007 Ball - London - Polish Order of Malta Volunteers (UK)

The Polish Order of

Malta Volunteers

request the pleasure of your company at

The 007 Ball

in aid of

The Poznan Appeal

on

Saturday 5th March 2011

at

The Savile Club

69 Brook Street

Mayfair

President

The Earl of St Andrews

Patron

General The Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank

Chairman

Joanna Meeson

Vice Chairman

Monika Bojarska

Committee

Clara Andersson

Rafal Heydel Mankoo

Silke Lohmann

Catherine Vereker

7.30pm Champagne Reception

8.00pm Dinner

10.00pm Auction

10.30pm Casino & Dancing

2.00am Carriages

RSVP Joanna Meeson

joannameeson@gmail.com

07947 048766

Tickets £150

(£125 before 1st Feb)

www.apkmuk.co.uk

Dress
Bond Characters
Black Tie & Decorations


Tickets may be purchased by sending a cheque, made payable to "APKM (UK)", to the Chairman, Joanna Meeson, please contact her at joannameeson@gmail.com for postal address. Please remember to include your return address and the names of all guests.

Alternatively, tickets may be purchased on-line via Pay Pal on the Official Website of the Association of the Polish Knights of Malta (UK) -- NB: If paying on-line via PayPal please send a follow up email to joannameeson@gmail.com with your name and address, stating that you have bought tickets via paypal. 007 Ball tickets may be purchased here: http://www.apkmuk.co.uk/

Social Committee

Eduardo & Alexandra de Aranda Godlewski   Lalage Barran

Candice Berrier Plater  James Bland

Philip Bujak Edward and Aurea Connolly

Joanna Dabrowska  Michel Dembinski

Alexandra Fudakowska Stefan Kosciuszko

James Lewis Kasia Madera

Anna Maria McKeever Oskar Milczarek Mele

Robert Morrisson Atwater  Afsaneh Moshiri

Nicolas Moussette  Cezary Pietraszik

Zigmunt Sikorski Mazur Przemyslaw Skwirczynski

Andrew Visnevski 

The Work of the Polish Order of Malta Volunteers (London)

Founded before 1099, the Order of Malta is the world’s oldest International Hospitaller Order working to help the poor and the sick. Today the Order is a major global organisation providing care for the chronically disabled and disadvantaged.

With assistance from the Volunteers, over 80,000 permanent volunteers and 11,000 doctors and nurses support the Order’s work. Projects of the Polish Association include a first aid and ambulance corps, social centres for street children as well as a variety of medical and aid centres for the physically and mentally challenged. Last year the Knights were able to open a Centre in Krakow for the rehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. This Centre, which is fully active and highly successful, is now the largest centre of its kind in Europe. 

The Order remains very dependant on funds from outside Poland and consequently in 2007 the Polish Order of Malta Volunteers (London) was set up to support the Order and continue its fundraising efforts. Our group has constantly grown over the years and our events have become more dynamic. It’s thanks to the efforts of the Volunteers that we are able to embark upon an ambitious fundraising project.

The POMV is now raising money to rebuild and modernise Poznan’s Oncological Out-Patient clinic. Each year, the clinic’s 60 volunteers diagnose and treat, at no charge, over 5000 patients. Medical departments include oncology, gynaecology, radiology, internal medicine, cardiology, pulmonary medicine, psychiatry, surgery and path morphology. In order to rebuild and provide equipment for the building we need to raise £1,300,000. It would be wonderful if the POMV could achieve this! To date we have raised tens of thousands of pounds. This was fantastic but we still have a long way to go. Your support would be extremely valuable and is greatly appreciated. Any cheques with donations to the Polish Knights of Malta can be made payable to “APKM (UK)”, (Reg. Charity No. 1102122).

The Crown -- a force for unity and national identify

Republics are primarily the end product of political strife, upheaval, conflict, revolution, coups, civil wars, or acts of independence. It is the anniversary of these dramatic events which provides an annual occasion for national celebration, acts of patriotism and reaffirmation of founding principles (Bastille Day, July 4^th etc.). Constitutional monarchies, in contrast, are notable for their stability; thus, in Britain, there is no national “birth of nation” myth. The Sovereign, as the personification of Crown, state and nation, has become not merely a constitutional mechanism, but the focal point for unity and national celebration. Our greatest occasions of state ceremonial, patriotism and national unity are focussed upon the Monarchy: the Coronation, jubilees, royal weddings, funerals and birthdays.

The symbolic and ceremonial role of Monarchy is one of its most important. American patriotic fervour is directed at its constitution and flag. In France it is the French Revolution which defines, but continues to divide, the nation (the failure to create a clear focus of national unity may in part explain the French Republic's turbulent political history). But, lacking a humanising aspect that makes the authority tangible, constitutions, flags and myths can never truly personify the nation. 

The distinction between the concepts is perhaps best illustrated through the national anthem. The British national anthem (which was the world's first, with the melody adopted by several other countries) may be distinguished from those of many other states because it is not addressed to a fatherland, flag or constitution but to God, and is focussed on the Sovereign rather than an intangible notion of “peoples” or “nation”.

Ceremonial

Walter Bagheot divided the constitution into two elements: the “efficient” (administration, the work of Government, implementation of policy etc.) and the “dignified” (symbolic and ceremonial). Dignified elements include the monarchy and are essential to promoting national unity and providing legitimacy for government.

Nations require ritual and ceremonial; it is essential to our identity and exists in all cultures – the inauguration of an American President is a mediocre version of a Coronation. British state ceremonial is the greatest show on earth – its star role provided by royalty. Monarchy resonates with us and appeals to us in a deeply visceral way. We can debate political and constitutional niceties but it is the Monarchy’s emotional connection with the people that will ensure its survival.

Official ceremonies, tours and engagements enable the people to see the Sovereign and thereby connect with the nation. The Queen is probably the most recognisable figure in the world, as iconic as any brand logo. As a figure who has occupied the public stage for over 80 years, The Queen connects us with our collective memory. She is a reassuring presence and manages to symbolise both modern British popular history (through herself as a long-standing public figure) and the great totality of British history (as symbol of the Crown).

A national ceremony of celebration or commemoration without the presence of the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family would strike the public as very odd and would diminish the impact of the event, making it appear somehow incomplete or unsatisfying.

The Queen as Head of State symbolises the state and government in the performance of various duties (receiving ambassadors, state visits, opening Parliament). The Queen as Head of the Nation symbolises national values and beliefs and serves as the focal point for national identity and unity – this is achieved through the conferral of honours (recognising achievement in a wide variety of sectors and at all levels of society), presence at historic national occasions, participation in great ceremonies of state, attendance at local events, the sending of letters and telegrams of congratulations, Christmas Day speeches, patronage of charities etc.

The unifying nature of Constitutional Monarchy has made it uniquely well-equipped to hold a democratic society together. That has particularly been the case in multinational entities. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy for example was held together largely by the person of the emperor, Franz Josef, and it is often said that the King of the Belgians is the only true Belgian, all others being Flemish or Walloon. 

The monarchy stands above class distinctions, beyond political ambitions and above factional interests. It is the pre-eminent symbol of patriotism, the centre of national celebration and the ultimate example of stability and continuity in a changing world.  As Britain faces a future filled with challenges and threats to national unity (globalisation, devolution, ghettoized and segmented communities, and increased participation in the European Union) the Crown could play a vital role as a cohesive element for British society.

This is of fundamental importance for, in my opinion, the single most important function of a constitutional monarchy, is the promotion of national unity and values and the cohesion of civil society through charitable endeavours and moral leadership.

The Guiding Principle of Lords Reform: better government

The House of Lords receives a bad press. Although more representative of modern society than the House of Commons and approximately two-thirds cheaper, the House of Lords continues to be portrayed as a private gentlemen’s club, occupied by privileged old men and political hacks from a by-gone era. The perpetuation of such hackneyed stereotypes lies behind many of the calls for Lords reform and obscures a plain reality: the House of Lords works extremely effectively and the institution in most urgent need of reform is the House of Commons.

Following the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999, the House of Lords has become noticeably more confident. With an increased sense of legitimacy, the Lords has defeated government legislation more than 500 times since 1999 and has become more insistent upon legislative amendment, which is good for democracy and for the quality of legislation. This rise is also due to the fact that no party enjoys a majority in the upper chamber, with the Conservatives and Labour broadly equal and the Liberal Democrats and cross-benchers holding the balance of power. The lack of a single party majority in the House of Lords is a positive development which strengthens Parliament (this is not an issue of the House of Lords versus the House of Commons, it is Parliament versus the Executive) and must be replicated in any reformed second chamber. Around the world, second chambers that have the same majority as first chambers are prone to government influence and are less effective.

Many of the post-1997 constitutional reform initiatives were criticised for the failure to consider their legal and political implications.  Similarly, advocates of an elected House of Lords have routinely failed to consider the profound impact the introduction of the elective principle will have on the operation of Parliament as a whole.  It is imperative that those in favour of reform properly understand the fundamentally important complementary relationship that exists between Commons and Lords.

This is not to argue against any reform. On the contrary, the steady increase in the power of the Executive at the expense of the House of Commons, the adoption of the Human Rights Act and the more general constitutional evolution that has taken place since 1997 are all arguments in favour of Lords reform. The House of Lords is also unmanageably large. With the addition of 111 new peers in the six months following the last general election (compared with 205 during the entirety of the Thatcher government), the number of peers entitled to sit in the second chamber has swelled to 792; this makes the upper house by far the largest of any democracy and, after China’s upper house, the second largest in the world.  Given the size of the British population the continued growth of the House of Lords is unsustainable and, in light of plans to reduce the size of the House of Commons, unjustifiable. A cap on total membership of the House of Lords needs to be set with appointments of further peers suspended until mechanisms for retirement and resignation are in place.

Reform is welcome on the condition that it correctly identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the upper chamber, preserving and improving the former and correcting the latter. One of the reasons Lords reform has failed thus far has been the inability of reformers to effectively demonstrate precisely how the introduction of an elected element will improve the performance of the upper house.  Any reform needs to make the quest for better government its guiding doctrine. 

From Placentia to the Palace -- the Canadian roots of the Countess of St. Andrews

An article on the Canadian roots of the Countess of St. Andrews, featuring commentary from me, appeared in today's The Telegram (a Newfoundland newspaper), authored by Steve Bartlett

"From Placentia to the Palace: The Queen’s first great-grandchild isn’t the only Canadian with a connection to the throne -- The Telegram - January 8th 2011

Not many people born in this province can say the late Princess Diana was their son’s godmother.

Or that their in-laws live in a palace. Or that their youngest child is in the line of succession for the British throne.

Or that there is speculation as to whether she’ll present the trophies at the Wimbledon tennis championship.

But Placentia-born Sylvana (Tomaselli) Windsor can make such claims.

“(She) is one of the least known members of the Royal Family. She and her husband maintain a very low profile,” explained Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, an editor with Burke’s Peerage and Gentry, a guide to the genealogical history of royal and noteworthy families.

Canadian connections to the monarchy recently made holiday headlines.Autumn Phillips, the Montreal-born wife of the Queen’s grandson, Peter, had a baby girl Dec. 29.

The newborn is Elizabeth II’s first great-grandchild, and she’ll hold dual British and Canadian citizenship, making the child the first Canuck to be in line for the throne. (She’s 12th on the list.)The baby girl and her mom weren’t the first Canadian citizens to be part of the modern-day Royal Family, though. Sylvana married George Windsor 23 years ago Sunday at a registry office in Scotland.

George’s father is Prince Edward, the Queen’s first cousin. He’s also the Duke of Kent, a title that involves carrying out official duties on behalf of the Queen and sees him living in a Kensington Palace apartment.

With his “I do,” Sylvana’s hubby gave up his place in the succession to the throne. Because she was Catholic, the Act of Settlement barred George — but not his children — from the crown. (Not that there was ever a realistic chance he’d become king.)

Sylvana and George have three children, a boy and two girls. The two oldest converted to Catholicism and are also blocked from the line of succession. The youngest child has not converted and is 29th in line for the throne. George Windsor’s title is Earl of St. Andrews, making Sylvana the Countess of St. Andrews. Both are considered courtesy stylings.

Heydel-Mankoo noted that George will become the Duke of Kent with the passing of his father. Sylvana would then be the Duchess of Kent.

But they will not be Royal Highnesses, as the current Duke and Duchess are. It was decided in 1917 that Royal Dukedoms — as the five dukes are known — would no longer be “Royal” after the third generation.

George and Sylvana will instead be known as His Grace and Her Grace, Heydel-Mankoo explained.

Given the increasing distance between the Duke of Kent and the throne, the peerage expert said it’s doubtful the couple would fulfil as many duties on behalf of the crown as George’s parents do.

“It will be interesting to see whether the Earl of St. Andrews will succeed his father as president of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club at Wimbledon,” Heydel-Mankoo said. “And, if so, whether the Countess of St. Andrews will present the Wimbledon trophies, as her mother-in-law famously did until recently.”

Sylvana did not respond to The Telegram’s request for an interview.

There are next to no public details about her life in Canada, and Newfoundland especially. She was born at Placentia in May 1957, to Maximillian Tomaselli and Josiane Preschez.

Town resident Rhonda Power checked church records for The Telegram Friday and confirmed Sylvana was baptized at the Holy Rosary Parish on July 20th of the year she was born.The sponsors at the christening were not local, suggesting a possible connection to the U.S. naval base at nearby Argentia. Other than that, it’s known that Sylvana was married to a John Paul Jones in Vancouver in 1977, and they divorced in 1981. 

The Telegram spoke to numerous people knowledgeable about Placentia and the Argentia base, but the name Tomaselli didn’t ring a bell with any of them. That’s not surprising, since it’s hardly a common surname in Placentia, Fox Harbour and Jerseyside.

George Wiscombe worked on the base at the officer’s club from the mid-’50s until 1994. When asked if he knew a Maximillian Tomaselli, he replied, “No, sir, I don’t.” Wiscombe said there were thousands of serviceman who went through, and unless Tomaselli was an officer, he wouldn’t have known him. People with in-depth knowledge of the Placentia cottage hospital didn’t recognize the name either. 

Outside of Sylvana’s royal ties, what’s known about her is that she’s a respected scholar.

According to Heydel-Mankoo, she graduated from York University in Ontario with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in arts before going on to study at the University of Cambridge.That’s where she met her royal husband and where she currently lectures, at St. John’s College. Listed on the school’s website under her maiden name, Sylvana specializes in 18th-century political theory and is the director of studies in history.

She has written numerous scholarly articles and edited or co-edited four books, Heydel-Mankoo said.

Her three children appeared in a fashion spread for Tatler, a British magazine, this past November. Still, Heydel-Mankoo said their notoriety is not on the rise. “The have maintained a discreet and respectable lifestyle,” he said, attributing that to the importance of their faith.

Interestingly, the Daily Mail reported in October that the late Princess Diana was the godmother of Sylvana’s son. (There are old pictures online of Sylvana sitting next to Diana, who has a baby on her lap.)

Sylvana’s journey from Placentia to the Palace must have been interesting, without a doubt. If only more were known about it."

LINK TO ARTICLE: http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2011-01-08/article-2100512/From-Placentia-to-the-Palace/1

The Magic of Monarchy

Monarchy carries an undeniable magic and mystique. Even the seriously-minded Victorian essayist Walter Bagheot acknowledged this. Psychologists have proven that a “happiness effect" accompanies occasions graced by royalty – this is of course not because of the royals themselves but relates to the atmosphere created by the occasion and generated by their presence. Much the same effect will be felt in a crowd gathered to meet the Pope, the Dalai Llama or another figure of global stature (in earlier years we would have mentioned Mother Teresa and some undoubtedly would have cited Diana, Princess of Wales). This phenomenon does not relate to the political and constitutional Monarchy – this is the personal and emotional face of Monarchy – but it is no less important.

We saw the power of the magic of monarchy a few months ago when The Queen addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations.  The atmosphere was electric and many of the cynical and seasoned diplomats turned into giddy school children beaming with smiles as they jostled to get a good view; some even took their mobile phones out to snap a photograph of this slight old lady who had come to address them as the world’s only trans-national monarch, Head of State of 16 Nations, Head of a Commonwealth of 54 Nations and Sovereign for almost as long as the UN has been in existence. No other world figure would have been accorded such a spectacular reception.

A healthy and productive society requires role models and icons. Their function is manifold but they ultimately serve to motivate, inspire and guide both the society as well as its constituent parts. Our era, for whatever reason, suffers from a paucity of true role models.  By committing her life to personal self sacrifice, dedication to duty and service to the nation, The Queen has come to epitomise much that is truly noble in the human spirit. Can we say the same of elected politicians?

Queen's First Great-Grandchild has Canadian Roots -- article

My broadcast to CTV News has been incorporated into this article:

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Thu. Dec. 30 2010 5:37 PM ET

Queen Elizabeth II is now a great-grandmother after the Montreal-born wife of her eldest grandson gave birth to a baby girl.

The first child of Autumn and Peter Phillips was born Wednesday at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Buckingham Palace announced Thursday. The girl weighed eight pounds and eight ounces, according to the palace.

While the name of the child is not being released at the moment, the Queen, her husband Prince Philip, and the rest of Autumn and Peter Phillips' families are delighted with the news, the palace said in a statement.

By holding British and Canadian citizenship, the day-old girl is the first Canadian to be in line to the throne, said Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, editor of Burke's Peerage and Gentry, a guide that keeps a genealogical history of the Royal Family.

The girl is 12th in line to the throne.

Heydel-Mankoo said the birth adds more Canadian flavour to the Royal Family, as Prince Charles' wife Camilla is a descendent of Allan Napier MacNab, who was a Prime Minister of Upper Canada in the 1800s.

As well, one of Prince Edward's two daughters-in-law, Sylvana Windsor, hails from Newfoundland, he said.

"The Royal Family has never been more Canadian and I think that's quite important in strengthening the connections between the Canadian people and the Crown," Heydel-Mankoo told CTV News Channel from London, England.

Peter Phillips married his wife, the former Autumn Kelly, in May 2008 at Windsor Castle. They live in Hong Kong, where Peter Phillips works for the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The couple met when Peter Phillips was attending the Montreal Grand Prix in Autumn Phillips' hometown in 2003.

As a child, Autumn Phillips attended various Catholic schools in Montreal and later attended McGill University. She converted to Anglicanism when she married her husband to preserve his succession rights to the throne.

The couple's child arrives at a time when there is a lot of buzz surrounding the Royal Family, largely due to the engagement of Prince William, who is second in line to the throne, and Kate Middleton. Their wedding is one of the most-anticipated events of 2011.

With files from The Canadian Press

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101230/queen-gets-first-great-grandchild-101230/

The Monarch as Moral Leader and Champion of Civic Duty and Civil Society

The Monarchy has deliberately resisted attempts to steer it down a show-business path. In so doing it stands as an important counter-weight to the excesses of contemporary culture. Actively engaged in charity and philanthropy, and patron to thousands of organisations, the Monarchy is the supreme champion of civic duty and the voluntary ethic. Many of the causes it espouses and the values it sustains are unglamorous and unfashionable; but this is Monarchy at is best – honouring the many individuals engaged in voluntary work (be it in soup kitchens, delivering meals on wheels, or volunteering in a local museum) and recognising the work of institutions such as the Girl Guides and St. John’s Ambulance.  These are the unsung heroes of Britain. Their work appeals closely to The Queen’s own system of values and beliefs.

Through royal visits, the conferral of royal patronage and the bestowal of honours, the Monarchy is able to draw attention to institutions, causes, social needs, visible minorities and deprived groups which would otherwise be neglected by the media and the government. It encourages citizenship engagement in local communities, promotes local initiatives, highlights issues of social, cultural, environmental and spiritual concern.  Importantly, the Monarchy is able to achieve this whilst remaining politically neutral. In the modern era, nothing has done more to strengthen the monarchy and make it more visible than its commitment to charitable and voluntary work. 

As a champion of civic duty the Monarchy has an important role to play in the Big Society. The notion of national ideals, shared values and a common purpose have fallen out of vogue, with the responsibilities of citizenship overwhelmingly subordinate to its entitlements. The Monarchy leads by example; its charitable work and the causes it supports are vital to the promotion of civil society, social cohesion and national identity.

The Monarchy has never been more relevant to society and more finely in-tune with its needs. The Prince of Wales has a particular appreciation for, and understanding of, many of the issues facing contemporary society: environment, agriculture, education, inter-faith dialogue, architectural heritage, urban regeneration and the built environment, youth projects.

The Monarchy’s future requires it to continue to remain politically neutral whilst engaging even more with society. The Monarchy must be seen and be seen to do good.

Hear my BBC Interview regarding The Queen's Christmas Day Message 2010

My BBC Radio 5 Live Interview on The Queen's Christmas Day Message may be heard HERE --- starts at 16 min and 45 secs :  http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00wq76h/Morning_Reports_24_12_2010

The Role of Monarchy

Speaking in Quebec in 1964 HM The Queen declared: “The role of a constitutional monarch is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to assure the legality of its measures, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will. In accomplishing this task it protects the people against disorder.”

As the world changes ever more quickly, becoming, in the process, both increasingly chaotic and unfamiliar, the Monarchy stands as a steadfast symbol of stability and continuity. It is one of the few elements in modern life that grounds us and places us at a fixed point in the continuum of our history. This stability may explain in part why post-war Britain was able to transform from an imperial nation, through decolonization and economic decline, without the unrest and ideological battles that afflicted nations such as France -- the trappings of Monarchy made the transformation easier to bear.

Today, the Sovereign is not merely a legal entity or constitutional power; HM is the representative of the nation, the ultimate symbol of national identity and the supreme champion of the spirit of civic duty.

During her Coronation Service The Queen took a solemn oath dedicating herself to a life of selfless service and duty, reaffirming the covenant between Sovereign and People. The oath and the consecration/annointing are of profound significance to our religiously devout Sovereign. In The Queen’s 2000 Christmas Broadcast HM said: “For me, the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life.”

The modern British monarchy continues the tradition of Christian Monarchy, upholding three fundamental pillars of civil society: 

• 1.      ceremonial and ritual (symbolising the state and providing a source of national unity)
• 2.      civic duty (expressed principally through philanthropy and charitable work)
• 3.      moral leadership (demonstrated through sacrifice and duty)

No other form of government, and no other type of head of state, is better equipped to handle these essential elements of civil and civilised society. 

Watch my CBC TV interview on the Royal Wedding

To watch a short (2 min) clip of my 5 minute CBC News interview about the wedding of Prince William and Miss Catherine Middleton (discussing such weighty topics as royal commemorative tea towels) please CLICK HERE http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1700526583

Restoration of "Royal Canadian Navy" one step closer

Yesterday evening the Canadian Senate's national security and defence committee recommended that the Senate pass a motion supporting the change of the name of Maritime Command to include the word "Navy". The Senate is expected to adopt the motion today or tomorrow. It will then be up to National Defence Minister Peter MacKay to decide whether to restore the naval force's traditional name: "Royal Canadian Navy" before the end of the year (the navy's centennial year) or, failing that, in time for Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee.

A national grassroots campaign to restore the Royal Canadian Navy has united patriotic Canadians. The campaign has a regularly updated BLOG (CLICK HERE) through which supporters can sign the ON-LINE PETITION (CLICK HERE)

The campaigners have also produced the above video

Order of Merit finally ranked in Canada -- symbolic of the renaissance of Canadian institutions

Following HM The Queen's decision to appoint former Prime Minister Jean Chretien to the Order of Merit in 2009, there was some discussion regarding the precedence of the Order within the Canadian Honours System. 

In a post on The Monarchist web-site one author (posting under the pseudonym "Beaverbrook") wrote as follows:

"Having pretty much completely abolished titular honours from the Canadian landscape (apart from the odd anomoly), it was surely the intent of the Government of Canada to ensure that the highest honour bestowed upon Canadians (save those rewarded for the most conspicuous acts of bravery) be the Order of Canada, whatever the rank. By refusing to resurrect the old knighthoods, the Order of Canada would never have to compete with the likes of the Garter, the Thistle or the Bath.

This is clear from the Governor General's website regarding the modern orders of precedence. All three ranks of the Order of Canada take precedence in the orders of wear after the Victoria Cross (V.C.) and the Cross of Valour (C.V.). 

The problem is they forgot about the non-titular orders that are in the personal gift of the Sovereign, such as the highly prestigious Companions of Honour (1917) and the even more exclusive Order of Merit (1902), both of which rank ahead of the Order of Canada (1967) if bestowed prior to June 1, 1972. Presumably these honours are so rare, no room was ever made for them in the new Canadian honours system, though the Royal Victorian Order was, probably because it conveniently ranked after the Order of Canada."

In reply I wrote:

"The issue you raise has required formal consideration for some time. Unfortunately, as LB Pearson was the last Canadian to hold the OM and the powers-that-be at Rideau Hall no doubt thought it unlikely that another Canadian would be appointed, the OM was not included in the modern/revised Order of Precedence. I suspect, however, that the official position of the Government would be that, post 1972, the CC outranks the OM. 

Such a position, if it is ever formally expressed, will have been based upon wholly political and pseudo-nationalist considerations and would be as unconvincing and nonsensical as the decision to group all the grades of the Order of Canada together, ranking a lowly Member of the Order of Canada above Companions of the Order of Military Merit, the Order of Merit of the Police Forces and of the Royal Victorian Order.

It is my view that the OM, as an exclusive award in the personal gift of Her Majesty, clearly outranks the far less exclusive CC. The Government's agenda notwithstanding, I do not see how one can arrive at any other conclusion. The New Zealand Royal Honours System (which, after that of the UK, is the most finely crafted honours system in the Commonwealth) has ranked the OM correctly."

In light of this, I am delighted to announce that the Order of Merit has now received official ranking in the current Canadian Order of Precedence, where it has been correctly positioned in third place, below the Victoria Cross and the Cross of Valour.   This is highly-encouraging and Government House and the Prime Minister's Office are to be congratulated. This excellent decision is merely the latest in an impressive line of initiatives by the current Government to restore the visibility of the Canadian Crown and reassert pride in Canada's traditional institutions and symbols.  Across the Commonwealth the Canadian situation should warm the cockles of traditionalist hearts and give inspiration and indeed motivation for citizens to call on their Governments to act likewise.

THE CANADA GAZETTE

Vol. 144, No. 25 — December 8, 2010

Registration

SI/2010-88 December 8, 2010

OTHER THAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Order of Merit (O.M.) Order

P.C. 2010-1499 November 26, 2010

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, hereby directs that the Order of Merit (O.M.) follow the Cross of Valour (C.V.) in the order of precedence in the Canadian Honours System. 

(Hat tip to  Gavin Guthrie for Gazette link)

Reforming the Lords - Part Two

The second part of my blog post dealing with Reform of the House of Lords has been published on the "Disraeli Room" of the ResPublica website. It may be read by clicking HERE

http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/12/lords-reform-century-making-part-2

Lords Reform - A Century in the Making

ResPublica, Britain's most dynamic and exciting new think tank, has published my article on Reform of the House of Lords in its "Disraeli Room".  Part One today and Part Two tomorrow.  It may be read by clicking HERE

http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/12/lords-reform-century-making-part-1

Hereditary Succession 101

Hereditary succession is the element common to all monarchies, save for rare historic examples of election such as in Poland and the Holy Roman Empire, and in the modern example of the Papacy.  

As an aside: It is also interesting to note the Anglo-Saxon tradition of the “election” of a new king by the Witenagemot from amongst the deceased King’s family.  Although tempting to draw a comparison with Parliament’s invitation to William and Mary in the seventeenth century and the installation of George I in the eighteenth, the power of the Witenagemot was never so great and, in practice, amounted to little more than formal recognition of the king’s established (primarily primogenital) heir.  Nevertheless, I regard this Anglo-Saxon recognition as an early form of the concept of covenant/consent which was to be settled in England after 1689.  As evidence I can cite two occasions where it is believed that the Witan deposed a king (Sigeberht, King of Wessex in 757 and Alchred, King of Northumberland in 774) and one where the Witan offered to restore a king on the condition that he improve the quality of his kingship (Elthelred the Unready had fled the country in 1013).

Various different forms of hereditary succession have been employed in different countries: 

1. Absolute or lineal promogeniture, also known as full cognatic priomogeniture: inheritance by the oldest child, irrespective of gender. The first monarchy to introduce this was Sweden in 1980 (displacing Prince Carl Philip as Heir Apparent in favour of Crown Princess Victoria).

2. Agnatic or patrilineal primogeniture: inheritance by the eldest son, and then his male issue inheriting before brothers and their male issue. (this is also Salic law)  

3. Agnatic-cognatic primogeniture allows female agnates (or their descendants) to inherit once there are no surviving male agnates.

4. Male preference primogeniture (also known as "mixed-female succession" and as "cognatic" primogeniture) allows a female to succeed if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants. 

5. Matrilineal primogeniture is a form of succession where the eldest female child inherits the throne to the total exclusion of males. 

6.Uterine or ovarian primogeniture a right of succession may also be inherited by a male through a female ancestor or spouse, to the exclusion of any female heir who might be older or of nearer proximity of blood;

Succession provides the continuity that is essential to the stability of Monarchy. According to the common law Doctrine of Perpetuity, the Sovereign never dies but is immediately succeeded by his or her successor. Hence the expression: “The King is Dead! Long Live the King!” The individual Monarch may die but the Crown continues, for it is the source of all authority and without it the state would cease to be. 

The continuity afforded by Monarchy through hereditary succession enables the public to understand and tangibly connect with the stability of the political system. The Monarchy provides the nation with all-important reassurance in a world which is changing ever more rapidly. The Monarchy grounds us; it promotes order, symbolises essential values and provides us with a sense of national identity and unity. 

Modern Constitutional Monarchy

Republicans have a habit of conflating the terms “Democracy” and “Republic”, treating them as synonyms. Republics and constitutional monarchies are of course merely different forms of democracy (and we can cite numerous undemocratic republics).   

Constitutional monarchies are limited monarchies –limited by the constitution and its conventions. Of the 31 constitutional monarchies in the world, only two have an uncodified constitution: the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The other constitutional monarchies are Australia, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Granada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and Tuvalu.  16 of the world’s 31 constitutional monarchies recognise HM The Queen as Sovereign.

Constitutional monarchies comprise some of the world’s most developed, wealthy, democratically accountable and progressive states.  The 2009 United Nations Human Development Index, a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living worldwide, is generally regarded as the best index for determining the quality of life offered by a state. The HDI ranks constitutional monarchies extremely highly:  7 of the top 10 (Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden) and 16 of the top 20 countries in the world, in terms of quality of life, are constitutional monarchies. This is all the more remarkable when one realises that republics outnumber monarchies by 5-to-1 (31 vs approx 150).

It would be foolish to claim that it is by virtue of their status as monarchies that these countries afford their citizens such a high quality of life -- that is an obvious absurdity; the form of government and quality of life is most likely due to their stability. However, their success provides clear evidence that constitutional monarchies are not an impediment to modernity or progression (be it social, cultural, scientific or technological) -- neither are they incompatible with democracy and the institutions of a modern state. It is also incorrect to categorise constitutional monarchies as naturally or inherently conservative. Sweden, Norway and Denmark are amongst the world’s most socially progressive states. Monarchy, as a symbol of stability and continuity, may in fact be an asset to a reforming government as it can provide a fixed point for a society undergoing dramatic transformation, making the change more bearable.

Constitutional Monarchies survive today because they are adaptable and have been able to change to face new challenges. Those monarchies which failed to evolve (Russia and France for example) perished. Despite some awkward moments, the British Monarchy has developed a good understanding of the importance of ensuring that the Crown maintains the essential elements of heritage and tradition whilst remaining relevant to the modern age and reflecting positive aspects of contemporary society.