Thank you for visiting! Please feel free to leave a comment. I accept anonymous comments as long as they are polite.

All written content is protected by copyright but if you wish to contact me regarding the content of this blog, please feel free to do so via the contact form.

Please pay a visit, too, to HILLIARD & CROFT


Christina Croft at Amazon

Wednesday 22 February 2017

Win a Free Audiobook

To celebrate the launch of the audiobook 'The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II', I am offering a prize of a free download of the book to one Audible customer in the USA and to one in the UK for the following competition. Using the 'contact form' on this blog, please write which of my books is your favourite and why; or, if you have not yet read any of my work, which you would most like to read...and why. In your message, please include your email address and whether you are in the UK or the US. The winning entries will be posted on the blog.

If you are not an Audible customer, you can still read the book by signing up for a free trial and selecting: 'The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II'. 

The competition will close this Sunday, 26th February 2017.  

Sunday 19 February 2017

What Is and Isn't Acceptable - Has the World Gone Mad?

It is alarming and bizarre to see that there was such an outcry on Twitter because America's First Lady began a speech by reciting The Lord's Prayer.

...But there is no outcry about the amount of satanic imagery presented even to very young children by the music industry. Very young girls imitate the weird 'dances' of these people, who choose to perform in dark theatres surrounded by dancers dressed as devils...

...use satanic gestures...

....and even present imagery of satanic sacrifices...

...but they complain about Melania Trump saying a prayer???

Saturday 18 February 2017

Fake News Is Not a Modern Phenomenon

Fake News is anything but a modern phenomenon. It is an art perfected by newspaper editors and the bankers, industrialists and shady figures who stood behind them in the days leading up to the First World War. As far back as 1815, the Rothschilds made a fortune by implying to the Stock Exchange that Napoleon had won the war. The stocks were sold at a low price, the Rothschilds purchased them and were later able to sell them back at a massive profit. In 1895, the Kaiser warned the Tsar that journalists were making mischief to stir up international tensions; and the British Prime Minister, Asquith, later warned the Kaiser that shady groups controlling the press were doing immense damage in both countries. In 1909, Lord Northcliffe printed a series of articles suggesting that the Germans were about to invade Britain; and soon afterwards an American journalist stated:
“There is no such thing as an independent press in America. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country for what amounts to his daily bread – his salary. We are the tools and vassals of the men behind the scenes. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings and we dance.”
It was largely due to the fake news in the Russian press, stating falsely that the Germans had mobilised that led to such patriotic fervour that the Tsar, too, felt obliged to mobilise. More disturbingly still, as I show in my book, ‘The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II’, in 1917, the Congressman Oscar Callaway:
 ‘...accused the banker, J.P. Morgan, and a syndicate of steel and railway magnates, of gathering a group of twelve influential pressmen who would gradually take over one-hundred-and-seventy-nine American newspapers to ensure that the public would only read articles supporting policies which would best suit the financial interests of the syndicate.’  
It often seems we all need to look way beyond the headlines and newspaper reports. When the press and other media attack a person in a position of power, such as a president, so mercilessly, it immediately begs the questions: What are they afraid of? And what are they really tying to achieve? And, more importantly, who truly is behind it?

Tuesday 14 February 2017

A Lesser Known Royal Romance

A lesser known story than that of the romances of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, and Tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra, is the equally lovely story of Queen Victoria’s cousin, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary. At one time the Prince had been a potential candidate for the hand of the Queen of Spain but he would eventually marry for love a former child prodigy, actress, soprano and concert pianist, Constance Geiger. This account of their story is taken from my book “Queen Victoria’s Cousins.”
“Miss Geiger, however, did not fit the popular image of a disreputable actress, for, as a highly gifted musician, she had been viewed as a child prodigy and had progressed from acting to performing as both a soprano and concert pianist. To supplement her income she also gave music lessons in Vienna but, when her father died, her mother opened a dressmaker’s shop in which Constance was forced to work as a saleswoman.
By chance, one of her regular clients was the wife of the proprietor of a local hotel where Prince Leopold regularly dined. One day, the two men fell into a conversation about music, during which the proprietor mentioned his wife’s connection to the former child prodigy, Constance Geiger. Intrigued, Leopold visited the shop and, after speaking with Constance, was so enamoured that he made many more visits until a liaison developed, resulting the birth of a son in April 1860.
Constance’s many accomplishments could not compensate for her lack of royal blood, and the Austrian court was aghast when Leopold chivalrously announced his intention of marrying her. When his request for a title for her was denied, he demonstrated his respect and love for his bride, by arranging a lavish public wedding, presided over by Joseph Rauscher, the Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. On the way to the church, Leopold rode proudly beside Constance’s carriage, which was emblazoned with his coat of arms and surrounded by footmen and outriders; and, once inside, he further asserted her right to be viewed as his equal by offering her his right hand, rather than the left, which was the usual custom in the case of a morganatic marriage. When questioned about this, he boldly replied that, since his own mother was not of royal blood, he and Constance were equal in the sight of God, and, by rights, in the eyes of society.
Fifteen months later, Constance was granted the title Baroness Ruttenstein, but, while Queen Victoria and Leopold’s brother, the former King Ferdinand of Portugal, welcomed her into the family, his other brother, Gusti, was pressed by his wife, Clementine of Orléans, to refuse to acknowledge her. Viennese society was equally disdainful of the dressmaker’s daughter so the couple lived mainly in Paris, where Leopold purchased a villa near the Bois de Boulogne. There, they formed a cultured and lively circle of friends, including such luminaries as the actress, Sarah Bernhardt, and the Swedish soprano, Christine Nilsson.”


Monday 13 February 2017

The Kaiser Was Not Preparing For War

This is a brief clip from the Audible version of 'The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II', illustrating an important observation from a contemporary American commentator, explaining one reason why it is erroneous to believe that the Kaiser wanted - or was preparing for - war.

 The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II

Friday 10 February 2017

Kaiser Wilhelm II - Available as an Audiobook

I am delighted that 'The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II' is now available as an audio book. Brilliantly read by the wonderful Jack Wynters, it is available now on Audible where a sample of the book can be heard; and it will be available on iTunes and via Amazon within a couple of days.

Wednesday 8 February 2017

A Very Strange Kind of Love

What is all this Love Trumps Hate business? It seems to be a very strange kind of love that goes out onto the streets leaving an awful mess for someone else to clear up.
It is an even stranger kind of love that not only attacks the President but also his family including his young son.
It is a weird kind of love which accuses a man of being sexist then sets out to destroy a business woman by removing her products from countless shops just because she his daughter.
It is a very weird kind of love which claims to be against racism but then mocks the alleged racist’s wife for her supposedly poor English (even though she speaks five languages!).
It is a very, very, very strange sort of love that inspires attention-seeking singers and actors to jump on the bandwagon and say they would like to blow up the White House.
It is a strange kind of love that makes one person the scapegoat for all the evils in society, and rakes up things that happened over a decade ago to prove a point.
It is a strange kind of love that makes it alright for one President to impose a ban on immigrants than rages in anger because another does it for a shorter time.
There’s so much hypocrisy around all of this, that is quite startling!

Tuesday 7 February 2017

The Suffragettes Would Be Horrified by Today's Feminism

Part of what drove Emmeline Pankhurst to found the Women's Social & Political Union (known as the Suffragettes) was her experience as a Poor Law Guardian when she saw how pregnant women were treated, and when she saw that many were later separated from their babies. She wrote of that time:

“I found that there were pregnant women in that workhouse, scrubbing floors, doing the hardest kind of work, almost until their babies came into the world. Many of them were unmarried women, very, very young, mere girls. These poor mothers were allowed to stay in the hospital after confinement for a short two weeks. Then they had to make a choice of staying in the workhouse and earning their living by scrubbing and other work, in which case they were separated from their babies; or of taking their discharges. They could stay and be paupers, or they could leave with a two-weeks-old baby in their arms, without hope, without home, without money, without anywhere to go. What became of those girls, and what became of their hapless infants? That question was at the basis of the women guardians demand for a reform of one part of the Poor Law.” 

On other occasions she wrote of babies being sent out to 'baby farms' and her horror at the way they were treated. Above all, she stressed the importance of the care of pregnant women so that the babies would be born healthy, and also the need to allow mothers to stay with their babies. She was absolutely horrified by women who had been driven to infanticide as a result of their poverty.

How then can so-called 'feminists' dare to claim the right to be following in the footsteps of the suffragettes, when they claim that abortion is a woman's right? People should, by all means, be free to express their opinions, but it is shameful and wrong to claim to be continuing the work of the very brave women who risked their lives not only for the welfare of women but also for the welfare of helpless children, born or unborn.