Tony Abbott: Why I Am a Monarchist

Read More »»

Who Were the Loyalists?

Over two hundred years ago the American Revolution shattered the British Empire in North America.

United Empire Loyalist statue and plaque in Hamilton, Ontario

Not all the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies opposed Britain. The United Empire Loyalists were those colonists who remained faithful to the Crown and wished to continue living in the New World. Therefore, they left their homes to settle eventually in what remained of British North America.

The Loyalists came from every class and walk of life. Some depended on the Crown for their livelihood and status and had considerable wealth and property. Many were farmers and craftsmen. There were clerks and clergymen, lawyers and labourers, soldiers and slaves, Native Americans, college graduates, and people who could not write their own names. Recent immigrants from Europe also tended to support the Crown.

They had little in common but their opposition to the revolution. Their reasons for becoming Loyalists were as varied as their backgrounds. Some had strong ties with Britain: others had simply supported what turned out to be the losing side. Local incidents, fear of change, self-interest, political principles, emotional bonds – one or any combination of these influenced their decision to remain loyal to the Crown. The common thread that linked these diverse groups was a distrust of too much democracy which they believed resulted in mob rule and an accompanying breakdown of law and order. The Reverend Mather Byles mused, "Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" Loyalists believed that the British connection guaranteed them a more secure and prosperous life than republicanism would.

A Short History of the United Empire Loyalists by Ann Mackenzie M.A. (PDF)

Read More »»

The Philosophy of Loyalty

Contrary to popular assumption, "loyalty" is not a dead virtue. It may have evolved from the ancient feudal notion of fealty and homage towards kings, to the now well-established idea of a "loyal opposition", but it is still - and will always be - our most important virtue.

HOLINESS, THAT HIGHEST OF HIGH TEMPLE VIRTUES, is nothing without loyalty. If the very definition of loyalty is faithfulness and devotion to a cause or being, then what is holiness or sanctity if not loyalty to God, after all?

Truth is a high temple virtue too, so is honour. But truth only triumphs inasmuch as one is loyal to it; honour, inasmuch as one is loyal to the code. Loyalty is the cardinal virtue because it makes the other virtues possible. It is virtue enabling.

For example, what is love without fidelity? What is hope without faith? What is charity without fealty or obligation? What is respectfulness without deferance? What is duty or service without allegiance? What is perseverance if not faithfulness and devotion to the end? And what is responsibility if not loyalty to our families, our careers and our communities? Personal responsibility. Corporate responsibility. Civic responsibility. Duty and commitment. It all comes down to loyalty.

One could go on and on about the interconnectedness of loyalty with virtue. Is justice not just adherence to a common belief in fairness, is morality not just cultural allegiance to a virtuous set of principles, ethics and values? As the American philosopher Josiah Royce postulated in his Philosophy of Loyalty (1908), "Loyalty is the fulfillment of the whole moral law. You can truthfully centre your entire moral world about a rational conception to loyalty. Justice, charity, industry, wisdom, spirituality, are all definable in terms of enlightened loyalty." He called his grand ethical theory, "loyalty to loyalty", defending the unifying virtue as the supreme moral good.

Once you appreciate that loyalty is the greatest human virtue, you understand that betrayal is the greatest human vice. The old evils of blasphemy, venality, cowardice, avarice, gluttony and sloth were all interpreted as betrayals of one form or another. Self-treachery can lead to any number of personal follies, since betrayal can empower all matter of sins. In Shakespeare's own immortal words, that Colossus of English literature, "self-love my liege, is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting". Shakespeare understood that there is nothing beneath betrayal in the whole catalogue of sin.


And yet loyalty has often been misconstrued as a vice, and disloyalty sometimes misconstrued as a virtue. The "virtue of disloyalty" as put forward by Mark Twain and Grahame Green argued against giving in to the demands of loyalty in order to best protect the individual from those who exploit it, fearing it could potentially be used as a means to pursue unethical conduct on a grand scale. And indeed who could deny the idea has considerable resonance after bearing witness to history's murderous crimes under the fanatically loyal regimes of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

But as it is with any other virtue, loyalty does not ask for us to suspend our moral judgements. Conscientiousness and sincerity may be directed to unworthy objects, but conscientiousness and sincerity do not for that reason fail as virtues. Does the corruption of courage, by which we mean foolhardiness, prove then that courage is not a virtue? Obviously there is a point at which virtue becomes not a virtue at all, for confidence can be corrupted into vanity, generosity into extravagance and loyalty into complaisance and servility. The trust that tends to accompany loyalty need not encompass gullibility and credulity.

It was Aristotle who described every virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait. The point of greatest virtue lies not in the exact middle, but at a "golden mean" sometimes closer to one extreme than the other. Virtuous loyalty then is just the golden mean between fanatical disloyalty and fanatical loyalty. The mean between treachery and subserviance.

Society may be somewhat off its golden mean these days (we no longer worship virtue), because the needs of liberty have (over)entrenched the practice of limiting loyalty. The ancient fealty towards kings has progressed into the well-established idea of a "loyal opposition", since we have come to Whiggishly accept that for loyalty to be virtuous there must be openness to corrective criticism on the part of both the subject and object of loyalty. The "corrective" qualification is important, for not any opposition is permissible. A loyal opponent is not just an opponent, but one who remains loyal, and that entails the opposition to stay within bounds that are compatible with the well-being or best interests of the object of loyalty.

Predominantly speaking, a loyal opposition will not advocate rebellion or revolution or even radical change, for the latter would endanger the object of loyalty and perhaps replace it with an undesirable alternative. Perhaps it is the commitment to opposition within the prevailing structures that has led some radical critics of loyalty to see it negatively as a conservative virtue, or not to view it as a virtue at all. It is conservative because it involves a commitment to securing or preserving the interests of its object, an object that has come to be valued for its own sake.

Nevertheless, the existence of a loyal opposition does not preclude the possibility that a more radical opposition might and indeed should subsequently be mounted. If the loyal opposition proves incapable of "reforming" the object of loyalty, the exit option might be taken. In such cases it could be argued that the object of loyalty was no longer worthy of its claim to it. It is only if we mistakenly or misguidedly think of loyalty as making an absolute claim on us that a derogatory charge of conservatism (for those who see conservatism as derogatory) against a loyal opposition will have any traction.

We can limit loyalty but we cannot eliminate it altogether, nor should such a thing ever be desired, for that path leads to anarchy and destruction. Suffice it to say that no person, no profession, no culture and no country can survive long without it. Loyalty is the glue of society, the gospel of reason and the creed of nations. As part of the natural order, loyalty is the cardinal virtue and the whole cornerstone of Tory philosophy. It is absolutely critical to our existence.

It goes without saying that The Monarchist holds it in the highest possible regard.

Read More »»

"An act of uncomprehending constitutional vandalism"

A disloyal collection of 22 cross party MPs are launching a campaign to end the 500 year tradition of swearing allegiance to the Queen when entering parliament.

"I SWEAR BY ALMIGHTY GOD
THAT I WILL BE FAITHFUL AND BEAR TRUE ALLEGIANCE
TO HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH,
HER HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS,
ACCORDING TO LAW.
SO HELP ME GOD."
"This seems to me to be an attack upon the state itself. The monarch is the one embodiment of the state which is outside the political, partisan process...The people behind this campaign must either oppose the idea of anyone who is non-partisan having a role in the affairs of state, or they would rather be swearing allegiance to Brussels." - Lord Tebbit, Conservative Peer

"This is an act of uncomprehending constitutional vandalism. The Queen is the centre of the British constitution." - Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP

"This is a matter of democracy. I'm put here by my constituents and it's to them I owe my allegiance. Taking the oath to an unelected person is a nonsense."
- Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP and campaign leader

"We need to make the oath something that people are offered, rather than required to take...We should make provision for republicans or separatists..."I wouldn't drop the oath - I would make it optional. I am a subject of the Queen even more than I am a citizen of this country. I'd much prefer a bad monarchy to a good president...But people ought to be able to come to parliament and argue that they don't want the monarchy." - Peter Bottomley, Conservative MP

Update: The Low Tory Daniel Hannan (how low can you go and still call yourself one) says all the rights things, but qualifies the post by declaring himself a rather feeble monarchist. Read: MPs should pledge allegiance to the Crown

Read More »»

Keep Saluting Our Queen

by Ian Holloway, National Post

Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh (until recently, Harold Kenny), a professor of physics at the Royal Military College and an officer in the Canadian Forces Reserves, has sued the government for what he alleges to be a "degrading" policy of requiring officers to stand during the loyal toast and salute during the playing of God Save the Queen. News reports suggest that Capt. Chainnigh has been fighting the policy for five years and has had his grievance denied by both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff. Capt. Chainnigh is now asking the federal court to declare the requirement to pay respect to the Crown as unlawful on the basis that it amounts to what he describes as "institutional harassment." In his public comments on the case, Capt. Chainnigh has repeatedly described Queen Elizabeth as a "foreign monarch." The news report says that his objection "is based on the premise that while Canadian law allows anyone to question the role of the monarchy in governing our country, officers have to shelve their beliefs and show loyalty to the Queen at events such as mess dinners, parades or Remembrance Day ceremonies, where they must salute for God Save The Queen."

It is clear what the federal court should do with respect to Capt. Chainnigh's suit. There are intellectually respectable reasons for arguing that Canada should become a republic. But to suggest that under current law the Queen is a foreign monarch is quite ridiculous. Even the most superficial reading of Canada's constitution makes this obvious. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 declares that executive authority over Canada is vested in the Queen. Section 17 provides that, along with the Senate and House of Commons, the Queen constitutes one of the three branches of Parliament. And, most pertinently of all, section 15 declares that the Queen is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Forces.

Capt. Chainnigh's mistake is to confuse the freedom of conscience with the freedom of action. The fact is that, like every Canadian, Capt. Chainnigh is entitled to his own belief system. He is free to exercise his conscience at the ballot box to vote for candidates who are in favour of Canada becoming a republic. He is free to make a statement by changing his name to its Irish version. He is even free to resign his commission and to seek elected office himself, in order to better make the case for a republic. But as long as he wants the privilege of being able to describe himself as an officer (in Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, no less), it hardly seems harassment to expect him to acknowledge the plain terms of the constitution. It is not up to him, or to any member of the Canadian Forces for that matter, to pick and choose which provisions of the constitution he wants to uphold. As an old Chief Yeoman of mine once put it, once you take the Queen's shilling you have to take the rough with the smooth.

With the exception of the Monarchist League, many Canadian monarchists have fallen into the blunder of seeking to avoid confrontation by minimizing the constitutional centrality of the Crown in Canada. As much as Capt. Chainnigh might wish it otherwise, the bottom line is that ours is a thoroughly monarchical system of government. We are a constitutional monarchy to be sure, but we are a monarchy all the same. Those like him, who hold publicly-conferred office yet who deny or belittle our system of government, are themselves arguably behaving contemptuously of Canada and its institutions. Happily, both the Canadian Forces Grievance Board and Gen. Hiller seem to have been robust in their denial of Capt. Chainnigh's grievance. Now it will be interesting to see how staunchly the government of Canada is willing to defend the constitution.

Read More »»

The Radical Tory Manifesto

We, the undersigned, unite together with burning concern for the future of our country, with firm loyalty to her institutions, and firm hope for our future.

With burning concern, we note the state into which our country has fallen. We see the breakdown of family life, the loss of confidence in our institutions, the decay of public and private virtue, and the attack by an ideologically driven and squalid oligarchy on the common good. We refuse to swim with the tide, taking our stand instead on the solid ground of the Permanent Things, to which we pledge ourselves, and from the foundation of which we defy and transform our culture.

We recognise the inate dignity of every human being, as God-given, from conception to natural death.

We strongly affirm the integral place of the natural family in our common life, affirming marriage and family life as the foundation of society. We consider that the natural family, and the marriage which binds it together, is entitled to the highest consideration and the protections of the civil government.

We declare our allegiance to custom, convention and continuity, even in reform, and joyfully receive the rights of free Englishmen guaranteed us by Her Majesty our Queen, under Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement. We affirm that the civil and religious rights guaranteed by them lie at the heart of our national life.

We deny the vapid utopianism of our political masters, recognising that human beings are imperfectible. We further recognise the variety of social conditions in human society, affirming that true equality is only possible before the Courts and before God. Thus, we oppose government-driven attempts at levelling, while affirming our desire to seek Justice.

We uphold the role of the pillars of social order; that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the other agents of the civil government in its proper, limited sphere. We uphold the institutions of civil society and moral order, such as the Church and the voluntary institutions which make up the Community, and deny the impulse of the collective.

We recognise our duty to each other, and reject moral and social individualism. We recognise the need for restraints upon power and passion, and therefore support the balanced Constitution and the rule of law.

We, who stand at the cusp of the Third Christian millennium, are the inheritors of the trust of our ancestors, who spilled their blood in defence of freedom and our Most holy faith. We who have received the burning torch from them, will not let it die, but will pass it stronger and brighter to those who will come after us. We will strive to be worthy of their trust.

In token of which, and with trust in God, we have this day set our names.

William Pitt the Younger (originally posted by Pitt here)

Read More »»

The Impious Rabble Retreat

News to swell Loyal hearts this morning. The celebrity-driven beat-up which is the campaign to change the NZ flag has been abandoned. The lares, penates and relics of our sacred ancestors have been spared the impious axe of Jacobin tyranny. The "NZ Flag campaign" has stopped its campaign to collect signatures for a referendum on the issue, aimed at removing the Union Flag from our own, and eradicating "hangovers of colonialism".

Gilray's Rights of Man, 1791

I am sure the millionaire gentleman who bankrolled this attack on the national heritage must be disappointed, and likewise, republicans of goodwill, such as Lewis Holden.

I'm sure Robespierre was a lovely man too - Indeed, he kept ranting about virtue, and was called Sea-green incorruptible. But the personal motives of those funding this bankrupt raid on the family silver are irrelevant to the shocking lack of pietas shown by the haters and wreckers.

Let us thank the gracious mercies of Providence that our flag has been spared for another day, and that our ancestors may lie quiet in their graves in the knowledge we have kept their trust.

For now, at least.

Posted by Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read More »»

The Tipping Point

As our readers will by now clearly understand, the Monarchist and I are devoted Anglophiles and supporters of the Commonwealth, and loyal subjects of Her Majesty. But we are also – like most others of our ilk – intense admirers of the United States. This twin devotion may appear paradoxical to those with a weaker grasp of history, but of course there lies therein neither contradiction nor riddle.

As William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, insisted at the height of the American Revolution, the Americans were not traitors to England; rather, they revealed England’s betrayal of herself. It was the Americans who demanded the continuance in fact, and refused the relegation to the theoretical, of the fundamental principles of liberty and parliamentary democracy that Britain had so painfully brought into the world. For the Americans, liberty was not a buzz word or a punch line. It was not something that they would see diluted or bought off with creature comforts or temporary personal advantages. It was the core, the fundamental, the irreducible basis of how they intended to live their lives and to structure their government and their society. Give me liberty or give me death, they said – and they meant it. They say it, and mean it, to this day.

With the events of the past two weeks, I have finally come to understand why the American people, whom I so admire, are so despised by so many in Canada. It is because people of principle and courage are bound to be despised by those who can claim neither. I have also come to understand, on a visceral level, what I have so far appreciated only on an intellectual, theoretical basis. I have always marveled at how the great Americans of their revolution – men like Washington and Adams, who were men of the greatest integrity, and possessed of the most irreproachable personal virtue; men for whom loyalty was a core quality – came so precipitously and violently to shift their allegiances. I now understand that it was because they encountered what exists in all things: a tipping point; a point of no return. It is precisely those of the greatest character, whose very integrity and loyalty most retard their progress toward it, who cross the chasm most abruptly. Adams and Washington had attempted as far as possible to reform the nature of British dominion over America. They had resisted as long as possible the idea that such reform would never happen. But, as if on cue, they recognized all at once that they had been wrong: that reform would never, ever come; that radical measures were, in fact, required; that continued prevarication was futile and only demeaned them; that to overthrow that which had evolved to become the opposite of what it claimed and ought to be would be virtue, not sin.

I am not so arrogant as to set my personal qualities, and my thoughts and actions, on a plane with those of Washington and Adams. But I will say this: with Thursday’s votes in the House of Commons, capping what are surely the two most disgraceful weeks in the history of the Canadian Parliament, I have reached my own, personal tipping point. I have abruptly come to see – with the force and clarity of a thunderclap – that the Canada that I have defended and loved no longer exists, and cannot be retrieved. And with that realization, I say that as of now, I believe this: what Canada has become not only is not worth perpetuating; it should be euthanized at the earliest opportunity.

What exactly have we witnessed over the past two weeks? We have witnessed a parliamentary government of the British Crown and tradition, faced with a protracted and clear demonstration of a loss of majority confidence, refuse to adhere to the most fundamental tenets of responsible government by submitting itself to an immediate and declared confidence vote. We have watched that government instead suspend democracy until its bribes and enticements to the characterless could bear fruit. We have watched a blonde Judas cross the floor, oblivious of how ephemeral her new friendships will prove; casting the will of her constituents - and with it, the core mechanism by which the will of the people is translated into the reality of parliamentary power - into the dust; for obvious, crass and fleeting personal gain. And we have watched the chief architect of this farce declare, with a straight face, that he had secured the renewed confidence of the House and assured the future of a united Canada.

As this tragedy concluded, I listened to some around me, here in Ontario, actually declare their relief that they would not soon have to make another trip to the ballot box. And in that moment, I reached my tipping point. I realized that a people unprepared to devote a single hour – without sweat, cost or blood – to the enforcement of democracy, to the assurance that they might be governed by decent and responsible people of their actual choice; that a people too selfish and shameless to care whether their countrymen felt respected and represented under the common roof; that a people too brain-dead to understand how deeply their traditions of democracy have been compromised, and how dangerous a precedent has just been set - were not worthy of my allegiance.

The Liberals believe that they have saved Canada. It is stupefying that they cannot see, that they cannot even imagine; that saving Canada and saving themselves are not the same thing. Because they can be bought and sold, they cannot conceive that a Canada that is anything other than a hollow and worthless shell might not be. But above all, they suffer from that greatest of delusions: they imagine that the universe is static. This is Canada, they think; this is how it works. Elections are decided in Ontario and Quebec. Quebecers are sleazy and stupid: just throw them some bones, and try not to get caught. And no one else matters. Those westerners are crazy; they are dangerous; they are not reading the script. So just take their money and ignore them. Things have always been thus, and always will be. The Liberals, and with them much of Ontario, just cannot conceive that all this could ever change; that this grand order of theirs might one day soon be turned on its head, and cease to be.

But it could – just ask George III. And unless I am much mistaken, the events of the past two weeks have virtually ensured that it will.

I am not a Quebecer. I have not spent much time in Quebec, nor do I identify personally with Quebec’s culture and history. In short, I do not readily identify with Quebecers; I do not naturally walk in their shoes. But over the past several months, as Gomery has dropped bombshell after bombshell, I have found myself quietly and steadily becoming outraged on their behalf. And I have been inspired to behold the rise of their quite righteous indignation. I have been encouraged by the resolution and grit of Gilles Duceppe and his party, as they have stepped up to refuse, on behalf of all Quebecers, to be tarred by the Liberal manure. And I was proud to see the Conservatives join with them in an attempt to bring this disgrace of a government to the ground. Belinda Stronach accuses Stephen Harper of siding with separatists. I would say, rather, that the Conservatives chose to side with men and women of integrity and honour, against those who lack both, and that Belinda went where she belongs. Duceppe and the Bloc represent their people faithfully. Martin and the Liberals represent only themselves, and a view of how a country should function that no decent person can share. So from now on I say: Quebecers, save yourselves; take your birthright, take your beautiful land and heritage, take your pride and your self-respect, and go. I will be cheering you from the other side: cheering your courage and character, and cheering the death blow you will be delivering to the rotten structure that Canada has become.

To Albertans, and indeed to all Western Canadians, I now say: what are you waiting for? Can you now doubt that Ontario will never, ever, give you a seat at the table? Your money is taken from you, year after year, and not only have you no say in the matter, but under the current order, you never will. Make no mistake: with the new precedents of irresponsible government just set, what has been true in the past will be even truer in the future. And dissecting the events of the past two weeks, this has become clear to me: that the Stephen Harper who so closely represents you, your beliefs, and your aspirations for your future in Canada, is hated in Ontario precisely because he represents you, your beliefs and your aspirations. What does that tell you? This is the outcome of your twenty years of work in building a party, a platform, a cause that would bring you into Canada. This is the answer to “the West wants in”. So I now truly hope that the West will want out. Really, what is there here for you? Do you really want to continue to be taxed without representation, especially when so much of what you pay is handed over to others? Do you really want to continue to be despised and mocked? Do you really want to continue to elect senators who will go nowhere while Ontario Liberals send hacks of their own to the red chamber to “represent” you, and laugh in your face?

The Americans speak of “the spirit of ‘76”. This is the spirit of righteous indignation, the spirit of self-respect. It is the spirit that made the gentle and loyal farmers of the colonies conceive as their banner a coiled rattlesnake over the words: don’t tread on me. It is the spirit that brought ordinary men from their hearths and homes into the fields of Lexington and Concord, to stand against the soldiers of the greatest armed power on earth. It is the spirit that led the great men of an age to cast aside everything they had known and served, to build something better, something greater, something that they could reconcile with their beliefs, their integrity and their dignity. Will a “spirit of ‘05” now arise here? I believe it is already stirring. The Liberals, with much of Ontario in dumb connivance, have sown the seeds. They do not understand what they have set irretrievably in motion. It is far beyond their sphere of recognition to see that far from saving Canada, they have destroyed it. A Canada worth preserving might just have been revived had this government fallen. But the very factors and forces that prevented that fall have now pointed the future in a very different direction. And I say: so be it. The chasm has been crossed. The tipping point has been reached.

Walsingham (originally posted here, along with over 100 comments. Was described as "seminal" in the Ottawa Citizen)

Read More »»

LOYAL PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS the longstanding tradition of representative monarchy as constitutionally practiced by the independent peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other Realms of the Crown Commonwealth is continuously threatened by the unrelenting regressive forces around them, that left unchallenged will cause the venerable institution of our shared monarchy, the most splendid form of constitutional government to have evolved on this Earth, to degenerate into a pathetic shadow of its former glory and inevitably or suddenly wither away;

AND WHEREAS a defeat for monarchy and for the people in any one Realm, is a defeat for monarchy and for all our peoples in all our Realms, we do hereby mutually proclaim therefore that any further acts of disloyalty carried out against our peoples as represented by their Sovereign, or any further encroachment by the political elite on their residual powers of State, or any further attempts to undermine the legitimacy, independence and dignity of their office, shall no longer be tolerated with gradualist abandonment, but fought vigilantly and honourably with dutiful obligation, bound by our undying affection, loyal devotion and true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

(Originally posted here)

Read More »»