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.

Kaka Roach

Thought of the day. I am reminded - too late for the anniversary, unfortunately - that 23rd March last marked the one year since the death of George (born Edric) Browne (obituary here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,2051839,00.html), a Trinidadian singer perhaps best known for his 1953 calypso number, I Was There (At The Coronation), produced to celebrate the Coronation of his Sovereign. It's a wonderful piece, and one of my favourite calpyso numbers, and the 30-second sample on the link in brackets (http://www.last.fm/music/Young+Tiger/_/I+Was+There+(At+The+Coronation) gives a good indication of the piece's nature, including the excellent lines "Then I perceived, in all her glory / The golden coach with Her Majesty" &c. It is a piece that is full of admiration of Her Majesty the Queen and is quite at odds with fellow Trinidadian Charles Roach's complaints that swearing an Oath of Allegiance to Her Maj' is comparable to loyalty to Hitler. Young Tiger's (Browne's calypso name) piece doesn't seem to be bemoaning oppression of black people brought about by a dastardly monarchy, or at least not in the version I've been listening to (you can buy the full version on an excellent CD, "London Is The Place For Me" (volume 1), off Amazon. I particularly like track 4, "The Landlady" and track 6, "Cricket, Lovely Cricket", which is about the first Windies Test Match win in England and makes a couple of pleasant references to HM King George VI.). Sure, the monarchy has perhaps had its darker moments in its 1,600 year history but, then again, most countries and governments - monarchies and republics - have. Moreover, I note section 2.4 of his action: "As a British subject in Canada, the Applicant, on becoming a landed immigrant in Canada, enjoyed the full rights of a citizen for many years." It seems that, until the laws were changed in 1977 or thereabouts, Mr. Roach was quite happy to acquiesce in the evils of the monarchy and the oppression it symbolised, so long as it granted him rights in Canada. The silly old fool, honestly. I know that he hasn't been in the news since February, but remembering Young Tiger's passing reminded me of his more disloyal fellow Trinidadian.

I have the honour to remain Her Majesty's most humble and obedient servant.

God Save the Queen!

P.S. "Kaka Roach" is a particularly delicious reference to a "soca" song by calypso grandmaster Aldwyn "Lord Kitchener" Roberts (several of whose songs, including the aforementioned "The Landlady" feature on the album: "London Is The Place For Me" is the title of a work he performed on the dockside at Tilbury having arrived with the first load of Caribbean immigrants on the Empire Windrush). Look it up on YouTube: note the nationality in the first verse. It could have been written by the late Kitch specifically for use when writing about Mr. Roach! :D I must warn you though that Kitch's gentle humour may offend.

Apologies in advance

Apologies to any visitors who may find that I am now called Frank Barlow and who see pictures of Plumpton racecourse everywhere. It's just for another April Fools' Day joke. Normal service will be resumed shortly, have no fear.

Coming out...

I've been keeping this under my hat, but for some time now I have been wrestling with my conscience. Silly slurs and the like (e.g. see last entry) aside, I have been looking at the more sensible arguments for constitutional change and have found myself in a quandary. I kept on trying to hold on to the old beliefs, hoping against hope that I may actually be able to find some reply. But the republican onslaught kept on coming.

The old saying goes that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Well, dear reader, I have no other choice. I was a fairly pragmatic sort of monarchist, one who defended the Crown out of a belief that it was better than anything else out there, but now that that belief has been shaken to the core I have nothing else to go on. As such, there has been a profound change in my views. I no longer have the "honour" to remain Elizabeth Windsor's "most humble and obedient servant". Instead, I am now a republican.

That's right, a republican. I know it seems strange, but it was, for me, a logical - if difficult - step to take. I for one support the establishment of parliamentary republics, with presidents elected by 75% majorities, thus ensuring that in most Comonwealth parliaments the president has, by default, to have been elected by members of more than one party.

I've now set up a new weblog, http://commonwealthrepublican.blogspot.com/ but am keeping this one up as an archive of the time when I was a fan of all things monarchical...

Well, it was fun whilst it lasted. This was just a little (NZ time) prank because I had nothing better to do with my time. Have no fear, I'm still a dull ol' monarchist...