FinermanWorks

George Bernard Shaw viewed morality as a middle class habit. The lower class was preoccupied with survival and couldn’t be sidetracked by puritanical affectations. The upper class could afford to enjoy itself without fear of consequences; it had etiquette rather than morals.

But one of the rules of etiquette dictated that a woman’s older children should be sired by her husband. Once she had dutifully extended the husband’s lineage, however, she could discreetly cross-pollinate. But in royal families, this latitude was not condoned. Cheating on the king was treason. Ask Catherine Howard for further details.

Nonetheless, some royal lines had their share of faux pas and faux heirs. We have already discussed Prince Albert’s doubtful paternity. Other royal families had their scandals, too. Of course, France would have its share of bedroom farces. For example, as the wife of Charle VI, Isabeau had given her husband a number of legitimate children; so she allowed herself a little indiscretion. Unfortunately, her older sons died, leaving her little indiscretion as the heir to the throne. Worse, she told everyone that the alleged dauphin was not the son of the king. However, the French in the 1420s were willing to crown any bastard in preference to acknowledging an English king (who happened to be the legitimate grandson of Charles VI and Isabeau). So France pretended that Charles VII was a Valois.

Two centuries later, France had two reigning queens: Anne of Austria and her husband Louis XIII. Louis was not even trying, and the Bourbon dynasty looked like it was about to expire. In most monarchies, a nephew or a cousin could succeed; but France had absurdly restrictive rules of succession. The king could trace his royal lineage only through the male side of the family. It did not matter if the previous king had sisters and they had sons; they were ineligible. That rigid law brought the Bourbons to the throne in 1589–when Henri III–the last Valois was stabbed to death by an irate monk. According to the laws of royal succession, his heir was his very distant cousin Henri of Bourbon–who shared one common great-great, etc. grandfather three hundred years earlier; but at least, it was a consistent male descent. If Louis XIII failed to have a son, the royal genealogists were not sure how far back they needed to go to find the next successor. Cardinal Richelieu feared for the future of France more than the soul of Anne of Austria. His eminence personally picked her confessor, a charming Italian named Mazarin. And soon the Queen had a heir and then another. The boys were rather short and stocky, while the Bourbons were tall and lanky; but Louis XIII did not mind the discrepancy. There would be a Louis XIV, and the details were irrelevant.

England might have had an illegitimate queen. George IV could not tolerate the presence of his wife, a surprisingly unclean German duchess named Caroline. When he was coronated, he had her locked out of Westminster Abbey. Rumors had it that he never spent more than one night with her; so people were surprised–if relieved–when Caroline had a daughter. George never publicly questioned the child’s origins and he recognized young Charlotte as his heir. If nothing else, his alleged daughter was his actual niece. According to rumor, George’s younger brother Frederick felt sorry for his insulted and unhappy sister-in-law, and he may have had an informal way of comforting her. In any case, Charlotte was the granddaughter of George III. If Princess Charlotte survived the rumors, she was not so fortunate against 19th century medicine. She lived long enough to be married and then died in childbirth.

The Bolsheviks did not kill the Romanovs. Catherine the Great had extinguished the line a century earlier. Killing her husband and producing a litter of bastards constituted a change of dynasty. Catherine did not even maintain a polite fiction as to her children’s paternity–especially the son born three years after her husband’s death. No better a mother than a wife, Catherine so disliked her heir that she relished telling him that he was no Romanov. However, his maternity was never in doubt, so he was allowed to succeed his malicious mother; and Tsar Paul maintained the name of Romanov.

And that should be enough scandals for today.

On this day in 1819 Louisa, Duchess of Saxe-Coburg, gave birth to her second son. The infant did not look remotely like her husband, a fact observed by the Duke. A new-born brunet–in a fair-haired family–raised some questions as to how close the Duchess had been with the court financier. (The child turned out to be highly intelligent–which also seemed to incriminate the financier.) However suspicious the Duke might be, he needed the financier more than a scandal. So the Duke assumed the paternity of the infant in question. Besides, he was confident that his wife’s first-born–blond and dumb–was definitely his.

Nonetheless, the Duke was prepared to part with his wife. The miserable couple separated and, having the advantage of being Protestant, divorced. The price of her freedom, however, was the loss of her children. Both boys were to be raised by the Duke. The older boy seemed unaffected by the family discord; Teutonic obtuseness has its virtues. The younger boy–perhaps less Teutonic–was all too aware of the scandal and the rumors. His response was to make himself beyond reproach. He was diligent, studious, and puritanical. Ironically, it only proved that he was no Saxe-Coburg, but he was a most admirable young man. Fortunately, he also happened to be handsome.

The young Queen of England certainly thought so. Victoria proposed to the handsome, refined and exemplary young man–and being a second son he really had no other job prospects. He consented and became her Prince Consort. The young woman was so enamoured that she remade herself to be everything that her husband would want. A giddy, self-indulgent Hanoverian became…well…a Victorian. But all the self-contained, industrious, and (let’s face it) self-righteous traits that we call Victorian would more accurately be called Albertian.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it also took three days to sack. The Visigoths ended their rampage on this day in 410.

At the time, Rome was little more than a very rich mausoleum. The Eastern–more stable–half of the Roman Empire was ruled from Constantinople. The Western, reeling half was now tenuously ruled from Ravenna. The Roman Empire had dispensed with Rome. Nonetheless, the former capital contained the accumulated treasures of Rome’s past glories, and the Visigoths wanted to pay their respects.

But where was the Roman army to prevent the barbarian rampage? Well, the barbarian horde was the Roman army–although flagrantly A.W.O.L. For some 20 years, the Visigoths had served the Empire fighting other barbarians, but it had not been the most gratifying experience. Under Roman command, they found themselves expendable and unappreciated–the heaviest casualties but the last to be paid. So the Visigoths decided that being Rome’s enemy would be more fulfilling and lucrative.

Led by Alaric, the Visigoths rampaged through Greece, the Balkans and then Italy. Of course, Rome was part of the itinerary, and there really was nothing to stop them. Yet, the old capital was surrounded by stout walls and should have withstood the barbarian attack. The Visigoths actually lacked the manpower to completely surround and besiege Rome; they only managed to blockade Rome’s gates. They also lacked the siege equipment to breach Rome’s walls. Yet, those walls did lack the real deterrent: anyone to man them. The Romans now were so craven that treachery prevailed. Someone opened a gate to the Visigoths. There was some Roman resistance; it lasted a day.

The Visigoths sacked the city: looting and rape were wholesale, and the slaughter–more limited–but still an enthusiastic demonstration of long-held grudges. Yet, the Visigoths did adhere to one restraint. They were Christian–albeit Arians who confused Jesus with Thor–and so spared the churches, which only recently had confiscated the wealth of the Pagan temples. Nonetheless, there still were government buildings and palaces to loot, and citizens to rob. The Visigoths also qualified as liberals; they freed slaves–a considerable segment of the Roman society.

Alaric died soon after sacking Rome. Let’s face it, his life would have been anticlimactic after that. He was succeeded by his kinsman Ataulf (yep, that’s the fifth century form of Adolf) who led the Visigoths into Spain, which they conquered and ruled until the Moors dropped by. There are some traces of the Visigothic presence in Spain today. Juan Carlos certainly is one; the family tree has Visigothic roots. And there is a region of Spain originally named Gothalonia; the Spanish now mispronounce it as Catalonia.

And in 455, the Vandals sacked Rome. They refrained from rape and slaughter, but they did rob the Churches. So, Visigoth or Vandal: guess who has the worse reputation?

For some reason, I have on my mind the Senate confirmation hearings for Son-of-Sam Alito….

Sen. Biden: I’d like to begin my question by reading aloud the first 200 pages of “Finnegan’s Wake” which I may claim to have written.

Sen. Specter: While we are waiting for Sen. Biden to finish, the other Senators will continue their questioning.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Judge Alito. You are a credit to your race. I’d like to know how you would have improved “Godfather, Part III.”

Judge Alito: I would have killed off Sofia Coppola in the first three minutes.

Sen. Kennedy: In your previous testimony, you repeatedly refer to Starry Desirous.

Judge Alito: That is “stare decisis.” Starry Desirous sounds like a stripper.

Sen. Kennedy: I was hoping she was.

Sen. Specter: Senator Coburn will be questioning Judge Alito while hiding under the table to avoid radio transmissions from the Martians.

Sen. Coburn: Thank you, you evil Jew. Judge Alito, are you aware that homosexuality is a Masonic plot to destroy humanity.

Judge Alito: I can’t comment on any case that might come before the Supreme Court.

Sen. Feinstein: How do you envision your role on the Supreme Court? Will you be just another of Scalia’s shameless toadies or will you be revealing a warped, sadistic personality of your own?

Sen. Hatch: Please, Sen. Feinstein. Under oath, Judge Alito has clearly and repeatedly proved that he has no personality.

Sen. Sessions: Do you believe that a state has a right to secede from the Union?

Judge Alito: I can’t comment on any case that might come before the Supreme Court…y’all.

Sen. Durbin: While you were in the Justice Department, you wrote the following memorandum. “The Bill of Rights is for wimps.” Could you explain that?

Judge Alito: Certainly. I meant that wimps are entitled to the same rights and protections as is any citizen.

Sen. Spector: Judge Alito, you have spoken of your great admiration for Judge Robert Bork. Judge Bork is certainly a man of unique intellect. For instance, during his nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Bork said the following: “I like to eat the eyeballs of children.” How do you reconcile Judge Bork’s diet with your pro-life stance?

Judge Alito: It really is not necessary to kill the children in order to eat their eyeballs.

Sen. Leahy: Tell us about an organization called The Young Stormtroopers of Princeton.

Judge Alito: I think that it was students interested in meteorology.

Sen. Leahy: Actually the club is a reactionary organization whose aims are to return Ethiopia to Italy and to overturn the Magna Carta. Now, why would you want to join a group like that?

Judge Alito: I was hoping to get lucky with Phyllis Schlafly.

Sen. Hatch: Which of your sterling qualifications have so impressed our Commander-in-Chief that he has nominated you to the highest court in the land?

Judge Alito: I let him call me “Toto.”

On this day in 1485, Henry Tudor Sr. ascended to the English throne–climbing a few corpses on the way.

Prior to the victory at Bosworth Field, the Tudor family crest might have been a leek with a bar sinister. In other words, the Tudors were Welsh bastards. They were related to Henry VI through his mother’s indiscretions with a Welsh knight. (The widow of Henry V was bored and French–so what else could you expect?) Henry VI made his half-brother Edmund the Earl of Richmond. In the Tudors’ further social ascent, Edmund married Margaret Beaufort who was the heiress of John of Gaunt’s illegitimate family with his favorite mistress. They had a boy named Henry; he later earned himself the VII.

However Margaret and her descendants also were technically barred from the throne. But they were all that was left of the Lancasters. Henry IV had four sons and only one grandchild: Henry VI. He didn’t survive the War of the Roses; neither did his alleged son. (The wife of Henry VI was also bored and French–and impatient as well.)

For lack of a legitimate alternative, the Welsh half-nephew/half-second cousin was all that the Lancastrians could scrounge. As the current Prince Edward described his ancestor’s lineage, “Henry VII’s claim to the throne was tenuous beyond belief.”

On this day in 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held the first of seven debates in their campaign for the U.S. Senate. Each debate lasted three hours and addressed only one question. Somehow the two men carried on without an interrogating panel of reporters or pundits. It evidently was a more primitive time. Here is how a modern debate would have been….

Reporter: Mr. Lincoln, you are quoted as saying that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” What is the basis of your harsh criticism of the American construction industry?

Lincoln: You misunderstand me. It is a quotation from the Bible which I used as metaphor reflecting the divisive issue of slavery.

Douglas: I refuse to believe that the Bible is critical of the American construction industry. May God forgive you, Mr. Lincoln!

Pundit: Mr. Douglas, you were known to have courted Mary Todd before she married Mr. Lincoln. Do you believe that she is too promiscuous to be a senator’s wife?

Douglas: Let me assure the public that I will never be the first to exhibit daguerreotypes of the naked Mrs. Lincoln for political purposes. And I invite Mr. Lincoln to make the same pledge.

Lincoln: What?

Commentator: Mr. Lincoln, during your one term in Congress, you opposed the Mexican War. Do you hate our soldiers or do you just prefer Mexicans?

Lincoln: I oppose unnecessary wars.

Douglas: While I would not question the patriotism of my craven, timorous opponent, I have always been a full-throated supporter of victory–and I am adamantly opposed to defeat.

Psychologist: Mr. Douglas, you are a proponent of popular sovereignty. Yet, being an embarrassingly short man with a pompous personality, you certainly are not as popular as the affable Mr. Lincoln. What in your miserable childhood led you into politics?

Douglas: My dedication to public service and the opportunity for revenge.

Lincoln: Do you really have naked daguerreotypes of my wife?

In the news reports from Baghdad, if you still bother to pay attention, you would have heard of the Yarmouk Hospital. It is that dilapidated, pathetic locale for hapless Iraqi civilians to get some facsimile of healthcare. So, who was this namesake Yarmouk? An outstanding physician? A generous (or guilt-ridden) philanthropist?

In fact, Yarmouk was a battle. (So much for Iraqi charm. Wouldn’t you want to go to a hospital named for Iwo Jima?) Of course, Yarmouk was an Arab victory and–however obscure it may be to you–it was one of the most significant battles in history. But for Yarmouk, the Middle East might still be Christian.

Until 636, Islam was still confined to Arabia. The Caliph of the new religion had sent large raiding parties to plunder the infidel neighbors; and the affluent Byzantines certainly had lots worth stealing. In fact, given the lethargic Byzantine defenses, the Arabs burglarized the entire city of Damascus. That heist finally got Constantinople’s attention. (We’ll have to postpone this theological debate over whether or not the Christ child was born potty-trained.) The Emperor Heraclius ordered the army to stop the Arab incursions.

The approach of perhaps 80,000 Byzantines convinced the Arab expeditions to make a prudent exit from Syria. Having one third as many men, the Arab forces retreated as far south as the Yarmouk River valley, which forms the border of modern Syria and Jordan. There they took up defensive positions and awaited the Byzantine attack. And waited and waited and waited. The Byzantines had stopped on the other side of the valley, and began a three-month-long staring contest.

During that three months, the Byzantines made several attempts to negotiate. Considering the Imperial forces’ numerical superiority, the Arab Commander must have been impressed with the Byzantines’ generosity or stupidity. Had the situation been reversed, he would not have hesitated to attack. However, under the circumstances, he was willing to negotiate if only to stall for reenforcements. They arrived, but he still had half as many men as the Byzantines. So the staring contest continued until the Byzantines blinked.

They had no choice in the matter; they were downwind of a sandstorm. And they soon found themselves downwind and under the Arab cavalry. Taking advantage of Allah’s gift of weather, the Arabs attacked. At least half of the Byzantine army was annihilated, the survivors were in disorganized flight. Syria and Palestine were defenseless; the Arabs’ strategy was no longer smash and grab. They were there to stay, and they soon found that Egypt and North Africa were easy pickings as well.

So on this day in 636, Byzantine incompetence lost half of an empire, gave the Arabs the Middle East and left us with the consequences.

McCain Campaign Attacks Bias of NBC

To prove NBC’s continuous discrimination against Senator John McCain, the Republican campaign presented the following examples:

Senator McCain has never been asked to portray a judge, witness or corpse on “Law and Order.”

Senator McCain was turned down for a role in “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” The role went to a younger man: Leo G. Carroll.

Although Senator McCain never appeared on “The Cosby Show”, neither Phylicia Rashād nor Lisa Bonet publicly denied that he was the father of a black child.

Despite John McCain’s comparable academic record, “The Today Show” hired J. Fred Muggs as its anthropoid correspondent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Fred_Muggs

J. Fred Muggs–McCain’s Vice Presidential Choice?

Why not? Mr. Muggs is 56 and certainly would have a broader appeal to youth. Like McCain, Muggs is known to have a temper–and once reportedly bit Martha Raye. However, Mr. Muggs was never verbally abusive. Cindy McCain should be so lucky.

Senator McCain and Mr. Muggs have similar long-playing records. As a former inmate of zoos, Mr. Muggs frequently refers to himself as a prisoner-of-war–whether or not it is relevant to the conversation.

Although Mr. Muggs is not–yet–a registered Republican, he shares many of the party’s values. He enjoys global warming and strongly supports banana republics. Mr. Muggs also questions evolution and certainly disputes its efficacy.

John McCain’s campaign ad “The One” has generated a lot of buzz regarding the “Left Behind Series.” Political commentators are comparing McCain’s portrayal of competitor Barack Obama with the blockbuster apocalyptic series’ depiction of the antichrist. But even the series authors Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins don’t think Obama is the antichrist.

Of course, Barack Obama is not the Auntie Christ. How could anyone possibly mistake him for a 2000 year-old-Jewish woman?

The Auntie Christ actually would be Marla, the older sister of the Virgin Mary. As Mary consoled her Son on the cross, “Believe me, living with Marla is worse.” Marla was the terror of Galilee; no one else had decent taste in togas or a palatable recipe for brisket. Worse, once she bullied her way into being the Chairlady of the Temple Sisterhood, Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur had to be scheduled at times convenient for her. (She had season tickets for the Caesarea Repertory Theater and belonged to a Mahjong club.) Never known as the Virgin Marla, for a year or so she dated Herod the Great. Archaelogists attribute to her influence the more garish bathrooms at Masada.

Nothing Mary ever did was good enough for her domineering sister. When told that Mary was with child from the Holy Spirit, Marla said “A Greek God would be better looking.” Indignant at the prospect of an unwed mother in “her” family, Marla threatened to sue God for palimony. A settlement was reached; Mary received a complimentary husband and Marla was promised (God’s word of honor) that all of her descendants would get into the best colleges.

Marla was just as brutal an aunt as she was a sister. When Jesus turned the water into wine, guess who complained about the glassware? Upon seeing Lazarus raised from the dead, Marla chided her nephew, “If you had been a doctor, maybe he wouldn’t have died in the first place.”

Naturally, the writers of the Gospels remembered Aunt Marla as the incarnation of evil. And if her presence heralds the end of the world, who among us fits the description of an ancient, terrifying yenta? It must be Midge Decter.

Today would be his 320th birthday, but Frederick William I would not want you to waste on a cake and candles. Just goosestep 320 times and that might suffice the Prussian king.

If you were a Prussian taxpayer, you might appreciate having a cheap king: no lavish court, no extravagant palaces, no wasteful bureaucracy. Frederick William was so equitably parsimonious that he even taxed himself. Of course, a king still has to maintain some appearances; but for a Prussian king, those appearances can be limited to the army. Even there, Frederick William could be stinting: no unnecessary wars! Prussia did not need any more territory, and glory was a frivolous expenditure.

Yes, Frederick William was an excellent king. You also would want to avoid him: the man was a horrible brute. He had no compunctions about caning the servants in the face. But he was equitable here, too–doing the same to his family. His favorite target–or greatest disappointment–was his eldest son Frederick. The prince was intellectual and “artistic.” Of course, Frederick William knew how to cure his son’s sensitivity.

The Prince would be punished for any signs of weakness. If the child fell off his horse or wore gloves in cold weather, he would receive an invigorating, manly beating. The prince knew how to survive and learned the family business–soldiering–but he dreamed of escape. His uncle George in Britain had a good job and a decent nature; perhaps he would give his battered nephew sanctuary. The 18 year-old attempted to escape–along with a “special friend”–but the two were captured. Frederick William charged them with treason–although Prussia was allied to Britain (and George II was both his first cousin and brother-in-law). The King ordered his son to be court-martialed; however the very methodical, compunctional and cost-effective Prussian bureaucracy explained that it lacked the jurisdiction to try crown princes. No doubt some hapless bureaucrat got caned in the face, but Frederick William did defer to his own laws.

The special friend did not have any royal immunity. He was beheaded, and Prince Frederick was forced to watch. The Prince spent several months in solitary confinement, but eventually was allowed out on a work-release program. Frederick was assigned duties in the auditing office of the department of agriculture. After a year’s rehabilitation, Frederick was permitted again at court. The apparently dutiful Prince was willing to oblige one of Dad’s demands for manliness; Frederick agreed to get married. The luckless bride, just another German duchess, never expected to marry for love; but she would not even get the physical facsimile of it. Even Frederick William never tried to coerce the marriage’s consummation. (Oh well, he had other sons who weren’t artistic.)

The Prince just bided his time, and that time came in 1740. King Frederick intended to be the opposite of his father. He provoked wars–which he at least had the talent to win. He created an intellectual court where he insisted that French be spoken. (Frederick hated the sound of German.)

And guess which of the two–Frederick William or Frederick–does history bestow the accolade of “The Great”.

However, Frederick the Great was personally very cheap. Some things can be taught.