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

Thursday, 18 December 2008

Stand Up for Royal Prerogatives!

In these pages we are concerned with the British Crown Commonwealth.

Occasionally, however, arises a situation that seemingly has nothing to do with the British Crown Commonwealth. Such a situation is the situation in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, where the Grand Duke stood up on grounds of conscience against a new euthanasia bill.

The Parliament of the Grand Duchy swiftly acted to vote on a constitutional amendment to change the Grand Duke's power from that of assenting or sanctioning to that of promulgation. We hear, however, that there must be another vote in a few months, either in Parliament or in a referendum.

The situation is sadly a likely scenario of what might happen were the Commonwealth Sovereign to stand up against the will of politicians.

It is the Grand Duke of Luxembourg this time. It may be the Commonwealth Sovereign next time.

There is a petition, where apparently persons of all nations are welcome.

So if one values the Royal Prerogatives, signing the petition, with an optional personal message, in support of the Grand Duke would certainly be a right thing to do. Supporting regal privileges in other realms may give much needed support for the concept of regal privileges as such, which in turn may give support for the concept in the Commonwealth Realms.

Remember also that Queen Victoria was the grandmother of Europe.

22 comments:

Adrian Kidney said...

Uh, no. The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that the legislature has the final say. While I am the most staunch of monarchists, I believe encouraging a rightful Sovereign to block the will of the majority (regardless of whether we or the Sovereign agrees with that majority) is the road to ruin and the fall of monarchs. They have absolute and due freedom to work behind the scenes to block anything they wish, but in public will simply not do.

Lord Best said...

I have to agree with Mr Kidney. The percieved interference of the Crown in the 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia turned the Labour party from monarchists to republicans.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is what would happen if Her Majesty used reasons based on her personal life to stop a bill passed by any of her legislatures. Not only is it what would happen, it's what should happen.

He didn't oppose this bill because it was improperly passed or blatantly unconstitutional. He did it because he simply didn't like it. He made a mistake, and now he and future Grand Dukes for generations forward will pay for it. I will not sign a petition that appears to praise him for throwing away his position to make a stand against politicians (who at one point were the only people thought of when this bill was mentioned, and the only people with anything to gain or lose by its passage).

Bolingbroke said...

I disagree, Gentlemen. Gerald Warner on Luxembourg's pseudo-democracy:

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg rules a country which claims to be overwhelmingly Catholic. There is little evidence of popular support for legalised murder, but parliament has passed this neo-Nazi legislation by 30 votes to 26. That so few people should make life-and-death decisions for so many is striking testimony to how democracy has become the slickest form of tyranny. While people are distracted by economic crisis, the oligarchs impose their will. This time the monarch objected and the parliamentary response has been to deprive him of his veto over legislation...

What is wrong with these "Catholic" monarchs? Why do they not properly confront their subjects with the moral nihilism of what is being proposed, rally them to reject it and, if that is not successful, abdicate definitively and make it plain that if their people want to live in a Fourth Reich, they will not be party to sanitising a sewer with the trappings of Christian monarchy?

Bolingbroke said...

My apologies to Beaverbrook, who was in the midst of posting the above. No need to post, BB!

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Well, "Bolingbroke," if you would like for that quote to wait for the upcoming post, all you need is to delete your comment.

I will return to respond to the other comments.

Beaverbrook said...

That's okay, J.K.B. I have instead included it in the header. I have two more arguments for preserving our monarchy, needless to say, you have touched upon one of them.

Anonymous said...

"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it cannot be murder. This is something that many "pro-life" groups cannot grasp.

Bolingbroke said...

How about legalised assisted suicide then, or legalised state killing. Frankly it's hard to find a nice way of putting it.

Lord Best said...

It is an interesting debate, actually. If one believes in personal freedoms and liberties, can one support restrictions on when a person can die if it is by their own will? On the other hand life is life, and euthanasia laws could quite easily be exploited by unscrupulous heirs of elderly, ill parents and whatnot, putting aside the moral issues.
I am not putting forward a position here, just saying the debate is interesting.

Lord Best said...

From what I understand these laws allow a patient to REQUEST to be euthanised, the request then has to be supported by the patients doctor and judged by a medical panel. Hardly legalised murder. Generally people do not ask to be murdered.

Anonymous said...

A moral civilisation believes in the dignity of every human being from conception to natural death.

Suicide is self murder, and so far it's illegal pretty much everywhere. Generally people do not ask to be murdered, but sometimes they do murder themselves.

Legalising assisted suicide would be a ridiculous and dangerous expansion of civil liberties.

Anonymous said...

I know of few places where suicide, in and of itself, is illegal. Aiding and abetting suicide, yes. Suicide itself, no. Indeed, it would be impossible to prosecute someone for it.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

The whole point of a constitutional monarchy is that the legislature has the final say.

That may be the point of a particular kind of constitutional monarchy, but saying that that's what a constitutional monarchy is all about by definition is going a bit far, Mr. Kidney.

The Principality of Liechtenstein is a constitutional monarchy, and the legislature does not have the final say there.

There was a time when constitutional monarchies had monarchs with real powers significantly beyond what they generally have today. In some of them the Cabinet was even of the monarch's personal choosing. These contitutional monarchies were still called constitutional monarchies.

The percieved interference of the Crown in the 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia turned the Labour party from monarchists to republicans.

Well, "Lord Best," doesn't the Labour Party ideologically believe in the absolute rule of the popular majority? It would hardly come as a surprise then that it would be opposed to the Crown as a real check? Besides, politicians generally don't like being checked.

He didn't oppose this bill because it was improperly passed or blatantly unconstitutional. He did it because he simply didn't like it. He made a mistake, and now he and future Grand Dukes for generations forward will pay for it.

It is said that in a democracy the people get what they deserve. It would be more precise to say that the people get what the popular majority deserves.

It is so often said that it's the politicians who are accountable, and so they should decide the issues.

We so often forget though that the majority of politicians do not necessarily reflect the popular majority.

Even more often, do we forget that popular majority might does not make right. We talk about the accountability of politicos, but almost never about the accountability of the popular electorate.

The late and great Austrian monarchist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote lots of superb material. One of the things he said was that the voter is given total anonymity and has total lack of legal responsibility (for the consequences of his actions at the polls).

We are told to run for office if we don't like the status quo. Convincing the majority is the right thing to do. Well, what if the majority doesn't rally behind you? Then we are told that that's the way it works in a democracy and how it's supposed to work.

What if we don't believe in the majority's right to do whatever it pleases? Well, then convince the majority.

We have here a circular argument.

The problem is the concept that popular majority might makes right. This concept must be rejected.

I will not sign a petition that appears to praise him for throwing away his position to make a stand against politicians

Well, sir or madam, you are of course free not to.

"Legalized murder" is an oxymoron. If it is legalized, it cannot be murder.

I am aware of the philosophy that if a law is passed to allow you to take someone else's life or property, it is not murder or theft. I, however, dissent. As Confucius told us, when words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty.

Lord Best said...

"Well, "Lord Best," doesn't the Labour Party ideologically believe in the absolute rule of the popular majority?"
It does now, yes, predominately because of 1975. Up till then the Monarchist faction was atleast as strong, if not stronger, than the republican faction. At least, that is what I recall reading in an article by David Flint, and I defer to his knowledge on such things.

Lord Best said...

I should say I admire the Duke's decision to take a stand on this matter, and salute him for it. I merely worry about the long term constitutional implications of taking a stand against the executive. I am not sure whether I would want to see Her Majesty take such a similar action, when theoretically we are supposed to vote the politicians out to change such things.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Sir,

It does now, yes, predominately because of 1975. Up till then the Monarchist faction was atleast as strong, if not stronger, than the republican faction.

Then I feel the need to ask how strong the pre-1975 support was. It seems to me that the attitude basically is monarchy is nice, even with powers to the Crown, but if those powers are actually used, then monarchy is all of a sudden bad.

The support didn't stick very deep? At least that's my impression.

I am not sure whether I would want to see Her Majesty take such a similar action, when theoretically we are supposed to vote the politicians out to change such things.

Yes, exactly, theoretically. In practice the world doesn't work quite like it's supposed to work theoretically. Most of us live in the world in practice. That's one major part of the problem. Another major part of the problem is protection of the minority.

I am perfectly aware that the zeitgeist is biased against monarchs who do or say anything significant in opposition to the politicos.

However, I believe we must work to change the zeitgeist. One way of doing this is standing up for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg at this crossroad. It is a golden opportunity. If we don't stand up for the Grand Duke at this occasion, it is pertinent to ask if we ever will stand up.

Anonymous said...

I know this is not strictly relevant to your post, but I thought you might be interested in an article from the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3868700/Labour-MPs-back-separation-of-state-and-Church-of-England.html

The Labour Party in the UK, not satisfied with abolishing hereditary peers et cetera, are now hell-bent on separating Church and State.

Surely meddling with our constitution in this imbecile manner is nothing short of short-sighted, blundering vandalism?!

Augustus said...

Well it seems Hitler must have won the war by the back door,Now we have some of his final solution ideas infecting a spineless europe.
When will people wake.

Henley said...

The Grand Duke's principled reminder of the acountability of elected polticians to wider demands of decency and justice is heroic and splendid. What a shame all heads of state are not as conscientious.

Lord Best said...

Before you start talking about eugenics in Europe, remember eugenics was developed in the United States and even during WWII leading US eugenics experts praised Hitler for actually doing something while they 'pussyfooted around'. A few 'voluntary suicides does not quite equal the thousands upon thousands of forced sterilisations that occured in the land of the free. Let who is without sin, and all that.

Nuno Castelo-Branco said...

Now, the Grand-Duke is in the same position of his uncle from Belgium (Baudoin I) , some years ago, when he was "on strike", refusing to sign the abortion laws. Of course, the King is above the politics, but he must act - sometimes, like this particular matter of life and death- accordingly his conscience. The deputies must to find a way to resume the problem, with a referendum, if necessary. But in any case, to do "chantage" with the monarch. They can have an unpleasant surprise, because the populations knows exactly what is going on. Murdoch's exists everywhere (in Italy this kind of people have a certain name, a very well know theme of Scorsese's movies).

I am Portuguese, officially catholic (not going to church anyway) and I sign the petition: I reject totally the idea of "normalisation" imposed by the fashion of the moment. No way!*



*Sorry for my poor english, please.