Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Monday, 4 February 2008

We are all equal under the Crown

By David Byers (Convenor of ACM in Country, New South Wales)

When Australians for Constitutional Monarchy first formed in 1992, our then Convenor Lloyd Waddy QC would often use the phrase “We are all equal under the Crown”. I love that saying as it sums up the best part of Monarchy:

If you are a homeless man living in the park, you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

If you are a working person bringing up a family, you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

If you are a wealthy business man with millions of dollars, you are no better than anyone else because you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

If you are someone who likes to tell others how great you are, because you when to a private school, you have no more rights than the homeless man because you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

If you are some Lord this or that, you are still a commoner and, you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

You might be a University Professor who thinks he is smarter than most but you are not better because, you are a subject of the Queen with all the rights a subject has under the Crown.

This is something people in republics miss out on. Without someone inheriting the highest office in the land by accident of birth you are left with the shameless self-promotion of the self- appointed betters. The Crown is for us all, it represents us all, not just some élite. By leaving it to the accident of birth we leave it to something greater than us. The Crown teaches us that we all have worth and a role.

Lloyd Waddy used to say something else I liked and that was; “God in his heaven, The Queen on her throne and a vigorous life”

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

32 comments:

Scott said...

It grants equality, but it does not equalise - it does not level - it raises and dignifies every soul in the land, and provides an ideal within which to live, rights upon which to depend, and duties and encouragements to excel to the best of one's ability and the gifts of Providence.

Prisoners are of course detained or executed at Her Majesty's pleasure. Governments are held in her name. The Crown commands the armed forces. It touches everyone and everything.

And yet, we are some of the freest people on earth. It benignly fills the void that the state, and totalitarian government, would dearly love to grasp for itself. It acts as a splendid buffer, and natural defense.

Neil Welton said...

Succinctly and beautifully put, Scott.

The Crown grants equal responsibilities and rights but it cannot equalise because everyone is different - an individual who has been created unique.

If it did equalise how on Earth do you explain income differences, occupation differences and (dare I say it) educational differences? In turn these differences, by their nature, create a ranking and a natural social hierarchy. Some people are above other people in that ranking by virtue that they earn more, know more or hold a related social rank. Just take a look at the Army or your local police force. They are all soldiers or policemen - but with different ranks and positions. They are not the same. One is better than another.

If you feel unwell you go to your doctor, not a binman. This means the doctor is "a cut above" the binman when it comes to medicine. In the same way you can argue that the educational achievements of private schools are a cut above those of the state sector. Nobody should have a problem with this. Being a cut above simply means being superior or better than someone else - it is what happens in the real world.

If everyone was the same life would be very boring indeed. If everyone was the same society, and the necessary social order, would also collapse. Thus the Crown grants only a legal equality - not a social one.

David Byers said...

Poor old Neil, missing the point again, there are different roles on earth not “I’m better than you” childishness. Some roles have greater responsibility, others greater skill. It is not about levelling people as in some sort of Socialist “utopia”, it is about the dignity of all the Queen’s subjects under the law. Some people can be described as “ordinary” because of their roles in life but not worse or better based simply on that. That said one can describe a person as better or worse based on their behaviour.

Neil Welton said...

Enough of the "old". :-)

"That said one can describe a person as better or worse based on their behaviour."

I think that was my point.

"Some people can be described as 'ordinary' because of their roles in life but not worse or better based simply on that."

Nobody here has suggested otherwise.

Neil Welton said...

Hey, I've just realised something.

David didn't include Muslims on his long list of subjects who are socially equal.

:-)

The Monarchist said...

Where's your ACM heading, Byers? Don't look to T.M to do it for you.

The Monarchist said...

There are only two types of true equality: equality before the law, and equality before the Almighty, as Prince or beggar lie on their death bed waiting for the inevitable. Some republicans think there is such a thing as "political equality", which is an asinine and false notion, given that the vast majority do not have the ability, nor the pretentious inclination towards power as the politics of ambition requires. The monarchy is useful in that it denies the self-aggrandizing "man of the people" sort from lording it over us.

David Byers said...

OK, Beaverbrook, I hear you I will put the title I just thought you had some programme as it seemed to me to be just popping up.

Also, and I'm not being silly, I would prefer you called me Mr Byers or David or David Byers but not just the last name by itself. I have never liked that. :)

David Byers said...

Neil, Muslims are offered equality before our laws in the same way a communist is, does not mean we have to support the spread of their beliefs.

Neil Welton said...

Oi, Byers... :-)

...after reading your rants I'm just glad you accept that they "have worth and a role".

Scott said...

I'm rather sympathetic to Byers, to be honest. On top of well-reasoned, sober-minded articles such as the following -

http://tinyurl.com/yubucn

- there remains the unique sort of barking mad Islamic crassness we see almost weekly now. At the moment that'd be the Bishop of Rochester warning about Islamic takeovers of certain city and county quarters, and enusing no-go areas. In protest of these apparently hateful comments, dozens of Muslims issued death threats to him. Brilliant.

This is not the Britain any of us signed up for.

Scott said...

That tinyurl link pdf isn't very good. The article - published in Roger Scruton's Salisbury Review - can be found here too:

http://tinyurl.com/2bzjl4

Neil Welton said...

I wouldn't worry too much about death threats. People in public life receive them all the time - for the most ridiculous of reasons. It is a matter of whether you then decide to make those death threats public - and what is your reasoning (some would say motivation) for so doing. In this case only The Bishop of Rochester can explain that. In my experience the authorities always advise you to keep any death threats private. By choosing to go public you only make a sensitive situation worse - by creating more social tension rather than diffusing it. The fact Scott has raised it here makes my point.

Scott said...

I realise people in the public eye do receive death threats some of the time.

However: not historically, and certainly not in the Britain of old.

And this case is rather different, given certain Muslims' oft-stated, oft-enacted eagerness to kill or harm those they dislike. Their very religion, with the fatwa and sharia and all that nonsense, encourages it; and time after time they have consumated it. If there were groups or societies of subjects - the Scouts, say - who were regularly posting death threats to those they found offensive, and had once or twice blown themselves up on public transport, or filmed beheadings, to express this, I think I'd take any correspondence from their office rather seriously indeed.

David Byers said...

Scott, you make some very valid points indeed. One ex-Muslim says "if a Muslim makes at threat, take it very seriously", have you had a chance to look at some of these websites by ex-Muslims?

Neil Welton said...

You two are not very bright.

Why would someone who believes in an afterlife be worried about a death threat?

:-)

David Byers said...

Neil, you are truly a fuck-wit what a stupid thing to say. Would you like to see loved ones killed by Muslims on the basis of what you have just said. People should not be sent early to their afterlife because of dickhead killers. Murder is against God’s law.

Your photos shows you with a stupid smug look. You love word-play but not truth. No wonder the Monarchy is in trouble in Wales with some like you leading it. Should I pass on the smug remarks you have just said to some of the victims family who have suffered at the hands of Muslims?

Viscount Feldon said...

It's nice to see that polite debate is still in vogue...

Stauffenberg said...

Erm. (to quote Scott from a different post)

Approving nod to Viscount Feldon over there at Government House.

It is remarkable how the Islam issue keep popping op up here and there on this blogspot. I didn't expect it when reading about the Prince of Wales and China, and I was a bit baffled to see it infiltrating here. Fair enough, as it is an issue people have opinions about.

For the record, I tend to favour Scott's view and have been inclined that way for a while since my first stay in Manchester. And despite my belief in an afterlife, I wouldn't want this one to be terminated prematurely courtesy of this or that extremist. But that is not the reason for posting right now.

I just have a nagging feeling that the exchange has become a bit, well, unbecoming. Couldn't people just agree to disagree after points were exchanged and compliments paid?

There shouldn't be too much room for jocular condescension, nor for overly robust appraisals of opponents. It is a pity former Madam Speaker,Miss Betty Boothroyd, now Baroness B. of Sandwell, could not be parachuted in to call gentlemen to order on all sides.

Scott said...

Well said stauffenberg.

Or as we might say under Madam Speaker's benign rule, "here, here".

I'll just summarise and conclude, and take my seat upon the red benches:

I do not believe there can be much doubt that Islam, in various forms and feelings, presents both a cultural, legal and mortal threat to Western democracies.

I have yet to see anything other than wishful thinking which says - and seriously believes -otherwise. I would be willing, believe me, to be persuaded.

Neil Welton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Welton said...

I think you'll find it's "Hear! Hear!".

I wouldn't want you to feel completely out of place in The House of Lords, Scott. :-)

I can't believe it - all this fuss over little old me.

You've all made my day.

Now, please, all go and lie down and take deep breaths.

David Byers said...

Neil dear fellow, sorry for being so upset but you must be careful making jokes about the deaths of people due to terrorist attacks. Try to be humble.

Lord Best said...

While I do not believe Islam in general, or atleast, Muslims in general are a threat to the West, the obvious depth of feeling so many in the West have about the issue warrants serious attention. I personally think it may be for the best if Islamic migration to Britain and Europe ends, as if things continue the way they are going it will end poorly for everyone involved.

David Byers said...

Lord Best, I can remember someone writing to the host of one of those many ex-Muslim websites, I’m always going on about, expressing the view that there should be an all out war against every Muslim nation, however they felt ashamed saying this as they had met with people who were Muslims that he admired. The host of the website said something very wise – he explained that you fight the extremist with war, as there is no other way with them but you fight the others with reason and logical debate. The moderator of the website expressed the view that middle-eastern people were kind hearted folk, at heart, but were captive of an evil belief system, that many of them did not understand.

It is NOT a racial issue, it is a battle of ideas that the west and people who love freedom must win. For a long time I had hoped that Islam was good deep down and we all had it wrong but having read the arguments of the ex-Muslims, who know it so very well, I am now convinced that it is a belief system that will always be vulnerable to very violent interpretation, and indeed that would be the more true interpretation of it. Even His Holiness the Pope has said “Islam is not compatible with Western democracy”. I am the first to say that Australia has benefited from the different range of people who have come here after the Second World War but the Muslims are different and they themselves say as much. You decision in saying the Muslim immigration to the UK must stop would have been a very hard one, and I appreciate that, but sometimes we need to make hard decisions.

Lord Best said...

Well, it was not that hard. If it is hurting the West it should end, even if it is not mainstream Islam that is doing the damage, rather fundamentalist Islam and our own politically correct left. The simple fact is Islamic ghettos in Western cities are causing problems, and these problems must be resolved. They will not be resolved if we keep dumping more and more Muslims into them!

Scott said...

I would also like to add that it is one of *many* grave problems facing us. There are numerous other forces arrayed against our peace and continuity - the EU, the Labour desecration of our institutions, etc - which I would say warrant just as much, or more, concern.

Neil Welton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Neil Welton said...

Thank you David for your moot point about humbleness. I don't think anybody could deny that you have a great sense of humour. Talking about having a sense of humour - I'm sure you will be pleased to learn I accept your apology.

However, I think you'll find that I was not making jokes about the deaths of people due to terrorist attacks. I was merely commenting on death threats and how, rather than make them public, it is perhaps best to view them. My only mistake was assuming you would appreciate that. I was quite surprised that you didn't.

I think it might help debate here if you focus on what is actually said - as opposed to what you want to be said.

As I said originally, the greatest threat is not from Muslims or from people with different cultures or beliefs - but from people whose minds are closed.

Nothing here, apart from the insights of Lord Best, has really changed my own private views in this regard. Indeed, the comments from some are a revelation.

David Byers said...

Neil, here is what you said that upset me:
"You two are not very bright.

Why would someone who believes in an afterlife be worried about a death threat?

:-)"

Whitch in effet is telling people who have lost loved ones "don't worry about it and if you do your sill" And putting a smiley face at the end of it does not make it OK.

Sometimes being funny and scoring points should come second to respect.

Neil Welton said...

Oh, I see. Why didn't you say earlier? We do appear to have got our wires crossed! I wonder how that could have happened. I think it must be my poor joke telling again.

As I said I was merely commenting on death threats (those you receive through the post) and how, rather than make them public and stir up public tension, it is perhaps far better to laugh at them and to view them philosophically. Hence the gag concerning The Bishop.

You appear to be reading something into my joke that I did not intend and, if honest, I still can't quite see it.

I must say that I've found this whole discussion a great revelation - especially your delight at the comparison of Archbishop Desmond Tutu to a witchdoctor. Anyway, I'm glad we both can agree that "sometimes being funny and scoring points should come second to respect".

Thanks again then for your apology in this regard.

David Byers said...

Neil, I really believe what we have going here is a UK - Australia thing, by that I mean that in that I have always found that people from the UK have a very different idea as to what makes up good and bad manners, to us here in Australia. I find that many in the UK use manners to “keep up appearances” whereas we in Australia use good manners to be nice. I can remember this silly bitch from the UK once saying “I hate Australians, you only have to be talking with one of them for more than five minutes and they will stop you and say – that’s not very nice, you shouldn’t say that – well life not about being nice”.

They, from the little damp island, also think we are crude when it comes to being funny, yet are one of the crudest people in Europe when it comes to their “humour”. My view of Britain, from reading history, is that something changed in the mind set of the people after the Civil War. If you read something written pre-Civil War there is a different more humble aspect to it, yet if one was to read something from that god awful Victorian era there is something I just cannot put my finger on but it is not good. This is not to say that there are not good things still in the UK but because the Australian Crown has its roots in that nation and most people seem to think we have the Crown as some sort of subordinate thing from Britain it makes promoting the Monarchy here extremely difficult. We are very differnt people now, I believe.