC
Scots Tory: Bring Back the Stiff Upper Lip, says Gerald Warner
HMY Britannia: Let's lay the keel for a new royal yacht
For Queen, Country and Low Pay: PM pledges to do better
Maple Leaf republic? Roger Kimball's sleight of hand (since corrected!)
Queen's Birthday: New Zealand unveils new Vice-Regal Standard
Prince Charming: Quebec author calls Canadian G-G a "negro queen"
The Senior Service: Sub-Lieutenant Wales to take on Pirates of the Caribbean
Crown of Disenchantment: What does it require to withhold royal assent?
Colonial Mentality: Key republican thinks Victoria Cross is a colonial relic
The Red Baron: Billy Bishop, not Mannock, was the British Empire's top ace
Which Scots conservatism: Unionist or Nationalist?
Loyal Subject: After all she has done, we owe the Queen our oath
Victoria Day – Fête de la Reine: Official B'day of the Queen of Canada
Renaming the Victoria Day Weekend: Let's get rid of Heritage Day Bob
Pro Valore: Canada mints its own Victoria Cross in time for Victoria Day
State Visit to Turkey: Mustafa Akyol says God Save the Queen, Indeed
Norn Iron Unites: What issue is uniting all parties of Northern Ireland?
Extreme Loyalist: Michael Stone attempted to slit the throats of Adams and McGuinness because he just "can't handle" republicans being in government.
Canada's Vice-Regal dubbed an elegant mix between Lady Di and Nelson Mandela
Queen of Australia: Support for Australian republic hits new low
A Heroes Welcome: The Windsor Castle Royal Tattoo, 8-10 May 2008
Fat, Vile and Impudent: Alan Fotheringham is back on the bottle
The Devine Right of Bling: Our Royals have become hereditary celebrities
Battle of the Atlantic: Canadians remember the longest battle of WW2
Old Etonian Toff: Boris Johnson installed as Tory Mayor of London
Britain needs a Patron Saint: Cry God for Harry, Britain and St. Aiden?
Anglos in Mont-Royal: Rooting for the Montreal Canadiens
Daniel Hannan: Borders of the Anglosphere and the British Empire was a mistake
Australia 2020: One Big Fat Republican Con Job
Bye bye Tommy: O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away"
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
Carpetbaggers Down Under: Kevin 'Mugabe' Rudd wins 98.5% support for republic
Kipling: The Jeremiah of Empire and the Poet Laureate of Civilisation
Duke of Edinburgh: Behind the gaffes is a man of real sincerity
Lord Rutherford: The Father of the Atom lives on in great great grandson
Queen of Australia: Royalty Protects us from Tyranny, David Barnett
Long Live the Broadsheet! Norumbega, more traditionalist than the Pope.
A Tale of Two Countries: Soldiers of Britain and Canada serve the same Queen but...
Loyal Subject: Polishing the Royal Crown, Matt Bondy & Brendon Bedford
Devoted to the End: Obituary of Sir Phillip Bridges
The Monarchist does not recognize the Republic of Kosova
Loyal Subject: MPs Ruse Defeated; God Save the Queen!
St. Paddy's Day: Edmund Burke, the greatest Irishman who ever lived
Not Amused: The Bunkum of Timothy Garton Ash
Hero Harry: Rave Reviews across the Commonwealth
Patriot Prince: Prince Harry fought for us all, Charles Moore
William F. Buckley, RIP: He had a Tory gratitude for the pleasures of life
Their Lordships' Duty: The House of Lords can influence the Lisbon Treaty debate
Knights of Oz: Revive Sirs or I'll have your guts for garters
Peter Hitchens: People love the Queen...and the BBC hates us for it
Our Greatest Monarch: Paul Johnson says Henry V was our greatest monarch
Princess Diana Inquest: A Dirty Raincoat Show for the World
Malcom Turnbull: 'Queen's death will spark republican vote'
Duke of York: The Royals are not "stuffed dummies". They should have their say
Peers of the Realm: The decline and fall of the House of Lords - Charles A. Coulombe
Peter Hitchens: Get rid of the monarchy and you will get rid of a guardian of liberty
Honouring Sir Edmund Hillary
The Queen versus an E.U. President
Going Solo: Prince William earns his Wings
James C. Bennett: The Third Anglosphere Century
Knights of Oz: Revive Sirs or I'll have your guts for garters
Princess Diana Inquest: A Dirty Raincoat Show for the World
Malcom Turnbull: 'Queen's death will spark republican vote'
Future Peer: The life and times of Lady Victoria Beckham
Peers of the Realm: The decline and fall of the House of Lords - Charles A. Coulombe
Peter Hitchens: Get rid of the monarchy and you will get rid of a guardian of liberty


New York Times: Ever Backwards into the Royal Future
Peter Hitchens: People love the Queen...and the BBC hates us for it
Christopher Hitchens: An Anglosphere Future
Andrew Cusack: Republicanism is a traitor's game
Courageous Patrician: Rt Hon Ian Douglas Smith (1919-2007)
The Last Rhodesian: What began with Rhodes and ended with Ian?
Gentleman Journalist: The Lord Baron W.F. Deedes, 1913-2007
Not Amused: Blair's sinister campaign to undermine the Queen
Loyal Subject: Queen Elizabeth: A stranger in her own country
Reverence Deference: Bowing and Scraping Back in Tradition
Rex Murphy: Kennedy, Churchill, Lincoln - The rousing bon mot is no more
Gerald Warner: Don't shed a tear for Diana cult in its death throes
The End of Grandeur: Rich, chincy Canada puts Strathmore on the blocks
Confessions of a Republican Leftie: "The Queen charmed the pants off me"
The King's Own Calgary Regiment: Cpl. Nathan Hornburg is laid to rest
The Royal Gurkha Rifles: Prince William grieves the death of Major Roberts
Queensland Mounted Rifles: Trooper David Pearce, 41, killed in Afghanistan
The Order of Canada: 100 investitures later, Canada's highest honour turns 40
Prince Edward on Prince Edward Island: Troop's link to monarchy important
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN: Unveils the UK Armed Forces Memorial
Great Britain: "A rotten borough with a banana monarchy" - by Europhile
Peers of the Realm: The decline and fall of the House of Lords - Charles A. Coulombe
Remembering 'Smithy': An obituary tour de force by Andrew Cusack here, here and here.
NOT AMUSED: Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Quebec not invited to Quebec's tercentenary