Beginning March 1...

(And starting to-day, my room will be in a state of internal disaster and much civil and domestic upheaval. Travel to this part of the world is not advised, all flights to this state have been cancelled, border security has been strengthened. However, we can assure that all members of the diplomatic corps will be treated with all proper respect due to they of their position, and all embassies will be given extra special protection. Unlike some countries, when this place goes through internal disaster and civil and domestic upheaval, we do not riot or burn down buildings. Besides the fact that it would be against the law, it's also quite un-English. And we don't do un-English.

BREAKING UPDATE: Despite a strengthening of border security and mounted patrols, the domestic and civil upheaval has spread from the borders of this room-state to the neighbouring room-states. Our on the ground reporters tell us that a war is being waged on formerly tolerated minorities, chiefly The Cobwebs.  This, my friends is the Bedroom Spring! Who will win in this contest, this supreme test? Those for the side of cleanliness and order? Or those who advocate disorder, violence, and everything thoroughly un-English?)

Gender Based Abortion

God works in mysterious ways, I find. Not that I entirely mind, of course. Rather, I like what so far He has done within these past few days on the subject of abortion. I must admit, however, that reading The Daily Telegraph's quite recent article about gender based abortion in Britain seems slightly eerie, given that just a few weeks ago the same topic was broached over here in Canada. In both cases, something occurred that triggered the response of, I think it would be safe to say, unease, at the very least. (I would like to think it caused people to feel real horror at the thought of innocent children being killed, but I am not sure that society is at that point quite yet.) In the case of Canada, it was an article written by the interim editor-in-chief, Rajendra Kale, of CMAJ, suggesting that doctors no longer tell their patients what gender the child is, in order to combat this business of abortion simply because the child is a girl, or more broadly- because both boys and girls are equal- because the child is the wrong gender. What happened in Britain, as near as I can tell, doctors were filmed by undercover journalists, and they were caught to have agreed to falsifying documents and arranging things so that women could have an abortion simply because the child was the wrong gender. This kind of selection is thankfully illegal in Britain- in fact, after 24 weeks, abortions for non medical reasons are actually prohibited in Britain. However, just because something is illegal does not actually make it disappear, although it is a step in the right direction.

This is more than can be said for what is allowed here in Canada, as since 1989 there have been no restrictions whatsoever on abortion, although from what I read, some doctors will not perform the abortion after 20 weeks. This is, however, no doubt a sort of un-codified restriction. What Canada really needs are some sort of guidelines, some sort of law that would put it officially into being that there is a time after which abortion is unacceptable. Of course, ideally I would like to see abortion prohibited outright, but I realise that in order to succeed, one must take a page out of William Wilberforce's book and do things slowly and in small steps. We are not just talking about being able to succeed with a law that will be put on the books, changing the legal status of a thing: we are actually talking of the much greater task of changing the way society thinks and behaves.

Unfortunately, Her Majesty's Canadian Government has been unequivocal in its stance that it is not elected to deal with abortion, but with the economy, and that they (keeping in mind that the government equals the cabinet, and that any Member of Parliament that is a Conservative but is not part of the cabinet is a backbencher, and that backbenchers of all parties are there to keep a check upon the cabinet, or, government) will personally stop any attempt to have any discussion about abortion in Parliament. It has happened too many times already- even with private members' bills that have nothing to do with prohibiting outright this awful killing of life , but of tightening up terms and language related to abortion in some way. Sometimes it seems that social conservatives here in Canada have not much hope. 

What is interesting, though, is that Sun News conducted a poll on whether or not there ought to be some restrictions to abortion, and a majority of those who participated wanted some sort of restrictions. And yet the Government says that the people are not interested in the subject.

Secondly, in Prince Edward Island one actually could not have an abortion, and you have not been able to have one since the early 1980s. So perhaps there is some hope.

But while the Canadian government has said time and again that they will not even discuss the issue of abortion, (and that being with a comfortably majority in the Commons) I have slightly more hope from the British Government, even though there is currently a Coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the (not-very) Conservative Party. In any case, backbenchers are allow to discuss abortion- and whether or not their bills are passed (and unfortunately, several of these put forth by Nadine Dorries MP and Frank Fields MP, Conservative and Labour, respectively, did not succeed) the Government does not threaten beforehand to squash any such discussion. They do not, so far as I can tell, cause trouble for their backbenchers in this area who wish to discuss this, although of course, it might happen away from the public eye. The Health Minister, Mr Andrew Lansley, has said “I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I’ve asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency.” This is well and good: it is morally wrong to kill babies- or anyone- simply because of their gender. But one must ask, why is it so wrong? It is wrong because these yet unborn babies are indeed human. So by saying that gender selection is wrong, has there been a tacit change in the minds of people, so that people now agree inherently that the unborn are human? And if so, would not you agree that it then follows that all abortion is wrong? Why is it worse to kill babies based on their gender than killing them outright because they are simply unwanted? What makes it moreso morally wrong?

Interestingly, I have read that Scotland Yard has launched an investigation into the matter. I realise that the situation in Britain is by no means perfect, but it does look better at the moment than that of over here.

On a concluding note, The Telegraph's article says that

The disclosures are likely to lead to growing pressure for pregnant women considering an abortion to be offered independent counselling.

This would be great if so. In fact, this would be pretty much exactly what the bill put forth by Ms Dorries and Mr Fields last year was wanting-  at that for which they were aiming:  independent counselling for women seeking abortions. Up until now, the majority of counselling given to these ladies has been provided by abortion clinics, and I think it is naturally safe to say that this "counselling" will be predisposed to the path of abortion.

So, we will see what we will see. But the fact remains: abortion is back in the spotlight- of whatever degree, it's there- and most reasonable people will eventually ask why is it so wrong to kill girls, but not boys? What moral difference is there between the two? They are both created by God, specially designed from birth. There is no moral difference between the two options. This blog holds to the belief that if it is wrong to kill girls, (and it is), it then follows that it is wrong to kill boys.

Happy Anniversary, Mom and Dad!

Today marks the anniversary of the founding of this next branch of the illustrious House of S_____. Twenty Six years, five children, and a stable of four horses- alas no hunting dogs- later, we celebrate the anniversary of our grand Father and Mother, who have, by the grace of God, began their married life on February 22, 1986, in the Year of Our Lord, Anno Domini.

"In its wake, empires toppled, monarchies fell..."

I am reading an excellent, if tragic, book at the moment- Sir Martin Gilbert's The First World War: A Complete History. Since I began on the fourth day of this month, the world's last surviving veteran from the First World War died. How fitting that she was British. Also found in France, since I began to read this book, was a German trench from 1918, well preserved. You can see a gallery of fascinating images here.


It saddens me greatly that it is almost one hundred years since the Great War began, and I cannot exactly explain why. Perhaps it is because the one hundredth anniversary of the start of it all means conclusively that this War is no longer an experience in the life span of the majority of people, something through which they lived. It is in ever present danger of fading away from the collective memory of our countries; once it fades away, once people  begin to forget that those names on the memorials actually were names of real people- men and boys who had hopes, dreams, plans, loves, and who gave it up for God, King and Country- what will it mean for us as a nation, as the English speaking peoples? Once we have forgotten, will we ever truly once again remember? As a person with whom I am slightly acquainted said, with the death of the last veteran in the entire world, this war has really gone down to the history books. 


But perhaps too I am saddened by this thought because it means we are just one step further away from the world as it was before the Great War. Every step we take, every single day, down this bitter road of history, we take one step further away from the Christian Britain that was so much better than that of to-day. To be sure, it was not perfect back then, and compared to the Victorian era (in Britain primarily), the years leading up to the First World War saw a lessening of standards and a loosening of the hold of Christianity on the people, and society itself. The war did not cause Britain to begin to turn from those standards and values, but it was a, if not the, catalyst for it happening so soon and so quickly. Still, it was a good sight better than what we've got now. If you even simply look at the fact that largely the immorality that did occur took place behind closed doors and in secret, you'll see that society itself was at large better in those days. One might call them hypocritical- preaching one standard and practising another behind closed doors. But the behind closed doors bit is the key to what I am saying: those who wanted to commit immorality knew that they had to keep it a secret and do it after dark for the very reason that society would condemn them and their actions as wrong. Society, then, accepted that there were indeed moral absolutes and standards, and they came from Christianity. To-day, however, it is entirely another matter. I think it might be true to say that the roles have reversed: those who keep the moral absolutes are the ones on whom the censure comes. It is no longer those who commit sin and immorality who face society's disapproval, but those who wish to live to that higher moral standard. And one must go further than simply saying society accepted the need and the fact of these standards, for indeed, society is made up on individuals: men and women, boys and girls. Therefore we must logically say that if society pre-War held those standards, then so did the men, women, boys and girls who, collectively, formed society. But the coming of War was what changed it all: and not just the Christian nature of Great Britain and her Empire was touched. One cannot almost put it better than the text on the back cover of the book:

It was to be the war to end all wars, and it began at 11:15 on the morning of June 28, 1914, in an outpost of the Austro-Hungarian Empire called Sarajevo. It would end officially almost five years later. Unofficially, it has never ended: the horrors we live with today were born in the First World War.

It left millions-civilians and soldiers-maimed or dead. And it left us with new technologies of death: tanks, planes, and submarines; reliable rapid-fire machine guns and field artillery; poison gas and chemical warfare. It introduced us to U-boat packs and strategic bombing, to unrestricted war on civilians and mistreatment of prisoners. Most of all, it changed our world. In its wake, empires toppled, monarchies fell, whole populations lost their national identities as political systems, and geographic boundaries were realigned. Instabilities were institutionalized, enmities enshrined. And the social order shifted seismically. Manners, mores, codes of behavior; literature and the arts; education and class distinctions-all underwent a vast sea change. And in all these ways, the twentieth century can be said to have been born on the morning of June 28, 1914.

The Great War changed the face of Europe forever. Very few of the previous European Monarchies and ancient Houses survived the War. Although not European, Britain was one of the only ones to retain her own system of government- the constitutional monarchy. And if it looked that any of the others of these monarchies did stand the test of war, most were in fact, not form. The Prussian Monarchy ended in 1918, and with it came the end of the vast amount of other Germanic states as monarchies: the small kingdoms and princedoms. The Russian Tsar was overthrown, and this began the multiple decades of the Russian people suppressed by communists.  The Austro-Hungary monarchy ended in 1918, and the end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire died with it as well. 


Whatever consequences resulted because of the ending of all these monarchies and the monarchical system in most of Europe (and I personally hold to the belief that it was ultimately a bad thing), the Great War changed things irrevocably. For one thing, it allowed the rise of Hitler and the Second World War.


I do not yet know all the intricate ins and outs of how Hitler attained power- although I believe it was through the normal democratic processes of votes and elections. I do believe, however, that if the First World War had not occurred, the Second World War would most likely not have either. For one thing, if the First World War had not occurred, no doubt all the smaller German monarchies and princedoms would not have been abolished and consolidated into one larger German Republic, as is what did happen. Had these monarchies remained, if a man such as Hitler did arise, it would have been considerably harder for him to attain power, even if he was democratically elected. I think there is another reason, and it is thus:

Britain and the British Empire, not to mention France and most of the rest of the Allied countries, were tired from war. Our national treasure and life blood had been expended, amounting into the hundreds of thousands along the various multiple fronts on which we fought. Our best and brightest young men had fought and died- and while not in any way meaning to belittle the ultimate and painful sacrifice paid by all those who fought the Central Powers, the future British leaders and statesmen were not there to lead Britain through the 1920s and 1930s, and pre-WWII (if war would have happened even without the Great War happening), because they were some of the first to die in the First World War. This left something of a vacuum of wise leaders.


Therefore, when you look at the overall scale of casualties, however, and more specifically, the British number, which is into the 900,000s, you do not have to wonder too hard at why the British peoples chose to see if they could stop Hitler through alternate means, opposed to that of stopping him by war. These means included appeasement- which in the 1930s one must remember was not a word with a bad connotation. However, I believe that if Hitler had of been contained properly, by military might, before he began his annexing of various surrounding European countries and the like, he could have been stopped and war prevented. However, Britain was tired of war, and still slowly recovering from her great losses. The peoples, who had suffered much, did not want war. When it came, they threw their all into it, mind you, but leading up to it, they were hesitant to attempt to contain Hitler via armed forces because of that through which they had gone in the Great War. However, truth be told, I cannot blame them, and in fact, I would no doubt have been one of those who cheered in those days right before the war, when Chamberlain came back from Munich, and promised peace in our time. I figured out one day that if I was alive back in the days right before the Second World War, and especially if I was an adult in, perhaps, my late twenties to mid thirties, I would have no doubt have either had a father, brother, uncle, cousin, or friend either killed or wounded or enlisted during the Great War. If so, I would have experienced the hardships, and indeed, horrors of it, through anyone that I knew who survived the war. I would not have wanted another war, and while there were some who did not want appeasement, I believe I would have been one of the ones who would.


So, one must ask, given all the carnage and destruction, was the Great War worth it? Was it wrong to enter it, to fight? Was it wrong for Britain and the Dominions to fight the Central Powers, to send their young men to fight the Hun? 


One must examine the causes to understand and be able to answer that question as best as they can, and this I will attempt to do below, although I will try not to be a bore. (I fear this post is already of some length). As hard as it is to admit, for someone who is a great admirer of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, the fault, or perhaps, the instigator of the war, was the grandson of Queen Victoria, the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II (in a nutshell, Victoria's eldest daughter, the Princess Royal, married the Kaiser's father, Fredrick III, and in 1888, their son Wilhelm II came to the throne). After coming to the throne, Wilhelm II dismissed Bismark, who was the Chancellor and more moderate in his views, and began to pursue his own path of foreign policy, which led shortly thereafter to making Britain and France rivals, and ultimately enemies. One other consequence of the Kaiser's foreign policy was that Germany supported the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the crises of July 1914 (when the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne was assassinated by a Serb dissident. Please understand that at this time Serbia was part of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian empire). If I recall it correctly, Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia, and Serbia replied that they would agree to all of the ultimatum's demands, and to what they would not agree, they asked that it be taken to the international courts. I think the thing to which they did not agree was having Austrian police act within Serbia). However, Germany urged Austria to reject this and go to war with Serbia, which they did. Germany also told Austria that they would support Austria no matter what the Austrians did- Germany's statement is related to a blank Cheque, and rightly so. Austria felt that she had the power to go to war with Serbia, so, as history goes, she did.


Soon after the Austrians went to war with the Serbs, other European countries quickly joined sides. Russia supported Serbia and was allied with France, to name just one. Russia and France were also friends with Britain, together they formed the Entente, and they would later become the Allies and fight the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, etc). At this moment, from a British perspective, I think this was just another one of those European wars, although of course watched with great care. However, it soon blossomed into something much larger, when Germany invaded France... by way of Belgium. In 1839, Britain was among the larger European powers that signed a treaty, promising to protect and defend Belgium's neutrality, if she should be invaded or otherwise violated. When, in 1914, Germany marched through Belgium, (and indeed, occupied it, deported her citizens, and did more than simply march through it, as they first said), Belgium's neutrality was thereby violated, and since it was a matter of honour, Britain sent an ultimatum of their own to Germany. (I wished we still lived in a day when a clear cut ultimatum was sent to a belligerent country, detailing not only what we wanted them to stop, but also exactly what we would do if they didn't agree and stop their actions!) When Germany refused the ultimatum, we declared war. 

So, was it right? Fundamentally, I think so.  This treaty with Belgium was old, that to which we had pledged ourselves. Our pledge was not a hastily given one, but one of some years and standing. It was a matter of honour, and I think it was the right thing to do. It is unfortunate that the war quickly stagnated into trench warfare that killed so many and did not really accomplish much by way of ground conquered. And perhaps it is a bit rich for someone like me- so far removed from the actual war, and one who cannot properly comprehend the horrors into which our forefathers so valiantly entered, and through which they went- to actually say so. No doubt as I read and understand more, I will gain a deeper appreciation of this the Great War. I think I have already, and it is not entirely comfortable, given how horrible the war was, and how much death came about as a result- as a result of honour.


One might say it was a misplaced sense of honour, but with that, I would not agree. It is true that we were not, overall, fighting for something as tangible as the end of Nazi-ism, such as that in the Second World War (or what it would come to be, if that were not our original reasons for entering into the fray. I think, however, it was). We were not fighting to keep Europe free from an evil tyrant, although the Kaiser was not exactly the most pleasantest of chaps to have hanging about, to be sure. We were fighting for something that is a bit more intangible: honour. And sometimes we have to make terrible sacrifices in order to be honourable and to fulfil that which we have promised...

In the end, was it a necessary war? No, I don't think it was. Not at the heart of it all. It did much more damage, and little good. It changed the world irrevocably. And yet I find it fascinating, in an odd sense.

Wanted: You

Rule, Britannia! Britannia Rules the Waves!

I have found it at last, and for this I am grateful, although alas! it is directly related to a person who, if we knew each other personally, there would be no love lost between us. However, one does not find it often. What is it, you may ask? It is quite simple: I have found a group of people who not only have the power to time travel, but also, it may be said, live in the past (although their version of the past is a very inaccurate one). I was alerted to their special powers and unique gift after they, the Argentinian government- to be quite frank- said that they are sorry that Prince William "will arrive on our soil in the uniform of a conquistador". They are referring, of course, to the Duke of Cambridge's six week deployment on the Falkland Islands with the RAF, as part of the Search and Rescue team there. But what first alerted me to the fact they live in the past, is this: Firstly, they could not be referring to the future King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because the Falklands are already British. Prince William is not arriving as a conqueror because the Falklands are already British. They have been British since 1833. In 1833, King William IV was the King of Great Britain, and it was under him that the British re-established our rule in the Falklands. As such, I do believe the Argentinians are living in history! Surely they do mean His Majesty King William IV and not Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge, right? As such, if the Argentinians quit their obnoxious, obtrusive and quite tiresome sabre rattling, I might just have to ask them how exactly they have done something no one else has had the favour to do: to transcend time and live in an age when all was so much better.

However, in case the Argentinians do not get the point (and this is quite unlikely), we have sent one of our best ships, H.M.S. Dauntless to the region. Three cheers for the Royal Navy!

And by George, do they need those three cheers. It appears that Britain had to plead with the United States to let one of our ships come along on a mission to the Straits of Hormuz. We had to plead with the Americans, who didn't want us, and only agreed to it when the French said it was a good idea to let us come along. The French. Nelson would be rolling in his grave. To be quite honest, though, I do not necessarily blame the American entirely. It is the fault of the British government that we no longer have a Royal Navy capable of respect and honour. We have no aircraft carriers- our last one being foolishly scrapped about ten years before we'll get another aircraft carrier, and our Harriers are sold off. The Royal Navy has become the plaything of politicians, and as now is close to shambles. It is wrong, terribly wrong, that the government could do this- in the name of economy too!

But it fills me with mourning. You see, there used to be a day, and our grandfathers' fathers could remember this, when even the Americans would have been happy to see the glorious ships of the Royal Navy on the horizon. In fact, it was largely because of the ascendency of the Royal Navy that America could pursue the otherwise isolationist policies that she did- right down until after the Second World War. It was then, when, due to the fact that the British Empire had supremely exerted herself in one last, gloriously tragic effort, and gave all she had to defeat Hitler even to the point of her death, power and the capability of giving order and justice passed from us to the Americans(although this was not Hitler's fault alone, if I recall it correctly, Roosevelt pushed some policies on us that broke up parts of our Empire, but I might have to find facts to back that up). But before that, for generations upon generations, and decades upon decades, we had a glorious Royal Navy. But now...it is rather like that beautiful and haunting poem says:

 "Her army and her navy

Britain shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride.

Anyway, what is left for those of us who still care, and who remember? Let us hope and pray with all our souls and beings that The Fox's Prophecy will be true, and Old England's sons shall raise again
The Alter and the Crown. (Do take a moment and read the poem. It is one of the best I have ever read. Let not the length daunt you.)

And so, I leave you with this song to cheer our sore hearts.

"In dreary, doubtful, waiting hours, Before the brazen frenzy starts..."

"Into Battle"
by Captain Julian Grenfell (1888-1915)

The naked earth is warm with spring,
And with green grass and bursting trees
Leans to the sun's gaze glorying,
And quivers in the sunny breeze;
And life is colour and warmth and light,
And a striving evermore for these;
And he is dead who will not fight;
And who dies fighting has increase.

The fighting man shall from the sun
Take warmth, and life from the glowing earth;
Speed with the light-foot winds to run,
And with the trees to newer birth;
And find, when fighting shall be done,
Great rest, and fullness after dearth.

All the bright company of Heaven
Hold him in their high comradeship,
The Dog-Star, and the Sisters Seven,
Orion's Belt and sworded hip.

The woodland trees that stand together,
They stand to him each one a friend;
They gently speak in the windy weather;
They guide to valley and ridge's end.

The kestrel hovering by day,
And the little owls that call by night,
Bid him be swift and keen as they,
As keen of ear, as swift of sight.

The blackbird sings to him, "Brother, brother,
If this be the last song you shall sing,
Sing well, for you may not sing another;
Brother, sing."

In dreary, doubtful, waiting hours,
Before the brazen frenzy starts,
The horses show him nobler powers;
O patient eyes, courageous hearts!

And when the burning moment breaks,
And all things else are out of mind,
And only joy of battle takes
Him by the throat, and makes him blind,

Through joy and blindness he shall know,
Not caring much to know, that still
Nor lead nor steel shall reach him, so
That it be not the Destined Will.

The thundering line of battle stands,
And in the air death moans and sings;
But Day shall clasp him with strong hands,
And Night shall fold him in soft wings.

Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Prayer

"God of time and eternity,

"Whose son reigns as servant, not master;

"We give you thanks and praise
"That you have blessed this nation, the realms and territories with Elizabeth,
"Our beloved and glorious Queen.
"In this year of Jubilee,
"Grant her your gifts of love and joy and peace
"As she continues in faithful obedience to you, her Lord and God,
"And in devoted service to her lands and peoples,
"And those of the Commonwealth,
"Now and all the days of her life;
"Through Jesus Christ our Lord.
"Amen."

The 60th Anniversary of the Accession To the Throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II

It is past midnight in the British Isles, and is now Monday morning in the Motherland. The day will, in a few short hours, dawn, and with it comes the 60th anniversary of the beginning of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II's reign. 60 years ago, her father, the good King George VI, died, and his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, became Queen.

Words cannot properly convey all that Her Majesty has brought to this world. She is a symbol of stability, of loyalty, of dedication, of quiet stoicism, of humility, of honour, of courage. She shines brighter and more glorious than any other modern day "celebrity", although I loathe to breathe the name of Her Majesty in the same sentence as that of modern day celebrities. She outshines them by hundreds of leagues. Her Majesty continues to lead us, the British peoples, despite the changing and turbulent times, in which those who wish to retain Britain's founding principles of Christianity and Freedom are hated and reviled with each passing day. 

In reaching her 60th anniversary, Her Majesty the Queen now remains only behind one other of Britain's greatest monarchs and queens, Her Imperial Majesty the Queen Empress Victoria,  as longest reigning monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 


Much has been said by ways of congratulating our fine Queen and Glorious Lady, and my words here are but poor indeed, a small, pitiful offering among the more grand tributes given. 

There remains not much more to do, except to lift our glasses in a toast to Her Majesty The Queen, and say with all our hearts:

God Save the Queen!

Strangers