Thanksgiving Day, On the Bright Side

Tomorrow the United States celebrates Thanksgiving Day (though I myself do not) and someone online yesterday came at me with powerful volley against the holiday, probably having read previously that I do not celebrate it and expecting me to concur. I did somewhat but certainly not entirely. This was all the more strange in that this person did celebrate Thanksgiving and will be doing so again. If you think something is as bad as he seemed to, I would think the right thing to do would be to not take part. However, while I, myself, do not, I have said before that I have no problem with those who do and I have no special animus against the holiday. Giving thanks is good, we are supposed to give thanks all the time and these days a great many people have a serious lack of gratitude at every level in my opinion. So, having said before that I do not celebrate it and why I do not, I thought, in the interest of goodwill and truth, I would assuage any anxiety good monarchists might have about it.

The strangest thing the person I spoke to hit me with was the notion that Thanksgiving Day was some sort of Puritanical conspiracy to replace Christmas. Rest assured, there is nothing to such a notion. Thanksgiving was most widely celebrated in various ways at various times by people in New England who, early on, probably were not celebrating Christmas anyway (Puritans tended to dislike the holiday). By the time Thanksgiving became an official, national holiday the Puritans were long extinct and today Christmas (thanks to consumerism) is more apt to displace Thanksgiving Day than the other way around. So, I can hardly see how such an idea could have anything behind it. The Puritan origins are not something I am fond of, thanks to their embrace of republicanism later on, but it is entirely up to you and may depend on where you live if the Puritans had anything to do with it anyway. Ask any native of the Old Dominion state of Virginia and they will proudly tell you that the first Thanksgiving was not celebrated in New England at all but in Virginia by English colonists who were certainly not Puritans (depicted in the image above).

Texans, as I have written about before, know that both are wrong and that the first Thanksgiving in what would become the United States was celebrated in west Texas near what is now El Paso. However, to this day it is still a matter of debate as to where the tradition started in the English colonies, whether Virginia or Massachusetts. I may be biased but it seems to me the Virginians have the stronger claim, having it actually set out in a legal charter from 1619 whereas in New England it was simply a local custom with no official backing that I ever heard of. The New England Pilgrims, as I did mention before, professed their loyalty to King James I of Great Britain though I personally have my doubts about their absolute sincerity. There would, however, be little room for such doubts about the colonists of Virginia who were not Puritans and who even named their colony after England's most famous queen. Virginia, at least up until the War for Independence, was considered rather more on the royalist side compared to some others.

Thanksgiving Day did not become an official holiday until centuries later, even quite a while after the United States had already been established. It was first decreed in 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln and this had practically nothing to do with the early English colonists but was supposed to be a day of thanksgiving for the recent victories of the Union armies during the American Civil War. Needless to say, this meant that the holiday did not catch on in the south for a very long time. I might also add that in Canada the Thanksgiving Day holiday has very explicitly royalist origins, being first celebrated to give thanks for the recovery of the Prince of Wales after a serious illness and later moved to its current place on the calendar so as not to detract from the rather more solemn observance of Armistice Day after World War I.

I would say one of the good things about Thanksgiving Day is to call to mind the colonial history of America which is all too often forgotten, that life in what is now the United States did not suddenly begin in 1783 and certainly not in 1776 but goes back to those colonists from the Kingdom of England and the conquistadors of the Kingdom of Spain, the Voyageurs of the Kingdom of France and so on and so forth. It can be an occasion to highlight the European roots of the country, its existence as a product of Western Civilization and that every last corner of this land was once reigned over by hereditary monarchs. America has its roots in the empires of Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, even Russia and to lesser extent a few others and those roots are not republican or anything to do with the revolutionary claptrap that is still being sold to people today. For myself, family gatherings have lost their appeal as not many of my family are left at this point and I will be spending the holiday alone. However, I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with it, giving thanks is good, focusing on the family is good and if you choose to celebrate it, I wish you all the best and hope you make the best of the occasion.

Related Posts:
The Real "First Thanksgiving"
Why I Don't "Do" Thanksgiving

Christmas, A Royal Holiday

Infant of Prague

Christmas, for those who do not know, is a very monarchy-oriented holiday. Once upon a time, Christians would have taken such a fact for granted but, these days, it probably needs to be stated outright. The birth of Christ was foretold by the Israelite prophecies of a coming savior king as part of the sacred royal line. The prophecies, as most should know from the traditional stories, was that, on this day “a king” would be born and born in the City of David, the foundational monarch of the sacred line of Israel and their most famous monarch. The heralds proclaimed that “a king is born” and we have the three wise men, sometimes themselves referred to as “the three kings” who came to do homage to this new monarch. The story even has a royal villain in the person of King Herod who launched a campaign of infanticide to remove this potential threat to his crown. All of this is why, in the Catholic tradition at least, there is the figure of the Divine Child as a monarch, probably most famously illustrated by the Infant of Prague. None of these facts should surprise anyone, yet few seldom think about how dripping with royalism the holiday of Christmas is. And, it goes far beyond the time and place of the birth of Christ.

The pagan ancestors of the European peoples had their part in the Christmas story as well. As we have talked about here before, the birth of Christ was said to have been prophesied to the Emperor Augustus by the Tiburtine Sybil. This, the story goes, caused Augustus Caesar to refrain from allowing the Senate to declare him a god. It was also, of course, the command of the Emperor for a census to be taken which prompted the fulfillment of the ancient prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Later, in the Christian era, when there was much debate on the subject, the date chosen on which to celebrate Christmas was that of the Winter Solstice according to the Roman calendar. This was when the pagan Romans celebrated the festival of Brumalia, in honor of the god Saturn (later becoming the Saturnalia, mostly in the East). The incorporation into the Christmas celebration of pre-Christian traditions such as the Yule log, exchanging presents and general merriment, later put off the more Puritanical Protestant sects of Christianity who considered the holiday altogether ‘too Pagan’ which is why Christmas was suppressed in Britain during the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell, only to be restored when the monarchy was restored under King Charles II, the “Merry Monarch”.

The coronation of Charlemagne

Christmas, as the day marking the birth of the King who would save the world, had a huge significance on the monarchies of Christian Europe. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, when it was determined to try to revive this entity in some way, Pope St Leo the Great famously crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans” on Christmas day in 800 AD. So it was that the birth of the first German Empire occurred on Christmas. This seemed to set a trend in the western world as later, in 855, King St Edmund the Martyr of East Anglia was crowned on Christmas day (King Edmund being a highly revered royal figure until his shrine was destroyed when Protestantism came to power in England) and when Saxon England was eclipsed by the Normans, King William the Conqueror also chose to have his coronation on Christmas day in 1066. Local custom caused Christmas celebrations to be quite different across Europe, though there were always elements in common. The Germans, French, Italians, Spanish and so on all had their own traditions associated with the holiday. St Nicholas, whose image was rather painfully smashed together with various folk legends to create the figure of Santa Claus, was and still is very prominently revered in the Eastern Orthodox Church, particularly in Russia, though not necessarily in connection to Christmas. That, again, only came about later due to the melding of St Nicholas with other figures. In any event, Russians & their neighbors have Ded Moroz as a substitute for Santa Claus and would not take kindly to any tinkering with St Nicholas.

In the German lands, Christmas has always been extremely important and tied to the imperial legacy due to the coronation of Charlemagne (or Karl der Grosse as he is in German) on Christmas day. In the British Isles, Christmas gained noticeable royal support during the reign of the House of Stuart. King James I ordered a play to put on for the occasion (something which used to be common in schools but is likely forbidden these days) and King Charles I would dismiss his courtiers at Christmas time in order that they might go home to preside over the traditional Christmas festivities in their locales. Suppressed by Cromwell, as stated, Christmas came back with King Charles II and King James I, at least in England (the Scots actually continued to refuse to make it a public holiday until 1959!) and it carried on after the so-called “Glorious Revolution” under King William III and Queen Mary II. The Dutch Reformed Church had always celebrated Christmas and, of course, the German Hanoverians had no problem with it either.

Victoria & Albert around their Christmas tree

As a matter of fact, many of the current traditions associated with Christmas around the world, spread by the British Empire and the popularity of American culture, actually have German royal origins. The most prominent example of this is the Christmas tree which first came to the British Isles when King George III married Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz. However, it remained only a tradition of the Royal Family until the time of Queen Victoria and her marriage to another German, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. It was due to his influence, and the establishment of the Royal Family as a model for the public, that Christmas trees came to be a common feature in every home, first in Britain and then across the English-speaking world (it had, of course, long been a tradition in German lands). Princess Henrietta, wife of Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen, introduced the custom to Austria and the Habsburg domains, the Duchess of Orleans (Princess Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin) brought it to France. In fact, the Christmas tree was so associated with royalty and nobility that it was initially banned by the communists in Soviet Russia until 1935 and even then was allowed only as a secular symbol with a mandatory Red Star on the top.

Many of the traditions associated with Christmas in the United States only appeared in the Victorian era due to their popularity with the rest of the English-speaking world. Partly because of the lingering effects of Puritanism in New England and the pushing of egalitarianism and opposition to anything associated with royalty or aristocracy, the early United States was devoid of most of the customs modern Americans think of as being traditionally associated with Christmas. These would not start to take root in America until roughly the 1820’s, increasing with their popularity across the British Empire thanks to Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. In fact, the only thing similar, previously occurring on American soil, was probably the celebrations of Hessian or other German mercenaries employed by the British during the War for Independence. We do know that the first Christmas tree in Canada was featured at a party held in 1781 by the commander of the troops from Brunswick, Germany General Friedrich Adolf Riedesel and his wife in Quebec, where they were stationed in the event of another attack by the American forces.

Good King Wenceslas

Another example is Christmas music, with popular Christmas songs first becoming widespread due to St Francis of Assisi (who also popularized the Nativity Scene). With popular carols such as “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” (“Glory to the new born King”), “Good King Wenceslaus”, or “Come, All Ye Faithful” (“Born the King of Angels”) they are soaked through with royal symbolism and monarchical references. Most of this stuff is so taken for granted, most never realize how present it is but if one could stop and consider each case and how different things would be if anything with any royal connection was taken out, what would be left would be hardly recognizable at all. In lands far distant from western Europe, Christmas traditions were imported from abroad, usually by colonial empires which invariably had monarchs at their head. Even countries closer to hand, such as Russia, did not have any sort of Christmas traditions westerners would recognize (though they of course observed the holy day of the birth of Christ) until Emperor Peter the Great brought these into fashion after his travels around Europe. In Estonia, the tradition of announcing the “Christmas Peace” began with Queen Christina of Sweden. Today it is done by the President, which seems far less special.

Frederick Barbarossa

Finally, on a deeper level, the Christmas story itself followed a pattern that many people in many various lands would revive again; that of a foretelling of a famous monarch coming back to save his people from misery. Christ was the divine king who was to come as the Savior of the world, offering spiritual salvation to all peoples, and of course this story continues with the Christian prophecy about the end of the world, that ultimately Christ will return to save the faithful and destroy the wicked. On a more secular level, similar stories were once quite common about monarchs that achieved legendary status. In Britain there was King Arthur who, according to legend, never really died but would return one day in Britain’s darkest hour to save them. Many centuries later the Jacobites would adopt a similar attitude about “the King across the water” who would return and bring about a state of affairs they considered ideal. The Welsh had a similar folk tale about a giant king named Bran the Blessed. In the German Empire there was the story that Emperor Frederick Barbarossa never really died but simply went to sleep deep under a mountain (the actual location and details vary with telling of the tale) and that at some point, in Germany’s darkest hour, he would wake up and lead them to greatness once again. The Sicilians used to tell a similar tale about Emperor Frederick II and some tradition-minded romantics, in the time of the foundation of the second German Empire actually went so far as to declare the prophecy fulfilled in the person of Kaiser Wilhelm I.

Taken altogether, Christmas can be considered one of, if not the, most monarchist of holidays. Just as Christ was crucified as a king, so too was His birth heralded as the birth of a king. Many of its traditions had monarchial origins and were spread by kings and princes around the world and the Christmas story set a narrative in the minds of the people that was later imposed on earthly monarchs. Today, few people, if any, give any thought to this at all. However, none of it is hidden, it simply is not a topic. If any person was to consider it for more than a moment, they would see that royal symbolism permeates Christmas at virtually every level. For myself, this Christmas will be a difficult one but I hope every adherent of traditional authority will take the time to consider the many connections discussed and, for all Christian readers certainly, will have a very happy Christmas.

Happy National Day to Hungary

Today is St Stephen's Day, the National Day of Hungary, a fine occasion to reflect on the contribution of the Hungarian nation throughout history and on the necessity of restoring the Kingdom of Hungary!

Happy Easter

The day when the salvation of the world was confirmed by a simple echoing cry from the darkness, 'He is not here, He is risen'.

A happy Easter to all from The Mad Monarchist

Happy Thanksgiving

As most long-time readers know, I don't "do" Thanksgiving, but for those of you who do, I wish you all a happy one. I will spare a repeat of my position regarding the holiday but will simply point back to an older post on the real first Thanksgiving which was, of course, in Texas. Read about it here.

Be on the lookout in the coming days for a new series here at The Mad Monarchist called "The Story of Monarchy" which will be short histories (with commentary of course) on the overall history of monarchies of the world and, for those which are now republics, how they have fared since. -MM

Happy Easter!

(also our third anniversary here at The Mad Monarchist)

Happy Good Friday

To all from The Mad Monarchist

International Women's Day

It is today, and though I don't go in much for these sorts of things, if you're going to highlight the role of women in the world, it seems to me the most obvious examples are often the most ignored:

Happy Australia Day!

Today the “Land Down Under” celebrates “Australia Day” to commemorate the day in 1788 when a landing party from a British fleet came ashore and formally claimed the coast of what was then called New Holland in the name of HM King George III; the official beginning of the history of the modern-day Commonwealth of Australia. Since that time centuries ago, Australia has grown into one of the most successful, prosperous and popular constitutional monarchies in the world. No other country occupies an entire continent all on its own and Australia and the unique Australian culture is now famous all around the world. In the glory days of the British Empire, Australia was one of the cornerstones of the English-speaking world. When the place of the British Empire in the world was threatened, hard-hitting troops from Australia brought a world of hurt to the Central Powers, particularly the Ottoman Turks as seen with the tough Diggers who stormed the beaches of Gallipoli and the hard riding Australian cavalry who charged across the sands of Palestine. Again, in World War II, Australians showed just as much tenacity on defense when they held off the seemingly unbeatable Axis forces of Rommel at Tobruk. Also in World War II, Australia provided a crucial staging ground for the Allied counter-offensive against the previously ever-victorious forces of Imperial Japan. When the chips were down for the Anglo-sphere it was often the Australians who arrived to save the day.

Traditionally, Australians were known for their staunch loyalty to their country and their Sovereign. Australians have a reputation for being independent, rugged individualists who make their home on a continent known to many in the outside world for its giant lizards and poisonous snakes as well as more friendly, furry creatures. The rugged, resourceful Australian with a big knife and a smile who is most comfortable outdoors may be a bit of a stereotype, but like most stereotypes it exists for a reason. Australians had to overcome many, many difficulties to build the country and, again traditionally, this gave them a great sense of community, an appreciation of what is important and a very pragmatic but also fun-loving nature. It also gave them a great deal of respect for what their ancestors had overcome and accomplished and a desire to preserve the same ideals and values that were important to those who had gone before them. Today, like everywhere else, many if not most of these ideals and values are under attack. Things which every Australian would have once considered sacrosanct are coming under attack. That includes the Queen, the national flag and even Australia Day itself for that matter. This is rather incredible considering that it was not so very long ago that Australians could be divided into two groups; monarchists and ultra-monarchists. Today, however, there is a seemingly endless campaign by republicans and the biased, bought-and-paid-for news media to tear down everything that once defined Australia.

I have probably said before how incomprehensible this attitude is to me. Where I live, anyone who would even suggest that we change our flag would be run out of town on a rail (and I mean the Lone Star, not the Stars & Stripes which we did trade in once for something different). Things like the national day, the national flag and for most countries the monarch are part of the most basic set of things that make you who you are. They reflect the history, the culture and the common values of a people, where you came from and what you’re all about. I have stated before that I consider any Australian republican a traitor, pure and simple. Fortunately for them the local authorities take a different view but this will not change mine. So far there has not been much stomach for changing the date of Australia Day but there are some who want to do it. The disturbing thing is that these people never seem to go away. No matter how many times the republicans lose they, and their allies in the bought-and-paid-for media, refuse to take “no” for an answer. How very democratic of them. They want a republic, Australians were given a referendum and they voted to keep the monarchy. The republicans then said that was the wrong answer and have been planning another vote ever since. Of course, they keep getting stomped on by waves of support for the monarchy surrounding key events, royal visits and royal weddings and the like, so they may try to take a more insidious approach next time; who knows?

Although I have never been there, I have always been very fond of Australia. The history and culture there reminds me a good deal of my own homeland. It has often seemed to me that if the British Commonwealth were the United States, Australia would be Texas. Fond as I am of Australia, I don’t want Australia to become something else. Because that is exactly what would happen if the current crop of republicans had their way. Scrap the Queen of Australia for a President, scrap the Commonwealth of Australia for the Australian Republic, scrap the flag for a new design and scrap the national day in favor of something else and what you really have is a completely different country with no history. Like a tree without roots, a country without a past will be in for a pretty sorry future. Doing that would be a betrayal, not only of the Queen of Australia (God Save Her) but of everything all the previous generations of Australians fought, worked and died for from the western front to Southeast Asia. One of the most distinct, admirable and glorious parts of the world would be lost forever.

Of course, this does not mean that there is nothing in Australia that needs changing. There are plenty of problems. However, the problems Australia does have are invariably the result of drifting away from the constitution, certainly not from being too faithful to it. The great benefit of the Australian monarchy is often lost because the Queen, or her representatives, are not allowed to make full use of their constitutional powers. In practice the powers of the Crown are often exercised by politicians and this takes away from the benefit of having an impartial, non-political sovereign to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules and nothing underhanded is being done. Things would be better if the choice of Governor-General and the use of the powers of the Crown were actually exercised by the Queen or her representative as is supposed to happen. However, over the years, the politicians have co-opted the powers of the Crown in many ways and this has meant that sometimes there is no impartial person in the engine car to apply the brakes when things get out of hand. The republicans, who represent the politician-class, have caused most of the problems in Australia by failing to follow the rules of the constitutional monarchy and yet rather than going back and following the rules, their response is to call for even more of the same, throwing out all the rules and basically letting the politicians write their own rule book. Hardly seems fair does it?

Thankfully, so far, the Aussies have managed to see through this and favor keeping the system of constitutional monarchy they have. That’s a good thing but it needs to be more than just apathy toward change, it needs to be a real understanding of the Australian government and a desire to change in the right way; putting the politicians in their place and letting the Sovereign of Australia see that they stay there and stop trying to usurp power for their own ends. The original system made Australia a success, getting away from it has only caused problems and there was nothing wrong with the old, traditional Australia of past generations. So, keep it royal in the land Down Under and a very happy Australia Day to everyone in the land of OZ from The Mad Monarchist!

A Happy Christmas to All

A Happy Christmas to all from The Mad Monarchist.

On this day special to all Christian monarchists, marking the birth of the King of kings, everyone should, of course, take a step back from all the commercialism and consumerist headaches and reflect on that. Around here we particularly note (if few other Christians do these days) that the birth of Christ was considered a matter of royal prophecy. It was foretold that a *King* would be born, of the royal house of David, in the city of that great King of Israel. We should also recall how the pagan powers were pivotal in making the prophecy come true as it was due to the order of the Emperor Augustus Caesar that the Holy Family came to be in the place foretold and that it was because of his royal bloodline and the royal prophecy surrounding the birth of Christ that the infant King was hunted and persecuted, forcing the flight to Egypt. As was written, "on this day, a King is born". A happy Christmas to all and my thanks to everyone for coming along.

MM

Why I Don't "Do" Thanksgiving

On the occasion of the Thanksgiving holiday (which I choose to pass on myself) it is an appropriate time to talk a little about some of the many misconceptions people have about the famous Pilgrim Fathers who landed on Plymouth Rock and established the first foothold of what became the New England colony in North America. The usual, casual narrative is that the pilgrims were people who believed in religious liberty who were forced to leave the British Isles because of the oppression of the Stuart King James I and the established Church of England. They came to the New World to escape this persecution and establish a free society, planting the seeds for what eventually became the United States of America. This is, however, not entirely true. For example, the pilgrims did not actually flee a religiously intolerant monarchy for the untamed wilderness of North America. They actually fled a very religiously tolerant republic for the untamed wilderness of North America. This is no secret, you can find it in almost any history book, yet few people know about it.

The pilgrims were upset with their life in England. They disliked the Anglican church, regarding it as too “Catholic” for their taste and for the pilgrims the Catholics were absolute evil. Even as Puritans went, these were the most extreme. Not only did they few Anglicans and Presbyterians as “too Catholic”, even their fellow Puritans were insufficiently puritanical from their point of view. King James I, when it came to religion, was a fairly tolerant monarch. However, he did not want religion causing divisions and strife in his kingdoms and so restrictions were placed on the pilgrims. Disliking this state of affairs, they decided to move over to the Republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Even those many centuries ago the Dutch had the reputation of being very tolerant and libertarian amongst the nations of Europe. In matters of faith, in the Netherlands there was pretty much complete religious freedom for anyone (except for the Catholics of course on whom there were some restrictions) of any Protestant Christian denomination as well as for Jews.

However, the pilgrims ultimately found life in Holland unsatisfactory. They complained about the lack of tolerance they endured in England, yet in the Netherlands they complained that there was too much tolerance. They feared the numerous religious groups around them would corrupt them and their children and they disliked the licentiousness of those who adhered to no real religion at all. So England was not free enough and Holland was too free, so they decided to go to America. They hopped on the Mayflower and sailed west. For government, the leaders all signed the famous Mayflower Compact, remembered ever since as one of the earliest founding documents of what became the United States centuries later. There are a few things about the Mayflower Compact that many people may not know. The Mayflower Compact was actually a very royalist document, the very first words being a tribute to, “our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith etc”. The document also stressed their loyalty to the King and the hope that their undertaking would do the King and their country honor. Were they sincere? That’s another matter.

At the time (pre-civil war England) royal authority was fairly well accepted as a given. Even the republics of the time such as Venice, Genoa or even the Dutch republic still had royal or at least regal leadership. However, it is hard to imagine that the pilgrims who so loathed the Church of England could have much sincere faith and allegiance for the King was the “Supreme Governor” of that denomination. For those who rejected the Church of England it was not a great leap to at least be lukewarm in their submission to the monarch, especially given how paramount the place of the King was to Anglicans. Although it is mostly ignored today, that is a situation still around today as Anglican canon law still recognizes the Queen as, “the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil”. At the very least the pilgrims would have objected to the “ecclesiastical” bit, if nothing else.

Long after Massachusetts became a well established English colony it continued to be the favored place for Puritans to flee to and this increased dramatically during the reign of King Charles I who favored a very traditional, elaborate and, some would say “Catholic” style for the Church of England. Needless to say, although the American colonies played no really significant role in the English Civil War, there were divisions and Massachusetts, because of their Puritan foundation and population, was definitely on the side of Oliver Cromwell. Puritan Massachusetts had opposed the Elizabethan uniformity effort, the Bishops War of King James I and they certainly opposed the direction religion in the British Isles took under King Charles. In fact, after the King was martyred, after the long years of tyranny under Oliver Cromwell and after the restoration of the monarchy under King Charles II, Massachusetts showed how anti-royalist it was by being the very last English colony in America to recognize the Stuart monarch as their rightful King, not doing so until August of 1661.

Successive British monarchs likewise found out how troublesome Massachusetts could be, even as religion was eclipsed by politics as the primary vehicle for the old Puritan hostility toward the Crown. As everyone knows, the colony would finally become the greatest hotbed of revolutionary activity and eventually lead the continent into the American War for Independence against King George III. So, to bring it all back, that is one of the primary reasons I don’t “do” Thanksgiving. That, and I’m not a big fan of the first President to make it a national holiday. We have also discussed here before how the real first thanksgiving was actually celebrated in Texas long before those dour pilgrims ever set foot in New England. So, be assured it is not an issue of ingratitude which prompts me to sit this one out. You may also rest assured I pass no judgment or think any less of those who do celebrate the day as I know most do it for the right reasons (unlike some other holidays). For all who are joining in, I wish you a happy day and I hope you all know that I am thankful for all you, members, subscribers, lurkers and casual readers, who keep up with The Mad Monarchist. I do appreciate you all.

Happy Halloween!

From The Mad Monarchist

Happy National Day Liechtenstein!

A happy National Day to the Principality of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, the Princely Family and all the people of Liechtenstein, an oasis of peace, prosperity and royal rule in the chaos of modern Europe. Hoech der Fuerst!

America's Independence

As we all know, it was on this day in 1776 that the American colonies officially declared their individual independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was not, however, when actual independence was won. That would take many more years of hard fighting. Most readers, I think, will know my opinion on the Revolutionary War (and if you don't, a wealth of reading material can be found by clicking the label at the bottom) but rather than go into all that today, I would like to try to be a little more positive -odd for me I know. Because of the Revolutionary War, most Americans have come to have a very negative view of monarchy. However, nothing could be more unjustified. The United States of America would not exist were it not for the material aid of two prominent west European monarchies; the Kingdom of Spain and most especially the Kingdom of France. It may seem odd, a constitutional republic opposed to hereditary authority, traditional authority or established religion owing its very existence to two officially Catholic, absolute monarchies, yet, that is the case.

Remember that, my fellow Americans, the next time the subject of monarchies overseas comes up in our foreign relations. Secretary of State Albright once famously said, "We don't do kings" when the Clinton administration was faced with the possibility of royal restorations in Romania and Bulgaria. Well, all I can say is that you Yankee Doodle types who think America is God's gift to the world should thank that same God that His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI did not adopt that same attitude toward republics or your beloved country and mine would not exist at all. Think about that. In the meantime, here is a look back at some of those who fought for American independence of whom I have at least a better opinion of than most:
The Marquis de Lafayette
The Comte d'Estaing
The Marquis de la Rouerie
Even the most radical of the American rebels did not hold such a bigoted opinion of monarchy as many modern Americans do. Thomas Jefferson had a portrait of King Louis XVI in his "Hall of Heroes" at Monticello and no less a radical than Thomas Paine voted against the regicide of King Louis and warned his fellow revolutionaries in France that if they killed the King they would instantly sacrifice the friendship and goodwill of the American people. And so it was. Most Americans will never be convinced of the merits of monarchy but, looking at men like those above, and others, perhaps the American public can be persuaded that it is at least nothing to be afraid of.

Happy Dominion (Canada) Day!

A happy Dominion Day (Canada Day for those who love change) to all of Her Majesty’s subjects in the Great White North. Canada is fortunate this year to have the presence of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, probably the most prominent young royals in the world at the moment, on hand to join in the celebrations marking Canada’s birthday. It was on this day in 1867 that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the Province of Canada came together to form their own “kingdom”, the independent Dominion of Canada within the British Empire. In fact, the original desire had been to call the new united country the “Kingdom of Canada” but, remember, it was 1867. Only a couple of years before the United States had been engaged in the bloodiest war ever fought in the western world up to that time championing the idea of republican nationalism and had also just ensured the destruction of the short-lived Second Empire of Mexico. So, being the ever polite and proper people Canadians are known for, they decided that the name “Kingdom of Canada” would upset the Americans and so the term “Dominion of Canada” was adopted instead. Of course, as we know, that later came to be seen as “too colonial” sounding for modern ears and hence the country now has the grand, official name of “Canada”. Period.

Yes, if you could not tell, I’m still just a little bit bothered by the change away from the “Dominion of Canada” but bear with me, I still have not gotten over the loss of the Canadian Red Ensign either (but I’m doing my best). Of course, the current Canadian national flag is an attractive and effective one, but what I am most pleased about is that, in honor of the royal visit this Canada Day, the government has designed new Canadian Royal Standards for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and HRH the Prince of Wales. Previously, the only royal to have their own Canadian standard was HM the Queen. It is quite a good looking flag and the new standards of the other royals are based on that very striking design. I think they look good and I congratulate whoever came up with them and who approved the measure. It displays a very loyal and very proper attitude toward the Canadian monarchy. Incidentally, the Duke and Duchess looked impeccable when they arrived in Ottawa, like two old professionals, friendly and comfortable.

This is significant because the Crown, the Canadian monarchy is the fundamental, foundational institution of the government and, really, of Canada as a whole. I know there are those who get tired of me (and others) saying that without the monarchy Canadians would just be Americans. However, that is not just some cute slogan I pass on to play on the Canadian rivalry with their southern neighbor. It is a fact. The foundations of modern Canada, as we know it today, really came with the influx of new settlers, the loyalists, from the new United States after the Revolutionary War. Remember, the American Revolutionaries had intended for their new country to include all thirteen colonies, Canada and the Caribbean Islands as well. The fortunes of war prevented this and the result was not the independence of a pre-existing political entity (there was no such thing) but the partition of British North America. What we call today Canada and America were, originally, part of the same political entity, populated by roughly the same sort of people. The only difference between them was that one side became an independent republic and the other remained within the British Empire, eventually becoming (through peaceful and legal means) an independent constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth.

Aside from the French population, which was always distinct, the original populations of Canada and the United States were the same people, most with the same ancestry, many with the same birthplaces even, who spoke the same language and had the same religion. Their only difference was that one side was a constitutional republic and the other a constitutional monarchy. Once upon a time, Canada was quite proud of this and could quickly point out everything that came out of the fact that they willingly chose a very different path from that of their neighbors to the south, even while borrowing a few ideas from them along the way. That was back before a number of people started getting the urge to bolt from anything even remotely “British”, back when Canada was proud of being a part of the British Empire, as many used to say, the greatest empire since ancient Rome. Canadian volunteers served in the Sudan in 1884 (the “Nile Voyageurs”) and in the Second Boer War because of the duty they felt to the British Empire. The sacrifices of the Canadian forces in World War I and World War II are also, of course, well known.

General Drummond

In fact, when World War I began the serving Governor-General of Canada was a member of the Royal Family, HRH Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, who was the son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Some have talked about having royal Governors-General again for Commonwealth Realms and I think that would be a great idea. Most do not believe it will ever happen though because so much has been made about the “first” Canadian, Australian, etc Governor-General being appointed in history. That, of course, is complete nonsense. For instance, most think that the Rt. Hon. Charles Vincent Massey was the first Canadian-born Governor-General of Canada. That is not really true though as Sir Gordon Drummond effectively occupied the same post during the War of 1812 and was born in Canada. And, as we know, both of the previous Governors-General of Canada were born far from the Canadian shores, one coming from the Crown Colony of Hong Kong and the other from the Republic of Haiti. So, being born on Canadian soil would hardly seem to be an absolute prerequisite for obtaining the position unless those opposed are willing to admit to a little prejudice against the British alone. For those people, it should be enough to remember, whether it was 1775, 1812 or 1866 the critical victories were always won when Britain and Canada stood together.

However, whether or not attitudes change or a royal becomes Governor-General, there is no denying the central role the monarchy has played in Canadian history. From the very beginning it has been the Crown that has been the basis for all law and government. Whole provinces were named after royal figures and for a time during the darkest days of World War II it was even thought that the Royal Family would relocate to the safety of Canada as the threat of a Nazi invasion of Great Britain loomed close. Dominion Day (er, um, I mean “Canada Day” of course) is a day to celebrate Canada and everything it means to be Canadian. That includes the entire history and culture of the nation and you cannot celebrate that without including the Canadian monarchy. Canadians should be proud of their history, proud of their monarchy, their monarch and their Royal Family. They have a great deal to be proud of and I hope their holiday is a happy one.

The Maple Leaf Forever!
God Save the Queen of Canada!

Memorial Day

King George V of Great Britain decorating a soldier of the AEF

I will admit to having mixed feelings about Memorial Day, despite my unqualified support for the U.S. military, due to the origin of the holiday. It began as a very partisan celebration, honoring only the U.S. war dead of the American Civil War. Southern states had to come up with their own holidays to honor the Confederate war dead. No matter which side one takes in that conflict, the Union victory spelled doom for at least one monarchy -that south of the border as the northern victory allowed the U.S. to bring its full diplomatic and military pressure to bear on France, ensuring their evacuation to Mexico and then to support the republican victory with money, men and guns. After the First World War the holiday was extended to include the AEF war dead and later it was expanded to include all the dead of all the wars fought by the United States. It became an official federal holiday in 1967. So, when prompted by Memorial Day, I try to ignore the origins of the holiday (best I can) and focus on those occasions when American forces have died in wars which saw monarchs restored to their proper thrones, and keeping in mind of course, that the military and government policy are two different things and simply salute the courage and valor of the American fighting men throughout history who have never failed in the tasks assigned them.

King George VI inspecting the crew of USS George Washington

Happy Royal Oak Day

A Happy Royal Oak Day or Oak Apple Day, a holiday marking the restoration of the monarchy in Great Britain in the person of His Majesty King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. To all the people of the U.K. and the Commonwealth Realms, to all the English-speaking monarchists in the world, we share a hearty cheer of GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

MM Video: The Queen Mum

A special salute to all the mothers out there on their special day from ... The Mad Monarchist

Happy Easter!

Happy Good Friday

To all from The Mad Monarchist