Monarchist Profile: Francisco Javier de Elio

Another of the noted Spanish royalists during the independence wars in Latin America was Francisco Javier de Elio, born in Pamplona in 1767. Like many of his class he joined the Spanish Royal Army as a young man and advanced to become governor of Montevideo from 1807 to 1809. However, he was setback somewhat after conspiring against his superior, Santiago de Liniers, Viceroy of the Rio de la Plata which failed because of the popular support Liniers had for his past victories over the British and the support of future revolutionary Cornelio Saavedra.

However, the following year the newly appointed Viceroy, Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros, was deposed by the May Revolution. Elio stepped in to fill the breach, retaining control of Montevideo and what is now Uruguay while declaring himself Viceroy. A bit ambitious perhaps but in light of the situation the Junta of Cadiz confirmed his new post on January 19, 1811. The situation soon became worse as the peasants of Uruguay were incited to rise up in revolt under the leadership of Jose Gervasio Artigas. Elio dispatched naval Captain Jose Posadas with a force of royalists to put down the rebellion but his forces were defeated at the battle of Las Piedras.

In quick order the area under the effective control of Elio was Montevideo and Colonia del Sacramento. The Spanish cause doomed, Elio saw no choice but to return to Spain on November 18, 1811. He officially resigned his nominal post of viceroy in January of the following year. However, there was still need for royalist commanders in Spain as the return of His Catholic Majesty King Fernando VII was met with division between the Cortes who wanted the King to restore the liberal constitution of 1812 and the more staunch royalists who supported a return to the absolute monarchy. King Fernando VII naturally favored the full restoration of his powers and avoided confronting the Cortes in Madrid by going to Valencia where General Elio pledged his support and his troops to the King in returning him to absolute power.

Part of this was the prospect of restoring his own reputation for General Elio as Fernando VII was also committed to the reconquest of the recently lost colonies in America. Calling on his fellow monarchs of the Holy Alliance for support, royalists in France responded with His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVIII dispatching a French army to intervene on behalf of his Spanish cousin. The result was the Spanish Civil War of 1820-1823 in which General Elio was zealously active on the absolutist side. The war ended in victory for the King of Spain, though the war itself meant that the Latin American colonies were effectively gone for good, but General Elio did not live to see it. Captured by the liberal forces he was executed in Valencia in 1822.

Bill O'Reilly's Elastic Definition of Terrorism

Tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor" Bill O'Reilly went pretty far overboard in his definition of "terrorism". Most of the time, I don't bother with this stuff too much because a) O'Reilly often says things simply to irritate the "right" in order to back up his claim of being "independent" and b) the pro-America hurrah! hurrah! attitude much of this stems from doesn't bother me that much. What happened cannot be changed and every country needs some kind of founding myth to rally around when the population has virtually nothing in common. However, sometimes things can be taken too far. Case in point, O'Reilly comparing the controversy over lawyers who defend Muslim terrorists to John Adams defending some of the British soldiers who participated in the so-called "Boston Massacre" which, O'Reilly said was 'surely an act of terrorism'.

Hold the phone Bill! First of all, it was no "massacre". Only 11 people were shot, only 5 of whom died and the shooting came at the height of a very ugly confrontation between a mob of some 300 to 400 Bostonians and a mere 7 or 8 British soldiers who were being pelted with snowballs, rocks, sticks and insults as well as being dared to shoot by people in the mob. All of these were regular soldiers in the British army, in uniform, standing on guard duty as they had been for some time. By no stretch of the imagination could these men be called terrorists or the shooting an act of terrorism. In fact, the subsequent trial of several of those involved found mostly in favor of the British.

Lest the British feel too picked on here, O'Reilly, later in the same broadcast, also compared the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor to an act of terrorism. A much more horrible affair no doubt about it, but again, hardly an act of terrorism. The Japanese were regular military men, flying in marked planes and attacking military targets. In fact, when the flight commander returned to Japan, HIM Emperor Hirohito, who rarely spoke at such meetings, questioned him directly to ensure that no civilian areas had been hit in the attack. In the course of the war other very horrible things were done but in all the hyper-sensitivity of the "War on Terror" we do need to keep in mind that not every tragedy, not every surprise attack and not even every war crime is an act of "terrorism".

Battlefield Royal: Prince Camille de Polignac

Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac was born on February 16, 1832 at Millemont Seine-et-Oise, France to Prince Jules de Polignac and Princess Marie Charlotte (Parkyns). A member of one of the most prestigious, and staunchly royalist, French families his father was council president under HM King Charles X of France. His father was a passionate royalist and an absolutist which made him a favorite of Charles X. Already a member of the French nobility he was granted the Roman title of Prince by the Pope.

His grandmother Gabrielle had been a famous beauty at the royal court in her day and was a best friend to the ill-fated Queen Marie Antoinette. During the 1840’s the Prince de Polignac studied mathematics and music at St Stanislas College. In 1853 he opted for the military, joining the French army to fight in the Crimean War wherein he was awarded a promotion to second lieutenant. However, still part scholar as well as soldier, he resigned his commission in 1859 to travel to Central America to study geography and political economy.

As it happened he was in the United States when war broke out between the north and south. Finding himself in friendly surroundings amongst the chivalrous cavaliers of Dixie he volunteered to fight for the Confederacy in 1861. With his blue-blood background and prestigious connections he was assured a place in the Confederate officer corps and was, appropriately enough, first made a staff officer under the dapper Louisiana Creole General Pierre G. T. Beauregard, another soldier of gallant temperament, French lineage and the Catholic faith. Later, however, he served on the staff of the irascible General Braxton Bragg, commander of the Army of Tennessee. Nonetheless, he distinguished himself and in January of 1863 was promoted to the rank of brigadier general.

In March of that year he was transferred to the Trans-Mississippi department and assigned to command a brigade from Texas. At first the hard-hitting Texans were less than impressed with their new foreign-born commander, derisively nicknaming him “Prince Polecat”. However, in time this would become a term of affection as much as it was used as the Prince de Polignac earned the respect of his Texans through his skill and bravery on the battlefield. The Prince led his Texans into battle at Vidalia and Harrisonburg, Louisiana in the spring of 1864. However, his greatest moment of glory was still to come.

From March to May of 1864 the Union armies launched the Red River Campaign, aimed at Shreveport, to cut off Confederate supplies from the far west and open the door for an invasion of Texas. In the first major battle of the campaign at Mansfield the Prince de Polignac showed his worth. Despite being considerably outnumbered the Confederates prevailed, inflicting twice as many losses as their own on the Union army and capturing a large number of supplies and munitions. Prince de Polignac was given a battlefield promotion to major general when his superior, Alfred Mouton, was killed. During the attack Polignac led his troops in person, waving his sword over his head as his troops shouted the famous ‘Rebel Yell’. A Union prisoner described the Prince and his Texas as “charging demons” whose crushing assault was “like a cyclone”.

The French Prince led his Texans throughout the rest of the Red River campaign, which ended in inglorious defeat for the Union army, and then to the new posting of his division to Arkansas in the autumn of 1864. With the overall situation of the Confederacy worsening, Prince de Polignac was thought to perhaps be more valuable off the battlefield as an envoy to France where he could perhaps use his family connections to convince the French Emperor Napoleon III to recognize the Confederate States of America and intervene in the war on their behalf, necessary, they argued, for the ultimate victory of French forces in Mexico at the time. Unfortunately, Prince de Polignac arrived too late and it was doubtful Napoleon could have been moved without the British going along with him in any event. Still he was knighted by the Emperor and sent to Queen Victoria on Napoleon’s behalf.

With the war over in 1865, Polignac went back to his original plan and journeyed to Central America. He wrote and served in the French army again as a brigadier general in the Franco-Prussian War. In 1874 he married Marie Adolphine Longenberger who sadly died giving birth to their daughter. In 1883 the Prince married Elizabeth Margaret Knight by whom he had two daughters and one son. He named his son Mansfield in honor of his finest hour. Prince de Polignac retired to a more quiet life, studying mathematics and music until his death on November 15, 1913 at the age of 81, the last surviving Confederate major general. Another interesting note, the Prince de Polignac was a distant cousin of HSH Prince Pierre of Monaco, father of Sovereign Prince Rainier III.

Monarch Profile: Emperor Dong Khanh of Vietnam

Prince Nguyen Canh Tong was born on February 19, 1864 the son of Prince Nguyen-Phuc Hong Cai. His uncle, the Emperor Tu Duc, was the longest-reigning emperor of the Nguyen dynasty and was known for his numerous beautiful wives and concubines. However, a bout with smallpox as a child had left Tu Duc sterile and so he adopted three nephews to secure the succession, the eldest of which was Nguyen Canh Tong whom he elevated to the rank of Duke of Kien Giang. It is still debated by Vietnamese historians which nephew Tu Duc intended to be his immediate successor but in the tumultuous year of 1883 one crisis after another following the death of Tu Duc made it become known as the “Year of the 3 Kings” as Nguyen Duc Duc, Emperor Hiep Hoa, Emperor Kien Phuc and Emperor Ham Nghi all gained the throne and lost it.

On July 4, 1885 an anti-French uprising was launched by the regents of Vietnam and the reigning boy-Emperor Ham Nghi fled (or was kidnapped) to be the figurehead of their movement. Citing Vietnamese law that the country could not be one day without a king the French, with the support of most of the royal family, enthroned Nguyen Canh Tong as Emperor Dong Khanh. This was a difficult and delicate time for the Nguyen dynasty as Emperor Dong Khanh knew that it was only because of the French that he had achieved the throne. As a result, he determined from the start to be friendly and cooperative (if not always enthusiastic obviously) with the French as their destinies were bound together.

Emperor Dong Khanh dispatched loyal Vietnamese troops (under his father-in-law General Nguyen Than) to assist the French in suppressing the anti-French uprising known as the Mandarins Revolt. Since the rebellion was aimed at foreigners the Christian community was often singled out for persecution, perhaps even more so after Emperor Dong Khanh issued an edict of religious toleration for the first time since the reign of the first Nguyen Emperor Gia Long. It was an attack by rebel forces on the Catholic Church at Tra Kieu which led to the appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary whose miraculous intercession ensured a victory for the forces of Emperor Dong Khanh. To this day the second most enduring Christian icon in Vietnam is Our Lady of Tra Kieu.

The French did give Dong Khanh some concessions for his cooperation, but in reality the changes were merely administrative rather than a real change in sovereignty. Whereas the French praised Emperor Dong Khanh very highly for his friendly attitude he was less popular with his own people as a result. He undertook a tour of north-central Vietnam at the behest of the French to promote Franco-Vietnamese cooperation but was met with such hostility that he was forced to call it off and return to the Forbidden City in an armed fleet of junks. It was also during this time that the French Union of Indochina was formally established, creating one colonial entity of Laos, Cambodia and the three areas formerly known as Vietnam; Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina. The rebel forces were finally defeated but Emperor Dong Khanh (in whose name the often brutal suppression was carried out -increasingly his unpopularity) did not live to see it.

Emperor Dong Khanh, long troubled by illness and dependence on medication, died on January 28, 1889. His relatively short reign being taken by many as a sign of divine disfavor. For France at least he had been the ideal colonial monarch in the grand, worldwide French imperial system. He had carried out his moral and spiritual duties as Vietnamese emperor and the Son of Heaven while maintaining a policy of peace and friendship with the French who handled all major political decisions. They were troubled though by the fact that half of his eight children died very young and that the Emperor, before his life was cut short, suffered from various illnesses and hallucinations. Because of this, they were reluctant to allow his son and heir to succeed him on the throne. They decided to go in a different direction but would eventually come to regret the move. In time though his son would come to the Golden Dragon Throne as would his grandson who would go down in history as the last Emperor of Vietnam. Even after the era of the republic the line of Emperor Dong Khanh continued for a time as it was his great-granddaughter who would become famous as Madame Nhu, the “Dragon Lady” of South Vietnam.

Red China to Name Next Dalai Lama

Edward Wong in yesterday's New York Times reported on the Chinese Communist Party Governor of Tibet announcing during the National People's Congress that it will definitely be the CCP who chooses the successor of the XIV Dalai Lama and not the exiled Tibetan monarch himself. Unfortunately, as with a number of issues, the Dalai Lama has not helped his cause by being somewhat ambiguous about the future of the Dalai Lama. At various times he has stated that he might choose his own successor in his lifetime, he might mystically arrange for his successor to be discovered outside of Tibet within the exile community or he might in fact be the last Dalai Lama -a prospect hard to even imagine. According to the article, and this is really nothing new but not usually spoken of so openly, the CCP has essentially said that regardless of the actions of the 14th, upon his passing it is they who will oversee the selection of the next Dalai Lama who, we can be sure, will be as loyal a communist as the CCP-selected Panchen Lama, rival to the Panchen Lama selected by the Dalai Lama who lives under house arrest somewhere in the PRC. It seems, at best, the Tibetan people may face a future with two rival claimants to the throne in Lhasa, one in exile in India and the other a Communist stooge. Isn't it funny though, and we have seen this extensively in the west as well, how atheistic republican leaders who condemn all religion at the same time are quick to claim formerly monarchial powers within the religious community. Hypocrisy knows no bounds...

Mad Rant: Why Are Monarchists Their Own Worst Enemy?

Recently there have been a number of subjects, which I have read about or that have happened to me personally, which have caused me to again roll my eyes in disgust and ask this question. It seems to happen so often, over and over again -monarchists being their own worst enemy. I have seen it time and time again, monarchists turning against each other rather than saving their vitriol for the revolutionary foe. Why is it that so many self-proclaimed monarchists seem to prefer handing yet another victory to republicans rather than see some other sort of monarchy besides their own preference prevail? Why are there so many who seem all to eager to make enemies of other monarchists when they are so relatively few of us left these days?

Very recently yours truly was called out by a very unpleasant British royalist for not being sufficiently “British”. This struck me as rather odd considering that I am not even British myself so I don’t know why I would be expected to be, but also because I’m more often accused of being too stuck on the British monarchy rather than others. This individual admitted that he was more royalist than monarchist, a difference he described as being more committed to supporting the British monarchy than monarchy in general. That is all well and good but it hardly seemed like a good reason for someone to wish to make an enemy of one of the extraordinarily few Tory loyalists on this side of the Atlantic.

This is also a very short-sighted mentality that has brought down a number of monarchies. Bucking the trend is a hard thing to do and today the trend is toward republics. It could be argued that nothing has been more harmful to the old monarchial order of the world than the policies adopted by a number of monarchies who were willing to sacrifice all and make deals with whatever devil was at hand in order to save themselves. The most idiotic part of this is that it invariably leads to their own downfall as well. You can see it with France recognizing the United States of America, Imperial Germany setting Vladimir Lenin at liberty in Russia and the policies of Winston Churchill that effectively put the fate of the British Empire in the hands of two Democrat Presidents of the United States.

There are also those people who call themselves monarchists but seem to have very scant support for any of the monarchs still managing to hang on to their thrones. I could literally name off every single monarch in Europe and these people would find something wrong with them to cause them to withhold their support. True enough there are policies virtually all of them have gone along with that I detest and many have done things in their private lives that I very much disapprove of, but that does not change their status. There are also those who oppose any monarchy born out of a separation from another monarchy like Mexico, Brazil or Belgium only the last of which is still a monarchy. Yet, I have come across those who sniff indifferently at the idea of the breakup of Belgium because it is not a “legitimate” country anyway instead of appreciating having one more monarchy in Europe still carrying on and leave it at that.

If Belgium were ever to divide it would certainly not divide into two monarchies. When either of the Mexican Emperors were overthrown did it bring back the rule of the King of Spain? Of course not, anymore than the loss of Emperor Pedro II brought back the rule of the King of Portugal over Brazil. In the same vein some have withheld their support from the Italian monarchy because of the complicity of the House of Savoy in the destruction of the other Italian monarchies during the wars for unification. I can understand that, I mourn the loss of those states as well, but getting rid of the Kingdom of Italy did not bring them back did it?

Then of course there are those who oppose a number of modern monarchs for being of the wrong dynasty. I have heard this argument put forward in regards to (I am not kidding) Great Britain, Spain, Holland and Belgium and Sweden. Obviously, that doesn’t leave very many untouched! Each case is different on that issue but do any of these people actually think that if the British people reject Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles they will really embrace the Duke of Bavaria? Does anyone really think that if King Juan Carlos of Spain is deposed he will be replaced by a Carlist absolute monarch? Do any of these people have any idea how near impossible it is to restore a monarchy once it has been lost? I ask because I don’t have the answer…I am at a loss…and I am, The Mad Monarchist.

Reminder: Spain IS a Constitutional Monarchy

The blog Royal World explains some of the facts of life about King Juan Carlos I, abortion and the constitutional monarchy in Spain. Why oh why do so many monarchists seem to show so much zeal tearing down monarchs and other monarchists rather than focusing on the real enemy?

MM Video: Holy Roman Emperors of the German Nation

Shameless Plug

Funny News from Northern Ireland

I was recently informed that, after so many decades in power, some are talking that it may be time for Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to step down. What?! Are they kidding? Surely this must be a joke. Why should Adams even think of turning in his resignation? Look at all he has done for Sinn Fein since taking over: Ireland is not one step closer to unification than it was when the partition was first agreed upon, Northern Ireland is still part of the U.K. and under the sovereignty of HM Queen Elizabeth II, Adams has defacto recognized British sovereignty by taking part in the power-sharing government and does not seem to have any more desire to push for reunification than the politicians in Dublin (which is 'zero' desire), that basic situation is not about to change anytime in the foreseeable future and Sinn Fein has lost the last of the few seats they held in the south. Heck, now that I think about it, with a record like that, if he does get turned out by Sinn Fein he could probably fit right in with the DUP!

The Fall of the Alamo

On this day in the pre-dawn darkness of 1836 the 13-day siege of the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas came to an end with the climactic assault of the Mexican army. General Santa Anna had shelled the Alamo nightly since his arrival but his guns fell silent the night before his attack -so that the Texan defenders would sleep heavily after so many nights of nerve-shattering exhaustion. As the Mexican columns swarmed forward Santa Anna ordered his buglers to sound ‘El Deguello’ -an old Spanish signal taken from the Moors that meant “slit the throat” or ‘take no prisoners’. The Texans rushed to the walls and threw back the attackers two to three times, inflicting horrible losses, before Santa Anna committed his reserves and overwhelmed the defenders on the walls. Room by room the Texans were exterminated to the last man and when it was over Santa Anna took his breakfast in the Alamo plaza. His soldiers were buried; the Texans were piled in a heap and burned. Santa Anna had won but the heroism of the Alamo defenders and the mercilessness of the Generalissimo would only inspire more resistance and a desire for revenge.

On the staff of Santa Anna at the Alamo was Colonel Juan Almonte who was sent into the fray during the assault to rally and inspire the men. Almonte would go on to be part of the military junta that seized power after the overthrow of Benito Juarez. As acting head of state for Mexico he supported the restoration of the Mexican Empire. Emperor Maximilian made him one of his generals and dispatched him to Paris as his ambassador. Also at the Alamo, taking command of one of the attacking columns that charged the walls was Lt. Colonel Jose Mariano Salas. He would also go on to be a member of the regency junta, along with Almonte and Archbishop Labastida that invited Maximilian to Mexico to accept the crown. Maximilian later made Salas one of his generals though by then he was too old for active service. Also on hand with the army, though not participating in the battle was the French-born Colonel Adrian Woll, Quartermaster General of the Mexican Army who would also later serve as a general in the army of Emperor Maximilian.

Consort Profile: Princess Marie of Liechtenstein

HSH Princess Marie of Liechtenstein was born Marie Aglaë, Countess Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau in Prague, Czechoslovakia on April 14, 1940. She is the fourth of seven children born to Count Ferdinand Carl Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau and his wife Countess Henriette, formerly Countess of Ledebur-Wicheln. Born into the Second World War her family had to flee Czechoslovakia in the face of the onrushing Soviet Red Army and settled in Germany. As a girl she attended elementary school in Ering am Inn from 1946 to 1950 before going to the Lioba Sisters’ boarding school at ‘Wald’ monastery in Wurttemberg.

Eight years later Marie graduated and in 1957 moved to England to improve her English language skills. She later went back to school and graduated from the Academy for Applied Arts at the University of Munich. To improve her French she lived for a time in Paris. With her studies completed she took a job as an industrial designer for a print shop in Dachau. Her career was on track but romance intervened and in 1965 she became engaged to HSH Hereditary Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, a distant cousin. The two were married in Vaduz on July 30, 1967 and one year later, on June 11, Princess Marie gave birth to their first child; Prince Alois.

Motherhood kept Princess Marie busy and on May 16, 1969 Prince Maximilian was born followed by Prince Constantin on March 15, 1972 and finally Princess Tatjana on April 10, 1973. On November 13, 1989 the Hereditary Prince succeeded his father as HSH Prince Hans-Adam II, Sovereign Prince of Liechtenstein making Princess Marie consort to one of the last nearly absolute monarchs in Europe. The Princess of Liechtenstein has given her all to her country and people with particular attention to educational, cultural and artistic issues.

Princess Marie serves as the President of the Liechtenstein Red Cross and from 1983 to 2005 was Honorary President of the Society for Orthopedic Aid. She has undertaken numerous foreign trips to represent Liechtenstein abroad and takes an interest in all things related to her country from politics and economics to cultural and sporting events.

Prince of Monaco Honors Ecumenical Patriarch

HSH Prince Albert II yesterday presented an award to HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bortholomeo I. Read the details at Mad for Monaco. This is another good sign of the recent, friendlier relations between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communities. In this time of growing atheism and secularism it is time for a united front -that does not mean giving up on core issues, but standing together on the basic things all Christians agree on and for the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches there is much more the two agree on than otherwise.

New Numbers on the King of Sweden

HM King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has reason to smile. New polling asked if the monarch, creeping up on 65-years-old (retirement age in Sweden) shows that 2/3rds of the Swedish population support the King of Sweden reigning until his death. Not surprisingly Swedes who categorize themselves as leftists are more likely to prefer the King abdicating in favor of Crown Princess Victoria whereas those Swedes who categorize themselves as "center-right" are more inclined to want the King to stay for life. What struck me as a bit unusual was that Swedes living in smaller towns were more likely to support the King abdicating next year whereas those living in the big cities are more inclined to support the King remaining on the throne. I would have expected the reverse to be true.

Fortunately, of those polled 74% said they supported their monarchy while 19% thought it should be abolished and the country become officially republican -and that is 19% too many! As I have often said, such numbers, while comforting, cannot be an excuse for inaction as the same study also showed that whereas only 19% of the public in Sweden are republicans, a much higher percentage of politicians are! No numbers were listed but for republicans making up such a small percentage of the population, a much larger number of the members of parliament have been open and vocal about wishing Sweden to abolish the monarchy and become a republic.

This means one thing; the Swedish people need to see to it that these MP's are not reelected in the future. It also shows that the democratically elected representatives of the people are obviously not reflecting the views and values of the people who put them in office. Finally, this shows what becomes of those who bargain with liberal revolutionaries. There is hardly a country in Europe more liberal, more socialistic than Sweden and the King has a purely ceremonial position with absolutely no emergency or reserve powers at all anymore. Yet, those who are hard-core revolutionary types will never be satisfied so long as any monarch is on their throne, no matter how powerless or benevolent they may be. Good enough reason in my book to stop negotiating with their types altogether.

Long live the King of Sweden!

Monarchist Profile: Simon Girty

One of the characters I find most fascinating from the American Revolutionary War is also one of those most vilified in the popular media. That man is Simon Girty, aka “the White Savage”. Thanks to contemporary revolutionary propaganda and the work of many famous fiction writers and even filmmakers, Simon Girty, when he is remembered at all, is most often remembered as one of the most infamous villains in American history. However, take a short trip north to the Dominion of Canada and you will find a more ‘fair and balanced’ view of this frontier loyalist. Although they can be fun, Daniel Boone movies should be taken with a grain of salt as history.

Simon Girty was born in Pennsylvania in 1741. His father was an Irish Indian trader who was killed in a duel in 1750. The family was later taken prisoner by the Shawnee and Delaware during the French & Indian War. Some members were liberated by the British army but others, including Simon, were split up among different tribes. Simon Girty went to the Senecas and was adopted by them. Over time he became fluent in a number of Indian languages and was eventually hired by the British Indian Department at Fort Pitt.

In 1775 Girty joined the Virginia militia and was originally on the side of the “Patriots” and was hired as a sort of liaison between the Continental Congress and the Six Nations. Simon Girty went on to other further service with the Continental Army in a number of campaigns on and away from the frontier but was often snubbed, denied promised promotions and witnessed Continental troops massacre Indians whose tribes had given their support to the fledgling USA. This and the fact that it was clear the US intended to move west to settle lands Britain had reserved for the Native Americans finally prompted Girty to defect to the British side in March of 1778. He went to Detroit, Michigan and was again employed by the Indian Department as a go-between with the local tribes.

It was during this time that Simon Girty gained his unsavory reputation in the American press as he participated in Indian raids against American settlements. The fighting was harsh to be sure and Native American warfare was not the same as that in Europe. However, contrary to revolutionary propaganda, Simon Girty saved the lives of many captives who would have otherwise been killed. Simon Kenton was one of those saved by Simon Girty and he tried to save Colonel William Crawford but his pleas finally angered the Indians to the point that they threatened to have Girty take his place if he did not desist. In spite of these facts he was accused by the rebel press of being an active and enthusiastic participant in these executions.

Simon Girty aided the British throughout the frontier in raids on colonial outposts as well as at the victory over the Kentucky militia at the battle of Blue Licks. The US put a $1,000 price on his head but he was never captured and at the end of the war bought a farm in Canada. He served the British in their dealings with the Indians in the post-war years but these uprisings were defeated by the US. His health began to fail him and during the War of 1812 one of his sons died saving the life of a British officer. American papers resurrected the memory of Simon Girty during the War of 1812 to again make him the face of British and Indian savagery but by that time Girty was old, sick and nearly blind. He died in Canada in 1818, still one of the most hated men in America despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that he ever actually participated in any atrocity. The only thing he was “guilty” of was returning to loyalty to his King and fighting to defend the lands and rights of the American Indian community.

Local Politics: Results are In

The results of the election are in and for the top job in Texas it seems as though Rick Perry is on his way to four more years as Governor. Having taken office in 2000 he is already the longest-serving governor in history. I chose not to participate in this primary election (in my area limited to the Democrat Party in any event) as none of the candidates were people I could vote for. In his victory speech Perry seemed to me to sound like a man who also has his eye on the White House, which is yet another reason why his talk about state sovereignty and threats of secession were simple political posturing and nothing more. Of course it scared the bat snot out of the liberals but if I had thought he actually meant it I probably would have voted for him. Of course he still has to win the final election in November but most do not think he should have much trouble with that.

In better news, Congressman Ron Paul was handily reelected with a whopping 80% of the vote -which should be a lesson to other GOP figures, but I doubt they will grasp it. He would make a fine President of the Republic of Texas should secession ever come our way. Some have argued about the legality of such talk, but of course the state would not have to secede to leave the union -there is more than one way to skin a cat. By treaty Texas has the right to divide itself into, I think, five different states. Were that to happen, at least if the borders were not drawn in a fanatical way, Texas would have such a powerful voice in the Senate that the rest of the states would surely not stand for it and would likely want to throw Texas out of the union without the state having to do anything about it. Of course all such talk is highly unlikely as I have always said, but each day that the federal government becomes more tyrannical over the states the odds increase and have already increased more than I ever thought possible.

On other fronts "Tea Party" candidate Deborah Medina lost badly (who I had hope for until she shot herself in the foot by waffling on the 9-11 "truther" issue), former independent candidate turned Democrat Kinky Friedman lost badly for Agriculture Commissioner which proves that Texas will vote almost anyone in as Governor but that is because the Governor actually has very little power. I voted for Kinky for Governor once but I'd never want him to have a position as important as Agriculture Commissioner. Also, the head of the Board of Education was won by the Christian evangelical party so the protests regarding school text books will probably end up going nowhere fast. Finally, I do have to say I find it a tad ironic that on Texas independence day the big winner was a man who will have been Governor longer than Texas was an independent country.

Saintly Royal Profile: Empress Helen of Constantinople

One of the most honored monarchs of the early Christian era is certainly the Empress Saint Helen or Helena, mother of Constantine the Great, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian. It is not known exactly when or where Helena was born; some placing her birthplace in modern Turkey while other legends claim she was the daughter of a British king born near modern-day Colchester. The year of her birth has been estimated as sometime between 240 and 250 AD. Nevertheless at some point she met and married the general and future Roman Emperor Constantius I. Whether she was a full wife or a concubine is unknown but sometime after giving birth to their son Constantine (probably in what is now Serbia), Constantius divorced Helena and for a time she lived alone with only her son to comfort her. She never remarried and Constantine grew up very attached and devoted to his mother.

In 306 AD Constantine became Emperor of the Roman Empire. He is famous for reuniting the two halves of the empire and for making Christianity legal. No doubt a leading influence on his life in this direction was his mother Helena who Constantine gave the title “Augusta” in 325. That same year, with official access to the authority that went with that title, she embarked on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to recover what Christian relics she could. Along the way she had a church built in Egypt in honor of the burning bush on Mt Sinai. At Jerusalem she had the Temple of Venus torn down that had been built near the tomb of Christ.

During the excavations involved with this and the founding of a new church on the site she discovered the relics of the True Cross and the nails used in the crucifixion which she carried back to Rome. At the site of her discovery her son later had built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. She venerated the relics she had found in the private chapel of her palace which was later converted into the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem. Among the other relics she found were the Holy Tunic and pieces of the rope which suspended Christ on the cross. She founded a number of churches and monasteries and contributed relics to a number of sites around the Mediterranean world.

St Helen, Empress of Rome, died in 330 AD with her son Constantine beside her. Her sarcophagus can still be seen in the Vatican museum. During her life St Helen was a source of great strength and affection for her son, and her spirituality was doubtless a source of inspiration to him. She was also greatly beloved by the ordinary people for her kindness, her generosity to the poor, the prisoners she liberated and her habit of worshipping with the rest of the Christian community with no finery or special treatment. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize Empress Helen as a saint.

Independence Day

On this day in 1836 delegates from the colonies of Texas meeting at Washington-on-the-Brazos signed the declaration of the independence of the Republic of Texas from the government of Mexico. Among the reasons listed in the document for this action was the dictatorship of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (former traitor to both the King of Spain and first Mexican Emperor) who had abolished the constitution of 1824, the lack of public education, the lack of rights to trial by jury, the lack of rights to bear arms, the lack of freedom of religion and the forced union with the state of Coahuila. Texas would not win its independence for another month.

Favorite Royal Images: Raja Raghubir of Bundi

HH Maharao Raja Raghubir Singh Sahib Bahadur of Bundi (1869-1927)

I love pictures and thought to start a series of posts on my favorite royal images, another of which is below in the post on King Edward III. However, for the first post in this series I had to go with the Raja of Bundi above. That has to be one of the greatest royal portraits ever -it really jumps out and grabs your attention!

Monarch Profile: King Edward III of England

One of the greatest English monarchs of the Middle Ages was certainly King Edward III, a Plantagenet, one of the most legendary warrior kings of England who made the English nation the premier military power of Western Europe in his time. Edward was the oldest of the four children of King Edward II and his formidable French wife Queen Isabelle. He was born at Windsor Castle on November 13, 1312 at 5:40 AM -the first English monarch whose time of birth was recorded. When Queen Isabelle and Roger Mortimer deposed Edward II (who was later murdered) the heir to the throne, titled as Earl of Chester, was proclaimed Keeper of the Realm and the following year was formally crowned King Edward III on February 2, 1327 in Westminster Abbey.

The following year, after receiving a dispensation from the Pope in Avignon, Edward III married Philippa of Hainault on January 24, 1328. She was a warm, kind woman and her gentle touch provided a good counterbalance to her gallant but rough husband. Their marriage lasted 25 years and produced 12 children. Rather than family affairs, it was the start of the Hundred Years War that was to be the most dominant feature in the long reign of Edward III. Pressing the notion that his mother was the heir of King Charles IV of France, who died in 1328, Flemish businessmen with commercial ties to England prevailed upon Edward III to claim the title of King of France in 1340. The French responded by attacking English lands in Guienne.

King Edward III, in grand Medieval style, donned his battle armor, mounted his war horse and led the English knights in a string of victories. First there was the naval battle of Sluys in 1340 that won English control of the Channel and quick access to the battlefields in France. In 1346 King Edward III defeated a much larger French army at the battle of Crecy, suffering relatively few losses compared to the immense casualties suffered by France, which he followed up by besieging the port city of Calais which fell after 11 months in 1347. In 1356 Edward won another great victory in France at the battle of Poitiers. Once again, Edward III was vastly outnumbered but inflicted a stunning defeat on the French, losing few troops compared to thousands lost by France, including their monarch King Jean II who was taken prisoner.

Edward III had been forced to adopt some rather unpopular policies to support his war in France but grumbles were hushed by the seemingly miraculous victories he won on the battlefield. However, England was soon struck by an enemy even the famous warrior king could not combat; the Black Death. Estimates range as high as half the population of England died of the plague and this forced England and France into signing a peace treaty with Edward renouncing his claim to the French throne. However, by 1369 he was ready to fight again, reasserted his claim to be King of France and charged into battle, retaking Poitou. However, Edward’s son, the famous “Black Prince” died of dysentery and a French naval victory greatly reduced the fighting capacity of the English. The fighting faded out and the French were able to regain some of their losses but at the end of the day England still held Bordeaux, Bayonne, Brest, Calais, Cherbourg and the lands around them.

At home King Edward III was probably less successful than he was on the battlefield but still made some historic achievements. French was replaced by English as the language of the court, the office of Justice of the Peace was created, Parliament was divided into two houses and in 1348 King Edward III founded the Most Noble Order of the Garter; the highest chivalric order in Great Britain still today and one of the most prestigious knighthoods in the world. Queen Philippa died in 1369, a much loved peace maker and gentle woman. To replace her King Edward III took a mistress named Alice Perrers who made him fairly miserable for his final years before his death on June 21, 1377 after suffering a stroke.

Today, by and large, Edward III is remembered as one of the greatest English kings of the Middle Ages. He has had his detractors but none of their criticisms have long survived. In his own time he was hailed as the greatest English monarch since the time of King Arthur. He was gallant, personally courageous, a skillful general, an at least capable statesman for his time and although he has been accused of a certain lustfulness there is no evidence that he ever was unfaithful to his wife, his only known mistress being taken after her death and Edward III stands quite apart from most Medieval sovereigns in there being no evidence of his having any illegitimate children. All in all he was everything a successful monarch of his time was expected to be; a brave King who led his troops into battle, defeated his enemies and expanded his kingdom. In that, certainly few others have matched him.