King Charles the Last and the Curse of Rasputin!

Two hundred and fifty years ago, Americans rejected the British Monarchy, which is why I can't understand the American news media wasting so much time on the antics of one of the monarchy's errant members, Prince Harry, and his American-born wife, mattress actress (Rachel) Meghan Markle.

The concept of monarchy and aristocracy is based on social inequality, of superior and inferior classes.

The accident of birth determines the status of people born into such a system.

And since such royal and aristocratic families considered themselves to be closed clubs to keep their blood pure, extensive intermarriage between cousins, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews were not unheard of.

In fact, they were downright common.

So common that the resultant mental problems and physical deformities that resulted from such inbreeding were merely considered to be the price one paid for having such pure royal or aristocratic blood, and didn't prevent the unfortunate offspring from such unions to be considered prime candidates on the marriage market.

Such was the case of Carlos II ( El Hechizado, "the bewitched") of Spain.

Of his 178 ancestors, his parents shared 164 of them. This consanguineous genetic bottleneck resulted in a severely malformed mind and body.

His jaws didn't close, so he couldn't chew. He could barely walk, had water on the brain, was sterile and it was considered a miracle that he survived infancy, let alone reaching the age of thirty-nine.

Yet the near-holy regard for the blood royal resulted in him being married twice in desperate attempts to preserve the line of the Spanish Habsburgs, which failed.

You might want to check out Carlos II's biography on Wikipedia.

Such were the results of the social inequalities imposed upon society by the institutions of monarchy and aristocracy.

And you might want to thank God that we rejected hereditary monarchy here, because we have all seen how crazy some of our politicians and political dynasties have been without inbreeding!

The result of that inbreeding can be seen among the surviving European monarchies, although there has been some fresh blood admitted into the royal circles with varying levels of success.

Most European monarchies have long since ceased to operate on the principle of the Divine Right of Kings and have become constitutional monarchies, where the monarch has little to no power apart from being a figurehead for the historic unity of the state.

Nor do they have the right to state an opinion about anything that hasn't been approved of by their governments, elected by the people.

That does not preclude the various royal families from being encased in a cocoon of enormous wealth, prestige and privilege.

The ultimate example of which is the British Royal Family.

That the British people choose to maintain such an expensive institution is their business.

Unfortunately, since the near moronic, whining second son of the current monarch, King Charles III lives here with his equally clueless wife, the American news media keeps falling all over itself to interview this gruesome twosome, who are completely useless and uninteresting apart from their connection to the British Royal Family.

Right now, there is a huge media feeding frenzy over whether or not Harry and his wife will be invited to his father's coronation in May after all of the scurrilous accusations they have made about the British Royal Family and the British people.

Many Brits don't want them to attend and are threatening to "boo" them if they show up.

Many Americans argue that if Harry and his wife aren't invited to the coronation that it is proof of British racism.

This seems to suit Harry and his wife just fine, since it provides plenty of opportunities to blackmail King Charles III, and we've seen that there is nothing that the gruesome twosome won't do for money or to propel themselves into the limelight.

Really, they are just a pair of royal whores.

People are getting sick and tired of them, and their popularity is tanking into the negative numbers.

And King Charles III is too much of a wuss to lay down the law to his son. And he says nothing!

King Charles III could show that he has a set of balls and simply ban the two of them from attending the coronation.

If he did that now, yes, there would be a media feeding frenzy for a few weeks, but it would die down considerably before the coronation.

It would show him to be a man of strength, that he is concerned about putting the traditions of the monarchy ahead of coddling his uncontrollable brat.

A weakling king is the last thing the Dominions of the British Commonwealth wants or needs, especially at a time when so many Commonwealth nations are seeking to remove the British monarch as their Head of State.

People are saying if he can't control his socially divisive spoiled brat son and daughter-in-law under wraps, how can he act as a unifying figure of the United Kingdom, let alone the Commonwealth?

Even some Brits are wondering why they continue to maintain an expensive and archaic institution while they are suffering under a state of economic collapse, an illegal immigrant problem and a breakdown in social cohesion with no end seemingly in sight.

In short, should Charles III become Charles the Last?

It would be ironic if that were the case, because the only reason for his existence was to succeed to the Crown, and he has waited for seventy years (that's right, SEVENTY years, since his mother became queen) in order to do so.

Yet it was predicted, by a most unlikely source, more than a hundred years ago, way before even Charles's father was a twinkle in HIS father's eye.

Anybody remember Rasputin?

He was the mad "monk" whose dissolute behavior at the court of the last Tsar of Russia led to the alienation of the Russian aristocracy from the autocracy just prior to the Russian Revolutions of 1917.

The first of the two revolutions, that of February-March (the difference of the dates depends on whether you use the Julian or Gregorian calendar) saw the autocracy collapse, owing to the moral vacuum in Russia caused by Rasputin's behavior, rather than being overthrown, and burying the provisional government under Kerensky in its debris.

However, before World War I began. Rasputin did warn Tsar Nicholas II "Let not Papa Nicholas make war."

Tsar Nicholas II was the first cousin of Charles's great grandfather, King George V.

Rasputin also predicted that the British monarchy would last until a Battenberg became king!

This seemed far-fetched at the time because King George V had five sons who would presumably marry and have sons of their own to continue the line of the House of Windsor.

Yet his youngest son, John, was barely a teenager when he died of epilepsy. His eldest son reigned briefly as Edward VIII before abdicating to marry a twice-divorced American woman, Mrs. Simpson.

Shades of Rachel Meghan Markle.

Edward VIII had no children and was succeeded by his next brother as George VI, who had only two daughters, the eldest of whom became Queen Elizabeth II.

Now the potential for Rasputin's prediction became a reality. Elizabeth would have to marry somebody, and the name of the Royal House would be changed to that of her husband's family when their issue succeeded to the throne.

Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, who chose the surname "Mountbatten" when he acquired British citizenship before he was made Duke of Edinburgh on his marriage.

His mother was formerly Princess Alice of Battenberg (a great-grand-daughter of Queen Victoria) and Mountbatten was merely an anglicization of his mother's German title.

When Elizabeth II succeeded to the Crown, she stated that the British Royal House would remain that of "Windsor," but the surnames of her descendants would be "Mountbatten-Windsor."

That is King Charles III's surname, and thus a Battenberg sits on the British throne!

"A rose by any other name..."

Half of Rasputin's prediction has thus come to pass. Only the continued apparent weakness of King Charles III will ensure that the rest of it comes true.

It really won't affect us in America, anyway, if it does.

We have enough to worry about with the antics of our senile horse's ass of a president and his dissolute and uninspiring administration to care what happens to the British monarchy.

We weren't overly concerned when the Greeks sent their last king packing almost sixty years ago, so why should we worry about Britain doing the same?