Vice-Regal Saint: We are not Royal Watchers
What, I go away for a few days and you turn the place into a glossy magazine? When I turned over the keys to you, Palmerston, I did not intend for The Monarchist to be turned into yet another full spread, dripping modern tabloid. We are strictly speaking traditionalists, which means we are monarchists and men, we do not engage in the kind of blissed out vacant servitude reserved for genuflecting, mawkish and limpwristed celebrity watchers. Jesus.
I would not have even mentioned the Peter Phillips wedding, for Mr. Phillips has no royal title or style, and undertakes no public duties on behalf of Her Majesty. We therefore should not care one piddle whiff for his comings and goings, just as we should probably never mention the likes of Sarah Ferguson - oops - or her children, whomever they are, I haven't the foggiest. The lesser royals, the also royals, should not get any truck or trade on this forum, unless they win the Victoria Cross or something. Besides, warning signs should be flashing all over the place when they sell their story to Hello Magazine, so I now feel a little sullied that we reported it here.
Yes, the Queen attended the event, but we don't have to report every family event the Queen puts in a show. Much no wonder Janice Kennedy gets it wrong when she headlines that "Monarchists gush, and the rest of us cringe". We're actually much more coldhearted and culturally oppressive than she thinks, which is why ideally there should be some indication of stuffiness to reported occasions, something that reminds us of a more upright era, such as the Duke of Edinburgh going pheasant shooting or showing up for some bluenosed merriment at the royal yacht club. We're slipping gents - this was the weekend to salute a long dead queen, not get all misty-eyed over a tabloid selling royal wedding.
Posts
1915.jpg){kind=small}
.gif)
.gif)
21 comments:
This was the most important weddings for the House of Windsor since 1999 - how could it go without mention?
Not having a royal title was the choice of his mother - it doesn't mean he's not a Royal.
It's a fine line sometimes, but I have left the post up out of respect for my colleagues.
I would argue that some reference to the wedding might have been acceptable.
There is just the danger of people - deliberately or by accident - misunderstanding monarchism as an ersatz religion for celebrity addicted fruitcakes, glossy magazine subscribers and their ilk.
Methinks a quote from the Court Circular would have served the purpose perfectly.
I was wondering what happened here.
"Aeneas the Younger" made a nice posting on abd about Victoria Day ....
see redtoryglory.blogspot.com for more the sentiments of Victoria Day in Canada.
I think the anonymous poster above is forgetting a fairly significant wedding from 2005. It was only the heir apparent...
Point taken about Peter Phillips' wedding. Though I think it was worth a mention, you make a salient point about being monarchists, as opposed to mere star-sniffers. That being said, there should probably be more mentions of Mr. Phillips' sister, Zara. Also pictures. Lots of pictures. And a petition urging her to divorce that rugby player and marry the first American who volunteers. Incidentally, I volunteer. Cheers!
The whole “bluenosed merriment” and “royal yacht club” stuff is just as stupid as the whole celebrity type reporting. The Crowns role is to provide a non-party political Head of State and reflect the realms in a modern and dignified manner. Otherwise get rid of it!
I disagree with Beaverbrook and Byers. A Royal Wedding and all that medievalist tradition is fair game at the monarchist, and so are all those functions the royals attend. What's so stupid about visiting and toasting the various royal yacht clubs and regiments around the Commonwealth? I think Byers should get his arse out of his head.
Tweedsmuir, The problem with “visiting and toasting the various royal yacht clubs” is that it has nothing to do with day to day lives of people and the role the Crown plays in a constitutional sense. Here in Australia that sort of upper-class silliness damages the Crown. We are a more down to earth people perhaps? I hate all that pomp that the poms go on with!
Byers i too am australian and think the pomp to be great. one of the reasons that this destroys the crown in Australia is that we like to see ourselves as classes and one huge middle class with no room for pomp. we see it as old and conservative something that we should try to rid ourselves of yet i believe that we think that because Australia is in denile, not wanting to belive we have classes.
I think that seeing the crown as purely constitutional is stupid. the crown in Australia is historical, a unifying point, something that shows we have history before 1901 or 1787 or 1770. the crown gives Australia a little pomp and something to aww at and to respect.
remember that the crown (in the sense of the queen) as no real role in Australia as far as the constitution and politics or governing goes. the GG is basicly chosen by the PM. from memory the Australia Act 1986 gives the queen no power in Australia even when she is here, let alone at any other time, privy council appeals were even banished in the Australia Act.
so if we look at the crown from the view you seem to portray it seems that the crown is something to be supported becuase it works with our constitution, something i see as an added bonus. only if the crown played a true role in this country would i support your view, maybe if the PM met with the queen or GG and discussed the running of the country like in Britian.
this is just my view anyway.
either way true the Monarchist is not a celeb mag but does that not mean that occasionaly it can not look at the trashy mag type of stuff ( so long as it does not out number the proper substance that fills this blog)
The Crown means that our Governor-General represents a non-political Monarch ( that is what the Queen does in our system) also the PM sometimes meets with the monarch.
All countries have class, just that Australia is wise enough not to set up a ridged system to tell people where they fit in it. Got it?
Indeed, it is a wicked offence to mention such an atrocious occassion as a royal wedding...but it is quite ok to draw attention to ones own birthday, which of course is completley relevant to the purpose of "The Monarchist"...
Funny, I wasn't aware this was a publicly owned blog, in which Anonymous had a vote as to its content. If I was the owner, I'd insist on the freedom to post whatever I want, as well as the freedom to edit the work of others.
A.k.a "I can do what I want, you can't, so bugger off."
You put it rather too harshly, Tweedsmuir, for I try to present myself as just one opinion among many, unless it's an editorial under "The Monarchist". I was really taken aback (even disgusted that royalty would be so tainted in this way) by the enriching celebrity stunt thru Hello Magazine, which is what, in my eyes, sullied the whole thing. If Her Majesty began selling her stories to The National Enquirer, I don't think I would be able to go on. In that case, I would hand the keys over to one of you gents forever.
Had that not been the case, you're right that weddings, especially royal weddings, are deeply religious and highly medievalist traditions that we should not hesitate to report on.
By the way, if Anonymous is wishing me a happy birthday, whoever I am, then that's grand with me.
Forgive me for no knowing this, but why doesn't Mr. Phillips have a title? Why did his Princess Anne object?
I suppose she wanted him and his sister to live more normal lives, and to be more anonymous.
Beaverbook I fully see your view on this topic and wish to maintain the relevance of The Monarchist. However, a few points have not been mentioned yet (in the wedding story or this string of comments) that could make it rather relevant as a story.
I'll point out that Peter Phillips is the eldest grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip (yes mentioned), and despite not having a royal title, he is 11th in line to the throne. (Not quite top ten, but close)
Ms. Kelly was a Catholic, and she had to renounce her faith or Peter Phillips had to renounce his claim to the throne. Ms. Kelly renounced her faith, and so Peter Phillips has maintained his place in the succession. A modern day effect of the 300 year old Act of Settlement.
Perhaps with those points added in, this piece of news could have been more relevant for The Monarchist.
I also would have added that Autumn Kelly is not the first Canadian to be part of the Royal Family.
From the Young Fogey:
"The Earl of St. Andrews (son of HRH The Duke of Kent) married Canadian Roman Catholic divorcee Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988. Lady St Andrews is currently Director of Studies in History Part I and Social & Political Sciences at St John's College, Cambridge University. She is also a College Lecturer in Social and Political Sciences, and her research focusses on topics relating to History, Social and Political Sciences, and particularly Enlightenment political theory and Conjectural History.
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall can also boast strong Canadian connections as she is a direct descendant of Sir Allan Napier MacNab, Bt., Premier of the Province of Canada, as well as a descendant of various French Canadians."
Sir
You have taken Our Lord's Name in vain, by placing His Name at the end of your critique. Please make a reparatory comment on your blog. A monarchist does not do such a thing.
besides this one slip and indiscretion, your blog is an oasis in a sea of dreary marxist blather.
For your sake and the sake of the blog, may I say, "Sit Nomen Domini Benedictum" in reparation.
Post a Comment