Remember

Today, again, we “remember” the regicide of the sainted royal martyr King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland on this day in 1649. As he stated so eloquently at his farce of a show-trial, the King fought and ultimately gave his life for a principle; not simply the principle of monarchy and royal legitimacy but the principle that no one could take what legally belonged to another. He fought for the idea that neither his rights as King nor the rights of any of his subjects should be able to be trampled on simply by brute force. King Charles I fought a noble fight, for the protection of all of his subjects, for effective government and respect for religion. In this day and age especially, when republicanism is fashionable amongst the leftist elites in Britain and where treason is tolerated, it is worth remembering that it was the King who fought for his people, who worked to bring the three kingdoms together and who wanted peace with foreign powers while it was Oliver Cromwell, the only republican leader Britain has ever had, who conquered England, Scotland and Ireland, placed everyone under military rule, held power as a dictator and carried out some of the most brutal massacres in the history of the British Isles.

This is what can be very infuriating for monarchists. Republicans (and any monarchist has encountered this, I certainly have often enough) love to speak in hypothetical terms. They invariably begin their arguments with phrases like, “what if…” and then go on to paint every monarchy as being only one breath away from being under the arbitrary rule of a drooling imbecile. However, monarchists have actual facts on our side. Britain actually did become a republic and it was a horrible, blood-soaked tyranny. That is not hypothetical, that was what really happened. We do not have to imagine anything, it is a fact of history, Britain went through it and the lesson should have been well learned. It certainly was by those who actually experienced it and so enthusiastically welcomed King Charles II home for the restoration of the monarchy. The life and death of King Charles I should not be forgotten or avoided by monarchists but proudly cited as solid evidence of what not only could happen but which actually did happen when the British monarchy was abolished.

Monarch Profile: King Charles I
The Trial and Regicide of Charles I
King Charles the Martyr

MM Video: Mary Queen of Scots

Mad Rant: British "Tea Party"

It was recently reported (by Fox News Channel at least) that the “Tea Party” movement has spread to Great Britain. The first such tea party will be held in Brighton with the main attraction being conservative MEP Daniel Hannan who is most famous for the eloquent dressing-down he gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Strasbourg in 2009. There are many things I like about Mr. Hannan and a great many things I agree with him on like cutting government spending and opposition to the EU. There were some things he has said that smelled bad to me but I attributed it to the fact that he said them on American television and was likely trying to ‘make nice’ with the host. After a while though a mad man has to start to wonder…

I should also say that in general I am in favor of these tea parties as have been breaking out in the US since the TARP fiasco. However, all of that aside, I have to say there is something I find rather off-putting about the idea of anything being called a “tea party” being held in Great Britain. I am generally in favor of that which is being advocated by the tea parties but, in Britain especially, could they not find an example to follow in their own history rather than borrowing from America?

This, I assure you, is not because of any jealousy on behalf of the Boston tea party (probably would have been on the other side of that little bit of vandalism) but because I hate to see European “conservatives” following the example of American “conservatives”. Liberals in the US have long followed the example of European liberals because they are further down the socialist path than America. The same could not be expected on the right for the simple reason that there is hardly any real conservatism left in Europe these days and because American conservatives can, by the nature of the founding of the country, go right only so far as the Revolutionary War will allow them.

However, real traditional conservatism came from Europe; they should have plenty in their own history to draw from that is even the more legitimate “real thing” than what the most right-wing folks in America can muster. The whole idea of a tea party in Britain sounds like something anti-war Whigs would have done in 1776 to thumb their nose at Lord North and King George; not something done by what will probably be a mostly Tory crowd in Britain today. I don’t like people who blame everything on America nor do I approve of those who wish to follow the American example in absolutely everything. Surely in the long history of Great Britain there is something in their own tradition they could adopt instead of borrowing from a group of people who were actually the enemies of Britain? I still wish them the best of course, I also wish they would do something a little more “British” and monarchial and of course I am … The Mad Monarchist.

King Charles the Martyr

It was on this day in 1649 that HM King Charles I of Great Britain suffered martyrdom for the cause of religion and monarchy at the hands of that archtraitor of the English-speaking world Oliver Cromwell. The regicide of Charles I had far-reaching consequences not often considered. Of course it brought about the era of the Cromwellian Puritan dictatorship which remains to this day the most oppressive government in English history but it also meant great suffering for Scotland and a near genocidal campaign in Ireland. However, it also represented the start of an era of republican triumphalism that was to last for much, much longer. In fact, with some periods of exception it has continued to this day. It was the victory of the Parliamentary forces, illustrated by the regicide of Charles I, that gave them the strength of will to continue to resist all efforts at a true royal restoration ever after.

Of course we know that the people of Britain soon had enough of Cromwell and his oppression and happily welcomed the martyred King's son back on the throne as Charles II, but the fact that these traitors had never been openly and finally defeated on the battlefield meant that they still felt empowered to resist monarchs thereafter. This is seen in the efforts to subvert the natural succession under Charles II who finally was obliged to dissolve Parliament and forbid any talk of him divorcing his wife or disinheriting the Duke of York. It was seen the coup against King James II when he failed to please the Parliamentary elites and in the restrictions placed on his successors starting with King William III and Queen Mary II. It also set a dangerous precedent in the minds of the English-speaking-peoples that the monarchy was something which could be toppled. Something of that monarchial sacredness had already been lost with the judicial execution of Mary Queen of Scots but with Charles I it was even more emphasized as he was no foreign prince and the execution was done, not by a rival monarch, but by a rump of Parliament. It seared into the minds of traitors for generations that it was Parliament rather than the Crown that was the ultimate power in the land.

At his trial the heroic King Charles I did not really deny that. He was within the power of Parliament and he knew it. He also knew that while Parliament, by virtue of Cromwell's New Model Army, had the power they did not have legitimate authority which rested with him alone. At his trial he compared it to the power of a roadside bandit, who can take your money or your life, but whose power is based on material force and not true, spiritual authority. The words of King Charles I at his trial are something every monarchist should read, especially those who consider the reign of Charles I as some kind of totalitarian tyranny. Charles I fought, not simply for his own Crown, but for his right, and by extension the right of every person in his kingdoms, to that which was lawfully his own. As the King said, if they can treat the sovereign of Britain so, what man, high born or common, could ever be sure of that which is his own? Charles I was fighting for the traditional, natural government of Britain and fighting against what we would now call the "big government" of political elites.

It is, in fact, even something of a lie to say that the Parliamentary forces actually represented parliamentary government in any way. The Parliament had been stripped, purged and violated in every way in order to produce the results that the Cromwellian elite wanted. Even then, Cromwell was fairly quick to dissolve Parliament when it failed to please him after the great King had gone on to his eternal reward. The Parliamentary system also died alongside Charles I and was only ever restored because the treasonous clique recognized that it could be manipulated to serve their own purposes. All of this makes the memory of King Charles I a very useful one for monarchists today and we should all speak up on his behalf when he is slandered. King Charles is a symbol of true royal authority and legitimate government fighting against powerful political elites. He is also a symbol of religious unity for he was declared a saint and martyr of the Church of England but was married to a Catholic and supported by the vast majority of Catholics in his own time. This is contrasted with the religious intolerance of the Puritans and especially the horrific massacre of Irish Catholics by Cromwell and his troops. He is also a symbol, sadly not the only one, of how republican governments almost invariably come to power only through blood, brute force and the murder of the innocent.

May King Charles rest forever with the angels.
A Litany of Charles, King and Martyr (CofE)

MM Video: King George VI

The Elizabeth Cross Instituted

The Times Online has a story about the recent institution by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, font of honours, of the Elizabeth Cross, named for the reigning monarch, to recognize those who have given their lives for Queen and Country on the battlefield. This decoration follows in the tradition of Queen Victoria who instituted the Victoria Cross during the Crimean War to recognize battlefield bravery regardless of rank and in the tradition of King George VI who instituted the George Cross to recognize civilian bravery during World War II. Famously, the original Victoria Crosses were made from the melted down bronze canon of the Russians captured in the Crimean War. Probably the most famous award of the George Cross was when the medal was bestowed on the entire population of the island fortress of Malta for their courage in the face of a continuous bombardment from Axis forces. The George Cross is still featured on the flag of Malta to this day. According to the story Queen Elizabeth II was very much involved in the institution of the medal that bears her name and most agree that it is entirely timely and fitting to have an award to recognize those who have given their lives in the service of their monarch around the world. God Save the Queen!

Consort Profile: Catherine of Braganza

An often overlooked British Queen consort, I think Catherine of Braganza does not get nearly enough credit for the strong woman that she was. The daughter of King John IV of Portugal the Infanta Catherine was married to King Charles II of Great Britain by proxy in Lisbon in 1662 and arrived in London a month later. She faced a great deal of opposition from the outset because of her background. Catherine had been raised in a convent and was a very devout Catholic which the Protestant elites in Parliament did not like at all. However, these were the days when Portugal was at the top of its game and she brought considerable wealth with her in her dowry as well as the exotic ports of Bombay and Tangiers. Charles II himself was not too impressed with her; considering her not especially attractive and too devout for his tastes though he is said to have been taken by her distinctive accent.

As time went on she won more and more people to her side by her simple kindness, support of her husband and her determination to stay out of politics. However, she still had plenty of heartaches as she never had any children while King Charles II continued to father numerous bastards with his small army of mistresses. Queen Catherine was heartbroken and embarassed by this but she never responded in kind and remained a good and faithful wife as long as she lived which impressed many; even the King himself. When Parliament began to pressure Charles to divorce Catherine and marry a Protestant princess who could give him legitimate heirs he firmly refused to. He knew Catherine endured alot from him and while he may not have sincerely loved her, he certainly had come to sincerely respect and admire her and he refused to divorce her. When political pressure continued Charles made it a treasonable offence for anyone to suggest that he divorce his wife or question the succession of his Catholic brother James.

Her most politically difficult moment, without doubt, came in 1678 with the so-called "Popish Plot" which was a Protestant conspiracy to frame the prominent Catholics at court with trying to poison the King. Queen Catherine herself was accused of having a part in it but Charles II defended her himself, he knew it was an absurd charge and in time the charges were proven to be total fabrications. When Charles II lay on his deathbed (where he himself converted to Catholicism) he asked Catherine's forgiveness for his weakness as a husband. She must have been a very forgiving soul as when a rebellion against the new monarch, King James II, under the leadership of the Duke of Monmouth, one of Charles' bastards, she tried to convince James to spare the life of the Duke who was a result of her late husband's adultery.

Catherine had a happy enough life as a widow under the Catholic King James II but when he was overthrown by the Prince of Orange in 1688 her situation grew steadily worse. The Queen had initially been on good terms with the new Protestant monarchs but as the anti-Catholic laws increased she became increasingly treated like a prisoner and was finally obliged to return to her native Portugal in 1692. Nonetheless, she still supported Anglo-Portuguese friendship and even acted as regent of Portugal for her brother King Pedro II. She died in 1705 and is perhaps most remembered today as the Queen who introduced the custom of tea drinking to England.

Consort Profile: Queen Mary of Modena

Mary of Modena was the second wife and Queen consort to Britain's King James II. She was born in 1658 in the Duchy of Modena in Italy and descended from the French royal family and the Medici family of Italy. Following the death of his first wife and his conversion to Catholicism James (then Duke of York) began looking for a good Catholic wife, despite the problems this was sure to cause. His older brother King Charles II had ordered his first children raised Protestant but did not object to him marrying a Catholic (Charles II himself believed Catholicism to be correct but political fears kept him from converting until he was on his deathbed). The young Mary of Modena seemed the ideal choice for James. Like his own mother Mary of Modena was a pretty Catholic girl with French connections who believed in religious monarchy. The two married in 1673; James was 40 and Mary of Modena only 15.


King Charles II, never one to miss a pretty face, quickly warmed to his new sister-in-law and those who knew her descibed her as charming, kind and intense; seemingly the ideal royal wife. However, religious divisions in the country worked against her and she was immediately attacked many Protestants who accused her of being an agent of the Pope (Clement X had suggested the match); secretly plotting some sinister attack on Great Britain. Others, however, looked at the age of James II and did not expect he would have any children by his Catholic wife and that the Protestant succession was secure in his eldest daughter who was wed to the Dutch Prince of Orange. Their fears seemed to be groundless as Mary and James had no luck with pregnancy with several children being stillborn or not living past infancy.


All of this became even more critical in 1685 when James became King and Mary of Modena became Queen consort of Britain. From the outset their were troubles and worries about rebellion as King James II tried to introduce religious freedom for Catholics and dissenting Protestants and uphold the powers of the monarchy. Queen Mary of Modena was not very politically involved but when she did advise her husband she advised him toward that which he was already naturally inclined to; friendship with France, support for Catholicism and staunch defense of royal authority. Sadly, it was Mary's greatest happiness that was to be the downfall of her husband as, in 1688, she gave birth to a healthy baby boy who was, naturally, baptized as a Catholic and even had the Pope named as his godfather.


Immediately Protestants claimed that the child was an imposter and called for the overthrow of the King and Queen. Even James' own daughter in Holland announced she believed her half-brother to be illegitimate. The King ordered an investigation simply to silence the critics but it did no good. With the threat of revolution and a Dutch invasion looming James sent Mary of Modena and his young son to safety in France. In due course his army mutinied, he was captured and finally allowed to escape into exile to join them there; thus begining the long years of the Stuart exile. Queen Mary of Modena was a staunch Queen-in-exile and a strong support to her husband. She gave birth to a daughter in exile and when James II died she persuaded King Louis to recognize her son, James III, as the legitimate King of Great Britain and Ireland. She devoted the rest of her life to religious devotion and to supporting the Jacobite efforts to restore the Stuarts to the British throne. She died in 1718 of breast cancer in Paris. Her tomb was later destroyed by republicans in the French Revolution.