Princess Michael of Kent and Lady Gabriella Windsor
Monday, 15 April 2013
Sunday, 14 April 2013
King William I: Surprisingly, I often find myself having a higher opinion of William the Conqueror than most Englishmen, I assume because of nostalgia for Saxon England, but I tend to at least entertain the possibility that he may have been the chosen heir as he claimed, he did have the full blessing of Pope Alexander II (which mattered back then) and it wasn’t all cakes and ale in Saxon England before the Norman conquest of 1066. He seems to have been a very talented warrior, not the most upright or likeable guy in the world, but his harshness in England was provoked rather than planned. I think he would have preferred to have everyone cooperate with him but when anyone did not -they were destroyed totally. He was a harsh man who lived in harsh times, sure not to ever be a favorite, he was capable and died in battle which is usually good for a king to do.
King William II: I think better of his father than I do of “Rufus” who was still at least competent, seemed well liked by his soldiers (which was very important in those days) but whereas his father took religion seriously (even if he didn’t always live it) and enacted beneficial reforms, the court of William II was reportedly a little on the licentious side and he didn’t have much time for the Church. That does not endear me to him, nor his reputation for being heavy on the flash but light on the substance. He did not marry and never had any children which English monarchs often seem to be applauded for but which I tend to take as a dereliction of one of the most basic royal duties. I remember he died in a hunting accident (if I’m not mistaken) which might not have been entirely accidental.
King Henry I: No very strong feelings are stirred in me by Henry I. His reign, as I recall, was dominated with reconquering Normandy and the “investiture dispute” with the Catholic Church. In the final settlement he sacrificed form in favor of substance so that it was still basically the King who picked the bishops and opinion of him will be divided over whether or not one thinks that was a good thing. Personally, when it comes to choosing bishops I have not been impressed with the record of royals or popes. King Henry I doesn’t stand out much to me but sometimes some of the best monarchs are those who seem unimportant simply because they were so good at keeping the peace and maintaining calm and contented countries.
King Stephen: King Stephen “of Blah” as I like to call him, spent his reign locked in battle with Empress Matilda for control of England and he suffers in my view simply from being a less interesting character than his archrival. He stopped a Scottish invasion by negotiation rather than victory and based on how troubled his reign was King Stephen doesn’t seem to have been terribly strong or effective as a national leader. His buying off of enemies and lavish lifestyle laid the foundation for some financial problems and accompanying discontent which certainly did him no favors. About the best I can say about him was that things could have been worse and most of his rule seems to be a succession of minimizing disasters as much as possible.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Friday, 12 April 2013
Thursday, 11 April 2013
We are told that it was not just that the King might have shot an elephant but that he was vacationing while Spain is in the grip of a disastrous economic crisis and is faced with “harsh” austerity measures. Sorry, I don’t buy it. His Catholic Majesty’s little hunting trip did not cost the Spanish taxpayers a single euro and I see no reason why the King should suffer for the poor economy caused by the idiotic politicians that the Spanish public voted into office. It was the people, not the King, who voted for the men who spent money Spain did not have and it was they who kept voting for more spending, more borrowing and on and on until doubts began to surface about the ability of Spain to make good on such a vast debt. Then came the scandal involving the King’s son-in-law and lately the Infanta Cristina which is almost as ridiculous. Overnight it seemed that Spain became a completely different country. A public that once adored their monarch for giving them democracy suddenly became angry and demanded apologies (which they got). How about every Spaniard who voted for the last couple of decades apologize to the King for ruining his country and to their children (the few that have any) for sacrificing their future for their own immediate comfort?
The basic proposition, in so many words, was that the Crown Princess is just not up to the “job” of being Crown Princess or, one day, Empress consort. If she is unable, is it perhaps best for her to make room for someone who can? That is where the idea of abdication comes in. Yamaori suggests that the time is at hand for the Crown Prince to make a choice and perhaps the best choice for his wife and daughter would be to renounce their positions in favor of his younger brother and sister-in-law whose son, according to the current rules of succession, is set to become Emperor of Japan in the future anyway. I have to admit, as much as I dislike abdications in general, this seemed to make some sense to me. The ardent fans of Crown Princess Masako may take it as a slight against her, but it certainly is not as far as I am concerned. She seems like a very kind and lovely woman and I have nothing but the fondest feelings for her. However, I have been annoyed by the way some people have seized on her case as a way of being critical of the monarchy, as though she is the poor, suffering victim of “the establishment” in much the same way that some did regarding Lady Diana in the UK. If they still held such a view, would it not be best to free her from her gilded cage? Personally, I do not take such a view, nor have I ever viewed the Imperial Household Agency as the bogey man that so many others seem to. However, it does seem fairly clear that Crown Princess Masako is simply not up to the task of fulfilling her duties. This little hiatus has been going on for a decade now.
Feel free to share your thoughts; to abdicate or not to abdicate -that is the question.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
The following was contributed by the Alberta Monarchist
The current problem with the Canadian government is that it is afflicted with too much democracy, which has been described so well as mob rule. Just like in any other Westminster system of government, the prime minister of this country has far too much power, having usurped the Crown's authority to appoint and dismiss the Governor General, the provincial Lieutenant Governor's, federal judges and senators in addition to his total dominance of the House of Commons. Likewise the premiers too have usurped the Crowns powers at the provincial level, all of which serves to create in effect, a democratic dictatorship.
Therefore the solution to this problem as I see it is to abandon the failed unworkable theories of popular sovereignty, total separation of powers, and above all the delusion of universal human equality, and revert to the tried and tested methods of traditional, reactionary and monarchical government which history shows has worked time and again throughout the centuries.
Consequently as a matter of urgency our current monarch Queen Elizabeth II must be able to resume the Crown's traditional powers. Therefore Her Majesty should be able to appoint and dismiss government ministers including the prime minister; summon, prorogue, and dismiss parliament; and introduce legislation to, and amend, and veto legislation from that body. Since we are in personal union with Great Britain and the other Dominions, we cannot expect our sovereign to reside here on a regular basis, anymore than we can expect religious leaders like the pope, to always reside in countries where Catholicism is at least nominally, the majority religion. As the personal representative of our Sovereign, it is only logical that the Governor General should, unlike today, be appointed at the personal discretion of the monarch, to represent her in Canada, and exercise her powers; without any regard to the prime minister.
Likewise to ensure that our Queen and her representatives enjoy a degree of independence from the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures, the Crown should have the ability to collect, retain and vary up to certain level, the revenue from the various federal and provincial sales taxes, corporation tax, and the income from federal, and provincial crown lands, without parliament's consent; while additional taxation would still need the consent of parliament and the respective legislatures. This ensures the sovereign can remain financially independent of parliament, which by extension, also means the preservation of her own independence; thereby helping to avoid a repeat of parliamentary usurpation's of royal authority, while also serving as a check on any potential financial excesses by the Crown.
Furthermore to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy it seems reasonable to me that the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors should continue to be appointed for five year terms, but removable by the monarch or the Governor General respectively, following a three-fifths majority impeachment in the House of Lords. This ensures these royal representatives have a large degree of autonomy, to carry out their duties of directing the government within their respective sphere's of Her Majesty's Dominion, while the regular term limits help prevent such officials from serving for life; thereby preventing them from securing an independent power base from which to potentially challenge the authority of the crown they are supposed to serve.
Furthermore the Governor General should be able to exercise another traditional power of the Crown on behalf of Her Majesty, namely the right to appoint and dismiss the judges of the Supreme Court and any other federal court; although they too should enjoy a degree of independence by also being appointed for a five year term, with the Governor General empowered to remove them only by the method of impeachment. This would serve to avoid the error in the United States, where liberal Supreme Court Justices usurp power from the Constitution, to change and strike down laws at will, thereby wrecking havoc upon the federal and state governments; and serve in effect as unelected, unaccountable, and collective tinpot dictators for life. Likewise the Lieutenant Governors should also be able to exercise similar powers at the provincial level.
Similarly the Federal Parliament should be brought into alignment with the traditional model of the British Parliament, by comprising both a House of Commons and a House of Lords with each House having the ability to table, amend and veto a bill arising from the other House or from the monarch. This ensures that Bills are carefully vetted before becoming law, with the added benefit of keeping the number of laws on statute down to an absolute minimum. However the customary differences in powers between the two Houses should be preserved with finance bills needing either to originate in or be submitted by the Crown to the Commons first, while the Lords should enjoy the exclusive power to impeach members of either House, ministers of the Crown, the Governor-General, federal judges and senior members of the armed forces.
Unlike today, the House of Commons would resemble the current Senate, by comprising members appointed by, and representing the various provincial and territorial governments for seven year terms; thereby denying the prime minister the chance to control the House with his appointed lackeys. Likewise the size of each provincial or territorial representation in the House would be determined by its share of the general population, according to the once in a decade federal census. This would ensure that the Commons better achieves what the Senate fails miserably to do namely, ensure that the provinces and territories have a voice, and active participation in the federal legislative process; while a periodical distribution of seats to reflect trends like the growing population in Western Canada, ensures the provinces a much fairer distribution of seats, which is in complete contrast to the Senate where the number of provincial and territorial seats are fixed, ensuring that Western Canada is under-represented while Eastern Canada is grossly over-represented.
Likewise I believe in the necessity of a Canadian House of Lords as, by virtue of their autonomous nature, peers would play a vital role in the legislative process by being a more effective "second House of sober thought" then the Senate. This new House of Lords would comprise a fixed number of Lords, which avoids a repeat of the the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. These Lords would in turn be divided into two kinds namely: the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal. Of these the Lords Temporal would be the most dominant and be modeled on the traditional British representative peers, with each province and territory unlike the Commons; represented by an equal number of Lords Temporal, who would be elected for life from among the peerage of each respective province and territory. The minority Lords Spiritual on the other hand, would comprise an equal number of the senior clerics from Canada's largest churches, who would ensure their churches have a voice in the legislative process.
At the provincial level the government would be controlled by the Lieutenant-Governor, appointed at the discretion of the Governor-General, to weld the traditional prerogatives of the Crown in the province or territory where they reside, and to whom the premier and other provincial ministers would be accountable. However to maintain a degree of autonomy it only makes sense to me, that the Lieutenant-Governor's be allowed to retain the bulk of the exclusive provincial crown taxes for government expenses, before handing over the remainder to the Governor-General.
However the current democratic dictatorship in each province would end, with the single chambered provincial legislative assemblies replaced by two chambered legislatures, modeled after the Federal Parliament; comprised of a Chamber of Delegates and a Chamber of Peers, possessing equal legislative powers. Likewise the right to scrutinize finance bills first, would belong to the Chamber of Delegates, and the right of impeachment would belong to the Chamber of Peers.
Unlike the federal House of Commons and provincial legislatures of toady, the provincial Chamber of Delegates would comprise members elected by a three-class suffrage system, with constituencies represented by three MCD's (Member of the Chamber of Delegates) representing the working, middle and upper classes respectively, who would each have an equal proportion of seats in the chamber.
This is due to my observations to date, where I become convinced of the principle that urban dwellers in the towns and cities can always be counted on, to make crass liberal, pinko, commie decisions at voting time; while those who dwell in countryside can usually be counted on to cast much smarter choices at the ballot. Additionally while the working class are the most numerous of the three classes, it is the middle and upper classes who by virtue of their greater wealth, are more important to the country, as it is they who have the ability to create the jobs that are needed to help make the country prosper. It thus for these reasons that the urban middle and working classes, should not be allowed to bully the rural middle and upper classes, and hijack the national interest for their own selfish and irresponsible ends; but rather forced into cooperating with the other classes for greater good of the country, which is why I believe they should have an equal number of seats.
The Chamber of Peers in contrast would comprise a fixed number of Peers, divided again like the federal House of Lords into two groups, namely: the Spiritual Peers and the Temporal Peers; with the Temporal Peers being the most numerous. Unlike the House of Lords however, the Temporal Peers would comprise a fixed number of hereditary peers, whose descendants would inherit their seats according to the principle of male salic succession, except where a different mode of hereditary succession is provided for with the special exemption of the legislature. Like their counterparts in the House of Lords however, the minority Spiritual Peers would comprise the senior clerics from the largest denominations in the province. Periodically the peers of each province would assemble to elect from among their number, a Lord who would represent them and their province at the federal level.
In my opinion hereditary peers should have a role in the legislative process, because by virtue of their hereditary nature they have an independent power base, which frees them from the machinations of partisan politics and the party whip, allowing them to vote according to their conscience; and just like their sovereign peers undergo a lifetime of training in preparation for taking their seat in House, thereby making them far more qualified for their position, compared to a senate lackey of the prime minister who like him, usually have little or no prior government job experience. Again like their federal counterparts, spiritual peers should also be able to participate in the legislative affairs of their province, serving as a moral voice and influence on the proceedings on behalf of their respective denominations. However it is also because of role they provide that spiritual peers cease being such upon the end of their tenure as clergy, thereby making room for their successors.
Thus only in this manner I believe can the tyrannical democratic flaws in the current system be addressed, freeing the representatives of the Crown at the federal and provincial level to run the government, according to the best interests of the country and the provinces, without being subject to the fickle whim of public opinion; while their extensive powers would be kept in check by the required consent of both the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures for new laws and additional taxation, beyond those I have outlined that I believe, should lie within the exclusive domain of the Crown. Naturally many, including readers of this blog, would think this scheme crazy, but such is that lot of an ardent reactionary and is also why I am a member of the Mad Monarchist brain trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
