Happy St Patrick's Day

Once again, it is St Patrick’s Day, an occasion to honor the patron saint of Ireland who converted the Emerald Isle to Christianity and to celebrate all things Irish. Unfortunately, one of the things most associated with Ireland today is revolutionary republicanism. This should not be so. In all of Irish history, republicanism was practically unknown before the Easter Uprising and entirely unheard of prior to the horrific French Revolution. The history of old Ireland, prior to the arrival of the British, was entirely royalist. Ireland had not only one king but a number of kings at any given time, occasionally united by one “High King”. Prior to independence, the only time Ireland had known republican rule was actually the most brutally horrific period of Irish history when the republican dictator of England, Oliver Cromwell, waged what some have not without merit termed a genocide in Ireland. For Cromwell, the Irish had committed two offenses which he deemed most deplorable; they had thrown their support behind the King and they had refused to renounce their Catholicism and embrace the Protestant religion he favored.

The Irish did ultimately take the side of King Charles I, who was opposed to the persecution of Catholics like themselves and they later also supported the cause of his son King James II, adding the Battle of the Boyne to the long list of tragedies in Irish history. Later, during the Jacobite Uprisings, the Stuart heirs were also not without some Irish support. Even Sinn Fein was originally founded with the intention of Ireland being a monarchy, independent but in personal union with the British after the fashion of Austria-Hungary. Even at the time of World War I, some Irish nationalists, knowing that their cause basically depended on a German victory, proposed making the German Kaiser's son, Prince Joachim, the King of an independent Ireland. In any event, today is a proper occasion to take a look back at a few of the subjects related to Ireland covered here in the past from a perspective that is, to say the least, not mainstream when it comes to the Emerald Isle.

A Short look at the life of Irish High King Brian Boru

The Villain and Enemy of Monarchy Oliver Cromwell

The great Irish monarchist general Patrick Sarsfield

Irish Jacobites in the 1745 Uprising

When Irish Republicans tried to seize Canada

Although quite obscure, it is also worth noting that the monarchist cause is not totally absent from Ireland and one does not have to be confined entirely to Ulster in order to find it. There are a faithful few who support the restoration of the Kingdom of Ireland, some as a confederation of kingdoms under a "High King" as in the old days and some support a return of the Kingdom of Ireland in union with England and Scotland as in the more recent past.

The Battle of Ridgeway

It was on this day in 1866 that republicans and monarchists clashed at the town of Ridgeway, Canada. On the whole, it was not a good day for the monarchists but it was not so bad as it seemed either. This engagement took place during what is known as the Fenian Raids, a series of attacks on Canada by Irish and Irish-American forces, most of them veterans of the Union army in the recently ended Civil War in America calling themselves the "Irish Republican Army" (they were the first to use the term). The Fenians, of course, had been around for some time, trying to unite Irish nationalists for a war of liberation from the British Empire, never with much success. When the American Civil War ended, many Irish republicans saw a golden opportunity. The USA was awash in militant republican sentiment because of the war, was very cross with Britain over the perception of British sympathy for the Confederates and the use of British-built ships by the Confederate Navy to raid Union shipping. There were also large numbers of Irish and Irish-American soldiers who had fought in the war, mostly on the Union side, and who were experienced, veteran soldiers with little to do after the war was over. The Fenians would give them something to do.

The Fenians hatched a plot to invade Canada from the United States. With anti-British sentiment at such a peak in America, they doubted U.S. authorities would try very hard to stop them on the southern side of the border. Their plan was to invade Canada and conquer some portion of it which they would then, essentially, hold for ransom as a way to force the British to grant independence to Ireland. One could hardly imagine a more hair-brained and far-fetched idea if you tried, yet, to give the Irish republicans their due credit, they did manage to make an effort at it and were rather persistent as a number of these Fenian raids were launched over a number of years though none were ever successful. The Fenian Brotherhood in New York City organized the campaign, recruiting volunteers for their Irish Republican Army and enlisting experienced officers to lead these men. The man they found who would lead the IRA into the Battle of Ridgeway was Brigadier General John O'Neill, a Union cavalry officer and Civil War veteran. Unfortunately for the Fenians, in America just as in Ireland, they were terrible at keeping secrets and the British were very good and finding out what they were up to.

British troops in Canada were put on the alert and the Canadian militia was called out to defend the country. On June 1, General O'Neill and his force of a little over a thousand Irish troops cross the Niagara River into southern Canada. Not everyone was optimistic about their chances for success though and a great many deserted before ever seeing action so that the force O'Neill ultimately led into battle had been reduced to between 6-700 men. Some additional Fenian men and supplies were stopped from crossing the river by U.S. naval forces and efforts to encourage the locals of Ridgeway to join their cause were unsuccessful (today Ridgeway is an unincorporated village of the 'Town of Fort Erie' in Ontario). After approaching the town of Ridgeway, O'Neill's men clashed with a group of 850 Canadian militiamen led by Lt. Colonel Alfred Booker of the 13th Battalion of Hamilton. More British troops were moving in to confront the invaders but, at Ridgeway, it would be Booker and his 850 men that O'Neill and his 6-700 would have to contend with. The Canadian troops were solid fellows but were militiamen and inexperienced. That would prove a critical shortcoming.

As the two forces met and battle ensued, the Crown forces seemed to be having the better time early on. They had their enemy outnumbered and were driving back the skirmishers that O'Neill had in advance of his main line. When the bulk of both sides got into the battle, each seemed to be doing pretty well. However, something went wrong on the Canadian side and historians to this day still debate what precisely that "something" was. In any event something caused confusion on the Canadian side and that confusion spread. General O'Neill spotted this moment of weakness and took advantage of it, ordering a bayonet charge. The Irish troops burst forward and the Canadian militia fell into a panic and retreated, leaving the field to the victorious Fenians.

The Canadians lost 9 killed and 37 wounded in the Battle of Ridgeway while the Fenians lost about 5 killed and 16 wounded. It was a tactical victory for the Irish republicans but not a decisive one. They still had superior British-Canadian forces closing in on them and General O'Neill could see that this invasion was not going to work. In the aftermath, he retreated, abandoning the ground his men had won and withdrawing back across the border to the United States where they were disarmed and taken into custody by the American authorities. In the end, none of the Fenian Raids ever amounted to very much but the Battle of Ridgeway does stand out as one of the few battlefield victories for the Irish republican cause. It should also serve as a lesson to those in other countries, like Canada, of the danger of showing sympathy for their type. I would also add, as I have mentioned before, that I have more respect for the Irish Republican Army of the Fenian Raids than I ever could for the more recent forces to have taken that title. I completely disagree with their overall purpose but I cannot but admire their audacity and, unlike the cowardly killers of the PIRA and their sort, the IRA that fought at Ridgeway were armed men, wearing uniforms, meeting other armed men in uniforms on the field of battle. They were not cowards who hid their faces, blending in with civilians, to make bomb attacks on innocent people. They may not have won, but they did not dishonor themselves by their methods either.

Today in Canadian History

On this day in 1866 Irish republicans of the Fenian Brotherhood crossed over from New York to invade Canada. Most of these men were veterans of the Union Army, fresh from victory in the American Civil War in which Irish immigrants fought for the northern side in large numbers. Some American authorities were content to look the other way because of the lingering antagonism between Britain and America over the War Between the States in which many in the north viewed the British Empire as favoring the Confederates. The amount of sympathy for the south in Britain was probably exaggerated in the minds of many northerners but it did make them less than vigilant in trying to stop what was, effectively, a private, criminal enterprise from attacking a neighboring country. There were actually a series of attacks over a wide area and a number of years, known as the "Fenian Raids". The goal of the Fenians (and these were the first to use the name 'Irish Republican Army'*) was to effectively hold Canada hostage, or at least some part of it, in order to force Great Britain to grant independence to Ireland. Obviously, it was quite a far-fetched plan and none of the raids came anywhere close to success. Despite the presence of many hardened veterans and some that were very well equipped (many even wearing full US Army uniform) the republicans proved no match for the British regulars and Canadian militia. In fact, this was something of a preview of things to come as many of the Canadian militia opposing the Fenians were Protestant "Orangemen" from Northern Ireland who had a special disdain for the Catholic nationalists. American authorities also did finally take action to stop the attacks on the south side of the border and the Fenian raids came to nothing.

*Additional note: It should be remembered that, unlike the republican terrorists who later adopted the name of the IRA, these were men who clearly identified themselves, wore uniforms and fought in open battle against armed soldiers and were not cowards who hid their faces and planted bombs to kill helpless civilians. Even in terms of republicans, some are much better than others.

Royal News Special Report: Betrayal in Britain, On the Run in Ulster

The history of British-Irish relations has often been unpleasant and controversial. Irish independence was a struggle, the establishment of the Republic of Ireland was controversial. The partition of Ireland outraged not a few and out of that grew “The Troubles” that both sides had to deal with. However, in time, the governments and people of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland came to accept the situation and the problems became localized to Northern Ireland between republican terrorists and loyalist militias (whose tactics often matched terror for terror). The Irish Republic, for all their brave talk, was just as glad to have Northern Ireland be London’s problem rather than their own and as much as they might claim to want a united Ireland, they have never wanted it bad enough to actually put up an honest fight for it. Things might then have settled down to a relative routine of simply keeping republican terrorists in Ulster under control were it not for the schemes, sell-outs and no less than treason on the part of numerous British politicians. Northern Ireland went from being the six counties everyone wanted to that bit of Ireland which London seems desperate to get rid of but which Dublin refuses to take. So, even while Northern Ireland remains a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, with Queen Elizabeth II as Sovereign, it has continually been pushed aside to the point of being a semi-independent micro-state of its own. British troops left, a local government was established (even including republican terrorists) and lately even the Union Jack was hauled down as if in surrender. Certainly, in regards to this small corner of her realm, the Queen has been ill-served by many of her ministers and in the current scandal, it should come as no surprise, the culprit is once again that former ‘boy wonder of the Labour Party’ little Tony Blair.

Here is what happened: As most know, “The Troubles” were brought to an end by a peace agreement known as the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Under the terms of that agreement, all of the republican terrorists held by Great Britain were given an early release from prison but this did not apply to suspected terrorists or those who had previously escaped from prison but were still wanted men by Her Majesty’s government. These came to be known as the “on the runs”. Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican Army, wanted the British government to allow these escaped terrorists and suspected terrorists to be able to return to the United Kingdom without fear of arrest, in other words, to wipe the slate clean with a complete and total amnesty for all of their beloved republican terrorists. Naturally, the British government balked because the public would stand for no such thing, especially as, when these demands started to be made, the IRA had still not disarmed. All of that changed with the coming to power of the despicable, smiling Tony Blair. It turns out that in 2000 Prime Minister Blair wrote to Sinn Fein president (and former republican terrorist) Gerry Adams saying that if the republicans would share information about these wanted terrorists, something could be worked out on a case by case basis.

In 2003 a proposal to make this agreement law was made public and was to be tied to the disarmament of the IRA. British loyalists were outraged and Sinn Fein rejected the proposal as well (and why accept a deal when the other side seems always prepared to give more) but the traitor Tony Blair was determined to press on. He wanted all loose ends tied up so he could be hailed as the man who brought “peace” to Northern Ireland after all. So, in 2007 a secret operation was put into effect to find and evaluate the “on the runs” by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. None of the public knew anything about this until recently when the deal was brought before a judge at the Old Bailey. It was then that we learned from Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein that some 187 of these republican terrorists had received letters from the British government assuring them that they were in no danger of arrest or prosecution for the crimes they committed as part of the IRA. One of the particular cases to emerge was that of John Downey who was suspected of murdering four soldiers in the 1982 Hyde Park bombing by the IRA. The judge ruled that he could not be prosecuted because of the letter he produced, from the proud traitors in Her Majesty’s government, promising him immunity.

The current government is now left to deal with this messy and embarrassing situation with Prime Minister “Call Me Dave” Cameron going before the House of Commons to call the letter that was sent to Downey a “dreadful mistake”. A mistake? A mistake he calls it?! What about all the rest? According to the Attorney General’s office of Northern Ireland, 149 of the letters were sent out by the previous Labour governments of Little Tony Blair and Gordon (is alive!) Brown but 38 have been sent out by the current coalition government of little Davy Cameron and his nagging wife Nick Clegg since 2010 with the last being sent in 2012. And if that were not outrageous enough, consider that no loyalists were given such amnesty for attacks on republicans nor have any of the British troops who participated in the events of “Bloody Sunday” been allowed to go free. Right now there are calls for a special investigation by Northern Ireland which London seems to have placated with a sort of half-way measure but from where I sit the damage has been done and it all started with that one-man wrecking ball of the United Kingdom: Tony Blair. As the judge in the Downey case said, regardless of the circumstances and what may happen from this point on, these letters being sent out have spoiled the game as far as any sort of justice goes and it would be impossible to bring any of these terrorists to trial in the future since they can argue that they had either been given an official amnesty or, if not, were misled by the British government to think they had been so that in any event a prosecution would be impossible.

Perhaps it should not be that surprising, given how, aside from these “on the runs” the British government seemed positively giddy to let all republican terrorists go free anyway. Nonetheless, it is positively outrageous that any of Her Majesty’s officials should have endorsed such a plan when dealing with people who were the open and avowed enemies of the Crown and who wished to do any and all harm possible to Her Majesty’s government and any and all of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects. Yet, starting with the actions of Tony Blair (he must have been doing this in his free time when he was not undermining the monarchy and destroying the House of Lords) this represents just one more step in the slow surrender of the United Kingdom to the republican terrorists in Ulster. It would be nice and easy if the Republic of Ireland could somehow be blamed in all this but, shamefully, this is an entirely British affair. It is not as though they are bowing to pressure from the Irish Republic, it is not as though this is a struggle between two powers for a disputed territory. No, this is a surrender to one faction of treasonous republicans who lost their war against the Crown and yet who continue, even to this day it seems, to reap the spoils of victory.

I say that if these republican terrorists can no longer be brought to justice then satisfaction must be had by bringing the crypto-republican terrorists inside the British government, past and present, to justice for making this possible. As long-time readers will know, I am perfectly capable of angering both sides of the Northern Ireland issue. I am not without compassion for the plight of the Irish Catholics who were subjected to British rule for centuries and who endured horrible sufferings on numerous occasions. I am well aware that a united Ireland under the British Crown was almost achieved only to be thwarted by the Protestant Unionists in the north and I am well aware that the partition created an artificial majority in Ulster to keep those six counties within the United Kingdom. I know all of that but I would hope that any fair-minded person could see the despicable nature of these tawdry, back-room deals. After all, Irish republicans should ask themselves how they would feel if the shoe were on the other foot and the loyalist militias who used IRA-style tactics against Irish Catholics were suddenly set free in their neighborhoods with promises to never be called to account for their actions? What about the suggestion to grant the same treatment to the British troops who participated in the tragic events of “Bloody Sunday”? How does the prospect of that make you feel?

This is positively outrageous and I think it is no exaggeration to say that those responsible are guilty not only of a “dreadful mistake” as “Call Me Dave” Cameron said but of nothing less than treason to their Queen and country because like it or not (and many certainly do not) the six counties are part of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty the Queen is the lawful sovereign over them and any who undertake the death or overthrow of the Queen or the Queen’s legitimate governments are by definition traitors. Given what these people were involved in and given the behavior of the government in endeavoring to set them free, I fail to see how it can be considered as anything else.

Irish Jacobites in the 45

It was on this day in 1745 that the son of the Stuart claimant to the British throne, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, raised the royal standard at Glenfinnan in Scotland, an event which is often used to mark the official start of the 1745 Jacobite Uprising; that attempt to send King George II back to his ancestral land of Hanover and restore the Stuarts to the British throne. Today, most still look at the 45 rising as a clash between England and Scotland, some painting it in more national terms as the last effort to save Scottish independence from English domination. Of course, that is not entirely true. There were at least a few hundred English Jacobites who fought for “Bonnie Prince Charlie” and there were many more still who at least did not view him any more unfavorably than they did the very German King George II who was not exactly a ‘people person’. One of the famous “Seven Men of Moidart” was English. As far as Scotland goes, there were actually probably more Scots fighting against the Stuarts than fighting for them. The lowland areas of Scotland were predominately loyal to the House of Hanover and had a rather low opinion of their highland brethren. Even among the highland Scots there were those who were ardent Hanoverians and even fought alongside the redcoats against their fellow highlanders. It was a variety of civil war for the British Isles and that includes the island of Ireland which has sometimes been overlooked in this context.

King James II

Because of the rise of the republican, nationalist, independence movement in Ireland much of this history is not stressed as much as it might be. Whereas the loyalists of today still celebrate their Hanoverian past and, of course, the earlier Prince of Orange, Irish opposition to these groups certainly do not celebrate the Stuart royals their own ancestors supported and fought for. However, what some have called the Wars of English Succession started, of course, in Ireland with the struggle by King James II to retake his three kingdoms from his son-in-law William of Orange. In a way, what eventually became the Jacobite political agenda started in Ireland as well with the declaration of independence. Ultimately the Jacobites would advocate a program for the three kingdoms to be governed separately, united only by their common monarch. By 1745 Prince James Francis Edward Stuart had already issued a formal denunciation of the political union enacted in the reign of Queen Anne. Although it may not be much remembered today, at the time Jacobite sympathy was as much a concern for the London government in Ireland as it was in Scotland. There may not have been an uprising in 1745 at all were it not for the support of a number of prominent Irish Jacobites.

One of those who helped Prince Charles actually get to Scotland was Lord Charles O’Brien, Viscount Clare. A Jacobite with a long record of service in the French army he would eventually attain the rank of Marshal of France and be made a knight of the Holy Spirit. It was Lord Clare who put Prince Charles in touch with the Irish shipping magnates who helped arranged the gathering of the men, material and funds the Prince would need to launch his expedition. At the time, Lord Clare was the commander of the Irish Brigade in the army of His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XV. This was a unit originally formed for French service in exchange for a larger contingent of French troops that were sent to Ireland to fight for King James II. When Prince Charles finally set out for Scotland he was accompanied by the “Seven Men of Moidart” of whom four were Irishmen; Sir Thomas Sheridan, Parson George Kelly, Sir John Macdonald and Sir John William O’Sullivan. Sheridan had been the tutor of Prince Charles and was over seventy when the expedition launched. His age would have made campaigning difficult and he was soon sent back to Rome to keep Prince James informed of the progress of the uprising. Parson George Kelly, likewise, did not remain too long in Scotland as he was sent back to France after the battle of Prestonpans to spread the word of the stunning Jacobite victory.

Sir John Macdonald was involved throughout the war, though in a fairly nominal capacity. He was a veteran officer of the French cavalry and Prince Charles appointed Sir John “Instructor of Cavalry” in the Jacobite army. However, since the Jacobites had so few cavalry as to be little better off than if they had none at all, there was very little for Macdonald to do. Still, he was involved in all the top-level activities of the Jacobite camp and kept a journal that has proved invaluable to historians. Taken prisoner at the battle of Culloden he escaped execution by virtue of his French commission and was so was ultimately released in a prisoner exchange for English troops being held in France. Sir John O’Sullivan was the most involved and most highly placed of the Irishmen fighting for “Bonnie Prince Charlie” and probably one of the most controversial as well. To this day some go so far as to blame much of the failure of the uprising on O’Sullivan while those inclined to trust the judgment of Prince Charles usually have a more sympathetic view of the man and his contribution.

Sir John William O’Sullivan was born in County Kerry, sometime around 1700, and was trained for the priesthood in Rome and Paris. However, when his father died, he returned to Ireland to take over the family estates. Unfortunately, he ran afoul of the Penal Laws and forfeited his ancestral lands, returning to France and joining the army. His time as a tutor in a French military household likely gave him the notion to take up a career in the army. O’Sullivan showed considerable talent and rose rapidly in rank, finally becoming a colonel. He served in Corsica and on the Rhine where he gained a high reputation for irregular warfare. It seems most likely that it was his record as an accomplished guerilla fighter that brought O’Sullivan to the attention of Prince Charles and, in any event, the two became very close and lasting friends. When the Prince set out for his effort to restore his house in Britain he named O’Sullivan his adjutant and quartermaster-general. From the time of their landing until the bitter end O’Sullivan never left the Prince’s side.

The ship which carried Prince Charles and his compatriots to Scotland was largely crewed by troops of the Irish Brigade and from the troops of the Irish Brigade of the French army, a special detachment was created for service in Scotland. These Irishmen had never forgotten the reason for their being in the French army in the first place and were eager to get back to “their” war. This special corps consisted of a battalion of Irish infantry drawn from all the regiments of the Irish Brigade known as the “Irish Picquets” as well as one squadron of Irish cavalry. They gave good and solid service all throughout the campaign. Whether the same could be said for Quartermaster-General O’Sullivan remains a debatable point. He was very close to Prince Charles and the young royal took his advice very seriously, very rarely ever disregarding it. Some historians think he should have, though a balanced, accurate view is hard to come by since many seem to think either everything Prince Charles did was wrong or everything he did was right.

As Quartermaster-general, O’Sullivan had the difficult and unenviable task of keeping the Jacobite forces fed and armed. Many ardent Jacobites professed that he gave good service in this position but O’Sullivan (like the Prince) was constantly at odds with Lord George Murray and the partisans of Murray tend to lay much of the blame for the Jacobite failure at the door of O’Sullivan if not the Prince himself. At the last battle at Culloden Moor, once again, Lord Murray did not want to fight, insisting that the ground was too soft and their position less than ideal. Prince Charles, however, was determined to have at the enemy at least one more time, regardless of the circumstances, before admitting defeat. Colonel O’Sullivan, as usual, agreed with the Prince and many have since placed at least some of the blame for the lost battle on O’Sullivan for choosing such poor ground to fight on. Whatever the case, O’Sullivan has also been credited with helping to arrange the safe escape of Prince Charles back into exile. The colonel himself escaped on a French frigate (which also had an Irish captain) and was later knighted by Prince James (King James III to the Jacobites) for his part in saving the life of his son. He married well and died sometime in the early 1760’s.

Prince Charles Edward Stuart

The Irish troops who fought for Prince Charles fought on until the final defeat at Culloden but, because they were legally considered French soldiers, were fortunate enough to escape the brutal treatment meted out to most other Jacobites. They were allowed to surrender and were treated as prisoners-of-war until properly exchanged and shipped back to France. The troops of the Irish Brigade continued to give valiant service to the King of France until the French Revolution when the foreign units of the French army were all dissolved. By that time, however, Jacobite sympathy among the Irish had started to decline. Many nationalist, pro-independence secret societies in Ireland continued to support the Jacobite cause and the eventual restoration of the Stuarts to the Irish (and British) thrones but this began to fade after France was obliged to withdraw recognition of the Stuart claimant. When the Pope likewise finally recognized King George III as the legitimate British monarch, most viewed Jacobitism to be over and done with. The French Revolution also brought a new, and horrific, republican ideology to Ireland to be used as a new “cause” against monarchist Great Britain, replacing the old adherence to the principles and values of the Jacobites. However, one thing that is certain is that the Jacobite cause would never have gotten off the ground in the first place had it not been for Irish support and there continued to be strong Irish support, on and off the battlefield, until the bitter end. Their contribution deserves to be remembered.

Happy St Patrick's Day

 A happy St Patrick's Day to all from The Mad Monarchist, particularly to those few and long suffering monarchists of the Emerald Isle. May the Kingdom of Ireland be one day restored and traditional Irish culture preserved and celebrated again.

High King Brian Boru
General Patrick Sarsfield
High King Malachy the Great

The Queen in Northern Ireland - No Cause for Alarm

Today is the day that HM Queen Elizabeth II and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh will visit Northern Ireland as part of the U.K.-wide Diamond Jubilee tour. That, in itself, is rather newsworthy as previous royal visits to Northern Ireland were never announced ahead of time for fear that republican terrorists would launch an attack on the Royal Family. It says a great deal about the peace of that region that this is now being done. What really made the headlines, of course, was that the Queen would meet with, even for just a moment, with Martin McGuinness, a leader of Sinn Fein, deputy first minister of the power-sharing government of Northern Ireland and a former member of the Irish Republican Army. This weighs heavily particularly in light of the murder of the Earl Mountbatten of Burma in a bombing by the Provisional IRA in 1979. Last year when HM the Queen visited the Republic of Ireland in a historic state visit the leadership of Sinn Fein (long regarded as the political arm of the IRA) said no to any meeting with the British monarch by any of their members because, in their words, it was still too soon since the infamous “Troubles” which shook the British Isles decades ago.

The decision was taken, apparently, by Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams who said, “it’s good for Ireland” and added that it will cause difficulties with his own members, at least the most staunchly republican among them. The context of this is a charitable meeting with members of Co-operation Ireland which fosters a coming together between the Catholic and Protestant communities which McGuinness will attend and which the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will be visiting. Nothing earth-shattering in and of itself but even a momentary meeting of just a few seconds in a place still so sensitive and where so many hard feelings still remain it is extremely symbolic. Yet, because of this atmosphere and the way in which such extreme sensitivity prevails, it can be easy to overlook just how things have developed since the Good Friday Agreement and the ensuing peace. When one considers the basic facts, one can only view this as something of a triumph for the United Kingdom over those who have challenged the sovereignty of the Queen over Northern Ireland.

When Irish independence became a real possibility and later, for the Irish Free State (later the Republic of Ireland) a reality all of the major Irish parties asserted their support for the unity of the entire island of Ireland and an end to the partition. This was not forthcoming and the IRA began their guerilla campaign against the British and Protestant-Unionist forces in Northern Ireland in an effort to force the British out of Northern Ireland and unite the counties with the Republic of Ireland. They consistently refused to recognize the sovereignty of the Queen over Northern Ireland and those who were captured by British authorities claimed to be political prisoners rather than common criminals or terrorists (as of course they were held to be in London). Yet, since that time, the Republic of Ireland has made no effort to reclaim the north and has accepted partition in fact if not always in name. The IRA at last agreed to lay down their arms and Sinn Fein now sits in a coalition government with the Unionists to administer Northern Ireland under the British Crown. The public has shown itself to be tired of conflict and ready to accept things as they are to go on with their lives in peace and no longer regard their disagreements or their situation as worth fighting about.

In short, the United Kingdom won and the Irish republicans lost, whether they are inclined to admit it or not. British sovereignty over Northern Ireland was challenged, that challenge was defeated, those opposing it have, in their deeds if not their words, accepted the “rule” of the Queen over Northern Ireland and while Sinn Fein was given a cold shoulder when they stood for election in the Republic of Ireland, Protestant firebrand Ian Paisley was given a seat in the House of Lords by former British Prime Minister Gordon (is alive) Brown. The Republic of Ireland accepts British sovereignty over Northern Ireland as do the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland now, even though they might not be enthusiastic about, they are not willing to challenge it. Of course, some still make trouble as some probably always will but these IRA fringe groups are few and far between with virtually no popular support behind them and whose actions are denounced by both Catholic and Protestant communities in Ulster.

As soon as the news of this brief meeting (and even “meeting” is probably too strong a word, for the most part they will simply be in the same room for a few minutes) I have seen a great deal of British outrage over it. There may be just as much Irish republican outrage but I have not heard it (we do tend to move in rather different circles as they say). However, while I understand why anyone would be upset that the Queen would ever come into contact with someone who was ever in the IRA, I would like to tell all loyal Britons to just take a deep breath, relax and don’t get all worked up over this. It’s really not that important and Britons, and the whole Unionist-Protestant crowd, have the least reason to be upset over any of this since, as we have seen, they have relatively little to be upset about. If I could say anything to the British who are upset over this it would be simply, “Relax! You’ve won!” Northern Ireland is still under the British Crown, it is not part of the Republic of Ireland and even Dublin doesn’t really want it to be and even Sinn Fein have, by their actions, accepted British sovereignty over Northern Ireland and (in fact if not in name) recognized the authority of HM the Queen over Northern Ireland. There’s no real reason for Britain or Ulster loyalists to be upset about this. The Irish republicans have more cause to be upset (they lost their fight) but even most of them, it seems, have exhausted their reserves of anger and have just accepted the situation as it is. The fact that this meeting can happen only goes to show how Irish partition is a non-issue for the vast majority of people in both countries. The Crown was challenged and the Crown prevailed.

Enemy of Monarchy: Oliver Cromwell

Oliver Cromwell occupied a very unique place in British history and, of course, English history in particular. He was never very well liked (to put it mildly) in Scotland or Ireland but in England, although he was far from universally popular by the end of his life, even today many still admire him. He was undoubtedly a gifted military leader, a man of strength and determination. Most of those today who admire Cromwell, however, do not admire him as a great English general, oh no -they admire him because he’s the man who killed a king, brought down the monarchy and is to date the only non-royal to ever hold the highest seat in the land over England, Scotland and Ireland. They admire him for being the only successful republican (so far) in English history and tend to sweep any other details about the man safely under the rug. One could find amongst those sweepings the fact that Cromwell was also a megalomaniac religious fanatic, a military dictator and a mass murderer on a scale that is (fortunately) unique in the British Isles. This man was no champion of liberty as anyone today or even then would understand it and in his career illustrates that absolute tyranny is the inevitable result of an overthrow of monarchy. There was truly never a more depressing period of British history than during the rule of Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell was born on April 25, 1599 in Huntingdon into the landed gentry, most known for being related to the Tudor statesman Thomas Cromwell who was beheaded by King Henry VIII for presenting him with an unsuitable wife. Oliver Cromwell was generally a failure as a youth, known for getting into trouble and being rather petulant and arrogant. When a local dispute went against him, he sold off his property and moved away in a huff and fell in with a radical religious crowd. Down on his luck, despised by many of his neighbors, his arrogance convinced him that these religious extremists were right and that he was one of the chosen “elect” destined to purify his country of all he considered evil. He muddled on through life, becoming a zealous Puritan but remaining a failure at pretty much everything else he pursued in life, including efforts at furthering his education which came to nothing. He did, however, manage to land a beneficial marriage that provided him with new properties, a great many children and new contacts in the growing merchant community. This crowd tended to be very wealthy, very religious (in the Puritanical, ‘we are the elect of God because we’re rich’ way of thinking) and very opposed to any authority beyond themselves and their own bottom lines.

In his life thus far, Cromwell had been a depressed, unsuccessful loser on just about every level. However, once he inherited some valuable property from a late uncle and made an advantageous marriage, everything seemed to turn around. He became wealthier, more prominent and easily fit in to the Puritan crowd that deemed wealth and prosperity as a sure sign of divine favor. This did not mean that his abilities increased though and even when he was first elected to the House of Commons in 1628 (through the influence of powerful friends) he was a lackluster politician. Still, he spent his time in Parliament working for his own advancement, forging alliances with those inclined toward his religious and political views; specifically to restrict the power of the monarchy, press for religious “toleration” (for those Protestants who dissented from the established Church of England) and to abolish bishops. Of course, he opposed King Charles I who stood for everything that he, and the powerful elite who supported Cromwell, most opposed. They wanted a more Puritanical Church of England, the King wanted more elaborate and traditional forms of worship. They wanted more power for Parliament (which they could easily dominate -it was a very restricted franchise in those days), the King believed in absolute monarchy. The King wanted to have bishops in Scotland as well as England, they wanted to keep them out of Scotland and even hoped to get rid of them in England. They also adamantly opposed the efforts of the King to raise money to carry out the duties entrusted to him as monarch because the taxes levied by the King would fall most on the shoulders of these wealthy businessmen.

When civil war broke out between the King and Parliament, Cromwell was a nonentity with his only military service being a brief stint in the local county militia. However, his inheritance, marriage and business contacts had brought him some money and he was able to purchase himself a command. He gained some notice for what amounted to simple banditry but missed out on the major early engagements. However, he began to build his career in a number of mostly minor actions and he proved to be a quick learner and to have a natural military talent. He finally gained genuine fame for his part in the battle of Marston Moor in 1644 which won the Parliamentarians a dominant place in northern England. During his service he showed himself to have a natural military talent but also a great deal of arrogance, self-righteousness and, what we might call, an inability to work well with others. However, his superiors were thwarted by the fact that Cromwell and his motley army of Protestant dissenters won battles and through victory his star began to rise. After a number of changes, Cromwell came to dominate the military forces of Parliament and he reorganized them to create the famous “New Model Army”.

Cromwell was an arrogant and self-righteous commander but, it must be said, also a naturally talented if authoritarian one. He forbid looting, swearing and generally all “ungodly” behavior and also took care of the logistical side of war, drawing on the funds provided by the wealthy merchant class who made up the backbone of Parliamentarian support, to ensure that his men were the best armed, the best equipped and paid in a timely fashion. He also emphasized discipline, often an extremely harsh discipline, and rigorous drill and training until his New Model Army was the best in the British Isles. His was the first really large professional army in British history and, incidentally, the first to wear red uniforms (it was the cheapest color available). He played a critical role in the crushing Parliamentary victory at the battle of Naseby in 1645 and won a number of smaller victories afterwards, gaining a reputation for natural military talent and, for the first time, ruthlessness against his enemies. He played a large part in bringing the First Civil War to a successful conclusion for Parliament, though he was often at odds with the political leadership, the anti-royalist factions lacking much real unity.

When the Second Civil War broke out, Cromwell won some minor victories in Wales before achieving a stunning victory over a much greater Scottish army fighting on behalf of the King as the Scots had begun to fear that the forces of Parliament would be an even greater terror to their cause than the King had been. It was during this time that Cromwell really seemed to develop a ‘Messiah complex’, quoting obscure Biblical passages and preaching about himself and his men as the instruments of God and the true “chosen people”. Just as health, wealth and prosperity was taken by many Puritans as signs of divine favor and that one was a member of the “elect”, so Cromwell believed that his victories had proven that God was on his side. Thus, the King and the royalists were not only political enemies in the mind of the increasingly fanatic general, but also enemies of God to whom no mercy should be shown. When the Scots were defeated and the King was handed over to Parliament for “trial”, Cromwell made sure that there would be nothing at all fair or just about the proceedings, vowing from the beginning to see his monarch killed. Cromwell and his troops occupied London and physically prevented any members of Parliament suspected of opposing their wish to see their monarch murdered from taking their seats. It was a show trial by any standard of judgment but this made no difference to Cromwell who believed himself to be the instrument of God, and the wrathful Old Testament God at that. He signed the death warrant and King Charles I met the death of a martyr on January 30, 1649.

Cromwell used his military command to advance his political power and despite all of his previous grand talk about the rights of the people, ruthlessly suppressed all those in his ranks who supported the idea of popular sovereignty. Cromwell was determined that only the elites, such as himself, would be able to vote or hold office in the new republican Britain. Anyone who dissented from this was promptly shot and Cromwell had many of his own men massacred for refusing to follow his political wishes. However, even more brutality was to come when the royalists reorganized themselves in alliance with the Confederates of Ireland. This joint threat of both English royalists and Irish Catholics represented the very worst fears of Cromwell brought to life and embodied everything he most despised: Catholicism and monarchy. In his mind, the two were practically inseparable for he blamed the Catholic Church, with its hierarchy and high ceremony, as being responsible for the rise of absolute monarchies in the first place. And, intolerant enough among his own countrymen, Irish Catholics making common cause with the royalists could expect no mercy at the hands of Cromwell.

In August of 1649 Cromwell and his formidable army landed at Dublin and in September stormed the Catholic and royalist stronghold of Drogheda. The result was one of the worst atrocities in Irish history. Cromwell captured the place, having his enemy outnumbered by about 4 to 1 and the proceeded to execute those who had surrendered and massacre innocent civilians. Cromwell himself had ordered that no prisoners be taken and his troops vandalized churches and butchered women and children in a show of just how truly “equal” all were in this new version of the British Isles without a king. Despite the efforts of his apologists to cover up or explain away the atrocity, the massacre of Drogheda was seared into the Irish Catholic consciousness and has never been forgotten. After three days of slaughter only 30 men out of 3,000 were left alive and no one could count the number of women and children. As Cromwell and his seemingly unstoppable army advanced across the island they left a trail of atrocities behind them; 2,000 men and 1,500 helpless civilians were killed in Wexford, including 300 women who had taken shelter beneath the Celtic high cross in the town marketplace. After eight months Ireland was subdued and was brought under the most brutal occupation in her history thanks to the first republican leader of the British Isles with many tens of thousands more being killed, driven off their land and starved to death or sold into slavery.

Cromwell could not tarry long in Ireland though for he soon learned that the young King Charles II had landed in Scotland and was rallying the disaffected Scots to his side in a bid to restore the legitimate monarchy. Cromwell rushed to meet them in May of 1650, showing much greater mercy to the predominately Protestant Scots, though he was still arrogantly condescending toward them, viewing them as good God fearing people, but essentially simple-minded fools easily led astray. He smashed the Scottish army at the battle of Dunbar, occupied Edinburgh and finished them off at the battle of Worcester. He was not as brutal as he had been in Ireland, but captured men fighting on the royalist side could still expect to be sold into slavery in the New World. At Dundee his forces carried out another massacre and under his tyrannical rule Scotland was permanently occupied by an English army to ensure that none might regret turning against their King and wish for the House of Stuart to return.

Cromwell returned to England as the military dictator of the whole of the British Isles, the only non-royal to ever have the highest seat in the land and the only man of any kind to ever hold total, absolute and arbitrary power over the three kingdoms. Many may have come to regret their decision to betray the King, abolish their ancient monarchy and entrust themselves to the power of the mightiest sword. Despite all of their hypocritical preaching about rights and limits to power and the sacrosanct nature of Parliament, Cromwell proved even less tolerant of that body than the King when it refused to bow to his wishes. He brought soldiers in to secure Westminster and evict the members, saying to them, “You have been sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” After that, Cromwell ruled the British Isles himself as a military dictator, the three kingdoms divided up into districts under the authority of a local army officer. He did not rule for long, only about five years as “Lord Protector” of the Commonwealth but it was five years that left a very lasting impression on Great Britain and Ireland.

There is not much that needs to be said about the five years that Cromwell and his Puritan military dictatorship ruled the British Isles. Most people have heard about what it was like, even if they do not take it very seriously these days. Some may even think the stories are exaggerated. They are not. To be fair, there was religious tolerance of a kind under Cromwell; Protestant dissidents were of course given freedom of religion, the Jews were allowed back in England with freedom of religion all privately of course yet even Anglicans were persecuted, as were Catholics. This was because, according to the tastes of Puritans like Cromwell, even the Presbyterians were “too Catholic”. The British Isles had never known such a restrictive, totalitarian state as during those years when there was no king on the throne. Yes, it is true, Christmas was indeed banned. The theatres which were so famous were closed (yes, Cromwell is the Englishman who banned Shakespeare) and there was to be no dancing, no playing cards, no drunkenness, no flashy clothes, just dour, silent, miserable republican Puritanism. Those who cry for individual liberty and a libertarian society might be surprised to know that in English history prior to Cromwell, even under the “divine right” absolutists of the House of Stuart, casinos, brothels and bear-baiting were all perfectly legal.

The people no more approved the taxes of Cromwell than they had those of the King. Parliament even tried at one point to make Cromwell the king -specifically because the powers of a King were limited by tradition whereas a “Lord Protector” was absolute and arbitrary. However, the army would have none of that and Cromwell remained a dictator rather than a monarch. Remember that after the death of the King, Parliament had abolished the monarchy on the grounds that having any king at all was burdensome, unnecessary and dangerous, even to the point of trying to remove the word “king” from the English dictionary. Only a few years later the Parliament tried to push a crown on Oliver Cromwell in a desperate attempt to limit his harsh and arbitrary rule. What a difference a few years of republicanism makes. Whereas the King had been bound by ancient tradition, Cromwell ruled by might with no checks on his powers at all. Whereas the King had been opposed for trying to raise money to fight the Scots, Cromwell extracted far greater sums to wage his wars of subjugation against Scotland and Ireland as well as his vindictive wars throughout his time in office to eliminate Dutch commercial competition and punish the House of Orange for the sympathy they gave their Stuart relatives.

The rule of Cromwell and his generals was so oppressive and odious, banning gambling, horse racing, play acting, swearing and even closing down the pubs that the public was desperately unhappy and longed for the return of the monarchy like the sinner longs for salvation. When Cromwell died of malaria on May 3, 1658 his republican regime, for all intents and purposes, died with him. His son briefly tried to succeed him but the people had had quite enough of Puritan tyranny and soon King Charles II was back on the throne of his father, the monarchy restored and “Merry England” along with it. In subsequent English history there have been rebellions and even one “Glorious Revolution” but Cromwell and his tyrannical rule left such a bitter taste in the mouths of the ordinary people that the country has never been without a monarch ever since. The fact that some now contemplate such an idea proves that the true horrors of Cromwell have begun to be forgotten. That is, forgotten or simply hidden.

Today, it seems, when every aberration is tolerated, Cromwell has become a nostalgic figure in some circles. Indeed, many people far and wide across the English-speaking world regard him as a “great man”, one of the masterful captains of history, even a champion of freedom, which truly makes about as much sense as saying Adolf Hitler was a civil rights pioneer. There can be no denying that Cromwell had some immense talents, although they were decidedly hidden for most of his life. He was a natural and gifted military leader and on the battlefield had accomplished what no King ever had; the total subjugation of the whole of the British Isles under his rule. However, his campaigns were brutal bloodbaths driven by religious fanaticism. His power was based solely on the barrel of a musket and the point of a pike. No King ever had or ever would have as much pure, arbitrary power as Cromwell exercised and no King had or would butcher and tyrannize his own people as Cromwell did. Monarchists should be familiar with his record and make it known to republicans today who ignorantly think their situation would be bound to improve if the monarchy was done away with. Learn from history, Britain tried that and the result was not more freedom; it was less. The result was not a more accountable government but a totally unaccountable one. The result was not a classless society but a tyranny by the armed over the unarmed and the most oppressive political dictatorship in British history. Cromwell was no hero, he was without question the most harmful ruler the British Isles have ever had.

Monarch Profile (St Patrick's Day Special): Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, High King of Ireland

King Mael Seachnaill II, King Malachy II or Malachy the Great is another one of those giant figures from the royal history of Ireland that, frankly, most people have probably never heard about. Many details about his life, especially his early years, remain a mystery but he was born probably in 948 AD into the Clann Cholmáin sept and became a tribal leader of the Uí Néill and later the King of Meath. This put him in the running to be King of Tara or High King of Ireland as the position usually alternated between the septs of the Uí Néill. In 980 AD he succeeded Domnall ua Néill as the High King of Ireland, which, it should be added, did not imply direct rule over every one of the minor Irish kingdoms but that he was generally recognized, symbolically at least, as the first among all the Irish kings and occupied the highest position in Ireland. This could but did not always translate to cooperative unity and such unity was something Ireland was in need of as this was at the height of the Viking invasions. All over the north of Europe the Norsemen were pouring down with a ferocity the likes of which most at the time had never seen before. Oftentimes these are portrayed simply as raids, intended for nothing more than plundering. However, while this was often true, the Vikings were also expanding and had established strong footholds in many foreign lands, including Britain and Ireland.


The same year Malachy II assumed the High Kingship the Viking King of Dublin, Olaf Cuarán, called in his vassals from across the Scottish isles and all his lands to attack Meath. A victory there would have taken the Vikings one large step closer to the eventual total domination of Ireland. However, King Malachy II was more than up to the challenge and he met the Vikings at the battle of Tara, one of the most pivotal clashes in Irish history. The fighting was fierce but, thankfully for the Irish, King Olaf and his Vikings were defeated, his own son and heir, Reginald, being killed in the battle. King Malachy II seized the initiative and launched an immediate counter-attack while the Vikings were in disarray and pursued the remnants of their army back to Dublin to which he laid siege. After only three days and three nights the city of Dublin surrendered and what was arguably the most prominent Viking bastion on the island passed into Irish hands. The overall struggle between the Irish and the Vikings was a long way from over but a powerful blow had been struck and King Malachy II earned great praise and widespread fame for his crushing victory.

As was usually the case in Ireland at this time, internal rivalries were often just as much a threat as external invaders and Malachy II began to take notice of an inspiring, up-and-coming warrior king named Brian Bóroimhe (the famous Brian Boru). In an attempt to keep the peace Malachy II called a special conference of the royal leaders at Clonfert in 997 and a deal was worked out by which Malachy II would remain the nominal High King of Ireland and have authority over the north of the island while King Brian Boru would have control over the south (excluding those areas ruled by the Vikings of course). Afterwards each side exchanged hostages they had taken fighting the Vikings as a symbol of their goodwill and cooperation. With their alliance secured they then worked together to continue the war against the Viking presence in eastern Ireland. The situation grew worse when the Leinstermen, already enemies of the Uí Néill, revolted against Munster and King Brian in cooperation with the Vikings. Brian and High King Malachy consolidated their forces and met the Vikings and Leinstermen at the battle of Glenmama on December 30, 999. The result was another solid victory for Malachy II, another serious setbacks for the Vikings of the Dublin region and it solidified the place of Brian Boru.

However, it was not long after that victory that the alliance between the two most powerful Christian Irish kings collapsed. Things deteriorated after the year 1000 and rivalry grew up between the pair. In 1002 Malachy II was defeated by the Munster forces and had to give up the High Kingship to Brian Boru. The new High King went on to numerous great deeds of his own and also dealt the Vikings a crushing blow but it was ultimately a war he won but did not survive. In 1014 at the battle of Clontarf Brian Boru and his son and heir were both killed along with many of his subordinate commanders in the bloody fighting that was nonetheless victory. Once again, Malachy II returned to the position of High King of Ireland with the help of loyal clan leaders in the north, however, this time his place was highly contested and he was unable to see much accomplished for Ireland because of it. The position of High King went into a period of decline and would not become very important again until several decades later.

Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, High King of Ireland, died on September 2, 1022 at Lough Ennel in County Westmeath and was buried in Armagh with all due reverence. Married twice, he had six children, half of whom survived him. Malachy the Great will always be remembered, in Ireland at least, for his great victory at the battle of Tara and that alone would be enough to ensure him an honored place in Irish history. It was a blow from which the Viking Kingdom of Dublin never really recovered from and although overshadowed by the later victory of Brian Boru at Contarf, it is possible that Brian would not have been successful then were it not for the earlier victory of his predecessor as High King at Tara. High King Malachy II deserves to be remembered as a great defender of Christian Ireland and a key figure in the ultimately successful struggle against the pagan Vikings which ensured the survival of the Irish people as they had been.

Soldier of Monarchy: Maximilian Ulysses Browne

One of the most prominent Irish soldiers never to fight for Ireland was Maximilian Ulysses Browne, an Irish refugee who became one of the highest ranking officers serving the Hapsburg Emperor. He was born in Basel, Switzerland to Ulysses Graf von Browne and his wife Annabella Fitzgerald. His father, Ulysses, was from Limerick and his mother was a daughter of the famous Desmond clan and their families were part of the “Flight of the Wild Geese” in the aftermath of Tyrone’s Rebellion in Ireland. Maximilian, born in Switzerland, grew up mostly in Austrian society as his family, since there exile, had served with distinction in the service of the Holy Roman Emperors. Through the influence of his father and some uncles he was able to obtain a commission in the Austrian army and by the time he was 29 Maximilian was serving as colonel of an Austrian infantry regiment. After the death of his father he inherited his title and throughout his life obtained others until he was Maximilian Ulysses Reichsgraf (Imperial Count) von Browne, Baron de Camus and Mountany.

Fairly early in his career, Count von Browne proved to be a very capable battlefield commander in Italy in 1734, the Tyrol the following year and in the off-and-on wars with the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans where he gained such fame that he was promoted to general grade. By the end of the decade he had been promoted to Lieutenant Field Marshal and was placed in command of the Austrian forces in Silesia. Fortunately for the Empress but unfortunately for von Browne, he was in command there in 1740 when the Prussian King and military genius Frederick the Great launched his conquest of the region as part of the War of Austrian Succession. Graf von Browne was a talented military man but, of course, he was no match for Frederick and his expert Prussian forces. However, Browne was able to rally his men and organize a sufficiently robust defense that he held off the Prussians long enough to at least give his Empress time to mobilize her army and give Austria a fighting chance in the region rather than being overrun immediately.

Browne served under Marshal von Neipperg at the Austrian defeat in the Battle of Mollwitz, where he was badly wounded but it in no way dampened his fighting spirit. In typical Irish fashion he was constantly advocating very aggressive measures and was openly critical of anything less than a total commitment of all available forces, viewing it as timidity. This caused numerous problems and bitterness in his relations with his superior officers but his zeal and energy were a major reason for the swift and aggressive actions of the Austrian forces in 1742 and 1743 which prevented a defeat from becoming a total disaster. In 1745 he served under the brilliant Field Marshal Otto Ferdinand von Abensberg und Traun in the Italian campaign and won further promotion. He participated in the battles of Piacenza and Rottofreddo before taking command of the Austrian advance guard, crossing the Apennines and capturing the city of Genoa. As always, he was a soldiers’ soldier who led from the front, slept rough in the field with his men and shared their hardships and privations. His performance was so adept that he was picked to command the planned invasion of France, which never came about and at the close of the conflict he was posted to Bohemia as supreme commander of the forces there and promoted to Field Marshal.

The new field marshal was doing his usually thorough job in Bohemia when the great Frederick and his Prussians again came knocking at the door of the Hapsburg domains. With the start of the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War to Americans) Frederick the Great invaded Saxony in 1756 and Marshal Browne and his army was sent marching to the rescue. His destination was Pirna where the Saxons were besieged by Frederick. The wily Prussian monarch took notice and intercepted Browne and his Austrians at the battle of Lobositz (now Lovosice in the Czech Republic). Browne took up a defensive position with his Austrian troops (though the force included various nationalities from the Hapsburg dominions) and the ever aggressive Frederick attacked. In previous conflicts this would not have been much of a contest at all as the Prussians, with their clockwork-like efficiency, were considered almost unstoppable. However, Graf von Browne had done a good job in making his army one of the best in Central Europe and to the shock of the Prussians, they were repulsed. Even a charge by the elite guard cavalry was thrown back, causing Frederick the Great to marvel at the ability of his enemy saying, “These are no longer the same Austrians”.

However, in the end it was not enough and a fierce Prussian bayonet charge broke the Austrian right flank, winning the battle and forcing the Austrians to retreat. Yet, it was not a route and Browne kept control of his men, executed an orderly withdrawal and even managed to dispatch forces around the Prussian army to Pirna though, unfortunately for the Saxons, they arrived too late. Frederick the Great had bested Browne again yet, he gave the Prussians a harder time than they expected and made the conquest of Saxony so difficult that no further progress could be made in the campaign before winter. The following year Browne volunteered to serve as a subordinate to Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine. Browne was the more illustrious military figure and more popular but Charles was the brother-in-law of Empress Maria Theresa so Browne agreed to accept the number two position. On May 6, 1757 the two armies met at the Battle of Prague. The Austrians were slightly outnumbered and were finally defeated but they took such a toll on the Prussians that Frederick had no strength to continue the campaign and the city of Prague was saved. Unfortunately, it was the last battle for the bold Irishman. As always, he was leading from the front, sword in hand, when he was shot down at the head of an Austrian bayonet charge against the Prussian lines.

Browne was carried from the field by his devoted troops and taken into Prague where he lingered for some time. Unfortunately, though the battle was a strategic victory for Austria, it had been a tactical defeat and Charles of Lorraine blamed Browne (quite unjustly) for the failure. He died on June 26, 1757 somewhat embittered by this injustice. However, history would redeem the name of Maximilian Ulysses Browne and he would be known as one of the greatest marshals in the service of Empress Maria Theresa. Even if his own comrades did not always appreciate him, he had, on more than one occasion, saved the Hapsburg empire from disaster and no less a figure in military history than his long-time enemy Frederick the Great held him in very high esteem. The Prussian monarch referred to Browne as his, “teacher in the art of war”. Not a bad legacy at that for the Irish son of refugees forced to find employment in foreign armies. It is also for that reason that, despite not being very well known in these historically ignorant times, you will occasionally find a proud son of Erin who will, with a twinkle in his eye, note that the great Frederick of Prussia learned his military lessons from an Irishman.

Favorite Royal Images: King William III

Depending on the calendar (Julian or Gregorian) this was the day in history that the battles of the Boyne and Aughrim were fought, either way, a good day for King Billy and a bad day for King Jamie. Here we have a portrait of the little Prince of Orange and future King William III of England painted by the Dutch master Jan de Baen who also worked for King Charles II during his exile and who turned down an offer to be court painter for the Elector of Brandenburg. And I think I've already mentioned how much I like portraits of royal figures trying to look like a conquering Caesar -no matter their age or background.

The Queen in Ireland

No doubt, THE big royal event of last week was the visit of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland, an historic event, being the first visit of a British monarch to the Irish republic in almost a century. The Queen had long wanted to visit Ireland and many in the Irish government had been working for the visit to take place for some time but it had not been possible until now. The reasons why are, of course, obvious and were on full display during the royal visit. There were protestors, unprecedented security measures and no speeches by the Queen other than one at the formal dinner held in her honor. A bomb was found and another fake bomb threat kept Irish security forces on their toes. However, most of the Irish were welcoming and some expressed disgust at those who cling to their hatred over past grievances and refuse to move forward. That is certainly true as, regardless of the circumstances, threats and insults against the Queen on such a visit does nothing but present a very negative image of Ireland.

I am not as opposed to the Irish republic as most monarchists might be. As I have mentioned before, Irish republicanism is something that I do, at least *understand* even though I still oppose it and would prefer to see an independent Ireland become again a confederate monarchy as in the days of old. It is also specifically because of my very pro-British standpoint that I find republicanism in Ireland at least understandable and more understandable than in other areas. The reason for that being that, in terms of the historic relations between Britain and Ireland, my disappointment arises from the certain knowledge that the British rule or misrule of Ireland was the exception rather than the norm. Given all the Irish suffered over the centuries it is understandable, though no less unfortunate and unnecessary, that they should be republicans. My disappointment with some of the historical actions of Britain in Ireland arises from my certain knowledge that the British were better than that. In fact, as controversial as this may be, if Britain had governed and behaved in Ireland as they did in almost any other of their numerous colonies I doubt there would be an Irish republic today.

The reasons for this are many, complex and not worth going into at the moment. They have also been shifting, from dynastic disputes to religious bigotry to nationalism and ethnic prejudice. However, in recent years at least, it is important to make a distinction between Anglo-Irish relations and the quite separate ugly events that have plagued Northern Ireland. Just as past or present British bigotry against any and all things Irish is unjustified, so to is past or present Irish bigotry against any and all things British, especially in terms of the situation in Northern Ireland as the “British” public has long had a very different attitude than the Unionist community in Northern Ireland that most Irish have a problem with. Yet, this situation has tainted, for a long time, Anglo-Irish relations in general. In spite of the fact that, especially as concerns the monarchy, this is totally unjustified.

As I have mentioned before, for quite some time, even when the British government was very anti-Irish in many ways, the British monarch was often the one voice of reason, compassion and wisdom in dealing with the situation in Ireland. Yet, the bitter feelings remained, partly because this was drummed up by revolutionary Irish republicans and partly because much of what British monarchs have done for Ireland over the years have been little known. However, the visit of the Queen was something very public, something everyone could see and watch (and could only have been better if the revolutionary trash had not been such a security risk) and truly set a new tone in Anglo-Irish relations. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that Her Majesty has given both countries a wonderful opportunity to make a fresh start and put the past behind them. History cannot be changed or forgotten, nor should it be, but nor should it shackle us, as the Queen herself so wisely pointed out. To be blunt about it, Britain has accepted Irish independence, they have gotten over the loss and, by and large, hold no grudges.

What about Ireland though? Has the republic moved on and let bygones be bygones? Perhaps, but it seems to me at least, that if so, certainly not to the same extent. This is, again, somewhat understandable given that in terms of Britain and Ireland it was undeniably Ireland that suffered more. However, especially given the recent visit by the Queen, there is now absolutely no hindrance to Ireland moving on and becoming a fast friend with their nearest neighbor. The opportunity is here for Ireland to put the past behind them and move on and I sincerely hope they do so. Frankly, given the itinerary of the Queen, I am surprised even the most radical republicans found anything to complain about. It seemed to me, if anything, there would have been more room for British grumblings about the Queen being *too* conciliatory in the places she went and the sites she visited.

For example, the Queen visited the Garden of Remembrance which honors all those who have fought for Irish independence from Britain, even though some of those episodes were really less than admirable enterprises. I do not say the Irish should not commemorate them, but it might be a bit much to expect the British Sovereign to honor those who were their inveterate enemies, even those whose rebellions occurred in cooperation with powers like republican France or Imperial Germany against whom Britain herself was engaged in a war for her survival at those times in history. Yet, the Queen did so, and I noticed no serious voices of complaint from Great Britain on the subject. By now, just about everyone in Europe has fought everyone else at one time or another and if everyone dwelled on every past conflict there would be little or no discourse between anyone. That, national duty, can justify such a visit. I will, however, admit to a bit of a cringe at the Queen visiting Croke Park.

It was at that stadium, in 1920, where British forces fired indiscriminately into the crowd at a football match, killing 14 people in retaliation for the assassination of a like number of British officials by the IRA. I wonder whose idea was it for the Queen to go there? I confess, I really didn’t like the sound of that. Even in 1920, of course, King George V was horrified at what happened and I think it does no service to anyone to have the Queen go there now. It seems a bit like taking something terribly cruel done on the part of Britain in the past and rubbing their face in it to me. Call that one a bridge too far in my opinion. However, again, I heard no outcry in Britain against it. If it helps to smooth things over all well and good, though for those who still think they must seek “justice” for such historic crimes, no royal visit, no words, nothing at all will ever satisfy them and as such I think no one should try. You do not need to forget it happened, but neither the Queen nor any Briton today needs to flog themselves over it.

I say all of this because, as I have stated before, the “victim mentality” does no good for Ireland or any other nation or individual person. Ireland will never achieve a true feeling of national equality with the UK so long as they continue to define themselves only as constant victims of British cruelty. Likewise, while Britain as any country should be ashamed of past crimes, that does not mean they need to be constantly expected to feel ashamed of themselves. For me at least, part of the reason why I so sympathize with the Irish is because British behavior in their regard was so out of the ordinary. Taken as a whole, the British Empire was not a cruel or oppressive force in the world and subject peoples were generally governed efficiently, humanely and quite often to their benefit. Britons should feel justifiable pride in the fact that the treatment of Ireland was an obvious aberration and that nations raised up by the British Empire have done comparatively better than those of any other.

The Queen was her usual flawless self on this visit and certainly seemed to impress the Irish officials, particularly when she opened her speech at dinner with a few words in Gaelic. However, that is the Queen, that is someone who is a veteran of such affairs and who has spent a lifetime gaining experience at how to hit just the right note. This visit gives both countries the opportunity to start over and for those who insist on clinging to the adversarial mentality, I think the Queen, by being so conciliatory, claimed the moral high ground on this visit. She acknowledged the failings of her own country, she honored the founders of Irish independence, in short did everything to express British support and acceptance for the Irish republic. I hope Ireland will join her on the moral high ground.

The north may remain a sore subject but, at this point it honestly has very little, if anything, to do with Great Britain and Ireland. In fact, if anything, London and Dublin have rather reversed places on that score with London really wanting to be rid of Northern Ireland but not being able to say so and Dublin really wanting London to keep it but not being able to say so. In any event, even the people in the north are tired of fighting about that one and while many might like to grumble very few are willing to do much about it. If they can at least manage to tolerate each other there is no reason Britain and Ireland should feel compelled to carry on past prejudices on their behalf. After all, like a divorced couple, Britain and Ireland cannot ignore each other, cannot escape the fact that they have a history together and so should try to make the best of it. The Queen has shown, on this visit, her commitment to do so and that is a good thing for everyone. Britain and Ireland have too much in common and are too closely neighbors to ignore the fact that, even as independent powers, they are stronger in cooperation as allies than they would be as enemies.

God Save the Queen and Ireland Forever!