A poll taken just ahead of her arrival (go figure) showed some sadly low figures that do not bode well for the future of the Canadian monarchy and of course the republican traitors have been trotted out for TV spots vowing to make the change when the throne passes to Prince Charles. Loyal Canadian monarchists need to fight hard and fight now. Rest assured, The Mad Monarchist is on top of this, my top man in Canada is keeping a close watch on the traitors that come out to take a few cheap shots and will have plenty to say when this trip concludes.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
The Queen of Canada is Home Again
A poll taken just ahead of her arrival (go figure) showed some sadly low figures that do not bode well for the future of the Canadian monarchy and of course the republican traitors have been trotted out for TV spots vowing to make the change when the throne passes to Prince Charles. Loyal Canadian monarchists need to fight hard and fight now. Rest assured, The Mad Monarchist is on top of this, my top man in Canada is keeping a close watch on the traitors that come out to take a few cheap shots and will have plenty to say when this trip concludes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is no different than what we face in Australia. Loyalty to the Queen is a scared oath, taken by government ministers (Ministers of the Crown), defence force personnel and some civil servants. Renouncing it I believe is treason and for monarchists like me giving fealty to a republic is not on the cards.
ReplyDeleteThat is a symptom of the overall decline in the morals and values of society. Too many today do not take an oath seriously, whether it is an oath to marry "till death do us part" or an oath to "bear true faith and allegiance". Republicans tend to view any oath like they view monarchy in general: an outdated meaningless ritual that is not taken seriously. You can see this in their often juvenile behavior, like republicans crossing their fingers behind their back when swearing the oath. They have tried to water it down, make it as vague as possible etc but there are thankfully still people whose sworn word means something. We just need more of them.
ReplyDeleteThe basis behind a Republicans thinking is that, somehow an Oath to an Illegitimate Government is meaningless. Of course by Ilegitimate they mean that its not Democratic.
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing that Australian Prime Ministers can change their Oath of Office according to their liking.
ReplyDeleteThe reference to the Queen of Australia, once removed by Paul Keating and re-introduced by John Howard in 1996 was eliminated again by Kevin Rudd in 2007.
Apart from thinking that the republicans don't care if they commit perjury I wonder why they have the right to alter the Oath of Office whenever they feel the need to do so.
Politicians will be politicians. Their entire career is based around ambition for power, and anything that stands in their way to power and its exercise has to be eliminated. Thus, republicanism becomes a fairly natural position for politicians.
ReplyDeleteIt is they, after all, who would benefit most, for they would become the kingmakers (ironic choice of word, no?) in whatever Cromwellian republic they would attempt to impose on us.
When I joined the Canadian civil service, lo these many years ago, I was proud to take an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty. Unfortunately, radical republican elements have had that changed in recent years.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you call Canadian republicans 'traitors'? Is it a sin to be against the monarchy? I live in a republic, but I would never call a fellow national 'traitor' because he disagrees with the republican system of government.
ReplyDeleteJorge
Because it is an accurate description. The traditional definition of "treason" in English law was any action which aimed at the death of the Queen or the overthrow of the Queen's legitimate governments. According to Canadian law anyone who conspires with others for the "purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province" is guilty of treason. Today, due to political trends, it is winked at (though in Canadian law it is still true that "high treason" is defined as any effort to kill, injur or in any way harm the Queen) but the fact remains that someone in Canada (or any other Commonwealth realm) who advocates the overthrow, regardless of the means, of their legitimate, lawful sovereign is, in my view, plainly guilty of treason. I also certainly regard it as treasonous for anyone to swear to "bear true faith and allegiance" to their monarch and then act to foster their removal from the throne.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a hard concept to grasp and the definition of treason as any action aimed against ones' sovereign or country is as old as law itself.
You may call anyone anything you like, in a republic or otherwise. I would not hold the exact same standard for republics because they have no sovereign to betray but are based on "popular sovereignty".
And yes, it is a "sin" to be against monarchy. The Bible clearly states this on numerous occasions. Proverbs 24:21-22 says, "Fear God, my son, and fear the king; do not rebel against either of them: for suddenly their vengence will arise, and then who knows what ruin both of them will send". Likewise, in the New Testament, in his first letter, chapter 2 of St Peter says, "For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every social institution: the emperor, as the supreme authority, and the governors as commissioned by him to punish criminals and praise good citizenship...Have respect for everyone and love for our community; fear God and honor the emperor".
ReplyDeleteWell, I am not an expert on the Bible, but maybe those lines can be interpreted (except the part of fearing God). According to your position, the United States and all the American republics (by 'American' I mean North, Central and South America) are the fruit of sins committed by 'traitors'.
ReplyDeleteI believe that every nation has the right to adopt the system of government that best fits them, obviously referring to reasonable systems of government where the people's rights are not abused. Whether they want to be a republic, an elective monarchy, a confederation like the Swiss or anything within the limits of good sense, it's OK. Having or not a King is not the parameter to judge if a government is right or wrong.
And trust me, I am a Conservative Roman Catholic who opposes divorce, birth control, abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriages, etc, etc, etc. I am not a liberal.
Jorge
And so they are. Independence does not require treason; revolutionary republics always do. And why are you against divorce or gay marriage? By your thinking, shouldn't every person have the right to adopt the spouse that best fits them? Why do you hold an oath before God to be loyal to a spouse sacred but not an oath before God to be loyal to your sovereign? And having or not having a king is nothing to do with right and wrong -that is a matter of opinion. That is a whole different issue. The governments of Britain or Spain may have done things right or wrong but for people to rise up to overthrow their monarch were clearly committing treason and -the way I read the Bible- a sin. Church leaders said so at the time these things were happening.
ReplyDeleteI have not said anything about oaths. I believe that any honorable person should stick to his/her word. An oath should not be broken. But what happens if, let's say, John Doe wants to be a member of the Canadian Parliament but he doesn't believe in the monarchy. John Doe gets elected but he must make an oath to something which he disagrees? Should he, a democratically elected leader, renounce because he refuses to make an oath to the King? Is that fair? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI think that in life there are very few absolute truths. Believing in God is one of them, but a system of government is not. I don't think the King of Spain is the legitimate ruler of my country just because his ancestors were the owners of the land here. Other peoples lived here before the Spanish came and the Crown of Castille did not hesitated to impose their laws here (though I have a good opinion on the way they handling things, at least from the legal point of view). The land belongs to the people, and it's the people who should decide wether they want a King or a President as Head of State.
Jorge
Well there's not going to be any agreement here is there? If a candidate for office cannot in good conscious hold such an office he should not seek it. They are not forced to do so and many have gone to their death rather than be forced to swear an oath that was false. If you believe in democracy absolutely, that the voice of the people is the voice of God then you will not be happy here. The Christian God set down in Holy Writ that certain things are always right and always wrong regardless of popular opinion and furthermore that the majority of the people will do what is easy and wicked than what is difficult and righteous. The God I believe in commanded obedience and not holding ones own self as the ultimate judge of all things.
ReplyDeleteAs a Texan who wishes Canada well, I hope Canadians will protect their heritage and reject the blandishments of their republicans. If they do not, they will find, as have their neighbors, that they are wholly in the power of the lawyers and journalists, with no monarch and without the backing of monarchial tradition to moderate the instinct of the politico busybodies to tamper with everything.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to know more about who the republicans in Canada actually are. I'd imagine they're mostly trendy urban, liberal, over educated,lapsed Christians who have given Americans such things as Obama and Pelosi.