100 Years Young

Saturday, September 5, 2009

100 Years Young

Posted by Sir Edward Heath at 4:30 PM . Saturday, September 5, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 comments:

Asiaticus said...: I'm sorry but however much i'm an "imperialist" i have never be able to associate this subversive association with any good. The founder himself is a doubtful person who should never have been in charge of children of any kind. And look now at the sultry camps of degenerations which they have become: swindling, buggery and so forth. I'm really sorry if i offend the feelings of old Scouts, but my general experience has been: scratch a scout, and you find the blandest, dullest, most compliant and unimaginative human being on earth second only to the average US citizen.; September 5, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Scouting, by far, is the greatest youth movement in the world. I've been a Scout leader for over 20 years here in the States, and I consider it to be among the proudest accomplishments of my entire life. Thousands of giving, unselfish adult give millions of hours to help develop the future leaders of tomorrow, not just here, but throughout the world. Have there been problems, sure there have, but that is true of any and all organizations. I don't believe there is anything "subversive" about Scouting and I totally disagree, meaning no disrespect to you, with your opinion of Lord Baden-Powell.; September 5, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Lord Best said...: I have mixed feelings about the Scout movement myself. Great history, certainly, but here in Australia sadly lacking in spirit. I joined up as a young lad full of Jungle Book and similar adventure stories, well the most adventuresome thing we did was visit McDonalds. Oh, we did have some camps at a farm which were incescriabably dull.; September 6, 2009 at 5:43 AM
Neil Welton said...: I can't really comment - I was in the Combined Cadet Force. By definition I should be even more bland, dull and compliant. A brainwashed numpty.

God Save The Queen!

God Bless The Prince Of Wales!

Hang on a moment, I think Asiaticus has a point.

"...scratch a scout, and you find the blandest, dullest, most compliant and unimaginative human being on earth second only to the average US citizen..."

That is being really harsh - on Scouts.

Americans are a bit like speak your weight machines. Encounter one, have a listen and you know millions of others will respond just the same - unless, of course, your weight changes or you take some of your clothes off. I used to love speak your weight machines too. Admired them, thought they were great and thought their contribution to our world was unique. Gone off them lately, can't find a sensible one anywhere.

I have just googled 'lord robert baden powell sexuality' (as you do on a Sunday). Found this. This is pretty shocking stuff. If it is true. If it is true, remember this - times have changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Robert_Baden-Powell

Saying that, nothing wrong with just being a homosexual. In a secular setting I actually accept homosexuality and view it as equally valid. The Church is more difficult - for current practical reasons. For I haven't been invited to a gay marriage yet, not even to a secular one. If anybody wants to do so, feel free. I'm looking forward to going to one - be a hoot. Some of my friends are homosexuals, one even asked me if I felt the same way. He was confused, we were young. The best gays, just as in "normal" friendship, have great personalities and are always "in your face". Mind you, the less said about the latter the better. :-); September 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Premodern Bloke said...: There is no such thing as "secular".; September 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Neil Welton said...: I think secularists would disagree. :-)

For the purposes of a serious debate (as opposed to just abuse in order to wind people up - which I admit I have been doing on purpose over the past few days) here is my definition of secular.

Secular is defined as "not concerned with or related to religion. Not within the control of the Church. Not bound by religious affinities".

That's a pretty standard academic definition.

I just fail to see how there's no such thing as "secular". Please explain the basis of your theory. We can then perhaps proceed further.; September 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Premodern Bloke said...: I was not trying to wind anyone up. I simply don't accept sacred/secular distinctions. As Abraham Kuyper said, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence
over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all,
does not cry: 'Mine!'"

Thus, there is nothing to which religion is not concerned. And to the point raised, it is particularly concerned with things like not accepting homosexuality as "equally valid".

Religious values are not limited to the activities of the Church proper. Individuals are the temple in which the Spirit dwells and wherever they go, and in whatever they occupy themselves, Jesus is to be Lord. Every single thing they do is "bound by religious affinities".

All of life is Sacred.; September 9, 2009 at 4:19 AM
Premodern Bloke said...: In an attempt to stay with the topic at hand, Scouting was particularly effective after WWI when so many young boys were left without fathers. Many an urchin was saved from life on the street and given disciplined training of mind, body, and soul.

Alas, as with all many public organizations, the state has stepped in and attempted to impose its egalitarian and humanistic social engineering programs onto the organization with the all too typical results.; September 9, 2009 at 4:34 AM
Sir Edward Heath said...: "I simply don't accept sacred/secular distinctions."

I think that gets to the heart of matter. It gets to the heart of something very important about this blog. Concerning private belief.

You do not accept a belief system, but others do.

Not necessarily me.

Anyway, I've been e-mailed by Beaverbrook and informed that my contributions on this blog are no longer welcome. It appears I have "offended" people with my recent "anti-American remarks". Ironic. I want you all to know this shall be my "last post" here. Finished. Finito. The end. For my work here is now complete. It's been good talking to you all. I've learnt a lot and I hope you've all learnt something from me in return.

It's been fun contributing here and correcting some of the "common" misconceptions about what campaigning for Monarchy is all about. It isn't about private political agendas or seeking a political or religious utopia. We all seek those things - but perhaps secular monarchists might disagree with some of your key policy areas. :-)

By being banned I guess I have made my general point. The importance of not offending people (secularist, gay, Muslim, liberal or Socialist) when campaigning for Monarchy. At the end of the day they all have votes too. Yet only the future will tell if I am right on this one. I just hope this does not mean that we lose the referendums.; September 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Premodern Bloke said...: Neil,

I was never personally offended by your anti-American pokes, and never complained to the "authorities" about them. I do admit that I could never get a handle on when you were serious or just stirring the pot but that is probably a deficit of the medium.

I too am not interested in perfectionistic utopias. That said, I would also reject the pragmatism of our age which says, "If it works, it must be good." A Monarchy that merely accommodates itself to the winds of change in order to remain "relevant" is no Monarchy worth preserving. I sometimes got the impression that this was your remedy. A grammatically challenged but wise person once said..."What you draw them with, is what you draw them to".

While mere repristination is never the goal, when things get off track, one must go back to where they got off track and resume the journey. The culture at large must return to some solid foundational truths so that the building can resume. In this day and age, people are going to be offended by even suggesting such things.

I wish that your parting sentiments would have been in the form of a formal post where you lay your cards on the table in a direct fashion, as I suggested in the comments previously. This may have led to a fruitful discussion.

You will be missed by this American royalist.; September 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh, dear.

Jeff, when you say "Individuals are the temple in which the Spirit dwells and wherever they go, and in whatever they occupy themselves, Jesus is to be Lord. Every single thing they do is "bound by religious affinities". All of life is Sacred", I have an outlook that is somewhat similar, without the theistic tone. You think you've the only answer.

Further, you say "the state has stepped in and attempted to impose its egalitarian and humanistic social engineering programs"- obviously you are an American Republican. I won't say conservative, as so few of you are in reality. When the State is a Sovereign, do you have as much hate?

Monarchists come from every 'religious' belief and non-belief. Happily, when Monarchists move forward to improve our nations, your sort of pseudonationalist neoconservatism will be left behind to wonder what happened. With little surprise, this shall be the fate of the US as well.; September 10, 2009 at 6:09 AM
Premodern Bloke said...: Actually, American Burkean Conservative. One who believes in:

An enduring moral order.
Custom, Convention, Continuity.
Prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.

At least you are aware that there is no such thing as presuppositional neutrality.; September 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Unknown said...: As a peaceful Irish Catholic republican, I am very uneasy with any sort of monarchism, as it seems to be partly based on a desire to grovel to those who hold power, and worship of those beautifully presented people who live in an exalted world.
Of course the better kings and queens in history have served the people well, while serving themselves better, pragmatism not nobility, nothing to revere there.
While admiring their beautiful carriages,flags, castles and jewels, it's helpful to remember at what cost to the decent "Subjects" these things came. Once we get into the habit of looking up to an elite, we can easily begin looking down on those furthest from them.
Finally, The American Boy Scouts are a marvellous organization, but they should distance themselves as far as possible from military veterans of the recent wars of greed.
In light of all the above, what is it others see in the Monarchy that I can't see? I'm sure there is something great there. Best wishes to all.; March 20, 2010 at 11:41 PM

THE MONARCHIST

- Elizabeth our Prince -

- Churchill our Patron -

- Burke our Patriarch -

- Kipling our Poet -

- Salisbury our Prime Minister -

The Daily Bayonet

The Counter Revolution

- KING AND COUNTRY -

Imperial Loyalists

Anglo Monarchists

Gentlemen Royalists

- CHURCH OF ENGLAND -

Queen and Church

Saint George

- THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH -

English Literature

Poets Laureate

- CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY -

English Constitution

- LANDED GENTRY -

Liberty and Livelihood!

English Pubs

- LORD OF THE BLOG -

Peers of the Realm

Barons of the Press

Blogs of the Order

Lords of the Manor

- THE GENTLEMAN -

Gentlemen Tailors

Gentlemen Clubs

Gentlemen Spirits

Gentlemen-at-Arms

- RICHARD THE THIRD -

Richard III Societies

Honourary Patron of the English-Speaking Peoples

Gentlemen-at-Arms

Burke: The Father of Anglo-American Conservatism

Anglos of the Sphere

Anglos of the Sphere

Anglos of the Sphere

- ROYAL STANDARDS -

- ROYAL FAMILY -

FREE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THE REALMS?

Saturday, September 5, 2009

100 Years Young

13 comments:

Post a Comment

- Dieu et mon Droit -

- GOD SAVE THE QUEEN -

British Monarchy

Royal Family

Monarchist Leagues

- DEFENDER OF THE FAITH -

The Sacred Crown

Queen's Coronation

- SOVEREIGN OF REALM -

Pomp and State

- FOUNT OF JUSTICE -

The Queen's Bench

King's Colleges

- CROWN-IN-PARLIAMENT -

Her Majesty's Government

Westminster Parliaments

Hansard Societies

- FOUNTAIN OF HONOUR -

Orders of Chivalry

Victoria Cross

- COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF -

Queen and Armed Forces

Arms and Heraldry

- HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS -

The Admiralty

Royal Yachts

- QUEEN'S REGIMENTS -

Ceremonial Guards

Cavalry Regiments

- REMEMBRANCE -

War Veterans

Lest We Forget