To the Manor Born

Ah, Grantleigh Manor, talk about 1980s nostalgia writ large. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, fox hunting was legal, and the words “Little England” suggested nothing more than small-town life amongst the rolling pastures of Britain's idyllic countryside – exactly the subject matter, in fact, of this classic sitcom, as noted by the Daily Telegraph in a 2007 cast reunion.



I just spent the better part of 16 hours over the weekend, watching this blast from the past on You Tube. For the unacquainted, above is the very first episode from the Fall of 1979, now enjoying its 30th anniversary. You can watch part 2 here and part 3 here. The sitcom was aired on BBC for three seasons between 1979 and 1981.

To the Manor Born is a British comedy about the life of Audrey fforbes-Hamilton, a woman of some means and no small reputation. Set in the heart of the English countryside, Grantleigh Manor is the focal point of Audrey fforbes-Hamiltons life, but when her husband dies she is horrified to discover that she is bankrupt and must sell her beloved Grantleigh Manor to Richard DeVere, a London businessman. Her reduced circumstances find her moving into the Manor's lodge, where she can keep an eye on DeVere's activities at the Manor while she schemes to reclaim her ancestral home.

The aristocratically-minded Audrey fforbes Hamilton is played brilliantly by British actress, Penelope Keith.

Read More »»

The Lord's Day

I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

Luke 15.18,19

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1.8,9

Dearly beloved brethren, the Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloak them before the face of almighty God our heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same by his infinite goodness and mercy.

— From The Order for Evening Prayer, BCP, 1662

Read More »»

Thine Be The Glory

Thine Be the Glory is a popular Christian hymn set to the tune of the chorus "See, the Conqu'ring hero comes" from the Handel oratorio Judas Maccabaeus. It was written in 1884 by the Swiss writer Edmond Budry (1854-1932).



The political context of the British chorus "See, the Conqu'ring hero comes" is the Jacobite Rising of 1745. Handel, an obviously devout Hanoverian, hastily composed the oratorio in 1746 for the encouragement of the English. After the success of the British forces at the Battle of Culloden, he started a work in honour of the victorious Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, addressed as a "Truly Wise, Valiant, and Virtuous Commander".

The first performance took place on April 1, 1747 at Covent Garden, and Judas Maccabaeus became one of Handel's most popular oratorios with frequent reprises, second only to his masterpiece, Messiah. The chorus "See, the Conqu'ring hero comes" became well-known later as the music was invariably played by brass bands at the opening of new railway lines and stations in Britain during the 19th century. It is also one of the movements in Fantasia on British Sea Songs, a medly of sea songs arranged in 1905 by the legendary BBC Proms conductor, Sir Henry Wood, to mark the centenary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

Read More »»

The Coronation Anthems

The four Coronation Anthems that Handel composed for the coronation of George II of Great Britain in 1727 have been sung at every subsequent British coronation service since. Although they have been part of the traditional content of English coronations since that of King Edgar at Bath Abbey in 973, the texts for all four anthems were picked by Handel himself — much to the consternation of the participating clergy.

Zadok the Priest (HWV 258)



My Heart Is Inditing (HWV 259)



The King Shall Rejoice (HWV 260)



Let Thy Hand Be Strengthened (HWV 261)

Read More »»

Handel's Water Music

Legend has it that Handel composed Water Music to regain the favour of King George I. Handel had been employed by the future king before he succeeded to the British throne when he was Elector of Hanover. The composer supposedly fell out of favour for moving to London in the reign of Queen Anne. This story was first related by Handel's early biographer John Mainwaring; although it may have some foundation in fact, the tale as told by Mainwaring has been doubted by some Handel scholars.

Read More »»

Concert on the River Thames

The Water Music is a collection of orchestral movements composed by George Frideric Handel that premiered in the summer on July 17, 1717 when King George I requested a concert on the River Thames. The concert was performed by 50 musicians playing on a barge close to the royal barge from which the King listened with some close friends. George I was said to have loved it so much that he ordered the exhausted musicians to play the suites three times on the trip.

Read More »»

For God and the Empire

Grand Cross's star of the Order of the British Empire

The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V. The Order's motto is For God and the Empire. It is the most junior of the British (Commonwealth) orders of chivalry, and the largest, with over 100,000 living members worldwide.

Read More »»

All Whig and no Tory

The basic philosophical problem with the otherwise impressive Daniel Hannan, is that he has no discernible reverence for ancient Christian monarchy and reserves his greatest jubilation for history's triumphs over kings.

There are four places in the world which I never visit without a sense of reverence, almost of pilgrimage. Three are in Britain: Stratford, where the greatest mind produced by our species was shaped; Runnymede, where the idea that governments should be answerable to their peoples was encoded; and Naseby, where the victory of constitutional parliamentary authority was secured. The fourth is the old courthouse in Philadelphia where the US Declaration of Independence was signed and where, later, the Constitution was drafted.

To be sure there's much to like here, but while we all love Shakespeare, we shouldn't be surprised if Hannan's favourite tragic play is MacBeth's regicide of King Duncan. All Whig and no Tory, Roundhead values with no Cavalier tastes. So foul and fair a day I have not seen.

The problem with this milquetoast monarchist is that all his heroes are republican, from John Milton to Thomas Jefferson. Yes he looks up to Burke, but probably only the most Whiggish aspects of the man. Aren't the truly great men in history those who managed to fuse their classical liberalism with traditional conservative values - liberal conservative thinkers and principled floor crossers like Burke, Churchill, Russell Kirk and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn?

I mean, what prospect of future progress is there in championing the one-dimensional fact that people wrestled away power from their kings long ago? Yes they did, and yes it was good up to a point, but what, pray, has been happening over the last hundred years or so? Are we okay with the fact that government of the people has grown from taking 10% of our earnings to more than 50% today? Do we really enjoy greater liberty today than we did under the influence of the king's men? Is there any real prospect of ever wrestling power away from politicians and putting it back in the hands of the individual where it belongs? No, not under the current system, the spoils of government are just too enticing for ambition to ignore, politicians prefer the corruption of Walpole over the patriotism of Bolingbroke.

My issue with Daniel Hannan is that while he rails splendidly against the former, he is at best a limp, halfhearted and perfunctory torch-bearer for the latter.

Read More »»

Where's the Steel and Arsenic?

William Shawcross is out with a new glowing book about the Queen Mother. The Queen Mother was once described as having "a touch of arsenic in the marshmallow". While there is reportedly much that is new in this official biography of our late Empress, Shawcross's portrait is apparently almost entirely marshmallow and no arsenic. I have not read it, only sought out the toughest review I could find and came up with this lovely little critique, which, while much tougher on the Queen Mum, did even more to elevate my respect.

Michael Thornton, author of Royal Feud: The Queen Mother And The Duchess Of Windsor, says that Shawcross, in his efforts to do justice to her legend, "has converted a vivid, enigmatic and fascinating woman into a plaster-cast effigy". According to Thornton, "the eternally benevolent figure that emerges from Shawcross's bland pages is not the feisty, steely, stubborn Scot whose seemingly imperturbable outward calm rallied the nation during the darkest days of the Blitz." Behind the great abundance of charm there was an extremely ruthless and shrewd nature to the Queen Mother that the book apparently goes out of its way to overlook.

Read More »»

The Lord's Day

Repentance is always difficult, and the difficulty grows still greater by delay. But let those who have hitherto neglected this great duty, remember, that it is yet in their power, and that they cannot perish everlastingly but by their own choice! Let them therefore endeavour to redeem the time lost, and repair their negligence by vigilance and ardour! 'Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.'

— Samuel Johnson, Sermons

Read More »»

St. Paul's Cathedral Choir

The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002. The text for this anthem "I Was Glad" is Psalm 122, which has been chanted or sung as the Sovereign processes up the aisle at the beginning of every Coronation since, at least, the Coronation of Richard II in the 13th Century as recorded in the Liber Regalis.



The arrangement in this video dates from the Coronation of Edward VII in 1902. It has been sung at every Coronation since, and like Handel's anthems, seems now a permanent feature to this glorious ritual.

Read More »»

Sweeter than Roses

You can't mention the Great Handel, without recalling his great mentor, Henry Purcell.

Read More »»

The Arrival of the Queen of Sheba

Handel was the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head, and kneel before his tomb — Ludwig van Beethoven

Read More »»

Divine Reason

What to say about the good doctor Samuel Johnson on his 300th birthday? It would be almost mundane and cliché to repeat his quotes here, to harp that he was a Tory royalist and devout Anglican who wrote a dictionary on the English language, and whose life was made famous by Boswell's biography of him: The Life of Samuel Johnson. So we won't.

A photographic portrait of Samuel Johnson. Artist unknown
Dr. Johnson was a critic of the Enlightenment. He lived through the first period in modern history we might think of as secular in spirit, that was skeptical in matters of knowledge, questioning of authority, rationalistic towards the existence of ancient institutions, devoted to the idea of justice and an unquestioning belief in the goodness of human nature.

The crude reductionism of imparting abstract legitimacy in the hands of an Ideal People may have been alive and well in France, but with memories still fresh from the experience of the English Civil War, writers in England leading up to this time were largely Tory in spirit: distrustful of human nature and devoted to the cause of public order. In England, the distinctive spirit of the age might too be called the Enlightenment, but it was a critical one - constantly testing through irony, purging with satire, and finding conviction in the poise of an exact antithesis to the slowly settling Whig orthodoxies of that era. This is the genuine greatness of men like Johnson and Burke - they stood against the whole tendency of their epoch - not necessarily hostile to the ideas of the Enlightenment, but intensely critical of them.

Despite his deeply held religious views, Johnson was a rationalist and believed that rational thought was vital to morality. In his review of Soame Jenyns's A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil and its argument that those "born to poverty" should not be educated so they could enjoy the "opiate of ignorance", Johnson wrote, "To entail irreversible poverty upon generation after generation only because the ancestor happened to be poor, is, in itself, cruel, if not unjust". The hereditary principle, even that as understood by a staunch Tory, had its clear limits. When Jenyns claimed that madness was a way God ensured that the poor would be content with life, Johnson responded:

On the happiness of madmen, as the case is not very frequent, it is not necessary to raise a disquisition, but I cannot forbear to observe that I never yet knew disorders of mind increase felicity; every madman is either arrogant and irascible, or gloomy and suspicious, or possessed by some passion or notion destructive to his quiet. He has always discontent in his look, and malignity in his bosom. And, if we had the power of choice, he would soon repent who should resign his reason to secure his peace.

Although Johnson believed that "All change is of itself an evil, which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage", he could not accept such a belief when it came to slavery. At Oxford, according to Boswell, Johnson gave a toast and said, "Here's to the next insurrection of the Negroes in the West Indies".

Samuel Johnson's life, like Burke's, is sandwhiched between the Jacobite and Jacobin periods. As hereditary monarchists, both men - Tory and Whig - in their earlier life had difficulty with the consequences unleashed by the 'Glorious Revolution', most acutely with the destruction of the divine principle in the human soul immortalized in Johnson's quip that "the first Whig was the devil". But by the time of George III, both men had come around to the Hanoverian Succession. Burke in particular criticized the "old fanatics of single arbitrary power" who had "dogmatized as if hereditary royalty was the only lawful government in the world, just as our new fanatics of popular arbitrary power, maintain that a popular election is the sole lawful source of authority." Burke was talking of France of course, but he could easily have been talking of the way democracy is idolized today.

Both Johnson and Burke as critics of the Enlightenment gave credence to revealed religion, and perceived well that pure reason had its frontiers. They understood that to deny the existence of realms beyond those borders was puerile, and therefore possessed a belief in a transcendent order, and an affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence.

Read More »»

The Siege of Toulon

Admiral Samuel Hood
Admiral Samuel Hood, later the first Viscount Hood, who had also served in the American War of Independence for His Britannic Majesty, commanded the forces of the Royal Navy in the Siege of Toulon, teaming up with French royalists against the revolutionary republic.


The Royal Navy bombards Toulon
The Kingdom of France had contributed largely to the fall of monarchic rule in what was now those United States of America, but apparently His Britannic Majesty was the bigger man. The Royal Navy was employed against the revolutionary republic, and the Siege of Toulon – from September 18, 1793 to December 18, 1793 – was one such employment.

Those were indeed other days than when the British Empire under the leadership of the likes of Herbert Henry Asquith and David Lloyd George teamed up with the revolutionary republic – and also later the former rebels across the pond – in the quest to “make the world safe for democracy.”

Read More »»

The King in Colour

A rare colour image of King Edward VII taking a breather during a stroll through a Scottish estate in full Highland costume in the autumn of 1909. Recently discovered in the home of the banker Lionel de Rothschild, who took the photo, the image of the King was taken on one of the banker's regular trips to Scotland for the autumn grouse season, at Tulchan in Strathspey, 15 miles from Balmoral. Rothschild was an enthusiastic amateur photographer who experimented in taking colour pictures, called autochromes, and went about perfecting the new process. Eight months after it was taken, Edward died and George V took ascended the throne.

Read More »»

The Prince of Ales

The Prince of Wales brews his own organic beer. Who knew?

Read More »»

The Queen's Royal Lancers

The Queen's Royal Lancers is a cavalry regiment of the British Army, which can trace its lineage back 250 years to the death of General Wolfe. The Queen's visit marked the 250th anniversary of the raising of the 17th Light Dragoons. The 17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own) was a cavalry regiment most famous for its participation in the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War.

The Queen inspects the Lance Guard after being received with a Royal Salute on her arrival at the base of The Queen's Royal Lancers in Catterick, North Yorkshire, 12 September 2009. Her Majesty is the regiment's Colonel-in-Chief. © Press Association

In 1759 Colonel John Hale of the 47th Foot was ordered home by General James Wolfe just prior to the General's death, with the final dispatches and news of Wolfe's victory in the Battle of Quebec. For bringing news of the victory, Hale was rewarded with land in Canada and permission to raise a regiment of light dragoons.

The new regiment was known as the 17th Regiment of (Light) Dragoons and was also known as Hale's Light Horse after its founder. The admiration of his men for General Wolfe was evident in the cap badge Colonel Hale chose for the regiment: the Death's Head with the motto "Or Glory". Death or Glory is the motto of the regiment to this day.

Various amalgamations have resulted in its absorption into the Queen's Royal Lancers (which also incorporates the 5th Lancers, 16th Lancers and 21st Lancers).

Read More »»

Wolfe and Montcalm

Je me souviens reads the National Assembly of Quebec just below two life-size statutes of General Wolfe and the General Montcalm, who were both killed on the Plains of Abraham at the Battle of Quebec 250 years ago today. That both of these men, not just Montcalm, are given central place above the main doors of the Assembly is telling.

Despite the hotheaded comments of some Quebec nationalists, the anniversary passed respectfully enough and went by calme comme Montcalm. Whilst most Quebeckers naturally don't view Wolfe as "the hero of Quebec", they do respect him probably as much, if not more, than English-speaking Canadians, who can't even be bothered to remember much of their nation's own history.

The Wolfe Montcalm story has always been central theatre to the identity and vision of French-speaking Quebec inside Canada, the idea that the country was really founded by two European peoples - British and French. It's a vision frustrated by political and historical reality, however, for constitutionally speaking, Canada is a confederation of ten provinces, not two peoples. The initial union between Lower and Upper Canada in the 1840s lent some credence to this historical vision, but then two became four in 1867, and by 1949 four had become ten with the inclusion of Newfoundland. Quebec's relative power has diminished over time, it never aspired to be a mere province in the first place, and does not really accept the notion that Canada is a nation or a people - a state, yes, but not a nation.

There is considerable merit to this belief, for the embryonic British nation set in motion in North America by General Wolfe 250 years ago has largely wiped away the old heraldry. The Maple Leaf flag is remarkable for its boldness, cleanliness and distinctiveness, for its deliberate excising of the past. There is no Je Me Souviens in Canada.

Read More »»

Westminster Cathedral Choir

Not to be confused with Westminster Abbey and the Church of England. Whatever. Anglican or Catholic, we are chastened by the Lord, and entreat Him to turn His anger away from us. Psalm 38

Read More »»

The Plains of Abraham

Well, here we are gentlemen. 250 years to the day. Enjoy.

Read More »»

The Hero of Québec

Major General Wolfe.
Who, at the Expence of his Life, purchas'd immortal Honour for his Country,
and planted, with his own Hand, the British Laurel, in the inhospitable Wilds of North America, By the Reduction of Quebec, Septr. 13th. 1759.

Read More »»

Here Died Wolfe Victorious

Apropos "Kipling's" post below, the inscription on the obelisk at Quebec City, erected to commemorate the battle on the Plains of Abraham no longer reads: "Here Died Wolfe Victorious." Now it simply reads: "Here Died Wolfe."

The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West. Oil on canvas, 1770.
The site where Wolfe purportedly fell is marked by a column surmounted by a helmet and sword. An inscription at its base now reads, in French and English, "Here died Wolfe - September 13th, 1759." It replaces a large stone which had been placed there by British troops to mark the spot.

Wolfe's defeat of the French led to the British capture of New France, and his "hero's death" made the Wolfe name a legend. The Wolfe legend led to the famous painting above and the opening line of the patriotic Canadian anthem, "The Maple Leaf Forever", it too all but wiped from English Canadian memory to accommodate (appease) French Canadians insided a united Canada.

Historian Francis Parkman described the death of Wolfe this way:

They asked him [Wolfe] if he would have a surgeon; but he shook his head, and answered that all was over with him. His eyes closed with the torpor of approaching death, and those around sustained his fainting form. Yet they could not withhold their gaze from the wild turmoil before them, and the charging ranks of their companions rushing though the line of sire and smoke.

"See how they run." one of the officers exclaimed, as the French fled in confusion before the leveled bayonets.

"Who run?" demanded Wolfe, opening his eyes like a man aroused from sleep.

"The enemy, sire," was the reply; "they give way everywhere."

"Then," said the dying general, "tell Colonel River, to cut off their retreat from the bridge. Now, God be praised, I die contented," he murmured; and, turning on his side, he calmly breathed his last breath.

Read More »»

Paths of Canadians

The Death of General Wolfe by Benjamin West. Oil on canvas, 1770.
The CBC shocks us all.

Canada's national broadcaster will mark the 250th anniversary of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham with a documentary on the decisive British-French conflict, months after threats from hardline separatists forced the cancellation of a planned re-enactment in Quebec City.

The one-hour documentary, set to air during prime time next Thursday, is already ruffling the feathers of those who opposed the real-life re-enactment

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, like a broken clock. To our American readers, let me put this in perspective. Imagine if a bunch Southerners demanded that a re-enactment of the Battle of Gettysburg be cancelled, because the battle recalled painful memories of defeat, and you begin to understand the absurdity of the protests of Quebecois nationalists. One can take two perspectives about landmark events like Gettysburg and the Plains of Abraham. It's big history that deserves to be remembered, regardless of the respective merits of each side. The other approach is honouring the values the respective sides were fighting to uphold. On both counts Gettysburg and Quebec were major events whose outcomes changed their respective nations for the better. While there is no moral comparison between New France and the Confederacy, slavery was a peripheral issue in Canada though it did exist, 1759 was ultimately a lucky break for les Canadiens.

The New France of the mid-eighteenth century was much like old France, quasi-feudal and dominated by a Catholic Church far enough away from grasping the need for the separation of church and state. While the Enlightenment was in full swing in the salons and coffee shops of Paris, its values and attitudes had yet to trickle down to the average Frenchmen in the fields. Only a tiny landed elite along the St. Lawrence would have begun to come to grips with the implications of figures like Voltaire and Diderot. For the generation of Quebec nationalists who emerged after the Quiet Revolution, 1759 was both humiliation and lost opportunity. Had French colonial rule lasted Quebec might have become a modern independent liberal nation, just as Canada and the United States had.

The narrative implies that English speaking Canada helped prop up Quebec's ancien regime. Having about one quarter of the population of Canada stuck in the seventeenth century, for the first hundred years after Confederation, was a significant encumbrance. Something polite opinion has steadily ignored for decades. Quebec was strategically vital to the existence of Canada, yet its basic values were more statist and collectivist than those of the ROC ("Rest of Canada"). For all the celebration of the coureur des bois, the state and clergy preferred les habitant to stay on the farm. The province's educational system famously churned out priests and lawyers, just as schools in English speaking North America were beginning to turn out business graduates and engineers.

The hope that Quebec might have modernized sooner had it remained within France's orbit, omits the bloody history of the metropole after 1789. Five republics, two Empires, three major military defeats and a near coup as late as 1962, modern France modernized slowly and often by force. The France of the 1950s might have been nominally more secular that contemporary Quebec, yet it suffered from many of the same structural setbacks. What Quebec had enjoyed was two centuries of peace, security and relatively more freedom than his French counterpart. The Battle of Quebec was the inception of Canada. For the Quebecois it was the moment they came into the orbit of a liberal and modern government. That alone should be enough to commemorate.

Read More »»

The King's College Chapel Choir

I have for you a very special treat on this glorious Sunday morning. The world-famous Choir of King's College, Cambridge is one of today's most accomplished and renowned representatives of the great British choral tradition. It was created by King Henry VI, who founded King's College, Cambridge in 1441, to provide daily singing in his Chapel, which remains the main task of the choir to this day.



The above is a sublime performance of Psalm 51, which is frequently used in various liturgical traditions because of its beautiful spirit of humility and repentance. It begins: Have mercy on me, O God.

Read More »»

100 Years Young

The Girl Guides
The BBC reports: "Thousands of people across the United Kingdom are now gathering to celebrate the centenary of The Girl Guiding Movement. More than half a million girls and their guests are taking part in parties, Girlguiding UK said. About 8,000 Guides, Brownies and Rainbows were today gathering at this event in Manchester's Heaton Park. Some 7,000 were due at London's Crystal Palace, where a group of young girls asked Lord Robert Baden-Powell for their own movement at a Scout Rally in 1909. A century after the youngsters urged him to offer "something for the girls", Girlguiding UK said it is still going strong. One in four eight-year-old girls in the United Kingdom is a Brownie and almost half of all British women have been involved at some stage in their lives. It has about 45,000 girls waiting to join." Details about the celebrations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Girl Guides: The girls soon demanded the right to serve a King and Country too.

The 1909 Rally
"The very first Scout Rally, held in 1909 at The Crystal Palace in London, attracted 11,000 boys and a number of girls. Scouting developed largely spontaneously in response to 'Scouting For Boys' but the 1909 Rally led to a more formal organization under the leadership of its founder. Robert Baden-Powell called for a Rally in London at the suggestion of King Edward VII." More.

Boy Scouts: The Scout Rally tradition is continued in London by King George V.

The Sea Scouts
"In 1909, two years after The Scout Movement was founded, the idea of sea scouting was talked about at a campfire where Robert Baden-Powell voiced the hope that older Scouts would be interested in learning about boat management and seamanship. He stressed the need for young men to prepare themselves for service on their countries ships. 'Sea Scouting' was introduced by Robert Baden-Powell and brother Warington Baden-Powell - sailor and canoe sailing investor."

"Robert Baden-Powell personally held a Scout Camp at Buckler's Hard on The Beaulieu River in Hampshire in August 1909 which marked the start of The Sea Scouts, although Sea Scouts were not officially named as such until 1912. In celebration of the 100 years of Sea Scouts, a special Jamboree was held at The National Water Sports Centre in Nottingham. The Jamboree was run over one week in August which coincided with the original camp, 100 years ago." More.

Read More »»

Queensland or Saxon Land

ROYAL LETTERS: Edward Bulwer Lytton involved in naming of Queensland.
The Courier Mail in Australia reports: "A British historian says Queensland might have been called Saxon Land or Clarence - and Queen Victoria didn't seem to take any interest in the State's naming. Saxon Land, Clarence and Queen's Land were options suggested by The Colonial Secretary, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, according to Professor Ged Martin from The University of Edinburgh."

"Professor Martin reveals his findings in letters to his friend John Dawson, a former Queensland Agent General in London, now retired in Brisbane. Professor Martin said letters held in The Royal Archives at Windsor Castle show Lord Lytton's own correspondence to Her Majesty Queen Victoria in 1859."

"When the options were narrowed to Saxon Land and Queen's Land, Lord Lytton wrote a letter. He said "both the names which have occurred to Your Majesty are excellent", adding, "the Colonists would find particular pride" in Queen's Land. So it came to be. But the naming of Queensland seems to have been an afterthought with letters showing Victoria more interested in the naming of British Columbia and its capital, Victoria." Celebrate Saxonland (sorry, Queensland) here and here.

Read More »»

A State of War

His soft, lilting voice called the Empire to war. In a three minute radio speech on September 3rd, 1939 Neville Chamberlain announced the declaration of war on Germany. In fulfilling his guarantee of Polish sovereignty, ten months after having betrayed the Czechs to Hitler, Chamberlain did so with all the enthusiasm of a doomed man. His language was pleading that Britain had no other choice, that he had tried his very best but that war couldn't be helped. In the popular imagination the time between Poland's conquest and the invasion of the Low Countries and Norway are the "Phony War." Chamberlain vanishes from the scene during this period. A spent force - in every sense, he would die in late 1940 - the full consequences of his years of inaction would only be fully realized by the British public in the frantic days of Dunkirk.

This war was not like the last war. The slow grinding war of attrition was replaced by Blitzkrieg. The little known irony was that this German word had partly British origins. The military theorists J. F. C. Fuller and Basil Lidell Hart had envisioned a new kind of warfare in the dying days of the last war. The Hundred Days of 1918 had seen Australian, Canadian and British troops spearhead the destruction the Kaiser's Army using Blitzkrieg like tactics.

The first two years of the new war showed, very bloodily and painfully, how horribly unprepared the Allies were for it. The Wehrmacht utterly outclassed anything in the world at the time, and arguably since. The legendary German officer corp, its origins going back to the birth of the Prussian state more than two centuries before, granted German forces a remarkable skill for improvisation. All of this was placed at the disposal of a psychotic with a gift for oratory. The strange and sordid tale by which one of the world's leading nations fell into the hands of Nazism is beyond the scope of this post. An object lesson not simply of evil but how otherwise decent and respectable people fall under its sway.

Good men doing nothing. In Germany and in Britain. Chamberlain's name has become a epithet in the seven decades since the beginning of the Second World War. In his defence it has been said that appeasement was simply a skillful stalling for time, allowing Britain to rearm. His protestations of seeking peace a blind for preparations for war. Certainly after Munich British spending on arms rose dramatically. The theory, however, imparts a level of cynicism and skill that Chamberlain is not known to have had. A more likely explanation is pragmatism. Seeking peace, while preparing for war, was a strategy to appease factions within his own party and the country.

Parliament and the nation turned to Churchill as a last resort. A loose cannon whose name was still associated with the disaster of Gallipoli and his "ratting" from Tories to the Liberals and back again. His wilderness years had begun not because of his opposition to appeasement, but his refusal to support a measure to grant India greater self-rule and his support for free trade. Excluded from Ramsey Macdonald's National Government of 1931, Churchill spent much of the early 1930s writing histories and biographies. In the 1934 he gave his famous The Threat of War speech. It was only in early September of 1939 that he was recalled to his old post as First Lord of the Admiralty. "Winston is Back" went the signal to the fleet.

Read More »»

In search of living ideals

I was not planning on posting again today, but the exchange between Our Learned Proprietor and Neil Welton on the World War Two remembrance post interested me so much, I think I will.

Brevity is a virtue I have never mastered.

In any case, here it is, excerpted below:

Neil Welton said:

My grandfather would say it is time to move on. For as you point out - this is 2009, not 1939.Trouble with monarchists and, to a point The Royal Family, is this permanent "ration books mentality". We appear increasingly retarded as every year goes by. No wonder republicanism is getting popular - we have yet to get past 1955.

To which The Monarchist replied:

Yes, Remembrance should be about Forgetting. Seventy years ago, 70 million people (or some other obscene number) lost their lives (or were soon to lose it) in the ugliest episode to ravage the four corners of the planet. Nothing to see here, nothing to remember. Time to move on...

To be entirely frank (and frankness is one virtue Dr. Swift does have) I have some sympathy with both points of view. I have no wish to intrude on the conversations of my betters, but it appears to me hugely important that someone makes the point I am about to.

Remembrance is a virtue in itself - I am with The Monarchist on that, for the reasons he outlines. But on the other hand, Neil Welton is right too - that is, we cannot continue talking as if virtue died in 1955, or expired (to adapt Philip Larkin) when sex began in 1968.

My generation is too young to remember the 1960's. We have imbibed much poison from that wretched decade, but have no Baby Boomer excitement which comes from throwing off The Man.

What we do have (and I speak for myself primarily), I think, is what Papa Benedict calls "a crisis of hope"--that is, we are utterly desperate to see that the values testified to by the Greatest Generation in the War (honour, duty, responsibility, selflessness, compassion, justice, sacrifice, service etc.) are not extinct--that they are possible, and relevant.

Of course, those virtues are eternal--they are expressed in every age, and every place, even when the wider culture may not value them. To pick several examples at random:

Here by the young Dominicans

Here by new cops on the beat.

Here combatting alcohol and drug abuse

Here teaching duty and service.

And, of course, here:

What we need is not simply remembrance of ideals, as if they were dead (although that helps), but commitment to them, in new and modern contexts, demonstration that they work, and the courage to defend them. Her Majesty put it this way, in 1957--Take it away, Ma'am:

Today, we need a special kind of courage. Not the kind needed in battle, but the kind that makes us stand up for everything we know is right. Everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics, so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.

What she said.

Read More »»

The King Declares War

It is notified that a State of War exists between His Majesty and Germany as from 11 o’clock A.M. to-day the 3rd September, 1939. — King George VI

A solemn King George VI addresses the British Empire over radio on 4 September 1939, one day after Britain declared war on Nazi Germany. He asks the British people to "stand calm, firm, and united" against what was to come. Image by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis

War! 3rd September 2009 sees the 70th anniversary of Britain’s entry into the conflict that was to become known as the Second World War. King George VI declared war against Germany at 11am on that day because of the refusal by Hitler's Government to give assurances that it would withdraw from Poland. The war was to last six long, hard and world-changing years.

Speaking to the Nation from 10 Downing Street at 11.15 am, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain explained how Britain had requested an undertaking from the German Government that it would immediately prepare to withdraw from Poland and if there was no word by 11am, Britain would be at war. He went on to say, “I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received and that consequently this country is at war with Germany”.

The King confirmed the Nation’s slide into a state of conflict through an announcement in a supplement to the London Gazette newspaper, distributed on that evening, which said "It is notified that a State of War exists between His Majesty and Germany as from 11 o’clock A.M. to-day the 3rd September, 1939".

France also joined Great Britain by sending a message to Berlin at 12.30pm asking for assurances that Germany would immediately start plans to withdraw from Poland with a deadline of 5pm. No assurances were received, as with Britain’s ultimatum, so from that deadline on the same day, 1939, France too was at war.

Also declaring war against Germany on the 3rd was Australia’s Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, on behalf of his country. Hot on the heels of the Australian announcement came one from New Zealand. India showed its support and also declared war. South Africa’s declaration of war came on September 5th.

Canada offered support initially giving the rationale – "when Britain is at war, Canada is at war", then made its official declaration on September 10th following Parliament's formal approval. It is the first time that Canadians make their own declaration of war as a sovereign nation. The previous week, a solemn King took to the airwaves with an address called "Canada at the side of Britain.", even though Canada remained neutral until Sept. 10. King George VI declared war on Germany in the name of Canada the same day.

The day after Parliament's decision, the Globe and Mail described Canada's entry into the war as follows: "This peaceful country, 3,000 miles distant from the scene of the conflict, which desires to live on terms of amity with the whole world, has spoken in it own right for human justice and equity, prepared to defend with life and its full treasure principles more sacred than life or material welfare."

"The solemn decision reached was the echo of a nation's soul," the Globe and Mail continued, "torn by wholesale murder and brigandage on land and sea and tyranny which it could not in silence see imposed on others wishing to live undisturbed like itself." While keeping up a front of patriotic fervour, the Globe did take a swipe at Prime Minister MacKenzie King and Parliament for not immediately committing to the war effort.

Over the next six years, King George VI, following in his father's footsteps, visited troops, munitions factories, supply docks and bomb-damaged areas to support the war effort. As the Nazi's bombed London, the royal family remained at Buckingham Palace; George went so far as to practice firing his revolver, vowing that he would defend Buckingham to the death. Fortunately, such defense was never necessary. The actions of the King and Queen during the war years greatly added to the prestige of the monarchy.

Read More »»

Civics?

The so-called "republic debate" in New Zealand is an odd thing. Here's the Cliff Notes, setting out how it's usually handled--at least, when it's handled at all.

1. The Poll War.

Every now and then, someone will do a Poll on the Monarchy. It usually (but not always) reveals a majority in favour of the Queen--personally--who doesn't like Her Majesty? And crashing indifference about Constitutional arrangements in general. Insert lots of "But when we have Prince Charles, will the Crown continue?" breathlessness. To be honest, I think the Poll War is pointless, for reasons I shall outline.


2. The National Identity issue

A republic is a sign of national growth. Gratitude, even. Place in the sun, mature country, growing out of colonialism and cultural cringe, etc. When we "grow up" we leave home.

I disagree with the basic premise of this argument, but it's a good one. In the news media, it is accompanied by lots of slightly sneering old newsreel footage of people bowing and snivelling to various Royal figures, and implications it's time we grew up. Vide John Campbell's A Queen's Tour.

3. But young people/ordinary people don't care.....

Royal tours, events like the Jubilee, interest in the Monarchy, etc. is ebbing--young people don't care about it, and old people are dying. See 2. It's this argument I'm interested in for this post.

Suppose I grant it (I don't think I do, but suppose I did). Here's my question. Are "young people" uninterested in the Monarchy, or simply uneducated about it? Is the indifference to the Monarchy a sign of wider indifference to, and disconnection from, civic life in general?

How many young people vote?
How many vote in local bodies?
How many join service clubs, or political ones?
How many know their neighbours?
How many are educated enough about civic life, history, and constitutional issues to even make an informed decision, for or against the republic?

Is our generation (for Dr. Swift is young) generally remarkable for depth of public engagement? Investment in constitutional, moral and social values? (in some cases, clearly yes. But is civics one of these things?) Or is the young majority for a republic (assuming there is one, see 1.) simply making up their mind based on sloganeering, and back issues of OK! ?

Somehow, it is a bad thing for the Monarchist majority to make up their minds based on personal loyalty to the Queen, as a celebrity figure (I don't disagree with this contention).

But the level of knowledge and engagement of the republican man-in-the-street are not interrogated. Is he or she really in favour of a republic? Or simply blankly incomprehending about the Monarchy and its historical and Constitutional role? How much is disconnection from the Monarchy a sign of disconnection and distrust of institutions in general?

It's these things we should be debating. And by the way, if you want to see the republican case set out in depth and detail, skip the Cliff Notes, which do not do it justice--buy the Handbook. I intend to practice what I preach, and do just that.

Cross-posted at Kiwi Examiner.

Read More »»

The Lord Earl of Halsbury

Hardinge Stanley Giffard, 1^st Earl of Halsbury PC, QC (1823-1921)
During the crisis over the bill that became the Parliament Act of 1911, Lord Halsbury was one of the principal leaders – if not the principal leader – of the rebel faction of Tory peers that resolved on all out opposition to the government's bill.

Lord Halsbury is known to have said at a meeting of Conservative peers on the 21 July 1911: "I will divide even if I am alone."

On August 8th of that year, the House of Lords resolved:

That in the opinion of this House, the advice given to His Majesty by His Majesty’s Ministers, whereby they obtained from His Majesty a pledge that a sufficient number of Peers would be created to pass The Parliament Bill in the shape in which it left the House of Commons, is a gross violation of constitutional liberty, whereby, among many other evil consequences, the people will be precluded from again pronouncing upon the policy of Home Rule.

Two days later Their Lordships yielded with a dissentient, the dissentient having the following justification:

1. Because it destroys the balance of the Constitution itself.
2. Because it deals with the problem of Constitutional responsibility, but as a party measure.
3. Because it is destructive and not constructive.
4. Because it abrogates the authority of the House of Lords without substituting anything for it.
5. Because it releases the House of Commons from all substantial control.
6. Because it thus establishes in these realms, contrary to all the traditions of this country and the experience of all great Constitutional Powers, a Single-Chamber Government.
7. Because it preserves this House in a nominal existence so as to obscure from the people of this country the absolute and unrestrained power of the House of Commons.
8. Because it is avowedly brought forward as a means of carrying a further Constitutional measure of the first importance without referring that measure to the people of the United Kingdom, who have twice expressed their repugnance to it.
9. Because the method of carrying it is almost as great a strain on the Constitution as the measure itself.
10. Because the whole transaction tends to bring discredit on our country and its institutions.

We salute Lord Halsbury on this his birthday – September 3.

Read More »»

Grand Dame

Vera Lynn is 92 and has just re-entered the pop-charts:

Dame Vera, who kept up the spirits of millions with her songs and personality during the darkest days of the Second World War, entered the album chart at number 20, at the age of 92.

Her album, We'll Meet Again - The Very Best of Vera Lynn, returned her to the charts almost six decades after she topped them in the 1950s.

It overtook those of comparative spring chickens U2, the Stone Roses, Green Day and Eminem.

Dame Vera said: ''I am extremely excited and delighted to be back in the charts after all these years.''

The album was released to coincide with this week's 70-year anniversary of the declaration of war, which falls this Thursday.

About which we'll have more on the 3rd. Born just before the Battle of Vimy Ridge, Dame Lynn is more than a link to the past, she's a reminder of better musical taste. The nearly seven decades that have passed since she made a hit of We'll Meet Again has seen the decline of such hum-drum things as melody and tone. Sometime in the twentieth century music acquired a best-before date. Tell me what music you listen to and a reasonable guess can be made of when you were born. This doesn't apply to literature or even movies. I know many people who have substantial collections of classic movies, yet recoil from all but a handful of classical or jazz pieces. They can quote Rick in Casablanca, or Joseph Cotton in Citizen Kane, but can't tell Handel from Beethoven. I was once speaking to a director at my firm, a woman in her late thirties. She admitted to liking the Irish Rovers but felt afraid of admitting it. "It makes me feel so old when I say that." In an era that boasts of having no barriers, of being free of petty constraints of genre and type, we run up against one insuperable barrier: time. A present tense culture requires present tense music.

Read More »»

The Glory of Old Europe

Whilst I bear no real hostility towards neoconservatives per se (while not nearly as good as traditional conservatives, they are not nearly as bad as modern liberals), they do offend me from time to time with their presumptive anti-monarchism, perennial gunboating and "pernicious doctrines of self-determination, equality and perfectability", to use the wonderful jargon of the late "Peter Simple", a fellow-in-arms neo-feudalist.

Certainly traditionalists will never forget the insult of "Old Europe" delivered by that inglorious bastard, Donald Rumsfeld, who by stint of his position managed to turn the pride of that phrase on its head, whilst inferring that "New Europe" was somehow an improvement.

I am grateful to Andrew Cusack for resurrecting Michael Wharton's old column; the fictitious Peter Simple is a pleasure to re-read. Here, for example, is what Mr. Simple had to say about Mr. Rumsfeld on 31 January 2003:

Gone for Ever

“Old Europe”: with this contemptuous phrase, Rumsfeld and his fellow eminences at the White House dismissed French and German opposition to military action against Iraq. Supremely arrogant, confident of a future world order even more repellent than the present, how should they know or care that for some of us Old Europeans the phrase can induce a mood of hopeless longing?

A hundred years ago, Old Europe ruled the world. From its colonies in every continent came tribute which daily enhanced its wealth, convenience and comfort. The old kingdoms and empires were still intact. The Kaiser ruled in Berlin, the Tsar in St Petersburg, the Emperor Franz-Joseph in Vienna, each with his splendid court whose customs and ceremonies seemed made to last for ever.

The civilisation of Europe – the greatest civilisation the world has known – still seemed secure. Its ancient cities, so varied in their beauty and splendour, still held glorious treasuries of art. Its noble landscapes were still unsullied. Its various peoples kept their own historical traditions.

But the death wish fell on Old Europe, and it collapsed in fratricidal war. The Americans arrived to hasten its ruin with their pernicious doctrines of self-determination, equality and perfectability. Mortally wounded, Old Europe staggered on, but could not recover.

Now there is talk of a New Europe. It is a matter not of emperors and kings but of technicians, accountants and businessmen. It may or may not prosper. What do we care, when Old Europe has gone for ever?

Read More »»