THE MONARCHIST

Happy Australia Day!

2012-01-25T21:01:00.000Z

Since our loyal kith and kin in the Land of Oz are one day ahead of most of us, I am posting "today".

'Captain Coward'

2012-01-19T21:13:00.007Z

Not exactly a piece of pure and exalted manhood. That's a long way down indeed.

The survivor statistics tell the tale. More women from third class — deep in the bowels of the ship, where it was hard to escape and instructions were vague or nonexistent — survived than men from first class. Almost all of the women from first class (97 percent) and second class (84 percent) made it. As Butler notes, the men from first class who were lost stayed behind voluntarily, true to their Edwardian ideals.

They can look faintly ridiculous from our vantage point. Benjamin Guggenheim changed into his evening clothes that night: “We’ve dressed in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen.” Whom would you rather have around your wife or daughter, though, when there is only one slot left on the lifeboat? Old Guggenheim in his white tie and tails, or the contemporary slob in his Bermuda shorts and flip-flops?

The Titanic went down, they say, to the strains of the hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” as the band courageously played on. It lent a final grace note to the tragedy. Today, we don’t do grace notes. We’ve gone from “Women and children, first,” to “Dude, where’s my lifeboat?” As the women of the Costa Concordia can testify, that’s a long way down.

Diamond Jubilee Pageant on the River Thames

2012-01-18T15:15:00.006Z

The elevated spectacle of a slow moving pageantry on the River Thames celebrating the diamond jubilee of the world's preeminent hereditary monarchy promises to captivate the attention of the largest television audience in history. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee pageant will showcase one thousand ships - the biggest collection of boats in 350 years - each of which will take 90 minutes to pass any one spot. Applications from across the Commonwealth were three time overscribed. A million waving and cheering people are expected to line the Thames.

The mustering of boats will cover 30 miles, the procession beginning at Hammersmith and ending at the Tower Bridge. The largest boat will be the 68-metre Royal Barge; the smallest a kayak. Every realm of the Crown Commonwealth will be represented. There will be American whaling boats, a slipper launch from Canada and surfer boats from every state of Australia. Boats will include Amazon used in Victoria's Diamond Jubilee and a motor boat used by Churchill and Eisenhower to review the Anglo-Canadian-American D-Day Allied Forces.

This wonderful river pageantry is the brainchild of HRH Prince Charles, who will fittingly serve as patron of the event. Lord Salisbury, whose great grandfather was Prime Minister of Great Britain during Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897, is appropriately chairing the organization overlooking it. Incredibly no public funds will be spent - all of it corporate sponsors or private donations from the public.

Perhaps the daftest thing sofar offered on this comes from London's Mayor, Boris Johnson, who opined that it would be an "anticipatory drum roll" for the Olympics, as if our Diamond Queen is merely playing "warm up" for this year's international summer athletes. Good morning, Boris! You may leave your dunce cap at the door.

Very well then - there is only one remaining unanswered question concerning the greatest assemblage of boats in more than three centuries: Which canoe will the republicans be protesting on?

Not So Quaint

2012-01-14T18:42:00.002Z

A Canadian institution:

Appreciating that the Crown is our concept of the state helps us resolve the most contentious issue in the burgeoning monarchy-republic debate: whether the institution is Canadian or British. Historically, Canada and the United Kingdom shared the same Crown. With the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, however, the Canadian and British Crowns became two distinct institutions, reflecting Canada's evolution from a self-governing colony to an independent state.

Where does the person of the sovereign fit in all this? The Queen embodies the Crown; she is essentially the holder of the Crown as an office. For this reason, the sovereign is both the Queen of Canada and Queen of the United Kingdom. Although they are separate and distinct, she holds both offices and embodies both Crowns.

I've never been entirely convinced of the wisdom of emphasizing the Canadian nature of the Crown. There is no getting around the fact that the Queen resides in Britain most of the year. Instead I think we should be comfortable with the "British" aspects of the Crown. Most of Canada's key institutions are British derived, though it is nation peopled by members of every race and creed. We should not shy away from our British heritage. It shows to new Canadians that we are an old country after all, that our values and traditions have stood well history's test.

Uneasy lies the Jamaican head...

2012-01-11T16:12:00.008Z

Uneasy lies the head that wears a Crown. - William Shakespeare

For those unaware, Jamaica will be celebrating 50 years of national independence this August 2012. Their prime minister, Mrs. Portia Simpson Miller, is planning to herald this august achievement by ditching their diamond Queen and by reintroducing the death penalty to its country's citizens. As David Flint over at ACM has noted, all we know for certain is that some unspecified form of politician's republic will come with the gallows. Happy birthday, Jamaica!

Quite frankly I am aghast that one political party can use its temporary mandate to overturn the monarchy forever. Speaking as an irredeemable medievalist, I do not believe that one generation has the democratic right to overturn the cumulative work of generations that preceded it, but at the very minimum I would have thought that the people would need to be consulted in a referendum on a clear question on so fundamental an issue as this. This is particularly worrisome if in fact 62% of its population truly supports the institution. Just who and where are these friends of the Jamaican Crown, and why are they not better organized?

"A very British Canada"

2012-01-06T14:32:00.004Z

Who killed Canadian history? One can only imagine what Jack Granatstein would think or write about this little corner of the web, if he ever saw it. We are (gasp!) "a very British blog".

I've had my own regrettable exchange with the man (something about the present catching up to me, and the future leaving me in the dust), who congratulated me (accused me) for my role in returning Canada to colonial status. The temptation is to do as he has done and lash out, but two people wrestling in the mud only gets both dirty. Better to keep calm and carry on (egad, there's that Britishness again).

It is strange thing though for a reputable historian to be ashamed of his country's inheritance, who adamantly wants to sever all identifiable links and ties with the past. He's an odd fish: a pro-military Liberal republican who will chastize anyone for holding anti-American views, but who himself is anti-British to his very core. He would probably deny this, but why else can he not fathom the thought that our britishness (small b) is inextricably part of our national identity. He finds it 'appalling' and 'abjectly colonial'.

Make no mistake, what is really going on is a simple return to normal. After forty years of pretending we were not a monarchy (successive governments have done their best to diminish and belittle it), we have a prime minister who is actually (shock!) loyal to Canada's heritage and traditions and is deliberately turning the clock back to its proper time. He is making the country into "a very unLiberal Canada" for the obvious reason that a nation's heritage should not be owned by any one particular political party, and the 8.1 percent who agree with Jack are having an extremely difficult time of it. The present has finally caught up to them, so to speak, and their political future is very bleak indeed.

The last word goes to a commenter,

If, after waking in the morning, Mr. Granatstein isn't embarassed by this petulant rubbish, then his family ought to be deeply concerned for him. Jeffrey Simpson who wrote a similarly contemptuous piece last year should sue him for plagiarism.

Pierre Trudeau entrenched the monarchy in the Constitution Act, 1982 as part of a deal to get his precious 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms'. After three decades of Liberal governments pretending that it was abolished, the current government is re-introducing Canada as it actually is with an ancient Crown covered in maples.

The only thing leaking in Mr. Granatstein's fantasy is his once-admired reputation.

Jack Granatstein: Winning the award for "the lowest overall tone".

The Grand Old Duke

2012-01-05T14:37:00.000Z

Old sailors...

As the Queen’s consort, Philip has been constantly at her side throughout her 60 year reign. And while we’re quick to jump on his reported inappropriate comments — which often turn out to be exaggerated stories — he rarely gets the praise he deserves for his tireless devotion to her, to the Commonwealth and to Canada.
In a review of the fleet in Halifax last year, he proudly wore the uniform of an Admiral in the Canadian Navy. He paused and chatted to naval vets. Like him, they served in dangerous waters in wartime, protecting convoys.

Jean Chretien is joined by John Howard in the Order of Merit

2012-01-04T01:19:00.000Z

The 2012 New Years Honours List from the Palace brings news that former Australian prime minister, John Howard, has been made a member of the Order of Merit by the Queen.

General information on the OM can easily be found on the web and so will not be canvassed here, but the appointment of Mr Howard to the Order deserves further consideration.

In Australia, there is a tradition of senior honours being bestowed on those that have reached the apex of public life. Since the office has been "localised", three governors-general (two of whom also served as foreign minister) have been made made Knights of the Garter. Sir Robert Menzies, Australia's longest serving Prime Minister, was made a Knight of the Thistle in 1963. Sir Owen Dixon, regarded as Australia's greatest jurist, was made OM, also in 1963.

No Australian has received a knighthood on an official Australian list since 1990. The last knighthoods from the Royal Prerogative to be bestowed on Australian residents were the KCVO on Sir David Smith in 1992, and the Garter on Sir Ninian Stephen in 1994. It seems that Australia and Canada both now share the Order of Merit as the most senior honour in public life.

Now, John Howard has joined this exclusive group by being made OM - only the second Australian involved in statecraft ever to be so. It is not necessarily an endorsement of his policies, but it is a statement by her that she considers him a first-rank political figure. Given her sixty years on the throne, she has met more successful political figures than anyone else on the planet. Howard's OM is high praise indeed.

The sad fact of course is that no former Labor politicians have been so recognised, although there have been worthy candidates. This is less to do with the Queen, than the Australian Labor Party's strict, unyielding position on the honours system and its support for a republic occasionally turning very nasty and personal. For example, Jack Egerton, a Labor stalwarrt from Queensland was expelled from Labor in the 1970s for accepting a knighthood. Paul Keating's views are also well known on the matter of a republic.

Pleasingly however, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has congratulated Mr Howard on his appointment.

Former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke would be a worthy recipient of the OM (uniquely, he held the AC before entering parliament). But it is not unreasonable for the Queen to avoid giving such prestigious, intimate honours to people who have publicly and repeatedly said that they disapprove of her office.

For so long as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, and the Australian Labor Party obliges its members and leaders to promote its republican platform regardless of what they may think of it privately, it will forever be diminished and absent from the highest reaches of public life. This is not an argument for changing the Constitution - after all, like its competitors, Labor is a mere political party, not a constitutional institution. The Constitution should never be changed for the convenience of a particular political party.

This situation will only change if Labor senses it no longer needs to invest emotionally in a republic, either by its members or its leaders. Time will tell.

In the meantime, congratulations to the Hon. John Howard, OM AC SSI.

What Century?

2011-12-30T20:55:00.005Z

The wise Young Liberals of Canada are looking for boldness and relevancy in the 21st century, and what better way to bring forth their brave new vision of the country than to ditch the monarchy. Gotta admire the neat rationality of it all, to say nothing of their diamond timing:

WHEREAS Canada is a multicultural nation, built by people from many diverse backgrounds and where at present no Canadian citizen can ever aspire to be head of state of our own country;

WHEREAS Canadians believe in earning one’s position in life and not being simply born into privilege;

WHEREAS our head of state should be a true representative of the People of Canada;

WHEREAS Canada prides itself in being a democratic nation, with democratic institutions;

WHEREAS foreign law bars individuals not of the Anglican faith from rising to the position of head of state of Canada;

WHEREAS Canada’s head of state should conform to Canadian laws of gender and religious equality represented in the Charter of Rights and Freedom;

WHEREAS Canadians pay more to maintain the monarchy than the British;

WHEREAS an unelected individual can and is prepared to supersede the will of the Parliament;

BE IT RESLOVED [sic] that the Liberal Party of Canada, urge the Parliament of Canada to form an all party committee to study the implementation of instituting a Canadian head of state popularly elected and sever formal ties with the British Crown.

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

2011-12-30T00:10:00.000Z

Defender of the Empire and Civilization

Unofficial Poet Laureate of the English Speaking Peoples

Youngest Nobel Laureate for Literature

Born December 30th, 1865 - Died January 18th, 1936

A medley of Kipling related material from this blog and elsewhere...

141 Years Old and Still Looking Good

Kipling and the Iron Ring

Kipling's Game

Kipling's Empire

Kipling's Business

Kipling the Propagandist

Kipling the Globetrotter

The Christmas Broadcast 2011

2011-12-28T21:22:00.001Z

The Christmas Broadcast - 1957

2011-12-25T12:00:00.002Z

Christmas and the Great War

2011-12-24T11:00:00.003Z

Merry Christmas to all!

Messiah

2011-12-24T00:10:00.003Z

John Edmond: Christmas in Rhodesia

2011-12-23T18:27:00.001Z

The Viscount Bolingbroke

2011-12-23T01:03:00.001Z

260 years ago today (December 12 in the old calendar), Henry St John, 1^st Viscount Bolingbroke passed on.

Alexis Simon Belle: Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke

Lord Bolingbroke wrote The Idea of a Patriot King, in which – amongst other things – he wrote:

Among many reasons which determine me to prefer monarchy to every form of government, this is a principal one. When monarchy is the essential form, it may be more easily and more usefully tempered with aristocracy, or democracy, or both, than either of them, when they are the essential forms, can be tempered with monarchy. It seems to me, that the introduction of a real permanent monarchical power, or any thing more than the pageantry of it, into either of these, must destroy them and extinguish them, as a greater light extinguishes a less. Whereas it may easily be shown, and the true form of our government will demonstrate, without seeking any other example, that very considerable aristocratical and democratical powers may be granted on a monarchical stock, without diminishing the lustre, or restraining the power and authority of the prince, enough to alter in any degree the essential form.

The Coronation Portrait of Edward VIII

2011-12-14T22:20:00.004Z

King Edward VIII like we've never seen him before. Had he not abdicated, everything else staying the same, Elizabeth II would still be our Queen today, albeit with 30 years on the throne, not the 60 years we are on the cusp of celebrating in 2012. The abdication crisis turns 75.

King Edward VIII in his coronation robes Photo: Illustrated London News

Kenyan Independence

2011-12-12T05:56:00.002Z

On December 12, 1963, Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth II attained the title Queen of Kenya – in the twelfth year of her reign. Exactly one year later, or 366 days, on December 12, 1964, Her Britannic Majesty was no longer to reign over “the land of endless sunshine.”

The Last Farewell by Anglo-Kenyan singer Roger Whittaker:

My Land Is Kenya – also by Whittaker:

Hardinge Giffard, 1st Earl of Halsbury

2011-12-11T06:06:00.004Z

Hardinge Giffard, 1^st Earl of Halsbury

Hardinge Giffard was born on September 23, 1823 – in the reign of George IV. He passed on, 98 years old, 90 years ago today – on December 11, 1921. Lord Halsbury was the most prominent opponent in the House of Lords of what was to become the Parliament Act 1911, whose centenary is marked this year.

The Stately Homes of England

2011-12-09T23:26:00.000Z

We only keep them up for Americans to rent...

Some of England's peers have found more creative solutions. They not only inhabit their ancestral piles, but run them as businesses too, dangling their glittery goods like fishing lures to attract much-needed cash. "In the United States, we tend to have a romantic view of owning a great British estate," says Tom Savage, the director of museum affairs at Winterthur, the 175-room Delaware estate of the late chemical heir Henry Francis du Pont, which houses the foremost collection of American furniture and decorative objects. "But often the veil falls when you see inheritors to whom collecting is not a choice but an encumbering obligation: Out of economic necessity, they're doing everything in their power to hold on to what they've got."

...and Noel Coward.

The Naval Hymn

2011-12-04T16:06:00.001Z

Cross-posted at Royal Salute

Roger Scruton - The City and The Soul

2011-11-26T01:10:00.000Z

The Duke and the Windmills

2011-11-21T22:05:00.002Z

Reports The Sunday Telegraph:

In a withering assault on the onshore wind turbine industry, the Duke said the farms were “a disgrace”.

He also criticised the industry’s reliance on subsidies from electricity customers, claimed wind farms would “never work” and accused people who support them of believing in a “fairy tale”.

Writes Clive Aslet:

You have to hand it to the Duke of Edinburgh. At 90, he is still as incisive as ever. Once again, the Royal family has articulated what ordinary people, without the ear of the media, have long felt. His son might have called the wind farms that are besmirching our mountains and waving their giant arms inanely out at sea “a monstrous carbuncle”. Prince Philip chose “disgrace”. So they are.

Remembering In Flanders Fields

2011-11-11T22:30:00.006Z

IN FLANDERS FIELDS

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I memorized the poem, many years ago, as I'm sure you did. It is a ritual of Canadian childhood. While achieving acclaim in America, it never become indelible in the American mind. Through out the Empire and Commonwealth it achieved iconic status, spurring the creation of the poppy campaigns seen every November. The poppy somewhat confuses Americans. For the Chinese it has other connotations.

The reading of the poem, the solemn viewing of grainy film, the occasional visit by an aged veteran - in my case a Canadian participant in the Great Escape - is part of the catechism of Canadianism. Why did they die? For freedom. Why did they suffer? For Canada.

It was all a very earnest attempt, by ernest teachers, to impart, as best they could, the nature of a war few of them experienced. They - unlike most of us - knew someone who was there. An uncle, a father, a grandfather. The names chiselled on walls that were only names to us, were to them family names and off-tint photographs.

To most of us, the students, the ritual, however much we wanted to feel what we were suppose to feel, was largely empty. There can be no places further apart, in mind and feel, than Flanders in 1917 and Canada today. We were much too lucky to understand. There was no personal connection. The odd student had escaped from a far away war-torn country, but was often too young to recall or understand. Most our families had not fought in the war. Our ancestors were buried elsewhere and for other reasons.

The war became real to me, as far as it can to someone like me, when attending the University of Toronto. It was the same school that John McCrae attended, more than a century before me. His name is inscribed near Soldiers' Tower. The names that had been inscribed at my elementary school were names from along ago, from people who were adults. They were two steps removed.

The names at Soldiers' Tower had been my age. They had walked the same halls. The difference between myself and them was only the accident of time. Most of the names were those of officers. In addition to all the burdens of war, these early twenty-somethings had the burdens of command. Imagine yourself at that age, trying not only to survive but to lead others into life and death. Only chance separated myself and them, as it had separated the survivors and those on the wall.

For all our secularism, and professed multiculturalism, we are still at root a Christian country. Except in the very early years of Canada there has always been, at least in English Canada, a fairly strict separation of church and state. The rhythms of our culture, as of most Western literature and art, however are Christian.

When the word sacrifice is used in remembrance ceremonies its origin, and echo, is Christian. It is Christ on the Cross. Just as He suffered for us, they the soldiers suffered for us. To the believer, then, November 11th has a double meaning, as it would have to those who first marked Armistice Day nine decades ago. Even a comparatively secular contemporary writer, Rudyard Kipling, infused his short short The Gardener with Christian allusion and allegory.

For good, and ill, Christianity is no longer the living religion it was then, or even thirty or forty years ago. It is seen today as a weekend hobby, resorted to in times of crisis, and then pushed to back of mind. Little, arguably nothing, has come to replace that living force in our culture. David Warren alluded to this in a recent column on Faith and Freedom. You can deny, as I do, that freedom requires faith. It does require, however, some sort of system of belief and value. A nation driven by whim and will is not a nation that will long be free. The Founders of both Canada and America understood this fact. They deferred, to a greater or lesser extent, to religion to provide that moral backbone for society.

While the message of sacrifice lingers in modern Canadian culture, the existence of evil is denied. There is no evil, we are told, only misunderstanding and reaction to suffering. This is why Remembrance Day has become only a ritual. Its meaning is lost, not only because of time, but because the spirit of that age is gone.

They who built the Cenotaphs and Soldiers' Towers believed in suffering, in redemption and in evil. Re-read the poem above, that last jarring stanza. "Take up our quarrel with the foe." The message delivered by those earnest school teachers is the pointlessness of war. That is not, however, what John McCrae believed. Like most of his generation, like most of those thousands of Canadians who lie buried with him in northwestern Europe, they believed in evil. More than this, they believed they fought for something good and against something evil. War was horrible, yes, but it was sometimes necessary to fight evil.

We all die, some of us die in great pain. From disease, from famine and from natural disaster. What separates death from natural causes, however horrific, and war is morality. War is a product of human thought and action, and so can and must be judged morally. That is why we remember and must, because of the moral dimension of war. We do not honour suffering for its own sake, we honour it because of what they sought to preserve. Let me close by quoting another poem, one that would have been familiar to John McCrae and his fellow officers:

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,

And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?"

It's from Macaulay's The Lays of Ancient Rome. Churchill memorized the poem while at Harrow. It was a standard text for generations of schoolboys. It faded from the curriculum in the years after the First World War. Macaulay was a Christian memorializing the feats of Roman pagans. While their creeds separated the stoical Romans from Victorian Englishmen, the themes of honour, duty, family and values worth fighting for crossed that divide. That we modern Canadians cannot understand Macaulay, and cannot understand that last stanza of In Flanders Field, is the unacknowledged tragedy of the last century.

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

Originally posted November 11th, 2010

Why is the monarchy still useful to us do you think?

2011-11-10T19:47:00.003Z

Young Fogey on BBC: "I think really the crown epitomises the equivalent of the soul of the man in philosophy. It is the life force of the state. Everything we have in this country emanates from the crown, it is the source of all power, but it also upholds those fundamental pillars of civil society. It is the national focal point - most countries of the world are born out of bloodshed and independence, like Independence Day in America and Bastille Day in France – we don’t have that, so the crown is the focal point for our national identity. We come together as a nation, it unites us as a people. Social cohesion comes into being through things like royal weddings and diamond jubilees, and through that it gives us in an era of globalisation, when we seem to be unsure of who we are, it provides us with that grounding element that we need. In addition to that it is the supreme example of civic duty, the monarchy exemplifies the Big Society, the concepts of engaging in philanthropic activities and engaging in charitable endeavors, and also very much the issue of moral leadership, through examples of the Queen and her mother through self-sacrifice and dedication to duty.

So those are the things that the sovereign and crown serve as head of the nation as opposed to just head of state. Head of state is the constitutional functions, opening parliaments and signing bills - but as head of the nation, the Queen and the monarchy are the spiritual and social heart of the nation. Those are two separate roles. I don’t think any other form of government enables the playing of those two things together."

You can listen to the rest of the Young Fogey BBC interview here.

"A serious country cannot have a viceroy as its chief of state"

2011-11-07T14:41:00.002Z

So says Conrad Black, who is himself a monarchist, a Catholic and a Lord. The problem is not the monarchy, writes Lord Black, the issue for non-British Commonwealth realms is its non-resident status:

As for Canada, its problem with the monarchy is that it is non-resident and, literally, un-Canadian. If the Cambridges were here for one or more five-year terms, they would be a smash, not least as ambassadors for Canada opposite other countries. (This is no rap on David Johnston, an outstandingly qualified Governor-General in every respect.)

If for any reason, some such idea as this is not a runner, the governor general should become a co-chief of state with the monarch, and not just a stand-in. A serious country cannot have a viceroy as its chief of state other than for two weeks every three years or so when a monarch from overseas, however distinguished, and who is officially shared with other countries, is physically present in Canada.

We have good people and good institutions. What is needed is a little creative thinking. The republicans, pounding the table and just demanding the abolition of the monarchy, are not contributing much to what should be an interesting and certainly is a timely, discussion.

My meeting with the Prime Minister

2011-11-04T19:24:00.003Z

Meeting Prime Minister Harper 17th October 2011 (Photo by Jill Thompson)

How we did it

2011-11-04T19:10:00.005Z

A number of military publications have asked for our story on the successful campaign to bring back the RCN and RCAF. This is what we wrote.

With the suppression in 1968 of the RCN and RCAF a significant part of Canada's military heritage was lost. Now, forty-three years later, the historic identities of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force have been restored to the Canadian Forces.

Our campaign to restore the "Royal Honours" began in 2007 by making optimal use of the tools available to us. There was an online petition, a website, a blog and the use of promotional and patriotic videos. We eventually gained access to thousands of comments and email addresses from signatories of the petition that were especially used to maximum effect during key moments of the campaign.

A reconnaissance of the matter revealed the certain minefields that lay before us: the emotional hot-button issue of 'unification', the symbolism of the prefix 'Royal', the invariable canard over 'cost' and 'effort', political and cultural biases, and even the monarchy itself. It was important for us to avoid these distractions and remain focused on the task before us: to convince the government of the virtue of restoring the Royal titles within the existing unified command of the Canadian Forces.

Not unexpectedly, we encountered some stiff resistance. When MP Laurie Hawn agreed to sponsor our petition in 2007, researchers in the Library of Parliament wrote that it would take mountains of paperwork, require royal proclamations and up to 67 statutory amendments to enact. While we were prepared to move Heaven and Earth, this torrent of misinformation was a setback that did somewhat delay our progress.

Fortunately, in due course, we received the opinion of Dr. Christopher McCreery, an authority in the matter of 'Titles and Honours', who confirmed that the RCN and RCAF were never actually abolished, that they indeed still subsisted as merged entities within the CF, and that the Minister of National Defence could simply resume usage of the titles by virtue of the executive authority already available to him.

We had thought that the then-upcoming Canadian Naval Centennial would be the catalyst to 'Give the Navy its name back!' as Senator Joseph Day so passionately argued in the media, but head of the navy Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden's 'don't rock the boat' message sent a negative chill throughout the navy that spilled over into the Naval Officers Association whose support we thought critical. Although we were perplexed by Adm. McFadden's lack of enthusiasm for our project, he may have foreseen that the restoration of our military and naval heritage and the symbolism of monarchy were mutually reinforcing in a potentially powerful way, and that the navy may not be immune to possible divisions emanating from certain quarters of the country. The admiral had 'bigger fish to fry'.

Things were moving rather slowly until, incredibly, in October 2010, a motion by Senator Bill Rompkey to change the universally unloved 'Maritime Command' to (not the Royal) 'Canadian Navy' made it onto the floor of the Senate. When the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence chose to hold hearings on the matter, we knew that things had finally come to a head. It was then that we were called by the Prime Minister's Office.

We learned that PM Harper was sympathetic to the restoration (initially this only concerned the Navy though it only made sense that the Air Force would be included as well), but that the government would remain neutral while the matter was being deliberated in the Senate. We were advised that although the petition was informative, it was imperative to demonstrate the support of most, if not all, veteran groups and ex-service associations, as a necessary precondition to government action. We were also encouraged to keep the MND and the PMO abreast of our progress.

The Senate hearings proceeded, albeit with an apparent bias in favour of 'Canadian Navy', even though most senators on the committee, led by Senators Day, Plett and Manning, argued in support of the navy's traditional designation. When we blitzed the Senate Committee with what the Chair, Sen. Pamela Wallin termed our 'orchestrated email campaign', it was to ensure that the senators were aware of the names of the thousands who had signed the petition; especially after one retired admiral testified that he had not met a single person who wanted a return to the RCN!

Over the next eight months, a collaborative relationship with the PMO developed which, while not a guarantee of success, gave us a growing confidence that culminated on December 14th, 2010, when the Senate unanimously passed a revised motion encouraging the government to adopt a title with the word 'Navy' in it. We sensed victory. The prospect of the "Royal Canadian Navy" would live to fight another day.

The imperative to win further support from stakeholder groups did, however, seem to present a rather daunting challenge. Although we undoubtedly had the overwhelming favour of veterans at the grassroots level, we were disappointed that the national executives of the Naval Officers Association, the Air Force Association and even the Royal Canadian Legion were all initially opposed, arguing that the government would not be able to defend either the effort or the cost.

Not confident that they were speaking on behalf of their membership, we communicated directly with individual branches and organisations across the country, with very positive results. This included literally dozens of associations, most especially the National Council of Veteran Associations, an umbrella organization representing 58 distinct veteran groups all led by Canada's beloved 'Mr. Veteran', Cliff Chadderton. These results would make the government sufficiently comfortable, but the effort to maximize stakeholder support would continue until the eve of the Minister's historic announcement made from HMC Dockyard Halifax on 16 August 2011.

We are enormously gratified that our campaign was successful, for our deserving veterans and those retired and serving members of the forces who have long dreamed of this day. That a solid majority of Canadians, across all spectra, support the restoration is tremendously satisfying.

May the RCN and RCAF remain impregnable fortresses from this day forward, whatever the tint of future governments - and may the pride of our military men and women be well served because of it.

Beaverbrook is a graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada and a former naval officer. Gregory Benton is a past Regimental Chaplain of the Royal Regiment of Canada.

The Need for Imagination – the future of the monarchy in Australia

2011-10-26T06:11:00.000+01:00

As the the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh’s latest tour of Australia has passed its halfway mark and nears its end, it is worth reflecting on the state of the monarchy, the activity of the republican movement and what is required from our side to secure the monarchy’s future.

The first feature of this visit is the evergreen popularity of the Queen. I think the crowds are bigger and warmer than any I have seen for her than at any other time in the last 20 years. During walkabouts, there have been frequent spontaneous renditions by the crowds of God Save the Queen – an anthem not played in this country in an official capacity away from her presence for over twenty years - wherever she goes. Crowds have been 20 and 30 people deep. The media management has been masterful, too - royal tour coverage dominates rolling news channels during the day and the Queen and Duke landed in Canberra at the start of the 6pm news bulletins in Sydney and Melbourne. Flawless timing.

So, where does this leave the republicans?

The politics of republicanism in Australia are now clear – there is nowhere near enough support to carry the necessary referendum to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic. Australia’s baby-boomer elite have begun to realise that they will die as subjects of the Queen or her successors. This article, by Australia’s pre-eminent political commentator, the Australian’s Paul Kelly, shows how raw this is for them. Kelly (the former husband of a Labor minister from the 1980s) accepts the battle is lost but can’t bear to face the monarchy in its triumph. He is by no means alone.

So what is to be done?

I think the monarchy (preferably the Queen before the end of her reign) needs to reach out to them and bring them into the tent. In no other realm is the “disconnect” between the monarch and local elites so pronounced. While it’s not a tactical problem for the Crown because it will always win an insiders-vs-outsiders referendum, the strategic problem remains. I don’t just want the bomb’s fuse to be extinguished, I want to dismantle the bomb.

For non-political elites, I think the answer is easy and lies in restoring an older part of the Australian honours system. If all Companions of the Order of Australia were offered to be upgraded to a knight or dame to join the few living AKs left (similar to New Zealand’s move last year), then the nub of republican support would instantly be given “buy-in” with the monarchy and so the two would be reconciled. I suspect we would see similar take-up rates to NZ, and public life would be enhanced (as would the Crown’s cause). In my view, this scenario can only realistically occur with Tony Abbott becoming prime minister, and would be made easier by investitures personally conducted by the Queen. Plausible, but by no means certain.

The real challenge is to negotiate some sort of truce between the monarchy and Labor. Labor has deep Irish-inspired republican roots, resents the existence of vice-regal reserve constitutional powers (and has spectacularly suffered from them twice), and values republicanism’s utility as a low-cost symbolic issue that connects its two core constituencies – blue collar workers from a non-English speaking background, and urban social progressives. This is all in addition to the frequent suspicion that social democrats and others on the Left have for inherited privilege and the hereditary principle. Asking Labor to accept the monarchy is like asking Labor to deny its success since embracing cultural nationalism and moving beyond being a purely class-based party (which meant endless electoral defeat). This is THE challenge for our cause in my country but I have not found a long-term solution yet - I am hopeful the Palace will. If the Palace and its Australian friends and advisers can come up with a solution to this, then its long term future is assured. Until then, though, vigilance remains needed.

Young Canadian Monarchist Defends...

2011-10-10T05:35:00.002+01:00

A young Canadian monarchist, Tom Richards, defends the Canadian monarchy:

The Governor Returns to Government House!

2011-10-07T14:17:00.004+01:00

Regular readers of this blog will be well aware of the successful restoration of the traditional titles "Royal Canadian Navy" and "Royal Canadian Air Force".

To Australian readers, perhaps the closest thing to this cause has been the fight to return the Governor of New South Wales - the oldest office of public administration in Australia - to their traditional residence, Government House, a beautiful Gothic Revival home pile next to Sydney Harbour.

Well, it appears the fight has, like our Canadian friends, been won!

The present Premier of NSW has announced that Her Excellency Prof. Marie Bashir, and her husband Sir Nicholas Shehadie, will return to Government House before the end of the year - first, to the chalet next to Government House previously used as a residence for the official secretary to the Governor, and then to a wing in the main residence once repair and restoration works are finished.

It has been known widely in Sydney circles for some time that both Prof Bashir and Sir Nick were very keen to return to past practice, although of course they did not voice that publicly. At a function earlier this year at Government House, Sir Nick explained to me in some detail, and with passion, his views on the matter. I was delighted to be in full agreement!

This is great news and helps to restore the lustre and dignity of the office of Governor of New South Wales. The fact that it is happening on the watch of Prof Bashir - governor since 2001 and a widely admired community figure - is doubly satisfying.

Now, if only she could be "Dame Marie"...

Roger Scruton - Why Beauty Matters

2011-10-01T19:01:00.001+01:00

Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia

2011-09-25T17:27:00.004+01:00

Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia, Michael Korda, Harper, 792 pages

I am an enormous fan of Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean's classic 1962 movie. I had read T.E. Lawrence's Revolt in the Desert years ago and made a mental note to try to track down a good biography of this famously enigmatic figure. Lead to to this book by a positive review in The Economist I was not disappointed. The author, somewhat ironically, is the nephew of the legendary British film producer Sir Alexander Korda, who sold the film rights for Revolt in the Desert to Sam Spiegel, the producer of Lawrence of Arabia.

The film, of course, is only a semi-representative sliver of the life of T.E. Lawrence. What this biography brings is the sense that, with little effort, a dozen good films could be made from the material of this remarkable life. As mentioned in the film, Lawrence was illegitimate, his Irish gentry father having run-off with his first family's governess. That alone would give enough for a solid Edwardian potboiler. His otherwise conventional upper-class childhood built on a lie (there was no divorce from the first wife), the complex relationship with his siblings and his many precocious talents call out for Masterpiece Theatre.

Through his life Lawrence possessed a remarkable ability to enter into highest circles of academia, government and culture with little apparent effort. His youth and scandalous birth paled when compared to his obvious brilliance. Becoming an expert in half-a-dozen fields while meandering through Oxford, his greatest challenge seems to have been one of avoiding boredom. Personal connections allowed him to spend three years doing archaeological work in the then Ottoman Empire. A masterful work on crusader castles followed almost as an afterthought.

War took him to Cairo and a junior position in the Arab Bureau. His military status was always nebulous, technically spending most of the war as a temporary officer. The bureaucrats could never quite define him. Officially sent into the Arabian deserts as an observer he became, through force of will and natural strategic aptitude, the leader of a guerrilla army that helped destabilize the Ottoman Empire. A series of brilliant military victories and a mad dash for Damascus made him a legend in the region. The shrewd American reporter Lowell Thomas popularized the legend through out the world, making Lawrence an early media stars.

In the years immediately after the war he plotted with his friend Churchill, Lloyd George and a collection of Arab Princes the map of the modern Middle East. Through his charm and cunning he placed kings on the thrones of Iraq and Jordan, the latter of whose descendants still rule in one of the more civilized nations of the region. The historians have been apportioning their blame ever since on Lawrence's slender shoulders.

His talent for "backing into the limelight" was matched by his abhorrence of fame, which was in turn surpassed only by the militant suppression of his own sex drive. Korda, mercifully, keeps the psychological commentary to a minimum and leaves us with the strange facts. Nothing evil, really, just very, very odd. Did we mention he had a fraught relationship with his pious mother? The same mother who lived in sin for decades with her former employer? Make what you will of it.

After having literally shaped the destinies of nations and kings, while somehow becoming a sort of adopted son to G.B. Shaw and serving as the model for Private Meek in Too True To Be Good, Lawrence enlisted in the RAF and then the Army. Despite having been at one point a Lt. Colonel, the king maker choose to become an aircraftman, leaving the service when his identity was discovered. A stint in the Royal Tank Corp made him deeply unhappy and he, with the connivance of the highest authorities, rejoined the RAF. His fame would soon enough force his temporary relocation to a remote base in British India, then again force his return to Britain. His death at 46 in a freak motorcycle accident served as an unworthy end.

Michael Korda, who has a long list of bestselling historical works, handles the vast material with the expected deft of an old hand. The style is easy and at times elegant. Beyond the author, however, stands the subject and his amazing story, the ultimate Boy's Own adventure story combined with a fascinating history lesson.

Australians to welcome their Queen

2011-09-25T03:01:00.003+01:00

This coming October Her Majesty the Queen, Australia's Sovereign Head of State, will be in Australia to open this years CHOGM event. After that she will visit bush-fire victims in Victoria and flood victims in Queensland. No doubt she will receive a very warm welcome from most people. However our press is already mounting negative news headlines such as "Queen to snub Sydney". The media just don't get it and sadly probably never will.

However, ordinary Australians, as always, will welcome their Queen!

"We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values"

2011-09-23T17:16:00.002+01:00

British Prime Minister David Cameron's address to a joint session of the Canadian Parliament

And, of course, how could our faces not light up when we heard (yes we, the blog that brought back the RCN & RCAF!) those magnificent names bellow across the chamber in the House of Commons:

Mr Speaker, amidst all this there could not be a more fitting tribute to the brilliance of the Canadian forces- and our pride at standing side by side with them -than the recent renaming of the Maritime Command and Air Command as the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

THE INTEGRITY OF AN HONOUR

2011-09-16T15:26:00.005+01:00

Lord Black of Crossharbour, OC, PC (Can), KCSG
From our other magnificent corner of the web at Royal Salute

The Order of Canada is a civilian honour, and because it flows from the Sovereign, it's integrity and the guarding of it's reputation is important.

There have been some unfortunate cases concerning the Order of Canada, either according to the criteria used to appoint someone to the Order or that which wasused to remove persons from the Order, where division, instead of unity, has been unecessarily caused. This does not reflect well on the guardianship of the honour.

It has been reported that, according to Marie-Pierre Belanger in the Governor-General’s office, consideration is being given to the possibility of removing Conrad Black, Lord Black ofCrossharbour, from the Order of Canada.

Although the 'applicant' for this action is not identified, we expect that the reason given is because of a criminal conviction of Lord Black, according to American lawin an American court; ironically for charges that by most accounts, would never have been brought against him in a Canadian court. Indeed the credibility of the American conviction itself remains suspect.

There is a provision for the Advisory Council of the Order to recommend the removal ofa person from the Order if they have been convicted of a crime in Canada or otherewisewhose conduct has brought dishonour to the Order.

At royalsalute, we believe that for the Governor-General to remove an honour that has been granted to a person in recognition of their past distinguished contribution to Canada, it is essential that any suggestion or hint of political bias be removed absolutely in such an important matter. If the Advisory Council for the Order truly believes that a person should be removed, it ought to be for the most serious of reasons that cannot betraced to any kind of personal interest on the part of the applicant or the membersof the Council.

Lord Black is a controversial figure more for his being required to unecessarily renounce his Canadian citizenship in order to accept an appointment to the House of Lords than he is for his recent American adventure. In fact, it was the abuse of political power itself that 'cornered' Conrad Black. The old canard and myth of the 'Nickle Resolution' was used against him by the government of the day; a practice that really must be legislated to a halt once and for all. There are many Canadians who continue to receive honours from the UK.

The world of 'honours' itself ought not to be such a messy business. The respect and appreciation for an honour such as the Order of Canada, should alsobe of such strength that it cannot easily be intimidated or weakened because of the behaviour, personality, lifestyle or even foolish conduct of a member. Indeed, the Council that approves the awarding of the honour needs to take greater care of the reputation of the Order by the criteria it uses for those who receive it.

There are many highly distinguished, extremely accomplished Canadians, including those who serve or have served in the military and who have given enormously to their country but who have not received the Order of Canada; whilst there are many who have received the honour who have not lived in Canada for years but whose celebrity status, especially in the USA, is unfortunately regarded as the same as one who has made the contribution of a lifetime to Canada. These inconsistencies really ought to be rectified and are more urgently to be reviewed than the obviously thin argument against Lord Black.

We urge His Excellency, the Governor-General, and the Advisory Council to consider the precedent established by HM King George in the case of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most distinguished honour in Canada and all Commonwealth Realms. When a man who had been awarded the VC was found guilty of a crime in 1920 the question of his having his VC rescinded came before the King. HM felt very strongly that the Victoria Cross should never be forfeited. In a letter from Lord Stamfordham, his Private Secretary, on 26 July 1920, his views are forcibly expressed:

The King feels so strongly that, no matter the crime committed by anyone on whom the VC has been conferred, the decoration should not be forfeited. Even were a VC to be sentenced to be hanged for murder, he should be allowed to wear his VC on the scaffold.

The Victoria Cross is higher than the Order of Canada and even the Order of Merit which is also higher than the Order of Canada. It certainly is higher than the status of 'Officer' of the Order of Canada currently possessed by Lord Black.

There is wisdom in the King's judgment.

Gregory Benton, 14 Sep 2011

A PORTRAIT OF THE QUEEN

2011-09-16T15:15:00.004+01:00

We are stunned by reports that the government has ordered Canadian embassies and missions to have the official Canadian portrait of HM the Queen hung in the ususal prominent place.

What we want to know is: Who removed the portraits of the Queen in first place? Who ordered them removed? When did they do it? Why?

The media thinks that this correction, like the restoration of the RCN and RCAF, is because they consider the Prime Minister to be a 'staunch monarchist'. That may or many not be true. What we do know is that the PM believes in Canada's Constitutional Monarchy, i.e., the Queen as Canada's Sovereign and 'Head of State' whose continuation and role is a formal part of the Conservative Party of Canada's platform.

This is not a matter of opinion. It is the law. It says so in the Constituion Act, 1982 just as it did in the British North America Act, 1867. If the Queen were not Canada's Head of State then why are there hollers from the usual suspects to abolish the monarchy?

Of course, the real issue here is that a certain government prior to the existing government had the portraits of Canada's Head of State removed not only from High Commissions and Embassies but within the offices of Parliament and on the government website.

These are the same people who instructed certain Governors-General to refer to themselves as Canada's 'de facto Head of State' which is, of course, ridiculous. The Governor-General of Canada represents the Queen not himself.

The politest term for this nonsense is the 'abolition of the monarchy by stealth'; so that, if one can pretend it doesn't exist then it will eventually not exist! They do not like Canada as it is and they don't like the law that makes Canada a Constitutional Monarchy even though Pierre Trudeau (whom some regard as the 'Father of their Country') knew that the monarchy was part of the 'deal' when his 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' was written into the Constitution.

To change or remove the office of the Queen, the Governor-General or Lieutenant-Governors in Canada requires under law the opening of the Constitution, and having unanimous consent of Parliament and the ten Provincial Legislators. That would take some doing.

So, rather than go the democratic way, these self-serving sneaks simply pretend it away. It was remarkable that, during the Senate Hearings concerning the name of the Navy, a certain infamous General and now Senator casually remarked that he personally chose to lop off the Crown from the badge of the Canadian Army. One wonders: Who gave him the authority and why was he permitted to do that? This is the sort of behaviour more suited to a banana republic where certain people feel entitled to act at whim without deference to authority, i.e., the rule of men in place of the rule of law. That wasn't his personal badge. It represented the Land Forces of the Queen in Canada and belongs to Canada not him.

Imagine a Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police choosing to remove the portrait of the Queen from all RCMP offices and then, just, like, because, he lops off St. Edward's Crown from his badge.

Canada is, of course, a country of freedom and political parties as well as individuals have a right to express their opinion but if they wish to have the monarchy removed from their office space and coins, they should run for Parliament and get a mandate. In addition, if they are in the employ of the Crown and act against the Crown, i.e., bring the Crown into disrepute, they should be disciplined.

One is not required to be a monarchist to be a Canadian citizen but one is required to make an oath of allegiance to Canada's rightful Queen, her heirs and successors in the law.

Unless and until Canada's constitutional reality changes, if ever, they, like the current government is doing, should respect Canada as she is and that includes the Queen and Royal Family and the portrait of Canada's Sovereign in all public buildings.

And the media should wake up and realize that the monarchy has not been abolished just because it has previously been ignored and dismissed by a self-appointed elite.

Gregory Benton, 8 Sept 2011

A Royal Majority

2011-09-07T14:59:00.003+01:00

A popular decision for Minister Mackay:

A Harris/Decima survey conducted for The Canadian Press found that 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the change and only 31 per cent opposed it.
The poll suggests support is consistent across ages, genders and income levels. On partisan lines, Conservatives offered 72 per cent support, but even self-declared Liberals and New Democrats showed majority support.
Among Bloc Québécois supporters however, 74 per cent opposed the change.

A Royal Row

2011-08-25T14:10:00.000+01:00

Defence Minister Peter MacKay's restoration of the royal honour has not gone without comment. The MSM editorials are running overwhelming against the change. What might have been a simple nomenclature shift, a bit of symbolic reconnect with out military traditions, has highlighted the low intensity culture war that exists in modern Canada.

The modern Canadian Establishment is overwhelmingly dominated by products of the Pearson-Trudeau era reforms. The junking of the royal military monikers in 1968 was a landmark moment for this class, another important step in Canada's move away from its supposedly stuffy colonial past. To those less enamoured with the Trudeaupian project, the creation of a large and unsustainable welfare state matched with a systematic attack on this country's British heritage, these changes represented an undermining of the Canadian way of life.

While the Harper government may be faulted for many things, its spendthrift fiscal policies and weak willed economic reforms, it has had a subtle and profound impact on Canada's culture wars. Since the Pearson-Trudeau era the conservative movement has been in near constant apologetic retreat. Calls for national unity couched in the language of appeasement to Quebec nationalists, demands for fiscal moderation on the grounds of the long-run sustainability of social programs, at every step conservative values espoused in a half hearted and compromising manner.

Over the last five years we have seen a strong and full throated support for the State of Israel, outdoing even that country's historic patron, the United States. Such a policy may have picked up a few votes in Forest Hill, yet its real value has been a tremendous shift in our foreign policy. There would be no relativistic hand-wringing over Middle East policy, Israel was a free nation with a moral right to defend itself against its sworn enemies. A whole set of values was consequently brought into view: Canada should defend freedom and those who support freedom.

This may not seem a radical approach to our American readers. It would not have seemed out of place in the Canada of 1956, which welcomed thousands of refugees from the Budapest uprisings of that year. But then came Pierre Trudeau and his merry little jaunts with Fidel Castro a generation later. Freedom? That's just some people talking. Those three nights in Havana back in 1975 are so much part of the modern Canadian's mental furniture, we're friendly to Cuba and the Americans are not, that the depravity of that visit goes without much comment.

Let me state what should be obvious but has been pointedly ignored. During the Second World War, when Canada played a vital role in the defence of freedom and civilization, the wealthy and well educated Pierre Trudeau used his connections to absent himself from military service. While hundreds of thousands of Canadians volunteered to serve their country against a great evil, most of whom came from quite ordinary backgrounds, the privileged PET loafed around at Harvard. To some men such conduct might be a disgrace. In some other time and place such behaviour would have barred a man from ever holding elected office. But the Canada of the 1960s was a very different place and time indeed.

While other young men worked for a living, PET spent his youth jumping from job to job, a sometime government lawyer, occasional magazine editor and one time law professor. He was famous in certain circles for being glamorous in the relatively drab intellectual and cultural life of post-war Canada. A flash of colour in a gray landscape. Such men can be amusing but they are rarely useful, either to themselves or others. He did daring things, like visiting communist China. Had Pierre Trudeau been born in China, it is unlikely he would have survived Mao. Totalitarianism and flash do not go together.

Then there was his buddy Fidel. What a lark. Canada, one of the leading industrial democracies of the age, whose honoured dead are buried by the thousands in foreign graves, should have its leader visit the world's largest island prison camp. How very witty, how very daring wrote the columnists in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail. Take that America, chortled their colleagues at CBC. Those who weep so eloquently for the poor think very little of the poor in communist countries. So Pierre and Fidel laughed and sang. In the old, stuffy Canada such behaviour would have lead to his removal from office and possibly even charges of treason. The modern Canada was not so stuffy. Freedom, after all, was just some people talking.

Gerry Nicholls has rightly pointed out that the royal return for the military is part of Prime Minister Harper's revenge against Pierre Trudeau. Disgusted with the Trudeaupian excesses he has bided his time and struck a small but powerful and symbolic blow for what we today call conservative values. Once they were not called conservative, or liberal or anything but simply Canadian values. We have taken a two generation detour from ourselves.

The Pearson-Trudeau reforms were not a natural organic evolution from colonial to nation state. Canada was already a nation state. It was one of the most successful nation states in the world. To men of moderation and modesty this success might have lead to reflection and careful adjustment. But the 1960s were an ambitious time filled with ambitious men. While ambition is a very good thing in business, science, art and engineering, it is a dangerous thing in politicians.

So these ambitious men, one rather dull and one rather colourful, went about making Canada very modern. Trudeau was well into middle age when he became Prime Minister. Mike Pearson was an old man. Age had not improved them. They went about the nation's affairs in the manner of neurotic adolescents desperately trying to gain acceptance of their peers, rather than their parents or teachers. Our role model would not be aged old Britannia, now in very sad decline. It would be the nations of the future, Red China, Soviet Russia and Castro's Cuba.

To the generation that came of age at that time, that merry band of now aged Canadian Jacobins, this was an expression of independence from the past. There is a subtle but vital difference between stepping away from the past and abandoning it. Yes we did need to assert our Canadian identity in the 1960s. That is not what actually happened then or since.

Every young nation, like every young person, needs to make such an act of assertion. We were not, however, like the young man or woman who leaves home and seeks out their own taste in art, music and friends. Rather we are were like the young man or woman who changes their name, paints and pierces themselves in a ridiculous manner and then, as if they were the first person in history to do so, proclaims their individuality. So facile a rebellion, however, is not an assertion of individuality, it is a pathetic substitute for it.

Dropping the royal honour in 1968 was just such a facile rebellion. Our younger, but clearly more mature, Commonwealth brethren in Australia have no problem with a Royal Australian Air Force and a Royal Australian Navy. They do not regard retaining their historic traditions as "abject colonialism." We are not reverting to a second-class colonial status with the restoration of the royal honour. For the first time, in a very long time, Canada is again remembering itself. We are now outgrowing the juvenile antics of the Pearson-Trudeau era.

The Royal Canadian Navy & Royal Canadian Air Force returns!

2011-08-23T19:04:00.002+01:00

Parliament Act 1911

2011-08-18T08:36:00.002+01:00

Samuel Begg: Passing of the Parliament Bill in the House of Lords, 1911

A century ago today, His Britannic Majesty George V gave Royal Assent to what was to be known as Parliament Act 1911.

With this act the power of the House of Lords were essentially reduced to that of suspensive veto, with the exception of a bill to extend the life of Parliament.

The leaders of the opposisition to the bill in the House of Lords and the House of Commons were the 1^st Earl of Halsbury and George Wyndham respectively.

Hardinge Stanley Giffard, 1^st Earl of Halsbury PC, QC (1823-1921)

The Right Honourable George Wyndham PC (1863-1913)

An Honour Restored

2011-08-16T14:59:00.005+01:00

Time, observed a wise man, can sometimes run back. Tuesday at 9:00 AM Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced at CFB Halifax that once again we shall have a Royal Canadian Navy and a Royal Canadian Air Force. Land Force Command will again be known as the Canadian Army. The change is purely symbolic and has little impact on the administration of the Canadian military. The services' uniforms may have to be changed, but all in good time.

Let me express my delighted shock over this news. For Canadian traditionalists this is a glorious day. The National Post's editorial board rightly points out this is merely a small symbolic change, the military is still woefully underfunded. We are some way off from the glory days of the RCAF and RCN. It is unlikely that even so relatively pro-military a government as this one would countenance the commissioning of a new aircraft carrier. Our submarine fleet is still a mess. Nor is it likely that Hollywood will be making films about the RCN and RCAF any time soon.

The choir invisible of post-Pearson Canada is not happy about this change. The distinguished military historian Jack Granatstein has decried the change as "abject colonialism." It's alright professor, I don't think Minister Mackay will be declaring that the Statue of Westminster has been rescinded as well. Just the ill-conceived symbolic unification of the forces is being tossed in the ashcan.

Douglas Bland, head wonk at Queen's Defence Management program, is also not amused, fearing a revival of inter-service rivalry. Because of course that sort of thing doesn't exist now. Large bureaucracies, even necessary ones like the armed services, are prone to fighting over scarce resources, regardless of the ceremonial nomenclature. Professor Bland describes the change as "absolutely nostalgia" by veterans.

There is certainly an element of nostalgia. Most of the younger officers and servicemen and women have no memory of the pre-unified forces and likely little emotional attachment to the honour. Yet this misses the point of restoration. It is not about restoring what was so much as about preserving the future of Canada's military.

To the generation that came to the fore in the 1960s, like Bland and Granatstein, Canada was a country striving to distance itself from the imperial past. Professor Granatstein even cites incidents during the Suez Crisis in which Canadian peacekeepers were criticized for flying Union Jacks and having regimental names like Queen's Own Rifles. There is no doubt today that Canada is an free and independent country. This is not about returning to the past. Restoring the honour allows this generation of Canadians, for whom both Suez, Juno and Vimy are only names in a textbook, to reconnect with their past.

Through out history loyalty and identification with a military unit has been essential to espirit de corps. Many an old soldier, who never speaks of himself, will regale you with stories of regimental battle honours. They fought then and there. Nearly two decades after its disbanding, there is a movement to restore the old Airborne Regiment. The regiment's last commanding officer said that "they tore the heart out of me" when the unit was stood down. These symbols matter to those who served and serve now. To know that you are not alone but part of a tradition that stretch both backward and forward in time.

That is what this restored honour will give to those who serve Queen and Country today. They may claim in a small way a part of that tradition which stretches to the birth of Canada and before. Those who wear the uniform now march in the same symbolic lines as those of Vimy, Juno, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain.

A very royal honour indeed.

Americans and Liberty

2011-08-07T17:32:00.002+01:00

Wrote Dr. Gary North, over at LewRockwell.com:

I will say it, loud and clear: the freest society on earth in 1775 was British North America, with the exception of the slave system. Anyone who was not a slave had incomparable freedom.

Jefferson wrote these words in the Declaration of Independence:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
I can think of no more misleading political assessment uttered by any leader in the history of the United States. No words having such great impact historically in this nation were less true. No political bogeymen invoked by any political sect as “the liar of the century” ever said anything as verifiably false as these words.

Portrait of the Consort as a Young Man

2011-07-24T21:25:00.000+01:00

From TLS:

When asked by a journalist which language he spoke at home, Prince Philip, who is of German-Danish-Russian descent and the nephew of King Constantine I of Greece, replied “What do you mean, ‘at home’?” Born ninety years ago on a kitchen table in Corfu, he went with his family into exile when he was a baby, after which his mother, Alice of Battenburg, who was deaf, was sent to an asylum, displaying what was assumed to be religious mania. His father, Andrea, then disappeared into a new life in Monte Carlo, his four elder sisters married German noblemen, and young Philip spent the rest of his childhood bundled between various European castles, in whose visitors’ books he would describe himself as “of no fixed abode”. His upbringing proved good training for Prince Consort, a job which has required him to have no fixed role, other than to keep two steps behind his wife and shake hands with strangers.

For a vagabond he sure has done well for himself.

The Other Incrementalism

2011-07-15T14:02:00.001+01:00

Inching back to monarchy:

Go to the Governor General's website, look at the main page introducing the Governor General, and you see a photograph of Queen Elizabeth II shaking hands with someone whose back is turned to the camera. That someone is David Johnston, the Governor General.

I know what you're thinking. "So what?" I understand that reaction. But it's a mistake. Because that little photo is indicative of a big change: The Crown is back.

Just a few years ago, the Governor General's website was festooned with glorious colour photographs of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean. But the Queen? There wasn't a single photograph of the Queen on the website of the Queen's representative. In fact, there were almost no references to the Queen at all, and one could easily get the impression that the esteemed Michaëlle Jean was, in all but name, Canada's head of state.

As Dan Gardner goes onto explain this was not an oversight. It was part of a long-term attempt to "quietly shuffle the Queen offstage." One of the bright spots in the Harper years has been the reassertion of traditional Canadian values, especially the military and the monarchy. As noted earlier this week, this is part of the government's tonal conservatism.

Recalling the pre-Trudeau Canada, including a nice invocation of "our fair Dominion" by the PM during the royal progress, reassures the rank and file that the boys in blue haven't gone completely native in Ottawa. It's probably also sincere. Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper seem to believe that monarchy is a good Canadian tradition that needs to be defended. Some might object to the PM's lack of enthusiasm for the Crown, but please keep in mind who we are talking about. Smiling seems to cause him physical pain.

Sounds aren't substance. It's nice to hear words like Dominion. It's very good that our foreign policy is now more oriented around Canadian values, rather than an international relations seminar on multilateralism, but this has little impact on the daily life of the people. We can bemoan this yet still celebrate a small and important gain for Canadianism. Symbolism is cheap but it can carry a great weight.

The monarchy provides an important constitutional role, mostly as a non-partisan referee and ceremonial imprimatur, yet its greater role is as a cultural icon. The affairs of a free people are organized, whenever and wherever possible, upon the basis of persuasion. Unthinking force is the hallmark of tyrannical governments. However noble the goal, a free people will seek always to find ways of accomplish that goal through argument, debate and reasonable compromise. The tyrant orders. The free man talks.

A constitutional monarchy, who is the head of a free people, reigns rather than rules. Lacking much real power the monarch acts as a model of appropriate conduct. There is no finer exemplar than the current sovereign, who has conducted herself in the spirit of her beloved father and grandfather. Note the careful and precise way Her Majesty speaks, her poise and bearing which is kept even with her many years, and the careful discharge of duty. In her actions she sends a clear message: This is an ideal to aspire toward.

This is not to say that this or any monarch is perfect. They are human and should display that most human of traits, a desire to improve and remedy the defects of nature or personal behaviour. Their example and actions transmit to their people the broad values, character traits and common customs that allow for peaceful and civilized existence. Watch HM's 1957 Christmas Address, the first to be broadcast on television. In that broadcast she made the following observation:

Today we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that 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.

These are not very specific invocation, yet they are also very true. If you have a few moments listen to the whole broadcast. It is filled with noble generalities that can be easily shrugged at. Yet that is much the role of monarchy. Not to issue dissertations on philosophy, or remedy the failings of current public policy, but instead to make a frank appeal to our better natures. To remind, suggest, advise and ultimately to persuade her people toward a more humane existence. Something which is of greater weight, all in all, than much of what passes for politics in these times.

Prince's last speech of Royal tour

2011-07-12T17:34:00.002+01:00

It was an incredible royal homecoming. The media reported on it extensively, but here, here and here are three of the very best articles I could find.

Canada at 150! Feel the Shame!

2011-07-08T14:37:00.000+01:00

From the Mandarins:

Canada's 150th-birthday bash in 2017 could highlight the fun and symbolic - such as a nationwide hockey tournament and a cross-country canoe pageant - but could also involve serious policy changes, such as lowering the voting age to 16 or instituting mandatory voting, newly obtained public documents show.

Ideas being floated to cele-brate the sesquicentennial by the federal government, provinces and territories also include a heavy emphasis on aboriginal culture, a trainload of artists criss-crossing the country, and even a "special edition" census, the documents from the Department of Canadian Heritage indicate.

From the Montreal Expo to canoe "pageants" in just fifty years. Somewhere the Fathers of Confederation are appalled. What small men we must appear to them, those tamers of a continent. From linking the country with railroads, telegraphs and microwave transmitters we have sunk to playing at portage. When the Mandarins are not being trivial, however, they revert to outright condescension.

Mandatory voting? Let us celebrate one of the freest nations in the world by curbing the freedom of the citizen! Extending the vote to 16 year-olds? Who are these guys cribbing their ideas from? The local high school speech night? The special edition census is a nice touch. Keeping with the mandatory theme of Canada at 150, perhaps we can have extra-long prison sentences for non-filers. Freedom is someone else's nationality.

The lack of any real ideas on how to celebrate this country can be traced to cultural relativism. Note the "heavy" emphasis on celebrating aboriginal culture. Whatever the intrinsic merits of aboriginal culture, or the injustices committed against the aboriginal tribes, it is at best a laughably fiction to think Canada's success as a modern country has anything to do with aboriginal culture.

No one, at least outside of a university lecture hall, believes that Canada is Canada because of the cultures of semi-nomadic tribes, many of whose descendants still live upon the public fisc. To pretend otherwise requires a systematic evasion of Canada's actual history. Not the long guilt inducing propaganda currently taught. Canada is Canada because of a certain set of values. Those values came overwhelming from one part of one continent.

One of the reasons for the spectacular success of Expo 67, a broken clock moment for government if there ever was one, was its focus on technological and scientific progress. The future seemed limitless to the people of 1967, especially to the people of this country who emerged from depression and war to take their place as a leading power. Not a great power, but a nation of substance and opportunity. Their world was open to men with the knowledge, the skill and the vision to exploit it. The Canada of 1967 was filled with such men.

None of these values are fashionable now. Science is either deprecated or twisted into a tool to undermine industrial civilization. The value of human life is downgraded; we are just one species among many. Progress is an illusion devised by Madison Avenue. What sense of life emerges from the Canada of today? From men who doubt the power of their minds to conquer the world? From a nation whose people have been taught from childhood to feel ashamed of being human.

The bold confidence of Expo 67 came from a uniquely western view of the world. Until we recover the heroism of that world we will continue with such insipid attempts at "celebrating" Canada. There is something too eloquent about the idea of canoe "pageants." For centuries the pre-European inhabitants of this continent crossed this continent with these primitive craft. Then in the historical equivalent of a blink of an eye railroads, highways and airliners spread across the continent. The wonder is perhaps not that these amazing things were done. It is that there are minds still so primitive as to fail grasp what made them possible. Or perhaps spirits so meek, or wicked, as to see them as an evil to be apologized for.

Hellyerifcation Comes to Britain?

2011-07-08T14:33:00.000+01:00

The long, slow withdrawal...

The present Government would, of course, recoil from any suggestion that the aim of its proposed reforms is to follow the recent Canadian example of unifying the rival Forces under a single command, and doing away with centuries of military tradition in the process.

Announcing his reforms this week, Dr Fox said that the main aim was to undertake a wide-ranging reform of the “bloated and dysfunctional” Ministry of Defence, which, a full year after he assumed responsibility for the department, is still struggling to provide him with an accurate assessment of just how large its overspending really is.

If I was a British Admiral right now, I'd be sorely tempted to imitate Rear-Admiral von Reuter. Better do it yourself than let the Chancellor.

Better Under the British

2011-07-06T03:31:00.000+01:00

No comment is necessary:

Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence from the United Kingdom, but a new island-wide poll suggests most residents of the tiny Caribbean nation believe they would be better off had the country remained a British colony.

The survey, conducted for the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper by Johnson Survey Research, found that 60 per cent of Jamaicans think the country would be better off today if it was still under British rule. A mere 17 per cent said they believed the country would be worse off. The remaining 23 per cent of respondents said they didn’t know.

You can hear the Guardianistas...

Interestingly, the Jamaican Prime Minister, Bruce Golding, has argued for the cutting of all ties to the Crown. The public are not enthused about that idea either.

Mather Byles and Charles Coulombe

2011-07-05T11:07:00.003+01:00

Mather Byles was an American loyalist. Mather Byles is known to have said:

Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?

He passed from this world on July 5 223 years ago.

John Singleton Copley: Mather Byles

Charles Coulombe is a contemporary American monarchist. He debated successfully in support of monarchy at the Oxford Union last February.

We bring to you an excerpt of an interview with Mr. Charles Coulombe. He talks a lot about the American departing with the monarchical order:

Liberty Wears a Crown!

2011-07-03T23:59:00.006+01:00

In the 1880s, a grand statue was brought from the revolutionary republic of Europe to the American Republic.

Sam Starrett: Liberty Wears a Crown!

Dominion Day 2011

2011-07-01T04:53:00.000+01:00

Let me begin with a rant.

July 1st is not Canada's independence day. I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard people say this over the years. It annoys the hell out of me. On July 1st, 1867 Canada did not become independent of anything. It is more correct to say that it was the creation date of the federal government. Not the most romantic of images but certainly the most Canadian. Nothing defines a nation so much as its birth. Ours was peaceful and gradual.

There is no specific date which can be pointed to when Canada became an independent state. Some will argue for our signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Others to the Balfour Declaration (not the one about Palestine). The more legalistically minded might say the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The particularly cautious will say 1982, the year the constitution was patriated. A handful of republicans will argue that Canada is still not an independent state, considering Her Majesty is still on the money and all. Needless to say that we, here, take the opinions of republicans at a severe discount.

It's a quibbling nonsense and very foreign. The idea of an independence day is unCanadian. It is mostly an unconscious American import. Well, if the Yankees have it then so must we. Given that history is not taught in the school it is a plausible enough mistake. One of the reasons we are not taught our history in the schools is that so much of it is, how to put this, British. Not Swinging Sixties British. Not even Cool Britannia British. It's the boring old sort of British. Queen Victoria. Old men in wigs. Long speeches that refer in passing to Magna Carta. Very dull. Since history abhors a vacuum many Canadians simply import whatever they've picked up about our southern neighbours.

It is one of this blog's governing theses that Canada is the most boring nation on earth. Boring in the sense that nothing "exciting" ever happens her. No civil wars, insurrections, coups, putsch and the last rebellion was during Queen Victoria's reign. Dull, duller, Canada. That is why the idea of an independence day is so unCanadian. A clean break from something implies drama. A gradual development is very dull. It is also very practical and very sensible, thus very Canadian. We might even venture to say that it is positively Burkean.

I was once asked, many moons ago now, by an American friend to explain how Canada became independent. My explanation ran like this: We went over to London, along with the Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Irish and Newfoundlanders and asked, very politely, if we might become independent. Nothing personal. It was just time to leave. We'd definitely stay in touch. Family being family and all. We're definitely keeping the monarchy. Send us a telegrams if the European continent starts getting dicey. All the best chaps.

I can't really improve on that explanation. I'm missing the odd imperial conference, to say nothing of the battle of Vimy Ridge and the Hundred Days. The gist is about right. No muskets, no machine guns, no blood bath. Civilized men speaking in polite tones to one another. A fuss was not made. Everyone was terribly decent. The British officials sighed about how time had passed. Their work was done and all. The final act of parenthood is to see the young ones off. So they did. Nary a tear. Upper lip being kept quite stiff.

Now imagine if the whole of modern history had been conducted in such a fashion. Whatever the draw backs of the slow and sensible approach it has the inestimable advantage of accomplishing its goal, in a pretty reasonable time frame, without people getting themselves shot. Sometimes it is necessary to fight. But only when necessary. Only brutes go out of their way to pick fights.

Canada's march from "empire to umpire" as a Canadian historian described the process, alluding to our sometime role as peacekeeper, is Exhibit A is why the British Empire was on the whole a very good thing. If the Empire was really the malicious, power lusting monstrosity of anti-British legend the imperial authorities would have done everything in their power to stop the empire drifting apart. Such actions would have been both immoral and impractical. Rather sensibly they decided not to bother.

What about the slave trade, Mau Mau and the partition of Palestine? When Canada's first Prime Minister was asked about the weakness of his cabinet, staffed mostly by superannuated non-entities, he remarked that he could only build cabinets with the materials supplied. The same goes for Empire building. Slavery had been practiced by many societies in human history. It was the British Empire that decided to stamp it out, using its vast financial resources and powerful navy. It did not have to do this. Had it not tried slavery would likely have persisted for much longer than it did. The Empire behaved, whatever the materialists may insist, quite often on moral grounds. Many other times its officials took the least worst option available.

The natives were restless? Rather depends on the natives. Again look at the material. Blaming the Balfour Declaration for Arab-Jewish tendencies to loath one another is akin to damning the Almighty for Cain and Abel not getting along. At some point you have to admit the importance of free will and the inclinations of some to be malicious and pigheaded. Jesus, Moses and Mohammed could have agreed to the partition and it's unlikely much would have turned out differently. The same could be said of many other British blamed disasters.

This is not to argue that the empire was infallible. Nothing human is perfect, at least not in the Platonic sense. On the whole the creation of Pakistan was not a good idea. Perhaps London should have been less laissez-faire in dealing with South African race relations. Yes, Amritsar was a tragedy, however the great migration saw far more bloodshed. Life involves quite a lot of fumbling along the way. By that standard, the empire was a good thing. In just the right places it became a great thing producing giants of modern liberty and prosperity.

The visit this week by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will highlight the "glossy magazine" aspects of the monarchy. We may hope that, if only for a moment, it might cause some of their future subjects to recall why we have a monarchy in Canada. It's origin is in Empire. Canada is Canada because of those roots. Witness the strife and turbulence in the rest of the world and mark the difference. This striking young couple is the living symbol of that difference.

Happy Canada Day!

2011-07-01T03:46:00.001+01:00

A loyal Canadian explains the monarchy:

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

2011-06-29T21:19:00.002+01:00

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.

A Young Fogey on the Royal Visit

2011-06-28T02:04:00.003+01:00

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

He also gives some tips on protocol.

A Piece of England and All That

2011-06-27T00:49:00.002+01:00

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.

The Battle of Naseby

2011-06-24T09:50:00.001+01:00

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.

Battle of Waterloo

2011-06-18T17:53:00.001+01:00

A Royal Visit

2011-06-18T17:18:00.002+01:00

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.

Imperial Officer

2011-06-16T17:27:00.000+01:00

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)

Canada's Majestic Democracy

2011-06-15T16:32:00.004+01:00

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.

He has defied the spirit of his time

2011-06-13T03:02:00.001+01:00

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.

Fade Britannia

2011-06-12T20:21:00.002+01:00

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.

Canada's Shadow Cabinet

2011-06-10T12:31:00.001+01:00

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.

Happy Birthday, Prince Philip

2011-06-10T02:12:00.001+01:00

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!

Walk with Kings

2011-06-08T18:00:00.007+01:00

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)

The Levellers' Dance

2011-06-07T03:33:00.002+01:00

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.

Trooping the Colour

2011-06-06T13:32:00.003+01:00

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.

Monarchy and Democracy

2011-06-04T08:36:00.001+01:00

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:

Dieu protège la reine!

2011-06-03T15:26:00.002+01:00

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?”

Speaking the King's

2011-06-02T16:23:00.006+01:00

"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

Now on Twitter!

2011-06-02T14:49:00.005+01:00

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!

The Queen's Navy

2011-06-01T13:43:00.001+01:00

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.

Today's Monarchist Howler

2011-05-31T16:09:00.002+01:00

I don't swear my oath of loyalty to the Queen, insists Louise Beaudoin, the Parti Québécois international relations critic, "I whisper it".

LOL!

Republic Rollback: Restoring Government House

2011-05-29T08:59:00.004+01:00

With the newly elected Liberal-National (conservative) government now in power in New South Wales, the question for constitutionalists and traditionalists is "will the Governor return to Government House?"

Viceregal representatives in Canadian provinces do not necessarily live in an official residence, but that has always been the case in Australia, until the previous premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, announced that incoming governor in 1996, Gordon Samuels would not live in Government House. Carr's expectation was that he would not be a full-time Governor and would continue to work as Chairman of the NSW Law Reform Commission. While the former was in Carr's control, the latter was deemed to be unconstitutional.

The ceremonial and community work of Samuels and his successor, Prof. Marie Bashir, has been full-time - but the convenience of a working residence in downtown Sydney has been denied them. It is said Carr made the change to both "soften up" NSW for an Australian republic, and as an act of tribal revenge on behalf of his party against the Crown, as his party perceives itself to be a victim of past use of vice-regal reserve constitutional powers in Australia.

With the change of government in NSW, hopes are high in constitutionalist circles that the new Premier will honour the longstanding commitment of his party to return Government House to full working order. My understanding is that while the new Government will honour its commitment, there is anxiety about how to fund it when its other commitments involve significant outlays on new infrastructure and improved public services. The timeframe is also unknown - it is unclear whether Prof Bashir and her husband, Sir Nicholas Shehadie, will move in or whether that will be reserved for the next vice-regal couple when they assume office some time in 2012.

The good news however is that either way, NSW will have a Governor properly ensconced in their rightful residence and properly equipped to resume a full community and ceremonial function. The office of Governor of New South Wales, is, after all, the oldest continuous office in post-settlement Australia.

The vice-regal banner of the Governor of New South Wales since 1981 is below. It is a variant of the design used by the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario in the early 1960s, and is now part of the common style of vice-regal standards for Australian governors.

A High Tory on Democracy, Revolution, and Money

2011-05-29T00:35:00.001+01:00

High Tory Gerald Warner writes this Sunday at Scotland on Sunday:

Liberal democracy is part of the "accepted political landscape"? Accepted by whom? By China, which occupies a not inconsiderable portion of the landscape? Increasingly it is viewed with scepticism in the developed world which spawned it. Yet Western "statesmen" are still trying to market this flawed commodity abroad.

Further:

Last week the leaders of the G8, representing countries that are de facto bankrupt, pledged £12bn to Egypt and Tunisia to develop democracy.

The same High Tory wrote last Sunday in the same pages:

Critics like to condemn Britain as class-ridden and deferential, mainly on the grounds that the public schools and Oxford and Cambridge dominate the education system, while a few happy mortals receive gongs or titles in the Honours List. That is what comes of living under a monarchy steeped in privilege – if only we lived in an egalitarian republic such as France…

Moreover:

The IMF should have been abolished years ago. It is a phantom survivor of the Bretton Woods agreement marinated in Keynesian delusion. Whenever a country has been living beyond its means the IMF thrusts a large loan upon it, then imposes conditions such as inflated tax rates that prevent genuine recovery.

Cross-posted at Wilson Revolution Unplugged.

Master Class

2011-05-27T12:34:00.001+01:00

The French elites are different from you and me. They're French. From the Steyn:

Whatever the head of the IMF did or didn't do, the reaction of the French elites is most instructive. "We and the Americans do not belong to the same civilization," sniffed Jean Daniel, editor of Le Nouvel Observateur, insisting that the police should have known that Strauss-Kahn was "not like other men" and wondering why "this chambermaid was regarded as worthy and beyond any suspicion." Bernard-Henri Lévy, the open-shirted, hairy-chested Gallic intellectual who talked Sarkozy into talking Obama into launching the Libyan war, is furious at the lèse-majesté of this impertinent serving girl and the jackanapes of America's "absurd" justice system, not to mention this ghastly "American judge who, by delivering him to the crowd of photo hounds, pretended to take him for a subject of justice like any other."

As you'll recall - at least those of you not victimized by a public school education - a couple of centuries back the French had a revolution. Let me differ with Zhou Enlai and say that enough time has passed for us to make a judgment. The French Revolution was a failure. This was rather apparent at the time. A bid toward liberal democracy quickly degenerated into the modern world's first totalitarian state, then limped along for the better part of a decade until order was restored by Napoleon. Edmund Burke, that great prophet, foretold the disaster almost from its onset. It is rather remarkable that so few have grasped its consequence with the hindsight of two centuries.

The popular image of the revolution is of desperately poor people slaughtering the rich and powerful. The image is a product of Charles Dickens vivid narrative skills in A Tale of Two Cities. Thus most in the English speaking world recall the revolution as delayed justice becoming bloodied vengeance. Up with the people and down with the aristos. Like with most revolutions it was actually run by an intellectualized - and politically inexperienced - middle class.

Another great myth of the revolution is that it established a meritocracy in France. Certainly many professions were opened up to ordinary people. The real power in France, after the fall of Napoleon, has basically been kept within the same social class. Whereas financial success can buy any American into the front row of life, in France going to the right school - such as Sciences Po and the ENA - is vital to having any real influence in the Fifth Republic. While access to these schools is suppose to be meritocratic, their selection pool is so small, and their alumni so influential, this hardly matters.

The French elite is not fluid and is not especially accountable. It's one of the reasons the French take to the streets as often as they do. Power is centralized overwhelmingly in Paris and in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. In a society where the state occupied a small slice of the economy this would be of little importance. The French state, however, looms over its society and economy in a manner hardly imaginable by North Americans until the Obama Era.

The gap between the ENA graduates (Enarques as they are known) and ordinary people is vast. They stand at the end point of a vast government administered selection process. The French state school systems is far tougher than its anglophone counterparts, especially in the maths and sciences. This is one of the reasons that City firms seek out French graduates. Those who don't make their way through the tough academic meat grinder are left with few prospects. While the education is excellent, it is the credential that is vital. No credentials means no luck.

As a point of comparison, take Mark Steyn. By his own admission he barely graduated high school. His first job after leaving was as a DJ at a local radio station, which he obtained by basically talking his way in. Such an improvisational personality would have little chance in the hierarchical society of France. While Anglophone schooling is on average much worse than that of France, our societies are far more dynamic. The purpose of schooling in the Anglo-Saxon world being - in theory - preparation for the real world. In France it is pre-screening for high level positions in the bureaucracy, political apparatus and in the country's highly regulated business sector.

For the French life is much like school. A flood of not always relevant information, regimented hours and lengthy examinations. You spend two decades completing test questionnaires so that, if all goes well, you can spend a life time filling out government questionnaires. The clever and lucky may get to administer those questionnaires. It is a self-contained universe where one is ranked and categorized. After surviving such an ordeal a sense of entitlement is only natural.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn was one of those clever boys who won all the prizes (except admission into ENA oddly enough, having to settle for a Ph D from Paris X Nanterre). He was better than everyone else. His test results proved it. Why should he be bound by such hum-drum things as decency, civility and mutual respect. Ordinary rules apply to ordinary men. The French Revolution replaced one aristocracy with another. The ancien regime, however, gave us les liaisons dangereuses. Their modern descendants will bequeath DSK in American handcuffs. You may decide for yourselves which example of decadence is more engaging.

Protocol, Mr President

2011-05-27T12:29:00.000+01:00

I can only imagine what was going through Prince Phillip's mind. No doubt very funny and very incorrect. It's interesting that the One is very careful about respecting all cultures, except the culture that made his country possible. It need not be added that had a conservative committed such a faux pas the media would have denounced him as an idiot.

The Royal Wedding and How to Take Marriage Seriously

2011-05-21T02:39:00.004+01:00

Hugo Burnand: TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Writes Ms. Mary Kochan of Catholic Lane:

There was no pretending that this marriage was merely about the two young lovers and their “feelings.” Despite the fairy-tale aspects and all the Cinderella references, this wedding anchored their marriage into a familial and social order that goes way beyond them in time and geography. Contra the modern conception of the atomized individual, both families were present and involved as though “t]he future of humanity passes by way of the family” (Familiaris Consortio), because indeed it does. Human beings do not create themselves; they do not create their own identities. They discover who they are and for (blessedly, still) most that discovery takes place in a family context, where roles of son or daughter, nephew or niece, brother or sister, weave the texture of life.

Just as human beings do not create themselves, they do not create marriage. Marriage is an estate given to man by his Creator and human beings stand under the judgment of God regarding how seriously they take it. There was no mincing of words on that score and everything attending the ceremony underscored the sacred nature of the proceedings. The couple did not use the wedding to showcase their hobbies or any other frivolity. They married in a sacred place, the most opulent and venerable space available to them given their station in life. Their wedding was presided over by the highest ranking clerics available to them. And the ceremony was accompanied by beautiful sacred music, some traditional and some composed especially to mark the occasion – but composed, as was their own prayer, in accord with the religious tradition they both inherited and assented to, screwed deeply into the sacred history of that heritage and thus timeless. Timeless the music, timeless the readings, timeless the prayers, and even the dress, for it is by such timelessness that we celebrate what is transcendent.

Further:

Woman then is a gift to man in a special way, something for him to “unwrap” and treasure. Hence the handing over of her by her father; hence the veil; hence the virginal white of the gown. And here come the cynics to remind us that they have lived together already for four years. Yes, but they did not on that account forgo the ceremonial giving and rightly so, for while the gift may have been opened illegitimately before, the giving here was still real – some things are honored even in the breach and you could see it in her eyes. They no longer live a lie, but William has in the old, but so true, terminology, “made an honest woman of her” — they tell the truth now, to each other and the world. The woman is given to the man and the world should pause and ponder.

Among other things, this means that there was no pretending that this man and woman could have been interchangeable with two men or two women. Imagine for a moment that Prince William had announced at 17 that he was “gay” and taken up with another young man. Would there have been a royal wedding and perhaps a new heir gotten by means of a lesbian surrogate and a turkey baster? No. It would not be. And we don’t say, “It would not be” with a proper British accent and a tone that indicates we simply mean “It just isn’t done.” No, we mean it would not exist. In the face of the homosexual agenda and all its propaganda, this wedding proclaimed the truth of marriage and showed homosexual pretense up for the play-acting absurdity that it is. Marriage is something, the lifelong union of man and woman, and marriage has ends – purposes – the chief among them being the procreation of children.

H/T: Tea at Trianon

The Queen's Speech at Dublin Castle

2011-05-19T12:07:00.002+01:00

dans la belle époque

2011-05-14T13:32:00.001+01:00

Taki talks about the old days:

This disappeared life sounds frivolous today, but as a wise philosopher once said, “the superfluous is extremely necessary”. We were also superfluous then, but playboys added not only to the spirit of the times, they added glamour and gaiety and chivalry and were a hell of a lot of fun to be around. During the great balls given at the period, the Rothschild, Ruspoli, Agnelli, Weiller and Rochas balls, playboys were the most in demand. Ladies of high society were particularly drawn to them, but then ladies were really ladies. Little English lower-middle-class girlies like Anna Wintour and Tina Brown, had they been around, would never have come close to meeting them or even seeing them.

Sorry I missed it...

Her Majesty Surpasses George III

2011-05-14T07:52:00.002+01:00

On Thursday Her Majesty's reign reached 59 years and 95 days. His Late Majesty George III's reign reached 59 years and 96 days. With Her Majesty having two more leap year days in her reign, this marked the day when Her Majesty's reign became the longer of the two.

Cecil Beaton: Her Britannic Majesty

LONG MAY SHE REIGN!

"Better British liberty than American equality."

2011-05-07T01:38:00.003+01:00

Once upon a time in the Great Dominion:

This was not Canada’s intended destiny, Ms. Smith said. “All the way back to the very beginnings of Canada … we were a radically free-enterprise and small-government nation – more so even than the Americans. ‘Better British liberty,’ our ancestors proudly declared, ‘than American equality.’

“Good heavens, where did that spirit of liberty disappear to? What we now tout as traditional Canadian values and virtues – unearned entitlements, paying people not to work, paying provinces not to succeed (and not to secede) – all these were unthinkable to the stalwart people who founded and built Canada. Today’s celebration of the easy ride … [is] the complete antithesis of [Canadian values and virtues].”

God Save the Duke and Duchess!

2011-05-06T19:49:00.004+01:00

Writes Danny Sanchez of the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

All this makes me wonder, why not use this nostalgia and popular acclaim as momentum to transfer some real power back to the House of Windsor, and maybe even the House of Lords too?

And wrote Dr. Kenneth Minogue over at Taki's Magazine roughly a month ago:

The other piece of nonsense is that there is a single solution—in this case the thing called democracy, or election—to any problem in social and political life. Why do we need a hereditary family when we can have an elected head of state? As a reactionary, my view is that the great thing about the British monarchy is precisely that no one ever elected them. They have good public relations and conspicuous charm, but that is irrelevant to our constitution’s continuity and tradition. Bright radicals have been trying to pull the same democracy trick with the House of Lords for a century now, and no one has yet come up with a popular solution. Who, one wonders with Henry II, will rid us of these meddlesome fools? For reactionaries, that is one of the great historical questions.

The slow death of Australian republicanism continues

2011-04-25T06:23:00.004+01:00

Today's Australian newspaper has the first Newspoll to measure public attitudes towards a possible Australian republic in four years, and the trendlines are not good for the republicans.

I've covered the value of Newspoll here before - for the benefit of non-psephologists, Newspoll is regarded by Australia's political class the gold standard for polling, similar to ICM in the UK. It has also been around for a long time so it is able to give us an accurate long-term view.

The poll suggests that republican support is at its lowest level in 17 years with headline figures of 41 republic, 39 monarchy, 20 undecided.

To those of us that read The Monarchist, that might sound pretty bleak. But to Australian constitutionalists fighting the good fight, these are the best non-referendum figures we've had in nearly twenty years. How?

Look at these figures from past Newspolls in August 1999 (before the referendum campaign), 2002 and 2006. Remember that Newspoll is the gold standard for Australian politicos (who are largely republican).

The split in the November 1999 referendum was 55-45 to No. Yet just a few months before the referendum, the August 1999 poll suggested that 51% preferred an in-principle republic. The actual referendum result suggests that virtually all undecideds and some in-principle republicans unhappy with the republican model proposed, voted No.

If we apply that same rough "guesstimate" formula to a theoretical 2011 referendum, the No vote would probably be 60%+, and would probably kill modern republicanism as a meaningful issue in Australia, unless something prompted it to rise up again.

The other clear subset shifting their views on this question via these polls are Coalition (conservative) voters. Opposition to a republic amongst these voters is rising rapidly. The laws of Australian political science dictate that a referendum needs virtually unanimous organised political support to succeed here. Having one side of politics hardening its opposition to a republic is a sure-fire way to secure its defeat.

One final comment - many Australian republicans hope that Prince Charles' accession to the throne will be a "silver bullet" to aid the republicans and revive their support. Today's poll projects that republican support would rise were Charles to be king. But even then, the republicans would still be behind where they were in the polls in August 1999, just three months before the referendum. And we know how the referendum ended. Even if attitudes to Charles don't change after he becomes king (and I think they will - considerably) his reign won't be enough to see the end of the monarchy. William's impact is a little unclear, but his succession would see more young people and Labor voters support the monarchy. Who would have thought that the Australian Labor Party was a hotbed of Spencerphile English nativist restoration?

My conclusion about this poll? While it still suggests that slightly more Australians are prepared to voice support for an in-theory republic than the monarchy, nowhere near enough Australians care enough to make Australia a republic. Attitudes to the status quo are warming, and have done so for a decade. There's some measurable scepticism about Charles' suitability to be king but it's nowhere near enough to secure sufficient support in a referendum.

After reading this poll, I'm very confident in predicting we'll be seeing royal tours in Australia for a very long time to come.

Lest We Forget - ANZAC Day 2011

2011-04-24T20:03:00.003+01:00

At this hour, on this day, Anzac received its baptism of fire and became one of the immortal names in history. We who are gathered here think of the comrades who went out with us to battle but did not return. We feel them still near us in spirit. We wish to be worthy of their great sacrifice. Let us, therefore, once again dedicate ourselves to the service of the ideals for which they died. As the dawn is even now about to pierce the night, so let their memory inspire us to work for the coming of the new light into the dark places of the world.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the
sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
We will remember them.

Happy Birthday, Your Majesty!

2011-04-21T01:43:00.001+01:00

The Last Night

2011-04-03T12:45:00.001+01:00

The Future of 'The Monarchist'

2011-04-01T06:45:00.001+01:00

We have long been aware of the very limited amount resources afforded to the monarchist cause. Moreover, the rallying behind the traditionalist-oriented is not at an extremely high level – to put it very diplomatically. We have long been in a crisis of lacking support and resources.

If we could get only a fraction of the resources candidates for the American Presidency manage to raise in their election campaigns, we would be quite happy, but unfortunately we do not.

This is of course not a situation that we can just sit passively and observe. Hence, a group of people have gotten together to brainstorm and develop ideas for improving this sad resource situation, and we are now revealing the main outline of our strategy.

Following up on the great success that pirates from Somalia have had in the Indian Ocean, and awaiting the imminent breakdown of the government of those United States due to excessive debt and money printing, we intend to launch a lucrative piracy operation in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Republican ships will be made subject to reasonable fines for their support of modernism and republicanism.

The proceeds from the piracy operation will be used to fund the fine weblog 'The Monarchist,' with paid staff and faculty, and we may even see that an expansion beyond the weblog is indeed possible.

Another world is possible. Piracy is the solution.

Prince William of Wales Speaks in Christchurch

2011-03-26T14:09:00.000Z

Monarchist Quote Medley

2011-03-13T12:57:00.002Z

'A Stick in the Mud...'

2011-02-27T22:11:00.001Z

The Prince of Wales at the New Zealand High Commission

2011-02-26T09:05:00.000Z

Also:

Happy Accession Day!

2011-02-06T04:10:00.002Z

Previously: Ascended into a Tree and onto the Throne

The Republic of India

2011-01-26T02:30:00.004Z

Today we mark the sad 61^st anniversary of the end of the Dominion of India and the birth of the Republic of India.

The British Raj Red Ensign

Previously: India Independence and Partition

Corporal Benjamin Roberts-Smith, VC

2011-01-23T17:51:00.000Z

From the Telegraph:

The Victoria Cross citation said the soldier's actions showed "most conspicuous gallantry" and "total disregard for his own safety". His bravery was a living enactment of a pledge tattooed across his chest: "I will not fail my brothers".
Corporal Roberts-Smith described how his platoon came under heavy fire as he lead a patrol in northern Kandahar Province last June 11, with two men to his left pinned down and dangerously exposed as gunfire ripping up the ground around them.
"One of them was copping a lot," he said. "He couldn't even fight back, couldn't move. At that point I decided I'd had enough. I wasn't going to wait until someone got hit.

An Urgent Appeal to our Supporters to Restore the Royal Honour to Canada's Navy & Air Force

2011-01-06T18:32:00.004Z

Dear Friends of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force,

You are one of the more than five thousand patriotic Canadians and organizations who have already expressed your support in the appeal to the government to restore the ‘Royal Honour’ to Canada's Navy and Air Force. Thanks to you, we believe that our voice is beginning to be heard!

The Senate of Canada, on 14 December 2010, passed a motion to encourage the Minister of National Defence to officially change the identity of ‘Maritime Command’ to a name that includes the word ‘Navy’; the term that is already being used unofficially, along with ‘Air Force’ for ‘Air Command’, as part of the recent revitalization of the Canadian Forces. This natural return to the traditional and more inspiring identities of our Armed Forces is only logical. Most Canadians would be surprised to learn that Canada has not had an official Navy, Army or Air Force since unification in 1968!

It is now one hundred years since the 'Royal Honour' was first granted to the Navy by HM the King in 1911 and then to the Air Force in 1924. This was a recognition deepened in succeeding years by the tremendously loyal and devoted service and sacrifice of Canadian men and women whose legacy, forged in battle, remains for all of us to honour.

From the RCMP to many of our famed regiments, like the Royal 22e and Royal Newfoundland, as well as in hundreds of other Canadian institutions, we live in a country that since Confederation has celebrated and known thousands upon thousands of ‘Royal Canadians’ in every generation. It makes no sense to continue to deprive our Navy and Air Force of an honour that is so well-deserved and that rightly belongs to all of them in all ranks; those serving as well as veterans. To be ‘Royal’ is an iconic honour and also shared by hundreds of non-military Canadian institutions and organizations that, like the Armed Forces, are deeply embedded within the history and fabric of Canadian society and culture.

The government will soon decide whether to rebrand and reimage Maritime Command (yet again), or respectfully return it to its rightful identity - the Royal Canadian Navy. It naturally follows that this same dignity be restored to the Air Force whose heritage and tradition, like that of the Navy, equally deserves our respect.

Just as the continuation of the Army’s ‘Royal Canadian Armoured Corps’ and ‘Royal Canadian Dragoons’ has not altered the continued unified structure of the Canadian Forces, neither will the restoration of the prefix ‘Royal’ to the Navy and Air Force. This is not an appeal for a return to separate forces and organizations. The RCN and RCAF subsist de facto within Her Majesty’s Canadian Armed Forces.

The time to act on this is now and the Minister and Prime Minister need and want to hear directly from all of us. Please write to the Minister of Defence (with a copy to the Prime Minister) expressing your wishes. Alternatively, you can visit our official campaign website and send a message from there.

Write to:
Peter Mackay
Email: Mackap@parl.gc.ca
613-992-6022

Copy to:
Office of the Prime Minister
E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

royalsalute.ca

2011-01-04T19:34:00.000Z

Our official campaign website, although a continuous work in progress, is beginning to take very fine shape indeed, and is now live.

You can now visit it and send a message to the Minister of National Defence (copy Prime Minister of Canada), in support of our veterans and veteran organizations who have thus far endorsed our campaign, to urge the government to restore the 'Royal Honour' to Canada's Navy and Air Force.

Please visit: http://www.royalsalute.ca/

Québec City 1775

2010-12-31T21:50:00.001Z

On New Year's Eve 235 years ago His Britannic Majesty's Québec City stood off against the rebels.

As we go on into the new decade, Happy New Year!

Christmas of 1915

2010-12-28T06:30:00.003Z

Daniel O'Donell sings of Christmas in 1915:

The same song by Celtic Thunder:

More at Wilson Revolution Unplugged...

THE MONARCHIST

Happy Australia Day!

'Captain Coward'

Diamond Jubilee Pageant on the River Thames

Not So Quaint

Uneasy lies the Jamaican head...

"A very British Canada"

The Grand Old Duke

Jean Chretien is joined by John Howard in the Order of Merit

What Century?

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Christmas Broadcast  2011

The Christmas Broadcast - 1957

Christmas and the Great War

Messiah

John Edmond: Christmas in Rhodesia

The Viscount Bolingbroke

The Coronation Portrait of Edward VIII

Kenyan Independence

Hardinge Giffard, 1st Earl of Halsbury

The Stately Homes of England

The Naval Hymn

Roger Scruton - The City and The Soul

The Duke and the Windmills

Remembering In Flanders Fields

Why is the monarchy still useful to us do you think?

"A serious country cannot have a viceroy as its chief of state"

My meeting with the Prime Minister

How we did it

The Need for Imagination – the future of the monarchy in Australia

Young Canadian Monarchist Defends...

The Governor Returns to Government House!

Roger Scruton - Why Beauty Matters

Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia

Australians to welcome their Queen

"We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values"

THE INTEGRITY OF AN HONOUR

A PORTRAIT OF THE QUEEN

A Royal Majority

A Royal Row

The Royal Canadian Navy & Royal Canadian Air Force returns!

Parliament Act 1911

An Honour Restored

Americans and Liberty

Portrait of the Consort as a Young Man

The Other Incrementalism

Prince's last speech of Royal tour

Canada at 150! Feel the Shame!

Hellyerifcation Comes to Britain?

Better Under the British

Mather Byles and Charles Coulombe

Liberty Wears a Crown!

Dominion Day 2011

Happy Canada Day!

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

A Young Fogey on the Royal Visit

A Piece of England and All That

The Battle of Naseby

Battle of Waterloo

A Royal Visit

Imperial Officer

Canada's Majestic Democracy

He has defied the spirit of his time

Fade Britannia

Canada's Shadow Cabinet

Happy Birthday, Prince Philip

Walk with Kings

The Levellers' Dance

Trooping the Colour

Monarchy and Democracy

Dieu protège la reine!

Speaking the King's

Now on Twitter!

The Queen's Navy

Today's Monarchist Howler

Republic Rollback: Restoring Government House

A High Tory on Democracy, Revolution, and Money

Master Class

Protocol, Mr President

The Royal Wedding and How to Take Marriage Seriously

The Christmas Broadcast 2011