New Flags for The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge

OTTAWA— On the eve of the arrival in Canada of Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, is pleased with the unveiling of two new Royal flags created by the Canadian Heraldic Authority and approved by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

“These new flags created for The Prince of Wales and The Duke of Cambridge are magnificent expressions of our constitutional monarchy and heritage,” said His Excellency. “As we prepare to welcome Their Royal Highnesses to experience this marvelous country, I am sure that many Canadians will take great interest in these new emblems. As head of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, I am delighted with the work of our Canadian heralds in preparing these designs.”

The two flags are based on Her Majesty The Queen’s personal flag for use in Canada, which uses the Royal Arms of Canada as its basis. Since the flag was adopted in 1962, Her Majesty The Queen has been the only member of the Royal Family to have a flag for use in Canada.

The flag of The Duke of Cambridge will be broken during the official welcoming ceremony of Their Royal Highnesses to Canada, at Rideau Hall, on Thursday, June 30, at 3:15 p.m. The general public is invited to the grounds as of 1 p.m. on that day, to participate in the launch of the 2011 Royal Tour.

Read More »»

A Young Fogey on the Royal Visit

Mr. Rafal Heydel-Mankoo is interviewed on the royal visit to Canada coming up shortly:

He also gives some tips on protocol.

Read More »»

A Piece of England and All That

From the Telegraph:

In this case, Jonathan is coming along for one day to tell me all about it, then I'm on my own. Right now he is grimacing at English Heritage's excellent audio guide to the Battle of Hastings site; me too. It explains why, by sundown on October 14 1066, this vast, tussocky arena was strewn with 7,000 corpses, English and Norman.

You can hear the clash of battle axes, imagine the English locking shields to form a wall and the Normans pretending to flee (it worked – the wall broke in pursuit). Harold, as it turns out, was a tall, respected warrior with a girlfriend called Edith Swan-Neck. Frankly, anyone who can spend all day carrying a shield that heavy – we know, because you can lift a full-sized replica in the Visitor Centre (instructions in French and English) – is no wimp.

Read More »»

The Battle of Naseby

June 366 years ago – on the 14^th in the old calendar, 24^th in the new – the Battle of Naseby was fought.

The Battle of Naseby

The Parliamentarian New Model Army defeated the Royalist Army.

Memorial at the battlefield in Naseby

It was a decisive victory in Oliver Cromwell's rise to power, the Cromwell tyranny, and the Commonwealth of England.

Not to be amused by. Cromwell's rule is not to be amused by.

Balance of power may be a good thing, but that is certainly not what we have now.

The English Civil War may be seen as the first step on a road to an absolute democracy, an absolute, omnipotent House of Commons.

Not to be amused by.

Read More »»

Battle of Waterloo

Read More »»

A Royal Visit

Hon. James Moore plans out the Duke and Duchess' summer vacation:

James Moore is emerging as the minister most likely to show the young royals a good time. As Heritage Minister, it’s his job to play host to Prince William and his wife, Catherine, when they come to Canada in a couple of weeks.

[…]

He’s young but experienced: This will be the third time Mr. Moore has played host to a royal couple – Prince Charles and Camilla in 2009 and Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip last year.

However, it’s different this time. Not only, he says, because of the “age part” but what he calls the “Hollywood-ization of them.” He’s referring to the intense publicity and interest surrounding William and Catherine, fuelled by their recent wedding.

You can get rid of a monarchy, you cannot ever get rid of the reason for monarchy. Part of that reason, somewhat lamentably to traditionalists, is the glossy-magazine aspect. There is a great swath of the people, even in the most advanced nations, that seek to live vicariously through the tabloid media. This is nothing new, though the nature of modern media has made the process far more rapacious. The peasants gossiping about their monarch's personal affairs was not then a vast and profitable industry.

It is one of the beneficial features of monarchy, especially one so well established and conservative as ours, is that it can direct this rather prurient interest toward, generally, more worthy objects. In the American Republic the fascination with the rich and famous tends to settle on Hollywood celebrities, among the most vapid creatures ever to draw breadth upon creation. There is not in that soulless place a stern matriarch calling her progeny, with varying degrees of success, back upon the path of relative decency. Hollywood: Nothings seeking to be exalted above the nil in a vast nowhere.

The great dig against the monarchy is that its operatives, if we may call the Royal Family that, have not earned their position. True. They have at the very least been taught how to behave like civilized human beings in public. A behavioural trait that is frequently missing among the "earned" elite of the modern media. Breeding isn't everything. Neither is a specious understanding of merit.

Read More »»

Imperial Officer

English Officer in British India in 1912 with his men, members of the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary force which patrolled part of the Indian Northwest Frontier. Photograph courtesy of the Centre of South Asian Studies, University of Cambridge. (h/t Admiral Cod)

Read More »»

Canada's Majestic Democracy

This is the most beautifully crafted constitutional understanding of our Westminster system of government that I have seen in a long time:

The Throne Speech must open a session of Parliament, the constitutional principle being twofold. First, that Senators and MPs cannot gather to provide “advice and consent” to the sovereign unless she invites them to do so. Second, that the sovereign addresses Parliament not with her own words, but with that of her government. It is the sovereign who summons the Parliament, but in practice she is its servant.

[...]

The purpose of the Throne Speech is not what is said, but how it is said. The sovereign agrees by convention to take advice from her first minister; thus the prime minister attends, seated by the Governor General. The executive branch — the cabinet — enjoys the confidence of Parliament. Parliament is present, and it is the representatives of Parliament, the Speakers of the Senate and of the House, who address the Governor General. The constitutional achievement of responsible government — the executive being held to account by the legislative — is thus expressed. The judicial branch too is present in the Supreme Court justices.

The whole affair of the opening of Parliament takes place in the upper house, the Senate, rather than the people’s chamber, the Commons. Contrast that to the American model, where the president addresses Congress from the lower house. Ours is an important expression of constitutional monarchy. The people’s will is determinative, as expressed in Parliament, but the people’s will is not the sole source of political authority and constitutional legitimacy. Those roots run deeper, into the history and tradition of the nation, the continuity of which is manifest in the monarchy itself.

State ceremonial can be fussy and formal, but Canadian ceremonial is understated, avoiding altogether any glorification of the state. Partly this is due to Canada’s peculiar constitutional genius — a monarchy with the sovereign abroad. Even the Governor General has only delegated authority. The prime minister gives advice and the two speakers represent their respective chambers. The whole affair is conducted by people who are instruments, not sources, of power. It is a humble constitutional framework, though by now a sturdy one.

Read More »»

He has defied the spirit of his time

More on our Lord High Admiral over at Admiral Cod and Peter Oborne:

The colossal importance of the Duke of Edinburgh, who celebrates his 90th birthday next week, is that he has defied the spirit of his time. This is why, for most of his adult life, he has been forced to endure such hostility and contempt. In the 1960s, satirists portrayed him as a member of a bankrupt establishment. The state socialists who ran Britain in the 1970s despised the Duke as a symbol of ruling-class domination. The New Right that came to power in the 1980s could not understand him at all. He was not for sale, he was not efficient, and he was not driven by the profit motive, yet he could not really be classified as part of the public sector. He appeared to have no purpose.

It is very easy to say what he stands for: duty, service, discretion, kindness, concern, eccentricity. His commitment to the cause has been exemplary. Until last year, when he cut down for health reasons, he was still carrying out well over 300 engagements a year. No wonder the political and media classes that have gradually taken control of Britain over the past few decades have so much contempt for the Duke. Disinterested public service fits in neither with the Right-wing narrative of private enterprise nor New Labour’s conception of a centralised, domineering political class.

And on the sartorial constancy of Prince Philip, go to Admiral Cod again.

Ancient proverb: Those who marry the spirit of the age, will soon be widowed.

Read More »»

Fade Britannia

Meanwhile at the HQ of the British Coastal Defence Force:

In the last few months the RN has paid off submarine HMS Trafalgar, aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, 4 frigates; HMS Cornwall, HMS Chatham, HMS Campbeltown, & Cumberland and 2 destroyers; HMS Manchester & HMS Gloucester, 3 auxiliaries; RFA Fort George, RFA Largs Bay & RFA Bayleaf. Of the few new vessels joining the fleet, the 3 new Type 45 destroyers are not ready to be deployed on operations and submarine HMS Astute’s epic sea trails have been dogged by bad luck. The only other ship to join the RN is HMS Protector – a Norwegian ice-breaker which should be a good replacement for HMS Endurance.

(HT)

HM Government may not want to pay for a navy, but they certainly have a need for one. The danger here is not in the loss of ships, grievous though the losses be. As the legendary Admiral Cunningham noted during his operations at Crete in 1941: "It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition." The ships that are being decommissioned now can, in time, be replaced. What cannot as easily be replaced is the skill, experience and esprit de corps of those who man the fleet today. That is a vital tradition that can be lost just as easily in peace as in war.

Read More »»

Canada's Shadow Cabinet

Privy to the Prime Minister's person:

For all intents and purposes, the Cabinet Committee on Priorities and Planning is Mr. Harper's Cabinet.

There are 12 members on the committee—including the vice-chair, Senator Marjory LeBreton—who are considered part of Mr. Harper's inner circle.

"They're planning the strategic direction of the government. They do it all. I would be very surprised if any policy originates from any of the other committees. They might get things referred to them from P&P but they're not going to be giving them ideas and sending them up the ladder. All the stuff is coming from the top down," said one political insider who did not want to be identified.

[…]

Cabinet meets much less frequently, with estimates ranging from once a month to only two or three times a year. Full Cabinet meetings focus on longer-term issues, such as planning for a fall or winter sitting, and may take the form of a retreat to Willson House on Meech Lake in the Gatineau hills, said Mr. Baran.

This shifting of power away from the actual cabinet, toward a less constitutionally substantive duo of committees, is only to be expected. The ruling element here is group dynamics. Beyond about 12 people small groups cannot function effectively as a team. One of the basic units of modern armies is a section or squad of about 8 to 13 soldiers. The same rough pattern repeats itself in business and sports. With a bloated cabinet of 39 members real power, of necessity, had to move to smaller and nimbler groups.

So is this the end of cabinet government? Well no. In most largish cabinets there has usually been a distinction between the inner and outer cabinet, the former being comprised of a small group of the senior most cabinet ministers. The power structure of the cabinet committees suggests that the new "inner cabinet" is based on the minister's personal relationship to the Prime Minister, rather than the importance of the file. Jason Kenney remains Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, a traditionally mid-level file, yet is now also Operations Committee chair.

The emergence of the cabinet committee as a major political power center, dating of course from the Trudeau-era, represents an ironic constitutional development. Cabinet government itself emerged from a larger and now mostly ceremonial body, the Privy Council. Dating from the Norman Conquest the Privy Council were the monarchy's official advisers. Appointment to the council was prestigious and often given to friends and supporters of the monarch, rather than men of political ability or influence. The growth and sophistication of government operations led to the creation of ad hoc committees to advise the monarch on particular issues. In time one of those committees became what we today describe as the Cabinet.

Even in modern Canada the Cabinet remains a committee of the Privy Council. Now real power has drifted into the hands of a sub-commitee of that committee. Stop me if I you're getting dizzy. Membership of these cabinet committees are determined by the members personal relationship to the fount of power and honour in modern Canada, the Prime Minister. We have replaced an unelected monarch with an elected one, while taking one step more down the road away from a parliamentary to a Presidential system of government.

Read More »»

Happy Birthday, Prince Philip

Rice Talbot: The Duke of Edinburgh

The longest serving and oldest consort to a Sovereign in British history, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, is 90 years old today.

Happy Birthday!

Read More »»

Walk with Kings

Further to "Kipling's" erudition below (has he ever disappointed us?) on the levellers' base instinct to tear down civilisation to a common bland denominator, when we should all strive to ascend to something supremely splendid.

Kipling was poetic on the ideal of man, ... if you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch...you'll be a Man my son!


(L to R) Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge attend Investec Derby Day at the Investec Derby Festival at Epsom Downs Racecourse on June 4, 2011 in Epsom, England. (Photo by Dave M. Benett/Getty Images)

Read More »»

The Levellers' Dance

The politics of envy:

The idea comes from someone called Owen Jones, a self described “fourth generation socialist”. He went to Oxford himself you see, and the whole place “was a real culture shock”. Apparently, the dreaming spires “reek” of public school and so they must be abolished, to stop all the toffs who go there from getting the nice jobs. Jones is not quite so crass as to want to bulldoze the actual medieval quads, but the “Oxbridge system”, of interviews, tutorials, exams and the rest of it must go. It all puts off working-class kids, and that is unforgivable.

If one follows Mr Jones logic consistently then the actual buildings will be bulldozed in time. The children of the working class, or at least the sepia cliches of Mr Jones' imagination, would hardly feel comfortable in such posh surroundings. Perhaps readers in history and literature could instead attend lectures in a renovated fish and chips shop. There are endless possibilities here: Economics examinations being held in mine shafts; courses in Latin and Greek being given in public parks; an abandoned foundry used as a library for rare manuscripts. The levellers logic is very much a bulldozer rather than a razor. Anything that does not conform to their world view must be destroyed.

The fig leaf here is equality. To the ears of most reasonable people the word means equality of treatment, a recognition of our common humanity and the series of corollary rights and responsibilities so entailed. To the levellers it is a code for equality of outcome. It is not that we should all be given the same opportunity, which itself is impossible, but that we should all conform to some arbitrary ideal. The notion is both foolish and totalitarian. Beyond our most basic of attributes we are not the same in appearance, intelligence, background, genetic make-up, personality or aptitude. To seek to alter such things is an act of hubris as the Greeks understood it. One flouts not the Gods of Olympus but something far more stark and uncompromising, human nature.

Behind the levellers rhetoric is not logic, as they claim, or fairness or justice or any such thing, it is an ugly emotion: Envy. For centuries the Christian churches preached against envy. In more secular times the cautious and the wise have issued their own warnings. If the goal of the levellers was to help those lower down the social strata then their energies would be directed elsewhere. To help the poor, the sick and the unfortunate one must be begin in the opposite direction. Poverty is remedied by wealth, illness by medicine and misfortunate by peace and freedom. Those who provide such things in superabundance should be encouraged and defended. As Mrs Thatcher noted, without money the Good Samaritan would also have had to pass on the other side. Rather than trying to cut down the tall poppies, in the Australian terminology, one should encourage them. We remedy weakness through strength.

I am not arguing here a political point. Whether the best means to aid the poor, the sick and unfortunate are private or public (my personal preference is private) is a separate matter. How the individual relates to society is a matter of social ethics. The mentality of envy is far deeper and far more pernicious. One cringes at the mind that would look upon Oxbridge and demand that it be smashed to bits. That the buildings might remain is a sore consolation. Its magnificent spirit would be lost.

Mr Jones spends much time in his post deriding the "poshness" of Oxbridge. About half of the two great universities student bodies comes from public schools (i.e. elite private schools like Eton and Harrow). They are not necessarily brighter than their state educated competitors, argues Mr Jones, simply better educated. The purpose of university admissions is to select qualified candidates for post-secondary education. It is certainly a tragedy that the state schools are inferior to the great old public schools. Someone seeking fairness would push for the improvement of the state schools, he might even call for the reintroduction of the old grammar school system which served Britain so very well for centuries. Mr Jones offers little in this direction. He is a leveller. Being a leveller he seeks to bring the few down to the many, rather than the many up to the few.

Here is envy made plain:

Above all, Oxford and Cambridge should be normalised as universities. The best tutors should be encouraged to disperse across the university system - perhaps with incentives. It is right to have a top tier of universities catering to the brightest students - particularly when they are forced to reflect society as a whole, rather than the brightest rich kids: and that is the model that should be promoted.

Normality here meaning mediocrity. Destroying Oxbridge as centers of excellence will do little to help the unprivileged. There is a very great value in concentrating talent. Bright people talking to other bright people engenders bright ideas. Bright people talking to dullards leads to boredom and stagnation. This is the reason why Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Oxbridge are such tremendous value generators for the world. It is where bright specialists congregate to work together (or compete) within a field. How many new Googles or Apples would the world see if such talent clusters were dispersed and evenly spread out. Perhaps a legislated quota of one genius per square mile.

In fairness to Mr Jones he does believe there should be a top tier of universities focused on the brightest. This seems rather chimerical. Being bright is simply a potential, though a very important one. Student A might be much brighter than Student B, however the latter is a qualified engineer and the former a hairdresser by training. Who is the engineering firm going to hire? A potential is not an actual. Bright students without the skill set to meet Oxbridge's requirements are the fault of the state school system. To say that something is wrong with some of the world's top schools, because they stand at the pinnacle of a mediocre pile, is a perverse inversion. It is like saying there is something wrong with the healthy man because everyone else is sick.

Mr Jones presents to me a mental image. Despite his credentials as an Oxford graduate the working class envy is palpable. It is to look upon something beautiful, that is not completely his, and therefore demand that it be destroyed. Taking a bottle of acid to an art gallery would be a more honest expression of such a wicked wish.

Read More »»

Trooping the Colour

The Duke of Cambridge (aka Prince William) rehearses a time honoured tradition:

The rehearsal, known as the Colonel's Review, takes place a week before Trooping the Colour, which marks the Queen's official birthday. Her actual birthday is on April 21. Since 1748 it has been traditional to celebrate the Sovereign's birthday publicly on a day in the summer, when good weather is more likely.

From Wikipaedia:

A regiment's colours embody its spirit and service, as well as its fallen soldiers. The loss of a colour, or the capture of an enemy colour, were respectively considered the greatest shame, or the greatest glory on a battlefield. Consequently, regimental colours are venerated by officers and soldiers of all ranks, second only to the sovereign.

Only battalions of infantry regiments of the line carry colours; the Royal Artillery's colours, for example, are their guns. Rifle regiments did not form a line and thus never carried colours. Their battle honours are carried on their drums. The exception to this is the Honourable Artillery Company who have both a stand of colours and guns.

Trooping the Colour is an old ceremony whereby the battalion would fall in by companies and the colour-party would "troop" or march the colours through the ranks so that every man would see that the colours were intact. This was done before and after every battle. This ceremony has been retained through time and is today largely ceremonial.

Read More »»

Monarchy and Democracy

An anarchist reflects on monarchy and democracy:

Mr. James Uscroft discusses democracy, meritocracy, etc. (warning: some profanity):

Monarchy and long-term thinking:

And a short reading list:

Read More »»

Dieu protège la reine!

Wanted: More french-speaking Quebeckers like Étienne Boisvert.

In a province where the vast majority of francophones view the Royal Family with indifference, and a vocal minority treat it with outright hostility, Mr. Boisvert says the monarchy has been the great non-partisan, unifying force in the country. It is those monarchs, he says, who nurtured democracy and individual freedom in Canada, including the province of Quebec.

“We’ve come to see these things as Western values, but the concept of liberty and democracy are, at their origins and at our origins, fundamentally British,” says Mr. Boisvert, just starting his pitch at his mom’s kitchen table.

[...]

“In a republic like the United States, objects like the flag and the constitution are held sacred. In our system, we make our rallying point human beings, the Royal Family, the Queen,” Mr. Boisvert says.

“For 60 years, the Queen has been a model of devotion to duty. Would you prefer to pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric?”

Read More »»

Speaking the King's

"Now, about this pickle..." classic line by Michael Fassbender, my new favourite actor, and as much as I admire Daniel Craig, I wouldn't be disappointed if Michael Fassbender (eventually) becomes the new James Bond. He's already got the role down pat - that supreme coolness under fire. Here's the full heaven:


"Well, if this is it, old boy, I hope you don’t mind if I go out speaking the King’s… [smokes] there’s a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch. Seeing as how I may be rapping on the door momentarily… [drinks] I must say, damn good stuff, Sir. Now, about this pickle… we find ourselves in…"

- Michael Fassbender as Lt. Archie Hicox in Inglourious Basterds

Read More »»

Now on Twitter!

Be sure to follow our tweeds (sic) on Twitter. The Monarchist would be happy to follow you too, provided you have a penchant for monocles, fob watches and ear trumpets. All bon vivants and other convivial spirits are welcome!

Read More »»

The Queen's Navy

The evolution of the Royal Navy in Victoria's time:

The Admiralty couldn’t depend on past experience for guidance, as everything they’d done for hundreds of years was now undecided: what kind of ships do you need to build? How will they be armed? How will they be armoured? How will they be propelled? Bureaucracies are, by nature, not well equipped to face challenges like this. The Royal Navy, from the late 1860′s until the late 1880′s struggled with finding the correct answer, or combination of answers, to meet the needs of the day.

I admit that my interest in British Imperial history fades very quickly after 1815 and only starts to pick up again in the 1870′s, and what little I’d retained of the reading I’d done left me with much disdain for the obvious pattern of muddle and stop-gap planning that clearly defined the Royal Navy’s approach to maintaining the fleet during that time period. I was very wrong in my assumptions, but I was far from alone.

The article has broader lessons on the nature of technological change and how to cope with it.

Read More »»