The Stuarts and the Shah

You wouldn't think at first glance that the Feast of King Charles the Martyr, executed 377 years ago today in London, would have much to do with current events in Iran.

But recently I've been reading both my old friend Gareth Russell's excellent new biography of King James I (1566-1625), which I finished last night and which at the end goes briefly into some of the related challenges and tragedies faced by his son and successor Charles I, and for the second time Andrew Scott Cooper's "The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis and the Final Days of Imperial Iran." And for all the vast differences between 17th-century Britain and 20th-century Iran, I was struck by at least one parallel.

Reading both books, I found myself often feeling a burning resentment against the kind of literally puritanical religiosity that undermined (and eventually toppled) both monarchies, whether Scottish Presbyterianism in James's early reign, English Puritanism in his later reign and his son's, or militant Shia Islam in the Shah's. In all three cases, a monarch who was genuinely personally religious himself (admittedly, Charles perhaps more so than his father) was nevertheless stridently and relentlessly opposed and criticised by dour clerics who found the Monarchy to be insufficiently "godly." (The Kirk didn't want James's wife Queen Anne to have a coronation, both because elements of the ceremony were thought "papist" and because they feared, correctly, that there might be drinking and dancing.)

An even more curious parallel is that in both countries, an unholy alliance was formed between this kind of strict religious zeal (which today we might call "Right-wing") and the more secular "democratic" kind of opposition (which might be called "Left-wing") to the monarch for being (allegedly) too authoritarian. Of course, in both cases, when the religious fanatics actually took power, they imposed a regime that was far more oppressive than the Monarchy had ever been, though fortunately the English version lasted only 11 years; Iran has now endured 47, almost my entire life.

Will Iran ever get its May 1660? One can live in hope.

A rant...

 ...that would probably cause too much trouble if I actually put it on Facebook so I'm putting it here since hardly anyone reads my blog anymore anyway.

Just so you know, no one on either side of the fake American political spectrum is ever going to get anywhere with me by appealing to Democracy. I hate Democracy. And I will not be voting for either of those two annoying old men and there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

Democracy means accepting that wicked parties like the Scottish National Party and Sinn Fein can hold office. I don't accept that. I hate them. I don't like it that I have to put up with whatever the majority of voters in any part of the United Kingdom decide and I never get a say. I know more and care more about British history than most people in Britain. I have British flags and decor all over my home including a portrait of HM The King over the fireplace. I should get my way, not stupid people who live there and think that Sadiq Khan's idiotic new London Overground names are acceptable.

I am mildly on the autistic spectrum (in case you haven't figured that out) and the British Monarchy is my Special Interest and I do not accept that anyone in the UK has the right to try to take it away from me, ever, just because they live there and I don't. I don't give a damn about republicans' "human rights." Anti-monarchists are garbage and I am not ashamed of how much I hate them because I know God hates them too. If that makes me selfish and evil so be it. At least I'm not a republican. There is nothing worse than being a small-r republican.

Peace, Goodwill, and Harmony: On King Charles' Christmas Speech

Very few published commentators (Rod Dreher in 2012 was another) understand King Charles. But I think this one does.

Queen Elizabeth II, one year on

Today we remember the one and only Queen Elizabeth II on the first anniversary of her death.

I remember waking up a year ago to the news that she was under medical supervision at Balmoral. I posted the 1662 BCP prayer for the Sovereign. Actually she had probably already passed away by then, and being frequently online I saw the news a few hours later as soon as The Royal Family page posted it. Stunned and shaken, I didn’t cry yet, though I would later.

Queen Elizabeth II had seemed eternal. An institution in her own right who had been on the throne since my parents were little children. Old enough to remember the difficult 1990s, I saw her grow more radiant and joyous as she aged, as if the fairytale lustre of the young Queen had somehow been magnified in a different way. There was something so comforting about images of the Queen. While not “ruling” as her ancestors did, she was a benign authority figure not only for her official subjects in 15 countries, but also for those of us in other countries who looked to her as the sentimental focus of our earthly allegiance, a far more satisfactory head of state than any president could ever be.

One paradox of Queen Elizabeth II was that she was simultaneously both timeless and of her time, a living link to a very different past yet surprisingly adaptable, letting her delightful mischievous sense of humour show more as she aged as seen in the 2012 Olympics and 2022 Jubilee videos.

Occasionally tabloids would claim that the Queen was “furious” over some real or alleged “violation of protocol.” But that wasn’t who she was at all. To the contrary her grandson Prince William said in an interview that she loved it when something went wrong at official occasions so that she and Prince Philip could laugh about it later.

While she had access to grand palaces suitable for the performance of her duties, her private tastes were simple, less grand than many celebrities. She kept leftover cereal in Tupperware, put on a sweater rather than turning up the heat, and was never happier than when in the countryside with her dogs and horses. Now she is in a different and better countryside where there is no more duty, only joy.

We miss her. I miss her. But the Monarchy to which she devoted her life continues under the different but equally dutiful stewardship of her son and successor King Charles, who I have long admired in his own right. The best way to honour her memory is to support him as he serves what are now his realms and to emulate her devotion to duty in our own lives, whatever our duties may be, in my case to the Symphony.

Unlike so many people, I never got to meet her, though at least I saw her in person a few times. But I like to think she knew how many millions of people loved her, even if it was surprising for her in her humility, and she knows even more fully now. Remember the Queen. God Save the King. 🇬🇧

Coronation of King Charles III

While I'm obviously no longer the frequent blogger I used to be, since I don't want this blog to be considered completely defunct, I can hardly ignore here the glorious historic Coronation of last Saturday 6 May (covered extensively on my social media), in which Charles III was crowned King of the United Kingdom in Westminster Abbey. I was of course up at 4:15 AM Dallas time to watch the event live on YouTube, following along in my printout of the liturgy, and with millions around the world was thrilled by the spectacle, the spiritual power of the occasion, and the music. As a Loyalist I joined enthusiastically in the Homage of the People. God Save the King!

I assume that readers (if I still have any) have by now seen plenty of Coronation coverage elsewhere, so I will not attempt to be comprehensive in this rather belated post. Instead, I wish to share some links to photo galleries, videos, and thoughtful articles (more or less in reverse chronological order of appearance, as is fitting for the blog format) that you might not have seen, as well as the official photographs taken in Buckingham Palace after the event.

Alexandra Wilson, Music fit for a king

Charles A. Coulombe, After the Crowning

Fr. Steve Rice, God Bless America, God Save the King

Zewditu Gebreyohanes, Britain is Lucky to Have a Monarch (Telegraph)

Benjamin Guyer, Charles III and Kenotic Monarchy
Ruth Dudley Edwards, Coronation of King Charles is a reminder...

John Martin Robinson, Coronation Diary

YouTube: The Coronation Weekend (Prince & Princess of Wales)

Saint Thomas Church: A Service of Thanksgiving for the Coronation of HM King Charles III

CNN: In pictures: the coronation of King Charles III
BBC: Extraordinary photos from King Charles III's Coronation

Mail on Sunday: If we heeded republican wails...

Daily Mail: The new Firm assembles

Paul Shakeshaft, Why a Coronation Matters

Sohrab Ahmani, Coronation is a ritual humiliation

Esmé Partridge, In Defense of the Philosopher King

Rebecca Mead, The Self-Justifying Philosophy of King Charles

Tom Holland, Our bronze age coronation rites seem to speak to a modern love of the sacred

Aris Roussinos, Britain Needs King Charles the Weird

The Critic: Crowning Moment

Anna Tyzack, What sort of man is King Charles, and what sort of king will he be? (2022)

Review: Elena Maria Vidal's "My Queen, My Love"

Most Americans are probably not aware that the US state of Maryland was originally named after Queen Henrietta Maria (1609-1669), daughter of King Henri IV of France (1553-1610) and wife of the ill-fated King Charles I of England (1600-1649). Readers seeking an introduction to this unjustly neglected historical figure would do well to immerse themselves in this charming and engaging book by Elena Maria Vidal, who appropriately enough lives in Maryland.

"My Queen, My Love," which covers the title character's life from her childhood in France through the births of her own children in the 1630s on the eve of the English Civil War, is a historical novel, so includes fictionalized dialogue, but is firmly based on historical research like any biography. Its style vividly brings the complex and colourful world of the 17th century to life, from Italy [homeland of her mother Marie de Medici (1573-1642)] to France to England. The central importance of religion is evident from the outset. Daughter of the pragmatic convert Henri IV, the devoutly Catholic Henrietta Maria finds herself in an impossible situation as wife of the staunch Anglican Charles I in what is by then a predominantly and fervently Protestant country, with even the King's own high church Anglicanism increasingly deemed too "catholic" by some. While the author clearly shares Henrietta Maria's devout Roman Catholicism, it is to Vidal's credit that the sincerity of King Charles who believes that his Church of England is truly Catholic is depicted in a well-rounded manner. I particularly appreciated the writer's evident love of liturgical beauty as reflected in lavish descriptions of Catholic ceremonies including sacred music. Henrietta Maria's enjoyment of the secular arts, so scandalous to the dour Puritans especially her own participation in Masques, is a consistent theme as well.

Anglicans like me who revere Charles as a Martyr, aware of his and his wife's fervent loyalty to each other during the terrible trials of the Civil War which (after the time period covered by this book) would end in his execution and her widowhood, are accustomed to thinking of their marriage as an ideal devoted Christian one, as indeed it later became. However it must be admitted that this was not always the case. While vaguely aware that King Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria had had difficulties in the early years of their marriage, I had not thought much about the details until I read this book. One sensitive issue is that in order to gain French approval for their 1625 marriage Charles had had to make various promises, particularly those related to the Queen's Catholicism, that once back in England he finds himself unable to keep. It particularly galls her, understandably, that money from her dowry ended up being used to fund a war with her native France! While Vidal's Henrietta Maria never falters in her ultimately heroic love for Charles, the reader can also see without dismissing his point of view how Charles might have felt frustrated at times.

To the extent that the narrative of the challenging early years of their marriage has a villain, it is surely George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (1592-1628). A favourite of Charles's father James I (1566-1625), Buckingham continues his leading role in British affairs as a sort of substitute older brother (Charles's real older brother Henry having sadly died at 18 in 1612) of the young and insecure new king. Wary of losing his pre-eminence should the Queen replace him as the King's most trusted confidant, Buckingham (though capable of great charm) does everything he can to undermine the Queen's position and behaves with shocking disrespect to her, while also being egotistically heedless of his unpopularity among the common people who tend to blame him rather than the King for the failures of his aggressive foreign policy. Charles either cannot or will not see this other side of him, and when Buckingham meets his end the reader is likely to feel that he had it coming. Whether the final chapter's theory about who was ultimately behind the assassination is true, I cannot say, but there is no doubt that Buckingham's death finally smoothes the path for Charles and Henrietta Maria to eventually enjoy a happier marriage.

Whether new to the period or an experienced student of Stuart history, any reader will be sure to finish this delightful book knowing Queen Henrietta Maria better than before, almost like a personal friend. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in royal history and look forward to further installments as given her tumultuous life there is certainly more material to come.

Our Gloriana

Here is an eloquent reflection on the death of Queen Elizabeth II, "Our Gloriana," by Bishop Anthony Burton (Rector of Church of the Incarnation 2008-22, who baptized me there in 2009).

[Edit: and here is one from a Catholic friend at Georgetown University: The Queen's Jesuit Values.]

Dallas Episcopalians remember the Queen

The Dallas Morning News reports on Tuesday's Choral Evensong in thanksgiving for Queen Elizabeth II at St. Matthew's Cathedral, in which I sang (music of Vaughan Williams, Stanford, and Parry). I am quoted in the article. Needless to say I don't endorse every comment of the homilist. But it was a lovely event and I'm glad it's been publicized.

Bye NYT

This is not a decision I made lightly. I thought about it for a few days. And I don't regret buying the historic Sept. 9 front page which is a significant historical document. But I've cancelled my electronic subscription to the New York Times. I'm fed up with their relentless anti-British bias and negative coverage of the United Kingdom. That stupid article (whose author I'm now ashamed to have met in 2012; I had thought she was better than that) blaming the Queen for "colonialism" within hours of her death was the last straw. And Anglophobia is hardly their only pernicious agenda; a good monarchist friend of mine also has strong objections to their Ethiopia coverage. The sad thing is that they still have plenty of good articles and I'm sure there will be some I wish I could read. But if you knew a substance were 90% ice cream and 10% poison would you eat it? I'm not going to give one more cent to an enemy of my favourite country. God Save the King.

More articles on this topic:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-new-york-times-royal-derangement-syndrome

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/14/ignore-liberal-sneers-real-americans-will-embrace-king-charles/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/10/new-york-times-hatred-britain-has-gone-far/

https://reaction.life/why-the-worlds-worst-newspaper-hates-britain-so-much-nyt-new-york-times/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11220673/Is-New-York-Times-launching-deranged-attacks-Britain-Queen-make-money-China.html

On Mourning the Queen as an American Monarchist

Probably my greatest weakness as a Christian is that while this should not be construed as ingratitude for the positive aspects of my real life I’ve never been able to overcome a certain theoretical resentment at having been born American rather than British, which prevents me from ever feeling quite as docile to God’s will as we’re apparently supposed to, as indeed the late Queen herself was. Indeed, my whole way of being Christian as an Episcopalian is so deeply intertwined with Anglophilia and the Monarchy (which for an Anglican in England would be nothing abnormal) that I don’t know how to separate the two. It’s all sort of the same thing for me, which I suppose is why I tend to see “British” republicans as utterly evil enemies of God, akin to the monstrous orcs in Lord of the Rings, rather than as simply people I disagree with.

As lovely as last night’s Evensong [in thanksgiving for the life of Queen Elizabeth II at St. Matthew's Cathedral] mostly was, there were still a few lines in the homily that made me wince, as did the fact that even on this most inherently royalist of occasions the officiant still sang “State” rather than “King” during the (Smith) Responses. Even many Americans sincerely paying tribute to the Queen feel obliged to include some sort of republican disclaimer, which I never like, because I wholeheartedly believe that “our” way is wrong and theirs is right. I suppose a certain such discomfort is inevitable as long as I live here, and I don’t seem to be moving. But with all my heart I reject 1776 and all its works. God Save the King.

The Queen and the Cello

I am deeply honoured that my own video of "God Save the Queen" (as it then was) from a few years ago has been included in this article "Queen Elizabeth II and the Cello."

Regrets

I know it’s normal to be sad now. But honestly, I also feel just a little bit ashamed. God gave me 44 years—or, even if only adulthood is considered, 26–to make sure that by the time this happened, I would be living there and (if so for at least six years) could have sworn allegiance to her. 🇬🇧 But I didn’t do that. I did, at least, finally try in 2016 with the Philharmonia, so don’t feel quite as bad as I would if I’d never even tried. But only once, and a little late.

In 1999-2000, when I was getting ready to graduate from Indiana University and wondering what to do next, I went as far as requesting and receiving brochures from the Royal Academy and Royal College of Music in London. But at 21, never having even visited the UK, I wasn’t sure how moving to London and so forth would work, didn’t know anyone there or anything about living there, and didn’t seriously pursue it. New York—not that there was anything wrong with Juilliard!—though still a change was so much easier. And then one thing led to another, and I stayed here, admittedly with much to be grateful for on this side of the pond.

And now over the next few days thousands of people, most of whom in their daily lives are probably not nearly as obsessed with the Monarchy as I am, are standing in unprecedented queues in London to pay their respects, because they’re decent patriotic people, and I won’t be there. I can explain why, I have my reasons, my job, my financial concerns, but still they feel like they might be excuses.

I wish I could have met her just once. Even as one of those lucky people in the front of the crowd behind a barrier for a walkabout. Better yet, actually presented. After all, many people did, over the years, in moments they will never forget. I did see her in person on three occasions, her Golden Jubilee in 2002, her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 (pictured), and Garter Day in 2015. I'm glad that I wrote her a few times and always received a nice reply from the Palace.

But a comforting thought is that if God knows how much I loved her and what she stood for, she does now too.

The Queen is dead. Long live the King.

As you have no doubt learned by now, HM Queen Elizabeth II died today. Words cannot adequately express the grief felt by me and millions of others for the loss of this iconic figure. It is hard to imagine a world without her. And yet the Monarchy endures. God Save the King.

A speech at the UN

It is my general policy not to comment on the younger son of HRH the Prince of Wales or his wife. However I have to say that to read of someone who was born into the Royal Family moaning to the United Nations about a "global assault on democracy and freedom" as if "democracy" is self-evidently A Good Thing We Should All Cherish is depressing (though in this case not surprising) to me. As republicans in the UK will no doubt be quick to point out, he owes his wealth and fame entirely to the remnants of a system that in principle, despite the de facto supremacy of Parliament since 1688, remains profoundly non-democratic (which of course I unapologetically embrace). Democracy has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that this individual, unlike most people, gets to address the UN. As far as I know he has never won an election, or even voted in one.

Furthermore, I respect the fact that I have friends on both sides of the abortion debate (on which I myself refuse to ever publicly weigh in), but surely anyone with any understanding of constitutional monarchy can agree that it is not an issue on which a member of the royal family (which he still technically is) should be taking a divisive stand against the beliefs of large numbers of people, particularly in the USA but also including some devout members of the Church of which his grandmother is the Supreme Governor. I am not obviously not royal, but in this case I wish he would learn to emulate my official impartiality!

However, I also detested Meghan McCain's contemptuous knee-jerk Americanist response, in which she described the majority of Americans as "monarchy-hating." Indifferent, sure, but I would hope not hating. "Hating" takes a lot of energy, which I honestly don't think most Americans invest in opposing the British Monarchy.

You can Google the relevant articles if you need to; I'm not posting links.

Prince William and the Commonwealth

Upon the conclusion of his and the Duchess's tour of Belize, Jamaica, and Bahamas, HRH the Duke of Cambridge issued an unprecedented statement obliquely acknowledging that he may never be Head of the Commonwealth, or King of any of those countries:

Foreign tours are an opportunity to reflect. You learn so much. What is on the minds of Prime Ministers. The hopes and ambitions of school children. The day-to-day challenges faced by families and communities.

I know that this tour has brought into even sharper focus questions about the past and the future. In Belize, Jamaica and The Bahamas, that future is for the people to decide upon. But we have thoroughly enjoyed spending time with communities in all three countries, understanding more about the issues that matter most to them.

Catherine and I are committed to service. For us that's not telling people what to do. It is about serving and supporting them in whatever way they think best, by using the platform we are lucky to have.

It is why tours such as this reaffirm our desire to serve the people of the Commonwealth and to listen to communities around the world. Who the Commonwealth chooses to lead its family in the future isn't what is on my mind. What matters to us is the potential the Commonwealth family has to create a better future for the people who form it, and our commitment to serve and support as best we can.

Under the circumstances it's hard to see how HRH could have said anything very different; indeed, there was never any hard evidence for the ubiquitous media assertion that the main purpose of the tour was to discourage those three countries from imitating Barbados and breaking with the Crown. But let's remember that the point of the Crown is not the glory of the Royal Family but the well-being of the people it serves, and so while it may be true that Prince William himself would not be particularly distressed by a reduction in the number of his future Realms, those who live there who do believe in the Monarchy and have looked forward to having him as their King one day would be. So would all monarchists and believers in the essential Royal dimension of the Commonwealth throughout the world, including me. I know that I for one would cease to have any interest in the Commonwealth were this aspect of it to be sacrificed in favour of yet another bland platitudinous international organisation stripped of any central role for the Crown.

I do specifically regret the use of the word "foreign," which seems to me to concede to republicans their mistaken premise that the Monarchy is "foreign" to countries like Belize, Jamaica, or Barbados. In fact since independence the Crown is theirs as well; the Queen transcends such narrow concepts as single nationality and legally belongs equally to all 15 of her remaining Realms. It would have been better to describe the recent tour as "international." As the grandson and heir of the Queen of Jamaica, Prince William cannot truly be considered a "foreigner" in Jamaica. (He and Catherine certainly did not look like "foreigners" when participating in local dances!)

While Peter Hitchens tends to be more negative than I am about the contemporary royals' concessions to modernity (and incidentally I also have a bit of a soft spot for Rishi Sunak since I met him in 2015), I basically agree with him here:

The British Monarchy will not save itself by sucking up to its enemies, or by making penitent speeches about slavery.

Barbados has dumped the Crown and Jamaica is going the same way.

Left-wing radicals aren't that bothered by slavery in general, though it is a useful whip with which to scourge what is left of the old British establishment.

Always remember that the biggest slave empire of all time was created by Soviet Communism in its Gulag camps.

And there is a good argument for saying that modern China does the same thing, especially to the persecuted Uighur people, in its vast network of cruel prisons.

The Royal Tour and the Media

Anyone casually following the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge's tour of the Caribbean (Belize, Jamaica, Bahamas) might understandably get a little confused. If one looks only at photographs and videos, one sees images of successful visits in which people in all three countries are clearly thrilled to see and greet the glamorous and impeccably gracious royal couple, who for the time being remain, under current constitutions, their future King and Queen. But if one looks at social media and commentary, one is told that the tour has been a "failure," dominated by republicanism and protests against colonialism. A thoughtful post at my friend The Royal Watcher's blog delves into the mysterious discrepancy.

Prince William under fire

There is a fake online controversy being stirred up about some innocent remarks by Prince William at the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in London. HRH said, “For our generation, it’s very alien to see this in Europe. We are all behind you.” But misleading media reports suggested that he added that wars like this were more typical of Asia and Africa, even though there is no video evidence that he said anything about other continents. So of course Twitter explodes with self-righteous condemnations of "racism" and mocking the prince's alleged ignorance, given that of course historically there have been many conflicts in Europe. But this is stupid. It is a fact that there has not been a large-scale invasion of one European country by another anywhere in Europe since 1945. So yes, for Europeans of William's generation, and even of his parents' generation, what is happening now in Ukraine is "alien." People on Twitter need to get a life and stop hunting for "racism" where it doesn't exist. And shame on those journalists who, perhaps deliberately, put words in the Duke's mouth and altered the meaning of his comments, shortly before he and the Duchess are due to visit the Caribbean.

Update: Hannah Furness sets the record straight in the Telegraph.

Hélène d'Orléans 150

One hundred fifty years ago today, Princess Hélène of Orléans (1871-1951) was born at York House in Twickenham, England. Daughter of the Count of Paris, Orléanist claimant to the French throne, following the fall of the Second Empire she spent most of her childhood in France, until the insecure Third Republic exiled them again in 1886 following exuberant royalist celebrations of her older sister Amélie's marriage to the Crown Prince (later King) of Portugal. Thus the Orléans family returned to England and became close to the British royal family. Hélène and Prince Albert Victor (1864-1892), eldest son of the Prince of Wales, fell in love and wished to marry, and Queen Victoria was fond of her, but the religious difference proved insurmountable.

Instead Hélène married in 1895 Italy's Prince Emanuele Filiberto (1869-1931), Duke of Aosta, a nephew of King Umberto I, whose own father had briefly reigned as King of Spain, and who was next in line to the Italian throne until the birth of Crown Prince Umberto in 1904. The marriage produced two sons, Amedeo (1898-1942) and Aimone (1900-1948), but was not happy; Hélène became known for her adventurous solo travels in Africa and for her heroic humanitarian work with the Red Cross. Her life was marked by tragedies, such as the murder of her brother-in-law and nephew in Portugal in 1908, the devastation of the two World Wars, and outliving both of her sons as well as the Italian monarchy she had served for half a century. Hélène was the grandmother of Prince Amedeo (1943-2021) who died recently, as well as two princesses who survive. Edward Hanson's biography "The Wandering Princess" is a fascinating window into a long and unconventional royal life that spanned and was shaped by the major upheavals of modern European history.

RIP Prince Philip (1921-2021)

I was deeply saddened this morning to wake up to the news of the death of HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921-2021). A full and long life, but I had really wanted him to make 100 in June. I greatly admired his outspoken wit and dedication to countless causes and duties. He will be widely missed. Prayers for the Royal Family especially HM The Queen who has lost her incomparable source of strength and support of 73 years.

Here are links to obituaries from the Telegraph, the Times, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times.

As the last person who had been born into a foreign royal family to marry into the British Royal Family, the former Prince Philip of Greece was in many ways modern Britain's last living link with the world of Victorian and Edwardian continental European royalty, including vanished monarchies such as those of Germany, Greece, and Russia. Guests at his parents' wedding in Darmstadt in 1903 included Tsar Nicholas II (Princess Alice's uncle by marriage and Prince Andrew's first cousin), who, evading his security detail to push through the crowd, threw a full bag of rice and a satin slipper at the newlywed bride, who promptly threw them right back at him, reducing the Tsar of All the Russias to helpless laughter in the middle of the street.

Many years later, as a maternal grandnephew of Empress Alexandra, Prince Philip donated blood to aid with identification of the Romanov remains. Once when asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union (which he eventually did), he replied, "the bastards murdered half my family."

Princess Anne and Prince Edward shared memories of their late father and reflected on his legacy. May he rest in peace.

Monarchism and Identities

One reason why I may occasionally come across as Difficult online is perhaps that I have (at least) three very different sensibilities, none of which I can belong to completely, competing in one head. I'm (whether I like it or not) an American, who wants to be British, but who tries to apply to the British Monarchy a kind of ideological "Divine Right" monarchism (defeated in Britain in 1649) that is more Continental than British, though now virtually extinct on the Continent too. While I don't think I'm a humorless person, I admittedly probably do lack something of the distinctly British sense of humour (sometimes people assume that as an Anglophile I must love British comedy; actually, with the exception of Fawlty Towers, I often do not), and don't know how to debate as well-educated British people debate. I am perhaps prone to take too seriously things that even a very conservative actual British person might laugh off or not want to make a fuss about. Just some reflections that occurred to me (and a good excuse to post van Dyck's famous triple portrait of King Charles I).