The Glory of Imperial Russia

19 July 11

This has to be one of my all time favourite videos of the Royal Martyrs and serves as a beautiful window back in time…

And for those interested if you pause it at 1:25 you can look at the very left of the video and see a picture of the Grand Duchess Elizabeth after she had entered monastic life as a nun. I always say a prayer at this point because of how special she is to my family. 🙂

On the Feast of the Martyrdom of the Royal Family (17 July 1918)

17 July 11

My prayer is that we might hear this anthem sung throughout the streets of Holy Russia in my lifetime. God save the Tsar!

The 50th Birthday of the Princess of Wales

1 July 11

Today would have been the 50th birthday of Diana, Princess of Wales. May Her memory be eternal.

The Radical Tory Manifesto

4 October 10

Repost and from here.

We, the undersigned, unite together with burning concern for the future of our country, with firm loyalty to her institutions, and firm hope for our future.
With burning concern, we note the state into which our country has fallen. We see the breakdown of family life, the loss of confidence in our institutions, the decay of public and private virtue, and the attack by an ideologically driven and squalid oligarchy on the common good. We refuse to swim with the tide, taking our stand instead on the solid ground of the Permanent Things, to which we pledge ourselves, and from the foundation of which we defy and transform our culture.

We recognise the inate dignity of every human being, as God-given, from conception to natural death.

We strongly affirm the integral place of the natural family in our common life, affirming marriage and family life as the foundation of society. We consider that the natural family, and the marriage which binds it together, is entitled to the highest consideration and the protections of the civil government.

We declare our allegiance to custom, convention and continuity, even in reform, and joyfully receive the rights of free Englishmen guaranteed us by Her Majesty our Queen, under Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement. We affirm that the civil and religious rights guaranteed by them lie at the heart of our national life.

We deny the vapid utopianism of our political masters, recognising that human beings are imperfectible. We further recognise the variety of social conditions in human society, affirming that true equality is only possible before the Courts and before God. Thus, we oppose government-driven attempts at levelling, while affirming our desire to seek Justice.

We uphold the role of the pillars of social order; that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the other agents of the civil government in its proper, limited sphere. We uphold the institutions of civil society and moral order, such as the Church and the voluntary institutions which make up the Community, and deny the impulse of the collective.

We recognise our duty to each other, and reject moral and social individualism. We recognise the need for restraints upon power and passion, and therefore support the balanced Constitution and the rule of law.

We, who stand at the cusp of the Third Christian millennium, are the inheritors of the trust of our ancestors, who spilled their blood in defence of freedom and our Most holy faith. We who have received the burning torch from them, will not let it die, but will pass it stronger and brighter to those who will come after us. We will strive to be worthy of their trust.

In token of which, and with trust in God, we have this day set our names.

William Pitt the Younger (originally posted by Pitt here)

Taking Breaks on Keeping Silent

10 September 10

So. It has been a few days since I wrote anything. Almost a week actually. The only difference between this little vacation and the ones that usually get taken by me is that this one was intentional. I wanted to write, but I was prevented from doing so, by no one other than myself.

This passed week, after several conversations of a political nature, to a point where I was/am just done. I am done talking to people who can’t manage to separate the person from the politics. Conversations would begin on topics of differing political thought and by the end of it I felt as if I had gone 8 rounds with Joe Lewis. It was really disheartening when the person or people that this happened with was a friend and that title alone did not stop them from stomping me to the ground.

Yeah so it finally came to a stopping point, or better yet I had to create one. I imposed a moratorium on political conversation of all types and topics when we hang out partially because I was getting to a place where it was either that or I just did not want to hang out with them anymore.

I could go off on how I think politics is a cult propogated by the devil himself, but venting about that would serve no purpose. Besides we all know its true. 🙂 What makes me livid, however is that people seem to think that there is a difference between politics and friends and when the politics starts there is no more room for friends. This has been shown to me on more than one occasion and it truly is a sad situation.

I am not mad or angry in any fashion, mostly disappointed, but when I got to this point it made me stop and think about the fact that when I was posting things online I was doing it secretly wanting to debate, but at the same time not wanting to lose friends. When I realised that the other side didn’t seem to care about friends when it came to politics I had already lost.. thankfully only the debate.

Being A Monarchist In America: A Little History Lesson

2 September 10

It seems that the cause of monarchy is not taken seriously at all by those that do not take the time to understand it. This is not surprising, however, when you would think that if someone is going to have an opinion about something they might as well be educated on the topic to some degree. Apparently not.

As much as I cant stand the snide comments, the outright insinuations and the fact that my choice to be a Monarchist is seen by others to be nothing but a complete joke I think what gets me the most is that with all of this, at the very same time these people know little to nothing about the history of the events leading up to, surrounding, interwoven with and the environment under which all of this took place.

They talk of taxation without representation even though they were represented by colonial governors and a parliamentary legislation. Interestingly enough, the Colonists were represented in a very similar manner as we are now. Interesting how the Insurrectionists were unhappy with that just as people are now…

The talk of taxation in and of itself is a joke (in and of itself). The taxes that the Crown levied (as was His right) were caused in whole by the colonists greedy and contemptuous activities. These activities included piracy, theft, etc. (We will go into detail about this later.) One of the biggest issues is that of unlawful expansion westward on the colonial mainland. The end result of this is the French and Indian War. What the anti-monarchists don’t tell you is that the taxes imposed by His Majesty were totally legitimate. The colonials were told not to encroach on Indian territory and yet they did so rather joyously. In doing so, however. They also forced England into a War that cost them 40 million dollars. Where does the crown look for reimbursement of this money? From the same people that put the Crown in the position to have to spend it. And this is wrong, how?

Another intriguing aspect of this situation is when you look at the Colonists and their tax “burden” based off of per capita income. According to the numbers at the time England was paying almost triple that of the Colonists in taxes. The Colonists were also making a good deal more than the average British taxpayer. So the idea that the Colonists were at some sort of financial hardship or disadvantage to pay these taxes is a bit off the deep end as well.

Despite the colonists being comparatively wealthy, with some very wealthy, the cost of this protection was nearly all being borne by the British taxpayer and the seven-year war had added 150 million pounds ($280,500,000) on top of an already crippling debt, incurred while defending Hanover from the French, Austrian, Saxon, Swedish and Russian Alliance.
This deficit was made worse by corruption in the colonies actually causing tax revenue to cost Britain ÂŁ8000 in order to collect ÂŁ2000 tax, and this at a rate of only sixpence a year each.
The British had repeatedly tried to get the colonists to pay towards their protection, by introducing various taxes, but all were unpopular.
So after the seven-year war the British had a massive debt with few ways to reduce it, so they had to limit expenditure and as the colonists had been the beneficiaries, it was decided:

1. The settlers were to stop taking more and more Indian land, to limit spiralling defence costs and adding to the debt burden
2. The settlers were to stop murdering the Indians (many of which had helped defeat the French), so as not to upset the only money maker in America, that of trading for Furs
3. They had to stop endemic corruption such as smuggling and bribery, that was costing the exchequer so much money
4. They had to find a way of introducing a tax system that worked to help with the debt burden.

No taxation without representation, the rebels said, but they did have representation through the colonial legislature/governor and had only been paying one twenty-sixth of the tax that a British tax payer paid, who were effectively subsidizing them by bearing the burden of their protection.

Despite its notoriety, the objection to tax levied on tea was a ruse; the real issue was the British had, in an attempt to curtail their activities, under-cut the price of tea offered by smugglers, so it’s not surprising that most of the revolutionary leaders were in fact smugglers. But what is less well known is these same leaders had become wealthy dealing with the enemy during the Seven-Year-War, while fellow Americans were fighting to help save the colonies from the French.
Another reason not often mentioned is that the local legislatures for their own ends, kept devaluing their currencies to the point of making them virtually worthless. This cheated creditors out of money; but also created large numbers of debtors in the colonies.
The money owed wasn’t theirs to lose, so by promising to absolve these debts, the rebels devised a powerful incentive for support.
The British had also drawn a proclamation line along the Appalachian Mountain peaks, honouring agreements to limit further encroachment onto Indian land and arrest the spiralling cost of protecting the colonists from Indian reprisals.
Therefore those that settled beyond this line were the cause of a lot of problems as not having any money; they just became adept at murdering the Indians in order to take their land. Such people put extra strain and expense onto the British defences and were of course the natural allies of those powerful colonists, such as George Washington who wished to benefit from Indian land speculation.

The rebel leaders or founding fathers (all quasi-atheists e.g. Deists) only represented about 27% of two and quarter million colonists (although they said it was 33%), but even if this was correct they knew they would have never won power through a referendum, so as they possess considerable propaganda skills, they called themselves Patriots, contrived incidents like the so called ‘ Boston massacre’, portrayed their own vested interests as philanthropic ideals, and incited a reign of terror, aimed at civil authorities to disrupt society.
In reality Hancock was a very wealthy smuggler, but the British had undercut his overpriced business and summoned him to appear in court at a time he and Samuel Adams were known to have been in Lexington, where the shots of unknown source were fired at both sides resulting in several Militiamen being killed.
The others including Sam Adams (a failed businessman accused of embezzlement), Allen, Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison were bitter men, who for various reasons held grievances against the British.
The British only really wanted the smuggling and bribery to stop.

End Part I

Not As Small As We Think We Are

1 September 10

It is interesting to note that when I first started to have thoughts of transitioning from Republicanism to Monarchist thought one of the most deafening self-comments was how alone I was going to be in this ideology. The truth of the matter is, however, quite the opposite.

The more active I am in propagating this stance and its ideals and principles, the more and more random people begin to come out of the woodwork in support of Monarchy. Some, granted, who live within the blessed Dominion of Her Majesty’s Commonwealth, but there is a growing swell of supporters here in this country as well. As good of news as this is, though, there are issues that come with it.

At last count last night there are at least 6 groups on Facebook advocating a return of the American continent to the British Crown. This is a great thing and it in and of itself goes to prove the growing advocation of Independence (correctly this time)… The problem is that we, as supporters of Her Majesty are split and fractured. This will never work and none of us will accomplish anything. We need to unite and begin to work together to use the tools of social networking in all forms to create a single cohesive group of Loyalist supporters regardless of location wherein we can accomplish goals that benefit our cause.

The only issue I see standing in our way is getting this off the ground. The creation of a system where the ultimate goal is propagation of the Crown in this country. We could do this with a multi-blog where we have supporters draft documents, historical documents, commentaries and other pertinent information that is readily available to be used in conversations with Republicans, or other antiMonarchist groups. We could also have open debates with those that oppose our viewpoint, as I know there are others who are more intelligent on the matters of history and monarchy, succession, English politics etc than I am.

I propose all of this and offer a refuge wherein this can begin. I have created, with a small group of monarchists a website called

It is still very new so bear with us. Sign up for a Contributor Account and share your knowledge.

God save the Queen!

Proud American vs Proud Monarchist

31 August 10

So last night I added the image I created “Proud American Monarchist” to the post I made regarding why I was a monarchist. I also added it to my Facebook as my profile image. If that does nothing else it will garner a comment or two. And it did.

The comments were rather interesting in and of themselves. It raised the question of how a person could be a “Proud American” and at the same time a “Proud American Monarchist.” I venture to say that the answer is emphatically YES! Why and how could this be? The question is found in the answer. Before this country was usurped by Insurrectionists it was a proud monarchist nation. From the very beginning this country was British, there was no hostile takeover of the American continent by the British crown, the voyagers who came to this country seeking “religious freedom” as the American stories go, were, at the very same time NOT seeking a separation from the Crown. Very much the opposite!

The pilgrims, the volunteers who made the trek across the ocean, the settlers that came to start a new life in the New World, never once did they rebel from the Crown, instead they lived in peace knowing that the Crown was their protector and benefactor. This can be seen even as far back as the Magna Carta:

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

The drafters of the Magna Carta still, even with their issues and grievances, saw His Majesty as a King and as their King. It was not until the documents of Insrurrection that the idea of separation is put forth to the Crown.

Even before the Insurrection there were those, the vast majority of the colonists who sought to heal the wounds between themselves and the Crown. This is seen clearly in the “Olive Branch petition.

The Olive Branch Petition was adopted by the Continental Congress in July 1775 in an attempt to avoid a full-blown war with Great Britain. The petition affirmed American loyalty to Great Britain and entreated the king to prevent further conflict.

When the Second Continental Congress convened in May 1775, most delegates followed John Dickinson in his quest to reconcile with George III of Great Britain. However, a smaller group of delegates led by John Adams believed that war was inevitable. During the course of the Second Continental Congress, Adams and his group of colleagues decided the wisest course of action was to remain quiet and wait for the opportune time to rally the people.

This decision allowed John Dickinson and his followers to pursue whatever means of reconciliation they wanted. It was during this time that the idea of the Olive Branch Petition was approved. The Olive Branch Petition was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson, but John Dickinson found Jefferson’s language too offensive. Dickinson rewrote most of the document, although some of the conclusion remained Jefferson’s. Dickinson claimed that the colonies did not want independence but that they merely wanted to negotiate trade and tax regulations with Great Britain. Dickinson suggested the King draw up a final plan or agreement to settle trade disputes. To help the King with his plan, Dickinson suggested that either the colonists be given free trade and taxes equal to those levied on the people in Great Britain, or no taxes and strict trade regulations.

The letter was approved on July 5, but signed and sent to London on July 8, 1775. Dickinson had hoped that word of the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord combined with the “Humble Petition” would inspire the King to at least negotiate with the colonists.

However, his petition was undermined due to a confiscated letter of John Adams. John Adams wrote a letter to a friend expressing his discontent with the Olive Branch Petition. He wrote war was inevitable and he thought the Colonies should have already raised a navy and captured British officials. This confiscated letter arrived in Great Britain at about the same time as the Olive Branch petition. The British used Adams’ letter to claim that the Olive Branch Petition was insincere. (Commentary on the text of the Olive Branch Petition)

Seeing this fact alone it goes to show that, if one is proud his English heritage and the monarchy that ensued from it, than one is more proud of America then those that rebelled against her sovereign. America as it was. Am I un-American for supporting the government that existed in this country before the lawful monarch was wrongfully deposed? That depends on which side you agree with. The bottom line is that the true American is one who does not rebel against the lawful government. Those people are called traitors. Pure and simple. Traitors to themselves and traitors to the Crown.

God bless America, and God bless the Monarchy whose subjects and children we rightfully are.

I Am A Monarchist

30 August 10

Proud American Monarchist

Why Am I A Monarchist

This is an easy question to answer, but at the same time I am very careful how I word my position on monarchy because the ignorant would fight my points and the intelligent could state my case so much better than I could.

History is colored by the author telling the story. As an American child we are taught one side of a conflict that became an Insurrection. Monarchies and kings are painted as tyrants regardless of the situation. This is especially true of His Majesty King George III. The events of the “war for Independence” are very hastily described from a total Insurrectionist standpoint.

King George taxed the colonists without cause. They did not have a voice in Parliament. They were infringed upon with troops in their cities… the list goes on.. all of this leads to war. However, when one takes even a cursory look at the situation from a British standpoint a completely different picture seems to emerge.

I will go into a post specifically on the Insurrectionists, their motives, their goals etc., but for now the topic at hand it monarchy in general. I bring up the British to point out that in America anyone who would look at monarchy with even the slightest positive affirmation is seen as a traitor. If this is the case with me, then so be it. I accept it.

Monarchy is older than any Republic. It has a structure and a history richer than the small and fractured histories of all of the republics of the world. Monarchy is a religious institution based in the Old and New Testaments. Began, blessed, and perpetuated by God Himself. One might say to accept Republicanism is an implicit denial of the sovereignty of God.

The anointing of a monarch, be it king or queen is a Sacramental Mystery of the Church. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have rites of anointing of monarchs as part of their Liturgikon. To say that Christianity is against monarchy in the very least seems blatantly contradictory considering this fact.

Why am I a monarchist? Because the Republican form of government is, at its core antiChristian. The basis of the Republican form of government is not God, but rather explicitly it is man who is the focus of all things.

This in and of itself is the stemming point for my despising Republicanism. It is all about ego. When we look at the documents of the founding of this country it is more than blatant in and of itself.

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”

We the people? Can we in all honesty form a “more perfect union”? And what is this more perfect union that the founders speak of? What were the framers referring to? All they knew was the government of the British Empire. Did these men, these Insurrectionists truly believe that they could create a form of government better than a God-ordained, God blessed and God protected monarchy? This is the utter and complete egocentrism of the founders of this country.

The other issue I take is with the idea that “America was founded on Christian principles.” I take issue with the idea that non-Christians can claim to hold to Christian principles when the actively and adamantly deny Christianity. The truth of the matter is that most were deist or Unitarians (which doesn’t preclude also being christian) including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monro and of course Thomas Paine (remember him? The Father of the American Revolution?)…

You can easily find the info on Jefferson’s lack of Christian beliefs..he was very vocal about this and wrote many letters…but here is one bit for you: A footnote where the asterisk appears cited Meade as proof that avowed unbelievers sometimes served as vestrymen “As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857, `Even Mr. Jefferson and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence'” (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191).

Monroe: In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

Washington: In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Reverend William B. Sprague, D.D., wrote a biographical sketch of the Reverend James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the congregation Washington attended. In this work, Sprague quoted Abercrombie in confirmation of what White had written to Mercer

One incident in Dr. Abercrombie’s experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of this Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it “With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation–always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants–she invariably being one–I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it” (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105).

Abercrombie went on to explain that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed the reprimand with others and had told them that “as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station” (Ibid.). Abercrombie then said that Washington “never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday” (Ibid.).


John Adams: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

Benjamin Franklin, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.”

and of course

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers – two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Those that tore us from the paternal care of His Majesty King George and the British Crown tore us from the very heart of our existence. For these reasons,as well as others, I will get into in other posts are the crux of the reasons why I consider myself to be a monarchist. I support all monarchies, regardless of religious affiliation. In all things, God save the Queen and all monarchies of the world!

Orthodox Christian Monarchist Loyalist

29 August 10

When I am asked at times where I stand on the religio-socio-political spectrum this is my response. It is funny the looks I get when I tell this to people.

I have wanted to post on this topic for a while but refrained due to the responses I might get. Then I realised something. Considering the number of visits this blog gets and the people that comment on my posts it is a pretty good chance that there will be more agreement on my position than the opposite.

I am going to start a series of posts on monarchy, and the idea of being a Loyalist and the “whats” and “whys” of my position. I shall begin this series tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

God save the Queen!