The End of Monarchies and What Soon Transpired
What Famous Men Said About Monarchy
British Monarchists Foundation…
Constitutional Monarchy Society
The End of Monarchies and What Soon Transpired
What Famous Men Said About Monarchy
British Monarchists Foundation…
Constitutional Monarchy Society
On Religion in the Modern Era
“My belief is that in each one of us there is a distant echo of the sense of the sacred, but that the majority of us are terrified to admit its existence for fear of ridicule and abuse.”
“Modern materialism in my humble opinion is unbalanced and increasingly damaging in its long term consequences.”
“Science has attempted to take over the natural world from God, with the result that it has fragmented the cosmos and relegated the sacred to a separate, and secondary, compartment…”
“Science has tried to assume a monopoly – or, rather, a tyranny – over our understanding of the world around us … We are only now beginning to under the disastrous results of this outlook.”
On Modernist Obsessions
“Surely the time has come to escape from an almost adolescent obsession with being “modern” – the product, perhaps, of a 20th century “teenage crisis”? – and, instead, to be more concerned about being “human”!”
On the Persecution of the Traditional
“Indeed, tradition is positively discriminated against – as if it were some socially unacceptable disease…”
“It is vitally important that we can continue to say, with absolute conviction, that organic farming delivers the highest quality, best-tasting food, produced without artificial chemicals or genetic modification, and with respect for animal welfare and the environment, while helping to maintain the landscape and rural communities.”
“Consumers can choose whether or not to buy organic produce. Genetically modified ingredients will deny us choice in the long run.The demand for organic food is growing at a remarkable rate.”
“Climate change should be seen as the greatest challenge to face man and treated as a much bigger priority in the United Kingdom.”
“I think we’re going to find, with climate change and everything else.. things like global warming and goodness knows what else and the cost of fuel for a start.. that things are going to become very complicated.”
“The world’s forests need to be seen for what they are.. giant global utilities, providing essential services to humanity on a vast scale. Rainforests store carbon, which is lost to the atmosphere when they burn, increasing global warming. The life they support cleans the atmosphere of pollutants and feeds it with moisture. They help regulate our climate and sustain the lives of some of the poorest people on this Earth.”
On the Harmfulness of Fast Food
“Fast food may appear to be cheap food and, in the literal sense it often is, but that is because huge social and environmental costs are being excluded from the calculations. Any analysis of the real cost would have to look at such things as the rise in food-borne illnesses, the advent of new pathogens, such as E.coli 0157, antibiotic resistance from the overuse of drugs in animal feed, extensive water pollution from intensive agricultural systems and many other factors. These costs are not reflected in the price of fast food.”
On Modern Medicine
“The whole imposing edifice of modern medicine, for all its breathtaking successes, is, like the celebrated Tower of Pisa, slightly off balance. It is frightening how dependent on drugs we are all becoming and how easy it is for doctors to prescribe them as the universal panacea for our ills.”
On Christian Sectarianism
“When people are uncertain about what is right and what is wrong, and anxious about being considered old-fashioned, it seems to be worse than folly that Christians are still arguing about doctrinal matters which can only bring needless distress to a number of people.”
“A large number of us have developed a feeling that architects tend to design houses for the approval of fellow architects and critics, not for the tenants.”
“At the moment it looks as though London seems to be turning into an absurdist picnic table – we already have a giant gherkin, now it looks as if we are going to have an enormous salt cellar.”
“You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe: when it knocked down our buildings it did not replace them with anything more offensive than rubble. We did that.”
“Instead of designing an extension to the elegant facade of the National Gallery which complements it and continues the concept of columns and domes, it looks as if we may be presented with a kind of municipal fire station, complete with the sort of tower that contains the siren. I would understand better this type of high-tech approach if you demolished the whole of Trafalgar Square and started again with a single architect responsible for the entire layout, but what is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.”
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and Stephanie Donaldson. The Elements of Organic Gardening, 2007.
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and Candida Lycett Green. The Garden at Highgrove., 2000.
Islam and the West: a Lecture Given in the Sheldonian Theatre, 1993.
H.R.H. The Prince of Wales and Charles Clover. Highgrove: Portrait of an Estate. London: Chapmans, 1993.
The People’s Prince: a collection of major addresses,1992.
The Rainforest Lecture: given by His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales at the Royal Botanic Gardens,1990.
A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture, 1989.
Labour leaning publications such as the New Statesman have become increasingly anti-Monarchical in recent years and “progressive” anti-Monarchists have become increasingly vocal – despite their views being at odds with those of the general population.
With the mushrooming of cultural Marxism as the new “social normality” in Britain Republican views have increased in the anti-traditional media. Yet historically the mainstream of the British Labour movement was generally Monarchist in inclination – Republicanism was always a historically minority view, one associated generally with Marxists within the party.
Republicans like to claim Keir Hardie as one of their own, but despite his lack of devout Monarchism he was also not too impressed with elected Presidents either. Indeed historically the Labour Party had only a single formal vote on the future of the British Monarchy. It was at the1923 Labour Party conference. The result… 38,000 votes against the Monarchy – 3,690,000 votes in support of the Monarchy (that meant that for every one against the Monarchy there were 97 for it).
…and throughout the existence of the Labour Party literally millions of Labour Party members and supporters have been Monarchists, many of them avid ones.
“No practising politician could possibly hope to be more deeply and widely informed about domestic, Commonwealth and international affairs than The Queen. She has sources of information available to nobody else.”
Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan
As a child I remember seeing and hearing some old black and white films about the Russian revolution. They gave the revolutionaries a very good press and their opponents quite the opposite. Later seeing the moving, lumbering, tragic Dr Zhivago cemented this impression. Although not totally favourable to the revolutionaries, this film portrays cruel Tsarists massacring protesters and heartlessly sending boy cadets to die resisting the revolution. I suspect that for many people in the West this sort of anti-Tsarist propaganda is the beginning and end of their knowledge of these happenings.
Now in my case I used to be rather open minded towards Marxism as a teenager. I read a lot of left wing books. These included a number of books by Marxists concerning the development of the Russian Marxist system. Wow was I shocked! I soon realized that these people (the Bolsheviks and their heirs) were a bunch of thieves and murderers. They robbed from the villages to feed the cities, they destroyed the existing fabric of society, instituted fear and terror, caused millions to starve, threw millions into camps (where they were liable to die from hunger or tuberculosis) and actively murdered millions more. Ultimately they were every bit as bad as the monstrous government described in George Orwell’s 1984.
In the West we think Hitler was the worst and most evil dictator ever because he was an awful eugenicist murdered a few million people, but the scale of the crimes of the Soviet rulers far surpassed those of the Nazis. For a number of reasons this reality has largely been ignored.
On the other hand the last Romanov Monarch Tsar Nicholas II was a man of noble qualities, who undertook good works and made improvements in Russia. He was a man who always sought to make Russia a better place to live in. This grandson of Queen Victoria, was intelligent, softly-spoken and of a gentle disposition, yet this is largely forgotten. People who met him recognized him as pleasant and likeable, yet this is not what people are taught about him. He loved his country and its people and he felt a deep sense of duty both to Russia and the Russians, yet you will not often hear this. His wife Princess Alexandra was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria, and it seems that most people in the West do not know this. The Tsar and his wife had married for love rather than for geo-political reasons and they were very affectionate and warm towards each other. Together with their children they lived a happy family life and they were good role models for their people.
Princess Alexandra was devout in her Orthodox Christian faith. She would have nothing to do with the many influential people in the Russian elites who were open and shameless degenerates. These people soon became her enemies. They spread rumours against her and the Tsar, many of which have later been wrongly portrayed as facts. At the same time Russia was plagued by anti-traditional plotters of various factions, most of them used propaganda, most of them spread lies. Today, thanks to the anti-traditionalists and Marxists who have infiltrated Western Academia the lies that were spread as a means of attacking the Romanov Dynasty have been promoted until they became the mainstream view.
Contrary to popular lies Tsarist Russia was not a brutal feudal system – in fact feudalism in Russia had ended by 1861 and the serfs had been emancipated, thanks to Emperor Alexander II. Furthermore we hear that Tsarist Russia was dominated by a tyrannical and ever present system of spies and secret police, yet in reality the Tsar’s secret police were far fewer in number than those of the Soviets would be. In reality the hand of the Tsar was far lighter and more selective than the hand of the Soviet system. Despite the fact that some barefaced liars disagree, it is a self evident fact that during Tsar Nicholas’ reign Russia was under threat from many dangerous subversives, subversives who finally succeeded and turned that place into a waking nightmare. It’s a pity that the Tsar didn’t have even more secret police men who could have stopped these would be tyrants in their tracks.
Enemies of the Tsar describe him as an “autocrat” whose rule was absolute, but in fact the Tsar was limited in his behaviour by the system of morality enshrined in the Russian Orthodox Church. Tsar Nicholas II adhered to a concrete system of morality and feared God which was in total contrast to the nihilistic, amoral, destructive, tyrannical, brutal and murderous Soviet interlopers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize that the “autocracy” of the Tsars was infinitely superior to the dictatorship of the Soviet leaders.
Indeed there are many ways to govern a country and civilized traditionalist monarchy in alliance with the moral codes and institutions of civilized religion is one of the most long established methods (tried and tested through the ages and across the lands). Monarchy is not the only method to govern a country, but it is one of the better ones and I can’t help imagining an alternative and much happier history where the Romanov Dynasty stayed in power and developed into a constitutional monarchy or remained on its original traditionalist course.
Today I thought I would see what is going on in the world so as I often do I typed “news” into Google and along with various other sites up came the online version of Daily Mail. Now the Daily Mail is generally considered to be a “conservative” paper (despite the ever-presence of bikini clad celebrity stories). Sadly, like the rest of the British media, it is nowadays polluted by the poisons of anti-traditionalism. The anti-traditionalists spend much of their time attacking religion, the Monarchy is their second favourite target.
In line with this trend the first article that I noticed was a snidey article on Prince Charles. To me it tasted of thinly veiled contempt disguised with a minimal sugar coating of fawning in quote marks. This uncomfortable piece gave hints at Charles committing crimes so severe as pointing out that as the British Empire no longer exists it is silly to continue handing out OBE honours (Order of the British Empire) and as suggesting that after honours are handed out that the recipients should be invited to a party at Buckingham Palace, amongst other things.
The accompanying photographs seem maliciously chosen and the article slipped in the constant press-mantra that he is “a prince often accused of meddling in national affairs”, but what is a prince to do other than to seek to influence national affairs for the better? The reality is that the critics of Prince Charles wish he were a Madam Tussaud’s waxwork and nothing more. They don’t want a Monarchy, they want a tourist attraction.
The type of anti-Royalty coverage mentioned above has been going on for a long time, even in papers with a Monarchist readership (indeed 80% or more of British people are Monarchists), but I was a little surprised to see just how low things can get. The site featured an aggressive article attacking Princess Beatrice without a hint of balance or any attempt to hide its republican agenda.
So what did the article try to paint this grand daughter of the Queen as?
“Royal critics have likened Princess Beatrice to a ‘benefits scrounger” – Yes they have but they are very silly to do so and with equal accuracy we could liken them to cannibals.
“she has taken three holidays abroad in barely a month.” – Of course she has, she’s a princess. These people don’t object to their pantheon of celebrities living the jet set high life, just to the sixth in line to the British Throne.
“Anti-monarchy campaigners say she should not receive public subsidies unless performing royal duties” – So? who cares what this collection of Marxists and Europhiliacs think.
The article quoted Graham Smith of Republic who described the Princess as a “royal scrounger” and suggested that she give up her Royal title and stop living in the palace. In fact if he may as well have written it himself for all the fairness and balance that it showed.
The Treason Felony Act of 1848 made advocacy of republicanism in Britain a crime. It is still on the statute books. Luckily for the modernists like Graham Smith no one has been sent to jail for his type of treason since 1879.
So why is it that most British newspapers run a predominantly negative line about the Monarchy – when the overwhelming majority of the British population believe in it as an institution?
Why is it that no mainstream British newspaper takes a really strong pro-Monarchy position anymore? One that goes so far as to avoid spreading dirt and malicious gossip about the royals despite the fact that that type of story sells newspapers?
Dark forces are at work.