PC Christmas

First Lady? First Husband?

In mid-June, I was at a conference in Finland. One of the keynote speakers was Peter Vesterbacka, then of Rovio Entertainment, maker of Angry Birds.

Mr. Vesterbacka referred to the wife of the Prime Minister of Japan as that country's “First Lady.” Japan does not have a First Lady. Japan has an Empress!

This weekend, I read a few British Sunday newspapers, and I noticed that the upcoming spouse of the United Kindgom's next Prime Minister (there were still at the time of the printing of those newspapers, two options) as ”First Husband.” The United Kingdom does not have a First Lady and will not at the time Mr. David Cameron is relieved have a First Husband. The United Kingdom has the Duke of Edinburgh!

Diversity

Mercurius Pragmaticus quotes Rein Staal in Modern Age (1996):

The spirit of neologism is perhaps best illustrated when it fastens on a word in common use. Note the recent career of the word “diversity.” This term denotes a key conservative theme. As is pointed out by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in writings including his classic Leftism (1974), a devotion to diversity arguably distinguishes the Right from the Left. The elements of this devotion are many; consider, for example, respect for regional traditions, the insistence that human beings are not interchangeable, the tendency to think in terms of distinct persons rather than large classes of people, support for various institutions that shield individuals from the State, as well as the related belief in decentralization. We are now expected to restrict the term to one explicit, technical meaning, one that refers to a specific demographic distribution. Not surprisingly, the new usage is explained and enforced by a phalanx of experts. Note also that, in a characteristic tour de force, the term is now compatible, not only with intellectual conformism, but also with the pursuit of economic and political integration on a global scale.

"Give Back?"

Over at The LRC Blog, Michael S. Rozeff deplores the term “give back.”

A Nobel Exhibition

This past Monday I went to the Nobel Peace Center – in connection with it's year end free admission period (starts a couple of days after Nobel Day). One of the temporary exhibitions there was What the World Eats.

One timely and appropriate question to ask is what exactly this exhibition has to do with holding peace congresses and reducing standing armies.

One notable aspect with the exhibitions, though, was that it portrayed two ethnically Norwegian families. Those two were the only ones presented with two family names – not even hyphenated. One should not be surprise if the father and mother are not married. There was at least one other families where the mother carried another surname than the family name, probably her maiden name, but at least there was one family name.

A friend once said that a family is a man and a woman who are married and have children. One could question whether an entity that does not have a single family name is a family.

History and the Wrong Side

Andy Nowicki ponders:

Mr. Nowicki declines to obey “history.” So, BTW, does your host blogger.

Democratic Trial?

One of the most unreasonable claims made regarding the Snowden case is that he should go home and face “justice” in those United States.

It has even been claimed that he should go home to face a “democratic trial,” whatever that means. How ludicrous can you get? No, I am not making this up. What does that mean? A people's tribunal? Verdict by popular vote?

Messy Labeling

Blimey Cow and Messy Mondays give us a perspective on labeling and thinking outside the box:

Abuse and Misuse of Words

By Blimey Cow:

Discrimination

Over at LewRockwell.com, Mike Rogers is proud to discriminate.

The Right Anti-Intellectual?

Over at The Orthosphere, it is pondered whether the right is anti-intellectual.

The Britannic Jubilee

There was a conference at Kensington Palace just after the central weekend. The opening of the conference with the first talk by Prof. Sir David Cannadine (acoustic conditions could have been better):

The professor is apparently not very open to other definitions of constitutional monarchy than the narrow mainstream one. Had he stated the definition as the one relevant for his talk and stated and a discussion of the definition beyond the scope of his talk, I would have found that more appropriate. Other than that, it is a historically interesting talk.

Apparently, there are podcasts for more talks.

Over at the blog of the Libertarian Alliance, Dr. Sean Gabb had a couple of posts. He does have his points, and I have made my comments at his posts as well.

A lot can be said. On the issue of whether the monarchy is only ornamental, we can quote Walter Bagehot – as Prof. Cannadine:

The Crown does more than it seems.

Mr. Peter Hitchens predicts the end of the British monarchy.

Mr. Tom Harrison, chairman of the Royalist Party, stands up for what he calls proper constitutional monarchy.

Over at Alternative Right, Mr. Colin Lidell gives us his negative take.

Over at Taki's Magazine:

• Derek Turner: Royal Pains
• Bruce Cochran: Diamond Jubilation

Again, a lot can be said.

There is a lot through these sixty years of reign that do not deserve celebration. The transformation from a monarchy mostly fundamental to a monarchy mostly ornamental, a process started long before 1952, should definitely not to be celebrated.

We should celebrate heroes standing up against this transformation, such as His Serene Highness Sovereign Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein. That we can mark 60 years of reign for a monarch who was born after the dawn of the republican age is reason to celebrate too.

Treetops marks the Diamond Jubilee:

"Marriage"

The Western Confucian has some reflections on what marriage is.

The July 20 Plot

Three score and five years ago today, Count Claus von Stauffenberg attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

I wrote this five years ago.

In the course of the past year, the motion picture Valkyrie was released. I have watched it, and I would say it is an improvement over the movies that portray high-ranking Nazi officers as noblemen – also known as “vons.” However, it seemed that the noble background of the plotters in this movie was something almost to be hidden. I personally would have liked a movie with more emphasis on the noble background of the heroes.

The great and late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn referred to Allen Welsh Dulles' Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance for an account of German World War Two resistance.

I have also watched another motion picture of World War Two resistance this calendar year, namely Max Manus. The movie has been under some fierce attack for lack of historical accuracy. One small detail that caught my attention was the stating of the terms Cabinet and King – in that order. Not only is stating the King before his Cabinet formally incorrect, but – as a friend of mine pointed out – they probably would not have done so at the time.

Tongan Coronation and Emasculation

Today is coronation day for King George Tupou V of Tonga.

As CNN reports, the King has given up some powers. I have no strong objections to monarchs giving up powers in general. In keeping with Edmund Burke's dictum that constitutions are grown, not made, and in respecting that one size does not fit all, having a mixed government is a wise thing.

What I do object to is a process of outright emasculation of a monarch. If partial reduction of powers is just a step on the way to total emasculation, I do object to it. In today's world the problem is that popular majorities and democratically elected politicos have too much power – not that kings have too much power. I say the burden of proof lies with those who want emasculation of the King, and they have yet to convince me.

Moreover, I object to the following statement by the CNN:

New Tongan king, George Tupou V, to give up most of near-absolute powers

Near-absolute powers? Most of? Mostly-pregnant? Near-pregnant?

Doesn't someone either possess absolute power or not? Can something be somewhat absolute?

It is interesting that when a democratically elected parliament has the sole, unchecked power to make and amend legislation that is absolutely binding for everyone in the country, the mainstream media never refers to that as “absolute power,” whereas once a monarch can block such legislation it is almost always referred to with the term absolute.

Constitutional Monarchy

A few curiosities.

This page seems to believe that Liechtenstein is a figurehead monarchy.

And there's this memo in the Council of Europe, which BTW is not the European Council, from half a decade ago – in connection with the constitutional amendments in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

The memo states towards the end:

It would not only prevent the further development of constitutional practice in Liechtenstein towards a fully-fledged constitutional monarchy as in other European countries, but even constitute a serious step backward.

The memo apparently does not only know the meaning of backward, but also that constitutional monarchy is just a synonymous term for let-the-politicos-do-as-they-please monarchy.

The memo also states:

[T]here is no generally accepted standard of democracy[...]

Yes? But there is of constitutional monarchy?

Fully-fledged constitutional monarchy? My my, what kind of education do they have at the Council of Europe?

"Restorative Conservative"

David Warren suggests the term restorative conservative.

H/T: The Monarchist

Constitutional Monarchy

It is often stated that in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch does not – or cannot – interfere in politics.

Whereas one cannot deny that such a monarchy may qualify as such, that is not a necessary feature thereof.