"Even the Duchess of Cambridge Must Bend. HRH may be the crown jewel of the Windsor clan, but she still has to curtsy to Prince William’s cousins"

I was interviewed by Canada's leading Macleans Magazine for the article that appeared in last week's print issue (authored by Mike Rekai on July 10, 2012) and which is reproduced below:

While her life may seem like a paradise of far-flung travels, generous clothing budgets and polo matches, Catherine, duchess of Cambridge, is still, in some circumstances, a second-tier royal.

Last week, the house of Windsor updated its official protocol; Kate, it stipulates, must now curtsy to “blood princesses” when Prince William, her husband, is not present (when they are together, she retains his status). While she may be a future queen consort, she was still born of common blood.

It all boils down to the so-called “order of precedence”—the royal ranking. There are in fact two rankings: one used when William and Kate are together, another when Kate is alone. The latter “places princesses who were born royal above those who were not,” explains Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, co-editor of Burke’s Peerage & Gentry.

According to the document, a William-less Kate is required to curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie—the party-hardy twentysomething daughters of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson—as well as Anne, Alexandra, a little-known royal, and even Camilla, Charles’s former mistress, who, as wife of the heir to the throne is ahead of Kate on the female pecking order.

While Windsor enthusiasts on both sides of the Atlantic may be surprised to learn that the duchess is afforded less status than the girls best known outside the royal family for wearing outlandish hats to her wedding, Heydel-Mankoo says that precedence is rarely followed by the younger royals, who interact much more casually than previous generations. “In private, the duchess of Cambridge, and all the family, would curtsy to the Queen, of course, and the duke of Edinburgh because he is the patriarch of the family, but you certainly won’t find younger royals curtsying to each other.”

Though precedence is still maintained at public events, there was a time when it was rigidly enforced even behind palace doors. In the ’50s, he says, the Queen’s cousin-in-law, the duchess of Kent, regularly curtsied to the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret—“but Princess Margaret was a formidable woman,” he explains, “and very particular about these things.” Since then, the rules have become more flexible. Nowadays, you won’t see Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin, curtsying to the Princess Royal, the Queen's daughter; neither will you see Zara curtsy to her "royal highness" cousins Beatrice or Eugenie, he says—“that’s just not going to happen.”

Nor will Kate be relegated to a commoner’s place in the royal family. On the contrary, her high profile throughout the Diamond Jubilee is a testament to how serious the Queen is about the new royal’s place within the Windsor family. It’s clear, says Heydel-Mankoo, “that the duchess of Cambridge is about as close to the heart of the monarchy as it is possible to be.”

Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/10/britain-the-duchess-must-bend/

July 4 1918 - Churchill's Greeting to the President & People of the United States of America

On this anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, I post below a speech delivered by Winston Churchill in London on this date in 1918.

A Declaration of interdependence: commemoration in London in 1918 of the 4th of July, 1776: resolutions and Addresses at the Central-Hall, Westminster, with an introductin by George Haven Putnam. New York, [1918]. 32 pp.
THE FIRST RESOLUTION CABLED FROM THE MEETING TO PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON, WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
At this representative meeting of Anglo-Saxon fellowship, assembled at the Central Hall, Westminster, London, and presided over by the Right Honourable Viscount Bryce, O.M., the following resolution proposed by the Right Honourable Winston S. Churchill, and seconded by the Honourable A. Meighen, was carried with acclamation:--
"This meeting of Anglo-Saxon Fellowship, assembled in London on July 4th, 1918, send to the President and people of the United States their heartfelt greetings on the 142nd anniversary of the declaration of American Independence.
"They rejoice that the love of liberty and justice on which the American Nation was founded should in the present time of trial have united the whole English-speaking family in a brotherhood of arms. They congratulate the United States and Navy on the marvellous achievement involved in the safe transportation to the battlefields of Europe of the first million soldiers of the American Army. They affirm their devotion to the noble and righteous cause in which we are fighting and their faith that by the help of God a complete and lasting victory will be won for freedom and humanity." 

Hat Tip to Classic Works of Apologetics for the source material.

The Guiding Principles for Effective Reform of the House of Lords

With the Coalition Government tabling its House of Lords reform bill later today, proposing a mainly elected upper chamber of 450 senators, each serving a non-renewable term of 15 years, a dramatic transformation of the House of Lords may be upon us; but we should be mindful that the Lords is Britain's greatest political survivor, the political long grass littered with countless proposals for its reform.

Something certainly needs to be done. For all its value, the House of Lords has become unmanageably large. With the addition of 111 new peers in the six months following the last general election  -- compared with 205 appointments during the entirety of the Thatcher government, the number of peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords has swelled to 792; this makes Britain's upper house by far the largest of any democracy and, after China's, the second largest in the world. 

Fortunately, being unsalaried, our peers are extremely cost-effective. According to an article by Lord Norton on the House of Lords website, in 2006-2007 the total per capita cost of a peer was £108,000 a year against £682,000 for an MP. Nevertheless, 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 immediately with appointments of further peers suspended until mechanisms for retirement and resignation have been set in place.

Unfortunately the Government's bill fails to correctly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the upper chamber. 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 and the general quality of national governance. The quest for better government must be the guiding principle of any reform proposal. Unfortunately the Government's bill fails to do this.

Following the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999 (there is surely some irony that the 92 hereditary peers are the only democratically elected element in the upper house!), the House of Lords has become noticeably more confident and effective. 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 may also be attributed to the lack of a single party majority in the upper chamber, with the Conservatives and Labour broadly equal and the Liberal Democrats and cross-benchers holding the balance of power. Given executive control over the House of Commons, the lack of a party majority in the House of Lords is a positive development which strengthens both Parliament and democracy. 

With a more diverse membership, including more women and ethnic minorities, a greater range of professional expertise and more opportunity for considered political minority dissent, the modern House of Lords is a far better microcosm of Britain than the House of Commons. Whilst the role of the House of Commons is to represent the people, I hold that the role of the modern House of Lords is to be representative of society. By so doing, it fulfils a democratic function and fills a democratic void that an elected House of Commons cannot (for example, the nature of political elections is such that women and ethnic minorities are always under-represented and minority dissent is sidelined).

Any attempt at reform must preserve the House of Lords' complementary relationship with the House of Commons and enable it to fulfil its primary functions of revising legislation, scrutinising the executive, and committee work and studies. Accepting that the House of Lords fulfils a different role to the House of Commons, it also follows that its members should meet a different set of criteria. Peers should complement MPs. Any reform of the composition of the House of Lords must maintain those features that have traditionally distinguished members of the upper house from the lower: independence, professional expertise, diversity and long-term perspective. Elections will make this difficult to achieve and the Government's bill completely fails to demonstrate how these will be preserved.


Whether due to a decline in the proper teaching of civics, increased exposure to American political and popular culture or the desire of politicians and the media to simplify complex concepts, the notion of “democracy” that is on the ascendant in modern Britain is nothing more than crude majoritarianism and poses a significant threat to our constitution, our political institutions and our system of government. 

In the context of Lords reform, advocates of this simplistic notion hold that the democratic legitimacy of all political institutions rests, exclusively, upon election and majority rule. Any institution which fails to meet both of these criteria will be held to lack legitimacy. This interpretation of democracy appears to have achieved dominance in the House of Commons, in the media and with a large portion of the public and is nowhere better illustrated than in calls for a House of Lords that is “wholly or predominantly elected” and therefore “more democratic and representative”.

Liberal democracy is a far more sophisticated and complex concept; it balances the interests of the majority against other important values, such as the protection of human rights, the promotion of social justice and equality, and respect for a variety of beliefs. These values, essentially moral in nature, have long enjoyed legal protection, enhanced through quasi-constitutional legislation and treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. In an advanced democracy these fundamental values will enjoy protection beyond the reach of the majority's will. 

In an important ruling in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada identified four central tenets of the Canadian constitution, each of equal importance: democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, the protection of minorities and federalism. In the Canadian context all four tenets operate together, none in isolation and none trumping the others. As stated in the preamble to Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, Canada has “a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”; consequently, with the exception of federalism, and applying the principles of common law by which rulings of Commonwealth courts may be regarded as persuasive, I hold that those same tenets can be deemed equally applicable to the United Kingdom.

The democratic process comprises many different elements including public debate, receipt of expert opinion and the consideration of opposing views. Parliament is far more democratic when it takes dissenting opinion into account. Liberal democracy supports the notion that consideration of political opposition is important. Unbridled majoritarian democracy, being averse to attempts to influence or restrict the will of the majority, is wary of opposition; and this results in an unsatisfactory democratic process yielding inferior results. The House of Lords is a far more comfortable home for political dissent and opposition than the House of Commons.

Accepting the more sophisticated definition of “democracy”, the House of Lords, as the pre-eminent defender of the constitution, the rule of law and human rights, and as the best-suited forum for political dissent, is undeniably democratic and is essential to our democratic system. This brings us to the issue of election. 

Election to the upper house is an acceptable procedure for a congressional system of government based upon the separation of powers but not necessarily for a parliamentary system of government in which the executive is subject to the confidence of the lower house only and in which the two houses are complementary rather than competitive (the upper house serving as a chamber for sober reflection and review). Elected peers would become little more than duplicates of their Commons colleagues, making it difficult to maintain the essential skills and qualities outlined above (independence, professional expertise, diversity and long-term perspective).

A wholly elected House of Lords would challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons enabling it to justifiably claim authority to hold the government to account and to represent the people. In the eyes of the public, this might endow Lords and Commons with equal legitimacy. The houses would cease to complement each other and would start to compete, with the Lords more likely to exercise its full powers. Put simply, two wholly elected chambers runs contrary to the correct operation of our parliamentary system and would require a complete re-evaluation of the function and purpose of the House of Lords.

Election would also weaken the independence of the peers and lead to greater partisanship. Although partisanship exists in the upper house, it is far less prevalent than in the lower house and it is not uncommon to find peers voting against their own party. If elected, and particularly if eligible for re-election, peers will be far more susceptible to pressures from the party Whip, independence would become jeopardized and the quality of work and debate would suffer.

Unfettered by party ties and holding the balance of power in the House, the crossbenchers are a defining feature (and symbol) of the independence of the House of Lords. Able to judge issues on their merits, without party-political constraint, crossbench contributions to debates, legislative review and committee work is invaluable. Given the noticeable lack of independent Members of Parliament, it is highly probable that an elected House of Lords would lose the crossbenchers—the ultimate loser being British democracy.

Electoral systems do not favour women or ethnic minorities and it is therefore very likely that an elected House of Lords would be considerably more impenetrable to members of these groups than it is currently. Reformers must realise that attempts to “democratise” the House of Lords and make it more “representative” will transform it into a much more homogenous and far less representative institution. 

Elections will also deprive Parliament of many of its most learned and respected members. The majority of the eminent scholars, doctors, scientists, social workers, educators, economists, businessmen, musicians and writers who have been elevated to the Lords are not the sort of people who are likely to stand for election. This priceless pool of talent and experience, so critically important to the work of the upper house, will be lost. The only major group likely to remain would be seasoned politicians with election experience.

Elections would impact upon the quality of the Lords' work in other ways too. The work of the Lords in legislative review, executive scrutiny, committee work and investigative studies is unquestionably superior to that of the Commons. This is due not only to the expertise of the peers, many of whom, as noted, are experts in their particular field, but because, freed from the constituency duties and electioneering work that dominates the lives of MPs, peers are able to devote far more time to serious and in-depth study of legislation and policy issues. The length of their period in the House of Lords also enables peers to develop considerable parliamentary and committee experience and affords them a long-term perspective denied to MPs, who tend to have short terms of office and a high turnover rate. 

In short, a wholly or predominantly elected House of Lords would destroy the complementary relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, with the House of Lords able to claim equal right to public representation; it would also lead to a rise in partisanship and increased control by the party machines, a reduction of the institution's independence resulting from the inevitable loss of independent crossbenchers, a reduction in the quality and depth of legislative revision and committee work due to the burden of constituency duties, a severe reduction in the broad range of professional expertise through the departure of many eminent leaders from a wide variety of professions, and it would cause a decline in the diverse range of opinions from a likely reduction in the number of women and ethnic minorities. This is bad for democracy. It is difficult to ascertain precisely how elections would make the house more “representative” or how they would fulfil what must be the primary purpose of reform: to improve the governance of Britain.

Of course this discussion may prove entirely academic. Reform proposals come and go. The Lords remains. Whether the Coalition Government's reform bill will succeed where so many others have failed we cannot know. If history is any guide, we may be debating the future of their Noble Lordships for some time to come.

Royal Tour of Canada 2012 -- What to Expect

My interview with Sun News Network on the day before the arrival in Canada of TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. A discussion about the role and relevance of the Canadian Monarchy. Click video below to watch.

"Like a Diamond" Jubilee Anthem to challenge Gary Barlow's Jubilee Anthem

Gary Barlow's Jubilee Anthem, recorded to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the succession to the throne of HM The Queen, has a lovely melody but it has received considerable criticism for failing to mention or depict The Queen once in the entire song and video. It seems remarkable that a song recorded as a tribute to The Queen should ignore here completely. Certainly anyone watching it would be unlikely to think that it was recorded for Her Majesty.

Fortunately, another songwriter and producer, Anton and John Lorien, have rescued the day by producing a stirring Jubilee Anthem dedicated entirely to Her Majesty. The lyrics relate directly to Her Majesty's lifelong service to Britain and the Commonwealth.

This terrific, and stirring Jubilee song, deserves as much exposure as possible in these coming days, as we approach the Jubilee. So please, listen to the song below and, if you like it, please share the link with friends and family -- particularly anyone in the media or the music industry. We would love to have this song in the charts before the Jubilee. It's the most appropriate popular music tribute to The Queen one could possibly hope for.

Charles, Camilla's royal visit sticks to tradition

I'm quoted in this article by Melanie Patten published today by the Canadian Press.

Canada, refine your curtsy and practice your bow. Another royal visit is upon us.

But unlike Prince William and Kate's whirlwind, hands-on tour as newlyweds last year, there is no need to brush up on dragon boating or street hockey...

Headlines remarked on the couple's informal attitude, their outward affection for each other, their willingness to mingle freely with crowds, and their desire to participate in non-traditional events, including facing off in a dragon boat race and playing street hockey.

As newlyweds, their visit was a coming out of sorts before the entire world. Charles and Camilla's tour, however, is meant to focus on the Queen's service to the Commonwealth over six decades, said Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, a royal commentator based in the U.K.

"This tour in Canada is not going to be the celebrity glam tour that we saw with Prince William and Catherine," he said from London.

"Instead, we're going to see a focusing on all those initiatives and projects which aren't fashionable but which the monarchy supports."

Heydel-Mankoo said the decision to send the future king to Canada as part of the Diamond Jubilee festivities speaks volumes of the Royal Family's affection for the country.

"Canada has a very, very strong connection with the Royal Family," he said. "They would never say so in public, but I think secretly it's their favourite realm after the U.K."

Charles and Camilla are set to arrive in New Brunswick on Sunday evening. Their official welcome, replete with a 21-gun salute, is scheduled for the following morning at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.

The royal couple will meet with members of the military and attend a reception with Gov. Gen. David Johnston before heading to Saint John for a walking tour. They will also take in a citizenship ceremony and Victoria Day celebrations before departing New Brunswick for Toronto on Monday evening.

On Tuesday, Charles will meet with students at Ryerson University before he and Camillia attend a Diamond Jubilee celebration hosted by Premier Dalton McGuinty. Charles will also meet with leaders of the Assembly of First Nations.

The couple's final day in Regina will include a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Heydel-Mankoo said he expects Charles will make many more trips to Canada in the future to give newer generations a chance to know him better.

The prince is already highly regarded in the U.K., he said.

He said Charles successfully emerged from bad press in the 1980s and 1990s and the collapse of his marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, to become "a renaissance man." Deeply spiritual and reflective, Charles is dedicated to issues of sustainable living, education and helping disadvantaged youths, he said.

As for his relationship with Camilla, royal historian Carolyn Harris said it is one of mutual respect.

Camilla was once vilified as an old flame who poisoned Charles's first marriage to Diana, but the 64-year-old duchess is now considered an integral member of the Royal Family.

Harris said observers will note the public relationship between Charles and Camilla shares similarities with that of William and Kate.

"Diana attracted an enormous amount of attention and, to a certain degree at the time, she upstaged her husband and that created tensions within their marriage," Harris said from Toronto.

"Whereas we see with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall the degree to which they compliment each other as a couple."

Heydel-Mankoo agrees.

"They have a wonderful working relationship. He's very much the ying to her yang," he said.

"There's just a nice, warm happy glow when they're together."

If William and Kate were responsible for reigniting Canada's interest in the monarchy, MacKenzie said Charles and Camilla — and the pomp and ceremony people have come to expect from royal visits —will keep that flame alight.

"There's a little something for everyone of all ages and persuasions in monarchy," he said. "That's what makes it so continually appealing."

© The Canadian Press, 2012

Read it on Global News: Global News | Charles, Camilla's royal visit sticks to tradition 

Prince of Wales Announces New Canadian Patronages

Press Release: "TORONTO – Prince’s Charities Canada (PCC) is pleased to announce that two new Canadian organizations have been granted a Royal patronage from HRH The Prince of Wales.  Both The Royal Conservatory of Music and Earth Rangers were notified of the honour just ahead of The Prince’s official visit to Canada next week.

“The Prince of Wales has been involved in Canadian public life for 40 years,” said Amanda Sherrington, President and CEO of Prince’s Charities Canada.  “These patronages represent a further deepening of that relationship and honour the good work of these organizations in The Prince’s areas of interest”.

The Prince of Wales currently serves as patron to six Canadian organizations including those announced today as well as acting as Colonel-in-Chief to seven Canadian regiments.

“The Royal Conservatory is extremely proud and grateful to join a select group of organizations reflecting the values and goals of His Royal Highness,” said, Dr. Peter Simon, President of The Royal Conservatory. “We are honoured to announce the patronage relationship as we celebrate 125 years of excellence as one of the world’s largest and most influential music and arts education institutions.”

The Royal Conservatory is also working with Prince’s Charities Canada to take it’s successful “Learning through the Arts” program to the United Kingdom where this Canadian success story will be administered by The Prince’s Foundation for Children and the Arts.  Learning through the Arts (LTTA) is a rigorous, structured curriculum program that uses music, drama and visual art to teach core subjects such as math and science.  His Royal Highness will be meeting representatives of The Royal Conservatory of Music as well as students and teachers who use the LTTA program during an event at First Nations University in Regina.

The Royal Conservatory of Music is one of the largest and most respected music education institutions in the world.  Providing the definitive standard of excellence through its curriculum, assessment, performance and teacher education programs.

Prince’s Charities Canada is currently working with Earth Rangers to explore similar opportunities within The Prince’s global network.  “The Prince of Wales shares our passion for wildlife and the environment and we are thrilled by today’s announcement”, said Peter Kendall, Executive Director and Co-CEO Earth Rangers

Earth Rangers is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating and inspiring children on the importance of protecting biodiversity and adopting more sustainable behaviours.

-30-

For more information:

Daniela Minicucci, NATIONAL Public Relations"

            416-848-1462        dminicucci@national.ca   www.princescharities.ca

Spanish Government force Queen Sofia to cancel her attendance at the reigning world monarchs' Diamond Jubilee Lunch

First it was announced that TM The King & Queen of Spain would not celebrate their Golden Wedding Anniversary -- now it has been announced that Queen Sofia has been "ordered" (whatever happened to "advised"?) not to attend the Diamond Jubilee lunch with the world's sovereing monarchs that will be held at Windsor Castle on Friday.


Poor Queen Sofia. HM is a frequent visitor to London -- she is  often seen shopping in St. James's and elsewhere. London is familiar territory to her. More important, she is a descendant of Queen Victoria and thus a cousin of our Queen -- Queen Sofia is also a first cousin once removed of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Spanish Government has stated that Queen Sofia cannot even attend in a private capacity.  This must be a most disappointing turn of events -- particularly after the bad publicity surrounding His Majesty's big game hunting (and subsequent injury). Queen Sofia will no doubt be most upset to miss such an important opportunity to meet with her peers and relatives and celebrate such a momentous occasions -- the world's reigning monarchs and consorts meet very rarely.

Some reports bear headlines that suggest Queen Sofia has snubbed Queen Elizabeth. This is wholly incorrect. The fault lies with the Spanish Government's attempt to insert politics into a day of non-partisan celebrations. A great shame, and much to be lamented.

Britons Support The Sovereign's Role as "Defender of the Faith", poll suggests

A poll by Comres commissioned by B.B.C. local radio to coincide with the Diamond Jubilee suggests that 73% of Britons favour the maintenance of the Sovereign's historic role as "Defender of the Faith" and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In total, almost 80% of Britons appear to believe that the Sovereign has an important role to play in matters of faith.

These findings will come as a blow to republicans, many of whom have argued for years that the Sovereign's Christian faith is divisive and incompatible with a multi-faith society. Whatever one's personal views on religion, the Comres poll demonstrates that many non-Christians approve of the values and principles according to which The Queen has led her life and believe that the essence of these values are not restricted to adherents of any single faith. Indeed, several non-Christian religious leaders have stated their preference for a Head of State who is a person of faith, rather than a person without faith.  

Although the title of Fidei Defensor ("Defender of the Faith") was originally bestowed on the then Catholic King Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in 1521 in recognition of his book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum ("Defence of the Seven Sacraments"), the title was revoked by Pope Paul III following King Henry's break with Rome.  The Sovereign's current title of "Defender of the Faith" was conferred by Parliament for precisely the opposite purpose of the original papal grant (i.e., to defend the Protestant faith against Catholicism). Today, however, the use of "Defender of the Faith" in the Sovereign's formal Royal Titles and Styles may be taken as a reference to the Sovereign's status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England (as this role is not included in HM's formal styles and titles).

The Queen demonstrated the evolution of this role earlier this year, during a multi-faith gathering at Lambeth Palace, which was attended by leaders of Britain's nine largest religious faiths (including Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Baha'i, Zoroastrians and Jains), in which Her Majesty said that the role of the Church was not "to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of all other religions, instead the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country."

Government of Canada Unveils Details of the 2012 Royal Tour

Official Release: Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will tour Canada from May 20 to 23, 3012, visiting four communities in three provinces. This will be the 16^th time His Royal Highness has toured Canada. His most recent tour was in 2009. This will be the second tour to Canada for Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall.

The program will highlight Canadians’ service to their communities, in recognition of which The Prince of Wales will present The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medals. 

The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall will visit:

• Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Gagetown, Oromocto, New Brunswick (May 21)
• Saint John, New Brunswick (May 21)
• Toronto, Ontario (May 21 and 22)
• Regina, Saskatchewan (May 22 and 23)

Opportunities for Canadians to see Their Royal Highnesses will be at the following events:

• Official welcome to Canada at CFB Gagetown in Oromocto on May 21
• Victoria Day Celebration in Saint John, New Brunswick on May 21
• Arrival at Queen’s Park in Toronto, on May 22
• Arrival at the Saskatchewan Legislature on May 23
• Arrival at the First Nations University in Regina on May 23

In addition to these public opportunities, there are several highlights of this tour:

• Victoria Day fireworks in Toronto on May 21
• A meeting with chief executives and youth who have participated in The Prince’s Charities Seeing is Believing program in Canada on May 22
• A meeting with young veterans and mentors involved in the Military Entrepreneurship summer school at CFB Gagetown on May 21
• A meeting with the National Leadership of Assembly of First Nations in Toronto on May 22
• A first visit for Her Royal Highness to the Queen’s Own Rifles—she has just become Colonel-in-Chief of the regiment—in Toronto on May 22
• A special military event that will commemorate the War of 1812 in Toronto on May 22
• A celebration of the centennial of Regina’s Legislative Building on May 23
• A performance by the Regina Symphony Orchestra of which His Royal Highness is a Royal Patron in Regina on May 23.

The theme of the 2012 Royal Tour is “For Queen and Country:  Service to Canada—A Royal and a National Value.” Source: Government of Canada: http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1335470669033/1335471159074

The Royal Line of Succession genealogical and heraldic chart

I am delighted to recommend this splendid work of heraldic art and genealogical skill -- The Royal Line of Succession by the accomplished heraldic artist Neil Bromley. A tremendous achievement (no pun intended) and perfectly timed for the Diamond Jubilee. Originally painted on vellum in 23 carat gold, this work was deemed to good not to share with the public. It has therefore been reproduced on quality paper and is available for sale at this link The Royal Line of Succession.

One Year On: Public Love Affair with William and Catherine Remains Strong

I am quoted in today's Canadian Press article marking the first anniversary of the wedding of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

By Michelle McQuigge, Canadian Press

TORONTO - It's been a year since they declared their love for each other in the most anticipated wedding of the decade, but 12 months haven't been enough to quell the public passion for the newest royal couple.

Prince William and Kate spent their first year as newlyweds under the sort of global spotlight usually reserved for Hollywood a-listers. Their every appearance has been mobbed with adoring crowds and their slightest remarks analyzed for possible suggestions that they're preparing to bring a future monarch into the world.

Through it all, royal-watchers say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have managed to carve out a private life while still living up to lofty public expectations.

"They've played a perfect year," commentator Rafal Heydel-Mankoo said in a telephone interview. "They've covered all the bases. They've had an international trip, they've had local visits, work with charitable causes. They've engaged in their work roles admirably. I think you could really give them a 10 out of 10 when it comes to their performance over the first year."

William and Kate were public darlings for months before their glamorous wedding ceremony at London's Westminster Abbey.

On that day, thousands mobbed the streets of London while millions more around the world tuned in from home to watch the future heir to the throne wed his college sweetheart.

The couple retreated from the spotlight after their nuptials, only to re-emerge with greater star power than ever on their first visit abroad. The newlyweds' nine-day, whirlwind tour of Canada, observers say, showed the couple of at their best.

Their more informal attitudes set the tone for the trip as they freely mingled with rapturous crowds, participated in Canadian sports such as street hockey and faced off against one another in a dragonboat race. Kate's now legendary fashion sense was also on full display as she modeled outfits from homegrown designers and even donned the national colours in honour of Canada Day.

"Canada was really the country that made them as a royal couple," Heydel-Mankoo said.

Susan Catto, deputy editor of celebrity magazine Hello Canada, agreed. Canadians were thoroughly charmed by the new generation of royals, she said, adding reader interest in the couple has been unprecedented.

Enthusiasm for Kate _ who enjoyed a middle-class upbringing before marrying into the monarchy _ has resonated most with a country in the process of rediscovering its royal heritage, she said.

"There's a lot of admiration for her grace under pressure and the decorum that she's shown in the role," Catto said. "I think Canadians do appreciate the traditions of the royal family, and I think there's an appreciation for the fact that she has not put a foot wrong."

Certainly she has brought a lot of lustre to the family."

Much of Kate's comportment is the result of lessons learned in the aftermath of previous broken royal marriages, observers said.

Royal historian Carolyn Harris said William's mother Diana and former aunt Sarah Ferguson both complained about feeling isolated and overwhelmed in their first years of marriage to royalty. Kate has received extensive coaching on maintaining a balance between public and private responsibilities, she said.

Between official engagements at home and abroad, the couple live in comparative seclusion in Wales, she said. William has continued his military career as a search and rescue pilot and recently completed a six-week deployment to the Falklands earlier this year.

The fact that William and Kate have managed to carve out a private life, Harris said, has helped to preserve their mystique by making sure they're not over-exposed in the public eye.

That fascination has fuelled the constant speculation about when the couple can expect their first child, a subject on which both have remained tight-lipped.

"It speaks to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's personal popularity that there's so much interest in the royal family continuing through that direct line," Harris said. "That shows how well-regarded they are."

William and Kate have announced they will recognize their first wedding anniversary in a private celebration.

Original Source: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/public-love-affair-with-william-and-kate-remains-strong-149407175.html

Launch of my new website: www.heydel-mankoo.com

I am pleased to announce the launch of my website: www.heydel-mankoo.com   This site focusses on my work as a royal commentator, writer & lecturer, and honours, protocol & etiquette consultant. Kind regards, RHM

Royal Commentary Video Show Reel of Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

I have finally decided to create a video show reel featuring a selection of clips from some of the broadcasts I have made over the past 15 years. I post it below should it be of any interest to anyone.

Ceremonial Procession to the Lying-in-State of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

This month marks the 10th anniversary of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. The 5th April 2002 was the date of the Ceremonial Procession to the Lying-in-State at Westminster Hall. In commemoration of that event I post below the full-length broadcast coverage from 2002, which includes my live running commentary.

BBC commentary on The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Address to Parliament

I appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme and BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast Show yesterday morning to discuss HM's Diamond Jubilee Address to Parliament. The interviews were brief and in immediate succession and so the content of both is almost identical. I have posted them below should anyone find them of interest:

Radio 5 Live:

Radio 4's Today Programme:

Bicameralism & Representative Democracy: An International Perspective - PART TWO

Part Two (Part One may be read HERE).  This essay is taken from ResPublica's landmark report "Our House: Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords", (available for download at this LINK) which was launched in the House of Lords on 29 February 2012. This important publication, produced in response to the Government's Draft Bill on the Reform of the House of Lords, opposes the Government's desire for a "wholly or mainly elected" upper house and, instead, argues for a radical alternative. Other contributors include the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mark Harper MP, Lord Low of Dalston, Lord Wei of Shoreditch, Sir Stephen Bubb, The Bishop of Leicester (Convenor of the Lords Spiritual), the political philosopher Prof. Roger Scruton, Lord Adebowale and Phillip Blond, Director of ResPublica.  



BICAMERALISM & REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE - PART TWO
by Rafe Heydel-Mankoo


Typically, given their more reflective and sober nature and their representation of established long-term societal interests, one of the critical roles of an upper house has been to guard the constitution against a potentially impulsive and populist lower house. Through their written constitutions, upper houses and supreme courts, the majority of the world’s bicameral states have entrenched safeguards to protect the constitution and
fundamental human rights. The French Senate is amongst those upper houses that are empowered to veto constitutional legislation (but not ordinary legislation). A number of advanced democracies require a 2/3 or 3/5 majority vote in both chambers in order to enact a constitutional amendment. Some states also require a national referendum before effecting constitutional change – and federal countries can additionally require the approval of a certain number of state legislatures within the federation.

The United Kingdom is the only advanced democracy in which constitutional reform legislation and ordinary legislation are enacted in precisely the same manner. The safeguards that exist in other countries are not present here. From the start of the 21st century, the United Kingdom has undergone profound constitutional change, transforming it into a quasi-federal state with a constitution considerably more codified than previously. The threat of terrorism and extremism has also occasionally led to attempts to restrict certain long-established civil rights and liberties. Parliamentary sovereignty, the executive dominance of the lower house, political distrust of judicial review and the absence of a written constitution can potentially enable a strong-minded majority government to wreak constitutional havoc. The House of Lords is not a powerless constitutional guardian – and yet, ultimately, when faced with dangerously ill-considered legislation that it opposes, it can do little more than voice its disapproval and urge the Commons to reconsider.

Britain can no longer remain the global democratic anomaly. Given the complexity of Britain’s fast evolving and increasingly codified constitutional make-up, the reform of the House of Lords provides the ideal opportunity to strengthen its role as the guardian of the constitution and civil liberties.

Consequently, in addition to its existing veto over attempts to extend the life of Parliament, any reformed House of Lords should have a veto over constitutional reform legislation as well as legislation affecting fundamental human rights (habeas corpus, etc.) – convention should establish the veto as a reserve power to be used only in the most exceptional of circumstances.


Whilst considering its position, the House of Lords should have the ability to refer issues relating to the constitution and/or human rights to the law lords at the new Supreme Court. Many upper houses, including those in Germany, Poland and Spain, possess this power. Should the House of Lords choose to exercise its veto, and should the House of Commons refuse to back down, political deadlock would ensue and a mechanism would need to be established to reach a solution or compromise.  Bicameral states around the world utilise a number of different mechanisms to resolve deadlock between the houses. These include double dissolution, lower house 2/3 majority override of the upper house, suspensory veto, joint sittings and joint committees. To preserve the principle of the supremacy of the House of Commons, a 2/3 majority Commons vote would be a suitable means of breaking the deadlock. Another possibility for resolution might be the creation of a joint committee. Outside of the heated atmosphere of the parliamentary chambers it is likely that more meaningful and productive negotiations can be entered into between both Houses until, hopefully, a satisfactory compromise can be reached.

Reform of the House of Lords affords the perfect opportunity to position the upper house as a powerful guardian of the constitution and democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This role is of such profound importance that it should merit as much attention as the process by which members are selected to sit in the chamber. As the global evidence suggests, bicameralism adds immense value to the legislative process and to
national governance. Two chambers representing different polities create legislation and public policy that is more democratic and more reflective of public concerns. The various appointments systems have helped to create upper houses that, to varying degrees, can represent society, or provide a voice for specific elements within society, in ways that would be virtually impossible in wholly elected chambers. Elections do not favour minorities.

This is no less true in the United Kingdom – and it is very likely that a wholly or mainly elected House of  Lords would be considerably more impenetrable to minority groups than it is currently. Elections would certainly deprive Parliament of many of its most learned and respected members. The majority of the eminent scholars, doctors, scientists, social workers, educators, economists, businessmen, musicians and writers who have been elevated to the Lords – transforming the institution into a pantheon of British excellence – would be unlikely to stand for election. This priceless pool of talent and experience, drawn from so many sectors of society and so critically important to the work of the upper house, would be lost. To maintain a diverse and representative chamber in a reformed House of Lords it is clear that a significant appointed element must be retained.

Global analysis also reveals the remarkable vulnerability of our constitution and fundamental rights compared with all other advanced democracies. No attempt at reforming the House of Lords should fail to consider the opportunity of strengthening its role as a guardian of the constitution and the rule of law.

The House of Lords clearly performs a democratic function and fills a democratic void that an elected House of Commons cannot. There can be little doubt that, if successful, the proposal to institute elections to “democratise” the House of Lords and make it more “representative” would transform it into a much more homogenous and far less representative institution than it is today. The quality of governance would decline and parliamentary democracy would be weakened. In the history of constitutional reform, there are few proposals whose results would be more ironic.



This essay is taken from ResPublica's landmark report "Our House: Reflections on Representation and Reform in the House of Lords", (available for download at this LINK) which was launched in the House of Lords on 29 February 2012. This important publication, produced in response to the Government's Draft Bill on the Reform of the House of Lords, opposes the Government's desire for a "wholly or mainly elected" upper house and, instead, argues for a radical alternative. Other contributors include the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mark Harper MP, Lord Low of Dalston, Lord Wei of Shoreditch, Sir Stephen Bubb, The Bishop of Leicester (Convenor of the Lords Spiritual), the political philosopher Prof. Roger Scruton, Lord Adebowale and Phillip Blond, Director of ResPublica.