tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post3131085545738129040..comments2024-03-23T08:00:26.020+00:00Comments on THE MONARCHIST: What the Coronation symbolises for meUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-59431285232443766072013-06-24T16:30:46.258+01:002013-06-24T16:30:46.258+01:00Dear Anonymous,
Regarding your first comment, The...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Regarding your first comment, The Monarchist is explaining his own view in the piece. He does not have to explain his view on someone else's opinion, but has very graciously done so!<br /><br />While such statements as you put down in quotation wouldn't exist today in any country (every one of the Commonwealth Realms has a "multiracial" population...) in 1950, the year India became a republic, the situation was not so obvious. <br /><br />Britain didn't have any "race laws" restricting non-whites. Australia had a white Australia policy and South Africa had just elected the national party. The view at the time held by Britain was that these countries were independent, but family, and that the situation on that level was a local matter. Menzies was supporting the position of his own government at the time and trying to defend what he thought was the national interest of Australia. It didn't work out that way in any case, which I guess you are pleased about.<br /><br />The whole point is that this period was the extended transition of the Empire towards dominions and then towards Commonwealth membership. British India was split up into dominions because independence needed to be sorted quickly and this was a legal avenue that had been used before.<br /><br />At the same time was the example of Ireland. On a technicality, Ireland was in some way related to the British crown throughout the war, but opted against joining in. Ireland became formally and unambiguously a republic in the late 40s and did not join the commonwealth (for whatever reason). However, Britain concluded an equivalence-of-citizenship treaty with Ireland that is still in force today. Was it feasible to give war-neutral Ireland special treatment while completely walking away from India, which had so recently raised the largest volonteer army of all time to defend the Raj?<br /><br />I do not recognise that the situation was at all "simple". The Monarchist poses an intelligent question here for us to consider.<br /><br />PPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-68394674662365881352013-06-24T00:48:11.680+01:002013-06-24T00:48:11.680+01:00Would you do me a favor and tell me what color the...Would you do me a favor and tell me what color the sky is in your world, kind sir? What "intimate club" are you talking about? Menzies seems to be pretty clear in his view: "WHITE club". India wasn't white, so he hated it. Its that simple. <br /><br />Excuse me for laughing, but I find the idea of Menzies wishing for the fraternal love of his Indian "brothers" difficult to believe. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-88539849189788463412013-06-18T15:45:40.438+01:002013-06-18T15:45:40.438+01:00Menzies' antipathy to India was in reaction to...Menzies' antipathy to India was in reaction to their separation from the Crown fraternity, what he called "the dreadful stain of republicanism" and the loss of Commonwealth intimacy that such republican independence created. From that moment on, according to Menzies, they were out of the intimate club.<br /><br />Others, of course, celebrated this anomaly as the boundless British genius for political governance and compromise, whose "incorrigible disposition to escape from a logical dilemma" succeeded in preventing India’s leaving the fraternity, while paradoxically preserving the independent republic’s symbolic association with the more intimate aspect of the Crown, namely the person of the monarch as "Head of the Commonwealth."<br /><br />So the question for historians is, did India kill the fraternity, or was it dead in the long run anyways, given the divergences, upheavals and realignments of the 1960s and beyond?The Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362198840081512460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-82630279271845786532013-06-17T07:29:13.540+01:002013-06-17T07:29:13.540+01:00But then, how do you explain Robert Menzies throwi...But then, how do you explain Robert Menzies throwing a fit and demanding that countries like India should not be allowed in the Commonwealth because that would "pollute the inner club of white dominions"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-28457966150914976832013-06-07T18:10:47.010+01:002013-06-07T18:10:47.010+01:00Many thanks gents for all your comments.Many thanks gents for all your comments.The Monarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362198840081512460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-86213579832230630962013-06-06T13:31:32.336+01:002013-06-06T13:31:32.336+01:00A superb definition of Britishness. A superb under...A superb definition of Britishness. A superb understanding of the understated spiritual signifiance of The Coronation too. Indeed, I couldn't put it better myself, old Beavers.<br /><br />"The central concept underlying this shared Britishness was not national identity, but supranational allegiance."<br /><br />When we sing The Royal Anthem and stand up from our seats as one - we simply give public expression and voice to our instinctive and shared allegiance. An allegiance, not only to The Queen, but to God and the wider Commonwealth Family too. Expressing our sense of loyalty and Britishness in a natural reflex of praise to Almighty God. A God and also a Queen who unite us. In a shared and unspoken understanding. The joy and delight we do feel in knowing that we are one.Neil Welton (Leader, Monarchy Wales)http://www.monarchywales.org.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-54478234439279274482013-06-04T02:53:46.436+01:002013-06-04T02:53:46.436+01:00Last Thursday I attended a screening of the 1953 f...Last Thursday I attended a screening of the 1953 film documentary "The Conquest of Everest" about the New Zealand Film Archive, here in Wellington (http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/now-showing/the-conquest-of-everest/view/2013-05-29). <br /><br />The film opens with the glorius technicolour pagentry of the coronation, accompanied by the Royal Anthem. As the firt bars of the anthem sounded, every person in the theatre stood up from their seats as one.<br /><br />Given that the audience ranged from 20-something hipsters to rather more venerable persons - I don't know this reaction was down to either sly irony or simple reflex, but juding by the subsequent looks and quiet whispers between the patrons, it did a great job of creating a feeling of solidarity between the audience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-42932712832234935232013-06-03T16:40:33.474+01:002013-06-03T16:40:33.474+01:00Dear Monarchist,
Thank you for sharing these thou...Dear Monarchist,<br /><br />Thank you for sharing these thoughts in this very thought-provoking piece.<br /><br />For me the great attraction of this blog is that it reports issues of monarchy very much within the spirt you describe.<br /><br />My very best wishes,<br /><br />P<br /><br /><br />Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8162816964941896969.post-13937776703698925192013-06-03T07:36:03.641+01:002013-06-03T07:36:03.641+01:00This makes me wonder what it would have been like ...This makes me wonder what it would have been like if the Commonwealth Realms had remained as closely associated as we were in 1953. Probably the republican movement in Australia, Canada, New Zealand would be a joke, and Britain would not be in the EU.Npinkpantherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356300503647396779noreply@blogger.com