Enemy of Monarchy: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna

Perhaps the most well known name in Mexican history north of the Rio Grande is that of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the man they called "the Eagle". Despised by the English-speaking people of North America as a blood thirsty and cowardly despot, Santa Anna has alternately been seen by Mexicans as both a patriotic hero and an incompetent dictator who lost or signed away more than half of the national territory of Mexico to save and enrich himself. In some circles today though, the name of Santa Anna has recovered somewhat among those who see the people of the United States as the cause of all Mexican troubles and who defend him simply for being an enemy of America rather than out of any appreciation for his actual accomplishments. The truth, of course, is that Santa Anna was quick to sell out his country to the United States on more than one occasion. He was not the most stridently enemy of monarchy to ever rule Mexico, in fact he seemed favorably disposed toward the idea of a monarchy at times. Yet, he was a republican when it mattered most. One thing is certain, he is almost as controversial a figure now as he was in his own time; being a soldier, loyalist, revolutionary, liberal, conservative and becoming President of Mexico on seven different occasions.

Antonio de Padua Maria Severino Lopez de Santa Anna y Perez de Lebron was born on February 21, 1794 in Xalapa to a Spanish colonial bureaucrat and a woman from France. A native of Mexico of pure European blood he was of the criollo class and in 1810, when the first revolutionary uprisings were breaking out in Mexico he joined the Spanish royalist army and served with distinction in Texas under General Joaquin de Arredondo who crushed a republican invasion known as the Magee-Gutierrez Expedition. He later said this was the campaign which taught him that one had to deal with rebels and invaders (also called filibusters or land pirates) mercilessly, but it is hardly a defense for his later actions considering that in this case the filibusters began by being cruel to their own enemies and were only reaping what they had sewed. However, Santa Anna was not to remain a loyal Spanish soldier for long and when the political winds shifted against the Crown of Spain, in 1821 he changed his coat for the first of many times in his life as he joined forces with "The Liberator" General Don Agustin de Iturbide who freed Mexico from Spain and became her first Emperor after King Fernando VII refused the crown of an independent Mexico.

Santa Anna was absolutely effusive in his praise and protestations of loyalty to the first Emperor at this time. Most saw him as one of Iturbide’s top men. At times, there is no doubt that Santa Anna could display considerable military ability and in 1821 he captured the Spanish held port city of Veracruz, a remarkable accomplishment and one for which Iturbide promoted him to the rank of General. Not long after pledging his absolute allegiance and loyalty unto death to Emperor Agustin though, Santa Anna became upset when Iturbide refused to take his side in a personal dispute with another officer. Sensing another wind shift, he changed his coat again and joined the ranks of the liberal supporters of the Plan of Casa Mata to oust the Emperor and make Mexico a republic. In fact, Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria (soon to be famous as Mexico’s first President) were the key originators of the plan. However, though both had originally supported Iturbide, Victoria was known to be a republican whereas the betrayal of Santa Anna was more spontaneous and self-serving.

Not surprisingly, Santa Anna was no more faithful to his new found republican principles than he had been to the idea of monarchy once the Emperor was out of the picture as he was involved in the coups which overthrew President Vicente Guerrero and President Manuel Pedraza as well. However, he still kept up a good public image, winning his greatest fame when Spain attempted to “re-conquer” Mexico with 2,600 soldiers whom Santa Anna defeated at Tampico in 1829. In actuality, Spain could have never made much progress in Mexico with so few troops, and though they did have Santa Anna outnumbered, most of the Spanish soldiers were incapacitated by yellow fever. Nonetheless, the battle was celebrated as a great victory with a medal struck to honor it and Santa Anna rose to the level of a national hero by glorifying himself as the "Hero of Tampico" and the "Savior of Mexico".

Santa Anna then decided it was time that he cashed in on this reputation and entered politics when the conservative General Anastasio Bustamante, an old supporter of Emperor Agustin, overthrew President Vicente Guerrero. Santa Anna deposed Bustamante, seized power and claimed the presidency after a trumped up election in 1833. Santa Anna tried to pose as a comparative conservative, but his Vice President, Valentine Gomez Farias, was an outright liberal and as Santa Anna left the actual business of government to him, traditional elements in the country were soon outraged by the Santa Anna administration. Trying to cast himself as the national savior once again, Santa Anna turned on his deputy and dismissed Farias, taking absolute power himself. Originally Santa Anna had posed as a federalist, or an advocate of strong state governments, but now he switched sides again to become an avowed centralist. Declaring that Mexico was not ready for democracy, he dismissed the Congress, tore up the original American-inspired Constitution of 1824 and centralized all power in his hands. Some of the conservatives applauded him for this, but numerous rebellions quickly arose.

General and President Santa Anna crushed these rebellions in San Luis Potosi, Queretaro, Durango, Guanajuato, Michoacan, the Yucatan and Jalisco. The most serious was the rebellion in Zacatecas led by Francisco Garcia who commanded a well armed and organized militia. Santa Anna suppressed them with considerable brutality, defeating them on May 12, 1835, massacring those who surrendered and allowing his troops to pillage the city of Zacatecas for 48 hours. It was also in 1835 that the most significant rebellion, and one of the most crucial events of his life, broke out in the northern province of Texas. Texas rebels had taken control of all the major posts in the region and had defeated and forced the surrender of the Mexican garrison in San Antonio commanded by General Martin Perfecto de Cos, who was the brother-in-law of Santa Anna. The President and Generalissimo was not prepared to let this stain on his family honor go unpunished and he soon set out on an expedition to crush the rebellion, restore Mexican rule and annihilate or drive out all of the Anglo population of Texas.

Santa Anna commanded a formidable army and the Texans were surprised by the speed with which Santa Anna drove his men forward, arriving in San Antonio in late February of 1836. On March 6, 1836 he stormed the Alamo, the old Spanish mission in which about 185 Texans had barricaded themselves. The Texans asked for no mercy and Santa Anna showed none, killing or executing every Alamo defender. His own losses were immense and some of his more upright officers commented on what a waste the battle had been and how little concern Santa Anna showed for his own men. He had taken no priests or medical corps with him and dismissed his casualties, asking, “what are the lives of soldiers but so many chickens?” Later, on March 27, 1836 Mexican troops at Goliad massacred some 400 Texan prisoners on orders from Santa Anna which further enraged the Texans, shamed his better officers and cast Mexico in the role of villain in the court of world opinion. By this time, the independence of the Republic of Texas had been declared and Santa Anna threw caution to the wind, driving his forces onward to drive out the Anglo colonists and capture the Texan government.

So far, his forces had been everywhere successful and the vain Generalissimo, who liked to call himself the "Napoleon of the West" became overconfident and sloppy. Allowing himself to be separated from his main army, he camped in an easily isolated area with the enemy out of sight. Texas General Sam Houston seized the opportunity and surprised Santa Anna with a sudden attack at San Jacinto on April 21, 1836 which smashed the Mexican army which had been relaxing without so much as a single sentry posted to keep watch for an attack. Santa Anna had been dallying with a local mulatto girl when the Texan attack came. In cowardly fashion, Santa Anna abandoned the field, fleeing for his life and when captured tried to pass himself off as a common soldier before the salutes of his own men gave him away. In exchange for his own life Santa Anna ordered the rest of his army to withdraw from Texas and later signed the Treaty of Velasco which recognized the independence of the Republic of Texas, after which he was released and went to the United States. The government in Mexico, however, declared Santa Anna deposed and refused to recognize the treaty he had signed.

The following year Santa Anna returned to Mexico and was able to recover his reputation when he lost a leg in the 1838 Pastry War with France. Cashing in on his injury he once again overthrew Anastasio Bustamante to become President of Mexico, acting as usual more as a dictator than a democratic executive. Those who went along with him thought a dictatorship would at least solve the problem of chronic instability that had stagnated all progress in Mexico virtually since independence. However, Santa Anna was never a stabilizing force. His harsh policies and high taxes led to the establishment of the Yucatan republic (which was aided by the Republic of Texas Navy and Marine Corps) as well as the short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande based in Laredo, Texas in a region which was still claimed by both countries. Having seen the loss of Texas when Santa Anna had been in power before, opposition rallied as the fear grew that more losses were coming. The duplicitous dictator was forced out of power once again, Santa Anna was captured and went into exile in Venezuela and later Cuba.

To speak for a moment of the private life of Santa Anna, it was as equally scandalous as his professional one. He married Ines Garcia with whom he had five children, but throughout his life was known to have a number of mistresses, frequented prostitutes and fathered a small army of illegitimate offspring. As mentioned earlier, though he was already married, he desired the favors of a young San Antonio girl named Melchora Barrera during the siege of the Alamo. Her pious mother would not allow her daughter to see him unless they were married, Generalissimo or not, so he had one of his officers pose as a priest and perform a mock ceremony so he could honeymoon while his artillery shelled the Texan garrison. He later sent her to Mexico City where she gave birth to his child. Santa Anna said he intended to save her for his old age. When his first wife died in 1844 Santa Anna was remarried only a month later to Maria Dolores de Tosta, though she was only 15 and he was an old man of 50. Nonetheless he fathered numerous children with her, one of whom, Santa Anna III, became a Jesuit priest in 1897. For himself, Santa Anna never obviously never took religion very seriously. Like everyone who was anyone in Mexico at the time he was a Freemason yet more often than not the clerical “party” was on his side, mostly because he usually seemed the least objectionable of the available choices.

In 1846, following the American annexation of Texas which prompted the U.S.-Mexican War, Santa Anna offered his services to his homeland and promised that he had no political aspirations. It was a lie of course, and the government should have known better as the sitting president was Gomez Farias who Santa Anna had already betrayed once. However, with the war going badly, Santa Anna was allowed to return though unbeknownst to the Mexican people, the duplicitous Santa Anna was simultaneously negotiating with the United States as well, promising to give up vast tracts of Mexican territory in exchange for a considerable bribe. Loyal to no one, once Santa Anna was allowed through the U.S. blockade and given command of Mexican troops by his own government, he declared himself President of Mexico again and began fighting the United States as hard as he could. It was to no avail however and the Mexican forces were steadily pushed back and defeated until the United States occupied Mexico City itself. Santa Anna was overthrown, the southwest was sold to the United States and in 1851 the old Caudillo went into exile again.

Always a survivor, in 1853 Santa Anna was back again as part of a rebellion by Mexican conservatives which restored him to power. Santa Anna, as usual, spent most of his time feathering his own nest and sold additional territory to the United States. He tried to keep favor with the conservatives by showing favor to the Church, restoring some relics from the imperial past but also making himself dictator with the title of "His Most Serene Highness". Even he seemed to possibly realize that political instability was ruining Mexico. Even simple relations with foreign governments were often impossible since by the time diplomats arrived in Europe the government which had sent them had usually been overthrown. Many began to seek a change in the form of government rather than simply the occupants of the National Palace.

In short, many Mexicans began to desire a monarchy as a way of establishing long-term stability in place of the almost constant anarchy. Santa Anna dispatched Jose Maria Gutierrez de Estrada to Europe to look into the possibility of inviting a European (presumably Spanish) prince to Mexico to perhaps assume the throne. How serious Santa Anna was about this, we will never know. Initially there was reason to hope that the cause would be taken up in Madrid, however, the chance of restoring a Spanish monarch to the heart of their former New World empire was dashed by the inability of the Spaniards themselves to agree on who their own monarch should be. The on-going civil war in Spain destroyed any chance of a branch of the Spanish monarchy returning to America and, as usual, it was not long before Gutierrez de Estrada found himself representing a government no longer in power. Back at home, with the increasing respect being shown to the memory of the Mexican Empire and the man he had first betrayed, Emperor Agustin, some wondered if Santa Anna perhaps intended on making himself Emperor of Mexico. Perhaps his hints of inviting a foreign prince were undertaken knowing they would fail so that Santa Anna could, like Iturbide, assume the throne himself? No one would ever know as after losing some of his conservative support, Santa Anna was again overthrown by the leading Mexican liberals Ignacio Comonfort and Benito Juarez in 1855.

Santa Anna was in exile in Cuba during the confrontation between the radical liberals and the pro-Church party as well as the ultimate liberal victory which saw Benito Juarez become President of Mexico and enact a new constitution. However, Gutierrez de Estrada had gone on with his mission even after Santa Anna was overthrown, as he personally believed nothing but a monarchy would save Mexico. With Spain having frittered away the opportunity, he turned to France and was finally able to obtain the support of Emperor Napoleon III. He was also joined by some of the most respected generals who had served with Santa Anna in the war with Texas such as Adrian Woll and Juan Almonte. As we know, with the backing of France, they ultimately offered the Crown of Mexico to HIRH Archduke Maximilian of Austria.

When, in 1864, the Archduke and his Belgian bride were crowned Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlota of Mexico in Mexico City, Santa Anna wrote to the new Emperor to congratulate him and offer his support to the new regime. He was effusive in his praise of Maximilian and took care to point out that he had “always” been in favor of such a restoration and really deserved the credit for getting the idea off the ground. As always, he stood ready to serve. Thankfully, Emperor Maximilian and his Mexican supporters had enough sense to realize that Santa Anna was hopelessly untrustworthy and refused him permission to return to Mexico. Lest anyone suspect he might have been sincere, Santa Anna thereafter embraced the cause of Juarez (the very man who had earlier overthrown him) and his old friends in the United States. He claimed that he had been opposed to the monarchy all the time and explained away his letter of support by saying that he had only been trying to return to fight against Maximilian (a double-cross just as he had done during the war with the United States). Whether this was true or if he was simply trying to win favor with the victorious Benito Juarez is speculation. He had changed his coat so many times, finally, no one was willing to believe anything he said.

While he was frequently in exile Santa Anna lived a lavish lifestyle, traveled, continued to feed his passion for cockfighting and supposedly invented but failed to profit from chewing gum. After an amnesty was granted in 1874 he returned to Mexico, but by that time he had been largely forgotten and the vast sums of money he had lined his pockets with while in power had long since been spent. He died a poor, ignored, embittered and almost blind old man on June 21, 1876. Throughout his life Santa Anna had proven that he had considerable ability, he was a matchless survivor, could organize and drive an army like few others and could at times show some talent as a battlefield commander. However, he was also inherently untrustworthy, committed to nothing and no one but himself, ambitious, dishonest and excessively vain. In short, he represented all of the worst aspects of republican leadership in Mexico. His treason against the first Mexican Emperor was a major instigator of the downward spiral into anarchy that took Mexico from being the most advanced and powerful country in North America to being the poorest. The atrocities he carried out will never be forgotten, and though he was sadly probably not the worst leader Mexico ever had, his reputation will always be that of a man who in the course of his career betrayed almost everyone several times over and who presided over the worst defeats in Mexican history. The most that can be said for him is that he occasionally brought a glimpse of Napoleonic grandeur to Mexico and that many Mexican leaders were actually worse than him. However, the brief surges of pride he brought to his country were invariably followed by even greater sorrows and all because of his vanity, selfishness and ambition. If he had simply been loyal to his Emperor when it mattered, how different Mexican history might have been.

Monarch Profile: King Shaka of the Zulus

Probably no other Zulu monarch is as famous as King Shaka, and with good reason. Through his innovative military tactics and successful wars of conquest he made the Zulus the dominant power in southern Africa during his lifetime. Starting with a tribal nation of 1,500, King Shaka conquered an empire with a population of over 250,000 by the time of his death. Because of his actions, however controversial, Zulu power was maintained for fifty years after his death. Shaka was born in 1787, the firstborn but illegitimate son of Chief Senzangakhona and Nandi by a woman of lower social status. Because of the circumstances of his birth Shaka had a pretty rough life and this is sometimes cited as a possible reason for his harsh policies and ruthlessness later in life. His very name, Shaka, has been translated by some as an insulting term. However, it seems all of this had a profound impact on young Shaka and implanted in him a great ambition, a desire to surpass all others and, it must be said, a degree of insensitivity. Considering how he had been treated in his most vulnerable years it is not surprising that he would become rather insensitive to the suffering of others.

By the time he was in his mid-teens, Shaka joined the warrior corps of Chief Dingiswayo of the Mthethwa and was known for his personal bravery, warrior skill and intelligence. He honed these talents under the guidance of Chief Dingiswayo, becoming an ever better military leader and increasingly ambitious. When Shaka’s father died in 1816 Chief Dingiswayo sent him back to the Zulus to assume power. Shaka succeeded in making himself King of the Zulus and immediately took retribution on all those who had been cruel to him and his low-born mother during his childhood. Also, upon assuming power, King Shaka immediately instituted new and innovative military reforms based on his previous experience with the Mthethwa. He organized his warriors into a regimental system and replaced their light throwing spears with heavier thrusting spears and larger more effective shields made of animal hide. He also trained his warriors to use their shields as offensive weapons to pull aside the shields of their enemies to expose their bodies to a stabbing attack. These new tactics were to serve Shaka quite well in future conflicts.

One of the most important changes Shaka made was in the discipline and training of his warriors. Often harsh methods were used to instill total obedience in his men so that they would follow orders without question and function as an organized team rather than simply a mob of individual warriors. He raised the physical fitness, resilience and stamina of his men by forbidding sandals and training them to run barefoot over fifty miles a day, regardless of the terrain. Years after Shaka was dead, foreign observers would marvel at the absolutely incredible speed and stamina of the Zulu armies who could move faster and more effectively on foot than almost any other soldiers in the world. The Zulu king also made use of young boys to carry supplies and so gain first-hand experience at the art of war so that when they came of age they would be fully prepared to take their place as warriors. King Shaka also developed the famous “buffalo” formation for organized attacks. It should be remembered that this was almost unprecedented in Africa at the time when the wild charge was the standard, time-honored tactic for any battle. King Shaka established his own and very effective strategy and because of the discipline and training he instilled in his men he was able to carry it out. The King could stand off on a hillside to gain an overall view of the battlefield and military situation, controlling the battle via messengers, while his warriors advanced in four ranks. The first would meet the enemy head-on, with a second force in reserve while the third and fourth divisions would fan out (like the horns of a buffalo) to encircle the enemy, thus allowing them to be destroyed completely. He also made sure to keep his reserve force out of sight so they would not became panicked or, alternatively, become too aggressive and join the fight prematurely.

In the initial wars fought by King Shaka these innovative tactics were far more complex than anything the other tribes he confronted could deal with and they were defeated quickly. Once beaten Shaka had no qualms about massacring his enemies, however, he usually gave them the choice of joining his army and any who did so left behind their previous affiliations and became Zulus, accepted in every way as if they had been born to that nationality. They were then trained as the Zulus were and joined the ranks like anyone else. Because of this policy, within only his first year as King, Shaka increased the number of his warriors from 350 to 2,000; quite a respectable force for that time and place. He was soon put to a greater test in 1818 when he joined his old teacher Dingiswayo at the battle of Gqokli Hill, an extremely hard fought defensive battle in which Dingiswayo was killed and King Shaka himself was almost defeated. It was a hard-won victory though and Shaka was sobered enough by the experience that he went back to his previous ways of making war on smaller tribes and clans to increase the size of his army. However, less than a year later he avenged the death of his mentor by inflicting a crushing defeat on the Ndwandwe in a fierce battle at the Mhlatuzi fords which lasted two days. In another new strategy unseen in Africa till that time, King Shaka applied the “scorched earth policy” toward his enemies, totally devastating their territory so as to leave nothing upon which the survivors could sustain themselves.

For the next ten years King Shaka launched numerous wars on almost every neighboring tribal nation in southern Africa, earning a reputation as a frighteningly effective conqueror. His innovative tactics and, it must be said, brutal treatment of his enemies, made him the most powerful monarch in the entire region. At the height of his power King Shaka ruled over a Zulu empire that stretched from Tanzania to the Cape Colony. He gained a domain of about two million square miles and gained a “body count” of about two million dead enemies doing it. He became so powerful that when an English doctor was brought in to treat him after he was wounded in battle he proposed exchanging ambassadors with the British monarch. There would have been no harm in that but he also allowed in British trade and businessmen for which later generations of Zulus might be critical of him. However, at that time, given what he had accomplished, it is understandable that King Shaka might have felt a bit over-confident or even invulnerable. Ultimately, King Shaka was his own worst enemy and while no other power had managed to beat him on the field of battle, his own brutal leadership was to ensure his downfall.

King Shaka was a harsh sovereign and a very superstitious man who was known to have people put to death, in horrible ways, for the seemingly random crime of “smelling” like a witch. His arbitrary cruelty became much worse after the death of his beloved mother in 1827. No one felt safe from his random punishments which might range from the torture and execution of one person to the complete massacre of entire villages. The people began to live in fear of him and the army became more discontented as well as they were kept constantly at war, moving ever farther from their homes and families on behalf of a king who no longer joined them in battle. They also had a big problem with one of the rules King Shaka enforced on his warriors which was to totally abstain from sexual relations. With a frightened population and a frustrated army King Shaka could not hope to survive for long. Finally, on September 23, 1828 Shaka was assassinated by two of his half-brothers at the age of 41. They claimed that he died in a cowardly fashion, begging for his life but, of course, we have only the word of his murderers on that score.

In any event, the place in history for King Shaka was secured long before the day of his death. He was certainly not a kind man but he is not celebrated or remembered for his actions as a ruler. What he is remembered for is his military leadership. Setting aside his character, he was undoubtedly a great warrior, perhaps the greatest and most successful conqueror sub-Saharan Africa has ever known. He took the Zulus from being a small, relatively minor local nation to become the dominant power in all of southern Africa. Even those who killed him knew better than to try to go back to the way things were and the system of organization, the tactics and the strategies he developed, served the Zulus well for many years to come before their final defeat at the hands of the British. Yet, even then, the greatest victory of the Zulus over the British at the battle of Isandlwana, would not have been possible without the earlier innovations and standards for military excellence set by King Shaka.

Happy St Valentine's Day

To all the 'Romantic Royalists' out there, all the best to you and your main squeeze

from THE MAD MONARCHIST

Favorite Royal Images: Seeds of Greatness

Princess Josephine-Charlotte, future Grand Duchess of Luxembourg and little brother Prince Baudouin, the future (and my favorite) King of the Belgians. Ain't they cute?

Mad Motivation: Make'em Run

Consort Profile: Katherine Parr

Katherine Parr, famous for being the last of the ill-fated six wives of King Henry VIII of England, was born in or around 1512, the eldest child of Sir Thomas Parr, Sheriff of Northamptonshire and Comptroller to the King. Her mother had been an aid to Queen Catherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr was named after the Queen who was her godmother. The family rose in importance during the reign of Henry VIII and Sir Thomas Parr was a good friend of the monarch. As a child, Katherine was well educated and very intelligent, learning French, Italian and Latin. She had no interest in the usual feminine pastimes and preferred more intellectual pursuits. Coming from a good family, she was only twelve when her mother started negotiating for an appropriate husband for her (she herself had only been 17 when she gave birth to Katherine) but it took some time to make a match. Finally she was married to Sir Edward Borough, Baron of Gainsborough who was 63 whereas Katherine was only 14 at the time. Naturally, he had been married before (his wife having died) and he already had three children. Still, this was not that uncommon at the time and the wedding went off without a hitch.

Katherine had stepchildren older than she was but this odd arrangement was not to last long as Lord Borough died not long after in 1528, leaving Katherine a widow and probably giving her a rather pragmatic or even cynical view of marriage. She was a free woman briefly but only a couple of years later in 1530 she was quickly snatched up by John Neville, Lord Latimer of Snape Castle. She was 18, he was in his late 30’s and had been married twice before. It was during her time as Lady Latimer that Katherine first caught the eye of King Henry after the execution of his fifth wife Katherine Howard. She was 31 with a husband whose health was failing and the King began sending her presents. After his last marriage he had been a little reluctant to marry again and even when he made up his mind to, he found brides much harder to come by. Most of the princesses of Europe had come to view the “job” of Queen consort of England as anything but desirable. No perks could be worth the risk of ruinous divorce or beheading. So, once again, the only option the King seemed to have was marrying one of his own subjects.

In 1543 Lord Latimer died leaving Katherine Parr a free, still attractive and wealthy woman in her own right. She remained at court after the death of her husband because of the growing possibility of romance with Sir Thomas Seymour, brother of the late Queen Jane and so uncle to the future King Edward VI. Seymour was everything Katherine was not. She was responsible and intelligent, he was hot-headed and unscrupulous. She was principled and he was mercenary. Yet, he was famously handsome and Katherine was as susceptible as many otherwise intelligent women in falling prey to the dashing image of a ’fancy’ man. For his part, Seymour was anxious to gain the considerable fortune Katherine had and she was not an unappealing woman on her own. Marriage rumors soon began to circulate. It was then, however, that the King intervened and it soon became clear that he wanted Katherine for himself even though Katherine, like most women at this point, had not the slightest desire to be wed to the old, increasingly ailing and notoriously cantankerous monarch. Still, she put her own feeling aside and did what she considered her duty even after Henry had Seymour put out of the way by sending him as his ambassador to Brussels.

Her reluctance notwithstanding, Katherine Parr was probably the most qualified of any of the recent consorts to be the wife of Henry VIII. She was experienced at being a wife and being a nurse to a dying husband. She had a winning personality, was very charming, an excellent conversationalist and seemed interested in everything. What could have been problematic was her intelligence. She was very well read and loved religious arguments and theological discussions. In the past, the King had shown very little tolerance for this, especially when the source was his wife who he traditionally preferred to be demure, submissive and obedient. However, after his last wife, he might have considered this less important that the fidelity that Katherine Parr was quite known for. There would certainly be no surprising revelations concerning the past when it came to Katherine Parr. She would also be acceptable to the Protestant faction at court as she was very vocal about her belief that the King was supreme in religious matters and that the Pope in Rome was a horrible monster who was a worse persecutor of the people of God than the Biblical Pharaoh of Egypt. Just what Henry liked to hear.

So it was that on July 12, 1543 King Henry VIII and Katherine Parr were married, one of the witnesses being Henry’s ex-wife Anne of Cleves, and almost everyone was happy at the news. Her submission to the King in religious matters was immediately tested when he had three Protestants burned for heresy in Great Park at Windsor but the new Queen made no objection even though her Lutheran sympathies were well known and a cause for concern in more Catholic quarters. As Queen consort, one of things Katherine is most known for is her work in bringing about a reconciliation in the often dysfunctional Tudor Royal Family. Mary and Elizabeth had both, at various points, been declared bastards by their own father. Mary had seen her mother cast aside and waste away under house arrest until her death at the hands of the King, Elizabeth knew her father had her mother put to death on absurd charges of adultery and the little prince Edward had been a source of intrigue and a jockeying for position almost since the day he was born. Reconciliation was both needed and long over due if the House of Tudor was to be expected to long survive.

The reconciliation between the King and Elizabeth was the most significant of all. Edward was his hope for the future, Mary he had known the longest and become accustomed to but until Katherine went to work the King had never been comfortable around his second daughter, perhaps because the memories she evoked of Ann Boleyn were too painful than he liked to admit. Queen Katherine took Elizabeth under her wing and supervised her education, meaning that the woman who was destined to gain fame as England’s greatest queen was in very good hands. Princess Mary, having for so long been discarded, was thrilled at simply being treated as she deserved, like a royal princess and the daughter of a King. Prince Edward was kept the most from her but she still managed to have a positive influence on the boy and he developed a real affection for her. For perhaps the first time since Henry VIII put away Katherine of Aragon the English Royal Family was together and at peace with each other. No small accomplishment that.

In affairs of state, the influence of Queen Katherine was negligible. After Queen Marie of Guise rejected the proposal that her daughter marry Prince Edward, Henry VIII sent an English army to invade Scotland which sacked and burned numerous cities, religious houses and ultimately accomplished nothing more than making the Scots hate England more than ever before and make them even more dependent on their alliance with France. Henry VIII had done what few Scottish kings ever managed to do: uniting the squabbling nobles of Scotland, at least for a time and on the sole basis of their hatred of England. Katherine played little to no part in this but she did surprise some by influencing the King to keep Princess Mary as second-in-line for the throne after her younger brother, despite the two having very different religious views. It was good for peace in the family and would be good in keeping on friendly terms with the Empire at a time when England had been acquiring more enemies than was healthy for a country not exactly at the peak of its power. So impressive was Katherine in her dealings with the family, foreign officials and so remarkable was her intelligence that Henry felt no hesitation about naming her regent to rule on his behalf when he left for his long-planned invasion of France.

As with almost everything in post-Catherine of Aragon England, the one most controversial aspect of Queen Katherine was her religion. It is often misunderstood that England was Catholic before Henry wanted a divorce and then Protestant after he broke with Rome in order to give himself one. It was not that simple. There were traditional Catholics like Princess Mary who despised giving up an inch of the “old religion”, there were pro-Lutheran Protestants who wanted a total religious “do-over” in the country and then there were the people like Henry VIII often was who were somewhere between these two. They might have despised the papacy and the religious orders but they still considered themselves part of the historical Catholic Church and viewed Protestant beliefs in many instances as heretical. Because of this it can sometimes be disputed as to whether this or that individual fit into the Catholic or Protestant camps. There were also numerous people who crossed back and forth between the two depending on the prevailing political winds.

Katherine Parr, based on her background and her own writings, was firmly in the Protestant camp though not everyone would have known it at the time. Eventually there was no getting around the fact that she was more religiously radical than Henry VIII and the Catholic faction at court tried to convince the King she was no good for him. However, Katherine was a good enough wife that she had little trouble in getting Henry to overlook her religious opinions. It is also true that she enjoyed religious debates and could participate in them without rancor or hatred toward those she was arguing with. Henry VIII, despite his rejection of the authority of Rome, did not consider himself a Protestant and, indeed, despised them. Nonetheless, his marriage to Katherine was an overall happy one. She was attentive to him, conversed with him to take his mind of his problems and ailments and in his declining years she was an able and conscientious nurse to him. She was a remarkably dutiful wife given that she probably never really loved the king at all in the way most people today would understand it. Before Henry VIII died he left orders that she be treated as Queen of England for the rest of her life, as if she were still the royal consort and he made generous provision for her.

Thomas Seymour quickly returned to Katherine and less than a year after the death of Henry the couple were finally married. This caused some raised eyebrows at court but it was nothing no one couldn’t get over. She continued to write, her works being quite well received and, to the surprise of all, at the age of 35 she gave birth to her first child, a daughter, Mary Seymour who was born in 1548. Sadly, Katherine died of fever less than a week later.

Birthday of the Prince of Naples

It was on this day in 1937 that HRH Prince Vittorio Emanuele of Naples was born to the future King Umberto II and Queen Marie Jose of Italy. It was also on this day in 1935 that his future bride, Marina Ricolfi-Doria, was born in Switzerland. When Prince Vittorio Emanuele was born it was an occasion of great celebration in the Kingdom of Italy. Of course it brought added stability to the monarchy by ensuring the future succession for another generation but, being 1937, it was also a time when the fortunes of Italy seemed to be riding high and PNF-media sources proudly proclaimed him the first Savoy prince to be born in the era of the "empire". He was the second child of the (then) Prince and Princess of Piedmont and the only masculine child of their four children. When the vicious factions that rose to dominance at the end of World War II began to threaten the continued life of the Kingdom of Italy, some suggested that King Umberto II abdicate, making his son "King Vittorio Emanuele IV" and appointing an acceptable regent to rule in his minority.


However, that was as close as the little prince would ever come to the throne. The monarchy was abolished, the King, Queen and their children were forced to go into exile and nearly a thousand years of Savoy rule came to an end in Europe. For Prince Vittorio Emanuele, trouble would follow him like a loyal dog for the rest of his life. In 1971 he carried out his unequal marriage to Marina Ricolfi-Doria in Iran (during festivities celebrating the anniversary of the Persian monarchy) which, many would later claim, invalidated him for the position of Head of the House of Savoy and heir to the former throne of the Kingdom of Italy. He has also been involved in numerous troubles that have caused many to regard him as having an unsavory reputation. In 1969 he even attempted to "usurp" the position of his father by declaring himself King of Italy in exile. The fact that he later renounced his claim to the throne and swore allegiance to the Italian republic in order to be able to return to Italy after the ban against the family was lifted in 2002 also caused many to regard him as having surrendered any claim to the leadership of the House of Savoy.

Those who believe that his unequal marriage (and other reasons mentioned) invalidates him as the rightful successor to his father have looked to HRH Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta for leadership. Each have their adherents and both can present evidence for their claim and point to flaws in that put forward by the other side. However, regardless of which side one may take, there is no denying the fact that Prince Vittorio Emanuele is the only son of the last King of Italy and therefore holds a special significance in the very long history of the Savoia dynasty. Whether the future of the Italian royal legacy resides with his son, Prince Emanuele Filiberto, or the son of the Duke of Aosta, Prince Aimone, is something every individual must decide for themselves at this point. For now, I only point out that the last son of a King of Italy was born 75 years ago today.

MM Video: Royal New Zealand

MM Video: Sultans of Brunei

Today in History

It was on this day in 1920 that HM King Farouk I of Egypt was born.

Royal News Roundup

It has been a busy week of visits and openings for many royals. Starting in the far north, HRH Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway was in Germany on Wednesday to open a special exhibition in honor of the Norwegian painter Edvard Munch (one of my favorites) called “The Modern Eye” at Schirn Kunsthalle. The Crown Princess praised Munch for putting “the individual on the center stage” and, “Who showed us what it means to be human in all our complexity. A painter who has inspired artists all over the world with his timeless work.” The exhibit will run until May 13 when it will move to London. The same day, at the Cirkus in Stockholm, HRH Prince Daniel of Sweden (who will very soon be a father) was special guest at the Ernst & Young 2012 Entrepreneur Award ceremony and gala. He presented the top prize to a Swedish pharmaceutical company. That company, Meda AB, will later represent Sweden in the entrepreneurial “World Championships” in, of course, Monte Carlo, Monaco. In Denmark this week HM Queen Margrethe II participated in the “Danish Defense Select” of the Queen’s jubilee year on Tuesday. The Queen inspected forces of the Danish army, navy, air force, home guard and the Danish Emergency Management Agency. Denmark has quite a long and varied military history and Danish armed forces have most recently participated in the campaigns in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the intervention in Libya.

And speaking of the military, on Wednesday Britain’s Prince Harry completed his 18-month training course to fly Apache helicopters (which a cousin of mine will tell you is no small accomplishment) and he even took home the prize for best co-gunner pilot. There has also been increasing chatter about the possibility of the Prince being sent back to Afghanistan later this year. As readers will surely recall Prince Harry has served in Afghanistan previously with his army unit but had to be pulled out after the media went public with his presence in the war zone, endangering his life as well as the lives of the other men in his unit. Prince Harry was quite upset at having to leave his comrades-in-arms as any dedicated soldier would be. In any event, he is still more likely to see combat that his older brother Prince William who is currently deployed to the Falkland Islands. Despite increasing tensions and exchanges of insults the Argentine government has shown itself quick to bark but hesitant to bite, recalling the pasting they took from the British the last time they tried to force the islands to accept Argentine rule. That fight will most likely be confined to the UN.

In the Low Countries, Crown Princess Maxima of the Netherlands was at the Hague on Wednesday to receive the 2011 Machiavelli Prize. What could this prize be fore? Cut-throat political campaigning? Italian nationalism? ‘The ends justify the means’ republicanism? Evidently not. The Machiavelli Foundation was started in 1987 to recognize those who “promote communication in the public eye”. I never would have guess it but Princess Maxima gave a very gracious acceptance speech dressed in a very royal purple outfit. One of the reasons cited for her honor were her role in “strengthening the support for the monarchy as a symbol of national unity” which is music to the ears of any monarchist. The Princess of Orange said that he love for the Netherlands grew from the examples of her husband and her mother-in-law saying that the work she and the Prince of Orange are able to accomplish is based on the example of royal leadership provided by the Queen in all her years on the Dutch throne. She also spoke of authenticity as being a vital trait for modern royals. Congratulations and well done to her I say.

Down south in Madre España, on Tuesday HM King Juan Carlos I met with Spanish companies leading the way in the project for a new high-speed rail line at Zarzuela Palace. Sounds perfectly fine. The name of the new rail line is “La Meca-Medina”. Huh? Maybe I missed something… Anyway, over at Montehermoso Palace in Vitoria HM Queen Sofia joined the “Environment Minister” (an essential post in any modern government) for the opening of the “Vitoria-Gasteiz European Green Capital 2012” and HRH Prince Felipe of Asturias participated in a special meeting on economics in which he spoke about the current economic crisis and the importance of education. On Wednesday HM Queen Sofia was on hand for a special meeting of the Foundation Mujeres por Africa at the Queen Sofia Museum in Madrid. Also in attendance were Foundation President Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Equality Ana Mato; former PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and other government officials as well as representatives from a number of African countries. The foundation is geared toward “sustainable economic and social development, human rights, peace, justice and the dignity of persons, and in particular of women and girls in Africa”. Considering that every country in Africa is independent now, would it be cold hearted of me to observe that they seem very dependent on foreign charity? Probably. Moving on then, HRH Infanta Cristina is reportedly “worried” about her husband who is facing a corruption trial. Only natural I suppose. And on Thursday TRH Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia of the Asturias attended the opening of the recently restored Catedral de Santa Maria de la Huerta in Tarazona.

Monarchist Profile: Corneliu Codreanu

This subject is sure to be a controversial one. Few people outside of Romania have probably ever heard of Corneliu Codreanu and for those who have there is one label that is usually associated with him and that label is not “monarchist” but rather “fascist”. Of course, this is partly a result of how free and loose people are with tossing around the fascist label. More often than not, today a “fascist” is no more than someone the mainstream does not like. This is not helped by the fact that even those who actually claim to be fascists have no real idea of what that means. Sure, if you meet one, they will assure you they know exactly what it means but, and feel free to test this if you like, ask more than one what it means and each one will give you a different answer. In other words, even they don’t know so there’s no real point in you or anyone else wasting time trying to figure it out. For the most part, it is an epithet and nothing more. Corneliu Codreanu was like some other people who have been given the fascist label but compare him to others still and he was quite different. Unlike Franco but like Hitler he was, undoubtedly, anti-Semitic (no getting around that) but like Franco and unlike Hitler he was a very religious man. I should also add that his anti-Semitism was not the genocidal sort, which is important to keep in mind. Unlike most people who claim to be or are accused of being fascists Codreanu was also openly monarchist though few if any remember this point.

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was born on September 13, 1899 in Husi, Vaslui County, Romania. His father was a teacher from Bukovina in what was then Austria-Hungary and his mother was of German ancestry. During World War I he was too young to be conscripted, tried to enlist anyway and ended up in a military academy while never seeing combat. At this early period in his life he first developed his adamant opposition to communism. He blamed the communists for much of the suffering Romania endured during World War I (the country was swiftly conquered by Austro-German forces) because it was the communists who had taken Russia out of the war and robbed Romania of their closest and most powerful ally. Over time his hatred of communism would grow deeper as his own opinions solidified. He was a devout son of the Romanian Orthodox Church whereas the communists were atheistic. He was an ardent Romanian nationalist whereas the communists were internationalists. He rejected equality as either real or desirable whereas the communists not only espoused the equality of all but were determined to use force to realize it. In short, they were the embodiment of everything opposed to what he held most dear. This was also the root of his anti-Semitism.

Like many at the time he viewed the Jews as being behind the communist revolutionary movement. That would have been enough to warrant his opposition to the Jews in Romania but he had other reasons as well. One level was religious. His ideal was a purely Christian Romania and the Jews were of a different faith. His nationalism also engendered his distrust of Jews who were a nation without a country of their own, living in Romania but, as he saw it, always remaining Jews first and Romanians second. Had a Jewish state existed at the time one can imagine Codreanu, for all his much talked about anti-Semitism, being totally supportive of it. As he grew older and more involved in politics he took a very dim view of the world around him. Having studied in Berlin he was sickened by the chaos and depravity rampant in the Weimar Republic of Germany. When Mussolini and his Black shirts (the actual Fascists) successfully pulled off their “March on Rome” he applauded them, as did many in the world at the time who were certainly not fascists, for putting a stop to the threat of a communist revolution in Italy. Yet, there were few men more unlike Codreanu than Mussolini, an atheistic republican who had been a lifelong socialist.

After a rough time in the world of right-wing politics in Romania, in 1927 Codreanu formed the Legion of the Archangel Michael. He dressed his followers in green shirts and made all new members swear an oath to die for Christ. This group would later better be known as the Iron Guard though members continued to be called “legionnaires” throughout the life of the organization. The group was adamantly Romanian Orthodox and while other groups shared certain parts of their platform it was their zealously religious nature that made the Legion stand out from the others. They rejected capitalism as materialistic but were, of course, staunchly anti-communist and their economic policy was never well developed. They were most defined by what they were opposed to which included, of course, communists, freemasons, liberals, democrats, homosexuals, atheists and any non-Christians. Codreanu also left no doubt that he was opposed to the idea of a republic though many overlook this today. It is also important to remember that during much of this time the Romanian monarch, King Carol II, was opposed to the Iron Guard and doing his best to thwart them in favor of his own political program. Nonetheless, Codreanu was open about his feelings on monarchy and his words bear repeating.

Codreanu himself said, “I reject republicanism. At the head of races, above the elite, there is Monarchy. Not all monarchs have been good. Monarchy, however, has always been good. The individual monarch must not be confused with the institution of Monarchy, the conclusions drawn from this would be false. There can be bad priests, but this does not mean that we can draw the conclusion that the Church must be ended and God stoned to death. There are certainly weak or bad monarchs, but we cannot renounce Monarchy. The race has a line of life. A monarch is great and good, when he stays on this line ; he is petty and bad, to the extent that he moves away from this racial line of life or he opposes it. There are many lines by which a monarch can be tempted. He must set them all aside and follow the line of the race. Here is the law of Monarchy.” One can speculate that the invocation of race in speaking of the monarchy was perhaps in reference to the fact that King Carol II had a girlfriend who was from a Jewish background which irritated a great many people. In 1937 the Legion placed third in national elections but King Carol II came down hard on them as he was himself trying to establish his own royal-political regime and would tolerate no opposition.

In 1938 King Carol II dissolved Parliament and began ruling on his own. Codreanu was swiftly arrested and on the night of November 29-30 was strangled to death along with several of his compatriots by the police. The Legion was almost wiped out, began even more radical and finally achieved some measure of power under the pro-Axis dictator General Ion Antonescu. However, the general soon turned against them, removed their members from power and with German support succeeded in wiping out most of them. What Codreanu would have thought of those cruel and violent years no one can say but he certainly would have considered himself fortunate that he did not live to see the decades of Soviet domination over his beloved country. He was not a perfect man and can be criticized for many things but his love of country and his sincere faith certainly cannot be questioned.

Papal Profile: Pope John Paul II

The first Supreme Pontiff in the age of computers and mass media was Pope John Paul II, said to be the single most recognized person in the world during his globe-trotting reign. In addition to being the spiritual leader of approximately one-sixth of the world's population, he had an impact far greater than even that with his influence touching many countries and peoples that had little to nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Many controversies would arise during his historic reign but, regardless of the sides one might take, few could argue that John Paul II made the Church something that could not simply be ignored in an increasingly secular world. Born Karol Wojtyla on May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, Poland, John Paul II was the son of a retired Austro-Hungarian army officer. In fact, he was named after the last Emperor-King of Austria-Hungary, a man he would later beatify. Through Poland's suffering at the hands of the Nazis and then the Soviets, Karol was the sole surviving member of his family by the time he was only twenty one. Religion, particularly the Virgin Mary, was his only comfort. He joined the Church and eventually became Archbishop of Krakow prior to his appointment as Cardinal. On October 16, 1978, at the age of 58, he was elected Pope after the brief reign of John Paul I.

His reign was historic from the very moment of his election. John Paul II was the first Polish Pontiff in history and the first non-Italian Pope in 456 years. He had a wealth of personal experience to draw from, due to his suffering as a laborer in occupied Poland, service as a university lecturer, his time as a bishop, cardinal and participant in the Second Vatican Council. His Holiness also held two doctorates in mystical theology and philosophy and spoke eight different languages. He had also been an amateur actor during his youth and many credited this experience with his ability to master the art of public gestures, saying or doing the right thing to win over an often skeptical and unbelieving people. Non-Catholics and even non-religious people often commented on his charm and charisma. It often seemed that his goal was to bring ancient truths to public attention and present them in such a way that the modern world would accept them.

Throughout his years on the Throne of St Peter John Paul II won admirers and critics by his efforts to make the Church comprehensible to the post-Christian west while not compromising on traditional beliefs. He traveled more than any other Pope in history and spoke out against such evils as communism, abortion, human cloning and divorce. Even when his health began to deteriorate in his later years, the Pontiff did not slow his busy schedule and continued to keep a well-defined policy on spiritual and social matters. His visits were many and his writings voluminous. From immigration to sexuality, collectivism to capitalism it seemed that, under John Paul II, the Church had a position on every issue. Over time, this did have drawbacks since, when flaws and scandals appeared in the Church itself, it seemed so much more outrageous to people on the outside given how free the Vatican had been in issuing instructions concerning every imaginable topic others faced.

Since John Paul II was a working man of humble origins, he had long been a champion of the rights of the less fortunate, while at the same time opposing the atheistic principles of socialism and communism which does not liberate workers but makes them slaves of the state, degrading individual worth for the sake of a collective equality. World leaders credit a great deal of the victory over communism in Eastern Europe to the influence and efforts of Pope John Paul II. For this he was applauded by the capitalist countries of the west, yet he soon earned their criticism as well for he also spoke out against the failings of capitalism and the resulting excess of materialism present in many western countries. Still, while western secularists might have viewed him as an annoyance, those on the eastern side of the “Iron Curtain” viewed him as a dire threat. On May 13, 1981, disaster struck when the Pontiff was shot by an assassin in St Peter's Square during a weekly audience. Doctors described the Holy Father's recovery as "miraculous". In 1983 the Pope visited his attacker in an Italian prison where the two talked in private for 20 minutes. Many believe that the plot was communist in origin but we may never know for sure. All the Pope was certain of was that the Blessed Virgin had spared his life.

As time went on, John Paul II broke record after record for the length of his reign and his many travels. During his pontificate there was hardly a country in the world with any Catholic population that did not receive a Papal visit. The Supreme Pontiff also broke records for recognizing more saints than any other Pope. Those recognized came from a much more diverse background and variety of peoples from countries around the world than ever before, as John Paul II wished to emphasis the universal nature of Christianity and that anyone can become a saint. In matters of theology His Holiness was a tower of strength, refusing to change the truth of the Church in response to the often changing views of society. Because of this he was often criticized for intransigence from the left just as a minority from the opposite direction criticized him for being insufficiently reactionary. Sadly, many on the traditional end of the religious spectrum broke away from the Church completely, reducing their own influence and leaving the modernists to set the tone only to howl the loudest when the Pope did not change to suit passing trends. When changes many assumed would come did not they were all the more outraged. Efforts to allow women into the priesthood and lessen the firm stance taken on birth control were met with Papal disapproval. John Paul II was adamant that such changes were not only unwise but impossible. The Pope also worked very hard with leaders from the other religions of the world to promote peace and cooperation. Occasionally, he seemed to go too far in his gestures of friendship, but few people of goodwill doubted his intentions. In response to the attacks on September 11th the Holy Father called on all religions to reject violence as a method of spiritual change and condemned those who murder the innocent in the name of God.

In his own life he embodied devotion to duty and a sincere love of Christ even if his good nature often made him blind to the wickedness of others. He continued in his work even after becoming extremely infirm. John Paul II became one of the longest reigning pontiffs in Christian history with many in the world never knowing a time when he did not sit on the Petrine throne. However, with the increasing effects of age, surgery and Parkinson’s disease, Pope John Paul II, though he continued to work until the very end, was taken up to his reward on April 2, 2005. At his funeral, crowds shouted for him to be declared a saint immediately and never had their been such a widespread outpouring of grief at the death of a Pontiff, from Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Almost as soon as he was laid to rest many began speaking of him as Pope John Paul the Great. Given the length of his reign alone that is not surprising.

To be sure, there were many problems during the reign of John Paul II. His critics, both liberal and conservative, can each point to mistakes. However, because of when he reigned and for how long he reigned it cannot be denied that he was a colossal historical figure who touched more lives than probably any other Bishop of Rome of before him. He also reigned during a very difficult period, particularly after the advent of the internet and other such technologies which allowed for an outpouring of views being made public with millions, even billions, around the world seeing fit to sit in judgment of the Pope and making their verdicts known to the world. That the leftist, secular, atheistic types of the world criticized him should come as no surprise. Any Christian who earns their condemnation should wear it as a badge of honor. More painful though is the criticism of those from the opposite end of the spectrum, those who are (or who say they are) Catholics who deign to pass judgment on the Supreme Pontiff and condemn him as being insufficiently Catholic or even worse. In many instances it is this criticism that cuts deepest because many of those leveling it (not all certainly but many) are often quite upstanding individuals and exemplary Catholics in every way, save perhaps submission and obedience to the Pope. Because so much of this controversy surrounds John Paul II, it is worth addressing.

The Catholic Church has long boasted of its universal nature and ability to appeal to a wide array of peoples. Everyone has their own tastes but most realize (or did) that their own are not for everyone and from the barbarian north to the farthest reaches of China the Catholic Church has claimed to have as its goal presenting the gospel of Christ to various peoples in various ways which they would be most likely to accept. Sometimes this led to internal Catholic conflicts, such as the Jesuit-Dominican spat over the Chinese rites, to a perhaps even more bitter dispute over the post-Vatican II efforts of the Church to appeal to an increasingly irreligious world. These efforts, most would agree, were not always met with success and not always done in the most graceful way. Pope John Paul II, certainly, was trying to do this and few will hesitate to judge his success or failure in this regard in one area or another. Some praise him for his efforts, while others criticize him even after his death.

Let me be clear that I think the modernist crisis is real and those behind it are willingly doing evil, however, I also think that there are some good-intentioned people who have taken courses I would disagree with but who are trying to keep the Catholic Church and Christianity in play and not be shrugged off as a relic of a bygone age unworthy of the slightest consideration. I also think that, in the case of Pope John Paul II, some clerics simply did not and do not think as much about liturgy, pomp and ceremony as some of us do. I have noticed this before in clerics of the World War II generation. These men lived through World War II and experienced horrific suffering and witnessed even worse. Surely, such events cannot but influence people and shape their views on what is and is not most important in life. For priests like Pope John Paul II who lived through so much oppression, fear, persecution and horrific slaughter, it is not hard to imagine that arguments over vestments, candles and language did not rank very high on their list of priorities, though all are important, certainly to those who revere “traditional” Christianity.

As can be seen in a few pictures, Pope John Paul II could take on a more traditional style at times though, obviously, such occasions were the exception rather than the rule. I think most devout Catholics would admit that during the reign of John Paul II the liturgy suffered and the overall reverence in and of the Church declined. However, for whatever it may be worth, I would advise caution toward those who would use that as an excuse to attack the Pope himself, who I have no doubt was as sincere and heartfelt a Christian as one could ever hope to find. A true picture can be found by looking to those areas which he himself directed rather than those which were handled by courtiers and Vatican bureaucrats. Pope John Paul II championed Marian devotion, Eucharistic adoration, pilgrimages, holy hours, devotion to the Divine Child Jesus, absolute opposition to abortion, birth control, the ordination of women, homosexuality and his adamant support of things like the rosary. Surely, none of these things would have been done by someone who was a modernist. He canonized St Faustina and championed her chaplet of Divine Mercy, he beatified the Emperor Charles of Austria and Pope Pius IX, the original crusader against modernism to some extent. His many canonizations are sometimes criticized, yet we should remember that among that vast number was the Cristeros of Mexico who fought for Christ the King and were killed for it, sometimes in opposition to the wishes of their own bishops or the many Christian martyrs who lost their life to communist regimes in Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa as well as his outspoken condemnation of Marxist "liberation theology". He should also be given all due credit for his support of the culture of life, which he poured a great deal of time and energy into defining, explaining and upholding in opposition to the culture of death.

It is also true that in almost every case of the externals that avowed “papal monarchists” (God bless them) so adore he either supported or at the least did not oppose or condemn. Just because he did not think such things terribly important or critical, that does not mean that he thought them wrong (and of course I don‘t know what was in the Pope‘s heart and neither do you). A case in point is the papal tiara, which I myself certainly miss terribly and wish would be restored to use. At his enthronement Pope John Paul II addressed the subject of the tiara and the coronation which his predecessor John Paul I had forgone. He was very clear that the tiara should have no stigma attached to it, mourned the fact that it did and for that reason said it was not time to restore the tradition. Yet, in his instructions he left the possibility for a coronation open for the future and did in fact have his own papal tiara which was given to him by the people of Hungary in 1981.

There are also a number of things that even very traditional Catholics can and do disagree on such as the papal staff for example, which John Paul II used almost exclusively. I know there are some who think it outrageous that the Pope use anything but the traditional shepherd's crook used by all bishops. It seems a rather trivial matter to me and not outrageous that a Pope have a staff that is unique to the Petrine office. I have also heard some criticize the papal staff for being too graphic (for lack of a better word) in how Christ is shown hanging so limp and drooping on a rather rustic looking cross. This, I can certainly attribute to simple cultural differences. I never saw anything wrong with it but that may be a product of my own environment where Hispanic culture predominates and there are many, many visual representations of Christ in the most extreme agony and in other ways very graphically portrayed. My point is simply that these are matters of taste which people of good will can disagree on and should not be attacked or ridiculed over because their taste does not coincide with that of another.

Pope John Paul II was not the most traditional pope in history but he was certainly no modernist and reigned during a very, very difficult time in which the Church was under attack by a revolutionary culture while the Church no longer had the strength to engage in a sort of hostile stand-off as in days gone by. I don't think any of us can fathom the immense weight of the responsibility on the shoulders of a pope and I wish that all Catholics (and Christians of any variety) would be a little more humble and not so quick to be critical of those with the responsibility to be shepherds. All of us, after all, can only do our best and while I would not agree with everything done or said by Pope John Paul II, I have no doubt that he was doing his best as well.

The Battle of Adowa

The battle of Adowa is still one of the most famous battles ever fought on the continent of Africa. Songs, films and books are still made about it to this day and it ranks as one of the three biggest battles in which native African forces defeated European or at least European-led armies. It was the pivotal battle in the first war between the Ethiopian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy. Italy, united in 1861, was late to the colonial race and eager to carve out a place for herself on the world stage. Ethiopia was a complex network of tribes, often at war with each other and nominally under the rule of a “King of Kings” or Emperor but whose actual control over the country tended to be intermittent. In 1869 an Italian company purchased land for a coaling station in Assab Bay and in 1883 sold the territory to the Italian government. This area eventually became the colony of Eritrea. There were clashes with the religious rebels of Mohammed Ahmed, who claimed to be the “Mahdi” or Islamic messiah in the Sudan as well as clashes with Ethiopians as the Italians moved farther inland.

Emperor Menelik II

Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes IV clashed with the Italians but eventually came to terms with them. Meanwhile, one of his leading nobles, Menelik of Shewa, was building up his forces, making use of modern weapons sold to him by the Italians in return for his neutrality. When Emperor Yohannes IV was on his deathbed he named his nephew, Ras Mangasha -one of the most capable warriors in Ethiopia, as his heir in 1889. However, Menelik controlled the best land and the most men who had the most advanced weaponry. When Yohannes IV died he declared himself Emperor Menelik II and negotiated Italian support for his seizure of power. He signed the Treaty of Wuchale on May 2, 1889 with Italy by which the kingdom recognized Menelik as Emperor of Ethiopia in return for which he recognized Italian ownership of the land already under their control. Permanent friendship was pledged and trade agreements established, however, confusion over one clause in the treaty would ultimately lead to war.

Ras Mangasha

Article 17 was the cause of the trouble as it was different in the Italian and Ethiopian versions. According to the Italian version Menelik II had basically agreed that Ethiopia was an Italian protectorate. In the Ethiopian version the Emperor had the option to avail himself of Italian protection but no obligation. When Emperor Menelik II reached out to other European governments on his own the Italians objected. Emperor Menelik II objected to their objection and sent a letter of protest to King Umberto I of Italy. When the King failed to respond satisfactorily, Menelik II repudiated the Treaty of Wuchale, effectively declaring war on the Kingdom of Italy on February 27, 1893. After dealing with the forces of the Mahdi, who clashed with the Ethiopians and Italians alike, the focus shifted to the important province of Tigre. Menelik II, hoping to make an ally out of the man he had displaced, offered the province to Ras Mangasha if he could take it from the Italians. Ras Mangasha pretended to be friendly with the Italians and raised an army on the pretense of fighting the forces of the Mahdi. However, once gathered, he launched a surprise attack on the Italians. Mangasha was defeated but the fight resulted in Italy being drawn into a larger and more risky confrontation.

Generale Baratieri

Major General Oreste Baratieri was dispatched with a large Italian colonial army, most of the rank and file being native African troops under Italian command. He won a number of early victories which caused overconfidence while Emperor Menelik II spent his time gathering a massive army from across Ethiopia. Both armies fought a proxy war and played for time until they were each forced into a confrontation due to dwindling supplies. The feudal levies of the Ethiopian army could not be kept in the field, inactive for long and General Baratieri was being pushed by the government in Rome for a swift and decisive victory. The two armies moved and came together near the town of Adowa. Italian reinforcements had been dispatched to Africa but would not arrive in time and General Baratieri had no idea of how large an army was massed against him. He had expected, at most, about 60,000 men when in fact Menelik II was able to field over 100,000 warriors compared to only about 15,000 Italian colonial troops. Exact figures are not known but the Italians would be outnumbered at least 8 to 1 by most accounts.

Menelik II

Because of earlier victories over considerably larger forces, the Italian high command tended to underestimate the Ethiopians, causing them to be overconfident. Menelik II, however, was throwing everything he had into the upcoming battle. Contrary to popular belief, he was not ignorant of modern weaponry and many of his men carried rifles and his army even possessed some artillery. He had also made use of his support with the populace to confuse his enemy. Most of the scouts working for the Italians were actually in the employ of Menelik II and he used other means to fool the Italians into thinking his army was mostly dispersed. The Italians had also underestimated Menelik II himself. They had hoped to influence local chieftains against him or to at least secure their neutrality (as they had previously done with Menelik himself) but this time it didn’t work. Menelik II, upon taking the throne, enacted measures to ensure that the nobility would support him and the vast majority did exactly that. He moved his army forward while the Italians, unfamiliar with the terrain and being fed bad information by their native scouts, stumbled about in the dark and became separated.

Generale Albertone

As the Italian forces advanced on a night march the units became mixed up, setting back their timetable and a misunderstanding over the name of a certain hill caused General Matteo Albertone to advance far beyond the rest of the army. This caused something of a chain-reaction as the next brigade, told to take their place alongside Albertone, also became separated. By the time Emperor Menelik II sent his warriors charging against the enemy on the morning of March 1, 1896 the Italian forces were perfectly placed to be wiped out by the Ethiopians one piece at a time. In terms of the forces engaged, this was almost a purely African battle with the Italians involved being a minority. The African natives of the Italian army fought with remarkable discipline against tremendous odds, holding their positions and delivering devastating volleys of fire that took an immense toll on the attackers. Nonetheless, the Ethiopian warriors were just as determined in their ferocity and attacked again and again. As the day wore on the Ethiopians finally overwhelmed the Italians, destroying or routing the entire brigade. General Albertone himself was killed in the struggle.

Of the four Italian brigades, one was annihilated and another already close to the same fate when General Baratieri realized none of his messages had gotten through or if they had, lack of knowledge of terrain meant they had not been properly followed. He tried to organize a strong defensive position in the center of his intended battle line but, for the most part, by that time it was too little and too late. Fleeing troops overran these positions with Ethiopian warriors hot on their heels and despite some heroic stands the Italian position began to totally disintegrate. General Vittorio Dabormida, commanding the brigade sent to the relief of Albertone, was trapped and wiped out by Ethiopian forces, including the tough Oromo cavalry under Ras Mikael. Virtually the entire brigade was destroyed and again, the commanding general was among the dead.

General Baratieri tried to pull off a fighting withdrawal, and some units held off a few attacks, but this proved impossible and soon the entire army, or at least what was left of it, was in full flight. Emperor Menelik II called upon the local population to rise up against his enemies and many more Italians and colonial troops were killed after falling behind, collapsing from exhaustion or becoming lost during the retreat. In all the Italians had lost 6,133 men either killed in the battle or slaughtered during the retreat. Another 1,428 were wounded and all 56 pieces of artillery were captured by the Ethiopians. Emperor Menelik II lost about 7,000 men dead and 10,000 wounded; a much greater number certainly but representing only a fraction of his overall strength whereas the Italian losses counted for over half of their total force. Many of the Italian wounded also suffered a more horrific fate, some being killed, some being mutilated. The African colonial troops usually suffered worse than the Europeans as, depending on their origin, many of these men were considered traitors by the Ethiopians and had one hand and one foot cut off so as to make them permanently helpless and, in most cases, doomed to a slow, agonizing death from starvation.

Menelik II triumphants

The results of the battle were immediate and dramatic. In Rome the government of Francesco Crispi immediately fell and General Baratieri was wrongly blamed of abandoning his men in disgrace. Fortunately, he was cleared by a court martial but his reputation had suffered irreparable harm. All Italian colonial expansion in Africa was halted for more than a decade and total Ethiopian independence was recognized. Emperor Menelik II wisely made this his only real demand. While others howled for more blood, he realized that provoking an all-out war might have resulted in the loss of his throne and the total ruination of his country. He had gained what he wanted, earned himself a place in African history and was content to leave well enough alone. Ethiopia gained a new respect on the world stage and foreign recognition poured in for Menelik II who attained a new mythic status because of his victory. However, not everything that resulted from the battle was good for Ethiopia. The Italians had gained a new respect for the fighting ability of the Ethiopians and would not underestimate them next time; and many were determined that there would be a next time when the defeat of Adowa would be avenged. When the next contest came it would be the Ethiopians who, remembering their victory at Adowa, would tend to underestimate the Italians with disastrous results.

Still, the most lasting effect of the battle of Adowa was in the symbolism of it. Not since the Zulu victory at Isandlwana in 1879 had a European army been so totally defeated by a force of African natives. Even after Italy evened the score in 1935-36, Africans never forgot the battle of Adowa and African nationalists invoked the memory of that victory to inspire a new generation in the decades after World War II to rally to the cause of overthrowing the European colonial governments and asserting independence for the nations of Africa.