Prince Charles' Letters

This week the British monarchy was hit by a devastating scandal. Republicans rejoiced as the Royal Family hung their heads in shame. The whole country, irrespective of class, creed and colour, reeled from the revelation that the Prince of Wales, the future King of the United Kingdom, had written to the Prime Minister... And expressed concerns that the military didn't have the equipment they needed to do their jobs. That's not all, of course. His Royal Highness also had the temerity to campaign for better rights for British farmers being underpaid by major supermarket chains and lobbied to protect wild albatrosses by conserving the Patagonian Toothfish, a key food species. It is, of course, utterly unacceptable for the future head of state to have views on such things.

Of course, I'm being sarcastic here. No one is more enthusiastic about the Royal Family taking the initiative to actively advise the Government and contribute to policy decisions, especially on issues where they have some degree of expertise. Prince Charles is well-qualified, after his long years of campaigning, to pass comments on matters such as architecture, building preservation, environmental affairs and conservation. Of course, no one will agree with His Royal Highness on absolutely everything. I for one was disappointed that the Prince took a position in support of badger culling- probably the most controversial issue he involved himself in- and lack his enthusiasm for "alternative" medicine. Even so, I have no objection to the future king expressing his views in private to ministers. Indeed, it is the right of any British citizen to write to the Government. Most would consider it utterly inappropriate for any such letter from a private individual to the Government to be openly published without the person's consent. And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that the same right to privacy does not belong to members of the Royal Family.

The letters, all from ten years ago when the UK was under the Labour Government of Tony Blair, were published after a decade-long campaign by the notably Left-wing newspaper The Guardian, which is known for its strong views on "free speech" (which in the past has extended to leaking information sensitive to national security) as well as its flirtations with republicanism. If journalists were hoping for a sensational headline, they were disappointed- besides the Prince's comments on badger culling, the matters discussed in the letters were mundane and the Prince's positions largely uncontroversial. Clarence House issued a statement that "the publication of private letters can only inhibit [Prince Charles'] ability to express the concerns and suggestions which have been put to him in the course of his travels and meetings." Despite this, prior to the letters' publication the Prince and his staff were said to be "sanguine" over the decision, perhaps realising that nothing in the letters cast the Prince in a seriously bad light.

Indeed, many of Charles' positions seem eminently sensible; he lobbied for the British Government to help conserve the Antarctic huts built by explorers Robert Scott and Ernest Shackleton during their polar expeditions as part of our cultural heritage (in Charles' own words, "I just wanted to emphasize the iconic importance of these huts in those great Antarctic journeys which will surely resonate strongly in the public imagination"), requested that historic buildings be listed by English Heritage thus protecting them from redevelopment, campaigned for the retention of the Hill Farming Allowance for upland farmers, claiming hill regions are "the most beautiful areas of the country which tourists flock to see, and yet they are the most difficult areas to farm and are the most disadvantaged in every way for those who live there," and expressed concern over reports that the army's Lynx helicopters performed poorly in high temperatures, telling Tony Blair that "I fear that this is just one more example of where our Armed Forces are being asked to do an extremely challenging job (particularly in Iraq) without the necessary resources." 

Despite the overwhelming response of the British public being "so what?", republicans have attempted to spin this nontroversy into a major scandal. Traitorous Labour MP Paul Flynn called for a referendum on whether Charles should succeed his mother as monarch, stating that "Charles has proved himself to be the mouthpiece of sensible views, eccentric views, and barmy views." He went on to say that "as we are not living in a medieval state, the public should have a say into who should be the head of state: should it be Charles, or should it be William, who has the gift of his mother in remaining politically silent and inert." The Hon. Gentleman is apparently unaware of how hereditary monarchies work. Unsurprisingly, fringe anti-monarchist group Republic wasted no time in pursuing the headlines, their miserable leader Graham Smith declaring that "the government must now act to end royal secrecy. Any risk to the monarchy from disclosure must pale against a risk to democracy from having an activist prince acting in secret." Some of the criticisms from the press are simply inexplicable- the Mirror Online seemed to think it was significant that then-education secretary Charles Clarke ended one letter to the Prince with the phrase "I have the honour to be, Sir, Your Royal Highness's most humble and obedient servant". Apparently no one in the Mirror's offices knew that this is the customary way to close a letter to a member of the Royal Family.

Ultimately the response to the letters' publication has been muted, much to the disappointment of those who wish to undermine the monarchy. After ten years and around £400,000 of taxpayers' money being wasted, these letters have only confirmed what we all already know about Prince Charles; that he is a passionate campaigner with strong views on a range of topics which, without his tireless lobbying, would probably never get the recognition they deserve. The Prince has reportedly been writing to ministers since he was sixteen years old, and he's not going to stop now. I hope he never does. 

Thoughts on the General Election

A map showing the outcome of the 2015 UK general election.

Thursday 7th May 2015 was a significant day for the United Kingdom. After five years of government by a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, the British people had the opportunity to decide who would govern the nation for the next five years. It was a tense campaign; the major parties, the Conservatives and Labour, were neck and neck right up to the last minute, and all involved predicted that we would once again end up with a hung parliament- meaning another coalition government. The Conservatives sternly warned of the dangers of a Labour government propped up by the left-wing separatist Scottish National Party, whilst on the other side of the fence the Left flagged up the possibility of a Conservative-led government backed by the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Democratic Unionist Party, both well to the right of the UK's political spectrum. So everyone was shocked when exit polls predicted that the Conservatives would do much better than previously expected. What completely blew commentators out of the water was that the Conservatives actually did even better than the exit polls suggested, winning, against all odds, a majority of the Commons- albeit a small one.

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg
resigned after his party's annihilation
at the polls on Thursday

And so the next day, David Cameron was able to walk into Buckingham Palace with a swagger in his step, and inform Her Majesty the Queen he was ready to form a new government. Labour's leader, Ed Miliband, soon announced his resignation, Labour HQ having admitted during the night that everyone had already accepted that he had no other choice. The real losers, however, were the Liberal Democrats- having alienated their core voters by allying with the Tories and abandoning their core pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, they were reduced to a measly 8 seats, with a lower proportion of the overall vote than UKIP. Despite holding his own seat, LibDem leader Nick Clegg also resigned. Despite massive gains for his party, UKIP's Nigel Farage, too, resigned as party leader, as he promised he would should he fail to win the South Thanet constituency where he was running against Conservative Craig Mackinlay, ironically a former UKIP member himself. Farage did, however, suggest he might "throw his hat in" for re-election as UKIP's leader, showing he's not prepared to give up the reigns of power just yet. At any rate, despite receiving 12.6% of the vote- coming third after the Tories and Labour- UKIP ended up with only one seat as a consequence of the UK's first past the post electoral system.

Nicola Sturgeon replaced
Alex Salmond as SNP leader
 after the nationalists
lost the 2014 referendum
on independence.

Scotland, meanwhile, was swept by the SNP. Despite receiving only 4.7% of the national (UK-wide) vote, they won 58 seats, taking virtually the whole of Scotland. For unionists hoping that they had cut the head off the beast in the 2014 referendum, the result is depressing. On Friday morning, former SNP leader Alex Salmond was quoted as saying that "the Scottish lion has roared this morning across the country." With England and much of Wales a sea of Tory blue with a handful of islands of Labour red, and Scotland turned the SNP's bright yellow, it's easy to fear for the future of the United Kingdom; the political divide north and south of the border seems greater than ever. Today Salmond declared he would see Scottish independence in his lifetime, despite the 2014 referendum being trumpeted as a "once in a generation opportunity." But Salmond may be talking too soon. The SNP may have swept Scotland's seats, but they won only around 50% of Scotland's vote; a spectacular triumph, true, but hardly overwhelming evidence that Scots have changed their mind on independence. Nicola Sturgeon remains tight-lipped on the possibility of another referendum. One more referendum may be around the corner, however- one on the UK's continued membership of the European Union, one of the Tories' flagship promises in their manifesto, and a commitment reiterated by David Cameron in his victory speech yesterday.

Ultimately, it is clear this election will be remembered as a significant event in British political history; the best ever result for a separatist party in British politics, a totally unexpected majority for the Conservatives, and quite possibly the beginning of the run-up to the UK's first referendum on our role in Europe since 1975. The latter is all the more significant because euroscepticism is so much weaker north of the border. There are fears that, if the UK as a whole voted in favour of leaving the EU, the stridently pro-European SNP would seek to take Scotland out of Europe in order to remain an EU member state. But if we look at the actual results from this last general election, it becomes clear the SNP's gains aren't so significant as they appear. There remains hope for unionists that our United Kingdom can be saved, and it now falls to David Cameron to keep the promises made to the Scottish people after the 2014 referendum. If Cameron fails to keep his word, it may spell the end of Great Britain as a nation. But if Westminster fulfills its promises, there might yet be a chance that the nationalist hydra can be slain for once and for all.

The First Scottish Prime Minister

John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute

Today is the 10th March, and the 223rd anniversary of the death of John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, the first Prime Minister of Great Britain to have been born in Scotland. He was a prominent Tory, a favourite of His Majesty King George III, and has been called the last important royal favourite in British history. "Important" might be stretching it, as while he served as Prime Minister of His Britannic Majesty's Government, Lord Bute's premiership was not especially successful. His principal achievement was negotiating an end to the Seven Years' War that had raged between the great powers of Europe since 1754. Most of Europe's great powers- including Great Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Russia- were involved in the war, as were the native American tribes caught in the clash between the British and French colonial empires, many of the smaller states of the Holy Roman Empire, and even the Indian Muslim Mughal Empire which allied with the French against Great Britain in the Indian subcontinent. The principal players, however, were the old rivals Britain and France, and the peace settlement Bute oversaw was highly favourable to the nascent British Empire.

His Majesty King George III
of Great Britain, Bute's  monarch
and patron

Unfortunately for Bute, this won him little popularity with the public. His was a time when monarchs appointed Prime Ministers based on their personal prerogative rather than who could command a parliamentary majority, and Bute rose to power thanks to his close connections to King George III, whom he had tutored prior to George's accession to the throne. He had also been close to George's father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, whose death in 1751 made George the new heir apparent. Bute's closeness to Frederick's wife Augusta, the Dowager Princess of Wales, following the prince's death invited scandal and rumours of an affair, although contemporary sources report that Bute was happily married to his wife Mary and had strong religious objections to adultery. Nonetheless, these rumours, coupled with the fact that Bute was a Scotsman and an extremely unpopular attempt to tax the production of cider to help pay off the debt from the Seven Years' War, meant that Bute faced stiff opposition from the English population.

Augusta of
Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg,
Dowager Princess of Wales

Bute finally resigned from office in April 1763. He was nonetheless suspected of retaining some influence over the King, to the point that in May 1765 his successor George Grenville made the King promise not to appoint Bute to office or seek his advice in the future. The 3rd Earl of Bute spent the rest of his life pursuing a lifelong interest in botany and patronising the arts. A genus of flower, Stuartia, is named after him. Although he spent his last days in England, he never forgot the country of his birth, giving generously to Scottish universities and being buried at Rothesay on the Isle of Bute, from whence his title was derived. His son John succeeded him as the 4th Earl of Bute before being created the 1st Marquess of Bute in 1794. Although Bute's Scottish origins may have contributed to his unpopularity in England at a time when Scotland was still seen very much as a foreign country, his unpopular term as Prime Minister nonetheless illustrates that Scots held high office in the Kingdom of Great Britain after the union and played a significant role in the birth of the British Empire. Far from being seen as colonial subjects of England, the Scottish were treated as partners in the union, if not quite equal partners, or popular ones, for that matter.

Anniversary of Regicide

Today is the 30th January. On this day in 1649, His Majesty Charles I, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, was executed on the orders of a kangaroo court. The previous day, he had seen the two of his children who remained in England (Princess Elizabeth and Prince Henry) for the final time, bidding them a tearful farewell; he reminded his son, Henry, that his elder brothers the future kings Charles II and James II and VII were ahead of him in the line of succession, and so he must not allow the parliamentarians to set him up as a puppet king in his brothers' place. The Princess Elizabeth later recorded the exchange; Charles said, "Heed, my child, what I say: they will cut off my head and perhaps make thee a king. But mark what I say. Thou must not be a king as long as thy brothers Charles and James do live; for they will cut off your brothers' heads when they can catch them, and cut off thy head too at the last, and therefore I charge you, do not be made a king by them." The young prince replied, "I will be torn in pieces first!"

Famously, the condemned king wore two shirts on the day of his execution so as to not feel the cold, saying that he did not want to shiver and give the spectators the false impression that he was afraid of death. The king gave one last speech from the scaffold before his death, professing his innocence of the crimes he was accused of; "indeed, I could hold my peace very well, if I did not think that holding my peace would make some men think that I did submit to the guilt as well as to the punishment.  But I think it is my duty to God first and to my country for to clear myself both as an honest man and a good King, and a good Christian." The king insisted that he was not responsible for beginning the civil war. He told the onlookers, "all the world knows that I never did begin a war with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me.  And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I." At the same time, he exonerated Parliament of the blame; "God forbid that I should lay it upon the two Houses of Parliament; there is no necessity of either, I hope that they are free of this guilt.   For I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed."

The king went on to attribute the unjust sentence he had been dealt to an unjust sentence dealt to one of his loyal servants, the Earl of Strafford, the Lord Deputy of Ireland, who had been sentenced to death by Parliament and whom the king had failed to save, saying "an unjust sentence that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence upon me." He also dismissed the accusations that he was a tyrant who had threatened the traditional liberties of the English people. "And truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever. But I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having of government; those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves.

"Sirs. It was for this that now I am come here. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the power of the sword I needed not to have come here. And, therefore, I tell you, and I pray God it be not laid to your charge, that I am the martyr of the people." 

The Bishop of London, Dr. William Juxon, whom Charles had requested administer him his last rites upon the scaffold, then reminded the king to say something about his Christian faith; "Will your Majesty, though it may be very well known, your Majesties affections to religion, yet it may be expected that you should say somewhat for the world's satisfaction?" The king replied by thanking Juxon and firmly repudiating accusations that he possessed Catholic sympathies by declaring his Christian faith and loyalty to the Church of England, "as I found it left me by my father."

The king concluded with the immortal words, "I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown; where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the world." Dr. Juxon agreed, saying, "You are exchanged from a temporal to an eternal crown, a good exchange." The king asked his executioner to wait for a sign from the king before delivering the blow. His final words, thinking the executioner was about to bring down the ax before the signal, were "stay for the sign." The executioner replied, "Yes, I will, an it please your Majesty." After a pause, the king stretched out his hands, and he was decapitated with a single clean blow. A clergyman named Philip Henry who was among the onlookers later said of the day, "at the instant when the blow was given, there was such a dismal universal groan among the thousands of people that were in sight of it, as it were with one consent."

The king's death was to be followed by the eleven-year Interregnum, most of which was spent under the Cromwellian military dictatorship. Following the restoration of King Charles II in 1660 after Oliver Cromwell's death and the overthrow of his son Richard, Charles I was recognised as a martyr by the Church of England, and is still commemorated today by high church Anglicans. The Royal Stuart Society lays a wreath at the statue of King Charles I in Trafalgar Square every year on the 30th January to commemorate his death. Charles was not a great king; one contemporary, Archbishop William Laud, described him as "a mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great." Nonetheless, the historical picture we have of the king is one of a well-meaning sovereign who genuinely believed he was in the right. The House of Lords and the bulk of the House of Commons opposed putting the king on trial, but an effective military coup by Cromwell and other army leaders on the 6th and 7th December 1648 saw those Members of Parliament who opposed the army and favoured coming to a settlement with the king arrested. The remaining rump House of Commons voted in favour of putting the king on trial, the first time a monarch had been put on trial by his own people. In the end, neither King Charles nor Parliament won.

The king's trial and execution was a travesty of justice. It would set a terrible precedent for future revolutionaries, by establishing that a lawful king- or indeed any lawful government- could be removed by violent force and that power did not derive from the laws of God or the State but, as Chairman Mao put it,  grows out of the barrel of a gun. Today, as we remember his death, it should serve as a warning from history of the consequences when force of might overrules lawful authority. RIP Your Majesty; if you are looking down upon us all from your incorruptible crown, spare a thought for those of us left behind who remember you.

The King is dead; long live the Queen.

Burns' Night

Engraving of Robert Burns

 Today is the 25th January, the 256th birthday of one of Scotland's most famous sons, poet Rabbie Burns. As such, Scots and members of the Scottish diaspora throughout the world will be celebrating Burns' Night with haggis aplenty. The tradition of the Burns supper originates with Burns' personal friends and acquaintances in Ayrshire in the late 18th century, and they were originally held on the anniversary of his death, the 21st July. Later, in 1801, the first Burns Club was founded by Greenock merchants to celebrate Burns' life and works every year on his birthday, or what they believed to be his birthday, the 29th January; later records came to light showing that Burns was actually born on the 25th, and so Burns suppers have been held on the 25th ever since.

Burns himself was a fascinating character. Politically liberal and a patriotic Scotsman, Burns was opposed to the Act of Union and is reported to have supported the French Revolution; however, he was critical of the Jacobite risings, the Catholic absolutism of the House of Stuart being inimical to Burns' liberal tastes, and in 1795 he helped organise the Dumfries Volunteers, a militia formed to help protect the nation in the event of a French invasion. At the same time he wrote his poem, "Should Haughty Gaul Invasion Threat," in which he proclaims: "Be Britain still to Britain true, / Amang ourselves united; /  For never but by British hands /  Maun British wrangs be righted!" Burns' precise political views have long been debated and will likely continue to be a subject of debate; was he a closeted liberal republican, whose later apparent British nationalism was an act to avoid the attention of the authorities? Was he a firm supporter of the constitution, supportive of the French Revolution at first only to later balk at its descent into bloody tyranny?

Sir Walter Scott, 1st Baronet;
painted by Sir William Allan

Whatever the case, although I might not have agreed with the Bard's politics, I am an avid fan of his poetry. It's also clear that Burns and his work have become a celebrated fixture of Scottish culture. He was the pivotal figure of Scottish Romanticism before it had even really got started, and played a role in ensuring the continuation of a unique Scottish identity within Great Britain and later the United Kingdom. Even that other great staple of the Scottish Romantic movement, Sir Walter Scott, who himself was more my political cup of tea being a staunch Scottish Tory  and unionist at a time when Toryism was still about loyalty to King and Country and less about privatisation, made it clear he considered Burns to be the far superior writer when asked how he thought he compared to his antecessor, declaring that “there is no comparison whatever: we ought not to be named in the same day.” Scott, incidentally, played an important role in promoting Burns' works after his death as part of the romanticised Scottish identity Scott promoted. The two met only once, at a literary salon in the winter of 1786. Burns asked who had authored a certain poem, and Scott was the only one present who could answer him; Burns thanked him. Oh, to be a fly on the wall that day.

Alas, Scotland's great poet was to be taken from the world too soon; he died at just 37 years of age, in 1796. His legacy lives on in his poetry. To celebrate his life and contributions to poetry, it seems only fitting I should conclude this post with a poem by Burns (I would try to compose a tribute myself, but alas I am hopelessly inept at writing anything but prose). After much indecision, I chose this one, probably my favourite Burns poem: Lament Of Mary, Queen Of Scots, On The Approach Of Spring.

"Now Nature hangs her mantle green 
On every blooming tree, 
And spreads her sheets o' daisies white 
Out o'er the grassy lea ; 
Now Phoebus cheers the crystal streams, 
And glads the azure skies; 
But nought can glad the weary wight 
That fast in durance lies. 

"Now laverocks wake the merry morn 

Mary, Queen of Scots, at age 13; during
her time in France

Aloft on dewy wing; 
The merle , in his noontide bow'r, 
Makes woodland echoes ring; 
The mavis wild wi' mony a note, 
Sings drowsy day to rest: 
In love and freedom they rejoice, 
Wi' care nor thrall opprest. 

"Now blooms the lily by the bank, 
The primrose down the brae ; 
The hawthorn's budding in the glen, 
And milk-white is the slae : 
The meanest hind in fair Scotland 
May rove their sweets amang ; 
But I, the Queen of a' Scotland, 
Maun lie in prison strang . 

"I was the Queen o' bonie France, 
Where happy I hae been; 
Fu' lightly raise I in the morn, 
As blythe lay down at e'en : 
And I'm the sov'reign of Scotland, 
And mony a traitor there; 
Yet here I lie in foreign bands, 
And never-ending care. 

"But as for thee, thou false woman, 
My sister and my fae , 
Grim Vengeance yet shall whet a sword 
That thro' thy soul shall gae ; 
The weeping blood in woman's breast 
Was never known to thee; 
Nor th' balm that draps on wounds of woe 
Frae woman's pitying e'e . 

"My son! my son! may kinder stars 

Mary portrayed next to her son,
King James VI and I 

Upon thy fortune shine; 
And may those pleasures gild thy reign, 
That ne'er wad blink on mine! 
God keep thee frae thy mother's faes , 
Or turn their hearts to thee: 
And where thou meet'st thy mother's friend, 
Remember him for me! 

"O! soon, to me, may Summer suns 
Nae mair light up the morn! 
Nae mair to me the Autumn winds 
Wave o'er the yellow corn? 
And, in the narrow house of death, 
Let Winter round me rave; 
And the next flow'rs that deck the Spring , 

Bloom on my peaceful grave!"

Merry Christmas!

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert gather around their
Christmas tree with their children, from the
Illustrated London News, 1848

Happy St. Andrew's Day!

Today is the 30th of November, the feast day of St. Andrew the Apostle, the patron saint of Scotland. This is a particularly significant St. Andrew's Day because it is the first since Scotland voted in September to remain a member of the United Kingdom, rather than risking separation under Alex Salmond.

St. Andrew was not a Scot himself, of course. Indeed, among the patron saints of the British Isles only Wales' and Ireland's patron saints, St. Patrick and St. David, ever lay foot in the nations they are now indelibly linked with, and only St. David was born in the country now under his patronage. England's St. George was a Roman soldier, whilst St. Andrew himself was a Judean, the brother of St. Peter and one of Christ's apostles. The story of how Andrew became associated with the Scottish nation is a long and curious one. For the most part, the saint is associated more with the East than with the windswept western European country of Scotland; it is alleged that after Jesus' death and resurrection, Andrew preached in the lands of Scythia to the north-east, travelling through today's Ukraine and Russia and reaching as far north as Novgorod, according to the Chronicle of Nestor, a history of the Kievan Rus' written by the Orthodox monk Nestor the Chronicler. He was also said to have founded the See of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople) in 38 AD. Today he is revered as the patron saint of Romania, Russia, Ukraine, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

In c. 70 AD, Andrew was martyred by crucifixion in the city of Patras, Archaia, Greece. Early sources say he was bound to a cross like the one on which Jesus died, but later the story grew up that he had requested that he be crucified on an Crux decussata, or an x-shaped cross, feeling unworthy of being martyred in the same way as his Lord. The request was granted, and today this sort of cross is known as St. Andrew's Cross. According to legend, St. Andrew's relics were initially kept at the city where he was martyred, Patras, before the famed Roman Emperor Constantine I conquered the city and had them transferred to Constantinople. However, the monk St. Regulus was warned of Constantine's invasion by an angel in a dream, and so on the angel's instructions, Regulus took some of the relics to the "ends of the Earth" for safety. He was to build a shrine for the relics wherever he was first shipwrecked; and, as fortune (or God's will) would have it, he was shipwrecked on the coast of Fife in Scotland, where he met the Pictish King Óengus I. Today, the relics are said to be housed in St. Regulus' Church in the town of St Andrews, Scotland.

In 832 AD, it is said that King Óengus II of the Picts led a joint army of Scots and Picts into battle against the Angles under the leadership of King Æthelstan. Before the battle, the Pictish King prayed for divine intercession to aid the Picts against their numerically superior English foes, and promised that if he was victorious he would name St. Andrew the patron saint of Scotland. On the day of the battle, the clouds above the battlefield formed the shape of St. Andrew's cross; emboldened by the apparent favour of the divine, the Picts and the Scots took to the battlefield full of religious zeal and defeated the much larger army of the Angles. Óengus kept his promise, proclaiming St. Andrew the patron saint of Scotland, and adopted the white cross against the sky's blue background as the new national flag of Scotland.

Like much of Scotland's national myth, this story casts the English in the role of villains; I confess to finding this both sad and amusing at the same time. It is, however, all the more amusing and touching that today, over a millennium after that legendary victory is said to have taken place, St. Andrew's saltire and St. George's cross now coexist as part of the flag of the United Kingdom. Britain's national story is one of former foes laying down arms and uniting for the greater good, and shows that the most Christian of messages- that love and cooperation between neighbours can achieve more than war, hatred and distrust ever could- really is gospel truth. God bless Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Remember, remember...

King James VI and I

Today is the 5th November, the day loyal British subjects celebrate the failure of Guy Fawkes' plot to assassinate His Majesty James VI and I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, at the State Opening of Parliament in 1605. "Remember, remember," the old rhyme goes, "the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot." Certainly, the Gunpowder Plot has never been forgotten, although today the holiday is generally treated more as an occasion for revelries than a celebration of our then-King's survival; on the plus side, although the 5th is today more about fireworks and bonfires than treason it has shed most of the anti-Catholic aspects of its celebration in the past. Most people now associate the "guy" being burned on the bonfire with Guy Fawkes himself, though clever clogs will tell you it was originally supposed to represent the Pope- that old rhyme goes on to say, "a rope, a rope, to hang the Pope, a penn'orth of cheese to choke him, a pint of beer to wash it down, and a jolly good fire to burn him."

Cover of the 1980s graphic
novel V for Vendetta.

While few mourn the deserved death of anti-Catholic prejudice in the UK (although it appears to be making a comeback among secular liberals incensed at the Church's refusal to admit its teachings over the last 1,000+ years have been wrong and join the secular humanist brigade, and in Northern Ireland it has sadly never gone away), I for one find it disturbing that the original meaning of the holiday- celebrating the King's safety- has become so twisted. The graphic novel and 2006 film adaptation V for Vendetta played a role in this; featuring a terrorist wearing a Guy Fawkes mask who fights against an evil, fascist government in an alternate history version of the United Kingdom, the franchise celebrates Guy Fawkes as "a great citizen" who wished to "remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives." And so a religious terrorist who aimed to kill hundreds and establish a Catholic police state in the place of a Protestant police state becomes a hero of liberty, with "Guy Fawkes masks" becoming associated with groups such as the Occupy "movement" and the online "hacktivist" group Anonymous. In 400 years' time, I wonder if anyone will be wearing Osama bin Laden masks and celebrating the 9th September.

Children in the UK still learn the story of Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot from a young age, and recently the holiday has experienced a rise in popularity. Although I was more of a Halloween fan as a child, sweets and costumes somewhat lose their appeal as one gets older, whilst fireworks remain as spectacular as ever- and how could a monarchist resist a holiday celebrating the King's survival of a coup d'état? Certainly, Halloween in its modern form is predominantly an American export, whilst the 5th November is a homegrown holiday and the closest thing the UK has to a national day- so it's patriotic to celebrate it, too. Hopefully this holiday will endure, as will the story of Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators; but the most important thing to remember on the 5th November is that we are celebrating not the conspirators but their failure, and above all else today is a day to celebrate the triumph of the legitimate government over a terrorist plot.

Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

Tragedy in Canada

This week, tragedy unfolded in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, where a gunman shot and murdered a soldier serving as an honour guard at a war memorial before storming Canada's parliament building. The gunman, identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was himself shot by Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers before he could harm anyone inside the parliament building. My thoughts go out to Cpl Nathan Cirillo, the soldier who gave his life in these most unlikely of circumstances, and to his family; the shooting calls up memories of Drummer Lee Rigby's murder in 2013. In both cases, men who risked their lives in the service of their country were cut down in cold blood not on some foreign battlefield but at home in the nations they served, a tragic irony that must make many of their colleagues worry about their own safety. Then as now, the implication seems to be that these two men were singled out simply because they wore military uniform.

Zehaf-Bibeau was a 32 year old Canadian subject of Her Majesty the Queen; his mother was Canadian, his father originally from Libya. He was reportedly a convert to Islam with a criminal record and past convictions for drug use, violence and "other criminal activities." Like many young people, he seems to have had a fairly comfortable upbringing before loosing his way in later life and becoming radicalised; his story has chilling echoes of those of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, Drummer Rigby's murderers, as well as that of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings, also last year. It seems that Canada now joins the United Kingdom and the United States as victims of Islamic terrorism. The question Western societies must ask themselves is, why are so many young people being pulled into the trap of Islamic extremism? Or, indeed, any other kind of extremism?

The unfortunate truth is that people whose lives go wrong will always look for two things; hope, in the form of a cause, and someone to lay the blame on. Radical Islam provides a cause, and it gives these people something to blame in the form of "decadent," "sinful" Western society. I make no apologies for being a realist, and I do not believe that society will ever reach a stage where all people are well-adjusted, decent citizens, but even so, it seems that occurrences like these are becoming worryingly frequent. These aren't petty criminal acts, but terrorist activity, committed with the sole intention of causing panic and fear in order to forward the cause of the perpetrators. How can countries such as Canada minimise the risk of terrorist activity?

Well, the first thing that must be said is that draconian surveillance measures as proposed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper following the attack on parliament are not the perfect solution. I can tell you that the United Kingdom is now one of the world's most watched countries thanks to the surveillance brought in under the previous Labour government, and the impact on crime has been negligible. The root of the problem is social; for one thing, the onus is at least in part on the Islamic community to counter the influence of radicals within their community. That the vast majority of Muslims are perfectly decent, hardworking and upright citizens I do not doubt, but the voice of this overwhelming majority is often quieted by the actions of extremists. Muslims in the Western world should be encouraged to speak out against extremism at every opportunity. Mosques and madrasas where radical clerics are allowed access to susceptible young people should be mercilessly pursued and shut down.

What's more, a reassertion of traditional religion in Canada would go a long way to filling the spiritual void in many modern Canadians' lives. As C.S. Lewis said, "spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison." A Canada that asserts its national identity, promotes patriotism and faith, and offers its citizens a positive "cause" will find it far easier to wage a culture war against radicalism than a Canada based on fluffy and shallow ideals such as "freedom," "multiculturalism" and "individualism." People turn to Islamism because they are looking for an identity. I say, offer them a better one- a Canadian identity. Of course, when I say promote faith, I principally mean the Christian faith that Canada was built on, but supporting orthodox Islam against the heretical, ISIS-aligned brand offered by hate clerics is also sound policy. Assimiliationism is better than multiculturalism. All citizens of Canada should be encouraged to embrace their Canadian identity, and above all else, to embrace the monarchy- the Maple Crown- as the keystone of the Canadian nation; a sentiment expressed by the admirable Canadian Islamic leader Sayyid Amiruddin, of the Naqshbandi Sufi Order, on his blog.

Canada is a country that I have great affection for. It is a country built on loyalty to the Crown, and

indeed Canada has grown from a loyal colony of Great Britain to a loyal friend and comrade in arms. I despair at the creeping Americanisation of Canada, especially the gradual erosion of traditional Canadian Toryism by an American brand of Conservatism that seems to have asserted itself recently. Symbolic gestures such as the Canadian Government's decision to restore the names of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Airforce in 2011 give me hope that Canada's identity, grown from a cutting of Great Britain but shaped by its unique history and circumstances, will endure. With its vast territories and natural resources, Canada has the makings of a great power, if it so wished to become one; but whatever path Canada chooses in the future, it will be brave men like Nathan Cirillo and Kevin Vickers who get it there.

Victory For The Union!

"Better Together" supporters celebrate the unionist victory as the
final results come in.

The results of Scotland's referendum on secession this morning: 55.3% voted no (2,001,926), 44.7% voted yes (1,617,989). The turnout was an amazing 84.59%, showing that if nothing else this referendum heightened public interest in politics considerably. 

From the bottom of my heart, I'd like to thank every one of those 2,001,926 Scots who cast their vote in favour of retaining our United Kingdom. In the days ahead their will be plenty of talk about devolution and constitutional reform, the long term impacts of this referendum; but for today at least, the atmosphere is one of celebration for those who love Great Britain. Let's crack out the whiskey and raise a glass o' cheer to the Queen and the People of Scotland and the United Kingdom!

Hip, hip- hurray!

Hip, hip- hurray!

Hip, hip- hurray!

The final results in detail

The referendum in pictures

Scottish Referendum: A Last Word Before The Result

The referendum that will decide the fate of my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was held today and by the time I have posted this message I suspect most Scots will already have cast their votes. It is probably too late, then, for me to urge any undecided voters who might happen to stumble across this blog right before going out to the polls to choose the Union over the uncertainties of independence. Considering that this blog was set up in large part to argue the case for the Union, I have given it fairly little coverage; the referendum has crept up more quickly than any of us could imagine, and I've been too busy in my personal life to devote considerable time to my blog. That said, whatever the result of this referendum is, I will not stop blogging. In the worst case scenario, if I wake up tomorrow morning to find that my country has been condemned to abolition in two years time after the last negotiations are complete, the next mission I will face will be doing what little I can to defend the Union of the Crowns and the Scottish monarchy which will surely be the SNP's next target. Alternatively, if the decision of the Scottish people is a decisive "No," as I truly hope it will be, then we unionists can all take a deep sigh of relief, but I will definitely continue posting my views on the Union and Scotland along with a range of other topics (hopefully). The truth is, no matter what the result the polls indicate that it will be a close race, and in the event of the "No" camp succeeding by a slim margin I have no doubt that the nationalists will be calling for another referendum in ten years' time. So long as there are things of great import in this world, there will inevitably be those seeking to destroy them.

There is little point now in me criticising the atrocious way that the "Yes" campaign has been carried out. From encouraging nationalist teenagers to emotionally blackmail their unionist grandparents into voting yes, to organising "mobs" to disrupt pro-Unionist events, the "Yes Scotland" campaign has behaved in a manner resembling the authoritarian populist parties of the early 20th century. I have personally been on the receiving end of one or two taunts from the now infamous "cybernats" or online nationalist lobby, but truth be told I've gotten on surprisingly well; maybe because I've chosen to voice my opinion mainly on this blog and dedicated political forums rather than venturing onto Twitter, Facebook and other social media where people have had abuse hurled at them for endorsing a "No"vote. I tend to think JK Rowling is an overrated author, but I admire her greatly for coming out as a "Better Together" supporter and urging a peaceful and respectful dialogue, despite the fact that she has come under fire from nationalists for voicing her opinion. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of her becoming Queen of Scots, however. 

On the topic of the Queen of Scots, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II caused a media stir by "breaking her silence" on the Scottish referendum. The Queen's comment that she hopes “people will think very carefully about the future” was taken by many on both sides of the debate as an endorsement of the "No" campaign, leading to the usual accusations of the Queen having violated her political neutrality. So telling people to think very carefully about the future is encouraging them to vote no? I'm saying nothing.

The votes are being cast even as I write. Soon the future of not just one, but four countries- and quite possibly the entire world- will be written by Scotland's 5.2 million inhabitants, in the form of millions of a little "x" in one of two little boxes. Unfortunately, being merely of Scottish descent, I get no vote, and no say in the matter. It is now out of my hands. Que sera sera. But I pray earnestly for a Unionist victory. God Save the Queen and the United Kingdom!

O let us not, like snarling curs, 

In wrangling be divided, 

Till, slap! come in an unco loun, 

And wi' a rung decide it! 

Be Britain still to Britain true, 

Amang ourselves united; 

For never but by British hands 

Maun British wrangs be righted! 

No! never but by British hands 

Shall British wrangs be righted!

- Rabbie Burns, "Does Haughty Gaul Invasion Threat"

5 Good Reasons To Vote No - Part 2

Continued from Part 1.

3. The North Sea oil won't last forever.

One of the Yes campaign's major points throughout the campaigning has been that Scotland as an independent country would have a valuable asset in the form of North Sea oil and gas reserves. The issue came up again last night, when Alex Salmond said that "every other country in Europe would give their back teeth to have North Sea Oil". Except the Kingdom of Norway, of course, who already have 54% of the sea's oil reserves and 45% of its gas reserves. Norway is part of the "arc of prosperity" cited by Alex Salmond as models that an independent Scotland could model itself on, before other members of that arc of prosperity- including Iceland and the Republic of Ireland- suffered a spectacular economic collapse when the recession hit. Certainly, Norway has gained great wealth from its share of the oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, but Norwegian and British government sources agree that over half the reserves have already been used. Furthermore, as Alistair Darling pointed out last night, oil is a very volatile source of revenue and an independent Scotland relying on it to buoy the economy would be taking a gamble. Recently, Sir Ian Wood, a major figure in the UK's oil and gas industry, came out against independence warning that "there are only 15 years of reserves left before its decline starts wreaking major damage on the Scottish economy." Sir Ian believes that the Scottish Government has been overestimating the remaining oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. On the other hand, other industry experts yesterday said that the Scottish Government's estimate of 24bn remaining barrels of oil was "plausible." Whatever the case, oil and gas are non-renewable resources, meaning that they are replenished so slowly that they are effectively finite. And reserves are notoriously difficult to predict, meaning that relying on the revenue from North Sea oil to buoy the independent Scotland's economy is building a house on unstable ground.

4. EU membership is uncertain.

Another of Yes Scotland's talking points has been the European Union, which Scots are generally more supportive of than their countrymen in the rest of the United Kingdom. Alex Salmond has repeatedly claimed that independence is the best option for Scots who wish to remain within the EU, as rising euroscepticism south of the border sees the UK Independence Party gaining increasing electoral success and the Conservatives promising a referendum on EU membership if re-elected. However, as I've previously mentioned, Salmond's assertions that upon independence, Scotland would automatically inherit the UK's membership of the Union have been contradicted by members of the European elite. In February, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said that it would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible" for Scotland to join the European Union. Yesterday his sentiments were echoed by Ruairi Quinn, former president of EU's finance council, who predicted that Spain and Belgium would be likely to block Scotland's application. Both countries have significant secessionist movements within their own borders and would not wish to encourage them by allowing a newly independent Scotland into Europe. Mr Quinn also stated that Scotland would need to adopt the euro as a condition of joining the EU, providing its application was accepted, contradicting Alex Salmond's claims that Scotland would be allowed to continue using the pound as the United Kingdom is at present.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have warned that an independent Scotland would have less clout within the EU and less say when it came to issues such as fishing quotas, meaning that Scotland would likely lose out to larger countries- including the rest of the United Kingdom, which will continue to have considerable influence in Europe post-independence. The SFF also described the SNP’s claims that Scotland could negotiate EU membership between a "yes" vote next month and seceding in March 2016 as "very optimistic." Much like the rest of their campaign, then.

5. The United Kingdom is stronger together.

As a unified country, Great Britain and later the United Kingdom achieved more than Scotland and England ever did alone. For better or for worse, the British Empire was the largest empire in world history, and the union flag flew over a quarter of the world's landmass at its height. The Industrial Revolution began here, as did modern parliamentary democracy, influenced as much by the Scottish Enlightenment as by English ideals. Glasgow was called the "Second City of the Empire." Today, Scotland still benefits from being part of one of the world's great powers, a nuclear power with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and the world's sixth-largest economy by nominal GDP and eighth-largest by purchasing power parity. But most of all, the bonds between the people of the British Isles go beyond mere politics and economics; we have deeply influenced each other's culture, and millions of people live in the UK today who have both English and Scottish ancestry, living embodiment of the 300-year-old union between these two ancient nations, along with Wales and Northern Ireland. I will leave the last word to the architect of the Union of Crowns, James VI and I, who laid the groundwork for the eventual unification of Great Britain:

James VI and I in 1606 by
John De Critz the Elder 

"But the union of these two princely houses is nothing comparable to the union of two ancient and famous kingdoms, which is the other inward peace annexed to my person ... Has not God first united these two kingdoms, both in language, religion, and similitude of manners? Yes, has he not made us all in one island, compassed with one sea, and of itself by nature so indivisible, as almost those that were borderers themselves on the late borders, cannot distinguish nor know or discern their own limits? These two Countries being separated neither by sea, nor great river, mountain, nor other strength of nature ..."

- James VI and I, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland

5 Good Reasons To Vote No - Part 1

The Scottish independence debate is really warming up now as we draw close to the 18th September, when the people of Scotland will go to the polls. Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond will be trading blows again tonight in their second televised debate; the first one made for frustrating viewing as both politicians dodged questions and resorted to attacking one another's campaign tactics rather than discussing the core issues surrounding the referendum. Most notably, Darling repeatedly asked what the SNP's "Plan B" was for Scotland's currency if their plan for a customs union with the rump of the United Kingdom failed, and Salmond repeated sidestepped the question. Tonight's debate will no doubt be much of the same.

Personally, I remain firmly wedded to the Union. In case you hadn't noticed. But if you're still not confessed that the Union is best for Scotland, here's my 5 top ten reasons to vote "NO!" on the 18th, posted in two parts:

1. There aren't any definite plans on currency.

Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, has repeatedly stated that the Scottish National Party's plan is to continue to use the pound sterling after seceding from the United Kingdom, stating that a currency union between the independent Scottish state and the UK would be desirable for all parties. However, Westminster has shown little enthusiasm for the idea of a currency union, and in February the Chancellor announced that the Coalition Government had formally ruled out the idea of an official currency union. In the last debate, the First Minister indicated that Scotland could continue to use the pound after independence whether or not the UK agreed, just as Panama uses the US dollar. This is entirely true- however, without a formal currency union, Scotland would find itself at the whims of the central British government's financial policy, and Scotland could not count on a safety net in the event of a future financial crisis. What's more, the pound sterling is backed by the Bank of England. The Scottish banknotes printed by Scottish banks are not in fact legal tender, but promissory notes that are backed by the Bank of England; since the Bank of England has no real reason to continue backing promissory notes printed by foreign banks in a foreign country, it is by no means clear whether Scotland would still be able to print its own currency upon independence. A further complication is that the SNP hope for Scotland to remain within the European Union post-independence, but EU officials, including European Commission  President Jose Manuel Barroso, have stated that Scotland will need to apply as a new country, meaning that Scotland will likely be expected to adopt the euro.

To make matters worse, the SNP have said that if they are refused a currency union with the rest of the UK, they will walk out on their £140 billion share of UK national debt. Apart from being childish, this is extremely dangerous financially- if the newly independent Scotland's first act as a sovereign country was to essentially default on its national debt, the impact on financial markets could be devastating. The SNP could rock Scotland's economy from Day 1.

2. Border controls would have to be introduced.

Currently, people are free to move between Scotland and the rest of the UK. The SNP have stated that this will remain the case post-independence; however, this is not guaranteed. A number of prominent pro-Union politicians have indicated that border controls between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom would have to be introduced; the principal concern is that Scotland plans to introduce a more lax immigration policy following independence, with Alex Salmond promising to increase net migration into Scotland by 10% in order to expand the workforce. Scotland's population is aging more quickly than the rest of the UK, meaning that the workforce needs to be expanded to pay for Scottish pensions.

Unfortunately, this is at odds with viewpoints on immigration in the rest of the country, where there is pressure for tighter border controls. This means that some politicians are worried immigrants will enter the rest of the UK through Scotland, necessitating border controls between England and Scotland. This could have a serious impact on Scotland's economy, since exports to the rest of the UK account for just over 50 per cent of total exports from Scotland, and imports from the rest of the UK account for around 64 per cent of Scotland's total imports. It would also be a major inconvenience for anyone like myself who is of both Scottish and English descent and regularly visits relatives on the other side of the border- and that's a sizable portion of the UK's population. What's more, if Scotland was required to go through the normal application process to the EU as Barroso suggested, it might be expected to join the Schengen Area, a common travel area established by an agreement in 1995 that enabled passport-free movement between 25 European countries, but not the UK and Ireland. This would almost certainly require border controls between Scotland and the rest of the British Isles.

To be continued.

Royal Martyrs

The martyred King Louis XVI gives money to the poor.

I apologise for not posting anything for a while. Part of the reason for this absence is that I've just returned from France, where I had a rather Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette themed holiday, visiting the Château de Versailles, seat of the Ancien Régime; the Conciergerie, where Queen Marie Antoinette was held prior to her execution; the Place de la Concorde, formerly Place de la Révolution, where the King and Queen were among the hundreds guillotined by the successive revolutionary governments; and the Cathedral Basilica of Saint Denis, where the remains of Louis and his family were interred following the Bourbon Restoration on the orders of King Louis XVIII. The tragic story of the revolution and the murder of the Royal Family was brought to life for me after seeing where they lived and died, but by far the most harrowing moment was visiting the grave of the titular King Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who died in 1795 of tuberculosis almost certainly brought on by the horrific circumstances he was kept in by the revolutionaries after his parents were sent to the guillotine. He had no official grave until 2004, when a heart which DNA testing showed to be that of the ten-year-old King was interred by French royalists along with his family in the royal crypt beneath St. Denis.

Louis XVII, titular
King of France and Navarre

My visit to Paris caused my mind to dwell somewhat on the fate of royal martyrs, among whom three in particular leap to mind; Charles I of Great Britain, Louis XVI of France (of course), and Nicholas II of Russia. All three of these monarchs were deposed and then executed- or, rather, murdered- by revolutionaries. But the similarities do not end here. What struck me thinking about these three men and their fates is that all three were, by all accounts, personally very moral and upright individuals. All three loved their wives and not one of them was known to have ever had an affair, despite the nature of royals' arranged marriages making royal mistresses common throughout history. All three were men of strong Christian faith- Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox. All three men were regarded as reactionaries and tyrants, but all three certainly regarded themselves as being in the right and as defending the true law of their respective kingdoms (or empire, in the case of Nicholas). Louis and Charles both showed great courage when facing their deaths, Charles I famously wearing two shirts in case the cold caused him to shiver and give the impression that he was afraid, while Louis XVI exclaimed to the crowd as he was strapped down, "My people, I am innocent!" The executioner, Charles Henri Samson, later said that the King "bore all this with a composure and a firmness which has surprised us all," putting it down to the King's deep religiosity. Nicholas II, of course, was not even given the courtesy of a show trial by the Bolsheviks; supposedly his last words after being told he and his family were to be put to death were simply, "What? What?"

Finally, all three, upon closer inspection of their lives and reigns, appear to have been more incompetent or weak than outright malicious. Even then, in more ordinary times they might have been remembered as pious, much-loved sovereigns- not particularly militarily successful, or great reformers, but fine rulers nonetheless. It seems to me that when revolution rears its ugly head, it is the gentlest and most moral of rulers who tend to fall. There is a reason for this- strong, politically savvy kings like Louis XIV or the "Iron Tsar" Nicholas I do not fall to revolutionaries. They crush them.

Charles I, King and Martyr

Some might argue that this is a weakness of monarchy; one weak king at a bad time may spell disaster. But Charles, Louis and Nicholas all faced colossal challenges; in similarly troubling times, democracy does not tend to do well either. In fact, it has a tendency to commit suicide by raising dictators to power. Democracy works well enough in stable countries like the United States and the United Kingdom. In the Middle East, however, or in Ukraine, or Thailand, one sees that democracy has not coped well with challenges such as sectarianism or social upheaval. Likewise, if King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette were King and Queen of a modern day France, they would likely be beloved of their people. The much-vilified Marie Antoinette, with her personally charitable nature and exasperation with the stifling traditions of the French court, would probably be seen as a Queen of the People; the libelles that turned the populace on her on the eve of the revolution, with horrifying tales of degeneracy and decadence, would be dubbed "trolls" or prosecuted for, erm, libel. As monarchists should know, the Queen never uttered that immortal line, "Let them eat cake;" she did say, on the occasion of her and Louis' coronation, "It is quite certain that in seeing the people who treat us so well despite their own misfortune, we are more obliged than ever to work hard for their happiness."

In many ways, the sufferings of these monarchs and their families after their overthrow are symbolic of the sufferings of their people. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were followed to the guillotine by thousands of Frenchmen, ironically including many of those who had sentenced the King and Queen to death themselves. Millions of Nicholas II's former subjects perished in the gulags of the Soviet Union, many more than had ever been killed by the Tsarist regime. And Cromwell's Protectorate, which came to power in the aftermath of Charles I's execution and wielded power until Richard Cromwell was overthrown and the Stuart monarchy restored in the 1660 Restoration, was almost a prototype for modern totalitarian regimes- from banning Christmas in 1647 as part of an effort to force Puritan beliefs on the population to the brutal Cromwellian conquest of Ireland from 1649 to 1653, which has been described as genocidal. It is, of course, important that we don't forget the thousands of anonymous individuals who lost their lives or livelihoods to the march of revolution, but in remembering the sovereigns and their families who were themselves martyred for their beliefs, in a way we are symbolically remembering all of those who were lost in the revolutions that toppled those sovereigns and their monarchies. And one martyr is a powerful thing; one martyr who serves as representative for millions more is surely even more powerful.

Official portrait of Nicholas II of Russia and his family
in 1911, seven years before they were murdered.