The Queen's Christmas Message
Follow this link
We watch this every year and are consistently impressed with our Head of State - who is truly a Head of State, and not a mere "politician." She has lived a life that permits her to take the long-view in the interests of her peoples. Whatever their Faith.
It is best that we heed her guidance.
Best of the Season to you all.
posted by Aeneas the Younger @ 8:39 am
9 Comments
9 Comments:
the queen, eh....?
KEvron
Happy New Year to you too!
Thanks for dropping in!
I still remember her "My annus horribilis year", address ...
Snerd
Aeneas...
This is my first visit to your blog and I'm most appreciative of your recent visits to mine.
I know of you fron your comments on RedTory and I've always been impressed with what you've had to say there. For good or ill I have added you to my blogroll, coincedentally top of the list ( if I find a worthy blog called ACME then naturally your position will slip a bit).
But to cut to the chase as best I can...
Of old, monarchs, kings, were elected--not by universal sufferage of course but by a privileged plebescite (in Europe anyway).
Yet when for instance when Monarchy over-reached the interests of the realm and served itself, the public had it's say in England, in France, in Russia to name a few. As odd as monarchy may seem to many these days, the ideal strikes me as being a costitutional monarchy. The monarch has no direct power under this system but is afforded influence by permission of the populous. This symbiotic realtionship allows the establsihment of a dynasty that overall must be cognicant of a nation's wishes and sentiments. Privilege of course can result in isolation but how that privilege is understood and used is the key factor.
On the whole the notion of "conservatism" seems foolish, if one takes it literally. But much depends on its definition. To conserve what IS, without debate or deflection is to suppress progress. But to conserve what WAS that allowed progress is no bad thing, especially when such conservatism mitigates violent progress.
In my mind coservatism and liberalism are theoritcally not diametrically opposed--what matters is the function of these concepts. Cconservatism should preserve the benefits of liberalism and liberalism should build on the foundation of conservatism, the two benefiting the present and the collective future as a whole.
A constituional monarch can serve such a function and given the track record of various republics it might be wise and indeed practical to conserve such instituions.
5E:
Welcome to the Commonwealth. I could not agree more with your analogies and observations. To my mind, conservatism is NOT an ideology, but rather - a philosophy.
It is NOT a set of rules to live by. It is a disposition of preserve, with reflection and caution, the BEST of a culture, and to jettison and reject the worst of the same milieu.
In Canada that means we drop the racist assumptions of the Victorian Age, but retain the Constitutional Monarchy. It has served us well, and it almost completely likely to serve us better than an elected President, whom, as a partisan politician, can only serve to divide a heterogenous population.
Looking at people like GW Bush, one can only wonder what anyone sees in republicanism.
I am glad to see you on my doorstep. By-the-way, I am not snooty; but I do demand people understand what they are talking about, prior to them ejaculating from their cakeholes.
I am not sure how the existence of the Queen influences the policies of nations in the Commonwealth -- especially given the UK's involvement in Iraq.
Perhaps the difference is not between constitutional monarchy and republicanism, but between the essentially unicameral, ministerial Parliamentary system and the bicameral and presidential structure of US democracy.
balto:
The existence of the Queen ensures the continuance of a ministerial parliamentary system in a meaningful way.
Loyal Canadians and British do not have to worry about a mere politician claming to represent the State. This helps us avoid the cleavages and clashes that so poison republican political cultures.
Unity among heterogeneous people is thus maintained. Without Her Majesty at the apex of the Canadian system, I owe Canada nothing. It becomes a land mass of commodious consumers. To THAT I owe NO allegiance or loyalty.
I can see that for you these statements are true -- that your loyalty to your country is actually a loyalty to a Queen, and not to country.
I could only say that this is probably not true for all members of the Commonwealth; in fact, I could posit that you are not even in the majority, although I would need to see polling data for that. For instance, I really doubt that the large Asian influx into Canada have arrived because they have some loyalty to a Queen.
And we have certainly seen cleavages in the UK's population, the Muslim community being a prime example.
The US was under the rule of constitutional monarchy, as were various other colonies over the centuries who decided that such rule was not in their best interests -- essentially that the rulers did not have the interests of the people at heart. I would say that this is the primary reason that any government continues -- that the government fairly and justly represents the people. I would suggest that the longevity of the governments in UK and Canada are more a result of reasonable parliamentary government overall, version the concept of the Queen.
Balto:
I NEVER suggested that I was in a majority ...
I DO suggest that I understand Canadian citizenship better than most citizens in Canada, and that I do not wallow under a false consciousness.
I owe my fellow Citizens social contract and formal contract obligations as a ratepayer.
I DO NOT owe them my fealty. I do not owe allegiance to mere piece of cloth or parchment.
I freely give my allegiance to a person - a duly and constitutionally valid person.
Take away that person, or the institution she embodies, and I cease any corporate loyalties withing these geographic boundaries. I would then become a true libertarian, unless the means existed for me to follow her Crown into exile.
Canada would then serve only as a piece of geography and a mailing address. My heart would be elsewhere.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home