Tuesday, 30 November 2010

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. 

Friday, 26 November 2010

A Sorry State: Self-Denigration in British Culture

Last night I attended the launch of a splendid new book, edited by the noted author and authority on the British cultural zeitgeist, Peter Whittle of the New Culture Forum, and with contributions from many leading authors and scholars, all of whom are proud to be British and seek a revival of pride in Britain's accomplishments. If you are concerned about British culture, the book may be of interest to you and may be pre-ordered via Amazon.co.uk at this link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sorry-State-Self-Denigration-British-Culture/dp/0956741002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290782711&sr=8-1

To quote from the blurb of the book:


"Self-loathing permeates our culture to such an extent that we no longer even see it for what it is. For many of us, it has come to be the natural way of looking at the world. We have become used to living in a permanent state of cultural cringe, of apology, of guilt for real or imagined acts; where our opinion formers appear to agree that western culture is an indefensible horror.
The aim of this collection of essays is to illustrate how self-denigration operates in both specific and general areas of contemporary life. So, along with Helen Szamuely’s essay on history teaching in schools, Emma French’s exploration of the effects of cultural self-laceration in higher education and Marc Sidwell’s analysis of the big state as an expression of self-distrust, we have Gulliver Ralston examining the effects of self-hatred on music education, Paul Seaman on corporate image-building, Juliet Samuel on the environmentalist movement and Douglas Murray on how our response to radical Islam is being compromised. Tony Wells describes the minefield of a simple dinner party among the middle-class intelligentsia, Guy Stagg makes an argument for religion as an expression of self-hate, and Richard D. North describes how so-called ‘anti-elitism’ is another facet of the same phenomenon.
We have aimed to be constructive in this collection, to offer up ways out of self-hatred. Leadership is not just about economics, and the sooner our own elected representatives acknowledge that the burning issues of our time are cultural ones, the better. In the words of countless demonstrators over the years, it is time to ‘Stop the Hate’.
Contents of A Sorry State
Table manners by Tony Wells
Over the rainbow: How radical environmentalists thwarted Copenhagen by Juliet Samuel
There’s no such thing as the state by Marc Sidwell
Cultural self-effacement in music education by Gulliver Ralston
How public relations sells western firms short by Paul Seaman
‘Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe’: Cultural self-laceration in British universities by Emma French
Mea maxima culpa: Religion and the sanctity of self-hatred by Guy Stagg
How do self-hatred and self-blame shape our response to radical Islam? by Douglas Murray
History came to a . by Helen Szamuely
The country that hates itself: Why curing anti-elitism can sort things out by Richard D. North"


Monday, 22 November 2010

Watch my TV Interview on the announcement of the Royal Engagement

It's a few days old but here is my interview on the announcement of the Royal Engagement: Click on the link and then scroll down to my name in the right hand "CTV News Box": 

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101116/prince-william-kate-middleton-engaged-101116/



Saturday, 20 November 2010

Is Love Enough for the newly engaged Royal Couple? -

Is Love Enough?  A newspaper article in today's National Post (Canada) newspaper by Peter Goodspeed, features commentary from me and my colleague Arthur Bousfield of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust:


"Peter Goodspeed, National Post · Friday, Nov. 19, 2010
Fairy tale or nightmare? The royal wedding of Prince William of Wales and commoner Kate Middleton already holds the public enthralled with all the gushing sentimentality of a great love story and the horror of a train wreck.
For the first time in 350 years, an heir to the British throne has proposed to marry a commoner -- for love -- jettisoning age-old traditions of arranged marriages and dynastic alliances based on class.
Some see the event as a transformative step toward modernizing the British monarchy, the most conservative of Europe's remaining royal houses.....
"The monarchy always reflects the society it presides over," said Arthur Bousfield, vice-chairman of the Canadian Royal Heritage Trust and coauthor of several books on the British monarchy. "If it didn't, it would be so out of touch it would lose its raison d'etre.
"The monarchy always adapts and royal marriages are the way it sort of rejuvenates itself."
It is a pattern that has been repeated elsewhere.
"Prince William and Kate Middleton are not breaking with European tradition," said Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, an editor of Burke's Peerage & Gentry. "They are following in the wake of their continental counterparts.
"The Crown Prince of Norway married an unwed mother, the Crown Princess of Sweden married a personal trainer and gym owner, and the Crown Prince of Denmark married an Australian whom he met in a pub in Sydney during the 2000 Olympics."...
"In an egalitarian 21st century, Kate Middleton's unexceptional middle-class background is an asset," said Mr. Heydel-Mankoo. "She is a person to whom the average person can relate, even more than they could to Diana, Princess of Wales, or Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, both of whom, though technically commoners, were daughters of aristocrats."
"Kate Middleton is living the fairy-tale dream," he said. "Her story could be anyone's. That's where the magic of monarchy comes into its own."
(C) National Post

Friday, 19 November 2010

William and Kate - A break with British tradition but part of a new European trend

Since the announcement of the engagement of HRH Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton, I have had to field questions from many journalists and reporters, all of whom have been keen to understand the implications and consequences of a marriage that will unite the heir to the throne with a woman from a vastly different social background with whom he has already been living for several years. "Is this a stark break from European tradition?", I have been asked. "Will this forever change the Monarchy?" "Given their different backgrounds, can the marriage survive on love alone?"

The success of the existing European monarchies has been their ability to adapt and change with the times; those that were unable to evolve, perished. The British Monarchy, with its close ties to the Church of England, has traditionally been the most institutionally conservative of Europe's royal houses. Prince William and Kate Middleton are not breaking with European tradition, they are following in the wake of their continental counterparts.  The Crown Prince of Norway married an unwed mother, the Crown Princess of Sweden married a personal trainer and gym owner and the Crown Prince of Denmark married an Australian whom he met in a pub in Sydney during the 2000 Olympics. 

To remain relevant, monarchies must reflect contemporary society. Traditionalists may not approve, but they are not the ones who need to be convinced of the value of monarchy. The British Royal Family learnt this lesson in the immediate aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. I am certain that Prince William and Kate Middleton will refashion the monarchy and forge a new relationship with the nation, a nation whose priorities and attitudes may be starkly different from those of earlier generations.  

As for the happy couple themselves -- although love is essential to a happy marriage, given the pressures of modern royalty and the constant scrutiny of a global media, a successful royal marriage also requires many other qualities, not least of which are commitment and sacrifice.  Having been with Prince William for several years, Kate Middleton has a clear advantage denied to her predecessors:  she has been given time to understand the duties required of a Queen, she has had the opportunity to contemplate the experience of previous royal brides and she has had the benefit of her partner's guidance. Kate Middleton is not entering into this marriage as a naive, young girl but as a mature and fully-informed woman. 

In an egalitarian 21st century, Kate Middleton's unexceptional middle-class background is an asset. She is a person to whom the average person can relate, even more than they could to Diana, Princess of Wales or Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother both of whom, though technically commoners, were daughters of aristocrats. Kate Middleton is living the fairy tale dream -- her story could be anyone's. That is where the magic of monarchy comes into its own. 

In 2010, Miss Middleton's background is irrelevant to her ability to fulfil the duties required of a Queen. Prince William clearly does not see her background as an obstacle and the Queen, the Prince of Wales and the Royal Family are extremely fond of her. That should be enough to satisfy anyone. So long as she demonstrates a clear commitment and dedication to the task before her, and we have no reason to believe she won't, the people will accept her. I wish the happy couple every success in the world -- may they both live happily ever after!

Thursday, 18 November 2010

The Canadian Governor General's first investiture ceremony for the Order of Canada

Today HE The Governor General of Canada, Chancellor of the Order of Canada presided at his first investiture ceremony for the Order, of which HM The Queen of Canada is Sovereign.
Photo: (C) Office of the Secretary to the Governor General of Canada
More photographs at the GG web site: http://bit.ly/9Jv28X

Engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton

Congratulations to HRH Prince William of Wales and Miss Catherine Middleton on their engagement.  


Question of the Day:

1. St. Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey?  Following Miss Middleton's visit to the Abbey yesterday, it appears likely to be the ancient royal peculiar, site of the weddings of The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the Princess Royal and Captain Mark Phillips, and the Duke of York and Sarah Ferguson. The Prince of Wales' decision to marry in St. Paul's Cathedral in 1981 was a break with royal tradition which, some claim, was an attempt to connect the royal couple with the public (and was also due to the Prince of Wales' love of the building). St. Paul's Cathedral is very much the National Church -- a place for events of national celebration and commemoration whereas the Abbey is both Royal Church and, as the resting place for kings, queens and national heroes, a national pantheon.


Watch my interview on the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton (click on link and then scroll down to my name in right hand "CTV News Box"): http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/201

01116/prince-william-kate-middleton-engaged-101116/


Winnigpeg Free Press: TORONTO -- The love affair between the future heir to the British throne and his glamorous middle-class schoolmate may fan the flames of Canada's fondness for the monarchy, experts suggest. Word that Prince William and Kate Middleton have set a 2011 wedding date prompted optimistic predictions from royal observers who view the couple as being well-positioned to renew Canadian support for the Royal Family.

Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, a historian and commentator on British royalty, said William and Middleton present an appealing portrait of how the monarchy will function in the 21st century.
The couple _ media darlings of the British press _ strike the ideal balance between time-honoured traditions and much-needed modernization, he said.
"If the monarchy is to survive, it does need people like William and Kate who actually show the modern face of monarchy --  respecting its traditions, but understanding that times change and institutions have to evolve," he said.
William has only visited Canada twice, but Heydel-Mankoo said the prince's place in the Canadian consciousness was secured 12 years ago when he was seen donning Roots' Olympic gear while on a ski vacation with his father and brother, Prince Harry.
Canada was the birthplace of William's celebrity status, he said, adding the country will likely hold special significance for him.
Still, Heydel-Mankoo contends it is Middleton _ the daughter of a former airline worker and an ex-flight attendant that built up a multi-million dollar fortune _ who will resonate most with Canadians.
Her savvy style, confidence and comparatively modest background will make her appealing to a nation that embraces everyday heroes, he said.
"She is your stereotypical middle-class person. She's not an aristocrat who comes from a long line of irrelevant traditions to which most Canadians can't relate," he said.
"She's someone who is very much a person of the people, so I think that they will find her fairy-tale story will be one that they could relate to." FULL STORY: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/royal-wedding-may-help-revive-canadians-interest-in-the-monarchy-108445714.html


Thursday, 28 October 2010

Polish Nobility Association honours: Royal Order of Piast and Royal Order of Jagiellon

The Polish Nobility Association (PNA) is currently located at Villa Anneslie, in Baltimore County, Maryland. The President of the PNA is Dr. “Prince” Roger Chylinski-Polubinski, the founder of a Maryland cooking school. Dr. Chylinski-Polubinski is “Grand Master” of the self-styled Royal Order of Piast and has been decorated with two Orders that have been subjected to severe criticism: commander’s cross of the infamous Order of Polonia Restituta (previously awarded by the late “Count” Juliusz Sokolnicki)  and chevalier grand cross of the self-styled Order of St. Eugene de Trebizond (awarded by “Prince Lascaras-Camnenos” in 1974). 


The organisation appears to attract a number of individuals who might at best be described as "eccentric", perhaps as "well-meaning but deluded", and certainly as largely ignorant (perhaps willfully) or as psychologically flawed "pure fantastists", impervious to the truth.

Several other officers and members of the PNA have also used, or been accorded, pseudo-titles, including so-called “Count” Julius Nowina-Sokolnicki, “Count” Michael Subritzky-Kusza, “Baron” Wlodzimierz Korab-Karpowicz “Count” and “Countess” Basil Kusza-Subritzky, “Baron” Ezra Machinowski and “Count” Theodore Topor-Jakubowski, a retired United States judge. The Polish Nobility Association currently awards the following self-styled “Orders”:

ROYAL ORDER OF PIAST
This so-called “Order” was established on 27 January 1927 as a “progressive Order of Chivalry and Merit”. According to the Polish Nobility Association (PNA) web page, the Order’s “purpose is to protect the absolute independence of the Polish Lithuanian States, and the ultimate recovery of the achievements of the Piast Dynasty; through the realization of a project/movement via ‘The Slavic Commonwealth of Nations.’ The main organizer was Rev. Chodkiewicz and other Polish-Lithuanian nobles.”  The “Grand Master” of the Order is Roger Chylinski-Polubinski. The web page also makes the astonishing and quite bizarre claim that “In 1974, the Knights of Sts. Cyril and Methodius were incorporated into the Royal Order of Piast to minimize the number of Orders created by the Polish Kings and continued by the Polish Nobility over a period of years.”  By what right or authority an unrecognised Polish club or group can lay claim to the Order of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, a Royal Order of the King of Bulgaria, is not explained (see http://pnaf.us/merit.htm).

ROYAL ORDER OF JAGIELLON 



This so-called "Order" was established in 1969 “
to recognize the significant role played by Lithuania and the Lithuanian people in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of Nations.” The founder was Sigmund H. Uminski, former “Grand Chancellor of the Polish Noblility Association Foundation” and a member of one of the self-styled St. John “Orders”, the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta.

According to the web page “
the Supreme Council of the Royal Order of Piast and the Royal Order of Jagiellon has officially registered their Order with the Institute of Orders Researches in West Berlin (in 1974) under Dr. Klietman, Director of the Institute.” The web page neglects to advise that this act is completely meaningless, the "Institute" and its "Doctor" have no recognised international standing and the act of registration carries as much validity as registering them with one's grandmother.

The Polish Nobilty Association states that the Order of Piast and the Order of Jagiellon are “Supreme Orders”, ranking above another five Orders. The Orders are “a
dministered by hereditary Sovereign-Grand Marshalls, appointed Grand Chancellors, and the Chancellors, as well as other functionaries.” The identity of these individuals is not known (see http://pnaf.us/merit.htm).

The seven Orders, in precedence, listed on the PNA web page are:

1. The Royal Order of Piast
2. The Royal Order of Jagiello
3. Order of Saint John the Baptist
4. Imperial Order of Saint Vladimir (May 3, 1791)
5. Imperial and Royal Order of Saint Stanislas (Holy Union)
6. Royal Order of Saint Michael Archangel (Polish Military)
7. Order of S.S. Cyril and Methoduis (incorporated into the Order of the Piast)



What a lot of nonsense.  Caveat Emptor!

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Join The Churchill Centre and Churchill War Rooms

As a member of the Churchill Centre (formerly the International Churchill Society) for 20 years, I encourage all interested persons to consider joing The Churchill Centre and Churchill Museum at the Cabinet War Rooms.  Here is the Centre's latest video:



You Tube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YF52ckwo58


The Centre "was founded in 1968 to educate new generations on the leadership, statesmanship, vision, courage and boldness of Winston Spencer Churchill. Over 4000 members around the world, aged from ten to over ninety, work together to impress the record Churchill's life and deeds on the 21st century.

"The Centre sponsors an International Churchill Conference and numerous regional events; Churchill tours in Britain, Australia, France, South Africa and Morocco; academic symposia; student seminars; and the periodic Churchill Lecture, in which prominent world figurews apply Sir Winston’s experience to today’s issues. With grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Centre has conducted highly praised seminars for high school teachers in the USA and UK, to aid their appreciation and use of Churchill's story in their local curricula. The Centre website is a massive array of searchable facts and opinions.

"The Churchill Centre is politically non-partisan, but not apolitical. Its quarterly journal, Finest Hour, often touches on Churchill's political philosophy and its relevance to today's issues. Speakers span the political and cultural spectrum: William F. Buckley, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, Alistair Cooke, William Manchester, members of the Churchill family, and many others.

"While The Churchill Centre's view of its subject is naturally positive, it is not hagiographic and publishes critiques as well as praise. According to Roosevelt-Churchill historian Warren Kimball, "Finest Hour has become a serious (and still entertaining) journal, earning the sobriquet 'The Journal of Winston Churchill,' which has taken Churchill from the clutches of the worshipful and given him over to the appreciative—those who can look at him, warts and all."

"Since 1983, the Patron of The Churchill Centre is The Lady Soames LG DBE, the only surviving daughter of Sir Winston Churchill. From 1970 to 1979, the Patron was The Lord Mountbatten of Burma.




 "How deeply moving it is to me to see how revered is my father's memory, which The Churchill Centre does so much to keep fresh and green."



THE LADY SOAMES LG DBE
Daughter of Sir Winston, Patron of The Centre

"The Churchill Centre has achieved an astonishing record...to maintain access to his words is a true historical service, something his future will be very grateful for."



SIR ANTHONY MONTAGUE BROWNE KCMG CBE DFC
Private Secretary to Sir Winston, 1952-1965

"To the youth of America, as to the youth of all the Britains, I say, 'You cannot stop. It must be world anarchy or world order.  You will find in the British Commonwealth good comrades to whom you are united by other ties besides those of State policy and public need.  Law, language, literature...common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom.  These are common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-Speaking Peoples."



WINSTON S. CHURCHILL
Harvard, 6 September 1943"

For More Information please visit: The Churchill Centre: http://www.winstonchurchill.org

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

The Toothless Lion: Winston Churchill and the Fate of Poland

The Big Three:
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin

The English-speaking world has long celebrated Winston Churchill as a champion against tyranny and totalitarianism -- a democrat who strove to free enslaved nations from the oppressor’s yoke.  Yet this giant of history is not universally adored. 

Many Poles hold the former British statesman partially responsible for sealing Poland’s post-war fate, dooming it to almost half a century as a Soviet satellite.  These Poles, and their western supporters, allege that Churchill had a fiduciary duty to defend and advance Polish interests but failed to do so—choosing instead to yield to Stalin on the issue of Poland’s eastern frontier and ultimately failing to ensure Poland retained a truly democratic government. Careful consideration of the complicated diplomatic, military and strategic factors with which Winston Churchill, and by extension the British government, had to contend during the latter-half of the Second World War should give this view short shrift.  

An examination of the discussions between Winston Churchill, Polish Prime Minister Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, Josef Stalin and, to a far lesser degree, President Franklin Roosevelt, strongly suggests that among the leaders of the Great Powers, Winston Churchill was Poland’s best friend—albeit one who chose to practice ‘tough love’.  Rendered virtually impotent by his country’s military and financial exhaustion, restrained by the lack-lustre support of his American ally, out-maneuvered by a wily Soviet Politburo and frustrated by the intransigence and unrealistic attitude of the Polish Government in Exile, Winston Churchill was afforded very few options with which to defend Polish interests. Churchill’s unenviable predicament, through little fault of his own, would ultimately thwart his good intentions.

That Winston Churchill should have expended so much energy dealing with the exiled government of a distant Eastern European country whilst so many other issues also called for his attention—not least of which was fighting a war against Nazi Germany—may seem rather odd.  Among the Big Three powers, Poland was only of significant strategic importance to the Soviet Union, serving as a corridor between Germany and Russia and, by extension, between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.  British strategic interests were comparatively low in this region and were concentrated far more heavily in Greece and the Mediterranean.  

Winston Churchill and General Wladyslaw Sikorski,
Polish Prime Minister (1939-1943)
Yet Poland was not like other Eastern European nations.   Poland occupied immense symbolic importance for Great Britain; it had been the casus belli underlying Britain’s entry into the Second World War. The British Government was honour bound to preserve Polish independence and pledged to do nothing less.  The interpretation of this pledge and whether it committed Britain to defend Poland’s frontiers as well as its independence would later prove a major thorn in Anglo-Polish relations.  That the Polish Government in Exile was based in London, had many important British political allies, and commanded a significant Polish army ready to fight alongside the British were other factors of considerable weight.   

Winston Churchill also believed Poland to be of supreme importance as a ‘test case’ through which the Western Allies could gauge Soviet post-war intentions, trustworthiness and willingness to work with the west.  Not surprisingly, given British commitments to Poland and Soviet interests in Poland, the fate of this European nation was also a considerable threat to Anglo-Soviet relations.  The Polish issue was therefore of profound significance to Churchill.

Any hope Churchill may have had for sincere, committed American support in dealing with the Polish Government and negotiating with Joseph Stalin was short-lived.  The American attitude to the Polish question was at best one of casual interest.  The United States had not declared war over Poland and had not made any guarantees to the Polish Government.  Washington consequently felt little moral obligation to support either the Polish Government in Exile or Poland’s frontiers.  The United States did participate in some discussions regarding Poland’s future but any statement it made in support of Polish interests was largely due to its sizable ethnic-Polish voting population and the American-initiated Atlantic Charter. 

The Atlantic Charter bound the United States and the United Kingdom to oppose any territorial aggrandizement or territorial changes which ran contrary to the wishes of the people immediately concerned. It also supported the right of peoples to choose their own forms of government.  As far as Poland was concerned, however, Roosevelt did not believe the Atlantic Charter bound the United States to advocate for any particular Polish Government or territorial boundary.  Furthermore, the United States government viewed the Polish Government in Exile with suspicion.  As far as the Americans were concerned the fact that some members of the government had never been elected called into question claims that the government represented the Polish population. Its close relationship with the British Government also led some in Washington to suspect that the government would be manipulated by London.

Roosevelt’s primary diplomatic concern was to convince the Soviet Union that the west harboured no ill will towards them.  Eager to seek Soviet assistance in the war against Japan and also in the establishment on a United Nations Organisation, Roosevelt quite simply viewed the Polish dilemma as little more than an obstacle to the cementing of ties of friendship between the Soviet Union and the west.  Roosevelt was of the opinion that once close ties were established the Soviet Union would have little reason to worry about its security and therefore would be unlikely to be difficult in negotiations regarding the future of Eastern Europe.  With lack-lustre American support, the Polish problem was quite clearly one which fell largely upon Churchill’s shoulders.

After the war, when Poland’s fate was sealed, Churchill would gloomily write that this nation’s plight was “the first of the great causes which led to the breakdown of the wartime alliance”.  The first unmistakable signs of the impending breakdown became evident in April 1943 with the German discovery at Katyn of a mass grave containing approximately 10,000 Polish officers. The Polish Government, and unofficially the British Government, suspected the Soviet Union to have perpetrated the crime. It is from this point that Winston Churchill found it necessary to play an active role in attempting to find a solution to what would become known as the “Polish problem.”

Churchill had found the Soviet attitude towards Poland abhorrent but without the support of Franklin Roosevelt, Churchill knew the only possibility of the survival of a democratic Polish Government was for that government to make concessions. The Polish Government’s failure to agree to the settlement proposals put forth by Winston Churchill in the months between April 1943 and July 1944 destroyed any hope, however slim that hope may have ever been, of securing Poland’s independence in the post-war world.  Whether Poland could ever have escaped the clutches of Josef Stalin is, in hindsight, doubtful. But this cannot be blamed on Churchill. .

It was Churchill who offered the Polish Government a chance of survival as an independent government. Yet they chose not to avail themselves of what was undoubtedly their best chance of survival . It was Churchill who tried to cajole his American counterpart into throwing his considerable weight behind Poland. Yet Roosevelt was not interested. It was Churchill who stood up to Stalin in an attempt to extract as favourable a deal as possible for the Polish Government—in so doing, placing vitally important Anglo-Soviet relations in a most precarious position. Yet Stalin was content to let time work in his favour.

Winston Churchill was sailing the British ship of state between Scylla and the Charybdis.  The precious freight was the continued goodwill of Anglo-Soviet relations and also Britain’s honour-bound guarantee to protect Polish independence. The journey was perilous and even the most masterful captain would have been unlikely to save the entire cargo.

Friday, 15 October 2010

HM The Queen cancels Christmas Party -- Watch my interview

My interview on CTV News (Canada) discussing news that HM The Queen has cancelled this year's Christmas party. To view it please click on THIS LINK and then on my name in right hand margin. Interview will play after 15 second commercial. Alternatively, should that fail, click on this link: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/#clip360788

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

The New Zealand Royal Honours System -- An Example for Canada? PART TWO

Lessons for Canada

How can the Canadian honours system benefit from the New Zealand experience?

Although Canada was the first Commonwealth realm (outside the United Kingdom) to establish its own honours system, lack of foresight on the part of its administrators has led to a haphazard, and unsatisfactory, evolution. To draw a comparison with architecture, the current system resembles much less the intelligent and aesthetically pleasing design of a single architect but appears more as a house on to which several builders have hastily built a number of uninspiring extensions, some better than others. By contrast, the New Zealand Royal Honours System, as currently constituted, was the product of intelligent design and functions effectively and pleasingly. Fortunately for Canada, many of the key features of the New Zealand System are easily transferable.

Although the political climate renders it unlikely, the Canadian system would be vastly improved were citizens of all of The Queen’s realms made eligible for substantive appointments. Similarly, it seems quite logical to expect all awards in the Canadian honours system to be made in the name of The Queen rather than the Governor General. It is The Queen, after all, who is the Sovereign of every Order and, more generally, the fount of all Canadian honours.

As unlikely as it is that such changes will be made any time soon, given the fractured and unfocussed manner in which the Canadian honours system has evolved, I believe it is useful to suggest other, less politically sensitive reforms, the most urgent of which pertain to the status and structure of the Order of Canada. As Canada’s most prestigious Order, the Order of Canada should rank alongside the Order of Merit or the Order of New Zealand. Yet whilst these last two are single class orders of very restricted membership, hundreds if not thousands of people have received the Order of Canada.  The highest rank of companion is restricted to 165, yet this far exceeds the number of members who may belong to the Order of New Zealand at any one time. Indeed, in Canada, a country with a  population half that of the United Kingdom, there may be more companions of the Order of Canada than the combined total number of UK members of the Order of the Companions of Honour, the Order of Merit, the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle!

Canada requires a premier-ranked honour that distinguishes the truly outstanding from those who are merely very accomplished. Such an honour, be it the highest class of a multi-class order or a new single-class honour, should be limited to a far smaller number than the current limit of 165 companions, a restriction which is far too large for the highest level of a nation’s senior order.

I would also point out that, almost without exception, all of the world’s most prestigious orders are single class. Membership of a multi-class order such as the Order of Canada will rarely endow a recipient with the status that would be attained by membership in a single-class order with a restricted membership.  Whilst those who are interested in honours will appreciate that the class of companion is the highest class of the Order of Canada and is bestowed comparatively rarely, one cannot expect the average citizen to be aware of this fact. Similarly, although the public is aware of the existence of the Order of Canada and is familiar with the lapel pin and the insignia, only a tiny proportion will be able to distinguish the insignia or the lapel pin of a companion from that of a member or an officer.

Members of the public may be aware that a person belongs to the Order of Canada but they are rarely told to which class he or she belongs and this will again lead to the same problem of recognition. By way of illustration let me offer the following scenario: If an average person were to enter a restaurant and observe two persons sitting at a table, both of whom were wearing snowflake lapel pins, that person would probably recognise that they both belonged to the Order of Canada. However if one of those persons was a Companion of the Order of Canada (Canada’s most renowned scientist, philosopher or author for example) and the other was a Member of the Order of Canada (such as a high school principal) the average person would not be able to distinguish one from the other. Furthermore, if informed that one was a Companion and one was a Member this in and of itself might not be sufficient to make the person appreciate that, although both belong to the same Order, the achievements of one are celebrated internationally whilst the achievements of the other, although laudable, had an impact that was limited to a local community..

The solution is surely to create a new single-class honour to rank above the Order of Canada and to be restricted to between 15 and 24. As in New Zealand, this honour would be exclusively bestowed upon the nation’s most revered and cherished individuals. Unfortunately, the existence of the Order of Canada makes the selection of a name for this new honour difficult -- for surely Canada’s premier honour should be so named. There would appear to be two solutions to this quandary. One would be to find an acceptable name that would not appear peculiar when listed above the Order of Canada: the “Order of Confederation” is one possibility (I was thinking of the Order of the Polar Star but Sweden and Mongolia have already claimed that one!). The second, and my preferred, solution is to create a chain or collar, similar to the Royal Victorian Chain, which could be called the “Canadian Chain” or the “Chain of Confederation”.  With time, the existence and purpose of the chain would become common knowledge and it would not be long before members of the public who were introduced to a recipient of the Canadian Chain / Chain of Confederation would immediately recognise that the individual in question was one of Canada’s national treasures.

Another reform which can be implemented by adopting the New Zealand model is the expansion of the Order of Canada from three to five classes (thus replicating the New Zealand Order of Merit). The Order of Canada has already expanded from its original single class of 1967 and there is therefore no logical reason for it to remain at three. The two new classes, which might be named Grand Officer and Grand Companion, would rank above the current highest class of Companion. Neither of these levels need carry any titular distinction; recipients would simply bear the appropriate post-nominal. The creation of two new numerically-restricted classes would enable the Order to be awarded with greater frequency at the lower levels while safeguarding the higher levels for the exceptional (as is done with the Order of the British Empire for example). The Order of Canada is already under pressure as it is currently unable to adequately respond to the need to honour the many Canadians who are deserving of an honour.[1] The Grand Companion and Grand Officer classes could also be used for diplomatic appointments, either substantive or honorary. Canada does not currently have any means of adequately honouring foreign diplomats.

New insignia would be required for each of the two additional classes. In addition to the neck badge, Grand Officers could receive a breast star, whilst Grand Companions could receive a breast star, a sash and a sash badge. The institution of such insignia would serve to distinguish these classes from each other and from the lower classes. Most members of the public would immediately appreciate that a person wearing a neck badge and a star ranks ahead of one who wears merely a neck badge, whilst one who wears a sash ranks above them all.

Members of the Royal Family should be admitted to the Order of Canada as “extra”, rather than “honorary”, members. It seems quite wrong that a past Queen Consort whose daughter is both Queen of Canada and Sovereign of the Order of Canada and who, at the time of her appointment, was colonel-in-chief of Canadian regiments, should have been admitted as an honorary member, as if she were a foreigner with no connection to Canada. The situation is such that currently a future King of Canada would also have to be admitted to the Order as an “honorary” member. I cannot see how such a circumstance can be regarded as acceptable. It would surely bring honour and increased publicity to the Order of Canada, and indeed to Canada itself, were members of the Royal Family to be seen wearing the appropriate insignia on their medal bar, just as some members currently wear New Zealand’s Queen’s Service Order, with its distinctive ribbon.

Unlike Australia or New Zealand, Canada has its own heraldic authority, a body responsible for dealing with all matters pertaining to coats of arms, be they personal, corporate or civic. New Zealanders have a resident herald, New Zealand Herald Extraordinary, who represents the College of Arms in England however it is Her Majesty's U.K. resident Kings of Arms who act for The Queen as "Queen of New Zealand". Australia does not even have a resident herald. Canada and Antigua and Barbuda are the only Commonwealth realms outside the United Kingdom to have their own independent heralds. Unfortunately, whilst heralds in England and Scotland continue to play a ceremonial role on state occasions and serve as officers for the great orders of chivalry, the activities of the heralds of the Canadian Heraldic Authority have been largely restricted to matters related to coats of arms. I regard this as far too limiting. Having created its own independent heraldic institution, it seems a logical progression for Canada to install the Chief Herald of Canada, or another herald in ordinary, as an officer of the Order of Canada (the “Herald of the Order”). To those who would argue that such a position has no place in a modern order of a modern state, I would merely point out that New Zealand Herald Extraordinary serves as the herald of the New Zealand Order of Merit and this relatively recent appointment has been very well received by the public. As an officer of the Order the herald would participate in investiture ceremonies and could be charged with reading out the citations of those who are to be invested; he or she might also act as custodian of the roll of the Order. The herald, who would wear special insignia, would add a degree of pageantry to investiture ceremonies and this would bring increased prestige and solemnity to the occasions. As the Chief Herald of Canada now wears a ceremonial collar and carries a ceremonial baton and is about to receive tabard, I do not believe it is far-fetched to suggest that the appropriate time has arrived for one of the heralds to participate in ceremonies of the Order of Canada (as well as the State Opening of Parliament!).

The New Zealand Royal Honours System is a sensibly-crafted system that reveals a sound understanding of the nature of honours on the part of those who created it. Its structure is one which enables honours to be used to their best advantage and it is generally regarded as one of the finest models in the Commonwealth. The Canadian system, which is still respected for its pioneering spirit, has failed to realise its full potential. Canadian reform can be achieved relatively easily – it remains to be seen whether those with the power to initiate such reform have also the desire.


[1] Hitherto, the Canadian government has attempted to ease pressure on the Order of Canada by creating the Meritorious Service Decorations. Established in a civil and military division, the Meritorious Service Decorations honour those whose achievements are noteworthy but not yet sufficient to merit investiture in the Order of Canada. While the Order of Canada focuses upon lifetime achievement, the four Meritorious Service Decorations (military cross, military medal, civilian cross, civilian medal) honour either a single achievement or an activity over a specified period.