tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87839693023152574152024-03-16T13:52:41.089-05:00The Mad Monarchist"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture."MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger3047125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-29036958243985122742018-03-28T23:56:00.000-05:002018-03-28T23:59:56.411-05:00Sayonara for now<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d9IGhKojjsc/Wrxp3ZYN-kI/AAAAAAAAm4c/X7rvXBr0wiE8xkYeJzhZLV67U6PbOASGgCLcBGAs/s1600/Chained-Door.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1065" data-original-width="1600" height="266" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d9IGhKojjsc/Wrxp3ZYN-kI/AAAAAAAAm4c/X7rvXBr0wiE8xkYeJzhZLV67U6PbOASGgCLcBGAs/s400/Chained-Door.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Yes, I am packing it in and taking down the shingle. The point was reached a couple days ago but I wanted to finish up the mini-reviews of the kings of Portugal just in case anyone was interested and then do one last post to let everyone know what is happening so as not to just go silent. There are some issues that I have to deal with, some problems that need sorting out and trying to do so online clearly has not been helpful. Likewise, for some time, there are some who have been urging me to direct my energies toward other projects which, I am assured, will be more beneficial for myself and more productive in terms of their goals which are more political and nation-specific than what I have been doing here. I do not know how that will work out but, at the very least, I do expect it to be more simple and straightforward with everyone pulling in the same direction and with some people I know who will have my back regardless of the circumstances. In terms of what I will be doing, it will probably be more behind the scenes though I doubt anyone here will ever come across it in any event.<br />
<br />
I do not like to see this end, if for no other reason than the amount of time I have put into it. The better part of a decade and currently with a consistent 3,500 readers, give or take, every day is, in my book, nothing to sneeze at for what is a very niche and non-mainstream topic. Obviously, not everyone is impressed and I am told I will be able to have a much bigger impact in other fields but it will not be the same as this blog was, from start to finish, entirely my own, my effort to carry on independently after the respectable monarchists showed me the door. It will always be my baby and I will keep it up for now, I may come back to it at some point depending on how things go elsewhere. For now anyway, I have to pack it in. I have some big things to figure out and some big decisions to make about going forward. To the one I shall not name who left the un-posted comment, I thank you for your sentiments, your words count more than most in my book and if you feel like discussing the issue in question further you can leave another message with your email address if you would like. If not, know that I do it appreciate your support and we'll leave it at that. And, thank you to all of you who are regular readers. Many have come and gone over the years but I do know a few who have stuck around almost from the very beginning. I do appreciate it, I am very grateful for it and sorry for disappointing.<br />
Goodbye, farewell and Sayonara...<br />
<br />
<i>The Mad Monarchist</i>MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com75tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20103502420362640472018-03-28T00:40:00.000-05:002018-03-28T00:40:11.531-05:00MM Mini View: Kings of Portugal (Part IV)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gEuJQQNpG6g/WrsqWgNFKTI/AAAAAAAAm4M/P72Sav3LoBYXrfq72_fHXKdrIKpvDbJ3wCLcBGAs/s1600/25-_Rei_D__Jo%2525C3%2525A3o_V_-_O_Magn%2525C3%2525A2nimo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="246" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gEuJQQNpG6g/WrsqWgNFKTI/AAAAAAAAm4M/P72Sav3LoBYXrfq72_fHXKdrIKpvDbJ3wCLcBGAs/s1600/25-_Rei_D__Jo%2525C3%2525A3o_V_-_O_Magn%2525C3%2525A2nimo.jpg" /></a></div>
<i>The House of Braganza</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>King João IV</u></b>: Known as “the Restorer” led the war for independence from Spain which started when the upper and middle classes united against the Spanish monarch in Portugal. With support from some other powers, the Portuguese were able to defeat the Spanish and João IV secured the Braganza dynasty on the throne. Once done, he set about on another war to recover the Portuguese territories overseas lost during the Habsburg reign. Not everything was recovered but it was remarkable, given the state Portugal was in, just how much in South America, Africa and Asia was recovered. A great patron of art & music, he was in every way a successful monarch. He restored his country, recovered lost territory and secured the succession for his line. All in all, a solid win.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Afonso IV</u></b>: I have a soft spot for Afonso IV and a great deal of sympathy. The poor man hardly had a chance. Struck ill as an infant, his body became half paralyzed and his constitution very weak. It was also said that his mental capacities were diminished but, personally, I doubt that was entirely true. Anyway, he was disabled as a child and from then on the hits just kept coming. His brother Pedro had him declared incompetent, made himself regent, effectively stealing his crown, then stole his wife and had poor Afonso locked away until his death. It was a sad state of affairs and I can only feel sorry for him. Could he have reigned on his own? Maybe not, but it seems to me that he was not treated the way he deserved.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Pedro II</u></b>: After replacing his mother as regent, shipping his brother off to the Azores and marrying his sister-in-law, a princess of the House of Savoy, Pedro II became king in his own right. He renewed the alliance with England, giving the English their first foothold in India with the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to King Charles II, he boosted industry, switched to the winning side in the War of Spanish Succession and was very important in the development of Brazil. Other than how he came to power, he was highly praiseworthy and wins back a bit of my approval for being a fairly accomplished bullfighter. An astute monarch with many accomplishments, I just wish he’d been kinder to his brother. Nonetheless, a talented man.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King João V</u></b>: It is not for nothing that João V is sometimes referred to as the Portuguese King Louis XIV and, like the “Grand Monarch” of France, it is impossible not to admire João V. He was lavish, ambitious, adept at statecraft and, more so than the “Sun King”, devoutly religious. He increased the state income but spent so much that there was no great increase in wealth but I give him a pass as he built grandiose monuments that are national treasures. He expanded the Portuguese empire abroad, earned the title of “Most Faithful Majesty” from the Pope for himself and his successors and ruled very much as an absolute monarch. He had enough children to secure the succession, had a care for the souls of his subjects and left Portugal more grand than he found it. An easy favorite.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Jose I</u></b>: Unfortunately, things took a turn for the worse with Jose I. A man who loved music, hunting and women, especially fond of opera, he was rather less fond of governing and left that to the Marquess of Pombal who ushered in the “Enlightenment” to Portugal (Boo! Hiss!) and marked the change by expelling the Jesuits who had seemed such a permanent feature before. This obviously upset God as a massive earthquake hit Lisbon that was very damaging to the economy and left the king traumatized forever after. With a British assist, his forces did win a smashing victory over the invading Franco-Spanish armies but on the whole I view him as a less than admirable character whose reign was less than exemplary, bringing in many negative changes.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Queen Maria I</u></b>: Maria was the sort of monarch I am inclined to like, having a reputation for both piety and madness. She was a pretty great queen, sending Pombal packing with all his terrible, “progressive” ideas, and being very much opposed to his liberal, anti-clerical policies. Very religious, she became ever more so after the poor woman suffered a string of misfortunes and many finally believed she to be going mad, suffering from depression, though there may have been a physical illness to blame for her most severe symptoms. Declared unfit to rule, her son acted for her as regent and after a brave but futile fight, the invasion of Napoleonic France and Spain forced her into exile in Brazil where she finished her life. An unfortunate woman but a great one in my book anyway.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Pedro III</u></b>: I cannot have very strong views about Pedro III as he was only technically the King of Portugal by virtue of being married to Queen Maria, which is fine, though he was also her uncle…which is disgusting. However, he seems to have been an alright guy. He took the side of the nobility against Pombal, also stuck up for the Jesuits, though the Pope suppressed them anyway, and generally just built stuff and did his own thing while his wife ran the show (as long as she was able anyway). They were happy enough as a couple and he did his job by fathering seven children so, good enough in that regard. He did what he was supposed to do. He was just a lot older than her and, well, her uncle, so it’s …just gross.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King João VI</u></b>: A big deal in Portuguese history, João VI certainly never had it easy but still left his mark. The French invaded and occupied his country so he had to fight them from Brazil, deal with rising expectations there and put up with a conspiratorial wife. When the Anglo-Portuguese forces drove the invaders out, he came home but then had to deal with rebellions by people who had a taste for French Revolutionary ideas now like “rights” and such nonsense, which João VI was having none of. So he had a great deal of trouble fighting those people, trying to put his country back to the way it had been but with a Brazil that had been elevated to co-equal status as a kingdom. His reign was one crisis after another but I say God bless João VI for always fighting the good fight.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Pedro IV</u></b>: “Unique” is a word that can certainly describe Pedro IV as King of Portugal. Prior to taking that job, he led the war for independence in Brazil, which he secured. However, almost as soon as he became Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, he was proclaimed King Pedro IV of Portugal upon the death of his father, a job he did not particularly want, being quite attached to Brazil. He tried to abdicate the Portuguese throne but this was problematic due to the burgeoning feud between the constitutional and absolute monarchists. More a liberal absolutist than a constitutionalist, he was in an impossible position and finally had to abdicate in Brazil and go to Portugal to see out the fight, complicated by the ‘spill over’ of the First Carlist War in Spain.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Queen Maria II</u></b>: Born into a maelstrom, Maria II was a good woman stuck between a rock and a hard place. Named queen to take her father’s place as Portuguese monarch, she was the figurehead of the constitutionalist faction which was opposed by the absolutist faction led by her uncle Miguel, who was also her regent and who she was also supposed to marry. Yes, again, ‘yuck’. Civil war raged in Portugal but the liberals, backed by France and Britain, were victorious. Maria II married another prince, received the honor of a Golden Rose from the Pope. Born in Brazil, educated in France, her on-again, off-again reign was largely determined by actions beyond her control. Still, she seemed a good woman who did the best she could under the circumstances.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Miguel I</u></b>: The champion of tradition to the reactionaries and a usurper to the liberals, as usual, both sides had a point. Miguel was convinced that the Portuguese were unready and unsuited for constitutional government and sure it would be a disaster. He was, in all honesty, rather deceitful in how he came to the throne and his civil war possibly prevented Portugal from regaining her largest and most important territory (Brazil), however, he also represented the last gasp of the grand, old Portugal of yesterday which tugs at the heartstrings. After being tossed out, coming back, fighting another round, the romantic reactionary was ultimately defeated and lived in rather destitute exile thereafter. A pity, as history would rather prove him right about the viability of liberalism.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Fernando II</u></b>: Another king by marriage only, Fernando was from one of the multitudinous branches of the Saxe-Coburg family and was married to Maria II. As such he was related to Queen Victoria, Belgium’s King Leopold and the ill-fated Empress of Mexico. He was well-suited to be the standard bearer of constitutionalism alongside his wife. As he was responsible for her eleven pregnancies, he often oversaw things while she was incapacitated by impending motherhood. A fine enough fellow, intelligent, talented and all that, he was simply too “modern” for my taste. He represents dull, reliable practicality in my mind, in contrast to the ruinous but romantic King Miguel.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Pedro V</u></b>: Such a tragic waste, Pedro V, for me, is the great “might have been” of Portuguese monarchs. He had so much potential and so many hopes resting on his young shoulders. He seemed the ideal sovereign; young, handsome, intelligent, diligent and dedicated. Even at a young age he went to work quickly to modernize the infrastructure of the country, improve communications and healthcare. Sadly, his beloved wife died of diphtheria and he later succumbed to cholera at the age of only 24. Beloved by the people, he had given the country hope that the fortunes of the nation would be revived. That was something and he did achieve much in his short reign but it only serves to tantalize the imagination as to how much more he could have done if he had had the chance to.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Luis I</u></b>: The highly intelligent Luis might have been hailed as a Renaissance Man of sorts in another time. As it was, he had the misfortune to reign at a time when the problems of liberalism really began to take effect on the country. Feuding political factions stagnated the nation, bitterness and partisanship grew. Luis was inclined in the right direction but was not supposed to rule and busied himself with oceanography and his love of English literature. He was a cultured man, high in intellectual curiosity and a very good constitutional monarch. However, the fortunes of the country declined during his reign, the fault of the system itself rather than the King. When called to choose, he would choose the better option but, limited as he was, he could not do more.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Carlos I</u></b>: The problems that festered under Luis I began to come to a boil under King Carlos. Portugal went bankrupt, then went bankrupt again and a public uproar was caused when the British seized the interior territories between Portuguese East and West Africa. King Carlos tended to be quite unfairly blamed for this due to his friendship with the British Royal Family. Well, they were Portugal’s oldest ally and if Portugal had tried to fight for the territory the results would’ve been disastrous. This unpopularity was seized upon by the republican faction and Carlos, along with his son and heir were murdered in 1908, setting off the last act of the Portuguese monarchy. Again, there was much to recommend Carlos I but there was little he could do to save the situation.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Manuel II</u></b>: Thrust upon the throne in the most difficult of circumstances, young Manuel II hardly had a chance to prove himself. Given the situation, he took a more active part in national life but discovered that the republican conspiracy was far more advanced than anyone had imagined. Bright, popular and devoted to his people and country, Manuel II came to ruin by way of practically an accident. A military revolt in 1910 seemed to have failed but the confusion of the situation allowed the revolutionaries to catch Manuel II helpless and seize power. The first republic was declared and Manuel went into exile, gallant to the last and always remaining devoted to his nation. It gave him no satisfaction that Portugal went to ruin under the republic that usurped him.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-332991098462606172018-03-25T18:24:00.001-05:002018-03-25T18:24:51.399-05:00MM Mini View: Kings of Portugal (Part III)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Nb8esIdPgr4/WrgvkbRVOJI/AAAAAAAAm38/X3984TpJxJYAMYlyh1LEIZwXWxlS-x3iQCLcBGAs/s1600/Philip_II_portrait_by_Alonso_Sanchez_Coello.%2Bcon%2Bcoat%2Band%2Barms%2Bde%2Brey%2Bde%2Bportugal.1580.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="382" data-original-width="310" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Nb8esIdPgr4/WrgvkbRVOJI/AAAAAAAAm38/X3984TpJxJYAMYlyh1LEIZwXWxlS-x3iQCLcBGAs/s320/Philip_II_portrait_by_Alonso_Sanchez_Coello.%2Bcon%2Bcoat%2Band%2Barms%2Bde%2Brey%2Bde%2Bportugal.1580.jpg" width="259" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>The House of Habsburg</i><br />
<br />
<u>King Felipe I</u>: Felipe II of Spain claimed the throne as grandson of King Manuel I at the death of Henrique though it took a little longer (and an armed invasion) for the Portuguese government to accept him. He appointed a viceroy and let the Portuguese keep their own laws but the country was obliged to subordinate its own interests to those of Spain. A large part of the famous “Spanish Armada” that attacked England was Portuguese, for example. The worst part, however, was that the enemies of Spain now became the enemies of Portugal and it was open season on Portuguese ships and colonial outposts as far as England, France and the Netherlands were concerned. Felipe I was a good king but having him as king was not always good for Portugal.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Felipe II</u></b>: Felipe III of Spain was a very good man but not a very strong one. Factionalism became a big problem and Portugal was increasingly being stripped to fund the wars fought by Spain in Europe. He was a very diligent, very religious man but bad economic decisions, made because of emergencies in Europe and to aid the wider cause of the House of Habsburg, began to have disastrous consequences for Spain and Portugal. Peace was made with the Dutch but not long after Felipe II intervened to bolster the cause of the Habsburgs in Germany which was perfectly natural for him to do but which really could have only ill-effects for Portugal. He was personally a good guy but a somewhat “hands-off” ruler so that he tends to be criticized more than he deserves.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Felipe III</u></b>: Felipe IV of Spain was a little different as, while his two Spanish predecessors had not been terribly disliked in Portugal, Felipe III was. He was an able and energetic man and quite a good king for Spain all in all but Portugal was really hard hit by the enemies he made during this time. The English took Hormuz, the Dutch nabbed Ceylon, replaced Portugal in trade with Japan and seized a large part of northern Brazil. What was to become the Dutch East Indies was seized from Portugal in Southeast Asia. Some African holdings were lost though the losses in Brazil were eventually regained. This, combined with his efforts to make Portugal basically a Spanish province, caused the Portuguese to revolt, happily aided by other anti-Spanish powers.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-51280858996298582512018-03-24T02:34:00.001-05:002018-03-24T02:34:04.651-05:00MM Mini View: Kings of Portugal (Part II)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9jOUYlmabAc/WrX_PuU9qsI/AAAAAAAAm3s/NWnT7SzUn90-S5oG4pdW2ITApX5fYSoSQCLcBGAs/s1600/Manuel_I.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="574" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9jOUYlmabAc/WrX_PuU9qsI/AAAAAAAAm3s/NWnT7SzUn90-S5oG4pdW2ITApX5fYSoSQCLcBGAs/s400/Manuel_I.jpg" width="321" /></a></div>
<i>The House of Aviz</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>King João I</u></b>: The illegitimate son of Pedro I, his seizure of power prevented Portugal being annexed by Castile in the wake of the chaos following the death of Fernando, the last of the original line of Portuguese kings. Grand Master of the Order of Aviz, he became King of Portugal and took the name of the Knights of Aviz for his own royal line. When French and Castilian troops invaded, King João and his English allies sent them packing. The Spanish withdrew and Portuguese independence was secured. He conquered Ceuta (in what is now Spain) from the Muslims in 1415, held it and told Prince Henry the Navigator to send ships to have a look around Africa. A successful monarch and renowned gentlemen, he set the scene for Portuguese greatness to follow.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Duarte I</u></b>: A veteran of his father’s conquests on the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa, Duarte I commissioned Henry the Navigator to make further explorations of the African coast, and did his best to rule by consensus, frequently consulting the Cortes. However, his attack on Tangier, Morocco, led by his brother Henry, was a disaster, the Portuguese ultimately being outnumbered more than 10-to-1. His brother Fernando was given up as a hostage but the Cortes refused to surrender the territory the Muslims demanded to secure his release. King Duarte I died, heartbroken, in 1438 at only 46. He left chaos in his wake but he shouldn’t be judged too harshly. He was a scholarly and thoughtful monarch who would have likely done better had he been given more time.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Afonso V</u></b>: Son of an ill-fated father and unpopular mother, Afonso was only 6 when he became King of Portugal but he eventually made quite a good job of it. After doing away with the regency and dealing with some rebellious elites, Afonso V went on campaign of conquest in Morocco. He supported the further exploration of the African coast while Prince Henry was alive but not after his death, being consumed by his battles in Morocco which earned him the nickname, “the African”. He was a warrior king who had little time for or interest in politics and administration, much preferring life in the field delivering the wrath of God upon the heathen hordes. He tried to gain the throne of Castile but found no joy, retiring to a monastery after. All in all, an impressive king.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King João II</u></b>: Having earned his spurs on the battlefield as a young man, João II came to the throne determined to close the gap left by his father who had been a great warrior king but a largely absent administrator. He despised corruption and favoritism, centralized power, cracking down on the nobles who had gained power while the king had been away in Africa. João II picked experts to oversee affairs, greatly pushed exploration, finding new lands and new resources, putting Portugal on more solid financial ground than any other European power. He clashed with Castile over ownership of the newly discovered lands in America but was regarded even by them as a great man. He was far-sighted and fully deserving of his reputation as one of the best monarchs of his time.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Manuel I</u></b>: Coming to the throne in 1495, Manuel I continued the succession of great Portuguese monarchs. It is hard to separate him from the events of his reign as these were huge; Portugal discovered the sea route to India, Brazil was discovered and Portuguese superman Albuquerque seized the vital choke points giving Portugal control of all access to the Indian Ocean and a monopoly on trade with the Far East -epic win there. Manuel was an absolutist and very religious, spreading Christianity around the world and expelling all Jews who would not convert from the country. He made trade deals with China and Persia and put Portugal on the path to being the richest country in Europe and a global empire. All in all, Manuel I was seven kinds of awesome.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King João III</u></b>: The good times kept rolling with João III who basically reinforced the gains made in the reign of his father. He gave up fighting the Muslims for deserts in North Africa to focus on strengthening Portuguese footholds in Brazil and Asia but the wealth in trade caused infighting by officials and more competition from other powers. He also had to deal with the Turks but also made contact with Japan and gained Macau in China. Also devoutly religious, he established the Portuguese Inquisition, encouraged education and expanded the holdings in Africa from which the first slaves were imported to Brazil. He had a tough act to follow and maybe did not do quite as well but he had a lot to deal with so we should give the guy a break. He did good all things considered.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Sebastião</u></b>: Coming to the throne young, Sebastião must have seemed like a fairy tale prince. He was tall, strong, blonde, known for his bravery and piety, just everything the ideal prince was supposed to be. As a minor, he had a regency and his actual reign was not very long but did see the expansion of Portuguese power in Africa, reform of the law code and advances in promoting social welfare. He wanted to get along with England, France and Germany and be a good Catholic. He wanted to launch a crusade against Morocco but Spain wouldn’t help. Young King Sebastião went on his own, charged into the Islamic horde and was killed in battle at only 24. Young, handsome, virtuous and brave, such a death was the finishing touch to a king tailor-made for legendary status.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Henrique</u></b>: The death of Sebastião left no one but Henrique to succeed to the throne and, as this had never been expected, he had already joined the Church and risen to the rank of cardinal when called to assume the throne. As Archbishop of Lisbon and head of the Inquisition, he brought the Jesuits in and their missionary activity spread across the global Portuguese empire. He asked to be released from his vows to marry and produce and heir but King Felipe II of Spain, who wanted Portugal for himself, objected to this and so the Pope would not allow it. Cardinal Henrique did not live long enough to do very much and his death sparked off a crisis as to who would control the extensive and lucrative trade network that Portugal had established.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Antonio</u></b>: The natural grandson of King Manuel, Antonio is not always listed among the ranks of Portuguese monarchs as he was more a claimant to the throne than an actual monarch. He set up his own court and was acclaimed by some but had little luck against the powerful Spanish army led by the Duke of Alba who came to secure control of the country for Felipe II of Spain. Forced to clear out with as much wealth as he could carry, he was recognized by France and England only as a way to bedevil the Spanish as I doubt anyone took him too seriously. He never really proved his claim and eventually died penniless in France.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-67590472784962858402018-03-21T23:20:00.001-05:002018-03-21T23:20:38.360-05:00MM Mini View: Kings of Portugal (Part I)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UNWa192lWrA/WrMu2_GZGDI/AAAAAAAAm3c/v2PKqO9t0fUptLiys1Zw38i5cmdf4yPYgCLcBGAs/s1600/pedro1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="746" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UNWa192lWrA/WrMu2_GZGDI/AAAAAAAAm3c/v2PKqO9t0fUptLiys1Zw38i5cmdf4yPYgCLcBGAs/s400/pedro1.jpg" width="310" /></a></div>
<i>The House of Burgundy</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>King Afonso I Henriques</u></b>: Known as “the Conqueror” or “the Founder” or simply King Afonso the Great, this Portuguese born son of Henry of Burgundy, Count of Portugal, came up as a vassal of the Spanish King of Leon during the war to liberate the Iberian peninsula from the Moorish Islamic invaders. Afonso proved to be a great warrior and a formidable military leader. After the smashing victory at Ourique he was proclaimed the first King of Portugal in 1139. He married a daughter of the House of Savoy, proved adept at political maneuvering and switched the King of Leon for the Pope in Rome as his feudal overlord. Overall, a pretty great king to whom the existence of Portugal as a country is owed.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Sancho I</u></b>: Although he is understandably often overshadowed by his father, the second Portuguese monarch was quite an accomplished guy. He took the country his father had created and made it work, giving it a proper administration, an economy, businesses and so on. He also stopped fighting with his fellow Christians and concentrated on the Moors to the south, which is always to be preferred. He built several new towns and was noted for his love of literature and attached great importance to education. This would pay large dividends later on. King Sancho also understood the importance of demographics and made sure to move people into unoccupied areas of the country to solidly their possession. Hence his nickname, “Sancho the Populator”.<br />
<br />
<u><b>King Afonso II</b></u>: Remembered for his rotundity, the third King of Portugal liked the peace and quiet. He made peace with both his Christian and Islamic neighbors and decided not to push to expand his kingdom further. His priorities were domestic and, unlike his two predecessors, was a bit of a control freak who worked to centralize power in his own hands. This put him at odds with his feudal overlord the Pope as the Church held considerable power in the country, leading to Afonso II being excommunicated by Pope Honorius III. He tried to repent but sadly died still shut out from the Church. On the whole, not a monarch who really accomplished a great deal.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Sancho II</u></b>: After a king who was excommunicated, it is only fair to have one known as “the Pious”, though the Church authorities might dispute that. He had to agree to a long list of concessions to win back the good graces of the Pope but got high marks for shrugging off government to wage war on the Muslims, which he excelled at. Unfortunately, his absence meant he wasn’t around to protect the Church from the merchant class and they complained to the Pope who declared Sancho II a heretic and his throne to be free for the taking. His brother in France, another Afonso, joined with rebellious nobles in fighting a civil war against Sancho II, eventually forcing him across the border into Spain where he died in exile.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Afonso III</u></b>: Put on the throne by Pope Innocent II, Afonso wanted to succeed where his brother failed so he focused on administration. He had his military successes to, most notably the conquest of the Algarve, adding that to his royal title but he also wanted to ensure domestic tranquility by having everyone share in the privileges and responsibilities of government. He gave the common people representation in government, fine, he taxed the merchant class, fine and he taxed the Church…which was not fine. In fact, it got him excommunicated, making two kings in a row and so upsetting him that he dropped dead at 68 after an otherwise successful reign.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Dinis</u></b>: Brought to the throne at 18, he took care to make amends with the Church, even marrying a future saint, Elizabeth of Aragon, and he brought considerable prosperity to Portugal. Dinis expelled all foreigners from positions of power, made Portuguese the official language, encouraged education and greatly improved agriculture as well as tapping into what resources the country had to offer. Soon, he had such a surplus that Portugal had a booming export economy. He hired some Italians to start the Portuguese navy and he founded the Order of Christ, mostly from former Templars after their order had been suppressed. He centralized power, made Lisbon the capital and greatly furthered the country’s development. All in all, a very successful monarch.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Afonso IV</u></b>: He had it rough, not being very well liked by his father and if there was one word to sum up the reign of Afonso IV it would be “drama”. Portugal was one long soap opera or novella in these years. There were civil wars between Afonso IV and his brothers, his daughter was married to a Spanish prince who cheated on her, leading to conflict there, his son wanted to marry his mistress but the King had her locked up in a convent, then when she was killed the crown prince started a rebellion against his father and this carried on until Afonso IV finally died. If you were writing a series of romance novels, your publisher would probably tell you to tone it down but truth is not only stranger than fiction, it can be more dramatic too.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Pedro I</u></b>: The tragic, forbidden romance of Pedro and Ines and his subsequent rebellion against his father has made this king possibly the most visible in popular culture with numerous stories, songs, operas and so on all written about his rise to the throne. I really want to believe that he had Ines dug up and crowned queen alongside him but that may be just a legend. More people believe that he found the men who murdered his beloved and ripped out their hearts with his bare hands. Harsh, but fair. And that is not only my opinion as he has been known as both the “just” king and the “cruel” king. He also ensured that he would be buried facing his beloved Ines. What else of his reign? Who cares?! He was the great avenger of his true love and I think he was awesome, I hope all the stories are true.<br />
<br />
<b><u>King Fernando I</u></b>: The reign of the first Fernando was taken up with the Castilian succession war in which the kings of Aragon and Navarre, the English Duke of Lancaster and Fernando I of Portugal all claimed the throne of Castile. Fernando and the Duke of Lancaster made a deal to try to knock off the King of Castile but it didn’t work out. Later, they tried again but John of Gaunt (the duke) got on the King’s nerves and he broke his alliance and made a deal to marry his daughter to King Juan of Castile whose children would rule both countries. This didn’t happen though and the lack of a legitimate male heir brought an end to the Burgundy line of kings, an interregnum, some warfare and eventually a new dynasty to the Portuguese throne.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-35731588893377268252018-03-19T03:33:00.001-05:002018-03-19T03:33:14.076-05:00The British Submarine Campaign of World War II<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Upgcv6eosHY/Wq9xTXlt1DI/AAAAAAAAm2E/mbKpARN2P50OWCjC2AC1xFu9dMGhralbgCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Upholder.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="800" height="278" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Upgcv6eosHY/Wq9xTXlt1DI/AAAAAAAAm2E/mbKpARN2P50OWCjC2AC1xFu9dMGhralbgCLcBGAs/s400/HMS_Upholder.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
It is inevitable that the great deeds of British submariners in the Second World War would be overlooked by most. Their fight was not as critical as that of the German u-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic nor as single-handedly successful as the American submarine campaign in the Pacific, however, it would be wrong to ignore it. The submarines of the Royal Navy played, if not a decisive factor, certainly an extremely significant one in the ultimate victory over the Axis powers, particularly Germany and Italy. The British are mostly known, because of the world wars, as being on the receiving end of submarine warfare rather than the ones waging it and, indeed, Britain would lead the way in anti-submarine warfare particularly during World War II. Nonetheless, while the convoy escorts braving the perilous North Atlantic crossing or the warships chasing down German or Italian battleships got most of the attention, the submarines of the King-Emperor went about their work silently severing the vital arteries that kept the Axis powers functioning and their armies on the advance.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya2Ixn0vAug/Wq9xhLq7aWI/AAAAAAAAm2I/q-E5iWqydy4EZOpzjvUypXYA7hkkZvBdgCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Totem.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="469" data-original-width="700" height="214" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ya2Ixn0vAug/Wq9xhLq7aWI/AAAAAAAAm2I/q-E5iWqydy4EZOpzjvUypXYA7hkkZvBdgCLcBGAs/s320/HMS_Totem.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Totem</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Great Britain began the war with a fleet of 57 submarines, the exact same number as the Germans. The Royal Navy produced quite a large number of different classes of boats but three would be most prominent; the S, T, and U-class boats of which the most famous is probably the T-class. Like the Italians, who had a very large submarine force, the British opted for reliability rather than innovation. For instance, like the Italians, they stuck to the old-fashioned impact fuse for their torpedoes rather than the more sophisticated magnetic fuses used by the Germans and Americans. This made them less effective but, unlike both Germany and America, Britain did not have to go through a period of having unreliable or totally faulty weapons while the bugs were worked out of this new technology. Rather, the British compensated for the weaker destructive power of the impact fuses (in which the brunt of the explosion is focused away from the target) by having boats that packed a larger punch than those of any other navy. British T-class submarines were built to fire an astonishing 10 torpedoes at a time which, British naval engineers reasoned, would more than make up for the drawbacks of their fuses as well as the less advanced targeting systems of British boats. If ten torpedoes are fired at a single target, one or more will almost have to hit it.<br />
<br />
When war broke out in 1939, British boats were deployed to Heligoland to patrol the waters off the southwest coast of Norway for German ships and u-boats. Unfortunately, this proved very dangerous even without the Germans as British submarines sometimes fired on each other, mistaking their submarines for German u-boats. Likewise, even when in their designating hunting areas, British submarines were sometimes attacked by the RAF who mistook them for German u-boats. However, the British subs did finally score their first victories with successful attacks by two S-boats. <i>HMS Sturgeon</i> sank a German ship in November and <i>HMS Salmon</i> sank a German u-boat two weeks later. The British submarines would gain a high reputation for their ability to sink enemy submarines at a time when surface ships were still assumed to be their primary targets. The Royal Navy proved that the best weapon to use against a submarine is another submarine and that fact remains true to this day. By the time the war was over, British submarines would account for the loss of 39 Axis subs.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kiJagUFLPSM/Wq9xw2QXPWI/AAAAAAAAm2M/J4x6c4EyJr86fcZ-R8563uFIW_oQUhB4gCLcBGAs/s1600/Horton_1940.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="479" height="278" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kiJagUFLPSM/Wq9xw2QXPWI/AAAAAAAAm2M/J4x6c4EyJr86fcZ-R8563uFIW_oQUhB4gCLcBGAs/s320/Horton_1940.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Admiral Horton, 1940</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In January of 1940 the Brits would step up their game with the appointment of Vice Admiral Max Horton to command the Royal Navy submarine force. He was a living legend in the submarine community for his fantastic record of success in the Baltic as a submarine commander in World War I. After Britain sustained her first losses to enemy action, it was Horton who ordered British boats to stay out of the shallower waters where German underwater detection gear was less effective. Horton planned to use submarine planted mines to cut off the supply of raw materials coming out of Scandinavia to Germany, which would likely force Germany to invade Norway. As it happened, the Germans did invade Norway though not for that reason. Unfortunately, due to weather conditions and bureaucratic slowness, the Germans were able to slip past the British boats and land their forces before the Royal Navy could react. Nonetheless, the British subs did get a few powerful blows in. HMS Truant sunk the German cruiser <i>Karlsruhe </i>and <i>HMS Sunfish</i> sank a 7,000-ton freighter followed by another before the day was out.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, even with 17 boats in the vicinity, the big game proved elusive. The prized German warships <i>Gneisenau</i>, <i>Hipper </i>and <i>Scharnhorst </i>all escaped attacked due to poor visibility and radio direction-finding by German shore installations which were able to direct their ships around areas where British submarines were on the prowl. This was a problem that would come up again later. There were other minor successes but the fact remains that the British submarine force had failed to stop the German invasion and the Royal Navy had been forced to rely only on the submarine force because of the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe in keeping the British surface fleet away. Likewise, operations off the North Sea coast during the German invasion of France and the Low Countries proved to be of little effect. Concentrating boats in these confined spaces had proved to be a mistake, due to the effectiveness of shore installations in homing in on their radio transmissions, the risk of “friendly fire” and the constant daylight in northern areas.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UrDm6Sot3Bo/Wq9ycSf0r9I/AAAAAAAAm2Y/3-4hKU-Xmp4dQGGGSurTtt7k1T_thtb-gCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Phoenix_cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="276" data-original-width="211" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UrDm6Sot3Bo/Wq9ycSf0r9I/AAAAAAAAm2Y/3-4hKU-Xmp4dQGGGSurTtt7k1T_thtb-gCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Phoenix_cropped.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Phoenix</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Fortunately for Great Britain, much more success was to be found in the waters of the Mediterranean where British submarines would have their biggest impact on the war. The largest threat, obviously, was the powerful Italian navy and the extensive coverage over the Mediterranean by the Italian air force. However, due to the shortage of fuel and their industrial inability to keep up with any significant rate of attrition, the Italian surface navy would be forced to remain on the defensive. The first British submarine success in the Mediterranean was, due to confusion over their status, the sinking of a French sloop. While screening a convoy, the submarine <i>HMS Phoenix</i> spotted the main Italian fleet, leading to a fairly significant engagement, but the <i>Phoenix </i>was then sunk by an Italian torpedo boat on July 16, 1940. On the final day of the month, <i>HMS Oswald</i> was sunk by an Italian destroyer off the coast of Messina. As the Germans had done in the North Sea, Italian shore installations used radio direction-finding to locate the British submarine and the Italian destroyers then moved in for the kill.<br />
<br />
Morale fell as British submarine losses continued and though successes did increase when the government in London authorized the use of unrestricted submarine warfare, the latter half of 1940 was fairly disastrous for the Royal Navy boats. While sinking less than 1% of Italian shipping to North Africa, Britain had lost nine submarines, five at the hands of the Italian navy and the rest to air attack or mines. At one point, Britain was reduced to only five operational boats in the Mediterranean. Clearly, something had to be done. Italian shipping losses had been extremely light in 1940, warships were not engaged and overall Italian superiority in the central Mediterranean had been maintained. It was a gloomy time as the British came to grips with the fact that, despite what Allied propaganda had told them, their enemy was a formidable one. However, the British did what they have traditionally done; learned from their mistakes and adapted.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uoKsRG5FdWk/Wq9zSNzHoJI/AAAAAAAAm2g/e0oewH1C_pERmZHAQlVr4_tx-B3f6ryyQCLcBGAs/s1600/hms_upright.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="800" height="242" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uoKsRG5FdWk/Wq9zSNzHoJI/AAAAAAAAm2g/e0oewH1C_pERmZHAQlVr4_tx-B3f6ryyQCLcBGAs/s320/hms_upright.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Upright</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As with the Germans (or the Japanese for that matter), Italian underwater detection gear was not good. The British knew this and so finally came to appreciate that, other than aircraft, the primary way their boats were being located was by radio direction-finding. The British responded by ordering their subs to maintain radio silence unless communication was absolutely necessary. The British also ultimately adopted the practice of keeping their boats submerged throughout the daylight hours if at all possible, only surfacing at night. This reduced their mobility of course but also made them much less likely to be detected by lookouts on ship or shore or by patrolling Italian aircraft. The Admiralty also sent many more submarines to Malta such as 10 new U-class boats in early 1941. With a greater respect for their enemy, more care given to stealth and increased use of mines, British successes began to pick up. In February of 1941 <i>HMS Upright</i> attacked and sank the Italian cruiser <i>Armando Diaz</i> in a surface attack at night, the biggest victory British submarines had yet had in the Mediterranean.<br />
<br />
In March, <i>HMS Rorqual</i> laid a minefield, sent two freighters to the bottom and then sank the Italian submarine <i>Capponi</i>. The same month, another British boat, the <i>P31</i>, made a successful attack on a large freighter using Asdic (sonar) alone, earning the commander the DSO. The following month also saw the beginning of a string of victories for the man who would be the most successful British submarine commander of World War II, Lt. Comm. Malcolm D. Wanklyn of <i>HMS Upholder</i>. He sank a freighter in April off Tunisia and two more on May 1, beginning what would be a very successful career, albeit a short one. Sadly, Wanklyn was killed in action in 1942 by the Italian navy but by that time had managed to sink 21 Axis vessels, earning the Victoria Cross. Because of men like him, things were turning around for the British war under the waves. In the first half of 1941 they managed to sink about 130,000 tons of Axis shipping while losing only two submarines, both to Italian minefields. Still, the rate of success was slow at less than two ships a month and of the shipping interdicted by the Allies, including the movement of Rommel’s Afrika Korps to Libya, less than 5% was lost to British submarines.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1eSW8MIqh00/Wq9zpswPPeI/AAAAAAAAm2k/iUMaSIXbzesSyGDfudwnWJkiBoOa6ZHEwCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Upholder.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="800" height="223" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1eSW8MIqh00/Wq9zpswPPeI/AAAAAAAAm2k/iUMaSIXbzesSyGDfudwnWJkiBoOa6ZHEwCLcBGAs/s320/HMS_Upholder.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Upholder</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
However, the British were steadily improving and were aided by two significant events; the invasion of the Soviet Union, which meant the redeployment of enemy air forces and the breaking of Axis codes which allowed the British to have up to date information on Italian naval movements. The British also very cleverly took care to move aircraft into the area of Italian convoys before the submarines arrived to make their attack so that the Axis high command would assume the RAF had spotted their ships and not catch on to the fact that their codes had been broken. This allowed for more British submarines successes going forward. In September of 1941 the boats at Malta were organized into the Tenth Submarine Flotilla and the “Fighting Tenth” would prove the most successful British submarine force of the war, though also the one with the highest casualty rate.<br />
<br />
Having inside information on when and wear Italian supply convoys would be sailing, the British were able to post their submarines in picket lines in front of the enemy. In so doing, the British boats began to really bite into the Axis war effort, sinking four Italian troopships in a few weeks and badly damaging the new Italian battleship <i>Vittoria Veneto</i> which was attacked by <i>HMS Urge</i> and put out of action for over three months. In the second half of 1941 the British lost six submarines but received 13 new boats and in that time managed to take a significant toll on Axis shipping which was critical to the North African war effort. In the desert, logistics were paramount and when the supplies flowed, Rommel advanced; when they did not, the Italo-German forces fell back. The losses were serious enough to compel the Germans to dispatch some of their own u-boats to the Mediterranean, adding a new and dangerous foe for the British to deal with, proven when the <i>U-81</i> managed to sink the only British aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, <i>HMS Ark Royal</i>, in November. Moreover, German and Italian air attacks on Malta proved to be devastating, eventually wiping out the RAF defenders, forcing the withdrawal of many ships and damaging three submarines.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FZaVSZLunac/Wq90V05_dLI/AAAAAAAAm2w/0peuw9808cEfPbFOfPSZAyfr3X6-r8DLQCLcBGAs/s1600/hms_unbeaten.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="594" height="258" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FZaVSZLunac/Wq90V05_dLI/AAAAAAAAm2w/0peuw9808cEfPbFOfPSZAyfr3X6-r8DLQCLcBGAs/s320/hms_unbeaten.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Unbeaten</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nonetheless, the British boats continued to put up a terrific fight with <i>HMS Upholder</i> sinking the Italian submarine <i>St Bon</i> in January of 1942 and <i>HMS Unbeaten</i> sinking the German submarine <i>U-374</i> not long after. In March the <i>Upholder</i> sent another Italian submarine, the <i>Tricheco</i>, to the bottom off Brindisi. However, the Germans had developed better detection gear and shared this with the Italians to great effect. The Italian torpedo boat Circe took out two British submarines using the new gear. The Italians also made ever greater use of minefields and this, combined with the sinking of the British minesweepers, ultimately made Malta untenable as a naval base. The island was ripe for the picking, however, it was saved by German Field Marshal Rommel who convinced the high command to call off the invasion in favor of his attack into Egypt. At one point only 12 British boats were on hand in the area and the Royal Navy was more stretched than ever with the Empire of Japan now menacing the British Empire in the Far East. Many of the boats previously stationed in Malta had been transferred from Asia, which was now also under attack.<br />
<br />
Dogged determination proved effective though and despite the reduction in numbers in April of 1942, British submarines sank 117,000 tons of Axis shipping along with the Italian cruiser <i>Bande Nere</i> (sunk by <i>HMS Urge</i>), a destroyer and six Axis submarines. It amounted to only 6% of the materials being sent to Rommel in North Africa but, due to the withdrawal from Malta, was significantly more than what the RAF had managed to intercept. British submarines were also being used to carry cargo to keep Malta alive as Italian naval forces prevented much of the surface convoys from landing their supplies. To fight back against this, British submarines were dispatched to prowl outside the main anchorages of the Italian fleet, to attack when possible but also to warn the high command of when they were moving out. The result was a fierce fight for control of the Central Mediterranean with wins and losses for both sides. However, the need for Axis air power on the Russian front gave the British some breathing room and soon more and more Royal Navy subs were posted to the Mediterranean with new flotillas organized in Gibraltar and Beirut.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7l0VgcK1_9I/Wq90rUWJZxI/AAAAAAAAm20/F9V62lbuH_MM-LdDRULT1FdqGg8Qz3k1wCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Urge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="417" data-original-width="785" height="169" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7l0VgcK1_9I/Wq90rUWJZxI/AAAAAAAAm20/F9V62lbuH_MM-LdDRULT1FdqGg8Qz3k1wCLcBGAs/s320/HMS_Urge.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Urge</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The British war effort was also aided by the fact that the increasingly critical fuel shortages meant that the main Italian battlefield was forced to stay in port most of the time and this, combined with the determination of British air and naval forces, meant that Malta was able to be built back up and more Axis shipping to North Africa was sunk. In October of 1942, even while preparing for the invasion of French North Africa, British submarines still sank 12 enemy ships and one destroyer. When the Axis powers began moving men and supplies into Tunsia to counter the arrival of the Americans, British submarines accounted for 16 ships lost while the RAF took out even more. Their actions were making it ever more difficult for the Axis forces in North Africa to be maintained much less take offensive action. By 1943 the Gibraltar flotilla moved to Algeria, Allied air power dominated the Mediterranean and the Axis shipping lanes were devastated with British submarines accounting for 33 Axis ships. In early 1943 the subs destroyed more ships at sea than any other force, surpassed only by Allied aircraft whose successes included ships in port.<br />
<br />
Axis power was receding in the Mediterranean and the British boats were at the forefront of the naval victory thanks to men like Comm. J. W. Linton of <i>HMS Turbulent</i> who was killed in action after sinking 90,000 tons of enemy shipping and an Italian destroyer. He was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. Comm. George Hunt of <i>HMS Ultor</i> sank more Axis ships than any other British submarine commander at 30 for which he earned the DSO with bar twice. Comm. Ben Bryant was similarly decorated for sinking over 20 Axis vessels as well as numerous warships. With the capture of Sicily by the Allies, the naval war was practically over but, while outpaced by the air forces, Allied submarines, mostly British, accounted for roughly half of all Axis naval losses in the Mediterranean.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gWycilub6qE/Wq91MBC101I/AAAAAAAAm28/nrnjp1lkLYEaL-q8o_z7zim1MM-4jxL2wCLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Tally_Ho.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="488" data-original-width="799" height="195" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gWycilub6qE/Wq91MBC101I/AAAAAAAAm28/nrnjp1lkLYEaL-q8o_z7zim1MM-4jxL2wCLcBGAs/s320/HMS_Tally_Ho.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Tally-ho</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, though less extensive, the Royal Navy submarine force also saw plenty of action in the Far East though they were only able to really establish themselves from August 1943 onward. Based out of Ceylon, their primary area of operations was the strategic Malacca Straits. In November <i>HMS Tally-ho</i> sank a small tanker, the first victory of British subs in Asian waters, but a more significant success was the sinking of the Japanese submarine <i>I-34</i> by <i>HMS Taurus</i>. By 1944 the Royal Navy was getting back up to strength in East Asia and more submarines were dispatched as well. In January of 1944 <i>HMS Tally-ho</i>, commanded expertly by Lt. Comm. L.W.A. Bennington, sank the Japanese cruiser <i>Kuma</i> and, despite operating in only 15 fathoms of water, managed to escape the counter-attack of its escorting destroyer. Toward the end of the war, targets became scarcer and the Japanese were forced to resort to the use of primitive sailing ships not worth the expenditure of a torpedo. So, British boats, like their American counterparts, began making greater use of their deck gun.<br />
<br />
East Asian operations were not as extensive but could still be intense. Lt. Comm. Anthony Collet of <i>HMS Tactician</i> saved a downed American pilot from the <i>USS Saratoga</i> despite being under enemy fire from shore batteries on Sabang and with a Japanese torpedo boat bearing down on them. For this act of heroism, Commander Collet was awarded the Legion of Merit from the United States. More British submarines were dispatched to the region and two new flotillas were organized. Their impact was not negligible and by late October 1944 the British subs had sunk 40,000 tons of merchant shipping, almost 100 small craft as well as a cruiser, three submarines and six smaller warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Not too bad. The smaller British subs were also able to operate in areas such as the Java Sea which were too shallow for the larger American boats. By March of 1945 all Japanese shipping in the Malacca Straits area had been virtually eliminated.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K8KslHOicgs/Wq91qYTGaFI/AAAAAAAAm3E/JA8qKymeot8WTXZlSq9fjw5rjV3jCwxDACLcBGAs/s1600/HMS_Trenchant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="566" data-original-width="800" height="226" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K8KslHOicgs/Wq91qYTGaFI/AAAAAAAAm3E/JA8qKymeot8WTXZlSq9fjw5rjV3jCwxDACLcBGAs/s320/HMS_Trenchant.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">HMS Trenchant</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the build-up to the planned Allied assault on the Japanese home islands, British submarines at least 150 small craft but still managed to find some major enemy warships to target too. On June 8, 1945 Comm. A.R. Hezlet of <i>HMS Trenchant</i> spotted the Japanese cruiser <i>Ashigara</i> and fired a spread of eight torpedoes at 4,800 yards. Five hit home and the <i>Ashigara</i> went to the bottom. Perhaps the last really significant victory for the British was the attack on the Japanese heavy cruiser <i>Takao</i> at Singapore by the British mini-sub (XE-craft) <i>XE-3</i> which earned her commander, Lt. Ian Edward Fraser, the Victoria Cross. The British submarines in East Asia performed very well and took a considerable toll on Japanese shipping while losing only three of their own boats in the process. They had also closed the Malacca Straits to Japanese shipping, choking off the supplies going to the Japanese forces confronting the British in Burma.<br />
<br />
Overall, the British submarine force made a significant contribution to the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan. Early on, they suffered some serious losses and learned some hard lessons against the Germans in the North Sea and the Italians in the Mediterranean. However, they adapted and came roaring back, taking a considerable toll on Axis warships and plaguing the supply lines keeping Rommel and his Italo-German forces in the field in North Africa. One of, if not the most decisive factor in the successful British defense of Egypt was Rommel’s lack of sufficient fuel and supplies and the British submarine force played a major part in that. Once the Mediterranean was secure, Britain was able to focus on East Asia where not much had been left by the American submarine campaign (the most successful in history) and yet, there too, the British boats played a significant part in disrupting the Japanese lines of supply and taking out several major enemy warships. The Royal Navy impact on the surface might have been more significant, and they may not get as much attention as some others but the British submarine force earned a record in battle during World War II that they can be proud of, contributing to the tradition that would carry Britain forward to the present day.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-10348274296652172062018-03-16T17:25:00.000-05:002018-03-16T17:49:34.231-05:00France, Jews and the Monarchy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CO7ZjCH2g_U/Wqw_6FjMVzI/AAAAAAAAm0s/JhNrJMLXjqgZk1Wofdc8iit7Uv9tVmzKwCLcBGAs/s1600/french_jewish.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CO7ZjCH2g_U/Wqw_6FjMVzI/AAAAAAAAm0s/JhNrJMLXjqgZk1Wofdc8iit7Uv9tVmzKwCLcBGAs/s400/french_jewish.png" width="400" /></a></div>
In the recent history of monarchism in France, one of the major problems was the persistent accusation of anti-Semitism. Once upon a time, such an accusation did not mean much as no one expected anyone in France to be pro-Semitic, only pro-French and so the accusation of being anti-Semitic would have been met with as much of a yawn as that of being anti-Anglo or anti-Teutonic. However, as anti-Semitism came to be seen as uniquely despicable, the accusation became much more problematic and it has been consistently applied against the Catholic right in France, most of which was, increasingly so the farther back one looks, royalist. The current narrative tends to stem from the infamous “Dreyfus Affair” in which a Jewish artillery officer was convicted of treason and sent to Devil’s Island in French Guiana for passing military secrets to Imperial Germany. Subsequent evidence came forward that another man had been the spy but, in a retrial, Dreyfus was again found guilty but given a pardon and released. In 1906 Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French army.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a5xxFGAKdM0/WqxAFYS-TbI/AAAAAAAAm0w/pd0PEQemi30w1JPAu039RYFYrSszon8GACLcBGAs/s1600/maurras.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="385" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-a5xxFGAKdM0/WqxAFYS-TbI/AAAAAAAAm0w/pd0PEQemi30w1JPAu039RYFYrSszon8GACLcBGAs/s320/maurras.jpg" width="234" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Charles Maurras</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This case was the center of the great political divide in France with the left-wing, secularist republicans supporting Dreyfus and claiming that he had been the victim of anti-Semitic bigotry by the right-wing, Catholic and royalist officer corps of the French military. So, the leftist republicans claimed that Dreyfus was innocent, the rightist royalists claimed he was guilty and the eventual exoneration of Dreyfus is widely pointed to as the decisive factor in bringing the radical left to power in France. The division remained and one of the most effective rhetorical weapons used against the growing power of <i>Action française</i>, the royalist movement led by Charles Maurras, was the charge of anti-Semitism. Maurras himself had been prominent during the Dreyfus affair, referring to the French government as the “Jewish republic”. It was an accusation that fell equally on both of the feuding royalist factions in France (Maurras being a supporter of the Duke of Orleans) and, particularly in light of subsequent events in World War II, helped to marginalize the royalist movement.<br />
<br />
Maurras had plenty of criticism for the Jews, no doubt about it, however, while this is sufficient for the mainstream to condemn him today, any thoughtful person can easily see that there is more to the story. He had just as much negative things to say about French Protestants, the Germans or Freemasons, yet no one seems to mind any of that so much. He also condemned the racist policies of Adolf Hitler which serves to illustrate where his opposition to the Jews came from. The goal of Maurras was a restored Catholic Kingdom of France, though he himself appreciated the Church more than he believed in it, and the Jews, like the Protestants or any non-French people, were not what he wanted for his Kingdom of France as they would always be a source of division and internal discord. In 1926 the Catholic Church condemned <i>Action française</i> and its periodical even gained the distinction of being the first newspaper placed on the Index of Forbidden Works. Later, Pope Pius XII lifted the condemnation but this did little good as it allowed the members to claim that the previous prohibition had been politically motivated, simply opposition to a nationalist movement, while also allowing critics of Pius XII another bit of propaganda to portray him as being soft on anti-Semites (the ridiculous “Hitler’s Pope” canard).<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vfx7eBEDHtI/WqxBU8sun8I/AAAAAAAAm1A/vPEhI8DbKUUKlX2If_FheEpVaOxOM_-bwCLcBGAs/s1600/action_francaise.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="429" height="246" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vfx7eBEDHtI/WqxBU8sun8I/AAAAAAAAm1A/vPEhI8DbKUUKlX2If_FheEpVaOxOM_-bwCLcBGAs/s320/action_francaise.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">French Action</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The efforts of Maurras were really the last time, to date, that a French royalist movement was a major force in politics and had the potential to achieve victory and bring about a restoration of the monarchy. It is a terrible thing that they were undercut and were not successful, however, the anti-Semitic label is still used against them to this day and while, again, it was not so significant in the past, today it is front and center in vilifying and marginalizing this French royalist movement. To the extent to which it is talked about at all today, the main points hammered home are Maurras and the French royalists are anti-Semitic, they are untouchable, move along. That being so, it is worth taking a deeper look into the history behind all of this, because the position of Maurras and the French royalists of the early Twentieth Century was not out of step with the cause their ancestors had upheld and fought for over the many centuries previous. The Kingdom of France was and had always been an officially and explicitly Catholic monarchy and thus, inherently, the Jews were never going to be seen, indeed could not be seen, as no different from everyone else.<br />
<br />
Some number of Jews had been present in France since the time of the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire became Christian, Emperor Valentinian III put restrictions on them from holding any positions of influence but, it is often omitted, these restrictions applied to pagans as well. It was not a specifically anti-Jewish ordinance but rather part of a recognition that Rome was a Christian empire and non-Christians would not be allowed to rule over Christian people within it. This was the earliest example of the sort of problem that the Kingdom of France would have in dealing with the Jews. The barbarian tribes who conquered the Western Roman Empire took little notice of them but later they gained a sort of a special status under Charlemagne, elevated to the rank of emperor by the Pope in 800. They had some restrictions placed on them in so far as their interaction with Christians went, but Charlemagne protected them and they became quite prosperous as merchants and traders with the near east. Charlemagne, as well as his son Emperor Louis the Pious, believed that, in time, they would convert to Christianity though we know from the accounts of bishops at the time that there were concerns about their presence being at odds with the nature of a Catholic empire.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4Q3acQsgpk/WqxCEzdnMhI/AAAAAAAAm1I/cxYkIBmuMtIToPCYzpUIYnvKv37Qlg6LwCLcBGAs/s1600/clovis-baptism-st-remi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="437" data-original-width="546" height="256" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q4Q3acQsgpk/WqxCEzdnMhI/AAAAAAAAm1I/cxYkIBmuMtIToPCYzpUIYnvKv37Qlg6LwCLcBGAs/s320/clovis-baptism-st-remi.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The baptism of Clovis</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Undoubtedly some will be wondering why the mere presence of Jews should be a cause of concern or disunity in the Kingdom of France (since 987 under the House of Capet) but this is to fail to grasp the entire concept of what France was. It was a specifically Catholic kingdom and to be French was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be in communion with the body of Christ, the Church, and all other Catholics everywhere. This was the foundation of the kingdom and the highest purpose of the Catholic monarchs was to safeguard the souls of their subjects by ensuring that they were all good Catholics. Obviously, with such a foundation, it is going to be a problem to have a majority of the population which is French and who believe Jesus Christ is God, alongside a minority of people who are not French and who believe Jesus Christ was a criminal deserving of death. That is a pretty stark contrast, not a lot of room for compromise between those two viewpoints. It would inevitably cause tension and problems when a French peasant would be subject to severe punishments for denying the divinity of Christ, whereas Jews were primarily differentiated solely for this same denial.<br />
<br />
King Robert II of France tried to solve this problem by trying to basically intimidate the Jews into conversion. He was also just as hard on heretical Christians if it matters as his goal was to have his kingdom united in one faith. The situation became worse over a correspondence between the Jews in the west with the Jews in the east concerning an upcoming Islamic offensive which resulted in the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This produced such a backlash against the Jewish population that Pope Alexander II wrote to the local Church authorities condemning any acts of violence and any efforts to convert the Jews by force. These were, however, localized events and Jews in the unaffected parts of France continued to thrive and prosper. An upsurge did come about with the launching of the Crusades and it is not difficult to understand some of the reasons why. It made little sense to a considerable number of people to be fighting so hard against a religion that considered Christ a prophet while tolerating at home another religion which considered Christ a criminal. In 1182 King Philip Augustus of France ordered the expulsion of all Jews from royal lands, allowing a grace period for them to sell the goods they could not take with them and make arrangements to move, though this did not remove them from the whole of France, simply from lands belonging to the Crown. However, in 1198, the same king allowed them to return.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EiyKl8wLjao/WqxCYxIqQEI/AAAAAAAAm1M/5CeUNuwGR-0ZyV8L6ssk8qmoplQOvddXACLcBGAs/s1600/21_Louis9saint.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="479" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EiyKl8wLjao/WqxCYxIqQEI/AAAAAAAAm1M/5CeUNuwGR-0ZyV8L6ssk8qmoplQOvddXACLcBGAs/s320/21_Louis9saint.jpg" width="261" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King St Louis IX</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This would not be the last time this sort of thing would happen. Another growing concern was financial, a topic which invariably comes up in dealing with this subject. Jewish law prohibited Jews from charging interest on loans to other Jews whereas it was permissible to charge interest, even exorbitant interest, on loans to non-Jews (like French Catholics for example). At the same time, the Catholic Church tended to frown on money lending in general which all created the perfect conditions for Jews to loan money to Christians at very high interest rates and, let us be honest, even under the best of circumstances, no one who lends money is ever popular when the loan comes due. This not only caused tension between the two communities, it also highlighted the ‘different laws for different people’ nature of the situation as well as upsetting the stability of the French economy with so many in debt to so few. King St Louis IX of France determined to do something about this situation and, as a man devoted to having a truly Catholic kingdom, was compelled to address the Jews in France on a number of fronts.<br />
<br />
First of all, on the economic front, he tried to persuade the nobility of France to stop allowing Jews to loan money in their lands and he forbid the nobility and the Crown of France itself from borrowing money from Jews. Given the system of government that existed at the time, in which every lord was practically an autonomous ruler of his own lands, this was about all the king could do as, despite what many people think about the Middle Ages, the king could not tell a noble lord what he could or could not do on his own lands arbitrarily. He forgave the debts of about 1/3 of Christians who owed to Jews and decreed that no Christian could be imprisoned for failing to pay back a loan from a Jew. Finally, he ordered all Jews engaged in usury to be expelled from France though, it seems, this order was not entirely carried out, probably due, again, to the decentralized nature of countries at that time. Most controversially today, he also ordered the mass burning of all copies of the Talmud and Jewish holy books in Paris in 1243.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U_XIpHaWxmA/WqxDFswFC-I/AAAAAAAAm1c/i1fQwzt6dOUfsLzxe7FkCdds07SJMMgdwCLcBGAs/s1600/Quemalibros.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="912" data-original-width="593" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U_XIpHaWxmA/WqxDFswFC-I/AAAAAAAAm1c/i1fQwzt6dOUfsLzxe7FkCdds07SJMMgdwCLcBGAs/s320/Quemalibros.jpg" width="208" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Burning offensive books</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This, of course, is a very prickly subject today because of “optics”. Because everything touching on this issue has been tainted by World War II, whenever people hear about Jews and Jewish books being burned they immediately start thinking of men in brown shirts with strains of the <i>Horst Wessel Lied</i> drifting through the air. So be it, that cannot be helped. The fact of the matter is that works such as the Talmud were contradictory, on their face, to the Christian foundations of the Kingdom of France. When your entire society is based on Christianity, on a sacred line of Christian monarchs ruling over a country known as the “Eldest Daughter” of the Catholic Church, there will be no getting around the problem of having a religious minority whose holy book describes Jesus Christ being boiled in excrement in Hell. There really is not a great deal of room for compromise or ‘agreeing to disagree’ on something like that. King St Louis IX considered having all the Jews arrested but ultimately decided against it, instead following the instructions of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 to have Jews wear badges on the front and back of their clothing to clearly mark them as a people apart. This also, today, has negative connotations but it was simply illustrating a fact which the Jews themselves clung to. They saw themselves as a people apart, not the same as everyone else and were adamant about remaining so.<br />
<br />
King St Louis IX was also a supporter of the efforts by the Church to maintain Catholic orthodoxy throughout Christendom. France was, in fact, to become “ground zero” for what would be formalized as the Holy Office of the Inquisition after the outbreak of the Albigensian heresy in the south of France and the formation of the Dominican Order to combat it. Jews were often brought before the French Inquisition though, as the Inquisition only had authority over Catholics, it was only in cases of Jews who had converted and were either insincere (false converts) or who apostatized and returned to Judaism. This comes to the nub of the issue which is one of identity. The Jews could have, at any time, converted to Catholicism and would have been treated the same as every other Catholic in France, however, if they refused to do so, choosing to remain separate, they had little room to complain about being treated differently. The problem that the Inquisition had to deal with (as it later would more famously in Spain) was that many Jews converted, not because they believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but in order to improve their standard of living. Today the Church might applaud them for that but, at the time, the faith was taken more seriously and basically lying about the most important question of all was seen as a heinous crime and so a false convert or someone who converted and relapsed into Judaism was treated no differently than any other heretic. If the case was proven, they would be given the chance to repent and be forgiven but, if they persisted, they would be turned over to the secular authorities for execution.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MslM4MjK32Q/WqxDYF3Jg-I/AAAAAAAAm1g/CrPXWQJuK98kkIOXuz-n1HTkh_6NKjhrwCLcBGAs/s1600/23_Philippe4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="494" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MslM4MjK32Q/WqxDYF3Jg-I/AAAAAAAAm1g/CrPXWQJuK98kkIOXuz-n1HTkh_6NKjhrwCLcBGAs/s320/23_Philippe4.jpg" width="276" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King Philip the Fair</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The actions taken by King St Louis IX were those of a monarch the Church upheld as a model Christian sovereign and an example for all others to follow. He was easily one of the greatest western monarchs of all time. However, not every monarch was a saint and while the problems caused by Jews for monarchs like St Louis cannot be denied, neither can it be denied that there were monarchs who caused problems for the Jews, not out of any desire for protecting the Christian foundations of his state but simply to enrich himself. This was the case with King Philip IV, better known as King Philip the Fair. He found himself destitute of funds and saw how well the Jews were doing and decided he could get rich quick by expelling them and seizing all their assets, which he did in 1306. However, he quickly found out that much of this “wealth” was loaned out and when his own agents tried to collect on these loans, his royal agents became just as unpopular as the Jews had been and an uproar ensued. His true motives are further revealed by the fact that, after the expulsion of the Jews failed to solve his money problems, he went after the Knights Templar in the same way, accusing them of all sorts of fantastic misdeeds as a justification for suppressing them and seizing their wealth. King Philip the Fair (meaning “handsome”) might more appropriately be known as Philip the unfair.<br />
<br />
In 1315 King Louis X allowed the Jews to return to France with certain restrictions in place. In their absence, there had been essentially no money lending at all and so the King finally decided to have them back again but with the restriction that the interest they charged could not be excessive, that they had to wear the identification badges, could not discuss religion with French people and so on. He also stated that they were under his special protection and could not be attacked or have their property taken from them. However, the restrictions put in place were fairly quickly flouted and all of the old problems soon resurfaced. There was the people being shackled in debt, bribery, influence peddling and the civil disturbances that erupted, inevitably, from having society divided in this way. Once again, it was determined that something had to be done and so King Charles VI (perhaps best known for coming to believe he was made of glass) investigated the situation and found the Jews to be guilty of numerous and widespread outrages against their Christian neighbors and so, in 1394, ordered them expelled from France. The Jews were removed from the country and all debts owed to them forgiven.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wuj9c81vRhc/WqxD0rBT4AI/AAAAAAAAm1o/mlIESdPHdw8T4ACRm_GRZD-cCW_fAK9uwCLcBGAs/s1600/1b_07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="423" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wuj9c81vRhc/WqxD0rBT4AI/AAAAAAAAm1o/mlIESdPHdw8T4ACRm_GRZD-cCW_fAK9uwCLcBGAs/s320/1b_07.jpg" width="314" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King Louis XIV</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the following centuries, some did begin to come back to France, keeping as a low a profile as possible, however, by this point, the monarchy was well fed up with the subject and to associate with or give shelter to Jews was made a capital crime. King Louis XIV did tolerate their presence in the newly acquired provinces of Alsace-Lorraine but not elsewhere, just as he famously revoked the Edict of Nantes which had granted toleration to Protestants. The “Sun King” was very firm, despite being fairly consistently opposed by the popes throughout his reign, that France was a Catholic kingdom for French Catholics, end of story. Some still came in, some always managed to remain and as the era of the “Enlightenment” came to France, the Jews began to emerge in greater numbers and to be more vocal, usually in opposition to the existing state of affairs. King Louis XVI took a more tolerant attitude toward them than his predecessors had done, yet this was not enough to prevent the Jews from being ardent supporters of the emerging French Revolution.<br />
<br />
In 1789 the first call for Jewish emancipation came up, with the full-throated support of the arch-criminal Robespierre, but the issue was postponed. In 1790 some Jews were emancipated and in 1791, to great applause by the revolutionary assembly, Jews were granted full citizenship as with “Muslims and men of all sects”, setting the stage for the free for all France has become now. Many were persecuted during the Reign of Terror but such was the case with many others as the Revolution began to devour its own. On the whole, they remained staunchly supportive of the Revolution and the military efforts to spread the Revolution abroad, raising large sums of money to support the war effort. Later, under Napoleon, Judaism was given recognition by the state along with Catholics and Protestants, though their clerics did not receive government support. As had been the case in England, when King Louis XVIII was restored to the throne, things had come to such a point that these changes were not undone. It was a touchy subject given that, as the Jews had been so supportive of the Revolution, they had naturally attracted the ire of the royalist counter-revolutionaries.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nGX83rHSfSk/WqxEHtTcsAI/AAAAAAAAm1w/rUcnIMd2e5Up3lqTckeUc3xC7hWiPhlnACLcBGAs/s1600/revolutionarybrotherhood.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="403" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nGX83rHSfSk/WqxEHtTcsAI/AAAAAAAAm1w/rUcnIMd2e5Up3lqTckeUc3xC7hWiPhlnACLcBGAs/s320/revolutionarybrotherhood.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Revolutionary "Brotherhood"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This, then, should explain why Jews fall where they do in the context of French politics. The division carried on through episodes such as the Dreyfus Affair and the controversy surrounding the royalists of Charles Maurras. Under the best of circumstances, the Jews never fit in with the concept of a Catholic Kingdom of France and under the worst of circumstances were injurious to it. At the moment of greatest crisis, the most significant turning point in French history, the Revolution, they firmly cast their lot with the republicans and thus could not but incur the opposition of the French royalists. Today there has been some evidence that at least some have come to regret this history but, so far as I can tell, it has resulted in no dramatic political shift on the part of the Jewish community. As such, it should be no surprise, nor any great outrage, that many French royalists still oppose them. In fact, the only thing that is surprising is those who advocate for the restoration of a Catholic Kingdom of France should have no qualms about voicing their opposition to Protestants or Muslims but who often remain silent on the subject of the Jews who would, presumably, be regarded as just as unacceptable. I leave it to the readers to ponder why that may be.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-43999405441386442832018-03-14T00:30:00.001-05:002018-03-14T00:30:38.169-05:00The Buonaparte Famiglia<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VgpTK3ShCTs/Wqiq6AscF2I/AAAAAAAAmzg/S5mEL3M8Ag0uzX3XkJyxblpMQM1oEqvuACLcBGAs/s1600/800px-Jacques-Louis_David_019.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="573" data-original-width="800" height="286" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VgpTK3ShCTs/Wqiq6AscF2I/AAAAAAAAmzg/S5mEL3M8Ag0uzX3XkJyxblpMQM1oEqvuACLcBGAs/s400/800px-Jacques-Louis_David_019.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Even among monarchists, as well as polite society as a whole, there are two figures for whom I have more positive things to say than is generally considered acceptable; Benito Mussolini and Napoleon Bonaparte. Today, obviously, the topic of discussion is Napoleon. Given that he was the great bogey man of post-revolutionary Europe, I must make some disclaimers at the outset before any readers have to reach for the smelling salts. I fully agree that Napoleon was a usurper, if not technically so in the first instance of his seizure of power, certainly so after his escape from the island of Elba. I fully agree that he upset the peace of Europe and caused many and far-reaching problems for the “Old Order” that existed in the western world. I would say it is at least debatable whether he or the French Revolution itself was responsible for destroying the last vestiges of Christendom but he certainly swept up the pieces and tried to put it all back together according to his own designs and taking little to no consideration for legitimacy and hereditary, vested rights. I hope we are all clear on all of that.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D6K4RN3-A7k/WqirWWTJ7nI/AAAAAAAAmzk/hhjZRnIrASQGtIwDLS8EC69yS3UJr_MDwCLcBGAs/s1600/387px-Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres_016.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="387" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D6K4RN3-A7k/WqirWWTJ7nI/AAAAAAAAmzk/hhjZRnIrASQGtIwDLS8EC69yS3UJr_MDwCLcBGAs/s320/387px-Jean_Auguste_Dominique_Ingres_016.jpg" width="206" /></a></div>
All of those facts not being in dispute, I think it can also be regarded as beyond dispute that he was an extremely talented man. Certainly, in terms of his role as a military commander, he was a genius on such a level as has rarely been seen in the history of the world. One could argue over his talents as a statesman but he was certainly not inept in that regard. He did, I maintain, also do some good things, if not for Europe, at least for France. It was Napoleon who ended the horror that was the French Revolution, he did restore law, order and a functioning society to the country and it was Napoleon who finally restored Church-state relations in France with his concordat of 1801 with Pope Pius VII. It did not put everything back to the way it had been before the Revolution, but it did bring normalcy to Church-state relations, did away with the worst excesses of the revolutionaries and restored the Church to an official, recognized status in France. These were, to my mind, all very good things.<br />
<br />
Napoleon, the former revolutionary, also became, with power, increasingly conservative and the new order he envisioned for Europe was not that of the First French Republic. Whereas the revolutionary armies had marched into neighboring lands erecting republics and planting those absurd “liberty” trees, Napoleon turned these into client-monarchies with monarchs chosen from among his top generals or, more often, the ranks of his own family. The sort of European system Napoleon endeavored to create, while not ideal, is not, at least to my mind, devoid of some promise. The ideal, for most traditional monarchists, would probably be the Europe of Christendom. Unfortunately, that high-minded ideal had never really been capable of producing the unity and concerted action that it might have done. This only seemed to come close to fruition during the Crusades and, even then, was certainly not devoid of division and trouble. The European order that Napoleon planned can be seen in how he tried to make the unity of Europe a largely family affair.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ql6uBznRZC4/WqixfBl3DwI/AAAAAAAAmz4/yxHRBB_MOqUyVv33TPle27CDBB7ofA9rQCLcBGAs/s1600/Mariage_de_J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me_Bonaparte_et_de_Catherine_de_Wurtemberg%2B%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="800" height="199" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ql6uBznRZC4/WqixfBl3DwI/AAAAAAAAmz4/yxHRBB_MOqUyVv33TPle27CDBB7ofA9rQCLcBGAs/s320/Mariage_de_J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me_Bonaparte_et_de_Catherine_de_Wurtemberg%2B%25281%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Napoleon was the second son of Carlo Maria di Buonaparte and Maria Letizia Ramolino of Corsica. The family had its roots in the nobility of Tuscany and carried on the traditional importance attached to the family common in that part of the world. Napoleon’s siblings were; Giuseppe, Luciano, Maria Anna Elisa (Elisa), Luigi, Maria Paula (Pauline), Maria Annunziata Carolina (Caroline) and Girolamo. Those were the names they were born with, like Napoleon, they would adopt the French versions of their names and later other versions based on what countries they were ‘farmed out’ to. The idea of Napoleon seemed to be to have a core of support in and around the French Empire based on blood ties with other allied countries brought into line by either being given a ruler of Napoleon’s choice or to be bound to the Bonaparte clan by marriage with those untouched being too few or too weak to oppose the rest.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gArCnH748FE/Wqix2nEgOeI/AAAAAAAAmz8/olRT9-RVwcwGXWP-LEzN1sxMglccqmxTACLcBGAs/s1600/520px-Jos%25C3%25A9e_Flaugier_-_Portrait_of_King_Joseph_I_%2528ca._1809%2529_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="520" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gArCnH748FE/Wqix2nEgOeI/AAAAAAAAmz8/olRT9-RVwcwGXWP-LEzN1sxMglccqmxTACLcBGAs/s320/520px-Jos%25C3%25A9e_Flaugier_-_Portrait_of_King_Joseph_I_%2528ca._1809%2529_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg" width="277" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Joseph Bonaparte</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Giuseppe Buonaparte (later Joseph Bonaparte) was first made King of Naples and Sicily (though he did not actually control Sicily), which country he liked and where he was fairly popular. After only about two years, and much to his regret, Napoleon relieved him of the Neapolitan crown and transferred him to Spain where he ruled as King Jose I, though he was never accepted by the Spanish as a whole and never managed to be master of the entire country. To take his place in Naples, Napoleon made Marshal Joachim Murat the king instead. Aside from being a Marshal of France and one of Napoleon’s top subordinates, Murat was also married to Napoleon’s sister Caroline Bonaparte. Aside from Naples and the French Empire, the rest of the Italian peninsula consisted of the Kingdom of Italy which crown Napoleon held himself and second only in precedence to that of Imperial France. However, to act on his behalf in the Kingdom of Italy, operating out of Milan, Napoleon appointed his step-son Eugene de Beauharnais viceroy. Luciano or, later, Lucien Bonaparte, was the most difficult brother by virtue of being the most revolutionary of the bunch. Although given important government posts, he opposed his brother making himself Emperor of the French and refused any title or monarchical status.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HKS82KCdDkY/WqiyPNKiXoI/AAAAAAAAm0E/Veoj-rhLffUAZbi9jeMWGeD6aBL_6H5KQCLcBGAs/s1600/Elisa_Bonaparte_with_her_daughter_Napoleona_Baciocchi_-_Fran%25C3%25A7ois_G%25C3%25A9rard_-_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="451" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HKS82KCdDkY/WqiyPNKiXoI/AAAAAAAAm0E/Veoj-rhLffUAZbi9jeMWGeD6aBL_6H5KQCLcBGAs/s320/Elisa_Bonaparte_with_her_daughter_Napoleona_Baciocchi_-_Fran%25C3%25A7ois_G%25C3%25A9rard_-_Google_Cultural_Institute.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Elisa Bonaparte</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Napoleon’s sister Elisa Bonaparte was, after some other duties and political maneuverings, made Grand Duchess of Tuscany. The idea was to have at least France, Italy and Spain all under Bonaparte monarchs with others in countries close at hand. Brother Luigi Buonaparte (later Louis Bonaparte) was chosen in 1806 to be the monarch of the conquered Netherlands as King Lodewijk I of Holland. This replaced the Batavian Republic which the French revolutionaries had originally concocted and, to the surprise of some, Louis became a fairly popular monarch. In fact, Louis took his duties as King of Holland so seriously that he ultimately became more popular with the Dutch than with his own brother. When Dutch and French interests conflicted, Louis took the side of the Dutch whereas Napoleon expected him to bow to France. This, as one can imagine, was a state of affairs that could not endure and in 1810 Napoleon removed his brother from the throne and simply annexed Holland to the French Empire. Louis would ultimately spend most of the rest of his life in exile in the Austrian Empire but, in a way, he would have the last laugh over his ambitious brother as it was his family line which would carry on the name of Napoleon into the future with his third son ultimately becoming Emperor Napoleon III of the Second French Empire.<br />
<br />
Maria Paola Buonaparte, better known as Pauline, had a very colorful life to say the least of it. In 1797, in Milan which had just been occupied by his French troops, Napoleon married Pauline to General Charles Leclerc who was later put in command of the expedition to restore French rule over Saint-Dominque (Haiti) which had been in rebellion since 1791. Despite frequent bouts with yellow fever, Pauline engaged in numerous affairs but refused all efforts by her husband to send her home. She much preferred being the mistress of Saint-Dominque than being a subordinate in Paris, famously saying that, “Here, I reign like Josephine”. In 1802 her husband died of fever and Pauline had to return to Europe and, with the papal envoy playing match-maker, was married to Prince Camillo Borghese of Sulmona. Napoleon later made her sovereign Princess and Duchess of Guastalla but she sold it for six million francs to the Duchy of Parma. After Napoleon’s downfall, she lived in a villa in Rome as the guest of Pope Pius VII.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c4XUJQbZ4Rk/WqiyqtryrlI/AAAAAAAAm0M/EIYNBPflrYUsBS8tb67RJwA7sblGOLL5ACLcBGAs/s1600/466px-J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me_Bonaparte_%2528Kinson%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="466" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-c4XUJQbZ4Rk/WqiyqtryrlI/AAAAAAAAm0M/EIYNBPflrYUsBS8tb67RJwA7sblGOLL5ACLcBGAs/s320/466px-J%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me_Bonaparte_%2528Kinson%2529.jpg" width="248" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jerome Bonaparte</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Caroline Bonaparte, as mentioned previously, was Queen of Naples after the appointment of her husband, Marshal Joachim Murat, and frequently held power there herself as regent during his absences. The youngest boy of the family, Girolamo Buonaparte, better known as Jerome, was also somewhat problematic. After service in the navy, Jerome ran off to the United States and married an American girl in 1803, much to the outrage of his brother. Napoleon annulled the marriage when the Pope would not and eventually had the couple divorced. From 1807 to 1813 Jerome served as monarch of the Kingdom of Westphalia, a new German state Napoleon had put together which essentially served as a buffer between the French Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia (or what was left of it anyway). In an effort to remake the country, revolutionary policies were implemented. Serfdom was abolished and a market economy was established, the guilds were out and the Jews were in. The country was soon depleted and officially bankrupt by 1812, hardly a ringing success by any measure.<br />
<br />
On the continent, all of this meant that, for a longer period than most realize, Napoleon had a family network that brought about a sort of European unity. Brother Joseph was in Spain, brother Louis in Holland, step-son Eugene in northern Italy, sister Caroline and Marshal Murat in Naples, brother Jerome in Westphalia and Napoleon himself entered into a marriage alliance with the Austrian Empire by marrying Archduchess Marie Louise, daughter of Kaiser Franz II. Prussia was reduced and surrounded by Westphalia to the west, the French-allied kingdom of Bavaria to the south, the French-established Duchy of Warsaw to the east, ruled by Napoleon’s ally King Frederick Augustus I of Saxony, while to the north was the French-allied Kingdom of Denmark and Sweden where a Marshal of France was the new king. From 1807 to 1810 Czar Alexander I of Russia was an ally so that, for a time, the whole of Europe was more firmly united than it has probably ever been with the only major power holding aloof being Great Britain. Every continental power was either ruled by Napoleon himself, by one of his family, one of his allies or was so isolated as to be unable to do anything but go along other than the Ottoman Empire of Turkey which had a Serbian rebellion to deal with and which proved incapable of defeating the uprising by the fundamentalist Wahabi sect, making them no threat to the new Napoleonic order.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1p18XgSdAFs/Wqiy8SMtKyI/AAAAAAAAm0U/Omqe7oA5tX0mnDymSQODdGskPISQdijKACLcBGAs/s1600/Ingres%252C_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1400" data-original-width="864" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1p18XgSdAFs/Wqiy8SMtKyI/AAAAAAAAm0U/Omqe7oA5tX0mnDymSQODdGskPISQdijKACLcBGAs/s320/Ingres%252C_Napoleon_on_his_Imperial_throne.jpg" width="197" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Napoleon I</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Needless to say, with their origins being in the French Revolution, bad ideas spread throughout Europe with the French legions. However, there is nonetheless something to be said for it. By sheer brute force, Napoleon had done what no one else had done before; united the continent of Europe. He did end the Revolution, which was an obvious good, and was certainly preferable to the First Republic which had gone before him. I doubt any would call him pious, indeed, he seemed rather cynical about religion, but it was he who restored Church-state relations in France, had his coronation presided over by the Pope and, although it sounds odd given his character, it is nonetheless technically true that under Napoleon, the whole of European Christendom was united behind a Catholic emperor. Of course, he did it after making war on the Pope and basically taking him prisoner and, if you wanted to be really controversial, you might point out that this was pretty much how the coronation of Emperor Charles V came about but you really should not as that would be quite unfair to compare the two.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this episode of enforced European unity did not last, and perhaps could not have done so given the very ideas of the French Revolution that it enabled to spread. However, whether one takes it as good or bad, it was certainly remarkable and quite unprecedented. Had Napoleon not overreached, had this new order endured, can we imagine how history might have evolved? It is hard to imagine someone with such restless ambition as Napoleon retiring to a quiet life and with all of Europe, with the possible exception of Great Britain, pulling in the same direction, that seemingly impossible things might have been accomplished. It would be easy to picture Napoleon resuming his conquests with the a massive pan-European army that would liberate the Balkans, Constantinople and the Holy Land, which might then press on into Persia and India. Who knows how far they might have gone?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9yR4oQCVhX4/WqizWolVpaI/AAAAAAAAm0c/XYRE-tCzpHIiEn2qZLp71gqgq2JYE2_7wCLcBGAs/s1600/fr_Eimpgo.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="190" data-original-width="185" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9yR4oQCVhX4/WqizWolVpaI/AAAAAAAAm0c/XYRE-tCzpHIiEn2qZLp71gqgq2JYE2_7wCLcBGAs/s1600/fr_Eimpgo.gif" /></a></div>
In closing, just to reassure all of my good, traditional, monarchist readers, yes, Napoleon was a usurper, yes, he upset the peace of Europe and yes he spread some pretty terrible ideas wherever he went. What is, I think, nonetheless important to point out was his drive and his audacity. Look at what he accomplished, think what more might have been accomplished and all because someone had the nerve to try. One, little, Corsican upstart did all of this and only because the impossible did not exist for him; he just did it. Great and seemingly impossible things can, actually, be accomplished but only by those who try. Napoleon dreamed of a Gallic-Roman empire with himself as the new Charlemagne, uniting Europe with his own family to lead in one common direction. For a time, and longer than I suspect most people realize, he did exactly that and in so doing, left behind a wealth of lessons on what to do, what not to do, and what can be possible. It is, I think, a subject worth pondering.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-83996848575651973782018-03-10T16:46:00.003-06:002018-03-10T16:46:54.687-06:00Accidental Lessons from Hollywood on Monarchy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--3Xvb9Mwv98/WqRPzxVp4-I/AAAAAAAAmyw/Z7suh70XLAMZO7L0TPBqK4PqnVYAAECLgCLcBGAs/s1600/bdc1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="358" data-original-width="483" height="296" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--3Xvb9Mwv98/WqRPzxVp4-I/AAAAAAAAmyw/Z7suh70XLAMZO7L0TPBqK4PqnVYAAECLgCLcBGAs/s400/bdc1.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
The 1939 film "Juarez", a biopic of Mexico's most famous president, is well worth looking at for monarchists, even if that seems odd. Juarez is upheld as the 'Abraham Lincoln of Mexico' and this point is driven home hard in the film to the extent that Juarez is rarely seen on-screen without a portrait of Lincoln in the background. It is a love letter to Benito Juarez and makes no apologies for that. However, it does not vilify Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlota either. Being all about deifying Juarez, it certainly is against the monarchy and their very presence in Mexico, however, it spares the idealistic couple and focuses its wrath on the French Emperor Napoleon III. From the perspective of this film, Napoleon was the real villain, a wicked tyrant on a mission to eradicate democracy and republicanism in the New World whereas the handsome young couple, Maximilian and Carlota, are pitiable dupes; good people tricked into an "evil" enterprise by a manipulative Frenchman. Because of this, the Emperor actually comes off as a rather sympathetic figure. For a broad overview of the film, you can read a review of it <a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/01/max-mex-movies-post-vi-juarez.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
For me, one part of the film, two scenes, really stand out as being worthwhile, though they will be of most benefit only to those who know their history and in light of the events of our own time. In the first, Emperor Maximilian comes to meet with the captured rebel General Porfirio Diaz in his prison cell, in an effort to convince him to take a message to his president, offering to make Juarez the Prime Minister of the Mexican Empire. Emperor Maximilian has some very good lines as he makes the case for having a free and liberal society with a benevolent monarch at its head as a sort of safety valve. He presents such a good case that he seems to have won Diaz over and convinced him that the Emperor is a man of sincerity who wants the same things for Mexico that Juarez wants and Diaz goes to deliver this message to the President along with his offer to make Juarez his premier and allow him to run the government of Imperial Mexico. The next scene is Juarez, with kindly bemusement, listening to the naive, young general who has been duped by Maximilian. Juarez then starts preaching the republican gospel to Porfirio and showing him the error of his ways.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dETNPBU75Q0/WqRYIXUexiI/AAAAAAAAmzA/MqtkwypRz1AFABRDs7ETGS6cGDZa-fUKACLcBGAs/s1600/bdc4.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="484" height="237" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dETNPBU75Q0/WqRYIXUexiI/AAAAAAAAmzA/MqtkwypRz1AFABRDs7ETGS6cGDZa-fUKACLcBGAs/s320/bdc4.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
This scene, coming after the heartfelt speech of Emperor Maximilian in the previous one, is enough to make any monarchist who is familiar with the history of republicanism, and Mexico in particular, roar with laughter at how Hollywood inadvertently shows just how painfully wrong Juarez was in all of his speechifying on the glories of democracy. In the first place, they make much about the constitution that Juarez wrote, however, any honest historian of the period knows that Juarez himself violated the constitution he wrote on numerous occasions. Part of what makes constitutions ultimately worthless is that they can only do good if they are adhered to voluntarily, which could be done without them, and they have no power on their own to prevent anyone from violating them. Even the United States is proof of that and it has a record better than most republics in that regard.<br />
<br />
Juarez explains to poor, ignorant, Porfirio that Maximiliano duped him. When Diaz explained how honest and sincere the Emperor was, Juarez responds that, "virtue is a powerful weapon in the hands of an enemy" which is meant to sound "wise" but is absurd if you think about it for more than a second. It essentially says that Maximilian is wrong regardless of whether he is wicked or virtuous. He says that the unbridgeable gulf between himself and Maximilian is "democracy" and that this is the right of men to rule themselves. He explains that since a man never rules himself into bondage, freedom flows from democracy like the rivers flow from the mountains, just as naturally and serenely. This is, of course, quite hilarious given that Mexico itself democratically voted itself into bondage more than once. The PRI, for example, held tyrannical control over Mexico for the better part of the last century. Yet, the current President of Mexico was the leader of the PRI, voted back into power after a break of only two non-PRI presidents. It is also extremely laughable in the context of Juarez, a man who came to the presidency not by election, speaking to Porfirio Diaz who would go on to lead a rebellion against Juarez, then run for president himself, winning on the promise that he would serve only one term, only to then rule as dictator of Mexico for the next 35 years!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-llvEyuQFnIU/WqRewXVJy3I/AAAAAAAAmzQ/LfvRaFjw5MwXNmfYzPTgPUkDC6Nz-XOWACLcBGAs/s1600/Muni-as-Benito-Juarez-Joh-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="132" data-original-width="220" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-llvEyuQFnIU/WqRewXVJy3I/AAAAAAAAmzQ/LfvRaFjw5MwXNmfYzPTgPUkDC6Nz-XOWACLcBGAs/s1600/Muni-as-Benito-Juarez-Joh-001.jpg" /></a></div>
It is quite a howl that virtually everything Juarez and Diaz talk about in these scenes as being the major problems of their country; too much land owned by too few, a privileged elite prospering while the masses are impoverished, freedom of speech being suppressed, even selling out to foreign influences (such as the French) are ALL accusations made by many against General Diaz himself during his hold on power from 1877 to 1911 (with a small break in there). At the end of the scene, Juarez says, again -so profoundly, that when a monarch misrules, he changes the people but when a presidente misrules, the people change him. A perfect ending really, given that the liberal-democratic leaders of North America and Western Europe are doing precisely what Juarez said the wicked monarchs do, they are changing out their peoples for a new batch that will keep them in power. Irony doesn't begin to describe it. And yet, what is the final cherry on top of this heaping bowl full of republican hypocrisy? The fact that Juarez, the native Mexican fighting against an Austrian Emperor, was played by Paul Muni, real name Friedrich Meshilem Meier Weisenfreund, a Jew from Galicia in what was then Austria-Hungary. So, yes, instead of giving the part to a Mexican actor, Benito Juarez was played by an actor from Austria.<br />
<br />
Oh Hollywood, you really are too much sometimes...MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-11001971834325767862018-03-07T13:01:00.002-06:002018-03-07T13:04:28.209-06:00The Democratic Farce, A Personal Account<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-un82Uy85_tE/WqAtzIa2PII/AAAAAAAAmyE/f9KPr7ndxksrtqPgabO_ctr83R89NGG5gCLcBGAs/s1600/elections-1170x585.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="585" data-original-width="1170" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-un82Uy85_tE/WqAtzIa2PII/AAAAAAAAmyE/f9KPr7ndxksrtqPgabO_ctr83R89NGG5gCLcBGAs/s400/elections-1170x585.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Yesterday was the nation's first primary, right here in the state of Texas. This is not usually the sort of thing I bother with but many have argued that local elections are the most important of all and, regardless of that, I had a cousin on the ballot who would be very cross if I didn't drag my bones to town and vote for him (he's bigger than me). So, I went to town, marched into the parish hall and voted in the Democrat primary. They "warn" you on the ballot that you must be a registered Democrat to do this and are not allowed to vote in any other primaries (meaning the Republican one). You may have already noticed the first absurdity in this farce we call the democratic process. Why on earth would someone as radical-far-right-wing reactionary as yours truly be voting for the most leftist of the "two" American political parties? The short answer is; because they are the only game in town. The longer answer is; because demographics have consequences, even more than elections as it turns out. If you want democracy, these are the facts you are going to have to deal with.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UmdMdGB-yzs/WqAw1XW3bYI/AAAAAAAAmyQ/SKtDq2HT9gwu0pljBUmo-gh-Ig70dCcDwCLcBGAs/s1600/5a3b61f789988.image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="439" data-original-width="750" height="187" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UmdMdGB-yzs/WqAw1XW3bYI/AAAAAAAAmyQ/SKtDq2HT9gwu0pljBUmo-gh-Ig70dCcDwCLcBGAs/s320/5a3b61f789988.image.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Even in the supposedly "deep red" state of Texas, which everyone regards as a bastion of conservatism, pretty much all the urban areas are solidly Democrat and pretty much anywhere up to and including 100 miles of the Mexican border is also solidly Democrat and I would fall deep within that particular area. Because of the demographics of where I live, the vast majority of the population votes Democrat in every election, no matter what the circumstances are, no matter who is on the ballot. This has been the case for so long that the Republicans do not even bother to run candidates anywhere near where I live as it would simply be a waste of resources. This area is lost to them, they know it and they know it is not coming back. Because of this, you also have to be a Democrat in order to run for local office and appear on the ballot. This applies to my cousin who had to run as a Democrat despite being to the right of Rush Limbaugh. If you're not a Democrat, don't even bother trying. So, where I live, thanks to demographics, you have the "freedom" to vote for the Democrat...or the Democrat when it comes to local elections.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MpnTam-mH9Q/WqA2UqJe_0I/AAAAAAAAmyg/Kt9FpUQWRAcQuasujR6sl9UWNaP6-xnOgCLcBGAs/s1600/I-Voted.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MpnTam-mH9Q/WqA2UqJe_0I/AAAAAAAAmyg/Kt9FpUQWRAcQuasujR6sl9UWNaP6-xnOgCLcBGAs/s200/I-Voted.png" width="200" /></a>For anyone in an area such as this, who is a typical American conservative, it means you will be allowed no part in choosing who the candidate should be for the party you are certain to be voting for in the general election. This actually annoyed me somewhat this time as I would've liked to vote against George P. Bush just to be on the record about that, however, I could only vote for who is Democrat opponent will be and because of the demographics where I live that vote will count for absolutely nothing as it will be a proverbial drop in the bucket, a single grain of sand on the shore. I should probably also point out that the vast majority of Democrats on the ballot, again, because of the demographics of the area, had no opposition. They were not running against anyone, so it was really a waste of paper at the very least. For those keeping score, that means that you have a "choice" of only one party and a "choice" of only one candidate. I suppose those leftist protesters who are always chanting, "This is what democracy looks like!" might have a point, because what goes on at the polls in my area certainly doesn't look like democracy. The damning thing about the entire liberal model is that none of this is out of order, it is all perfectly legal.<br />
<br />
Being well acquainted with this farce, I long ago stopped taking any of this seriously. The liberal model is supposed to be well-informed voters making sober decisions based on the merits of the candidates and their own rational self-interest. Human nature, however, doesn't work that way and so you get what we have in south Texas which is tribal voting. And who can say it shouldn't be? With a "choice" between candidates that each belong to a party I despise, neither of whom, in most cases, I know anything about and do not care to, why not simply vote for the name that sounds most similar to my own? You cannot realistically say you expect otherwise. Deep down, everyone knows this I think. Imagine, for example, a voter in southern California who is a Vietnamese-American. The candidates on the ballot are:<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Alfredo Gutierrez</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Pedro Ramirez</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Juan Gonzales</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Nguyen Van Sam</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
- Alberto Garcia</div>
Do you really think there is much doubt about which one he is most likely to vote for? It is a farce, a farce designed to fool people into thinking they have greater control over the government than they would with, oh, say, a king for example. After all, where I live, as you can see, demographics make all the difference and that demographic change was one which neither myself nor any previous generation here was ever asked to vote on. That, I think, says it all.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-72414211293491731762018-03-04T21:50:00.000-06:002018-03-04T21:50:15.273-06:00Is America at Fault for the State of Mexico?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-39QiIhxIFeY/Wpy4-PSu-nI/AAAAAAAAmw4/5EsUWAVz1c8K52n_5oOZnHP1hhZHJuW7QCLcBGAs/s1600/920x920.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="559" data-original-width="920" height="242" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-39QiIhxIFeY/Wpy4-PSu-nI/AAAAAAAAmw4/5EsUWAVz1c8K52n_5oOZnHP1hhZHJuW7QCLcBGAs/s400/920x920.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
This question came up some time ago, attracting a string of insults directed at your humble mad man for daring to suggest that the Mexicans are responsible for the sad state of Mexico, just as Americans are alone responsible for the sad (in other ways) condition of the United States. Recently, I was pushed on the subject again and it does seem to come up more and more lately and I have no doubts as to why. Immigration is possibly the most contentious issue in America today and the leading source of immigrants to the United States is Mexico, and has been for some time. With one side demanding open borders or, basically, no borders at all; and the other demanding to “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it”, this is obviously something people can get worked up about. The idea that America is at fault for the state Mexico is in has become the argument of last resort for the American advocates of open-borders. First, they denied the problem, arguing that the border was secure and that illegal immigration to the U.S. was practically non-existent. Then, they had to admit that it did exist but that this was not a problem but a benefit. When pressed for evidence on this point, they now often take a sort of punitive view of it, essentially saying that “we” ruined Mexico and so must hand over the United States in compensation. <i>VIVA LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS DEL NORTE!</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Eq3eqL64jTA/Wpy5OwQlYNI/AAAAAAAAmw8/79GZyEHw2Nwj-LcKU56yhZy0oR99CejzwCLcBGAs/s1600/alegoria.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1162" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Eq3eqL64jTA/Wpy5OwQlYNI/AAAAAAAAmw8/79GZyEHw2Nwj-LcKU56yhZy0oR99CejzwCLcBGAs/s320/alegoria.JPG" width="232" /></a></div>
You could call this the, “you break it, you bought it” approach to international relations. The United States ruined Mexico and so now owns Mexico and the wellbeing of all Mexicans is the responsibility of the American people and their elected representatives. This may be good policy for the local five and dime but it is obviously absurd as national policy as it would condemn almost everyone guilty against everyone else, an endless cycle of victim-hood pandering. As it happens, it is also untrue, at least if one considers the population of Mexico capable of reason and responsibility. Because, that is what this all comes to; responsibility. Are the Mexicans responsible for their own decisions or is the United States responsible? This is important because, the ‘America First’ crowd does have to swallow a hard fact about something the ‘blame America first’ crowd is not entirely wrong about. This is that, if you consider the several most pivotal moments in Mexican history, the United States was consistently on the side of the leftists or the revolutionaries or the “progressives” as you please to call them. This is simply a fact of history.<br />
<br />
The “blame America” crowd will say that this was part of a concerted effort to keep Mexico weak, impoverished and helpless. Others will no doubt say that this was the work of ideologues who believed they were helping Mexico, who wanted to push for policies which were long established in the United States to work their “magic” on Mexico. Things like an American-style constitution, republicanism, states rights, separation of church and state were all things American agents pushed for in Mexico. Now, if these were all inherently bad ideas that brought Mexico to ruin after slowly adopting them over time, one would have to wonder why the United States, which had them longer, is not in the same condition as Mexico? All the same, whether these ideas were good ones or not (and, just for the record, almost all of them were not), America would still not be responsible unless the United States alone forced Mexico to embrace them against the will of the Mexicans themselves, assuming they have free will of course which seems to be up for debate at the moment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CK2cAvyFeGs/Wpy7Rc3kuaI/AAAAAAAAmxI/SBwSdafTJ5QyDwR1H1-nk37ATgL_Mh8OgCLcBGAs/s1600/salute-el-duque.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="698" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CK2cAvyFeGs/Wpy7Rc3kuaI/AAAAAAAAmxI/SBwSdafTJ5QyDwR1H1-nk37ATgL_Mh8OgCLcBGAs/s320/salute-el-duque.jpg" width="279" /></a></div>
This issue matters to us here because at least two of the pivotal events in which the United States came down on the wrong side of Mexican history involved the two efforts to establish a local monarchy in the country. The U.S. was ambivalent toward the first and openly hostile toward the second. However, in every case, the U.S. was backing existing Mexican factions. In fact, this predates the existence of Mexico as an independent country. The land-grabbing schemes by ambitious Americans toward the Spanish empire were invariably done in conjunction with Mexican revolutionaries. The 1812 invasion of Texas associated with former U.S. Army Lieutenant Augustus Magee was a joint expedition. Magee himself had been recruited by the Mexican revolutionary Bernardo Gutierrez de Lara who was the original leader of the enterprise. He executed the local Spanish officials and he declared himself president of Texas. The 1819 filibuster invasion of Texas was, likewise, formed through the partnership of Dr. James Long and Jose Felix Trespalacios, an anti-Spanish, Mexican revolutionary (who, by the way, was released from prison by Emperor Agustin de Iturbide, given rank and eventually made governor of Texas).<br />
<br />
All of these schemes failed and Spain had been doing a good job at keeping Mexico within the empire until bitter divisions in Spain itself caused the traditional conservatives in Mexico, led by Agustin de Iturbide, to make common cause with their former republican, revolutionary enemies, to break away from the Kingdom of Spain. The result was the short-lived First Mexican Empire. In explaining why this empire was so short-lived, the “blame America” crowd point to the U.S. envoy to Mexico, Joel Roberts Poinsett of South Carolina, a man with extensive experience in Europe, particularly the Russian Empire and South America. He actually had accepted the rank of general and fought against the Spanish in Chile. He was also a Freemason, a strong supporter of the Monroe Doctrine and firmly convinced that liberal republicanism was the answer to the woes of Latin America. Was he truly to blame for the downfall of Iturbide? Hardly. If a single American envoy was sufficient to bring down the First Mexican Empire, any strong gust of wind could have done the same. His influence was damaging to be sure, but not decisive.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s1yUiwTXww4/Wpy7h55PenI/AAAAAAAAmxM/VkYyxlZNQ6IVUp-cUIRQNDOJQQQ7xfldgCLcBGAs/s1600/034_abrazo-de-acatempan-por-jesus-helguero.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="740" height="259" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s1yUiwTXww4/Wpy7h55PenI/AAAAAAAAmxM/VkYyxlZNQ6IVUp-cUIRQNDOJQQQ7xfldgCLcBGAs/s320/034_abrazo-de-acatempan-por-jesus-helguero.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The embrace of Iturbide & Guerrero</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Poinsett established ties with Mexicans already ill-disposed toward Iturbide, encouraged the further spread of (Scottish rite) Freemasonry and was no doubt a malign influence on the country. However, the division in Mexico between the imperialists and the republicans, the animosity between the uneasy coalition of the former royalist Iturbide and the republican revolutionary Vicente Guerrero, joined later by the man who would become the first Mexican president, Guadalupe Victoria. All of this long predated the arrival of Poinsett and ensured that the Mexican Empire rested on a very unstable foundation. The revolutionaries had been unable to win against the royalists in their drive for independence. Events in Spain, however, prompted the Mexican conservatives to break with Spain and join with the revolutionaries in seeking independence with the plan being that they would be in charge and have a Mexican monarchy that retained all of the best aspects, as they saw them, of Spanish rule. As it turned out, however, the revolutionaries, who had failed to drive out the Spanish, basically used the Mexican conservatives to do it for them and then, promptly, turned on the conservatives to bring down their empire and create the Mexican republic that the revolutionaries had always wanted.<br />
<br />
Poinsett did not create the division between Guerrero and Iturbide, he did not create the many factions that forced Iturbide to take strong measures to rule the country, he did not introduce Freemasonry to Mexico (a false claim often repeated, it had existed in Mexico since at least the previous century), he did not force Iturbide to raise taxes on his core supporters, he did not win the battles for Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna against the forces of Iturbide and he did not force the officials to abandon Iturbide when Santa Anna approached. He certainly had nothing to do with the Central American republics breaking away nor was he holding a gun to the head of Iturbide, forcing him to recall Congress and present them with his abdication. Indeed, many have puzzled ever since why Iturbide gave up and went into exile when he did when so many Mexicans demonstrably remained supportive of him. Poinsett certainly did not help the situation, he was certainly not impartial and what influence he did have was negative. However, it would absolutely absurd to credit him with bringing down the abortive monarchy of Iturbide rather than the long-standing animosities and rivalries of men like Guerrero, Victoria and Santa Anna.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5Ih2iV2iPYs/Wpy7z7h5srI/AAAAAAAAmxU/cW6T5_IrMbkgctbZSTpbT09CD4uTzU8MwCLcBGAs/s1600/800px-Flag_of_Coahuila_y_Tejas_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="800" height="182" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5Ih2iV2iPYs/Wpy7z7h5srI/AAAAAAAAmxU/cW6T5_IrMbkgctbZSTpbT09CD4uTzU8MwCLcBGAs/s320/800px-Flag_of_Coahuila_y_Tejas_svg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
In the chaos that followed, Mexican history was subsequently dominated by several figures in succession, between intermittent contests for power. There was Santa Anna, then Benito Juarez, then Porfirio Diaz and finally the decades long tyranny of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). As far as Santa Anna is concerned, he was a vain, duplicitous and cruel man but, nonetheless, was in his time practically the only option for a patriotic Mexican to support. His downfall, again, can hardly be blamed on the United States. The Anglo-American colonists in Texas had originally been supportive of him and, under the leadership of Stephen F. Austin, loyal to the Mexican government. When another filibuster invasion was launched in 1826, the Fredonian Rebellion, Austin rallied his colonists to fight against them in support of Mexico. Later, when tensions rose, culminating in the outbreak of the Texas War for Independence, Austin again urged his fellow Texans to demand their constitutional rights but remain loyal to Mexico. He had supported the candidacy of Santa Anna and went to Mexico City to negotiate a peaceful resolution of the crisis in 1834. He was arrested and thrown in prison for more than a year without ever being charged with a crime or given a trial. It was only after that that Austin agreed that war was the only solution.<br />
<br />
As it happened, Austin, Colonel Travis of Alamo fame and General Sam Houston all had at least one thing in common with Santa Anna; they were all Freemasons. In any event, the United States was hardly out to ‘take down’ Santa Anna. Poinsett, still around at the time of Santa Anna’s defeat by the Texans, had previously been an ardent supporter of his. He lived in the United States for a time and when Mexico and the United States went to war over the Republic of Texas voting to join the U.S. it was the American government that plucked Santa Anna from exile and returned him to Mexico. The idea was that he would arrange a peace favorable to American interests. Instead, he led the war against the United States but ultimately failed. Yet, even this, the one time the United States actually dominated Mexico, controlling its ports and occupying its capital, might have been avoided if not for the inadvertent aid the Mexicans themselves gave the Americans.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j0Yl5wfjDLM/Wpy9JPF5pqI/AAAAAAAAmxk/rge53HtdVrsWjXVRLAfIi73mAmV88GHMACLcBGAs/s1600/battle_of_buenavista.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1035" data-original-width="1600" height="206" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j0Yl5wfjDLM/Wpy9JPF5pqI/AAAAAAAAmxk/rge53HtdVrsWjXVRLAfIi73mAmV88GHMACLcBGAs/s320/battle_of_buenavista.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Buena Vista</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Mexican-American War is a fascinating conflict (one I have tried to come up with an excuse for covering here but to no avail) and not at all the way most people think. Today, because of modern attitudes, it is portrayed as an overpowering America crushing a poor, weak, Mexico under its boot heel, a sort of armed parade with battles fought like the occasional swatting of gnats. In fact, the American victory was no sure thing and not easily gained at all. Mexico had a far larger army than the United States, many combat veterans, a cavalry rated by European observers as among the best in the world and they would be fighting defensively on their own ground with the Americans considerably outnumbered in every engagement. The battles were extremely hard fought and most American victories were narrowly won. Some battles, such as San Pasqual in California, were Pyrrhic victories, the Battle of Monterrey, while technically an American victory, was actually more like a stalemate. Under Santa Anna himself, at the Battle of Buena Vista, the U.S. forces were excruciatingly close to being totally defeated and routed from the field. Yet, the fight at Buena Vista ended in an American victory because of the internal divisions among the Mexicans themselves. Santa Anna received word that an uprising was under way in Mexico City and he quickly broke off to deal with this unrest in his capital.<br />
<br />
Had it not been for the internal divisions of Mexico, Santa Anna might well have defeated the Americans and won the war. Similarly, it was Santa Anna, restored to power by the clerical party, who sold more land to the United States (the Gadsden Purchase) before he was overthrown by the group that soon coalesced around Benito Juarez. In the next major fight, which was probably the most decisive in Mexican history, the United States was more involved than probably at any other point and this was the fight between Benito Juarez and the French-backed Emperor Maximilian, each of whom offered very distinct visions of how Mexico should be organized and what the future of the country would be. The United States was, from the outset, very clearly on the side of Juarez and absolutely opposed to Emperor Maximilian and French Emperor Napoleon III. However, because this struggle coincided with the American Civil War, there was nothing the United States could do about it until late 1865 and forward. From that point though, the U.S. did everything short of massive military intervention which proved unnecessary anyway.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RSUfHxgnqt0/Wpy9rlYtkXI/AAAAAAAAmxs/dfgqVEz6qd8MtBgNkrgGd_jNeZR8jpZ3gCLcBGAs/s1600/mexican-school-the-battle-of-puebla-118910.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="500" height="249" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RSUfHxgnqt0/Wpy9rlYtkXI/AAAAAAAAmxs/dfgqVEz6qd8MtBgNkrgGd_jNeZR8jpZ3gCLcBGAs/s320/mexican-school-the-battle-of-puebla-118910.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The United States applied pressure to stop the Austrian Empire from reinforcing Mexico and to push Napoleon III from withdrawing French military forces from the country. The U.S. then sent Juarez every type of assistance from logistical support, loans, weapons, ammunition, equipment, uniforms and even allowed several thousand U.S. Army soldiers (predominately Black troops) to “desert” to Mexico to fight alongside the Juaristas. All of this certainly helped Juarez to win, however, the fact remains that it was the U.S. supporting *Mexican* opposition to the French which had been there from the beginning. It was not the U.S. Army which took city after city, not the Americans who besieged Maximilian at Queretaro and it was not an American firing squad that sent him to his eternal rest. In fact, the United States wanted Juarez to spare Maximilian as their whole narrative had been that he was a puppet ruler, the hapless dupe of the sinister Napoleon III and thus not responsible for everything that had gone on. It also happened he was a genuinely kind and well meaning person but Juarez would not be dissuaded and Maximilian was shot by the Mexican government just as Iturbide had been shot by the Mexican government decades earlier.<br />
<br />
If, therefore, Mexico is in a terrible state because of the downfall of Iturbide and Maximilian in turn, it cannot be the responsibility of the United States of America. The U.S.A. had next to nothing to do with Iturbide, preexisting forces obviously brought him down as his reign lasted less than a year. Likewise, with Maximilian and his downfall, the United States certainly helped Juarez but it is an obvious, logical fact that this was only possible because Juarez was there to help. His faction and the conservative faction had been battling for decades. Juarez had won, then the French came in to support the conservatives and Juarez lost, then the French withdrew and America helped Juarez to win. But, that is the point; that the U.S. helped Juarez and those Mexicans who followed him, not that the U.S. took down Maximilian themselves and gave Mexico a republic and forced them to submit to it. On the contrary, despite his efforts to totally sell out Mexico and effectively make the country a U.S. protectorate (which offer was turned by the U.S. by the way), Juarez is still upheld by the vast majority of Mexicans as a great, national hero; the plucky, little Indian who defeated the “evil” Austrian Emperor and his French invaders.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8ifaBYLx5PM/Wpy-Q7aQAJI/AAAAAAAAmx0/dHXi0hF9IEoYtsuXELa5HJDY--ShmAi0QCLcBGAs/s1600/surrenderofmaximilianatqueretaro2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="600" height="300" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8ifaBYLx5PM/Wpy-Q7aQAJI/AAAAAAAAmx0/dHXi0hF9IEoYtsuXELa5HJDY--ShmAi0QCLcBGAs/s320/surrenderofmaximilianatqueretaro2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The surrender of Maximilian</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
To look at it another way, to say the U.S. is to blame for this is to say that, “the Devil made me do it” is a valid defense and, going further, that the Devil didn’t even make me do it but assisted me in doing it at my own request. I doubt such a defense would hold up before the Almighty and it does not here either. Even aside from Juarez and his faction, there are numerous other factors that one would have to discount entirely in order to say the U.S. is responsible. In the end, one of the key factors in bringing down Maximilian was one of his original supporters: the Catholic Church. After he refused to restore their all of the Church’s property and make Catholicism the only legal religion, the Church turned on Maximilian and for more information on that, those interested can look back at this article on <a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-catholic-church-and-mexican-empire.html">The Catholic Church and the Mexican Empire</a>. Who do you suppose had more popular support among the Mexican people in 1866, the Catholic Church or U.S. President Andrew Johnson? The answer seems obvious. It is not very different to those who blame the U.S. for the rise of the P.R.I. tyranny in Mexico, mostly based on the U.S. brokering the negotiations that ended the heroic Cristero Rebellion in 1929. However, setting aside the support of American Catholics for the Cristeros and the safe haven given to fleeing Mexican bishops in the U.S., it is simply absurd to believe that the U.S. government was responsible for the terms of the cease-fire, for both sides agreeing to it and that the U.S. had more influence in bringing this about than the hierarchy of the Catholic Church itself which even went so far as to excommunicate those Cristeros who refused to lay down their arms.<br />
<br />
The bottom line for all of this is the issue of free will, which exists for nations as well as individuals. The people who push this line, as stated at the outset, generally fall into two categories; they either wish to blame America as a justification for open borders or because they think Mexicans are simply irresponsible people who cannot be held accountable for their own decisions. It is certainly not my position that America has been blameless in all of this, far from it. The difference is that America is to blame for what America does, not for what Mexico does and the state of Mexico is the responsibility of Mexicans, not Americans just as the state of the United States of America is the responsibility of Americans and not Mexicans. It is all the more pertinent if America has been consistently in the wrong in the entire history of U.S.-Mexico relations. “The Devil made me do it” is not a valid defense, just ask Eve, and, to quote a line from a famous film, “Who’s the more foolish; the fool or the fool that follows it?”MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-14565968506608639922018-02-27T05:14:00.000-06:002018-02-27T05:14:22.362-06:00The Limits of Tolerance<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-38htreOT_74/WpU7eE7lGwI/AAAAAAAAmwQ/6aonCzyawLAOXqGpLUopJIFTG4fUbm64gCLcBGAs/s1600/HenriIV.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="847" data-original-width="678" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-38htreOT_74/WpU7eE7lGwI/AAAAAAAAmwQ/6aonCzyawLAOXqGpLUopJIFTG4fUbm64gCLcBGAs/s320/HenriIV.jpg" width="256" /></a></div>
It was on this day in 1594 that Henri IV was crowned King of France at Chartres Cathedral, about 50 miles southwest of Paris. He is remembered as a tolerant king, one who was vilified by the intolerant of his own time but more respected after his death as people became more dispassionate and, perhaps, more tolerant themselves. For those who are not experts in French history, if they know at least the basic facts, they will recall that King Henri IV is most famous for having been a Protestant but who converted to Catholicism in order to be king, supposedly saying that, “Paris is worth a mass”. I cannot help but think that part of his popularity in recent times is due to his reputation for not taking religion very seriously. This is, needless to say, completely wrong. First of all, I would not swear on the Gospels that Henri IV ever said that nor do I think his conversion was driven entirely by ambition or political concerns. I may not swear to it either but I think it is at least highly possible that his conversion, even if prompted by politics to a degree, was genuine.<br />
<br />
What earned King Henri IV his reputation for tolerance was that, even after his conversion to Catholicism, he issued the Edict of Nantes which granted freedom of religion to French Protestants. Needless to say, there were Catholics who were upset by this but, then again, one can also still find Catholics who are critical of King Louis XIV for revoking the Edict of Nantes. For many, whether tolerance is a positive or a negative seems to be a rather subjective question. In the case of France, tolerance seemed to be the only solution to their problem. The edict came at the end of the long and brutal Wars of Religion in France, the last being known as the “War of the Three Henries”. This saw Henri (IV) of Navarre and the Protestants battling against Henri Duc d’Guise and the Catholics with King Henri III in the middle, all fighting against each other, none being strong enough to defeat the other two. France was being shredded by these conflicts and since there seemed to be no end, tolerance was the answer Henri of Navarre found. In order to be king, he would become Catholic but he would also insist that Protestants be free to worship as they pleased so long as they remained loyal to the king and loyal to France, which in those days were taken to be the same thing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_OlFwPgZX4c/WpU78QYL5SI/AAAAAAAAmwU/hHsyj07agrsrkSUrUgyWG9u8B8agAk1GwCLcBGAs/s1600/Luther_%2528Wislicenus%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="409" data-original-width="709" height="184" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_OlFwPgZX4c/WpU78QYL5SI/AAAAAAAAmwU/hHsyj07agrsrkSUrUgyWG9u8B8agAk1GwCLcBGAs/s320/Luther_%2528Wislicenus%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
One reason that Protestantism was able to take hold in France was because of the degree of tolerance that existed in the Catholic leaders of the country such as the famous King Francis I who tolerated the Protestants at first only to later come to regret it as a faction, primarily aristocratic Protestants, began to aim their opposition at the monarchy. There were similar problems across Europe as Protestantism spread throughout the continent. However, one will notice that similar wars of religion did not occur in places such as Spain or Italy. It is interesting to look at the realms of the House of Habsburg in this time which included both Spain and Germany. In Spain, the rather unfairly notorious Inquisition made sure that Protestant ideas never found a firm foothold, whereas in Germany, ruled by the same monarch but under a very different political system, this was not possible. The decentralized nature of the first German Reich meant that Martin Luther was able to defy the German Emperor and King of Spain right to his face at the Diet of Worms and freely walk away without being arrested thanks to the protection of his local prince Frederick III, Elector of Saxony.<br />
<br />
The result was that while Spain had no wars of religion, Germany had plenty of them, culminating in the disastrous Thirty Years War which left central Europe in ruins for decades. The fact that tolerance can make things worse instead of better was not lost on the Protestants themselves. Despite their persecution at the hands of intolerant Catholics, for what they called, ‘following the dictates of their conscience’, once in power they were not prepared to fully embrace tolerance themselves. In countries such as England or The Netherlands, while the Church of England or the Dutch Reformed Church had special status, they were generally tolerant of Protestants who did not adhere to these churches but that freedom of religion did not extend to Catholics. It is obvious to see why. Such tolerance would lead to division which would lead to conflict, sometimes decade after decade of ruinous conflict that could devastate entire nations. Today it often seems necessary to repeat the obvious; differences cause problems. Differences about the fundamental nature of society, the world, loyalty and so on can certainly cause very, very serious problems.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_eCx5jfHlDo/WpU8QduiKcI/AAAAAAAAmwc/WJFt8ukTGqUomdlMfzO5MSD4DjEAzoWbgCLcBGAs/s1600/loyalistlanding.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="341" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_eCx5jfHlDo/WpU8QduiKcI/AAAAAAAAmwc/WJFt8ukTGqUomdlMfzO5MSD4DjEAzoWbgCLcBGAs/s320/loyalistlanding.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
These lessons are not only to be drawn from the monarchies of the Old World. They were seen just as often in the United States of America. On the religious front, Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony but not enough Catholics wanted to move there, so they were tolerant and allowed Protestants in as well. As soon as the Protestants became a majority, they decided to be tolerant of everyone except Catholics. In the political sphere, when the thirteen original colonies won their independence, they were not prepared to be very tolerant of those hated loyalists who had taken the side of the King in London. As I have proposed before, I think this was one reason why the United States did not suffer the same chaotic fate as Mexico post-independence. In America, the people who were different were gotten rid of so that everyone who remained were basically in agreement on the fundamental, republican, nature of the new country. Thus there were no royalist coups in America. Other differences and thus other problems arose in due time and there was not an abundance of tolerance. The concept of the rights of the states in America was based on tolerance, a ‘live and let live’, almost libertarian sort of attitude. Yet, just as those opposed to slavery would not tolerate it in another state, so too with a long list of successive issues all the way up to gay “marriage”. Making it legal in their own state was never enough, ALL states had to make it legal and if the people would not do it willingly, the courts would do it by force.<br />
<br />
This all underlies a fundamental point I have tried to impress upon people many times. Tolerance is rare and tolerance on the part of governments is practically non-existent. No ruling power ever has or ever will tolerate anything which is a direct challenge to them. They will not tolerate any sort of attack on that which they hold most dear. In Muslim countries, this means that anything anti-Islamic will not be tolerated. It is why, in Germany or Austria, questioning the Holocaust is not tolerated. It is why the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy would not tolerate opposition to their ruling parties. It is why Thailand does not tolerate disrespect toward the monarchy, because that is the foundation of their society. Liberal regimes today, be they republics or monarchies, tend to think they are immune from this. Not so. The rulers of Great Britain, for example, allow republican groups to attack the monarchy because the monarchy is not fundamental to their world view at all. Most European countries, the United States, Canada and so on do not have something so obvious as Islam in Iran or the King in Thailand but they very clearly have a narrative that is fundamental to their worldview and they will tolerate no opposition to this narrative.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ykuq3Hrus0/WpU9ZOug9sI/AAAAAAAAmwo/wuTp8Bd6GS8gthmsy350UN3ATflhAFVAwCLcBGAs/s1600/silenced.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="450" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9Ykuq3Hrus0/WpU9ZOug9sI/AAAAAAAAmwo/wuTp8Bd6GS8gthmsy350UN3ATflhAFVAwCLcBGAs/s320/silenced.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Because of liberalism, they have to be more duplicitous about this than Chairman Mao on the left or General Franco on the right but they are just as intolerant as either of those examples were. They must show some restraint in order to maintain their charade but we have all seen the truth. If you challenge the narrative, you will be vilified, lose your job, perhaps even face criminal penalties. Your life can be destroyed for doing this because when it comes to that which they hold most dear, they are just as intolerant as any Spanish inquisitor, Soviet secret policeman or Nazi Gestapo agent. This is a fact of human nature. We can be tolerant but generally only for select periods of time and when all other options have failed. Even then, the tolerance doesn’t really stay but rather becomes unnecessary. The reason for this is that when something is tolerated for long enough, it generally becomes accepted and, even when it is not, the ultimate end is that people stop believing such differences matter and replace them with new ones. Religious tolerance did not lead to Protestants and Catholics truly respecting each other. It led to people just giving up on Christianity altogether. Monarchies which tolerate republicans has not led to republicans embracing the monarchy out of gratitude but rather an increasing number of people being indifferent to their monarchy.<br />
<br />
Tolerance is a lie and, all too often, a fatal one.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-4347418137619841102018-02-24T22:24:00.001-06:002018-02-24T22:24:30.016-06:00Battlefield Royal: Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oq5DJ60LiGw/WpI3nJ1qrWI/AAAAAAAAmvU/KC16MdLFKwwD_vBR326A5NefQcoeq4Q-ACLcBGAs/s1600/Louis%252C_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="491" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oq5DJ60LiGw/WpI3nJ1qrWI/AAAAAAAAmvU/KC16MdLFKwwD_vBR326A5NefQcoeq4Q-ACLcBGAs/s400/Louis%252C_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9.PNG" width="347" /></a></div>
The way French military prowess is routinely denigrated, it is no wonder that the ignorant often say scoffingly that, in terms of great military leaders, the French would have nothing without Napoleon. And Napoleon wasn’t even really French. This attitude, however, derives almost entirely from World War II and is an exaggeration even if only looking at that unfortunate conflict. Rest assured, that even without Napoleon, France boasts a number of military giants, not only in French history but in the history of the world at large and one of those was most certainly Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé. He was a colorful character to be sure, alternately regarded as a war hero, a traitor and the savior of his country. His achievements warrant his inclusion, not just on any list of great French military commanders but amongst the most remarkable and influential captains in world history (and he would not be the sole Frenchman on such a list).<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tmbugpVVKQ/WpI4GMz5Q_I/AAAAAAAAmvc/jZDwmD0qmH4xAoleUOpbbKVFZZDqZB5-QCLcBGAs/s1600/Gonzales_Coques_-_Equestrian_portrait_of_Louis_II_de_Bourbon%252C_the_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9%252C_as_a_boy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="682" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3tmbugpVVKQ/WpI4GMz5Q_I/AAAAAAAAmvc/jZDwmD0qmH4xAoleUOpbbKVFZZDqZB5-QCLcBGAs/s320/Gonzales_Coques_-_Equestrian_portrait_of_Louis_II_de_Bourbon%252C_the_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9%252C_as_a_boy.jpg" width="272" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The young prince</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A “prince of the blood”, Louis was born the Duke of Enghien on September 8, 1621. As such, his was a childhood of wealth and privilege. Despite their august and semi-sacred status, many Bourbon royals could still be shy, withdrawn or even possessing of a degree of humility. Condé, however, was not one of them. He was proud, arrogant and could be extremely condescending. Yet, he was one of those rare personalities who, to the frustration of some, had as much talent as he had vanity. Entrusted, because of his birth, with a military command at the age of only nineteen, Condé nonetheless quickly proved that he more than merited such a position. He was no listless lord, no idle aristocrat, not at all one of those puffed up princes of popular fiction who is all glamour and no substance, the sort in any story we all wait to receive his comeuppance. On the contrary, Condé was driven to excel, possessed immense determination and real bravery. He also learned the art of war very quickly and very well. He became a master at evaluating the enemy and exploiting the slightest weakness.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xB15SFA1VzE/WpI4XqGJfVI/AAAAAAAAmvg/HzWQPxM_icQ-bKK_O3pF16bN27vgpmQAQCLcBGAs/s1600/HeimBattleRocroy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="598" data-original-width="708" height="270" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xB15SFA1VzE/WpI4XqGJfVI/AAAAAAAAmvg/HzWQPxM_icQ-bKK_O3pF16bN27vgpmQAQCLcBGAs/s320/HeimBattleRocroy.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Prince at the Battle of Rocroi</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
He displayed so much talent that within three years he was given command of the French army and posted to the frontier to defend against an invasion from the Spanish Netherlands. However, standing still on the defensive was not his style. Condé went on the offensive himself and intercepted the Spanish army at Rocroi on May 19, 1643. This was no small affair. The Spanish infantry formations of pikemen and musketeers were rightly regarded as the best in the world in those days, a powerful combination of powder and steel that seemed unstoppable. The vaunted tercios, however, had met their match in the Prince de Condé. He concentrated his artillery to blast the Spanish lines, outflanked their cavalry with his own and then crushed the Spanish from both sides as his own infantry charged from the front and his cavalry from the rear. It was one of the most spectacular victories in French history. While losing only 2,000 men, Condé had wiped out 20,000 Spaniards, destroyed their army and in so doing also destroyed 150 years of Spanish military dominance in Europe. He had correctly evaluated his enemy and brilliantly exploited their weaknesses. It was his specialty and he won a victory that would never be forgotten.<br />
<br />
The Battle of Rocroi, however, was only the beginning for the Prince de Condé. He next shifted to Alsace to meet the Bavarians. Although he did not destroy their army totally as he had the Spanish, in three sharp battles he forced the Bavarians to quit French soil and retreat back across the Rhine. When they returned the following year, Condé, along with another giant of French military history, Turenne, again defeated the Bavarians and forced them to withdraw. Time and again, over the next decade, Condé was called upon to chastise the enemies of France but with each victory he also gained enemies at court where jealously about the young man who so dominated the battlefields was not uncommon. The greater his popularity, the greater the envy many felt towards him. He did have his setbacks as well. In 1647 he was dispatched to Spain and met with a bitter loss at Lerida, a failure of logistics rather than battlefield tactics. Nonetheless, it was an aberration and he still succeeded in carrying out the occupation of Catalonia.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mgNdwTHNL0A/WpI4qB6BREI/AAAAAAAAmvo/voITdHpIfTMATOEB3jZAlbb2THG6zMd_ACLcBGAs/s1600/Battle_of_Lens.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="598" data-original-width="711" height="269" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mgNdwTHNL0A/WpI4qB6BREI/AAAAAAAAmvo/voITdHpIfTMATOEB3jZAlbb2THG6zMd_ACLcBGAs/s320/Battle_of_Lens.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Prince at the Battle of Lens</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
1648 saw the Prince de Condé rushed to command the French army in Flanders, the target of the Spanish forces of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. Condé concocted a cunning trap for the Archduke, feigning a retreat to draw the Spanish out of their defenses at Lens on August 20. The enemy took the bait and as they came out Condé again used his cavalry to outflank them and rolled them up like a blanket. This additional success was welcome but it came at a time of great turmoil in France. “The God-given” Louis XIV was officially King of France but it was his mother, Queen Anne of Austria, who ruled as regent. She, however, had handed actual power over to Cardinal Mazarin and rumors about the two were rampant. Soon, leading aristocrats in France were preparing to rise up in revolt against the Queen-regent and Cardinal Mazarin. To lead this rebellion, the “Fronde”, the elites recruited the Prince de Condé. More controversial still, he made common cause with his former Spanish enemies to bring down the Queen Mother.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z91gcTXV6Nc/WpI5alELLlI/AAAAAAAAmv4/zG91erkeF-Ura80N-HR1jaPbwL91ouEZQCLcBGAs/s1600/R%25C3%25A9ception_du_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9_%25C3%25A0_Versailles_%2528Jean-L%25C3%25A9on_G%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me%252C_1878%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="958" data-original-width="1400" height="218" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-z91gcTXV6Nc/WpI5alELLlI/AAAAAAAAmv4/zG91erkeF-Ura80N-HR1jaPbwL91ouEZQCLcBGAs/s320/R%25C3%25A9ception_du_Grand_Cond%25C3%25A9_%25C3%25A0_Versailles_%2528Jean-L%25C3%25A9on_G%25C3%25A9r%25C3%25B4me%252C_1878%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Prince received at Versailles</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In 1658, at the head of a largely Spanish army, the Prince de Condé met the loyalist forces of his old comrade-in-arms, the great Turenne. The resulting battle was short but decisive and it was Turenne who emerged victorious. Condé retreated, having already been sentenced to death in absentia for treason in 1654. The situation in France stabilized after 1659 when the war ended with the Treaty of the Pyrenees and the Prince began to use his connections to lobby for his pardon and return home. Many, obviously, were not enthusiastic about this but the enemies of France persisted and it proved impossible to leave so talented a captain in exile. In 1668 Condé finally succeeded in being brought home and given command of another French army. Some distrusted him and always would but his immense talents had not abandoned him and after a smashing victory over the Dutch at Arnhem in 1672 and later another triumph over the Prince of Orange at Seneffe in 1674, his loyalty seemed well proven and his critics were largely silenced.<br />
<br />
The success at Seneffe, however, would prove to be his last victory. Although only in his mid-fifties, that was a more advanced age for the time than it is today and Condé was suffering from a variety of ailments ranging from gout, the common affliction of the upper class, to the simple effects of old age and so many years campaigning. He was simply no longer physically capable of taking to the battlefield and so, after more than thirty years of leadership, retired to his palatial home, devoting his remaining years to his family, study and of course, living as lavishly as he could. The great Condé died at Fontainebleau on December 11, 1686 at the age of sixty-five.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GgnTHlFPUkU/WpI6UMcejxI/AAAAAAAAmwA/LP-tjpWsIn4-OFofx4TXqTgCmfgyMbOLACLcBGAs/s1600/grand_conde.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GgnTHlFPUkU/WpI6UMcejxI/AAAAAAAAmwA/LP-tjpWsIn4-OFofx4TXqTgCmfgyMbOLACLcBGAs/s320/grand_conde.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The Prince de Condé was one of the most remarkable figures France has ever produced and one of the most brilliant tacticians the world has ever seen. Coming from the very elite of the elite, Condé was nonetheless a “hands on” commander, a general who led from the front and who had the scars to show for it. During his many years of battles he had numerous horses shot out from under him and was wounded in action on multiple occasions. His courage was beyond question and his skill was obvious for all to see. He had a very quick mind, remarkable powers of observation and almost always found some fault in his enemy that he could exploit, in the heat of battle, to win the day. In his own time, Turenne was probably the only commander more influential than he and of course it helped that Turenne was never branded a traitor. Yet, even in that, Condé proved himself capable of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat in his own life. Widely regarded as the greatest war hero in France, he was condemned as a traitor, sentenced to death and yet, in a time of crisis, came back and smashed the Dutch to be celebrated as the savior of his country. In any listing of the great captains of history, from all around the world, one will surely find the name of Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-78912778827989431192018-02-21T06:10:00.001-06:002018-02-21T07:03:47.056-06:00Clash of Monarchies: The Third War of Italian Independence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b10OBmhbi44/Wo1a47i4CUI/AAAAAAAAmtg/eDmMkPRhQ14MV6-yart76rvQC-CWdB00ACLcBGAs/s1600/Custozza1866.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="912" data-original-width="1600" height="227" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b10OBmhbi44/Wo1a47i4CUI/AAAAAAAAmtg/eDmMkPRhQ14MV6-yart76rvQC-CWdB00ACLcBGAs/s400/Custozza1866.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The last of the three wars to secure the unity and independence of the Kingdom of Italy requires more than the usual background information. The preliminaries took longer than the war itself. The Second War of Italian Independence had seen the Austrian Empire beaten by the French and Italians at the bloody Battle of Solferino in 1859. Austria was forced to cede Lombardy to the King of Piedmont-Sardinia as well as the conquest of Modena, Parma, Tuscany and most of the Papal States in 1860 which were united with the rest of the northern half of the peninsula under the House of Savoy of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia. However, the French ultimately won few friends and, by the time the smoke had cleared, came to be seen as duplicitous by both the Austrians and many Italians. Moreover, the Prussians had mobilized during the conflict but had not taken part. They too were pursuing a nationalist goal of reunifying all of the German states into one empire (Reich). Austria, rather than lead, stood opposed to this and the war in Italy was used by the Prussians as proof of both Austrian weakness and a greater concern for maintaining their rule over non-Germans than for resuming leadership of the German nation on the part of Austria.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UVuOmeo8Dso/Wo1cYsvGqsI/AAAAAAAAmts/yYWpespOrdk8lyyQKAfvF6WCYw7coVzowCLcBGAs/s1600/fj1_w1_ve2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="807" data-original-width="746" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UVuOmeo8Dso/Wo1cYsvGqsI/AAAAAAAAmts/yYWpespOrdk8lyyQKAfvF6WCYw7coVzowCLcBGAs/s320/fj1_w1_ve2.png" width="295" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Franz Joseph, Wilhelm I, Vittorio Emanuele II</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
All of that was simmering and would ultimately come to a boil when Bismarck was to provoke Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph into a war (just as Napoleon III had done in 1859 and others would do yet again). In the meantime, however, the unification of the Italian peninsula continued apace and in a shocking way. The famed Italian nationalist, Giuseppe Garibaldi, renowned for his exploits in South America and his defeat of the French in front of Rome in 1849, was as eager as ever to go on the attack. In 1849, Garibaldi, a lifelong republican and Freemason, had fought for the radical republicans of Giuseppe Mazzini. However, he had seen them prove totally incapable of governing and witnessed how easily they were defeated. Since then, he had seen King Vittorio Emanuele II and his royalists, deliver actual victories for the nationalist cause and Garibaldi was that rare case of a nationalist who did not put his own ideology before all else. If the republicans, who he favored, could not get the job done, he would fight his battles on behalf of a monarch if that meant the furtherance of the nationalist cause. However, given his background, his politics and his aggressiveness, the government of King Vittorio Emanuele II, led by Count Camillo Cavour, had to be careful in how it dealt with Garibaldi, to make use of him while not being seen too blatantly to make use of him in case his far-fetched scheme might fail.<br />
<br />
The scheme he had in mind was nothing short of the conquest of the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies, ruled, at that time, by the cadet branch of the Spanish Royal Family. In May of 1860, with only a thousand volunteers, Garibaldi sailed out to take on the Bourbon monarchy which possessed a large army and a bigger navy than Piedmont-Sardinia. He and his little force of men, garishly dressed in red shirts, landed in Sicily, the garrison of which had been reinforced from 21,000 to 40,000 men when word of Garibaldi’s plan reached Naples. Garibaldi should have had no chance at all, however, he was a master at misdirection and the Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies proved far less formidable in fact than it appeared on paper. Particularly in Sicily, the repeated rebellions of the previous decades had taken their toll and the King, Francesco II, had wiped out his Swiss mercenaries, his best troops, when they went on strike over better pay and conditions.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4bCmO31sSJg/Wo1dXeg5txI/AAAAAAAAmt0/JrsEL_nM2YYXITP0T1e3l3CHuFU7kWvBwCLcBGAs/s1600/Battle_of_Calatafimi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="454" data-original-width="680" height="213" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4bCmO31sSJg/Wo1dXeg5txI/AAAAAAAAmt0/JrsEL_nM2YYXITP0T1e3l3CHuFU7kWvBwCLcBGAs/s320/Battle_of_Calatafimi.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Calatafimi</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Garibaldi could never have conquered Sicily with only a thousand men but many Sicilian peasants rushed to join his cause and more reinforcements would be arriving by ship later on. The first decisive action was the Battle of Calatafimi on May 15, 1860. If the Neapolitans had beaten Garibaldi there, he would have been ruined and his local support would have melted away. Yet, though outnumbered 3-to-1, Garibaldi managed to win, or at least not lose which was good enough for his purposes. Emboldened by this, and attracting a little over a thousand more local volunteers in the aftermath, Garibaldi launched a direct assault on the coastal fortress city of Palermo. He let prisoners out of jail which enlarged his forces and had little trouble rousing the city to rebellion (Palermo had a history of this) but the Neapolitan general, the elderly Ferdinando Lanza, managed to drive them back after which he and his offshore naval support shelled the city for three days, killing hundreds of civilians. This, obviously, did nothing to help the Bourbon cause in the long-run. Many have since accused Lanza of having been paid off by the British but I would be hesitant to believe such a thing without hard evidence. He did surrender the city to a force smaller than his own and which was practically out of ammunition but he did so only after his own counter-attack had failed. The enemy were in the city and it seemed impossible to dislodge them. He also had permission from his King to withdraw and on July 7 the Neapolitan army did just that.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QP1mbnVZilw/Wo1eOP2rwSI/AAAAAAAAmuA/Jap8rqwJcVojZ7gfeziQk-zhHBmhPnA4QCLcBGAs/s1600/garibaldi_vittorioemanuele.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1112" data-original-width="929" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QP1mbnVZilw/Wo1eOP2rwSI/AAAAAAAAmuA/Jap8rqwJcVojZ7gfeziQk-zhHBmhPnA4QCLcBGAs/s320/garibaldi_vittorioemanuele.png" width="267" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Garibaldi & the King meet at Teano</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Earlier that month King Francesco II had granted a(nother) constitution but it did him no good. Those who wanted one no longer believed the Bourbon monarchy trustworthy on this subject while the more reactionary supporters of the monarchy were put off by it. After Garibaldi’s forces won another victory at Milazzo, the Neapolitan commander surrendered the key fortress city of Messina less than a week later. The remaining Neapolitan garrisons on the island surrendered soon after. Garibaldi was master of Sicily and controlled access to the mainland. The next month he and his forces crossed over to Calabria, against the direct wishes of Cavour who had conspired with Garibaldi to make the invasion of Sicily possible. In Calabria there was little effective resistance as the large Bourbon armies simply melted away, many simply deserting and not a few even crossing over to join Garibaldi. In the meantime, the Piedmontese had invaded the remaining Papal States on the pretext of suppressing disorder. Pope Pius IX deployed his own army but held them back, certain that France or Austria would come to his aid. Neither did. Further south, the gallant, young, King Francesco II barricaded himself inside the coastal fortress of Gaeta with his few remaining loyal troops. The Piedmontese army and the army of Garibaldi linked up with Garibaldi handing all of his conquests over to King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy. The siege of Gaeta dragged on to its inevitable conclusion, showing at least what an inspiring leader King Francesco II was and what he might have accomplished if he had taken to the field to defend his kingdom personally.<br />
<br />
After 100 days of resistance, Francesco II surrendered and went into exile, the south was reunited with the north for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire and Vittorio Emanuele II was proclaimed King of Italy. Of the major Italian territories, only Rome and Venice remained out of reach. Rome was occupied by the French and Venice by the Austrians. Peaceful efforts to gain these came to nothing. The new King of Italy offered to purchase Venice from Emperor Franz Joseph, but was refused. Likewise, Pope Pius IX refused to hear of the offer of Cavour for absolute sovereign immunity for the pope and total power for him in all Church matters. The status quo, however, could not endure as the nationalist movement which had taken hold in Italy would never abide separation from Venice and Rome. Not long after, Count Cavour suddenly died and though the King had never liked him much, the two had learned how to work together and a period of some political instability ensued. Garibaldi, seeing his work still unfinished, recruited some more volunteers and made to attack Rome. The French and Austrians both threatened war if he was not stopped and so the Italian army did the job, halting the nationalist volunteers at the Battle of Aspromonte in August of 1862, even wounding Garibaldi himself in the process.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XtATvK8aUmQ/Wo1eyQkY6FI/AAAAAAAAmuI/uZe7b6lSwgce9cVrwh-uXvQTGo2DIau2ACLcBGAs/s1600/wilhelm1_bismarck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="633" data-original-width="500" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XtATvK8aUmQ/Wo1eyQkY6FI/AAAAAAAAmuI/uZe7b6lSwgce9cVrwh-uXvQTGo2DIau2ACLcBGAs/s320/wilhelm1_bismarck.jpg" width="252" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King Wilhelm I & Bismarck</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This was what we would call today a public relations nightmare for the Italian government and to an extent broke the nationalist-monarchist coalition. The royalists accused the nationalists of being rash and foolhardy while the nationalists accused the King of caring more for the Pope than for Italy, taking the side of the French occupiers over the Italian people. All of this added pressure on the new Kingdom of Italy to take any chance that presented itself to regain its nationalist credentials. The government saw hope for regaining Venice when, also in 1861, Otto von Bismarck became chancellor of the Kingdom of Prussia. Bismarck was well known as a man who was determined to have a united Germany and if Austria would not lead, he would push them out of the way and Prussia would assume leadership. However, when Napoleon III proved not so positive toward Prussia and negative toward Austria as Bismarck had hoped, Prussia and Austria renewed ties under the German Confederation (just in time for a war with Denmark). Italian hopes for an alliance were dashed, but the reunion did not last long.<br />
<br />
Conflict began to bubble up over disagreements between Austria and Prussia over the administration of the lands taken in the war with Denmark. Among German nationalists, there had also been a long standing division over whether or not the united Germany would include Austria due to the fact that Austria also ruled over so many non-German peoples that German nationalists cared nothing about. With the Austro-Prussian dispute, that matter was settled; Austria would be excluded and, as far as Bismarck was concerned, could go on having fun in her ‘majority minority’ empire. If Prussia were to take on Austria, there would be no better time as Habsburg foreign policy had managed to alienate just about everyone by this stage. Austria was sore at the French for allowing the incorporation of the central Italian states into the Kingdom of Italy and so, naturally, the French were sore at Austria in return. The Italians, naturally, wanted Venice back and so were certainly not going to take the side of Austria and, most importantly, the Russians were still furious at Emperor Franz Joseph for threatening to side against them in the Crimean War, effectively forcing them to concede defeat. The Prussians had also stood by the Russians in a recent rebellion in Poland, whereas the Austrians had not. The British, for their part, had no great love for either side and had no reason to care who won.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PlU2me-zmtc/Wo1fEWwK_AI/AAAAAAAAmuM/roekvF2c1p4Iie5JpBQ-Pz2OS97ksRv3gCLcBGAs/s1600/BismarckRoonMoltke.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="794" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PlU2me-zmtc/Wo1fEWwK_AI/AAAAAAAAmuM/roekvF2c1p4Iie5JpBQ-Pz2OS97ksRv3gCLcBGAs/s320/BismarckRoonMoltke.jpg" width="290" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bismarck, von Roon & von Moltke</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Bismarck had only to prod Austria with the right words for Emperor Franz Joseph to demand a resolution of the Holstein issue by the German Imperial Diet which violated a treaty between Austria and Prussia, which was all Bismarck needed to go to war. Many have since pondered why the Austrian Emperor did such a thing after having been previously baited into a failed war with France and Piedmont-Sardinia not so long before. The most common explanation is that Austria was still not really looking toward the German states so much as the other ethnicities within the Austrian Empire, which were rather restive. The Hungarians, who had come under much more strict control since the Revolution of 1848, were looking particularly troublesome. The Emperor may have been hoping that a war with Prussia and Italy would unite the ethnic groups behind Austrian leadership and strengthen the empire.<br />
<br />
In any event, on June 14, 1866 the war began with Prussian troops marching into Saxony and Bohemia. The Prussian army had mobilized rapidly thanks to the adept leadership of war minister Graf von Roon and the army commander Graf von Moltke. The Italian Royal Army was less well prepared, with elements of the north and south still not having coalesced very well. Some of this was due to personality issues, some due to organizational differences and sometimes simply the differences between the dialects of Turin and Naples. The Italian war plan was for the army of General Alfonso La Marmora to strike while the army of General Enrico Cialdini remained on the defensive. They would have superior numbers but the Austrians, with their powerful fortress cities of the Quadrilateral, would be able to concentrate their troops against any threat. The Italians, in typical fashion, came straight on with a bold offensive by the troops of La Marmora, accompanied by King Vittorio Emanuele II himself, who loved nothing better than being on campaign.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xoH8uc-J3YQ/Wo1fm11ypBI/AAAAAAAAmuc/tSBmJUzrBrk5GJw8HAveY0WLkeKyra_HgCLcBGAs/s1600/HGM_Barabas_Erzherzog_Albrecht_von_%25C3%2596sterreich-Teschen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="883" data-original-width="648" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xoH8uc-J3YQ/Wo1fm11ypBI/AAAAAAAAmuc/tSBmJUzrBrk5GJw8HAveY0WLkeKyra_HgCLcBGAs/s320/HGM_Barabas_Erzherzog_Albrecht_von_%25C3%2596sterreich-Teschen.jpg" width="234" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Archduke Albrecht</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Austrians were led by Archduke Albrecht, Duke of Teschen, the Emperor’s cousin and a veteran of Radetzky’s victorious army from the First War of Italian Independence. He was not content to remain on the defensive but moved his army around to the north in an effort to get behind the Italians, cut them off from their base of operations and assault them from the rear. As it happened, the Italian army turned at just the right moment and the two sides collided at the Battle of Custoza on June 24. It was a very confused fight. The Austrian cavalry charged in, were mostly wiped out but spread confusion that stymied a sizeable number of Italian units. The Austrians drove the Italians out of Oliosi and seemed to be winning the day, yet were then met by an Italian division that exploited the gaps in their lines and refused to be dislodged, repelling fierce and repeated Austrian attacks at Monte Croce. The Austrians thought they were beaten, yet the Italians did not immediately reinforce Monte Croce and finally the forces there began to fall back. When reinforcements were sent and the Austrians moved to match them, the Austrians left another gap in their lines but the Italians failed to exploit it.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F8rDSwb1kLs/Wo1gQG9TZlI/AAAAAAAAmuk/VSH7qiT0WwMjMXO7VFDVoxsE32GVe3ONQCLcBGAs/s1600/800px-San_Martino_della_Battaglia_-_Fresco_1866_Custoza_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="535" data-original-width="800" height="214" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F8rDSwb1kLs/Wo1gQG9TZlI/AAAAAAAAmuk/VSH7qiT0WwMjMXO7VFDVoxsE32GVe3ONQCLcBGAs/s320/800px-San_Martino_della_Battaglia_-_Fresco_1866_Custoza_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Battle of Custozza</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Each army believed they had been beaten, though neither actually had been. However, it was La Marmora who was the first to take action on this mistaken assumption and he ordered a retreat. As his forces moved back to secure the bridges over the Mincio, gaps in the Italian lines opened up which the Austrians were quick to exploit and Italian losses were heavy. By the end of the day, the Italians had retreated across the river after losing 8,147 men compared to losses of 5,650 for the Austrians. However, Archduke Albrecht did not follow up to destroy the Italian army, viewing his army as too bloodied and too exhausted to continue. As it was, most of the Italian losses had been men who were captured, as far as the number of dead and wounded alone went, Austrian losses were considerably higher. The Archduke retired to Verona, fearful of exposing his forces in case the French decided to get involved. Emperor Franz Joseph had advised him to ignore any political consideration and focus on annihilating the Italians, however, Archduke Albrecht seemed more concerned in not repeating the disaster that had befallen Franz Joseph himself at Solferino. As it was, Austria had won a solid victory and removed itself from immediate danger on the Italian front.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bi2zF4ArCgs/Wo1gqgX_BtI/AAAAAAAAmuo/A1NKYQ4oVvsXn27GMAl9Tw6HcpPz5IMDwCLcBGAs/s1600/Bataille_de_Bezzeca.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="587" data-original-width="1144" height="164" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bi2zF4ArCgs/Wo1gqgX_BtI/AAAAAAAAmuo/A1NKYQ4oVvsXn27GMAl9Tw6HcpPz5IMDwCLcBGAs/s320/Bataille_de_Bezzeca.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Bezzecca</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In fact, the Austrian Empire seemed to be doing exceedingly well in the opening weeks of the conflict. They had defeated the Italians at Custoza and soon after halted the Prussians at Trautenau and the Austrian-allied forces of the Kingdom of Hanover also defeated the Prussians at Langensalza. However, at that point, everything began to go wrong. Only two days later the Hanoverians surrendered and the Prussians bested the Austrians at Gitschin on June 29. Most devastating of all for Austria was the decisive Prussian victory at the Battle of Koeniggraetz (Sadowa) on July 3. Subsequent defeats followed and in Italy, a small force under Giuseppe Garibaldi, who was still full of fight, was on the attack in the Trentino while the Italian high command planned their own counter-offensive. On July 21, Garibaldi and his “Hunters of the Alps” were attacked by two Austrian columns led by Major General Franz Baron von Kuhn at the town of Bezzecca. The Italians immediately counter-attacked and though they took heavier losses, managed to drive the Austrians out, providing a much needed morale boost for the Italian forces.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HG2dC8rkLMY/Wo1hAkg-tDI/AAAAAAAAmu0/FcaQjzXWsMYLlgVA7ydB55tbRrrvRe0RACLcBGAs/s1600/800px-Constantine_Volanakis_Naval_battle_at_Lissa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="800" height="209" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HG2dC8rkLMY/Wo1hAkg-tDI/AAAAAAAAmu0/FcaQjzXWsMYLlgVA7ydB55tbRrrvRe0RACLcBGAs/s320/800px-Constantine_Volanakis_Naval_battle_at_Lissa.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Lissa</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The Italian war effort seemed to be on the rebound. General Cialdini was on the advance, this time with La Marmora holding back to cover the Austrian fortresses, Garibaldi had won a hard fought victory at Bezzecca and the Italian navy, widely regarded as the vastly superior force, was preparing to land troops on the Adriatic island of Lissa off the Dalmatian coast. However, it was then that everything was spoiled by the greatest disaster of the war for Italy. To the surprise of all, the much smaller Austrian fleet of Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, attacked the Italian fleet while they were preparing to land their forces. The Italian commander, Admiral Count Carlo di Persano, was caught off guard and seemed totally bewildered. Two Italian ironclad warships were sunk while the Austrians lost none of their own, though one unarmored steamer was badly damaged. The Italians retreated and the Austrian sailors cheered. Ironically, most of the “Austrian” sailors were actually Italians, from Venice. It was a humiliating blow for Italy which was not helped by the fact that Persano first reported that he had won a great victory. This made it very awkward, needless to say, and all the worse when the truth came out.<br />
<br />
The outcome of the war had, for all intents and purposes, mostly been decided at the Battle of Sadowa with the Prussians crushing the Austrian army there. However, the Austrian reinforcements on their way to Italy, combined with the stunning loss at Lissa, prompted Italy to come to the peace table too, in spite of the advances of Garibaldi and Cialdini and the hopes riding on them to make good on the loss at Custoza. It was not the glorious victory that had been hoped for, nor would the resulting peace treaty be easy for anyone. Italy was on the winning side but Prussia had been the ones to force Austria to the negotiating table. Even then, it was only thanks to the intransigence of Bismarck as most of the Prussian officers wanted to carry on and capture Vienna and perhaps more. Bismarck would not hear of it. All he wanted was a war to shove Austria out of the way so that Prussia could create a united Germany. He had no desire to see Austria humiliated or destroyed.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5PafRX55Wc4/Wo1he7fIgFI/AAAAAAAAmu8/E8tEbt17rKg_mx4z9cu7evFq9jQeNwzKQCLcBGAs/s1600/Einzug_Vittorio_Emanuels_in_Venedig_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1115" data-original-width="1600" height="223" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5PafRX55Wc4/Wo1he7fIgFI/AAAAAAAAmu8/E8tEbt17rKg_mx4z9cu7evFq9jQeNwzKQCLcBGAs/s320/Einzug_Vittorio_Emanuels_in_Venedig_1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">King Vittorio Emanuele II enters Venice</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
However, the Austrians were still Austrian and while they could grudgingly accept being beaten by Prussia, they would still insist on being condescending to the hated Italians. They refused to concede anything to Italy, yet Prussia was bound by their alliance not to make peace unless Venice was restored to Italy. However, the Austrian Empire refused to budge on this and so Prussia and Italy had to turn to Emperor Napoleon III of the French, who had been on side but taken no part in the conflict. The result was rather ridiculous. Austria finally agreed to make peace but by ceding Venice to the French Empire at which point the French then handed Venice over to the Kingdom of Italy. In a way, however, it was rather fitting given that Austria had first acquired Venice by originally dividing the Venetian territories with the first French Republic. So it was that Prussia proved to the minor German states that Austria would not be looked to for leadership and, after the appropriate referendum, Venice was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy.<br />
<br />
An unfortunate result of the Austrian intransigence during the peace process was to perpetuate the false impression that Italy had accomplished nothing during the war. The Italians had won battles and the naval engagement of Lissa was the only truly embarrassing loss. The battle of Custoza was two armies that basically fought each other to exhaustion, both thought they had lost and the Italians were simply the first to do anything about it and as they began to pull back the Austrians pounced. Garibaldi had won a hard fought victory in the north, the Italians had not been destroyed and were in the process of counter-attacking, were advancing back into Venetia, when the crushing victory of the Prussians brought the war to a close. The Austrians had not ‘run away with it’ so to speak. In any event, Italy had at least regained Venice, leaving only Rome still under foreign occupation. Prussia was clearly established as the leading German state, only one further step away from unification whereas the Austrian Empire had been humbled and was soon thereafter forced to make vast concessions to the Hungarians, leading to the compromise which turned the Austrian Empire into the “Dual Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-9817972588067472582018-02-18T05:21:00.002-06:002018-02-18T05:21:49.278-06:00Monarch Profile: Emperor Bokassa I of Central Africa<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-998-Jl6Pr6M/Woldxj1ABKI/AAAAAAAAmsY/LKrvxRarsnAuDxgoSXxiK8B4AV726nFWACLcBGAs/s1600/Bokassa%2B%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="576" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-998-Jl6Pr6M/Woldxj1ABKI/AAAAAAAAmsY/LKrvxRarsnAuDxgoSXxiK8B4AV726nFWACLcBGAs/s400/Bokassa%2B%25282%2529.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The cause of monarchy in modern Africa has been a difficult one. In most of sub-Saharan Africa the tribal system of government persisted throughout the colonial period and still persists today under the surface of most regimes. Today, the only sovereign monarchies which exist in Africa are the Kingdom of Morocco and the small kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland which are, essentially, dependencies of South Africa. Previously, the only major Black African sovereign monarchy was the Empire of Ethiopia, restored by the British colonial and imperial armed forces during World War II and which was brought down by a communist coup in 1974. Many people in the African Diaspora (not quite so many in Africa itself) had looked to Ethiopia as the example they should aspire to. The same would not be said for the new imperial monarchy which sprang up thanks to one Jean-Bedel Bokassa of the Central African Republic which to many, then as now, strike most as farcical at best.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUOp4xSoYI0/Wold-87uz-I/AAAAAAAAmsc/iQd2NRRfFokui_fGZeOiQx-YS42Vese7QCLcBGAs/s1600/Corbis-42-15122977.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="640" height="221" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iUOp4xSoYI0/Wold-87uz-I/AAAAAAAAmsc/iQd2NRRfFokui_fGZeOiQx-YS42Vese7QCLcBGAs/s320/Corbis-42-15122977.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Jean-Bedel Bokassa was born in Ubangi-Shari in what was then French Equatorial Africa on February 22, 1921. Orphaned at a young age, he was educated in Catholic missionary schools, part of what the French proudly termed their ‘mission to civilize’ the primitive parts of the world. The young Bokassa proved himself to be not without ability, joining the French colonial army in 1939 as a private soldier. During World War II, he fought to secure the colony for the Free French forces from those of the Vichy regime and later fought on other fronts, including in southern France itself before the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany. He remained in the army, deciding to make that his career when a new conflict soon arose with the outbreak of war against the communist revolutionaries of French Indochina. Unlike America later, France never sent French conscripts to Vietnam and so relied heavily on native troops, the Foreign Legion and colonial soldiers from other parts of the French empire. Bokassa earned the Legion of Honor and the Cross of War before the French withdrawal from Vietnam, the young African private had become an officer and risen to the rank of captain. He had also married a Vietnamese girl and had a child before his tour ended but he abandoned them both. Were they still around when the North Vietnamese concluded the war, their fate could not have been a happy one.<br />
<br />
The idea that such service was evidence of any great loyalty to the French colonial empire was, however, a false one and in Africa, as in Indochina, the movement gained strength for the independence of the French African colonies and the dissolution of the French colonial empire. In 1960 Ubangi-Shari was granted independence from France as the Central African Republic, led by President David Dacko, a distant cousin of Bokassa. Like most who would come to power in post-colonial Africa, Bokassa was the son of a tribal chief and had aspirations for leadership which did not include playing subordinate to his distant relative. President Dacko gave Bokassa, no doubt because of his military record with the French as a company officer, command of the armed forces of the new republic. Granted those armed forces amounted to only 500 men but it was something Bokassa took very seriously and it was totally in keeping with local custom in post-colonial Africa for new national leaders to stock the government with their relatives.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hPURP9W6Z74/WoleKNSCvmI/AAAAAAAAmsg/D9AktLTX2FISMpflZeN3kZEpe4Cc5cdsQCLcBGAs/s1600/f4e02020070504093332665.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="300" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hPURP9W6Z74/WoleKNSCvmI/AAAAAAAAmsg/D9AktLTX2FISMpflZeN3kZEpe4Cc5cdsQCLcBGAs/s320/f4e02020070504093332665.jpg" width="242" /></a></div>
Soon, because of his obvious ambition, people in the Dacko administration began to fear Bokassa. Most, however, dismissed him as a vain and silly man who was not clever enough to be a real challenge to them. Bokassa worked to expand the army and his own prominence (because of the size of the army his rank was only colonel). However, the situation in the C.A.R. worsened quickly after independence. The economy stagnated and then began to decline, the bureaucracy totally broke down and foreign guerilla groups routinely violated C.A.R. territory. Dacko reached out to Communist China for help and soon communist propaganda was spreading throughout the country. The Chinese also made large loans to the Dacko government but most of this went into the pockets of government officials and the economy continued to decline. Bokassa began to make noise about stepping up to save the country from financial ruin and communist subversion and this finally caused Dacko to take notice. When Bokassa went to France for Bastille Day, Dacko refused to allow him to return until President Charles de Gaulle demanded that Dacko reinstate him, speaking of Bokassa as his “comrade in arms” from World War II.<br />
<br />
This was done but, obviously, there was no longer any trust or loyalty between the two and Dacko began taking steps to replace Bokassa and disperse his supporters. However, he was not very subtle about this and Bokassa soon saw what was going on and decided to get rid of Dacko before Dacko could get rid of him. In the early hours of January 1, 1966, in what was called the Saint-Sylvestre coup d’etat, Bokassa and his chief subordinate Captain Alexandre Banza, seized control of the capital and, in due course, his forces captured and arrested President Dacko. Once in power, Bokassa promised a new era of equality for all, abolished the constitution and ruled through a Revolutionary Council. He promised that after his forces had eliminated corruption and communism, allowing the economy to stabilize, new elections would be held for a new national assembly and a new constitution. He banned opposition parties, outlawed begging and made employment mandatory. Anyone without a job could be imprisoned. However, he also banned polygamy and female circumcision, established a bus line in the capital, a ferry service on the Ubangi and used government funds to establish two national orchestras. He also broke off diplomatic relations with Communist China. In short, he did make some positive changes.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pJ6WxhxUIx0/WolegWa2OFI/AAAAAAAAmso/fNMWBgSiY7oItTCaw6v63mfGD_mPYDJYwCLcBGAs/s1600/Bokassa%2B%25283%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="658" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pJ6WxhxUIx0/WolegWa2OFI/AAAAAAAAmso/fNMWBgSiY7oItTCaw6v63mfGD_mPYDJYwCLcBGAs/s320/Bokassa%2B%25283%2529.jpg" width="194" /></a></div>
The new regime was troubled by the slowness of foreign powers to recognize them, particularly the French. The economy also showed no signs of improvement and when Captain Banza pointed out that the lavish spending of Bokassa was not helping, he was immediately demoted. Banza then began planning his own coup to unseat Bokassa but his actions were reported by a loyalist and he was arrested and executed after being beaten nearly to death. This caused a degree of disgust in France but French recognition did finally come. Colonel Gaddafi in Libya lent support to Bokassa, subtly at first, and a strange sort of normalcy finally seemed to settle. In 1972, having previously promoted himself to general, Bokassa declared himself president for life. This still was not good enough and General Bokassa was rather frustrated at the situation in his country. It was not as grand and prosperous as it should be and he felt he was not receiving the full respect of the international community that was his due. Ultimately, he seemed to believe that if he could make the C.A.R. look like a great power, it would become a great power. So, he decided to give himself another, major, promotion. He would become a Napoleonic-style monarch and make the Central African Republic the “Central African Empire”. He envisioned an advanced, dazzling, empire in the heart of Africa that would entrance the world and inspire Africans everywhere. And he was serious.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jf1P7vrsg5I/Wolerrmq21I/AAAAAAAAmsw/9AqWxahvIc4ARV7LDq7VH_a7n1zHjRwmACLcBGAs/s1600/1627_01_bokassa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="630" height="213" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jf1P7vrsg5I/Wolerrmq21I/AAAAAAAAmsw/9AqWxahvIc4ARV7LDq7VH_a7n1zHjRwmACLcBGAs/s320/1627_01_bokassa.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bokassa at his coronation</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
At the end of 1976, Bokassa dissolved his government, proclaimed the country the Central African Empire, issued a new constitution and, having previously converted to Islam, converted back to Catholicism. On December 4, 1977, to mark this shift, he held a lavish coronation ceremony for himself. He had designer robes and gowns, a diamond-encrusted crown and a huge throne made of gold as well as 19th Century Napoleonic style French uniforms made for his soldiers, most of which was all imported from France. The cost was a staggering $20 million, the entire French aid package for that year or one third of the entire annual budget. It was, he claimed, the will of the people that he be elevated to “Emperor Bokassa I” and also that this would gain the respect of world leaders, raise the status of his country in the international community and bring global attention to Central Africa. In that last regard, he was certainly successful as he did get the attention of many people around the world with this spectacle but almost no world leaders attended his coronation and most were convinced that the man was completely insane.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-73NBEZlPOOs/Wolg3WrJcmI/AAAAAAAAmtA/0_YV3gHVTEU_EfB3iKSXoCzfS4IhLLNVgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6567.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="660" data-original-width="469" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-73NBEZlPOOs/Wolg3WrJcmI/AAAAAAAAmtA/0_YV3gHVTEU_EfB3iKSXoCzfS4IhLLNVgCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6567.JPG" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Idi Amin and Bokassa</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The situation in the new Central African Empire did not immediately improve with the change in style and Emperor Bokassa came under ever increasing criticism. Stories began to emerge of violent repression of dissent, torture and accusations that Emperor Bokassa practiced cannibalism. Such accusations, it must be said, were quite common at the time (and not unknown even now) for African leaders. Though, to be fair, it must also be said that this does not disprove such allegations as cannibalism was most widespread in the area of central Africa and this does tend to be where such accusations are most prevalent. His love of titles, uniforms covered in medals and the allegations of cannibalism caused many in the western press in particular to compare Emperor Bokassa with the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada who had also proclaimed himself, “Conqueror of the British Empire” and, famously, King of Scotland.<br />
<br />
In 1979 what little tolerance in the international community that Emperor Bokassa had been shown began to erode. Key elements of this were the emergence of his partnership with the notorious Libyan dictator Gaddafi and the massacre of a large number of people protesting against rising food prices and a considerable lack of food at any price in Bangui. The French, on whose assistance Central Africa continued to depend, began to waver and the French government began to wish for President Dacko to return. The “last straw” for many was the repression of a student protest in 1979. As part of his campaign to make the Central African Empire look affluent and modern, Emperor Bokassa had ordered all students to wear school uniforms with his portrait on them which were rather expensive and, some might argue, rather crass and tacky. When the students protested, about 100 were killed by government forces with Emperor Bokassa accused of severely beating several of the children himself.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N-9lSzxgF3Q/WolhK7iZzeI/AAAAAAAAmtE/b6NovdRWrGghW1Zl2hdPgJjUbSgIIKiaQCLcBGAs/s1600/crimen4bokassa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="283" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N-9lSzxgF3Q/WolhK7iZzeI/AAAAAAAAmtE/b6NovdRWrGghW1Zl2hdPgJjUbSgIIKiaQCLcBGAs/s320/crimen4bokassa.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
This episode was publicized all over the world and brought down a torrent of condemnation on Emperor Bokassa, prompting the French government to intervene in their former colony. In September of 1979 the French government dispatched the First Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment of their special forces to topple Bokassa and restore President Dacko to power. Flying in from Chad, the French had little difficulty in seizing control as the operation had been timed to coincide with Emperor Bokassa being out of the country on a visit to Libya. Dacko was reinstalled as President and he announced the end of the empire and restoration of the Central African Republic. Bokassa first fled to the Ivory Coast but was later granted exile in France due to his being a veteran of the French army (for which he also continued to draw a pension). He wrote a book during these years but it was banned by the French government due to allegations he made about sharing women and giving lavish gifts to President Giscard d’Estaing.<br />
<br />
Tried and sentenced to the death in absentia for repression and the murder of political rivals, Bokassa nonetheless returned to the Central African Republic in 1986. He was immediately arrested and charged with a long list of crimes including treason, murder, corruption and cannibalism. He pled not guilty and at his trial denied all charges made against him, often attributing the crimes to others in the government or denying them completely. He was finally found “not guilty” of cannibalism but “guilty” on all other counts and sentencing him to death. However, in 1988 the then-President Kolingba, commuted Bokassa’s execution and shortening his sentence to 20 years in 1989. In 1993 Bokassa was released as part of a general amnesty. His remaining years were not long but just as ‘colorful’ as his time in power had been. He added to his accumulated 17 wives and estimated 50 children, proclaimed himself to be the thirteenth apostle of Jesus Christ and said that he regularly met in secret with the Pope. He died of a heart attack on November 3, 1996 at the age of 75. In 2010 he was legally rehabilitated by President Francois Bozize and praised for the stability of his years in power and his love of country.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qpca_u1u2oY/WolhrFZFtQI/AAAAAAAAmtQ/mduqFgAs3dkMj5WDHyGHYUeF6rlyMSscACLcBGAs/s1600/rc5_0620_big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="692" data-original-width="600" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Qpca_u1u2oY/WolhrFZFtQI/AAAAAAAAmtQ/mduqFgAs3dkMj5WDHyGHYUeF6rlyMSscACLcBGAs/s200/rc5_0620_big.jpg" width="173" /></a></div>
To date, no other African leader has tried to follow his example and in my experience most monarchists regard him as a despicable figure who made the institution of monarchy look ridiculous by his antics. That is probably true, however, his crimes were not that an unusual by the standards of post-colonial Africa were dictatorial leaders with big ambitions and no tolerance for opposition have been the rule rather than the exception. There were certainly others who were far worse.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-34009883187070411902018-02-14T01:18:00.000-06:002018-02-14T01:18:08.503-06:00America's Path Not Taken<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cMc6ZgIws3w/WoPVQb42rdI/AAAAAAAAmrs/AQGLirNc0CcLYRg5jpH0N7uUl87ot0rgACLcBGAs/s1600/Joseph_Galloway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="760" data-original-width="508" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cMc6ZgIws3w/WoPVQb42rdI/AAAAAAAAmrs/AQGLirNc0CcLYRg5jpH0N7uUl87ot0rgACLcBGAs/s320/Joseph_Galloway.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
During the American War for Independence, then as now, a diversity of viewpoints were held by men on both sides. There were those of the Crown forces, adherents of the Whig party, who were quite sympathetic to the cause of the American Patriots. Such sentiments reached all the way up to the commander of the Crown forces in North America, Lt. General Sir William Howe, to HRH the Prince of Wales. Meanwhile, among the American leadership were those who espoused the eventually successful cause of independence in some sort of republican union but also those, not often remembered, who preferred the goal of greater concessions and self-government within the British Empire and under the ultimate sovereignty of the Crown. One of these men was Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania. Born in Maryland, his family moved to Pennsylvania and young Joseph studied law alongside William Franklin, illegitimate son of the famous Ben Franklin, eventually becoming a lawyer in Philadelphia. Originally a Quaker, he converted to the Church of England and married the daughter of a very wealthy and well-connected family. He became a member of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, later Speaker of the House until 1774 and, again alongside Franklin, was most known for his efforts to have Pennsylvania become a Crown Colony rather than a Proprietary Colony of the Penn family.<br />
<br />
As his political career demonstrated, Galloway was no republican firebrand. Indeed, he has more than once been referred to as an Anglo-American nationalist, which would certainly make him unpopular today even if nothing else were known about him. He had objections to the state of affairs in the colonies but, again, like many, his objections were not to the British Empire itself but rather with the subordinate place of the American colonies within it. He believed that the British constitutional monarchy as it was then, was the best system of government in the world and that the British, be they in the home islands or North America, were the best people in the world. He felt that the only problem was that the British subjects in America were not governed in the same way as the British subjects in Great Britain and that if this inequality could be resolved, there would be no further animosity. Indeed, he was convinced that, like himself, most Americans were loyal to the British Crown and were only being driven to disobedience by agitators in America and thoughtless policies on the part of the Parliament in London. In 1774 he had sufficient prominence and popularity to be chosen as a member of the Continental Congress (or Philadelphia Congress) which had no validity as far as the British were concerned but which would be the primary governing body of the colonies during the War for Independence.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UPYmTBFAAuk/WoPbtwf6SbI/AAAAAAAAmr8/LHlSyU8I76kf5f0Z7CxXvduwL_EM4YYngCLcBGAs/s1600/800px-Grand_Union_Flag.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UPYmTBFAAuk/WoPbtwf6SbI/AAAAAAAAmr8/LHlSyU8I76kf5f0Z7CxXvduwL_EM4YYngCLcBGAs/s320/800px-Grand_Union_Flag.svg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
In this capacity, Galloway proposed something quite similar to what Benjamin Franklin had previously suggested at the time of the French and Indian War known as the "Albany Plan" ("Join or Die") which was for the unification of the North American colonies within the British Empire. This proposal became known as the "Galloway Plan" or "Galloway's Plan for Union" which called for what would later be termed "Dominion status" in which the American colonies would unite together under a common colonial government but still under the sovereignty of the British Crown. Effectively, under the Galloway Plan, the American colonies would become a self-governing, autonomous partner of Great Britain within the British Empire. The colonial assemblies would appoint representatives to a parliament of their own which would be on equal terms with the parliament in London and would be presided over by a President-General appointed by the King. The American parliament would have jurisdiction over all domestic affairs, including taxation, but the parliaments in both Britain and America would each have veto power over what the other passed so that neither could impose any action detrimental to the other. The British Empire would thus become an Anglo-American partnership of a sort.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for Galloway, Massachusetts enacted an anti-British boycott one month before his proposal came up for a vote which was a boon for the radicals and put moderates such as himself at a clear disadvantage. Nonetheless, in October of 1774, when his plan was voted on, it was defeated only by a single vote with five in favor and six opposed. Worse still, the radicals were worried that this would display a lack of resolve on their part in dealing with the British and so it was agreed that his proposal and the very narrow vote on it, be stricken from the record. Understandably outraged by this, and seeing little hope for a compromise, Galloway left Congress and made his plan public himself the following year. He could see that there would only be two choices allowed to any American colonist; to support the King or to support total independence and, forced to choose, he would take the side of the King. His objections to British tax policy and trade regulations was not so great as his fundamental loyalty to the hereditary monarch of his nation. In late 1776, early 1777 he joined General Howe and the British army in the campaign to take Philadelphia. Once accomplished, he was made chief of police and head of civil affairs, earning praise for his administrative talents and his organization of loyalist militia forces.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cMcPujg3LAo/WoPgangt-II/AAAAAAAAmsI/WLBJqBcTHj4IGvqRYV-hfBiUPzsvrphegCLcBGAs/s1600/loyalistlanding.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="341" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cMcPujg3LAo/WoPgangt-II/AAAAAAAAmsI/WLBJqBcTHj4IGvqRYV-hfBiUPzsvrphegCLcBGAs/s320/loyalistlanding.jpg" width="227" /></a></div>
The following year, when the British abandoned Philadelphia, he withdrew with them to New York and from there, with his daughter, took ship to England where he became a prominent advocate for the American loyalists and an adviser to the British government on American affairs. Still thinking that this view of American public opinion was the correct one, he asserted to the British authorities that there were many American loyalists in the colonies who could be instrumental in bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion. His advice may well have influenced the southern campaign in which the British had counted heavily on an outpouring of support and volunteers from American loyalists. In the meantime, the same year he left for England, 1778, the Pennsylvania Assembly convicted him of high treason and ordered the confiscation of all his property. His wife, Grace, had stayed behind in Philadelphia in the hope of saving their property (which was actually her property rather than his) but, of course, this made no difference and she was forcibly evicted from their home. In Britain, Galloway was also called as a witness at the trial of General Howe over his conduct of the war in America in which Galloway had few positive things to say about the general. Howe, to be fair, had little positive to say of Galloway either, accusing him of meddling in military affairs during the occupation of Philadelphia.<br />
<br />
When the war ended in defeat for the Crown forces, Galloway settled down to a quiet life in England, devoting himself to religious study and literary pursuits until his death in 1803. His plan has mostly been forgotten today but it is notable that something similar would ultimately become quite common within the British Empire as the colonies of Canada and Australia united to become self-governing dominions in due time. Would his plan have worked? It would certainly have worked in keeping the English-speaking peoples united but as we can see across the British Commonwealth today, may well have fallen victim to the liberal laxity which has affected so many others. Yet, the retention of the American colonies within the British Empire may well have brought about a dramatic change in world history in a myriad of ways one can only speculate about today. That, we can never know, but it remains true today that the view of Galloway, and the basis of his plan, that the people of one language and one nationality should be united, are still not without supporters even while so many push against the notion, just as they did in his own time.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-72278428836894452782018-02-11T03:26:00.000-06:002018-02-11T03:26:37.406-06:00Monarch Profile: King Reinaldo Frederico Gungunhana of Gaza<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nXxVd3N8i-k/WoAIBSaBPxI/AAAAAAAAmqk/lJ5xyKfrwmwfNkvPxvm48-xmMFmwsNl_wCLcBGAs/s1600/Gungunhana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="258" data-original-width="226" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nXxVd3N8i-k/WoAIBSaBPxI/AAAAAAAAmqk/lJ5xyKfrwmwfNkvPxvm48-xmMFmwsNl_wCLcBGAs/s1600/Gungunhana.jpg" /></a></div>
In the late Nineteenth Century, in the southern tip of what is now Mozambique, between the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers, existed the grandly named “Gaza Empire”. It was, like other African powers which later claimed the title, actually a collection of tribes ruled by whoever was able to seize control for as long as he could hold it. The Gaza empire consisted of tribes which migrated north out of what is now South Africa earlier in the century due to a combination of famine and the defeat of other African tribes following the “Great Trek” of the Boers after the British abolished slavery. The chieftains of Gaza continued to rely heavily on slavery with the Islamic slave merchants on the coast continuing to do business with them for a very long time. The other power in the neighborhood was, of course, the Kingdom of Portugal which had long claimed the whole area as Portuguese East Africa but whose actual control had, for centuries, been limited to the coastal area from which they did business with Africans who inhabited the interior.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7hqNnCLbThY/WoAJ2vEqk3I/AAAAAAAAmqw/TrpkN5IeMI0gIfEJSPvgJ7XxqwqutXjbgCLcBGAs/s1600/gaza_aproximate.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="696" data-original-width="672" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7hqNnCLbThY/WoAJ2vEqk3I/AAAAAAAAmqw/TrpkN5IeMI0gIfEJSPvgJ7XxqwqutXjbgCLcBGAs/s320/gaza_aproximate.png" width="308" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rough location of the "Empire of Gaza"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The man known by the Portuguese as Reinaldo Frederico Gungunhana was born around the year 1850 with the name Mdungazwe (or Mundagaz). His grandfather, Gaza, had been a local tribal chief who, during the migration, was able to accumulate several other chiefs subordinate to him and thus when they settled in what is now southern Mozambique and established themselves named their new country Gaza centered around the village of Chaimite. The Portuguese, long established in the region, though mostly farther north, sent a small delegation led by a junior army officer to establish relations with this new entity and negotiate a treaty with them on behalf of the King of Portugal. Though the envoys were received, Gaza refused to make any agreement with Portugal and small scale hostilities continued, mostly with other African tribes in the region and occasionally clashing with the Portuguese as well.<br />
<br />
Gungunhana was thus born into a tribal society constantly in conflict and was raised with the sole purpose of being a great tribal warrior in the image of his grandfather. When his grandfather died, his father, Mzila, his uncle Mawewe and another chief all fought for dominance over Gaza. Mawewe was victorious and Mzila, with his son presumably, was forced to flee to the Transvaal in what is now South Africa as Mawewe, to prevent any threat to his hold on power, did his best to massacre his brother’s family which was fairly typical for the time and place. This upsurge in violence caused the Portuguese to peg Mawewe as a troublemaker and they arranged an alliance with the President of the Orange Free State (one of the Boer republics) to eliminate this mutual threat. Chief Mawewe did his best to prove the Portuguese correct, sending them a demand for tribute from every Portuguese colonist at Lourenco Marques under threat of their total annihilation. The Portuguese governor, not being the sort to tolerate such threats and having a flair for the dramatic, sent Mawewe a single rifle cartridge with the notice that this would be the only tribute he would receive from the subjects of the King of Portugal. The fact that their earlier offer of friendship had been rejected, naturally, did not make the belligerent attitude of Mawewe go down any better with the Portuguese.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wF1Woz_apo4/WoAKMAf-L-I/AAAAAAAAmq0/SORZWWrKfLURlIDfBBMdt2HRQKu3trwkgCLcBGAs/s1600/Ngungunhane_Gungunhana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1130" data-original-width="758" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wF1Woz_apo4/WoAKMAf-L-I/AAAAAAAAmq0/SORZWWrKfLURlIDfBBMdt2HRQKu3trwkgCLcBGAs/s320/Ngungunhane_Gungunhana.jpg" width="214" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Gungunhana</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This, however, gave Gungunhana’s father, Mzila, an opportunity to advance his own cause. Learning of recent evens in the autumn of 1861, Mzila went to the Portuguese and offered them his allegiance as a vassal of the King of Portugal if the Portuguese would help him to overthrow his brother and take control of Gaza. Portugal agreed, Mzila declared himself the rightful king of the Gaza and launched a war. He was able to rally some supporters with the help of having Portuguese backing him up and an November 30, 1861 won the decisive battle which secured his control of the area. The following month he signed a formal treaty in which the Portuguese recognized him as the chieftain of Gaza and which made him a subject of the King of Portugal. The war dragged on for several more years though the outcome was never really in doubt as Mzila, despite having initially a much smaller army, had 2,000 antiquated flintlock muskets provided by the Portuguese authorities which allowed him to dominate his enemy.<br />
<br />
Gungunhana began to rise in prominence among the other children of his father during these years but as the decades went by, tensions began to rise too as warriors from Gaza attacked Portuguese colonists. New agreements were made and Mzila would offer apologies and expressions of friendship, but such attacks continued sporadically and bad feelings continued to fester. Around this time, as his reign was nearing its end, the “Scramble for Africa” was also starting to get underway. British rule in Africa was expanding rapidly and the Germans and Belgians were also arriving on the scene, eager to make agreements with native rulers for control of local resources. The Portuguese colonial authorities had to move to actually occupy the areas long claimed and to make sure none of the chieftains in these territories were wooed away by other powers.<br />
<br />
After attacks on two Portuguese settlements, Mzila went to Lourenco Marques to make his apologies and again pledge his allegiance to the King in Lisbon. Although irritated by the attacks, the Portuguese gave Mzila a welcome full of pomp and ceremony as well as more tangible gifts such as rice, livestock and liquor. At his request, they also gave him a Portuguese flag to fly over his village. The Portuguese also sent an ambassador to his village shortly thereafter. However, not long after, in 1884, Mzila died. Gungunhana was not the heir to the throne but, again, in typical fashion, made war on his brothers and was successful in forcing the heir and other rivals for power to flee the country. By the end of the year he was firmly ensconced on the throne and took the name Gungunhana or “son of the lion”. With his authority covering 90,000 square kilometers of territory and over a million Africans, Gungunhana, at 34, undoubtedly felt at the top of his game. However, the encroachment of the British and the Germans in the area meant that Portugal had to have, not just treaties but an actual presence in every area under her flag, otherwise it would be seen as “fair game” to the more recently arrived European powers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f_6_pBDXmGY/WoALUYoYiyI/AAAAAAAAmrA/UK3hRXrPXn86thI90fqfwr2nnEY5b7lSACLcBGAs/s1600/gungunhana2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="601" data-original-width="607" height="316" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f_6_pBDXmGY/WoALUYoYiyI/AAAAAAAAmrA/UK3hRXrPXn86thI90fqfwr2nnEY5b7lSACLcBGAs/s320/gungunhana2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
With the British in the midst of a flurry of expansion, the Portuguese colonial government dispatched Casaleiro Alegria as the Portuguese resident at the court of Gungunhana in 1885. The following year, representatives in Lisbon agreed to a new treaty which would allow Portugal a presence in Gaza, freedom of movement for the Portuguese in Gaza and granting Gungunhana the rank of Colonel of the Second Line in the royal Portuguese army. Unfortunately, that agreement fell apart and a new delegation had to be sent to Lisbon in 1887 to negotiate a new treaty. The Africans were much more cooperative after the recent suppression of the fearsome Zulu kingdom by the British. This was done but events began to unravel very quickly.<br />
<br />
Gungunhana decided to move his capital farther to the south, to an area held by tribes that were less than friendly to his own (the Nguni) and this set off a series of conflicts and, again, some sporadic attacks on Portuguese colonists. One reason for this was the presence of some mines in this region which the Africans learned were highly prized by the Europeans and Gungunhana believed that if he could take undisputed control of this region, he could buy the support of the British in helping him divorce himself from the Portuguese. It did not help that at the same time the oldest alliance in the world was being tested with the British expansion into the interior of Africa between the Portuguese colonies in Angola and Mozambique. There were even threats of a naval blockade and relations between the British and Portuguese had scarcely ever been worse. The time for niceties was over and the Kingdom of Portugal had to get very serious or risk losing their territory. To oversee the occupation of Mozambique, Portugal dispatched the respected soldier Lt. Colonel (with brevet promotion to general) Joaquim Mouzinho de Albuquerque as governor.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KQtIvglfq5g/WoALgXmUHbI/AAAAAAAAmrE/ZJrz4TSmJ5ExraV90R5r3AAcNoaGHuy2ACLcBGAs/s1600/Combat_de_marracuene.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="639" height="215" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KQtIvglfq5g/WoALgXmUHbI/AAAAAAAAmrE/ZJrz4TSmJ5ExraV90R5r3AAcNoaGHuy2ACLcBGAs/s320/Combat_de_marracuene.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Marracuene</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Gungunhana, alarmed at the sudden ‘no-nonsense’ attitude of the Portuguese in Africa, went ahead with his scheme to enlist the British on his side. However, the governments in London and Lisbon, unknown to him, had already agreed on where the border between their colonial holdings would be. The spread of Portuguese authority also caused a backlash in areas far removed from Gaza and in 1894 in particular there were large native uprisings against the colonial government. At first, Gungunhana tried to assure both sides of his support but eventually he did have to mobilize his warriors, though he tried to reassure the Portuguese that he simply wished to review them. Portugal responded with a formal military campaign for the pacification of Mozambique. On February 2, 1895 a small Portuguese force led by Major Caldas Xavier defeated a much larger African army at the Battle of Marracuene thanks to the discipline and superior weaponry of the colonial army. That episode got the attention of some of the African leaders but a last effort at a diplomatic reconciliation with Gungunhana fails later the same year. Gungunhana continuously put off the Portuguese, still thinking that he would receive word from the British any day of their support for his cause.<br />
<br />
Finally, that summer, Gungunhana refuses a last Portuguese ultimatum and threatens openly to ally himself with the British. This was effectively an outright declaration of war against Portugal. It does not go well for the Africans. At the Battle of Magul on September 7, 1895 a Portuguese column, having formed square, bloodily repulses a massive native attack with their superior firepower. Nearby villages were burned as the Portuguese army moved in. The Africans fighting at Magul, however, were not from Gaza as Gungunhana was still holding back, expecting the British to come fight on his behalf. He is even forced, eventually, to demobilize his army of 40,000 men as he simply could no longer feed them and the men needed to return home to see to their crops. He sends still more messages to the British in South Africa but, as usual, receives no reply. With no other native forces between his own and the Portuguese, Gungunhana became the focus of a direct attack by a heavily armed column of 600 Portuguese soldiers and 500 African colonial troops led by Colonel Eduardo Galhardo.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yl56Oxcljlk/WoALsmW7w5I/AAAAAAAAmrI/spxxGGIijqILZiPsEgTXtWCoasQZQxKEACLcBGAs/s1600/Combat_de_Coolela.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="247" data-original-width="400" height="197" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yl56Oxcljlk/WoALsmW7w5I/AAAAAAAAmrI/spxxGGIijqILZiPsEgTXtWCoasQZQxKEACLcBGAs/s320/Combat_de_Coolela.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Battle of Coolela</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Amazingly, Gungunhana seemed to think that, as he and his father had done in the past, the Portuguese might be mollified with apologies and renewed promises of friendship. This time, however, that will not be enough and Gungunhana is only able to mobilize a fraction of his previous strength, roughly 13,000 native warriors, to meet the Portuguese. The result was the famous Battle of Coolela on November 7, 1895 in which, again, the Portuguese forces decimate the native army, the African warriors of Gaza losing hundreds of men compared to only five Portuguese being killed. In the aftermath of this disaster, Gungunhana accuses his family of betraying him and announces that he will surrender to the Portuguese, again, still thinking that new promises of friendship will be enough. About four days later the Portuguese take the capital of Gaza, Manjacaze, but find the chieftain not at home. The kraal is burned and the troops march on. Gungunhana had fled to the old capital, the village of Chaimite, where his witchdoctors perform human sacrifice to arouse the spirit of his famous grandfather for protection.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vRITAclk9kE/WoAL2O8k-MI/AAAAAAAAmrQ/-uv3kHW3lywpbSyKEJAoiZ6GEzTfnTiEQCLcBGAs/s1600/The-Portuguese-Empire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="525" data-original-width="700" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vRITAclk9kE/WoAL2O8k-MI/AAAAAAAAmrQ/-uv3kHW3lywpbSyKEJAoiZ6GEzTfnTiEQCLcBGAs/s320/The-Portuguese-Empire.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The capture of Gungunhana</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
With other African chiefs eager to make themselves vassals of the King of Portugal in wake of the recent battles, including members of Gungunhana’s own family, Mouzinho de Albuquerque decided to go himself, with only a handful of men, to capture Gungunhana. The African chieftain tries to stop Albuquerque with gifts, sending ivory and over 500 pounds of gold, later more gold, livestock and even his firstborn son but all to no avail. On the morning of December 28, 1895 Mouzinho de Albuquerque enters Chaimite with its remaining 300 warriors fleeing at the approach of the tiny party. Gungunhana is taken prisoner and the village is destroyed. That was not the end of all resistance but it was the end for Gungunhana who was packed up, along with his seven wives and a few servants, and marched to the coast and put aboard ship for Lisbon. When journalists are allowed in to see him, they are confronted by the pitiful site of a bewildered man, crying hysterically, desperately trying to bargain for his life, convinced that he is to face a firing squad.<br />
<br />
This, of course, does not happen and in the midst of a media frenzy the group is moved to a prison fortress where they are such a popular attraction that viewing stands are erected. Not long after they are moved to better accommodations and given their favorite foods, wine and medical care. Gungunhana repeatedly asked to meet with King Carlos, wishing to pledge his allegiance again but, though it is talked about, the King refuses to meet with him. The African chieftain was quickly becoming problematic for the government. Caring for them and the horde of spectators that gathered around them was expensive and while some in Portugal wished for nothing better than for Gungunhana to be shot as a faithless traitor, leftist agitators and enemies of the monarchy were also starting to champion his cause and condemn the pacification campaign as wanton cruelty. Finally, on June 22, 1896, the group was quietly shipped off to exile in the Azores.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vr8yDDKjBYw/WoAMBAJfAFI/AAAAAAAAmrY/WXbD1pMcKdENw3ICrBbS9JiMrMHvmgboQCLcBGAs/s1600/Gungunhana_esposas_lisboa_1896.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="958" data-original-width="1453" height="210" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vr8yDDKjBYw/WoAMBAJfAFI/AAAAAAAAmrY/WXbD1pMcKdENw3ICrBbS9JiMrMHvmgboQCLcBGAs/s320/Gungunhana_esposas_lisboa_1896.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The exiled king and his seven wives</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The former ruler of Gaza was, on orders from the Portuguese government, treated with all due respect, spending his time hunting rabbits and weaving baskets for sale at the local market. To his dismay, the Catholic nature of the Portuguese monarchy would not allow him to retain his seven wives and so, to assuage him and his sons, weekly trips to the local brothel satisfied them. Eventually they all learned to read, write and speak Portuguese and in 1899 were baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. They adopted western clothes and customs and eventually became accepted, if unusual, members of the local community. Reinaldo Frederico Gungunhana, former king of Gaza, died of a cerebral hemorrhage on December 23, 1906. Some of his descendants still live in South Africa today.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-235501092645909852018-02-06T01:00:00.002-06:002018-02-06T01:00:46.741-06:00When Does the Republican Magic Work?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f0UNJy4xtO0/WnlPkRkTFoI/AAAAAAAAmpo/kRlml03HcFo3jhoPBpuczXD8AfHIwxhkACLcBGAs/s1600/constitutional.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="610" height="263" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f0UNJy4xtO0/WnlPkRkTFoI/AAAAAAAAmpo/kRlml03HcFo3jhoPBpuczXD8AfHIwxhkACLcBGAs/s400/constitutional.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The liberal democratic republican model makes great claims for itself. Even more extensive are the claims of the socialist republican model which promises a communist utopia of absolute equality for all. Liberal republicans (who truly believe in their system) will join us backward reactionaries in noting that the revolutionary, socialist republican model has utterly failed everywhere it has been tried and only persists in countries where it is supported by foreign powers or has largely abandoned its original Marxist economic principles. However, the liberal republicans are less willing to look at their own record of success in living up to the great claims they make for themselves. They, to be fair, have never promised equality of outcome as the Marxists do but they have, nonetheless, claimed to be better than any other system for organizing human endeavor which the world has ever seen in the history of existence. That is quite a claim.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MDs4iDNryD4/WnlQyGDXSAI/AAAAAAAAmpw/BRDaFZs3FYs9LMSg8teJHJKDA40TPGVWwCLcBGAs/s1600/fr.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="216" data-original-width="324" height="213" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MDs4iDNryD4/WnlQyGDXSAI/AAAAAAAAmpw/BRDaFZs3FYs9LMSg8teJHJKDA40TPGVWwCLcBGAs/s320/fr.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
Most liberal republics, however, clearly do not have much of a record of success to back up such claims as we have detailed on these pages before. The republicans of France, for example, can hardly claim to have delivered maximum human happiness and contentment for their people considering that France is currently on her fifth republican incarnation in the fairly short historical period since the French Revolution. The liberal republican model in China hardly drew its first breath before degenerating into civil war, ending only in succumbing to a communist dictatorship. The republican records of success in places such as Latin America or Africa range from fair to appalling and in Europe the most successful countries have been and still are monarchies. On the continent, the most looked-to republic has been the Federal Republic of Germany which, again, does not have much success behind it.<br />
<br />
The Weimar republic was a degenerate disaster which easily succumbed to National Socialism and the post-war republic has been fairly prosperous in economic terms but in virtually nothing else and could hardly be said to fit the ideal liberal republican model in any event what with its constant banning of political parties and speech codes which make it clear that the German people are not to be trusted. That is what republicanism is supposed to be all about and yet, the laws of Germany show that they do not trust their people but rather firmly believe that if they are ever able to hear the arguments for National Socialism, discuss or debate such a subject, or the Holocaust, the German people will immediately rush headlong into another Nazi dictatorship. That the Germans would be in the position they are today is hardly surprising, and the idea of the democratic “will of the people” might be seen as not such a priority, given that every generation of German children since 1945 have been routinely marched to museums on a regular basis to be told how terrible there are year after year.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h8676eqjDYI/WnlRLDR0ABI/AAAAAAAAmp0/G2mZZ3vBUUQ4DpSWb3y_jI2yREzPA4UvQCLcBGAs/s1600/Flag_of_Italy.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h8676eqjDYI/WnlRLDR0ABI/AAAAAAAAmp0/G2mZZ3vBUUQ4DpSWb3y_jI2yREzPA4UvQCLcBGAs/s320/Flag_of_Italy.svg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The Italian Republic has certainly been no roaring success. There is much to admire about Italy and people around the world will talk about how great it is (I would too) but only in cultural terms. The people, the art, the music, the food, the antiquities are all great but no one ever boasts about the government which is top-heavy, corrupt and which has buried the future of Italians in crippling regulations and massive debt. The First Spanish Republic was so incompetent that it collapsed very quickly and the Second Spanish Republic almost immediately started down the path to Marxist dictatorship and quickly degenerated into mass murder and finally a civil war which saw it destroyed. Where is the great republican success story? The countries in Europe that people point to as the most successful and the ones which more people want to move to are all monarchies; the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.<br />
<br />
However, if all else fails, liberals can always point to the one country that mesmerizes people all over the world, the one which both her friends and foes make the center of all life on the planet; the United States of America. Even in America-bashing Europe, the liberals almost invariably point to the United States and to the Founding Fathers of America as the great success story and the example for others to follow. Yet, the liberals, and the left-liberals in particular, cannot seem to get their story straight. On the one hand, they believe that America is so wonderful and so superior to all other countries in the world that it is positively cruel and inhumane to expect people to live anywhere else, while on the other hand being the ones most eager to provide skeptics like myself with the longest list of American failures or to respond to the likes of President Trump with the assertion that, “America was NEVER great!”<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PUcxnRtAI1U/WnlRoalRA7I/AAAAAAAAmp8/b15uC8RtHNQMUonA0igai3aSDr5JsR5FwCLcBGAs/s1600/jfk_fasces-270x359.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="270" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PUcxnRtAI1U/WnlRoalRA7I/AAAAAAAAmp8/b15uC8RtHNQMUonA0igai3aSDr5JsR5FwCLcBGAs/s320/jfk_fasces-270x359.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
That America has done better than other republics, I have never denied. However, I fail to see how the USA can be claimed as the great, liberal, success story when the liberals themselves continuously redefine their measure of success. For example, liberals certainly claim to believe in democracy but, what is democracy? Does it even exist? I ask the question in all seriousness because the supporters of this ephemeral thing do not seem to have a substantive answer. Originally, in the USA, democracy meant that all landowners could vote. Then, for most of early American history it meant that all free, White, adult men could vote. But that was not democracy because later it meant that all men of any race could vote. However, it turns out, that wasn’t really democracy either because later still women were given the vote and that was democracy. Now, in at least one state I know of, the definition is about to change again to include convicted criminals, so I do not see how anyone can say that we have democracy clearly defined even after several centuries have gone by in America.<br />
<br />
Similarly, if the American liberal democratic model is all about freedom and liberty, why are we constantly hearing about the people who do not have these things and why are we still struggling to achieve them? There was the struggle to end slavery, the struggle for worker’s rights, the struggle for women’s rights, the struggle for civil rights, the struggle for “gay” rights and so on and so forth. Has everyone ever been satisfied with their state of affairs in the United States? I am sure the modern social justice warriors would say that only straight, white, males have been satisfied in America. If true, that is hardly a record of success and if, as the right-liberals would say, this is not true, they still cannot then explain how the American system which they so idolize failed to protect itself from the likes of the social justice malcontents and troublemakers. The more right-leaning liberals would also have a hard time explaining how such gross violations of constitutional rights was able to occur in the Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. Ah, but, we are told, those cannot be held against the liberal model because it was times of war and great national crisis when Lincoln used military force to suppress the state government of Maryland or when Roosevelt put American citizens in “internment” camps.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JddlqbpjUw0/WnlRz2elyoI/AAAAAAAAmqA/GwSJq8LADB4TfGQ9r28Im-JAB8ZJ2RW5gCLcBGAs/s1600/allegory-of-united-states-of-america.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JddlqbpjUw0/WnlRz2elyoI/AAAAAAAAmqA/GwSJq8LADB4TfGQ9r28Im-JAB8ZJ2RW5gCLcBGAs/s320/allegory-of-united-states-of-america.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
That could be a fair point, though the United States government was not at war when federal agents entrapped Randy Weaver into a minor firearms violation and then murdered his wife and son when he refused to be an informant for them. The USA was not at war when federal agents (some of the same ones in fact) stormed and incinerated a commune of religious oddballs near Waco, Texas. No one was ever punished for any of these atrocities, few people remember them or really care. You might even be scolded for caring at all on the grounds that Randy Weaver was probably a racist and the Branch Davidians were a creepy cult. Fine, except the liberal standard they set for themselves claims that people are not supposed to be punished for their opinions or religious beliefs no matter what others may think of them. Not that I am willing either to brush aside the earlier suspension of vast constitutional rights just because it was wartime. Is that not in itself a damning indictment of the liberal republican model that it can only be expected to work when everything is fine and there are no emergencies? Are the traditional monarchies of history ever extended this same courtesy?<br />
<br />
The answer, of course, is no. Freedom of speech is widely trampled on in the liberal regimes of the world today, yet, again, the United States is upheld as the exception to this. When you point out that many people are silenced, the response will be that they are silenced by private companies and not by the government. This is a distinction without a difference, the people in question are still being silenced. Liberal republicans, of course, would not allow traditional monarchists to get away with this such as by saying, just as truthfully, that the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church never put heretics to death, the inquisitors simply determined if heresy was present and, if it was, handed the guilty party over to the secular authorities to deal with. No, the liberal republicans would say that the Church and the monarchy were both complicit in suppressing religious dissent. They would not say that when Czar Nicholas II closed the State Duma, as he was repeatedly forced to do, that, as with the actions of American presidents, that the circumstances of the time made such a thing necessary, they simply dismiss him as an autocratic tyrant regardless of the facts of the matter.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iX8LSWQYemo/WnlSc67iAUI/AAAAAAAAmqQ/k_j2ObzwXFUF4CdXGq2gGlwC12tXGtQUgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0952.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iX8LSWQYemo/WnlSc67iAUI/AAAAAAAAmqQ/k_j2ObzwXFUF4CdXGq2gGlwC12tXGtQUgCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_0952.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
The bottom line is this: if liberalism is supposed to be all about the power of the people and allowing the people to do exactly as they please; why are so many people in even the most “successful” of liberal societies so constantly unhappy and discontented? The answer, as should be all to obvious by now given recent events in both Europe and America, is that the people are not actually ruling themselves, they never have done and doubtless never will. They are being ruled but not in an open and honest way and this means that they are being manipulated by those who are their rulers but do not wish to be seen as such. This, I think, is something no traditional monarch has or could ever be accused of doing. For them, such a thing would have been unseemly as well as unnecessary but in the liberal system of idealism, it must be done to maintain the charade, to keep hiding the truth that liberalism is just as totalitarian as every other political “ism” that has ever been devised.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-71178262525123502672018-01-31T21:41:00.002-06:002018-01-31T21:41:31.232-06:00Monarch Profile: King Gustav I of Sweden<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edN9ueGXSfY/WnKKKHw4M0I/AAAAAAAAmoo/3b2OIy6MAYU6KjFIMIyzvhnkjArU7vCmgCLcBGAs/s1600/GUSTAV_VASA_%25281496-1560%2529%252C_kung_av_Sverige%252C_gift_med_1._Katarina_av_Sachsen-Lauenburg%252C_2_-_Nationalmuseum_-_39847.tif.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1025" data-original-width="821" height="400" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-edN9ueGXSfY/WnKKKHw4M0I/AAAAAAAAmoo/3b2OIy6MAYU6KjFIMIyzvhnkjArU7vCmgCLcBGAs/s400/GUSTAV_VASA_%25281496-1560%2529%252C_kung_av_Sverige%252C_gift_med_1._Katarina_av_Sachsen-Lauenburg%252C_2_-_Nationalmuseum_-_39847.tif.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
In the Sweden of today, King Gustav I may not be as much remembered as he is no doubt quite politically incorrect, however, once upon a time, not so long ago, he was regarded as the “father” of his country. He was the founding monarch of the Vasa dynasty, something of a liberator and the man who took Sweden from the Roman Catholic to the Protestant camp in the division of Christendom that was going on at the time. For this reason he is sometimes referred to as the “Henry VIII of Sweden” though, not surprisingly, such a description will anger as many as it satisfies. He was, in any event, a giant figure in Swedish history, a man who changed the course of history in Sweden and thus, to receding degrees, that of the rest of Europe as well. In the long national story of the Swedish people, King Gustav I is one of those monarchs you absolutely have to know something about. If you understand Gustav Vasa, you will know what a formidable power the Swedish nation is capable of being.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R8CAObleQ_w/WnKK2lNOi6I/AAAAAAAAmos/nJmIG7pccI8pp8HaYi4T4HnzlS-UxsxcACLcBGAs/s1600/gustav1_yng.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="661" data-original-width="480" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R8CAObleQ_w/WnKK2lNOi6I/AAAAAAAAmos/nJmIG7pccI8pp8HaYi4T4HnzlS-UxsxcACLcBGAs/s320/gustav1_yng.png" width="232" /></a></div>
Gustav Eriksson Vasa was born on May 12, 1496 to Erik Johansson Vasa and his wife Cecilia in his father’s castle northeast of Stockholm. This was during the period when Sweden was, along with Norway, under the Crown of the Kingdom of Denmark at the time ruled by King Christian II. It is no coincidence that this same monarch, a formidable figure in his own right, came to be known as “Christian the Tyrant” to the Swedes. This personal union of the crowns of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, known as the Kolmar Union, had been on rather shaky ground for a while and the Swedes were becoming increasingly restive. One of the leaders of the independence movement was Gustav’s father, though he was not the primary leader. Naturally, his son Gustav supported him and supported the struggle for Swedish independence from Denmark. At one point, Gustav was captured but escaped and maintained his resistance to Danish rule.<br />
<br />
King Christian II of Denmark launched an attack on the pro-independence faction in 1520 and was successful. However, his victory was followed up by the mass execution of 80 to 90 nobles and clergymen who had been invited to the palace after his coronation as King of Sweden. Some were executed for treason, some on charges of heresy, though Christian II did try to play a bit of a double game on this point, apologizing to the Pope for having cut the heads off several Catholic bishops while telling the public that they had been heretical and that the Pope was about to place Sweden under the interdict if he had not taken such drastic action. In any event, this became known as the “Stockholm Bloodbath” and one of the most infamous events in Swedish history. Most pertinent to Gustav Vasa was that his father was numbered among the massacred. He had opposed Danish rule before, now Christian II had made it personal. Accusations of heresy being tossed around, as well as the story that this was done to assuage the Pope, combined with the fact that the King of Denmark had married the sister of Emperor Charles V of Germany and King of Spain, certainly made for “bad optics” as we would say today for the Roman Catholic Church in Sweden.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dSnvHK9MQFs/WnKLEPPFTMI/AAAAAAAAmow/ylVUGDM5uqQyfApGBqI7iApuKR53XBz4gCLcBGAs/s1600/Gustav_Vasa_vid_slaget_i_Br%25C3%25A4nnkyrka.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="260" data-original-width="400" height="208" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dSnvHK9MQFs/WnKLEPPFTMI/AAAAAAAAmow/ylVUGDM5uqQyfApGBqI7iApuKR53XBz4gCLcBGAs/s320/Gustav_Vasa_vid_slaget_i_Br%25C3%25A4nnkyrka.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
For the moment, however, Christian II was in charge and Gustav had to flee for his life, ultimately all the way to Norway. This period later became legendary in Sweden with all sorts of tales springing up about Gustav’s adventures in trying to arouse the national spirit of the Swedish peasants while dodging the authorities of the King of Denmark. Ultimately, he did manage to gather together a small but growing rebel army under his command and in April of 1520 won a smashing little victory over the pro-Danish forces after which support for his cause came pouring in. Shortly thereafter the local nobles elected him regent of the Kingdom of Sweden, causing many more Swedish nobles to abandon the Danish cause and rally to his banner. Those who did not fortified themselves in their castles but these began to fall to Gustav one by one.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lkiKiROlJEY/WnKLTgdhTkI/AAAAAAAAmo4/QAKu6UYhe8wiCNo-oc5xcXeqNCy9lYS8ACLcBGAs/s1600/Gustav_I%252C_1497-1560%252C_konung_av_Sverige_-_Nationalmuseum_-_15114.tif.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="761" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lkiKiROlJEY/WnKLTgdhTkI/AAAAAAAAmo4/QAKu6UYhe8wiCNo-oc5xcXeqNCy9lYS8ACLcBGAs/s320/Gustav_I%252C_1497-1560%252C_konung_av_Sverige_-_Nationalmuseum_-_15114.tif.jpg" width="237" /></a></div>
By 1522 much of Sweden, though not Stockholm, was under his control and more support began to come in from the German city-states of the Hanseatic League which saw it as advantageous for them if the domination of the Baltic by the Kingdom of Denmark could be broken. This additional support provided sufficient momentum for the Swedish council of nobles to decide to elect Gustav Vasa to be their king. The representatives of the German city-state of Luebeck backed the decision, saying it was the will of God, and Gustav accepted. In light of later events it is interesting to note that Gustav had a very traditional, Catholic celebration to mark the occasion including Eucharistic adoration and singing of the Te Deum. In June of 1523 when the rebel forces finally marched into Stockholm, this was topped off with a mass of thanksgiving. Not long after, the remaining Danish garrisons in Finland surrendered and King Frederick I of Denmark (who had replaced the ousted Christian II) decided to quit before Gustav conquered any more territory. In 1524 the Treaty of Malmo was signed, ending the Swedish War of Liberation and dissolving the Kolmar Union, making the Kingdom of Sweden completely independence once again.<br />
<br />
This, however, is when problems of a religious nature began to bubble up. The previous Archbishop of Uppsala and chief cleric of Sweden had been Gustav Trolle, who had taken the side of King Christian II of Denmark during the pro-independence movement, for which he had been attacked. Later, Archbishop Trolle was said to have, in response to this, prepared the list of the men to be massacred in the “Bloodbath of Stockholm”. As the tide turned against the Danes, he was forced to leave Sweden and take refuge in Denmark. As he was no longer in the country, King Gustav I considered his see vacant and wrote to Pope Clement VII requesting that Johannes Magnus be made archbishop in his place in 1523. However, Pope Clement VII absolutely refused and demanded that Archbishop Trolle be reinstated immediately, which is something that King Gustav, nor any other monarch in his position, would have ever done. Nor was Johannes Magnus, the King’s choice, in any way unorthodox, indeed, he would quickly make enemies due to his staunch opposition to the spread of Lutheranism.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PjLKmDHbI3k/WnKLhezzeII/AAAAAAAAmpA/nN9l_o2-HQUnve7TmZu9EAyqualaiFVEACLcBGAs/s1600/gustav1sqre.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="513" data-original-width="421" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PjLKmDHbI3k/WnKLhezzeII/AAAAAAAAmpA/nN9l_o2-HQUnve7TmZu9EAyqualaiFVEACLcBGAs/s320/gustav1sqre.png" width="262" /></a></div>
Historians ever since have puzzled over the actions of the Pope on this issue. Given the recent change in Sweden, and the fact that the former Archbishop had been on the opposing side of the new king and even implicated in the murder of his father, combined with the fact that his proposed replacement was a solid Swedish Catholic, makes it difficult to say the least to understand why the Pope decided to force the King to choose between restoring such a cleric or separating the Kingdom of Sweden from the Catholic Church. The best that defenders of the Pope can propose is that he was simply not very well informed about the situation, though that too would raise questions about why he stubbornly insisted on the reinstatement.<br />
<br />
The result, not surprisingly, was that King Gustav appointed his own choice anyway but was suddenly much more “tolerant” about the spread of Lutheranism in his country. When the King’s appointed Archbishop Magnus came into conflict with this growing support for Lutheranism, the Archbishop the Pope had opposed left the country, leaving a vacuum which the Lutherans were only too happy to fill. In fact, King Gustav had tried to go even farther when the Pope refused to confirm Magnus. He put forward other candidates but the Pope refused them all and when the King proposed other bishops to fill five vacant sees in Sweden, the Pope again turned down all but one of the King’s suggestions. With the Pope refusing to budge an inch, the King finally made the switch and in 1531 appointed a pro-Lutheran cleric to the post of archbishop, breaking with Rome and beginning the transition of the Kingdom of Sweden from a Catholic country to a solidly and officially Lutheran one. This, as was ever the case, ultimately led to a crackdown on those who continued to adhere to the Catholic Church, most of whom were also accused of being pro-Danish traitors. Obviously, the actions of the Pope only encouraged this view.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gxP0tRoT8P4/WnKLyzkv2YI/AAAAAAAAmpE/tu4rwOUpi5c93L6PEwgkzu05PkHTOXJWACLcBGAs/s1600/gustav1vasa.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="699" data-original-width="453" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gxP0tRoT8P4/WnKLyzkv2YI/AAAAAAAAmpE/tu4rwOUpi5c93L6PEwgkzu05PkHTOXJWACLcBGAs/s320/gustav1vasa.png" width="207" /></a></div>
A series of generally small scale rebellions broke out in the aftermath of this change, sometimes due to taxes and other secular issues but also due to the confiscation of church lands by the state and the switch to Lutheranism. King Gustav was ruthlessly thorough in his elimination of all opposition to this new state of affairs, having the most famous of the rebel leaders quartered. It was an unfortunate and bloody business, however it is difficult to see how the King could be blamed for the break and his intolerance of opposition did spare Sweden from the sort of drawn-out religious civil wars that were seen in other European countries. It was because of these events, most of all the shift from Catholic to Protestant Christianity, that King Gustav is often compared to King Henry VIII of England who broke with Rome shortly thereafter. However, the two cases are actually quite different. There was a legitimate religious reason for the Pope to oppose King Henry and it also came at a time after Emperor Charles V had invaded Italy, defeated the papal forces, sacked Rome and basically taken the Pope prisoner, making it rather impossible politically for the Pope to have just given Henry his damn annulment for the sake of keeping England, a staunchly Catholic country, in union with Rome. No such circumstances applied in the case of King Gustav in Sweden.<br />
<br />
Most of the rest of the reign of the first Vasa king in Sweden was spent dealing with the aftereffects of this religious change (he had his problems with the Lutherans too) as well as establishing the state of the Kingdom of Sweden as it would be for a very long time to come. As the leader of a victorious independence movement, King Gustav became a legend in his own time and showed a positive gift for what we would today call “public relations”. In no time at all he came to be viewed as a great heroic figure, a liberator from Danish rule and the stern but wise ‘father of his country’. A plethora of art, literature, coins, songs and books were produced hailing King Gustav as the champion of his country. Married three times in his life, the King fathered nine children, including three future Swedish monarchs, so he certainly did his duty as far as securing the succession was concerned.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qJ9tAkdp9qw/WnKMRYY-M0I/AAAAAAAAmpI/x1860caSsw0OvDJ0yyG34Cc2Zdxvfgj9wCLcBGAs/s1600/Gustav_I%252C_1497-1560%252C_konung_av_Sverige_-_Nationalmuseum_-_15137.tif.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1023" data-original-width="524" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qJ9tAkdp9qw/WnKMRYY-M0I/AAAAAAAAmpI/x1860caSsw0OvDJ0yyG34Cc2Zdxvfgj9wCLcBGAs/s400/Gustav_I%252C_1497-1560%252C_konung_av_Sverige_-_Nationalmuseum_-_15137.tif.jpg" width="203" /></a></div>
The last, and largely only, foreign policy problem of his reign involved the Russian Empire where Czar Ivan the Terrible viewed the new Swedish monarch as an upstart. When King Gustav sent envoys to Moscow, the Czar refused to meet with them and in the message conveyed to them, basically said to tell Gustav that Russia is awesome and Sweden is a puny weakling (and I really am not exaggerating much at all there). This, as you might imagine, did not go over well in Stockholm and in 1554 the Swedes raided a Russian monastery and when a Russian envoy came to complain, he was taken prisoner. Ivan the Terrible launched a formal offensive and the Russo-Swedish War was on. However, neither side gained much satisfaction. The Swedes besieged Oreshek but failed to take it. The Russians, in turn, besieged Viborg but also failed to take it. Swedish diplomats also had no luck in enlisting other northern powers to join their fight against Russia, seeing it all as a silly and pointless enterprise and so, in 1557 a peace was signed and the two sides left each other alone.<br />
<br />
By this time, King Gustav I was in obviously declining health and he finally passed away on September 29, 1560. Memories of King Gustav Vasa have changed considerably over time. For much of modern Swedish history, he was as much a figure of legend and folklore as anything else. Stories abounded of his cunning and daring escapes from Danish pursuers, his heroic rallying of the country to his cause to fight for independence and later, when Lutheranism became firmly established and accepted, as the king who had delivered them from the clutches of the “papists”, giving them a Swedish church for Swedish people rather than one ruled by an Italian prince in faraway Rome. Later, however, when Sweden became more liberal and “enlightened” (feel free to roll your eyes there), King Gustav was portrayed as a grasping and ambition man, still a national hero perhaps, but a bit on the tyrannical side. In truth, he was a brave man, a clever man and a hard man. He was a lover of music, a great patriot and, while not unreasonable or harsh without purpose, was certainly a man who would not tolerate defiance. The many legends about him may be simply that but in the context of his place in Swedish history, he was the sort of monarch about whom there should be legends. He really was the father of his country, or at least, the father of what it was for a very long time.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-53296499767770279652018-01-28T18:29:00.002-06:002018-01-28T18:29:51.397-06:00A Monarchist Hero for TodayPicture in your mind (I doubt it will require much imagination) this scenario which I certainly see. You have a European country, a monarchy, which seems to have had it. The country is being overrun by foreign invaders, the people are demoralized, the religious leaders seem to be as often as not taking the side of the invaders, your monarch does not seem to be much of a monarch, inspires no one and seems more intent on simply securing a comfortable life than saving the country. The populace is divided and many people seem to simply be looking out for their own selfish interests and not for their society, their nation, as a whole. If you see the things that I see, you might think I am talking about any number of countries today. The Kingdom of Sweden might be a good guess. However, I have no doubt some of you already know that I am actually describing the Kingdom of France in or about 1429 AD. It certainly seems highly reminiscent of the present day in a number of ways, though just as certainly radically dissimilar in more.<br />
<br />
France was in a state of crisis and a great and ardently monarchist, pious champion stepped forward to save it. That person was, of course, an illiterate, teenage, peasant girl from Domremy in northeastern France. Acting on revelations from God, she went to the French monarch, King Charles VII; though she referred to him as the “Dauphin” because he had not been crowned and was, frankly, not acting very kingly; and told him that she was on a divine mission to see him become a proper King of France and to drive the foreign invaders (the English) from their sacred soil. The two spoke privately and the existence of God and some sort of divine intervention is absolutely the only rational, reasonable answer because, after a short, private, meeting between the two, Charles VII made this illiterate, teenage, peasant girl the commander of the armies of France with his blessing to go forth and meet the enemy, as it happened, the formidable English army besieging the city of Orleans. Joan, known then as the “Maid of Lorraine” or the “Maid of Orleans”, rallied the dispirited French, hurled herself into battle, was grievously wounded in the process, but won a stunning victory, smashing the English army and lifting the siege.<br />
<br />
The war turned around, Joan and her army cleared the English from the Loire valley, saw Charles VII properly anointed and crowned in the cathedral at Rheims and then, after hitting a bit of snag at Paris, went on to further battles in the course of which she was captured by the forces of the Duke of Burgundy, sold to the English, put on trial by a Church court, declared a heretic and burned at the stake in 1431. In the aftermath, however, the English-Burgundian alliance collapsed, the Duke of Burgundy switched sides, the English were driven out of France and King Charles VII became the ruler of a united country. None of this would have been possible without Joan of Arc. Few dispute that had she not lifted the siege of Orleans, France would have been doomed. The traditional coronation solidified the loyalty of the people behind Charles VII and more than anything else, Joan of Arc revived the French national spirit which had completely broken down after so many years of fighting, so many internal divisions and a number of humiliating defeats at the hands of England.<br />
<br />
All of this is clearly impressive but why does it make Joan a model hero for monarchists today? It seems to me, there are a number of reasons. For one, Joan revived the French national spirit, giving them back their proper sense of themselves as French, identifying with their nation and not simply their village, town or province which might just as easily belong to the English king as the French king of the Duke of Burgundy. She mad the French proud to be French again, made them believe in their unique identity and purpose. This is something, it seems to me, everyone needs more of today in practically every country. That goes for traditionalists, conservatives and right-wingers just as much as those of the liberal, leftist or revolutionary varieties. The left hates their countries for what they were, which is fine as they wish to destroy them anyway. However, the right tends to hate their countries for what they are and this is deliberate for you will hardly have much zeal to fight for the salvation of your country if you do not love it. Joan lived in what was possibly the darkest period in the history of France, she could have easily been discouraged, but she fought for the France that could be, that should be and looked beyond the divided, dispirited country that was.<br />
<br />
Also, very much like today, Joan had to confront traditional institutions that were less than ideal. However, she had a quality that made her immune to the damage this could cause. Joan of Arc possessed a type of loyalty that seems exceedingly rare in this day and age, even among many who call themselves monarchists or royalists. The King she fought for was hardly inspiring by most accounts. Was he even the rightful king anyway? Plenty at the time would argue Charles VII had no right to the throne at all, perhaps because they believed in the legality of the claim of the child King Henry VI of England, which was not based on nothing let us not forget, or because they considered Charles VII to be of illegitimate birth. For them, his cousin, the Duke of Orleans (another Charles) was the legitimate heir to the throne. So you had an English child on one side with a treaty signed by the previous king of France that made him heir and on the other side the son of said king who many believed not to be his actual son at all. Joan did not get bogged down in all of that, though she had the benefit of divine revelations.<br />
<br />
The primary point though is that Joan was loyal to a king who was, under the best of interpretations, not as loyal to her in return. If you only know the story of Joan of Arc from the numerous films, you would probably be inclined to think Charles VII to be a real villain and regret the fact that Joan had fought so hard to see him placed on the throne. He is often portrayed as outright betraying her to the enemy, selling her out in order to be rid of her. People who have studied Joan of Arc far more than I have do not usually go this far but will say that it remains essentially unknown why Charles VII did not do more to try to save her. Personally, I see no evidence that the King set her up to be captured but neither did he go to great lengths to save her which is why I say he was not as loyal to her as she had been to him. Nonetheless, like the Biblical injunction to “obey not only the good and the gentle but also the harsh”, this did not matter to Joan. She never faltered in her own loyalty, she fought the battles that made it possible for the king to do what he needed to do and she urged him toward the proper course of action but her loyalty did not depend on the King acting as she saw fit or of him reciprocating her commitment.<br />
<br />
You could say much the same for the relationship between Joan of Arc and the Roman Catholic Church. She was to her last breath utterly devoted and faithful to the Church which persecuted her, falsely accused her, condemned her and finally sent her to a fiery death. In the years that followed her verdict was overturned by the Church and the bishop who presided at her trial was excommunicated but this was all after the fact (and it still took 500 years to have her canonized, which is rather lengthy even by Catholic standards). It could have been no comfort to Joan at the time and yet, even while surrounded by Catholic clerics and scholars, most presumably in sympathy with the foreign invaders of France that Joan was fighting against, she still maintained her belief in God and the Church of which her beloved country was the “Eldest Daughter”. In an even more perverse way, we often see this today and Joan of Arc sets the example of being faithful even if those charged with upholding that faith are extremely unfaithful.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YjKdpi__WUs/Wm5pT-vABgI/AAAAAAAAmoM/dhVCZgZl9JIL7n4-35CVY6USyb08UebcwCLcBGAs/s1600/2848798_f520.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="761" data-original-width="520" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YjKdpi__WUs/Wm5pT-vABgI/AAAAAAAAmoM/dhVCZgZl9JIL7n4-35CVY6USyb08UebcwCLcBGAs/s320/2848798_f520.jpg" width="218" /></a></div>
Joan of Arc had her priorities in order; to restore the king, expel the foreigners, unite the country and obey God. If you believe (and I do) that she was on a divine mission from God, this means that these were also the priorities of the Almighty, which is something anyone claiming to be any sort of Christian should take very seriously. She did not hate the English, she pleaded with them to leave peacefully, even to join with her in fighting heretics and unbelievers, but she was adamant that France belonged to the French and not to the English. The wellbeing of her people was more important to her than the wellbeing of foreigners. She fought for her king, even if he was not the ideal monarch. I am sure it would have been easier to fight for someone like King Louis IX but a St Louis is rare, Charles VII was the man God had placed in her life. She fought for him anyway and if he or the Church did not do what they were supposed to, that was up to God to deal with. All she could do is show them the way and that is exactly what she did. This is important for monarchists today to learn from. If you are not happy with modern monarchs currently reigning or in exile, I sympathize but a King Edward III, Louis IX or Otto the Great are rare and if you are waiting for the ideal king to come along and save civilization for you, I am afraid you will be waiting for a very long time.<br />
<br />
Joan of Arc did not wait. She took action. But, you may be saying, she was a saint and had God on her side. True, but who is to say God is not on your side too? God spoke to Joan of Arc, God may be speaking to you too but you just are not LISTENING!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xS98Io_rgBE/Wm5qufGe8qI/AAAAAAAAmoY/JGzLqCCCz9gJ7xMLWMI0OSCaxD0xxH1awCLcBGAs/s1600/The_Maid_of_Orl%25C3%25A9ans.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="742" data-original-width="1438" height="329" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xS98Io_rgBE/Wm5qufGe8qI/AAAAAAAAmoY/JGzLqCCCz9gJ7xMLWMI0OSCaxD0xxH1awCLcBGAs/s640/The_Maid_of_Orl%25C3%25A9ans.PNG" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-70515077132270469592018-01-24T17:29:00.001-06:002018-01-24T17:29:40.237-06:00The Popes and the Emperors<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7VhtNipFJms/WmkRoj6WT4I/AAAAAAAAmnA/GmkkBlXN1NIAt9PwIKYFOmGhuJfRnUaFwCLcBGAs/s1600/the_baptism_of_constantine2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="513" data-original-width="800" height="256" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7VhtNipFJms/WmkRoj6WT4I/AAAAAAAAmnA/GmkkBlXN1NIAt9PwIKYFOmGhuJfRnUaFwCLcBGAs/s400/the_baptism_of_constantine2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
As is not entirely unprecedented, I recently came across an historical fact about monarchy that is, evidently, somewhat controversial and I had no idea that it would be. This came up in response to my listing of a few facts about the history of Christianity and the Roman emperors, some of which I have talked about here before as a way of illustrating how central the imperial power was to the early Church. I was surprised, however, to receive some “push back” on the last fact I listed which was that for the first roughly six hundred years of Church history, every pope was the subject of the Roman emperors. I was told that I was “dreaming” this up but, rest assured, I am not. Evidently, this is something that needs to be talked about as, upon reflection, I think I might have an idea of where denial of this fact comes from, specifically for Catholics.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tgxkb4w6gN0/WmkSKkx0_1I/AAAAAAAAmnI/XqdMwKmT7Sst-q97eBEmSmrFFI2Gg39EQCLcBGAs/s1600/augustus__tiburtine_sybil2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="327" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Tgxkb4w6gN0/WmkSKkx0_1I/AAAAAAAAmnI/XqdMwKmT7Sst-q97eBEmSmrFFI2Gg39EQCLcBGAs/s320/augustus__tiburtine_sybil2.jpg" width="261" /></a></div>
In the first place, you can check pretty much any historical source and find that the basic fact is just that; a fact. Starting with St Peter, every Bishop of Rome up to Pope Stephen II in 756 was, officially, a subject of the (later East) Roman Emperor. St Peter and the earliest bishops of Rome were all direct or indirect subjects of the Roman emperors. This was true whether they liked it or not but the fact of the matter is that they never made any objections to this. They were bound by Roman law and obeyed it so long as it did not force them to do anything contrary to Christian doctrine. They were loyal to the Roman emperors and never taught Christian people to be rebellious or called for a revolution to overthrow the Roman emperors. They did, as was written in the Bible, call for everyone to love their community, be good Romans, “fear God and honor the emperor”.<br />
<br />
During the reign of Emperor Claudius, as had happened before and would happen again, the Jews were expelled from Rome and mention is made of this in the book of Acts concerning St Paul. Originally, the Romans considered Christians to be a sect of Judaism and St Paul, who was ethnically a Jew and a Roman citizen, became frustrated in trying to convert them and decided to accept their rejection and direct his efforts towards the Greeks and Romans. Later, in the reign of Emperor Nerva, we can see more evidence that the Christians submitted to imperial authority by the fact that they petitioned the emperor to stop forcing them to pay the tax that Jews had to pay as they were a different religion. At that time, the state still did not recognize Christianity as a valid religion but Emperor Nerva did order that Christians not be forced to pay the tax since they were not Jews. Official recognition of the Christian religion would not come until the issuing of the Edict of Milan by Emperor Constantine the Great. Later, Emperor Theodosius the Great would make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Q83a-UXFCw/WmkSzvOmDmI/AAAAAAAAmnQ/QChucwGkhG0loZXGXHDlDPBX20bRPAGBACLcBGAs/s1600/756px-2009-04-13_ConstantineTheGreat_York.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="756" height="253" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3Q83a-UXFCw/WmkSzvOmDmI/AAAAAAAAmnQ/QChucwGkhG0loZXGXHDlDPBX20bRPAGBACLcBGAs/s320/756px-2009-04-13_ConstantineTheGreat_York.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
However, even during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great, the emperor played an important part in Church life and it is hard to imagine this would have been the case if the Bishop of Rome rejected his authority as emperor. One could also look to the Emperor Gratian who handed his title of ‘Supreme Pontiff’ over to the pope which, again, he hardly would have done if the pope was objecting to his authority. In fact, it would make no sense for the pope to accept such a title unless he first recognized that the emperor lawfully possessed it and thus could hand it over to him. Indeed, in the early days of the Church, before rules had been standardized for such a process, the Roman emperors played a part in the selection of popes. Much of the history in this period is sparse and often debated but some argue that Pope Julius I was, for all intents and purposes, appointed by Emperor Constantine the Great. It is more widely conceded that the imperial power played at least some part in the selection of subsequent popes and in efforts to resolve disputes over who the pope should be.<br />
<br />
The underlying point though is that the bishops of Rome were by virtue of being born in the Roman Empire or, later, baptized as Christians, subjects from birth of the Roman emperors and that did not change with their election or selection for the papal throne. When the last remnants of the Western Roman Empire fell with the forced abdication of Romulus Augustulus, this did not legally change. With no emperor in the west, quite understandably, the Eastern Roman Emperor assumed sole authority for the whole Roman world and still regarded the popes as his subjects in the temporal sphere and as shepherds in the spiritual sphere (though the East Roman Emperor never recognized Romulus so that the exiled Julius Nepos was regarded in the east as the “last” West Roman Emperor until his death). This culminated in an era which I have previously heard plenty of Catholics complain about but never deny which was the so-called “Byzantine Papacy”.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ud-ypzCstzs/WmkTa8k-EGI/AAAAAAAAmnY/MM5c9mhrBNYbtEb-WHHsfuH7IEN3S-QJwCLcBGAs/s1600/Justinian2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1142" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ud-ypzCstzs/WmkTa8k-EGI/AAAAAAAAmnY/MM5c9mhrBNYbtEb-WHHsfuH7IEN3S-QJwCLcBGAs/s320/Justinian2.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
This term has been used to describe the period dating from the time that the East Roman Emperor Justinian set out to take back the territory of the Western Roman Empire from the various Germanic tribes which had conquered it. Emperor Justinian, during this time, basically came to Rome, fired Pope Silverius and appointed Vigilius to take his place. As you can imagine, this caused some controversy but, while many have little positive things to say about him, Pope Vigilius is regarded as a valid pope, included on every list of the bishops of Rome. Subsequent papal elections were confirmed by the Byzantine emperors which, I can imagine, some may find an intolerable idea but this is probably due simply to ill-will generated by the eventual east-west schism since this idea never really went away. After all, in the Roman Catholic west, ultimately a number of monarchs held the power to veto papal candidates they found objectionable, meaning that whoever was chosen must have been passively approved of (otherwise his election would have been vetoed). In fact, this imperial veto was used for the last time in the conclave of 1903 when the first choice, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, was vetoed by Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, resulting in the election of Pope St Pius X.<br />
<br />
The so-called “Byzantine Papacy” did not end until the reign of Pope Stephen II in 756. Prior to that time, the gains of Emperor Justinian had been rolled back and what was referred to as the Duchy of Rome (legally part of the [eastern] Roman Empire) was under threat from the Lombards of northern Italy. Constantinople was unable to help and the Pope turned to the King of the Franks, Pepin, son of the famous Charles Martel, to come to his rescue. He did so, the Lombards were defeated and in the subsequent peace treaty, only the “Romans, Franks and Lombards” were signatories, the Byzantines being left out completely. After the Lombards broke the treaty, attacked again and were defeated again, the King of the Franks ceded territory he had conquered from the Lombards to Stephen II which subsequently became the Papal States. Legally speaking, and this is why I warn Catholics about always trying to play the “legitimist” game, all of this territory was still part of the empire, having been basically stolen from the Byzantine emperors as the last Roman emperors still standing.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NvGcnE4u3dI/WmkT3Xp8TxI/AAAAAAAAmnc/bbQIke-Cn-YlivHl-UgIR7g7o_eGozGvACLcBGAs/s1600/bs-10-40-DW-Kultur-VENICE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="386" data-original-width="580" height="212" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NvGcnE4u3dI/WmkT3Xp8TxI/AAAAAAAAmnc/bbQIke-Cn-YlivHl-UgIR7g7o_eGozGvACLcBGAs/s320/bs-10-40-DW-Kultur-VENICE.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Their power, however, was gone and would not be coming back. From that time on, the popes would look to the west rather than to the east. However, that they had previously been imperial subjects cannot be argued against. Into the reign of Pope Stephen II, if not slightly longer, records were still dated by imperial years and imperial coins were still minted and dated according to the East Roman Empire. The ultimate change, of course, came when Pope St Leo III crowned another Frankish monarch, Charlemagne, “Emperor of the Romans” on Christmas day in the year 800. Again, if one chooses to play the strictly “legitimist” game, this was out of order as it had never been up to the Bishop of Rome to decide who the Roman emperor should be. This is, however, all I have been able to come up with in determining the root reason of why anyone would deny that the popes prior to this time had all been subjects of the Roman emperors in spite of the obvious history. I shall relate my theory and you may comment below as to whether you think it holds any water.<br />
<br />
In the east, Church and State were firmly united. In the west, they were united as well but also fairly consistently at odds with each other and I think the perception of this has grown worse in modern times. The idea developed in the west of the “two swords” approach with the emperor (this being the German emperor) having the secular sword and the pope having the spiritual sword. However, the popes maintained that their sword was bigger than the emperor’s sword and that they could take away his sword if they wanted to because they had given it to him in the first place. I think this is magnified in our time because, basically, *everything* is or can be argued from moral grounds so that any issue can be considered a moral issue and thus falling under papal jurisdiction. All I have been able to come up with, to put it another way, is that there is a revulsion by some Catholics to the idea that the Bishop of Rome could ever, even in temporal terms only, be “subject” to a higher power, again, even if that power is only higher in terms of worldly power and nothing at all to do with spiritual power.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-edtlfhaqoHw/WmkUSXliz3I/AAAAAAAAmno/TAw8_wYwGS8SlQ7gNlNuizcHemBOfB8wACLcBGAs/s1600/Henry4_Gregor7_Canossa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="556" data-original-width="800" height="277" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-edtlfhaqoHw/WmkUSXliz3I/AAAAAAAAmno/TAw8_wYwGS8SlQ7gNlNuizcHemBOfB8wACLcBGAs/s400/Henry4_Gregor7_Canossa.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
The Church was born into the preexisting Roman Empire. As such, the Roman emperors came and went and the earliest Christians and Christian bishops, had nothing to say about the matter. When the Pope crowned Charlemagne, this created a new western empire, which eventually became the German empire (First Reich) under the magnificent Kaiser Otto the Great, and a sort of “new world order” of which I am rather fond. However, it also led to a succession of troubles, most famous being the “Investiture Dispute” as the popes and the German emperors quarreled over where their powers began and ended. This is because this new imperial system had been handed down by the pope and what the pope gave, naturally, the pope felt he could take away. This is something no pope could or ever tried to do with the east because the eastern imperial succession predated his own, going all the way back to the first Augustus who was the Augustus before Christ was born. The Byzantine (East Roman) emperors had to be converted, confronted or submitted to, they could not simply be dismissed or overruled by the popes.<br />
<br />
I think, at least this has so far been all I can come up with, the underlying reason for any denial that the popes were ever subjects of the Roman emperors which, like it or not, is an objective fact. It seems to me that some have become too attached to the idea of the popes being temporal sovereigns as they were in the era of the Papal States and since the recognition of the State of Vatican City because this has been so heavily emphasized as being absolutely essential to the independent function of the papacy as an institution, that it would be impossible for Catholicism to function without the popes being a power unto themselves. Personally, I do not think this view an incontestable one. Certainly it did not prevent any and all secular influence and I cannot be the only one who was outraged at the number of clerics implicated in child sex abuse crimes who escaped justice by being transferred to the Vatican establishment and thus beyond the reach of any secular government. However, the fact is that the papacy did exist for quite a few centuries without any secular power of their own, as subjects of the Roman emperors and it did not mean that they were simply the tools of Rome or Constantinople. What it did mean was that they had only their personal piety and courage to rely on. Those who were persecuted, exiled or martyred, I think, shows that such devotion was not unknown just as, I think, the amount of secular praise heaped on the current pontiff shows that independent sovereignty does not prevent a pope from giving in to popular trends or influence from beyond the Vatican walls.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jx8EXNcJq_A/WmkWTWozXGI/AAAAAAAAmn4/ghqY4jwpQGQ-TFzXs3CmIsCrR2XNQ0FLgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6295.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="863" data-original-width="671" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jx8EXNcJq_A/WmkWTWozXGI/AAAAAAAAmn4/ghqY4jwpQGQ-TFzXs3CmIsCrR2XNQ0FLgCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6295.JPG" width="248" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>For Further Reading:</i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/03/centrality-of-roman-empire.html">Centrality of the Roman Empire</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/10/church-and-empire.html">Church and Empire</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/10/christian-empire.html">Christian Empire</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-tiburtine-sybil-imperial-prophecy.html">The Tiburtine Sybil & Imperial Prophecy</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2016/09/christ-and-emperor-tiberius.html">Christ and the Emperor Tiberius</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/11/story-of-monarchy-byzantine-empire.html">The Story of the Byzantine Empire</a></i>MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-38460119935871264132018-01-21T03:40:00.001-06:002018-01-21T03:40:23.225-06:00The Repercussions of Regicide<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pxjwbGBcoTg/WmRTBZ1LuLI/AAAAAAAAmmM/slYrnwAMr543iUYyGiYGFWBCrY1nnQxiQCLcBGAs/s1600/louis-xvi-execution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="450" height="298" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pxjwbGBcoTg/WmRTBZ1LuLI/AAAAAAAAmmM/slYrnwAMr543iUYyGiYGFWBCrY1nnQxiQCLcBGAs/s400/louis-xvi-execution.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Today, once again, we mark the anniversary of the regicide of His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France. It is not, at this point, necessary to go through all the details of this monstrous crime, as that has been done before (relevant links will be below). However, I thought it might be worthwhile to make brief mention of what the repercussions of this event have been, which are present even to the present day. Obviously, there were immediate consequences in that most of the crowned heads of Europe immediately went to war with the First French Republic simply on principle. Even the British, and King George III felt that King Louis was suffering for having supported the American rebels in their war against him, immediately went to war with the French even though the Kingdom of France had been England's most long-standing enemy. France suffered immediate and terrible consequences for this. Even the United States immediately changed their point of view of the French Revolution when King Louis XVI was killed. Practically every major monarchy in Europe immediately became an enemy and even the Americans were no longer willing to be friends with a regime that would murder an innocent and powerless man.<br />
<br />
Everyone knows about the Reign of Terror, the massacres, the repression and the long succession of wars that followed this event. However, there were broader and more far-reaching consequences that no one could possibly have foreseen at the time. For one thing, the permanence and sacrosanct nature of the monarchy was destroyed and that is something that is seemingly impossible to recover. This is why, I think, the British monarchy consistently decreased in power since the regicide of King Charles I, even though the monarchy was willingly restored. The French monarchy was restored, more than once, since the regicide of King Louis XVI but, as we know, none of these restorations lasted. The radical elements of French society knew that they had taken down one king and that set a precedent that they could take down others and so they did. It set up a very long-term destabilization of France as a country. The way modern France has become so famous for its strikes and a populace, particularly in Paris, being known for their temper tantrums all goes back to the regicide of King Louis XVI.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q-b9-0a1M4o/WmReCGpmQOI/AAAAAAAAmmc/fhQYHdJiXM8mTF3tD1nDB5ka9dEyV5rCgCLcBGAs/s1600/untitled.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1198" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q-b9-0a1M4o/WmReCGpmQOI/AAAAAAAAmmc/fhQYHdJiXM8mTF3tD1nDB5ka9dEyV5rCgCLcBGAs/s320/untitled.bmp" width="239" /></a></div>
We also see today the huge explosion of the non-French population in France so that today about 20% of the population of France is not French. In terms of religion, France has the largest amount of Muslims as a percentage of the population of any country in Europe. It is also worth keeping in mind that the immigrant population has about twice the rate of natural growth as the native French population. For myself, I do not think this state of affairs is unrelated to the regicide and the French Revolution. In the first place, as I have said before, it is a logical next step for people who claim that the bloodline of their rulers does not matter, getting rid of monarchy, to then believe that the bloodline of the population being ruled does not matter either, which is the attitude held by those in power today. Similarly, by the overthrow and regicide of King Louis, the precedent was sent for the people changing their ruler to one more to their liking (or at least so they thought), it then also stands to reason that the rulers of republican France today can decide to change the population of France and replace it with another more to their liking.<br />
<br />
Bertolt Brecht supposedly said, of the Communist regime in East Germany, that they might dismiss the current electorate and appoint a new one. He was being sarcastic to make a point but that seems to be something the modern liberal elite of western countries thinks is not only possible but a positively brilliant idea. In the aftermath of the regicide of King Louis XVI, I cannot see it any other way as being directly responsible for the current state of affairs. The downfall of monarchy, in France as elsewhere, set the standard for national authorities being changeable with no direct, personal ties of blood and history with the country and it is simply taking this to its logical conclusion for the rulers of today to believe that their peoples are also just as changeable. The crisis that France finds itself in today is, I firmly believe, a direct result of the regicide of King Louis XVI and the twisted "values" of the French Revolution. The country and the people are still suffering from this horrendous crime.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-shqz0pVKo0k/WmRf1l6c12I/AAAAAAAAmmo/Ua9Ie1RriYwi-HWaM-GlxvbkW9ahuEdGACLcBGAs/s1600/393px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Kingdom_of_France_svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="393" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-shqz0pVKo0k/WmRf1l6c12I/AAAAAAAAmmo/Ua9Ie1RriYwi-HWaM-GlxvbkW9ahuEdGACLcBGAs/s200/393px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Kingdom_of_France_svg.png" width="130" /></a></div>
<br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-root-of-current-french-crisis.html">The Root of the Current French Crisis</a></i><br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2012/01/greatness-of-king-louis-xvi.html">The Greatness of King Louis XVI</a></i><br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2010/01/tragic-anniversary.html">A Tragic Anniversary</a></i><br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/01/inspiration-in-tragic-anniversary.html">Inspiration in a Tragic Anniversary</a></i>MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-46649606926885822472018-01-19T03:44:00.001-06:002018-01-19T03:44:52.961-06:00In Defense of Modern Monarchs<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CbB5hGnA7Cs/WmG6tbP0OnI/AAAAAAAAmlc/7Zb0ndAnS5kzXHf5kRY-QsUrkdjWMMjAACLcBGAs/s1600/feb24_15.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="922" height="266" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CbB5hGnA7Cs/WmG6tbP0OnI/AAAAAAAAmlc/7Zb0ndAnS5kzXHf5kRY-QsUrkdjWMMjAACLcBGAs/s400/feb24_15.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
Monarchs today, specifically those in the western world, are increasingly taking criticism from the more right-leaning sections of society which have traditionally defended them. This is bad, in my view both for them and for society and I fear could be the beginning of something disastrous for the cause of traditional authority (just add it to the list). They are not, you will notice, being defended by the left-leaning sections of society as you might expect for anyone or anything being attacked from the right. You might have even thought you heard the left defending them but, sorry, you did not. The left will say they agree with a royal who agrees with them on global warming or open borders, tolerance and diversity and all that, they will applaud Prince Harry for marrying a mixed-race, divorced actress from America but they *never* defend the monarchy itself because they know, even if many on the right have forgotten, that monarchy by definition goes against their fundamental worldview and can never be reconciled with it. When modern royals parrot the leftist narrative, the leftists simply applaud them cutting their own throats.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-B0cn7u7FICo/WmG7hHuPX_I/AAAAAAAAmlk/28s5vCtbM3cE_xfzJHqpgluTzU1ABVzWgCLcBGAs/s1600/070304_naomi_wa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="425" data-original-width="319" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-B0cn7u7FICo/WmG7hHuPX_I/AAAAAAAAmlk/28s5vCtbM3cE_xfzJHqpgluTzU1ABVzWgCLcBGAs/s320/070304_naomi_wa.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
What tends to upset people on the right today about modern royals is just a little contradictory. On the one hand, they do not like what many royals say and do but there are also those who do not like them because, as they say, they don’t actually “do” anything and are purely ceremonial. Personally, I have a problem with all of these things as well and wish that it were not so and these criticisms are not coming out of thin air. Most of, if not all, of the things that upset the right-wing critics of modern monarchs upset me as well, the difference is that none of it turns me against monarchy in general or any particular monarchy either. Modern royals have been placed in an extremely difficult position. They were told from birth that they must be above politics, can say or do nothing political only to then have the ever-expanding left-liberal state make absolutely everything political. They have also been taught in the same schools and by the same professors as the liberal elites who are making such a mess of things. Similarly, when they attend church, be it Protestant or Catholic, they hear the same narrative about diversity, inclusion, environmentalism and so on which their pastors, whether appointed by the Pope or politicians, are told to preach.<br />
<br />
They do live in a bubble and these days it is a poison-filled bubble. Keeping all of this in mind, they are also told that they must “do” something to justify their position as the idea of a hereditary birthright is unthinkable in this day and age combined with the natural human desire to pursue some activity to avoid leading totally empty lives. Because the liberal elites who rule us do not, of course, actually mean the things that they say, modern royals have found that championing traditional or right-wing causes leads to condemnation for being “political”, this leaves only fashionable left-wing causes which they are allowed to pursue as the left certainly doesn’t object to this nor, these days, does the mainstream right or the so-called “conservatives” which pass for this in Europe today. All of this means that while I find many of the things that modern monarchs do or say unpalatable, it also means that I can find little room to blame them personally for it. It does not make me despise them but pity them and desire to rescue them from this left-liberal prison they have been born into.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L7ShR1sIE2I/WmG8Af4buuI/AAAAAAAAmls/0iygBnakxxAXE65sez05mC7k-snkUGVcQCLcBGAs/s1600/Norwegian%252BNational%252BDay%252BfzB9pePT141l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="594" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L7ShR1sIE2I/WmG8Af4buuI/AAAAAAAAmls/0iygBnakxxAXE65sez05mC7k-snkUGVcQCLcBGAs/s320/Norwegian%252BNational%252BDay%252BfzB9pePT141l.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The enemies of monarchy are happy to applaud royals when they do something detrimental to traditional authority or the survival of western civilization but they do so not because they believe in monarchy but because this is all part of their plan to undermine the most fundamental elements and institutions of western civilization in order to turn people against it. In other words, they want the defenders of traditional authority to believe that their cause is not worth defending at all and so they might as well give up. It reminds me, as I mentioned in a recent film review, of the scene in “1898 Los ultimos de Filipinas” which shows the Filipino rebels trying to persuade the Spanish garrison to surrender by telling them that their own government never showed much concern for them, forgot about them and sold the whole place to the Americans or, in other words, that they were fighting for leaders unworthy of their sacrifice. If it means ending opposition to them, these people will say or do anything and just as they have infiltrated and twisted the entertainment industry, education, government and the churches it is foolish to think they would stop short of their takeover of all culture and society at the foot of the monarchy.<br />
<br />
As such, when the royals of today say something that infuriates me, I do not blame them but rather those who actually rule us as modern royals are in their power, unfortunately. When it comes to moral issues, if the King of Spain, the King of the Belgians, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg or the Princes of Monaco or Liechtenstein say something I find objectionable, I do not blame them but rather the Pope who is set above them and who, in the past when popes were crowned and acted like popes, was called, “the master of kings and princes, the ruler of the rulers of the world”. Similarly, when something like this comes from the Queens of Britain or Denmark or the Kings of The Netherlands, Norway or Sweden, I blame the politicians who pay and appoint the leaders of the churches who are supposed to pass on proper moral teaching to royals and commoners alike. One could also then cast an accusing eye toward the voting public who put these people in office and submit to their rule but that leads us to the other point, that royals today are simply ceremonial figureheads unworthy of serious consideration. Perish the thought!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6i0uXiaMEo/WmG8mSN8bfI/AAAAAAAAml0/u2cj6K2QS0MK0NVxBycXyR1rZ59f8PWpACLcBGAs/s1600/ACTIONS12_N4_T1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="350" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6i0uXiaMEo/WmG8mSN8bfI/AAAAAAAAml0/u2cj6K2QS0MK0NVxBycXyR1rZ59f8PWpACLcBGAs/s320/ACTIONS12_N4_T1.jpg" width="217" /></a></div>
No monarch in Europe today, save arguably the Pope as Sovereign of Vatican City, has much if any actual power. Some may have a slight degree of influence but that varies with governments and issues. Even the monarchs in Europe with the most power, the aforementioned Princes of Monaco and Liechtenstein, are not quite so powerful as they may appear. They are sovereign states but not really independent states given that they are micro-states which frankly couldn’t survive a grape embargo. They can exist only because their powerful neighbors allow them to. The huge population of Monaco would not be able to survive for a week without the food and other vital resources France allows to be passed through her borders to the tiny principality. Lest anyone think that one of these monarchs could stand up and defy the prevailing world order, consider the fate that befell countries like Rhodesia or South Africa which did the same, countries with things like farmland, room for livestock, mineral resources and fresh water. If Rhodesia could not survive the hostility of the international community, I fail to see how anyone could argue that Liechtenstein could.<br />
<br />
It is clear then that modern European monarchs reign but absolutely do not rule. Why then should we care about them? We should care about them for the same reason that the republicans care about them; because of what they represent. For hardcore traditionalists, I would point to the many child monarchs of history who I have admitted before to having a fondness for. Obviously, it is not ideal to have a child monarch, the ideal being to have a mature, wise, moral and courageous monarch but, as I have related in the past, child monarchs have something to teach us. When Frenchman dropped to one knee before the 5-year-old King Louis XIV or when wrinkled Vietnamese mandarins kowtowed to the 8-year-old Emperor Duy Tan they knew perfectly well that such children had no power and would not actually be ruling the country but that, then as now, others would be ruling in their name. It was, rather, what they represented that was important, all of the culture, religion, traditions and the history of the nation that was bound up in the bloodline represented by the tiny child draped in regal robes before them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N8Ndo1zFDGY/WmG89yFxMhI/AAAAAAAAml4/0gTY2BYKOnQon0UgQO3pTJjI0pXFNRzFQCLcBGAs/s1600/471px-Louis_XIV_by_Juste_d%2527Egmont.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="471" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N8Ndo1zFDGY/WmG89yFxMhI/AAAAAAAAml4/0gTY2BYKOnQon0UgQO3pTJjI0pXFNRzFQCLcBGAs/s320/471px-Louis_XIV_by_Juste_d%2527Egmont.jpg" width="251" /></a></div>
One could view modern monarchs in much the same way as you might view an historic building such as an historic cathedral, once held sacred but which is today no more than a tourist attraction. The Palace of Versailles is another example, once the magnificent residence of a sacred regal line but which is today pimped out by the French republican government like a prostitute. The fact that trashy American celebrities can rent it out or that it can be used to host obscene and grotesque “art” exhibits should repulse us all but it should not make us wish to burn it down or allow it to crumble through neglect because it has been tainted by the wickedness of our time.<br />
<br />
When I was a child, and it seems I may have been the last generation to experience this, even living in a very old republic far distant from any actual monarchies, my imagination was filled with castles, knights and kings (especially castles, I really had a thing for them in my earliest years -which hasn’t entirely gone away). I could not say specifically where this comes from but in my earliest memories I had the image firmly implanted in my mind, presumably from story books and cartoons of the good king being deceived by his wicked and manipulative prime minister. I can distinctly remember, though it was ages ago, before I had any knowledge at all of how modern monarchies worked or even if actual ones still existed, of the prime minister always being the villain of the story who had to be thwarted so that the good king, who naturally loved his people as a parent naturally loves their children, would see the true state of affairs and set things right. Later on I found out what a prime minister actually is and how the system actually works but I also do not think that trope to be entirely unfounded and I would urge monarchists, traditionalists, the rightfully disgruntled on the political right-wing, to view modern monarchs in the same way; as prisoners of a corrupt and wicked political elite who are manipulating them and who the truly loyal must rescue them from.MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-40448648488859924992018-01-16T01:54:00.001-06:002018-01-16T01:54:30.195-06:00Well, This Happened...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vMgd31MKE6E/Wl2sGJDav7I/AAAAAAAAmlE/uRWLbd9pPIkEJYqgzJRNbcjg7HHXmHuNgCLcBGAs/s1600/mm_error.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="416" data-original-width="438" height="303" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vMgd31MKE6E/Wl2sGJDav7I/AAAAAAAAmlE/uRWLbd9pPIkEJYqgzJRNbcjg7HHXmHuNgCLcBGAs/s320/mm_error.png" width="320" /></a></div>
So, I have been "missing" for a while, at least from these pages and I wanted to give anyone who by some miracle is still checking in here after nearly two months, an update on what has been going on. One day, out of the blue, my internet simply stopped working. I live in a very (VERY) remote area and getting something done about this, particularly during the Christmas/New Year period, proved practically impossible. Around the same time my primary computer went a little funny, which did not help. I was left only able to access social media via my phone when, once again, I was suspended from Facebook for posting something "offensive" (though of course the minions of Zuckerberg would not explain precisely what that was) and decided to stop having a Facebook page even after my suspension ended since I was simply fed up with not knowing what might get me thrown off the platform altogether. The internet age we live in is one of "out of sight, out of mind" so as the weeks went by I began to doubt that if things ever got up and running again I would have any audience left.<br />
<br />
Then, after just about giving up entirely, earlier this very evening I turned on my machine just to play some music and found, by some miracle, the internet was working again. This may not last I must warn you. No one has come here and "fixed" anything, it just suddenly started working and may just as suddenly stop, I have no way of knowing as I never knew what was wrong in the first place. I have had plenty of things I would have liked to write about it you can be sure but I do not think anything will be forthcoming immediately. I am trying to keep this short simply so as to get some word out before my internet goes out again as it did before. I had just (as in yesterday) about resigned myself to this little side-job being over and done with and I now have to reconsider that, see how many have remained in spite of the long, unexplained absence and also to simply see if this connection is going to hold for long or not. My thanks to all of those who sent messages of support, as you can imagine there was rather a pile-up of comments so I probably won't be able to get back to responding to all of them but I have seen them and appreciate those of you who were concerned.<br />
<br />
We will just have to see how things go, and before I am suddenly cut off again, I will say "until next time" (hopefully),<br />
I am and shall remain,<br />
...<i>The Mad Monarchist</i>MadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-19045380095121670692017-12-06T10:45:00.003-06:002017-12-06T10:45:40.684-06:00RIP King Michael of Romania<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kep6xcco-No/WigVGqvB2lI/AAAAAAAAmkI/dMYUui0h4r0cnqQjRWcKsxYf9YDE4iEmwCLcBGAs/s1600/mihai_death.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="385" data-original-width="540" height="285" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Kep6xcco-No/WigVGqvB2lI/AAAAAAAAmkI/dMYUui0h4r0cnqQjRWcKsxYf9YDE4iEmwCLcBGAs/s400/mihai_death.png" width="400" /></a></div>
As most of you have probably heard, His Majesty Michael I, the last King of Romania, died yesterday in Switzerland at the age of 96. A sad day, to be sure, for the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, for all loyal Romanians and for monarchists everywhere. He was a good man and those interested can find out more at the links below about his life and the part he played in Romanian national life at a critical time for the world. When it comes to monarchs in general, what they represent is always far greater than the individual and their own virtues or flaws; so it is with the death of kings as well. King Michael I represented a great hope for a return to traditional authority in Romania or, at least, a hope for the future by providing a 'foot in the door'. Perhaps it is the emotion of the occasion but I cannot be as optimistic as I was before about a royal restoration of some sort in Romania now that the last king has gone to join his ancestors. There were brief occasions when it seemed a very real possibility, all of them missed opportunities but as long as he lived I thought there was a better chance than their could ever be without him.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-08c5DVnK-4U/Wigcyo1XOGI/AAAAAAAAmkY/OV9vmIQrzGodTVj-f2cYKTGEppLLOfzyACLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6151.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1063" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-08c5DVnK-4U/Wigcyo1XOGI/AAAAAAAAmkY/OV9vmIQrzGodTVj-f2cYKTGEppLLOfzyACLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6151.JPG" width="212" /></a></div>
King Michael I had lived long enough to see the collapse of the communist regime that forced him from his throne and into exile. He was able to return home, gain some official recognition from the existing (usurper) government and even undertook efforts on their behalf as a sort of unofficial ambassador-at-large for his country. Because of his actions in World War II, he was highly respected even among many who are not and would never think of themselves as monarchists. For that reason, I had long hoped that he might be able to be restored, at least as a ceremonial, constitutional monarch, as a sort of symbolic tribute to an elderly man who had lost everything for standing up to the communist oppressors. I could have seen a republican government doing that, seeing it, as they would, as a rather empty gesture of no real importance but one which would, nonetheless, restore the monarchy on an official basis and provide a place from which to advance farther toward a state of affairs more acceptable to Romanian monarchists. As the King entered extreme old age, I thought it unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility that something might be negotiated to correct the past wrong and restore him to his throne before his death. Alas, it was not to be and I fear things will be much more difficult for Romanian monarchists going forward.<br />
<br />
It must also be said that King Michael himself, the Royal Family and monarchists (not unusually unfortunately) also sometimes got in their own way. Changes to the succession, involvement in politics and other issues were not helpful. I am not as critical as I might be as changing the rules of succession for non-reigning dynasties has always been a difficult issue and the political situation is an impossibly fine line to walk. Stay aloof and you have nothing concrete to offer, get involved and you are seen as partisan and a source of division rather than unity. It is certainly a difficult situation. Hopefully, the next generation will carry on and will achieve success but without King Michael and his remarkable life story I think it will be much harder for them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lt8RydItW_k/WigeGj9IqLI/AAAAAAAAmkg/6D5FZxJBLQs7RE7Rj-QGblwHpg4m2bquwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_6152.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1188" data-original-width="923" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Lt8RydItW_k/WigeGj9IqLI/AAAAAAAAmkg/6D5FZxJBLQs7RE7Rj-QGblwHpg4m2bquwCLcBGAs/s320/IMG_6152.JPG" width="248" /></a></div>
For more about the life of the late King:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2011/12/monarch-profile-king-michael-i-of.html">Monarch Profile: King Michael I of Romania</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2014/11/story-of-monarchy-romanian-rise-and-fall.html">The Story of the Kingdom of Romania</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2015/05/romanian-royal-struggles-in-world-war-ii.html">Romanian Royal Struggles in World War II</a><br />
<br />
May the last King of the Romanians be welcomed by choirs of angels into the Kingdom of Heaven and May he Rest in Peace in the light of the Holy Face.<br />
<br />
May his cause be vindicated by the successful restoration of the monarchy, a return to traditional authority, grounded in faith and family and may Romania be lifted to her full potential as a people and as a country.<br />
<br />
This is my sincere wish. -MMMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.com10