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

Queen Elizabeth II: 60 Years on the Throne

It was on this day in 1953 that HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and her other realms and territories was formally crowned at Westminster Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Probably the most prominent royal figure in the world, the monarch who reigns over more diverse lands and peoples than any other, HM the Queen celebrates her diamond jubilee, an honor only previously achieved by Queen Victoria in the annals of British royal history, this year, succeeding her father to the throne in 1952. What can be said about HM the Queen that has not been said already? Even the most grandiose tribute would fail to truly convey what a remarkable sovereign she has been and continues to be. To be succinct, HM the Queen has, for the last 60 years, been an impeccable constitutional monarch for all of her people in every corner of the world without complaint, without wearying and with dignity, compassion, stoic strength, quiet faith and human warmth. She has simply been exemplary. No country in the world today could imagine, much less ask for, a more tirelessly devoted, sincerely committed, wise and experienced sovereign. Around the world, when it comes to true leadership and inspirational respect, the Queen has set the standard by which others are judged.

During her life, the Queen has seen the highest and lowest points in recent British history. She was born into the most dominant, beloved, envied and respected monarchy in the world. She saw her country bombed, faced with the threat of invasion and endure with calm, solid courage, doing her part along the way in what became known as the “finest hour” of British civilization. Born when the British Empire was at its peak in size and influence, in the decades after World War II she saw the British Empire exit the world stage and enter the history books, earning her first historic distinction as being the daughter of Britain’s last King-Emperor. During her reign the Britain of empire and naval supremacy was replaced by the Britain of the social welfare state. She saw her generation, the British people who ‘kept calm and carried on’ replaced by the generation of “swinging London”. The era of television, sexual revolution, the Cold War and the Common Market of decolonization, the Commonwealth, the internet and the “War on Terror” have all also been the era of Queen Elizabeth II. When one considers what a vastly different world exists today as compared to 1952 it becomes less a cliché and all the more real what a remarkable rock of stability the Queen has been in the past six decades.

Great Britain changed dramatically in her first few years on the throne and the world has changed a great deal since then. In 1952 Pakistan still recognized her as Queen, the Showa Emperor still reigned over Japan, the Vietnam conflict was a French problem (and the Prince Imperiale of Vietnam represented his country at her coronation), the British South Africa Company still held sway in what later became Rhodesia, Generalissimo Franco ruled Spain, The Netherlands still executed criminals, America and Japan were still “technically” at war, Egypt still had a king and Harry Truman was President of the United States. Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. What a different world it was. The Queen would become the first reigning monarch to visit Australia and New Zealand and she saw the French actually consider joining the Commonwealth (what would Henry V or Edward III have thought of that?). The Queen was the first reigning monarch to personally open the Canadian Parliament in 1957 and in 1982 signed the Constitution Act making entirely independent of the United Kingdom. She also bid farewell to such African dominions as Rhodesia and South Africa over their refusal to embrace majority rule and end racial favoritism.

The Queen has been totally fearless in the fulfilling of her duty, shrugging off the possibility of assassination on visits from Ghana to Quebec. When a pathetic case fired six blanks at her while she was riding to the Trooping of the Colour in 1982, the Queen displayed her expertise as a horsewoman, bringing the animal quickly under control, keeping calm and carrying on with her duties. When everything was “swinging” in England in the 1960’s the Queen set an example of strong, traditional family values in true Victorian style. Yet, like Queen Victoria, her offspring did not always follow her upright and ’stiff upper lip’ example. In 1976, just to show there were no hard feelings, the Queen visited the United States to mark the bicentennial of the declaration of independence, even taking a spin on the dance floor with President Ford (I told you she was courageous). In the 1980’s she saw Argentina seize the Falkland Islands only to be quickly liberated by the British armed forces a short time later, her second son among them. Toward the end of the decade anything traditional was becoming unfashionable and the devoted, disciplined, dutiful Queen did not seem to have much in common with the growing “me” generation.

The next several years were not happy ones for the Queen or the Royal Family in general. 1992 was that infamous “horrible year” when the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales came apart in a strikingly undignified and all too public fashion and the Queen’s beloved Windsor Castle was devastated by fire. Still, the Queen never wavered in her own dignity, decorum and devotion to duty. In 1991 she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress but the bad news still outnumbered the good. The Duke and Duchess of York split up, the Princess Royal got a divorce, Germans threw eggs at the Queen while on a state visit and fickle public emotionalism forced the Queen into the ridiculous position of paying income tax. Ridiculous because, “officially”, she is paying it to herself. The monarchy was scrutinized and criticized like never before by a moody public that seemed impossible to please and which expected their royals to be both grand and common, glamorous and penny-pinching and to embody values they themselves largely dropped from their own lives. This over emotionalism boiled over at the end of the decade with the passing of the Lady Diana which resulted in Britons weeping in the streets, screaming for centuries of tradition to be tossed aside and, most selfishly, ridiculing the Queen for staying close to her grandsons who had just lost their mother rather than rushing to London to hold the hands of a mob weeping over a woman most of them knew only from tabloids.

Thankfully, to some extent at least, once the funeral of Diana was over, Britons tended to look back at their recent behavior and be rather ashamed of themselves. Most came to recognize that the Queen had done the right thing and had put the needs of her family before her own popularity. There was also a considerable time during this period when the U.K. (and much of the Commonwealth for that matter) went through a number of controversial prime ministers and extremely unpopular prime ministers. When the monarchy was at a rather low point, Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed to be the bright, young, golden boy of British politics. Yet, eventually the Blair idol was revealed to have clay feet. He was followed by the embarrassingly lackluster Gordon Brown and then a coalition government so little did any of the choices appeal to the majority of British people. After witnessing such a succession of corrupt, incompetent political leaders, more and more Britons were reminded of how fortunate they are to have the monarchy and how unspeakable horrible it would be to have someone like Blair, Brown, Cameron or Clegg as President.

In 1999 this issue was put to the people in a referendum in the Commonwealth of Australia. Naturally, the Queen would remain impartial, non-partisan and accede to the wishes of her Australian people even as they voted on whether or not she would remain Queen of Australia or be replaced by a presidential republic. Perhaps taking into account how many times politicians had disappointed them, compared to the Queen who has always remained spotless in her public image and devoted to her duty, Australians decided an unelected partisan hack would be no improvement over the constitutional monarchy and wisely voted to keep the Queen on the Australian throne. From their point of highest popularity (which was still not much) the republicans in Britain and the Commonwealth saw their support dwindle away as more and more people awoke to the fact that the Queen had never let them down whereas politicians almost invariably did. When it came to politicians, hopes would always be dashed, promises would doubtless be broken, statistics manipulated and so on but the Queen, for sixty years, has always been the one constant in the Anglo-sphere firmament. Through it all she has been reliable, ever present, ever serving, ever dutiful and truly impartial. The republican fringe has had to admit defeat, at least so long as the Queen reigns, because she has simply ‘never put a foot wrong’ and given them no weakness to exploit, no grounds on which they could possibly criticize her.

For sixty years Her Majesty the Queen has been rock of stability, a comforting light in stormy seas, a steady, guiding hand in tumultuous times and a spotless symbol of unchanging values in ever-changing times. The Queen personifies all that is best about the British and Commonwealth people and their shared history and heritage. Her story has been the story of her people just as the story of her ancestors have been the history of the English-speaking world. She has, for sixty years, perfectly fulfilled every requirement of a modern, constitutional monarch. The Queen is the brightest, most polished and most reliable aspect of the entire Westminster parliamentary legacy. The Queen is Great Britain. The Queen is Australia. The Queen is Canada. The Queen is New Zealand. The Queen is all her realms and territories. For sixty years she has given more of herself, with greater poise, nobility, graciousness, charity and selflessness than any other government figure of any country in the Anglo-sphere. And, she has kept an unblemished record while doing it. No amount of praise, no tribute could do her service justice. So, again, all that can really be said is that she has simply been exemplary. Congratulations to Her Majesty, congratulations to the House of Windsor and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Ireland and the British Monarchy

The British monarchy is obviously not very popular in Ireland. We often hear that the role of the monarch is to embody the people they reign over and, sometimes justly and sometimes not, that means representing both the good and the bad of a people. This has often meant, through the long years of British rule over Ireland that the monarchy in whose name Ireland was governed for so many years has been the target of criticism, resentment and even hatred. However, in the rising radicalism of any two sides in a conflict, extreme and misleading pictures can be drawn. The British monarchy has intervened to the benefit of Ireland over the years and in most cases it was not the monarchs of Britain who did the greatest harm to Ireland and the misrule of British officials should certainly not be used to turn Ireland against its long and ancient history of monarchy. An excellent case in point is the fact that the worst atrocities in Ireland were carried out by the republican dictator Oliver Cromwell who had deposed and murdered the King.

Ireland, after all, was a collection of monarchies before the English invasion and at times even a united "empire" of sorts (High King Brian Boru was sometimes called the "Emperor of the Irish" for ruling over a number of kingdoms). There had never been an Irish republic before and one could say that by simply being a republic Ireland is giving in to the idea that so many centuries of British rule managed to change them into something they never were and that foreign rule effectively brought in a form of rule after independence that was totally foreign to Irish culture. I cannot help but imagine that it would have been rather glorious for Ireland, at the time of independence, to have crowned a High King of Ireland and restore all the chief families and go on as though the occupation had never happened. It would have been close to if not impossible I know, but it seems to me very "Irish" to have done something like that as a way of saying no enemy, no occupation, no matter how long will change who we are and how we do things.

There are a few Irish people who would like to see the old kingdoms restored but this would be quite a job and leads back to one of the reasons why the British monarchy remains rather unpopular. The British government did quite a good job of buying out, forcing out or simply killing off the native Irish royal and noble families. Some were simply added to the English peerage (a tactic that worked well across the British Isles) while those who cooperated sometimes became reviled by their own people (a common fate for native monarchs in a colonial system) and the brave few who tried to fight for their people were all ultimately defeated and killed or forced into exile where they eventually blended in with the native people there. Effectively, the Irish had few to no traditional leaders to turn to and the English and later British ensured that they were the only game in town so to speak. That is one of the problems faced by the handful of Irish monarchs who favor a return to high kingship; who would be High King?

Yet, even with the British and Commonwealth monarchy, feelings in Ireland were never quite so uniform as they are now, especially among the core, Irish Catholic population. Despite the injustices over the centuries the Irish Confederates did ally with King Charles I and the Irish people did support the restoration of King James II and there were Irishmen who fought in the Jacobite wars in Britain. Even as the British monarch was the embodiment of the British Empire many Irish, though resenting British rule, did take a measure of pride in their own part in building the largest empire in history. The Irish sailed with the Royal Navy, fought in the British army and settled in British colonies around the world. Given the many centuries of injustice and persecution it is amazing how many Irish people remained supportive of the monarchy. In fact, the very first St Patrick’s Day parade in New York City was held by Irish troops in the British army during the American War for independence.

During the Revolutionary era Dan O'Connell, sometimes known as the uncrowned King of Ireland, was a monarchist who looked at republican France with horror. Even Sinn Fein was originally formed with some monarchist leanings. Since the reign of at least King George III one would be hard pressed to find any British monarch who actively persecuted the Irish. King George III himself was rather unpopular in Ireland because of the bloody reprisals following the 1798 Uprising and his refusal to grant Catholic Emancipation. However, George III was not answerable for the conduct of the troops and he had no blind prejudice against Catholics, but considered that to emancipate them would be to violate his coronation oath to the Church of England. In fact, George III was so thoroughly the opposite of being anti-Catholic that there were rumors that he himself was a “Papist” at heart and he had to take firm measures to suppress anti-Catholic riots in England.

Queen Victoria was originally quite popular in Ireland and had a great love for the island. She was greeted with much fanfare when she visited Ireland and even clubs of Irish nationalists would often end their meetings by singing "God Save the Queen". She supported Maynooth College, visited the seminary and backed the grant of over 30,000 pounds by the Peel government to the college. During the Potato Famine the Queen donated 5,000 pounds of her private funds (much more then that it is now) for the relief of the Irish. However, that good will was wasted over rigid attitudes regarding protocol. When the Dublin Corporation refused to congratulate the Prince of Wales (future King Edward VII) on the occasion of his marriage the Queen took it very personally and refused to visit Ireland after that. Unfortunately for the Queen her action was exactly the wrong thing to do. It is doubtful that any of the radicals missed her and her absence made the loyal Irish feel neglected and enthusiasm toward the monarchy dropped. Her own care for Ireland was genuine though and perhaps may have helped spread the rumor that she was the natural daughter of an Irish father.

Edward VII did little to encourage support among Irish Catholics with his scandalous lifestyle and prominent membership in the Freemasons. However, his successor King George V could be called the most underappreciated monarch Ireland ever had. He was an admirable, upright family man and his writings show that he had a great concern for Ireland in particular. Now, it would be wrong to portray him as some sort of Irish champion, George V was King of Great Britain, Emperor of India and sovereign over the British Empire and holding that empire together was his priority. He was afraid of losing Ireland; the one part of the empire the British were closest to. Historian Robert Lacey said in an article for The Times that George V imagined an Ireland that would be something like Canada with Ulster being a Protestant version of Quebec. However, the King also expressed his annoyance at how Ulster would react to any effort to grant Ireland autonomy. The King wanted peace in Ireland and for Ireland to remain part of the British Empire as a self-governing dominion. In July of 1914 he organized a meeting at Buckingham Palace between the government, the Irish nationalists and the unionists. The meeting was an important first step but no real agreements were reached and though a Home Rule act was finally passed, the First World War stopped all progress.

Concerning World War I, it is interesting to note that even during the Easter Rising of 1916 many Irish people opposed the fight and had very much rallied around the monarchy in the time of war and did not take kindly to the rebels friendly words toward the Germans. On the opposite side there was also some rumors at the time and since that the Irish nationalists, or at least a faction among them (some were socialists) favored inviting the Kaiser's son, Prince Joachim, to become King of Ireland. Of course, it did not happen and the Easter Uprising was bloodily suppressed. In fact, British harshness may have given the nationalists their greatest victory. Even the many who had opposed the uprising were shocked and horrified by the brutality of British forces and the swift execution of those involved. In fact, though little known at the time, it was King George V who urged his government to show mercy for the very reason that harshness would only cause more Irishmen and women to view the British as their enemies. As we know, the King's advice was not taken and support for republicanism grew. It was in the aftermath of this situation, for instance, that Sinn Fein dropped her monarchist position and became openly republican. We all know the sad conflict and civil war that engulfed Ireland afterwards, with Ulster being torn away and the Irish Free State coming into being in 1922 with George V as King in Ireland from 1922 to 1927 and following that as King of Ireland. There was even some planning done to have George V crowned in an official ceremony in Dublin but nothing came of it.

However, surprised as some might be today, Ireland still had a reasonable monarchist presence at the time. A vital event in the changing of this attitude was to come with the rise of Eamon De Valera. Having been born in the United States and an early member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, De Valera had little use for monarchy nor of Arthur Griffith's Anglo-Irish "dual monarchy" idea which was a throw back to the Grattan Parliament. Oddly enough, both of these men were Protestants while De Valera was a devout Catholic which, perhaps, illustrates the difficulty caused by the monarchy being tied in with the Protestant Church of England and all the sad, subsequent history. It became easy to see why Protestantism became associated with monarchism and Catholicism with republicanism in Ireland; certainly one of the few countries in the world in which that was true. Nonetheless, when De Valera gained power there was enough of a monarchist presence among the Irish people for him to promise to put the issue to a vote once Ireland became fully independent. At that time, Ireland could vote to become a republic or to choose a monarch provided the prince in question was not a member of the British Royal Family -monarchy or not De Valera wanted complete and final separation from the British Empire. That promise too, failed to materialize. The vote was never held and Ireland became a republic save for the northern counties which Britain still clings to even today.

Because of this, over time, monarchism was forgotten in Ireland and even grew to be more and more hated as a result of the problems in Northern Ireland. So, is there no hope for an Irish Catholic monarchist? Common sense says there is little, but still perhaps more than one might think. Archbishop John Healy of Tuam, who said, "The character of Kings is sacred" was obviously a monarchist, Abbot Columba Marmion said he was not in favor of a republic. As mentioned even Sinn Fein founder Arthur Griffith, though not a monarchist at heart, favored a "dual monarchy" for a free Ireland to share with Great Britain (and later this was, in a way, to happen throughout the Commonwealth). Dan O'Connell was a monarchist, sickened by the violent republicanism in France; as was Henry Grattan who was a Protestant but then so were Emmet and Tone and so many other republicans. At the end of the day, the basic facts are these: the history of British rule should not prejudice the Irish against monarchy in general and should certainly not make them forget the glory days of the Irish monarchy in Celtic Ireland of old. It should also be remembered that the British royals themselves have done good things for Ireland even though it might not have been known at the time. Hopefully, when the situation in the north is resolved for good and Ireland and Great Britain can truly be friendly and equal neighbors and all the ugliness of the past put behind us a more reasonable and realistic view of the Irish by the British and the British monarchy and monarchy in general by the Irish can be possible.

Money and the Monarchy

Coming to you from the Mad Monarchist 'eastern compound' the news of the day, even on the far side of the Atlantic, is the report on the cost of the British monarchy to the taxpayers of the U.K. I wonder if this tired little ritual will ever get old? Not finding much to complain about with the fact that the average cost of the monarchy is about 69p a year the talking heads have instead focused on the royal travel expenses. I'm sure this can sound outrageous to British taxpayers in these tough economic times, but let me assure the loyal Brits that life under a republic would be no free ride either. In fact, they could expect prices to go up dramatically. Here in the land of the free and the home of the heavily taxed not only do we pay far more for our president and ex-presidents that the British do for their monarchy but we have travel expenses to cover at every level of government from county to state to national. As an example, city taxpayers in San Antonio recently had to foot the bill for some city officials to go to DC to witness the coronation -I'm sorry, the "inauguration" of President Barack Hussein Obama. Keep in mind that this was not an official function, they had no part to play in it, they were simply spectators like the hordes of other people who had to pay their own way, buy a place and sit for hours in the freezing cold mashed together like so many sardines to witness the historic occasion. The only difference was these city councilmen & women had someone else to pass the bill to. We also have to pay for state reps, senators and governors to go on "fact finding missions" (aka usually vacations) and for congressmen and senators and now we also have to pay for First Lady Michelle Obama to fly to Chicago for dinner or for the President & First Lady to fly to New York City for a "date night" of dinner and a broadway show. Now, given that, and keeping in mind that the Queen actually surrenders more money from her estates than she gets from the civil list, that the government must sign off on all travel and that the Queen actually gets taxed twice over; is there really that much for subjects of the monarchy to complain about? I think not. On average, all around the world, the statistics show that those living with a monarchy get a far better value and certainly more 'bang for their buck' than citizens of a republic. In fact, I would say that if the Queen were totally in charge of the economy herself, Britain would probably be in far better financial shape than it is now.