Consort Profile: Empress Mumtaz Mahal of India

Empress Mumtaz Mahal is one of the great romantic royal figures of history and while many people have probably never heard of her, absolutely everyone recognizes her final resting place, possibly the most famous monument to royal love in the world. But, more than just a pretty face, she was also one of the two great Mughal women who drove a number of reforms in the empire. She was born in Agra in April of 1593 as Arjumand Banu Begum, the daughter of Abdul Hasan Asaf Khan and a Persian princess. Her beauty and charm were legendary and when she first met the future Mughal Emperor, then Prince Khurram, it was a case of love at first sight. Struck by the stunning princess, the prince would have no other and the two were betrothed in 1607 when she was fourteen. Shah Jahan was so enamored with her that he swore he would have no other woman but her and that none could compare to her perfection. Given that, the only surprise is that it took five years before they were formally married in 1612. Romance aside, in keeping with tradition, Shah Jahan had two other wives as well but one can only feel sorry for the other two as there was never any doubt that Mumtaz Mahal was his favorite. Shah Jahan gave her that name, Mumtaz Mahal, which means “Jewel of the Palace” as a mark of his favor as well as entrusting her with the royal seal, Mehr Uzaz.

As with many royal marriages of the time, Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal were related. Her aunt Nurjahan was the wife of Shah Jahan’s father Jahangir but, after an initial period of favor, Nurjahan became prejudiced against her niece when one of her daughters from a previous marriage married Shah Jahan’s brother. With Shah Jahan, however, she was his greatest happiness on the world and traveled with him throughout the Mughal empire. Poets and songwriters wrote glowing, flowery tributes to her charm, beauty, grace and compassion. The other wives of Shah Jahan were treated correctly but were more like friends than anything else as it was always only Mumtaz Mahal who held his heart. From the days when he was a prince, chased about as a rebel, to the days when he ruled the Mughal Empire, Mumtaz Mahal was his constant companion, closest advisor, refuge and comfort. A compassionate woman, she influenced her husband toward justice and mercy and through her new rights and privileges for women became the law of the land in the Mughal Empire. Everyone adored her, none more than her husband, who lavished every devotion on her that it was in his power to give.

During their marriage, Mumtaz Mahal was gave birth to fourteen children, though half of them died in infancy. Whether it was watching elephant fights in the arena or going on military campaigns, the Empress never wished to leave the side of her husband and it pained him deeply to ever have her out of his sight. Their devotion to each other reached legendary proportions, it was truly a romance for the ages and one unsullied by suspicious, jealously or intrigues for political power as were all too common. It helped that the reign of Shah Jahan was known, even then, as a “Golden Age” for Mughal India, of power, prosperity and artistic masterpieces and at the center of it all was the devoted Emperor and Empress. Also noteworthy is the fact that, unlike at least one or two other notable consorts, Mumtaz Mahal never tried to influence her husband on political issues and certainly never attempted to consolidate any political power for herself. Rather, she used her influence only in the area of social issues to help those in need and she was always supportive of her husband, his decisions and his policies.

Mumtaz Mahal accompanied the Emperor whenever possible, despite being almost constantly pregnant. It was on one such occasion that her life was cut tragically short, journeying with Shah Jahan while he was waging war on the Deccan Plateau of central India. The Empress was at Burhanpur when she went into labor to give birth to her fourteenth child. Complications set in and she died on June 17, 1631. To say that Shah Jahan was grief-stricken would be an immense understatement. The Emperor was positively unhinged with sorrow at the loss of his most beloved wife. No one could comfort him, no one could calm him and for a year he cut himself off from the world as he mourned his wife who had been his greatest happiness in the world. His hair reportedly turned white, he seemed to age rapidly and forever after had the appearance of a bent and sorrowful old man.

When finally he regained his composure, with the help of his eldest daughter, the Emperor determined to build a monumental tomb for his beloved wife that would stand as a testament to her glory and his great affection for her. The result was the magnificent and world famous Taj Mahal at Agra which took thousands of Mughal artisans 22 years to complete and which covers some 1,003 acres. To this day it is considered perhaps the most spectacular achievement of Mughal architecture in India, the centerpiece of which is the massive, white marble tomb beneath which rest the bodies of Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan. It is all set in the midst of vast and magnificent gardens and it is all a tribute to one of the most beloved royal consorts in world history and a monument to one of the greatest royal romances of all time.

Reflecting on the Fourth of July

Here we are again, the day set aside by the United States of America each year to celebrate the Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Looking back these centuries later, one is tempted to wonder if it was all worth it or not. As most know, I am from Texas, practically an entirely different country from the United States, and I celebrate my “Independence Day” on March 2 rather than July 4 so I feel I can take a somewhat more dispassionate view on that unfortunate little temper tantrum known as the Revolutionary War. First of all, in hindsight, I cannot claim to have much angst about the way things turned out, monarchist or not. We cannot know what the world would be like today or how history would have unfolded if the United States had ever ceased to exist. I know many monarchists are extremely hostile to the United States and they would tend to object to the idea that there is any chance at all the world would not be near perfection without the United States but, honestly, no one can say that because none of us can ever know what might have been.

When someone learns that I am a monarchist the question is often put to me whether or not I would be happier living under British rule. Not all monarchists agree on this point but for me the answer is most definitely “no”. Socialized healthcare, no right to bear arms -no thank you. But, of course, that is a very silly question to ask a monarchist, especially one like myself. My home, Texas, was never part of the British Empire and has never fought against Britain at any time. Even if that were not the case, the colonies were not under direct British rule to begin with and if the colonists had lost or never made their bid for independence, it does not mean that British law would rule supreme in America. The American colonies would have continued to largely govern themselves with their own colonial assemblies and an appointed Royal Governor to oversee things. If the U.S. had not won independence, life here would still not be like life in Britain (it never was) nor like any other place in the world. Things would probably not be too drastically different. There would be no Mount Rushmore, no Washington Monument and no Liberty Bell. The Congress would likely consist of a Senate and a House of Commons and instead of a President and a (pretty useless) Vice President we would likely have a Prime Minister and a Governor-General just like Australia, Canada or New Zealand.

Personally, I would like to think that things would have been better if the United States had remained united with the rest of the English-speaking world and a partner in rather than a bystander (and sometime adversary) of British civilization, but, given my place in the world, I cannot complain about how things worked out. Aside from some troublesome ailments I must endure, I am quite comfortable and doing quite well. Unlike some other republics in the world, I can even argue on behalf of monarchy without being tossed in jail or sent to “education camp” to turn big rocks into little rocks. However, loyal and (mostly) law-abiding U.S. citizen though I am, honesty compels me to say that I nonetheless feel the Revolutionary War was unjustified and, were I (as the person I am) alive in that time and place, even knowing how things would turn out, I would be compelled to be a loyalist. Everything the rebel colonists were fighting for, short of independence, could have been achieved within the existing framework of the British Empire and I simply cannot see how any of the complaints of the colonial “Patriots” were sufficient to justify plunging the eastern edge of North America into war for eight years.

Veteran monarchists will be well aware of these facts, but newcomers may not be. The fact of the matter is that the American colonists were not being oppressed or victimized. On the whole, they lived far better than the counterparts in the British Isles. There was more social mobility, more overall prosperity, most people lived better lives, they ate more beef and thus even tended to be taller than most people in Great Britain or Ireland. They also paid next to nothing in taxes compared to British subjects in the home islands. As far as representation being a bone of contention, as most monarchists know, “No Taxation Without Representation” was strictly a slogan and nothing more. When Ben Franklin was sent to London to represent the colonies he was told that he was to never, ever, under any circumstances, accept an agreement which gave the colonies representation in the Parliament at Westminster. Colonial leaders were smart enough to know that the vastly greater population of Britain would mean that even if they had seats in Parliament they would be easily outvoted. So, they would gain nothing with representation and they would lose a very righteous sounding slogan that would get more people on their side.

Some will point to the many acts of Parliament that the colonists had a problem with. Alas, here again, the revolutionary propaganda does not hold up to modern-day scrutiny. For one thing, many of these acts, such as the Stamp Act, were never totally enforced and where, in any event, repealed almost as soon as they were enacted when the colonists began howling about them. The tax on tea is another overblown “outrage”. The fact is that the British East India Company sold tea at a cheaper price than any of her competitors and the colonists would have had to drink more than a gallon of tea each and every day to pay even just one dollar a year in tax. Hardly a crushing burden by any stretch of the imagination. Although not much talked about today, at the time, one of the acts considered most outrageous was the Quebec Act. It is not much talked about today because this was an act which granted freedom of religion to the Catholics of Canada, something which most Americans wrongly believed did not come about until the birth of the United States. The colonists were also none too happy about King George III restricting the colonial population to the colonies on the coast and reserving the territory to the west for the Native American tribes. Considering how tiny the population of the thirteen colonies was at the time, this could hardly be considered outrageous. There was hardly a dire need for “living space” when most of the existing colonies were largely empty wilderness.

None of the other usual patriotic clashes arouse my sympathy either. The Boston “Massacre”? Mob violence on a group of British troops simply doing their duty. Even the noted Patriot John Adams defended the British soldiers for their actions, serving as their lawyer at their trial. The Boston Tea Party? A criminal destruction of private property and nothing more. Even Benjamin Franklin was of the opinion that the perpetrators should have repaid the British East India Company for every bit of tea they tossed into the harbor. No matter how one looks at it (and I have been convinced of the Tory position since I was a young punk in high school) nothing in the list of colonial grievances seems sufficient to me to justify the taking up of arms, the shedding of blood and, most seriously of all, the breaking of the solemn oath of allegiance to the King. To repeat, I have no animus against the United States, I want nothing but success for the USA and the American people. What is done is done and history cannot be changed. But, as I believe John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things, and the facts being what they are, when it comes to the Revolutionary War, my sympathies must remain entirely with the Loyalists.

Favorite Royal Images: Grace in Black

HSH Princess Grace of Monaco. Almost every picture of her is one of my favorites I must admit.

Public Warning

A Mad Monarchist Political Statement

From time to time I have been asked to summarize my political outlook as a whole or my “world view” if you will. Admittedly, this seems silly to me as I have never been shy about voicing my opinion on any subject and reading here everyday would, I think, give anyone a good grasp of my political opinions. I have also never had all that great of an urge to map out what would be my ideal system given that neither my own or anyone else’s ideal system will probably ever come about. However, if it would inform or entertain anyone to read something more than the simple statement that, “I am a monarchist” this, I hope, will serve to answer those who would be interested to know what sort of political system I would prefer. Given that, I will say at the outset, it would be to have no “political system” at all.

I believe in the style of system broadly defined as “traditional authority”. For virtually any country this refers to some form of monarchy. This means that, as a monarchist, I am at heart a theoretical absolutist. That being said, absolutism is not exactly what most people today think it is. I favor absolute monarchy but not arbitrary monarchy nor would I favor any kind of arbitrary authority whatsoever being held by mortal men. The absolutism I favor is that which says the final and ultimate authority of a given country, the basis upon which all civil order is built, must be sacred, inviolable and impossible to remove. To maintain the distinction between absolute and arbitrary there should always be checks and balances and in a society in which traditional authority is paramount this role would be filled by the clergy and nobility for the most part. I am in no way in favor of tyranny and in fact prefer as the ideal government the least government of all. Governments in the High Middle Ages (a rather glorious period to my mind) were positively Lilliputian and often consisted of little more than the king and his court.

I am fully aware that it would require a massive counterrevolution in world political thought for the system I would consider most ideal (at least at this point in my life, my views are subject to change on the finer points and open to persuasion outside the areas of monarchy and religion) to ever come about in this day and age. Ideally I would prefer a “government” that is practically no government at all as modern humanity understands the word. A king, clergy and nobility is all the government I feel should be necessary most of the time with each looking to their own mission. In looking at history, I have never seen parliaments, politicians and political parties do well by any country in the world. All too often we look upon these things as the instruments of liberation whereas in truth they have enslaved the world to a ruling political elite, they have encouraged division, discord, mass politics and the horrors of “total war” in which whole populations are filled with an ideology and hurled en masse at the populations of other countries indoctrinated with a different version. People did not live in nightmarish conditions before the rise of mass politics, all-encompassing taxation or the welfare state. Monarchs looked after the major issues of national interest, the clergy looked after the spiritual welfare of the people and nobles looked after their land. The common folk lived happy self-sufficient lives and were vastly more independent than the citizens of the most liberal democratic republics of today.

Today it is most common around the world for monarchs to play no active role in government at all. I do not believe this should be the case. On principle, I will support any monarchy, no matter how limited, as preferable to no monarchy at all but monarchs should have the power to act. As the saintly Tsar Nicholas II of Russia put it, even if he gave away his power to govern, he could never give away the ultimate responsibility which was his alone. But then, we are asked; how does one guard against tyranny? To my mind, it seems rather simple. Let the monarch be absolute but be self-sufficient and leave little for the government to have to bother with in the first place. If the rights of everyone to that which is justly and legitimately their own would be enforced, there would be no need for much of the government as we know it today. If everyone supported their church there would be little problem for religious institutions to take the place of the social welfare state and, I tend to think, do a better job at it in the process. If private property rights were truly and absolutely upheld, the state would be left with little to do other than to maintain law and order, uphold contracts, carry out relations with foreign nations and defend the country. In these areas, not only could a monarch do the job of an elected or appointed government but a monarch could invariably do them far better.

How is this so? A monarch has a vested interest in maintaining law and order as violence and disorder tends to be detrimental to the survival of any monarchy. This is totally different from elected politicians who often have much to gain by causing division and stirring up civil strife. Provoking a problem and then demanding greater power in order to deal with it is a long established tactic among politicians. In the area of foreign policy, a monarch can maintain a coherent and consistent, long-term strategy in dealing with other countries in a way no temporary political government ever could. We have seen clearly enough in our own time the chaos and ill will that is bred by one government pursuing one foreign policy until the next election at which time that same country, under a new government, pursues the very opposite policy with old allies being tossed aside and the enemy of yesterday being treated as the friend of today. A monarch who is on the throne for life can cultivate real trust among other nations, builds years of experience and can pursue a straight and consistent course. Finally, in the area of defense, it should go without saying that a monarch invariably has stronger support amongst the armed forces than the average politician and, as the country is “their” country, again has a vested interest in defending the country to the very best of their ability against all enemies and will do so in order that they may pass it on to their heirs and successors.

A monarch should have sufficient executive powers to be of best use to the country for without sufficient authority they can neither do good nor repress evil. A monarch should be able to deal with specific situations as they arise without getting a legislature involved which can only pass laws that inevitably become a huge, tangled mess of often redundant or contradictory rules and regulations, always added to and seldom lessened. Considering, however, that the modern world is not about to do without our beloved political talking shop and army of overpaid bureaucrats, if we must have a legislature I would prefer it to be organized in a different way. I would think that something along the lines of the Estates-General of the old Kingdom of France (representing nobility, clergy and commons) or the original Cortes Generales in Leon-Castile or, perhaps, the colleges of the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. There would have to be some modifications of course, but some form of representation based on social groups or occupational background would seem to me to be a way in which to discourage the formation of political parties and mass politics. I would deem any form of representation preferable which provides a means of protecting the interests of its constituents without at the same time encouraging the development of political parties. Political parties, in my view, are about the nearest thing to pure poison there is for traditional society.

I will repeat though that if my ideal of absolute commitment to private property and vested rights were put into effect, there would be very little for any elected national assembly to do. Individuals would make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and there would simply be no reason to have a permanent national assembly of any sort. The only justification I can see for having a national assembly is so that the taxpayers can have a voice in how their money is spent. However, in my ideal realm there would be very little, perhaps even only intermittent, taxation in the first place. National assemblies basically sit to decide what to do with the resources of others. If we got rid of the government welfare state, if we reverted to the contractual agreements, private roads and private security forces of the High Middle Ages, the government would have no need for the vast majority of taxes that are collected today and thus no need for huge national assemblies to decide how such taxes are spent.

When it comes to external issues, foreign relations and the like, I would fit into neither the interventionist or isolationist camps. It does make a critical difference though on whether or not a country has a monarch who can carry out a consistent foreign policy throughout his or her lifetime rather than an elected head-of-state who changes with every administration. I would base interaction with foreign countries on the same basic system as those between people domestically, which is to deal with foreign countries based on mutual consent and be open about it. The old colonial empires hold no terror for me but everything should be done openly and honestly. If one country wants protection from another country, they should be prepared to offer something in exchange for that protection. I see nothing sinister about that nor do I see anything underhanded or disreputable in the policy that some once called “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. Arbitrary aggression (it should go without saying) is always to be condemned. This is not the same thing as giving aid to a country against a common enemy who is as much a threat to you as to another people. Nor is it the same as a country taking necessary action when the interests of its people are threatened.

Much of what happens today, in terms of “interests” overseas for countries is economic and is based on the fact that so many countries have indebted themselves to others and then react against the consequences of this. Any country which places itself in the hands of another runs a great risk but any country, the same as any individual, is free to take such risks if they determine that other factors outweigh it. My primary point here is that what is popularly known today as “imperialism” was far more beneficial and even moral than the “humanitarian”, international, social programs of today which shackle people in poverty, stagnate countries, prop up tyrants and drain the resources of one country (or group of countries) while returning nothing of value except perhaps for the small elite which manages the transactions and takes a bit off the top for themselves. Compare this to the past when, even with all their flaws, imperial powers necessarily had (to varying degrees) to develop countries simply as a consequence of pursuing their own goals. I would advocate something similar but simply more openly and insisting that agreements (or contracts) are strictly upheld and adhered to. In some ways this may be the most controversial of my opinions but it has only grown stronger over the years as I have looked into the facts of real world examples. I have no problem with groups of countries, usually with some measure of things in common, banding together for mutual benefit. I have a very big problem with irrational, idealistic international organizations like the United Nations which have done a great deal of harm all over the world and, I will add, I detest the very word “globalism”.

If one country does some favor, some good, gives some benefit to another country, they should not be expected to get nothing in return for this. Charity is a wonderful thing but “charity” which is coerced is not charitable at all and, indeed, destroys the charitable impulse. This applies on the national level as well as on the individual level. When this becomes institutionalized as a program it makes people dependent, causes resentment and does more harm than good, both to those who give the aide as well as those who receive it. Such actions also make people less charitable and less generous because caring for those truly in need is seen as the responsibility of some international organization or the government or some foundation or another. Actual charity is something which should be appreciated but never expected. Of course, aside from the long-term planning and consistency that comes from having a monarch, any government could adopt these kinds of policies if they decided to. The bottom line is that no one should expect free favors in foreign policy and no country should have to apologize to, defer to or subsidize any backward, impoverished, failed country simply for being more successful than they are.

To summarize, while I would oppose arbitrary power being wielded by anyone or anything, I do believe in absolutism. I hold that everyone, from the monarch down to his lowest subject, should be absolute in their position and in all which is justly and legitimately their own. No one should ever have the power to take from anyone anything, whether property or title, earned or legitimately inherited. No mob, no matter how numerous, can or should be able to tell a King that he is no longer King just as the neighbors of one community should not be able to vote to seize the property of the most successful amongst them or that the least successful should be eliminated as a needless burden to society. I hold to the absolutism of independence. A monarch should be absolute and independent in that his position is sacrosanct and inviolable, not that he may do anything to anyone for any reason as he pleases. In the same way, things like “rights” and “freedoms” which most people today talk about are the imaginary, meaningless words tossed around by revolutionary mobs and political assemblies. True freedom cannot come from elections, a political party or a piece of paper but only from independence. The only person who is free is the person who is independent. Such independence is the just reward of whoever achieves it and at the highest level the independence of the monarch is the independence of the nation and neither should have what is rightfully their own subject to the whim of popular opinion.

The agents of the monarch should act to uphold, defend and protect and not to compel or coerce. This means upholding the traditional family as strong family units are demonstrably essential to the wellbeing of any society. It also means upholding the moral code, the “Truth” which should be the heart of any country. Efforts to coerce people into accepting this would be futile but the Truth should nonetheless be defended from attack. One may not agree but while one cannot and should not be prevented from disagreeing, one should be prevented from tearing down. This applies to both the religious and the philosophical spheres. It may sound harsh to modern ears but surely most would agree that demonstrably harmful ideologies such as Nazism or Communism should not be tolerated but that a country must be protected from these dangers which have proven themselves dangerous. Choosing to hold such views is one thing but choosing to spread them or enforce them on others would absolutely not be allowed. To tolerate that which is harmful is surely taking open-mindedness to suicidal levels. Evil can never be tolerated and the good must be defended and any country or society which cannot agree on the difference between the two will not long survive.

I could go into detail about other specific issues but, this is meant to be a basic overview and not a comprehensive list of my thoughts on all current events and, I fear, I have gone on too long already. Obviously, as stated before, one would be hard pressed to take all of the above and find a neat place my views would fit into amongst the current, fashionable ideologies. Also, to repeat, outside of the areas of religion and monarchy (and my support for monarchy comes from religion) I am always open to new thoughts and convincing arguments. My views have modified in many areas over the years and may well again in the future, but at present this is my general point of view. I hope I have at least satisfied the curious and/or provided the casual reader with something of interest or something to consider, whether or not you agree. Indeed, perhaps especially if you do not as my views are certainly not popular or mainstream. That, I think, is putting it rather mildly but, that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: Carol II of Romania

MM Video: Belgium at War

Royal News Roundup

In the Far East, HIH Crown Prince Naruhito of Japan visited the southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand this week. The Crown Prince met with TM King Bhumibol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit, the Prime Minister and visited an ancient Japanese community in the former Thai capital city of Ayutthaya. It was a sad week in the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan where, over the weekend, the four-hundred year old Wangdue Phodrang Dzong burned to the ground. The young Bhutanese King and Queen rushed to the area immediately to oversee the fire-fighting effort and to give moral support to their people. The fortress was home to several temples and the local government offices of the area. It is believed that a wiring problem sparked the blaze that engulfed the historic structure. On a more celebratory note, Prince Azim of Brunei held an extravagant party in honor of his thirtieth birthday (next month) at The Dorchester in London. The multi-billionaire prince is third in line to the throne of Brunei and his special invited guests included the likes of Faye Dunaway, Lizzie Jagger, Stephanie Beacham, Jerry Hall, Mariah Carey, Raquel Welch, Marisa Tomei and Pamela Anderson among others.

Over in the Middle East, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has, for the first time, announced that they will allow women to compete at the upcoming London Olympic Games. Public sporting events for women are banned in Saudi Arabia as being immodest. HM King Abdullah reportedly pushed for the change but put off announcing the new policy due to the recent death of the Crown Prince. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Brunei are the only countries which have never allowed women to compete at the Olympics but all three are now sending women to the games in London this year. Brunei will send one, Qatar three and Saudi Arabia (probably) one.

On the European front, the King and Queen of Sweden, as well as the Prince of Monaco, joined other world leaders at the Rio+20 UN sustainability conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil talking about the environment and all of that terribly important stuff. In Luxembourg the Grand Ducal Family was out in full force to celebrate Luxembourg National Day last Saturday, the day set aside to celebrate the birthday of the reigning Grand Duke. There were walkabouts, military parades, a church service and waving from the balcony all in true, understated, stylish Luxembourg fashion. Meanwhile, up in The Netherlands, HRH Princess Alexia, second daughter of the Crown Prince and Princess, celebrated her seventh birthday on Tuesday. We hope the diminutive Dutch darling had a dandy of a day and many more.

In the United Kingdom, there has been an historic name change as “Big Ben” (officially St Stephen’s Tower -though actually it is the bell that was called “Big Ben”) at the Palace of Westminster has, by act of Parliament, officially been renamed “Elizabeth Tower” in honor of the Diamond Jubilee of HM Queen Elizabeth II. The Victoria Tower at the west end of the palace was named in honor of Queen Victoria when she celebrated her diamond jubilee. Most, however, admit that it will probably always be referred to as “Big Ben” simply out of force of habit. As we have discussed previously the Queen and Prince Philip also visited Northern Ireland this week, meeting with local officials including deputy first minister Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein, a former commander in the Irish Republican Army. All went well, the Queen even riding in an open car in a display of how secure and stable Northern Ireland is. The odd bits of anti-monarchy graffiti did nothing to dampen the occasion. The following day the Queen unveiled a new memorial to the Bomber Command in Portland which honors those who flew bombing missions against Germany during World War II.

Mad Rant: A British Senate?

As you have probably heard, “Call Me Dave” Cameron, the so-called conservative Prime Minister of the U.K. (surely at the behest of Deputy Fuhrer Nick Cleggy) have announced their intention to effectively demolish the House of Lords and put a British Senate in place of it. I am sure that while Great Britain is drowning in a sea of foreigners, crippled by unemployment, choked with regulations and bureaucracy and deeper in debt than Greece that the vast majority of British people are in the streets demanding that something be done about the House of Lords! They are not, of course, because what has lately been called the House of Lords was already as near to being totally useless as any government body could be. The House of Commons is where the action is and the House of Lords is largely ignored. It’s rather like a really large political discussion group for former politicians. The British people, I am sure, have other priorities. But not the Deputy Fuhrer and his Liberal Democrats. They are on a mission to seek out and destroy anything remotely “British” in Great Britain and grind it beneath their egalitarian, socialistic, EU-loving boot heel.

This, honestly, does not upset quite as much as some might suppose. Rest assured this is only because of the simple fact that, at the very least since the Blair government, I don’t care what they call that gutted, toothless, glorified talking shop but it is most certainly NOT the House of Peers. The traditional upper house of the British Parliament has been so mutilated, so perverted and so twisted into the current monstrosity that putting it down seems almost an act of mercy. Almost. I say that only because once something is totally and officially removed it is historically all but impossible to ever get it back and so long as there was still something called a House of Lords that carried on, at least in name, the tradition, there remained something to work with to restore it to the proper function it once had. What is going on now is clearly disastrous and to be opposed absolutely, however, it is only the culmination of an act of destruction that began a long time ago when the House of Lords was first subject to manipulation in order to accommodate the House of Commons and when the House of Lords lost the ability to actually stop any legislation and when that ridiculous farce of a “life peer” first entered the British lexicon.

I could do my best to stomach all the previous wounding of the upper house but the introduction of “life peers” as the expulsion of the hereditary peers was, to me, effectively the end of the House of Lords anyway. What is being proposed now is simply the final nail in the coffin but that is one nail that is still worth opposing. Compounded stupidity is still stupidity after all. As the British parliamentary system was originally established, the House of Peers served an important and practical function. It consisted of men who had a vested interest in the long-term success of Great Britain, men who had a stake in the country and who had a lifetime of diverse, “real world” experience from which to draw on in their deliberations on the bills passed by the Commons. They were non-political and beyond the influence of the passing trends of popular opinion. They were also guardians of the most time-honored traditions of England and later the United Kingdom. Their ancestry and the hereditary nature of the house meant that they could take a broad view, unconcerned with elections and political pandering, to do what was in the best interests of the country as a whole and the British legacy. What shall replace it?

A British Senate if the current government has its way. They will be elected which means they will be representative, in theory at least, of their constituents. Granted, this may seem to make more sense than the current, ridiculous set up of government-appointed “life peers” (I mean, really, was there ever a more absurd notion?) but it is certainly no improvement. What is the point of an elected senate? In the United States, before that vile visionary Woodrow Wilson screwed things up, the Senate represented the states of the Union. The House of Representatives represented the interests of the people who elected them but the Senate (often appointed by Governors or state legislatures) was to represent the interests of the states. Who or what are British senators supposed to represent? There are no states in the U.K. and regions such as Wales, Scotland and even Northern Ireland already have their own local assemblies. They would, we assume, represent the people who vote them into office. Yet, Britain already has such a body, and has had for really quite some time, called the House of Commons. In a way, this is not any sort of reform at all but rather is the destruction of the ancient bicameral legislature of the United Kingdom by abolishing the House of Lords and simply vastly expanding the House of Commons.

This will do Great Britain no good whatsoever. All this will do is add another layer of the same sort of confused, incompetent leadership that has made the House of Commons the center of so much derision. Which is not to say that the House of Lords was not in need of some authentic reform. It was too loosely organized, too large and made the British Parliament rather top-heavy, though -I hasten to add- this was mostly a result of the way the House of Peers was tweaked and tortured into assuring the outcome desired by the Commons. If I had my way the House would have been reformed by restoring the hereditary peers, restoring the powers of the House but cutting down on the number of those given seats which could be done by granting seats to those peers who hold the senior most title in their general area. Just an idea. Instead, since the Blair government has thrown out the baby, the Cameron government is adding more bathwater. Again, it is possible to overstate the calamity of this because so much of the damage had already been done. Many factors have certainly been at play over the years but, I cannot help but note, that when the House of Peers operated in the traditional fashion the United Kingdom was one of the most successful and dynamic countries in the world and the center of the largest maritime empire in history. Since the U.K. started down the road of a unicameral legislature, just how has Great Britain fared? Is Britain greater or poorer now and what does the answer to that say about the direction the country is going in? A simple question, posed by the simple, and damaged, mind of … The Mad Monarchist.

Taking Economic Advice from Monaco

Can the rest of the world learn anything from the famously prosperous Principality of Monaco? I tend to think so, and not just because I am admittedly partial to the Grimaldi fiefdom. A case can be made for the low-taxation, pro-investment policies of the Monegasque, and these are reviewed in Taking Economic Advice from Monaco over at my sister-blog Mad for Monaco. Read and reflect if you please.

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.

Favorite Royal Images: An Archduchess of Austria

HIRH Archduchess Elizabeth of Austria, the poor, misguided daughter of Crown Prince Rudolf and Crown Princess Stephanie of Austria-Hungary.

Mad Motivation

Monarchist Profile: General Sir Henry Clinton

One of the leading British commanders of the American War for Independence, Sir Henry Clinton was one of the most capable generals of that conflict but also one of the most difficult. He was born on April 16, 1730 to Admiral George Clinton and Anne Carle. There is a little ambiguity about the place of his birth, but according to some at least he was a North American, a Canadian, being born in Newfoundland. His family was a very old one with a long history of royal service behind it when he first entered the armed forces in New York in 1745. His father, at the time, was serving as the Royal Governor of New York. One year later he was a captain serving in the fortress of Louisbourg only recently captured from the French. Later on, this background would serve Clinton well as he had considerable experience with North America when the Revolutionary War broke out. Over the next few years he moved to Great Britain and was commissioned as a captain in the elite Coldstream Guards. He rose fairly rapidly in the British army, serving in some of the most famous formations. By 1758 he was a lieutenant colonel in the First Foot Guards (better known as the Grenadier Guards today). During the Seven Years War (the French and Indian War in America) he served under the Duke of Brunswick in Germany. During his war service he met many of the men he would later serve with and against when revolution came to the American colonies.

Clinton gave good service, made profitable friendships, married a member of the landed gentry and even gained as a patron the Duke of Gloucester, the brother of the new King George III. After serving in Gibraltar for a time Clinton was promoted to major general in 1772 and was elected to a seat in the House of Commons. He also gained further military experience touring installations of the Imperial Russian Army in the Balkans, witnessed some clashes with the formidable Ottoman Empire (even met some Turkish envoys who he described as “very civil”) and had an audience in Vienna with Emperor Joseph II. It was upon his return to England that he learned about the outbreak of rebellion in America and was ordered by King George III to proceed there along with his fellow major generals William Howe and John Burgoyne to bring a quick end to this challenge to the authority of the Crown. Their immediate goal was to relieve the besieged British forces in Boston under General Thomas Gage. The result was the first major clash of the war, the battle of Bunker Hill.

General Clinton always displayed a more sober and realistic appreciation of the fighting qualities of the Americans and was pessimistic about the situation at Bunker Hill and broke his orders to tend to the wounded after the first two failed assaults on Breed’s Hill. The third assault succeeded, winning the battle for the British but at a heavy loss of life which made Clinton describe the victory as nearly ruinous. Gage was replaced by Howe in the aftermath of the battle and Clinton was promoted to the local rank of lieutenant general and was chief deputy to General Howe. In that role he often provided brilliant plans but his character proved problematic and Clinton was, by most accounts, extremely hard to work with and was invariably critical of his superiors. This mitigated his value at times but, nonetheless, Clinton often made invaluable contributions to the war effort. During the Long Island campaign it was General Clinton who suggested the flanking march that proved a master stroke and went a long way in securing a massive victory for the British forces in which George Washington and his entire Continental Army came close to being totally wiped out.

There was no doubt that Clinton was an extremely capable military commander but his own personality often worked against him. This was especially true following the death of his wife when Clinton became noticeably more difficult. He had also earlier been dispatched by General Howe to lead the campaign in the southern colonies but a delay suffered by the Royal Navy and bad weather helped turn the expedition into a dismal failure, a soft spot for General Clinton who did not respond well to criticism (who does?). He returned to New England where he captured Newport, Rhode Island after which he went back to Great Britain in early 1777. When Burgoyne was chosen by the King and Lord Germain to lead the northern offensive coming down from Canada Clinton tried to resign but was refused. He was knighted and returned to New York to resume his post as Howe’s deputy, though neither man was happy about it.

Not surprisingly, General Clinton was totally opposed to the plan for Howe to advance north while Burgoyne marched south, hopefully cutting off New England and crushing the rebellion between them. Clinton predicted that Burgoyne would be isolated in the wilderness of upper New York and could easily be surrounded and destroyed. Of course, this is exactly what transpired with Burgoyne being forced to surrender after the battle of Saratoga, a victory credited with securing French recognition of the fledgling United States. During the Saratoga campaign Clinton had also managed a successful raid into the Hudson Highlands in a vain effort to rescue Burgoyne and his intrepid army. Early the following year though things changed for Clinton. Despite winning numerous victories, General Howe had failed to suppress the rebellion in the colonies in 1777 and he resigned his position. So, in February of 1778 Lt. General Sir Henry Clinton became commander-in-chief of all Crown forces in North America. His constant advice and criticism of his predecessor meant that much was expected of Clinton but with France joining the war as an ally of the rebels the British government had to redeploy limited forces to defend colonies all over the world. As a result, Clinton would be expected to accomplish what Howe had not but with even fewer troops to work with.

General Clinton also faced a Continental Army that had become much more disciplined and well trained than the one he and Howe had chased from pillar to post in New York. Clinton was thus forced to adopt a generally defensive strategy with British forces concentrating on holding key strategic ports, with supply and mobility dependent on the Royal Navy, rather than undertaking any grand offensives to wipe out the Continental Army. Clinton, who had seemed so daring as a subordinate, found himself to be a very cautious commander, which even he realized, referring to himself on one occasion as “a shy bitch”. Still, he executed a brilliant march to New York during which time Washington tried to win a decisive victory over him at the bloody battle of Monmouth. Usually dismissed as a stalemate, it is hard to see how this should not be considered a victory for Clinton even if a less than decisive one. Even though Washington caught the rear of the British army, Clinton fended off his attacks, losing less men than Washington while still managing to complete his movement to New York as planned while the rebel goal of destroying his army had failed. It would be the last major battle in the northern theatre as attention turned toward the southern colonies where Lord Cornwallis was dispatched to restore Crown authority and rather the many loyalists of the region.

Unfortunately, just as Clinton had clashed with Howe, he was often upset with his subordinate Cornwallis. Part of this was due to rank as Cornwallis had been given a “dormant commission” which Clinton took as an affront but which was actually done simply to ensure that if anything happened to him the senior commander in America would be Cornwallis rather than a Hessian mercenary. However, aside from the usual problems of ego, this added another difficulty as it made Clinton hesitant about issuing direct orders to Cornwallis and he instead preferred to make suggestions and as a result his instructions were often vague and easily misunderstood. Clinton, upset with what he saw as being placed in a ‘no-win’ situation tried to resign again but was again refused. He spent most of 1779 holding his ground and sending raiding parties against the rebel forces as well as issuing a proclamation promising emancipation to any slaves who could escape their bondage and enlist in the Crown forces.

In 1780, after British forces captured Savannah, Georgia General Clinton led another attack on Charleston, South Carolina. He more than made up for his earlier defeat there and after a successful siege operation forced the surrender of the city and the entire 5,000-man garrison. It was a stupendous victory for the British and the costliest defeat the American rebels would suffer in the entire war. With such a great success under his belt, Clinton left Cornwallis to command the southern campaign while he returned to New York to direct overall operations on the continent. Lord Cornwallis won a string of victories but tensions between him and Clinton only increased. Cornwallis blamed Clinton for indecisiveness while Clinton accused Cornwallis of insubordination and trying to run his own war. When a French naval victory ultimately bottled up Cornwallis at Yorktown the end was at hand. Clinton organized a rescue operation but was too late to save his subordinate who surrendered in 1782, effectively ending the war. Clinton offered his resignation again and it was finally accepted, turning command over to General Sir Guy Carleton. Unfortunately, despite being blamed for the defeat at Yorktown, Clinton was not allowed a court martial to clear his name.

Upon returning to Britain, General Clinton again served in Parliament, was promoted to full general in 1793 and ended his life as Governor of Gibraltar. As a commander, General Clinton still receives less respect than he is due. True, he was difficult, could be overcautious, tended to blame others and inflate his own successes but though he would win no personality contests, he was an extremely skillful commander. Among the top British generals of the American war he was probably the best strategist and the most effective planner of all of them. He understood that a formal conquest of the continent would be impossible, that permanent garrisons were needed to win and keep the support of the loyalists who were the key to ultimate victory. He also understood the need for close cooperation with the navy, unfortunately he was robbed of the benefit of one of the best British naval commanders of the day, Admiral Richard Howe, by the intervention of France. He was not as colorful as Burgoyne, as likeable as Howe or as daring as Cornwallis but, perhaps because of his North American background, possessed an overall understanding of the strategic situation in the colonies that few others had.

The Top-Heavy Italian Republic

The financial woes of the Italian Republic are now, thanks to the E.U. and global finance, a matter of international concern. It is a crisis that has been a long time in coming and definitely puts the lie to those who claim that monarchy is financially burdensome while a republic is some sort of bargain. Surely, in economic terms, there is no greater example than modern Italy of what a poor return on public money a republic can be. That the monarchy was inordinately expensive is an argument only the foolish or truly ignorant could ever accept. Why is that? Because, one could certainly point to the grandeur of the royal residences, the glittering pomp and ceremony and the splendor of royal progresses to make the ignorant believe that the monarchy must have been a huge drain on the public purse. However, most of this came from the private accounts of the House of Savoy from money raised by their own properties and not from the public trough. Even then, in times of economic hardship, the King of Italy drastically renounced his income, cut back expenses and handed over valuable and extensive properties to the state. Has any of his republican successors done likewise? Certainly not and quite the contrary in fact. What has been done is to replace the monarchy with one of the most expensive and top-heavy republics in the world.


How many people, in or outside of Italy, are truly aware of this? How many of those who have loaned money to the safekeeping of the free-spending republican politicians are aware of this? How many are aware that the Italian Chamber of Deputies actually has far more members than the House of Representatives in the United States (which, for those unfamiliar with geography) is very many times larger than the Italian Republic? Not only is the government bigger, which means that there are more politicians to pay, but they are paid quite a few times more than their American counterparts as well (and rest assured that American Congressmen are in no danger of going hungry). In fact, Italian politicians are amongst the most highly paid and lavishly compensated in the entire world! So, what do Italians today have to administer their country? A republican government that is bigger than most, more expensive than most and more ineffctive than most as well. Bigger is not better and for as much as they cost the Italian taxpayer the government has clearly not provided value for money. Further, despite the promises of democratic republicans, they are by no means more accountable. When the people vote to cut the pay of their politicians, their votes are ignored and, of course, presiding over it all now is Prime Minister Mario Monti, an EU financial bureaucrat who was never elected to any office in Italy ever!

In addition, the tax-and-spend policies of the republican government have been digging Italy into a deep financial pit for decades. It was under the socialist prime minister (no surprise there) Bettino Craxi that the Italian national debt rose to be greater than the entire gross national product of the country -and that was in the 1980's! Things have hardly improved since as the current state of affairs clearly demonstrates. Recently, the European Union mandated that Italy would have to give help in the bail-out of Spanish banks and loan money to Spain at 3% interest. However, due to the fact that Italy herself is quite broke, Italy will have to borrow money to give that loan at 7% interest! What sort of economic and mathematical idiot thought up that "brilliant" plan? With leaders like that, is it any wonder that Italy finds herself on the brink of economic ruin? Probably not, considering that even the largely ceremonial office of President is currently held by a former member of the Communist Party, an ideology not known for creating economic prosperity around the world to say the least.


Italy would be better off to rid themselves of the lot of these overpaid, under-performing members of the political class, restore the lire, restore the monarchy, trash the tangle of regulations that strangle growth and incentive, leave the EU and pursue again a policy of "sacred self-interest" in which only those policies are pursued which will be to the benefit of the Italian nation. As things stand now, the people are disenchanted with their government, over taxed, over regulated and rapidly growing frustrated and divided. No country or government is ever without fault and certainly the Kingdom of Italy was not free from error. However, the Kingdom of Italy was brought down by intrigue and betrayal at the end of a world war while the Italian Republic is being brought to its knees simply by corruption, idiotic policies and carelessness, all of which amount to "business as usual" in the realm of the republicans.

MM Video: William of Orange

MM Video: Denmark at War

Images Page

Just a notice, as promised, that I will soon be changing out the new "Images" page which, for little more than a week now, has had a Hungarian flavor to it. No one commented on the premier of this new addition so I don't know if anyone particularly likes it or not but, for the time being anyway, I will keep it up. The change out will probably happen on Tuesday since I still find myself trying to fill the void left by "Off-Topic Tuesday" which caused so much trouble. However, simple pictures have been known to cause trouble too (at least for me) and the upcoming change may prompt some eye rolls as the current batch of Hapsburgs in Hungarian regalia will be replaced by the always controversial House of Bonaparte. As Veronica used to say, mind the change of pace and tone!

Royal News Roundup

In the Middle East, following the death of Crown Prince Nayef of Saudi Arabia, Prince Salman was named the new heir-to-the-throne by King Abdullah. Crown Prince Nayef was laid to rest in Mecca. In Kuwait, due to a political standoff that has set the opposition in Parliament against the government, Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, Emir of Kuwait, has suspended Parliament for one month. A short time later the top court in Kuwait nullified the Parliament and reinstated the previous pro-government parliament. Their decision cannot be challenged.

Over in Europe, the Prince of Wales is still very concerned about the environment and is very much afraid that human beings are going to destroy the world through negligence. In a taped message to the UN sustainability conference in Brazil, the Prince of Wales warned of the ‘catastrophic’ consequences of climate change. The Queen also gave her son and heir a promotion this week, elevating HRH to the ranks of Field Marshal in the army, Admiral of the Fleet in the Royal Navy and Marshal of the Royal Air Force. HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and HRH the Duke of Kent hold similar ranks, the Queen, of course, is commander-in-chief of all armed forces. The Prince consort was also back in the spotlight this week alongside the Queen at the Trooping of the Color, the official celebration of the royal birthday. The Duke of Cambridge was there as well and Prince William is apparently very upset over the illicit trade in rhino horns saying, “It makes me very angry” and described the poaching as “ignorant and selfish”. The Duke warned that rhinos could become extinct if greater measures are not taken to protect the massive animals. The Duke of Cambridge also, upon turning 30, inherited some 10 million pounds from his late mother.

Also in London this week HRH the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall met with HH the XIV Dalai Lama, the Prince being a long-time supporter of the exiled Tibetan monk-monarch. Meanwhile, over in Denmark, HM Queen Margrethe II hosted a garden party at the royal palace for the members of Volunteer Denmark along with other members of the Danish Royal Family. In Norway, TM King Harald V and Queen Sonja visited Andebu and Tonsberg in Vestfold County. In the Low Countries, HM Queen Beatrix received the credentials of some new ambassadors, in Brussels HM King Albert II received the Secretary of State for the Fight Against Social and Tax Fraud and in Luxembourg the Grand Ducal court released their first schedules of the upcoming wedding of the Hereditary Grand Duke. In Grimaldi news, Prince Albert II attended the Rio+20 conference on the environment, Princess Charlene handed out diplomas to the graduating class of 2012 from the International School of Monaco and later joined her brother and his girlfriend in an informal visit to Los Angeles, California.

Mad Rant: Corporal Punishment

Readers from the United States will likely have heard by now about the case of the woman in New York, working as a school bus monitor, who was verbally abused and threatened to the point of tears by a bunch of middle school delinquents. It seems odd to me that in this day and age when fewer people are having children and of those an ever smaller number of children that children are often so over-romanticized. Make no mistake about it, children can be positively heartless, cruel, vindictive and totally lacking in any empathy at all. This is likely worse today when, in our society, we have deluded the young with false self-esteem, pampered them, spoiled them and bred a gross mentality of entitlement out of all proportion to what is actually achievable. I will even risk greater condemnation and say that girls are worse than boys. Boys might punch each other in the eye but girls emotionally destroy each other, which seems far more cruel and insidious to me. In any event, this latest episode is just one more, albeit extremely ugly, example of the lack of discipline in school, the lack of proper behavior among children and a total absence on their part of any respect for their elders.

Aside from the children themselves, it is the parents of these vicious little spawn that are ultimately to blame for raising no better than to think that such behavior is acceptable. Even in my teenage years when I was at my most insolent and rebellious I would have never, ever even thought for instant of speaking to a 60+ year old woman in such a way. That’s entirely to the credit of my parents and not to myself. The parents of every one of those little demon-seed should be held accountable for the behavior of their children. However, the school itself is also to blame. The children behave in such a manner because they know they can, they know they can get away with it and that there will be no consequences. However, again, schools answer to school boards who must answer to the parents on election day so we are back to them again. I was not always the best student but one thing I was consistently cited for was being well behaved. When I was in kindergarten, for the only time in my student years, I was sent to the principal for writing on my desk. The principal took his blue wooden paddle to my backside and I never got sent to the principal’s office ever again. Once was enough.

That was at a private school but, even at public school where corporal punishment was not allowed, I never gave any problems because I knew that whatever they could do to me would pale in comparison to what my dear old papa would do to me when I got home. Because if I did anything wrong or even if I was present when others did something wrong and did not stop them, if pop found out I would get a good dusting by a big leather strap of some variety. I’d come out of it feeling very low, with a collection of red welts across my backside and be sore for a while afterward but, of course, no real damage was ever done. A good thrashing is by no means the same as child abuse. My skin was never broken, I was never left covered in bruises and I never had any bones broken or anything like that but my old man did a good enough job that whatever I had done wrong, I sure as the world would never, ever do it again. Now, I know there are those who say that they happen to have some special kind of youngster that a whipping or a spanking just has no effect on them. I’ve never believed it. Anyone who says that is simply not applying sufficient force. I don’t care what kind of a child you have, if you smack them hard enough you WILL change their behavior. I guarantee it. Of course, as with any kind of punishment, it must always be fairly and consistently applied.

I don’t have children and don’t plan to ever have children but I have long said I could solve all the disciplinary problems in any school in two days with only a rule book, a leather strap and a free hand. Here is how it works: you make sure every student is well aware of the rules and that no infraction will be tolerated. When someone breaks the rules (and here is the important part), you don’t send them to the office. You wait until recess or lunch break and you assemble the whole student body on the playground. You take the guilty party into the middle of the playground where everyone can see and there you announce what they did wrong, how they will be punished and then start bringing the tears to their eyes. I know, I know, that sounds horribly cruel to the modern mind but, I assure you, once that is done and everyone sees it being done, it will very, very rarely (if ever) have to be done again. Once they know it can happen and will happen they will not risk the pain and, more so, the humiliation that comes from breaking the rules. I welcome anyone who would wish to test this theory -I guarantee immediate results. You do not cause any damage to the body, you leave no scars or anything but simply apply sufficient force to make it really, really hurt and let these bullies be seen crying like a baby and no one will risk breaking the rules again.

I am dead serious about this and just to show that I do not commit age discrimination allow me to say that I think corporal punishment should be revived for adults as well. Some people think only slaves used to be beaten but, on the contrary, in those days corporal punishment was common for free men as well and no city, town or village was complete without a whipping post. Personally, I have most wished for this option when dealing with grown-up bullies and by that I mean men who beat their wives or beat up any woman or who abuse their children. It would give me great satisfaction to see some of these creeps who get drunk and end up putting their wife or child in the hospital, stripped to the waist, tied to a post and have a big, brawny fellow come with a big whip and flog them to the bone. Give them a taste of their own poison and see how eager they are to inflict such pain on those weaker than them in the future. I think it would do a world of good, both for the offender and for all those who witness such punishment.

Will this ever happen? No, surely not, we’ve gone far too soft for anything like that anymore. But this sort of stuff did NOT happen in the old days and, again, I guarantee you it would work. I won’t quote what was said to the poor woman in question, I assume most know or can easily find out but if it were in my power every one of those little punks would take a thrashing for that and then I’d have their folks whipped too for raising such a heartless little pack of barbarians. This is yet further proof to me that the Whig version of history is totally wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Whatever the opposite of evolution is, we are going through it. Any halfway decent child would have been raised better than to talk to even their schoolmates that way to say nothing of a little, old lady. It makes me positively disgusted with our modern society and a very … Mad Monarchist.