Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #1 
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/09/windfarms-we-might-as-well-use-hamsters-on-treadmills.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Hitchens

There now seems to be an orchestrated campaign by architects against Prince Charles. Hardly a week goes by without another one attacking him. I think we should all side with the Prince. He is the nearest thing we now have to the great John Betjeman, who saved many fine buildings from being destroyed, and spoke up for beauty against barbarism. Charles may be wrong about many things, but he is right about buildings, and his interventions against ugliness have been a proper use of his influence.
These architects, all glinting efficient types who seem unable to design anything except boxes, go on about democracy. But who chose them, or the hideous and un-British styles they force on us?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Well done to Prince Charles. I really do admire him and find myself getting annoyed at people who sneer at his "extravagance". Such critics are usually idiot Labour voters who still think that Labour represents "the working man" and that the Guardian tells the truth!
What dimwits!


Quote:
Originally Posted by republican idiot Paul Embery

Prince Charles's interventions in the democratic planning process are a grotesque abuse of his position.

I'm not much interested in architecture, and the prince's arguments may well be legitimate, for all I know (though Poundbury raises doubts). But that isn't the point.

The point is whether the future monarch - a position the institution's supporters are always quick to tell us is above politics - should use his influence - secretly, I might add - to subvert the process of local democracy.

If I were a monarchist (which I'm not and never will be), I would be scathing at the prince's undermining of the institution which I supported. The "above politics" argument, weak though it is, is probably the best of the arguments in favour of the monarchy. At a stroke, the prince has driven a coach and horses through it, and given republicans like me an open goal.

Prince Charles cannot have it both ways. Either he should relinquish his position, and with it the inherent privileges he enjoys, in which case he would be free to wax lyrical about anything he liked; or he should remain a prince but put a sock in it. Someone should tell him that the option of being a member of a "neutral" monarchy while exhibiting total partiality in his statements over matters of public interest does not exist.

Isn't it ironic how, when questioned about his scandalous interventions, the prince's press officers say nothing beyond "The prince doesn't wish to get into a debate about this." With that single statement they expose the utter arrogance of the prince's strategy; "Give me the right to use my position to alter the course of events, but don't dare question me about my actions."

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Stensen

"Paul Embery" has demonstrated his complete failure to understand the basics of our Consititution, and the purpose of an impartial monarchy.

The term "above politics" means the Monarch remains neutral on party-politics, and thus should not lend overt support to a particular political formation, or policy. It does not mean the Prince cannot comment on cultural issues, or, for example, defend the Consitution (which binds and is intertwined with a Constitutional Monarchy) against the numerous attacks upon it from our Government, or any other.
On the contrary, the fact that the Monarch is "above politics" is precisely what enables the Prince to make politically impartial statements on issues such as architectural planning, because he is free from any specific political loyalties, or considerations, and is thus purely speaking from the heart as someone who is defending Britain's national traditions and beauty and uniquenes in all its forms (even architectural), which his own Throne is based upon.

The Monarch, uniquely of all leaders, is able to unite people in defense of our nation and its timeless traditions, reguardless of their specific political affiliations. Thus it is, somebody can be a Monarchist and support our consituttional freedoms, while being either a Labour-voter, or a Tory-voter.

That is also why the Monarch can be a useful Constitutional umpire in Parliament, because Monarchs, like the Hereditary Peers, are "above politics" in the sense that they have no over-riding, and corrupting, political affiliations dictating their thoughts, nor are they seeking votes, or donations, or the approval of party Whips, or the Cabinet.
They are speaking freely and independently, from the heart.
And, like the hereditary peers, each Monarch has the advantage of having a thousand years of family loyalty and service to this country, behind them.
Each Prince and each Hereditary Peer, has a grandfather, and a great-grandfather who fought in distant wars for our country, and who occupied the same seat in the Lords, or the same Throne, throughout the many changes which shaped our unique nation's liberites and laws, and who defended our Constitution, just as those who inherit the task are expected to defend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Crosland

The above politics argument is the best argument in favour of the monarchy, says Paul Embery. No it isn't. The chessboard argument is, as advanced by Hitchens. Republicans have failed to answer it. Mr Embery should look it up.

Strange, isn't it, how they inveigh against the vestigial and allegedly undemocratic powers of the monarchy whilst simultaneously ceding great swathes of power to the secretive and unaccountable European Commission? It's yet another contradiction of the liberal elite which they arrogantly don't feel the need to answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by william

Here, here Peter Hitchens- although, I fear, Prince Charles will in the main be noted for his talents as an ineffectual adulterer, in this area alone he will have gone some way towards redeeming himself.

For too long has the British public tolerated the blight of their towns and cities with these modernist 'visions', these featureless, gargantuan fascimilies of sex-aids or children's toys.

Arguably more important than their aesthetic affront, however, is their political significance. What many don't seem to grasp is that this architecture is synonymous with the leftist 'march' since the 1960s - it is deliberately featureless, deliberately impersonal, since in the leftist mind 'a new society can't be created until the old one is destroyed'. Where is the essence of a people and culture more clearly written than in it's architecture?

The Left is also against true individuality, which is why so many modern buildings have an institutional, impersonal feel (consider any 'new university' campus or comprehensive school). How many modernist buildings are uniquely located in a cultural context? Are not the sky-scrapers of New York practically indistinguishable from those of Japan? Modernist architecture is deliberately internationalist and, in the event, lacks any sort of character at all. I wonder - is it purely conincidence that this is exactly in accordance with the internationalist economic agenda of the elite?

Don't believe that I am being fanciful when I say that there are elements within our society that would love nothing more than to rip up all the old churches, houses of parliament etc, so as to remove any link with the past. If the population are ignorant of the importance of their surroundings, the elite most certainly are not - in both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany architecture was afforded the utmost significance.

No, Prince Charles should not be condemned as an interfering royal, but rather a welcome and outspoken voice. The argument that he is abusing his authority is clearly ridiculous - it's not as if they have any real power in this day and age now is it? In my opinion, he is as entitled to express his opinion as any other celebrity (which, after all, is what they really are now) such as, for example, darlings of the left like the putative genius Pete Doherty, or the deity John Lennon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark

Hello Paul (if I may)

"The point is whether the future monarch - a position the institution's supporters are always quick to tell us is above politics - should use his influence - secretly, I might add - to subvert the process of local democracy."

May I be permitted to ask: what democracy? Would you not agree that New Labour have subverted whatever was left of our democracy anyway?

Personally, I would love to see Her Majesty step in and cause a right royal uproar. I think we need a constitutional crisis out in the open....not one behind closed doors.
It really amazes me when I read or hear people talk about "our democracy" as if it's some sort of treasure that the Labour Party are safe-keeping for us. The thing is, why are many people so vigilant about protecting it from Prince Charles and not Blair and Co?

I really really don't get it....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth James

Paul Embery says he is a "Republican". That means he hasn't applied a moments independent thought to the reason for any of our counry's great institutions, or to what it means to be free.

Constitutional Monarchy is essential, because it allows us all to be loyal to a greater whole other than our particular political parties, and it means we can be loyal to a representative of our nation (the monarch) without devoting that fealty and respect to a Prime Minister, who can quickly become a totalitarian. Constitutional monarchy embodies a timeless constitution, and an institution, which predates temporary governments, and will exist long after they are gone. It embodies and protects our unique traditions, customs, culture and national identity, which have all been shaped under the watch of centuries of monarchs, and symbolises our sovereignty over ourselves, and our laws(particularly crucial as we begin to see our liberty, national independence and sovereignty being slowly absorbed into the EU).
The monarchy represents honour and service to the nation, and inheriting a sense of responsibility to the country, passed down through the generations, This is why numerous young Princes throughout history, including Prince Harry, have eagerly gone to join the Armed Forces, and do their duty for their country (unlike the squirming politicians so eager to send others to die in war,who never actually fight themselves). The Monarchy also stood for family (hence the fuss over Prince Charles's divorce) and represents the sacred principle of inheritance, which as Peter Hitchens has pointed out, is the basis for private property, and thus liberty.

The Hereditary Peers are crucial because they are the best possible guarantee of a revising chamber which is wholly and completely independent of the state and can therefore act as a crucial restraint on the power of the state, (which is essential in preserving liberty, preventing totalitarianism,slowing revolution, delaying rushed legislation, blocking rash and unconstitutional reform which may have devastating effects, providing a watchful outside eye over Parliaments internal machinations, adding a calm, dispassionate third voice to the debate in the Commons and allowing Parliament time to cast a critical eye over legislation, which they may have missed upon the first reading.)
The US Supreme Court (their version of the House Of Lords) is not fully independent of the state, because each administration can make appointments to the Supreme Court, which are usually politically-motivated.

Only a fully Hereditary House Of Lords ensures that nobody who was picked by any politician, or Party can ever infiltrate or influence decision-making in this completely-free Chamber.
It ensures that debates conducted and decisions taken within the House Of Lords are pure, and are not clouded by partisan party-political bias, greed for votes or donations, or desire to further their careers within the political class (like the greedy, expenses-claiming, careerist rabble who fill the House Of Commons) .
A Hereditary House Of Lords ensures a sense of duty to the country, because those who sit in the Lords are not doing so to get on the EU gravy-train, or claim expenses, or advance their politcal careers, or attain political power, or court popularity, but are doing so out of a sense of duty to their country, particularly because all their ancestors sat in the same seat, and they are sitting on a thousand years of history,tradition, and loyalty to the nation and the Constitution. Unlike many of our Political Class.

They embody the principle of inheritance, and stand on the shoulders of history and tradition, stretching back centuries. The openly-partisan, careerist appointed peers, such as Alan Sugar,(who are often loyal to the Government who appointed them, and thus cannot be trusted to be independent of the state) have demonstrated exactly why we need to bring back the incorruptible old Hereditaries.

If Paul Embery and others are worried about democracy, then the last place they need to attack is the monarchy and the House Of Lords.They first need to begin, by taking us out of the EU, a genuinely undemocratic, unaccountable, and secretive bureaucracy with real power and influence over us. And as the clapped-out, corrupt and useless political Parties running our country have shown throughout the expenses scandal, it is the House Of Commons, not the House of Lords, that badly needs reform. Get rid of these played-out Parties, and their careerist Political Class of quangocrats,and taxpayer-cushioned professional politicians who have never worked in the real world, and replace them with politicians and Parties that actually care about our country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

Other respondents have already defended the monarchy calmly and eloquently. I will add, perhaps less calmly, that republicans like the one to whom they were responding make me sick. I've lived in a republic (the USA) all my life and find it profoundly alienating; I cannot stand having a head of state who other people voted for but I did not. Far more fair to have a head of state selected by no one. Critics of Prince Charles don't seem to understand what "above politics" means: it means that the sovereign and royal family are not products of the partisan political process, not that they are to express no opinions on anything which might be controversial. I do not agree with the Prince of Wales on everything, but I am glad he speaks his mind, and he is certainly right about architecture. What is so sacred about the "democratic process" anyway?

I recently spent a month in England and despite all the inconveniences of travel felt at home there in a way I cannot in the USA, and the monarchy was a big part of that. Places like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are thrilling to visit not only because they are beautiful, but because they can offer what Versailles and Schonbrunn cannot: the excitement of a working palace, still used for its intended purpose, still occupied by the direct descendants of those for whom it was built, still part of an ongoing tapestry of tradition and pageantry. When I would love to live in a constitutional monarchy but due to number of practical obstacles cannot yet do so, it makes me absolutely livid to see those lucky enough to have been born in one spit on their good fortune, showing nothing but contempt for those of us who love Britain as she is--or at least was. The monarchy is not for the benefit of the royal family, it's for the benefit of the ordinary people like me, neither powerful nor rich, who love it. Yet republicans in the UK would tear the heart and soul out of their country, cutting it off from all continuity with its past, depriving their monarchist countrymen of the very centre of their patriotism, alienating people like me forever. I cannot see their goals as anything less than evil. As far as I'm concerned, "British" republicans are essentially traitors who ought to be consigned beyond the pale of civilised discourse. Just as I do not seek to transform America into a monarchy, but rather hope one day to immigrate to the country I truly love and join the noble fight for England's heritage and traditions, perhaps republicans should consider immigrating to the United States. I'd be happy to trade places with any of them. In the meantime though, they should at least keep their mouths shut.




royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #2 
I don't know why the text got so big, but anyway I thought there was some interesting reading here.  While I realize that most leftists probably don't regularly read the Mail or Peter Hitchens regularly anyway, it's still nice that the one republican response was greatly outnumbered and ably refuted by monarchist ones.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,522
Reply with quote  #3 

Hear, Hear!! (Foot stomping and clapping!) Excellent comment by our esteemed Mr Harvey!


__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #4 
Thanks.  I hope you liked the other monarchist ones too.
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,522
Reply with quote  #5 

I did. They were rational and sane unlike the republican comment, but isn't that always the case?


__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Royalistdefender

Registered:
Posts: 849
Reply with quote  #6 
Hi Theo, It it good that you mentioned this because I read about it today! Here is an article from the Guardian that shows some bad comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/19/prince-charles-architecture-st-pauls.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,968
Reply with quote  #7 
I especially enjoyed the defense of the Hereditaries as well as the Crown.

Restore to us the earthly protectors of Liberty:
Sovereign, Lords, and Commons!

__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,650
Reply with quote  #8 
As I recall the main criticism of the Prince's involvement in the Chelsea Barracks redevelopment was not the usual one that he should shut up and enjoy the perks he shouldn't have, instead of questioning the democratic decisions of unelected officials and peers like Lord Rogers, but that he went behind everyone's back to the Ruling Family of Qatar I think it was, and put the kibosh on the whole deal that way. Which may be considered questionable but, then again, what else is influence for? A trade of favours would have been highly dubious, but there was no evidence of that, and surely the Prince is entitled to speak to people he knows.

I should add that I'm a rightist who doesn't read the Mail regularly, since I think it's a vile scandal sheet stuffed with lies. The comments in this case were for the most part heartening, which makes a pleasant change.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,773
Reply with quote  #9 
Well, neither do I; I only read Hitchens's blog.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,650
Reply with quote  #10 

I didn't suppose you had it daily delivered in Dallas. I find Hitchens usually a bit much for me. I might basically agree with (some of) what he's saying, but think the way he says it comes across as too extreme.

MozartBoy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 618
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronVonServers
I especially enjoyed the defense of the Hereditaries as well as the Crown.

Restore to us the earthly protectors of Liberty:
Sovereign, Lords, and Commons!


Amen.

__________________
Monarchists are born; republicans are made.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: