this article from the BBC, HM the Queen made her first public comments about the upcoming referendum in Scotland on pseudo-independence, saying that the Scots need to "think very carefully about the future". Previously there had been reports, the unconfirmed sort from 'anonymous sources' that the Queen was worried about the vote but the Queen herself had never spoken about the subject until now. It is very revealing to see how some people have responded to this with the usual suspects howling that the Queen, by this simple statement to a person in a crowd, had violated the policy of royal impartiality. They took this simple phrase as a ringing endorsement of the "Vote No" campaign. Think about that for a moment. The Queen said nothing at all about how anyone should vote, only that they should think carefully before doing so. By their reaction, the "Vote Yes" side has admitted that they are banking on people NOT thinking carefully before casting their vote for pseudo-independence. Of course, this should come as no surprise given how they campaigned for giving minors the right to vote, hoping that the voices of the young and ignorant would drown out those of the mature and experienced. Personally, I have no doubt that the Queen is hoping the vote will be "No" but she has certainly not taken a side in the issue. The fact that so many are taking this simple comment to be indicative of the Queen doing that shows both how they are counting on people voting emotionally rather than thoughtfully and just how little they think of the Queen and the place of the monarchy in British -and Scottish- society.
One can also tell a great deal about what this means for Britain by who has come out in support of the "Yes" Vote by those beyond British shores. North Korean communist dictator Kim Jung-Un has come out in support of the "Yes" side as have a number of people in high places in Russia. In the case of Korea's portly potentate, it is as simple as one Marxist supporting another, in the case of Russia, they want Scotland to set an example that their own partisans can follow in breaking away from Ukraine, as has been done in Crimea and which is trying to be done in the eastern lands of the country. In the Kingdom of Spain, Catalan secessionists are saying that a "Yes" result in Scotland would boost their cause as have their fellow republican separatists in Quebec who are hoping that a "Yes" vote will revive their flagging cause. The result could have an impact on some republics but it is the monarchies I most care about and who seem to be the biggest targets for these types of things. Canada, Spain and Belgium are at the top of every list of monarchies threatened by separatist movements. However, it goes wider than that, reaching even the Far East where a Red Chinese official recently said that the Ryukyu Islands should be independent and not considered part of Japan at all. There has long been a minor separatist movement on Okinawa and China would love to see such a thing happen so as to weaken Japan and strengthen their claim to the Senkakus. Even in Australia, those campaigning for a republic and to abolish the Australian flag have said that a "Yes" vote in Scotland would give them a helpful boost in their own agenda.
That is a common theme throughout all of the reaction to this issue and all those supporting the "Yes" vote in Scotland. It is all being done by people who want to see these monarchies diminished and weakened on the world stage. The European Union would be glad to see existing European countries further divided so that they can expand their power. After all, such small "independent" states could hardly make it on their own and would have to rely all the more on Brussels. It does not matter to them that some separatist movements are being driven by more comparitively right-wing forces or ardently left-wing forces since, whether one is talking about Scotland, Catalonia or Flanders, they have all stated that they will be joining the European Union as soon as "independence" is won, which of course means that it isn't independence at all. They are being totally disingenuous as is seen by how the EU responds when any country talks about leaving. Likewise, it takes no great clairvoyance to imagine how Russia, the DPRK or PRC would respond to any effort by any part of their countries to break away. Obviously, the history of England and Scotland has not always been peaceful and friendly but it is a distortion to think that Scotland has always had the worst of it. Even as early as the mid-1700's many a historian has commented that the British army leadership was dominated by Scots, many PM's have been from Scotland as have many of the biggest forces in business in Britain. Even if we want to go back to when things were a little more tense, it seems lost on many that when Scotland and England first came together it was by a Scottish monarch becoming the King of England and not the reverse. Scots should think carefully about the future and should consider why so many who do not have the best interests of Scotland in mind are hoping they vote "Yes".
Monday, September 15, 2014
Sunday, September 14, 2014
|the Vietnamese court|
On orders from Emperor Thieu Tri, continuing policies already in place, Nguyen officials punished Christians and arrested Catholic missionaries on the grounds that they were spreading “false” and “seditious” beliefs which upset the Confucian hierarchy, disturbed the native gods and ran contrary to proper virtue and morality. Actually, such incidents were handled fairly mildly more often than not and Emperor Thieu Tri was no fool. He realized that if he came down too hard on the Christians that this would be used by the French as a pretext to move against his country. Anti-Christian outbursts throughout East Asia had often been prompted by the fact that European domination tended to come on the heels of those preaching the new religion and the powers-that-be did not want it gaining a foothold. So, to avoid trouble, Emperor Thieu Tri hoped to simply frighten the Catholics into staying away from Vietnam. Time and time again a missionary would be sentenced to death for spreading subversive beliefs only to have the Emperor spare his life and order him deported. Emperor Thieu Tri released many missionaries rather than put them to death but there were those who persisted in always coming back. Eventually, their cause was taken up by the second major threat Thieu Tri faced.
|Imperial Decree of Emperor Thieu Tri|
The second threat to the reign of Thieu Tri appeared in March of 1847 and that threat was the French Navy whose officer corps tended to be very conservative and very Catholic. So far from home, they were also liable to act on their without waiting for instructions from the King in Paris or whatever government happened to be in power when they returned. The French naval forces in Southeast Asia took up the cause of the Catholic missionaries and undoubtedly many of the officers were sincere in their motives for doing this. However, it is equally true that these same officers wanted to see the expansion of French power. They were alarmed at the growing British presence in the region (China, Malaya, Burma etc) and did not want France to lose out to Britain in the colonial race in Asia.
|Captain Rigault de Genouilly|
|Temple of Emperor Thieu Tri|
Friday, September 12, 2014
|4th Bn Royal Fusiliers at Mons|
|Sir John French|
|British 13th (Western) Division in Iraq, 1918|
|Royal Irish Rifles at the Somme, 1916|
|British Mark V heavy tank|
|Sir Douglas Haig|
|King George V at the grave of a British soldier|
Monday, September 8, 2014
Bachmann used his own resources to recruit and organize a new regiment of his own in Switzerland to fight the revolutionaries under another flag. For employment, he turned to the venerable House of Savoy in 1793. It was a logical choice. King Victor Amadeus III of Piedmont-Sardinia had declared war on the French Republic the previous year and was doing everything in his power to strengthen his army, which would be vastly outmatched in any event. His son and heir, the Prince of Piedmont, was married to the sister of the late King of France and Turin had become a haven for exiled French royals and royalists fleeing the persecution of the revolutionaries. Bachmann proved his worth to the House of Savoy very quickly, thwarting republican forces in the Aosta Valley and within a year earning promotion to Lieutenant General. It was very much a personal fight for the Swiss general and he never referred to his enemies as republicans or revolutionaries but as “the Regicides” for their heinous murder of the King of France (as well as the Queen, Dauphin and so many others). For his skillful and zealous service, the Savoy King made him a knight of the Order of Sts Maurice and Lazarus and granted him the hereditary title of count in the Piedmontese aristocracy.
The veteran commander was assigned the task of destroying the forces of the pro-French Helvetic Republic and this he did successfully until the intervention of Napoleon with his overwhelming forces. Napoleon claimed to be acting to restore order in Switzerland though it was only because of French revolutionary agents that any disorder existed in the first place. Nonetheless, thanks to Napoleonic military might, the French were firmly in control of Switzerland and the staunchly monarchist General von Bachmann was instantly out of favor with the new ruling class and forced into retirement. Yet, as usual, he did not regard his situation as permanent and when Napoleon fell from power, only to reclaim it again after escaping from the island of Elba, Bachmann was appointed commander of the Swiss army again in 1815 and he led his troops in an invasion of France. Of course, the decisive battle was fought in Belgium where Napoleon was decisively beaten and the Kingdom of France restored again.
Saturday, September 6, 2014
As far as monarchists are concerned, there is no reason at all for anyone to support Scottish pseudo-independence. I have seen a few e-people (who we all know are not real anyway) say they are monarchists and Scottish nationalists and support independence but, even if such a thing existed, their support only makes them the dupes of the radical leftists to oppose monarchy and nationalism. The Scottish National Party is a totally bogus entity, even its name is a lie. Their claim to be nationalists is just as blatant a falsehood as their claim to be advocates of independence as their undying, passionate love for the European Union clearly demonstrates. They are not nationalists of any sort. They are internationalists and are as far to the left and as far from monarchy as is humanly possible. Lately, I have the feeling that many people outside of the UK may not realize just what the political landscape of modern Scotland is like. It is the most radically leftist of the three kingdoms (or two and some change anyway). Scotland held on to its traditional ways longer than just about anyone and the clan system had to be broken up by force but when Scotland went to the left it went totally off the deep end.
There is no difficulty in determining the prevailing political opinions in modern-day Scotland and how inimical these are to monarchy in principle. Look at any of the speeches and arguments made by both sides to appeal to the Scottish public and one phrase you will hear more than any other is “social justice”. This phrase is the “liberty, equality, fraternity” of our time and is a more attractive way of saying what Karl Marx said his philosophy was all about; taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less with the government keeping a sizable handling charge for the forced transaction. It is the same promise that socialists, communists, Marxists and all their permutations have been making since they first appeared on the political scene; using state power to make everyone “equal”. It never works out that way but these people have never been the sort to learn from experience nor to ever let the truth get in the way of an appealing political slogan. Obviously, such a philosophy runs counter to the principle of monarchy which is inherently based on the idea that we are not all the same and thus cannot and should not all be treated the same. It is counter to the idea that once can advance and achieve a higher status than you had before, that accomplishment warrants special recognition.
A “yes” vote in the upcoming referendum would be a vote for disaster. It would not achieve a genuinely independent Scotland at all, it would be bad for the economy and would make the country a non-entity in the backwater of the European Union. The monarchy would not long survive, there should be no doubt and it would be a further betrayal of the values and customs that have distinguished Scotland throughout most of its long history. The only ones who would benefit from it would be the political stooges of the EU ruling elite who would see Scotland turned into an overregulated, impoverished socialist republic. Anyone who loves Scotland should vote “no” and more than that, should devote themselves to turning Scotland back towards its traditional roots as a country of inspiring loyalty, strong families, economic frugality and deep faith. As a great admirer of Scotland, I hope to see that happen. God bless Scotland and God Save the Queen of Scots!
Friday, September 5, 2014
Remember, you are not dealing with a "well" person but
The Mad Monarchist
Friday, August 1, 2014
To stabilize the country and guard against any aggression from Haiti, Santana formally approached the Kingdom of Spain with the offer to return the Dominican Republic to the Spanish Empire. Naturally, not being in the best of circumstances itself and wary of the United States, Spain had not been quick to jump at the opportunity to have the territory back. However, by 1861 the United States was embroiled in a civil war and not in a position to get belligerent about the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. Doing so against Spain might provoke the French and British Empires into recognizing the southern Confederacy and going to war against the United States in support of Spain. So, on March 18, 1861 Her Catholic Majesty Queen Isabella II of Spain was formally declared sovereign over the former Dominican Republic and the Cross of Burgundy waved over Santo Domingo once again. It was the only time that a Spanish colonial possession would return to Spain after having gained independence. At the same time, the Empire of Brazil was being provoked into war with republican Uruguay and later Paraguay while in Mexico conservative forces were making progress in persuading the Emperor of the French to intervene on their behalf and eventually restore the Mexican Empire. It seemed that while the United States was at war with itself, monarchy was on the march across the New World.
|Santana becomes Governor-General|
At first, General Santana, who had been given the title of Marquis of Carreras by Queen Isabella II, was in command of the Spanish forces opposing the rebels but despite his high reputation, he proved unable to stem the tide. After disobeying orders to concentrate his forces for a decisive battle, Santana was dismissed and ordered to Cuba to face a court-martial but he died in the summer of 1864 before that could happen. Under the Spanish General Jose de la Gandara y Navarro the situation immediately improved. He began a determined counter-offensive against the rebels and soon had forced them into a desperate position as evidenced by the fact that they began calling for peace and offering to discuss terms. It seemed that the Crown of Spain was on the cusp of total victory in Santo Domingo. However, events overseas, in both Europe and North America were working against the Spanish army in Santo Domingo. In Spain itself, opposition to the war was widespread. In short, Spain simply didn’t see it as being worthwhile as the amount of blood and treasure being expended was too high for the very modest gain that their half of the island produced. For the Spanish, Santo Domingo was proving to be more trouble than it was worth. Furthermore, American intervention was also a growing concern as it became clear that the Union forces would be victorious against the southern Confederates and once that was done, it could be expected for the U.S. government to order Spain out of Santo Domingo at which point all of their effort would have been in vain. It seemed far better to cut their losses and get out before any more was wasted.
What many failed to realize was that claiming independence is a far cry from actually being capable of being independent and most of these countries ultimately traded one imperial ruler for another. In the case of the Dominican Republic, independence brought considerable instability and economic hardship (due almost entirely to government interference and mismanagement) which ultimately ended in threats of European intervention in the name of debt collection. American President Teddy Roosevelt stepped in to prevent this, putting the United States in charge of customs for the Dominican Republic in 1905. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson ordered the military occupation of the Dominican Republican after political instability there and the country remained under American occupation until 1922. However, the U.S. kept a close eye on local politics and American military occupation returned in 1963 when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops in to prevent a communist takeover of the country. A little more than a year later, they were withdrawn but certainly few could argue that the Dominican Republican has been much of a success nor has it been very truly independent since breaking, again, from the Crown of Spain. On a more optimistic note, however, if the country could return to loyalty to the Crown once, perhaps it can do so again and set a different kind of example for its neighbors.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
|First Earl Grey|
Today, Victor Hugues is most remembered for his carrying out of the abolition of slavery in accordance with the order of the National Convention, however, the image of the liberating revolutionary opposing the wicked slave-holding royalists backed up by Britain is an extremely misleading one. Hugues, it should not be forgotten, was typical of the Jacobins he aligned himself with. These were people who espoused lofty, liberal sentiments but who used the most brutal and barbaric methods to push forward their cause. These were the people who instituted the Reign of Terror in France and Hugues had no hesitation in using the same methods on Guadeloupe. Similarly, his abolition of slavery was not the great liberation most people think. In typical Jacobin fashion, it ultimately proved to be a mere matter of rhetoric that bore no relation to actual reality. In fact, slavery was not abolished by the revolutionaries at all but simply renamed. The end result was that, while no one was technically a slave, the supposedly liberated people were still subject to forced labor as the governor saw fit to employ and he employed a great deal of it in the pursuit of his goal to crush the royalists and drive the British from the island. For the Black residents of Guadeloupe, nothing fundamentally changed other than that, instead of being forced to work without pay for the benefit of private owners, they were forced to work without pay for the benefit of the revolutionary government.
|Hugues' proclamation ending slavery|
As for Guadeloupe, while the British did send reinforcements to the West Indies for a new offensive led by the talented General Sir Ralph Abercromby, that island was never retaken and it became a paradise for pirates and smugglers throughout the period in question. Eventually, Napoleon Bonaparte sent troops to bring the island under his control and during the subsequent occupation about 10,000 inhabitants were killed. In 1810 the British did return and retake the island, holding it until 1816. During that time, from 1813, it was under the nominal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Sweden before being ceded back to France in 1814. Slavery returned with the troops sent by Napoleon and was not actually abolished for good until 1848 through the efforts of Victor Schoelcher. In 1946 Guadeloupe became an overseas department of France which it has remained ever since.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Sir Howard Cooke was a longtime member of the Freemasons and a lay pastor of the United Church of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. One of his special concerns, as mentioned earlier, was the youth and he was always most proud of the title of “teacher”. He was a longtime supporter of the St. Andrew Boys’ Scout Association, enjoyed cricket and football and build numerous community centers in his hometown to improve the welfare of children, to keep them from taking self-destructive paths in life. He was a key figure in the political development of Jamaica, extremely influential in the educational sphere and proved to be such a respected and adept Governor-General that he was actually entrusted with additional duties and responsibilities that most others in viceregal positions would never have because he was held in such high regard by all parties.
Sir Howard Cooke could be thankful these changes came after he had left the political scene and, it should be pointed out, once he did so, firmly embraced the idea of political impartiality in his role as Governor-General. His ability to stand apart from politics, to be totally impartial and bi-partisan no doubt contributed to his status as such a widely respected figure across the Jamaican political spectrum. Sir Howard Cooke died on July 11, 2014 at the age of 98 in Kingston.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
If anyone is inclined to wonder why a pan-monarchist, such as myself, tends to get rather irate on the issue of defending the existing monarchies of the world, even those that might be (gasp) less than entirely perfect, I present the following illustration to explain: (no, not every last speck may be correct -this was done by myself and not a professional cartographer but I think it gets the point across)
Monarchies of the world in 1900
Monarchies of the world in 1914
Monarchies of the world in 1921
Monarchies of the world in 1939
Monarchies of the world today.
Get the picture?
Monday, July 28, 2014
Friday, July 25, 2014
Concluded from Part II