One Year On

It has been a while since I last posted to this blog, in fact a little over a year. To those who read it I must apologise, but other things warranted my attention. But I will try to get back on track with my mission to promote Commonwealth and Angloshpere ties.

In the year since my last post a lot has happened in the English speaking world. Today marks 60 years to the day that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip married, providing a post-war Britain with a much needed celebration. The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh attended a service at Westminster Abbey, held by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to celebrate their the Diamond wedding anniversary.

HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh conducted a state visit to the United States, co-insiding with the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, further fostering the links between our two great nations. The photographer Annie Leibovitz was commissioned to produce portraits of Her Majesty to commemorate the historic visit.

We now have a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (whose government now creates new problems almost daily) who has denied us an election for fear of losing power - something that is not unfounded since the Tories have had a surge in popularity.

Speaking of elections Australia is in the process of one, where it looks like John Howard, PM for 11 years, might actually lose to his rival the Labor leader Kevin Rudd. This, in my opinion, in alarming for one reason: he has promised a referendum on the Monarchy.

One would hope that the Australian people will have the good sense, if Mr. Rudd were elected as prime minister, to recognise the benefits of monarchy and the relevance of it not only to today but also to their past.

Closer to home, May saw the election of nationalists in Scotland, 300 years after the Act of Union that bound England and Scotland, and brought Britain closer to dissolution. It is now a real possibility but we will have to wait until 2010 when the SNP plan to hold a referendum on the issue of Scottish independence. I hope the Scottish electorate sees the benefits of union and I will work to promote the continued existence of the glorious union that saw Britain rise to greatness.

On another note, in the late summer it emerged that the BBC edited footage to make it appear that the Queen stormed out of a photo shoot with the photographer Annie Leibovitz in what was dubbed "Crowngate". The footage was shown to journalists as part of the promotional material for the BBC's autumn scheduling, in which the documentary 'A Year with The Queen' was central.

All in all an eventfull year.

Jeremy Paxman: On Royalty

From the publisher's website, Penguin.co.uk:

What does it mean to be royal? At a time when the monarch no longer rules by divine right and governing powers fall to our elected leaders, the concept of royalty grows ever more elusive. The intellectual argument for the abolition of the monarchy is strong, and yet public interest in the royals continues to grow.

Jeremy Paxman seeks to find out how the role of our head of state has changed over the years and what the implications have been. With characteristic intelligence and humour, he looks at every aspect of the monarchy and how it has related to politics, religion, the military and the law. With a mixture of popular history, direct reportage and hilarious anecdote, the master of investigative journalism seeks to find out just how important the Royal Family is to our national identity.

I look forward to Paxman's take on the subject, not knowing his opinions on the matter, and indeed his conclusions. Royalty is such a complex issue. It is alien to most of the world - there are only 44 functioning monarchies in the world and ours must be one of, if not thee, greatest.

We see royalty everyday. It is on our currency, our postage stamps, on our postboxes. It has become so intertwined with what we are that are hardly notice it. The only times it becomes really apparent are in times of national crisis, or mourning the passing of royalty, or celebrating the reign of our Queen.

I'm not going to attempt to deal with all the issues, they are far to complex and numerous. I'd rather leave that to Paxman, who has done the research. But I would like to say this:

Everyone must ask the question, monarchist or anti-monarchist, In the 21st Century is there a place for such a concept?

We British care very much for our history and our traditions...well most of us anyway. And I believe we have gotten the mix, a mix shaped over a thosand years, about right. It's taken longer than many countries have been in existence and still there is room for improvement.

The monarch is a great standard bearer for this nation, and indeed others who she is head of state. The office may not have a direct bearing on our lives as the politicians do, but it is a constant in a world of ever increasing change.

The republicans say that we'd be much better off with a president who's elected. I say why add another layer of politics to an increasingly apathetic country? Why replace it with a president who would do exactly the same thing? What would become of the Commonwealth Realms?

There are so many questions that must be answered if one is committed to doing away with them. But one thing is for sure: Getting rid of the monarchy would radically re-shape the nation. We've had our flirtation with republicanism and it didn't work out. Why should we have to repeat history? This is not a nation of republicans. It has never been a nation of republicans and will never be. And the simple reason for that is the monarchy is in our hearts. Not our heads.

On Royalty is out 6th October priced £20.00.

No British Influence...

Former US President Jimmy Carter told BBC's Newsnight that he was "really disappointed in the apparent subservience of the British government's policies related to many of the serious mistakes that have been originated in Washington." It is reported on the BBC website.

I have long suspected, ever since the Iraq war, that Britain has hardly any influence on the Bush administration. We're the United State's closest ally. The Special Relationship is supposed to be a two way street. Not just the token meetings between prime minister and president standing "shoulder to shoulder" and kind words offered about Blair from Bush.

It never used to be that way. There used to be "a very strong voice from London in the shaping of a common policy", as Carter put it. Churchill and Roosevelt were equals. Thatcher and Reagan were equals. And by extension, Britain and America were equals. But Blair and Bush are different. Blair isn't equal to Bush, instead he is indeed subservient, a poodle as many have described him.

Things have always worked out best with equal American and British input on common policy issues. Not a "lets just do what America wants or we'll get beat up" mentality. Co-operation at the highest possible level on all things of common policy interest lessens the risks of possible mistakes. Iraq is a mistake. Bush was eager as a beaver to get to Baghdad. Blair might have slowed him down a bit, but he could have urged Bush to adopt some British restraint. He had a great bargaining chip to back him up too.

All Blair needed to do to delay the "war president" was threaten to withhold British troops from the planned invasion in order for the weapons inspectors to fully complete their work or secure full UN backing.

There was a real possibility. Bush wouldn't have gone it alone with virtually the whole world, or at least the countries that matter, against him. But Prime Minister Blair just ignored it, or perhaps, more worryingly, never realised he had such a bargaining tool. He was more concerned with pleasing America, with pleasing Bush. And sure he's popular over there for his un-wavering support through the whole Iraq thing, but here he's laughed at. It appears as if he values American opinion more than the opinion of the British people - a people who put him in that office.

Be America's ally yes, that is important in today's world-wide war on terror. And it's key for the idealised merging of the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth (see my last post). But it's also important, vitally important, to stand up for British interests.

Just look at the Nat-West Three. They committed the crime here, the victim (NatWest Bank) was a British company and all the evidence was here. But the Americans wanted them because they may or may not have had something to do with the downfall of one of America's beloved companies, Enron. And, of course, America got what she wanted.

After all, who are we - the United Kingdom, who only gave rise to what was probably the world's greatest empire, responsible for much of what the modern world is today, not to mention Shakespeare - to stand up to the US and for British subjects?

London is supposed to be Athens to Washington's Rome. It's one of the defining relationships of the 20th Century and I hope it defines the 21st. Britain's role in the world might be to stand at America's side, but Britain's seat at the right hand must not be taken for granted. It mustn't be guaranteed by Number Ten either. Only then will Britain be truly valued in Washington.

But above all, the interests of the British people must come first. That is the first duty of the British government and the prime minister whoever he or she might be. And they cannot forget that.

Anglosphere + Commonwealth = Greater Anglosphere?

There is an article on The Monarchist written by James Pillman, who has permitted its publication there. The article looks the the possibility of a extended Commonwealth to serve as an English-speaking, Common Law alliance defending the ideals of freedom and liberal democracy across the world.

Sounds good.

In order for this ideal to be fully realised, the article suggests, America would need to renew its association with the British crown - something it fought a war to rid itself of 200 years ago. But the prospect may be closer to reality than you thing - President Bush as reportedly expressed an interest in joining the Commonwealth. That would, the article says, transform the Commonwealth into a new, revitalised organisation that Pillman has dubbed the "Greater Anglosphere".

The proposal would make the Commonwealth of Nations a more relevant and dominant organisation for sure. I would argue that no single nation has had so much impact on the modern world than Britain. It would certainly be a fitting legacy, British-informed values leading the way into this new century, this new millennium.

But there is one thing I want to know: what, I ask, role would the monarchy have in this new alliance?

It's a question that might prove difficult with our American cousins. Could they accept the Queen as the figurehead of this "Greater Anglosphere"? That is the question I fear could make or break this envisioned future.

I could not accept a Anglosphere-Commonwealth organisation without it. I just wouldn't be right would it?

The Queen & The British Film Industry

I'm really interested as to how this film works out. Directed by Stephen Frears and staring Dame Helen Mirren, the film looks at the tussle between the Palace and Number Ten in the week following Diana's death.

And we all know how difficult and tense things were, ripe for dramatics. The stakes were the future of Britain, and the future of the monarchy itself. Can't get much more dramatic than that.

It's already received its world premier at the Venice Film Festival, to critical acclaim I might add. It's up for the prestigious Golden Lion award. Helen Mirren is also tipped as a strong contender for Best Actress at the Baftas and Oscars.

The Queen is a kind of sequel to The Deal, which was also directed by Frears. The Deal examined Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's relationship and their supposed deal they made over the leadership of the Labour party at a restaurant in Islington.

Those of you who may be weary at how the Queen might be portrayed should not fret. An actress such as Mirren is aware of such things, as well she should be. "It's dangerous material," says Dame Helen. "You can tip it either way and be venal, cruel and unnecessary, or it can go the other way and you can be grovelling. You have to walk a tightrope." The film is dissecting a pivotal week in modern British history. And that can be a risky thing, especially as the Queen and Tony Blair are still in office.

No doubt it'll be a fair, enthralling and masterfully-executed piece of cinema. And frankly their should be more of this sort of thing. Films, well done films, looking at British life at all levels. Not some quaint view of our nation, but the reality. There's too much American stuff, it floods the market. I don't mind if they were good films, but recently they've been few and far between. Hollywood more and more frequently is looking over the pond for British films and British talent. Long may that continue, but not to the point that our best talent flock to Hollywood as soon as they've been noticed. The British film industry must, and can, do better! The Queen is a fine example.

The trailer, for those who are interested, for The Queen can be found here.

Top PMs: Thatcher & Atlee

Margaret Thatcher, Conservative PM 1979-1990, and Clement Atlee, Labour PM 1945-1951 have come top in a list of Britain's most effective prime ministers. The reasons? Simply, Atlee's creation of the welfare state (setting up the NHS) and Thatcher wiping the floor with the trade unions (defeating the miners).

You'll get no argument from me. BBC News has the article.

Threat Level: Critical

The United Kingdom remains at the highest level of alert after yesterdays nationwide police raids prevent a terror plot on an "unimaginable" scale.

It's good to know that British intelligence agencies, assisted by their US counterparts, have foiled what could have been the world's most deadliest terrorist attack. The plan was to blow up numerous American and British commercial airlines over the Atlantic while en route to the US from Britain.

The disparaging thing is that it looks like that those arrested, 24 in all, may all be British subjects. If so then it is an extremely worrying thought. This signals a serious problem to the government, and the world, that Britain may not be doing enough to stamp out extremist fundamentalism within the realm.

If measures aren't successful enough to route out people who are intent on destruction and carnage, killing innocent civilians, then I fear that it's only a matter of time before another group attempts something like this. The intelligence agencies and police can't stop them all.