<i>Republicanus Interruptus</i>

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Republicanus Interruptus

Posted by The Monarchist at 5:36 PM . Tuesday, November 23, 2010

In the immortal lyrics of Bruce Cockburn, let us kick against darkness until it bleeds daylight.

As always, David Flint, our valiant man Down Under, has been doing most of the kicking, and as a result, republicans have been doing a lot of the bleeding, and the world is a sunnier place for it. One detects that the weeping cavalier has suddenly been transformed into a laughing one. Lol!

Not to mention events! dear boy, events! The rest of this annus and next will be the year of the Glossy Magazine, as the royal couple weds and honeymoons to the realms to deafening screams of rock star delight. And if this were not enough on its own, the following year will be one of exceptional jubilation as the Queen celebrates her Diamond Jubilee, a feat that has only been accomplished once before in British Commonwealth history. It would be a gross understatement to declare that these are not heady days to be a republican!

Not a time to gloat - no time is - still, republicanus interruptus is now upon us. Let us enjoy it while it lasts.

37 comments:

Lord Best said...: The Australian republican movement is dead, what we see now is the corpse twitching.
The fact is they had their chance and blew it, they won't get another. I was 14 in 1999, and the republic was the issue of the day. Even the more moronic elements of the school had an opinion on the matter, they bullied kids suspected of being Monarchists.

Today, no one really cares (about the republic), and I see more and more Australians coming out and expressing Monarchical views.

God Save the Queen.; November 24, 2010 at 2:35 AM
Lord Best said...: Sorry about the double post, but I forgot to say that I wish HRH Prince William and the future HRH Princess Catherine all possible happiness.; November 24, 2010 at 2:38 AM
Linens and Royals said...: Republicans are so dull, boring and colourless. No pomp and ceremony for them, no big parades and cheering waving crowds or souvenirs to collect. Long Live the Monarchy.
Congratulations to William and Kate, a lovely couple.; November 24, 2010 at 7:00 AM
Michael said...: Eww, I got daylight on my pants!; November 27, 2010 at 5:17 AM
Phaedra said...: Republicans are not remotely 'dull boring and colourless'. Being forward-thinking and imaginative, they just dislike being pulled along by the nose in a swamp of undemocratic illegitimacy.; November 27, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Support our Union, our Commonwealth, our Flag and our Monarchy! No Republic! Never! GSTQ!; November 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Ben1987 said...: The monarchy is unpopular with a vocal few. Why abolish a system that has worked for hundreds of years? Long live the British Monarch, the Republicans can shove it where the sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned!; November 27, 2010 at 2:04 PM
iMatt said...: If republicans are dull and boring, then monarchists are easily pleased, easily led, unquestioning, gullable types.

How sad that monarchists need a celebrity wedding to make them feel better about themselves and their own self worth! Is there NOTHING ELSE in Britain worth celebrating? Is there NOTHING ELSE in this country worthy of praise?

As for long live the monarch. Don't make me laugh! Betty Windsor could die tommorow, as could potentially any one else. However, should this happen, the monarchist's worst nightmare will come true: King Charles / George. Mention King Charles and support for monarchy plummets. Support for King William is stronger. King William of course is very much uncharted territory. No wonder monarchists wish to have the Queen last another 20 years!; November 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: ...and that's what scares you republicans, up to forty years forward thinking. That no elected office an provide!

A questioning monarchist and darn proud of it.; November 27, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Unknown said...: 'Republicans are so dull, boring and colourless. No pomp and ceremony for them, no big parades and cheering waving crowds'

Well having been to France, Germany and let's not forget the USA they have plenty of pomp, ceremony, big parades and and cheering waving crowds but no monarchy. I just think its obscene when people are losing their jobs all around me that we have to spend £20M on a royal wedding when the queen is amply capable of paying for it herself out of her minimum £400M plus fortune or paying more tax than on the 8% of her income that she currently pays. Why should the taxpayer pay for 24 members of the royal family when in a republic they would only pay for a president?
I constantly hear the old 'they bring in tourist income' claptrap but France generates more tourist income per capita than the UK. The bank holiday for the royal wedding will accordingly to that monarchist organ the Daily Mail will bring in £600M of additional income, what they don't say is that every all country bank holiday costs the UK economy £1.9Bn. Personally I think the income to the royal family should fall into line with other monarchies in Europe and cut their reliance on the taxpayer and rely on the interest from their vast wealth. £67M a year in the civil list for what effectively amounts to pitching up somewhere in luxury transport, waving a bit, shaking hands and making banal conversaton (not to mention hmq attrocious bad breath, I've met her)and then bimblng off again in luxury transport to be waited on hand and foot doesn't seem good value to me. Indirect costs of royalty (transport, borrowing helicopters to go to golf courses etc.) amounts to around £150M a year. So £217M a year for an institution which was after all imposed on us in 1066 doesn't seem to be fair. I respect the right of monarchists to have their view (without resorting to childish comments and threats of violence) but the value for money argument stands scrutiny and there is no arguing with it. People say the royals work very hard, doing what exactly? Tourists come to see the soldiers, palaces and the like, less than 1% actually see any member of the royal family. France has soldiers, palaces and the pomp and circumstance and no monarchy but still attract more tourist income pro-rata than the UK. Why?

Monarchists say republicans are a minority but if this is the case why are they so vocally opposed to them? If they represent no threat why devote so many column inches on the subject. Perhaps its because Winston Churchill said 'Never underestimate a minority'?

Incidentally prince charles will be king henry not charles because of the memories the name will bring.; November 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Unknown said...: 'Support our Union, our Commonwealth, our Flag and our Monarchy! No Republic'

Just thought I'd also mention that the union, the commonwealth and the flag have nothing to do with the monarchy. The Union Flag is the flag of Great Britain not the monarchy, theirs is the royal standard. The union was by an act of parliament which the monarch opposed incidentally, the commonwealth was the former empire which resulted from former territories demanding, fighting for and shedding blood to achieve independence which was granted by parliament. I have no objection to monarchists claiming the royal family as their own but I do object to them trying to make out that everything British is linked inextricably to the monarchy.; November 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM
Unknown said...: 'The monarchy is unpopular with a vocal few. Why abolish a system that has worked for hundreds of years' and the evidence for these statements (and I don't mean anecdotal I do mean hard concrete evidence) is where? Their latter comment about republican' shoving it where the sun don't shine just shows how incapable monarchists are of maintaining reasoned debate. Instead of facts and evidence to support their case they resort to insults, platitudes and well all else fails sycophancy. Fundamentally their case is based on an outdated view of Britain and they cannot accept that the world has moved on. The majority of countries in the world are republics.; November 27, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Unknown said...: A questioning monarchist? That means you are questioning the monarchy. Just thought I'd mention it.; November 27, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Unknown said...: Crikey the monarchist's ability to get even simple facts right like gender is apalling. The top of this page reads Elizabeth our Prince
Is this another operation at the taxpayers expense we were not aware of?; November 27, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Anonymous said...: "the commonwealth was the former empire which resulted from former territories demanding, fighting for and shedding blood to achieve independence which was granted by parliament."

Actually the Commonwealth was formed by the dominions demanding further autonomy. I am unaware of any of these nations "shedding blood" to achieve this aim (aside from perhaps the Irish Free State).; November 28, 2010 at 2:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Jonathon D you are but a third rate troll.

The House Of Windsor HAS earned both this Scotsman's admiration and right to rule, BY MY CONSENT, as is right and proper. Also by what my Asian friends call THE MANDATE OF HEAVEN, a two way street, that must be earned as well as given.; November 28, 2010 at 3:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Jonathan D, the British Government and indirectly the British taxpayers make a very handsome profit from the monarchy. Do you really think that the British taxpayers pay the Queen, and the Queen does not pay back? Actually it is the other way round - the Queen pays the British Government all of the revenue from the Crown Estate in exchange for the Civil List. The Crown Estate properties, as I understand it, belong to the monarch, and every succeeding monarch personally renews the deal made between George III and Parliament to hand over the revenues from the Crown Estate in exchange for a yearly payment for the running of the monarchy. In my country Australia we do not pay anything at all. Read this for more info:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4709

As for the wedding reception at Westminster Abbey, I believe the costs are being met by the Royal Family and the Middleton family. No cost to the government except for the security.; November 28, 2010 at 4:28 AM
Anonymous said...: 'The monarchy is unpopular with a vocal few. Why abolish a system that has worked for hundreds of years' and the evidence for these statements (and I don't mean anecdotal I do mean hard concrete evidence) is where? Their latter comment about republican' shoving it where the sun don't shine just shows how incapable monarchists are of maintaining reasoned debate. Instead of facts and evidence to support their case they resort to insults, platitudes and well all else fails sycophancy. Fundamentally their case is based on an outdated view of Britain and they cannot accept that the world has moved on. The majority of countries in the world are republics

=========

Evidence? Does the fact that Britain has remained remarkably stable since 1688 while the rest of Europe has, like dominoes, succumbed to revolution and dictatorship, if not imply but suggest something? Does the fact that, to quote David Flint in the above article, "Of the world's seven oldest continuing democracies, five are constitutional monarchies. Elizabeth II is Queen of four of these" perhaps suggest something? A lot can be said for constitutional monarchy. The hereditary nature of the system is its strength in that, when executive authority is vested in a hereditary institution, no professional politician (no matter how wealthy, connected, or powerful) can ever hope to hold, control or influence the highest office in the land. The best check there can be on an abusive Cabinet or a rogue Prime Minister.

In my experience we monarchists argue a very reasoned case, but republicans just seem to ignore everything we say and proceed calling us reactionaries and (in my case) un Australian. One accusation of insults and unreasoned debate deserves another, mate.; November 28, 2010 at 5:05 AM
Professor L said...: In addition to the above-presented evidence, Prof. Flint has also noted that constitutional monarchies are over-represented in the ten least corrupt and most prosperous nations, as defined by the Legatum Prosperity Index. Were monarchies no better than republics, we would hardly see such a result.

As for pomp and circumstance in the UK... I have two questions, Johnathon. First, would you care to tell me what else we might celebrate in April next year if not the royal wedding? And second, why should we not celebrate the wedding anyway? Are we to ration joyous occasions of beauty and love as though such things were rare and precious, instead of (as they truly are) abundant, nay, infinite?

Oh, and regarding Elizabeth our Prine, perhaps you might also take umbrage with Mr Spock in Star Trek II, when he refers to Lieutenant Saavik (a female Vulcan) as Mr Saavik (my point is - it's perfectly alright to use a masculine for a feminine. And remember well the words of the first Queen Elizabeth - I may have the body of a weak and frail woman, but I have the heart of a king, and a King of England too!).

And finally - yes, I do question the monarchy. I also happen to find in its favour. Just because one asks a question doesn't mean one is opposed. In fact, in means we're better able to rebuff people such as you.; November 28, 2010 at 5:40 AM
Gladstone said...: Johnathan,

You are a fool and a bore.

Good day sir.; November 28, 2010 at 5:55 AM
Bob Wiggin said...: The forthcoming wedding of William and Katherine is being used by the establishment as entertainment for the masses. This is the role of Monarchy, to hide the deficiencies of our politics from the people. The 'masses' will one day wake up to the fact that it will be more beneficial to them to have constitutional limitations on parliament and government, and a Head of State with real constitutional powers to act on the people's behalf, given him/her in a written constitution. We can still have pomp and circumstance in a British republic, pomp and circumstance is not the exclusive property of monarchy.; November 28, 2010 at 11:13 AM
ben1987 said...: The majority of countries in the world are republics.
*******************************************
Bon voyage Jonathan; November 28, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Ben1987 said...: Dear Jonathan & Co:

The Union Flag, also known as the Union Jack, is the flag of the United Kingdom.It retains an official or semi-official status in some Commonwealth Realms; for example, it is known as the Royal Union Flag in Canada.

On April 29th you can see the silent majority of this country take to the streets to salute the monarchy. It sents a message that despite the press and media and the boring republicans, the British and the Commenwealth still value its Queen and Monarchy.

Come and see!; November 28, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Damn straight Ben, i'll be cheering too. From Australia. That will show that Julia!; November 28, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Unknown said...: Johnathan,

'You are a fool and a bore.'

and Gladstone you have no case to offer but just resort to petty insults. At least I also take the trouble to spell people's name correctly and I don't resort to petty insults to establish my case or in your post absolutely no case at all.

I think also that those who say no blood was shed in the creation of the commonwealth really ought to do some research first. I think you'll find that blood was shed in South Africa and many other former colonies.

The post saying the queen is paying for the wedding is correct and we are just paying for the security, which comes in at £20M.

As for 'In my experience we monarchists argue a very reasoned case, but republicans just seem to ignore everything we say and proceed calling us reactionaries and (in my case) un Australian.'

So far I have yet to see any evidence of what the royal family does being hard work, why we should continue to fund so many of them and what benefit they have had to the country.

Incidentally I never said I was a republican, you have all assumed this.; November 28, 2010 at 12:31 PM
anglophilegerman said...: Dear friends in Great Britain and in the Commonwealth, dear Monarchists and Republicans,

I am German and I am not a german Monarchist. I am a true demokrat but I am not a great fan of ambitious politicians. Are you?

I am surprised very much at the statement: Never underestimate an of minority'? Nevertheless, democracy indicates to respect the majority.

In Germany the president is not chosen by the people. The political parties install him. About that there is regularly quarrel. Mr. Wulff is a nice guy. But with a head that all four years chanched, no people can identify.

There is nothing what the people between Hamburg and Munich, Trier and Berlin unites and connects except maybe football.

The people interested itself not for the wedding of the president, not for his birthday, or inauguration. No people with flags, no parades no feeling of the community. No Tourist spent one penny for all this.

Only the tourists to dear you should not be proudly on the monarchy. Tourists are strangers. Britons, Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians determine even about her country and system.

However, it is your history, it is your tradition, your strengt, your national identity, your heir and your future.

If you don't want a Monarchy you'll have a president of the Republic who is almost the same thing like here in Germany, who has almost the same power of the queen.

This systeme cost millions too and you have to pay for 5-6 Ex-presidents and their familys.

By the way: No elective president has an approval in the population like the queen of 70-80%. No republic, no president can perform this.

The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002 (I was in London this time, oh my god I can never forget that) have done exactly what the politicians and the media cannot - unite the quiet majority of the country, giving the people something to believe in and a sense of belonging.

The harping from the vociferous minority who disagree is indicative of a small clique who will never be happy when the nation is united, the same minority lives in every state, also in Germany too. They want to destroy something. They want to take everything from the people. However, can give to them as a countermove nothing.

Well, do you realy think King Charles as the next king should be the end of the monarchy?
In 1901, after the death of queen Victoria one thought this resembles about Edward VII.

However, when he became king was respected a good king, and was loved by his people.
Charles will be more popular than people thing, because he does exactly what he should be doing with his profile-using it to direct some of the most admirable and important charities that this country has. Because of the Princes Trust charities, thousands of people are in work and education who wouldnt have been, and thousands of people have been brought out of homelessness. For that alone i think he will be much more popular than people expect.

For centuries Great Britain was envied by the other states for his political system, it was copied all over the world. You have a good and excellent working demokratic system. Thank God for this.

Now there are people who want to renounce all this. For what? For what exchange?

Should the British monarchy set once and Great Britain disintegrate into independent states in England, then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you only will be an unimportant, soulless, dull thing.

Then maybe many people will notice what they have lost, like under Oliver Cromwells cheerless republic.

Sorry, I am only a bloody foreigner with bad english. But I like Great Britain and I spend every year my holidays on your great soil. But I will never honour a British republic with my visit.

Blest Advent time to you all.; November 28, 2010 at 3:05 PM
germanbrit said...: Dear friends in Great Britain and in the Commonwealth, dear Monarchists and Republicans,

I am German and I am not a german Monarchist. I am a true demokrat but I am not a great fan of ambitious politicians. Are you?

I am surprised very much at the statement: Never underestimate an of minority'? Nevertheless, democracy indicates to respect the majority.

In Germany the president is not chosen by the people. The political parties install him. About that there is regularly quarrel. Mr. Wulff is a nice guy. But with a head that all four years chanched, no people can identify.

There is nothing what the people between Hamburg and Munich, Trier and Berlin unites and connects except maybe football.

The people interested itself not for the wedding of the president, not for his birthday, or inauguration. No people with flags, no parades no feeling of the community. No Tourist spent one penny for all this.

Only the tourists to dear you should not be proudly on the monarchy. Tourists are strangers. Britons, Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians determine even about her country and system.

However, it is your history, it is your tradition, your strengt, your national identity, your heir and your future.

If you don't want a Monarchy you'll have a president of the Republic who is almost the same thing like here in Germany, who has almost the same power of the queen.

This systeme cost millions too and you have to pay for 5-6 Ex-presidents and their familys.

By the way: No elective president has an approval in the population like the queen of 70-80%. No republic, no president can perform this... -->; November 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM
germanbrit said...: ... --> The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002 (I was in London this time, oh my god I can never forget that) have done exactly what the politicians and the media cannot - unite the quiet majority of the country, giving the people something to believe in and a sense of belonging.

The harping from the vociferous minority who disagree is indicative of a small clique who will never be happy when the nation is united, the same minority lives in every state, also in Germany too. They want to destroy something. They want to take everything from the people. However, can give to them as a countermove nothing.

Well, do you realy think King Charles as the next king should be the end of the monarchy?
In 1901, after the death of queen Victoria one thought this resembles about Edward VII.

However, when he became king was respected a good king, and was loved by his people.
Charles will be more popular than people thing, because he does exactly what he should be doing with his profile-using it to direct some of the most admirable and important charities that this country has. Because of the Princes Trust charities, thousands of people are in work and education who wouldnt have been, and thousands of people have been brought out of homelessness. For that alone i think he will be much more popular than people expect.

For centuries Great Britain was envied by the other states for his political system, it was copied all over the world. You have a good and excellent working demokratic system. Thank God for this.

Now there are people who want to renounce all this. For what? For what exchange?

Should the British monarchy set once and Great Britain disintegrate into independent states in England, then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, you only will be an unimportant, soulless, dull thing.

Then maybe many people will notice what they have lost, like under Oliver Cromwells cheerless republic.

Sorry, I am only a bloody foreigner with bad english. But I like Great Britain and I spend every year my holidays on your great soil. But I will never honour a British republic with my visit.

Blest Advent time to you all.; November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM
anglophilegerman said...: I´m sorry, an error message led to the duplication of the contributions; November 28, 2010 at 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: JonathanD "I think also that those who say no blood was shed in the creation of the commonwealth really ought to do some research first. I think you'll find that blood was shed in South Africa and many other former colonies. "

The Second Boer war fought was long before the Statute of Westminster as for that matter was the "Third Boer war" which was so minor that it is generally merely referred to as the Maritz rebellion, neither of which were particularly important for the formation of the Commonwealth (although I suppose had Britain lost either then the Commonwealth would have been somewhat smaller at the Statute of Westminster, neither was a direct cause of the Statute). The Statute of Westminster was a rather peaceful process all things considered, I do not know why you seem to think it was particularly violent.; November 28, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Lord Best said...: What a thrill, three of the four remaining republicans posting on this blog.

Republics are no better and no cheaper than Monarchies. So why change? This is the problem republican movements face, there is no earthly way they can convince the populace to pay more for more politicians in a demonstrably inferior system.; November 29, 2010 at 7:09 AM
Lord Best said...: Courtesy of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/britain-bucks-up-by-romancing-the-throne-20101119-18103.html
'"Our research shows that in a typical year Britain's monarchy generates, on the most conservative estimates, well over £500 million [$810 million] a year directly and indirectly from overseas tourists - but the benefit of a royal wedding year is likely to outstrip that."
-Sandie Dawe, Chief Executive of VisitBritain.

Not that republicans ever let facts distract from their vitriol.; December 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM
iMatt said...: And a pointless bank holiday that could cost the country £6bn!; December 1, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Lord Best said...: Why don't you go along and tell the people they shouldn't get a holiday, then. I'm sure that will thrill them.
No doubtit will go a long way to convincing the populace that you aren't joyless, soulless lunatics.; December 2, 2010 at 6:10 AM
iMatt said...: So people were crying out for an extra bank holiday before Cameron announced one were they?

As for the £6bn figure, this comes from the CBI, not me.

As for calling people lunatics, what is sheer lunacy is getting excited over a wedding between two people you don't know, will never meet and have not produced anything of worth! Mind you, the way monarchists get so worked up over the Windsors, its not suprising. Anyone would think you're all related...inbreeding...nah, that'd never happen, surely??!!; December 3, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: My Top Ten List:

1) A President will cost just as much as a king. He'll have an official residence, a salary, travel expenses, official vehicles, close protection operators, food, clothing, aides, speech writers, lawyers, and everything else a king these days has. There's also the additional recurring cost of presidential elections every four or five years, which are insanely expensive. The 2008 US Presidential election campaigns cost 5.3 BILLION dollars. Repeat that cost every four years, and even if Prince William and Kate's wedding is paid by public money (which it isn't), it's a piss in the ocean compared to what election campaigns cost.

2) Calling modern monarchies dictatorships is just plain silly. I have the same rights and live my life in just as much freedom as my American and French counterparts. The fact that we can even have this discussion is proof to that effect. The monarchy is an institution that openly allows debate over its potential demise. How much more individual freedom do you think you'll get from a republic that you don't already have now?

3) Republics have just as many celebrity weddings as anyone else, and they get just as much public attention. Sarkozy and Carla ring a bell? Or JFK and Jackie?

4) As much as you might hate it, we think it's a good thing that an office is held by someone who didn't make it his life's ambition to get there. There's generally a lot less lying, manipulating, back stabbing, palm-greasing and bogus fronting that way.

5) Republicans compare their ideal to our reality. Let's stop comparing apples and oranges here and compare modern states on the same points. A resident of Holland or Spain doesn't enjoy an inferior level of liberty than his French or American because his head of state is a monarch and not a president, nor does he pay higher taxes, nor is he more easily distracted by celebrity happenings.; January 3, 2011 at 7:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Continued...

6) Monarchists aren't any more gullible or apathetic than republicans. Considering that in 2000, one in two Americans thought Bush "stole" the White House, and the average American election turns out around 30 percent of listed voters, republicans are plenty capable of being gullible and apathetic too.

7) There are plenty of other things that consume absurd amounts of public money while bringing back dubious, if any, returns that republicans don't have a problem with, and don't mention. Like the Olympics.

8) Her Majesty's heirs and successors are required to give service. Prince Harry has done a tour in Afghanistan as a spotter (which was cut short by some paparazzi reports that violated the publication ban on his presence), and Prince William is working as a SAR pilot.

9) What's outdated today is a la mode tomorrow. For the record, it happens to be popular these days, but fifteen years ago, it looked like it would be disbanded. Calling monarchy outdated illustrates the very root of my problem with republican government: it lives the here-and-now. What's in today, versus what the long-term trend is. Republicanism rides the wave of vogue while monarchy stands despite it.

10) Republicanism pretends to be able to fix monarchy's problems while ignoring its own shortcomings. Every system works perfectly on paper, but once it's put into the hands of imperfect men, it falls spectacularly short of its lofty goals. Of all the systems of government out there - People's Republic of This, Most Holy Republic of That, the two that seem to at least somewhat work are the modern parliamentary democracy under a monarch, and the republican democracy under a president. And they both appear to produce economies that are equally productive, citizens who have comparable rights and freedoms, and citizens are equally content with their systems. So I don;t see the point in revamping our entire political and judicial systems to swap systems for one that doesn't and won't work any better. So until someone comes up with a better system of government than what currently exists in the world (which I sincerely doubt will happen),

God Save the Queen!; January 3, 2011 at 7:39 AM

THE MONARCHIST

- Elizabeth our Prince -

- Churchill our Patron -

- Burke our Patriarch -

- Kipling our Poet -

- Salisbury our Prime Minister -

The Daily Bayonet

The Counter Revolution

- KING AND COUNTRY -

Imperial Loyalists

Anglo Monarchists

Gentlemen Royalists

- CHURCH OF ENGLAND -

Queen and Church

Saint George

- THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH -

English Literature

Poets Laureate

- CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY -

English Constitution

- LANDED GENTRY -

Liberty and Livelihood!

English Pubs

- LORD OF THE BLOG -

Peers of the Realm

Barons of the Press

Blogs of the Order

Lords of the Manor

- THE GENTLEMAN -

Gentlemen Tailors

Gentlemen Clubs

Gentlemen Spirits

Gentlemen-at-Arms

- RICHARD THE THIRD -

Richard III Societies

Honourary Patron of the English-Speaking Peoples

Gentlemen-at-Arms

Burke: The Father of Anglo-American Conservatism

Anglos of the Sphere

Anglos of the Sphere

Anglos of the Sphere

- ROYAL STANDARDS -

- ROYAL FAMILY -

FREE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE REALMS?

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Republicanus Interruptus

37 comments:

Post a Comment

- Dieu et mon Droit -

- GOD SAVE THE QUEEN -

British Monarchy

Royal Family

Monarchist Leagues

- DEFENDER OF THE FAITH -

The Sacred Crown

Queen's Coronation

- SOVEREIGN OF REALM -

Pomp and State

- FOUNT OF JUSTICE -

The Queen's Bench

King's Colleges

- CROWN-IN-PARLIAMENT -

Her Majesty's Government

Westminster Parliaments

Hansard Societies

- FOUNTAIN OF HONOUR -

Orders of Chivalry

Victoria Cross

- COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF -

Queen and Armed Forces

Arms and Heraldry

- HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS -

The Admiralty

Royal Yachts

- QUEEN'S REGIMENTS -

Ceremonial Guards

Cavalry Regiments

- REMEMBRANCE -

War Veterans

Lest We Forget