Royal Profile: Princess Elisabeth of France

One of the most tragic but most spotless, pious and saintly royal figures who became a martyr of the French Revolution was Princess Elisabeth of France. She was born in Versailles on May 3, 1764, the youngest child of the Dauphin Louis, making her the granddaughter of King Louis XV and the sister of His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France. Along with her siblings she was raised by Madame de Marsan, the royal governess and she was given a good education as well as becoming an accomplished rider and artist. Her father died only the next year after she was born and she was only about three years old when her mother died. However, her parents (a lovely couple) passed on to her a deep sense of devotion to the Catholic Church and the venerable monarchy of France. Princess Elisabeth and her siblings were a very close-knit little family and the Princess grew into a very religious, very royalist and very devoted young lady. Being the youngest, she remained at home longer than any other while her older siblings went on to other positions, marriages and so on.

Princess Elisabeth remained with her brother, King Louis XVI, and was very attentive to him. There was some talk of her being married to the Austrian Emperor Joseph II but nothing came of it. It might have been better for her if she had ultimately, but as things stood at the time the Princess was wise to refuse as the Emperor was of a fairly different mindset from Elisabeth. The Emperor was a very modern-minded man, an “enlightened despot” who favored greater state control over the Church. Elisabeth was a very traditional conservative and a very devout Catholic who put her faith first and above all else. She was considered, along with her brother the Count of Artois (the future King Charles X) to be the most pro-Church and staunchly royalist member of the family. She was also a very strong-willed and determined woman. As a girl those traits had made her a little difficult but, as she grew up, her growing faith turned these into admirable qualities and gave her a great moral strength with firm and uncompromising principles. She turned away from any thought of marriage to devote herself to caring for her brother, the Royal Family, the French people and one would be hard pressed in any event to find a husband worthy of her.

Madame Elisabeth (as she was known) was also an extremely kind and compassionate woman who, rather than the glamorous life of a royal princess or even consort, would have preferred the life of a simple Carmelite nun. She would have taken vows at once but, King Louis XVI said he could not do without her. So, she set an example for charity and piety from the palace at Versailles. She had great love and respect for her eldest brother and even the younger Count of Artois (who was known for his rather wild ways) who she adored and tried to gently pull back to the straight and narrow. She also cared deeply for the poor (and despite popular perceptions she was not alone in that), even starting a dairy to provide free milk to poor children. Yet, she was not some dour, grim, puritanical sort of figure either. Madame Elisabeth enjoyed life, enjoyed art and beautiful things, enjoyed music and loved to dance. Of course, as with others, none of these admirable qualities were enough to save her when the horror of the Revolution descended on France. In fact, the revolutionaries, necessarily, poured out their deepest hatred on the purest and most upright individuals who represented all that was best about the old, glorious, Christian Kingdom of France.

When the Revolution came, usually dated with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 the King was concerned for the safety of his family and had several sent abroad. Madame Elisabeth, however, refused to abandon her post and she disagreed with her brother compromising in any way with the revolutionaries. There was, it is often forgotten, a brief period in which France was a constitutional monarchy as Louis XVI was forced to give in to the demands of the revolutionaries. All of this Madame Elisabeth staunchly opposed. She always supported her brother of course but, with her strength of will and character, she was against any concessions or coming to any agreement with a movement that was wicked in its very core. It was not simply an effort on her part to maintain royal authority but also to maintain the independence of the Church from the revolutionary laws to bring the Church under state control totally. This, of course, made her all the more hated by the revolutionaries who regarded her as one of the ultra-royalist, reactionary faction they correctly identified as their greatest enemies. Unfortunate, perhaps, but true. The Revolutionaries and Madame Elisabeth represented two completely opposite and irreconcilable positions one of which would have to perish for the other to survive.

Madame Elisabeth remained with King Louis and Queen Marie Antoinette in their darkest hour. Her status as a leading enemy of the revolution was confirmed when the National Assembly intercepted a letter she sent to the Count of Artois in which she supported foreign monarchs sending troops to rescue the Royal Family, crush the revolution and restore royal authority. Still, even when the mob stormed the Tuileries, Madame Elisabeth bravely confronted them with some in the crowd mistaking her for Marie Antoinette. With the rest of the Royal Family she was taken into custody by the revolutionaries and originally imprisoned with the Queen but the two were later separated. Although she did not know it, Marie Antoinette addressed her last letter to her beloved sister-in-law. Locked away, Madame Elisabeth knew about the execution of her brother the King but was kept in the dark about the murder of the Queen. In her confinement she tried to comfort her niece Marie-Therese, daughter of the late King and Queen, even though she was constantly being insulted and tormented by her captors.

When the time came for her show-trial she was as calm and determined as ever as she was accused of aiding the King in his effort to escape, supporting the royalists abroad and counterrevolutionaries in France. When the King was slanders as a bloody tyrant, Madame Elisabeth, who had advised him to take a more hard-line approach, defiantly told the court, “If my brother had been what you call him, you would not have been where you are, nor I where I am”. Which was perfectly true as the King could have ordered his troops to shoot down the mobs in the streets but had refused to do so. Nonetheless, the verdict was pre-determined and on May 10, 1794 Madame Elisabeth was taken to the guillotine at the Place de la Revolution and executed. In her final moments she had offered her life to God as a sacrificial victim for all her country was enduring. Even in her final moments she helped others on the way to their execution and guided them in saying their prayers, a saintly princess from start to finish and a credit to the Royal House of France. Although there is no cause underway for her canonization, no less a figure than Pope Pius VII said he considered her a saint as do most French royalists. She was a martyr, martyred for her royal blood and her opposition to the godless forces of the Revolution.

The Mad Dog is Dead

There seems to be no doubt now that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been killed by Libyan rebels in his hometown of Sirte. This is good news. Gaddafi was a thug, a terrorits, a tyrant and a traitor to his king and country. Does that mean what replaces him will be better? By no means. So far, the conduct of the rebel government has only reinforced my skepticism about them and their movement. It seems likely that Gadaffi's tyranny, which was dominated by his own bizarre personality cult and served his own selfish interests and megalomania, will be replaced by a more religiously-based tyranny in line with the worst elements sweeping the Islamic world today. I hope that some sanity will prevail and the monarchy will be restored, but I fear that hope will be in vain (I would be happy to be proven wrong in that regard) as mob uprisings seldom result in actual improvement. Nonetheless, Gaddafi was a bad guy, an enemy of the world, a man who terrorized his own people and others, who threatened foreign nations, launched terrorist attacks against other nations and blackmailed his neighbors as well as betraying and overthrowing his lawful monarch. The world is better off without him. Good riddance.

Papal Profile: Pope St Celestine V

Pope Celestine V is an often misrepresented Bishop of Rome. Many will state that Celestine V was the only pontiff in history to abdicate, but this is not so. Although it is certainly rare in the extreme, no less than four pontiffs have abdicated in the long history of the papacy. What is true is that Celestine V was one of the most saintly men to sit on the Throne of Peter and one of the most reluctant. He was born Pietro del Morrone about the year 1209 and came from Molise. Not much is known about his formative years beyond the fact that he was a peasant whose father died when he was very young. Some accounts will say this forced him to work in the fields at an early age, but I tend to doubt that as most peasant children worked in the fields as soon as they were able even if their father was alive. In any event, he was familiar with manual labor and instilled with a strong faith by his mother Maria at an early age. Even as a child he was noticed to be bright, kind and compassionate as well as very religious. Thus, it came as no surprise that he entered a Benedictine monastery when he was seventeen-years-old.

You know you have a truly Christian nature when you live the life of a Benedictine monk and still yearn for something more withdrawn, difficult and austere. So, Morrone and a few companions went to live in caves in the mountains, devoting themselves entirely to intense prayer and severe penance. St John the Baptist was his example and out of this work he eventually founded what became the Celestine order. While this work was underway, the Church was going through a pretty rough patch. There were tensions with the secular powers, the expansion of Islam to the south and papal elections were becoming increasingly difficult and quite long, drawn-out affairs. So, when Pope Nicholas IV died and the cardinals gathered in Perugia to elect a successor (because Rome was in pretty bad shape), Morrone sent a letter urging them to open their hearts to the Holy Spirit and elect a new Pontiff quickly. In the end, he may have wished he had kept silent on that issue because, after extremely long and lengthy disputes and riots going on in Rome, the cardinals decided to elect him. That was the last thing the simple, austere hermit wanted. His primary concern was his order, looking after the sick and impoverished and he had not the slightest desire to take on the responsibilities and particularly the bitter political entanglements of the papacy.

However, he was the one choice all agreed on, unconnected to any faction and undeniably of saintly character. Still, it took a great deal of effort to persuade him to accept the Papal Tiara. Among many other clerics and royals King Charles II of Sicily visited him to urge him to accept, which he finally did. Charles II escorted him to Aquila where he was formally consecrated as Pope Celestine V. The closeness of the Sicilian king was not purely religiously motivated. The politically innocent new Pontiff agreed to live in Naples rather than Rome and appointed everyone to office that Charles II recommended to him. He even took the step of naming the King “guardian” of the next conclave and he relied heavily on royal advice even in the normal administration of the Church which he had absolutely no experience with.

Discontent grew as many began to complain that the Pope had simply become a rubber-stamp pontiff for the Sicilian king. One of those most disconcerted with this state of affairs was the Cardinal-Priest Benedetto Caetani, an aristocrat who had very definite ideas about papal supremacy (which he would later, famously articulate without ambiguity) even at the expense of royal power. Pope Celestine V was without doubt a good and pious man. Even in his own time word spread of his miraculous deeds, however, his innocence of the world of power politics had left him as a pawn in the hands of others and reduced him to being little more than the chaplain to the King of Sicily. His religious sincerity remained admired by all but it became ever more clear with each passing day that he was simply not cut out to be the Supreme Pontiff. Never wanting the job in the first place, no one would have agreed with his unsuitability for the office more than Celestine V himself. He knew he was not up to the task and in quick order began looking for a way out.

Conveniently, Cardinal Caetani was on hand to assist him in the process of abdication. He painted the picture (obviously not untrue) that Celestine V had been preyed upon by Charles II from day one. The King had pressured a simple, pious clergyman into accepting an office he neither wanted nor was fit for simply so that he could dominate him. Pope Celestine V, on December 13, 1294, after only five months and nine days on the throne, abdicated and charged the conclave to elect a new pontiff according to the rules established by Gregory X. In quick order, and with no lack of effort on his own part, Cardinal Caetani was elected in his place, taking the name of Pope Boniface VIII. He would go on to be a very controversial Successor of St Peter but certainly not lacking in decisiveness. Many at the time and in all the time since have condemned Boniface VIII for having his predecessor, the former-Pope Celestine V, arrested and imprisoned. Celestine tried to escape but it was to no avail and, for an ascetic hermit like Celestine, his life in confinement was hardly worse than his own preferred life of solitude. It should also be kept in mind that Boniface VIII was very concerned about someone “rescuing” his predecessor from his solitude, influencing him and using his name to challenge the unity of the Church.

Former Pope Celestine V endured his confinement as he did all the other misfortunes of his life but the conditions of the area in which he was held soon ruined his health and he died only ten months later on May 19, 1296. There were, of course, rumors that he had been murdered by his successor but no proof was or has ever been produced to support that theory. Even after his death he was used as a political pawn. In 1313 he was canonized by Pope Clement V and though none deny his saintliness, the canonization was done at the urging of King Philip IV of France as a way of further smearing the name of Pope Boniface VIII who had been his antagonist. Nonetheless, despite all the misfortunes of his reign, St Celestine V has remained blameless. His sincerity, piety and compassion have never been challenged and his intentions and motives were always pure. The fault lay with those who had used the innocent and uninformed saint to advance their own agendas.

David Starkey on Monarchy, Hong Kong and China

Royals at Eternal Rest

Off Topic Tuesday: Wall Street Protest

We have been hearing a great deal about the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations which have gathered around the country. Although they are incoherent and certain individuals can be found in the crowds espousing almost every variety of thought, philosophy or ideology. However, I cannot help but view them as a radically leftist group overall. I base this not only on what most of them are shouting in the streets but based on those who have embraced them. The mainstream media that totally ignored the “Tea Party” protests, until they began to vilify them, have been providing constant, non-stop coverage of the OWS protests. Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, Rosie O’Donnell and the leftist tyrant Hugo Chavez of Venezuela have all embraced the protestors. You cannot tell me any of those people would be saying one kind or apologetic word about the protesters if they were in any way conservative, traditional or anything other than advocates of big-government socialism. They seem to me to be in every way the leftist reaction to the Tea Party people. Obama (a leftist) came to power to initiate a remaking of America based on the model of European social democracy. In response, the Tea Party formed calling for smaller government, cuts to spending and reforming at least or ending at best entitlements. They pushed the Republicans to victory in the last Congressional elections and now, as Obama drops in the polls and the economy gets worse the OWS movement comes forward in response to demand bigger government, more spending and more entitlement programs.

In some ways, conservatives, capitalists, GOP-supporters etc can take some heart from this. The OWS movement would not be happening if the leftists did not smell death in the air. As they have contemplated the possibility of Obama losing the presidency the socialists have been forced to take this action to try to frighten the political elites into staying on the socialist, big-government path. There are things I would agree with many of the OWS people on, but in a completely different way than they do. I would agree that bailing out the banks was wrong but not because it was a “bailout of the rich” but because I don’t think the state should bail out anyone. They should succeed or fail on their merits. I would agree that the US needs to “bring our troops home” but I would start with the 50,000 troops in Germany because they serve no purpose and the US should not be subsidizing the defense of Europe, especially from an enemy (the Soviet Union) that no longer exists. I am not an isolationist but I don’t think much of what American forces are doing now serves US interests or security. I would agree that there is too much of a cozy relationship between many big businesses and the US government but my answer would be to separate the two rather than have the one absorb the other, which is what they seem to advocate. That is socialism. They are for it, I am against it, plain and simple.

Some say we should take these protests very seriously, others say we should pay attention but not be too alarmed by them. I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I am not alarmed by them (they seem to be mostly members of the same old spoiled brat, cry-baby brigade for the most part and not terribly effective) as things stand now. However, I am concerned by them because I see so many of the same elements coming together that came together in 1917 to bring down the Russian Empire. We see the same groups involved; socialists, anarchists, labor unions, internationalists and anti-war protestors. We see the same complaints about income inequality (which can only be solved by making everyone poor -and even that’s never happened, a new elite simply replaces the old), we see the same cries of unfairness and inequality and we see again a diverse collection of subversive groups pushing for some vague “change” in the hope that they can cause enough chaos and confusion to emerge as the victors when the dust finally settles. So far the protestors have not caused much of a problem, which is a little disappointing for me as it prevents me from indulging my first wish that the Governors would deploy the National Guard against them with a clear conscience. So, in the absence of tear gas and rubber bullets we have to take a more cerebral approach to this problem.

The basic problem is one of mentality. These people are, largely, not the poor, working masses but educated (read indoctrinated) college graduates who have been taught a bunch of impossible, ideological nonsense based on the mistaken belief that it is possible to get something for nothing. They see the State as Santa Claus, able to produce “gifts” in some magic workshop completely out of thin air. They demand “free” college education, “free” healthcare and the forgiveness of debts. They fail to comprehend the fact that the government produces nothing and can only provide money for certain projects by confiscating it from others. As a prominent local Belgian-Texan once said about the public school system, “If anyone thinks there is such a thing as free primary education they should have a look at my land taxes”. As for the forgiveness of debts, were they to carry out such a thing every bank in the country would go out of business and they would be totally unable to obtain any loans -which is something else they are complaining about. They display a complete ignorance of basic economics. They scream about how much corporate executives are paid, oblivious to the fact that corporations only stay in business because people buy their products. If they are really upset about the bonuses paid to executives in businesses bailed out by the government they should direct their anger at the government since, if they had not been bailed out and had been forced to go bankrupt, all of their bonus contracts would have been voided. By being bailed out the government had to underwrite those contracts and abide by them. Yet, many of the same politicians who supported the bail outs now support the protestors.

That is also why these protests, at least in this country, will accomplish nothing or make things worse or both. As much as they may feign outrage at “the administration” they all know perfectly well they are going to vote for Obama or else not vote at all. If then we have a President Romney leading the next administration they will become even more furious and encourage the Democrats to be even more partisan and radically leftist. Then we shall see the Democrats be just as obstructionist and uncompromising as the Republicans are now being. And that perfectly illustrates why I do not consider “secession” to be an ugly or unthinkable word. The United States is every day more divided between two radically opposed and irreconcilable ideas with one side thinking the government should control almost everything and the other thinking the government should control almost nothing. Neither can ever get all they want and neither will give in. Because of that, neither idea is ever fully implemented and therefore neither can ever be concretely proven correct or totally ruinous. So, the two sides remain trapped in this loveless marriage that is the Union, accomplishing nothing, never proven right, never proven wrong but only becoming ever more and more entrenched in their own ideologies. In the earliest days when the President was expected to be above parties this was something he would handle but today this is not the case and such an idea is painfully absurd. In order to have something like that we would have to have a chief of state who was completely impartial, totally above party and faction and would therefore have to be immune to popularity tests and the democratic process, chosen by a completely non-political process but at the same time have a vested interest in the success of the country and sufficient power to enact good policy or at least block bad policy. And we all know that is never going to happen. We got rid of that nonsense once and for all in 1776. Oh…

Monarch Profile: King Francesco II of the Two-Sicilies

The man who would be the last King of the Two-Sicilies represents a quandary that comes up for monarchists from time to time. King Francis II was a man of strong faith, deep convictions and firm principles. He also presided over the destruction and collapse of his kingdom, partly because of those very attributes which make him so admirable. This problem has arisen more than once in the history of fallen monarchies; is it better to stand firm and uncompromising, going down in honorable defeat or is it best to adapt, change and compromise in order to survive? The question will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all. The future last monarch was born Francesco d’Assisi Maria Leopoldo on January 16, 1836 the only son of King Ferdinand II by his first wife Queen Maria Christina of Savoy (the daughter of King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia) who died only a few days after Francis was born.

As his mother died so young, Francis was most influenced by his father and his stepmother Maria Theresa of Austria. His father had been rather moderate but grew increasingly authoritarian in reaction to rebellion. His stepmother, perhaps, was an even greater influence. The two were very close, she considering Francis her son and he considering her his mother. She was a rather reclusive figure and, from start to finish, a staunch conservative who always adamantly defended the absolute monarchy. Francis grew up as an intensely religious and intensely reactionary character (both good things). However, the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies was not the impoverished backwater many would later try to portray it as. The majority of people lived quite modest lives to be sure but Naples was a booming and modern city. The Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies was home to the first railway in the Italian peninsula, there were great institutions of learning and even telegraph communication between Naples and the city of Palermo on Sicily.

Francis had no real problem with technical innovations but he was never in doubt that his royal duty would be to maintain the absolute power of the monarchy and the privileged place of the Catholic Church. On February 3, 1859 Francis married Duchess Maria Sophia in Bavaria in Bari. The marriage would not be without problems. Francis was very shy and could seem stand-offish and it would be many years for the marriage was consummated due to a medical problem on the part of the King. There were also extremely pressing problems for Francis to deal with as he became King Francis II of the Two-Sicilies only a few months after his wedding on May 22, 1859. He inherited a kingdom under threat from rebels within who wanted limited, constitutional government and without by professional revolutionaries and the expanding Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia which offered what the discontented educated elites most wanted.

One of his first acts was to appoint as prime minister the moderate Carlo Filangieri, a loyal man but one who supported the granting of a constitution and that the best way to gain security was to accept the offered alliance from the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. However, Francis II resisted both suggestions and was most concerned with the rumors of rebellion running through the country. A critical moment came very quickly, on June 7, when the Swiss Guard mutinied, demanding a number of concessions from their new employer. The King tried to assuage them with promises of redress while at the same time calling up troops under General Alessandro Nunziante who then marched in, surrounded the Swiss and massacred them. What was viewed as a deadly threat against the absolute authority of the monarch had been bloodily ended, however, in doing so, the King had cut down the body that was the elite corps of his armed forces which would leave him vulnerable in the future to enemies who wanted a great deal more than higher pay and better working conditions.

By this time, Piedmont-Sardinia had consolidated Savoy rule over the area north of Rome (what would soon be the Kingdom of Italy) and another offer of alliance was put forward to Naples. They would divide the Papal States between them, with the northern half of the Italian peninsula being ruled from Turin and the southern half from Naples, each supporting the other. Especially in light of what had already happened, Filangieri urged the King to accept the offer. He, and others, viewed the Papal States as doomed and reasoned that it was better to have Piedmont-Sardinia as a friend rather than an enemy. If they embraced Turin, the Piedmontese could not strike them and if a serious rebellion broke out Turin would be legally obliged to aid in defending the Two-Sicilies. In political terms it made perfect sense but King Francis II could not abide the thought of in any way participating in the partition of the Papal States and robbing the Pope of his political power. The Papal theocracy had ruled central Italy for a thousand years and Francis II viewed any action taken against the Papal States as sacrilegious. Filangieri also advocated giving the people a constitution, something else the King would not countenance. Again, the offer of alliance was refused and Filangieri, sensing the coming disaster, resigned when his advice on the alliance and the constitution was not taken.

With pious bravery, King Francis II prayed, trusting in God to deliver his realm from danger. The Papal States were absorbed along with the central Italian duchies by Piedmont-Sardinia and, with many feeling a shift in the wind, revolutionary plots became common in the Two-Sicilies which even the King’s secret operatives were powerless to stamp out. Many were executed but many also escaped or hid themselves until the professional revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi arrived, with Piedmontese (and covert British) support, to invade Sicily. In May of 1860 Garibaldi and his thousand red shirts conquered Sicily with relative ease and, ignoring advice to the contrary, quickly planned to move to the peninsula. King Francis II, alarmed that the situation had become so critical, announced he was granting a constitution but, by that time, it was too little, too late and as Garibaldi and his forces invaded the government and the army began to fall apart with many officials and army officers deserting to the enemy. The King tried to arrange a peace or even a truce but it was to no avail and as Garibaldi approached he and the Queen fled Naples for the coastal fortress city of Gaeta.

It was there that King Francis II became a legend. His demeanor was no longer seen as shy and aloof but calm and courageous, cool under fire as he moved among his soldiers defending the walls. The French navy defended them by sea and Gaeta proved a tough nut to crack. However, the French finally withdrew their ships and Piedmont-Sardinia dropped all pretenses and formally joined the conflict, defeating the Neapolitan army (or what was left of it) and moving in to besiege Gaeta as well. It was a bitter pill for King Francis. Victor Emmanuel II (soon to be the first King of Italy) was his blood relative after all. However, the Piedmontese felt no compunctions about their involvement. As they saw it, multiple times they had extended the hand of friendship to the Two-Sicilies only to have it slapped away. Refusing to be their friend, King Francis would have to be their enemy. This he did with a quiet heroism that made his relative handful of troops defending Gaeta all but worship him. Like his stepmother he had always been somewhat withdrawn and never the populist sort of monarch but at this final crisis he showed, at least those in the besieged city, what his true colors were and they adored and admired him for it. He looked after the welfare of the people in the city and shared the danger with his soldiers defending the parapets. However, it was a hopeless struggle and eventually he was obliged to surrender to the forces of Victor Emmanuel II.

A monarch without a country, King Francis II and Queen Maria Sophia went to Rome where they were sheltered by Pope Pius IX and established a court-in-exile. At the outset many nations still recognized Francis II as the lawful King of the Two-Sicilies and the Pope was very gracious toward the gallant fallen monarch, perfectly aware of the fact that, to a degree at least, his misfortunes were the result of his refusal to take part in the partition of the Papal states. However, his time in Rome was not happy nor did it last for very long. The other nations of Europe may have sympathized with Francis II but many also viewed him as the author of his own problems and none were willing to provide actual assistance. As the Kingdom of Italy was consolidated even diplomatic recognition began to fall away. The Queen also began having an affair with a member of the Papal military corps, unknown to the King, and finally had to be spirited away when she became pregnant by the man. When the last foreign troops were withdrawn from the Italian peninsula Rome was occupied and made the capital of the new Kingdom of Italy. The Pope shut himself up in the Vatican and refused to come out while Francis II had to look for a new place of exile. France, Austria and Bavaria were all temporary homes.

The Queen, after having her baby and giving the child away confessed her affair to her husband. King Francis, perhaps not surprisingly, forgave the woman and finally took it upon himself to endure the operation that would correct the problem that kept him from performing his marital duties. It was a success and finally the two were able to live together fully as man and wife and soon a daughter was born to the exiled King and Queen in 1869. They were both overjoyed but this soon turned to despair when the baby girl, named Maria Cristina Pia, died only a few months later. It seemed that nothing had been spared the last King of the Two-Sicilies. The Queen became increasingly depressed and, for the most part, the King had only his still firm Catholic faith to give him comfort. He never ceased praying that God would effect a miracle and somehow turn his tragedy into a triumph but it was not to be, not in this life anyway. On December 27, 1894 at the age of only 54 King Francis II of the Two Sicilies died in Austria-Hungary.

Views of the last King of the Two Sicilies vary greatly as partisans on both sides of the unification issue exaggerate their conflicting accusations. The image that Francis II was an authoritarian tyrant who terrorized his poor, suffering people is positively false. He had not a bad bone in his body and indeed was a very charitable and compassionate man. What is true is that he seemed better suited to a seminary than the throne of a country in crisis. Nor was he a flawless and pristine saint, he made plenty of mistakes, many of which were recognized at the time. The fact that Italy became a unitary state rather than a confederation of local royal states can be, in part, laid at his door as he refused to support such an idea even if it would have made him the first King of Italy. However, as disastrous as this proved to be, setting himself against the irresistible tide of history, his reasons for refusing were noble; he would not violate the territory of the Papal States for any reason whatsoever.

What is less clear was his failure to personally take immediate action against the invasion of Garibaldi. Maintaining an absolute monarchy in the wild country of southern Italy where rebels were numerous required a great deal of armed force. The Two Sicilies actually had the largest standing army on the Italian peninsula and Garibaldi, though famous as a revolutionary soldier, did not really have all that great of a record of success behind him. Additionally, he had only about a thousand volunteers, most of them northern Italians (some not Italians at all but like-minded foreigners) unfamiliar and unaccustomed to conditions in Sicily and who often had more zeal than military experience or ability. We know from his performance at Gaeta that King Francis II could be an inspirational military leader and it seems hard to deny that if he had immediately mobilized his army and led them himself against Garibaldi his much larger army could have easily destroyed the red shirted revolutionaries. This may not have saved his kingdom in the long run, but it is at least possible that it would have made Turin think twice about messing with Naples and left the Two Sicilies alone and contented themselves with the rest of Italy.

Francis may have thought that his last minute agreement to enact a constitution would save his throne but, if so, this was a naïve hope. Frankly, by that time, no one was buying it anymore. In the face of revolution two of his predecessors, Ferdinand I and Ferdinand II, had both granted constitutions but both later revoked them once they again had the upper hand militarily. Francis had refused a constitution and when he finally agreed to have one, no one really believed the offer was sincere. The people had learned that they could use force to get what they wanted and they had learned not to trust their monarchs. Shooting all of the Swiss Guards was probably a mistake as well, although we can understand the mentality behind such a move, it was probably short-sighted and robbed the King of the backbone of his military strength. So, the man made mistakes. However, it must also be remembered that he was only 25 when he lost his throne and his behavior at the end was so gallant and heroic that even his enemies had to admire him. In death he left behind a legacy as a brave monarch and a pious son the Church of Rome and it was always that which was most important to him anyway. The propagandists of the victors made a great deal of sport of him after his defeat, which was not only wrong but unworthy. Regardless of the political opinions one might have, Francesco II, last King of the Two Sicilies, should not be ridiculed but revered.

Mad Rant: A "Fair" Succession

Alright, sometimes it really stinks being so right all the time. Years ago I got a lot of grief for saying that this issue should have been handled by the Royal Family themselves before it became a political issue because it would just keep coming up every time the government needed a distraction. The issue being gender equality and Catholics in the royal succession. Guess what, it came up again. And again. And yes, again. So, instead of the Royal Family being in charge of royal tradition (the idea I was roundly criticized for) it is in the hands of the pre-pubescent prime minister “Call Me Dave” Cameron. Once again we are told that the government is looking into changing the succession because it is so “unfair” that male children are given preference over female children and Catholics are excluded altogether. It’s like a bad broken record. There are riots in the streets, a welfare state bankrupting the country and the military has been reduced to such a point they are actually considering “sharing” a navy -with FRANCE. Yet, the government has decided to set all that aside for the moment because some girls or Catholics who do not even exist yet are being “discriminated against” by the current law.

The idea of trying to end birthright discrimination in a hereditary monarchy is so ludicrous it makes my head hurt. I know I’ve asked this before, but seriously, what happened to Great Britain? Did a majority of the British public all suddenly get hit with a dumb stick sometime after World War II? I don’t mean to be harsh here, the same could be asked about most monarchies in Europe. That is what this is really, a fashionable trend. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium and so on have already done the same and Britain doesn’t want to be the odd man out. Sure, other monarchies still have male primogeniture, like Monaco, but Britain doesn’t want to be anything like Monaco. They have very low taxes, a monarchy that still rules the country and you can go to jail if you insult the Prince. What a horrid place. No, the UK wants to be like the progressive, socialist monarchies on the continent. Next thing you know they’ll be trying to make the Queen ride a bicycle to Westminster for the opening of Parliament and tell her she can’t wear her own crown anymore.

As anyone who has read this weblog for any length of time can attest I am an admitted reactionary but I also believe in facing facts, accepting reality and doing so means you sometimes have to accept a less than ideal situation in order to live to fight another day. Given that, some people might reasonably ask if male primogeniture is a hill worth dying on. I can understand that, especially given that almost every other monarchy in Europe has done the same. But those people are what I like to call “stupid”. Just because everyone has done something stupid doesn’t automatically make it intelligent. It is not that I think the British monarchy should “die” on the hill of male primogeniture, it is that I think this should not even be considered important at all, certainly not right now. I will repeat, the government has much more pressing issues to deal with right now than anything concerning the monarchy. Furthermore, once again, trying to make birthright preference in a hereditary monarchy non-discriminatory is retarded. How can I explain how totally retarded this argument is? Imagine this: it would be like arguing that it is unfair that only a Catholic can be elected Pope, that discriminates against all the Protestants and Hindus and atheists who dream of being Pope one day.

It is so asinine I will admit that my powers of persuasion tend to fail me. It is so completely absurd that I hardly know where to begin. I cannot even fathom the mentality of someone making the argument that you must end “discrimination” in a hereditary monarchy. And, after all, it is not as though women can never succeed to the throne. Obviously not, the current monarch is a Queen. If you want to make the monarchy “fair” (as the proponents of this crap define it) I don’t see how you don’t ultimately end up getting rid of the monarchy altogether. After all, why is it anymore fair that Princess Elisabeth will be Queen of the Belgians one day rather than her younger brother Prince Gabriel? He didn’t choose to be born later anymore than he chose to be able to write his name in the snow. And why is it “fair” that Prince William will be King one day instead of the children of Prince Andrew or Princess Anne? And why is it “fair” that only members of the House of Windsor can be the royals anyway. That “discriminates” against everyone who isn’t a Windsor so why even have a monarchy at all? This is the argument taken to its logical conclusion.

Some might think I’m stretching a bit here, but it’s a “mad” rant for a reason after all: this seems to me to be a mental illness that shares the same roots as the people rioting in the streets over austerity measures in Europe or the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd in America. This is the result of a society of spoiled brats who were never taught the hard lessons of reality. Get it through your thick, indoctrinated, whining, pinko skulls people: LIFE ISN’T FAIR! It never has been! It never will be! Not everyone can be rich, not everyone can be successful and not everyone can be a prince. And, just like efforts to enforce “fairness” in the economy only ends up making things more unfair by taking what one person legitimately earned to give it to someone who didn’t earn it, efforts to enforce “fairness” in the succession only means replacing discrimination based on gender with discrimination based on age. In other words, LIFE ISN’T FAIR and you will never be able to force it to be. At most all you can do is make everyone equally poor or make everyone citizens. As the old saying goes, if “everyone is special” then no one really is.

However, all is not lost. Even if this goes through there is a way for the Royal Families of the world to thwart the process if they wish to. On the religious front, this is already mostly possible which is why I never understood why the ban on Catholics has to be enshrined in law (save for the fact many people in Britain evidently don’t trust their Royal Family with freedom of religion). The monarch already must approve of every royal marriage. So, even without the ban on Catholics, the monarch can simply refuse to recognize any marriage between one of her family and a Catholic (which doesn’t even mean they couldn’t marry, only that it would not be recognized in law and thus invalidate them in the succession anyway). On the gender front, the Royal Family can decide, privately of course, amongst themselves, that if any future Cambridge offspring want to stick to the old fashioned way but have a daughter before a son, she can simply abdicate and her rights would fall to her brother. Unless the government then passes a law denying royals the right to abdicate they would then be caught in a legal loophole and the change thwarted. Yes, yes, I know, they probably wouldn’t do it and even if they did there would probably be outrage over it but, what do you expect? I am … The Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: Queen Marie Antoinette

On the anniversary of the beloved Queen's martyrdom, The Mad Monarchist remembers...

Royal News Roundup

First of all we have happy news in the Far East. His Majesty the fifth Druk Gyalpo (Dragon King) of Bhutan Jigme Khesar Namgyel of the Wangchuck Dynasty was married, on Thursday, to Jetsun Pema (from henceforth the Queen of Bhutan) a 21-year old native of Thimphu. The Buddhist wedding ceremony was held at the fortress-palace Punakha Dzong amidst much celebrating and Himalayan-style pomp and ceremony. The Queen-to-be arrived first, escorted by her family, folk singers, a white horse and Buddhist monks. As per tradition, the monastery was “guarded” by two small elephants. Inside, the King and his father the former King were ushered into a sacrosanct chamber holding the remains of the Tibetan lama Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, the founder of Bhutan, where both were presented with blessed scarves and a chalice of ambrosia symbolic of the wish for eternal life. The couple came together and the new Queen was given her scarf and both husband and wife drank from the chalice. The King, of course, wore his ‘Raven Crown’ and the new Queen was given a silk crown for the occasion and both were presented with a number of symbolic gifts. Once all was over the two left the palace to walk among the crowd and greet the people. The charmingly shy new Queen stayed mostly behind her husband who, as is usual for him, was touching hands, talking to people and holding babies. In a post-wedding interview the King said he and his wife shared a love of art and that “it’s great” to be married. Three days of festivities have followed. The wedding was not an international affair as are most royal weddings, rather appropriately for a nation like Bhutan, the King said he wanted the celebration to be for and with his people. The Mad Monarchist send congratulations to the happy couple. Bhutan has a very lovely new Queen.

Meanwhile the news has not been so happy in the Kingdom of Thailand which has been hit hard by flooding, worsened by damage to dams and embankments. However, the Royal Family, though still in the midst of 100 days of mourning after the death of HRH Princess Bejaratana in July, has taken active measures to meet the crisis. HRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn and HRH Princess consort Srirasmi have established food kitchens in the hard-hit region of Ayutthaya. The Crown Princely couple is also collecting donations in the name of their son by using the HRH Prince Dipangkorn Rasmijoti Fund which was named after the boy. Donations can also be sent directly to the Bangkok Bank. The Crown Prince has also opened up the local university campus to refugees who have lost their homes in the flooding as a temporary shelter. HRH Princess Chakri Sirindhorn is also pitching in, visiting Ayutthaya with medical teams to bring relief packages to the local populace and care for anyone needing medical attention. As the revered King has become increasingly frail, the Crown Prince has taken on more and more royal duties such as presiding at the traditional plowing ceremony and the opening of the Thai parliament. HM Queen Sirikit has also been looking considerably thinner lately, which causes me some concern. I hope in her tireless care of the King she is not allowing her own health to deteriorate.

In Europe, on Wednesday, the Spanish Royal Family was out in force for National Day. The King and Queen, Prince and Princess of the Asturias, the Infanta Elena and others all turned out for the traditional military parade. HM King Juan Carlos, though still needing a cane since the operation on his Achilles tendon, remained standing at attention throughout the ceremony to salute the Spanish royal guard and members of the armed forces as they marched past the royal box. The royal-military pageantry provided a much needed splash of color in Spain which has been forced to adopt austerity measures to deal with overspending and enormous debts. HM Queen Sofia and HRH Infanta Elena did without new outfits for the celebration this year, to set an example for frugality. Following the parade a reception was held in the throne room at Zarzuela Palace where the Spanish Royal Family shook the hands of one thousand government representatives. National Day in Spain is held on Columbus Day in honor of the founding of the Spanish colonial empire, and a way of reaching out to all other Hispanic nations. It is also Armed Forces Day, hence the large military aspect of the celebration. iViva el Rey! iArriba España!

In northern news we have another royal visit to the United States. On Wednesday Their Majesties King Harald V and Queen Sonja of Norway arrived in St Paul, Minnesota to kick a 10-day visit. Former Vice-President Walter Mondale, among other local dignitaries, were on hand to greet the royal couple. Minnesota, like much of the Midwest, has a large Norwegian-American population. The King of Norway lived in the United States during World War II (when Norway was occupied by Nazi Germany) and has said he considers the country his second home. In fact, he lived in the White House part of the time those many years ago. The King met with members of the Norwegian-American community, met with officials and visited a number of establishments. The Norwegian monarch is currently in Iowa (is he running for President? I’d vote for him!) where His Majesty spoke at the Luther College in Decorah. The King was presented with the “Spirit of Luther Award”. During his tour the Norwegian monarch will also visit the Mayo Clinic and other areas before going on to New York to pay his respects at Ground Zero and will finish the trip at a gala celebrating the anniversary of the American Scandinavian Foundation.

And finally there is my favorite story: a drunk Frenchman being sentenced to 6 days in jail in Monaco for insulting the Prince. Read about that at Mad for Monaco - Don’t Mess with Prince Albert!

MM Video: Royal Marriage in Bhutan

Congratulations to the happy couple!

Favorite Royal Images: Queen of Canada

Although the above photo was taken in the 70's I thought it appropriate to feature a photo of HM Queen Elizabeth II of Canada as it was on this day in 1957 that Her Majesty became the first Canadian Sovereign to open Parliament in person with her Speech from the Throne. God Save the Queen of Canada!

Consort Profile: Queen Marie Clotilde of France

HRH Princess Marie Adélaïde Clotilde Xavière of France was born on September 23, 1759 in Versailles, the eldest surviving daughter of Louis, Dauphin of France by Princess Maria Josepha of Saxony. She was the granddaughter of King Louis XV and sister of Prince Louis Auguste, later His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI. Her father died when he was only 36 and her mother fell into a deep depression afterwards and died only a couple of years later. Madame Clotilde, as she was known, was, along with her sister Elisabeth, raised by Madame de Marsan. Nonetheless, the legacy of her parents was strongly seen in Marie Clotilde. Like her father, she was very religious and a little on the plump side which led some to (rather cruelly one would think) nickname her ‘Gros-Madame’ when she was a girl. Perhaps because of this she was rather shy and withdrawn, a demur type we would say. Some have seized on this to portray the princess as passive and having a rather blank character but nothing could be further from the truth. She simply did not wear her emotions on her sleeve. She and her sister Elisabeth, who grew up together, were very attached to each other and Princess Elisabeth, who led such a tragic life, was extremely distraught when Madame Clotilde left France to marry.

She was only sixteen when she was married in 1775 to Prince Charles Emmanuel of Piedmont, son and heir of King Victor Amadeus III of Piedmont-Sardinia and Queen Maria Antonia Ferdinanda of Spain. This had been arranged well in advance and from the time she was very young the princess had been taught Italian so as it fit in quickly with the royal court in Turin. Many of the snobs at the French court, where being beautiful and fashionable often seemed the be-all and end-all, made mocking comments after her departure about her weight (though I will hasten to add that by our standards today she does not look to have been that overweight to me) to the effect that the Prince of Piedmont was getting ‘two wives instead of one’. The match was part of a diplomatic offensive of sorts involving several such marriages and so King Victor Amadeus III was only concerned that she would be able to have children but, Prince Charles Emmanuel was not bothered in the least by the size of his bride, saying he simply had “more to worship”. The gallant Savoy prince loved his wife from the start and she him in what would be a very happy and devoted marriage for the two.

Unfortunately, the concerns of Victor Amadeus III would prove well founded as the couple were never able to have children (though who can say if the responsibility rested with the bride or the groom). Nonetheless, Marie Clotilde and Charles Emmanuel were very happy together. Both were very devout Catholics and their shared faith proved a solid foundation for their union. Both also had good examples to follow coming from parents who were extremely devoted to each other as well. Marie Clotilde admired and respected her husband and Charles Emmanuel loved his wife regardless of what size dress she wore. Marie Clotilde was also warmly welcomed into the House of Savoy by her new sisters-in-law who all became fast friends and very supportive of each other. Marie Clotilde was never able to see France again as the outbreak of the Revolution prevented any such happy visits. Her brother and his Queen along with so many others, including her beloved sister Elisabeth were all sent to the guillotine by the bloodthirsty revolutionaries. It was a heart-wrenching time for Marie Clotilde but she took refuge in her faith, her in-laws were supportive and her father-in-law, King Victor Amadeus III, was happy to provide sanctuary for those of the French Royal Family who could escape including Clotilde’s brother the Count of Artois and her aunts Madame Adelaide and Madame Victoire.

In 1796 the old King died and Marie Clotilde became Queen consort alongside her husband who became King Charles Emmanuel IV of Piedmont-Sardinia. Despite being greatly outmatched, as a matter of principle the late Victor Amadeus III had declared war on the revolutionary republic only to be soundly beaten and forced to sign a humiliating peace. However, only a few years after coming to the throne, French republican forces invaded again forcing Charles Emmanuel and Marie Clotilde to flee to the island of Sardinia. Sustained by their faith and little else the couple later moved to Rome and later Naples, aided by the patrician Colonna family. During this time, Marie Clotilde was an angel of mercy to her husband’s dying aunt, Princess Maria Felicita of Savoy (herself a saintly woman) while in Naples. The woman died later in Rome and only a year later, on March 7, 1802, Queen Marie Clotilde departed this life as well, at the age of only 42, to the very end being concerned with the welfare of others and the care of her husband. The King was so distraught by her passing that he abdicated his rights and joined the Society of Jesus. Marie Clotilde of France, Queen consort of Piedmont-Sardinia was buried in Naples at the Church of Santa Caterina a Chiaia. On April 10, 1808 His Holiness Pope Pius VII (who had known the Queen personally) declared her “venerable”, the first step in the process of beatification. As far as I know, her cause has not since progressed. She was, nonetheless, a great Christian, a great wife and a great queen.

China and the 1911 Revolution

This year is the centenary of the 1911 Revolution that brought an end to the imperial system in China which had lasted for an astounding 2,132 years roughly. There have been a number of commemorations of this event, both on the mainland and the Republic of China. Both, however, have become just slightly uncomfortable with the occasion. On Taiwan the revolution has been used as a political football by the independence and nationalist factions while on the mainland the Communist authorities endeavor to be properly respectful while at the same time refusing to set it on too lofty a pedestal since they must hold the revolution to have been imperfect until Chairman Mao proclaimed their “ideal” People’s Republic of China. In their effort to appear open and reasonable, the Communist authorities have even allowed their media to hold some very controlled discussions on the subject of the 1911 Revolution but being careful to mostly focus on the results, on Sun Yat-sen and not on the Qing Imperial Dynasty. It should come as no surprise that, as with the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution I am absolutely astounded by the fact that anyone could see the 1911 Revolution in China as anything other than a catastrophe.

The communist lackey professors I saw discussing the subject did mention the efforts at reform made by Emperor GuangXu but then quickly discounted the sincerity of the reformers by pointing out that when these efforts failed the reformers, such as Kang Youwei, “became conservatives” which proves their real goal was to save the imperial system and not real reform. They take for granted that one could not possibly be a well-intentioned supporter of the Qing Dynasty and the Chinese Empire. As I have heard many say about the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, they start from the assumption that the destruction of the monarchy was an absolute good no matter how wrenching or horrific the consequences. Frankly, I find it rather hard to have a rational discussion with anyone of that mindset. Additionally, for all of the modern complaining about the Qing Dynasty they never did anything unspeakably awful. When pinned down on the subject most of the criticism is based on their inability to deal with foreign aggression -though they are also criticized for when they did fight back as well- or simply that they were representatives of “feudalism” which is used in China as a derogatory term for the imperial period at large. In other words, the bias shows when monarchs are criticized simply for being monarchs.

In fact, Imperial China reached its peak of size and power under the Qing Dynasty and whatever failings the Qing emperors may have been guilty of they in no way warrant the throwing away of over two thousand years of imperial history and sacred tradition. Even if they were positively terrible rulers no objective observer could honestly claim that what came after them was an improvement. There was the chaos and bloodshed of the warlord period, China being in a state of near anarchy as republican elites vied for power, followed by one of the bloodiest civil wars in Chinese history (and they’ve had some horrific ones) which was only ended by the oppressive tyranny of the communist dictatorship that went on to be one of if not *the* most destructive in terms of the loss of human life in the history of the world with a death toll numbering in the tens of millions. This was due, in large part, because of the typical revolutionary mentality that all of China and everything traditionally “Chinese” had to be totally destroyed and replaced by an entirely new (and foreign) philosophy, way of thinking and so on. It was not just an effort to change the government, it was an effort to change China itself and the Chinese themselves and that is what really caused the most horror.

You can see this most clearly with Mao and his policies but it goes all the way back to the start of the 1911 Revolution and Sun Yat-sen. From the age of 13 to 17 he was raised and educated in the U.S. state of Hawaii, learned English, learned about democracy and republicanism and so on. He was later baptized by an American missionary into the Congregational Church of the United States. He came to have a fawning devotion to everything western and utter contempt for everything traditionally Chinese. He willing allied with notorious organized crime elements to pursue his goals which he identified, early on, as provoking a violent revolution to overthrow the Qing Dynasty, the institution of democracy and the redistribution of property. Sound familiar? Even some of his fellow anti-Qing revolutionaries denounced him for his criminal activities and his extensive foreign ties while simultaneously maintaining such an anti-foreign attitude. After the 1911 Revolution Sun Yat-sen returned to China accompanied by an American charlatan from Colorado, dressed in a ridiculous military costume, as his “military advisor” even though he had no military training at all but claimed to be a relative of the late Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

On the other side, there were of course those who supported continuing the imperial system as it had been but these were relatively few as most, by that time, because of the defeats China had suffered at the hands of Japan and the European powers, viewed some sort of change as necessary. Those who advocated reform within the existing imperial framework were those who led the reform movement under Emperor GuangXu which was suppressed by the Empress-Dowager. It was at that point that the monarchist Kang Youwei and the monarchist who later turned republican Liang Qiqao formed the “Protect the Emperor Society” while in exile in Vancouver, Canada. After the death of the Emperor and the accession of the little Prince Aisin-Gioro Pu-Yi as Emperor Xuantong they became the constitutional monarchy party. The original plan they seized on was based on the Meiji Constitution of Japan, adapted to Chinese traditions and with greater powers reserved for the Emperor. It was this movement that established the first national assembly in Chinese government and, although there were complaints about how little power they had and how princes of the Aisin-Gioro clan dominated the body, it was still the first step in the direction they wanted China to take; modernization while also preserving traditional Chinese forms and styles.

However, with the notable exception of Kang Youwei, most of these people were not truly loyal to the dynasty either and most joined the revolution when it broke out and eventually their constitutional party became the “Progressive Party”. In doing so they effectively put themselves out of a job. They had ceased to represent a legitimate alternative to those advocating a western style republic and thus most support swung over to the republican nationalists, eventually (and that took time) consolidated by General Chiang Kai-shek. Remaining monarchists were scattered, not well organized (partly because the young Emperor and court came to regard any political party as suspicious) and increasingly dependent on foreign support, which is never an ideal position to be in. However, there was nothing outrageous about Chinese monarchists looking to the example of Japan. Japan was the one Asian country that had modernized without throwing away their own culture and traditions and they had been immensely successful, rising in an extremely short period from essentially medieval conditions to the status of an industrialized regional power.

It is also important to remember, though the modern authorities would never admit it or even allow it to be discussed, that a meaningful reform of Imperial China was possible. It cannot ever happen overnight but the first steps had been taken and in the person of the last Emperor there was great potential for leadership in that direction. Emperor Xuantong (“Henry” Pu-Yi as the world knows him better) was very modern-minded, open to innovation and yet still reverent toward traditional values and customs. Had he been given a chance to rule, or if Emperor GuangXu had not died when he did (possibly by design) things might have turned out very differently. The fact that they did not cannot be changed but the ideas they had should not be forgotten. Being the reactionary that I am, I would also say that the pre-reform imperial system should not be totally discounted either. It worked well enough to survive for over a thousand years and with modern technical advances I think many old systems could function perfectly well in our modern age if people would only give them a chance. However, as a traditional monarchy or a constitutional monarchy there is no doubt that China would be better off today if the 1911 Revolution had never happened. If you don’t believe me, simply refer to the tens of millions of people killed in the warlord era, World War II, the civil war, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Korea, Vietnam and in purges and the oppression that continues to this very day. Republicanism is a totally alien concept to Chinese culture and anything other than the imperial system will always be unnatural and dysfunctional. Give the Qing their job back or enthrone a new dynasty, either way, China will again be true to itself. Down with both republics and 10,000 Years to the Emperor -whoever that may be.

Off Topic Tuesday: I Am Intolerant

It has become increasingly clear to me that, even though a single primary vote has yet to be cast, the unseen “gods” of the GOP have decided that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate for president. There is no doubt in my mind that he is the choice of the “establishment” and if you don’t believe me just take some time to read the Wall Street Journal and watch the Fox News Channel. The WSJ has adopted the position that Republicans are “waking up” to the inevitability of success for Romney and are uniting behind him in the drive to defeat Obama. They completely discount Herman Cain who is now number two in most polls and they sure as hell will never mention Congressman Ron Paul who has snuck up to third place in some polls. They will continue to ignore Rick Santorum when they are not attacking him for his opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. Why is this the case? Mostly because the GOP elite never seriously considered anyone but Romney and Perry to begin with and the Bush family does not like Rick Perry and never have.

As for why that is, you will have to ask someone else. From where I sit a Perry presidency is one I would expect to be little different than George W. Bush ‘take two’. It doesn’t help that he’s not “society”. Observers will note that Sarah Palin was not, is not and never was popular with the Republican Party leadership either. Probably because she didn’t go to an Ivy League university and (more importantly) as Governor of Alaska she went after corrupt Republicans -and turning on members of your own party is the one unpardonable sin in their book. Now, none of this is to say I think Palin or Perry would be great presidential leaders but it bothers me because this is not how the system is supposed to work. Both parties do it but the Democrats (with their “Super Delegates”) are at least more honest in how they go about thwarting the will of the people. The Republicans are more subtle and, again, you can turn on the TV and see it right now. Turn on Fox News any night of the week (like tonight Oct.10) and you can see Ann Coulter explain how Perry is worse than Romney, you can see Laura Ingraham outraged by the fact that some Baptist preacher said Romney wasn’t a Christian (guess what Laura, the Catholic Church you belong to doesn’t either), you can see Dick Morris (I almost wrote dot com with that) and Sean Hannity agree on how Romney is being treated terribly unfairly. And, again, on Sunday you could have watched Chris Wallace basically call Rick Santorum a racist for saying he doesn’t think guys wearing neon-pink t-shirts that say “We’re Here, We’re Queer, Get Used To It” should be allowed in the military.

They are all blocking for Romney, with the occasional interview thrown to Herman Cain, everyone with the look in their eyes like, “Oh, it’s so cute how he thinks he has a chance just because a lot of people support him”. They are even doing what they lambasted Rick Perry for doing. They hated it when Perry said that if you didn’t support government help for the children of illegal aliens you didn’t have a heart. Now though they are saying that if you don’t think Mormons are Christians then you are … this is gonna hurt… INTOLERANT! Well, as this is “National Coming Out Day” I am officially going to ‘come out’ as an intolerant person. I do not think Mormons are Christians. If that offends you, well, tough because I’m not sorry, it is my honest opinion. If it makes you feel better you can think I belong to any religion you want, you won’t hurt my feelings at all. I don’t think Mormons are Christians, I think their religion is beyond bizarre and I think it was all started by a con artist. There are plenty of things I don’t like about Mitt Romney but if I’m going to be called intolerant because just one of things I have a problem with is his religion then so be it. I do have a problem with his religion and if more people knew just half of the mind-numbingly absurd things they believe they would have a problem with it too.

I know that to non-religious people, any religion seems a little crazy. I get that, but the Mormons are A LOT crazy. These are people who believe that their founding “prophet” found Egyptian tablets buried in his back yard -in the *United States*. These are people who believe that Native Americans are Jews, that Africans are some kind of cursed demon-people, that God is an American (they think the Garden of Eden was in Missouri), that Jesus and Satan are brothers, that God has a lot of wives, that one day all good Mormons will become gods of their own planets throughout the universe and, best of all, these are the people who believe they are protected by their magic underwear. I don’t know why, but in that whole litany of insanities there, the one most people I talk to always ask me to verify is the part about the magic underwear (like *that’s* the most crazy thing). I’m not making any of this up, you can look it up for yourself.

So, I am intolerant and you may all want to keep a safe distance from me until I can serve some time in “tolerance camp” with the South Park guys but, -just my opinion- I would be a little uncomfortable with someone who believes that Indians are Jews, dead people can be baptized, that an angel gave a guy from Vermont a golden book and magic glasses to learn the part God “left out” of the Bible, or pretty much anyone who believes they wear magic undies having control over the United States nuclear arsenal. I don’t care who you are -that stuff is crazy. Yet, it is not only the craziness. I can handle a great deal of craziness and there are people I admire who were probably certifiably insane (myself not included …I mean, I am certifiable, I’m just not terribly fond of myself). However, the Mormons cannot even be consistent with their craziness. Their ‘divinely revealed truth’ seems to keep changing and always at a time when, coincidentally I’m sure, it happens to benefit them politically. There are two glaring examples of this; the Mormon attitude toward polygamy and toward Black people.

As most probably know, the Mormons used to practice polygamy (and many still do, just not the “official” church). Not only did they think it was acceptable, they thought it was the best way to do things, in fact, it would help you on the way to becoming a god yourself. The founding “prophet” of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, had 44 “wives”. His successor as leader of the Mormon religion, Brigham Young, had 55 wives and fathered 56 children. Yet, we all know that the Mormons take great offense today if you bring this up and they will stress that it is wrong to have more than one wife and that they no longer practice polygamy. What changed? How did it go from being the short-cut to divinity one day and totally wrong the next day? Well, the U.S. was not going to let Utah join the Union if they continued to allow polygamy, and the Mormons were in a tight spot and really needed to join the union, and as luck would have it their supreme leader received a new, divine revelation that “god” was, I guess, just kidding about what he had said before and that polygamy was wrong. So, they repudiated the practice and were able to join the United States.

Then there is the case of the Africans. Black people were allowed to become Mormons but could never join the priesthood, could never enter the Temple and even after death would continue to be slaves in Heaven. This was because, in the mind of Brigham Young, all Black people were the cursed offspring of human-demon hybrids that lived before the Flood of Noah (however that was supposed to have worked). So, I cannot imagine many Black people feeling very welcome in the Mormon religion. But, yet again, this time-honored article of Mormon faith was finally cast aside when it became politically expedient to do so. The ban on Blacks in the priesthood lasted until 1978, by which time the Civil Rights struggle had ended for the most part, everyone tended to look down on racist policies and the Mormons were left being the odd man out. They had also, by this time, become powerful enough and accepted enough to start wanting to run candidates for office and no one would vote for a member of a “church” that basically said “Blacks need not apply”. So, once again, the leaders said to forget all about everything everyone had said about race up until 1978, that was all wrong but what they were saying now was right and that was that all races are equal and Blacks can be priests and all the rest. Nothing to see here, move along people.

Each of these things are terrible, but their awfulness is compounded by their inconsistency. It was okay to have a lot of wives (in fact you couldn’t gain the highest place in heaven without being married) until it was not. It was okay to discriminate against Blacks -until it was not. I would say their god doesn’t seem all that omniscient to me but, they do believe Adam was god, that god wasn’t always god but that god started out as a man just like us and one day became god and if we are all good Mormons we can become gods too. Given that, perhaps we should expect the god of the Mormons to be a little imperfect.

So, that is my objection to the Mormons and why I am officially deemed “intolerant” by the Mitt Romney camp. Again, there are plenty of other problems that I have with Romney but if they want to make an issue out of religion, so be it. If they want to call me intolerant because I won’t call Mormons Christians there isn’t one thing I can do about it. That is how I feel. I don’t know any Mormons personally, but I know people of various religions that are perfectly nice, decent folks with whom I agree on many things. I’m sure it would be the same with Mormons, I just don’t agree that they are Christians. So according to Mitt Romney and Fox News I am “intolerant”. If any of you would like to join me in the realm of the intolerant, simply re-read this post (keeping in mind I made none of this stuff up -my imagination is not that good) and then ask yourself if the religion described here bears any resemblance whatever to Christianity. Do that, and you just might find yourself to be “intolerant” as well.