The Queen and Communist China

There was recently a bit of a media 'dust-up' over remarks made by HM the Queen about the recent visit by President Xi Jinping of China and other leading Communist Chinese officials. It started when Her Majesty was overheard telling a guest at a recent garden party that the Red Chinese had been "rude" to her ambassador. There was an immediate flurry of media activity about this since the Queen usually keeps virtually all of her opinions to herself and the Royal Family as a whole is under extreme pressure to have no opinion on anything controversial at all. Personally, I was glad to hear Her Majesty speak her mind, even in this very, very small way, about a visit that was such a blatant sell-out of the U.K. by the political class in London eager for Chinese cash. The Chinese Communist government, of course, was very upset by the Queen's brief phrase and proceeded to prove how 'not rude' they are by referring to the west as "barbarians" and assuring the Chinese people that these uncouth foreigners will improve in time as the thousands of years of Chinese civilization rubs off on them. The response was actually funny, considering the source.

The Communist government's response sounded more like something Emperor Qianlong would have said, dismissing a British envoy. It is a sign of how bourgeois modern China has become and I'm sure Chairman Mao is spinning in his mausoleum that one of his successors as dictator of mainland China would ever have anything to do with "class enemy" like the British monarch. It would be only fair as I was rather distressed that Her Majesty would be called upon to receive a pseudo-Marxist tyrant like Xi Jinping in the first place. I thought the ladies of the Royal Family (excluding the Queen) went overboard with their red dresses and I applauded HRH the Prince of Wales for boycotting the state dinner, specifically to show his disdain for the Communist oppression of Tibet. Previously, the Prince also caused a stir by a less than flattering observation he made about the Red Chinese at the handover of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. What should be the real scandal is the way the British political class have kowtowed to the Communist rulers of China *for decades* enduring far more from them than merely "rude" behavior.

Let the record show that in 1967 Chinese Red Guards attacked an invaded the British embassy in Peking, assaulting the people trapped inside to an extent some would call torture. The Communist government condoned the action and a similar attack on British officials in Shanghai. The same year, troops of the People's Liberation Army fired on British police officers in Hong Kong, killing five, an act most would consider an act of war. Chinese envoys even attacked British police officers in London and in 1982 Deng Xiaoping openly threatened to invade Hong Kong. Yet, after every outrage, the British government has looked the other way, given in to the demands of the Red bandits and gone on with normal diplomatic relations with them as though nothing had ever happened. The Queen was entirely accurate in her remark and, indeed, could have justly used even harsher language in describing such a despicable regime.

Happy 90th Birthday to Her Majesty!

Happy 90th Birthday to Her Majesty!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

God Save Our Gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God Save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us,

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

MM Special Report: Coronation Anniversary

Starting in the United Kingdom, this week saw HM Queen Elizabeth II celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of her coronation with a special service at Westminster Abbey among other commemorations. Glimpses of the coronation ceremony are glorious to behold but also a little bitter-sweet considering that, while Queen and Country have carried on, there is really nothing that is the same as back in those days. Even then the once proud British Empire was being scrapped, unable to cope with paying the bills for fighting the Axis as well as funding a new socialist welfare state. Today the UK faces the uncomfortable position, after so many cuts to the military budget, of simultaneously sneering at the United States while knowing, just like in both world wars, American help will be needed for dealing with almost any overseas danger. Today the good graces of Washington would have to be sought even to deal with Argentina, unless the Prime Minister is prepared to go, hat in hand, to the President of France to ask if he can borrow the aircraft carrier. When the Queen was crowned the Empire of India was a newborn republic, though she still reigned over a few bits on the frontier. Today it is India with the growing economy, the stronger military and a country sought out as a land of opportunity for the hard working. In the UK, Northern Ireland is practically independent, Scotland will soon be voting on ending the Union, self-hatred so permeates the country that a soldier is hacked to death in broad daylight simply for being a soldier and the economy lags under the weight of a population in which more seem to be on pension than paying taxes.

When Elizabeth II was crowned, Britain was full of British people (shocking, I know). The population was pretty solidly Church of England with some other Protestants and a few Catholics everyone kept a close eye on. Today Britain is multicultural, full of people from the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and nearly every country in Europe. The Church of England that was so staunch at the time of the coronation (ask the Duke of Windsor if you think otherwise) now has women priests, bishops and gay “marriage” and is more about social welfare than Jesus Christ. Anglicans are now a tiny minority, even in England, and must keep their tone low so as not to upset the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims now part of the population. And for all of the changes, it seems people have never been more unhappy in the UK than they are now. I doubt there were any republican protestors at the coronation as there were at the recent Jubilee celebration, and if there were, the BBC would certainly not have given them any airtime. When the coronation was held, people seemed proud to be British. Today, every news day seems to have nothing but people angry about how terrible Britain is; racist, intolerant, uncaring toward the poor, discriminating against this or that group, angry about having a “class-ridden society” or being the “black sheep of Europe”, I could go on and on. It makes one wonder, if all the changes that have been made are for the better (as we are told); why does everyone always seem so unhappy with the way things are?

When Her Majesty was crowned sixty years ago, there were many who called to mind the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which was so glorious some took to calling the Queen herself “Gloriana”. Even the socialist Prime Minister Clement Attlee said that he hoped the coronation would mark the beginning of a new Elizabethan Era as great and glorious as that of the first Elizabeth. That was the era when the English sea dogs beat back the seemingly unstoppable might of the Spanish empire, when explorers charted new waters and colonists started to settle new lands. By contrast the Second Elizabethan Era has seen British troops beat back the might of Argentina, sent bureaucrats to battle red tape in Brussels and seen people from other lands arrive to colonize Britain. Hardly the same. In the past, Britain fought for mastery of the seas. Today it argues in Belgium for the right to fish off the British coast. In the past great poets and playwrights heaped praise and glowing tributes on their beloved monarch. Today bands that attack the Queen are called “iconic” and celebrities are applauded for refusing the Order of the British Empire. In the time of the first Elizabeth, Catholics were brutally executed because of the fear that they might be disloyal. In the time of the second Elizabeth, disloyalty to the monarchy is not only tolerated but even celebrated in some circles.

All of this has happened, again, just in the last few decades, during the reign of the current monarch. King Edward VII or King George VI never had anyone crushed to death or drawn and quartered but the British Empire was proud of itself and its place in the world with British people, the world over, pretty solidly united in at least who they were and what they stood for. They were loyal to their monarch, confident that, on the world stage, they were the “good guys” and were having a positive impact on the world. Today, such is certainly not the case. In the Elizabethan or even Victorian eras, British power grew and influence expanded because there were great opportunities for success. It was tough, it was hard work, dangerous and meant risking your fortune as well as your life and limb, but if you succeeded you could count on becoming not only quite wealthy but honored and celebrated by your countrymen. Today, on the other hand, initiative and hard work is discouraged. The successful are scorned, derided and practically robbed while the unsuccessful are rewarded with appointments to a European commission or even a “life peerage” in the House of Lords. And, yes, Queen Elizabeth I may have knighted pirates but Queen Elizabeth II has had to knight the likes of Mick Jagger and Elton John. To my mind the gentlemen privateers were by far the more worthy.

Everything, absolutely everything, seems to have changed in the last sixty years, save perhaps for the Queen herself but not excepting the monarchy. The loss of male preference in the succession and the (partial) removal of the exclusion of Catholics are historic changes to the monarchy. The House of Lords, already de-fanged during the reign of her predecessors, was effectively ended under Elizabeth II with the expulsion of the hereditary peers and more seems to be on the way. British values themselves have changed though no one seems able to agree on what they have changed to. Though, again, none seem happy about it with one side bemoaning the changes and the other which pushed for them still claiming that they have not changed enough. The Queen has, herself, taken up some of these changing values. She too has advocated for at least some of them, using all of the popular labels like “diversity”, “inclusion” and “tolerance” and so on. However, Her Majesty has never thrown over the old values that Britain had when she was first crowned sixty years ago or even before. By her very example she has continued to embody the stoic courage and resolve of the “keep calm and carry on” generation. She is still married to the same man King George VI made her wait to marry those many decades ago and she still lives out a sincere Christian faith. Politicians (put in office by the public, so they cannot escape blameless either) may have robbed her of any real political role or power but she does still possess a moral authority that no one else in the UK or Commonwealth has. It is a pity, and no fault of her own, that if often seems like no one is listening to her.

So, the Queen goes on, as she has for the last sixty years, doing her duty, following the advice of her ministers, doing her best to set an example and to embody the values of an increasingly diverse population that cannot seem to make up its mind what its values are or whether it is right to have any values at all. It is not an enviable position to hold but everyone in Great Britain and across the Commonwealth should be glad that she does. Looking back on the coronation sixty years ago and with the upcoming changes announced for the next coronation, a few have already begun to ask, “what is the point?” but yours truly, of course, is not one of them. I refuse to give in, I refuse to let the republican mob win. It is there insidious influence which has been at work in monarchies around the world, stripping them little by little of any meaningful role in government or even national life as a whole only to then turn around and wonder out loud what the point is of having a monarchy at all. No. Not now. Not ever. I will not play their game, I will not play in to their hands and I will not accept their narrative. So long as a monarchy exists it is something worth defending, otherwise loyalty becomes meaningless. The Queen was crowned 60 years ago and she made a solemn vow to God on that occasion to carry out the duties of a constitutional monarch and everyone in the UK and all her realms and territories (I am tempted to say the English-speaking world) have no higher duty than to be loyal to her, come what may, in good times or bad. She is the Queen, the anointed sovereign and personal loyalty to the monarch must, absolutely must, be something that distinguishes all monarchists. The last sixty years have not been glorious, unfortunately, for Great Britain but it is when times are tough that all those who are truly loyal must show that nothing in the world can break the sacred bond between a sovereign and her subjects.

God Save the Queen!

A Happy Birthday

The Mad Monarchist wishes HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and etc a very happy birthday today, which happily is on a date which ensures someone from my part of the world will never forget it. May Her Majesty enjoy many more. God Save the Queen!

Queen Signs Pledge for Homosexuals

In a move sure to cause controversy HM Queen Elizabeth II signed, on Sunday no less, on live television a Commonwealth pledge to fight against “discrimination” against homosexuals and to promote the “empowerment” of women -whatever that means- along with a lot of more general statements about promoting human rights and raising the standard of living across the Commonwealth. Personally, the Queen herself is one woman I would like to see “empowered” but, alas, I am sure none of this applies to Her Majesty herself. Many have cheered this as the Queen taking the monarchy “forward” but I certainly cannot be overjoyed about it. This is something that seems rather baffling, unnecessary at best and potentially harmful at worst. The one confusing thing about it was that this was taken as a statement on the part of the Queen to extend “equal rights” to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge if the little one turns out to be a girl. So were all the news stories about that already being a ‘done deal’ not accurate? This is one problem with the modern mainstream media; they jump on stories they like with such enthusiasm that it sometimes turns out to be a false start. Whoever is advising the Queen on this subject, it must be said, certainly has their finger on the pulse of society. Championing the cause of homosexuals is certainly the biggest and latest fashionable trend among those always on the look out for victims to be outraged over.

This is supposed to be a part of a new coming-together for the Commonwealth, laying out shared “values” and yet, nothing could be more divisive. Will this be likely to please the devout Muslim nations within the Commonwealth? It will surely be a cause for bad press in many more traditional African countries and one place where the campaign to promote homosexuality has certainly not been popular is the Commonwealth Realm of Jamaica where the monarchy is already under considerable threat. So who exactly is sure to be pleased with this pledge? I can think of few beyond the leftist liberal communities of the U.K. and Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia. Even in those countries support will not be universal and those who do not support it will see it as the monarchy siding against them and their own deeply held belief in traditional values. This is a danger I have tried to touch on before. The monarchy, the left usually says, is supposed to be totally non-political and they are quick to cry foul if the Prince of Wales utters a word about architecture or fox hunting yet when the Queen signs a pledge in support of homosexuality and feminism, this is not political we are told. It starts to look like a one-way street.

Buckingham Palace said that, “The Queen does not take a personal view on these issues. The Queen’s position is apolitical, as it is on all matters of this sort.” But others point out that the Queen requested a public signing for the document which is quite rare. I hope no one opposed to this blames the Queen for it but most of my own aggravation over it stems from the fact that, justly or not, many certainly will. The optics of it will be impossible to ignore. And, as this is a Commonwealth document, I cannot help but wonder who put the matter forward? Who came up with this? The government of “Call me Dave” Cameron has been trying to put the Tories on the pro-homosexuality bandwagon lately, seeing that, as many “right wing” or “conservatives” have lately, as being the way of the future. The same can be seen to be happening in the United States with the rising profile of the libertarians; fiscal conservatives who champion things like drug legalization, prostitution, gay “marriage” and abortion (all of which is detrimental to fiscal conservatism but that’s another story for another day). Yours truly has seen it often enough as there is probably no single subject other than homosexuality that generates more angry comments and “fan mail” filled with 4-letter words. I can call for republicans to be condemned as traitors, hung drawn and quartered and no one seems to care but whenever I mention my disapproval of homosexuality I am denounced as a monster!

That must be mentioned because, were this not the number one issue it is currently most fashionable to be outraged over, this would be seen as just another nice-sounding but effectively meaningless document which governments and international organizations love to publicize. It would be about as significant as a “non-binding resolution” from the United Nations. However, because of the subject matter, it will be highly publicized and talked about endlessly with the Queen being given kudos by some and condemned by others for putting her name to it. The problem is that while it will, I have no doubt, cause some people around the world to drop their support for the monarchy, I doubt very seriously than anyone who was previously a republican will suddenly be won over to the cause of hereditary monarchy and traditional authority because of this. That is why I feel the Queen is doing herself no favors by signing this or that whoever arranged it is no real friend of the monarchy. It is simply a fact, seemingly self-evident I would think, yet which many cannot seem to grasp, that any society which sets “equality” as an absolute good and defines that equality by the standard of everyone being treated exactly the same is not a society in which the institution of monarchy can long survive. Monarchy and equality are antithetical concepts and there is a vast gulf between the two that no amount of pledges or reworking of the rules of succession can ever bridge.

Personally, I have never been able to have anyone explain to me how homosexuals are being discriminated against just as things stand. They are not being physically harmed, laws already exist to prevent that happening to anyone. No one is stop them from doing what they want with who they want, as distasteful as some find it and would prefer they refrain from advertising the fact. The usual answer is that they cannot get married but that is untrue. They cannot marry someone of the same sex, true, but neither can a heterosexual so it is not as though the current law is depriving them of something not deprived to others. After making that point I am usually told that I’m being ridiculous and that it is about the fact that they cannot marry who they choose and the law is unfair because it allows heterosexuals to do that but not homosexuals. Again, not true. No law can enable a person to marry whoever they want. I can’t marry a Brazilian supermodel and yet, so far, very few people sympathize with my plight. This whole controversy, if everyone were to be honest, is not really about discrimination or tolerance or anything of the sort. It is about trying to force people to approve of something they fundamentally disapprove of and that is it.

That shows, I think, which side is the truly “intolerant” one. As much as I disapprove of the homosexual agenda, this does not change my support of the British and Commonwealth monarchy at all, however, I have seen plenty of those who push the homosexual agenda who have very conditional loyalty and if the Queen had signed a pledge that was the opposite of this one they would drop whatever nominal support they had for the monarchy entirely. I would take this as yet another sign of the times we live in and nothing more. When it comes to fundamental moral beliefs about what is right and what is wrong I am under no illusions that practically any of the reigning royals of the world agree with me. Especially those since the Queen’s generation, these are people who grew up in a very permissive society and went to schools and universities that teach the exact opposite of most of what I hold dear. And, when it comes to religion, fading fast though it is in Britain, the Church of England has more or less accepted homosexuality and that is the church that the Royal Family and little Davy Cameron belong to. Most other major churches treat the issue with kid-gloves if they haven’t already reversed position on the subject. It is not the fault of the Queen that society in Britain is where it is. Who put this before her, I do not know but it would not surprise me were it to come from the current government which is led by little Davy Cameron (Church of England) and Deputy PM Nick Clegg, an avowed atheist. Clegg is married to a Catholic and claims to be raising his children Catholic but, honestly, any Catholic who would marry an atheist or someone who supports the policies Clegg supports is probably about as “Catholic” as an Orange Lodge meeting in east Belfast. But these are who the British public voted for and issue like this are not going to change or go away, no matter what the Queen does, until the public has a change of heart. We may ask God to save the Queen, and He will, but it is up to the traditional remnant in Britain to work on converting their countrymen.

Favorite Royal Images: A Royal Couple

The Queen in Northern Ireland - No Cause for Alarm

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

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

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

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

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

Royal Images: The Queen of Diamonds

1952

1962

1972

1982

1992

2002

2012

Queen Elizabeth II: 60 Years on the Throne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Favorite Royal Images: A Future Queen

Like something out of a fairytale...

Happy Accession Day!

It was 60 years ago today that HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and her other Realms and Territories acceded to the throne. So far, only one British monarch has reigned longer than she has and during her time on the throne the Queen has faced more and more rapid changes than probably any other British monarch in history. Think for a moment of what she has had to deal with; a system in which she is expected to be totally uninvolved yet display leadership at the same time. She is expected to embody values the majority of her people no longer consider important, preside over an established Church she has no real control over and which few attend, she is expected to address major national issues but without ever taking a side or giving the slightest hint of having an opinion. The Queen has presided over the loss of more countries formerly under the Crown than any other, yet no one would think of criticizing her for this. She is expected to accept that gracefully yet she has been criticized for seeming aloof and unfeeling.

This is rather unfair considering that the Britain she grew up in still valued the ‘stiff upper lip’ and wanted their royals to appear strong, focused and towers of strength. The Queen was of the “keep calm and carry on” generation yet she has reigned over the generation that encourages emotionalism, sharing absolutely every thought and feeling and even going on television to talk about your emotional problems. The Queen grew up in a time when Britain was the heart of the largest empire in history and every Briton as well as most every Canadian, South African, Australian and every subject of the Crown in between was justifiably proud of that fact. Yet, the Queen has spent most of her reign in a Britain that willingly tossed aside the British Empire and became, by and large, ashamed of it. The people are often asked in polls and ‘man on the street’ interviews, in Commonwealth Realms around the world, how they “relate” to the Queen but one might just as well ask the Queen how she relates to a public whose sentiments, values and opinions change so drastically and so rapidly.

That may be what I find the most impressive of all about the Queen. What would have been her empire as a girl suddenly became her country and then her countries and absolutely everything about them all has changed and yet the Queen manages to remain popular, beloved and able to accomplish the seemingly impossible; keeping up with the times while simultaneously representing timeless tradition. Her 60 years on the throne have seen none of the monumental challenges faced by her predecessors who reigned during the World Wars but I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that none of them have had to deal with the situation the Queen has had to deal with during her 60 years on the throne and, frankly, I cannot imagine even the great British monarchs of the past being able to do what Her Majesty does every day successfully. The Queen has had to invent a new sort of greatness for a new and constantly transforming age and yet she has and has mastered it. Much of this, I believe, is due simply to Her Majesty’s personal character and values. As has often been said, she has never put a foot wrong, and that is true. Today there are many who would love to see her stumble and be quick to take advantage, but the Queen, God save her, has never given them the opportunity. Not one misstep, not one unguarded word, not one scandal, not one public embarrassment and so the people love her and even her critics cannot touch her.

The Queen in Texas, 1991

In doing this she has come to symbolize the best of what a modern monarchy is all about. She may not reign over the vast array of territories her father did, but her image is known probably more than any other. I have often marveled at the fact that I hail from one of those very few parts of the globe over which the British flag has never waved. The monarchy with the longest association with my part of the world would be the Spanish and yet whenever anyone here says something about “the Queen” everyone automatically assumes they mean HM Queen Elizabeth II of the UK etc, etc. Many royals, even reigning monarchs have visited my part of the world over the years yet most are never even mentioned on the daily news save perhaps an article in the paper of the city being visited. Yet, on both occasions that “the Queen” came to visit it was a major event. The last, which I remember most, was in 1991 when the Queen arrived at the capital building in Austin to a crowd of cheering people waving the Lone Star and the Union Jack, the Texas National Guard artillery firing salutes and Governor Ann Richards rushing out to meet her (though being a good Democrat she refused to curtsy). I also remember Prince Philip being given a pair of cowboy boots with other pairs sent along to be handed out to the Prince of Wales and Princes William and Harry. The Queen’s every move, every visit and every word was on every TV station all across Texas.

I also cannot help but remember the idiots who get attention on every such occasion. One particularly ignorant legislator, after receiving his protocol advice card, rudely asked, “I thought we fought a war to get rid of this stuff?” (which someone will ask every time there is a royal visit without fail). It made me laugh of course considering that “we” (as in Texas) have never fought a war with Great Britain. He meant the American Revolution of course, but that was long before Texas joined the Union and when Texas fought its war of independence it was against, of all things, the elected President of a republic who had turned tyrannical. And yet, despite those who complained or made mocking jokes, not one sour note was heard after the Queen arrived and even the notoriously, adamantly, proudly uncouth and egalitarian Democrat Governor was beaming with pride upon meeting “THE Queen”. If anyone had told me then that there was even one person in Great Britain, or Canada or Australia who wanted to become a republic I honestly would not have believed it. And, again, I go back to her character, because even the most ardent republicans of today have a hard time swaying public opinion because even they have to admit that, she’s simply a great Queen. There are no flaws they can point out, no mistakes they can exploit and no way they can try to say she has not done her duty flawlessly.

HM Queen Elizabeth II has done her duty, to her many countries and peoples, for 60 years and we earnestly hope she continues for 60 more. A great deal has changed in all that time, but the Queen has not. The monarchy has changed of course and the Queen has adapted, but you can still see that same twinkle in her eye today that she had 60 years ago. Whether as a pretty young woman 60 years ago, or the genteel fine lady of today, the Queen has always been “majestic” and “regal”. Everyone of her subjects should be filled with pride on this special occasion, a pride that the citizens of republics cannot feel about their own heads of state (at least I cannot imagine any who could). All monarchists can also celebrate and be grateful that for 60 years a Queen has sat on the British and Commonwealth thrones that has, by her great character, virtue and devotion to duty, made the monarchy as unassailable as possible.

Congratulations to Her Majesty, congratulations to all her peoples and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

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!

Jamaica and the Monarchy

Monarchy first came to the island of Jamaica with the beginning of Spanish rule in 1509 during the reign of Queen Juana of Castile (our dear “Juana the Mad”). Spanish rule was further consolidated by her successor Emperor Charles V. Spanish ruled ended in 1655 with King Philip IV being the last Hapsburg to reign over the island. For a time it was the end of monarchy period as this was the period of the interregnum in Great Britain but royal rule returned with the restoration of King Charles II in 1660. However, it took still more time for government to take hold as Jamaica and much of the Caribbean had become a haven for pirates and/or privateers in the various wars between England, Holland, France and Spain. For a very long time Jamaica was one of the ‘crown jewels’ of the burgeoning British Empire. The most lucrative industry was the many sugarcane plantations on the island which produced great wealth for all involved from the plantation owners to the trade and shipping companies. The only people who did not benefit, of course, were the slaves who were imported, mostly from West Africa, to work the plantations.

Slavery was taken as a simple fact of life during the Stuart and early Hanoverian periods but after numerous slave revolts and the growing advocacy of Christian abolitionist groups, thinking began to change and the monarchy was at the forefront. HM King George III was to be a crucial figure in the history of the British West Indies and the cause of monarchy in the Caribbean. He showed his solidarity with his subjects in the Caribbean in both his private life and in his public duties. It is not often remembered that King George III was so offended by the slave trade and the treatment of slaves on the sugar plantations (all of which was legal at the time) that he boycotted sugar to show his opposition to slavery. He was also adamant that the American Revolution had to be stridently opposed. It is easy to forget that the American Revolutionaries did not intend for their new republic to include the 13 colonies that later made up the United States alone. They expected their new republic to include all British territories in North America including the Canadas and the British West Indies. Even though the revolutionaries eventually secured the independence of the 13 colonies, by his zeal in supporting the war effort, King George III ensured that the loss was limited to those 13 colonies and their territorial claims while places like Canada and the West Indies remained under the Crown. It was also under King George III that the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire.

It was during the reign of HM King William IV that slavery was finally abolished in Jamaica (and across the British Empire) in 1834 (decades before the United States did the same and that was after a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives). With each new royal dynasty the island of Jamaica had achieved progress. British rule came with the Stuarts, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery came with the House of Hanover and independence was to come with the House of Windsor. It was under HM King George VI that Jamaica became a self-governing dominion within the British Empire in 1944. Jamaicans gave admirable service in both World Wars. In World War I, for example, troops from the British West Indies were sent to serve in the epic campaigns in Africa. The local Africans were very impressed with the discipline and professionalism of the Caribbean troops (known as the West India Regiment) having previously seen only White troops from Europe display such expertise. Because this was their experience they often referred to the Caribbean troops as “Black Europeans” because they carried themselves with the same pride and professionalism they were used to seeing only in European troops.

On August 6, 1962 Jamaica became a completely independent Commonwealth Realm under HM Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen has visited Jamaica six times during her reign and has toured almost every corner of the island, first in 1953, twice in 1966, in 1983, 1994 and 2002. Throughout the centuries under the British Crown and as an independent Commonwealth Realm, the island nation of Jamaica has known stability and consistent progress. The monarchy and the web of support it brings with it have allowed Jamaica to avoid the upheavals, hardship and foreign interventions experienced by many of her island neighbors. Today the monarchy remains popular with the Jamaican people but, as usual, there are those openly and deceptively pushing the republican agenda. One must wonder what such people are thinking. Would they prefer Jamaica to be more like the impoverished republic of Haiti or perhaps the Communist dictatorship of Cuba? With the Crown and the Jamaican monarchy the island has had security, independence, freedom and a proven system of government to respond to the needs of society. Thankfully, the loyal monarchists of Jamaica are organized and now taking advantage of social media to encourage the royalist cause and defend the Jamaican monarchy. For an example, see the Caribbean Monarchist League on Facebook.

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!

The Queen in Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Save the Queen and Ireland Forever!