Restore the Red Ensign!

I would like to direct the attention of readers (particularly those in the Commonwealth and Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada) to this video with Canadian journalist Brigitte Pellerin on the removal of the Canadian flag by the minority government of Quebec. I applaud Ms. Pellerin and could not agree with her more. She points out that, aside from their flag antics, members of the Bloc Quebecois frequently "mumble" their required oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, basically acting childish about a supremely solemn moment because of their stupid anger, some even shouting "Vive la Republique" at the end, but who still are glad to accept the Queen's salary. Particularly though, I agree with Ms. Pellerin in pointing out (correctly) that the adoption of the Maple Leaf flag in the first place was an effort to placate Quebec and that if this flag is no longer acceptable then it should be discarded entirely and the Canadian Red Ensign restored as the national flag of Canada. I like the Maple Leaf fine but the Red Ensign was the first, true national flag of Canada and there was no reason to get rid of it. I would be thrilled to see it come back. God Save the Queen of Canada!

National Day in Monaco

Today is 'National Day' in the Principality of Monaco and this year there was a special guest of honor; HSH Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein (micro-monarchy solidarity!). Photos can be seen at our sister-weblog Mad for Monaco, with more to come tomorrow.

The Problem with Churchill

New member of the blogosphere (and longtime Mad Monarchist member) AB Royalist takes a critical look at the much celebrated Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his role in the downfall of the grand old British Empire. If you can stand a point of view sure to be controversial have a look at The Problem with Churchill Part I and Part II. Is it perhaps partly due to the near deification of Churchill by the much reviled "neoconservative" clan that more seem to be looking at Sir Winston in a different light these days? Those familiar only with the inspiring speeches of the days of the Blitz might be surprised to find out some of the less known facts about Mr. Churchill. Was he a visionary leader or a chronic blunderer? Have a read and decide for yourselves. I can imagine there will be some strong reactions to this.

The Belgian Royal Family in Captivity

As we have mentioned before, HM King Leopold III of the Belgians suffered a great deal of atrociously unfair slander after World War II. He was accused of breaking diplomatic agreements, of showing insufficient zeal in resisting the Nazi invasion and, worst of all, of collaborating with the Nazi occupying forces in Belgium. It should go without saying that all of that is complete and utter nonsense of the most despicable kind. The King, naturally, was desperate to keep his country out of World War II (and neutrality had been the established policy of Belgium since the birth of the modern kingdom in 1830) yet when war came he took command of the army and resisted with all the strength in his power. Obviously, little, solitary Belgium could not possibly defeat the crushing armies of Germany but any who think that the King and the Belgian army were not fully committed to defending their country should look at some simple statistics. Denmark and Luxembourg were each occupied in a single day. The Netherlands was forced to capitulate after only four days. Belgium, on the other hand, held out for 18 days before being forced to surrender or be totally massacred. In fact, the British might not have successfully escaped from Dunkirk if the Belgians had not bought them time with their lives.

King Leopold III felt it to be his duty, as commander-in-chief, to preside over the surrender of his army and share the fate of his brave men as a prisoner of war; and that is exactly what he was. It is an outright lie to attempt to portray him as any sort of a collaborator; the truth cannot possibly be stretched that far and survive. He tried to do what he could to ease the suffering of his people but let there be no ambiguity about this: he was a prisoner, not a reigning monarch. The Nazi occupation forces kept him under tight surveillance, his movements were restricted and his every activity was scrutinized. Toward the end the King and his family were imprisoned and there was even an attempt to massacre them. The occupation and the time spent by the Belgian Royal Family in Nazi captivity was a frightful and terrible event yet, probably in part because of all the misinformation, is not very well known. Thankfully, that issue has been addressed at the excellent weblog The Cross of Laeken where a series of highly informative articles have been posted dealing with this sad period in the history of the Belgian monarchy. I highly recommend having a look at The Royal Family in Captivity, Parts I, II, III and IV.

Malaysian Sultan Turns 81

The Mad Monarchist sends congratulations to (deep breath) His Royal Highness Sultan Ahmad Shah al-Mustain Billah ibni Almarhum Sultan Abu Bakar Riayatuddin Al-Muazzam Shah of the state of Pahang in the Kingdom of Malaysia. You can keep up with the goings-on of the nine Malaysian kings at Radin's Blog.

Mark Steyn on Norway

Canadian-born author Mark Steyn (with whom I let some things pass for the sake of his admiration for the British Empire) wrote a column for National Review Online concerning the tragedy in Norway. One question I have been pondering since all this happened is that, if the media reports are correct (and Steyn raises some doubts) that this all comes down to Islamophobia and anti-multiculturalism; just exactly how important are these things to Europe and Norway in particular? I mean, if that is the cause, if this massacre was the result of anger over multi-culturalism I have to ask -is it worth it? What exactly does multi-culturalism provide to modern Norway that is so valuable or so vital that it must be furthered even when it (supposedly) drives ordinary farmers into murderous rages against his own countrymen? I could ask the same question of other European countries. What is it that our "pluralistic" society provides which is so valuable as to offset the Oslo bombing, the Madrid train bombings, the London tube bombings, the riots in Paris, the Christmas bombing in Stockholm and so on and so forth? Look at how many acts of horrific violence have been carried out because of or in opposition to "multiculturalism". I ask again; is it worth it? If so, I would really like to know how and why. -MM

A Monarchy for America?

In prowling about the internet I see that some brave soul is again trying to organize a kingly political party for the United States. I direct those interested to the Monarchist Party of America which hopes to establish a monarchy in the United States under an elevated American dynasty. Believe it or not, this is not the first time such a thing has been tried. There was once the Constantian Society, founded in 1970, which endeavored to inform Americans about the benefits of monarchy overseas and to encourage support for monarchies around the world. It did not survive the death of its founder unfortunately. I recall there used to be a Monarchist Society of America, organized by member of the Qajar dynasty, formerly of Persia, which operated along the same lines, not advocating a monarchy for America but advocating for monarchy overseas. It seems to have receded into web oblivion as well as I can find nothing on it after a quick search prior to writing this. Were I to venture a guess I would say it probably dissolved for lack of interest.

On that subject, in 1998 was founded the Royalist Party of America (the colorful “Purple shirts”) which advocated making the United States a kingdom. In its original incarnation the RPA worked out a plan for what constitutional amendments would have to be passed in order to establish a monarchy in the United States. They also advocated following a more traditional route for countries in need of a monarch but lacking one; inviting a foreign royal not in line for their own throne to take the job. A poll was held and the popular favorite was HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden (who happens to be living in the U.S. at the moment…hmmm…maybe there’s more to this than meets the eye) to be invited to become the first Queen of the United States of America. However, within a few years the party went inactive due to lack of interest. It was later revived under new leadership, starting putting out a newsletter, sending out membership packages, printing pamphlets and distributing campaign buttons but, again, finally dissolved due to lack of interest. A few years later it was revived again under new leadership with a new website and an on-line newsletter but, again, in even less time dissolved due to lack of interest.

All of this is why, when I am asked, as I occasionally am, what advice I would give to someone looking to set up a royalist or monarchist political party in the United States my sad but sober answer is, “don’t waste your time”. I hate to say that because I don’t want to dampen anyone’s enthusiasm and before I adopted my strict policy of never becoming a member of anything I was caught up in it once myself when I was a young, enthusiastic royalist at university. However, despite the sometimes extensive memberships these groups have achieved (and I say extensive considering that this is the “Great Republic” we are talking about here) time and time again I have seen the same pattern play out. People join up, join up and join up and then lose interest and a handful of the party faithful are left trying to do everything until they finally give up out of sheer exhaustion and an unwillingness by anyone else to take over leadership. There is also the fact that, even though the monarchist presence in the United States is tiny, the few that do exist agree on almost nothing and based on experience I can say most are not going to compromise on anything, for any reason, ever.

For example, some monarchists who firmly support the monarchy of a foreign country or even every foreign country still would not support a monarchy in the United States. I can understand this since monarchy is all about tradition and monarchy is not and never has been a part of the traditions of the “United States of America”. There is a tradition and a heritage of monarchy in North America to be sure, but the political entity known as the “United States of America” has never had a monarch and never been a monarchy. Because of that, there is the additional problem of the lack of a pretender. Aside from the state of Hawaii there is no native born American citizen who has any bloodline right to a potential American throne. The area encompassing the U.S.A. has regions that were under the dominion of the King of Great Britain, the King of France, the King of Spain and the Tsar of Russia but no one monarch or royal house ever held legitimate claim to the whole of what is now the United States of America. The lack of a “legitimate” royal candidate will put many people off all by itself.

Then there are the options of importing a royal or raising an American citizen to monarchial status. Again, since the American people have no common ancestry or common religion, whichever royal is picked to be imported will not please everyone and the same could be said for any potential American candidate for the throne. Even if Americans came around to the idea of having a king, getting everyone to agree on an appropriate candidate would be all but impossible. One could resort to the democratic process but, as I read once, if the issue was to be a matter of popularity America better prepare itself for the reign of “Queen Oprah I”. Personally, I have always said that if America were to ever become a monarchy the only way I could see it happening would be in a way similar to ancient Rome. That is that things fall apart to such an extent that an authoritarian figure must step in to save the day and then slowly establishes a monarchial system while keeping the republican structure in tact so as to avoid inflaming the mob. “King” is still a four letter word in the United States and that mindset is certainly not going to change anytime soon.

None of this, however, should be taken as a swipe against any American monarchists. I wish them nothing but the best and if they buck the trend I will applaud. I speak only as someone who has been around the block in this neighborhood before and, as with anything, experience tends to make one a bit skeptical and jaded. If there are those who want to give this sort of thing a try, I will wish them the best of luck. Heck, sometimes on election day I still wear one of my Royalist Party buttons to the court house just to enjoy the confused looks on peoples faces.

Remembering Rainier III

April 6 was the day in 2005 that HSH Prince Rainier III of Monaco departed this life. May 9th marked the anniversary of his inheriting the throne of Monaco from his grandfather Prince Louis II and May 31 was the anniversary of his birth in 1923 to Prince Pierre de Polignac and Princess Charlotte of Monaco. One of my favorite modern monarchs, Rainier III is a man most people know, but few seem to know much about. To remedy that, I thought it appropriate to highlight a couple of articles from my sub-blog Mad for Monaco.

Prince Rainier was a man of strong convictions and deep faith as related in Rainier III: A Man & Monarch of Integrity.

Prince Rainier was also the only modern monarch in western Europe to suspend the constitution and rule by decree in response to an economic and political effort to sideline him. Read about that in Onassis vs. Grimaldi.

Defending the Belgian Monarchy

I had almost forgotten to post the final part of Defending the Saxe-Coburgs at The Cross of Laeken (thanks to BR for the reminder). This last part deals with a monarch who I regard as one of the greatest of my lifetime, King Baudouin, refuting some of the attacks made against even that saintly man. So, if you have not; I urge you to check out all four posts on Defending the Saxe-Coburgs Part One, Part Two, Part Three and Part Four. The Belgians seem to be a much put upon people and their monarchy is in possibly the most difficult position of any in Europe. Yet, this is what monarchists must do, when faced with republican attacks, defend our monarchies (even if just the principle) and answer falsehoods with facts.

Defending the Belgian Monarchy

The Cross of Laeken takes up the cause of the much-maligned King Leopold III in Defending the Saxe-Coburgs: Part III. And, of course, if you have not already, I highly recommend reading up on Part I and Part II. Crown Prince Philippe of Belgium is probably my favorite royal heir at the moment and I onced asked around why so many have a negative view of him when the poor man had really never 'put a foot wrong' as the Brits would say. I was told that the enemies of Belgium wanted to destroy the monarchy as a way of destroying Belgian unity but found little success at this because the Belgian royals were so popular. Hence they have started to make personal attacks to lower the respect people have for the royals themselves, the King and Prince Philippe in particular. As you can see reading through these posts, this tactic is not entirely new and King Leopold III has certainly suffered unjustly in the 'court of public opinion'.

Defending the Belgian Monarchy

Blog member EBR recently posted this interview with Lord Keyes talking about his book which reveals how the Belgian King Leopold III was unjustly slandered as a scapegoat for Allied failures in the early days of World War II in the west. Also, blog member Matterhorn at The Cross of Laeken has been posting an excellent series defending the good name of the Belgian kings and refuting the many false and slanderous accusations made against them and the Royal Family at large over the years. I urge everyone to read Defending the Saxe-Coburgs Part I and Part II. As we can see with the current political crisis in Belgium there are many people who have made it their goal in life to destroy the kingdom and a key tool in that is to undermine respect for the Belgian monarchy which has traditionally been the one thing that united all Belgians (and we support the united Belgium). Long live the united Belgium and long live the King!

Remembering the Alamo

Texas author & blogger Celia Hayes has posted some great photos of the Alamo reenactment held this weekend, marking the 175th anniversary of the battle for the "Shrine of Texas Liberty". Hosted by the San Antonio Living History Association (of which I was a member more years back than I'd like to admit). They seem to have come quite a long way since then, in those days we were not so numerous. The first time I participated there were a fair number of Texians but only about seven Mexicans!

Some Monaco Updates

For those not keeping up at my blog-on-the-side (Mad for Monaco) here are some recent posts that some of you might find interesting:

Egypt and Monaco (the late Prince Rainier III and the last King of Egypt were good friends)

The French Royal Martyrs and Monaco (a look at the relationship between Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette and Honore IV and Louise d'Aumont)

Monaco and the Roman Empire (a look at the place of Monaco in the history of eternal Rome)

Remember Sikkim

I hope to get more into this subject in the future (it has been on my 'to do' list for a while) but in the meantime the Radical Royalist has provided some valuable information on the seemingly forgotten Kingdom of Sikkim, an independent monarchy absorbed by the Republic of India. Read about the 85th birthday of the last king (with a great deal of historical information in general about the lost kingdom) and "For Goodness Sake, He's the King".

The King's Speech

HM King George VI, Britain's last King-Emperor, has always been one of my favorites and about as long as I can remember, when I pictured "a king" in my mind it was George VI that I saw. Royal World has a review of the new film on the Queen's late father, "The King's Speech" which is well worth a look. In terms of filmmaking I think my favorite touch was the use of exceptionally large and rather imposing antique microphones in the movie, making the viewer aware, in this way, of how intimidating George VI found these instruments.

Russian Monarchist News

Russian Monarchists Autumn News

Blogger Links & Business

I've tried to streamline the links section and a number have gone, mostly because they have not been updated in months and seem to have been abandoned, others have been removed for failing to provide a link back after asking to be listed here. I would like to take this opportunity to remind all readers who are bloggers that if you are a reader, have a link to this blog, I would be more than happy to put a link to yours in kind. You just need to let me know! I have found a few like that and added them later but I'm not a mind reader so if you're going to link here I'd be glad to return the favor but you do need to make me aware of it. Thanks again to all readers, subscribers, members and linkers!

Also, if anyone wants to make use of any of my homemade graphics that will appear from time to time to link back to this page (a shameless plug I know) that is certainly okay with me ;-)