Sunday, July 31, 2011
A Happy Birthday
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Royal News Roundup
The Prince said his name and his family history is very important to him and something he respects but is totally apart from his career and that he has no interest in being the King of Italy. Rather, he said he wants to see what he can do to help Italy today, as he is (hasn’t this become an all-too-common attitude). On the subject of the controversy surrounding Italian PM Berlusconi, Princess Clotilde called his actions “unacceptable” but the Prince was more measured, saying that no one should be judged before the trial is over. It would be terrible if it were true, but he is holding final opinion for the verdict. However, Prince Emanuele Filiberto, you will be glad to know, is at least supportive of the idea of monarchy and the unifying role royals have. To quote the Prince, “Royal families are on top of political parties. So they’re not interested in right, left, up, down, black, white. They’re really interested in the good of their people and their country. It’s important to have someone who’s on top of the parties who really loves the country and doesn’t need to be elected by the people so he doesn’t need to compromise between right and left.” Which is very well put; are you sure there’s no interest in being King there? Stay tuned.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Monarch Profile: King Umberto I of Italy
Toward that end the young Prince Umberto served as a captain in the army of Piedmont-Sardinia (the highest rated amongst the Italian states) in the Italian Wars for Independence. Promotions followed and he fought at the battle of Solferino in 1859 and led a division at the battle of Custoza in 1866. That engagement was a bitter blow for the Piedmontese, being defeated by a significantly smaller Austrian army, however, Prince Umberto acquitted himself well. Near Villafranca, he and his men were attacked by the Austrian cavalry (which was famous across Europe) and the Prince had his men form square and repelled every charge with the Prince himself remaining with his troops at all times, exposed to constant danger. In the aftermath of the battle, he helped to form the rear-guard, covering the retreat of the Piedmontese army and won numerous decorations for his courage and gallantry.
Prince Umberto, like his father before him and his son after him, had it impressed upon him at an early age that his duty was to make Italy a great nation and to lead the Italian people to a place of prosperity and greatness befitting their glorious ancient history. The House of Savoy had embraced enemies, alienated friends and risked all in this one mission; to see the unification of Italy and to make the Italian nation a great and powerful kingdom. Prince Umberto would never forget this and his duty to his people and his country always came first. His father had succeeded in the first step, uniting the country and becoming the first King of Italy, and it would be up to Prince Umberto to carry on that legacy and take the nation his father had given him to greater heights. This was firmly in his mind when his father died and he became King Umberto I of Italy on January 9, 1878. Whereas his father had not changed his name when he became King, Umberto specifically chose to reign as King Umberto I rather than “King Umberto IV” using the older Savoy numbering. He did not want to appear as a Piedmontese monarch ruling Italy but as the first King Umberto of an Italian kingdom with a new Italian Royal Family.
King Umberto I became known as the “Good King” or “Umberto the Good” by the common people because of the care and concern he showed them. When Verona and Venice suffered massive flooding in 1882 the King went himself to direct the efforts to minimize the disaster and gave generously from his own funds to aid those displaced. When a massive earthquake struck Ischia the following year the King again intervened, ordering rescue operations to continue five days longer than planned which resulted in many lives being saved. Again, he went himself to lend a hand even though the area remained quite dangerous. He showed similar compassion in 1884 when a cholera epidemic struck southern Italy and by all of these and similar actions was beloved by the Italian people. In securing the dynasty and uniting the country, the reign of Umberto I was an early success. The only ones not satisfied were the radical leftists who opposed the rise to prominence of more conservative elements in government, the most notable being Francesco Crispi.
In 1897 the King survived another assassination attempt, by another anarchist, near Rome. The following year came the one most controversial event of his reign. Riots, first over the price of bread but whipped up by leftist agitators, broke out in Milan and the city was placed under martial law. As the situation began to get out of control, General Fiorenzo Bava-Beccaris ordered his artillery to fire on the crowd, killing about a hundred people and wounding many more but putting an immediate stop to the rioting. Many were shocked by this and many people (mostly revolutionaries anyway) were outraged when King Umberto I decorated the general afterwards. This incident has been used to paint the King in a very negative light and it was an unfortunate incident undoubtedly. However, the King only recognized the general for taking decisive action to restore law and order and safeguard lives and property against the already violent crowd of rioters in the streets. It was not an award for butchery but for putting a swift end to an ugly situation that was threatening to become worse. The Socialist Party had been behind the outbreak of violence which included, incidentally, a young radical named Benito Mussolini.
Nonetheless, if the King was unpopular with the radical leftists and socialists before, this incident made them absolutely despise him. However, this was not the only case by which many have misjudged the second King of Italy. Another was his policy of no-compromise regarding the “Roman Question” as the standoff with the Holy See was called. The King, in 1886, famously affirmed that Rome was the capitol of Italy and would always remain so and never return to clerical rule. King Umberto was, however, no anti-clerical and in the end the Church came to accept secular rule for the Eternal City. After the Italian army had occupied Rome in 1870 the Pope had been offered royal honors, sovereign status and rule over the whole of the Leonine City but this was rejected. Catholicism was always maintained as the state religion of Italy and, as we know, in the end an accommodation was reached to the satisfaction of the Holy See even though the territory on offer was reduced only to the Vatican. The King also became more and more religious throughout his life and was always charitable, though not many know it, as he helped others privately without any fuss or fanfare.In 1900, in what would be the last major foreign policy act of his reign, King Umberto dispatched Italian troops to China as part of the Eight Nation Alliance to suppress the Boxer Rebellion. The Kingdom of Italy would gain a concession in China as a result but Umberto I would never know this. On July 29, 1900 King “Umberto the Good” was driving in Monza when he was shot four times and killed by an Italian-American anarchist named Gaetano Bresci, an act of revenge, the man claimed for the suppression of the riot in Milan. The public mourned heavily for the King they remembered fondly for his good humor and generosity. On August 9, 1900 he was laid to rest in the Pantheon in Rome next to his father.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Mad Rant: Son of God/Political Football
Let me also say, even though I know it annoys a lot of people when I say anything nice about the objectivists, that even at their worst the objectivists and libertarians are better for religion than the radical revolutionaries. The revolutionaries want to destroy religion, suppress it and promote what is contrary to it. Libertarians, as with most things, simply take a “hands-off” attitude toward religion, neither favoring nor opposing it. Undoubtedly, Ayn Rand was an adamant atheist who was not bashful in her opinions toward any religion including Christianity. In fact, she openly stated that she considered the very concept of “faith” to be immoral. However, though neither her friends nor foes talk about it much, she was also adamant that she was not a “militant atheist”. She stated clearly that she was not trying to fight against religion, she was fighting for pure laissez-faire capitalism. Remember that one of her fundamental principles of objectivism was a total rejection of force or coercion. She adamantly opposed denying anyone the right to be religious just as much as she adamantly opposed denying anyone the right not to be religious at all.
However, the objectivists are not saying that. If you look at what they say closely, they are, again, actually agreeing with the socialists that one must choose between Ayn Rand or Christ. The socialists are saying this because they are portraying Christ as a socialist and what Christians to reject anything Ayn Rand or her modern disciples say. The objectivists are saying it because, well, they think Christianity is basically socialist as well and are hoping you choose Ayn Rand and her philosophy instead. They are not that blatant about it but, keep them talking on the subject long enough and they will admit eventually that, yes, they think ultimately one would have to choose between the two and of course they think objectivism is the superior philosophy to Christianity. They are both, essentially, accepting the same lie: that Christ was a socialist.
That is what is at the heart of socialism; using force to take what one person has to give it to someone else. That never happened in the New Testament, Christ never did it, nor did He ever advocate or command anyone to do it. Jesus did give to the poor and afflicted, and a good Christian is supposed to be “Christ-like” but we do have one serious roadblock to doing exactly “what Jesus would have done” which is that we are not God. Christ could work miracles, He healed the sick, fed the hungry and so on by performing miracles. I suppose I should not speak for everyone but I certainly cannot do that. If I could work miracles there would be crowned heads ruling over the world, I would have perfect health, be living in a villa in Costa Rica and married to Alessandra Ambrosio. In short -not going to happen. Look, instead, to the example of Christ and the rich, young nobleman who asked what he had to do to obtain salvation. Christ told him to give away all of his wealth and follow Him. ‘Aha!’ the socialists exclaim, ‘see, he was one of us!’ Uh, no, because there was no coercion. Now, if Christ had seized the young man, robbed him of all his riches and then, after pocketing a bit for Himself, gave the rest to the poor, THEN Christ would have been a socialist. He didn’t do that. He advised people to be compassionate and charitable, He never advocated using force to take from one and give to another.
As the great William Shakespeare so famously wrote, “The quality of mercy is not strain’d, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:” Compassion and charity cannot be forced. When it flows naturally, as Shakespeare said, it rewards both parties in the transaction. Socialism is, at best, coerced charity which simply replaces one possible injustice with another definite one. Besides which, at the end of the day, we all know Jesus was a monarchist. To see objectivists and socialists, two essentially atheist groups, arguing over what economic system the son of God would have preferred, neither adhering to the facts, makes me an extremely … Mad Monarchist.
Hurrah - Justice is Served
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Battlefield Royal: The "Black Duke" of Brunswick
The Duke raised and outfitted his own corps of men, known variously as the Black Legion or the Black Brunswickers because of their ominous uniforms; all black and sporting large silver skulls. Some have said this was done as a sign of mourning for the occupation of their native land by the French. A less romantic view is that the Duke intended it as a symbol of his utter lack of mercy for his enemy; that death was the business of these men and the French could expect no pity from them. They certainly made for an imposing image and, lest we be too hard on the Duke, his hatred of revolutionary France and Napoleon was fully returned. In fact, Napoleon sent him a message telling him so, presumably because the Duke was so closely related to the British enemy Napoleon despised the most. The Duke was a grandson of the late Frederick, Prince of Wales, and was the brother-in-law of the soon-to-be King George IV.
From 1813-1814 the Duke was restored to his lands, where he was beloved by the people as a national hero for his determined fight against their former occupiers. When Napoleon escaped from exile to make his second bid for power, the “Black Duke” did not hesitate, immediately reforming his old legion and leading them to the front once again. This time, however, they were not such a potent force as before, consisting largely of raw, young recruits but their commander had lost none of his determination nor his reckless courage. He was killed in action on June 16, 1815 at the battle of Quatre Bras in Belgium. However, his reputation only grew in subsequent history as he came to be seen as the ideal German prince. He refused to give in, refused to make any accomodation with France but instead risked all he had, his life, his fortune and his property to carry on the fight, under any flag possible, Austrian or British, until his homeland was liberated.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
The Day Franco Restored the Monarchy
To do so would have meant choosing either the Alfonsist or Carlist candidate and thus immediately sacrificing the support of the side passed over. Franco wanted Spain strong and united and was desperate to avoid such an event, even to the point of informally offering the Spanish throne to the recently deceased Archduke Otto von Hapsburg (the Archduke declined of course and recommended Prince Juan Carlos). During his years in power, Franco swayed somewhat, back and forth, from one faction to the other. However, as we know, he ultimately decided on the more established Alfonsists and named as his successor Prince Juan Carlos who became King of Spain after Franco’s death. I would take a moment to point out that there is a lesson here for monarchists to learn from. How many opportunities were lost for the restoration of the ancient monarchy of France due to the vociferous animosity between the competing factions there? In any event, despite what the Spanish government said later about King Juan Carlos owing his position solely to his legal, hereditary right, few would doubt that there would be no Kingdom of Spain today were it not for Generalissimo Francisco Franco. Even King Juan Carlos seems to think so as, despite how politically incorrect Franco has become in the decades since his death, the King does not speak about him in public and even in private will not allow anyone to speak ill of the late Caudillo in his presence.
I may have said this before, but the way in which so many people today criticize Generalissimo Franco and his regime (and he was a dictator, pure and simple) while never thinking about what life might have been like or how history might have developed had he not held the line against communist aggression, always makes me think of that famous scene in the film “A Few Good Men” with Jack Nicholson. Nicholson, as Marine Lt. Col. Jessup says,
Franco could say pretty much the same, I think, to his critics today. He was not politically correct, he was not liberal or “pluralistic” but when the specter of communist tyranny was looming on the horizon, we certainly needed him on that wall.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Mark Steyn on Norway
Consort Profile: Queen Marie Leszczyńska of Poland
However, the idea of a marriage with the Bourbons of France did not go away. The King of Poland was in need of any sort of political support and individuals in France began to consider Princess Marie a possibility too. The young King Louis XV was in need of a wife and yet every possibility seemed to bring too much political baggage to the table. Poland, however, had very few friends and thus a marriage with a Polish princess would not bring with it any unwanted entanglements. The Prince of Conde had no hard feelings and supported the match as did Cardinal Fleury who had replaced the prince as prime minister to Louis XV. She was young, pretty, good natured and politically neutral, in short, she came to be seen as the ideal choice. She was older than the King (22 years to his 15) but not excessively so and could be expected on to fulfill her duty to secure the succession right away. So, on August 15, 1725 the two were married by proxy at the cathedral of Strasbourg with the Duke of Orleans standing in for the King. The couple did not actually meet in person until the day before their face-to-face ceremony on September 5, 1725.
As is often the case, the new Queen Marie faced her share of difficulties after coming to France and marrying the King. Some of the more elitist elements at court thought a marriage to a Polish princess whose father only briefly and intermittently held a throne beneath the dignity of a Bourbon monarch of France. Ugly rumors were spread about the new Queen but, as hurtful as these must have been, Marie never showed any sign in public that such was the case. The common people of France were impressed with her from the start as she gave out alms to the poor on the way to her wedding. Nor were their any complaints from King Louis who fell instantly in love with the young Polish princess and she with him. Their initial life together seemed idyllic and so it was. They were infatuated with each other and in no time at all the new Queen consort was pregnant with twins. In 1727 she gave birth to two girls; Princess Louise Elisabeth and Princess Henriette Anne at Versailles. A son, of course, was what was hoped for, but the twins were healthy, the couple still young and in love and there was no great worry that more children would follow and France would have a son and heir.
The snobs at court still smirk at their Polish queen but she proved them all wrong by keeping the affection of her husband and did indeed give birth to eight more children; six girls and two boys including the sought-after Dauphin Louis Ferdinand. Despite all the negativity directed at the Queen, she was not lacking in intelligence nor in diligence. The elaborate protocol of Versailles frustrated many a royal consort but the Queen worked hard to master it and if the gossiping bothered her she certainly never let it show but carried herself always with grace and dignity. However, her many pregnancies caused the age difference between her and her husband to become more evident and the lustful King Louis began to wander. Her feelings had not changed and she was hurt by the string of mistresses Louis XV began to take but, to her credit, she never made a scene over his affairs, always remaining polite and friendly.
The Queen was a good natured woman, not at all extravagant and concerned about the plight of the least of the French people. She was very artistically inclined and loved to paint and take singing lessons. Her passion for music caused her to bring Polish choral music to the chapel of Versailles and she was quite impressed with meeting an up-and-coming young composer named Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. She was sufficiently liberal in her thinking to secure a pension for the “Enlightenment” writer Voltaire, but she certainly did not share all of his views. Queen Marie was, for instance, sincerely religious and turned her back on the more licentious members of the court and, for the most part, stuck to her own little circle of friends who shared her commitment to the faith. Madame Pompadour, most famous of the mistresses of Louis XV, may have eclipsed her at court but Queen Marie never cared about the favor of such people of whose behavior she disapproved. She also had the comfort of knowing, which she did, that outside the confines of Versailles she was the most popular member of the French Royal Family. It therefore came as a great blow to the people of France when Queen Marie died on June 24, 1768 at the age of 65. She had been the longest-serving Queen consort in French history and still managed to outlive Madame Pompadour. Her children were heartbroken as they had all been very close to their mother and even King Louis, for all his philandering, was not unmoved. Under quite difficult circumstances she had been a model queen consort, a credit to France and Poland.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Royal News Roundup
King Harald was noticeably upset as he spoke to his people and it is no wonder. The normally peaceful Scandinavian monarchy has not experienced such a bloody attack since the Second World War. Some reports describe the arrested Breivik as a “right-wing extremist” while other experts have said they know of no right-wing extremists in Norway capable of carrying out such an attack. So far the motivation remains unknown. Early suspects were Al-Qaeda, opponents of the Norwegian contribution to the war in Afghanistan or the bombing of Libya, and terrorists of that type. The Somalian community in Norway, in the past, provided recruits for terrorist groups operating there. Few of the initial suspect profiles fit the 32-year-old Norwegian farmer now in custody.
Some cannot help but think there is some Islamic terrorism connection and this has led to greater criticism of Norwegian involvement in places like Afghanistan and Libya (which has been nominal in any event, a few hundred support troops and a few fighter jets) as well as the printing of the infamous Danish “Mohammad cartoons”. However, I would caution that even if this man has nothing to do with any of that, there is still a connection in the immediate “it is our own fault” response. When European nations cave in to terrorist attacks, such as Spain did by pulling out of Iraq after the Madrid bombings, it sends the message to everyone that terrorism works. Not a good idea folks. I was also particularly moved by a text message sent out from the island, describing a gunman shooting people and asking when the police were going to arrive. It is chilling and, I am a Texan and I cannot help it, but my first thought is that if someone else, just one person, at that camp had had a weapon of their own they could have put one in the guy’s head and saved a lot of lives.
But, that has not been the Scandinavian way. Even the long-neutral Kingdom of Sweden has not been spared as we can recall the Iraqi immigrant who bombed a crowd of Swedish Christmas shoppers last year. This is the world we live in and so long as things continue as they have been, I cannot see it changing. God bless the Kingdom of Norway and all those affected by this tragedy.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Terrorists Strike Norway
Monarchist Profile: Marshal Giovanni Messe
However, what General Messe is probably most known for was his contribution to the war against the Soviet Union. In July of 1941, after their first commander fell ill in Austria, Giovanni Messe was prompted to the temporary rank of lieutenant general and given command of the Italian Expeditionary Corps in Russia. This often overlooked military force represented the Italian contribution Mussolini was determined to make in the massive Axis invasion of the USSR, usually described as simply a Nazi or German invasion but which actually included a huge number of troops from all over Europe, from Spain to Scandinavia. Originally a corps of about 60,000 men, the Italian Expeditionary Force later grew to about 200,000. General Messe, however, was not pleased with this. At the outset he pointed out the gross insufficiency of their equipment and supplies, particularly considering the harshness of conditions on the Russian front.
General Messe expressed the opinion that his corps should not have been enlarged unless the Italian government could keep them properly supplied and they had been unable to do so even with the initial contribution. However, Mussolini wanted a much larger force to show that Italy was making a valuable contribution to the “crusade against Bolshevism”. The conflict between the general and Mussolini over this issue eventually led to him being replaced, however, during his roughly four months in command he had done quite well and was recognized by the Germans by the award of the Knights Iron Cross. On January 31, 1943 Messe was promoted to full general and sent to take command of the First Italian Army in Tunisia, a unit formerly led by the famous German Field Marshal Rommel and which was best known as the “Africa Corps” (though the German Africa Corps was only one part of a larger force and two-thirds of the troops were Italian throughout the war).
Marshal Messe remained chief of staff until 1945 after which time he left the army, one of the few men who had earned the respect of the Allies as well as the Germans and of course his own troops who admired him for his care of them as well as his skill. He wrote two memoirs and in 1953 entered Italian politics as a senator for the Christian Democratic Party. He later founded the strongly monarchist UCI or Italian Veterans Association. In 1957, his loyalty never wavering, he was elected to parliament again as a member of a monarchist party and he was reelected in 1963 with the Liberal Party (which does not mean the same thing in Italy as it does in places like America for example). His eventful life finally came to an end when he died in Rome on December 18, 1968 at the age of 85.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
National Day in Belgium
Papal Profile: Pope St Pius V
He was born Michele Ghislieri on January 17, 1504 and joined the zealous Dominican order as a young man. The Dominicans were formed to combat the Albigensian heresy and were known for their preaching, doctrinal purity and staunch opposition to anything unorthodox. He eventually rose to become Inquisitor-General where he gained experience at dealing with the heretics who were, from the Catholic perspective, rotting Christendom from within at the precise time when they were under the most dire threat from without. When he was elected to the See of Peter on January 7, 1566 he lost none of the austere living he had as a religious. He lived in very plain surroundings, kept nothing of value himself and wore a coarse hair shirt under his papal vestments. He visited hospitals, cut spending and washed the feet of the poor every day. He was the model of humility and lived the Christian social doctrine. He also fought any hint of heresy tooth and nail and never gave an inch when anyone, no matter how powerful they might be, crossed the line of Church teaching. In doing so, he was often as much of an annoyance to Catholic clerics and monarchs as he was to Protestant ones.
St Pius V was a Catholic reformer in the true sense. The Council of Trent was his guide and he quickly set about putting the Church in order and stamping out the remnants of what he viewed as Renaissance worldliness that had crept in. He put out a new catechism to help spread the true teachings of the Church and formalized the Tridentine rite of the mass which remained in use universally throughout the Latin rite until after the Second Vatican Council. He also demanded his same standards of piety which he lived by of all clergymen. Pius V saw to it that all priests had to reside in their own parishes, kept a close eye to ensure conformity among the religious orders and abolished those which had fallen prey to corruption altogether. He made full use of the Index of Forbidden Works started by Paul IV and, by and large, totally wiped out all heresy in Italy.
This saintly pontiff also set an example in how to deal with the temporal sphere as well. He would not allow the power and prestige of any person to sway his determination to do what was right in the eyes of God, even when many Catholic world leaders claimed he was being foolish and needlessly confrontational. The most remembered example of this came in 1570 when he excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England who had renewed the schism of her father and started persecuting Catholics. Many have claimed, not without some justification, that this only worsened conditions for English Catholics, however, it was not as though Pius V had no grounds for the excommunication, in fact Pope Paul IV had already declared that Elizabeth I could not succeed to the throne on the grounds that she was not of legitimate birth. In any event, this should not be seen as all that outrageous considering that Elizabeth I obviously did not consider herself a Catholic and never had (though she made some pretense when her Catholic sister was on the throne, but even then no one really believed her). In that light, the excommunication can be seen, not so much as a punishment as a simple statement of fact. The Queen of England was not a Catholic and Elizabeth certainly never claimed to be.
The Pope could also be problematic for Catholic sovereigns, even ones such as the Catholic champion of Europe at the time, King Philip II of Spain (one of those who often claimed popes were insufficiently Catholic -of which today there are many). Despite being allies in the grand scheme of things Pius V and Philip II were often at odds, usually over the age-old issue of where spiritual authority stops and secular authority begins. Pius V also first supported Queen Catherine de Medici, the Italian regent of France, when she was leading the struggle against the Protestants in France. However, the Pope was outraged when the Queen came to terms with the Protestants and signed a treaty granting them freedom of religion. Pius V warned that this would prove to be nothing but trouble in the long run and, as such, many have since used this to criticize the Pope for being “intolerant” and against freedom of conscience but, hard as it may be to accept, French history would go on to prove that the Pope was right as the treaty by no means ended the religious problems in France. Besides which, it was only in recent times that people have decided that tolerance and freedom of religion were good things.
Again, Pius V was a simple man. He saw the world in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. He was also a man who believed in moral truth and absolutes. There was no doubt in his mind at all that Christianity was the one and only path to salvation for mankind and that, as a predecessor of his on the papal throne once said, that the Catholic Church was the one ark of salvation outside of which all others would perish in the flood. Therefore, he would have considered it not only absurd but utterly reprehensible to “tolerate” anything outside of Orthodox Catholicism. If Christianity as taught by the Catholic Church was right and good anything else was wrong and evil and evil would not and should not be tolerated. This makes a man like Pius V rather hard for modern minds to grasp and very easy to criticize, however, he would probably, in a way, agree with many of his modern critics and the last thing he would want would be to earn praise for being tolerant of that which he viewed as immoral or coming to any sort of accommodation with what was not orthodox Catholic teaching. Anything contrary he would resist, whether it came from a Protestant Queen, a Catholic King or a Muslim Sultan.
To the disappointment of the Pontiff, the victory was not followed up with a crusade to liberate Constantinople. The Catholic powers of Europe had their own rivalries, the Protestant powers to worry about and there was also a bit of fear of the massive Ottoman Empire and a reluctance to risk lives and fortune to liberate the Eastern Christians who despised them. Pius V never recognized such matters, seeing only Christianity and Islam and the scandal of the capital of the old Eastern Roman Empire, the “second Rome” under Muslim rather than Christian rule. He was not the only Pontiff, certainly, to vainly hope for Christian unity in opposition to the foreign religion to the south. However, Pius V carried on, preaching morality, austerity with his policies of strict interpretation of doctrine, zero compromise with those who deviated from it and devout living until his death on May 1, 1572. He was canonized in 1712 by Clement XI. As stated at the outset, he remains a controversial figure. However, none doubt his own personal piety and where there is criticism of Pope Pius V it invariably stems from his stern refusal to tolerate any opposition to Catholic orthodoxy. Those who accuse him of being intolerant, intransigent and reactionary are perfectly correct. Whether one views those as negative attributes is another issue.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Royal Regalia: Denmark
The scepter was made for the coronation of King Frederick III in 1648 and is gold with enameled ends and decorated with diamonds. The scepter symbolizes the supreme earthly power of the king. The orb was made in Hamburg for the coronation of King Frederick III in 1648 and symbolized the supremacy of Christ over the world. The sword of state is kept in a red velvet-covered scabbard decorated with the royal crests with gems decorating the grip and cross guard and the scabbard decorated with diamonds. It was given to the future King Frederick III by his father King Christian IV as a wedding gift and symbolized the royal power to guard the nation and uphold the law. The ampulla was also made for the 1648 coronation, in Copenhagen and is gold with an enamelled lid decorated with diamonds.
In the old days, when it was recognized that a monarch ruled in conjunction with the clergy and nobility (and kings were nominally “elected”), representatives of these bodies would actually crown the monarch at the coronation ceremony. This tradition was upheld until the creation of the absolute monarchy by Frederick III. After that time, coronations were no longer held, though the crown was still worn, and the place of the coronation taken by the anointing with holy oil. The greater emphasis placed on that custom being to reiterate the “Divine Right of Kings”. However, when Denmark went in a more liberal direction with the adoption of the Constitution of 1849, which made Denmark a constitutional monarchy, the anointing ceremony was discontinued. The current monarch, HM Queen Margrethe II, began her reign simply by being acclaimed as Queen by the Prime Minister on the balcony of Christiansborg Palace. The royal regalia, or certain pieces, are still displayed on very formal royal occasions such as at the funeral of a monarch.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Monarch Profile: Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Part V - The End
This final act has been the cause of a little controversy in historical arguments. Could he have abdicated for someone else, even his son? If he had signed his own abdication first, how could he have had the legitimate power to do so? With his first signature he lost all power and Alexei automatically became Tsar and no one but he could have signed his position away. Most, however, accepted that as Alexei was a minor, Nicholas II, as his father, could do as he pleased on his behalf. In any event, none of it would ultimately matter anyway and Nicholas only did it because he feared for the life of his beloved (and frail) son. Doctors assured him that were Alexei separated from his family, as he surely would be if he remained in Russia as a figurehead Tsar while the rest were sent into exile, he would surely die. No parent would have allowed that and would have done anything to prevent it. Once the abdications were done, Nicholas was allowed to go to his family and all of them were taken into “protective custody” by the provisional government. Nicholas fully expected that they would be allowed to leave the country and that his cousin and ally King George V of Great Britain would give them sanctuary.
To his credit, Nicholas II took it all with his usual calm and good nature. In quick order most of the guards and officers were won over by Nicholas and his charming family. The only one to suffer any torment was poor Alexei whom many of the guards seemed to delight in bullying. However, on the whole, everyone who had contact with Nicholas could only marvel at how wrong their previous opinion of him had been. This was also true of Alexandra of whom the very worst lies and slander had been told, yet, when the revolutionaries actually met her and talked to her they realized what a distorted view they had entertained. However, with the October Revolution the radical Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd away from the provisional government and the situation for the Imperial Family became much worse. There were rumors about civil war breaking out, monarchists sending them support and even of rescue plans but nothing ever came of them. Finally, the Tsar was told to prepare for a trip to Moscow.
Trotsky himself later wrote that the massacre was necessary saying, “The severity of this summary justice showed the world that we would continue to fight on mercilessly, stopping at nothing. The execution of the Tsar’s family was needed not only in order to frighten, horrify and dishearten the enemy, but also in order to shake up our own ranks to show that there was no turning back,”. To the last, Nicholas II had behaved with dignity and gentility. The inhumane murder of the Tsar and his entire family set the tone for the civil war that followed and that should be kept in mind when any talk of the many atrocities of the Russian Civil War. The atrocities started at Yekaterinburg with the Romanovs. The suffering of Russia was only beginning but for Nicholas II and his family, their sorrows had finally come to an end. In 1981 the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia formally canonized Tsar Nicholas II as a saint and martyr, along with his family. In 2000 the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church also recognized their saintly status but as “Passion Bearers”, as people who died in a Christ-like way.
Aside from these religious issues though, Tsar Nicholas II will always be known by loyal monarchists as a martyr for the cause of traditional authority, as the living embodiment of the grand and glorious Russian Empire that was killed just as dead as he was on that day in 1918. Those who still persist in criticizing the Tsar do so thoughtlessly. He was as upright a man as could be hoped for, he was a monarch who felt intensely the weight and severity of his position and the responsibility that rested on his shoulders. He was a devoted husband, a loving father and a man who always cared more for his country than for himself. If, even with all of this, he is still held to blame for the problems Russia suffered it is as good as saying that one good man cannot make a difference, that morality does not matter and that loyalty, faith and righteousness count for nothing. If a man with such strength of heart and character as Nicholas II cannot make an effective ruler then we had best give up the idea of any government completely. He was not flawless to be sure, but he was beset by the blind hatred and vicious cruelty of the revolutionaries who took advantage of every opportunity to destroy their country and their Tsar. Nicholas II did not fail Russia, he did not fail his people. However, certainly as it concerns the revolutionaries, there were a great many who failed him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
