The Monarchist 2.0

Her Majesty the Queen gives a talk on the Imperial State Crown.

The Band of the Grenadier Guards takes part in the Changing the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace, 26 September 2008.

The Band and soldiers involved in Guard Mounting are drawn from one of the five regiments of Foot Guards in the British Army: the Scots Guards, the Irish Guards, the Welsh Guards, the Grenadier Guards and the Coldstream Guards.

Read the full article >>

It was a reign that knew not Royal Assent to Parliament Bill 1911. It was a reign that knew not the Great War, nor the pervasive government of the post-WWI world. It was a reign that knew not the Yekaterinburg slaughter, nor the following millions of Communism’s victims. It was a reign that knew not the Amritsar Massacre. It was a reign that knew not the rise of Nazism. It was the reign of Edward VII.

It was in Marienbad in the Kingdom of Bohemia in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Two Emperors met. The Emperor of India. The Emperor of Austria.

104 years ago today. August 16, 1904. Two days before the Austrian Emperor’s 74^th birthday. It is indeed peace. A war that was to destroy this old order was quite unthinkable.

The Herald [today’s International Herald Tribune] reported:

MARIENBAD: The Austrian Emperor arrived here today by special train at 2.15 this afternoon to formally return the visit paid to him by King Edward at Vienna last year. The King, wearing the uniform of an Austrian field-marshal, and attended by his suite, awaited the Imperial visitor at the station platform. A large crowd thronged the station entrance, and as the train steamed in an enthusiastic cheer was raised. The Emperor, wearing the uniform of a British field-marshal, at once alighted from his saloon, and stepped towards the King, who advanced with outstretched hand. A sensational incident occurred during the drive through town. A woman suddenly threw off her cloak and rushed towards the carriage containing the two monarchs. Before anyone was able to prevent her, she raised her arm and hurled something towards King Edward. The greatest excitement prevailed but the gendarmes quickly seized the woman and led her away. The missile proved to be a letter to King Edward, the contents of which have not been divulged.

His Britannic Majesty was fond of the spa town of Marienbad, a favorite recreational spot, which he frequently visited.

Yes, the Emperor Francis Joseph formally returned a visit in his own Kingdom of Bohemia.

This in our times would be equivalent to Her Britannic Majesty having a favorite recreational spot in, e.g., Bruges in the Kingdom of Belgium, going on a visit to Amsterdam, and it being formally returned by the Queen of the Netherlands to Bruges. This is something quite unthinkable in this day and age. One can only imagine the outcry it would cause in Her Britannic Majesty’s non-residential Commonwealth Realms of a representational residence in a non-Commonwealth country.

Comparing the cosmopolitan Old Order with modern day cries for “national” heads of state does indeed give some perspective.

Read the full article >>

The Imperial State Crown is transported to the Palace of Westminster ahead of the State Opening of Parliament, 6 November 2007.

11am
The actual Queen's speech is scheduled for 11.30am (and for all the pomp and circumstance, it's actually very brief. The emargoed advance copy released to journalists only covers two pages and will barely take 10 minutes to read aloud. Of course, the Queen's copy is actually written on goat skin).

However, already the House of Lords is filling up with peers in their red plumage. Baroness Thatcher shares a joke with Lord McNally.

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has just left Downing Street in his armoured Jaguar to attend the occasion. As well as this being Gordon Brown's first Queen's speech as prime minister, it has an added irony if within it, there is a bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Some of the red-robed peers now seated in the upper chamber may metaphorically be turkeys waiting for Christmas. We pray this will not be the case.

11.03am
First sighting of Her Majesty. Drawn by six grey horses, the Queen and Prince Philip have just emerged from Buckingham Palace.

The Queen has now arrived at the sovereign's entrance of the royal palace of Westminster.

Looking like something from a fairytale, she enters the House of Lords wearing a diamond and pearl encrusted crown...

...which is soon replaced by the purple pomp of the Imperial State Crown.

11.15am
According to the TV commentary, the Princess Royal is in the royal procession, in her official role as "gold stick in waiting".

11.20am
MPs are gathered in the central lobby. The etiquette is that the frontbenchers at least walk into the Lords chamber together in pairs, like Noah's Ark. So Gordon Brown will be shoulder to shoulder with David Cameron, followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequor and his equivalent critic, and so on and so on. By tradition, MPs crowd into the Lords chamber to hear the speech. And, by tradition, the republican Labour backbencher Dennis Skinner remains in his seat in the Commons and shouts abuse at the monarch.

Meanwhile, Black Rod begins his procession up to the door of the Lords chamber - which is slammed in his face. He strikes it three times, and is permitted entry. He requests MPs follow him into the Lords chamber where the Queen is awaiting them.

11.30am
The Queen, hand in hand with her husband, has arrived in the Lords chamber, and the pair are seated on the golden thrones. "Pray be seated," she tells the peers.

11.40am
The action has switched to the Lords, where MPs now crowd into the small amount of standing space around the entrance. Gordon Brown, perhaps conscious the cameras are on him, is chatting and laughing amicably with other MPs. The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, presents the Queen with her copy of the speech, known more formally as Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech or Gracious Address.

"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,

"My Government's central priority is to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, knowing that all else, including economic prosperity and social stability, will be added. "To this end, my Government will honour my Coronation Oath, which was to maintain the laws of God and the True Profession of the Gospel. They will follow the precepts of the Holy Bible, which was given to me to be the rule for my whole life and Government. "My Government will legislate in humility, recognising that God makes the law, not fallible human beings...(you're a better person than I if you feel the need to replace the above with the actual speech)

11.50am
The monarch departs. The Speaker of the Commons plods back to the Commons chamber. MPs, chatting across the party lines, troop back in behind him.

The actual debate on the Queen's Speech, opened by Mr. Brown and Mr. Cameron, begins in the Commons at 2.30pm.

Read the full article >>

SPEECHES FROM THE THRONE, like yesterday's opening of the Canadian Parliament, are important and prestigious state occasions, and as such deserve the pomp and ceremony traditionally associated with them. Ideally this means that the Queen, if present, is enthroned and crowned; the Governor-General is vice-regally sashed in the Windsor uniform; that chief justices of the Supreme Court are wigged and gowned (though sadly in Canada's case, no longer wigged); that speakers and clerks are robed with bar jackets, and bicorned or tricorned as the case may be; it means the Sergeant-at-Arms is adorned with the custody of the ceremonial mace; that military officers are smartly decked out in all their glory and honour: medals, scabbards, swords and all; and the sitting Prime Minister, the first gentleman of Parliament, is formally dressed in his best morning suit.

I can't remember when the last time a Prime Minister wore morning dress. Mackenzie King was the last to wear a frock coat and top hat. Diefenbaker certainly wore his morning suit, as did Pearson and Trudeau after him. If you didn't wear it at every Throne Speech, you certainly did following your first election as Prime Minister, and you certainly did if the Queen was in attendance. But 1977 was the last time the Queen sat on the Canadian Throne (see below, Prime Minister Trudeau wears morning dress with signature rose). Alas, the tradition of the morning coat has given way to a miserly political culture that is always at pains to demonstrate its frugality. Haute couture for the politician is to be avoided at all costs. For them, the imperative is "business as usual".

But state occasions are not "business as usual". They are supposed to be lavish affairs, their purpose and intent being to lift us up from the drudgery of administration, and to remind us that there is something at play here that is greater than our own petty and lilliputian concerns as taxpayers. Prime Minister Harper understands this, which is why yesterday's Speech from the Throne was godly in its invocation: "May your deliberations be guided by Devine Providence, may your wisdom and patriotism enlarge the prosperity of the country and promote in every way the well-being of its people." This is evidence that we still believe in the function of God, and His supremacy over all events throughout our history. But if God, King and Country are all in the room, the least Harper could do is dress for the part.

(Above/below: Prime Minister's Chretien and Martin dress the part in 2000/2004)

Read the full article >>

"I regret this cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty."
- American Senator on Woodrow Wilson's revival of the State of the Union Presidential Address (for 112 years prior to this, the State of the Union was delivered by the President in writing)

The Cato Institute wails:

"A speech from the throne," Thomas Jefferson called it. And as Washington waits for President Bush's sixth State of the Union address Tuesday night, the monarchical metaphor seems as apt as ever.

Jefferson's primary complaint was that our first two presidents chose to deliver their annual messages in person before both houses of Congress - a practice he regarded as "an English habit, tending to familiarize the public with monarchical ideas."

...In contrast, early presidents often struck a note of modesty and self-restraint. After his third State of the Union, Washington wrote that "motives of delicacy" had deterred him "from introducing any topic which relates to legislative matters, lest it should be suspected that he wished to influence the question before it."

Jefferson made the ritual still more humble by delivering his annual message to Congress in writing.

For 112 years, presidents conformed to Jefferson's example, until populist pedagogue Woodrow Wilson delivered his first annual message in person. "I am sorry to see revived the old Federalistic custom of speeches from the throne," one senator lamented. "I regret this cheap and tawdry imitation of English royalty."

Yet Wilson's habit caught on. Most presidents in the 20th century delivered the message in person. And in 1966, Lyndon Johnson moved the speech to prime-time viewing hours, the better to reach a national audience.

Thus the State of the Union has settled into its familiar, modern incarnation: a laundry list of policy demands packaged in pomp and circumstance. And as our presidents have grown more imperial, the tone of the annual message has grown more imperious.

...George Washington most often referred to the office he held as that of "chief magistrate." Modern presidents tend to prefer the title "commander in chief," and at times seem to forget that it only makes them commander of the U.S. armed forces, not commander of the nation as a whole.

...Perhaps it's too much to expect a revival of the humble republican custom initiated by Jefferson. But when Tuesday's ritual is done, one hopes Congress can set about the business of reining in an imperial presidency.

Read the full article >>

Well isn't this good timing. Not a day has gone by since I informed the blogosphere (see post below) that the Queen's Yeomen of the Guard are not the same as the Yeomen Warders, the historic Beefeaters who guard the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London, and we learn the first female Beefeater is about to be appointed in the ceremonial guard's 500 year history to undertake, among other duties, the Ceremony of the Keys ritual.

Ceremony of the Keys:

"In this ceremony the gates of the Tower of London are secured each night shortly before 10.00 pm by the Chief Yeoman Warder escorted by an armed guard of four men. After locking the gates, the Chief Yeoman Warder is challenged by a sentry bringing his rifle into the on-guard position. He allows him to pass after recognising the Chief Warder as the bearer of Queen Elizabeth's keys by saying 'Pass, Queen Elizabeth's keys, and all's well'.

The Chief Yeoman Warder and his escort are met by a ceremonial guard on the Broad Steps near the White Tower, which then presents arms. The Chief Warder concludes the ceremony by raising his Tudor bonnet and proclaiming 'God preserve Queen Elizabeth', to which all present reply 'Amen'. The keys are then carried by the Chief Warder to safekeeping, whilst the Last Post is sounded. The ceremony has taken place over the same piece of ground, in war as well as peace, for about 700 years."

- from Queen's Official Site

Read the full article >>

The "Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard" are a bodyguard of the British Commonwealth Monarch. The oldest extant British military corps, and indeed the oldest military corps in existence in the world today, it was created by Henry VII in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field. As a token of this venerability, the Yeoman still wear red and gold state dress of Tudor style, equipped with a Wilkinson Sword on the left hip, and an eight-foot Partisan carried in the right arm.

History of the Queen's Body Guard

"The history of the Queen's Body Guard can be tentatively traced back to the armed personal guards of the Saxon and Norman sovereigns. However, its real historical origins are found in those who were charged with guarding the Plantagenet rulers of eight hundred years ago. These latter guards however, were known by various designations, such as “Cross Bowmen of the Household,” and “Archers of the Guard of the King’s Body,” and were often created anew by the Monarch on his accession. It was King Henry VII, the first of the Tudor dynasty, to make his Royal Body Guard a permanent institution and confer on it a definite title, a title it continues to hold.

Since its creation as a permanent Corps, the Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard has an absolutely unbroken history of over 520 years; for even during the brief period of The Commonwealth between 1649-1659 it continued to serve with King Charles II during his enforced absence in France, and at the Restoration accompanied him on his return to England, took its historic place in his triumphal entry into London, and stood around him at his immediate Coronation."

- from Yeomen of the Guard's new Official Site

The Yeomen of the Guard are not Beefeaters

The Queen's Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard should not be confused with the Yeomen Warders who are permanently employed as custodians of the Tower of London and protector of the Crown Jewels, a duty the venerable Warders have carried out for many centuries. The Tudor uniform of the Queen's Body Guard and the Yeomen Warders state dress are practically identical, the only apparent difference is a crossbelt which is worn by the Queen's Body Guard and was used centuries ago to support a long barrelled rifle called a Harquebus.

As it states on the bodyguard's website, the present Yeomen of the Guard "no longer carry the harquebus, or a quiver of arrows with the long-bow of by-gone days, or indeed protect the body of the Sovereign in its true meaning, but we are as proud and certainly no less loyal to our Sovereign, because, we are:

The Queen’s Body Guard of the Yeomen of the Guard (The Body Guard)."

Read the full article >>

Thousands of Canadians flew with the RAF and RCAF in the First and Second World Wars, and thousands of them won the Distinguished Flying Cross, many of them still living, yet you can't help feel that news of a young Tommy Canuck winning the DFC for heroic services in the RAF, is diminished today as nothing more than foreign honours by a foreign country for military work in a foreign field.

Even though over 4,000 Canadians have been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross since the Great War (Ace Billy Bishop being the most famous), the DFC is regrettably now only part of the British honours system; Canada, Australia and New Zealand dispensed with it with the modern adoption of their own national honours systems starting in the 1970s. I say regrettably because, apart from the Victoria Cross, our modern military decorations for bravery and valour have no history, and therefore no intrinsic merit. A rather unfortunate situation given the dangerous circumstances in which Canadian Forces and others find themselves operating in today.

When the first Canadian, Sergeant Patrick Tower, was awarded the new Star of Military Valour in the Fall, the second highest military commendation for bravery in the presence of the enemy, it was received by blank stares all around including from yours truly, who should have known better as a graduate of the Royal Military College, but didn't. In my defence, the new decorations for valour didn't come out until 1993, a few years after my formative training. Besides, until Sgt. Tower won the SMV, nobody even heard of it, nobody, including veterans, knew what it was. They still don't. That's because unlike the VC and DFC, there is no instinctive knowledge, no transcendent significance to the order, no inherent value that comes from a long and shared experience. Sgt. Tower is literally in a class all of his own, which is of course to his immense credit, but with nobody to share it with, the brave sergeant will spend a good deal of his time in the Remembrance Days to come explaining to people the significance of the SMV.

Had he won the Distinguished Conduct Medal, he would have joined the legions of veterans in Canada and across the Commonwealth who had also won the DCM; he would have been welcomed into their branch societies; he would have mingled and swapped war stories. In this way, the new rejuvenate the old. The heart of the old veteran warms when he discovers that his caste are not a dying breed after all, that the coming new DCM or DFC holders will eventually take their place. The young soldier in turn glows with pride, having been welcomed into their esteemed ranks. Young and old the generations are linked because they share a heritage, are connected by a common history and a common faith for the future.

The actions of Sgt. Tower is proof that this faith has not been broken, but having left the valour part to our soldiers, it is up to the nation to honour them with more than worthless trinkets. The Star of Military Valour will no doubt hold great personal value for Sgt. Tower, as it should, but there in the SMV hall of honour, he sits alone. Empty. Disconnected from history. A gallantry medal devoid of any past heroic narrative, needlessly separated from the like sacrifices of previous generations. Forgive me if some of us feel just a little underwhelmed.

Beaverbrook (Cross posted to the Torch)

Update: Then again, Britain has also changed their honours system as of 1993. The second highest medal of valour for soldiers on the battlefield is no longer the DCM, but the CGC, the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. So much for my dime novel bunk. The DFC stuff notwithstanding, feel free to carry on without me.

Related: Walsingham, In Defence of Pomp; Pitt the Younger, From Honours to Merit Badges

Read the full article >>

The official notification of Bono's award of a knighthood (something Lennon and Harrison never won despite the latter having been the first to organise a benefit concert) came by way as an email which read:"Hi folks. Please see attached Press release. A statement from the Prime Minister will be on the No10 website shortly. A statement will also be on the U2 website."

Imagine- releasing the news on Bono's website which advertises his CDs and concerts! And just in time for U2's new greatest hits album, 18, which will top the charts by the New Year.

The way the news was broken immediately came under fire from MPs on all sides, who claimed it was final proof of the way Mr Blair has manipulated the honours system for cynical political purposes. MPs have complained that Blair has "cheapened" the honours system FURTHER by trying to shift attention from Iraq. LibDem MP Bob Russell, who represents the Army town of Colchester, said: "This breaks all precedents and is an insult to others who have to wait until next week to have their honours announced. "My town has lost many servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Mr Blair is more concerned about handing baubles to rock stars."

Ex-Tory Minister Ann Widdecombe (aka Doris Karloff) said: "I fail to understand why Bono should be singled out for an early announcement when the honours list is full of people who have worked hard. It is demeaning to them and is a typical New Labour manipulated news stunt." Labour's Andrew Mackinlay said: "I'm amazed at the way anti-establishment rock figures fall over each other to pick up gongs."

For a great piece about this, read Peter Hitchen's Snobbery, sycophancy...and Sir Dog Biscuit KBE.

Read the full article >>

The Sovereign's Parade at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, 15 December 2006

Prince William passed out as a newly commissioned officer at a ceremony which The Queen referred to as a 'mile-stone day'.
His Royal Highness was amongst almost 500 cadets who took part in the parade, including 78 women and 39 cadets from overseas.
Her Majesty, who is Head of the Armed forces, was Reviewing Officer, as she had been at Prince Harry's passing out parade earlier in the year. The ceremony was also attended by The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall.Following the parade, Her Majesty made a speech congratulating the new officers and reflecting on the challenges which lay ahead for them:

For those who are to be commissioned today, and those who will shortly follow, a great deal will be expected of you. You must be courageous yet selfless; leaders yet carers; confident yet considerate.

After the ceremony, The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Princes of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall joined other officer cadets and their guests for lunch in Old College.

Like his brother Prince Harry before him, Prince William will now join the Blues and Royals regiment within the Household Cavalry, as a Second Lieutenant. Princes William and Harry join a long line of members of the Royal family who have served in the Armed forces. Their father, The Prince of Wales, uncle, The Duke of York and grandfather, The Duke of Edinburgh, all had careers in the Navy. The Duke of Edinburgh was present in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese signed the surrender at the end of World War II, whilst The Duke of York served in the Falklands conflict as a pilot.

The tradition of the Sovereign's Parade was begun by The Queen's father, King George VI, who acted as Reviewing Officer at the first parade at Sandhurst in 1948. The Queen has acted as the Reviewing Officer at Sandhurst in 1949, 1965, 1985 and 1991.

Read the full article >>

Part of every June 6 is the Queen's Birthday Honours. It is saddening beyond measure that Labour abolished British Honours and knighthoods in 2000, in favour of the Order of Helen Clark, I mean the New Zealand Order of Merit. Knight Grand Cross of the Noble Order of Saint Michael and Saint George becomes "Member of the NZ Order of Merit." And you don't even get to call yourself a knight, Sir or Dame, just "MNZM" after your name. Underwhelmed? Me too.

The old knighthoods had history, and heritage. They weren't just a merit badge for correct conduct, they were an honour and an obligation. Being a Knight of Saint Michael and Saint George, being called "Sir" and having a coat of arms, all that was more than just window dressing. Being a knight is mixed up with chivalry, honour, tradition and obligation. It is more than the community saying "Well done", it is a way of tying our high achievers into the fabric of the community. Reminding them of their obligations, to be generous, and community-minded. Chivalrous and gentlemanly. We expect Knights to act rightly. And more than that, it was a very public salute to excellence, to kindness and to service. "The NZ Order of Merit" is on the same level as a Scout merit badge. Handy to have. Nice to look at. But not elevated, not a real honour, Not a knighthood.

In abolishing British honours, the government said they wanted to reflect that Sacred cow "The New Zealand identity", to bring a distinctive flavour to the honouring of Kiwis by Kiwis. This, they said, would strengthen the community, and abolish elitism. Oh please. Yet again, this infantile insistence on destroying our inheritance has left the community weaker. It has loosened the ties of affection that unites the Queen and her people, and her people with each other in community. Who cares about the Order of Lenin, I mean Merit? It has no transcendent significance. It has no history, no "Honourable" heritage, and, although it shows the recipient is A Nice Chap, it doesn't remind him of his obligations to the Queen and community that gave it him either. A healthy dose of elitism does no-one any harm. Our best, brightest and kindest deserve more than a gold-plated merit badge. They deserve honour. It is a shame that Labour no longer believes in the concept.

Pitt the Younger (originally posted here)

Read the full article >>

Readers, please find below the text of a letter that I wrote to a Peer of my acquaintance last fall.

My Lord X,

I read today of the findings of a British Parliamentary Committee, which is apparently recommending, to the British Government and Crown, the abolition of (at least Parliament-recommended) knighthoods, and the renaming of the Order of the British Empire, to the Order of British Excellence. I thought it might be of some use or interest to Your Lordship, to hear the opinion of one subject of the British Commonwealth, regarding these recommendations. When we met, we discussed the general subject of peerages and knighthoods, in relation to subjects of former British Empire, and current British Commonwealth, nations. At that time, Your Lordship suggested that, for example, the honour of the Order of Canada, was a satisfactory and equivalent substitution for both peerages and for formerly applied Imperial honours such as the OBE. I did and do not agree with that view, but I did not argue the point at the time. Given these recent developments, however, I feel obliged to speak my mind on the matter. As you are, My Lord, the only British Parliamentarian with whom I have the honour to be personally – if only slightly - acquainted, I hope Your Lordship will forgive my indulgence in advancing my views on this subject. In my defence, let me say that I believe very deeply that this is a matter of the utmost importance - of greater importance, indeed, than is apparently believed by the Parliamentary Committee in question.

I believe sincerely that the ties that bind the nations of the British Commonwealth, have always been and remain of great importance today – if in no other sense than that we share certain, common threats to our security, beliefs and way of life, which compel a unified response – a response that must be animated by a clear knowledge, sense and reflection of our own, shared nature and beliefs. Every nation and every people must subscribe to a history, and a set of principles, which collectively define its substance and which guide its policies and actions. For Canadians, in particular - who by common consent rejected the rather more radical and fundamentally more geographically-rooted tenets of the American Revolution - it has traditionally and always been the institutions of Great Britain and her Crown, which have fulfilled this role; and which have dulled the relative allure of the equally meritorious and more geographically-proximate and -rooted spirit and institutions which have replaced them in the United States. I know from my own family experience that the binding, defining and inspiring power of British institutions has been operative throughout Canadian history, for and with respect to peoples of all geographical and ethnic origins. That power is, in my opinion, indissolubly linked with the pomp & ceremony of the institutions of Great Britain, the British Crown, and their associated grandeur, histories, honours, titles and ranks. This is a critical point, in that it suggests that, if the fact and ceremony of the historical and, particularly, the Royal associations are removed and alienated from these institutions, honours and privileges; they shall cease to have the same meaning and force. I am quite certain that noone in Canada – of any political or other opinion or persuasion – would honestly assign to the Order of Canada, the same fundamental meaning, and sense of honour and gravitas, as to the Imperial honours which it replaced. It therefore follows that the effective abolition of these honours even in Great Britain would have the most undesirable consequences, in terms of a dilution of the impact and intrinsic power, merit and meaning imputed to their replacements.

In a world in which the mutual allegiance of the nations of the British Commonwealth – an allegiance underwritten fundamentally by adherence to a shared set of principles – and the allegiance of Great Britain herself to her own roots, and evolved core beliefs and principles; mattered not at all, these consequences might be considered of little but sentimental weight. However, such is not the world in which we live today. If nothing else, the men and women of our British Commonwealth military forces, who are now engaged throughout the world in difficult and dangerous tasks in our defence, deserve more on which to “hang their hats,” than the potential reward of honours and institutions which are without history and devoid of intrinsic meaning or merit, and which explicitly reject the ties that bind them to their predecessors and counterparts at other difficult and pivotal moments of our common history. I therefore humbly and respectfully urge Your Lordship, should Your Lordship be so inclined, to reject the findings and recommendations of this particular Parliamentary Committee, with all the passion and conviction that Your Lordship can muster.

I remain your sincere and humble servant,

Walsingham

Read the full article >>