Tea at Trianon: The Dismantling of the Family

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Friday, February 21, 2025

The Dismantling of the Family

From First Things:

Our culture is quick to recognize “white privilege,” “straight privilege,” and various other intersectional grievances. But very few social justice warriors care to raise awareness of “intact-family privilege”—despite study after study showing the remarkable advantages that a stable family structure can award a child. Children raised by married parents are more likely to attend university. They’re physically and emotionally healthier. They’re less likely to use drugs and alcohol. And critically, they’re less likely to experience physical or sexual abuse, or become pregnant as a teen.

For decades, politicians have feared promoting marriage and family policies lest they be mocked for their “Victorian” approach to morality. Even under fourteen years of “Conservative” party rule, the U.K. government only served to dismantle family units by legalizing “no-fault divorce,” rather than encouraging parents to stay together, which is statistically the best thing for children—and, consequently, the country’s future. A laissez-faire approach to family and commitment has aggravated our sexual liberalism by disconnecting sex from procreation.

Fear of “judging” sexual practices tore down another safeguard for vulnerable girls. Why did sexual health clinics not sound the alarm when thousands of children—under the legal age of consent—started demanding contraceptives, abortions, and treatments for sexually-transmitted diseases? A government-led drive in the early 2000s to halve the rate of teen pregnancy gave children access to contraceptives via discreet and “non-judgmental” staff, rather than preventing their engagement in sex altogether. Unlike other European countries, British staff aren’t required to alert parents when their child seeks such services.

An entrenched belief that “teens will be teens” failed the victims of grooming gangs. A report on the abuse scandals in Rochdale, uncovered between 2010 and 2015, found that “the drive to reduce teenage pregnancy . . . is believed to have contributed to a culture whereby professionals may have become inured to early sexual activity in young teenagers.” Authorities were desensitized to the horrific sexualization of our girls. When Goddard alerted the police and the authorities at her children’s home that she had been raped, she was told that it was a result of her “lifestyle choice” and that she should “deal with it.” (Read more.)

More on the British "grooming gangs." From The Ruth Institute:

For those of you not familiar with these “grooming gangs,” let’s break this down briefly: the term “grooming gangs” has been used in the United Kingdom to describe groups of men (mostly of Pakistani heritage) who systematically exploit young, vulnerable girls and use them for sexual exploitation. These men often form gangs or networks, and they use grooming type behaviors to target minors. The grooming process is when predators use manipulation and deception in order to build trust with their victims and ultimately exploit them. Predators might win their victims over with things such as gifts, attention, and threats or intimidation. The victims in these “grooming gang” cases have been subjected to sexual abuse, trafficking, and even prostitution.
For years, Pakistani men in the UK were accused of grooming young women for rape and gang rape. The stories are horrific and, if you haven’t read them, I do urge you to approach with caution especially if you are a survivor of sexual abuse. Some of the articles could be quite triggering. Despite the horrific crimes, local authorities and the Crown Prosecution Service reportedly looked the other way. There were some initial investigations in 2015 and recommendations were made for reform. However, little seems to have changed since then. It wasn’t until a recent surge in public outrage that the Labour government announced there would be a review. (Read more.)