Sir Usain?

It seems that Usain Bolt has come out as another supporter of titular honours. Interviewed after winning the 200 metres and breaking his own record in the world athletics championships in Berlin, Bolt said, ''If Queen Elizabeth knighthooded me and I would get the title Sir Usain Bolt, it would sound very nice.'' Bolt already has the Jamaican Order of Distinction, conferred in 2008, but this does not entitle him to a title and neither do any of Jamaica's other indigenous awards, however it is still possible for Jamaicans either to receive imperial honours from the Queen on the advice of the Jamaican Government (e.g. the current Governor-General, Sir Patrick Allen, who was awarded the GCMG this year) or, of course, as her personal gift. So perhaps we shall yet hear, "Arise, Sir Usain"...

On Tour With the Queen Part II

In this week's (w/c 16/08/09) edition, Kwame Kwei-Armah visited Australia and New Zealand. I have to say that I wasn't as impressed with this week's edition as I was with last week's. Again, Kwei-Armah seemed to be fishing for evidence of republicanism but it seems to me at least that inner-city Sydney doesn't seem to be the most balanced place in the world to find an accurate picture of republicanism (though I accept that shouting at people from "the Queen of England's" [sigh...] open top Daimler is hardly a basis for a suitable starting point for an accurate or serious survey and that Kwei-Armah seems to concur). An interview with some "royalists" seemed to have Kwei-Armah labouring the point that monarchists are all old white British Australians and strong, if muted, supporters of the White Australia policy (perhaps some kind soul from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy would be so good as to send him some of Prof. Flint's examples of comments by The Bulletin on the nature of an Australian republic ca. 1890-1900?). His trip to New Zealand is better, returning to last week's style of a more light-hearted and slightly more neutral look at HM the Queen's 1953-4 tour and succeeding in it, including a visit to a tea shop packed full of royal paraphenalia). I await next week's episode, featuring Fiji, Sri Lanka and Uganda, with interest.

Televisual entertainments...

UK readers (and possibly those further afield) may be interested in On Tour with the Queen, a new Channel 4 documentary series in which the author and playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah retraces the Queen's Coronation Tour of 1953-4. Although Mr Kwei-Armah is a "spirited" republican, it's nevertheless - judging by the first episode - an entertaining romp through the corners of today's Commonwealth and an interesting re-evaluation of the tour. Amongst other things, Kwei-Armah is surprised by a radio chat show in Jamaica which, on the subject of the monarchy and ties to the UK, has callers suggesting that the UK should take back Jamaica! The support for the monarchy as an influence beyond politics by members of what might be described as Jamaica's elite is also surprising. Ignoring the little inaccuracies about West Indies Premiers being Heads of State and Jamaica "unilaterally" declaring independence, it's well worth a look, especially as next week's episode visits Australia and New Zealand.

Clicky:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/on-tour-with-the-queen

Know your enemy...

A Christmas thought for you. Republic (UK) often demonstrates its organisers' own ignorance, to mildly comic effect. The most recent example was one for which yours truly must shoulder some of the blame: when proposing abolishing/reforming the Honours System, "Graham Smith" wrote:

"Honours should be limited to those who have performed a singular act of courage or who have gone well beyond the call of duty to help others."

To which ACMW (in his alter ego) responded:

"Sir, appropriate names for awards given for the acts you describe above spring instantaneously to mind - Victoria Cross and George Cross."

He then came back with:

"Yes, but those medals are strictly for the armed services and are, rightly, very tightly controlled and sparingly awarded."

The phrase I've highlighted in bold is, of course, rubbish. The George Cross was instituted by George VI specifically to reward civilians for bravery in the Second World War (as the Royal Warrant shows) and so, for Mr Smith to claim otherwise suggests he has no idea of the UK's Honours System! Oh dear.

Another example of this breathtaking lack of knowledge came over the summer, when Mr Smith (again) wrote (http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=9):

"The ships could also be named after virtues or values we place some importance in, such as Valour or Victory."

Now, as a select few people know, there already is a ship in the Royal Navy named HMS Victory. A First Rate ship of the line, in fact, and one of Chatham Dockyard's finest products. Does Nelson's flagship ring a bell (or eight, in fact, if you'll pardon the awful nautical joke)? The big black and yellow thing down at Portsmouth Harbour? No? Ah well. Nelson did supposedly say that you should consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of the King, so I can quite understand why Mr Smith does not dare to venture so far. Be wary of what they say: if the Royal Navy's most famous warship and the nation's highest civilian decoration are beyond their competency, does their anti-monarchy rhetoric possess any credence? It must be considered carefully and analytically, certainly, for fear of their letting slip another embarrassing gap in the knowledge base of their pressure group's key people...

Irony there...

Just been reading "Imagine", Republic U.K.'s free quarterly issue of toilet paper (although I prefer something more regal, in all honesty). Amongst their features was a report on their attendance at Levellers' Day in Burford (Oxon.). Although it was mentioned briefly in the article, it seems to have escaped the thought (not that they think, but anyway...) of Republic's hierarchy that Levellers' Day marks the execution of three soldiers by Cromwell. Now, who was Cromwell? Was he a King? Was he acting on the orders of a King? No sir. He was the "alternative" to the monarchy...

Republic evidently likes to portray itself as being "on the ball" and capable of dealing with monarchists effectively but it's worth noting that I sent an e-mail to the Republic Scotland (which, by the way, is a joke: evidently they don't have enough supporters either way to be able to take a strongly unionist/nationalist independence line, continually having to stress that they aren't concerned with that) head honcho (El Presidente) on 23rd April concerning whether or not they had figures for support for a republic in Scotland and they haven't yet obliged me with a reply even stating that they don't have any. I await with glee their proposed re-launch of their website later this year: clearly, the Republic "brand" hasn't been working quite as effectively as they would have liked...

I also see some more stupid arguments. There's one about no human being ever having to bow or curtsey to another (there goes my respect for Mark Haddon, such as it was). I ask, wouldn't you still have to probably do that to a president? There's also another one about Prince Harry and how pulling him out of Afghanistan was wrong. I ask the author, if one of George Bush's daughters or even one of Tony Blair's children joined their nations' respective armed forces and was deployed to Afghanistan, would similar conditions to those placed around Harry's deployment exist? I certainly think so. A president's - or even a Prime Minister's- children are as much potential terrorist/enemy high-value targets as a monarch's...

I also note that the BBC's supposed pro-monarchy bias (for goodness' sake, the series about the Royal Family was, well, about the Royal Family! Do they expect a programme about cleaners to include people complaining about the bourgeoisie oppression of the working cleaner?) extends to the BBC allowing them airtime concerning Lord Goldsmith's proposals to introduce an Oath of Allegiance, an offer which Republic seemed more than happy to accept.

Just a quick note...

...to say that there in all probability won't be any updates to this weblog until at least early May (or maybe later). It's a shame, really, 'cause the 20th of April is the 40th anniversary of Enoch Powell's controversial "Rivers of Blood" speech (whilst that has nothing to do with monarchism, his comments on the divisibility of the Crown during the passage of the Royal Titles and Styles Act 1953 are in stark contrast to some monarchists' comments to-day and worth reading), the 21st is Her Majesty the Queen's actual birthday and the 23rd is St. George's Day, whereupon we'll find out about the next appointments to the Order of the Garter. A crying shame that I'll miss it all but there's no choice in the matter. Still, I may be able to snatch the odd moment or two to comment elsewhere, so it's not all doom and gloom...

That Ruddy man...

Kevin "The Dentist" Rudd, it seems, has reiterated his support for Australian becoming a republic, only a few hours before meeting with his Sovereign. The Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald and the (British) Daily Telegraph (amongst others) have all carried the story, the Telegraph in particular having a rather wailing and pessimistic tone about the 1999 referendum failing because of the poor choice of model (ahem, it was the republicans' choice of model, so they only have themselves to blame!) and about support in the young for Her Maj' diminishing. The Telegraph's balderdash aside (why must it carry such nonsense? Could the author, Andrew Pierce, only be bothered to visit republican websites?), Mr. Rudd's little outburst strikes me as being rather rude. However politely phrased it was (although how can someone be a "lifelong" republican? I'm not even a "lifelong" monarchist...), the idea of complaining about your present ruler in front of the national press seems to be ill-timed and unowrthy of someone who would claim himself to provide services as a great international statesman for Australia. Can you imagine if, say, Bertie Ahern expressed his preference for ditching Mary McAleese? The press would have a far greater field day and, I suspect, such a public insult could result in the downfall of either or both of them. And yet Rudd expresses his will - in public - to drop Her Maj' and stays in office, no real comment about it. Ironically, it seems he has exposed one of the advantages of having a monarch: Her Maj' isn't going to go against the will of the people in sacking Mr. Rudd simply because he said unkind things about her.