Thursday, 29 May 2008

Royal Oak Day

Today is Royal Oak Day, and I have sometimes thought of the oak leaf symbol associated therewith as a potential party emblem.

Jacobitism, as an obvious expression of disaffection with the Whig hegemony, is increasingly recognised to have seeped into every corner of what was in fact (and contrary to how it has been presented) a deeply divided and discontented England during the period of that hegemony, providing a unifying principle among many disparate and even rival subcultures (the recusant Catholics and the Nonjurors, for example). The contemporary comparisons, not to say linear continuations, are obvious.

I refer, of course, to our own disaffection with neoliberal economic and correspondingly neoconservative geopolitical position, itself now hegemonic within this country's oligarchic and extremely narrowly-based Political Class. That disaffection, again, seeps into every corner of what is in fact (and contrary to how it is presented) a deeply divided and discontented United Kingdom under that hegemony, providing a unifying principle among many disparate and even rival subcultures.

The Whigs pretended not to know how widespread and how deep that discontent was, and their successors among British historians of England, at least, took them at their word. But archives on the Continent reveal that even Walpole and Malborough maintained, through intermediaries, some level of contact with the Stuart court in exile, apparently conscious that restoration might come at any moment, and therefore anxious to preserve what they could of Whiggery if and when it did.

I do not defend James II's decision to become a salaried employee of his cousin, the King of France, although I cannot see how our own pro-EU, pro-PNAC politicians are in any position to judge him. But it is worth keeping in mind that he was removed only when Tories as well as Whigs invited William of Orange (blessed by the Pope, but that's another story) to replace him.

Today, in similar fashion, all of us who can sign up as any one or more of pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker, anti-war, economic social democrats, moral and social conservatives, and British and Commonwealth patriots, need to make common cause in order to replace the morally, intellectually and financially bankrupt neo-Whig hegemony that is the existing party-political system.

When we do, then a truly Glorious Revolution, and a true Restoration, will undoubtedly ensue. You know how to start making it happen.

10 comments:

  1. "I do not defend James II's decision to become a salaried employee of his cousin, the King of France, although I cannot see how our own pro-EU, pro-PNAC politicians are in any position to judge him."

    Hear hear. Whenever I hear one of our so-called political leaders attacking James II for becoming a salaried employee of his cousin, it's all I can do to suppress a hollow laugh. It's about time we had someone like you to point out their hypocrisy. They're in no position to criticise James II, and I wish they'd stop going on about it. You'd think they had better things to worry about, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. They might not know that they are doing it, but, by their actions, they are. They claim to be upholding the system restored by his removal, yet they are in fact doing exactly as he did. I doubt that most of them have heard of him, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aren't your Catholic traditionalist supporters Jacobites?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, some of them are (part of the coalition, you can't expect everything that you want in the real political world, &c).

    See a very important comment on an earlier post (re: Quebec) about the Catholic Church and the monarchy.

    Those Catholics who were Jacobites were very zealous about it, but most Catholics weren't Jacobites at all. Believe it or not, this doesn't seem to have chnaged one bit.

    The Latin Mass is also a rallying point for the dynastically and ideologically related remnants of French monarchism and of Carlism. Part of the coalition, you can't expect everything that you want in the real political world, &c...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is "pro-family......morally and socially conservative......"

    Just another way of saying we will remove the hard earned rights of gays away?

    ReplyDelete
  6. We have no intention to recriminalise male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private (personally, it strikes me that whoever thought that the cure for that was sending them to prison was at the back of the queue when the brains were being handed out), we would extend to close relatives the right to contract civil partnerships (which already do not need to be consumated), and we would of course restore the requirement that fertility treatment providers take into account the child's need for a father.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr Numismatist30 May 2008 20:49

    Who's "we"? Obviously, you're part of the decision-making process, and I understand why it needs to happen behind closed doors in the early stages, but it would be good to have a few more names so as to get a broader idea of the kind of people signing up to your project.

    It would also be interesting to know which policies received unanimous endorsements and which didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I bet you would!

    We're all right behind the policies that are or will be made public. As will be the complete candidates' list, when it is precisely that - complete.

    We are also building up a coalition of support based on common concerns: trade unionists, farmers, fishermen, Gibrlatarians (who have vote in European elections), Catholics, Evangelicals, Afro-Caribbeans, Greek Cypriots (one in six of whom lives in Britain), Chinese, Dalits, Christian Arabs, ultra-Orthodox Jews...

    It's early days, but we're getting there, quietly (as one should), and especially in certain parts of the country. They don't all agree about everything, of course. But that's politics.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr Numismatist31 May 2008 14:06

    I see you've already mastered the political non-answer to perfection!

    But unless you can furnish proof that you actually have the support of these groups (or individuals who have significant influence within them), you might as well replace that list with "members of the Spanish Inquisition, Martians, Jedi Knights, professional castrati and Queen Victoria's surviving courtiers" - it would carry as much weight with disinterested observers.

    And mine was a perfectly serious question - because this is the tragic tale of someone who jumped onto another political bandwagon (one remarkably similar to yours, as it happens), only to lose thousands of pounds of his own money after finding out the hard way that it was essentially a one-man vanity project.

    So how would you reassure prospective BPA candidates that yours is a genuine coalition?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, not over the Internet, that's for sure.

    We have no connection to Robert Kilroy-Silk (whose views, by the way, are very unlike ours on a number of key points), and that is the key difference with Veritas.

    Or, indeed, with UKIP. People sometimes ask me what I think of UKIP. The answer is "Robert Kilroy-Silk". Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete