The intriguing story of Madame Brussels.

Sad to learn that Madame Brussels, that quirky upstairs restaurant at the top end of Melbourne's Bourke Street is closing its doors.  Covid restrictions have affected its daily patronage and the people who opened the restaurant about sixteen years ago have decided to it close down. My wife, Lesley, and I enjoyed dining at Madame Brussels a few years ago. We were cruising on the Queen Mary 2 from Fremantle to Sydney. When we called in to Melbourne to meet  some friends they took us to Madame Brussels for lunch.  

 Madame Brussels had a rather risqué menu and an interesting drinks list. They serve jugs  of  many of the most popular cocktails. A Jug of Pimm’s seemed to be the drink of choice. The young people serving on the tables all wore sporting attire.  Our charming young waitress, wore tennis attire and the muscular hunk who brought us the Pimms wore a Richmond football club jumper and black footy shorts. Its advertising brochure promotes the place as Kooky, Kitsch and lots of fun. The inside lounge is fitted out with old world chairs and lounges while the outside deck sits between the tree tops of Bourke Street.  

I was keen to find out more about the lady after whom the place was named so I did some internet surfing. Madame Brussels was actually a notorious brothel madam of the late 19th Century. Her well-appointed brothels were situated in Lonsdale Streets, close to Melbourne’s Parliament House and the political and legal fraternity, from whence came many of her clients.                                                                                                                                                                        In fact, her brothels were referred to as Gentlemen’s Clubs and attracted the city’s political, judicial and police elite. It was said that her business thrived because of the formidable support she had from people in high places. Very high places.

Madame Brussels was born Caroline Lohman in Prussia in 1851. She travelled to England and married George Hodgson, a member of a noble family. He  was not favourably regarded by some family members. That was probably the reason that the couple soon sailed from the UK  to Melbourne, where George became a policeman.                                                                                                                                                                              In those goldrush days,Victoria needed policemen and was recruiting enthusiastically to bolster its police force. The one condition was that upon graduation newly appointed constables had to serve in a rural area. George became a policeman and was appointed to Mansfield in Ned Kelly country near Beechworth in northern Victoria. He went there on his own.  His wife, the 21 year old Caroline, stayed in Melbourne.

Living alone in Melbourne, the young Caroline had limited choices. She decided to think big. By 1874,  the 24 year old Caroline was known as Madame Brussels, and successfully running a number of brothels, which she continued to do until 1907. 

Why brothels? It was a matter of the choices available to her. She was a young woman in a strange land, with little financial support. She had very restricted job prospects, especially, with her poorly paid policeman husband living so far away from home. Perhaps, running a brothel was by far the best paying job open to a woman in those days.                                                               

 The respectable alternatives were teaching, nursing, secretarial work or even lower paid jobs in workshops or domestic service. It turned out that Caroline was quite skilled at running a brothel, or two, and they proved to be very successful and highly profitable.

Almost twenty years later,  in 1893, husband, George, died of TB. Caroline, who had placed him in a nursing home during his illness, arranged his funeral and wrote a loving death notice in the newspapers about the sad loss of her beloved husband. In the notice she also pointed out that George was connected to the British aristocracy. She continued to put notices in the paper on each anniversary of his death.

In 1895, two years after George  died, she married a much younger man, Jacob Pohl. She was then aged about 44 and Jacob about 30. However, the following year, young Jacob mysteriously disappeared in South Africa when the couple were en-route to visit family in Germany. They were re-united in 1898, when Jacob just as mysteriously showed up once again, only to divorce in 1907 on the grounds of his desertion. Definitely some very funny family business going on there.

In her later years, Madame Brussels was vigorously attacked by members of the moral and righteous community as “an accursed procuress”. She was taken to court in 1907. However, she won the sympathy of the court as a benevolent old lady (she was 56), reciting eloquently how she had been wronged.                                                                                                                                                       

No doubt she felt quite comfortable defending herself in the witness box in that Melbourne court house. After all, the Judge, Senior Council, several distinguished jurors and some members of the press gallery were all members of her Gentlemen's Clubs. She was acquitted, but closed her business down that same year and died of diabetes and pancreatitis a year later, in 1908, aged 57 years.

 In a coincidental connection with her first husband’s stint at Mansfield, where the legendary Australian bushranger, Ned Kelly and his family were well known, her lawyer in the 1907 court case was David Gaunson. In 1880, as a member of the Victorian parliament, Gaunson had been one of the leading lights at the large public rallies to have Kelly’s death sentence overturned.                                                                                                                                                                         Surely, someday, someone will write a novel or make a film about the remarkable Caroline Hodgson, nee Lohman who, as Madame Brussels, rose to wealth and power in Marvellous Melbourne in the second half of the 19th Century. If I was the Casting Director I would be trying to sign up Scarlett Johannsen or Charlize Theron in the starring role.

 It is sad that this saucy, kooky, kitsch and 'lots of fun' cafe is closing down. Hopefully, some courageous, enterprising restaurateur will take it on and keep  Madame Brussels saucily serving customers in upper Bourke Street. Hopefully too, an enterprising author and talented film maker will make fuller and more permanent records of the very colourful and intriguing Madame Brussels.

 

The killing of the innocents.

 

About two weeks ago I read a chilling story in the West Australian, informing that some babies survive the abortion termination process and are born alive. Even more chilling, the report went on to to say that these abortion surviving babies, "were allowed to die”.

The story said that about thirty such babies were allowed to die in Western Australia over the last few years.

In Victoria, in one year, thirty abortion surviving babies were born alive, which was about 30% of the total number of abortions in Victoria that year. They were allowed to die.

I was horrified. I immediately thought of the impact this situation must have on the doctors and nurses present who must allow these babies to die.

As I read that story, I felt sure it would produce many letters to the West's Editor protesting that living babies would be allowed to die.

However, after a week or two, not one letter was published to comment on this sad situation.

So, I wrote a letter to the West's editor asking just how are these babies allowed to die?

It was not published.

Can we know how these babies are allowed to die?

Do they starve to death, yelling and crying out for sustenance?

Do the die of exposure? Do they die of asphyxiation? Do they die of a needle that is given to stop their cries; a needle that also kills them? Do they die of studied and deliberate neglect?

I am well aware of the heroic efforts made by doctors and nurses to save the lives of babies born prematurely to mothers who want to keep their babies. Surely, many of these babies would have thrived in a similar way if they had not "been allowed to die."

I am sure that there are many childless couples who would be very happy to adopt these living, abortion surviving babies. To lovingly care for them, to protect them and nurture them into adulthood.

I wondered was mine the only unpublished letter to the West Australian newspaper about abortion surviving babies being "allowed to die"?

Or is it a topic that the newspaper does not want to talk about?

Mine was a short letter. In that week The West published longer letters about The Eagles, The Dockers, even the Widgiemooltha Marbles Club...but no letters about babies being allowed to die. No doubt, it is a matter of editorial prioritities.

Have we become such an uncaring society that we are content to let helpless babies die, unremarked, out of sight, out of mind?

At the end of World War 2 in Europe, the allied armies were horrified to find the gas chambers and death camps operated by the Nazi's to kill Jews, Gypsies, the maimed, the infirm and mentally ill and anyone else that the Nazi's did not like.

General Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied Supreme Commander, quickly ordered that people from surrounding villages be taken to the death camps and shown the piles of dead bodies. He did that because the locals all said that they did not know what was happening in these camps.

He showed them the mass graves. He wanted them to see the  horror to  make sure that nobody could ever again say that it did not happen or that they did not know what had happened.

History has passed a terrible judgement on the Nazi's inhumanity to man.

Well, we all now know what is happening now! Babies that survive the abortion termination process and are born alive are are being "allowed to die.'

How will future generations judge us?

Be Prepared.

BE PREPARED

It was Lord Baden Powell, founder of the Boy scouts, who suggested  “Be prepared” be the motto that young scouts should live by. I was in the scouts for a while when I was a boy and “Be prepared” seemed like good advice to me. Still does.

Not being prepared often leads to miserable outcomes. In general, most people prepare for life’s varied situations. They have life insurance, house insurance, car insurance. They make sure their car is safe with good brakes, sound tyres and functional steering. When going on a trip they usually prepare checklists of things to be done before the trip and things to be taken on the trip.

These are all fairly common preparations. However, in recent years  some people cause me increasing angst by being totally unprepared in certain life situation. It is a Pet Peeve of mine. I would have said it is a Pet Hate of mine but hate is a very strong word. Not only that, a few weeks ago, I was with two friends, one of whom asked, “What’s your pet hate?” Before I could say that I did not have a pet my other friend said, “Brutus, my Doberman, absolutely hates cats.”

When I was a boy I often read the English Women’s Mirror, to which my Aunty was a subscriber. I read it because it had a comic section devoted to The Phantom. This was a few years before the Phantom later appeared in comics at our local news agents. The other reason I read the English Women’s Mirror was they had a regular section where they asked a film star or other celebrity a series of questions about their life. One regular question, usually asked last, was, “What is your pet aversion?” Well I was only about 10 years old at the time. I knew what a pet was but had no inkling of what an aversion was.          After a while I figured it out.

Obviously, my friend was not asking us what our pets hated but  what  makes us annoyed. Well, when we finally got his point, I unloaded with my personal source of annoyance.                                                My Pet Aversion.

I get annoyed  at check outs in Super Markets when the customer in front of me carefully watches the Check Out worker scan each item. Finally, the Check Out worker scans the last item, hits the cash register button and then tells the customer how much they need to pay. Now, if it was me, I would immediately hand over my cash or place my bank card in the credit card reading machine.

However, what usually happens is that, having been told how much they owe, the customer then reaches down and fishes around inside a shopping bag. Eventually they pull out a smaller bag or wallet and poke around a bit more until they locate their cash or card. Only then do they proceed with the payment process.

They are Not Prepared. They knew as soon as they started placing items on the mobile check out bench that they would need to produce cash or card to finalise the shopping transaction. I wait with the cash or card in hand, but not these people. Only after every item has been scanned do they start searching around for what they need to complete the deal. They are not prepared!

Risking the wrath of the militaristic Feminazis Army I must say that in almost every case these unprepaired offenders are women. Men tend to have  cash or card in  hand as they wait for the bill. Women tend to wait until they know how much it is going to cost before they start rummaging around looking for cash or card.

It is he same at the service station. You pull in and wait patiently behind another vehicle. The owner gets out, moves to the rear of the car, takes off the petrol tank cap and then puts the fuel hose in the vehicle. After a few minutes the  hose is removed and the petrol tank cap replaced. This is when they should proceed smartly to the service station pay station and hand over their cash or card. But No! The unprepaired person then walks around the car, back to the driver’s side door, opens it up and rummages around looking for their cash or card. Having finally located their cash or card  they should  then smartly proceed to the pay station. No! Often they do not. After walking a few metres away from their car towards the pay station they stop and then backtrack, either to check how much petrol they took on board or to check the number of the bowser they used.

Quite often, having paid their petrol bill, these unprepaired people walk slowly back to their car, unmoved by the lengthy line up of waiting cars. Only after they are comfortably seated in their vehicle do they then start they start looking around for their car keys.

I know it is a First World problem but these unprepaired people are very frustrating.

 

Do authors of historical novels have a right to completely change historical facts? Tampering with the Truth is never a good idea.

It was Napoleon who said  History is written by the winners.

Hilary Mantel is not an historian. She is a gifted English writer of historical fiction. Her best selling books have won many awards and made her a Dame of the Realm. In recent years, Hilary Mantel wrote a trilogy of historical novels about the life and public career of Thomas Cromwell.

She published “Wolf Hall”  in 2009, “Bring Up the Bodies” in 2012 and “The Mirror and the Light” in 2020. They tell her story of Thomas Cromwell, King Henry the VIII’s right hand man during the Reformation in England. He  arranged the annulment of the King’s marriage to Queen Catherine and Henry's subsequent marriages to Anne Boleyn and others. As Henry’s Private Secretary and Chief Minister, Cromwell enforced the growth of the English Reformation, with Henry as the Head of the Church of England and the dissolution of the monasteries, among other things. In doing so he became very powerful and very wealthy.

In telling of these turbulent Tudor times, Mantel portrays Thomas Cromwell as a hero and Henry’s Chancellor of the Exchequer , Sir Thomas More, as a villain. In contrast, most historians hold that Thomas Cromwell was far from heroic, while Sir Thomas More was prepared to oppose his friend, King Henry, and die upholding his strong, faith based beliefs. Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man for All Seasons” promotes this popularly held view of the man whom  the Catholic Church later canonised as St Thomas More.

Fortunately for Napoleon, his career was of such brilliance and  Greek tragedy, that even respected historians of the British, who were the victors, have written of him as an heroic figure whose place in history is assured. Mantel, on the other hand has re-written history, without producing any evidence, to deliberately besmirch Thomas More and praise the character of Thomas Cromwell. In her book, Mantel devotes some time portraying Cromwell as a good, family man. Respected historian, Simon Schama, who regularly presents historical documentaries, as well as writing a number of history books, is one of many historians who are critical on Mantel's rewriting of history. Schama strongly refutes that Cromwell being a "good family man" had any bearing on his character. He says: "Sure, he was a good family man. So was Himmler."

Mantel was raised as a Catholic. At age eleven her father left the family. At age twelve, Mantel says she lost her Catholic faith.  Her book, “Giving up the Ghost”, tells of her rejection of Catholicism and her antipathy towards the Catholic Church. She says that her goal in writing “Wolf Hall” was “to attack the image of St. Thomas More that is associated with Robert Bolt’s highly principled “Man For all Seasons” view of the man.

The generally accepted facts are that More did not agree with Henry’s decision to annul his long marriage to Catherine of Aragon and  marry Anne Boleyn. He chose death before dishonour. As a devout Catholic, he also could not accept Henry appointing himself above the Pope as the Head of the Catholic Church in England. Henry saw this as treason to the Monarchy. Thomas Cromwell sided with King Henry and worked against Thomas More. As Henry’s new Chief Minister, Cromwell acquired great  power and wealth. He managed the Reformation. The Dissolution of the Monasteries  brought great wealth to the King’s treasure house and a lot of the treasure was also acquired by Thomas Cromwell. He also conspired to send many innocent men and women to their deaths.

So, what Hilary Mantel is giving us is really “Fake History.” Does it really matter? Dan Brown rewrote history in his best selling, “The Da Vinci Code”. However, in the Introduction to his novel, Brown clearly states “This is a work of fiction”. Still, millions believed it to be the Gospel truth. Mantel makes no such disclaimer, though many critics see it, not as history, but as an historical novel. Of course we are all used to American films which say that they “are based on a true story” but generally have little resemblance to what actually happened.

Naturally, a lot of Catholics are upset at the villainous portrayal of their revered St Thomas More. Simon Schama is one. However, not only Catholics and Catholic historians are critical of Mantel’s depictions of historical figures. Professor David Stanley, historian and President of Britain’s National Secular Society said there is “not a scruple of evidence” for Mantel’s story, which he describes as “a total work of fiction”. Simon Schama, writing in The London Financial Times, said that historical novelists do have some leeway for invention and imagination but that Hillary Mantel had gone too far with her “Wolf Hall” trilogy.                                

“It grates a bit”, says Schama, “that millions now think of Thomas Cromwell as a much maligned, misunderstood pragmatist from the school of hard knocks, who got precious little thanks for doing Henry the VIII’s dirty work” 

Cromwell’s eventual undoing came from his involvement in Henry’s many marriages. After helping  Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, Cromwell later arranged for her beheading and Henry’s subsequent marriage to Jane Seymour. When Jane Seymour died in childbirth, Cromwell saw an opportunity to increase Henry’s influence in Europe by having him marry Anne of Cleves. Unfortunately, Anne of Cleves was a rather plain looking lady and Henry did not like her. The marriage was not consummated and Henry was angry with Cromwell for arranging this marriage. As is often the case with people who do all sorts of things to ingratiate themselves with a powerful King, Cromwell became the King’s next main victim. He fell foul of several powerful courtiers. They saw their chance over the Anne of Cleves fiasco and prevailed on the angry Henry to arrest Cromwell for treason and have him beheaded. Some historians report that Cromwell, when he knew his death by beheading was imminent, requested that he his funeral be under the “old religion”. That is, the rites of the Catholic Church which he had persecuted with great dedication over the previous five years. Historians also say that King Henry later regretted killing in anger the man who had brought him such great wealth and power.

Schama pointed out that while researching his well regarded, “A History of Britain”, the documents “shouted to high heaven that Thomas Cromwell was, in fact, a detestably self serving, bullying monster who perfected state terror in England, cooked the evidence and extracted confessions by torture.” It is fair to point out that torture was almost standard practice in those days. Even Sir Thomas More is accused of burning heretics and traitors to King Henry VIII. That was the standard operating procedure of the 16^th Century. However, Thomas Cromwell was a past master of those Dark Arts.

From time to time, other historians pop up  and tell us that what we all once knew to be true may, in fact, be closer to fantasy. In Australia, the“Terra Nullius” of the British in the 18th Century is a classic example. Despite indigenous people living in Australia for 60 000 years, the British policy of "Terra Nullius” said that nobody lived there. They planted a flag and claimed the lot for King George III. 

Historians generally produce documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. I found this out when studying Political History at the University of Western Australia in the 1960s. When studying, “The Renaissance and the Reformation” I was stunned when my learned professors expounded that the Reformation was not so much about Faith and Morals as it was about cold hard cash and the acquisition of property. As Bill Clinton once said, “It’s the Economy, stupid!” I was to learn that economic issues are behind just about every great social upheaval in human history. Certainly, economic issues have caused most of our wars, religious and otherwise.

While I was re-examining the real cause of The Reformation, Professor Geoffrey Blainey published a book about the causes of European settlement of Australia, or New South Wales, as that eastern part of our, wide, brown “Terra Nullius” was called in the 1780s. It was titled, “The Tyranny of Distance.” At that time every Australian schoolchild could tell you European settlement in Australia started because England sent out a fleet of ships under Captain Philip in 1788, for the purpose of establishing a convict colony. This was due the great number of convicts in London and the recent, sudden loss of the American colonies as a place to lock them up.

Blainey argued otherwise. He said Britain could have sent convicts to Canada, much closer to England and even larger than Australia. In fact there were convicts in Canada in 1788. Why, asked Blainey, did the British government send a fleet of convicts, and soldiers to guard them, 15 000 kilometres to the far side of a largely unknown world? Especially, when Canada was much closer and still very empty in 1788.

The answer, Blainey says, was the British Navy. Britain had built its vast empire, in part, by the mighty power of its navy. “Britannia rules the waves” was a truism that enabled it to rule over a third of the globe. Blainey produced documents that showed Philip’s first fleet was instructed to investigate the suitability of  tall Norfolk Island Pine Trees as masts for  British naval vessels. These tall trees had been mentioned by the great navigator, Captain James Cook, on his voyages of discovery in the Pacific Ocean between 1768 until 1779. Blainey also produced documents to show that the British Admiralty was also interested in the  Pacific Island Breadfruit Plant. It was felt these could be used to manufacture stout canvas sails.

Blainey also asked the question, why did Captain Philip, having just sailed 15 000 kilometres to a great unknown land (to Europeans), then send an expeditionary ship 2000 kilometres across the Pacific Ocean to establish a settlement at Norfolk Island less than a month after his arrival? It was a good question. Blainey’s answer was the tall Norfolk Pine Trees and breadfruit. He says these were two major reasons for Captain Philip’s First Fleet being sent to far flung Botany Bay in the first place. Actually, Captain Philip only stayed a few days in Botany Bay before relocating to a  more suitable  settlement in Port Jackson, which became known as Sydney Cove.

Well, it turned out that the Norfolk Island Pine Trees were useless as ship’s masts and the breadfruit was no good for sail making. Still, Professor Blainey made valid points and he produced documents to back his arguments.

This is not the case with Hilary Mantel’s treatment of Sir Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell. She has given us her version of history which is quite contrary to the facts. Again, does it matter? Her books are excellently written and very, very popular. However, popularity is not proof of goodness and certainly not of truth. Adolf Hitler was popularly elected by the German people in 1933. He soon became the German Chancellor and then Fuhrer of the Third Reich. Look how that turned out.

More recently, Donald Trump received over 70 million votes in the 2020 Presidential election. That is the  most votes ever received by a sitting President. Fortunately, to the relief of almost everyone in the free world, Joe Biden received about 80 million votes. Trump's popularity does not make him right. 

Donald Trump made a lot of noise about “Fake News”. Anything he disagreed with was “Fake News” The trouble was that what he told his followers was fact, was often ‘Fake” news. Very, very fake!                        We all watched in horror as his deluded followers, fuelled with Trump’s patently fake news about voting conspiracies, attacked the U.S. Capitol building, threatening mayhem and murder on those who stood in their way. Trump’s “Fake News” made them think they were patriots. 

Of course, as Simon Schama says, authors should be allowed to brighten their historical stories with creativity and imagination. However, we damage the “Truth” at our peril, as the recent Trump experience sadly demonstrates

I agree with the many historians who are on record asking what responsibilities novelist have when they rewrite historical events for their own purposes? Will we have historical novelists in 200 years time writing stories about Nazi Germany and portraying  Adolf Hitler as a patriotic statesman who rescued Germany from the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, who overcame record inflation, got Germany industries working again and who was maliciously maligned by dastardly  Communists and those evil warmongers, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt?

Hillary Mantel clearly portrays Sir Thomas More in a derogatory way for her own purposes. By her own admission, she altered the facts to present historically incorrect portrayals of Thomas Cromwell and St Thomas More. We need to remember that, just likeThe Da Vinci code, her books are works of fiction with no real resemblance to the historical truth.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful gift. It is sullied when people use it to deliberately falsify the Truth.