Vice-Regal Saint: Sir Edmund Hillary Lies in State
The Queen of New Zealand will grant the family of Sir Edmund Hillary the special honour of a memorial service in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle this April, an extremely rare gift as far as these things go. This on top of being honoured with a State Funeral, now currently underway in Auckland. All for Sir Ed.
The Daily Telegraph: Lewis Holden "quick to cash in on controversy"
But nevermind all that, apparently emotions are running high in New Zealand, given the absence of any Royal at the funeral, and now the republican movement is suggesting the Queen is not fit to be New Zealand's head of state. The Daily Telegraph is even reporting that our dearly beloved Lewis Holden, "was quick to cash in on the controversy". Quick to cash in, eh. Lewis? Kaching!
Royal 'snub' over Sir Edmund Hillary Funeral
Emotions are running high since the death of Sir Edmund, the man whom many New Zealanders identify as their national figurehead.Wow. Nothing like taking advantage of a high profiled funeral to further your cause. Nothing like cashing in big. Sir Ed was a loyal subject and a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter for Pete sakes. Why are they playing politics with this humble and loyal man's passing? For shame!
The New Zealand Herald, the biggest-selling newspaper, broke the news under the headline "Royal family snubs Sir Ed."
It noted that Sir Edmund's conquest of Mount Everest was proclaimed on the morning of the Queen's coronation in 1953.
"The Everest expedition was a British one, and Hillary's success was claimed as a huge triumph for Britain," the paper said, with more than a hint of resentment.
It added Sir Edmund was one of only 24 Knights of the Garter.
When the Herald invited readers to add their comments to its website, it was deluged with replies, mostly critical of the announcement from Buckingham Palace that the Queen would be represented by the Wellington-based Governor-General, Anand Satyanand.
"An appropriate response to the royal family not making themselves available to attend Sir Ed's funeral would be to make New Zealand a republic," wrote "Used Royalist (Dunedin)" in a reply typical of many.
Brendon Verry of Wellington said: "If they don't come it shows how little they mean to our country. The sooner we cut this colony tag and ties to a dying fraternity called the royal family the better."
"Peter" of Auckland offered: "Only a few days ago I was against any discussion about being a republic. The passing of Sir Ed is the start of a new era. Republic it needs and must be."
While from Britain, Ian Bennett, of Swaffham, Norfolk, commented: "Sadly the Queen's advisers have got it wrong again! How the Palace can stay aloof now beggars all description. If they were advocating republicanism in New Zealand through their remote aloofness they could not have done it better."
Aside from the website, New Zealand's Republican Movement was quick to cash in on the controversy. Lewis Holden, the chairman, said: "The absence of the royal family shows plainly they are not able to do the job for New Zealand.
"Sir Edmund Hillary's funeral is precisely the kind of occasion for which a New Zealand head of state would appropriately express the feelings of the New Zealand people."
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
8 comments:
It was stupid for no Royal to go. The Queen probably couldn't handle the flight. But Charles should have gone.
Still, stupidity neutralised by the unstoppably crass workings of the republicans. Yes! Let's strike a blow for Sir Edmund Hillary by erasing from our land every last inch of an institution he served loyally, and which returned the glory many times over.
It must blow up in their face, surely. I would encourage any NZ residents here to write letters to the 'news' papers involved to help refute the republicans nonsense.
Of course its quite likely that if the Palace had immediately announced the attendance of a senior Royal, the Replublicans would have derided their insensitive intrusion into the grief of the New Zealand nation.
As for the fair weather Monarchists reported in the article, their commitment to their Monarch is only as deep as the ability of 80 year old lady to drop everything and fly half way around the world. Some commitment!
I don't think Noel Cox is quite on the mark with his comments about members of the Royal Family attending funerals: Prince Andrew attended the state funeral of Pierre Trudeau.
That said, have they been to any funeral besides those of relatives, heads of state, or the Queen's prime ministers? As great as Sir Ed. was, is he in any of those categories?
This is just more one-liner, nationalist poo-pooing by the weak-kneed, self-appointed downtrodden victims of an imagined subservient placement. Yes, I mean republicans. Who else, indeed, would take advantage of a state funeral to further their cause?
It reminds me of Citizens for a Canadian Republic's pathetic hijacking of International Human Rights Day to convince Canadians that the monarchy was a violation of human freedoms and thus needed to be abolished. It was a joke.
Sad to see such sentiments, but one can't help but feel that there is a kernel of truth in what they say. If the personal union is to survive, it will depend on just such a sensitivity to the feelings of people in all HM's realms.
Cato
Cato-
That may well be the case, but it's up to the ministries to advise the monarch on the feelings of the people in her realms. If there's no royal in attendance at this funeral it's because Helen Clark didn't advise the Queen to send someone.
Of course, that doesn't enable the royal haters to gripe that a member of the Royal Family is not using his or her own personal funds to be present at a state event - with private security, of course - but it's the truth.
The Australian Monarchist League Inc.
When I travelled to various parts of the World in 1999 to speak with Australian expatriate groups regarding the referendum on a republic, Icame to realise that our fight in Australia was a part of a larger offensiveagainst our form of democracy under The Crown.
Whilst, admittedly, the checks and balances we value so much are being constantly thwarted by the machinations of our politicians, The Crownstill presents an impediment they must remove if they, and whoever are their masters, are to attain total supremacy over the instruments of our Governments.In the United Kingdom, the threat comes from the Treaties itspoliticians, through Her Majesty's Parliament, have enacted with the European Union. InAustralia, the Labor Party, whose policy is to reform the
Australian Constitution
into an independent republic (Objective 3-m), now control all our Federal and State Parliaments.
Over recent years, republican groups have been established in those nations under The Crown (42 in the United Kingdom alone), most of which are giving support to the Australian Republican Movement whose purpose is to bring about a republic in Australia. They all know that should this occur, it will have a domino effect in New Zealand, Great Britain and potentially in Canada itself.
This has motivated us to work towards establishing one or more Branches of the Australian Monarchist League in Canada as well as in the United Kingdom. The purpose of these Branches will be to aid us in our endeavours to
retain The Crown in Australia and the democracy it protects and to
specifically provide assistance in the form of expertise, particularly in our internet promotion, and in funding our increasing general campaign expenses.
The Australian Monarchist League is an Incorporated Association. Major contributions are managed by the Monarchist Foundation, the Trustees of which are prominent businessmen, including the former Chairman of a bank, and the Managing Director of a major investment company. Assisting us in
the formulation of our campaign policy are several former Cabinet Ministers in the recent Federal Government.
May I therefore ask you to give consideration to helping us establish a Canadian Branch and, if you agree, to perhaps taking part in a Committee? It would also be appreciated if you could forward this message on to others whom you know to have an interest in Australia and whom you think would
be supportive of our efforts.
With regards
Philip Benwell
National Chairman
Australian Monarchist League
-------
...Hello; I support your endeavour wholeheartedly. It is an idea whose time has most certainly come. I "personally" are contemplating the notion of "The Monarchist Party of Canada" (the M.P. Party). It would be a most liberal party who spoke from the heart (middle of the left-wing), but would govern "practically" and sensibly from the centre (not too left, not too right) but conscientiously. It would be a party whom spoke "directly" from our Constitutional Monarchist and Ancient tradtions (The Common Law, etc.). I at one time proposed such a move to Canadian Monarchist ONLINE. They, at the time, were indeed interested. I am still musing.
http://pages.interlog.com/~rakhshan/pmain.html
*********
The People's Monarchist Party is a political party in Portugal. It was founded in 1974 by various groups opposing the Estado Novo, in the context of the Carnation Revolution. It is a small Monarchist party with little political support. It is known that the claimant to the Portuguese Throne, Dom Duarte Pio, does not support this party.
The party currently has two representatives in the Assembly of the Republic, elected on the lists of the Social Democratic Party, following an agreement with the latter party's then-leader, Pedro Santana Lopes.
The party had not been elected on its own since the dissolution of the Democratic Alliance, of which it was a part, and seldom reached 0.5% of the votes. Nevertheless, under the leadership of Gonçalo Ribeiro Telles (who has since retired from the party), the party was a pioneer in introducing ecological concerns into Portuguese politics.
http://www.ppm.pt/index.php
*********
< In 1373, Portugal made an alliance with England, which is the longest-standing alliance in the World. The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance between England (succeeded by the United Kingdom) and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the World which is still in force. It was signed in 1373. This alliance, which goes back to the Middle Ages, has served both Countries. It was very important throughout history, influencing the participation of the United Kingdom in the Iberian Peninsular War (the United Kingdom's major land contribution to the Napoleonic Wars), among other things. >
F.Y.I.: Monarchist Victory...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/22/ot-queen-080122.html?ref=rss
Military Staff must pledge to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II: Court
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | 11:59 AM ET
CBC News
A Canadian Army Captain has lost his fight to be exempt from requirements to display Loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Captain Aralt Mac Giolla Chainnigh's Appeal was struck down by a Federal Court Judge on Monday.
"Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh likes it or not, the fact is that Her Majesty The Queen is his Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State."— Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes
Mac Giolla Chainnigh, who lives in Ottawa and teaches physics at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., was trying to overturn a decision by Gen. Rick Hillier, Chief of Canada's Defence Staff.
That decision denied Mac Giolla Chainnigh's petition to be exempt from drinking to Her Majesty The Queen, Saluting the Union Jack, or singing God Save the Queen when they represent Loyalty to Canada.
Mac Giolla Chainnigh argued that soldiers who don't believe in Monarchy shouldn't be forced to say things they don't believe.
But Justice Robert Barnes dismissed those arguments, ruling that Hillier's decision was "correct in Law and reasonable" under the National Defence Act, which establishes the Canadian Forces as the Armed Forces of "Her Majesty."
Under the Act, disloyalty to Her Majesty The Queen carries a Penalty of seven years Imprisonment.
'Profound disrespect and rudeness'
"Whether Capt. Mac Giolla Chainnigh likes it or not, the fact is that Her Majesty The Queen is his Commander-in-Chief and Canada's Head of State," Barnes wrote in his 27-page decision.
"A refusal to display Loyalty and Respect to Her Majesty The Queen where required by Canadian Forces' Policy would not only be an expression of profound disrespect and rudeness, but it would also represent an unwillingness to adhere to Hierarchical and Lawful Command Structures that are fundamental to good discipline."
Mac Giolla Chainnigh first filed a grievance over the Loyalty displays in 2001, arguing that they were politically offensive and in conflict with his personal views.
He told CBC News that he has no problem Saluting Her Majesty The Queen or the British Flag when they represent the United Kingdom.
"When they are purported to represent Canada, then I take exception," he said.
The Canadian Forces' use of symbols of British aristocracy is out of step with Canadian values of democracy and equality, he argued, and soldiers who don't believe in Monarchy would rather give their allegiance to Canadian symbols.
Mac Giolla Chainnigh said he wants to Appeal the Federal Court decision, but can't afford to.
Class-action suit in the works
However, a Toronto Lawyer is leading a similar fight, which she bills as the most serious legal challenge yet to the use of Monarchist loyalty tests.
Kike Roach is representing 18 people barred from holding office, entering the legal profession or earning Citizenship because they refused Oaths of Loyalty to Her Majesty The Queen in a Class-Action Lawsuit.
"How are we going to modernize the Canadian state? Are we going to continue to be just some kind of colonial outpost for the rest of our lives?" she asked.
In his ruling, Barnes agreed there were some questions on the topic worth asking.
"Whether it is wise for Canada to maintain its linkages to the British Monarchy is a matter for debate and resolution in the political sphere," he said. "But the fact remains that our present ties to the British Monarchy are Constitutionally entrenched and unless and until that is changed there is legitimacy within our institutional structures for demanding, in appropriate circumstances, expressions of respect and Loyalty to the Crown."
************
The Monarchy of Canada, also known as the Canadian Monarchy, is a System of Government in which a Hereditary Monarch is the Sovereign of Canada, holding the position of Head of State; the incumbent is Elizabeth II, officially called Queen of Canada (French: Reine du Canada), who has Reigned since February 6, 1952.
The Fathers of Confederation viewed this system of Constitutional Monarchy as a bulkwark against any potential fracturing of the Canadian Federation. The Canadian Crown is sometimes colloquially dubbed "the Maple Crown," a term first coined by Governor General Lord Grey in 1905, when he stated about his inauguration of Alberta and Saskatchewan in a telegram to King Edward VII "[each one] a new leaf in Your Majesty's Maple Crown."
The Supreme Court of Canada found in the 1980 case Attorney General of Quebec v. Labrecque that Civil Servants in Canada are not contracted by an abstraction called "the state," but rather they are employed by the Monarch, who personifies the state (see below) and "enjoys a general capacity to contract in accordance with the Rule of Ordinary Law." This situation is similar for the Governors, Judges, Members of the Canadian Forces, Police Officers, and Parliamentarians, who all technically work for the Monarch. Hence, these people are required by law to recite the Oath of Allegiance, which is to the Canadian Sovereign, before taking their posts. However, the 2003 Public Services Modernization Act ended the requirement of civil servants to swear allegiance to the Queen. Also, by the Citizenship Act, new Citizens also must swear allegiance to the monarch in the Oath of Citizenship, in reciprocation to the Sovereign's Coronation Oath, wherein he or she promises "to govern the Peoples of... Canada... according to their respective Laws and Customs."
Despite the length of service, it was not until October 2002, when the term Canadian Royal Family was first used publicly and officially by a member of it: in a speech given to the Nunavut Legislature at its opening, Queen Elizabeth II stated: "I am proud to be the first Member of the Canadian Royal Family to be greeted in Canada's newest Territory." Still, the Canadian Media often still refers to the Royal Family as the British Royal Family.
The Sovereign's position and role in the military is reflected by naval vessels bearing the prefix Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) – His Majesty's Canadian Ship during the reign of a king – and all members of the Armed Forces must swear allegiance to the Queen and her heirs and successors. Members of the Royal Family are also Colonel-in-Chief of many Canadian Regiments. As such, members of the Royal Family have presided over many military ceremonies both abroad and at home, including Trooping the Colours, inspections of the troops, and anniversaries of key battles; whenever the sovereign or a member of her family is in Ottawa, they lay a wreath at the National War Memorial.
"The Crown is an integral part of a practical form of Government, and as such it has a direct and substantive part to play in the lives of all Canadians."
—David E. Smith, The Invisible Crown, 1995
Post a Comment