The Roaring Lion stood still...THAT photograph

The world's most famous portrait photograph is arguably--nay, undeniably--that of Winston Churchill taken by Yosuf Karsh in the dark days of 1941. The photograph captured Churchill's defiant bulldog spirit and came to symbolise British defiance against Nazi tyranny.

The photograph was taken in Ottawa, Canada in December 1941. Churchill had just delivered his famous "Some chicken! Some neck!" speech on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons. Arm in arm with Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie-King, he left the chamber and strolled into the private rooms of the Speaker of the House of Commons, there to find a young photographer waiting with camera at the ready.

"Two minutes for one shot, and I mean two minutes for one shot," growled the British Prime Minister as he lit a cigar. However the photographer did not want to photograph the great man with his standard prop. He approached Mr. Churchill and with an apologetic "Forgive me, sir" he pulled the cigar from the bulldog lips.

"By the time I got back to my camera," Karsh later recalled, "he looked so belligerent he could have devoured me." Snapping the camera, Karsh captured Churchill's furious expression, an expression that would become one of the most iconic images of the 20th century. "You can even make a roaring lion stand still to be photographed," said the Prime Minister. The portrait was splashed on magazines and newspapers around the world and since then has appeared on the stamps of several nations and has appeared in countless books.

The photograph established "Karsh of Ottawa" as one of the world's most gifted portrait photographers and his portfolio soon expanded to include persons such as Einstein, General Eisenhower, King George VI, Ronald Reagan and every Pope save John Paul I.

I had the honour to meet Karsh in the 1990s. I met him at the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa, the historic hotel out of which he operated for many years. We had a short but pleasant exchange and he again recounted to me the details of his first meeting with Churchill.

Churchill plays an important role in my life. Since the age of 11 I have devoured almost every book written by or about the great man. I have served as a director of the International Churchill Society, Canada and continue to serve as a committe member of the International Churchill Society, United Kingdom. I have played Churchill on stage and I made him the the focus of my Master's thesis.

I therefore count amongst the memorable moments of my life, the privilege of receiving a seldom granted invitation to the private rooms of the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons so that I might stand in the exact spot occupied by Churchill on that historic occasion in 1941. This honour was granted to me by the current Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Peter Milliken, whom I am now pleased to count as a friend.


I was first invited to the Speaker's Chamber on my birthday in 2001 (pictured above).



And here with Mr. Speaker (above).



Not happy with my original pose I returned from London in 2004 and tried to capture the pose a second time (above).



Here is Mr. Speaker with the then Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Canada (Tony Blair and Jean Chretien) with their wives (above).



Here is Churchill.... Alone (above).



And this is the view that Churchill gazed at whilst waiting for Karsh to snap his photograph.


Karsh died in 2002 at the age of 93.

Colonel Strome Galloway - A true patriot

Colonel Strome Galloway and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo plant a tree on the occasion of the 100th birthday of HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Ottawa, Canada, August 2000.



Fellow members watching the tree planting.


I was reminded today that this month marks the 3rd anniversary of the death of Colonel Strome Galloway: soldier, monarchist, heraldist, author, raconteur and all-round renaissance man. Strome was a good friend and mentor. Colonel of the Royal Canadian Regiment and Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the Governor General's Footguards, he had a fund of stories of encounters with various fascinating characters.

I did not have a blog three years ago and I was therefore unable to pay tribute to him at that time. I therefore choose to do so now.

The obituary below was printed in The Telegraph (London), November 2004:

Colonel Strome Galloway, who has died aged 88, was a battle-hardened infantry officer, a prolific if unsubtle writer and a co-founder of the Monarchist League of Canada; with his bristling moustache, he was one of the Canadian Army's "characters", noted for legendary coolness under fire as well as for the maintenance of social standards and the care of his men.

Galloway's battlefield initiation had occurred in 1943 when he was sent with other Canadian officers to gain experience with the British First Army in Tunisia. Attached to the 2nd London Irish Rifles, he was commanding a company when his CO saw paratroopers from the Hermann Goering Division advancing on a large farm, and ordered him to seize it.

Rising to his feet, Galloway yelled "Fix bayonets", then roared "Charge" as he led his men across an open field under tracer fire, by which only one man was hit. They found no Germans on reaching the stables and living quarters of "Stuka Farm". But minutes later the enemy was hurling stick grenades through the windows; and for several hours the London Irish occupied one room while the Germans battled with them from next door. When the Germans finally retired, Galloway discovered that, in the chaos of the battle, the Allied leadership was preparing to take the farm again; he judiciously withdrew several hundred yards to the safety of a slit trench containing
cactus.

Andrew Strome Ayers Carmichael Galloway was born at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, on November 29 1915. His family later moved to St Thomas, Ontario, where in 1932 he joined the Elgin militia regiment on 50 cents a day. He was commissioned two years later.

In 1936, Galloway published himself his book, The Yew Tree Ballad and Other Poems. It contained, he admitted in later life, "rather rotten poetry". But after paying printing and postage costs he made a profit of $190, which he invested in a trip to Britain for the coronation of King George VI. After a 16-day voyage aboard a foul-smelling cattle boat, young Strome landed to buy a bowler hat and an umbrella. He filed a story to the St Thomas Times-Journal in Ontario about the shouts of "bloody Nazis" and booing in Trafalgar Square at the carriage containing a German field marshal; but soon he ran out of money, and had to work his passage back to Canada.

Galloway worked as a newspaper sub-editor, and enjoyed saluting the King with drawn sword during the Royal tour of the Dominion in 1939 shortly before being called up; he transferred to the RCR shortly before the outbreak of war. After being advised to take a pair of gumboots with him, he was dispatched to Britain in 1940. There he started the practice, which he maintained long after the war, of having his collars laundered in Britain.

On returning to the RCR following his two months with the London Irish, Galloway led his company on to the beaches of Sicily on July 10 1943. While escorting some German prisoners to the rear, he stopped for a moment to chat with another officer when enemy mortar bombs began exploding near the road. As his prisoners dived for cover Galloway laid into them with his stick shouting: "Get out of that ditch, you bastards - they're your mortars."

In December 1943 the Royal Canadian Regiment was engaged in the costly advance from the Moro River in Italy to the coastal town of Ortona. As they launched two companies in an attack a mile southwest of the port, the artillery barrage which preceded it began falling, due to faulty maps, on a flanking battalion. The guns then ceased firing, and the advancing RCR found themselves face to face with entrenched enemy paratroopers whom the barrage had left unscathed. Murderous cross-fire cost them all their officers. Galloway took over command.

Throughout the following night, with its strength reduced to 178 officers and men, the regiment held its position under mortar fire and sniping. Then, bringing forward every man who could be spared from his support platoons, Galloway formed three companies of 65 men each, who advanced the next day behind an intense barrage to find the opposing German 1st Parchute Regiment had withdrawn back into Ortona.

From his arrival in Italy until the end of the war, Galloway took part in 25 of the 27 actions in Italy and northwest Europe for which his regiment was awarded battle honours, commanding it for short periods at Ortona, in the Gothic Line battles and during the winter fighting west of Ravenna. Although wounded at Motta Montecorvino in September 1943, he was away from the battalion for only five weeks.

With the return of peace, he served in various staff and instructional appointments, being promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1951 to instruct at the staff college at Kingston, Ontario. He took command of the newly formed 4th Battalion, Canadian Guards; then, having attended the National Defence College, he commanded the winter warfare establishment at Fort Churchill, and became military attaché in Bonn.

After retiring, full of disgust at the ill-advised unification of the Armed Forces, Galloway was for 10 years the Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of the Governor-General's Foot Guards; in 1989, he was appointed Colonel of the Royal Canadian Regiment.

When Pierre Trudeau barely disguised his republican inclinations in proposals for a new Canadian constitution in late 1969, Galloway became a founder member of the Monarchist League of Canada. He then played a leading part in helping to destroy the attempt to reduce the Queen's importance by transferring her powers to the Governor-General.

Galloway produced nine books, including an autobiography, The General Who Never Was, in which he drew on his diaries to recount his experiences in camp and battle. Although these were hardly classic tales, they contained a wealth of detail, recounting some of the less well-known aspects of soldiering, such as the punishment of officers found in the men's brothels in North Africa, the Arabs' preference for payment in tea rather than money, and the problems involved in writing citations for medals.

In the 1972 general election, he ran unsuccessfully against John Turner, the future Prime Minister, and was amusedly conscious of cutting an absurd figure in progressive eyes. Yet Galloway was an able speaker. Despite his romantic nature, he was also a realist in dealing with contemporary issues, even willing to use the language of public relations.

Strome Galloway died on August 11. He married, in 1950, Jean Love, a journalist, who predeceased him, and is survived by their two daughters."

The obituary fails to mention one of Strome's greatest interests: heraldry. Strome was a founder member and fellow of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada. His revised edition of Beddoe's Canadian Heraldry is one of the most important works on the subject.

Loyal Toasts - the heart and stomach of a lord but not a duke

As a traditionalist Young Fogey is a firm believer in toasts -- dinners can never have too many. Loyal Toasting traditions are of particular interest. For example, the lawyers of Lincoln's Inn and the Officers of the Royal Navy famously remain seated during the Loyal Toast (although, as a sign of their distinction, officers of the Royal Yacht stand). Swan Uppers toast "The Queen, Seigneur of the Swans" whilst standing with skill in their boats on the river. I often hear mention of the regional loyal toasts of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, two of these enjoyable and romantic toasts, both of which ascribe masculine qualities to Our Sovereign Lady, have little basis in fact.

"The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster" is the traditional Loyal Toast of the ancient County of Lancaster and is still heard in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Unfortunately, as the title of "Duke of Lancaster" merged with the Crown in 1413, this charming toast is a little bit of nonsense. The Queen may hold and receive income from the physical Duchy of Lancaster but she is certainly not the Duke of Lancaster (a fact which has escaped the editors of Royal Insight); there has been no such person for six centuries.

It is impossible for the Sovereign to hold a peerage title. The absurdity arising from such a scenario would include the right of the Sovereign to a seat in the Lords; furthermore, at his/her coronation, the Sovereign if he/she were the senior peer of that degree, would be required to swear allegiance to his/herself and place his/her own hand between his/her own hands (!).

A peerage ceases to exist when it merges with the Crown. In 1936 the Duke of York became King George VI and his peerage merged with the Crown. Similarly, the Dukedom of Lancaster merged with the Crown in 1399 upon Henry IV's accession; a new dukedom has not been created. Furthermore, were there a Dukedom and were The Queen able to hold a peerage title Her Majesty would be "Duchess" rather than "Duke" of Lancaster. Possession of a duchy does not automatically make one a duke.

The Queen is known as "Duke of Normandy" in Jersey, where the historic, and unofficial, Loyal Toast is to "La Reine, notre Duc" or "The Queen, Our Duke" (tradition dictates that this is only used when the gathering is composed entirely of Islanders). Again, as appealing as this tradition is, it also lacks any legal support as the Queen is not the Duke of Normandy (another fact that has been missed by Royal Insight). Henry III relinquished the title to Louis IX on 20 May 1259 as part of the the Treaty of Paris. The Channel Islanders (and other monarchists) may like the title but it has been extinct for 7.5 centuries.

Fortunately, for historical reasons, The Queen remains "Lord of Mann" and thus the Loyal Toast on the Isle of Mann "The Queen, Lord of Mann" is true, accurate and quite wonderful.

Scottish Feudal Baron vs Life Peer (Baron)

I am often asked to explain the difference between feudal baronies and peerage titles. The distinction is important as modern Peerage titles are granted by the Sovereign to an individual (and in years past to his descendants as specified in the Letters Patent) and may not be purchased, whereas Scottish Feudal Baronies, which were originally granted to an individual and his descendants, may be alienated legally and bought or sold at will. Scottish Feudal Baronies are the only true titles of nobility that one may purchase (English "Lordships of the Manor" are not titles of nobility and do not confer any status upon the purchaser/holder whatsoever).

The holder of a Scottish Feudal Barony is not a Peer and must not be styled "Baron X", or worse still "Lord X"; rather, he is to be styled "Baron of X" or, alternatively, "John Blogs of X, Baron of X". Scottish Feudal Barons are accorded precedence below Queen's Counsel and above Esquires and Gentlemen; they may also receive an armorial augmentation from The Lord Lyon in the form of a baronial chapeau. Feudal Barons are represented by the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Feudal Barons were traditionally permitted to appoint hereditary or lifetime officers of their household (including "Baron Serjeants"), many of whom were entitled to petition Lord Lyon for certain heraldic additaments. Feudal Barons also traditionally held certain judicial powers.

The few ancient privileges possessed by Scottish Feudal Barons were finally extinguished with the passage of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000 (passed in order to ensure Scottish compliance with EU law). The Act forever separated the title from the land but, fortunately, had no impact upon the diginity of Baron and related privileges.

Subsection 63 of the act reads as follows;

63 Baronies and other dignities and offices
(1) Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin).
(2) When, by this Act, an estate held in barony ceases to exist as a feudal estate, the dignity of baron, though retained, shall not attach to the land; and on and after the appointed day any such dignity shall be, and shall be transferable only as, incorporeal heritable property (and shall not be an interest in land for the purposes of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 (c.33) or a right as respects which a deed can be recorded in the Register of Sasines).
(3) Where there is registered, before the appointed day, a heritable security over an estate to which is attached the dignity of baron, the security shall on and after that day (until discharge) affect-
(a) in the case of an estate of dominium utile, both the dignity of baron and the land; and
(b) in any other case, the dignity of baron.

Queen of Canada in the United Kingdom

The following question has been posted in a monarchist newsgroup:

"On Remembrance Day 2003, HM The Queen of Australia opened a war memorial to the Australian dead of the two World Wars in London, UK. In attendance were her prime minister, John Howard, and the British prime minister, Tony Blair. As she was acting in her Australian capacity, I presume that she vetted her speech with the Australian - and not the British - government. I wonder if there are other examples of HM acting publicly in the UK as a "foreign" queen, or whether this was a unique event in that regard?"

This is an interesting question. I do not know how often the Queen of
Australia has visited London but the Queen of Canada has been present in London on a number of occasions.

The Canadian Queen opened a war memorial to the Canadian war dead in London in 1994. Located next to Buckingham Palace close to the Canada Gates in Green Park, the Canadian memorial inspired the later Australian, Indian & Caribbean and New Zealand memorials around Hyde Park Corner. The Canadian War Memorial consists of large stone slabs embedded with bronze maple leaves over which runs a steady stream of water. The memorial points to Halifax, Nova Scotia (the point of departure for most Canadian soliders).

At the unveiling The Queen of Canada was accompanied by her Prime Minister (Jean Chretien) and also by the British Prime Minister (John Major) as well as several members of the Royal Family who were Colonels-in-Chief of Canadian regiments - Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Princess of Wales, Princess Margaret, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. The two Colonels-in-Chief who did not attend were the Prince of Wales and Countess Mountbatten of Burman. The Duke of York was attired in his Canadian military service uniform.

HM Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada was also in London (and on Canadian territory) a few years ago when she visited the recently renovated Canada House in Trafalgar Square. The Queen of Canada has also received Canadian Governors General and the provincial Lieutenant Governors at Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and Windsor.

I do not know how often London has been visited by the Queens of New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas etc....

The Act of Settlement and the Perils of Repeal

Life is seldom simple. Barely a week after the announcement, controversy now casts its shadow over the engagement of Peter Phillips to Canadian Autumn Kelly (see earlier post). Ms. Kelly, by all accounts an intelligent, upstanding young woman, is a Roman Catholic. In the 21st century there are surely very few advanced western democracies where one's religious affiliation, particularly if Christian, may be regarded as an "issue". Nevertheless, amongst the chattering pseudo-intellectuals of Islington and Westminster, Ms. Kelly's Roman Catholicism has now undeniably acquired that status.

The Act of Settlement 1701, which settled the succession to the throne upon the heirs of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (pictured), grand-daughter of King James I and VI, prevents accession to the throne by Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics. Whilst succession to the throne is restricted to Protestants, given the virtual impossibility of such an event occurring in 1701, no provision was made to prevent accession by those married to non-Christians.

As the son of HRH The Princess Royal, Peter Phillips will foreit his position in the line of succession (currently 10th) should his marriage to Autumn Kelly proceed. Whilst a "Top Ten" ranking is an enviable position in almost any field, one assumes that being struck off this most exclusive list will not cause the Queen's down-to-earth grandson much concern or thought. Certainly the dilemma he faces and the consequences of his decision are far less troubling than those faced by his great-great-uncle, Edward VIII, during his own marriage crisis. Surely no reasonable person would ever consider it even remotely likely that Peter Phillips might one day be King.

Peter Phillips is not venturing into new territory and he will not be the first to have faced relegation from this illustrious group. In 1978 HRH Prince Michael of Kent was ousted from the line of succession (15th at the time) as a result of his marriage to Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz. A decade later The Earl of St. Andrews (who would be 23rd in succession), son of HRH The Duke of Kent, found himself falling foul of the law by his marriage to Sylvana Tomaselli, another Canadian Roman Catholic. Rome has proved particularly attractive to the Kents for The Duchess of Kent crossed the Tiber in 1994 (however, as she was an Anglican at the time of her marriage, her husband, The Duke of Kent, retains his place in the succession) and Lord Downpatrick, the son of the Earl of St. Andrews, converted to Roman Catholicism in 2003 (which makes him the most senior descendant to have been removed from the line of succession by virtue of his own faith).

If the marriages and conversions of these royals took place without major upset why, then, has this latest engagement attracted such media interest? It is undoubtedly because, whilst he may not bear a royal title, Peter Phillips is not an obscure or minor member of The Queen's personal family and, thus far, is the most senior figure for whom the Act of Settlement has posed a problem.

Whether by coincidence or in anticipation of the royal engagement, on July 22nd Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, stated that the bar on Roman Catholics in the Act of Settlement was "outdated and discriminatory". "Confident that commonsense will prevail", it is his intention to make representations to the Government for repeal of the Act. His Eminence is not a voice in the wilderness. Numerous commentators writing in weekend publications have called for the repeal of this "discriminatory" provision.

In 2002 a Canadian former Toronto Councillor Tony O'Donohue brought a legal challenge to the Act of Settlement on the grounds that the ban on Roman Catholics violated the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In its ruling the Court stated that the matter was non-justiciable as the Act of Settlement was part of the Canadian Constitution and one part of the Constitution cannot be subject to another.

Is the Act of Settlement unfair to Roman Catholics and their admirers? Undoubtedly. Should the bar on Roman Catholics be removed? Maybe. Maybe not. I write this as a Roman Catholic with a close family relationship to the Royal House of Stuart (the true "victims" of the Act of Settlement) and as one whose close second cousins, by virtue of their descent from King George II, would rank 4,011 - 4,017 (as of 1 Jan 2001) in the line of succession were they not also Roman Catholic. In light of this I might be expected to be in complete favour of the repeal of the Act of Settlement 1701, or at least of the provision that bars from the succession those who marry Roman Catholics.

However, as with any constitutional matter, one must always consider the implications and effect of any change.

Whilst many commentators have called for the Prime Minister to propose that Parliament change or repeal the Act of Settlement none, to my knowledge, seem to be aware of the difficulties that change, amendment or repeal would create.

The Act of Settlement, 1701 is no longer exclusive to the British constitution; for it also regulates the succession to the throne in all of The Queen's Commonwealth Realms and is equally a part of their constitutions. These realms each have their own separate and independent legislatures and, for those states that have patriated the law, any change made by the Westminster Parliament would be of no force or effect insofar as they are concerned.

Were the British Government to decide to unilaterally alter the Act of Settlement it might lead to a situation whereby the line of succession to the throne in Britain differed from other Commonwealth Realms, possibly resulting in a different Sovereign for Britain than for Canada or Australia. The seriousness and significance of this cannot be overstated. Indeed, to guard against this possibility a convention was established via the preamble to the 1931 Statute of Westminster, which clearly states:

And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this Act that, inasmuch as the Crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

In other words, for the sake of the unity of the Crown, any change to the Act of Settlement will require the unanimous consent of the Parliaments of all the Commonwealth Realms. As a preamble the above quoted passage cannot be cited as an enforceable piece of legislation, nevertheless it has been held to be a binding convention.

Britain cannot act unilaterally if it wishes to retain the unity of the Crown. If the Act of Settlement is ever amended or repealed it is imperative that any change be enacted, concurrently, on a multi-lateral basis by all of those Commonwealth Realms for which the Act of Settlement has become a patriated law.

The requirement for unanimity brings with it other perils. Requiring all Commonwealth Realms to consent will inevitably lead to a debate within each realm as to the continuing relevance of the Monarchy itself. Governments of nations with strong republican elements will no doubt face a question of this sort: As we are examining the succession to the position of head of state surely this is the time to embark upon whole-scale reform.

Those who call for change should realise that any attempt to alter the Act of Settlement will stir a hornet's nest in various Commonwealth Realms which may ultimately result in the transformation of many from constitutional monarchy to republic. Of course the counter argument is that it is better to deal with the issue now, during the stable era of The Queen's reign, rather than to wait until forced to deal with it in an uncertain future.

The final issues of great concern raised by the possibility of amendment to the Act of Settlement are of course the status of the Sovereign as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the argument that a Roman Catholic sovereign's allegiance to the Pope would cause a diminution of British sovereignty. These are weighty subjects which require detailed analysis. Glancing at the considerable length of this post thus far, I fear trying the patience of my faithful readers. I shall therefore leave this particular aspect of the discussion for another day.

Ye'll Tak The High Road...

The Young Fogey has been exceedingly busy in recent days and has been unable to attend to his blog. Last week saw Young Fogey driving up the High Road to Scotland to visit friends and attend the annual Aboyne Highland Games. Although a London resident for many years, this was the first time that I had taken the wheel in the United Kingdom and the event was memorable. For a seasoned and experienced North American driver it is a strange affair to find oneself driving on the "wrong" side of the road. The mental switch requires some adjustment. Nevertheless, the experience was enjoyable and mildly enlivening, although one suspects it was more of a white-knuckle ride for my travelling companion.

On my first full day in Scotland I travelled to Edinburgh's New Club to meet 9 other friends for luncheon. Twas a very jolly affair and I was pleased to bump into another old acquaintance (a herald) in the bar. A very enjoyable luncheon was followed by al fresco post-prandials (Scotland being one of the first countries to have embraced the sinister smoking ban) after which we sauntered along to the Balmoral Hotel for a champagne tea. Exiting the Balmoral a few hours later we decided that we were enjoying ourselves far too much to end the festivities and so we hailed a couple of taxis and merried our way to the Indian Cavalry Club for dinner.....and so to bed.

The next day saw most of us travelling three hours into the remote Highlands to attend the Aboyne Highland Games. The Young Fogey, always keen to blend in with the locals, decided to go native and don appropriate apparel (pictured).

The Games were highly enjoyable and covered all the necessary competitions. Our host, a patron of the Games, entertained us generously in the private tent, from which position we were afforded prime viewing of the various heats.

Of the various persons who visited the tent during the course of the day, this Canadian Young Fogey was particularly pleased to meet Lady Tweedsmuir, daughter-in-law of the author of The 39 Steps, John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, GCMG, GCVO, CH, PC, Governor General of Canada. The Young Fogey also enjoyed conversing with the Marquis of Huntly, Chieftain of the Highland Games (pictured here in yellow socks).

The remainder of the Young Fogey's time in Scotland was spent visiting Falkland Palace and St. Mary's Haddington ("The Lamp of the Lothians") and enjoying a most memorable dinner party, complete with foot-stomping piano sing-a-long.

Peter Phillips to Marry a Canadian

I appeared on Canada's CTV News yesterday afternoon to discuss the engagement of The Queen's grandson, Peter Phillips (the son of HRH The Princess Royal), to Canadian Autumn Kelly.

Peter Phillips met his fiance at the Montreal Grand Prix in 2003. Ms. Kelly is an attractive and intelligent young woman who leads a successful career as a management consultant. She graduated from McGill University in 2002 and her skills caught the attention of CSIS (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service), who unsuccessfully asked her to work for them.

Autumn Kelly and Peter Phillips live together on a cottage at Gatcombe Park, the estate of HRH The Princess Royal. Ms. Kelly is warmly regarded by members of the Royal Family and was invited to join the Royal Family on a private cruise and also to attend The Queen's intimate 80th birthday dinner at The Ritz in London.

The date and location of the wedding have yet to be announced. This marriage is certain to delight Canadian monarchists and will serve to strengthen the bond between Her Majesty's largest realm and the Crown.

Young Fogey hopes that the happy couple might consider a Canadian honeymoon. Montreal has certainly played an important role in the lives of this branch of the Royal Family given that HRH The Princess Royal competed in the Montreal Olympics of 1976. Perhaps Peter Philips and his fiance might consider following in the footsteps of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, who spent their honeymoon in Montreal's appropriately named Queen Elizabeth Hotel?

Ms. Kelly will be the second Canadian to marry into The Queen's family in recent times. The Earl of St. Andrews (son of HRH The Duke of Kent) married Canadian Roman Catholic divorcee Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988. Lady St Andrews is currently Director of Studies in History Part I and Social & Political Sciences at St John's College, Cambridge University. She is also a College Lecturer in Social and Political Sciences, and her research focusses on topics relating to History, Social and Political Sciences, and particularly Enlightenment political theory and Conjectural History.

HRH The Duchess of Cornwall can also boast strong Canadian connections as she is a direct descendant of Sir Allan Napier MacNab, Bt., Premier of the Province of Canada, as well as a descendant of various French Canadians.

The Last King of Afghanistan and western democracy

The death earlier this week of Mohammed Zahir Shah, the last King of Afghanistan, served to remind many of the era of relative stability that marked much of his reign. Born into the Barakzai dynasty in Kabul in 1914, Zahir Shah ascended the throne in 1933 at the age of nineteen. During his forty year reign he embarked upon a programme of modernisation which resulted in the establishment of a modern education system, the developemnt of cultural and economic relations with the West and the institution, in 1968, of a constitution that introduced free elections, an elected legislature, universal suffrage and female emancipation.

The King's reforms angered religious conservatives and he was subsequently deposed in 1973 whilst undergoing an eye operation in Italy. His kingdom descended into a spiral of violence and factionalism that culminated in the rise of the Taliban and the invasion of 2001. Although he did not advocate for the restoration of the Monarchy, he nevertheless received the honoured style of "Father of the Nation" and was widely regarded as a symbol of national unity.

Had Mohammed Zahir Shah continued to reign until his death he would have reigned for 74 years, easily surpassing the two longest-reigning living monarchs, King Bhumibol (Rama IX) of Thailand and Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (and Her other realms).

Taking part in a discussion that touched upon the possibility of restoring the Monarchy in Serbia, Madeleine Albright, U.S. Secretary of State during the Clinton Administration, stated "We don't do kings." (The "we" referring to the U.S. Government). This lamentable statement, which so clearly demonstrated Albright's blinkered, and wholly ignorant, attitude to the subject--an ignorance rooted in the prejudice engendered by fanatical allegiance to a one-size fits all concept of goverment, reinforced through the zealous repetition of the hollow mantra of "freedom and democracy" so beloved of spokesmen for the United States Government--reveals a major problem with United States policy.

Monarchy is the natural form of government for many states around the world. Western democracy took centuries to evolve and is part of the historical and cultural fabric of western civilisation. Any attempt to transplant our uniquely tailored system to countries such as Afghanistan is doomed to fail and will merely add credence to fanatical accusations of western imperialism.

The most stable and tolerant Islamic regions are almost all Monarchies. In a region where separation of Mosque and State is far from complete, a benevolent, Islamic king holds a degree of religious authority and is able to moderate and counter fundamentalists and also to offer protection to minorities.

The aim of the Western democracies now present in Afghanistan must not be the establishment of a western-style democratic government but, rather, the destruction of radical fundamentalists and the restoration of the traditional Afghan way of life. Blind allegiance to the "Holy Grail" of western-style republican democratic government will doom the current Afghan adventure and will provide clear evidence of the flawed nature of Western policy.

Four Candles

Over the past few months I have posted on a variety of topics related to politics, heraldry, monarchy, culture etc. However, having recently discovered the joys of YouTube, I feel compelled to shared with my "public", my two favourite comedy sketches from my favourite comedy duo: The Two Ronnies and their legendary "Four Candles" sketch and "Mastermind" sketch, which may be viewed by clicking the videos below. I particularly hope that those who are outside the UK will appreciate the humour. Enjoy!

Four Candles:



Mastermind (as an Editor for Burke's Peerage this is particularly memorable for me)
:

Monarchy vs Republic debate

One of my old televised debates with a Canadian republican has somehow found its way on to YouTube. Should you wish to view the Monarchy vs Republic debate you may do so by clicking on the video below. This short debate took place during The Queen's Canadian homecoming and followed pro-republican comments made by then Liberal Cabinet Minister (and one time Prime Ministerial hopeful) John Manley.



Should the above video not work you may view the video at THIS LINK

An Introduction to the U.K. Honours System

Photo Courtesy Guardian Images (LINK)


Following a 16 month police inquiry led by "Yates of the Yard", prosecutors today announced that they would not file charges in what has been dubbed as "the Cash for Honours" scandal. The so-called scandal was linked to the Labour Party's nomination for life peerages of several men who had loaned large sums to the Labour Party.

The story was first reported in March 2006 and was splashed onto the front pages of every national newspaper, guaranteeing the honours system the undivided attention of the nation’s media. In the sixteen months that followed, scarcely a fortnight passed without some coverage of the story on television, radio or in the newspapers.

Despite this unparalleled level of attention, I have yet to see the media provide the public with a clear explanation of the structure of the honours system and the manner in which it operates. The honours system is poorly understood by the majority of the public and the mystery that surrounds it inevitably arouses suspicion.

I therefore provide the following information as a public service.

The United Kingdom Honours System

There are about 3,000 honours awarded annually in the United Kingdom at New Year and on the Queen’s official birthday in June. This does not include appointments to the Orders of the Garter and the Thistle, which are made on St. George’s Day and St. Andrew’s Day respectively and are peculiar to the monarchy. Honours that are within the Queen’s personal gift: the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order and Chain, are beyond the influence of the Government and as such should not be regarded as national honours. Indeed, ardent monarchists might argue that there is no such thing as a UK honours system as the authority over all orders rests with The Queen and thereby transcend the UK nation state. Those advocating this view would point to the fact that 12 other commonwealth realms participate in the “United Kingdom” honours system with their heads of government making recommendations to The Queen in much the same way as the British Prime Minister.

The four remaining orders, the Order of the Bath, the Order of St. Michael & St. George, the Order of the British Empire and the Order of the Companions of Honour, are often referred to as the national honours, in a group with knights bachelor and life peerages. Of the four, only three are large multi-class state orders; the Order of the Companions of Honour is a single class honour restricted to 65. As mentioned, the Sovereign may also choose to honour an individual of noted accomplishment by creating him or her a life peer, which is always of the rank of Baron or Baroness. Life peerages were frequently announced in honours lists; however, this practice ended in the year 2000 and non-partisan peers are now created upon the recommendation of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

In order to place the UK system in some perspective, it is also worth noting that Britain has far fewer orders than a great many comparable states. One could remove the Order of the Golden Fleece from Spain’s national list on the same basis as the Garter and the Thistle and still end up with nine orders for that country whilst Croatia, with 16 orders, has the largest number of orders per capita in Europe. Canada now has 13 orders: three national orders, excluding the Royal Victorian Order and the Order of St. John, and ten provincial orders. Romania has 16. Bosnia-Herzegovina has 19. Brazil has 22, and Malaysia has over 30. This far exceeds the number of UK orders. And although France rationalised 16 of its specialised merit orders into one national Order of Merit, it still found it necessary to retain five other merit orders: Academic Palms, Agricultural Merit, Maritime Merit, Cultural Merit, and Arts and Letters. The number of UK orders therefore compares very favourably with awards on the continent and elsewhere. Such a favourable comparison also applies to the number of awards made annually; for although some critics of the UK honours system have argued that 3,000 annual awards is excessive, a glance across the channel seems to suggest that the British Crown is rather parsimonious. In total France makes approximately four times as many awards as Great Britain in any one year. In 1951 in Italy a new system was established with the foundation of the Order of Merit of the Republic, which is now the principal award. The ability to award only one multi-class order, however, has proved injurious to the reputation of the Italian honours system. There are approximately 850,000 living members of the Order, with 7,700 Grand Crosses given since 1951, of which at least 4,000 are living. The number of annual awards exceeds 20,000!

Royal Hospital Chelsea Commemoration of the Bicententary of the death of Henry Benedict Stuart, July 2007

Left to Right: Philip Bonn, The Governor of the Royal Hospital (General the Lord Walker), Rafe Heydel-Mankoo


Left to Right: Philip Bonn, Viscount Maitland (Hereditary Bearer of the National Flag of Scotland, carrying the banner of the Royal Stuart Society), The Governor of the Royal Hospital (General The Lord Walker), Lord Aylmer, Lumsden of Cushnie, Rafe Heydel-Mankoo.

On Sunday members of the Royal Stuart Society and their guests gathered at the Royal Hospital Chelsea to commemorate the bicentenary of the death of Henry Benedict Stuart, the last member of the Royal House of Stuart (see earlier post "The Last Stuart", below, for an account of his life).

The day's events commenced at 10.40 am with a formal inspection of the Chelsea Pensioners, resplendent in their famous red tunics, by the Governor of the Royal Hospital, General The Lord Walker, GCB, CMG, CBE, equally resplendent in his uniform and plumed bicorn. David Lumsden of Cushnie, a council member of the Royal Stuart Society, accompanied the Governor during his inspection.




Following the inspection the Chelsea Pensioners marched into the Chapel for Matins, with the Royal Stuart Society following soon after. The banner of the Royal Stuart Society was processed into the Chapel and laid up at the altar by Viscount Maitland, the Hereditary Banner Bearer of the National Flag of Scotland (the office created for his ancestor by King Charles II). The 11 am service was conducted by the Rev. Richard Whittington MBE with a special sermon on the life of Henry (Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati, a Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church and Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals) provided by long-standing RSS member the Rev. Canon David Skeoch (pictured).



Rafe Heydel-Mankoo and David Lumsden of Cushnie process out of the Chapel.



Father Mark Turnham-Elvins leads the wreath-laying ceremony

At the conclusion of the service we processed out of the Chapel and to the Figure Court and the beautiful gold statue of Charles II (the Founder of the Royal Hospital) by Grinling Gibbons. Here Father Mark-Turnham Elvins led us in prayer following which four wreaths were laid at the statute in memory of Henry. The first was laid by Lord Aylmer (Chairman of the Council of the Royal Stuart Society), the second was laid by Philip Bonn and the third was laid by David Lumsden of Cushnie. As Henry is my ancestral 2nd cousin (through his Polish mother) I laid the fourth wreath, which was inscribed "Henry - A Polish Stuart".



(Above) Lord Aylmer lays a wreath on behalf of the Royal Stuart Society


(Above) Rafal Heydel-Mankoo lays a wreath to "Henry - A Polish Stuart"



At the conclusion of the wreath-laying ceremony a champagne reception was held around the statue. The forecast had threatened heavy showers however Henry clearly desired a clear view from above as the clouds were cleared away enabling the reception to take place under bright sunshine.



HSH Prince Raoul de Rohan with Christian Dewar-Durie




Peter Lole and Dr. Christopher Duffy deep in conversation whilst HSH Princess Raoul de Rohan engages a Chelsea Pensioner.





General The Lord Walker in conversation with David Lumsden of Cushnie and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo

At 12:45 the Pensioner Mace Bearer, acting as toastmaster, requested us to please proceed to the State Apartments for pre-prandials. We processed to the State Apartments led by Lord Maitland, again carrying the banner of the Royal Stuart Society.

The State Apartments consist of two main rooms, the Council Chamber and an Ante-Room. The Council Chamber is a magnificent oak-panelled room designed by Sir Christopher Wren and embellished by Robert Adam and still in its original stunning condition. There are a number of fine Stuart paintings by Van Dyke, Kneeler and Lely as well as important carvings and mouldings by William Emmett, John Grover and William Cleere.

At 1:15, following pre-prandials in the Ante Room, over 60 members and guests of the Royal Stuart Society proceeded to the Council Chamber for luncheon. The "Head Table" comprised: The Governor of the Royal Hospital and Lady Walker, Lord and Lady Aylmer, Lord and Lady Maitland, TSH Prince and Princess Raoul de Rohan, Anne Meinertzhagen (nee HSH Princess de Polignac), myself, Philip Bonn and Ludovic Marolles (most of whom are pictured here):

Lord Aylmer, General The Lord Walker, Lady Aylmer


Lord Maitland, HSH Princess Raoul de Rohan, Ludovic Marolles, Anne Meinertzhagen (nee Princess de Polignac)

The presence of the de Rohans provided a charming link to the last Stuarts (Charles and Henry in particular) particularly, as I noted in my brief speech, as Princess de Rohan is also related to Flora Macdonald.

Grace was offered by Father Mark Turnham-Elvins. Lord Aylmer proposed the toast to the Sovereign, Philip Bonn proposed the toast to "Henry and the Royal House of Stuart" and I proposed the toast to "The Royal Hospital". In his response, the Governor of the Royal Hospital, General The Lord Walker, provided us with a brief history of the Hosptial and the State Apartments before proposing a toast to "The Royal Stuart Society".



Dr. Paul Fox, David Lumsden of Cushnie, Father Mark Turnham-Elvins


Rafal Heydel-Mankoo and Dr. Paul Fox


Father Mark Turnham-Elvins, Gwyilym Ap Evans, Eoghain Murphy


David Lumsden of Cushnie and Dr. Martin Hogg


Christian Dewar-Durie and Major Michael Broadhurst


Council Members of the Royal Stuart Society: Left to Right: Peter Horrocks, Anthea Hickie, Thomas Fitzpatrick, Lord Aylmer, Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, David Lumsden of Cushnie, Dr. Eveline Cruickshanks.


Father Mark Turnham-Elvins with Lt. Col James Bogle

The day's events ended with coffee in the ante room at 3:30. Emerging from the State Apartments it was clear that, thankfully, the forecast torrential thundershowers had hit whilst we were dining. Leaving the Royal Hospital a group of us proceeded on to the Oxford and Cambridge Club for post-prandials and, eventually, dinner.



------------------
(My thanks to Prince Raoul de Rohan, Dr. Martin Hogg and Mr. Eoghain Murphy for kindly sending me their photographs and granting me permission to use them on my blog)

The Last Stuart

Today marks the bicentenary of the death of the last member of the Royal House of Stuart, Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati (and Ostia and Velletri), Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church and Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, styled by Jacobites as "King Henry IX and I of England, Scotland, France and Ireland" (and popularly as "the Cardinal Duke of York", the form in which he publicly referred to himself, the dukedom being part of the Jacobite Peerage).

Henry Benedict Maria Clement Thomas Francis Xavier Stuart was born on the 6th March 1725, in the Palazzo Muti (now Palazzo Balestra) in Rome. The grandson of King James II, his parents were James Francis Edward Stuart, known as "the Old Pretender" or, to Jacobites, as "King James III and VIII", and the Polish Princess Maria Clementina Sobieska (the Jacobite "Queen Maria Clementina"), grand-daughter of the great hero of Europe, King John III Sobieski, victor over the Turks at the 1683 Siege or Battle of Vienna.


Born in Rome and baptised by Pope Benedict XIII, Henry soon began a life of devotion to the Church. In June 1747 Henry had the tonsure conferred upon him by Pope Benedict XIV, who soon after created him Cardinal-Deacon of Santa-Maria in Portico. In August 1747 Henry was promoted to the four minor orders and a year later he received the subdiaconate and then the diaconate. In September 1748 Henry was ordained a priest and he was elevated to the rank of Cardinal-Priest of Santi XII Apostoli in 1752.

In 1758 Henry was named Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church. The Camerlengo is charged with administering the Church from the death of one pope to the election of the next; the position also brings with it use of the heraldic striped pavillion. As Camerlengo Henry had to deal with matters following the death of Pope Benedict XIV through to the election of Pope Clement XIII.

Henry was consecrated titular Archbishop of Corinth in 1758 and was made Cardinal-Bishop of Frascati in 1761. Two years later he was named Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, finally succeeding to the See of Ostia and Velletri on his appointment as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals on 26 September 1803.

Henry spent his final years in the episcopal palace of Frascati, dying there 200 years ago today. He remains one of the longest serving cardinals in history. He was buried in the Vatican, in the crypt of St. Peter's where, thanks in part to the generosity of the Hanoverian Prince Regent, later George IV (with whom Henry was on amicable terms), the famous Stuart monument by Canova was later erected (pictured, photo: Noel McFerran). Below relief portraits of Henry, his father and brother the monument bears the following inscription:

IACOBO III
IACOBI II MAGNAE BRIT REGIS FILIO
KAROLO EDVARDO
ET HENRICO DECANO PATRVM CARDINALIVM
IACOBI III FILIIS
REGIAE STIRPIS STVARDI POSTREMIS
ANNO M DCCC XIX

[To James III,
son of James II, King of Great Britain,
to Charles Edward,
and to Henry, Dean of the Cardinal Fathers,
sons of James III,
the last of the Royal House of Stuart,
1819.]

Henry's will, which was signed "Henry R", stated that his rights of succesion were to pass to the "prince on whom they devolve by right, by proximity of blood, and by rights of succession". His nearest blood relative was Charles Emmanuel IV of Savoy, Henry's second cousin twice removed, although Charles never advanced any claim to the Jacobite succession (nor did he renounce any claim).

The Nine Days' Queen

On this day in 1553 Lady Jane Grey, the grand-niece of King Henry VIII, was proclaimed Queen of England and started her tragic 9 day reign. Seven months later the sixteeen-year old ascended the scaffold at Tower green to be executed, declaring:

"Good people, I am come hither to die, and by a law I am condemned to the same. The fact, indeed, against the queen's highness was unlawful, and the consenting thereunto by me: but touching the procurement and desire thereof by me or on my behalf, I do wash my hands thereof in innocency, before God, and the face of you, good Christian people, this day"



Young, beautiful and learned Jane, intent
On knowledge, fount it peace; her vast acquirement
Of goodness was her fall; she was content
With dulcet pleasures, such as calm retirement
Yields to the wise alone; -- her only vice
Was virtue: in obedience to her sire
And lord she died, with them a sacrifice
To their ambition: her own mild desire
Was rather to be happy than be great;
For though at their request, she claimed the crown,
That they through her might rise to rule the state,
Yet the bright diadem and gorgeous throne
She viewed as cares, dimming the dignity
Of her unsullied mind and pur benignity.

William Hone (1780 -1842)
Lady Jane Grey

Thank Heavens For Henley

Photo: Above: The Young Fogey with fellow members of QDOR, sporting QDOR caps and ties. Courtesy: M.deR-S



The Young Fogey returns to his blog bleary eyed and exhausted after another weekend of strenuous social activity. As this past weekend saw his beloved city engulfed by a tourist tidal wave, with the great hordes descending on Wembley, Wimbledon and the opening portion of the Tour de France (am I the only one who finds it odd that a race bearing the name "de France" should start in London?), the Young Fogey fled to the tranquil surrounds of dear Henley-on-Thames for the annual Royal Regatta.

The week having been abysmally wet and dreary, we were fortunate to enjoy a weekend of near unbroken sunshine and blue skies, giving us a taste of the lazy, hazy days of summer that we had hitherto been denied.

Most of the usual suspects were present for this year's Sunday gathering, organised as usual by the indefatigable Hugh Macpherson. Sixteen strong we embarked upon a merry afternoon quaffing champagne, lunching and cheering various teams with which we could claim some connection (however slight the connection made no difference to the intensity of our enthusiastic support!).

I was pleased to see one Canadian team from Shawnigan Lake School and Victoria Rowing Club race to victory (particularly as a good friend is a Shawnigan old boy) but was saddened to see another Canadian team lose to their Australian rivals. Similarly a Polish team representing Warsaw and Torun were sadly defeated by a Czech crew. Ah well.

At the end of the day we returned to London where three of us called in upon another friend for a quick snifter and then went our merry ways....

Well, for a few hours at least. For at noon today several of us gathered at the Carlton Club as the guests of the good North Briton, Dr. Hogg. Thanks to Dr. Hogg we enjoyed a splendid lunch and kept each other amused with various tales and stories.

The sinister smoking ban now has this kingdom within its claws and we, it's cruel victims, were faced with little choice but to spend part of the afternoon on the makeshift terrace (in truth little more than a tin roof used by the staff on "fag breaks") in order to enjoy a cigar. What a baleful calamity!

At 5pm I bid adieu to those guests who were yet remaining and proceeded on to Claridges for drinks with another friend. Leaving Claridges I joined a group of friends for dinner in Soho and, thus satiated, it was home to blog and to bed!

Brown is Right to Fly the Union Flag

Very rarely an action will be taken which places a conservative traditionalist in something of a quandary. As a conservative such a person is instinctively opposed to all attempts to alter a nation's traditions and customs. However, to the traditionalist's great chagrin, once in a while a reform will be announced which actually strikes him as sound. Such an event occurred this week.

Gordon Brown, Britain's new Prime Minister, has announced his desire to see the Union Flag flown from public buildings far more frequently than on the current eighteen "Flag Days". Traditionally, by Her Majesty's Command, days for flying flags from Government buildings (from 8am to sunset) were as follows:

20 January Birthday of the Countess of Wessex
6 February Her Majesty's Accession
19 February Birthday of the Duke of York
1 March St David’s Day (in Wales only)
10 March Birthday of The Earl of Wessex
12 March Commonwealth Day (second Monday in March)
17 March St. Patrick's Day (in Northern Ireland only)
21 April Birthday of Her Majesty The Queen
23 April St George’s Day (in England only)
9 May Europe Day
2 June Coronation Day
10 June Birthday of The Duke of Edinburgh
16 June Official Celebration of Her Majesty’s Birthday
17 July Birthday of The Duchess of Cornwall
15 August Birthday of The Princess Royal
11 November Remembrance Day (second Sunday)
14 November Birthday of The Prince of Wales
20 November Her Majesty’s Wedding Day
30 November St Andrew’s Day (in Scotland only)

Her Majesty had also commanded that the flag be flown on the day that She opens a Session of the Houses of Parliament and also on the day that She prorogues a Session of the Houses of Parliament.

In keeping with his policy of promoting "Britishness", Gordon Brown has now seen fit to advise Her Majesty that the flag should be flown with greater frequency. Ironically, for the last ten years, the Union Flag has flown above Buckingham Palace every day that The Queen has not been in residence.

The Prime Minister's recommendation strikes the Young Fogey as very sensible. Whilst in this era of the West Lothian question it conveniently serves Gordon Brown (a Scot representing a Scottish constituency) to be seen as unashamedly pro-British, one must also assume that his desire to strengthen the Union and combat anti-British extremists is sincere.



Although the Union Flag was seen a great deal during the jingoistic days of Empire, Britain's relationship with its flag has been very different from that of countries such as the United States of America. Whereas the flag of the United States is recognised in law and is regarded as the very embodiment of the nation and its ideals (with repeated attempts made in Congress to criminialise the act of flag "desecration"), no law has ever accorded the Union Flag official status as the flag of the United Kingdom. Whilst the Union Flag is recognised as official, Parliament has never passed legislation establishing it as such. American school children may swear daily allegiance to the flag, but in Britain (and traditionally in Canada, Australia and New Zealand) it is the Crown that is the embodiment of the state and it is to the Crown that one swears an oath of fealty.



This distinction is no where more apparent than during the annual Trooping the Colour ceremony in London. In the presence of the Sovereign the regimental colours and the Union Flag are lowered so that they touch, and indeed sweep along, the ground. Similarly, the construction, during a Drum Head Service, of a "drum altar", (a make-shift altar often used in combat situations when there is no access to a suitable alternative) requires the Union Flag to be draped over drums, often touching the ground (as pictured here). In many countries permitting the national flag to touch the floor is considered unthinkable, yet in countries of British heritage the flag is not accorded such reverence.

Times change. In the past few decades we have seen British-born states such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand regard their flags as increasingly important symbols; it is a sign of the increased influence of American culture that, in a hierarchy of importance, many of the citizens of these countries would most likely rank their flag above their Sovereign. I frequently hear Canadian patriots ("patriots" of whom many are perhaps unaware that The Queen is their Sovereign) complain that too few of their fellow citizens fly the Maple Leaf flag; the reality is that they unfairly compare their nation's flag-flying habits with those of the United States.

In truth Canadians fly their national flag with far greater frequency than the citizens of Britain or probably any European state. I once stood in front of the Houses of Parliament in Ottawa (on Parliament Hill) and counted twenty-four Maple Leaf flags flying nearby. I did this a few weeks later in Parliament Square in London and I only counted three flags. Indeed, the Union Flag only flies from the Houses of Parliament when Parliament is sitting.

On Dominion Day (more commonly known as "Canada Day") one will see the Maple Leaf flag plastered on the side of every major building and painted on cheeks and bare arms. The Royal Arms of Canada that appear on a prominent building in Vancouver are covered up to make way for a large Maple Leaf flag, the fact that the Arms are equally (if not MORE) Canadian clearly escaping the flag drapers. Similar scenes no doubt occur in Australia and New Zealand on their national holidays.

Yet the growing flag-worship which we have seen take hold in the former dominions has not taken root in Britain. More correctly, Union Flag worship has not taken root in Britain (on the contrary, it is less prevalent today than it was in the 1980s). However, partly as a result of devolution (and the resulting English resentment), we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the use by private individuals of the flags of England, Wales and Scotland. This is perhaps most marked on the playing fields. Where once the Union Jack greeted English teams, the St. George’s Cross now flutters.

The Union currently faces more threats than at any time in its three hundred year history. Devolution, the European Union and the internal cancers of a segmented and ghettoized-society are fraying the cords that bind the country together. Flying the flag will not solve these problems. However flags are symbols and the act of flying the flag symbolises one's belief in the Union, its values and its institutions.

There are few more obvious signs of patriotism than the simple act of flying a flag. I am reminded of the words of G.K. Chesterton: "For we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet." He spoke of England but I think of Britain. If the great British silent majority woke up to the threat now facing the country and clearly and unashamedly asserted their pride in Britain, which could start with the simple gesture of flying the flag, it would be the first step on a long journey of revitalisation.


At this particular time of crisis I applaud the Prime Minister for flying the Union Flag from No. 10 Downing Street. May we all follow his example.

Standard of HRH Prince William of Wales

I was delighted to see the Standard of HRH Prince William of Wales flying at Wembley Stadium during the Concert for Diana. This may have been the first occasion that it was seen at a major event.

HRH The Countess of Wessex is Pregnant

Buckingham Palace press releases


ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE PREGNANCY OF THE COUNTESS OF WESSEX


2 July 2007

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN

Their Royal Highnesses The Earl and Countess of Wessex are very pleased to announce that The Countess of Wessex is expecting a baby in December.

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh and members of both families are delighted with the news.

The Earl and Countess already have one daughter, The Lady Louise, who was born on 8 November 2003.

Thoughts following the Concert for Diana

I had a jolly time at the Concert for Diana. Considering the miserable weather of Saturday and today, it was nothing short of a miracle that the Concert took place under clement conditions. The media section was directly across from the area in which TRH Princes William and Harry were seated and we were therefore afforded prime viewing of the show. Having a camera crew at our disposal was also advantageous as we were able to ask the cameramen to zoom in on the royal box and the stage to enable us to identify specific persons (or merely have a closer look at their dancing skills!) on our monitor.

Tom Jones and Kiefer Sutherland were amongst those interviewed and everyone was in agreement that the concert was a splendid tribute. I commented on various subjects, including the Canadian trips made by the then Prince and Princess of Wales. However it was rather hard going on occasion as I had the misfortune to be cut off twice by the deafening roar of the crowd; and for some reason the director thought people would be more interested in listening to Rod Stewart and Jamie Oliver than me! ;)

It is clear to me that the new generation of royals are in the process of forging a completely new and special relationship with the people, much as Victoria and Albert refashioned the Monarchy in the 19th century. To remain relevant institutions must evolve. The change we are now witnessing is necessary. It is also fascinating to watch.

Leading up to the Concert for Diana

Those wishing to view my (very) brief appearance on Canada's CTV Network last night, in which I discuss Sunday's Concert for Diana and the attending celebrity pop stars (certainly not my area of expertise!) may do so by clicking HERE FOR VIDEO. The video should play automatically on most computers. A 15 second commercial will start and, after a short pause, will be followed by the 2 minute video. Those who cannot abide celebrity gossip might prefer to fast forward 90 seconds.

Last night's broadcast was the final installment of a series of segments I had recorded for Canada's CTV Network and which were aired every evening last week in preparation for the Concert for Diana. Each segment dealt with a different subject (the charity work of Diana and her sons, the concert, the paparazzi, the funeral etc.) and all were incorporated into the daily entertainment news programme "E-Talk". Needless to say, last night's celebrity focus was far from my usual territory.

The Concert for Diana airs tomorrow from 4pm to 10pm GMT (11am to 5pm ET).

This is London....

The car bomb discovered in London in the early hours of this morning appears to have a connection to "international terrorism". These are the tactics of Baghdad coming to London: a Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) detonated in a crowded area. In Baghad they choose crowded markets -- in London they choose the West End and the City.

The car was discovered outside Tiger Tiger, a prominent restaurant and nightclub. If this establishment was targeted it might suggest an intended strike against so-called "western decadence". I have dined at this restaurant in the past, sitting at the window across from which the car was parked. I can therefore imagine full well the carnage that would have resulted were this device to have exploded.

However I also know the spirit of London. Londoners endured the relentless firestorm unleashed by the Luftwaffe, standing firm against the might of Nazi Germany and the terror of its V1 and V2 rockets, the forerunner of the ICBMs. We saw our ancient city in flames and our historic buildings crumble. We remained undaunted. The harder we were hit, the more resolute we became. If London could withstand the dark days of 1940-1941, which saw vast swathes of the imperial city engulfed in terror, it can certainly withstand the feeble attempts of terrorists to crush its spirit. The motto of this city was then and remains: London Can Take It!.

The Monarchy -- Value for Money

Today saw the publication of the Royal Finances Annual report, which includes details of public expenditure. Once again the report revealed that the cost of the Monarchy to each UK taxpayer is a mere 62 pence per annum, which is the approximate cost of a chocolate bar or, to quote the Buckingham Palace press release, is "less than the price of two first class stamps". When one considers that in exchange for this paltry sum Britain receives the benefits of 1,000 years of stability and continuity, including the world's oldest democratic constitution, one really must consider this the deal of the century. The deal is even better for tax payers in Her Majesty's other realms as they do not have to bear any of these costs (although they must bear the costs of their own Governors-General, Governors, Lieutenant Governors, State Governors etc., as well as the costs incurred during a Royal Homecoming)

The Report demonstrates that the Monarchy continues to bring value for money and as an institution is as far removed from the image of extravagance and proflicacy portrayed by its unfair critics as it is possible to be. Despite rising inflation and other increased costs, wise fiscal management by Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Prviy Purse, has resulted in expenditure for 2006-07 of £37.3 million, 0.3% lower than in the previous year. Indeed, Sir Alan reports that "the total cost of the Monarchy is now 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2001. The reduction in the amount of Head of State expenditure reflects the continuous attention the Royal Household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure."

A reduction of expenditure by 7% since 2001 is truly remarkable when one considers the very significant costs that the Monarchy has had to bear in recent years, not the least of which is the cost of increased security necessitated by the events triggered by the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001.

But it gets better. Sir Alan Reid continues: "In the current year there was a real decrease in expenditure of 2.7% due mainly to a reduction in refurbishment costs at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, offset by increased costs in dealing with a greater number of Freedom of Information enquiries."

Republicans often cite the cost of the Monarchy as an argument in favour of abolition, however, realistically, any British republic would require the creation of an office of "President" and the establishment and maintenance of such an office would be far from cheap, particularly when compared with the very reasonable cost of our modern Monarchy. Certainly the cost per person of the French and United States presidencies far exceeds 62 pence per person see HERE (and HERE).

Of course it must also be stressed that, in reality, the Monarchy does not cost taxpayers anything. In 1760 King George III agreed to surrender his income from hereditary revenues such as the Crown Estate in exchange for funding from the Civil List, which was funded by taxation. These hereditary revenues of the Crown, the proceeds of which now pass directly into state coffers, far exceed the sum of the annual Civil List.

For example, the Crown Estate alone generates annual revenue of approximately £200 million for the Treasury. If one substracts the £37 million pound annual cost of the Monarchy from this sum, the Monarchy benefits the Treasury (and the nation) to the tune of approximately £160 million per annum.

Criticising the cost of the Monarchy does become difficult when faced with such facts!

Lord Lyon to retire in December (apparently)

Photo: The Lord Lyon with the Young Fogey, St. Andrew's, 2006.

With the departure of one Blair another appears soon to follow. It has been announced on various Internet discussion groups and message boards that Robin Blair, Lord Lyon King of Arms, head of the Court of Lord Lyon and one of the Great Officers of State in Scotland, is to retire in December. Whilst I have not seen any official confirmation or announcement, I have received e-mail confirmation from more than one source. None of these e-mails contained privileged or confidential information and, having been intended for wide circulation, the contents are now deemed to be public knowledge.

The Lord Lyon has responsibility for regulating heraldry in Scotland, issuing new grants of arms, overseeing Scottish state ceremonial, confirming pedigrees and serving as the judge of the Court of Lord Lyon, the world's oldest active heraldic court. The unlawful use of arms remains a criminal offence in Scotland and, treated as tax evasion, may lead to prosecution in the Lyon Court (which has criminal jurisdiction). Whilst the Lord Lyon is the sole judge, his rulings may be appealed to the Court of Sessions and, eventually, to the House of Lords.

I have had dealings with The Lord Lyon and Lyon Court in the past and I have found Robin Blair to be an extremely helpful and cordial gentleman. I am most grateful for the assistance he afforded me in the acquisition of material for publication by Burke's Peerage and I wish him a happy retirement and continued success in his future endeavours.

As Tony Blair and Robin Blair exit, Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, will be feeling rather lonely!

St. Jean Baptiste Day London-style

Having written about two celebrations of the Feast of St. John (those of the Order of Malta and the Venerable Order of St. John) it would be remiss of me not to note a third noteworthy St. John's Day celebration that took place here in London this week: a concert for Quebec's National Day (St. Jean Baptiste being Quebec's patron saint).

I had the pleasure of attending the "Quebec Annual Concert" as a guest of the Agent-General of the Quebec Delegation for London. The concert was held, appropriately, at St. John's, Smith Square and featured Marianne Fiset (soprano) the First Grand Prize Winner of the Montreal International Musical Competition. At the Montreal competition Marianne Fiset also won the Jean A. Chalmers Award (for Best Canadian Artist), the Joseph Rouleau Award (for Best Quebec Artist) and the People's Choice Award.

At St. John's the carefully structured programme (which included Richard Strauss, Rachmaninov, Charpentier and Puccini) enabled the young soprano to demonstrate her wide vocal range. She was accompanied by the distinguished pianist Louise-Andree Baril.

To describe Marianne Fiset as a talented young artist is to deny her proper recognition, for her ability is quite remarkable. I am certain that she has a glorious career ahead. I urge all to note her name.

Following the concert the Quebec Delegation hosted a lively reception in the crypt (if a crypt can be lively!). In honour of the occasion my guest and I both wore ties emblazoned with fleur-de-lys; fortunately our ties were not of the same colour -- indeed, my guest's tie featured gold fleur-de-lys, the traditional symbol of the French Bourbon monarchy, and I did wonder whether some might have regarded this as a demonstration of support for a restoration! Contrary to popular belief, the white fleur-de-lys featured on the flag of Quebec relate not to Quebec's French royal heritage but, rather, to the Virgin Mary.

The concert and reception made for a very pleasant evening -- particularly as I had attended another reception earlier in the evening (this one hosted by the excellent Constitutional Unit of University College London) at which I was delighted to see the great historian Professor the Rt. Hon. The Lord Morgan. The BBC was filming at the UCL reception but, as delightful as it was, I cannot think in what context this event would have been reported.

Tony Blair to Cross the Tiber?

Will he or won't he? Rumour-mills have been churning ferociously in recent days, sprinkling little tidbits pertaining to Prime Minister Tony Blair's possible conversion to the Roman Catholic faith. Most pundits feel fairly certain that the Prime Minister shall cross the Tiber sometime after leaving office which, given that he departs Number 10 Downing Street on Wednesday, may well be sooner rather than later.

The issue became a "hot topic" last week following comments by Father Michael Seed which were reported in various national newspapers. Father Michael, the Franciscan Friar involved in the conversion of HRH The Duchess of Kent, Anne Widdecombe, M.P., and former Cabinet Minister John Gummer, is a friend of the Blairs and conducts Mass for them every week at Number 10 Downing Street.

Father Michael and I share mutual friends and I dined with him a few weeks ago; however we did not discuss the issue of the Prime Minister's possible conversion and so I cannot claim any special knowledge of this subject. But, I do know that he is in a privileged position to know about such things and therefore it is likely to be true. At any rate, the Prime Minister himself does not seem interested in quashing these rumours. If anything, he has actively fuelled speculation.

There can surely be little coincidence that the Prime Minister's final foreign visit was to Pope Benedict XVI in the Vatican, nor that the gift he presented to His Holiness comprised three framed photographs of Cardinal Newman, perhaps Britain's most revered Anglican convert to Roman Catholicism.

I watched the Prime Minister closely as he presented His Holiness with the gift. The pride and joy so clearly etched on his face left me in no doubt as to his desire to convert.

Yesterday, when questioned about the likelihood of his conversion, the Prime Minister chose not to deny the rumours but said: "I don't want to talk about it. It's difficult with some of these things. Things aren't always as resolved as they might be." Along with providing a clear indication that he does want to convert, one cannot help but wonder whether this quote suggests that he might have received a little grilling in Rome regarding some of the decisions he has taken as Prime Minister.

For I am surely not alone in thinking it odd that a Prime Minister who has engaged in a war which was condemned both by the current Pope and by his predecessor should have an easy entry into the Church. Speaking about the possibility of an invasion of Iraq before his election to the papacy, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church." Later he would say: "It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

Following the start of the War His Future Holiness was unequivocal in his views: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

One might also wonder whether Tony Blair was asked to explain to the Holy Father why his Government tried to force faith schools in England to open up to accept 25% of pupils from other faith backgrounds -- a move which was strongly, and successfully, opposed by the Catholic church.

Similarly, Tony Blair may find himself in a slightly uncomfortable position if the Pope decides to ask him if he doesn't think it slightly odd that he should seek entry to the Roman Catholic faith so soon after his Government created civil partnerships between gay couples and, most recently, ignored the Roman Catholic Church's desperate plea to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption. And of course his Government's stance on abortion and stem cell research, and his wife's support of planned parenthood groups, is not likely to gain him many bonus points either.

Tony Blair is also in breach of the Code of Canon Law as he is known to have taken Communion repeatedly, despite the fact that, as a non-Roman Catholic, he is only permitted to take Communion when he is in danger of death or when there is no church of his own faith within reasonable reach. Neither situation presented itself on any of the occasions when Tony Blair received Communion; indeed, several years ago his decision to take Communion at Westminster Cathedral resulted in a letter of rebuke from the late Cardinal Basil Hume, OSB, OM.

Whether I personally agree or disagree with any of the Prime Minister's decisions is irrelevant; I simply find it odd that he should apparently regard the Roman Catholic Church as a natural home. I for one hope very much that, if he does convert, he shall publish a detailed account of his motivation and the reasoning behind his decision.

Venerable Order of St. John Service at St. Paul's Cathedral

Yesterday saw the Roman Catholic Order of St. John (Order of Malta) celebrate the Feast of its patron with a Mass at the London Oratory, and today was the turn of the "Protestant" Order.

The Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem held its Annual Service at London's historic St. Paul's Cathedral. In the splendour of Sir Christopher Wren's masterpiece Bailiffs and Knights and Dames of St. John gathered with Chaplains, Commanders, Officers, Serving Brothers, Serving Sisters and Esquires as well as with members of St. John's Ambulance Brigade to give thanks to God.



The Order is composed of almost thirty thousand members and four hundred thousand volunteers working in its worldwide ambulance brigade, hospital and clinics. The Most Venerable Order is the only one of the Orders of Saint John which does not have a denominational restriction on membership; it is open to any suitable candidate professing one of the major Christian faiths or who is ready to sustain the tenets of "this Christian Order".

The work of the Order covers two principal activities. Firstly support of the St John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem, secondly the Saint John Ambulance Brigade. The Eye Hospital mainly serves the Palestinians living in the Israeli occupied territories, who are not entitled to receive Israeli free medical or hospital aid.

Although inspired by the more ancient Hospitaller Order that preceded it, the modern Venerable Order of St. John, as a Royal Order with the Monarch as "Sovereign Head", dates from 1888. The Grand Prior of the Order is HRH The Duke of Gloucester. The Order's head quarters are in Clerkenwell and the Order retains the use of historic "St. John's Gate" (pictured). (I have been busy today and consequently the text in paragraphs 3 and 4 is courtesy of Guy Stair Sainty) :

Order of Malta Mass at the London Oratory

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, otherwise known as the "Sovereign Military Order of Malta" (SMOM), the "Order of Malta" or the "Knights of Malta", today held its Annual Mass at the London (Brompton) Oratory in celebration of the feast day of its patron, St. John.

I was unable to attend this year, however here are some photographs taken in 2006:








The Order of Malta is the world's oldest military-religious order and has its origins in a hospice and confraternity in Jerusalem founded some time before the First Crusade (1099). Admission to the order is restricted to Roman Catholics of good standing. Internationally, the Order currently comprises 12,500 knights and dames, many from some of Europe's most important Roman Catholic families.

In accordance with its Constitutional Charter, the purpose of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is "the promotion of… the Christian virtues of charity and brotherhood. The Order carries out its charitable works for the sick, the needy and refugees without distinction of religion, race, origin or age. The Order fulfils its institutional tasks especially by carrying out hospitaller works, including health and social assistance, as well as aiding victims of exceptional disasters and war…"

Today the Order is a major global, professional organisation in terms of the humanitarian aid, medical care and emergency medicine it provides, in its management of hospitals, specialised homes for dependent elderly people, socio-medical care centres, the collection and transporting of medicines and the training of workers and ambulance staff. It has a body of more than 80,000 permanent volunteers and 11,000 doctors and nurses to deliver medical and relief aid; and its national Associations are present in over 120 countries.

For historical reasons the Order is a sovereign and neutral entity in international law and has accredited diplomatic missions in ninety-seven nations around the world. The Order has also received observer status at the United Nations and has delegations to various international organisations.

The 78th Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta, His Most Eminent Highness Fra' Andrew Bertie is accorded the ecclesiastical precedence of a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, with the diplomatic honours due to a sovereign head of state. Last month saw the Prince and Grand Master make a highly successful state visit to Poland (the first that a Grand Master of the Order of Malta had made to Poland since that carried out by Grand Master Chigi Albani della Rovere in 1931).


The Grand Master with the President of Poland during last month's state visit:






Portrait of Count Bogdan Hutten-Czapski (1851-1937), Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour & Devotion, President of the Polish Association during the previous state visit to Poland by a Grand Master of the SMOM.

Lead-up to the Concert for Diana

I have been asked to record a series of television segments which shall be aired every evening next week on Canada's CTV Network, in the lead-up to next weekend's "Concert for Diana", the musical extravaganza organised by TRH Princes William and Harry at Wembley Stadium to mark the July 1st birthday of Diana, Princess of Wales, on this the 10th anniversary of her death. Two other commentators have also recorded segments, one is the former Features Editor for British Vogue and correspondent for Fashion File and the other is a "Celebrity Lifestylist".

Each segment deals with a different subject (the charity work of Diana and her sons, the concert, the paparazzi, the funeral etc.). The segments will be incorporated into the daily entertainment news programme "E-Talk". The 30-minute entertainment magazine airs weeknights at 7 p.m. ET (check local listings) and repeats in a late-night 1:35 a.m. ET time slot and at 10 a.m. the following day (check local listings) on CTV.

CTV is also the official Canadian broadcaster of "The Concert for Diana" which shall be broadcast in Canada at 11am ET / 8 am PT on July 1st, 2007.

The confirmed line-up includes the English National Ballet, Sir Elton John, Rod Stewart, Bryan Ferry, Status Quo, Duran Duran, Andrea Bocelli, Sarah Brightman, Tom Jones (all representing Diana's era) and Nelly Furtado, Joss Stone, Natasha Bedingfield, James Morrison, Take That, Fergie, Lily Allen, P.Diddy, Pharell Williams, Will Young and others (all representing the choices of Prince William and Prince Harry). I shall be at the concert and will be amongst those commentating on what promises to be a very special occasion.

Appointment of New Chief Herald of Canada

Top right corner: Robert Watt, Canada's outgoing Chief Herald, wearing the Collar of Cs and holding his ceremonial baton. Robert Watt stands next to Dr. Claire Boudreau, the newly appointed Chief Herald of Canada. Photograph: Group photo of heralds attending the XXVIIth International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences in St. Andrews, Scotland, 2006. (Photo Source: http://www.congress2006.com/Heralds.html)

Today I received the following e-mail from Saguenay Herald of the Canadian Heraldic Authority:

"I am delighted to announce that yesterday Dr. Claire Boudreau was appointed Chief Herald of Canada, with the effective date of June 26, 2007, to succeed Robert D. Watt, who is retiring after having served as the first Chief Herald of Canada for the past 19 years. I shall send more details later, but I was eager to share with you this excellent news."

A country forged with a pioneering spirit, it is perhaps no surprise that Canada should have led the Commonwealth in the creation of "Symbols of Sovereignty", to quote a certain Canadian Garter King of Arms. From the Maple Leaf Flag, to the Order of Canada, to the Canadian Heraldic Authority, Canada has served as an inspiration to nation-building states in the Commonwealth and beyond.

The creation in 1988 of the Canadian Heraldic Authority by Letters Patent, signed by The Queen, established Canada as the first Commonwealth realm outside the United Kingdom to have its own heraldic authority. Robert Watt (Fellow of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada and Academician of L'Academie Internationale d'Heraldique), the outgoing Chief Herald, was instrumental in the creation of the CHA which, under his leadership, has established Canadian heraldry as arguably the world's most dynamic and exciting.

Having known Robb for a number of years I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his leadership and contributions, as herald, scholar and administrator; and I wish him a happy and well-deserved retirement.

And as Canada's first Chief Herald retires we see him replaced by the first female head of a Commonwealth heraldic authority: Dr. Claire Boudreau, formerly the (first) Deputy Chief Herald of Canada, Saint-Laurent Herald and Registrar of the CHA.

Claire Boudreau, Academician of L'Academie Internationale d'Heraldique, is an internationally recognised scholar in heraldic studies and has published numerous articles. She has been the principal designer and administrator of the CHA's pioneering online Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada, which was unveiled in July 2005. Dr. Boudreau's most important publication to date is the monumental:

L'héritage Symbolique des Hérauts d'Armes: Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de l'Enseignement du Blason Ancien (XIVe-XVIe siècle) (Le Léopard d’or, Paris, 2006). ISBN 2-86377-204-X

Claire Boudreau possesses all of the skills and qualities required of an excellent Chief Herald. I congratulate her warmly on her appointment and wish her continued success in the years to come as she steers the CHA on its steady path.

I was pleased to see the office of Chief Herald acquire a ceremonial aspect over the last few years (primarily through the acquisition of a Collar of Cs and a ceremonial baton) and I hope we shall see this trend continue.

Arms of Office of the Chief Herald of Canada:

Iran condemns knighthood for Sir Salman Rushdie

Iran has today condemned the decision to confer a knighthood on Sir Salman Rushdie, the Booker Prize winning author of "The Satanic Verses". It was the publication, in 1989, of this controversial novel which prompted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a "Fatwa" (death warrant) against the Indian-born, Rugby and Cambridge educated British citizen, forcing him to spend almost a decade in hiding.

Iran formally revoked the fatwa in 1998 however some Islamic clerics maintain that it is irrevocable and have urged their followers to kill Rushdie.

Speaking earlier today, Iranian spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini declared that "Honouring and commending an apostate and hated figure will definitely put the British officials in (a position) of confrontation with Islamic societies."

Hosseini continued: "Giving a badge to one of the most hated figures in Islamic society is basically an obvious example of fighting against Islam by high-ranking British officials."

Whilst I have no particular interest in Sir Salman's novels I am pleased to see him honoured as his knighthood demonstrates that whilst honouring our own we will not be intimidated or influenced by outside political pressures.

It is of course ludicrous to claim that this honour is "an obvious example of fighting against Islam by high-ranking British officials." Were this true we would not have seen a 2005 knighthood bestowed by The Queen upon Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, described by The Guardian as the "Most Influential Muslim in the UK".

Rather than criticise the British government, Iran should congratulate Britain for having recently raised a number of British Muslims to the highest ranks of British Society as members of the House of Lords. These include Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, the first Muslim peer; Lord Patel of Blackburn, leader of the British Hajj Delegation; Baroness Falkner of Margravine; and Baroness Uddin of Bethnal Green.

Of course this incident does give rise to the question: Which is the greater honour? To have received a Fatwa or a Knighthood? Certainly in the case of Sir Salman both are badges of distinction, one demonstrating his commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of expression and the other acknowledging his contribution to literature.

A hearty congratulations to Sir Salman Rushdie, Knight Bachelor.

New Appointments to the Order of Merit

The Queen's birthday honours were announced today (with knighthoods bestowed upon Sir Ian Botham and Sir Salman Rushdie amongst others) however, as important as these honours are, I would prefer to focus upon the new appointments to the Order of Merit, which were announced on Wednesday.

"The Queen has been pleased to appoint The Lord Rees of Ludlow (President of the Royal Society), The Rt Rev The Lord Eames, (former Anglican Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh), and Sir Timothy Berners-Lee KBE, (inventor of the World Wide Web) to be members of the Order of Merit.

Background
The Order of Merit, founded in 1902 by King Edward VII, is a special mark of honour conferred by the Sovereign on individuals of exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas. Appointments to the Order are in the Sovereign's personal gift and ministerial advice is not required."

Congratulations to all three on appointment to what is arguably the rarest and most prestigious meritocratic honour.

Happy Birthday Ma'am!

Today we officially celebrate the birthday of Our Sovereign Lady, HM The Queen.* Her Majesty is the fourth longest reigning Sovereign in British history, surpassed only by Queen Victoria, King George III and King Henry II (in England) and by Queen Victoria, King George III and King James VI (in Scotland).

As she has done every year of her reign save 1955, Her Majesty today took the salute at Trooping the Colour; thus continuing the historic ceremony which, in its current form, dates back to 1748 and which affords Her Majesty and Her Majesty's armed forces the opportunity to pay tribute to each other.

This year is particularly noteworthy as it is the 60th anniversary of The Queen's first participation in Trooping the Colour: in 1947 the then Princess Elizabeth, as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, rode behind her father, King George VI, as he inspected the troops for the first Trooping the Colour for 7 years.

At this time, it is perhaps appropriate to recall the great cry of a thousand voices which greeted The Queen from all corners of Westminster Abbey immediately following the homage paid by the Princes and Peers of the Realm:

"God Save Queen Elizabeth!
Long Live Queen Elizabeth!
May the Queen Live For ever!"


Happy birthday Ma'am!

----------------------
* Other realms celebrate the official birthday of HM The Queen on different dates. In Canada The Queen's Official Birthday falls upon Victoria Day, which is the Monday on or before May 24 (the date of the old Empire Day and the date of Queen Victoria's birth). Australia, except Western Australia, celebrates The Queen's birthday on the second Monday in June. This date conflicts with Western Australia's "Founders Day" and consequently the Governor of Western Australia proclaims a separate date for The Queen's birthday (usually the last Monday in September or the first Monday in October). New Zealand celebrates The Queen's birthday on the first Monday in June. The Queen's Official Birthday is a public holiday in Bermuda and Gibraltar; and it is interesting to note that despite being a republic, Fiji continues to celebrate The Queen's birthday.

Falklands 25 - Our Troops. Our Leader

On this 25th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands I had intended to pay my own tribute to the heroism and professionalism of the British Armed Forces as well as to the leadership and determination of Baroness Thatcher. However, having read a speech by former Conservative Party leader William Hague, I have instead decided to post an excerpt from the Rt. Hon. gentleman's address. The speech is long and I have therefore pruned it to those excerpts that best reflect the sentiments I wish to express:

"Next Thursday, the 14th of June 2007, will be the 25th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands. In celebrating that date, we will be remembering the ingenuity, heroism, the world-beating professionalism, and of course, the sacrifices, of the British armed forces, whose people were then, and are today, the best in the world. That it was possible to mount so successful a military campaign, 8,000 miles from home from a standing start and often in bad weather and on difficult seas, is testimony to their extraordinary efforts. That such an effort was made to restore freedom to 1,800 Britons is further testimony to our strong British sense of right and wrong, our support for international law and our fundamental belief that those who have lived under the protection of Britain should have the right to determine their own future, rather than have it dictated by anyone else.

And furthermore, that all of this was done, and that it was done with an unwavering sense of leadership which combined the necessary application of military force with the great advantage of moral force, is a tribute above all to the extraordinary resolve and clear sighted determination of our then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. As she said on the 20th of May that year, "Britain has a responsibility to the Islanders, to restore their democratic way of life. She has a duty to the whole world that aggression will not succeed and to uphold the cause of freedom." It was a time when the world held its breath and when much of it then breathed the long sigh of relief that a leader who said such things turned out also to mean them.

That is why the liberation of the Falkland Islands will always be more than just another one of the countless military engagements of history: the manner and purpose of their recovery are no mere details in the historical record, but a lasting inspiration that showed that freedom can be defended, and a lasting reminder that we must always retain the strength to do so. So while tonight we are celebrating this event 25 years on, we can be confident that we or our successors will be doing so 50, 75 and 100 years on and that what was established beyond doubt in 1982 will not be forgotten.

..we are here this evening to celebrate the achievement of our former leader and former Prime Minister, who inspired a country to support a war we did not seek, but in the end had to fight, and to help people few in number, but who are as British as all of us here.

Margaret Thatcher sliced through the official opinions of many mandarins at the time, not to mention a few Ministers, and brought a diplomatic and military campaign into being through sheer force of personality. In doing so, she ensured respect for Britain in the world, as a champion of freedom and law. She set the tone which allowed her to strengthen alliances which confronted the global threat of that time, alliances which the United Kingdom still holds dear.

Her passion for liberty, her respect for the rule of law, her willingness to confront regimes who pose a threat to liberty and law, and her determination to do what was right, are part of an enduring and precious legacy not only to the Conservative Party but to the whole country. Whenever in the future we need to safeguard Britons at home or abroad, or confront those who threaten us, or defend the right of a people to decide their own future, the events in the Falkland Islands will always set a standard and the name of Margaret Thatcher will forever be an inspiration." -- The Rt. Hon William Hague, P.C., M.P.

Cantabrigian Bridesheadonism

The past three days have afforded this Young Fogey such an array of social distraction that he has been unable to attend to his usual routine, which includes blog-writing. However, with the return of normalcy, normalcy being relative (and in the case of a Young Fogey far from the norm), I am now able to provide a brief synopsis of my recent activity.

On Saturday I found myself in the sublime surroundings of Cambridge University. The purpose of my trip had been to attend the Golden Jubilee Banquet of the Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society ("CUHAGS", pronounced "KEW-HAGS"), a warm and welcoming society of scholars and enthusiasts who together comprise British academia's finest collection of correct form adherents.

My three guests for the evening were David Lumsden of Cushnie, Garioch Pursuivant to the Countess of Mar; Hugh Macpherson, Esq., of the Heraldic Porcelain Company; and Captain H. Caulder of the United States Air Force (all pictured here).

Prior to attending the main event my guests and I called upon Peter Avery OBE, a Fellow of King's College and an internationally recognised authority on Persia. Having arrived at the University in 1958, Mr. Avery shall celebrate his Cambridge Golden Jubilee next year and is one of the few remaining Fellows to have a permanent residence within the elegant King's College Gibbs Building. In the comfort of his rooms, we enjoyed fine wine and fine reminiscences.


The weather was perfect and as we strolled to the banquet reception, which was held in the Scholars Garden of Clare College, we smiled for the various tourists who deemed us worthy of a holiday snap. The reception was lively and all were in good spirit. Those attending included four members of Her Majesty's College of Arms, (Garter King-of-Arms, York Herald, Somerset Herald and Bluemantle Pursuivant) and various other respected heraldists and scholars some of whom had travelled from the United States and Europe.



The CUHAGS banquet, which was held in the Great Hall, was a splendid occasion and we were treated to a superb musical interlude. The highlight of the evening was the presentation, by Garter, of a grant of arms to the Society. The speeches were enjoyable, although it would be remiss of me not to note that one speech raised more than one eyebrow...on no fewer than three occasions.






CUHAGS dinners always provide one with the opportunity to catch up with various old friends and this evening was no different. The dinner carried on well past 11pm, following which a number of us continued our evening elsewhere, finally retiring at around 3am.


On Sunday, following a rather unpleasant alarm call, I was up and ready for Mass, following which I joined various members of the Heraldry Society in the Great Court of Trinity to hear the College Choir. At midday on the final Sunday of the academic year the Choir sings antiphonally from two of the towers in the college's Great Court, with a brass ensemble performing from the third. Over 200 of us stood and listened to the exquisite sound. This was the second consecutive year of my attendance and it shall not be the last. I was subsequently joined in the quad by David Lumsden and Hugh Macpherson, both of whom had been invited to partake of a snifter in another Fellow's rooms and arrived at Trinity after the choir's descent.





At the previous evening's banquet a friend had introduced my party to a sound Cambridge undergraduate, by the name of Gwilym Ap Evans, who informed us that he would be hosting a small drinks party the following afternoon (June 10) to celebrate White Rose Day, the anniversary of the birth, in 1688, of the so-called "Old Pretender", also known as "James III and VIII". As Lumsden, Macpherson and I are Royal Stuart Society Council members, we were warmly invited to attend. Thus did we find ourselves unexpectedly munching canapes and quaffing free-flowing champagne on a beautiful Sunday afternoon in the delightfully secluded and tranquil surroundings of St. John's Fellows Garden. We enjoyed meeting various kindred spirits, most of whom sported white roses in their well-tailored lapels, and discussing all manner of reverent and irreverent subjects before bidding our host adieu. The dean, by whose kind permission the event was made possible, extended his kindness by escorting us to the gates.



Leaving the carved and manicured glory of St. John's we made our way to King's College to say goodbye to Peter Avery, who invited us to take a turn around the Fellows Garden and then sit on the grass outside his window on the ground floor of the Gibbs Building, on the corner nearest King's College Chapel (pictured supra). As I looked out out at the punts floating gently on the Cam and listened to the bell summoning one and all for Evensong I recalled the words of William Ernest Henley:

"Life is good, and joy runs high
Between English earth and sky"

At 3:25 we crossed over to King's College Chapel for Evensong, following which we collected Mr. Macpherson's car from Jesus College and returned to London (stopping off at Regent's Park for a short walk around Queen Mary's Rose Garden) and to impromptu dinner and drinks in Pimlico at the kind invitation of Mr. Macpherson, where we were joined also by my good friend Richard Carruthers, who was returning home to Vancouver the following morning.


I lapsed into the arms of Morpheus at 1am on Monday and rose at 7am in order to attend a pre-arranged morning engagement in Westminster. In the afternoon I joined Mr. Macpherson and another gentlemen, of Jermyn St., at the Rivoli Bar of the Ritz Hotel for Bucks Fizz following which we took luncheon in the Ritz Restaurant. Feeling quite merry after our excellent lunch, we continued to the Carlton Club to meet a good friend, a purveyor of fine Russian icons, and enjoy a cigar and a glass of port. I left the Carlton in the late afternoon and sauntered around Jermyn St., purchasing shirts and some ties.

Crossing Regent St to make my way home I bumped into a cousin whom I had not seen in two years. We ventured into a near-by coffee house and brought each other up-to-date on our recent activities. Parting company an hour later we agreed to meet up soon again. It now being 6pm I was in no mood to do battle with the headless hoi polloi on the subterranean railway and so I called upon two recently relocated New Yorker friends, now living in Covent Garden, whom I knew to be dining in Soho.

I left them at 7:30 and headed on to a small cocktail/dinner party at a friend's flat in Knightsbridge. My host's neighbours were enjoying an al fresco soiree and had hired an accomplished pianist and a string quartet for the occasion. Of this we were the unexpected and most grateful beneficiaries as we were able to dine to the accompaniment of the soothing sounds of Mendelssohn, Franck and Schumann.

Sound sleep had evaded the Young Fogey the previous three nights and, having enjoyed an excess of decadence, he offered his apologies and left early, returning to Chateau Fogey at 11pm to sleep the sleep of the innocent for the first time in several days.

(My thanks to Antti Matikkala, former President of CUHAGS, and Capt. H. Caulder for sharing their photographs)

Red Socked Fops!

I have recently been engaged in a delightful correspondence with various gentlemen members of the New Sheridan Club, a bastion of chappist civility which now boasts an Internet presence. I have particularly enjoyed an exchange with two members on the subject of red socks. My interlocutors and I hold the traditional view that red socks are a good thing. Alas, the long-standing high regard in which red socks have been held, and the VIF (very important feet) which they themselves have held, have been forgotten by a great many social commentators.

I discovered this myself in November 2005 in no less a respectable publication than the increasingly unrespectable former broadsheet The Times. Writing with reference to Her Britannic Majesty's former Ambassador to the United States of America, Sir Christopher Meyer (styled as a "red socked fop" by the sartorially-challenged John Prescott), Michael Gove, that otherwise sound Tory, wrote as follows:

"...our former ambassador to Washington has run into trouble for committing the sort of social solecism that could happen to any of us. If only he had consulted a wider circle of friends with practised judgment he might have escaped embarrassment.

"I’m not talking about Sir Christopher’s decision to spill the beans about his private conversations with his colleagues in return for a handsome advance for his memoirs DC Confidential...

"No, Sir Christopher’s real mistake was in the hosiery department. John Prescott’s revelation that Our Man in Washington was known throughout his time in the States as “the red-socked fop” exposed the real frailty in judgment. Just as every man over the age of 35 needs to know how to deal with aural hair growth, so no man over the age of 25 should attempt individuality with his socks.

"Brightly coloured or, even worse, patterned, socks worn with business suits are a catastrophic faux pas, ...

"The decision to go for red is meant to show an air of devil-may-care individuality and loveableness. But I fear it’s the sartorial equivalent of hanging a “You don’t have to be mad to work here, but it helps!” poster above your desk. It is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a deeply Brentian act.

"...there is a very thin dividing line between dressing wittily and looking like a clown. Best not to go there, and leave the red socks to the Welsh rugby team."


Needless to say, such ignorance could not be permitted to remain unchallenged. I therefore set quill to parchment and scratched out an appropriate letter of correction which was duly published in The Times of November 26 under the heading "Knees Up in Rome":

"Sir, Michael Gove, that noted arbiter of taste, has decreed that by choosing red socks Sir Christopher Meyer has committed a “catastrophic faux pas” (times2, Nov 23).

Alas, this statement only reveals its author’s unfamiliarity with the dress code of the upper classes. Coloured socks have long served as a social indicator, revealing much about the wearer’s background and sympathies, and in a crowded room can help to identify kindred spirits. I have attended formal dinners at which those who were (or believed themselves to be) of the “blood royal” wore red socks with evening dress. Red socks are also occasionally worn by well-heeled gentlemen at certain exclusive dining societies.

If Mr Gove visits Jermyn Street or Savile Row, he will find any number of renowned gentlemen’s shops proudly selling the very socks he finds so objectionable.

For a true education, however, I would recommend a trip to Gammarelli, sartoria per ecclesiastici, a small shop off Piazza Minerva in Rome. Official outfitter to popes and senior members of the Roman Catholic clergy, it is better known by English gentlemen as the source of the world’s finest flaming-red knee-length socks." (Link to the original piece in The Times)



One never knows whether columnists bother to read letters to the editor, still less whether they pay them any real heed. I was therefore delighted to hear from a friend that Michael Gove had referenced my letter in a subsequent column, which he wrote on December 21:

"Socks appeal: it works for men

"The last time I wrote about male footwear on this page I got it in the neck from a reader who fired off a learned missive upbraiding me for my hostility towards red socks. Did I not realise that a peacock display of scarlet hosiery was a badge of rank, up there with ermine, which signified that blue blood coursed underneath the red stockings?

"That’s as maybe. But I can’t help thinking that it reinforces my point that such self-conscious dandyism is best left to those who have no social summit left to climb...."


Mr. Gove might not have conceded his error, choosing instead to reinterpret his argument, but I had at least been afforded the opportunity to set the record straight and, hopefully, save other red sock enthusiasts from the misplaced smirks of those who might otherwise have considered them a fashion calamity.

Lord Speaker - Champion of the Upper House

Yesterday afternoon I ventured into the Orwellian-sounding Ministry of Justice (the month old successor to the Department for Constitutional Affairs) to hear Baroness Hayman, the first Speaker of the House of Lords, address a small group about her newly created office.

The position of Lord Speaker was established through the Constitutional Reform Act, 2005, depriving the Lord Chancellor of his ancient function as the Upper Chamber's presiding officer. The Government believed that the Lord Chancellor's varied roles as moderator of the House of Lords, cabinet minister and head of the judiciary left the Government open to challenges under the Human Rights Act. Thus can it be argued that the creation of the position of Lord Speaker is directly related to the European Union's increasing influence over Britain's constitution.

Baroness Hayman was elected Lord Speaker in July 2006, making her and the surviving hereditary peers the most democratic element within the otherwise wholly-appointed chamber. There is surely some irony to the fact that, having been elected, those who now sit in the Lords by virtue of their ancient pedigree have a greater claim to democratic legitimacy than those who have arrived in the Lords following a long career in the House of Commons.

Baroness Hayman, whose term runs for five years, explained that the term "Lord Speaker" has been in use for over four centuries but that the Lord Chancellor's role as a "Speaker" was far more minimalist than that of his Commons counterpart. Unlike the Commons, the "Other Place" is largely self-governing and thus the Lord Speaker's tasks remain far less onerous and far less procedural. The Lord Speaker does not select members to speak, select proposed legislative amendments or engage in the other activities most normally associated with Mister Speaker. One will not find this lady calling "Order! Order!".

What, then, does the Lord Speaker do? In many respects, the role of the Lord Speaker is to act as an ambassador for the Upper House. One might say that the Speaker is the chief PR officer: debating, defending, advocating for and upholding the House of Lords against criticism and attack. The Speaker exists to dispell myths and set the record straight. I was heartened to hear Baroness Hayman enter into a spirited defence of the Lords. Such a refreshing sound!

Alas, I was disappointed and, indeed, annoyed to learn that this Government treats the office of Lord Speaker as unequal to that of Mister Speaker. For whilst Mister Speaker enjoys the benefit of an official residence within the Palace of Westminster, no similar accommodation has been afforded the Lord Speaker; this despite the fact that the Lord Chancellor's apartment is vacant and ideally suited for the purpose(particularly given the sumptuous refurbishment provided by the Prime Minister's first Lord Chancellor!). One can only assume a political motivation. I detest such petty and meaningless actions. They achieve nothing and are the product of small minds.

More annoying, dare I say infuriating, is the completely ludicrous ranking accorded the Lord Speaker. As any properly educated schoolchild will proudly reveal, legislation passes from Commons to Lords prior to receiving Royal Assent. The Lords is the "Upper House" with the Commons ranking below. Yet, inexplicably, the Lord Speaker follows Mr. Speaker in the Table of Precedence. What lunacy! One need merely look to the Canadian situation to see the correct order, with the Speaker of the Senate taking precedence immediately before the Speaker of the Commons. The decision to rank the Lord Speaker after the Speaker of the House of Commons is a purely political decision (the unconstitutional illogical logic presumably being that the Lords is subordinate as it is an unelected ratification chamber) which makes a mockery of our constitutional system. Quite simply it stinks. I for one find it indefensible and deplorable.

I was afforded the opportunity to address the Lord Speaker and I did raise this point, in diplomatic terms. Baroness Hayman, who must remain neutral and non-partisan at all times, carefully acknowledged that the subject of precedence had caused some debate but, quite understandably, declined to comment further.

It will come as no surprise that as a High Tory and a traditionalist I am steadfastly opposed to change. Nevertheless, once change has occurred, and however much one may lament the loss of that which went before, one must soberly analyse the current situation and determine its palatability. I am pleased to say that I was impressed by Baroness Hayman and found her defence of the Upper Chamber encouraging. The Lord Speaker's role as Champion of the Lords is also to be welcomed. Whereas the Lord Chancellor might not have advocated for the Lords with much enthusiasm, a separate and independent Lord Speaker is now able to defend and promote the Upper Chamber with all guns blazing. And that is a good thing.

Britain Day?! Whatever next!

Britain was once a proud nation. A nation which had no need to assert its identity or reaffirm its notion of self. So pronounced was its self-confidence it didn't even bother to put its name on its stamps. Everyone knew Britain was great; that it was also green and pleasant was a bonus.

Yet now we are told that Britain is afflicted by an identity crisis. The meaning of Britishness is poorly understood and Mother Labour wants to teach us what it means (ah, if only Labour's Britain were my Britain!).

Truth be told, we would not be in this sorry mess had generations of loony lefties, at all levels of government, not embarked upon a decades long policy of Britain-bashing, in which Britain's legacy and achievements and its symbols and institutions were ignored, devalued and debased whilst ghettoised minority communitites were actively encouraged to celebrate and foster their own cultures and traditions, in their own languages. One cannot help but wonder whether there just might be a connection...

When one adds devolution, the rise of the European Union and the concomitant erosion of British sovereignty to the depressing mix, there is little wonder that some are dazed and confused.

To be fair, whilst Labour has not acknowledged that it is largely responsible for this lamentable state of affairs, it should be congratulated for finally realising that action must be taken; it is only a shame that its good intentions are so poorly directed.

According to two Labour Ministers, the solution to Britain's malaise is "Britain Day". Yes. I know, I know. My thoughts exactly.

Other countries have national days of celebration but these mark pivotal moments of nation-forging, be they days of independence (USA and many Commonwealth republics), revolution (France), discovery or first landing (Australia), federation or confederation (Canada), or the signing or coming-into-force of treaties or national constitutions (New Zealand and Poland).

One of the marked disadvantages of having the world's oldest and most stable democratic constitution and system of government (as Britain does) is that Britain doesn't have any great date upon which it can claim to have been born. We have no Phoenix moment. Ours is a story of relatively peaceful evolution. How civilised. How British.

The closest we can come to a birthday is the date of the Act of Union, yet we saw its tercentenary pass this year without a single catherine wheel or roman candle.

The date proposed by Labour ministers is the date of the State Opening of Parliament. Yawn! Only long-term residents of the Westminster Village would propose such an uninspiring date. It is safe, relatively PC and boring! The public is unlikely to connect with this in any real way.

If any "Britain Day" is to succeed it must be tied to an event or date which has great historic and popular appeal and that event should be central to the celebrations. The only dates that spring to mind are Battle of Britain Day (September 15), Trafalgar Day (October 21), or the old Empire Day (May 24, which is also Queen Victoria's birthday and is currently celebrated in Canada as "Victoria Day").

Of course, the great national days of other states are days of enormous pomp and pageantry: flags and bunting galore, fly pasts, fireworks, parades, concerts; a great smorgasbord of patriotic fervour, all designed to stiffen the sinews and reaffirm that ___________________ (insert name of country) is a splendid place.

Alas, what we have been offered is a day of local community initiatives....which sounds like a dull and very wet affair indeed. The real world equivalent would be for a tour guide to go to Heathrow airport to greet an enthusiastic first-time tourist, eager to see Britain's greatest and best, and then skip London completely, taking the poor soul to Milton Keynes or Basingstoke, before sending him back home.

The proposed Britain Day is an artificial creation that is doomed to fail. If the government seriously wants a national celebration of Britishness it should organise major events on Coronation Day or Queen Victoria's birthday. The Monarch is the ultimate symbol of our state and it is towards the Monarch that our national pride is traditionally directed. The anniversary of a monarch's birth or coronation is the appropriate time to celebrate Britain and all things British.

However, more important than any short-lived celebration, if the government wants to strengthen pride in Britain it must take proactive steps to instill British values in two critical groups: the young and immigrants.

The government should ensure that a portrait of The Queen is erected in the lobby of every state funded school, college and university and that the national anthem is reintroduced to school assemblies. It must make the study of British history compulsory through all levels of primary and secondary school and ensure that the history that is taught is balanced and unbiased.

The government must also ensure that British culture and values are never sacrificed or made to take a backseat to minority interests. New immigrants must enroll in civics classes that offer instruction on our culture and our history and, prior to receiving citizenship and in addition to an English-language test, these immigrants should, as in Canada, have to pass a test demonstrating comprehension of our national qualities and history.

The young, new immigrants and indeed many adult Britons, whilst enjoying a day off, will see no reason to attend a day long celebration of Britishness if they are not first taught what being British means. Let us not place the cart before the horse.

2012 Olympic Logo -- Oh dear!

The new London Olympic logo was unveiled today amidst much fanfare and self-congratulation.

An excited Lord Coe, the London Olympic organising committee chairman, stated: "This is the vision at the very heart of our brand.

"It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world. It is an invitation to take part and be involved.

"We will host a Games where everyone is invited to join in because they are inspired by the Games to either take part in the many sports, cultural, educational and community events leading up to 2012 or they will be inspired to achieve personal goals."

Well that all sounds very jolly hockey sticks and I admire the Committee's motiviation, however I for one find it hard to imagine that the garish neon logo can inspire anyone to do anything other than look the other way...or perhaps reach for the migraine pills.

This is undeniably London's decade. Having recently supplanted New York as the financial centre of the universe London has now, for the first time in almost a century, regained its status as "Capital of the World". Fate dealt this mighty city a great hand in offering it the opportunity to broadcast its newly-acquired status via the world's most visible platform: the Olympic games. The Olympic Logo should demonstrate the strength, confidence, vitality, pride and values of this city and its people as well as our message for the global community.

The Olympic logo should inspire. Yet I find myself looking at something not dissimilar to the admittedly accomplished doodling which, in the mid-1980s, used to grace the covers of the notebooks of my then 14 year old cousin. It is all very Blondie, Tiswas and Swap Shop. Indeed, the video that acted as the vehicle for the launch of this new logo, and which featured multi-coloured shards erupting through council estates and parks all over London, resembles the sort of low budget television programme one would watch on Children's BBC circa 1987.

One cannot help but wonder how much of the £400,000 that has been spent on this project was directed at market research. The old logo was not overly inspirational but it was attractive and easy on the eye. I do not want to appear as a negative Olympics-basher as I do in fact support the Games; I simply believe that we, by which I mean Londoners and Britons, deserve better than something which could be mistaken for the sort of cheap plastic jigsaw one would find in inferior christmas crackers -- and which disappointed children would eagerly swap for tipsy grandma's spinning top.

London is a city of design classics. The telephone box. The red pillar box. The policeman's helmet. The mini. The tube map. The London Eye. We are a discerning city. All we seek is something of which we can be proud. Come on Olympic Committee! Go for Gold!

Coronation Day

On this date in 1953, HM The Queen did "solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of [Her] Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs."

Her Majesty has faithfully fulfilled her oath for over 50 years and on this Coronation Day all of her peoples in each of her far-flung realms should give thanks. Through dedication, self-sacrifice and commitment to duty The Queen, the embodiment of our collective spirit and our national story, should serve as an inspiration to all.

The Glorious First of June

I am fortunate to have been born upon the First of June, one of the two dates of the year Britons traditionally hold to be "Glorious" (the second being the "Glorious Twelfth" of August). Yesterday evening, in celebration of my natal anniversary, 12 friends joined me for a private dinner in the historic surroundings of London's Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese. Rebuilt in 1667, following destruction in the Great Fire of London, the Cheshire Cheese is one of London's most historic taverns/chop houses and was a known haunt of Dr. Johnson, Charles Dickens, and various other literary luminaries. In the atmospheric surroundings of the Johnson Room we gathered, kindred spirits all, to be merry and to indulge in good living.

Given the Cheshire Cheese's Stuart pedigree, its link with Samuel Pepys and the proximity to the date of the Restoration of the Monarchy (May 29th 1660), we thought it fitting to read an excerpt from Pepys' diary entry for June 1st, 1660:

"At night Mr. Cooke comes from London with letters, leaving all things there very gallant and joyful. And brought us word that the Parliament had ordered the 29th of May, the King’s birthday, to be for ever kept as a day of thanksgiving for our redemption from tyranny, and the King’s return to his Government, he entering London that day."

Given the date, of the various toasts proposed at the dinner one offered to the Royal Navy is worthy of note. The Glorious First of June was so named following a naval battle fought in the Atlantic Ocean between the Royal Navy and the navy of Revolutionary France. It was the first major naval battle of the French Revolutionary Wars and following the British victory it was decreed that the First of June would be forever "Glorious". We therefore remembered in particular those brave sons of Britannia who fought in that battle.

One amusing aside: aboard the ship Tremendous, which took part in the battle, Mrs Daniel Mackenzie gave birth to a boy, Daniel "Tremendous" Mackenzie, that baby was deemed to have been a participant in the battle and was consequently awarded the Naval General Service medal, with a rating of "Baby" – surely the youngest person ever honoured for active service!

Following our hearty meal, several of us stumbled on to the Carlton Club for cigars and post-prandials -- there being only four weeks left for cigar afficionados to enjoy their (ever more guilty!) pleasure in elegant surroundings, the English smoking ban taking effect from July 1st) and I finally lapsed into the arms of Morpheous on the morning of a day which had long ceased to be my birthday.

Royal Stuart Society's Restoration Dinner, 2007

David Lumsden of Cushnie, Garioch Pursuivant to the Countess of Mar; Alexandre de Prat i Pont; Don Victor Franco De Baux; Hugh Macpherson Esq.

Monarchists, traditionalists and historians gathered en masse yesterday evening in the dignified surroundings of London's Travellers Club library to honour the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660; thus marking the end of 11 years of hated, puritanical republican dictatorship. The Royal Stuart Society organises this splendid annual dinner on or around Oak Apple Day, May 29th, King Charles II's birthday and the date of his triumphal entry into London.

The Governor General of the Society, HG The Duke of St. Albans, presided over the dinner and the guest of honour was Lord Charles FitzRoy, son of the Royal Stuart Society's Vice-President, HG The Duke of Grafton KG, and a descendant of King Charles II. Lord Charles's latest book, Return of the King: The Restoration of Charles II is due to be published this year by Sutton.

This well-attended annual event is always a delight and provides an opportunity to meet friends old and new.

"The Royal Stuart Society was founded in 1926 and has an international membership.

The Society’s specific Objects as laid down in its Constitution are:

* to be open to all who have an interest in the members of the Royal House of Stuart, their descendants and supporters

* to promote research in and further knowledge of Stuart history

* to uphold rightful Monarchy and oppose Republicanism

* to arrange such commemorations, lectures and other activities as shall advance these objectives

"The Society is therefore of a monarchist and traditionalist character and with a specific interest in the Royal House of Stuart and research concerning the Royal House and Stuart history.

"Within these parameters, the Society regards itself as a ‘Broad Church’ and applications for membership will be welcomed from all who support its objects and ethos as shown above.

"The Society gladly recognises that those who form its membership are likely to have a varied range of particular interests. For some it will primarily be support for the institution of monarchy and the upholding of monarchical institutions against attack from their opponents. This support may favour, for instance, the legitimist stance based on hereditary principles and exemplified in the Jacobite movement and tradition after 1688. Adherents of this position will look with favour on the senior and direct hereditary heirs of the Royal House of Stuart although as our page on ‘Succession’ makes clear, none of those heirs has claimed any or all of the thrones of the British Isles since 1807. Other members of the Society will support or find acceptable the ‘parliamentary’ monarchy created by the Act of Settlement (1701) and now embodied in the reigning House of Windsor. For all there will be a consensus based on the desirability of having a monarchy rather than a republic. Closely linked with support for monarchy, members are likely to favour organised society in these islands being of a Christian, civilized and traditionalist nature. In a more general way they will favour co-operation with other credible monarchist bodies such as the International Monarchist League to support monarchical forms of government worldwide.

"For many members of the Society, a key emphasis will lie with the achievement of historical accuracy and credible interpretations of events, policies and outcomes in studies relevant to the Stuarts and the periods of their primary significance by high quality scholarship. In this connection, the flourishing state of Jacobite studies from 1688 to 1807 has inestimably benefited the Society. Such members may themselves be academics or people with a significant interest in historical work concerning the Stuarts. These members may be actively engaged in original research and also in challenging errors of fact or interpretation where unsubstantiated or biased interpretations have previously been accepted. They will be especially interested in the programme of high quality lectures and publications organised and produced by the Society and shown on the ‘Forthcoming Events’ and ‘Publications’ pages of this website. By arrangement with publishers, the Society is often able to offer newly published books on Stuart history to its members at discounted prices. Such books and others may also be reviewed in our annual ‘Royal Stuart Review’ which all members receive.

"Other members may have as their foremost interest the fascinating and complex world of Stuart iconography and symbolism found in the portraiture, glassware and medals which enabled the Stuarts to communicate with their subjects and supporters both as reigning and exiled monarchs in an age without means of mass communication. A number of recognised experts in these fields are members of the Society and other members are serious collectors. Beyond that there is the reviving interest in the music of the Stuart Court and period both in the British Isles and in exile in France and Italy and the consequent resurgence of enthusiasm for composers such as Gibbons, Lawes, Lanier, Blow, Couperin and Fede. Linked to these interests is the Society’s programme of visits to places of Stuart interest such as Ham House, Restoration House (Rochester), Chiddingstone Castle and the Library at Windsor Castle.

"For the majority of members, it is clear that interest lies not so much in any one of these subjects but in a combination of them all. Membership of the Society therefore attractively represents the opportunity to support monarchical institutions and traditionalist values in the context of academic excellence, the visual and musical Arts and good fellowship." (Source: The Royal Stuart Society)



"This day, it is thought, the King do enter the city of London.": Samuel Pepys, 29 May 1660.

Royal Canadian

I am fortunate to be a "dual monarchist" in that I am a subject of Her Majesty in both her British and Canadian realms. I therefore heartily endorse the petition to restore the "Royal" prefix to Her Majesty's Canadian navy and airforce.

I urge all proud and loyal Canadians to sign the petition today!

"To commemorate the Canadian navy's centennial in 2010, we the petitioners call upon Parliament to ask Her Majesty that she be pleased to restore the Royal designation to the Canadian navy and Canadian air force, and so to build upon the success of our unified and integrated Canadian Forces by celebrating the unique and proud heritage of its distinctive elements."

Sign the petition at this link: Sign the Petition/

The Hat and the Crown

During the recent State Visit by Our Sovereign Lady to the United States I watched with interest the first meeting between HM and the First Lady and noted that the latter presented no curtsy. I contrasted this with a meeting, which I fondly recall, betwen The Queen and Nancy Reagan some years earlier at which the then First Lady made the controversial decision to make this deferential gesture.

As an American citizen and wife of the President of the United States, Mrs. Reagan was neither obliged nor expected to curtsy. That she did so was a clear demonstration of her impeccable breeding and her deep respect both for Her Majesty and for the Crown. Unfortunately, as was so ably demonstrated by a winking, gurning, gaffe-prone George W Bush, well-placed and courteous deference has no place in the modern White House.

Nevertheless, the subject of deference caused me to ponder further and, whilst contemplating the age-old custom of hat-doffing, which at one time evolved into an elaborate and dexterous artform, I recalled that the Quakers had traditionally claimed the right to remain 'hatted' at all times -- on the ground that doffing one's hat was a courtesy to be afforded only to God. Indeed, it is alleged that upon receiving a firmly-hatted William Penn, King Charles II removed his own hat, declaring: "it is the custom that only one person remain covered."

The privilege of remaining hatted is claimed as a (dubious) right by some members of the peerage. The 18th Baron Kingsale is said to have "walked to and fro with his hat on his head" in front of William III on the grounds that it was his right. Simon Winchester notes that Lord Forester "has a document that appears to be a license granted at the time of Henry VIII giving all the heirs of John Forester of Watling Street the right to keep a covered head in kingly presence." However Winchester states that both Kingsale and Forester suffered from ringworm, resulting in disgusting heads which no Sovereign would wish to see; thus the privilege of remaining 'hatted'.

Winchester continues that a Victorian Lord Kingsale tried to assert this right in the presence of the Queen-Empress, causing Her Majesty to declare: "It may be your right to keep your hat on before a monarch, but I am a lady, too. Your action is most impolite. Take it off at once." Apocryphal perhaps -- but amusing nonetheless.

King Michael of Australia?

It appears that a group of republicans have latched on to the following 2004 story and are trying to make mischief:

----------------------
BBC NEWS STORY: "Aussie is 'Heir to the Crown'" (first reported 5 January 2004).

A forklift truck driver in a remote Australian town is the rightful King of England, a historian has claimed

"Dr Michael Jones says Queen Elizabeth's claim to the throne is false because her distant ancestor, Edward IV, was illegitimate. He concludes that the crown should have passed instead through another royal line which today ends at British-born Michael Abney-Hastings, 62.

"King Michael" said he was shocked by the news - but remained a republican.
He said it was "unlikely" that he would go to Buckingham Palace to claim the crown.
Dr Jones' thesis, explored in a recent television documentary, suggests that Edward IV, who reigned from 1461 to 1483, was conceived when his parents were 160 kilometres apart.

His "father", Richard Duke of York, was fighting the French at Pontoise, near Paris, while his mother, Lady Cicely Neville, was at court in Rouen. She was said to be spending much of her time in the company of a local archer with whom she was rumoured to be having an affair.

Dr Jones said Edward IV's alleged illegitimacy means the crown should instead have been passed down the Plantagenet line - ending at Mr Abney-Hastings. The unlikely heir lives in Jerilderie, a small town 640km southwest of Sydney, in New South Wales, where he moved from the UK as a teenager.

"I don't think it's really sunk in yet," he said.
The farm forklift truck driver said he had already known he was descendant of the Plantagenet family - and 14th Earl of Loudon in Scotland - but never guessed he could be a contender to the throne.

"I'm definitely a republican," he said.
"As much as I love England, I honestly feel in this day and age Australia should be standing on its own feet in everything, and that means we have to be a republic. In the last referendum we had on it, I actually voted to become a republic."

He said it was "very unlikely" he would go to London and demand entry at Buckingham Palace. But he quipped, "I'll hedge my bets."

Mr Abney-Hastings, who is widowed, said he was treated the same as ever by friends and family - except on Christmas Day, when he was welcomed to dinner with a rendition of God Save the King.

He said his eldest son had not mentioned inheriting his crown, and warned: "He'll have to wait. It's not available till I go."

Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, refused to respond specifically to the claims, saying any conclusions reached in the television documentary were "a matter for the programme makers". STORY ENDS
-------------------------------


Buckingham Palace may have wisely chosen to remain silent on this issue but this Monarchist is not fettered by the same constraints.

Dr. Michael Jones and his cohorts and, indeed, all who have advocated this theory, appear to have a very poor grasp of history, biology and the constitution.

It is easiest to rebut the story in point form:

1. The programme host and historian contend that during the period in which Edward IV was supposed to have been conceived, his father, The Duke of York, was at war in Pontoise. The Duke of York was away from his wife (who was in Rouen) for 2.5 weeks either side of the alleged point of conception. The programme failed to consider the possibility of a late pregnancy and unfairly dismissed the concept of a premature birth. It is quite ridiculous for a serious scholar to dismiss either possiblity in such a cavalier manner. If one takes into account the very real possibilty of either a premature or a delayed birth it is entirely plausible that Edward IV was conceived whilst the Duke of York was in England.

2. Even if we accept that Edward IV was a bastard it is of no great concern since his father accepted him as his legitimate issue. The significance of such recognition appears to have been lost upon all who have reported this story. Legitimacy is a legal concept. ****Edward IV was legitimate in law.**** End of story.

3. Those advocating for this theory place far too much emphasis on the notion of primogeniture as the all-important factor for deciding who would reign in this period. In Medieval England primogeniture was not as important as it would later become. If it were we would not have had a King John.

Similarly, the programme and subsequent articles fail to consider the impact of the Tudors (or the Hanoverians for that matter). Henry VII became king by the ancient concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", having defeated Richard III at Bosworth Field in 1485. Henry VII was not the rightful genealogical successor; he became King by right of battle and later secured his position through marriage to Edward IV's daughter.

Whether or not Edward IV was legitimate, the Wars of the Roses would most likely still have been fought and Henry VII may still have become King.

4. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 also appears to have been forgotten. Parliament invited William of Orange to come to Britain -- causing King James II to flee. Mary was not next in the line of succession (that was James "III", the Old Pretender) and so again we have an example of primogeniture taking secondary position.

5. Most important of all, the programme (and articles) completely ignores the critical fact that our Sovereign, HM The Queen, reigns not by virtue of her Plantagenet descent but because of the ACT OF SETTLEMENT!

In 1701 Parliament decided that the Hanoverians should reign and, in choosing a king, passed over many persons who had a better genealogical claim than George I; the Electress Sophia became the person from whom descent was to be traced, not Edward IV! Parliament has decided the matter. Conclusion: The whole issue of Edward IV's illegitimacy is completey irrelevant. Arrant nonsense!

Churchill's London Honours

Many will be aware that two of my great interests in life are Churchill and London. I therefore thought it would be interesting to determine which London-related honours Churchill had received. I share my findings below:

The highest honour the Corporation of London can bestow is the Honorary Freedom (not to be confused with the modern Freedom which can be obtained by application), which Churchill was invited to take by the Court of Common Council.

Churchill was a liveryman in the Worshipful Company of Mercers which, appropriately, is the first of the Great Twelve. He was also an Honorary Bencher of Gray's Inn (1942). Churchill shares these joint honours with the Elizabethan Sir Thomas Gresham, founder of the Royal Exchange.

Other historical benchers include Hillaire Belloc and Lord Macaulay (thus providing a link to Churchill the historian and reader of history). Further back in time we find Lord Howard of Effingham (later Earl of Nottingham), Lord Admiral of the Fleet -- forever enshrined in our annals as commander of the English fleet during the invasion of the sinister Spanish Armada (here providing a link to Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty).

Looking at the list of more recent Honorary Benchers of Gray's Inn I note some interesting Churchill contemporaries: Lord Birkenhead, GCSI (F.E. Smith), Franklin Roosevelt and Sir Robert Menzies, KT.

Of particular note is the fact that the very first meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt took place at Gray's Inn on January 29, 1918. Roosevelt, as assistant secretary in the navy, was visiting London on naval business and attended a dinner at this venerable Inn of Court. Churchill, as minister of munitions, was also present. As has become common knowledge FDR did not acquire a favourable first impression of Churchill (quite the opposite!). Things cannot have improved when, at their next meeting 23 years later, the Great Man appeared to have no recollection of ever having met Roosevelt. Fortunately for the Grand Alliance FDR chose not to dwell on this!

At any rate, it is surely quite fitting that in later years both Churchill and FDR would become honorary benchers of the institution that first introduced them.


Sir Winston Churchill on London:

"London is so vast...it is like a pre-historic monster into whose armoured hide showers of arrows may be shot in vain." (During the Blitz)

"We shall defend every village, every town and every city. The vast mass of London itself, fought street by street, could easily devour an entire hostile army; and we would rather see London laid in ruins and ashes than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved." 14 July 1940

"He hopes, by killing large numbers of civilians, and women and children, that he will terrorise and cow the people of this mighty imperial city.... Little does he know the spirit of the British nation, or the tough fibre of the Londoners, whose forebears played a leading part in the establishment of Parliamentary institutions and who have been bred to value freedom far above their lives. This wicked man, this repository and embodiment of many forms of soul-destroying hatred, this monstrous product of former wrongs and shame, has now resolved to try to break our famous island race by a process of indiscriminate slaughter and destruction. What he has done is to kindle a fire in British hearts, here and all over the world, which will glow long after all traces of the conflagration he has caused in London have been removed." 11 September 1940

"London can take it!"


LONDON PRIVATE RESIDENCES OF WINSTON CHURCHILL (* blue plaque affixed)

35A Great Cumberland Place (1874-1900, Lord and Lady Randolph's)
105 Mount Street (1900-1905, his first bachelor flat)
12 Bolton Street (1905-09), the first house of his own)
33 Eccleston Square (1909-13)*
41 Cromwell Road (1915-? shared with his brother Jack and their families)
Sussex Square (post-WW1?)*
12 Morpeth Mansions (1930s)
28 Hyde Park Gate (1945-65)*

The Bendy Bus Blight

Two days ago, as I walked along Southampton Row en route to Spink, I chanced upon an immense, snaking traffic jam, in all directions, at the intersection of High Holborn and Kingsway. Two police vans had been positioned so as to block access to the intersection and no fewer than 6 policemen stood in the street. My first reaction was to suspect a road accident or some ghastly terrorist or other criminal incident; however upon hearing the familiar "beep beep beep" that accompanies the reversing of a bus I realised the source of the mayhem: one of the bendy buses had been trying, unsuccessfully, to turn right from Kingsway into Holborn. I do not know how long the driver had been attempting this manouever (quite some time considering the circus) however I stood witness to the final 5 minutes of painful reversing and driving forward. Eventually the driver gave up and drove straight on into Southampton Row. As I passed this ridiculous scene I overheard one of the policemen explain the situation to a gawping tourist: "These buses were not designed for London's streets".

Another example of the sheer lunacy of the contemptible decision to replace London's beloved Routemaster.

Winston Churchill, HG The Duke of London?

One week ago, on May 10th, I dined with several friends to mark the 67th anniversary of Churchill's appointment as Prime Minister. On that fateful day in 1940 Winston Churchill arrived at Buckingham Palace and was received in private audience by HM King George VI, who asked him to form an all-party government. As we remembered this important event we reflected, too, upon Churchill's other meetings at Buckingham Palace and upon his devotion to the Monarchy.

The last significant meeting between Churchill and his Sovereign at Buckingham Palace centred around another important appointment; however this was not an invitation to the "lowly" office of Prime Minister but, rather, to the exalted rank of duke.

In the early 50s Lord Salisbury had seriously suggested Churchill be sent up to the Lords whilst remaining Prime Minister. Salisbury believed this would enable WSC to fade away gracefully as elder statesman whilst enabling Anthony Eden to assume the dominant position in the Commons. Lord Moran agreed with Salisbury but Jock Colville, who had a better understanding of Churchill's character, doubted the Great Man would agree. Colville had discussed the subject of a peerage in the past and Churchill had sarcastically replied that he would have to become the Duke of Chartwell and Randolph would be the Marquess of Toodledo. It should also be noted that Churchill did not have much regard for the upper chamber (Salisbury apparently once said that Churchill "regards us in the Lords as a rather disreputable collection of old gentlemen") and it was therefore agreed that only Her Majesty could convince Churchill to go the Lords. Salisbury suggested plans be set in motion but little progress was made and the concept of a Lord Churchill died a natural death.

In 1947 Churchill purchased Bardogs Farm (next to Chartwell). In a letter to his barrister, Leslie Graham-Dixon, discussing a possible dukedom, Churchill wrote: "Duke of Bardogs would sound well, and Randolph could be Marquess of Chartwell." It is to be assumed that he was writing in jest.

In 1955, after Churchill stepped down as PM, the Palace considered offering him a dukedom. An earldom was the hereditary title PMs would traditionally expect however it was agreed that Churchill deserved something higher. Unfortunately, since 1917 the policy of the Royal Household prohibited the creation of non-royal ducal titles; consequently, the offer to Churchill could only be made if the Palace was given assurances that he would refuse.

As detailed in *Fringes of Power*, Colville guaranteed that Churchill would never accept: "First of all what could he be Duke of?", Colville wrote, "Secondly even if he were Duke of Westerham, what would Randolph be? He could only be Marquess of Puddleduck Lane which was the only other possession he had apart from Chartwell. And thirdly, and quite seriously, he wished to die in the House of Commons as Winston Churchill." [ It should be noted, however, that this argument is misinformed and carries little weight as there is no requirement that a peer own the property mentioned in his title.] The Palace therefore felt confident enough to offer him a dukedom.

A number of people have suggested various possible titles including "Duke of London" and "Duke of Dover". One of my correspondents once told me: "There were rumours that it was proposed to create an entirely new degree of peerage, Consul, that would rank even above Dukes, but this would violate the commitment to Baronets in 1611 that no additional higher titles would ever be introduced...." however I have seen no evidence in support of any of these views.

Despite Colville's assurances, some courtiers worried that Churchill, the devout and romantic monarchist, might accept the dukedom if for no other reason than to avoid causing offence to The Queen. Fortunately HM did not have to face such an embarrassing situation. In a letter to Randolph Churchill quoted in Fringes of Power Colville wrote: 'Churchill returned from the Palace with tears in his eyes: "Do you know, the most remarkable thing she offered me a Duke."' Colville nervously asked what he had said in response. "Well, you know, I very nearly accepted, I was so moved by her beauty and her charm and the kindness with which she made this offer, that for a moment I thought of accepting. But finally I remembered that I must die as I have always been Winston Churchill. And so I asked her to forgive my not accepting it. And do you know, it's an odd thing, but she seemed almost relieved."

When HM unveiled the statue of WSC in Parliament Square she spoke as follows:

"I thought that when he resigned as Prime Minister, and would no longer play an active role in party politics, I might honour his wholly exceptional achievements by offering him a dukedom. No such distinction had been proposed for nearly a century.

"But he wanted to spend his last years where he had passed almost all his adult life—the House of Commons—and indeed he had no need for distinction greater than the name of Winston Churchill."

Given Churchill's fascination with his great ancestor, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough it is interesting that he should not have expressed greater interest in the possibility of establishing his own ducal dynasty -- although perhaps he was all too aware that the family would not have had sufficient wealth at their disposal to live a thoroughly ducal life.

Thus Winston Churchill died as he was born.....almost: for in his 90 years he did manage to acquire several other honours from the Crown.

Sir Winston S. Churchill, KG, OM, CH, MP, PC, PC (Can)

A royal brain teaser....

A fascinating question was recently posed on a Monarchist discussion board. The scenario is one that we in this Scepter'd Isle shall hopefully never face, nevertheless it raises some interesting issues and I therefore post the question and my reponse:

Q. Can an unborn baby inherit the throne? e.g. the King dies while his wife is pregnant with their son. Will that unborn son inherit or eventually inherit the throne?

As with all such questions, one must first look to the law of succession applicable to the state / house in question. Unfortunately, in the case of our own Monarchy, there is no clear answer.

We must therefore turn to history for guidance. Whilst our Monarchy has never dealt with this scenario, there have been examples on the continent.

Louis X's queen, Clemence d'Anjou, was pregnant at the time of his death in 1316. In what laid the foundation for Salic succesion, Louis' living daughter was passed over and Louis' brother was named regent. 5 months later Clemence gave birth to a boy, who immediately succeeded to the throne as King Jean I. He died a few days later and the regent succeeded as King. Had Clemence given birth to a daughter, the regent, as heir presumptive, would have been named Sovereign retroactively to the date of his brother's death. Something similar occurred a few years later, also in France, with Philip VI's succession to Charles IV in 1328, although Philip's relationship was more distant.

A less ancient case occurred in Spain in 1885, where the law of succession was similar to our own. Upon the death of King Alfonso XII his pregnant queen was appointed regent. Her child was proclaimed King upon birth. We might expect a similar scenario in the case of our own monarchy, although this cannot be guaranteed as the Regency Act permits the establishment of a regency only where a sovereign exists.

Unfortunately we cannot look to any UK legislation for advice as none deals with this specific event. Whilst any answer must therefore be speculative, our own history provides us with one possible solution. Queen Adelaide, William IV's widow, was still of child-bearing age upon his death in 1837. Consequently Victoria was proclaimed queen "saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty's consort". This proclamation may provide some indication of the manner in which the matter might be handled -- although it is our law-makers who shall have final say.

Precedence of Female Royals and the Duchess of Cornwall, "Princess" or not?

Following the 2005 marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales, HM The Queen adjusted the precedence list for female members of the Royal Family. Female precedence is now set as follows:

HM The Queen
HRH The Princess Royal
HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH The Countess of Wessex
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
HRH The Duchess of Kent
HRH Princess Michael of Kent

The change prompted the following exchange in Royal Insight (the "official" Royal magazine):

Q: Marc - South Africa. I read that HM The Queen has just reviewed the precedence list to include The Duchess of Cornwall. Apparently, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is only fourth on the list, after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I was under the assumption that due to her being the wife of The Prince of Wales, the Duchess is the second highest ranking woman in the Royal Family after the Queen. Why then is the Duchess only fourth on the precedence list?

A: Royal Insight: In order to reflect the Duchess's wish to be called The Duchess of Cornwall rather than The Princess of Wales, The Queen took the opportunity to clarify the precedence list for members of the Royal Family. The Duchess's place in this list reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a Princess; thus she comes after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.


The explanation put forth in Royal Insight is slightly misleading as it suggests that The Duchess of Cornwall is not a Princess. This is patently untrue. HRH may not wish to be styled "Princess of Wales", and we must certainly respect this wish, but she remains Princess of Wales in law. A wife takes her status and title from her husband; as the wife of The Prince of Wales HRH is automatically Princess of Wales. Upon the Prince of Wales' accession to the throne the Duchess of Cornwall shall legally become Queen.

Royal Insight's explanation also suggests that the Countess of Wessex is not a Princess, yet surely no one suggests that the Earl of Wessex is not also HRH The Prince Edward.

In the short time since the new precedence came into effect, it has proved difficult to ascertain the reasoning behind the changes and opinion is divided. It has been claimed by some that this is a Court Precedence list and/or is for private use only, which would mean that the revision has had no impact upon the general Table of Precedence. Evidence in support of this view was supplied at the state dinner held for HM The King of Norway, at which HRH The Duchess of Cornwall was accorded precedence over TRH The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. Others have argued that this is a list of "personal" precedence, for events at which the Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Wessex are present without their husbands.

Although some have claimed that the seniority accorded TRH The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra might be due to their status as Ladies of the Garter, I suspect that their ranking is more likely based upon their status as Princesses of the Blood. It is true that this would also apply to the daughters of the Duke of York, however their low ranking must surely be due to their age. As this is a private list one should not necessarily expect clear cut rules as applied to the Table of Precedence. It is The Queen's prerogative to amend the list at will and whilst we may debate the reasoning behind certain decisions, it is certainly not our place to question or challenge the final ranking.

* It must also be noted that Lady Louise, the daughter of HRH The Earl of Wessex is also a Princess.

Prince Harry will go to Iraq

I appeared on Canada's CTV News today with excerpts from my interview incorporated into the following article:

Prince Harry will go to Iraq, head of army says
CTV.ca News Staff

The head of the British army says he has personally decided that Prince Harry will go to Iraq, amidst reports Shiite insurgents may form a special unit to target him.

Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt said the decision will be kept under review, but says he hopes his statement will end media speculation on Harry's deployment.

"This whole matter arose earlier this month due to the fact that casualty rates for the British army have been dramatically high, and the issue therefore became very political as people realized that Prince Harry could be a major target," Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, editor of Burke's Peerage and Gentry, told CTV Newsnet.

"However, we have a moral issue. Many families whose children fought in the war though, if their children should sacrifice their lives, why on Earth couldn't Prince Harry?"

The Guardian newspaper is reporting that Shiite militants have set up a special squad targeting Harry should he be posted to Iraq.

The British newspaper quoted a commander in the Mahdi Army -- the militia loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr -- as saying the group had informants inside British army bases who would tip them off about Harry's presence.

"One of our aims is to capture Harry, we have people inside the British bases to inform us on when he will arrive," commander Abu Mujtaba is quoted as saying.

The Guardian said it couldn't substantiate Abu Mujtaba's claims and the British military dismissed them as propaganda.

Harry will become the first royal to serve in a war zone since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands war in 1982.

"At the time, there were concerns that he would become a target for the Argentine forces," said Heydel-Mankoo. "And indeed, the Argentine air force did try to find out which helicopters he was flying."

With files from The Associated Press

Governor General vs Viceroy: A pressing issue

At a recent soiree, one of my delightful dinner companions posed the question: "what is the difference between a Governor General and a Viceroy?". Having dealt with this question elsewhere not long previously, I was amused to see that it continues to perplex those whose feet are firmly planted under a decidedly modern Ikea table. Such questions are far more enriching than wondering which car insurance firm supplies the best deal! To spare other suburban homes the misery of sleepless nights I provide my personal view of the distinction:

Whilst a Governor General is often styled the "vice-regal representative", a distinction between the offices of Viceroy and Governor General is often drawn; however the precise definition of that distinction is open to debate. A traditional view held by many places the office of Viceroy above that of Governor General, on the ground that a viceroy acts as if he were the Sovereign and not merely the Sovereign's representative. Many of those who argue for this distinction also maintain that a dominion cannot have a Viceroy as viceroys only exist in colonies that are not possessed of the governmental powers and legistative structures possessed of "independent" dominions. This would seem to be supported by the Irish example: the office of Governor General of Ireland replaced that of Viceroy in 1922, upon the establishment of the Irish Free State (however this oft-quoted example may not be terribly useful as the official title of the Irish governor was that of "Lord Lieutenant"). To substantiate this view one might also evidence the high degree of pomp, protocol and ceremonial associated with the court of a Viceroy compared with that of a Governor General.

India provides further evidence that the two offices are separate and distinct (at least in a sub-continental context): the Viceroy of India was simultaneously Governor General, the official title being that of: "Governor General and Viceroy of India" (or vice-versa). It is my view that the distinction drawn here is between that of the King-Emperor's representative in India (Viceroy) and the chief administrator of India (GG). This distinction seems to be supported by contemporary Court Circulars such as that issued at the time of the Delhi Durbar; here, during a Council held by King George V in India, his representative in India is styled only as "Governor General" and not as "Viceroy". This draws me to the conclusion that the presence of the King rendered the position of Viceroy unnecessary and therefore the Viceroy and Governor General could function only as GG (chief administrator).

John Brooke-Little: In Memoriam

John Philip Brooke Brooke-Little, CVO, FSA, FSG, FHS, FRHSC (Hon), founder, in 1947, of the Society of Heraldic Antiquaries (now The Heraldry Society) died on February 13, 2006. The legendary herald would have celebrated his 80th birthday this month. In tribute I post part of the obituary that I wrote following the announcement of his death.

John Brooke-Little was born 6 April 1927 and was educated at Clayesmore and New College, Oxford (MA). He served on the Earl Marshal’s staff from 1952-53 and as Gold Staff Officer at the 1953 Coronation. He was appointed Bluemantle Pursuivant in 1956, Richmond Herald in 1967, Norroy and Ulster King of Arms in 1980 and, finally, Clarenceux King of Arms in 1995 (he resigned from the College of Arms in 1997). In addition, Brooke-Little held three administrative positions at the College of Arms: Registrar (1974-1982), Librarian (1974-1994) and Treasurer (1978-1995). From 1991-1997 he was also Director of the Heralds’ Museum at the Tower of London (now closed).

Brooke-Little took great pleasure informing people that the commonly held view that the Order of Saint Patrick was extinct was quite false since, by virtue of his position as Ulster King of Arms (which was merged with that of Norroy), he remained ex officio an Officer of the (dormant) Order and, until such time as the Sovereign chose to formally abolish the position of Ulster King of Arms or to specifically declare otherwise, the holder of that office would continue to serve as the Order’s King of Arms, Registrar and Knight Attendant (the fact that the last knight had died in 1974 was of little consequence to this staunch traditionalist).

Brooke-Little served as Chancellor of the British Association of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta from 1973 to 1977 and eventually held the rank of Knight Grand Cross of Grace and Devotion (having first been admitted to the SMOM as a Knight of Magistral Grace); he was also honoured with the Order of Merito Melitense in 1964. Brooke-Little was a Knight of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem and a Knight Grand Cross of Grace of the Franco-Neapolitan Branch of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George (British Delegation) and also held the Cruz Distinguida (first class) de San Raimundo de Penafort.

Other positions held by Brooke-Little included: Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies; Master of the Scriveners’ Company (1985-1986); Chairman of the Council of the Harleian Society, President of the English Language Literary Trust (1985-1996) and Trustee of the Royal Air Force Heraldic Trust.

Brooke-Little published at least ten books including Royal Ceremonies of State; Royal Arms, Beasts and Badges; The British Monarchy in Colour; Beasts in Heraldry; An Heraldic Alphabet and Royal London and substantially revised Boutell's Heraldry (6 edns) and Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry.

His armorial bearings were blazoned: Argent goutté Gules three unicorn heads erased Sable armed and crined Or langued Azure, and for a crest On a wreath Argent and Gules, a demi-unicorn erased Sable armed, crined and unguled Or, langued Azure and collared gobony Or and Gules with a chain Or, and with the motto RECTE AUT NIL, and a badge A Triquetra Or interlaced by an Annulet Argent. These were granted through the College of Arms on March 5, 1952.

The Importance of Being English: The Quest for An English Identity

Reflections on St. George's Day (posted several days after the fact!):

“If I were not French, I would wish to be English”, said a Frenchman seeking to flatter Lord Palmerston. “If I were not English, I would wish to be English”, replied His Lordship. When Queen Victoria ’s steely Prime Minister uttered those memorable words, winning a double-word score by simultaneously managing to praise England and stick it to the French, few Englishmen would have disagreed. Some might have wondered why he had bothered to state the obvious. Palmerston’s England was self-assured and self-aware. The English knew they were blessed by God and by golly it was their duty to spread that blessing as far as they could, from the darkest corners of their own island to the farthest reaches of the globe. It mattered not one jot or tittle that no-one had actually requested their intercession. It was true that the transmission of Albion ’s seed was to take place under a recently created “Union” flag, but everyone knew that the English called the shots. Johnny foreigner’s inability to distinguish between “ England ” and “ Britain ” was proof of this.

How remarkable then that the English nation today suffers Europe ’s greatest identity crisis. Whilst Estonians, Croats, Scots and Montenegrins gorge themselves on lavish portions of national bluster, the English scavenge for scraps. Europe ’s finest nation is lost and confused. It is surely the supreme irony that England ’s current malaise has been caused by its greatest creation: Britain . Does this mean that England ’s survival requires the destruction of the United Kingdom ?

As the protagonists in the British story, generations of Englishmen, secure in their identity, were happy to offer up their cherished ideals and values and have them woven into a new British national fabric. The creation of British symbols and institutions blurred the distinction between England and Britain ever further. Elevation of Britishness above Englishness posed few problems whilst there were pink bits on the map and even the retreat from Empire failed to dent the Englishman’s devotion to the Union . But in Scotland and Wales the gradual weakening of British power caused many to question the continuing relevance of imperial symbols and institutions and even of the Union itself.

History tells us that where union between states is achieved, its foremost advocates will belong to the dominant state. The strong exert greatest influence, we all know that. We also know that smaller states, fearing assimilation, are more likely to foster and maintain their pre-existing cultures and traditions. Whilst the English, Serbs and Prussians thought of themselves firstly as British, Yugoslav or German, the same could not be said for their junior partners (Scots, Bosnians, Bavarians). We find evidence of this in the New World as well: many American southerners belong to Dixie first and the USA second; in Canada the residents of Ontario , Canada ’s most powerful province, are the most likely to identify with nation before province.

As Scots and Welsh and Irish celebrate their rich cultural legacy and bask in their Celtic identity, dipping into the vast stores of tradition that earlier generations have preserved, the English appear bereft of culture and burdened by the guilt of what is perceived as a racist and imperialist past, thereby ensuring that any budding pride is well and truly nipped. Such is the degree to which England and Britain are entwined in the public psyche that the major role played by the Scots in the expansion of Empire, and in its nefarious excesses, has been forgotten, obscured by the myth of Braveheart and the struggle against English oppression. It is the English alone who are to blame for Britain ’s past wrongs and whilst other inhabitants of these isles may celebrate their national pride with impunity, similar English expressions are attacked as racist. Quite what the rest of the United Kingdom was doing whilst England was colonizing, lopping hands off and stripping resources boggles the mind. The bizarre double-standard reached its apogee upon the election of Ken Livingstone as Mayor of England’s capital city. Shortly after attaining office Red Ken turned Green, allocating funds for a parade honouring St. Patrick but banning one in honour of St. George. The celebration of Englishness was deemed insensitive and divisive. Ken has a point though, as any film buff will attest, the English tendency to evil is indisputable. Has anyone ever seen a Hollywood film where the villain did not speak RP?

Partly due to such negative stereotyping, supporters of Englishness have for many decades retreated to that which is cozy and unassertive: warm beer, bicycling vicars, picnicking in front of a car’s exhaust and watching belled and tassled fetishists bash each other with sticks. It is English Lite. For many, to whom overt displays of patriotism are vulgar and decidedly un-English, this castrated hey nonny no has been sufficient. An Englishman’s pride was always serene and personal. And so it remained. And all was good. However the English have finally awoken to the fact that patriotic fervour has enabled the other inhabitants of this island to accrue considerable benefits, often at English expense. And this offends that most sacred of English values: fair play.

The English did not object to the creation of a Scottish parliament or a Welsh assembly, neither have they raised a fuss over the issue of Scottish over-representation at Westminster ; but they object vehemently to those same Scottish MPs meddling in English domestic affairs, particularly when they secure the passage of English-only legislation which would otherwise have failed. That’s just not cricket. As the wealthy partners in the Union the English did not mind giving the others a leg up, even if it meant that more money was spent per head in Scotland and Wales than in England . But to see these subsidies lead to vast improvements in Scottish hospitals and schools whilst their English counterparts lay mired in squalor is simply not on. The English see their neighbours rewarded for throwing the rattle out of the pram. Such clear injustices rankle, particularly when those whom the English subsidise add insult to injury by supporting which ever country opposes England on the playing field. That really is too much! Like a baited bear in a Southwark pit, England has been roused and is preparing to defend itself.

Drake’s drum may have yet to sound, but a renewed and invigorated England is reacquainting itself with its traditions, its culture and its symbols. Where once the Union Jack greeted English teams, the St. George’s Cross now flutters. Content to sing God Save the Queen whilst the disloyal Welsh and Scots sang their own “national” anthems, the supporters of English sport are now contemplating Jerusalem . Once an activity of the quaint and eccentric, the exchange of St. George’s Day cards grows from year to year. And, significantly, an Englishman is now as likely to identify himself as English as he is likely to say he is British. Most importantly, that Englishman may be of Asian, Afro-Caribbean or European descent: twenty-first century Englishness reflects twenty-first century England .

Such displays may stiffen the sinews, but they are meaningless without a proper appreciation of England ’s contributions to civilization. To truly establish an English identity, its people must reclaim and celebrate as their own, those values and concepts which have become an established part of the British character: from tolerance, justice and the rule of law to the Monarchy, Parliament and the English language, each is as English as it is British. Only then can England be said to have found itself.

© Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, 2007