The Kingdom of Heaven

I think often that heaven is far closer and more accessible than we know. It cannot possibly be simply a ‘place’ we go to when we die. Heaven, I was taught as a child, is where God is; and at the same time was told that God is omnipresent – therefore to those who believe in heaven, it must be with us now. ‘The Kingdom of Heaven is within you’ or ‘among you’ (depending on the translation). It seems to me that physical life is but one aspect of who we are. In physical life there appears to be time but there are moments when we ‘glimpse eternity’ and realise that time, like so much else, is only a tool to help us order our lives. Beyond time, beyond all the boundaries that we put in place to create order, it often feels that in the timelessness of everything, we have access to all that has ever been and all that ever will be, since it all is really in the great ‘eternal now’.

Believing that to be so, it has always seemed perfectly logical to me that we can talk as freely and as naturally with those who are no longer in physical life, as we can with those around us. I do not mean table-tapping or Ouija boards or any of the other weird and dark things people use – on the contrary, I mean that through the purity of our own being and the Light of the Divinity within us, we can be in tune with anyone from any place or any time. Churches have always believed this – prayer, conversations with saints etc. are not dark and do not require darkened rooms or spooky goings-on; they are light and pure and natural. It was always perfectly natural to me to converse with saints, since that is what my Catholic upbringing showed me. It only began to dawn on me later that many saints were not really very nice people, and many had been canonised for political reasons...in fact some were downright racist, sexist, bigoted and quite nasty pieces of work. If, however, it was perfectly natural to converse with those people, was it not equally natural to converse with anyone?

It seems that there are wavelengths on which we operate and some of these coincide with the wavelengths of others, and just as we are attracted to or have a rapport with those around us though sometimes we do not know why we are just drawn to some people, we can be equally drawn to or have a rapport with those who are no longer on earth and from that place we are perfectly in-tune with them. It is a very remarkable and beautiful experience, I think. Some people might consider this a load of balderdash but I believe it.

On the anniversary of the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, I cannot help but think of the sheer joy that both of them experienced at the moment of their ‘death’. Such a horrific event, so pre-meditated and with such dire consequences for humanity (and for their beloved children), and yet whenever I think of them on this day, I have such a powerful sense of the joy that they both felt – a great release and a huge amount of laughter and exhilaration.

Did you ever attend a funeral expecting to be moved and tearful only to find it was an amazingly joyous and uplifting occasion? If so, maybe you’ll agree with these thoughts about Franz Ferdinand and Sophie.

Ninety-Seven Years Ago Tonight

Ninety-seven years ago this evening, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, hosted a banquet for officers and local dignitaries at their hotel in Bosnia. The orchestra of the Sarajevo garrison played for them and I imagine that on a summer evening, the guests were entertained to such beautiful and popular music as Strauss’ Roses from the South and the Emperor Waltz. (Strauss' music being the epitome of Vienna at that time, I put his picture here).
That evening was so perfect for Franz Ferdinand. Someone once said that the three ingredients to happiness are something to enjoy, something to look forward to, and someone to love. In his role as Inspector of the Imperial Army, Franz Ferdinand had just witnessed a successful series of military manoeuvres and, considering that he had often despaired of the state of the Austrian army, that must have come as a great relief to him. He had, only weeks earlier, cultivated a friendship with Kaiser Wilhelm and together they had planned closer co-operation with Russia and the other major powers. More importantly to Franz Ferdinand, he had enjoyed a summer of seeing his wife accepted by the people at the races and at the opera; and he had spent time with his beloved children. He certainly had something to enjoy.
Tomorrow would be his fourteenth wedding anniversary and, perhaps for the first time, he and Sophie would travel together in the same motorcade – no longer would she be relegated to the role of an inferior. What’s more, he would have the chance to explain his views on giving greater autonomy to the different regions of the Empire. His uncle, Emperor Franz Josef, weakened by his recent bout of bronchitis, could not be emperor forever and very soon, it would seem, Franz Ferdinand would be able to implement his own ideas. He had a lot to look forward to.
And Sophie beside him. This woman, for whom he had endured the alienation of his family and the court, and who was probably the only person in his life (apart from their children) who truly understood him, meant more to him than anything. He truly loved her.
Yes, indeed, I imagine Franz Ferdinand was very happy on this night, ninety-seven years ago.

His murder the next day was such a major world event that there hasn’t ever been a history book about the First World War that doesn’t mention him. Even in my ‘O’ level classes and the rather dull text books that described this amazing time, there was a faint photograph of him on that fateful day, and, in the index of the book there was only one reference to him to say he was murdered and consequently war broke out.

His murder and the subsequent slaughter was not, I am sure, merely the work of some tubercular student with notions of nationalism, but rather a well-defined plot in which Princips was only the ‘patsy’. Had this man lived, the history of the 20th Century would have been very different but, since we cannot directly change the past, we can, at least, recognise the true character of a man who – like so many others – had been so maligned or ‘written off’ by historians.

I am so glad that his last evening was spent with his beloved Sophie and that, it seems, he was truly happy that night.

"For the Children"

I guess that in moments of extreme physical danger reactions are not always indicative of a person’s character. I once saw a documentary about ‘Heroes’ which included several interviews with people who had been in perilous situations, some of whom had later been hailed as heroes and others as cowards. One example was a man who, on a sinking ferry, turned himself into a human bridge, risking his own life so that others could literally walk over him to safety. He was later awarded for his courage and yet he said that he had suffered nightmares ever since and didn’t remember anything of his thoughts at the time. On the same programme was a woman who, in a panic to escape from a burning plane, had trodden on her fallen fiancé's body in her desperate attempt to escape. Her fiancé died and she had lived with a great burden of guilt ever since. Both reactions, it seemed, were spontaneous and one certainly could not condemn that poor woman who, in different circumstances might well have been a heroine.

Having said that, it seems that in times in heightened emotion people tend to become most truly themselves. Some people become very calm and quiet and ‘something else’ appears to take over (I consider that ‘something else’ to be their true self, and the God within each of us). Others tend to panic or talk a lot or burst into tears or behave in ways that appear out-of-character and that seems to me to be a desperate need to control the situation from a solely physical aspect. Either way, sooner or later, it all comes down to who we really are – that powerful Divine life that is the very breath of our being.

One thing (among many!) that seems to be often forgotten about Franz Ferdinand, is what he said when the fatal bullet struck him. This man, who is so often relegated to a footnote in history and so mistakenly described as nothing more than a bull-headed angry man, at the moment of his death said to his wife as she died in his arms, "Little Sophie [Sopherl, Sopherl] you have to live for the children....” A term of beautiful endearment to his wife, and his thoughts turned at once to their children. It says a great deal about the man, I think, that this was his priority at that moment. What a loving and devoted husband, in an age where many men of his station kept mistresses; and what a loving father, in an age where many men of his station had little to do with their children. Had the First World War not been stage-managed to come about as a result of his murder, I really believe that history would have learned to see him in a very different light. I hope with all my heart that “Shattered Crowns: The Scapegoats” (which is very close to publication) will at least begin to touch on the reality of this much maligned and misrepresented man.

"If I Ruled the World"

It’s not surprising that the phrase “divide and conquer” is taken from the Latin ‘divide et impera‘ since this age-old practice goes back to the Romans and probably even earlier. If you want to take control of another country, one way of achieving your aim is to rouse discord among the people, divide them and then step into the chaos and take charge. I think this tactic was probably used by the Romans in Palestine/Israel in New Testament times, when Herod the Great’s sons inherited different parts of his kingdom. A more modern example is Bismarck’s incitement of the Magyars, following the Austro-Prussian War, so that they would basically rabble-rouse against their Austrian ‘overlords’ and in so doing would weaken Franz Josef’s Empire. (Alas, all over the world, we see the same strategy being carried out today).

While writing Shattered Crowns: The Scapegoats, so many things struck me as disturbing and having parallels in the long past and in the present. One aspect of the First World War that cannot be overlooked is that in 1914 there were 4 major autocratic powers in Europe (the fourth might be called under another name): Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia and the Church (in fact 2 Churches: Orthodoxy and Catholicism). If you or I were – as in a game - of a mind to take control of trade, industry, banking and above all the mind-set, beliefs and aspirations of humanity, autocracies would be the first obstacle to be overcome, particularly if those autocracies were built on deep-seated beliefs such as religion. Russia, a deeply spiritual and independent nation wherein Orthodoxy and Tsardom were so intertwined, and Austria-Hungary, the ‘Apostolic Empire’ with its close connections to the Roman Catholic Church, would be the prime targets. By 1914, Austria-Hungary was already disintegrating, but there was a danger that if the elderly Emperor Franz Josef died and his nephew, the forward-thinking Franz Ferdinand, were to succeed him, the Empire, through Franz Ferdinand’s reforms could not only be restored but could also make peace with its neighbours. (Two weeks before Franz Ferdinand’s fatal trip to Sarajevo, he entertained Kaiser Wilhelm at one of his country estates and the two men discussed, among other things, greater co-operation with Russia and the need to create peace in the Balkans.)

By 1918 the autocracies had been wiped out and with them Orthodoxy and Catholicism no longer held any territorial weight in Europe. Those past autocrats could be either wiped out of history (as happened in Soviet Russia) or portrayed quite differently to the reality (that, too, is an old trick – look how Richard III was described by the usurping Tudors! – and so it continued with ‘weak’ Nicholas and ‘mad’ Wilhelm). Society could be first secularised and then ‘dumbed down’, fed a diet of sex and shopping, pleasure-seeking and desperation, ‘action films’ and advertisements. Hey-ho! Now we can brainwash the world and people become mere puppets, repeating the old histories....

The only problem is that if you ever lay concrete flags in a garden and build walls and sanitise everything, little sprouts of green still push between the flags, weeds and flowers flourish in the most unlikely places and Nature continues to show her face no matter how much effort you put in to oppressing her. People will go on fighting wars without meaning and others will go on in their game of control but really the human spirit and the depths of Spirituality, Life and Humanity in all its forms can never be crushed by these games. Sooner or later the Truth always comes out.

(Personally, to quote a song, 'If I ruled the world....' I'd say to everyone, "Here, you rule you, and I'll rule me and we'll all get along just fine!")

"Shattered Crowns: The Scapegoats"

The first novel in my trilogy, Shattered Crowns, is shortly to be released. The trilogy follows the royalties of Europe from 1913 to 1918 and the first novel (1913 to the outbreak of the First World War) has the subtitle The Scapegoats. I chose this title because, after ploughing through so many opposing opinions and documents, and from thinking of the characters involved it is clear that Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm and, to a lesser extent, Emperor Franz Josef have been made the scapegoats for such a terrible war whereas not one of them – not even the Kaiser! – wanted war.

It is particularly striking, seeing how they were – against their will - hoodwinked, cajoled and pressurised by ministers and others into allowing the war to happen, that these three monarchies were destroyed by the war. It is so striking that it seems almost a deliberate plot to overthrow them, particularly when you consider that both Russia and Germany refused to be drawn into the international banking legislation of the time and were fiercely independent. I firmly believe that – after years of trying to make sense of how this terrible war came about – the real cause lies very deeply hidden in something far more sinister that can easily be described here.

I am, however, far more interested in interesting people than in politics and one of the most interesting revelations to me during my research is the character of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This man, whom most people remember only because his murder is said to be the cause of WW1, was a far greater and more perceptive man than the hot-headed, unpopular person he is usually shown to be. His ideas for future government of Austria-Hungary (based on the American idea of independent states and a federal government); his determination to refuse to be crowned King of Hungary until universal suffrage was granted; his understanding of the balance of power and his opposition to the annexing of Bosnia-Herzegovina, are quite wonderful!

Interesting, isn’t it, that he was invited to Sarajevo on his wedding anniversary and Sophie, his beloved wife who had been so shunned in Vienna was also invited to appear with him in public that day? Did someone fail to mention that it was also a day of great national symbolism for the Serbs (St. Vitus Day – the anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo). Strange how, in such a turbulent area, there was no military protection...even stranger how, after the first attempt on his life, he was still driven in an open car through the streets and the car took a wrong turning - because the driver hadn’t been informed of the change of route to the hospital – and so had to reverse into the path of the killer. Strange too that we accept that the Black Hand was a recognised criminal organisation who had carried out many atrocities when, in fact, apart from a couple of so-called failed or aborted assassination attempts, I cannot find any evidence of their supposed crimes. Also, if that group was – as Austrian ministers claimed – made up of military officers and high ranking Serbian officials, would they choose some drop-out nineteen year old student to carry out so important an assassination? There is a great deal more to say of this but perhaps it is inappropriate here.

To the end of her life, Empress Zita maintained that there was something far more
sinister about the plot to kill Franz Ferdinand than meets the eye. In the aftermath of war, Franz Ferdinand has largely been forgotten; Kaiser Wilhelm (who was always a bit unbalanced) has been made out to be the mad and evil plotter - though he was tryng desperately - in the midst of his many hang-ups - to avoid war and he vehemently opposed the invasion of Belgium; and Tsar Nicholas (who was way ahead of many others in his understanding of and attempts to bring a peaceful solution to the
Balkans wars, and who worked often through the night with no rest in his attempts to broker peace) is portrayed as dancing on the deck of his yacht letting the world go to hell in a handcart because he was ‘weak’. Amazing how easily often repeated stories begin to be believed.

"Shattered Crowns: The Scapegoats" isn’t an attempt to change perceived history or anything of the sort, but is rather written out of love and respect for these ‘scapegoats’ of history.

"Golden Fleece"

What a treasure of a book I received as a gift last week! Bertita Harding’s “Golden Fleece” – the story of Franz Josef and Sissi of Austria. Apart from the wonderful feel and smell of the paper that only comes with ‘old’ books(this was published in 1939) the style and brilliance of the author is so appealing that it is amazing that she isn’t better known!

Written in the style of a novel but totally true to history, this book is a masterpiece of psychology, humour and sincere respect for its subjects.The style sometimes reminds me of Dickens – the little asides that are universally and timelessly amusing – but is far less heavy; and the story itself is told in such a captivating way that it is both hugely informative and easy to read. There are magical, but not verbose, descriptions and anecdotes, and each page reads like watching a film unfold. There are moments when I literally laugh out loud at some of the occasional comments (e.g. regarding Sissi’s parents: “Marriage had been difficult, a matter of mostly avoiding each other. Even so, eight children....bore witness to an occasional meeting...” or, of her father, Duke Max, “He rejoiced in the reputation of being the most unpractical man of his time.”) but – true to the formula of ‘make ‘em laugh, make ‘em cry’ – there is such insight into the characters that you can feel Sissi’s grief and frustration without being allowed to succumb to it. Basically, the author grasps how both Emperor Franz Josef Empress Elizabeth felt at various times, so we understand exactly their position, but at the same time the author manages to point out (often with small humorous phrases) that their feelings were not necessarily their finest feelings.

Bertita Harding, about whom I can find very little information, must have been one of the most underrated authors of her age; and one of the most underrated authors of royal history. This book is really one to treasure!

Happy 90th Birthday to Prince Philip

A very Happy 90th Birthday to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He might have made many controversial comments and he is the very opposite of ‘political correctness’ (which is sometimes rather refreshing!) but he has carried out his duties as Prince Consort so diligently for over fifty years.

Although this picture (taken with Prince Philip's uncle, Lord Louis Mountbatten)
doesn’t quite capture it, I think there is a definite likeness between him and his grandmother, Victoria of Hesse/Battenberg/Milford Haven who played such a major role in his upbringing. I would venture that Victoria was probably the cleverest and most well-read of all Queen Victoria’s granddaughters, and was a remarkably strong personality. Princess Marie Louise’s descriptions of Victoria’s response to the news of the murder of her sister, Alix, Tsarina of Russia, and her entire family are incredibly moving. For three weeks after hearing that devastating news, Marie-Louise says, Victoria quietly worked in the gardens. Shortly afterwards, she also received news of her sister, Ella’s murder, and she was responsible for having Ella’s body taken to the Holy Land.

Victoria was a very strong and fascinating character....her grandson, Prince Philip, must be so proud of and grateful for her influence.

Those Whom The Gods Would Destroy...

When I was a very small child, I sat each afternoon on my grandmother’s knee (literally!) while she sang songs from the First World War and told me stories of people she had known and loved who were killed on various battlefields, and her sister-in-law who gassed herself when she received news of her young husband’s death on the Somme. That’s a bit of an odd start in life, when you think of Teletubbies and Thomas the Tank Engine and The Mister Men and the bright lovely stories that are more suitable to our formative years. However, the First World War always disconcerted and fascinated me and for a very long time I have tried to understand what really happened and why so many people became involved in such madness that makes no sense whatsoever.

For the past couple of years, I have been researching various aspects of that war for my forthcoming book, which will very soon be available and is the first of a trilogy of novels based on the lives of the royalties of the era, concentrating in the first novel on the Austrian Archdukes Franz Ferdinand and Karl, and the German Kaiser Wilhelm (more of the book anon!). What has been far more disconcerting than my grandmother’s stories are some of the things that have come to light about these people, and who was really behind the First World War. I am not by nature a suspicious person but the deeper you delve into these things, the murkier it becomes. There is so much to write about this but for now there are two things that specifically come to mind.

The first is a quotation from Euripedes: “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” I very much doubt that the ‘gods’ would act so malevolently but it seems pretty certain that those whom the victors would destroy, they first describe as insane. Kaiser Wilhelm is a prime example.
He is largely portrayed as a complete megalomaniac and war-monger when, in fact, despite his difficulties (and I don’t dispute that he was, to say the least, a little caught up in his own love-hate relationship with his mother and his need for acceptance and affection), he had been the autocrat of one of the most peaceable countries in Europe for the first twenty-five years of his reign and his outbursts of aggression were largely in response to what he saw (probably accurately) as attempts to undermine his ‘new’ nation.

The second specific thought, which is far more disconcerting, brings to mind the
innkeeper, Thénardier, from Victor Hugo’s ‘Les Miserables’. A long chapter of that brilliant book describes Thénardier stealing from the corpses on the battlefield of Waterloo. He is obviously an unpleasant and unscrupulous character but, while researching the First World War book, it became apparent to me that this grave-robbing and profiteering is small-scale compared to the much grander scale of people who nowadays appear very respectable but have made a fortune from wars. Since historical events cannot be isolated, my research led back to the Napoleonic Wars and the French Revolution and again and again the same families appear....I would go so far as to say that there were certain people and certain families (who still operate successfully today) who deliberately set out to undermine the power of autocracies – particular the autocracies of Austria-Hungary and Russia – in order to create chaos and implement their own agenda.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not subscribe to any particular political party or have an unflinching affiliation to a particular religion. I believe wholeheartedly in the wonder and beauty of humanity and that all Life is an expression the Divine and therefore that all people and all creatures are incredibly precious. I simply wanted to know why so many people died for nothing in the First World War (and why that great-aunt was driven to gas herself in 1916), and it opened a can of worms which a few years ago I would never have believed. It seems that very few things really are as they first appear.

A Role Model for Another Generation

People often speak of the need for good role models for the young but, in my experience, it’s not the youth who need role models so much as older people! In fact, it is quite often older people who are very set in their ways and love to complain (and they probably complained about something else when young) who speak of the ‘youth of today’ as being so wayward.

It was ever thus. This is a quotation from Socrates in the 3rd Century B.C. ”Young people today love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they disrespect their elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Young people now are tyrants...They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannise their teachers....”

It’s not politically correct to admit this but walking into shopping centres or queuing in the Post Office, it isn’t young people who drop the door in your face or ram their shopping trolley into your ankles or moan and sigh about the length of the queue – it is more often than not elderly people.

I would (smilingly – tongue in cheek) misquote Socrates by saying that quite often, “Elderly people today love being waited upon; they have bad manners,contempt for the young; they love to discuss their ailments instead of their successes. Some elderly people now are tyrants....”

Of course, this is a huge generalisation but I do believe that some people of more mature years have a greater need of role models than the young...and in Ireland this week, the Queen displayed all that is finest in her generation and what a great role model she is! Dignified, sensitive, devoted to her life’s calling, tactful, courageous, demonstrating both humility and dignity, using her years of experience to know exactly how to respond and converse with people of all different backgrounds, striding over that field towards the castle....

People might say, “Oh well, it’s different for her – she has always been waited upon....” but I know very few people (in fact none) of her age who have such a busy schedule and always appear at their best, smiling and being genuinely interested in other people. No matter how luxurious a lifestyle might appear, it’s tiring to travel and to fit in with a tight plan of events. Only a few weeks ago, she was entertaining people at Prince William’s wedding. In a few days she will be entertaining President Obama....and between those two events she managed to fit in one of the most historically significant visits of her reign! What a beautiful thing to see her interacting with the people of Cork today!

Let’s remember, too, that the Queen hasn’t been immune from family scandals, tragedies and dramas. She is the daughter of a reluctant king who suffered from a dreadful lack of self-esteem and reputedly had a strong temper; she lived through the Blitz and worked throughout the war when Britian was on the verge of defeat...I hugely admire Queen Victoria but I think our present Queen has outshone her in so many ways...not least for her example of how to live gracefully at any time of your life.

There is a lot to learn from people who have a great deal of experience...and it doesn’t need to involve a load of moaning and groaning about aches and pains and being ‘old’.

Long May She Reign!

As of yesterday, the Queen, having reigned for over fifty-nine years, is the second longest reigning (or, as it is reported on the news, the second longest serving) monarch Britain has ever known – the first, of course, being Queen Victoria, who reigned for sixty-three years.

It is very interesting that, considering that historically daughters only attain the crown if they have no surviving brothers, our greatest monarchs have been women. In my view, in the past thousand years, the monarchs who made the greatest impact on the country and world at large have been Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and our present Queen. Equally interesting are the similarities and differences between Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II.

Both were young when they came to the throne but whereas Victoria became queen at a
time when, thanks to the waywardness of her Hanoverian uncles, the royal family was held in low esteem, Queen Elizabeth arrived at a time when there was deep respect for the monarchy, due largely to her father’s courage and determination throughout the Second World War. Although their paths were dissimilar in so many ways, both dealt with rapidly changing times and the necessity of finding the balance between maintaining (or in Queen Victoria’s case establishing) tradition, and adapting to the mood of the country. After the death of ‘beloved Albert’ Queen Victoria withdrew from public gaze for about six years, consequently attracting a great deal of personal criticism and being described as self-indulgent in her grief to the extent that Republicanism seemed a very real possibility. The first time she appeared again in public, however, the crowds were even more enthusiastic and she remained a very loved and respected figure for the rest of her reign. After the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Queen Elizabeth kept her distance for a few days, consequently attracting a great deal o criticism from the press and being described as cold-hearted for failing to express grief. The newspapers had a field day in their misguided prophecies that this would mark the end of the monarchy. When Her Majesty returned a couple of days later to London, she was met with nothing but the sincere devotion and appreciation of the crowds. Queens, it seems, cannot do right for doing wrong in the journalists’ eyes, and yet now, after fifty-nine years on the throne, even the most cynical journalist would find it difficult to find anything for which the Queen could be criticised.


A wonderful sign of our times, perhaps, is the relative ‘youthfulness’ of our Queen compared to her great-great-grandmother. At the time of her Diamond Jubilee, Queen Victoria was only seventy-eight years old and yet she was driven in a carriage to St. Paul’s and remained in the carriage throughout the service as she was incapable
of walking unaided. The present Queen is eighty-five years old yet walked down the aisle of Westminster Abbey at the recent Royal Wedding, as brightly as ever. Queen Elizabeth has moved with the times without compromising the mystique of royalty or tradition. What a wonderful example she is of remaining true to your ideals, without being rigid!

(Incidentally, speaking of the age of the Queen, dreary people often say this has become the era of youth, in which the elderly are dismissed and overlooked. Well I say that is a jolly good thing! I grew up among elderly people who were grumpy and demanding and expected to be waited upon merely because they had lived a long time. Then I met elderly people who were so young in their outlook that they were inspiring and their life experience had created a wisdom that could be lightly and beautifully shared. Youth is not a matter of how long you’ve been here, it’s a matter of outlook and the ability to adapt. In my experience, the longer people live, the more they become themselves and so in reality, the older we get the healthier and brighter and more interesting we could become....but that is another story....)

The Kaiser and Archetypal Images

There was once a rare radio phone-in, which differed from many others in that it wasn’t just a whole load of people complaining about things, and it happened to be about racism. What made it wonderful was a call from a local taxi driver who said that, being short-tempered, whenever a poor driver pulled out in front of him without indicating or someone drove badly, it was his natural instinct to shout out about the first thing he saw in that person, “You stupid....” maybe it was the colour of their hair, or their facial hair or an older person or a young lad...whatever it was, he found the immediate phrase. The driver happened to be Asian and said that when he made a similar driving error, he understood why people shouted what might be taken as a racist comment at him. In fact he said he would have shouted the same comment about another person who looked like him! Of course, I am not advocating aggression or nasty personal comments in this post but this man’s honesty was not only a refreshing change from political correctness (whatever that means??) but also made a big impact on me.

Immediate images are more powerful than years of learning and in times of heightened emotion we resort to our immediate impressions and the archetypal images from childhood. Dark-haired men tweaking their curly moustaches are usually sinister; pretty little women, like fairies, are often innocent damsels in distress; hooded figures are frightening like the Grim Reaper and so on.

While researching for a forthcoming series of books about the royalties in the First World War, I have seen Kaiser Wilhelm II - for whom I have always felt affection, though thought him a little bizarre!! - in an entirely different light. One of the questions I have often asked myself is why he is still seen as either evil or an imbecile. A chance comment from a child to whom I showed a picture of the Kaiser led me to an interesting thought. The child said, without knowing anything about the Kaiser, “He looks like a Nazi.” When I asked what he meant, he replied, “He has that look about him...a wacky moustache and a strange arm.”

It suddenly dawned on me how Wilhelm’s image has been massively tarnished by Hitler, who is often viewed in the same light, though two men couldn’t be less alike! Have you noticed how Hitler, during speeches such as the one in this link, keeps his left arm pinned to his side while gesticulating with his right arm? He is imitating and distorting the mannerism of the Kaiser (who, of course, could not use his left arm due to an accident of birth). Hitler’s moustache, while completely different to that of the Kaiser, is an equally noticeable feature of his face.

Hitler

It is horrific to think that the image of the Kaiser – whom I firmly believe was a ‘good’ man who did his utmost to prevent war – has been so distorted by this shadow of the maniac Hitler. There is a great deal more to write in defence of Kaiser Wilhelm, whose image, I believe, has been so terribly distorted for the past hundred years. Again and again I return to the certainty that many of the charges levelled against him - like the charges of weakness levelled against Tsar Nicholas II - are completely without foundation.

No Man Is an Island

I will and do rejoice in the end of violence against any other human being or any animal or creature. Surely, though, it's impossible for any thinking/feeling person to rejoice in the death of any other part of humanity - no matter how violently that person has lived - without compromising our own humanity.

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

(John Donne)

Prince Harry as Tsar?

How incredible is this amazing story? I doubt it will come to pass but stranger things have happened...and what a lovely thing that would be!

Prince Harry as Tsar

Not So Desperate Flaws

I hesitated in writing this post as I do not know the full details and certainly do not wish to draw attention to a child's minor and correctible condition but, after reflection, decided to write it anyway.

One of the beautiful children at yesterday’s wedding was particularly delighted to be playing such a role because, until then, she has been kept away from photographers due to an eye condition, which creates a squint. This little girl looked absolutely beautiful yesterday and I am sure she is equally beautiful all of the time! I am a little aghast at the need to keep her away from being photographed until now, for so minor a reason?

The newspapers have often reported that the condition, which led to her being kept from the public gaze, is ‘rare’ – but I don’t believe that is true. It is a quite common occurrence (and I know this as I, too, grew up with it and have experienced this way of viewing the world). It’s no big deal. In fact, though it was a big deal in childhood (going around with nail varnish on one lens of my spectacles so that one eye would work harder; or being called various names like ‘speccie’ and ‘cross-eyed’) it became quite fascinating to me to think why things were as they were. After some painful surgery as a very small child, I used to go to church and pray for a cure...and - wonder of wonders! – at the age of 13 - I underwent surgery again and was told afterwards that I could throw away my glasses and probably wouldn’t need them again until I was about...17. Three decades have passed since then. I still don’t wear glasses and have better eyesight than many of my contemporaries! What really happened was that I decided it was no big deal and it stopped bothering me. In fact, I decided it was symbolic of having an eye in two worlds – that which is ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ and that which is, ‘aren’t things unpleasant’? - and whenever it bothered me physically, I realised it coincided with my not being focussed on ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’


On a much grander scale, though, it brings to mind the way in which some royal families have felt a need to conceal or protect their children, if there was the slightest hint of them not being ‘perfect’ in any way. Prince Leopold, Queen Victoria’s youngest son, was so often left out of royal visits because of his haemophilia. Prince John was sent to live apart from the rest of his family because of his epilepsy and other conditions. The haemophilia of the beautiful Tsarevich Alexei, was hidden from the public because his parents feared that people wouldn’t understand or would lose faith in the monarchy.


Perhaps the worst thing that parents can do – with the best intentions - is to try to hide their child’s condition. By hiding it, they exacerbate it and make a big deal out of something which, left to his/her own devices, the child is perfectly capable of dealing with or even healing. I do not honestly believe in the necessity of illness in any form, and, harsh as it sounds, so many lifelong invalids tend to be the victims of their parents’ well-meaning over-protectiveness. It’s okay to have a condition; it’s okay to be ill for a while – it’s all a question of balance and not being led into adopting the sick role.

The Royal Wedding!

Well...what can be said beyond: What a perfect day!

“Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious summer by this....” lovely wedding. It’s so much more than a day’s celebration. Like the Abbey, it’s a thousand years in the making: the perfect blending of royalty with the people.

There was a time when people blamed their kings and queens for all their ills. There was a time when kings and queens viewed their people with disdain. It has taken centuries for the two to come together and every step along the way has led to the lovely blend of dignity, pageant and respect with the fun and sense of camaraderie that we have seen today. Alongside all the implications for the nation, we shared the joy of two lovely people who are so perfectly suited and who are both fun-loving and dignified - what a perfect combination! I hope they are having a really happy party this evening in the palace!

God bless all of the many, many people behind the scenes who rehearsed in the early hours for months in advance to make this day so lovely for our country!

And every blessing upon Prince William and Princess Catherine! May they always be as beautiful and happy as they are today!

And thank heavens for the survival of the monarchy!!