The Mad Monarchist

Black History Month

2012-02-01T15:22:00.001-06:00

February is "Black History Month" (in the United States at least) and I thought it an appropriate time to highlight some of the topics we have discussed so far relating to Black African royals and royalists. Of course, for more coverage; comments on historic dates, videos and so on, you can click on the Africa and Haiti labels at the bottom of this post. More will be coming this month but, for the moment, here are some of what we have talked about so far:

Colonel Tye, Black loyalist leader in the American Revolution

King Mutesa II of Buganda, better known as "King Freddie" of Uganda

Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia, the victor of Adowa

King Ovonramwen of Benin, leader of one of Africa's oldest nations

Queen Masenate of Lesotho, one of the most respected female royals in Africa

King Mutara III of Rwanda, a man who tried to avert disaster

Foreign Influence in the Mexican Empire

2012-02-01T01:15:00.001-06:00

The foreign forces involved in Mexico during the period of the Second Empire were truly a diverse lot. Few people realize just how diverse. All too often the conflict is regarded as a contest between the Mexicans on one side and the French on the other. In fact, the armies fighting for Mexican President Benito Juarez and those fighting for Mexican Emperor Maximilian were each quite diverse, though those supporting Maximilian were infinitely more so. Most of the non-Mexican forces among the republicans of Benito Juarez were Americans, predominately former U.S. Army troops from north of the Mason-Dixon line who viewed the French Emperor Napoleon III as their enemy because of his perceived sympathy with the Confederacy of southern states. The establishment of a monarchy in Mexico was also seen by many in the northern states as a challenge to American republicanism and a threat to U.S. domination of North America. A large percentage of those Union troops who went to Mexico to fight for Juarez were African-Americans who tended to be even more sympathetic to Juarez than their other comrades in blue, seeing him, a Zapotec Indian, and his fight against the Austrian Maximilian as a struggle by a dark-skinned native against White, European domination. The only Union troops who, as a group, were most ill-disposed toward Juarez were the many Irish Catholics in the U.S. Army who objected to the anti-clericalism of Juarez.

Although thousands of American veterans served with Juarez, the greatest support from the United States was not in men but in weapons, uniforms, equipment and the diplomatic pressure they brought to Paris to force Napoleon III to withdraw his support for Maximilian and his struggling empire. After 1865, when the Confederacy was firmly defeated, American support poured into northern Mexico without hindrance. It must have seemed a strange sight given the long history of antagonism between the United States and Mexico to see so many Mexican troops who could have been mistaken for U.S. Army regulars, wearing complete U.S. Army uniforms, carrying American rifles, complete with ammo boxes and belt buckles stamped “US”. Because of this support, in the days when the Mexican Imperial forces were at their weakest due to the withdrawal of the French, the Mexican republicans were at their peak with far superior weaponry and greater stores of supplies. While the troops of Maximilian fought with outdated muskets and antique artillery (some dating back to the Spanish army) many republicans carried the latest American-made Henry repeating rifles and state-of-the-art rifled artillery. When the final clash of arms came, despite popular perceptions, it was the republicans who were better armed, better equipped with more supplies and more money than the monarchists.

However, it was the forces fighting for and on behalf of Emperor Maximilian that were, by far, the most diverse. There were Mexicans, native Indians, French, Belgians, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Poles and even a troop of Sudanese Africans sent by the Khedive of Egypt. The French also made use of colonial troops from their Caribbean islands, most of whom were of African origin. Americans also fought for Emperor Maximilian after 1865, almost invariably these were former Confederates who had no desire to live under ‘Yankee rule’ in their own homeland. They were not, however, anywhere near as numerous as the Americans who fought for Juarez, partly because U.S. forces moved quickly to seal off the border and prevent southerners fleeing to Mexico where they would doubtlessly aid the side that Washington was against (namely the Emperor).

General Tomas Mejia

The diversity of the Mexican Imperial Army was seen even at the highest levels. Among the top commanders were General Miguel Miramon, a Mexican of Spanish blood; General Raul Mendez, a Mexican of mixed blood and General Tomas Mejia, a Mexican of pure Indian blood. This shocked some in Mexican society but Emperor Maximilian was adamant that Mejia was a talented general who deserved a rank that reflected his achievements. He was also fond of saying that his Indian general most likely possessed an older bloodline than any of his European counterparts. There were also, of course, Marshal Achille de Bazaine and his French generals, the Austrian General Franz Count von Thun-Hohenstein (born in what is the Czech Republic today), the Belgian Lieutenant Colonel Alfred Baron Van der Smissen, the American General John B. Magruder, the German Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm and others. Some could even confuse those doing the classifying such as the eventual turncoat Colonel Miguel Lopez who was a Mexican born and raised but whose skin was so fair and hair so blonde many mistook him for a European officer.

The Sudanese Battalion

They may have lagged behind their republican enemies in state-of-the-art weaponry but the imperialists were certainly a much more colorful bunch. The Sudanese wore baggy white uniforms with red sashes and fezzes while their officers wore red uniforms almost totally covered in gold braid. They were quite a unique unit by themselves with Black African soldiers, led by Turkish or Egyptian officers sent by a Khedive whose family was Albanian and under the religious authority of a Sultan who was a quarter French and whose mother was Wallachian. The Hungarian hussars favored uniforms that resembled their national colors of green, red and white which was probably popular being the same as the national colors of Mexico. There were the Red Hussars who took their name from their bright outfits, the Belgians in their braided tunics and tall hats and French zouaves outfitted in the Algerian style which was very popular at the time. Their languages were equally diverse. The Mexicans spoke Spanish of course but some officers could speak French just as some French officers who had served in Spain could speak Spanish. The Belgian officers spoke French while many of their troops spoke Dutch and amongst the Austrian Corps the infantry spoke German, the lancers spoke Polish and the hussars spoke Hungarian. The Americans spoke English of course but luckily the families of southern plantation owners usually taught their children French, the language of “civilization”. Some veterans of the Mexican-American War had picked up at least a little Spanish as well during their service south of the border.

A totally foreign observer would be forgiven for thinking that Mexico was the scene of some sort of world conflict during the mid 1860’s. Of those European monarchies not represented on the battlefield, most were at least supportive of the Mexican Empire. The British Empire could make or break almost any overseas adventure, and Britain was not thrilled about anything that would rock the boat and possibly disrupt trade but they were not adamantly opposed either. Whatever was thought of the establishment of a monarchy, there was no doubt that the would-be emperor was popular. Queen Victoria was positively effusive in her praise of Maximilian when her uncle Leopold sent him to London for her inspection prior to Max marrying his daughter. After listing a number of his wonderful attributes, Queen Victoria bestowed upon him the greatest compliment possible for her, saying he seemed “so English”. When the couple were on their way to Mexico years later the British garrison at Gibraltar fired a thunderous salute as their vessel passed. The Spanish, as was becoming habitual, were too busy trying to see which faction could get rid of their own monarch first to worry much about Mexico. King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy, when Empress Carlota met him at Padua on her way to Rome, impressed on her his great admiration for Emperor Maximilian. According to the galantuomo he was ‘kind and good’ and Carlota proudly wrote to her husband, “He asked me to tell you how much he loved you, for, he added, ‘He has such good ideas…’” It is worth remembering that the Italians had only recently been given a drubbing by the Austrian fleet that Maximilian had prepared in his prior occupation as a Grand Admiral. However, regardless of politics, everyone seemed to adore Maximilian. Even his enemies in Mexico had a hard time hating the man himself.

Hungarian troops in Mexico

About the only foreign country solidly on the side of the Mexican republicans was the United States but, of course, that was the one country that mattered the most for Mexico. By 1865 the U.S. had the largest army and the largest navy in the world, the very latest weapons and freshly victorious, battle-hardened troops. No government in Mexico that failed to gain the approval of Washington DC could hope to survive. Perhaps more than all of the men and guns and supplies the U.S. sent to the rebels it was Secretary of State Seward who brought the full diplomatic weight of the U.S. against both the presence of French troops in Mexico and the sending of any other European forces to Mexico to aid Emperor Maximilian. Thousands of Austrian (not all “Austrians” of course) were ready to set sail when Seward threatened Vienna with war if they did so and the Kaiser backed down. Napoleon III did as well, recalling all of his forces just as they were on the cusp of victory and in spite of agreements signed with Maximilian. Seward invoked the “Monroe Doctrine” which claimed the western hemisphere as America’s exclusive sphere of influence and a “republics only club”. Ironically, this was the same man who had, earlier in his career, advocated that the United States annex Canada or Mexico or perhaps even both. From London to Paris to Vienna there were grumbles but no one would ever dare to challenge the might of the United States. This is important to remember since the conflict in Mexico is so often portrayed as “Mexico versus the foreigners” (which it was not, it was a Mexican civil war as much as anything). While it is true that the Empire of Maximilian had the most help from foreign countries it is no less true that the ultimate victory of the republic of Benito Juarez is owed entirely to the United States. Mexican patriots would do well to give that some serious thought even today.

MM Video: Serbian Royal Family

2012-01-31T00:13:00.001-06:00

MM Video: Frederick the Great

2012-01-31T00:11:00.000-06:00

The Trial and Regicide of Charles I

2012-01-30T00:17:00.001-06:00

Few events in the history of nations can be as traumatic as civil war. Yet, the English Civil War in particular was a conflict with an outcome unprecedented in the history of the world: the public trial and regicide of a reigning monarch by rebel forces. Unlike similar disturbances in France or Russia, the English rebels who executed HM King Charles I actually made at least a haphazard effort to look like they were showing fairness and providing a legal validation for the murder of their archenemy, who happened to be their anointed sovereign.

It seems like a theme that would appeal to Americans in particular; the idea of Parliament overthrowing and executing a powerful monarch. However, is the situation as simple as it seems? Not likely, and how fair was this trial and how accurate is the picture painted of the Stuart king? Certainly, few people if any could accuse King Charles of being a wicked or immoral man. Charles, son of King James I (of the Authorized Bible fame), never had a mistress, set an example of moral uprightness and required that his court follow the same high standards that he lived by.

The method with which Charles led the British government is a bit more complex, but still does not seem malicious by any leap of the imagination. Nevertheless, he inherited an attitude and mindset that was not always good for his image or government function. S.R. Gardiner wrote that King Charles “looked upon the whole world through a distorting lens” and refused “to subordinate that which was only desirable to that which was possible”.

King Charles believed (like his father) that the monarch was answerable to God alone, not the public and not both. He was afraid, not so much of rule by the people but rule by those who claimed to speak for the people. He felt that government was for kings and not meant for the public. There was no evil intent behind this, it was simply his sincere belief that republican rule would harm society. King Charles did not speak of himself as the divine personification of Britain, as Louis XIV of France might have been tempted to do, but instead spoke of himself as the guardian of his people and their place in society and status as free subjects.

In fact, it has been argued that if King Charles had shown as much ruthlessness in fighting the war as he was accused of showing in government the royalist cause might well have prevailed. The King himself wrote, “It is a hard and disputable choice for a king that loves his people and desires their love either to kill his own subjects or be killed by them”. His enemies were successful, especially in the Irish campaigns, because they were willing to be more cruel than the King was who seemed to only want to use his military force to persuade his enemies to surrender and frighten the rebels into submission. An impartial look shows that the philosophy of the forces of Parliament and the Puritans was even more terrifying than the principles of Divine Right Monarchy. Their warrior-hero, Oliver Cromwell, expressed the belief that Charles was wrong simply because he had lost and in effect stated the very dangerous belief that ‘might makes right’.

Also, as much as His Majesties’ Puritan opponents, Charles I was a man of great faith who was extremely devoted to the Anglican communion of the Christian religion. Part of this faith was his belief that it was his right and duty to rule England as best he could, not as Parliament saw best or advised him. He made it clear that he could never be king if he did not have the power to rule as he saw fit. Even after his defeat Charles remained convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He wrote, “If I must suffer a violent death with my Savior…it is but mortality crowned with Martyrdom”.

This prophetic statement undoubtedly rung in the ears of many when the event that seemed so unthinkable to most people, the regicide of the King of Britain, actually occurred. However, it was not a thing that happened by sheer accident. Before the second war had even started Cromwell was stating that Charles had to be destroyed and his people should not deal at all with the monarch as to negotiation a peaceful settlement. Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was advocating that the army occupy London, remove all dissenters from the House of Commons, arrest the king and abolish the monarchy by sheer military force. Eventually this was taken to even greater extremes to propose that Parliament should be dissolved altogether and an entirely new voting system be established for entirely new elections and representations. This is important to remember since the rebels claimed to be on the side of popular opinion and called themselves the forces of Parliament. In fact, the Parliament had already declared that the king could not be legally deposed.

It would also be a mistake to claim that the rebellion against the King was the masses against the upper class. In the end all of the results of the war and the regicide were to the advantage of the merchants and gentry class. The forces of the rebellion were anything but popular or democratic. When rebel troops marched into London and seized Parliament they were acting to prevent the democratic process by turning away close to 200 members who tried to take their seats. When these men protested against this tyrannical, police-state action, many were arrested.

Even before the “legal” process began Cromwell told the remaining 150-man ‘Rump’ that was to judge Charles I, “I tell you, we will cut off the King’s head with the crown on it”. So much for a fair trial. This is not to say, however, that there was even a great deal of popular support for putting the king on trial at all. Had this been the case the rebel troops would not have feared a fair vote by the Parliament. The prosecution for “treason” (legally defined as encompassing ‘the death of the King or the overthrow of the King’s legitimate governments’ -which was exactly what the rebels were doing) of a reigning monarch was opposed by the Presbyterians and the Levellers, both of whom opposed Charles I, who believed that the trial was a trick to divert public attention away from the issues of what they regarded as much-needed social reform. Both Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer all boycotted the proceedings; all of whom were opposed to the King’s policies! The House of Lords likewise was absent, not recognizing the act of putting a monarch on trial. However, had they wished to take part, it is unlikely they would have been allowed to. Even for his enemies, trying a reigning monarch was too much for most people.

Far from being an upright quest for justice, the trial of King Charles is seen by many as perhaps the greatest act of deceit in British history. Author C.V. Wedgwood wrote that,
“Cromwell’s faction was determined to kill the King mainly because this symbolic act of revolution would satisfy discontents that might otherwise be directed toward the more fundamental and more farsighted constitutional changes sought by Lilburne’s Levellers”.
Nevertheless, just or not, King Charles I was taken before what was left of Parliament to stand trial for his actions.

To say that such an act was unprecedented is a vast understatement. The King was accused of making war against Parliament, not the actual nation, and no effort was made to show how this “Rump” (which had been purged by military force) was a true representation of the English people. Realizing this, His Majesty protested that this left his accusers with no legal right to judge him saying, “you never asked the question of the tenth man in the kingdom, and in this way you manifestly wrong even the poorest ploughman, if you demand not his free consent”.

Because of this principle, King Charles refused to enter a plea and demanded to know by what authority was he, a reigning monarch, called to trial? The head “judge” John Bradshaw said he stood accused by “the people of England” at which time Lady Fairfax (wife of the Parliament’s military commander of all people) shouted from the audience, “Not a quarter of them! Oliver Cromwell is a traitor!” At this the officer of the guard actually ordered his troops to fire into the crowd, but relented when the lady’s identity was made known. She was, however, forced to quit the proceedings.

This is a good example of how unfairly this rebel trial was conducted. King Charles conducted himself superbly by all accounts. When told that the court operated in representation of the Commons Charles said, “Show me one precedent” in which it was the King who was answerable to the Commons rather than the reverse. In any case, this was a moot argument since the Commons had been purged by force of arms. Previous cries among the crowd calling Cromwell a traitor led to the court’s order to immediately arrest anyone who “caused a disturbance”.

On His Majesty’s charge that the court had no authority Chief Justice Bradshaw brazenly said that the court was convinced of its own authority and that the king and the country must submit to their judgment. When Charles began to refute this statement he was cut off by the judge. This seemed to be rather typical for this court. When making a speech that came out too logical for the court’s comfort, rebel troops promptly dragged him from the courtroom amid cries of “Justice!” but also of “God save the King!”.

Finally, Bradshaw pronounced the King guilty for refusing to plead. In response, Charles requested that a full Parliament, the Lords and Commons, be called to hear him. His Majesty said, “If I cannot get this liberty, I do here protest that so fair shows of liberty and peace, are pure shows and not otherwise, since you will not hear your King”.

The court recessed after Charles’ request, though not so much for a consideration but so that calm could be restored. For while Bradshaw was accusing the King of delaying tactics a man in the audience began to call out, “Have we hearts of stone? Are we men?”. It was becoming ever more clear to all that this court was not interested in justice at all but vengeance and the idea was a profoundly disturbing one. When the court did reconvene, the King’s request was denied on the basis that it was a ploy to delay his execution, or as they termed it, “justice”. Charles admitted it would cause delay,
“but a little delay of a day or two further may give peace, whereas a hasty judgment may bring on that trouble and perpetual inconvenience to the Kingdom, that the child that is unborn may repent it”.

In his closing Bradshaw referred to the ridiculous notion that the King was elected and even went so far as to compare him to the Roman Emperor Caligula (who was murdered by his guard). He cited the removal of Edward II and Richard II, neither of which was lawful, the Magna Carta, which was forced by and for the lords and not the common people and all in all his argument was high-sounding but full of holes, half-truths and blatant lies. In fact, when King Charles tried to reply to this Bradshaw silenced him and arrogantly declared, “And the truth is, all along, from the first time you were pleased to disavow and disown us, the Court needed not to have heard you one word”. In effect, he was saying that even if the King had not been given a fair trial, he deemed if undeserving of one anyway. His Majesty was sentenced to death by beheading. He was refused permission to respond and was taken out by troops while saying, “I am not suffered to speak; expect what justice other people may have”.

On January 30, 1649 King Charles I was taken to a scaffold outside the palace of Whitehall for his execution. He dressed warmly for fear that shivers of cold would be mistaken for a sign of fear. He addressed his enemies one last time saying,
“I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people”
His final words were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be”. A boy in the crowd who witnessed the execution wrote,
“The blow I saw given, and can truly say with a sad heart, at the instant whereof, I remember well, there was such a groan by the thousands then present as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again”.

King Charles was buried in secret at Windsor Castle. In the end, Parliament itself was its own worst enemy. Rather than pointing out the merits of their case (dubious though they were in the best cases), they resorted to strong-arm tactics that only made them look all the more like the disloyal demagogues that they were. King Charles never looked better than when he was seen by all the world as the pious victim of treasonous force. Due to the forceful tyranny and the unjust murder of their anointed king, Parliament also provided the Royalist forces with a martyr in the person of King Charles I. The monarch’s gentle and passive conduct impressed his friends and infuriated his enemies. He was himself no less aware of the course history was taking, and showing both mercy and foresight; Charles told his son in Eikon Basilike, “Let then no passion betray you to any study of revenge on those, whose own sin and folly will sufficiently punish in due time”.

Royal News Roundup

2012-01-29T00:07:00.000-06:00

Tuesday saw some great royal news in Denmark when Prince Joachim and Princess Marie welcomed a healthy new princess into the Danish Royal Family, the second child of Princess Marie and the fourth for Prince Joachim (having had two sons by his ex-wife Alexandra Manley). We of course sent our most heartfelt congratulations to the happy couple! Further north in Sweden, Crown Princess Victoria has gone on maternity leave in preparation for the arrival of her firstborn, leaving little brother Prince Carl Philip to pick up the slack in royal duties. On Wednesday he handed out the “Chef of the Year” award to Klas Lindberg for his prize-winning fried steak and lobster dish. Meanwhile, Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway joined other royals and world leaders in Switzerland for the 42nd World Economic Forum in Davos, a gathering of international big-shots to discuss ways to improve economic conditions for people around the world. They certainly have a lot to work on when it comes to that subject these days.

In southern Europe, Their Majesties the King and Queen of Spain and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Asturias welcomed the President and First Lady of the South American nation of Peru at the Royal Palace where a special reception was held followed by a formal banquet. HM King Juan Carlos said that, “Peru and Spain maintain a fraternal relationship that is based on history, culture, language and common values” and that, “Peruvians living in Spain and the Spanish who live in Peru contribute to the further strengthening of our ties”. The King also discussed the trade agreements between the two countries and Spanish business investments in Peru which has been a great help to the Peruvian economy. The King closed his remarks by saying that Spain sees the South American country as a, “sister and friend, and it is committed to the projects of progress and welfare for the beloved people of Peru”.

In Great Britain the republican crowd threw another treasonous temper-tantrum this week with Graeme Smith calling the Duchess of Cornwall a “criminal” for, of all things, supporting a school project to have children design dishes for the upcoming Diamond Jubilee (as in a menu, not making plates to eat off of). I suppose the American school children who were taught songs of praise for President Barrack Hussein Obama (mmm,mmm,mmm) would have been perfectly acceptable to him but have British youngsters prepare some tasty treat for a milestone in the history of the monarchy of their country and it’s “criminal”! It never fails to baffle me to hear republicans in a constitutional monarchy howl at the very system so tolerant as to allow them to spew their treason whereas in republics such as France, Germany or Italy it is actually enshrined in law that the government can never, ever be anything but a republic -whether the people want a monarchy or not. One of the most highly placed traitors in the Commonwealth, Australian PM Julia Gillard, got mud on her face after claiming that Australian taxpayers had to foot the bill for gifts handed out by the Queen during her last visit to Australia. Later she had to back down since, after this aroused a clamor among Aussie republicans, the Palace put out the information that the Royal Household had paid for the gifts, which had a total price tag of about £10,000. It always makes me laugh to see socialists who never met an expenditure they didn’t like, who will shell out billions to bums, business buddies and foreign countries suddenly turn so penny-pinching when it comes to the monarchy.

There were commemorations in Germany this week marking the 300th anniversary of the birth of King Frederick the Great of Prussia on Tuesday. HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, head of the House of Hohenzollern and newlywed, was invited to speak at the Berlin Concert Hall on the occasion, which he did very well. The Prince talked about King Friedrich II and how he was regarded as ‘one of the family’ by the subsequent generations of Hohenzollerns and said it was an occasion for everyone to think about their own families as he thought about his own. Nothing flashy, nothing grandiose, but nice. I was a little surprised he was asked since we have recently seen other historic anniversaries celebrated by republics in which the royal heirs of those directly involved were snubbed by the government.

In royal news on the opposite side of the world, HM Queen Sirikit and daughter Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn of Thailand were out on Monday to celebrate the lunar New Year in the Chinese district of Bangkok. They were accompanied by the Chinese Vice Minister of Culture Li Xiaojie who also expressed the condolences of the Chinese government for the devastating floods Thailand experienced last year. The Queen and Princess wore red, the color of good fortune in the Far East. Festivities will continue until January 30. Also, over in the Pacific Kingdom of Tonga, Prince ‘Ulukalala, second-in-line to the Tongan throne, celebrated his engagement to his second cousin the Hon. Sinaitakala Fakafanua at a party in Sydney, Australia. The wedding is set to take place on May 4th of this year. There has evidently been some concern recently over the lack of suitable royal consorts for the Kingdom of Tonga with the descendants of past dynasties and noble families becoming in ever shorter supply. In due time they may have to go abroad or follow the European trend of going ‘common’ to keep the Royal Family going. We wish them all the best.

Shameless Plug

2012-01-29T00:02:00.000-06:00

The Feast of Charlemagne

2012-01-28T00:16:00.002-06:00

It would be hard to overestimate the impact on western history of Charlemagne, whose feast day falls on today (at least by those who recognize it). Considered something of a “founding father” by both the nations of France and Germany, Charlemagne brought a great deal of new “light” to the “Dark Ages” by defeating barbarian raiders, restoring law and order and stable government throughout much of western and central Europe. His reign would also see a restoration of Rome, in a way, as his coronation as “Emperor of the Romans” marks the birth of the Holy Roman Empire. Royals from France, Germany, Austria and Italy have attached themselves to his legacy, the Christendom of the old Roman Empire began to revive under his rule and no less a figure than HH Pope John Paul II referred to him as the “father of Europe”. He was an astute statesman, a fairly tolerant lawgiver and a bold warrior whose accomplishments would not be rivaled for centuries to come. No matter which way one looks at him, Charlemagne was quite a man.

Not much is known about his origins, his birth place being listed as various places, usually western Germany or Belgium. Charles (Charlemagne - Charles the Great - Carolus Magnus -we all know that right?) was a descendant of Charles Martel, “the Hammer” who defeated the Muslim invasion of France at Tours. His son was Pepin, King of the Franks, who was the father of Charlemagne and Carloman. When Pepin died in about 768 he divided his lands between his two sons but after Carloman died in 771 Charlemagne got it all, roughly what is now western Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. From the start, and certainly by the time of his death, no one had ruled more of western Europe since the days of the old Roman Emperors. However, there was no mistaking the fact that Charlemagne was what the Romans would have called a “barbarian” himself, meaning he was of the Germanic rather than the Latin branch of the European tree. His private life was not always exemplary, he was a Christian certainly but not above carrying out forced conversions, he was illiterate yet was not uneducated and was multi-lingual with a knowledge of many of the available scholarly works of his time even if he could not read them himself. In the tumultuous days of the Dark Ages, things like reading and writing were left to scribes and monks as the paramount duty of a king was to be a warrior, defending his land and people.

Right from the start he marched his knights into the eastern lands of Germany, where no Roman legions had ever tread, to take on the pagan Saxons who were still occasionally carrying out human sacrifices and eating each other -not exactly civilized behavior by any definition. Charlemagne and his mostly Frankish army gave the Saxons a sound thrashing, made them promise to be good little boys and girls and then marched off to their next adventure. That came when the Pope in Rome started having trouble with the Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. So, it was Charlemagne to the rescue, wiping out Lombardy and possibly having the Iron Crown placed on his head -that’s not definite but in any event he made himself King of the Lombards by conquest before going on to Rome to accept the thanks of a grateful Pope, see the sights and buy a few postcards for the wives. But, just as he was picking up coliseum t-shirt word came that the Saxons were running wild again and he had to round up his knights and march back to Germany. Once again, he gave them a good drubbing but this time decided that there would be no peace until the Saxons found Jesus. Being a man of action rather than words, Charlemagne had all the Saxons rounded up, pointed a few swords and lances at them and “encouraged” them to become good Catholics.

With that done and dusted, Charlemagne turned his attention to Spain which had been almost completely conquered by the Muslims. Unfortunately, the Muslims proved a much more formidable adversary than the northern barbarians had been and Charlemagne wasn’t exactly at the top of his game. To make a long story short, Charlemagne took a dusting and was forced to give up on the idea of liberating Spain and go back to France. Many mistakes were made and about the only good thing to come out of it was the famous tribute to suicidal bravery in the “Song of Roland”. Charlemagne was pretty bummed after this and devoted himself to more peaceful campaigns to develop his still strengthening Carolingian Empire. Combat was never too far off in those times though and soon, you guessed it, those naughty Saxons were causing problems again in 782.

It seems when everyone was swearing to be good Catholics some of the Saxon big-shots had their fingers crossed and it took a long, grueling war for Charlemagne to subdue them again. There were still armies in the field when Charlemagne and the Saxon king agreed to peace with Charlemagne leaving Saxony to the Saxons so long as the King was baptized. He did, Charlemagne loaded him down with gifts, the Pope sent him a pat on the back and there was much rejoicing. Charles then settled down in the town of Aachen, taking time out occasionally to thrash the Avars and punish heretics and corrupt clergymen. Although he did not take ‘sins of the flesh’ very seriously, at least concerning himself and his own family, Charlemagne was very conscious of being a Christian monarch and was determined to keep Church affairs orderly. He was, in this regard, not unlike the first Christian Emperor Constantine who was not without his personal flaws but who wanted a clearly understood and defined religion everyone could unite behind and he was willing to use his position to ensure that the Church was protected, its message was clear and its clergy upright.

All of this coincided with his efforts to increase defensive measures against the Vikings from the north, the pagans from the east and the Muslims to the south. Finally, the most triumphal moment for Charlemagne came on Christmas of 800 when he was crowned Emperor of the Romans at St Peter’s Basilica by Pope St Leo III. There is still some debate over whether this was planned, if Charlemagne knew it was going to happen or not but in any event it did happen and it was a pivotal moment in the history of western Europe. It marked the start of what would be known as the Holy Roman Empire (later the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), a revival of the Imperial Roman legacy in the west and, somewhat controversially, a sign that the Pope had more or less ‘given up’ on the Byzantine Empire of the east as the protector of the Latin Church in the west. The Great Schism was still some way off but squabbles and tensions had been going on for some time even at that point and by crowning Charlemagne the Pope was effectively saying that he felt it more prudent to trust the converted former barbarians than the remnant of the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople.

Charlemagne died not too many years after in 814. His empire was divided up among his sons, none of whom could quite match his achievements and the Holy Roman Empire would have to wait until the reign of Otto the Great to see itself reformed and solidified into a major power again. Nonetheless, European history would certainly not have developed as it did without Charlemagne, King of Franks and Lombards and Emperor of the Romans. He had rescued Europe from the worst period of the Dark Ages and set the stage for the rebuilding of Christian civilization in the west. Much was left to be done but none of it would have happened without the giant historical figure of Charlemagne. In recognition of his great achievements he was locally beatified soon after his death as Blessed Charles the Great, his feast day being January 28 where it is celebrated. Pope Benedict XIV much later confirmed this beatification and though he was formally canonized by the anti-Pope Paschal III in 1166 this step was never taken by the official Church hierarchy. However, his great contributions cannot be denied, his influence is still felt and the Latin West lost its first Holy Roman Emperor 1,198 years ago today.

Mad Rant: Racism and Monarchy

2012-01-27T00:13:00.004-06:00

Recently I got a particularly long comment (which I did not post due to excessive foul language) regarding my post on Jamaica and the monarchy of last November (obviously not the most timely commentator) and although I shrugged it off at the time as yet another incoherent bit of hatred from someone who is obviously not a regular reader but a troll looking trouble. However, the accusation is one which I see frequently made on news articles dealing with the monarchy in Jamaica and even in articles dealing with the monarchy in places such as Canada, Australia and elsewhere. That accusation is “racism”. It is old, it is tired, it has been overused to the point of being an epithet devoid of meaning and is a sure sign that one is winning an argument with a leftist. However, the ugliness and injustice of it never fails to infuriate me. It is such a grossly dishonest and despicable accusation to make that my temper threatens to get the better of me. Nothing could be further from the truth in saying that the monarchy is racist and it burns me to the core that the Queen is not given her due credit for being one of the most adamant (and effective) crusaders against racism in modern times nor is the fact often recognized that the Queen has, as it turned out, sacrificed vast domains because of her refusal to abide racism.

Wherever one sides on the divisive racial issues of the era that encompassed the period of the dissolution of the British Empire, the fact remains, though it is seldom spoken, that in numerous countries across Africa, especially the major regional powers of Rhodesia and South Africa, republicanism was embraced because the Queen refused to abide the continued rule of White minorities over Black majorities. The monarchy refused to allow that state of affairs to continue, the White governments in power saw the monarchy as taking the side of the Black majority and so they broke away from the monarchy and became republics. This was no surprise, plenty of people at the time could see that this was going to happen and yet the monarchy basically looked at the people who were in charge in these countries, considered them racist and effectively said, ‘if you’re going on that way, we don’t want you anyway’. If the monarchy was such a racist institution they certainly would have taken the side of the local governments and so kept the reign of the Crown over those countries for decades into the future. But, that did not happen, the monarchy firmly stood against racism and lost more than one Commonwealth realm because of it. Yet, today, where is the appreciation for this?

In 1999, when the divisiveness of Australian government recognition of the aboriginal population was still a very hot-button issue, Queen Elizabeth II invited a delegation of aborigine leaders to a meeting at Buckingham Palace to come to a better understanding of their situation and their goals. It undoubtedly upset some people and a great many people said it would never happen, that the Queen would never receive such a delegation and yet she did, not only receiving them but taking the initiative of inviting them in the first place. And the important thing to realize is that this is nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary and is simply the continuation of a long history of respect for native peoples on the part of the British monarchy. When Pocahontas came to England she was invited to Whitehall where she was given the full royal treatment with King James I treating her with such warmth and informality she had to be told after the fact that the man she had been talking to was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Mohawk chief Joseph Brant was very cordially received by King George III in 1775.

This was the same King George III who boycotted sugar in all his royal residences when he was told about the conditions of the slaves on the sugar plantations and it was this same King George III who granted freedom to all slaves who managed to flee their masters in the American colonies and enlist in the service of the Crown. He was also the King who signed into law the final abolition of the slave trade in 1807. Slavery was abolished completely in the British Empire under Queen Victoria and the Queen left no doubt as to her own opinions on the subject. She met with escaped slaves, anti-slavery activists and expressed her support for abolition. There was, at the time, absolutely no doubt about this even though they were many powerful people in the country who strongly supported the institution. That did not matter to the very high-minded Queen Victoria who viewed slavery as a wicked and uncivilized practice and was extremely pleased to put her name to the law banning it forever. When slavery was becoming an ever more controversial issue in the United States, Queen Victoria made it clear that it would not be tolerated on British soil and that any escaped slave who reached Canada would never have to fear being returned south. Many anti-slavery activists were effusive in their praise of the Queen for the great support she showed their cause.

There is simply no justification for any sort of accusations that the monarchy is racist. It is outrageous that so many people are allowed to get away with making that a casual accusation without ever being stopped and challenged about it. There is absolutely nothing racist about monarchy in general, certainly nothing racist about the British monarchy and I will state unequivocally that no member of the British Royal Family has a racist bone in their body. Yes, that includes Prince Philip and I am sick and tired of people taking one or two remarks, always told in a friendly and joking manner, and stretching them out of all recognition to construe something racist on his part. It is slanderous, it is outrageous and it is absolutely dishonest. The monarchy has been a champion against racism for hundreds of years and far from being ridiculed and attacked they should be recognized and thanked for that long tradition. Any time anyone hears the monarchy, the Queen or any royal being accused of racism they should not let the comment go unchallenged. It is a vicious lie and must be exposed as such immediately at every opportunity. I am not so much surprised or even angered by those who most often make the accusation but I am positively enraged by the media people that let them get away with it without even challenging them to back up such a baseless claim. I am sick of it, I am tired of it and I am … The Mad Monarchist.

Happy Australia Day!

2012-01-26T00:21:00.000-06:00

Today the “Land Down Under” celebrates “Australia Day” to commemorate the day in 1788 when a landing party from a British fleet came ashore and formally claimed the coast of what was then called New Holland in the name of HM King George III; the official beginning of the history of the modern-day Commonwealth of Australia. Since that time centuries ago, Australia has grown into one of the most successful, prosperous and popular constitutional monarchies in the world. No other country occupies an entire continent all on its own and Australia and the unique Australian culture is now famous all around the world. In the glory days of the British Empire, Australia was one of the cornerstones of the English-speaking world. When the place of the British Empire in the world was threatened, hard-hitting troops from Australia brought a world of hurt to the Central Powers, particularly the Ottoman Turks as seen with the tough Diggers who stormed the beaches of Gallipoli and the hard riding Australian cavalry who charged across the sands of Palestine. Again, in World War II, Australians showed just as much tenacity on defense when they held off the seemingly unbeatable Axis forces of Rommel at Tobruk. Also in World War II, Australia provided a crucial staging ground for the Allied counter-offensive against the previously ever-victorious forces of Imperial Japan. When the chips were down for the Anglo-sphere it was often the Australians who arrived to save the day.

Traditionally, Australians were known for their staunch loyalty to their country and their Sovereign. Australians have a reputation for being independent, rugged individualists who make their home on a continent known to many in the outside world for its giant lizards and poisonous snakes as well as more friendly, furry creatures. The rugged, resourceful Australian with a big knife and a smile who is most comfortable outdoors may be a bit of a stereotype, but like most stereotypes it exists for a reason. Australians had to overcome many, many difficulties to build the country and, again traditionally, this gave them a great sense of community, an appreciation of what is important and a very pragmatic but also fun-loving nature. It also gave them a great deal of respect for what their ancestors had overcome and accomplished and a desire to preserve the same ideals and values that were important to those who had gone before them. Today, like everywhere else, many if not most of these ideals and values are under attack. Things which every Australian would have once considered sacrosanct are coming under attack. That includes the Queen, the national flag and even Australia Day itself for that matter. This is rather incredible considering that it was not so very long ago that Australians could be divided into two groups; monarchists and ultra-monarchists. Today, however, there is a seemingly endless campaign by republicans and the biased, bought-and-paid-for news media to tear down everything that once defined Australia.

I have probably said before how incomprehensible this attitude is to me. Where I live, anyone who would even suggest that we change our flag would be run out of town on a rail (and I mean the Lone Star, not the Stars & Stripes which we did trade in once for something different). Things like the national day, the national flag and for most countries the monarch are part of the most basic set of things that make you who you are. They reflect the history, the culture and the common values of a people, where you came from and what you’re all about. I have stated before that I consider any Australian republican a traitor, pure and simple. Fortunately for them the local authorities take a different view but this will not change mine. So far there has not been much stomach for changing the date of Australia Day but there are some who want to do it. The disturbing thing is that these people never seem to go away. No matter how many times the republicans lose they, and their allies in the bought-and-paid-for media, refuse to take “no” for an answer. How very democratic of them. They want a republic, Australians were given a referendum and they voted to keep the monarchy. The republicans then said that was the wrong answer and have been planning another vote ever since. Of course, they keep getting stomped on by waves of support for the monarchy surrounding key events, royal visits and royal weddings and the like, so they may try to take a more insidious approach next time; who knows?

Although I have never been there, I have always been very fond of Australia. The history and culture there reminds me a good deal of my own homeland. It has often seemed to me that if the British Commonwealth were the United States, Australia would be Texas. Fond as I am of Australia, I don’t want Australia to become something else. Because that is exactly what would happen if the current crop of republicans had their way. Scrap the Queen of Australia for a President, scrap the Commonwealth of Australia for the Australian Republic, scrap the flag for a new design and scrap the national day in favor of something else and what you really have is a completely different country with no history. Like a tree without roots, a country without a past will be in for a pretty sorry future. Doing that would be a betrayal, not only of the Queen of Australia (God Save Her) but of everything all the previous generations of Australians fought, worked and died for from the western front to Southeast Asia. One of the most distinct, admirable and glorious parts of the world would be lost forever.

Of course, this does not mean that there is nothing in Australia that needs changing. There are plenty of problems. However, the problems Australia does have are invariably the result of drifting away from the constitution, certainly not from being too faithful to it. The great benefit of the Australian monarchy is often lost because the Queen, or her representatives, are not allowed to make full use of their constitutional powers. In practice the powers of the Crown are often exercised by politicians and this takes away from the benefit of having an impartial, non-political sovereign to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules and nothing underhanded is being done. Things would be better if the choice of Governor-General and the use of the powers of the Crown were actually exercised by the Queen or her representative as is supposed to happen. However, over the years, the politicians have co-opted the powers of the Crown in many ways and this has meant that sometimes there is no impartial person in the engine car to apply the brakes when things get out of hand. The republicans, who represent the politician-class, have caused most of the problems in Australia by failing to follow the rules of the constitutional monarchy and yet rather than going back and following the rules, their response is to call for even more of the same, throwing out all the rules and basically letting the politicians write their own rule book. Hardly seems fair does it?

Thankfully, so far, the Aussies have managed to see through this and favor keeping the system of constitutional monarchy they have. That’s a good thing but it needs to be more than just apathy toward change, it needs to be a real understanding of the Australian government and a desire to change in the right way; putting the politicians in their place and letting the Sovereign of Australia see that they stay there and stop trying to usurp power for their own ends. The original system made Australia a success, getting away from it has only caused problems and there was nothing wrong with the old, traditional Australia of past generations. So, keep it royal in the land Down Under and a very happy Australia Day to everyone in the land of OZ from The Mad Monarchist!

Monarchist Profile: Captain Georg Ritter von Trapp

2012-01-25T00:14:00.000-06:00

Many people have probably heard of Captain Ritter von Trapp because of the hugely successful film "The Sound of Music", but not many may be aware of the whole story of this upstanding man and devoted son of Austria. Georg Ritter von Trapp was born on April 4, 1880 in the coastal city of Zara, what is today Zadar, Croatia but what was then a Hungarian port, part of the Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary. The son of a navy captain, the sea was in his blood from the very beginning. He listened to his father's stories of naval adventure all his life and eventually attended the Naval Academy and became an officer in the Imperial and Royal Navy of Austria-Hungary, first seeing service in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China where he earned his first combat decoration.

Later on, von Trapp determined to join the new, and still very hazardous, submarine service. He went to Fiume (modern Rijeka) where innovations were being made in submarine and torpedo technology. Promoted to lieutenant commander, he was later offered command of one of the earliest submarines in the Imperial and Royal Navy, the U-6. It was at the christening of U-6 that he met Agathe Whitehead. She was the granddaughter of Robert Whitehead, torpedo inventor and manufacturer and it was she who christened von Trapp's new U-boat. This was 1910, and after the two became acquainted at a ball they were married a short time later. It was said of Georg that he had two great loves in his life: the sea and Agathe. Sadly, though he was to prove a masterful sailor and a devoted husband, he was destined to lose them both. Still, his years of marriage were happy ones, blessed with seven children: Rupert, Agathe, Maria, Werner, Hedwig, Johanna, and Martina. Contrary to his image on film, Georg was a doting father who loved to play with his children.

When World War I broke out in 1914, Captain Ritter von Trapp proved right away to be one of the most courageous and skillful naval commanders of the war. He took command of the U-5 on April 22, 1915, a very early and primitive submarine, with a crew made up of men from all corners of the empire: Austrians, Magyars, Poles, Italians, Czechs and Croats. He scored a major success on the night of April 26-27, 1915 when he sank the French armored cruiser Leon Gambetta (12,500 tons). Later, still at the helm of U-5, Captain von Trapp sank the Italian troop transport Principe Umberto which was carrying 2,000 Italian soldiers. He did finally manage to upgrade his vessel when he was given command of a captured French submarine, the Curie, re-dubbed U-14. At the helm of this boat he sank the massive 11,480 ton ship Milazzo. In 1918, von Trapp was promoted to Korvettenkapitan and given command of a naval base, however, his record stood as the most successful Austrian submarine commander of World War I having completed 19 war patrols and sinking 12 cargo vessels, one French cruiser and one Italian submarine for a total of 58,494 tons of enemy shipping destroyed. Although often forgotten compared to the larger German U-boat fleet, the Austro-Hungarian submarines actually had a success rate of 90%. For his role in this Captain Georg von Trapp was awarded the rare and prestigious Knight's Cross of the Order of Maria Theresa.

Of course, for an officer like this, the defeat of the Central Powers came as a particularly bitter blow. The Hapsburg Empire was destroyed and torn to pieces, Austria being reduced to a small, land-locked republic with no navy at all. Captain von Trapp was forced to surrender, along with all other Austro-Hungarian naval officers, all naval weapons and equipment to the newly created Yugoslavian government. Ritter von Trapp retired, but the loss of his beloved naval career was only the beginning of his misery as in 1924 his beloved wife Agathe died in a scarlet fever epidemic. As someone later wrote, he had now lost the two things in life he had loved the most, and afterwards seemed like a different man, always slightly melancholy.

However, Ritter von Trapp was a devout Catholic and was able to take some comfort in his faith. He also needed someone to help him take care of his large family especially as one of his daughters was ill with the same wave of scarlet fever that had taken Agathe and so turned to the sisters of Nonnberg Abbey. They assigned to him the young novice Maria Augusta von Kutschera, a nun-in-training who had herself had quite an interesting life of her own, having been born and raised as an atheist and socialist before a conversion experience that caused her to devote herself to the service of God. The children adored their new governess and since it was only intended for her to be there temporarily, they began to plead with their father for some way to make her stay. Finally, one suggested they marry. With the children acting as matchmaker, Captain Georg Ritter von Trapp and Maria von Kutschera were married on November 26, 1927.

There remains though some major differences between the movie and what really happened. In 1932 the Great Depression hit Europe and devastated the von Trapp family's finances. To keep things going, the children had to take odd jobs and even sang for money. Although the von Trapp family often sang together for fun, none of them really took it seriously until 1935 with the arrival of Father Franz Wasner, who was a lover of music and became their family chaplain and musical conductor. In 1936 they came to great fame by singing at the renowned Salzburg Music Festival. However, just as Ritter von Trapp seemed on the verge of success in a new area, he was faced with the problem of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. The rise of the Nazi Party in Germany and the eventual merging with Austria created problems that Captain von Trapp could not ignore.

Hearing of the famous Austrian family singers, Adolf Hitler invited them to perform for his birthday in Berlin, but Ritter von Trapp firmly refused. The Nazi government sent him three offers of command in the new German navy, all of which he turned down. This was undoubtedly a sacrifice for someone who loved the navy so much; the opportunity to once again be in command of his own submarine had to be hard to pass up, but Captain von Trapp could never bring himself to fight for the Nazis. His response was, "I have sworn my oath of loyalty to only one Emperor" and Ritter von Trapp was a man who stuck to his word. He had sworn allegiance to the Hapsburg Emperor of Austria and would serve no other. He also refused to fly the Nazi flag from his home in honor of Hitler coming to visit Salzburg, famously saying, "I can do a better job with one of my Persian carpets".

When the now world-famous singers were offered a chance to perform in New York, Captain von Trapp decided to use this as his means of escape. Although not the same as shown on film, it was a dramatic move. It was no small thing for a man like Georg von Trapp to leave his homeland, but his honor was more important still and there was no doubt that if he remained he would be forced into service in the German navy. Disguised as if going hiking, the family escaped to Italy in 1938 where they arranged passage to the United States. They performed concerts, traveled to Scandinavia and eventually settled in Stowe, Vermont in 1942, where their old home is now a resort. It was here that Captain Georg Ritter von Trapp died on May 30, 1947, survived by his beloved Maria and his ten children.

The Great Frederick

2012-01-24T15:50:00.000-06:00

It was on this day in 1712 that the future King Friedrich II of Prussia was born, better known as Frederick the Great, one of the "Enlightened Despots" and the military genius who held off almost all the great powers on the continent with his small but matchlessly efficient army.

MM Video: King Sisavang Vong

2012-01-24T00:23:00.002-06:00

MM Video: Louis XVI Martyr-King

2012-01-24T00:18:00.000-06:00

Tết - Happy Lunar New Year!

2012-01-23T10:12:00.000-06:00

A Happy Year of the Dragon to all the loyal peoples of Eternal Asia. This year, particularly, the monarchial origins of the Lunar New Year are worth remembering. The dragon, as most know, was the symbol of good fortune and authority. As such it was always the primary symbol of the Emperor. In old Viet-Nam the Tet festival saw the dynastic flag and symbol displayed on every significant monument; the Imperial Palace, the Holy Citadel, the offices of the ministries, the fortresses and so on. In all the pagodas and imperial temples special offerings were set out in memory of the past emperors and imperial ancestors. At the Forbidden City in Hue the members of the Imperial Family, the mandarins and high-ranking dignitaries gathered to kowtow before the Emperor on the Golden Dragon Throne in the Palace of Ultimate Peace, wishing him "happiness, prosperity and longevity". Outside, gun salutes were fired, bugles were played and traditional musicians played for the occasion.

Across the country, special offerings were made for the family ancestors who were believed to rejoin their families at this time and children would come to kowtow before their parents in a show of filial piety and would be given a special coin wrapped in silk to symbolize a wish for their longevity from their elders. A great deal of noise would be heard as people symbolically drove away the previous year, and any misfortune attached to it, to welcome and make room for the happiness of the new year. The legendary Jade Emperor would appoint a new spirit for the year which the people would revere with special ceremonies and in appreciation the spirit was supposed to grant good fortune to the people and spare them from undue suffering. A special bamboo 'trap' was put outside the doors of homes to catch evil spirits while a basket was set out to collect offerings for the good and beneficial spirits. Special plants, pictures and other decorations would adorn every house to show the wishes of the inhabitants and evil spirits would be banished with noisy firecrackers. There was also a holiday from housework so as to avoid sweeping out lucky spirits along with the dust. Today children traditionally get red envelopes of money from their elders.

The Emperor, the Son of Heaven, played a pivotal role in the Tet celebrations. With all due ceremony the imperial seal would be covered and hidden. This was to symbolize that time had stopped for the holiday so everyone could forget their worries and celebrate. The Emperor would stand over the Noon Gate and officially announce the opening of the Tet holiday in what could be compared to the New Year's addresses of western monarchs still today. In the west, New Year is not usually considered a "family" holiday like Christmas or Thanksgiving (in the U.S.) but in the Far East the Lunar New Year is very, very much a family holiday and a family-focused holiday when children are treated, parents are revered and people honor their ancestors as a way to keep their memories alive throughout time. And, of course, given that, the Emperor, as head of the Imperial Family and the national family presided over the Tet celebrations as a whole on behalf of his people. In these days when few traditional monarchies remain this may not be much remembered but it is no less true.

Again, a happy Year of the Dragon to all.
-MM

Soldier of Monarchy: General Vicente Filisola

2012-01-23T00:13:00.001-06:00

A longtime figure in the early history of independent Mexico, General Vicente Filisola could always be counted on to be among the forces of the most conservative and loyalist faction. He was born in 1789 in Ravello, Italy but moved to Spain with his family when he was quite young. On March 17, 1804 he entered the Spanish army, starting what was to be a lifelong military career. He earned promotion to second lieutenant after six years of dedicated service and In 1811 was sent to New Spain (modern Mexico) to serve with the forces charged with suppressing the attempted revolution launched by Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla. Filisola was a dedicated and loyal officer in the Spanish army and earned numerous promotions. His most important action, however, was becoming a close friend to his fellow officer Agustin de Iturbide.

Iturbide, also a leader in the Spanish army, had fought for the King of Spain against the revolutionaries but was the most prominent of a growing group of Mexican conservatives who believed that Spain was becoming too liberal, that Mexican independence was inevitable and that they could and should take the lead in the revolution to direct it to a more traditional and less radical conclusion. Filisola supported Iturbide in his "Plan of Iguala" which called for an independent Mexican monarchy, originally intended to remain part of the Spanish Empire, based on the guarantees of unity, independence and religion. Filisola was given command of the Army of the Three Guarantees and the rank of brigadier general. When Iturbide himself was persuaded to lead the independent Mexico as Emperor Agustin I, General Filisola was dispatched to the south to bring Central America into the new Mexican Empire.

Filisola succeeded in his assignment, taking control of Central America and ensuring that Imperial Mexico stretched all the way from northern California to Panama. However, when Emperor Agustin lost his throne as a result of the treachery of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Central American nations broke away and Filisola returned to Mexico for a new assignment with the new republican government. Almost immediately, the new government faced the issue of immigration from the United States. Iturbide had been working out an agreement for the establishment of Anglo colonies in Texas and after a time the Mexican Republic continued the program. Invasions by Filibusters or land pirates had long been a problem, but the Anglo colonists were mostly loyal to the new Mexican constitution of 18124. However, the growing number of Anglo colonists alarmed many in Mexico and efforts were slowly put in place to halt immigration and increase the Mexican presence in Texas.

General Filisola, on October 12, 1831, was given a grant to settle 600 families in East Texas who could be anyone except Anglo-Americans. However, this was land which the government had promised to the Cherokee Indians in 1823 and Filisola was never able to establish his colony and his short term as an empresario came to nothing. Nonetheless throughout the 1820's and early 1830's General Filisola held a number of important commands in the Mexican army, including holding command of the eastern internal provinces which he was given in January of 1833. However, it was in 1835 that Filisola received what was to be his most important appointment. It was in 1835 that the province of Texas had risen up, captured all of the important posts in Texas and after a long hard battle in San Antonio had expelled the Mexican garrison commanded by General Martin Perfecto de Cos, the brother-in-law of the Mexican dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

General Santa Anna immediately began raising an army to retake Texas and crush or expel the entire Anglo population. General Vicente Filisola was made deputy commander of this force, named the Army of Operations in Texas, and was second only to Santa Anna himself. Santa Anna marched first on San Antonio where less than 200 Texans had barricaded themselves in the old Spanish mission known as the Alamo. The battle was a victory for Mexico, albeit an extremely costly one. General Filisola arrived with his troops three days after the Alamo had fallen since the massive size of the Mexican army meant that the main body was stretched out with units several days march apart. Later, General Filisola wrote down many observations about the campaign, commenting on the determined bravery of the Mexican soldier and the vanity of Santa Anna who would listen to nothing that was not in agreement with the ideas of Napoleon Bonaparte. Filisola also considered the assault on the Alamo a costly and unnecessary waste of manpower, pointing out that if Santa Anna had only waited for his heavy artillery to arrive they could have shelled the crumbling mission to rubble without risking the life of a single Mexican soldier.

After the battle, Santa Anna pushed his army relentlessly forward in pursuit of Texas General Sam Houston who was retreating north. Overconfident, Santa Anna was oblivious to the strategic danger he placed himself in and took a smaller part of his army ahead in the hope of capturing Houston personally. At San Jacinto, Houston cut Santa Anna off from General Filisola and the main army and launched a surprise attack on the sleeping Mexicans. Santa Anna suffered a stunning defeat and was himself captured and forced to order his army back to Mexico and recognize the independence of Texas. General Santa Anna sent orders to General Filisola to withdraw the army back to San Antonio. General Filisola ordered the retreat, but not simply to San Antonio, but all the way across the Rio Grande to Mexico. Because of this, General Filisola earned the total wrath of many of his subordinates and in time his retreat from Texas became the single most remembered action of his life.

General Filisola would spend much of the rest of his life explaining and answering for taking the army out of Texas. Santa Anna, it was argued, had given the order under duress and so Filisola was not bound to obey it. However, General Filisola said he would have ordered the retreat even without an order from Santa Anna because the military situation left him no other option. General Santa Anna had taken huge losses at the Alamo and San Jacinto, were deep in enemy country and could expect no reinforcements while the atrocities committed by Santa Anna continued to draw outraged volunteers from the United States to aid the Texans. The Mexican army had been pushed to exhaustion pursuing Houston, their supply lines had broken down and huge numbers were down with dysentery. Filisola, who had a higher regard for his soldiers than anyone, said that nature had left them no option but to withdraw or risk losing the rest of the army.

No instructions reached Filisola from Mexico City until he had crossed the Nueces River when he was ordered to hold what territory had been retaken. He offered to march back north, but it was clearly apparent that the army could not bear the task. They were weak, malnourished, poorly equipped and their morale was sapped. Filisola continued on to Matamoros and on June 12, 1836 command of the army was given to General Jose Urrea, the most victorious officer of the campaign, and Filisola resigned his post of deputy commander, turning the position over to General Juan Jose Andrade. He retired to Saltillo but was able to answer the charges other officers had made against him, accusing him of cowardice and treason for ordering the retreat, when he was court-martialed by the Mexican government. General Filisola presented the facts, gave his side of the story and was properly exonerated in June of 1841. He also wrote extensively, detailing what had happened on the failed Texas campaign and explaining his own actions. When the Mexican-American War broke out General Filisola was recalled to service and commanded one of the three divisions in the Mexican army. He died not long after the war on July 23, 1850 during a cholera epidemic in Mexico City.

The Battle of Rorke's Drift

2012-01-22T00:15:00.001-06:00

It was on this day in 1879 that one of the most famous little battles in British history began at the remote mission station of Rorke’s Drift in what is today South Africa when around 150 British troops were attacked by upwards of 4,000 Zulu warriors in the Anglo-Zulu War. The astounding thing is that, despite those seemingly hopeless odds, the British were victorious. The forces of Queen Victoria at Rorke’s Drift were led by Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers and Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead of the 24th Regiment of Foot. The Zulus were led by Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande. The battle was supposed to have been a simple ‘mopping up’ operation on the part of the Zulus after they had wiped out a British column of over a thousand men at the battle of Isandlwana in the worst defeat suffered by a European army at the hands of a non-European foe prior to being surpassed by the Italian defeat at Adowa who were later surpassed by the Spanish defeat at Annual in 1921. The heroism of the British forces at Rorke’s Drift was, therefore, something badly needed for the morale of the British Empire after suffering so devastating a loss. Not only did the handful of men at the isolated mission station repulse repeated attacks by a vastly larger enemy, they forged a record of courage that remains unsurpassed in British military history to this day. Since the institution of the Victoria Cross in 1856, the highest award for battlefield heroism the British monarch can bestow, more were earned at Rorke’s Drift (11) than in any other engagement to date.

That was how I first became aware of the action at Rorke’s Drift as my history professor at the time was an avowed Anglophile whose special area of expertise was the history of the Victoria Cross. Most people probably know about it thanks to the classic 1964 film “Zulu” starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine. The movie actually has a royal connection as the man playing Zulu King Cetshwayo was one of his relatives, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi who later became famous as a political leader and a somewhat controversial one at that for his strident anti-communism and break with the African National Congress. The film famously contains a number of historical inaccuracies but is entertaining for all of that and correctly shows the daunting odds and courage displayed by both sides in the battle. The little outpost had heard, of course, about the annihilation of the column under General Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana but knew that it would be hopeless to try to retreat in open country slowed by the many sick and injured they would have to carry along with them. So, they decided to stay and fight it out at Rorke’s Drift, knowing it would be a fight to the death since, as was demonstrated at Isandlwana, the Zulus were not in the habit of taking prisoners, particularly when it came to British regulars.

The Zulus were mostly part of a reserve force that had seen no combat at Isandlwana and were fresh and eager. Added to this was the fact that the Zulus were of a time-honored warrior tradition, very fit and possessing incredible stamina. The British force, by comparison, consisted of a large number of wounded men, some men of the Natal Native Contingent were armed only with spears and their commanders would not have been considered top-notch at the time. Lt. Chard did not have the best reputation in the army, Lt. Bromhead was half deaf and their ranking NCO was the youngest in the army. They were, on the whole, better armed than their enemies who mostly fought with primitive melee weapons though a number did have rifles. The British were better trained in the art of modern warfare but the Zulus also had a primitive but quite effective system of command and control with established tactics that had worked for them in the past. Finally, given their immense numerical superiority there should have been no doubt that they would have defeated the little British outpost and that fairly quickly and completely. The redcoats hastily improvised the best fortifications they could with the space and materials on hand and then waited for the waves of Zulu warriors to come crashing down around them.

The Zulus were not actually supposed to attack Rorke’s Drift. King Cetshwayo was no fool and realized that if he were to provoke a general war with the British Empire he would surely lose. He wanted to repel them from his claimed territory but gave orders against invading that of his enemies. As it turned out, the defeat at Isandlwana enraged British public opinion against the Zulus while the action at Rorke’s Drift inspired them that victory was possible and obtainable. Prince Dabulamanzi made the attack on the mission station on his own authority, being known for his aggressiveness and for being what we would today call a ‘war hawk’. After an initial clash with a small troop of the Natal Native Horse the cavalrymen retreated, leaving the men at Rorke’s Drift on their own. At that point most of the native troops there abandoned the post as well. At about 4:30 PM the Zulus came on, taking as much fire as the British could put out, in attack after attack before recoiling to catch their breath and try again.

The fighting was fierce and often hand to hand as the British fought desperately for their lives against wave after wave of Zulu warriors. For the redcoats, absolutely every casualty counted. As he lost men, Lt. Chard was forced to slowly give ground, abandoning his north perimeter wall and a few rooms in the buildings on that side to the Zulus. Still, in the best tradition of the British infantrymen, they kept order, maintained discipline, stood and gave fire until the enemy was right upon them and then fought them off with the bayonet. The fighting went on through the evening and into the night. Time and time again the British position was all but overrun but each time the heroic soldiers desperately fought their way back and held their ground. Crowds of Zulus were everywhere and the hospital had to be abandoned during the night as the two sides fought from room to room. Chard and Bromhead had improvised some interior lines and as their losses mounted pulled back more and more to maintain a defensible position. The Zulus, for their part, took very heavy losses but continued to attack with tenacious determination. As the night dragged on the British were finally reduced to a mere handful of men, many of them wounded, and they were almost out of ammunition. Mention must also be made of the medics, commissary men and the field chaplain who acquitted themselves just as heroically as the combat infantrymen, tending the wounded in the midst of battle, bringing up ammunition and taking part in the battle themselves.

When dawn broke the next morning it was clear the British could not withstand another attack. If the Zulus had come on once more in all likelihood they would have swiftly taken Rorke’s Drift and massacred the remaining survivors. However, the Zulus had lost about a thousand men killed or wounded so that even their feisty chieftain had to admit that the little mission station was simply not worth it. To the great relief of the British survivors the Zulus decided not to try again and retreated. Sometime after 8AM a British relief force arrived under Lord Chelmsford so that the work of clearing the field and burying the dead could commence. It had been one of the fiercest battles in the history of the British Empire, lasting only hours and not of immense strategic importance but seeing some of the most brutal and desperate combat imaginable. It also saw some of the finest acts of bravery and heroism in the annals of British military history. Eleven men received the Victoria Cross, the most ever given to the men of one regiment for a single action, and four received Distinguished Conduct Medals for conspicuous valor in the face of the enemy. Another man, by all accounts, would have received the Victoria Cross had he not died in the battle as there was no provision at that time for posthumous awards.

Today, I doubt few people outside of military historians in the UK are all that familiar with the action at Rorke’s Drift and most would probably, I am sad to say, feel uncomfortable or even ashamed about it. White Europeans fighting African natives, that’s just terrible and brings up all that history of colonialism and the British Empire that the modern “citizens” of the UK would prefer to forget about or apologize for. Of course, it is a false dilemma to say one must choose between being either a jingoistic racist or someone ashamed of your own history. I look at Rorke’s Drift and see a clash of two kingdoms, unfortunate, but each with a great military tradition behind them and each displaying the heights of courage and tenacity. Ultimately, as we know, the Anglo-Zulu War ended in an “Anglo” victory with the Zulus losing their independence. However, we cannot assume that would not have happened anyway as the British (and most other Europeans for that matter) have now left South Africa and the Zulu kingdom is still not exactly independent but they seem to be okay with that. When remembering Rorke’s Drift and the wider war there is no reason for either side to be ashamed. The British troops were doing their duty and they and the Zulus alike displayed matchless courage. Britain was ultimately victorious but the Zulus had given them a fight like few other non-European peoples ever did.

The Greatness of King Louis XVI

2012-01-21T00:18:00.000-06:00

Once again, on this day we remember the impious and treasonous regicide of the royal martyr His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France and Navarre, lastly “King of the French”. Much can and has been said about the spiritual greatness of this late sovereign. At a time when moral decay had taken its toll on France, and nowhere more so than the court it often seemed, King Louis XVI was a man of devout faith. He never took a mistress, never shirked his religious duties, genuinely preferred work to frivolous parties and truly saw his kingship as a sacred duty rather than an opportunity to have the best for himself. All of that is well established and should be well known. However, even those who praise King Louis XVI for his pious spirit often portray him as rather lacking in the more secular qualities most often required of kingship. At times he is contrasted with King Louis XIV who, while certainly far from being a pious man, was a more decisive leader who steered the ship of state with a firm hand, bringing glory to France and around whom almost all the affairs of Europe revolved. The exact opposite of Louis XVI we are to believe. Yet, while it is true that the two men were very different, it is certainly not true that King Louis XVI occupied himself only with other-worldly matters.

It is tragic any time a nation sets to destroying itself rather than accomplishing the great deeds possible if they worked together to channel all of that energy into the pursuit of some more lofty ambition. Although he had trepidations about some of it, there is ample reason to believe that had it not been for the outbreak of the Revolution, King Louis XVI might have gone down in history as one of the greatest Kings of France in secular as well as spiritual terms. In all the focus on the Revolution and his personal character, the great events and foreign policies of his reign are often overlooked. In the first place, he was no despot and from the very start favored giving the people a greater say in how their money was spent and how France was governed. However, even with all of the problems facing France, as a monarch, Louis XVI took a broader look at the past, present and future of France and wanted to see past losses made right and gains made for a greater future for his country. Of course, particularly after the drubbing France had taken in the recent conflicts with Great Britain, it was the British who would be the primary rival in his foreign policy. The King was not malicious or reckless by any means but he was determined to see British gains made at the expense of France reversed.

This was what ultimately led to the French intervention in the American Revolution (or more properly ‘War for Independence’). Louis XVI had deep reservations about helping any rebels in waging war against their sovereign yet he was persuaded to make an alliance with the fledgling United States by a combination of the urging of his advisors and his desire to see an end to the British domination of North America and, perhaps, a much greater French influence in the region. Although not often remembered, following the French and Indian War the French military had been reformed and greatly improved. The expeditionary force sent to North America fought extremely well and, along with the French navy, proved decisive in securing the independence of the United States by forcing Great Britain to give up on the war and come to terms with their former fellow subjects. The islands of Tobago and Grenada were taken from the British (Tobago being retained by France along with Senegal in the final settlement) but, to some extent, Louis XVI was undercut by his American allies who made a separate peace with Great Britain and effectively thwarted the greatest ambition King Louis had for the conflict which was the recovery of Canada. Had the war gone on there is every reason to believe that could have happened.

In the other great arena of colonial competition, Louis XVI also hoped to reverse previous losses and see the growing British dominance in India come to an end. He allied with the Maratha Empire and took the side of the Sultan of Mysore in the Second Anglo-Mysore War in the hope of breaking the dominance of the British East India Company, curtailing British influence in India and increasing French influence. France actually had a much larger sphere of influence in India, controlling large parts of the east coast and holding sway over the majority of the southern subcontinent. French troops and ships were active in the region but due to the distance involved the campaign was overtaken by events elsewhere and when the end of the American Revolution forced France to make a hasty peace with Britain the previous French support for the Indians was withdrawn. In the end Britain and the Indian forces made peace that restored the pre-war status quo in India. Again, had not the situation in American brought hostilities to an end, it is conceivable that France, working through local alliances, might have dethroned Britain from her place of prominence in India.

There was also the Far East to consider and, though not often remembered, it was under King Louis XVI that France first took a serious interest in Vietnam and, indirectly, helped bring about the victory of the last great imperial dynasty of Vietnamese history. Crown Prince Canh, heir of the future Emperor Gia Long, came to Versailles as a boy, converting to Christianity and symbolizing the alliance by which French support was promised to his father in exchange for favorable trade agreements and some minor territorial concessions. The previous regime in Vietnam had viciously persecuted Christians and King Louis was anxious to see a more humane dynasty put in place. A Catholic missionary had saved the life of Gia Long and he vowed that the rights of Christians would always be respected in his domain. However, by the time these great events were to take place in southeast Asia the forces of the Revolution were gaining strength and events rapidly approached a climax. King Louis was not able to play the decisive role he had wished to. Still, the Bishop of Adran acted on his own to help Emperor Gia Long take the throne and so things worked out. The only problems arose in the future when post-revolutionary French regimes tried to collect the payments promised to Louis XVI which the Vietnamese were reluctant to grant since it was the Bishop rather than the government in Paris which had actually helped them at the critical time.

King Louis also sponsored around-the-world voyages of exploration and the world (certainly North America) owes a great deal to Louis XIV for doing the same in his time. The point of all of this is that King Louis XVI was not, as he is so often portrayed, some sort of totally indecisive ditherer who fussed and prayed over one crisis after another. He had big plans for France, he had ambition, he wanted to see France recover her place of greatness in the world and had a few things gone differently there is no reason to believe that she could not have done so. There are those who will say that the Revolution proves that France was too weak to have accomplished anything in that period but this is clearly false. Look at what Napoleon was able to accomplish, once the Revolution was ended, only a few years later with the same country. Considering that the goals of Louis XVI were all about restoration and not conquering every nation in Europe, there is no reason to believe that he could not have been successful. King Louis XVI fully deserves his pious reputation as a martyr for the Kingdom of France but he should also be remembered as a potentially great King who could have done magnificent things for his country.

Papal Profile: Pope Pius XI

2012-01-20T00:49:00.000-06:00

Pope Pius XI has, unjustly or not, a rather mixed reputation among many monarchists. He was born Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti on May 31, 1857 in Desio, near Milan to a merchant family. He entered the priesthood in 1879 and during his time studying at the Gregorian University in Rome earned doctorates in theology, philosophy and canon law after which he taught at the seminary in Padua. His expertise was in historic Church documents and after his time at the seminary worked as a Church librarian from 1888 to 1911. He edited a new edition of the Ambrosian Missal, wrote a book about St Carlo Borromeo, restored numerous historic Church documents and eventually was appointed to the post of prefect of the Vatican Library by Pope Pius X in 1914. In a dramatic change in the course of his career, in 1918 Pope Benedict XV made Ratti the papal nuncio to the newly independent country of Poland and was promoted to archbishop the following year. When the Bolsheviks attacked Poland Archbishop Ratti, a robust man who was a mountaineer in his free time, impressed the Polish people by his courage, refusing to leave when Warsaw was targeted for attack.

Archbishop Ratti also angered some officials in the Church by stating his willingness to deal with the Soviets even if it meant his death. His willingness to talk to the Russians and his efforts to end the political involvement of Catholic clergy in Silesia angered the Poles and he was subsequently recalled from the country. Oddly enough, the Germans also protested on the grounds that Ratti was considered too biased toward the Poles. Nonetheless, he returned to Italy to further recognition when, in 1921, Pope Benedict XV presented him with the red hat, making him Cardinal-Archbishop of Milan. However, less than a year later Benedict XV died and the cardinals gathered in Rome to elect his successor. On the fourteenth ballot the choice fell on Cardinal Ratti who, calling to mind his admiration for the man who had given him his first major job at the Vatican, took the name Pius XI. After the election the new Pope revived the tradition of going out on to the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica to give his blessing “to the city and the world”, a custom which had been suspended since 1870 when Italy occupied Rome. It was the first sign that the new Pope was determined to see the long years of self-defeating deadlock known as “the Roman Question” finally ended.

The political issues that were at the forefront during the pontificate of Pius XI have caused some controversy and criticism from almost every quarter. Given that his reign coincided with the rise of fascism between the two World Wars, this was, perhaps, unavoidable. When all was said and done, Pius XI would be saddled (rather unjustly) with a reputation for favoring authoritarian regimes. Socialists condemned him for his constant opposition to their program and his defense of private property whereas those further to the right criticized him for pointing out the defects in capitalism and placing the “common good” above private property rights. Republicans criticized him for his support for those opposed to their regimes in some countries while monarchists (particularly in France) criticized him for saying that the Church was not tied to any one form of government and that he would work with anyone to ensure that the rights of the Church to carry out her spiritual mission were respected.

On religious matters he encouraged missionary activity, emphasized the global mission of the Church and he particularly stressed the point that Christ was to be the center of life in every way, absolute in every area and did this by instituting the Solemnity of Christ the King as a way of illustrating the universal nature of Christianity and that the authority of God was supreme over all. It seemed to most that ecumenism was toned down somewhat by Pius XI, which is not exactly true. The Pontiff was perfectly happy to encourage ecumenism in that he wanted to bring all people everywhere into the Catholic Church. He was simply not prepared to enter into any negotiations in that regard on the grounds that divine truths cannot be the subject of debate. He also reiterated traditional Catholic teachings on marriage and reproduction when the Church of England reversed its opposition to artificial contraception. He also condemned eugenics which were quite popular at the time. Yet, Pius XI was not so traditional as to ignore modern advances and he founded Vatican Radio to spread the message of the Church around the world (originally many broadcasts were in Latin!) independent of the secular media.

The most significant political event, for the Church, of his reign was signing the Lateran Treaty with the Kingdom of Italy in 1929. The nearly sixty years of Italy and the Church diplomatically ignoring each other came to an end as the Pope recognized the Kingdom of Italy and Italy recognized the independence of the State of Vatican City as well as giving the Church large payments as compensation for what had formerly been the Papal States. Catholic Christianity became the official state religion of the Kingdom of Italy, religious instruction returned to Italian schools and so on. Pope Pius XI became the first Pontiff since 1870 to leave the Vatican and enter St Peter’s square; a small distance but one of immense symbolism. The Church agreed to refrain from interfering in political matters and Mussolini (the dictator of Italy) agreed to let Catholic organizations stay Catholic. Of course, the ink had hardly dried when it became clear neither side would really stick to those promises but no major trouble ensued.

Like many world leaders at the time, Pius XI praised Mussolini for making peace with the Church and bringing stability to Italy. However, like most of those who initially praised him, the Pope would later condemn Mussolini and his regime for trying to replace God with the State in the lives of the people. However, for Christians, while Mussolini and his Fascists could be bullies, in countries around the world real persecutions were taking place and this concerned the Pope greatly. He harshly condemned the socialist regime in Mexico that was trying to stamp out religion (and which provoked a Catholic rebellion) and he did all he could to try to ease the immense suffering of the Christians in Russia where the Soviet Union was trying to crush almost all religion of any kind. Today, much of the criticism for Pius XI stems from his words and actions regarding Spain, his strident opposition to the anti-clerical and communist-dominated republic and his perceived support for the rebel nationalists led by General Francisco Franco. However, for many monarchists, the most controversial aspect of Pius XI was his relationship with France.

France and the Church had not been on very good terms for a long time. The clerical and anti-clerical factions struggled for power and, for the most part, the pro-Church party was monarchist and the anti-Church party was republican. The French Third Republic was notoriously anti-clerical and the situation had not been helped by the rather erratic “foreign policy” of the Church regarding France which only further entrenched the mentality of the anti-clericals and even many moderates in France that the Holy See should simply be ignored. For many years tensions were so high that any incident could set off a crisis. French pilgrims, for example, visited the Church in Rome where the first King of Italy was buried and spit on the tomb which caused a patriotic Italian to hit the man and a brawl broke out which almost became an international incident between the Kingdom of Italy and the French Republic. On the other hand, there was the papal anger, loudly proclaimed, when the President of France visited the King of Italy in Rome without first paying his respects to the Pope. This prompted an anti-clerical backlash in France among those who took offense at the notion of their President being scolded by anyone for a state visit. However, from the strident opposition represented in those incidents, Pope Leo XIII famously changed course and called on Catholics to embrace the republic even if only to use the democratic process to hopefully restore the monarchy some day.

One group which never quite submitted to that call was “French Action”, a right-wing monarchist movement led by Charles Maurras. They wanted to restore the monarchy, restore Catholicism as the state religion in France and have a new government based on integral nationalism. However, though Catholics dominated “French Action”, Maurras was an agnostic and Pope Pius XI feared he was only using the Church for his own purposes. This was not entirely untrue as Maurras was not a believer but did regard the Church as a vital part of social cohesion and French culture. The group also had an anti-Semitic side to it that the Pope found distasteful. Despite what many believe today, Pope Pius XI had opposed the growing anti-Semitism in Europe (Germany especially) and was outraged at how the rest of the international community avoided the issue. In any event, in 1926 Pius XI condemned “French Action” which he feared was teaching French youth in particular to regard the Church as the means to an end rather than an end in itself. The newspaper of the group even became the first to be placed on the Index of Forbidden Works. Because of this, many monarchists have never forgiven Pius XI since it effectively took the wind out of the sails of “French Action”. However, it would be unfair to place an inordinate amount of blame on the Pope for this, his concerns were well founded and in regard to French politics the Church had not been terribly consistent for a very long time and Pius XI was not responsible for that.

Despite what his many detractors say, Pope Pius XI was a greater advocate for human freedom than any other figure of his time. However, he was, like many, distrustful of the forces of liberal democracy to lead the way into the future. He had seen too many fall victim to the forces of international communism. He was also only too aware of the fact that it was these international communists who were carrying out the worst persecutions of Christians in Mexico, in Spain, in Russia and serious attempts in numerous other countries. He condemned Nazi policies before anyone else did and railed against the Fascist regime in Italy for what he termed the “pagan worship of the State”. His emphasis on Christ the King was a way of reminding Christians that there was a higher authority, above earthly governments, whose rulings could not be appealed and who could not be intimidated. He condemned modernism as his recent predecessors had done, tried to establish a Catholic alternative to the communist-dominated trade unions and called for a system of class cooperation as preferable to the antagonistic relationship in capitalism and communism. He maintained a heavy schedule, despite worsening health, right up until his death on February 10, 1939. He was succeeded by his Secretary of State and closest assistant Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who took the name Pius XII.

The Case for Monarchy: Germany

2012-01-19T00:18:00.000-06:00

The Federal Republic of Germany today is a far cry from the proud nation of the past. It is no exaggeration to say that no republic has ever done well in Germany. Even now, the scars remain from the division of West Germany and East Germany and ugly memories still linger from World War II and probably always will so long as those who have made an industry out of exploitation by guilt remain unopposed. That is not to say, of course, that the past should be forgotten. Far from it. However, after World War II and the division of Germany, even after reunification, a great many Germans turned their back on their past, on virtually their entire history prior to 1918 and, as a result, have inadvertently allowed the era of Nazi domination to define them. This has had disastrous consequences on Germany and on the German people themselves. It has led to a guilt-ridden consciousness in which successive German governments feel the need to compensate everyone for misdeeds they themselves played no part in. It has led to the German people being forced to foot the bill for the free-spending and easy lifestyles of other countries (with damaging consequences) and has effectively robbed many Germans of a proper, patriotic national pride. It has also allowed governments to make some pretty terrible decisions, disastrous for the future of the German nation, but which are always forgiven. When the public has been conditioned to think only of Nazi Germany and the current Federal Republic, nothing the republic does could seem that bad.

This denial of history has gone to such lengths that the former Kingdom of Prussia, not just a former state, not just a former country but the country which brought about the unification of Germany, was totally wiped from the map. Why was this done? Hitler and his Nazis did not spring from Prussia nor was Prussia any more or less involved in the actions of that era than any other state considering its size and importance. It was done because there was a conscious effort to erase German history prior to the Nazi era so that the people would only be given a choice that was really no choice at all: that terrible Nazi memory or this new federal republic that was under construction. If the people were to actually remember their history they might realize that it was the first united German republic which provided the vehicle by which Hitler and his Nazis came to power in the first place. Far from starting over fresh, the current republic was simply a resurrected, modified version of the inter-war republic that provided the framework for a truly evil minority to rise by intimidation, subterfuge and (yes) the democratic process to dominate Germany. By doing so they have locked the public imagination into a post-1945 mentality and encouraged the rest of the world to see only a negative image of Germany.

Germany today has no anchor and flounders culturally and politically while gaining very little respect in the world. By being frozen in time the rest of the world has been encouraged to see Germans the same way. Ask a foreigner to describe German culture or what comes to mind when they think of Germany and they will probably come up with beer, lederhosen and Nazis. In a political context, most view Germany as the nation that always pays the bills, that will be there to bail you out if you get too deeply in debt (thus eliminating any incentive to behave responsibly) and yet this has engendered no great love for Germany. Most people tend to have little affection for their banker. Germany has also become known as one of those nations that decries nationality. The country has become more and more multi-cultural in the sense that there are now huge African, Asian, Arab and Turkish populations in the country and yet it has become more mono-cultural as the rich distinctiveness of the states is lost. Some of the old states have been lost altogether and for those that remain their uniqueness has become less and less pronounced over time. It is quite sad and all the more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.

The history and the culture of the individual states was once alive in the persons of their royal families. Reigning at the top of this union was the German Kaiser, representing all Germans as well as the unique history of the Kingdom of Prussia. We are told, by those whose current claim to power rests on the overthrow of the old German royals, that to restore them in any form would be to return power to those guilty of fomenting the First World War. Like any good lie this has a grain of truth to it for Imperial Germany was certainly responsible for the horror that was World War One. However, they were no more responsible than any other great power on either side whether Austria-Hungary, Russia, France or Great Britain. None were innocent nor were any entirely guilty and it was an incontestable injustice that Germany alone was forced to shoulder the blame for a conflict almost every European power entered into with willingness, zeal and enthusiasm. What is more, the party most opposed to the monarchy and which would make up the new ruling class in the republic was just as enthusiastic as all the others in approving the decision to go to war. It is also an incontestable fact that Hitler could never have become dictator of Germany had the Kaiser and the subsidiary monarchs of Imperial Germany retained their positions.

Still, we are told over and over again that the monarchy represented the political culture which brought about the disastrous conflict, what is termed “Prussian militarism” which the enemies of the monarchy used to apply equal guilt to all the monarchies and later to justify the dissolution of Prussia altogether. However, a dispassionate look at the facts shows that the last German Kaiser was the least militaristic of almost all his contemporaries. From 1888 to 1914 Wilhelm II had never fought an actual war. To compare, in that same period of time, Great Britain had fought a war with Tibet over Sikkim, fought the shortest war in history against Zanzibar, fought a border war in northern India and the Second Boer War in South Africa. Consider also that during the reign of Wilhelm II the French Republic had a greater percentage of her population under arms than Germany did. Germany had the second largest navy in the world, second only to Great Britain, yet even then the British fleet was more than twice the size of that of Germany. The United States might have had an even more militaristic reputation. Again, from 1888 to 1914, the United States fought the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Banana Wars, another rebellion in the Philippines and an armed intervention in Mexico. The German Empire was actually one of the most peaceful of world powers.

What the German Empire was known for was its unity, pride, progressive social welfare system, productive industries and great learning. The German language was the language of business and was learned in foreign countries more than any other language. The monarchy was a vital living link with the history of the German people that all Germans could look to with pride; a patriotic pride without guilt or shame. It was the royal houses that built the united Germany and it was their downfall that ushered in the darkest period in the entire history of the German people. The German nation which had thrown back invaders since the time of ancient Rome was reduced to utter ruin and humiliation. Only by the restoration of the German monarchies can the ugly ghosts of the last century be firmly put in their place. It is only in this way that, rather than constant efforts to reinvent Germany, that the true, natural and historic Germany can be fully restored to her people and the world. The ruins of Wiemar, Hitlerism and division are not and can never be proper foundations for a country. Germany has strong foundations, it only requires that the people rediscover them and restore them to their proper place.

Royal Regalia: The Iron Crown of Lombardy

2012-01-18T00:13:00.000-06:00

It may not look like much compared to some others, but the Iron Crown of Lombardy is one of the most significant symbols of monarchy in western Christendom. It is called the “Iron Crown” because of a small, narrow strip of iron that circles the interior of the piece. What is significant about this is that, according to tradition, this circle of iron was beaten out from one of the nails used at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That is where the story of the Iron Crown begins. As with most of the relics association with Christ and the crucifixion the nail was said to have been found by St Helena and given to her son the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian) who, so the story goes, later sent it to the Queen of the Lombards who were converted to Christianity. At some point the nail was incorporated into a crown though no one is sure exactly when. Some say Emperor Charlemagne was crowned King of the Lombards using the Iron Crown while others maintained it was not made until after his time. Kept in the Cathedral of Monza, near Milan, it was the most sacred and well known symbol of the Kingdom of the Lombards which grew up following the fall of Rome.

When the Holy Roman Empire was created the Kings of Germany would go to Rome to be crowned “Emperor of the Romans” by the Pope. On the way they would usually stop in Monza to be crowned “King of Italy” with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. Such famous historical monarchs as Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and Emperor Charles V were crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. In 1805 Napoleon Bonaparte had himself crowned “King of Italy” with the Iron Crown of Lombardy, a title he placed second in importance only to that of “Emperor of the French”. Later he also founded the Order of the Iron Crown as the premier chivalric order of his new Italian realm. That order would be maintained even by the enemies of Napoleon. In the course of the Napoleonic Wars the area of Lombardy was annexed by the Empire of Austria and Emperor Francis I revived Napoleon’s Order of the Iron Crown as his own. The Emperor also took possession of the actual Iron Crown itself though he made no use of it. The last time it was to be used for a coronation would be in 1838.

Ferdinand I became Emperor of Austria in 1835. Prior to that time he had already been crowned King of Hungary in 1830. In 1838 he had his coronation, using the Iron Crown of Lombardy as King of Lombardy-Venetia, at that time a part of the Austrian Empire. Incidentally, he was also married to Maria Anna of Savoy, daughter of King Vittorio Emanuele I of Piedmont-Sardinia, giving him a further Italian connection. Ferdinand would also be the last monarch to be crowned King of Bohemia though his successors on the Hapsburg throne continued to use the title. When Ferdinand abdicated as Emperor of Austria the throne of Lombardy-Venetia along with the rest passed to his nephew Francis Joseph I. There was never another coronation with the Iron Crown and Francis Joseph appointed his brother, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia. He would be the last to hold that position.

The Iron Crown was featured on the Savoy arms

In the Second War of Italian Independence control of Lombardy passed to King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia who, in 1861, became the first King of Italy. Before surrendering Lombardy the Austrians removed the Iron Crown from Milan and took it to Vienna, however, no one was to forget this ancient and sacred symbol of Italian kingship. In 1866 Austria was defeated in the Third Italian War of Independence (a parallel of the Austro-Prussian or Seven Weeks War) in which Venetia was ceded to the Kingdom of Italy. Also included in the peace stipulations was the return of the Iron Crown of Lombardy which was duly handed over to the House of Savoy and returned to its traditional resting place in Milan. The Savoy monarchs never had a coronation but the Iron Crown was used as a symbol, being carried in the funeral cortege of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy, probably to highlight his role in evicting the Austrians from northern Italy and uniting the country. The Iron Crown of Lombardy still rests in the Duomo of Monza in the outskirts of Milan (also known as the Basilica of St John the Baptist) along with a collection of historic Christian art and artifacts. The Crown, however, is by far the most famous of the pieces on display there.

Shameless Plug

2012-01-17T12:02:00.002-06:00

Favorite Royal Images: Imperial Moustache

2012-01-17T00:17:00.000-06:00

HIRH Archduke Rainer of Austria

Happy Birthday Rome!

2012-01-16T00:20:00.000-06:00

A look back at:

Augustus Caesar

The Centrality of Rome

Canada and the War of 1812

2012-01-16T00:16:00.003-06:00

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, that conflict so often overlooked in the United States, seen as rather unimportant in Great Britain but which remains a pretty big deal in Canada. In each case, these attitudes are entirely understandable. The United States would not, understandably, enjoy recalling the War of 1812 since it saw some pretty embarrassing American defeats and the only time Washington DC was ever occupied by an invader (which was followed by the White House being burned down). For Great Britain, again, understandably, it was simply not that big a deal. It coincided with the much more significant war against Napoleonic France, Britain had not wanted the war, gained nothing and lost nothing by it and was one of many, relatively minor, colonial conflicts in the larger history of the British Empire. For Canada, however, it certainly was significant and it was a period that Canadians can take a great deal of pride in because their very existence as a different and finally independent country was determined by the War of 1812. That is why monarchists should celebrate this anniversary of the War of 1812 because, had America won the war, the Canadian monarchy would not exist and the proud Dominion of Canada today would simply be a frosty, under populated collection of states and territories within the American Union.

This can be taken to absurd extremes, given that “Canada” as we know it today did not exist in 1812, it was simply British North America and it was British troops (not Canadians) who defeated the U.S. army in Maryland and captured Washington DC. The great commanders of the Crown forces were almost exclusively British such Admiral Sir George Cockburn Bt, General Robert Ross and of course General Sir Isaac Brock, later known as the “Hero of Upper Canada”. The most significant figure who was born in Canada to play a part in the war was General Gordon Drummond, though many of his own soldiers preferred British commanders since General Drummond tended to be rather strict. It is hard to transplant modern ideas of nationality on to the people of two centuries ago. Much of the English-speaking population of Canada was, at that time, “American” in the sense that they had been born in what became the United States or were the children of colonists from what became the United States who had been loyalists and fled to Canada when Britain lost the U.S. War for Independence. Most of these people, like most people even at the start of the American Revolution, did not regard themselves as “Americans” or “Canadians” but English, Scottish, Irish and so on. In 1812 if one spoke of the “Canadians” most would assume you referred only to the French-speaking population.

Yet, at the end of the day, it was the fate of Canada that was decided by the War of 1812. Had the U.S. been victorious there would be no Canada today as that was the primary American goal of the war (the issues dealing with the frontier and the impressment of sailors were resolved before the war actually began). Canadians should remember the war, should be properly proud of the Canadian troops and First Nations who contributed to the defeat of the U.S. invasion and, significantly, they should remember what it was their forefathers were fighting for and what they were fighting against. Remember, this was not so simple as a foreign invasion as we would see it today since, for most of those involved, it was the same sort of people on each side. The biggest difference between the opposing forces was their form of government, monarchy versus republic, and the different values the two represented. This was something not lost on the participants at the time. Americans, for example, so believed that republicanism meant liberty and monarchy meant tyranny that their whole invasion of Canada was based on the belief that the oppressed, downtrodden Canadians would welcome them with open arms and rejoice at being delivered by the benevolent republic to the south. On the other side, Major General Sir Isaac Brock, who gave his life defeating the U.S. attack told his relatively small army that, “We may teach the enemy this lesson: A country defended by free men devoted to the cause of their king and constitution can never be conquered…” Make no mistake about it, the people of Canada at the time knew they were in a fight of monarchy against republicanism and had no doubt that their constitutional monarchy was greatly preferable to the republicanism of the States.

Canadian monarchists should take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 to drive this point home because the struggle of those two centuries ago continues to rage, albeit in slow, subtle, peaceful ways. Canada has already effectively become a protectorate of the United States. Since the British Empire dissolved, although no one likes to dwell on the subject, Canada has become dependent on U.S. protection for security and on U.S. trade for their economic well-being. Canadians watch American TV shows and movies, listen to American music, wear American clothes and even closely follow American politics. In many ways one could hardly tell the two countries apart. They speak the same language (outside Quebec anyway), celebrate most of the same holidays (with a few diplomatic date changes), have the same religions and lack of religion and enjoy the same pastimes though Canadians do insist on slightly different rules for football. It may seem a tired line at times but it is only because it is so obviously true. Amongst all these similarities, the biggest fundamental difference between the two countries is that the United States is a constitutional republic while Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Americans have their First Family, President and Vice President while Canadians have their Royal Family, the Queen’s Governor-General and the Queen’s Prime Minister.

In many ways, the situation is not much different now than in 1812 as concerns Canada and the United States. The same people, today the same variety of peoples, occupy both countries, Canada remains a monarchy and the United States remains convinced that it represents the greatest form of government which all people in the world aspire to have. This matters. If it didn’t, no one would bother about trying to change it. What the Canadians fought for (successfully) in the War of 1812 remains still for modern Canadians to defend. Of course, Canadians will do so with the utmost restraint and politeness, but American bombast is not the side to be confronted. It is, rather, the treasonous Canadian republicans who speak as though they wish the United States had actually conquered their country 200 years ago. They would never say so of course, but is that not the logical interpretation of their argument; that the U.S. is an independent country and Canada is not? It seems they are still waiting for their American cousins to “liberate” them but loyal Canadian monarchists must set the record straight. If the Canadian monarchy is so unimportant, which is the same as saying there is really no important difference at all between the U.S. and Canada, they might consider the following question: Why did so many American loyalists, American Indians (First Nations), escaped slaves and others risk life and limb to flee the “Land of the Free” for the soil of Canada where the Crown held sway?

It matters. It mattered then and it matters just as much now. Hopefully, this year, there will be much more to come concerning the War of 1812 and the monarchy in Canada. I hope you will enjoy it.

God Save the Queen of Canada!

MM Video: Baron von Ungern "Mahakala"

2012-01-15T00:18:00.001-06:00

MM Video: Princes of Orange

2012-01-15T00:15:00.001-06:00

Favorite Pics of Daisy

2012-01-14T15:36:00.000-06:00

In honor of one of my favorite monarch's 40th anniversary as Queen today, here are some of my favorite photos of Queen "Daisy". Congratulation to Her Majesty and Long live the Queen!

Young and majestic

with her consort -and a priceless expression on her face

a warm and winning smile

The Queen, in her fatigues, visiting her troops in Afganistan

there's nothing better than a monarch 'in the field'

Two smokers in love -it touches my heart

And finally, my absolute, all time, undisputed FAVORITE picture the Queen:

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what "kewl" looks like!

awesome-ness...

Royal News Roundup

2012-01-14T00:14:00.000-06:00

There have been republican rumblings in the Caribbean nation of Jamaica lately with the new Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller announcing that she would like to cap the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence this summer with the abolition of the monarchy. Former PM Bruce Golding had made the same sort of treasonous statement and, as usual had tried to play the nationalism card saying, “I have long believed that if I am to have a queen, it must be a Jamaican queen.” Which is disingenuous to say the least considering that, legally, the current Queen of Jamaica is just as Jamaican as he is. PM Portia Simpson Miller was nice enough at least to say, “I love the Queen. She’s a beautiful lady,” and then added, “But I think time come.” Recently a bone of contention has been the issue of capital punishment. With one of the highest murder rates in the world Jamaica has tried to make use of the death penalty only to blocked by the privy council in London where, like the rest of the EU, executing criminals is considered terribly unthinkable. Unfortunately, political observers believe that the popular leftist PM has the political support to make good on these threats. Goodness knows there are more pressing issues for the government to deal with but the issues involving the privy council as the final court of appeal (and having simply more “European” view of crime and punishment) has allowed republicans to get their foot in the door. Hopefully, Jamaican affection for the Queen will override other issues and not allow traitorous politicians to divorce them from their monarchist history.

In the Netherlands, HM Queen Beatrix has come under a degree of criticism from one of her increasingly persistent politicians concerning a visit this week to the Arabian peninsula. On Sunday, the Queen, Crown Prince and Princess visited the United Arab Emirates where the ladies of the House of Orange, out of respect for the traditions of their host, donned headscarves when visiting a mosque. Not exactly a huge deal one would think but Freedom Party agitator-in-chief Geert Wilders decided to make an issue of this saying it was tantamount to displaying approval of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. This is so frustrating. I can, to some extent, sympathize with Wilders about the volume of Muslim immigration into the Netherlands and his opposition to the multi-cultural soup western Europe has become these days -but give me a break! The Queen was a guest in an Islamic country and observing local customs on such an occasion is hardly a legitimate cause for controversy. Unless Mr. Wilders wants the Netherlands to attack the UAE, conquer them and forcibly convert them to his brand of atheism he needs to shut his mouth, focus on his own country and let the Arabs handle theirs. Recently, Wilders has also called for an end to the role of the Queen in the Dutch government and I am not ashamed to say that has influenced my view of the man. Any enemy of the monarchy is an enemy of mine.

Meanwhile, over in Denmark there has been a much more celebratory mood about the oldest kingdom in Europe as HM Queen Margrethe II prepares to celebrate her forty years on the throne. Danish Parliament leaders saluted the Queen for her responsibility, devotion to duty and leadership of the monarchy as an asset to the nation. Only a few left-wing radicals failed to join in the celebration but they are, thankfully, very much in the minority. In a press conference the Queen displayed her linguistic talents (speaking in four languages), reflecting on her forty years as Queen and expressing her faith that the Kingdom of Denmark will be in good hands when her son Crown Prince Frederick someday succeeds her. Sunday was also an occasion for happiness for the Danish Royal Family as Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine celebrated their first birthday. Special photographs were released of the adorable duo with their siblings and proud parents Crown Prince Frederick and Crown Princess Mary. Of course, we wish a happy birthday to them both.

The year has been off to a busy start for the Spanish Royal Family. There were the holidays, a new government taking office and the start of the new political year. Last Friday there was the annual military parade in Madrid which saw the Bourbon royals out in force, led by the King in his army uniform and Prince Felipe in his navy blues. After the march-past and a review of the Royal Guard there was a reception at the palace for the military officials, representatives of the defense department, military organizations, veterans organizations and so on. HM King Juan Carlos paid tribute to the Spanish soldiers who had given their lives in missions around the world as well as their families who carried the burden of national service with them. He spoke of the role of the armed forces to, “uphold the principles of discipline, hierarchy and unity” which was music to my ears. This week, Prince Felipe of the Asturias has been on a tour of the Central American republics. On Thursday he was in Honduras where he met with government officials as well as attending to some cultural duties. On Friday he was off to Guatemala to attend the inauguration of the new President-elect of that country as part of the on-going effort of the Spanish monarchy to maintain close ties and foster unity between the countries of the Spanish-speaking world.

Monarchist Quote

2012-01-13T03:34:00.000-06:00

"A republican form of government is not suited to the Italian people. They are not prepared for it either tempermentally or historically. In a republic every Italian would insist upon being President, and the result would be chaos. The only people who would profit would be the Communists".

-HM King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy

Monarch Profile: Emperor Kien Phuc of Viet Nam

2012-01-13T00:08:00.000-06:00

Prince Nguyen Cian Tong, Nguyen-Phuc U’ng Dang, was born on February 12, 1869 to Prince Nguyen-Phuc Hong Cai, Duke of Kien and the 26th child of Emperor Thieu Tri. At a young age he was adopted by his uncle Emperor Tu Duc (who was sterile and concerned about the succession) along with two other nephews, the future Emperors Nguyen Duc Duc and Dong Khanh. It was toward the end of the reign of Tu Duc that France was ceded control of Cochinchina (very southern Vietnam) and in the subsequent reign of Emperor Hiep Hoa a protectorate treaty was imposed on Annam (central Vietnam) of which the Emperor was supposed to remain in control of. The three powerful regents, Tran Tien Thanh, Nguyen Van Tuong and Ton That Thuyet, who had dominated the government since the death of Tu Duc, greatly opposed this (whether out of nationalistic fervor or worry over their own power remains debated) and, suffice it to say, Hiep Hoa soon turned up dead, followed not long after by the regent Tran Tien Thanh who thought his two companions had gone too far. All of this was timed so that the French Resident Superior in the Imperial City of Hue, Louis Eugene Palasne de Champeaux, was not present at the time.

Worried what would happen when the French learned that Hiep Hoa was dead, the regents hurriedly acted to choose a successor and the choice fell on the fifteen-year-old Prince-Phuc U’ng Dang. At a hastily organized ceremony on December 1, 1883 at five o’clock in the morning the teenager was enthroned as Emperor Kien Phuc of the Great South. Of course, when Resident Superior Champeaux returned to the capital he was outraged at what had happened and demanded an explanation for why a new monarch had been placed on the throne without France being consulted. He claimed that the Harmond Treaty that Hiep Hoa had signed required that new monarchs meet with French approval. He probably suspected what the real story was and was looking for any legal means to object because the Harmond Treaty was a pretty flimsy excuse since it granted France no rights or role at all in matters of the imperial succession. However, the regents responded with an even flimsier defense by claiming that since it was Hiep Hoa who had signed the treaty, and since he was now dead, the treaty was no longer valid.

Entrance to the tomb of Kien Phuc

Emperor Kien Phuc was in a precarious situation because of all of this as the French were not about to discount every agreement just because the last monarch had been murdered. Champeaux put French troops on the alert and sabers began to rattle, which seemed to have the intended effect. The same regents who had turned on the previous emperor for coming to an agreement with the French suddenly and quickly backed down from the threat of trouble and tried to smooth things over. They formally submitted a request to the French government that they recognize and approve of Emperor Kien Phuc, which they did. In general, as far as France was concerned, the new Emperor was a nonentity, too young and soon too ill to assert himself. It was Ton That Thuyet and Nguyen Van Tuong who, with their own circle of supporters, were really in control and they were rapidly becoming objects of distrust by the Imperial Family as much as the French.

During his short reign, Emperor Kien Phuc showed a great deal of potential and many Vietnamese historians have looked back at him as one of the great “might-have-been” cases in Nguyen Dynasty history. The scholars at court remarked on his great potential to be an effective and moral emperor, praising his upstanding character and later generations would surmise that he could have been a great, even legendary emperor were it not for the disadvantages of poor health and his domination by the corrupt regents Tuong and Thuyet. They remained in control even though, once Kien Phuc became emperor, the regent was supposed to be Prince Gia-Hung. During his time, Emperor Kien Phuc put his seal to a new treaty with the French (who were trying to remove all ambiguity after the earlier scare) which recognized Annam (central Vietnam) and Tonkin (north Vietnam) as protectorates of France.

What brought about his downfall remains somewhat disputed but the usual story involves Emperor Kien Phuc becoming a liability to the ruling clique represented by his adopted mother, Hoc Phi, who was the third wife of Emperor Tu Duc and who was having an illicit affair with the regent Nguyen Van Tuong. Later, some would even suspect that the queen and the regents were somehow intentionally keeping the young monarch weak and ill and there seems little doubt that he was chosen specifically as a figure who could be easily dominated. The matter came to a head when the morally upright monarch walked in on his adopted mother and Tuong in flagrante delicto in the palace one night. Outraged, he imprudently shouted at the two, “When I get well, I will chop off your heads down to the third generation”. Obviously, the regents were not going to allow the Emperor a chance to make good on his threat. So, as the story goes, Queen Hoc Phi put poison in the Emperor’s medicine soon afterward and after becoming violently ill the unfortunate Emperor Kien Phuc died on August 1, 1884.

This provoked outrage, both among the French and the Nguyen Dynasty. The head of the imperial family council, Prince Gia-Hung, began a secret investigation into the death of the emperor the following year but when Ton That Thuyet found out about this the prince was promptly exiled and thereafter mysteriously disappeared. All of these events convinced the French authorities that Tuong and Thuyet had to go and took action to remove them from power. They ensured, of course, that their authorities passed to the colonial authorities rather than to the next emperor but at least the era of royal assassinations was over. The ensuing struggle saw the outbreak of the Mandarins Revolt, the elevation of a more Franco-friendly monarch. The infamous “Year of the Three Kings” had passed but it would still be some time before Vietnam would again enjoy peace and tranquility.

Consort Profile: Queen Mary of Teck

2012-01-12T00:08:00.000-06:00

Princess Mary of Teck was born on May 26, 1867 in London at Kensington Palace to Duke Francis of Teck and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Even though her title derived from a small corner of the German Kingdom of Württemberg, Mary of Teck was British born and raised. She was the oldest of four children and the only girl so she grew up tough, disciplined and used to acting as a peacemaker when her little brothers fought. She also helped her mother with her charitable projects. Soon, she began to catch the attention of Queen Victoria and it was hoped that the attractive, straight-laced princess would make a suitable wife for Prince Eddy, eldest son of the Prince of Wales and second-in-line for the throne. The Queen had hoped that marriage would tame her son (a hope that was not entirely fulfilled) and now hoped that Princess Mary of Teck would do the same for Prince Eddy -who had everyone a little worried. His private life was and is the stuff of some pretty outrageous gossip, although when it comes to producing any hard evidence to back up the scandalous rumors things become a bit murky. In any event, whether or not the Princess of Teck would have made a suitable bride for the heir to the heir to the throne did not finally matter as Prince Eddy died of influenza in 1892.

As the Royal Family was in mourning, Princess Mary comforted the survivors and in so doing caught the eye of the new next-in-line Prince George. Queen Victoria, who had a very high opinion of Mary, still thought she would make an excellent consort and approved the match. So, the next year, in 1893 the two were engaged. This time it was not the result of an arrangement but a genuine connection and the two were to have a very successful and lifelong marriage. On July 6, 1893 the two were married at St James’s Palace and Princess Mary became the Duchess of York. Unlike his father (or most of the male members of his family excluding King George III) Prince George was very devoted to his wife, never took a mistress, and after their wedding, in quick order, six children were born to the happy couple. First was Prince Edward (later King Edward VIII) born in 1894, followed by Prince Albert (later King George VI) in 1895, then the Princess Royal Mary in 1897, Prince Henry in 1900, Prince George in 1902 and finally the unfortunate Prince John in 1905. Prince John was afflicted with epilepsy and only lived to the age of 13 but, despite what many today seem to believe, was much loved and closely taken care of by his mother.

It was customary to have nannies to take care of the royal children, but Princess Mary was not a distant mother, spending a great deal of time with her children, teaching them many things herself and when obliged to make overseas trips around the British Empire would break down in tears at having to leave her children. She was a very good mother, assumptions to the contrary probably being a result of her very strict, prim and proper appearance in public. In private, however, she was quite affectionate, caring and even playful. In 1901 Queen Victoria passed away and her son became King Edward VII. So, later that year, George and Mary became the Prince and Princess of Wales. With these new positions came even more demands on the time of the couple and Princess Mary traveled with her husband to Austria, Germany, Egypt, Greece, India, Spain and to Norway for the coronation of King Haakon VII and his wife Queen Maud (Mary’s sister-in-law). In 1910 King Edward VII died and the former Prince and Princess of Wales were crowned King George V and Queen Mary on June 22, 1911. It had always been the intention of King George V to change (and improve) the public reputation of the monarchy which had gone through a rough patch with the escapades of his father and older brother and this he certainly did and Queen Mary was a vital part of that.

King George and Queen Mary were the image of the model family; a happy couple, devoted and faithful to each other with many children who focused on doing good deeds and setting a proper example. They were the first sovereigns to celebrate their accession as Emperor and Empress of India on the subcontinent and when World War I erupted she set a magnificent example at the palace for the Royal Family being in solidarity with the British public. She saw to it that everything was rationed (as it was for the people) and even though it caused her great emotional distress she frequently visited the badly wounded troops of the BEF evacuated from the front in France and Belgium. Just before the war ended Queen Mary was devastated by the death of her ailing son Prince John; few at the time knew just how devastated. Yet, through it all, she was seen as a tower of strength at every public appearance, proper, determined and devoted to duty. She certainly was a great help to King George V who relied on her advice, emotional support and calming influence.

Eventually, the King began to fall victim to respiratory problems (he was a heavy smoker as his father had been and his son would be) and Queen Mary was his constant support. Even the doctors who were brought in credited the King’s survival with Queen Mary’s constant care and attention. At his silver jubilee, King George V lauded Queen Mary in a public speech which he placed at the end of his remarks for fear that he would be overcome by emotion saying, “I cannot trust myself to speak of the Queen when I think of all I owe her”. She was deeply saddened when George V died in 1936 and then had to deal with the potential crisis involving her son, King Edward VIII, and Mrs. Wallis Simpson. Queen Mary, although she appeared aloof and detached in public, cared deeply for her son and tried to support him in the midst of this scandal. However, she never viewed Mrs. Simpson as an acceptable consort for a King-Emperor. The Queen also never recognized the validity of divorce as a dutiful and sincere member of the Church of England. When King Edward decided to abdicate it was something incomprehensible to Queen Mary whose entire life had been defined by her devotion to duty. However, accepting that there was no other alternative she did her best to help her second son, King George VI, in taking leadership of the British monarchy at such a critical time.

During World War II, as she had in the last conflict, Queen Mary visited factories serving the war effort, met with soldiers on British bases and was even known to stop and giving walking soldiers arrive when spotted on the roadside. She also helped in the nation-wide campaign to gather scrap metal and other supplies to support the war effort. Queen Mary also took an active interest in the lives of her granddaughters Elizabeth and Margaret, passing on to them her appreciation for art and culture. She out-lived her son King George VI in 1952 and saw her granddaughter succeed to the throne as Queen Elizabeth II. After that moment, for a time, Great Britain had three queens; Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II. She did not live to see the coronation though as she died on March 24, 1953 of lung cancer at the age of 85. She was buried next to her beloved husband, King George V, at Windsor Castle.

Today in Royal History

2012-01-11T00:52:00.000-06:00

Today in 347 AD the future Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great was born. He would go on to be the last Roman Emperor to rule both the east and the west as well as making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and banning pagan rituals.

The Case for Monarchy: Italy

2012-01-11T00:19:00.000-06:00

Today, the Italian Republic is in a terrible state. No one can deny that, though the political class will spend their time pointing the finger of blame at each other in order to save themselves. Perhaps though, looking back on the now 150 years of a united Italy, the people will instead look at the political class as a whole and the system itself which has brought Italy to this point. Politics in Italy has always been a rough business, from ancient Rome to the Renaissance states to modern Italy. However, in recent decades the situation has really gotten out of control. The situation has become so dire, some have even contemplated the potential dissolution of Italy as a nation, breaking up the country into several petty-republic. Usually, this involves blaming all current problems on events that took place centuries ago and which are, therefore, impossible to solve so everyone should just give up and go home in defeat. That might be seen as an easier path for some, but human experience has shown that the easy way is invariably the wrong way and even more harmful in the end. Taking an honest look at the current state of affairs, instituting reforms and, perhaps, correcting some of those past mistakes might not be easy but it just might save and restore the Italian nation. Some have said that Italy needs a “new Risorgimento” but, perhaps, Italy would be better served by simply re-learning the lessons of the Risorgimento she has already had? That was the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, which stands in stark contrast to one of the greatest mistakes of Italian history; the destruction of the monarchy.

Italy was created as a monarchy. In 1861 it was not the Italian Republic that was declared, but the Kingdom of Italy. There were good reasons that this was the case. Italians from all walks of life and from vastly different political points of view came together to create the Kingdom of Italy because they agreed on certain points. Not many, it is true, but points that were vital; the unity, independence and great aspirations of the Italian people. They may have disagreed on absolutely every other detail but they did all agree that the people of Italy should be united, independent and strong and that the Kingdom of Italy, the monarchy, was the only viable framework to accomplish that. Republican politics invariably devolved into class warfare and divisive, partisan rancor that brought down the edifice that the revolutionaries were endeavoring to create. Even the revolutionary Francesco Crispi, old ally of Giuseppe Garibaldi, who led the Expedition of the Thousand alongside him and who had been an ardent republican, embraced the Kingdom of Italy and rejected the republican model because, as he told his former colleague Giuseppe Mazzini, “The monarchy unites us, the republic would divide us”. The Kingdom of Italy was the roof under which all Italians came together and it was the Kingdom of Italy that rose to be a regional power and a player on the world stage.

The late King Vittorio Emanuele III once said, in a time of political turmoil, “In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians … The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?” Surely today the Italian people can appreciate what true and prophetic words these were. And, surely Italians today can give an answer to their late king as to “who will profit from it”; the answer is the politicians who make up the ruling class, who have turned the government of Italy into a scheme for their own enrichment rather than the administration of the country. They have made themselves an immense fortune at the expense of their people and their country, setting Italians against each other, engaging in bribery on a national scale and selling out the national interests and even the national sovereignty of Italy all in order to benefit themselves and the ruling politician-class to which they aspire to belong. They have no real connection to the Italian nation at all. They do not see individuals, as the late King did, but simply a mass of people to be manipulated, used and exploited.

This stands in stark contrast to the Kings of Italy who were, one after the other, devoted to the pursuit of Italian greatness above all. They did so for the honor of their country, which would be the glory of the dynasty as well. This is one of the great benefits of the monarchial system. Politicians gain fame by gaining victories for themselves whereas monarchs take a much broader view, considering the judgment of posterity and gain fame when the country succeeds, when the country becomes greater, more respected and more prosperous. Naturally, some projects worked out better than others but the simple fact is that the Kings of Italy were always looking for a way to advance the national cause, to make Italy a greater country whereas, in the era of the republic, the political leadership only seeks to advance the cause of their own party and to make themselves greater even if it means the ruination of the country in the long run. Italy is in a dire position today and at a pivotal crossroads in the history of the Italian nation. The country is mired in debt, overrun with corrupt politicians who have made the government in Rome a joke, ruled by a bunch of un-elected appointees of the European Union, social cohesion is breaking down, there are fewer and fewer Italians in Italy and those who remain squabble over what it means to be Italian.

What would the great figures from the history of the Italian peninsula, of the Latin race, say if they could see Italy today? How would they react to the offspring of the people who built Western Civilization, who ruled and advanced the prosperity of an empire stretching from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates and Hadrian’s Wall in Britain to the cataracts in Egypt being reduced to a divided state indebted to others and ruled by an elite clique appointed from beyond her borders? The Italian Republic has proven itself a failure. It was, due to the republican plebiscite, built on fraud and injustice from the start and has failed in even its most basic duty to preserve and protect the sovereignty and independence of the Italian nation, to say nothing of allowing the Italian people to reach their greatest potential. Italians, 150 years ago, came together, united by the monarchy, to build a great nation. There is no reason they cannot do so again. It was the safeguard that the royal institution provided which prevented extremism from fracturing the country and brought the majority of both sides of the political spectrum together, on the path of moderation, to pursue the national aspirations of the Italian people.

The lesson of history could not be more clear. From 1861 until the monarchy was sidelined by political forces, Italy was growing in strength at home and prestige abroad. Since the republic came to power the country has known only renunciation and decline. The Kingdom of Italy inspired and encouraged Italians to think the best of themselves and to aspire to better themselves; to be worthy of the great civilizations that had gone before them. The republican governments encourage Italians to belittle their country, apologize for any success and generally feel ashamed of themselves. Is it any wonder that when a people are taught to think in such a way that the country falls into decline? If great deeds are to be mocked or apologized for, who would ever aspire to greatness? If the only representatives of the nation are partisan political figures, who can inspire all people of every section of society to put their country first and strive for success? Someone outside of politics is needed for that, a national figure who can represent the interests of the nation as a whole, the historic legacy of the nation and who can rally the people to live up to that legacy. For the modern, united Italy, there is simply no denying that no family can do that other than the Royal House of Savoy. They have been with modern Italy at every step of her history. Their story is the Italian story and until Italy restores the monarchy it will remain a nation in denial.

No More Off Topic Tuesdays?

2012-01-10T17:51:00.000-06:00

Don't like a change of pace & tone once a week? Absent any unforseen outpouring of support I have just about decided to call a halt to Off Topic Tuesday. I still have less time than I would like these days so I cannot promise anymore posts that would require me to look stuff up first but can easily go back to posting old royal postcards or videos on the days when I have nothing more substantial available. No one seems to particularly like the off-topic posts and some really hate them (or my opinion on the subjects in question at least) so I'm leaning toward scrapping them. I have set up another side blog that will be purely personal, fully opinions on this that or the other for my own venting and the amusement of those already familiar with the workings of my damaged mind, odd tastes and warped sense of humor. So, if that is acceptable, that is how things will go. If anyone is curious as to what the rest of the current OTT 2 or 3 part mini-series was to cover, leave a comment and I'll name them, otherwise I've probably wasted enough time on the subject. -MM

More Slander from the Murdoch Empire

2012-01-09T20:15:00.000-06:00

He has, on the occasion of the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge no less, slandered the British Royal Family as robbers, presiding over an empire built on theft, tonight that bold, fresh piece of excrement Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel turned his hateful ignorance against the martyred Queen of France, Marie Antoinette. The subject at issue was a doctored satirical picture of Michelle Obama portrayed as the late Queen and the reaction of many Democrats that the picture was "racist". O'Reilly didn't think it was racist (nor do I) but he did think it was unfair to compare Mrs Obama to Marie Antoinette because the Queen was, in his words, a real "villain" and of course he brought up the old, "Let them eat cake" line which -as has been stated countless times- has been proven by eminent historians to be an absolute lie. This willing ignorance infuriates me to no end. If the comparison of Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette was offensive or unfair to anyone it would be the late Queen herself. The Queen was as far from being a snob as anyone of her background could possibly be. She was not villainous, she was not uncaring and she died a pious and heroic death at the hands of godless, bloodthirsty traitors. I am not one of those monarchists who despises the United States or Americans on principle (some do, even American monarchists) and I even allow them their republican fussing because I know they can't really help it -to some extent they have to be that way or they have no reason to exist. However, I get fed to the teeth with this sort of drive-by royal bashing. It seems particularly outrageous when Americans (especially the ultra-patriotic sort) target King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette of France considering that without the intervention of His Most Christian Majesty the United States would almost certainly not exist at all.

To Bill O'Reilly, here's a "Fox News Alert" for ya: WISE UP YOU PINHEAD!!!

(breath...in...out...in...out...okay...)

Monarchist Profile: Louis-Gabriel Ambroise, Vicomte de Bonald

2012-01-09T00:18:00.000-06:00

Louis-Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald stands out as one of the best known French counterrevolutionary thinkers. He was born on October 2, 1754 in Le Monna (Millau) in what was then Rouergue (today Aveyron). His Catholic faith and desire to serve the French monarchy characterized his life almost from the very beginning. He was given a top education by the Oratorians at the College of Juilly and after graduating served in the elite and famous Guard Musketeers. After King Louis XVI dissolved that unit in 1776 Bonald returned home where he earned a reputation for intelligence, fairness and soon enjoyed widespread respect. As a result, he was elected mayor of Millau in 1785 and in 1790 was appointed to the departmental Assembly representing Aveyron. However, Bonald was disgusted by the revolutionaries and could see that their hold on France was only growing. Like many, Bonald at first hoped that the Revolution might be somewhat beneficial and his primary aim was to maintain law and order rather than resisting on ideological grounds. That came to an end with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy which aimed to make the Church subservient to the State. He refused to force priests in his area to take the oath that went along with it, thus forfeiting his office. A year later, thoroughly disgusted with the Revolution, he decided to emigrate but he was certainly not running away. He immediately enlisted in the royalist army of the Prince of Condé. When that force was disbanded he retired to the German town of Heidelberg.

It was in Heidelberg in 1797 that Bonald wrote his first significant work on politics and religion which was of a sufficiently counterrevolutionary flavor to be condemned and banned by the Directory in France. His retired life was not to last long as he could not bear to remain outside the country while France was being torn apart by revolutionary extremism. Using the alias Saint-Séverin he returned to France and wrote more books on the social order, divorce and the legislative process. Pardoned by Napoleon in 1802 he was able to come out of hiding and work openly again. In collaboration with Joseph Fiévée and the vicomte de Chateaubriand he edited and contributed articles to the “Mercurede France” in 1806. These were later published in a book as well in 1819. In 1808 he declined the offer of membership on the Council of the Imperial University (founded by Napoleon, today the University of Paris) but in 1810 put his dislike of Bonaparte aside and accepted the post. His reputation had grown so great that Bonald had been asked to oversee the education of the son of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland, and even the Prince Imperial, Napoleon II, King of Rome. He turned down both positions, being a monarchist of the royalist rather than imperialist persuasion.

As a staunch royalist, he was properly pleased when the Bourbon dynasty was finally restored to the French throne and was promptly appointed to the council of public instruction and became a deputy in the French National Assembly. In that body he became well known for his ardent, and fiercely reactionary, speeches defending royal authority, the place of the Church and, most famously, favoring censorship and even advocating for those found guilty of extreme acts of sacrilege to be put to death. Today, of course, many (especially in Europe) would view this as a shockingly extreme position. However, it is important to remember that this man had lived through in era in which people were executed for simply whispering a politically incorrect opinion, daring to disagree with the revolutionary government or simply being insufficiently zealous in their praise of the republic. Certainly that should be seen as the more outrageous use of capital punishment compared to certain, very specific, cases of insulting the Savior of mankind. In 1822 he was appointed Minister of State and was the presiding officer on the censorship commission. In 1823 his noble title was restored to him (he had lost it for refusing to take the 1803

He collaborated with other counterrevolutionaries in a series of works before finally retiring to private life. Throughout his life, Bonald stood out as a statesman who was always unchanging in his views. As Jules Simon said, “There is not to be found in the long career, one action which is not consistent with his principles, one expression which belies them.” Few others could say the same. He had served throughout the Bourbon restoration, supported King Charles X but refused to serve under King Louis Philippe, opting for retirement instead. He died in Paris on November 23, 1840. His legacy was of a deep-thinking intellectual and it is a shame his works are often reduced as simply reactionary opposition to anything liberal or progressive. Uniquely, he wrote about language being of divine origin and as the backbone of tradition and social development. This could be read and appreciated especially today. Language, communication in every form, regulates not only how we deal with others and the world around us, but sets the definitions for all of our thinking. He saw the forces of the Revolution perverting this tool to use in the pursuit of their ends which, Bonald believed, would ultimately be the death of all western civilization. The revolutionary mastery of this tactic allowed them to make formerly absolute and objective truths relative; simply matters of opinion, something which would ultimately unravel society and civilization as a whole.

MM Video: Royal Albania

2012-01-08T02:02:00.002-06:00

MM Video: Five Minute History of Mongolia

2012-01-08T02:00:00.002-06:00

Flag Day in Italy

2012-01-07T10:38:00.002-06:00

I never like to see a flag-related topic go to waste and today is Flag Day in Italy, marking the day in 1797 when the first Italian Tricolor was adopted by the Cispadane Republic, which later became the Cisalpine Republic which later became the (Napoleonic) Kingdom of Italy. The tricolor was then brought back in the 19th Century by the Italian national movement and again became an official national flag in 1848 when it was adopted by King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont-Sardinia with the addition of the Savoy coat of arms in the center. As such, it subsequently became the national flag of the Kingdom of Italy and, with the removal of the royal arms, has been the national flag of every subsequent Italian government, both Mussolini's Italian Social Republic and the present Italian Republic. Putting politics aside for a moment, I have always found it a simple and attractive design. Why might that be? Possibly because the green-white-red color combination is so familiar to my neck of the woods. It became the flag of independent Mexico after General Agustin de Iturbide (later the first Mexican Emperor) adopted it as the flag of his "Army of the Three Guarantees" (unity, independence and religion) and has been used, with slight modifications, by every Mexican government since. In Texas it was used by more conservative types who opposed full independence but wanted a return to the Constitution of 1824 (hence the famous "Alamo Flag" of a Mexican tricolor with the central arms replaced by the date 1824). In fact, I read at least once that it was proposed that the green-white-red color scheme be used for the current flag of the Republic of Texas to show that Texas came from Mexico unlike the eastern United States which came from the British Empire and stuck with their colors of red, white and blue. Obviously it didn't go through.

I should also point out that the republican officials in Italy today had to go all the way back to 1797 to find the current color scheme being used by republicans and even then, that republic -the Cisalpine Republic- was a French imposition and held sway only over the small portion of northern Italy allowed to them. The tricolor of the Kingdom of Italy, with the royal arms, was the first flag of the Italian nation as a whole since the break-up of the Roman Empire. Therefore, if any version of the Italian tricolor should be celebrated as the symbol of the entire Italian nation it should be no other flag but the royalist flag of the Kingdom of Italy.

1860 Flag of Piedmont-Sardinia

Ensign of the Kingdom of Italy

Flag of the First Mexican Empire

Flag of the Alamo

Proposal for the Texas flag using Mexican colors

Royal New Year Messages

2012-01-07T00:20:00.000-06:00

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark's New Year Speech

Prince Albert II of Monaco's New Year Speech

Mad Rant: God Ain't Fuzzy!

2012-01-06T00:18:00.004-06:00

Believe it or not, some people think I tend to go overboard or be some sort of extremist (I know right?). Of course, really, I just go a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. But seriously, this may, in fact, simply be evidence of an established defect in my damaged mind. One of the (many) “ailments” the medical professionals diagnosed me with was, to put it in layman’s terms, a black/white personality disorder. Let me state for the record that, as with many of their findings, I am inclined to contest this (which of course they take as further proof that they‘re right and I‘m mad as a hatter), but this related, they claimed, to my propensity to view everyone and everything in absolute terms. They seemed to think I had trouble with gray areas, odd, as I’ve always been rather fond of the color. However, though I don’t like to talk about this stuff (and it has usually been a way of whistling past the bone orchard when I do) I thought it important to mention today, before I get to my main point, because I have no wish to ruin the reputation of anyone other than myself with my ranting. I speak for no one but myself. As I’ve said before, even most monarchists don’t like me. Remember that what I say is one man’s opinion and should not be your only basis for forming a point of view. Keep that in mind.

It is true that when it comes to monarchists many of my favorites tend to be those considered by the vast majority to be the absolute worst. They are the bogeymen who haunt the nightmares of revolutionaries and who even most monarchists consider shameful and subjects to be condemned for damaging the reputation of the cause rather than defended. This includes a wide array of figures and organizations from my friend the “Mad Baron” in the Far East to the Black Hundreds of Russia, the White Guards of Hungary, the Chetniks of Yugoslavia, Tarleton’s Legion in America or Colonel Dupin and his “Red Devils” in Mexico. All of these groups have, to varying degrees, been deemed “excessive” by most histories. Of course, in some instances their reputations are very much un-deserved, but in any event let me say that I am not so far gone as to admire such groups because of “excess” alone. I also have the greatest admiration for such royalists as the counterrevolutionaries of the Vendée who were saintly and even their worst enemies can usually say nothing more about them than that they view them as being on the wrong side of history or fighting in a noble way for a cause which (according to them) was horrible. However, I can say, that even if the Vendée martyrs had a reputation like some of those named above, I would still admire them just as much.

Again, speaking only for myself, the cause of monarchy cannot be separated from the cause of religion and it seems to me the western, formerly Christian, world particularly has an increasingly warped view of religion. That includes many Christians themselves in my view and not simply the secularist opposition. In fact, when I watch some religiously-themed or spiritual-type horror movies I sometimes think the secularist crowd understands at least some aspects of religion better than most religious people do. It comes down to this; most today view religion, Church, God etc as something all warm and fuzzy. You’re supposed to be inclusive and tolerant, love everyone and everything and if someone does something wrong you better fall all over yourself to assure them that while their actions may present an occasion for possibly doing something incorrect or being “morally disordered” (I love that one) that that doesn’t change the fact that you love the guilty party ootles and ootles! Warm and fuzzy. Cute and cuddly Christians. Well, I am sorry but I cannot go there. God ain’t fuzzy. Jesus is not supposed to just be your “bff” in the clouds, religion is not a fun hobby for those so inclined and Church wasn’t created to encourage social justice and champion democracy.

Religion is not about some idea of a parallel or alternate reality. It is about the ultimate reality and when you’re talking about “God” you are talking about an entity (for lack of a better word) that is more great, more powerful and yes even more terrifying than our puny little half brains could ever comprehend. In older forms of language words like “terrible” and “dreadful” were often used. Religion is about the ultimate conflict between good and evil. The evil part we don’t seem to have too much of a problem comprehending. Our blackest nightmares have concocted some images so frightening that we could imagine they come fairly close. The good, frankly, we cannot comprehend at all. So much suffering pervades the human condition that our concept of goodness is rather limited and even our wildest dreams of paradise fail to measure up. Ask a human to describe Hell and you get Dante’s Inferno with lots and lots of excruciating detail, each horror more spine-tingling than the last. Now, ask a human to describe Heaven and you get something like the Elysian Fields or a cloud and a harp. Notice the difference? God is the greatest good and we cannot fathom what that means. Even today the term itself, “greater good” almost invariably carries negative connotations.

If you think God is fuzzy, read about the Prophet Elijah in the Bible who, on divine orders, killed 500 prophets of the god Baal. Consider that one of the sins of King Saul was that he showed mercy to the Amalekites when God had ordered him to kill everyone and everything. As it was, King Saul spared only the Amalekite king and his best livestock and even that was too lenient for God. There are numerous other examples of God smiting people, devastating nations and showing no mercy, taking no prisoners and all of that stuff that atheists these days love to point out and Christians try to gloss over by uncomfortably saying that the Old Testament stuff doesn’t really count or something of the sort. All of that changed with the New Testament and Jesus -right? Not so fast. The Apocalypse is in the New Testament and the enumerated horrors there that come with the return of Christ makes even the harshest punishments of the Old Testament pale in comparison. The point I am trying to get at is that God is so far above us that we cannot judge those sorts of things. I think of I Corinthians 6:12, “All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”. Not a good context perhaps, but that is the phrase that leaps to mind. We are not to say that what God does or wills is good or bad, we define “good” as anything God does or wills. It comes from God, God is not subject to any judgment.

We are not to say that everything God does is good but that God is goodness, a goodness beyond our understanding. To quote Isaiah 55:8, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord”. When it comes down to the ultimate good versus the ultimate evil, I have no compunction about saying that the standard rules for dealing with puny little people and our puny little squabbles do not always apply. In the cases of most of those “unsavory” types mentioned above (not all, but most) we are absolutely dealing with good versus evil itself. When you are opposing something like the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, I have no qualms about saying they are not in the same league as fighting someone over simply a difference of political opinion, some tribal spat between nations or even something as limited as national interest. You are not even fighting about religious differences (at least according to them). In other words, you are not fighting someone whose god is not your own but a movement opposed to the very concept of God, people who are adamantly opposed to whatever it is you uphold as the fundamental core of all existence. They don’t care if your God is that of the Apostles, Mohammad, Buddha or if it is Jupiter and pals -they want to destroy that entire concept.

So, to my damaged mind, when you are openly and actively putting yourself on the side of absolute evil itself, the very definition of evil, of anti-religion in any form, anti-God, anti-goodness, anti-the ultimate reality I do not see how you could be entitled to any mercy or anything other than an Old Testament style smiting. After all, the Devil doesn’t use Marquess of Queensberry rules -trust me. It was not for no reason that I placed at the very bottom of this weblog a quote from Baron von Ungern-Sternberg in which he said, “The evil which has fallen upon the land, with the object of destroying the divine principle in the human soul, must be extirpated root and branch. Fury against the heads of the revolution, its devoted followers, must know no boundaries”. Such a struggle cannot be viewed in the same way as one a person or a nation might have over a mere political dispute. As the Baron also said, "They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture”. And of course you will see that quote at the top of every page here. I emphasize them because I heartily agree with them.

That may sound harsh, it may even sound incoherent and incomprehensible but that should be taken for granted with … The Mad Monarchist.

Royal Profile: Tsarevna Sophia Alekseyevna

2012-01-05T00:09:00.000-06:00

The Russian Empire is usually thought of in terms of the Tsars, the strong, powerful men who ruled the hard, vast country that is Russia. However, there were a number of very strong women in Russian history as well. One of these was Sophia Alekseyevna who would, eventually, rise to become the first woman to rule the Russian Empire. She was the daughter (by his first wife) of the great Tsar Alexis and, as such, could have expected to live a very quiet, secluded life, seldom heard from or even seen by the world outside the inner court. However, she had a very active mind and Tsar Alexis allowed her to be educated along with her brother Fyodor (the heir to the throne). Her other brothers, Ivan and Peter, were comparatively neglected in their education since the chances of either coming to the throne seemed so remote. Sophia soon proved herself to have such an active mind that others began to take notice. Simeon Polotsky, a monk, observed that Sophia had an “accomplished masculine mind” (a greater compliment then than it probably sounds today).

As she grew older, Sophia began to sit in on state council meetings and became acquainted with a number of the powerful boyars, something royal young ladies were not expected to do, but she seemed to rather enjoy pushing the envelop and proving that she could understand matters of state and even offer ideas just as good if not better than many of the men around her. In 1676 Tsar Alexis died and Sophie’s rather sickly brother became Tsar Fyodor III. He was quite intelligent (he spoke fluent Latin, which was unusual in that time and place) but was afflicted with a number of maladies since his birth. His sister Sophia became his most trusted advisor. However, this situation could not last long and in 1682, at the age of only 24, Fyodor III died and, passing over the blind and sickly Ivan, Peter became the new Tsar of Russia though he was only 10-years-old. This provoked some trouble in the family ranks as Peter was of a different mother than Sophia and Ivan and she did not want the Naryshkina family gaining power.

An uprising broke out in Moscow after the Naryshkina clan had Peter declared Tsar Peter I and the family of Tsarina Maria Miloslavskaya (the mother of Sophia and Ivan) put it about town that Fyodor III had been poisoned in a bid for power for by the Naryshkina who would rule through little Peter I. The Streltsy rose up in favor of Sophia and her family on the grounds that, despite his infirmities, Ivan was the legitimate heir to the throne. There was fighting in the streets, a number of killings and wild, defamatory rumors flew in every direction. However, Sophia had a plan and proposed a compromise. Her primary goal was to keep the regency out of the hands of Tsarina Natalya Naryshkina more than keeping young Peter off the throne. So, the suggested that the two brothers reign together as co-tsars but with herself as regent. The court did not like the idea of having two tsars at the same time, yet the Streltsy were on a rampage and Sophia impressed everyone with her talent and intelligence. Finally, the matter was all agreed on. Tsar Ivan V would take first place, Tsar Peter I the second alongside him and Tsarevna Sophia would be their regent. As per an earlier promise she made Vasily Galitzine head of government but, in an unprecedented move, Tsarevna Sophia had just become the first female ruler of Russia.

Sophia -looking fierce!

Naturally, this led to some ill-feelings on those who resented her rise to power and the image was put out of Tsarevna Sophia as being an overweight, immoral, scheming woman; the very picture of repellent wickedness. Fortunately, there is no evidence for any of this and it can be attributed to malicious gossip. She was actually quite intelligent, preferred agreements to bloodshed and was dutiful in matters of religion. As regent, Sophia kept Russia on a pretty even keel and free of trouble. Some early industrial development was accomplished and Russia became the first “western” country to sign a trade agreement with Imperial China. From the way she presented herself, it seems as if she intended to rule Russia for the long haul, having coins minted and portraits of herself done up with all the proper regal trappings. Yet, that was not how things were to work out.

As time went on Tsarevna Sophia and co-Tsar Peter I became increasingly antagonistic and paranoid. Each eventually became convinced that the other was about to kill them. Presumably, Sophia hoped that through her brother and any potential offspring she could continue to rule Russia as regent for pretty much the rest of her life. However, the clock began to run out for a regent being necessary for the young co-tsars. In 1689 Tsar Peter turned 17 and things came to a head. There is no real evidence that Sophia planned or intended a coup against him but Peter believed trouble was brewing and fled to a fortified monastery near Moscow. Sophia summoned him to her but it was no use and more and more officials began defecting her service in favor of Peter. It finally became clear she had no choice but to give up the game. Peter had her arrested and she was confined to a convent, eventually taking the veil. An attempt, some years later, by rebels to restore her to power failed and it is unlikely she was even involved in it at all. She died on July 14, 1704 as a simple religious sister, yet it was Tsarevna Sophia Alekseyevna who had been the first woman to rule Russia.

My Favorite Romanov Tsars

2012-01-04T00:08:00.000-06:00

I - Tsar Alexei I: The ‘last hurrah’ of Muscovite Russia, Alexei I was a good Tsar, good to his friends, harsh to his enemies and a man of sincere faith who was not above correcting priests when they made a liturgical mistake -because he knew it all by heart. He had some problems with the Church but his personal faith was never in question. Alexei was, in some ways, the last “old school” Russian tsar, but he was not closed-minded and willing to learn from the west if it would make Russia better. Many of the accomplishments later attributed to Peter the Great were built on the foundation that had been set down by Tsar Alexei. Likewise, the territorial gains made by the wars during the reign of Alexei were a crucial starting point for the larger acquisitions of Peter later on. He improved the army and was an ardent monarchist who cut off trade with England after the regicide of King Charles I and sent assistance to King Charles II in his exile. He died during a war to defend Poland from the Turks.

II - Tsar Paul I: A controversial choice, but a favorite of mine, Paul I was another very monarchist monarch. He had his faults but, unlike many, he was aware of them and tried to mitigate them through living a very regimented life. He pressed for a better army, better conditions for the serfs and to make war on revolutionary France to see the legitimate monarchs of that country and Italy restored. He wanted to restore Malta to the Knights of St John, being their protector, but fell out with the allies when it became clear that Austria was intent on annexing Italian territory rather than restoring the former monarchs and that Britain insisted on retaining Malta rather than returning it to the Knights. Hoping Napoleon would be a counter-revolutionary he made peace with him and even contemplated an invasion of India as punishment for what he saw as British perfidy. These rather drastic foreign policy changes, along with his sometimes odd personality earned him the nickname of the “Mad Tsar” but his commitment to royal legitimacy was always at the heart of it. In truth, the accusations of insanity were probably put out as simply a means of justification for the plotters who overthrew him.

III - Tsar Nicholas I: One of my absolute favorites, from any country, Nicholas I came to the throne, unexpectedly, in 1825 and soon earned the nickname of the “Iron Tsar” for his rather firm style of ruling. He was a stern, disciplined monarch but a devoted family man as well. His rule of Russia is often summed up in three words: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality. He was committed to maintaining the centrality of the Russian Orthodox Church, the autocracy of the monarch and keeping Russia firmly and solidly Russian. Rebellions or revolutionary activity were dealt with swiftly and firmly and no immediate or potential threats to the Orthodox faith, the autocracy or the Russian people would be tolerated. Another very monarchist monarch, he was just as watchful for trouble abroad and was quick to offer help to any sovereign in danger from revolutionaries. Particularly after sending Russian troops to suppress the rebellion in Hungary against the Hapsburg monarchy he earned a new nickname, the “Gendarme of Europe”. He was successful in stamping out rebellion, defeated the Turks and improved education. He was in the midst of another war with Turkey, fought on behalf of the Christian position in the Holy Land when he died in 1855.

IV - Tsar Alexander III: A great monarch and a great man as well, Alexander III matches the perfect image one tends to have of a Romanov Tsar. He was a huge, powerful man and a strong ruler but also a man who adored his family, loved children, music and simple living. He favored the policy of “Official Nationality” of Nicholas I and dealt zealously with dissidents and revolutionaries. His government lowered taxes, enacted child labor laws and in hard times organized the aristocracy to respond with charitable giving rather than government programs. Industrial and infrastructure improvements increased and Russian power expanded in Central Asia. When Austro-German policies conflicted with those of Russia he allied with France and expanded Russian influence in the east by building the Trans-Siberian Railway. He died, beloved by his family and respected by his people in 1894.

V - Tsar Nicholas II: Many have criticized Nicholas II for being indecisive, however, what those people call indecisiveness I call a sober appreciation for the weight and responsibility, as well as the sacred nature, of his position as tsar. Certainly there were many problems during the reign of Nicholas II and of course mistakes were made, but much of this has been overblown. The reign of Nicholas II also saw great strides being made in industrialization and overall internal development. However, I admire him most for his personal qualities. He was very religious, a very devoted husband and father, a good judge of character and talent (despite what you may have heard) and a man of impeccable moral standards. In hindsight I can say that his greatest mistake was involving Russia in World War I (something he was not eager to do) but even then he was acting with very noble motivations. Under Nicholas, coal and iron production tripled, more people were educated than ever before in Russian history and despite what detractors say he was not bigoted or intolerant, blocking efforts to limit the civil rights of Jews for example. Likewise, his management of the war was not the total disaster it is often made out to be. In fact, Russia was showing signs of being on the verge of a massive recovery when the revolution broke out. However, it is more than enough that he was one of the most (perhaps the most) virtuous, upright and moral men to ever lead Russia.

Off Topic Tuesday: The Alabama Red Rovers

2012-01-03T02:17:00.000-06:00

During the War for Texas Independence volunteers came from all over the United States and Europe to fight for the cause and to gain the large tracts of free land offered to volunteers. Some came in organized militia units like the "Kentucky Mustangs" and the "New Orleans Greys". One such unit that probably stood out more than all others was a group of 61 volunteers from the small town of Courtland in northern Alabama. Probably no other unit in the Texas army was so "colorful". They were organized by local doctor Jack Shackelford and named the Alabama Red Rovers because of their red uniforms. The unit included about one third of the entire adult male population of Courtland. For $600 they purchased U.S. muskets and equipment from the Alabama State Arsenal and had their distinctive uniforms made by supportive local ladies. Their primary uniform consisted of a bright red hunting shirt, fringed on the sleeves and shoulders of a "linsey woolsey" material and dyed in their distinctive color. The unit also had a "dress" uniform which consisted of a red velvet cap and jacket with white trousers and a blue sash. Their flag was likewise solid red.

The Red Rovers left Alabama in December of 1835 and joined the command of Colonel James Walker Fannin at Goliad, Texas. Placed in the Lafayette Battalion, they accompanied the attempted retreat from Goliad which ended at the battle of Coleto Creek. The Texians were caught in open country when Fannin and his column were overtaken by the advance cavalry and light infantry of the Mexican forces under General Jose Urrea. Knowing that they would stand little chance against the elite Mexican cavalry without cover in open country, the Red Rovers favored moving on until they reached the cover of the tree line along Coleto Creek. However, Fannin decided to stand and fight so the Texians formed up in a hollow square, baggage in the middle and their canon at the corners. They fought off all of the Mexican attacks, but were nonetheless trapped and immobilized.

The Mexican light infantry had killed all of the Texians' oxen, and the men quickly used up all of their water. The Texians were becoming dehydrated and their cannon could not be fired because no water was available to cool the barrels down. The Red Rovers and some other companies wished to fight on to the bitter end, but Fannin ultimately decided it was best to surrender on the under-standing that they would be paroled back to the United States. However, this was not to be. After being held in the presidio at Goliad for some time, General Santa Anna gave strict orders that anyone from a foreign country taken in arms must be executed. On Palm Sunday, 1836, almost 400 Texians, including the vast majority of the Alabama Red Rovers, were marched about a mile into the countryside and massacred. Dr. Shackelford was spared in order to help treat the Mexican wounded (as Santa Anna had brought no medics or priests from Mexico), but his son and almost his entire commend were executed, some shot, others bayoneted and some ridden down and lanced by Mexican cavalry as they tried to escape. The men who had been wounded at Coleto were likewise dragged outside the chapel of the presidio and shot as well, including Colonel Fannin.

Prince Antoine Takes the Throne

2012-01-03T00:15:00.000-06:00

It was on this day in 1701 that Prince Antoine I became Sovereign Prince of Monaco

Monarch Profile: King Amadeo I of Spain

2012-01-02T00:21:00.001-06:00

Amongst all those who have worn the crown of Spain, mention King Amadeo I and you will probably be met with a denouncement or an insulting joke. Yet, few seem to really know very much about the monarch usually dismissed as, “the Italian”. He is, in general, not well regarded and yet, when asked precisely why that is, the best answer anyone can usually come up with was that he had no business being King of Spain in the first place. A valid point, yet it is partly that very point which makes me somewhat sympathetic toward the man simply because King Amadeo would probably have agreed with it. King Amadeo I is remembered in history for a number of reasons. He was the first and only prince of the House of Savoy to sit on the throne of Spain, his reign was one of the shortest in Spanish history and his downfall ushered in the First Spanish Republic. And it was all for a crown he did not particularly want. King Amadeo I may have been the unluckiest King of Spain and he was also probably the most reluctant. In many ways, his reign is an example of how far from practical reality ideas can be that look perfectly reasonable on paper.

The Italian prince who would be King of Spain was born on May 30, 1845 in Turin (then part of the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia), the second son of King Victor Emmanuel II (later the first King of Italy) and his wife Archduchess Adelaide of Austria. When he was born he was given the title of Duke of Aosta, the first to hold that title since 1802. He had a fairly normal upbringing for a prince of the House of Savoy with an education that tended to favor duty, destiny and the heroic legacy of the Royal Family above all other subjects. In 1867, with the Kingdom of Italy having been created, it was decided that it was time for him to marry. Not unusually he had very little say in the matter. His father wanted him wed to a German princess for political reasons (France having gone cold, Prussia was being looked to as an ally against Austria) but that proved difficult and Francesco Cassins finally persuaded the King to accept Donna Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo (a daughter of the Piedmontese aristocracy) as a bride for his second son, despite not being of royal rank. So, on May 30, 1867 the two were married.

Meanwhile, across the Mediterranean in Spain, revolution was afoot. Ever since the accession of Queen Isabella II the country had been torn by civil war. Three factions emerged over the course of her reign; the Carlists who favored the royal line of the late King Fernando VII’s brother Don Carlos, the moderates who backed Isabella II and the revolutionaries who wanted to do away with the monarchy altogether. The Carlists were defeated in a series of civil wars and the revolutionaries were kept somewhat contented by movement to the left but Queen Isabella II eventually alienated her moderate supporters. She proved too Catholic and autocratic for their tastes (as well as having other problems) and in the end she was too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals. In September of 1868 the Queen was deposed and sent into exile by a group of liberal officers led by General Juan Prim (who had earlier led the Spanish contingent in the punitive expedition against Mexico alongside France and Britain which ultimately resulted in the short-lived monarchy of Maximilian). General Prim began looking for a candidate for the Spanish throne but had little luck.

The Cortes voted, by a considerable margin, that a monarchy was preferable to a republic but finding the right king proved difficult. Marshal Francisco Serrano was chosen as regent while General Prim cast about for someone to accept the crown of Spain. Dom Fernando, former King of Portugal, turned down the offer. Marshal Espartero, former Prime Minister, likewise turned down the throne and when the 15-year-old Duke of Genoa was approached with the offer his mother rejected it on his behalf on the grounds that Spain was too dangerous. It was not exactly an enticing prospect considering the many civil wars Spain had gone through, how bitterly divided against each other the Spanish people were and few royals would be eager to settle on a country that had just driven out their last monarch. The Prussian Prince Leopold von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was next approached and not only were the Prussians not interested, the French objected to the very idea of a Prussian on the throne of Spain and the offer helped set off the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Finally, someone suggested Prince Amadeus, Duke of Aosta, second son of the King of Italy.

Prince Amadeus was not attracted by the offer and was inclined to turn it down. Yet, his father, King Victor Emmanuel II, urged him to accept. He thought it would be great to have the House of Savoy reigning over Spain and Italy and envisioned his son restoring Spain to her former glory but this time as a more “modern” liberal constitutional monarchy, moderate and reasonable with no extremism from the left or the right. As he had done in Italy, surely his son could do in Spain, and wouldn’t it be glorious for Savoy kings to hold sway over the western and central Mediterranean areas? Amadeus was still less than impressed and preferred to remain in Italy pursuing his own pleasure than venturing off to a war-torn and notoriously temperamental country with which he had no connection and about which he knew practically nothing. However, his father was persuasive and the Spanish government was somewhat impatient as well, quickly running out of options and hoping to establish a new Royal Family before either the Carlists rebelled again or the revolutionaries started swaying people toward a republic. The Spanish Council of Ministers made their formal proposal and on October 19, 1870 Prince Amadeus agreed. On November 16, 1870 the Spanish Cortes formally voted on the election of the Italian prince to become King of Spain. 193 favored the Duke, 64 favored a republic and 22 favored another candidate. The issue was settled. It seemed.

The King pays his respects to General Prim

The Duke of Aosta, now King-elect, sailed for Spain in late December and there were bad omens from the start. Upon his arrival he learned that his chief supporter, General Juan Prim, had been assassinated. On January 2, 1871 there was a blinding snowstorm blowing when he arrived in Madrid to formally take his oath and be sworn in as His Catholic Majesty King Amadeo I of Spain. Like his father, King Amadeo was a man of simple tastes with no great love for pomp and splendor. When shown about the vast royal palace and informed that he, his wife and two sons were to each have separate households, the King informed them in no uncertain terms that he would stay with his family -and that was that. He set about his task with energy and determination, living in very humble surroundings, tackling the pressing issues of his state while his wife the Queen busied herself with charitable causes in Madrid. Some close to him were impressed by his calm determination to do his duty, make his father proud, and restore some luster to the Kingdom of Spain. For many, however, he was from the very first a figure of fun. His lack of knowledge of Spanish history and culture were laughed at and upper class Spaniards took to calling their new Italian monarch the “Intruder King” while the lower classes referred to him as “King Macaroni”.

Some disliked him simply because he was an Italian, a foreigner, while others had less nationalistic but more political reasons. The Carlists, naturally, would never support him as they would support no one but their own pretender to the throne and the revolutionaries, just as naturally, would never support him either as they would never support any monarch at all. His only base of support were the moderate progressives and even they were becoming more and more divided. King Amadeo did his best to come to an understanding of his new country, rising at six every morning to read the papers, including Carlist and republican periodicals, never spending more than an hour at meals, no matter how prominent the dinner guests and endeavoring to be as frugal as possible while still being generous to those in need. He paid the pensions of the household of the deposed Isabella II (which surprised many) and gave an average of $17,500 per month to charity. His tours around the country, in the past always a state expense, were always paid from his private funds.

Foreign observers remarked very favorably on the new royal couple. The Queen was intelligent, good-natured and compassionate while the King was dutiful, practical, hard working and tactful. It was also noted that, while he never took the pledge, he avoided alcohol and only ever drank water. The honest, however, could not ignore the looming obstacles that stood in the way of the King and Queen no matter how much they admired the pair personally. Periodic Carlist rebellions continued to break out, revolutionaries poured scorn on the very idea of a monarchy, money was scarce, the politicians bickering and often corrupt and in the Caribbean island of Cuba, Spain’s beloved “Pearl of the Antilles” there were growing calls for independence and an increasingly covetous gaze coming from the United States. Even the moderate progressives, the closest thing King Amadeo had to a core of support, began to tear each other apart. Many had risen to office during the reign of Isabella II through courting favors, buying and selling influence and rigging elections and the result was an overall low caliber of public servants who occupied the transitory offices of government.

In 1872 bitterness between the progressive factions reached a zenith and the foundation of the new Spanish Savoy monarchy began to crumble from beneath the feet of Amadeo I. In Basque and Catalan the Carlists rose up again in another rebellion and revolutionary republicans began to take to the streets in cities across Spain, starting out as protests but quickly turning into violent riots. The army proved to be as divided as the other segments of society and when the artillery corps went on strike, at such a critical time, the suddenly alarmed government demanded that King Amadeo do something about it. With two-thirds of the country against him, members of the remaining third were calling on him to start shooting down his adopted people. King Amadeo finally determined that he had had enough. He had not come to Spain for this. In the chance that it would do some good he ordered the artillery to return to duty and then, on February 11, 1873 turned in his formal abdication to the government. In his parting speech before the Cortes an exasperated ex-King Amadeo famously declared the Spanish people to be ungovernable and walked out. Later that night the First Spanish Republic was formally declared.

A thoroughly disgusted Amadeus was relieved to return to his native Italy and become Duke of Aosta again. If the Spanish were glad to see him go, they were probably still not so glad as he was to leave. He probably felt somewhat betrayed and he had reason to. His last Prime Minister later became one of the most ardent and troublesome republicans in Spain, which would suggest that he was less than fully committed to his sovereign. He was told he had been brought to Spain to lead a free and liberal constitutional monarchy, yet many of his supposed supporters turned against him when he refused to grant them dictatorial powers to deal with their enemies. The impossibility of the situation he faced comes into even clearer focus considering that the First Spanish Republic that replaced him lasted less than a year and was torn by three simultaneous civil wars and a revolution in Cuba. In the end, a ‘compromise monarchy’ was restored in the person of King Alfonso XII, son of the still disliked Isabella II. Prince Amadeus, Duke of Aosta, former King of Spain, contented himself with a much more peaceful life in Turin.

The marriage of Amadeus and Princess Maria Vittoria had not been without its problems. The Duke was not always a faithful husband and when Maria Vittoria once complained to her father-in-law about it (himself not a man of pristine marital fidelity) she was told more or less that it was not her place to judge her husband and not to make a fuss. Hardly romantic, but the two seemed to settle down and get along well enough and become an effective partnership. They had three sons, the last born the same year they left Spain. The trauma of that event, the stress of the political situation and the arduous journey all conspired to take the life of the former Queen of Spain. Later, Prince Amadeo married his niece, Princess Maria Letizia Bonaparte, by whom he had one more son in 1889. When Amadeus had first returned to Italy he was given a rapturous welcome but his marriage to his niece, who was some 22 years younger than he, caused a scandal. Most agreed that Prince Amadeus loved the girl but that the Princess was marrying simply to get away from the rule of her mother. The appropriate papal dispensation was obtained but Pope Leo XIII later declared that such dispensations were, from that time on, strictly a thing of the past.

The Bonaparte family was happy enough with the marriage as it put their name on the front page of every newspaper in Europe and marked the first time since 1859 that a Bonaparte had married a member of a reigning Royal Family. Interest in the late French Empire resurged in France and some news sheets commented that a restoration of the Napoleonic government might have been possible. This was certainly not the first time such royal relatives married, and his second marriage is not something most remember about former King Amadeo I, but regardless of how many strange royal unions one may know about -it’s just rather creepy. However, for the Duke of Aosta, his life as a newly remarried man was not to last long. Less than two years after his wedding, at the age of only 44, he died in Turin on January 18, 1890 at the Royal Palace. His descendants would go on to great fame in several instances, and of course they are still around today but the first Duke of Aosta will probably always be most remembered for his brief stint as the one and only Savoy King of Spain.

As we have already stated, history has not tended to be kind to King Amadeo I. Still today, more often than not, he is regarded with derision even though there were many glowing accounts of his efforts under the most difficult of circumstances at the time. Personally, I cannot help but have sympathy for King Amadeo I. Of course he had no genealogical right or claim to the Spanish throne but neither did any of the other candidates under consideration and as odd as some might find the idea of an Italian King of Spain, it is certainly less odd than the idea of a Prussian King of Spain which was also considered. Were he truly an invader or an actual usurper himself I would certainly have a less tolerant view. However, Amadeo I had not sought to become King of Spain, was not at all attracted to the notion and had to be persuaded against his better judgment to accept the position. He inherited a country in the midst of one crisis after another, set in motion many, many years before his arrival, none of which he was responsible for starting and yet which he was expected to deal with. He made a respectable effort to succeed in what was clearly a hopeless situation and refused to break his oath to the constitution and refused to maintain himself by slaughtering his subjects. I cannot blame him for becoming King of Spain, I can only blame the government that imported him. That decision having been made, I can only admire him for doing his best to make the best of a bad situation and place blame on the figures that went before him for reducing Spain to such a state that such a course of action ever arose.

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2012!

2012-01-01T00:35:00.000-06:00

2011 The Year in Review

2011-12-31T00:52:00.000-06:00

What sort of year has 2011 been for the world of monarchy? Overall, I am pleased to say, I think it has been a good year. That is not to say, of course, that there were no problems, but on the whole it seems as though the good news has outnumbered the bad. The biggest royal domination in the news has been in the field of romance; one of the few things these days everyone still mostly agrees to be a good thing. We saw pomp and pageantry on display (by the monarchy that tends to do it best) with the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. One would be hard pressed to find almost anyone in the world who missed that event. And from the biggest monarchy in the world we say another wedding in just about the smallest monarchy in the world when Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco were married in an event that was very Monegasque -small but stylish. We also saw the marriage of the heir to the Prussian and German thrones, Prince Georg Friedrich to Princess Sophie von Isenberg, and there were flags, gongs and Buddhist dancers galore out in force for the wedding of the King of Bhutan. And, after their own wonderful wedding, Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel of Sweden announced the upcoming birth of a new heir to the Swedish throne. All very happy occasions and all generally well received by the public.

There were, sadly, some unfortunate royal events as well. At the top of that list would have to be the passing of His Imperial Royal Highness Archduke Otto of Austria, heir to the thrones of Hungary, Bohemia etc and a long-time force in European politics. He was followed in death later in the year by his brother, Archduke Felix, the last surviving child of Emperor Charles I and Empress Zita of Austria-Hungary. This year also saw the passing of Princess Antoinette of Monaco, Baroness of Massy, the 90-year-old sister of the late Prince Rainier III. Also leaving this life was Leka Zogu, son and heir of the self-proclaimed King of Albania from 1928 to 1939. Although a republic, Albania allowed a state funeral for the occasion. In May, Tran Le Xuan, better known as Madame Nhu, former unofficial First Lady of South Vietnam and a great-granddaughter of Emperor Dong Khanh (and thus a cousin of the last Vietnamese Emperor) passed away in Rome on Easter Sunday at the age of 86. Princess Bui Mong Diep, one of the concubines of the last Vietnamese Emperor also died this year. In perhaps the most tragic loss, in January Prince Ali-Reza of Iran killed himself at his home in Boston after a long struggle with depression. And yet, other royal figures reached milestones of longevity in 2011. King Michael I of Romania and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, both turned 90-years-old.

There have also been some royal scandals that have been rather painful, Sweden has been particularly hard hit this year with the father of the Queen being accused of having Nazi connections (disproven) and King Carl XVI Gustaf was implicated in some rather unsavory activities that have significantly lowered the public approval of the Swedish monarchy. In Spain, King Juan Carlos underwent knee surgery and later surgery on his heel, which slowed him down a bit though the Queen put to rest any ideas of a potential abdication. However, corruption allegations surrounding the Duke of Palma, husband of Infanta Cristina, caused a PR-problem for the monarchy in Spain, exacerbated no doubt by the debt crisis, which has caused a drop in popular approval for the monarchy though personal support for the King remains high. The always controversial King of Swaziland in southern Africa had to deal with accusations of holding a wife captive (again) and is still criticized for living too well in a poor country while complaining that Swaziland deserves a bailout from the international community.

In the wider cause of monarchy as a whole there have been some troubling issues but no great disasters and some cause for hope. The Italian Royal Family was front-and-center at a number of events commemorating the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy, unfortunately none of them were “official” government events -rather odd considering the event they were celebrating would not have happened without the Savoy royals. Sultan Abdul Halim became King of Malaysia for the second time in another royal transition for that country. In the Netherlands some politicians began calling for a reduction in the role of the Queen in the Dutch government, which is troubling, yet Queen Beatrix and her son and heir the Prince of Orange made a very successful tour of the Dutch Caribbean islands. At a meeting for the heads of government of the (British) Commonwealth of Nations, UK Prime Minister “Call Me Dave” Cameron announced changes in the royal succession to do away with male preference and the ban against marrying Catholics. As part of the so-called “Arab Spring” the treasonous tyrant Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, who had seized power in a coup against King Idris, was overthrown and killed, opening up at least some hope for a royal restoration there. The King of Jordan began championing democracy and the Kingdom of Morocco became a more limited monarchy. The small, often forgotten Balkan nation of Montenegro even extended official recognition to their former Royal Family, coming about as close as one can to a restoration of the monarchy without actually taking the plunge.

And yet, royal influence could still be felt in some of the most unexpected places. In the Principality of Monaco an over-intoxicated Frenchman was sentenced to six days in jail for insulting Prince Albert II. Prince Alois of Liechtenstein stood up for life and threatened to use the princely veto against efforts to legalize abortion in his tiny country. And showing how vital even limited constitutional monarchs can be, King Albert II of the Belgians managed to shepherd his feuding people through the longest stretch of time any country has gone without a government which was finally ended when Walloon socialist Elio Di Rupo became Prime Minister of Belgium. Overall though, it is pleasing that royal romance has been the dominant theme of 2011 and that all of the marriages have been, on the whole, so well received. The biggest, in terms of both media attention and sheer splendor was, of course, the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The joining of a dashing young prince and a blushing bride gorgeous enough to cause traffic accidents was made-to-order for a country and a commonwealth which had otherwise had nothing to focus on but looming debts, economic disaster and the occasional riot. The popularity of the handsome young couple has caused many republicans to throw up their hands in despair. And that is just the sort of thing we like to see.

Here is hoping that 2012 will be a year of more birthdays, and given the recent number of royal weddings, perhaps the year of a royal baby boom. Naturally, we also hope 2012 sees some royal restorations. Montenegro now seems a likely candidate, Serbia continues to keep me on the edge of my seat, Portugal has all the right ingredients and although I was hopeful for a time about Russia, I am becoming somewhat less so. Putin seems willing to take monarchists to the ball, but reluctant to ask them to dance. Perhaps some other country will give us a pleasant surprise. I would also like to thank everyone who has followed along here in 2011. This year we passed 360 members, 2,000+ subscribers and have around 2,000 people a day checking in to have a look around (the madness continues to spread). I hope everyone comes along in 2012, that you all had a good 2011 and will have an even better New Year.

Thanks again, to you all,
Your resident mad man,
The Mad Monarchist

MM Video: Royals We Lost in 2011

2011-12-31T00:43:00.002-06:00

The 2011 Mad Monarchist Awards

2011-12-30T00:45:00.002-06:00

Yes, it’s the moment you’ve all been waiting for (just play along); the announcement of the winners (and losers as the case may be) of the Monarchist Madness Awards for 2011. I’m still recovering from the after-party for the Monaco Madness Awards so let’s get down to business shall we:

The Nick and Nora Charles Award for cutest couple goes to TRH the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for being as adorable as a toddler holding a kitten in one hand and a puppy in the other. This was an easy one, especially after that trip to Calgary when the newlyweds donned their jeans and Stetsons -in that moment I could almost imagine Texas having a monarchy.

The King Louis XIV Award for epic royal absolutism goes to Prince-Regent Alois of Liechtenstein for crushing the effort to legalize abortion with the simple threat of a royal veto. That, my friends, is royal authority being used in the best way. Congrats!

The Foster Brooks Award for appreciation of over-indulging in adult beverages goes to HRH Prince Harry for visiting the “Sin City” of Las Vegas and being most impressed by the fact casinos offer free drinks as long as you keep gambling. Bottoms up!

The Tammy Wynette Award goes to Princess Claire of Belgium for standing by her man, which is not easy when your man is the gaffe-prone Prince Laurent. Kudos to you Princess Claire, God bless you.

The Bonnie Prince Charlie Award for the most active royal pretender goes, once again, to Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia for working with the public, civil and religious officials to not only express his willingness to be King but advocating for constitutional monarchy as a better government than a republic. God bless him.

The Kelly Grace Award goes to Princess Theodora of Greece for being a real-life princess who became a professional actress officially since joining the cast of a soap opera out in Hollywood. We wish her all due success in her chosen profession.

King Albert prepares to bulldoze the parliament

The Job Award, not the most sought after, for extreme royal patience and devotion to duty in difficult times goes to King Albert II of the Belgians for presiding over a country where it often seems that each half hates the other half and who set a new record for a country going without a permanent government. Perhaps in no other country but Belgium is the monarchy more clearly and immediately necessary.

We have a Double Take Award for Crown Prince Haakon of Norway who went to Nepal on behalf of the UN to check up on how they are advancing the cause of “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” rights and who was “treated” to a dance by cross-dressing transgender natives. What a job.

The Good King Wenceslaus Award for royal popularity goes this year to Queen Margrethe II of Denmark for presiding over a lack of scandals, displaying steady leadership and making the Danish monarchy the most popular in Europe. Denmark is just awesome -everything runs so smoothly you sometimes forget they’re there. And, once again, the Queen of Denmark also takes home the King Zog Award for royal smoking, regardless of what the healthy people say. Daisy must have a bit of a libertarian streak in her.

The Princess Stephanie Rhythm Award goes to Princess Caroline of Hanover and Charlotte Caisraghi for bopping out on the balcony to the song “Africa” on Monaco’s National Day. Who knew the Grimaldi girls were Toto fans?

The Caligula Award for being a royal embarrassment goes to King Mswati III of Swaziland for holding wives prisoner, setting a bad example in times of poverty and then crying when he doesn’t get more bailout money. You’re doing yourself and your country no favors. I don’t like saying this to royalty but --shape up!

Finally we have the Barney Fife Award which goes to King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden for shooting himself in the foot -so to speak and greatly lowering the prestige of the monarchy all because he couldn’t keep better company. Not good Majesty. Not good.

And now, the last prize of the evening, the presentation of the Mad Monarchist Medal which recognizes, as a way of showing our appreciation, the monarchist blog or website which sent the most visitors to The Mad Monarchist. And the award goes to (drum roll please) … the blog Royal World which sent more than twice as much traffic our way than the next highest contender. The Mad Monarchist Medal goes to Royal World, and its purveyor and readers of course, along with our sincere thanks and gratitude. Wear it in good health.

Birthday of the Mad Baron

2011-12-29T00:19:00.004-06:00

It was today in 1885 that our blog mascot, my deranged hero, Baron Roman Fyodorovich Ungern von Sternberg was born. Readers are invited to take a look back on the many past posts dealing with the White Russian crusader and Mad Monarchist of Mongolia. And how is this for raising an eyebrow or two: it was also on this day in 1911 that Mongolia first declared independence from China as a theocratic Buddhist monarchy under the Bogd Khan -whom the Baron would one day liberate from Chinese captivity and restore to his throne. This declaration of independence was done in conjunction with the "Great 13th" Dalai Lama of Tibet as the Qing Empire was collapsing in China. But, getting back to the 'man of the hour' the Baron was born in Graz, in what was then the Dual Empire of Austria-Hungary. He was an ethnic German (as were many in the Baltic where his family was from and where he grew up) but of course was also an ardent defender of Imperial Russia and who would one day command an army made up mostly of Asians. His aim? Far-fetched but oh so glorious, to force a pan-monarchist coalition that would stretch across Eurasia, covering all the lands of the great Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan to create an imperial, religious-monarchist bulwark against the revolutionary tide. Here is something like what he had in mind:

Ultimately, it didn't quite work out, but what a glorious vision it was...

Favorite Royal Images: Princess Galyani of Thailand

2011-12-28T01:08:00.000-06:00

HRH Princess Galyani Vadhana, late sister of the 8th and 9th Kings of Thailand

Off Topic Tuesday: The Case of Captain Wirz

2011-12-27T00:21:00.000-06:00

(this is a very old little article of mine I dug up - please forgive)

I am an admitted sucker for hard-luck cases, and the case of Confederate Captain Henry Wirz, commandant of the interior of the Civil War military prison at Andersonville, Georgia is one of the hardest of all. Unhappy in his native Switzerland, he came to the southern United States at a time when Americans distrusted most foreigners. His first language was German, which made it even worse, and he was a convert to the Roman Catholic Church at a time when many in America were militantly anti-Catholic. He worked as a doctor before joining a Louisiana infantry regiment at the start of the American Civil War. At the battle of Seven Pines he was wounded by artillery shrapnel which left his right arm paralyzed and in constant pain.

As a sergeant, Wirz served on the staff of Brigadier General John H. Winder, the officer in charge of all prisoners of war taken by Confederate armies. He proved so effective that he was later commissioned as an officer and, due to his European origin and ability to speak English, French and German, was sent to Europe by the southern government on a diplomatic mission, though records of his actions or goals are scarce. Nonetheless, after coming home on a blockade runner he was placed in charge of the stockade at the newly built prison camp at Andersonville.

An important point, which many post-war northerners refused to take into consideration, is that the job Wirz had of commanding the interior of the prison was a very difficult one in which he had a great deal of responsibility, but almost no power to take any action. Supreme authority rested with General Winder as the officer in charge of all POW's, while the command of the post, or Camp Sumter as was the official name, went to his son Richard Winder and all regiments and canon batteries on guard duty had their own officers, most of whom outranked Henry Wirz and did not take kindly to a lowly captain making demands on how their troops were to be used. The only direct power Captain Wirz had was over the interior of the prison and whatever guards were on watch around the stockade. This job therefore meant that Wirz was the one most often seen by the prisoners as "boss", and the one who was subsequently blamed for their every misfortune, while he actually had almost no power to make any major changes to their welfare.

Throughout the rest of the war, when given the opportunity, Wirz proved that, while he certainly had no love for the yankees, he did what he could to improve conditions in the prison. This included such things as moving the hospital outside the stockade, establishing a more efficient method of organization, and numerous attempts to improve sanitation and provide some form of housing for the prisoners. However, in areas such as this, Wirz was constantly hampered by a lack of proper materials. Andersonville, it must be remembered, operated during the last half of the war, at a time when the southern states were in a situation of extreme poverty. When massive numbers of Confederate soldiers and civilians were enduring poverty and starvation, it is hardly surprising that captured enemy soldiers would often be forced to do without as well.

After the war, Captain Wirz would be forced to stand trial for every misery endured by the Union prisoners, and indeed many which were total fabrications, whereas it is easy to see that, in fact, most of the privations these men were forced to endure was the fault of their own government. The first general culprit was the Union blockade, which choked off all imports to the south. The south had almost no industry of any kind, and the majority of crops grown were tobacco and cotton, so when it came to basic necessities the south depended on imports for almost everything. Finally, there was the refusal of U.S. General Ulysses Grant to continue the program of exchanging northern prisoners for southern ones in U.S. prison camps. Grant knew that the north had a huge manpower advantage over the south, and so decided to fight a war of attrition. Unfortunately, this meant that Andersonville would at one point hold around 33,000 prisoners when it was built with the intention of holding only 8,000.

During their captivity many of the northern troops became extremely disgusted with their leaders who seemed to care so little about their horrific suffering. They even sent a petition with thousands of names to Washington D.C. demanding that the exchange program be re-opened. During the trial of Captain Wirz, his lawyer attempted to have this admitted as evidence, but was denied on the grounds that it made the late President Lincoln seem uncaring(?!). Much the same unfairness was shown at the end of the war when Wirz was held prisoner and put on trial for war crimes. Favorable witnesses were threatened with the loss of their pardons if they spoke on his behalf, any sort of rumor or allegation was admitted so long as it was against Captain Wirz. By this time, Lincoln was dead and the north wanted blood. Captain Wirz, commandant of an infamous prison, a foreigner and a Catholic seemed the ideal target. Shortly after the trial he was hanged in the courtyard of old Capital prison; the only man to be executed for war crimes during the Civil War. In recent years the Daughters of the Confederacy erected a small monument in honor of the maligned Captain Wirz at Andersonville, Ga.

MM Video: The Last King and Queen of the Two-Sicilies

2011-12-26T00:19:00.000-06:00

MM Video: Dukes of Parma

2011-12-26T00:14:00.000-06:00

A Happy Christmas to All

2011-12-25T00:59:00.000-06:00

A Happy Christmas to all from The Mad Monarchist.

On this day special to all Christian monarchists, marking the birth of the King of kings, everyone should, of course, take a step back from all the commercialism and consumerist headaches and reflect on that. Around here we particularly note (if few other Christians do these days) that the birth of Christ was considered a matter of royal prophecy. It was foretold that a *King* would be born, of the royal house of David, in the city of that great King of Israel. We should also recall how the pagan powers were pivotal in making the prophecy come true as it was due to the order of the Emperor Augustus Caesar that the Holy Family came to be in the place foretold and that it was because of his royal bloodline and the royal prophecy surrounding the birth of Christ that the infant King was hunted and persecuted, forcing the flight to Egypt. As was written, "on this day, a King is born". A happy Christmas to all and my thanks to everyone for coming along.

You're Better Than This Germany - A Shameless Plug

2011-12-24T17:35:00.000-06:00

The Emperor's Birthday

2011-12-23T09:12:00.000-06:00

Today the people of Japan celebrate the Emperor's birthday (天長節) as it was on this day in 1933 that His Imperial Majesty Emperor Akihito was born. We wish His Majesty a happy birthday and a happy holiday to all the people of Japan. Banzai! Banzai! Banzai!

My Apologies

2011-12-23T09:07:00.000-06:00

My apologies to all but it may be fairly slim pickings here at the Mad Monarchist for a while. With everyone else on Christmas vacation around here, I'm having to work overtime and have had little time to make much progress on the blog. I have exhausted my 'ready to post' articles, which I try to have done ahead of time to allow for the occasional hiccup, so while I will try to do what I can, with all of the extra demands on my time (and a few minor family disasters) it might take until after the holiday break for things to get back to normal. I am sorry if this disappoints anyone and I appreciate everyone for your attention and your understanding.
-The Mad Monarchist

The Case for Monarchy: Portugal

2011-12-22T00:16:00.000-06:00

In few other cases can the argument for monarchy be better made than in Portugal and the only argument needed is the historical argument. As a kingdom, Portugal was once the envy of Europe, the little country on the edge of the continent that was on the cutting edge of progress and innovation. As a republic, Portugal has known tumult, in-fighting and gained notice only for being one of the most poor European nations. Even when that trend started to be reversed, it was based on borrowed prosperity and has led to Portugal being known as a debtor country. The contrast could not be more stark. Of course, the history of the Kingdom of Portugal was not one of uninterrupted success. There were certainly low periods. However, under the monarchy the Portuguese showed what they were truly capable of and they achieved truly awesome heights of prestige and prosperity. Under the republic, the low periods have remained but the successes of the monarchy have never even come close to being matched to say nothing of being surpassed.

Portugal was born and came into being as a monarchy. The Portuguese kings led their people in the struggle against Islamic domination, creating their own independent country and then leading it to further success on the world stage. The Kingdom of Portugal was a center of science and learning, Portuguese explorers in the employ of the King blazed a trail that the other nations of western Europe would follow. They built the first global maritime empire, and one based on commerce and industry rather than conquering vast territories and subjugating populations. They carried the Portuguese language and the light of Christianity to the jungles of Brazil, the farthest, untouched corners of Africa, the subcontinent of India and the islands and great civilizations of the Far East. The Kingdom of Portugal introduced Europe to the world and established business contacts and trade routes that made Portugal the most prosperous country in Christendom and yet also maintained their reputation as one of the most faithful and devoutly religious.

Ask anyone to name the greatest figures of Portuguese history and they will most likely come up with names like King Manuel I, Henry the Navigator or any of the number of great explorers from the golden age of Portuguese history. In short, they will name people from the era of the Kingdom of Portugal. Ask them to name some great or even significant Portuguese figure from the era of the republics and you will be answered with deafening silence. It is not to say that no one from Portugal has done anything significant since then, but that is one of the things that comes with the loss of monarchy. Everything seems altogether more ordinary and mundane compared to countries that are part of the club of royalty. For instance, more people know about Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese Queen consort of Great Britain, wife of King Charles II, who brought part of India as her dowry and who introduced the custom of drinking tea to England than any of the “first ladies” of even any Portuguese republican official to say nothing of foreign leaders. Even when the Kingdom of Portugal had fallen on hard times in the years prior to the revolution, Portugal was still a country that mattered to the other great powers of Europe because it was a royal country, worthy of consideration for marriage alliances because of their lofty rank. Since the republic, Portugal has been largely ignored on the world stage until recently when her mountainous debts have threatened to cause economic hardship for others.

The kingdom may have had its problems at certain points but the leadership of the republic have set new depths to which the standards of corruption, dishonesty and graft have sunk to. In any debate about the Portuguese monarchy and its overthrow, mention will usually be made of the country going bankrupt (twice) during the reign of King Carlos I, the last Portuguese monarch but one. Yet, this was not necessarily an entirely bad thing as modern events should prove. The current government in Portugal should have gone bankrupt long ago, on multiple occasions, but because the politicians who have been breaking the country are able to hide behind the veil of democratic republicanism, their crimes went unnoticed. They artificially kept the country floating on borrowed money, turning Portugal into a debtor nation when a bankruptcy or two when it should have happened might have shocked the public back to their senses and encouraged them to throw out the current lot and install someone better, perhaps even an altogether better system such as a constitutional monarchy in which the King would be available to keep a reviewing eye on the political class who have been juggling the books.

It is truly heartbreaking to see the state of Portugal today. Heartbreaking because it was not necessary, it was avoidable and because a simple look at any history book in the world will show that Portugal is a better country than this and the Portuguese are better people than this. Alleviating the problems in Portugal today should be a very simple matter of checking the historical record. Portugal was once prosperous, vastly wealthy even, with a population known for their hard work, ingenuity and abundance of faith rather than their abundance of debts. All one need do is take a look at the historical record, see when Portugal was at her best and then simply do what they did back then (with some modifications to suit modern times of course). If reform is to start at the top, the first change that should be made is in the highest level of national leadership. If Portugal was greatest when she was a monarchy then she should be a monarchy again. It would not solve every problem instantly of course, but a restored King of Portugal could provide the sort of moral leadership Portugal needs so that the people can be inspired again, united and motivated to help each other and, as in the old days, find new ways to grow and prosper. Only a figure like a monarch could lead such a movement, lead Portugal in restoring her faith, her pride and her pursuit of excellence. And that is why the Portuguese monarchy should be restored in quick order.

Monarch Profile: Emperor GuangXu of China

2011-12-21T01:06:00.000-06:00

One of the great “might have been” figures of late Imperial China was the weak but romantic and high-minded Emperor Guangxu, the last monarch but one of the Qing Imperial Dynasty. He was born Prince Aisin-Gioro Zaitian on August 14, 1871 to Yixuan, the first Prince Chun (son of Emperor Daoguang) and Yehenara Wanzhen who was a younger sister of the formidable Empress Dowager Cixi. He had little time for a normal childhood when Emperor Tongzhi died in 1875. Empress Dowager Ci’an (second empress consort of Emperor Xianfeng) first suggested the family of Prince Gong to carry on the family line but Empress Dowager Cixi blocked that idea and instead put forward her nephew Zaitian for the job. The Imperial Family agreed, Empress Cixi adopted her nephew as her own son and on February 25, 1874 the four-year-old boy formally became Guangxu (“The Glorious Succession”), “Great Emperor of the Great Qing Dynasty, Grand Khan of Tartary, the Son of Heaven and Lord of 10,000 Years”. For the sake of tradition he was legally declared the successor of Emperor Xianfeng rather than Emperor Tongzhi but “Holy Mother Empress Dowager Cixi” continued to rule herself as regent.

As a child, Emperor Guangxu was terrified by the Empress Dowager and remained intimidated by her throughout his life. However, he had a good relationship with his tutor (later the Minister of Revenue) Weng Tonghe, a Confucian scholar who had previously been tutor to Emperor Tongzhi. As he grew up there was no escaping the fact that Imperial China was being overtaken as the preeminent power in East Asia. The British had moved into Burma, France was in control of Indochina, Russia was taking a greater interest in the region, Japan was rapidly modernizing and China seemed to be standing still. As he grew into adulthood, Emperor Guangxu became more concerned with this situation and finding a way out of the downward spiral China seemed to be in. His tutor, Weng Tonghe, suggested a reform-minded mandarin named Kang Youwei who, in turn, recommended to the Emperor others who were committed to reforming Chinese society. Empress-Dowager Cixi retired to the Summer Palace, leaving politics behind (or at least so she claimed) which put Emperor Guangxu in actual control of China for the first time. With the support of men like Kang Youwei and Liang Qiqao, in June of 1898 Emperor Guangxu began what is now known as the One Hundred Days Reform.

Emperor Guangxu, and his entourage of like-minded mandarins, issued a veritable flood of imperial edicts aimed at reforming virtually every segment of Chinese society. The idea was to remake the Qing Empire along lines inspired by western countries and particularly the Empire of Japan. Just like the Japanese they hoped to create a modern infrastructure, economy, military, educational system and even a constitutional government with representative assemblies but doing it all within the traditional imperial system and with the Emperor retaining final authority. However, while Japan had modernized at breathtaking speed, Emperor Guangxu was trying to go even faster and Chinese society reeled from the impact of all the proposed changes. It also upset the old order which went looking for help at the door of Empress-Dowager Cixi. These included many officials Emperor Guangxu dismissed for being incompetent at worst or opposed to his reforms or reform schedule at best. There were also those who stood to lose power or position as a result of the reforms. Some were also genuinely concerned that foreign powers stood to take advantage of China through the flood of reforms, gaining influence in details of the mountain of edicts Emperor Guangxu put his seal on.

Empress Dowager Cixi and her supporters gathered military support with the aim of effectively deposing Emperor Guangxu to put a stop to all the drastic changes. A key figure was General Yuan Shihkai who was put in charge of the primary defensive force around the Emperor. However, at a key moment, he threw his support behind the Empress-Dowager whose own military forces, led by General Guwalgiya Ronglu. His troops surrounded the Forbidden City, took Guangxu prisoner and this was followed by an edict from the Empress-Dowager which effectively declared the Emperor unfit to rule. He was placed under house arrest, deprived of all rights and privileges and was under constant surveillance. Some wished to depose him formally while other traditionalists recoiled at this and wished him to remain powerless but still nominally emperor.

Some of his supporters were executed by the Empress-Dowager, others punished in lesser ways and some, like Kang Youwei, fled the country and founded the “Protect the Emperor Society” to advocate for a constitutional monarchy for China. Those who viewed Emperor Guangxu as being duped by foreign powers felt their prejudice confirmed when he opposed the Empress-Dowager declaring war on the great powers of Europe and the United States in support of the Boxer Rebellion. He could not influence events at all of course and was eventually proven correct when the Boxers and regular Chinese forces were defeated by the Eight Nation Alliance (Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the United States and Japan) which saw the foreign armies take Peking, even the Forbidden City and ransacking the place. Emperor Guangxu was persuaded by his favorite consort (the tragic “Pearl Concubine”) to treat with the foreigners himself but before he could do so the Empress-Dowager had the concubine thrown down a well by her eunuchs and when she fled the Forbidden City in disguise ahead of the foreign armies, she took the Emperor with her. She was greatly offended when the foreign officials stated that any agreement had to be made, at least nominally, with Emperor Guangxu rather than herself since he was, legally, still the chief-of-state.

Once the foreigners withdrew from Peking the Emperor was returned to the Forbidden City where he was still kept isolated and confined, indulging his childhood interest of tinkering with clocks and assorted gadgetry. It seems he still had hopes of putting China on the path he thought best once the increasingly old and frail Empress-Dowager passed away. He still had loyal supporters outside of China, and a few within the country, who might rally to him and restore him to power on that occasion. However, the most widely accepted version of events is that the Empress-Dowager was not allowed to run the risk of that happening and so, when she was herself on her deathbed, ordered Emperor Guangxu to be poisoned. Whatever the case may be, he died suddenly on November 14, 1908, only one day before the Empress-Dowager, at the age of 37. His successor, Aisin-Gioro Puyi, later said that he had been told that Yuan Shihkai had employed a eunuch to murder the Emperor and then had the eunuch murdered to cover his tracks for fear that he would be executed for treason if Guangxu ever returned to power.

The funeral for Emperor Guangxu was the last such ceremony China would ever see. The Republic of China, which came into being after 1911, funded the building of his mausoleum in the Western Qing Tombs as part of an agreement made with the late dynasty. Republican leader Dr. Sun Yat-sen even managed to praise Emperor Guangxu for his open-mindedness and commitment to reform and even post-civil war communist historians have been less inclined to be harsh toward him. His efforts at widespread reform may have been rushed and not handled in the proper way yet many still point to his reign as a great opportunity lost. One cannot help but speculate about what might have been if he had been allowed to see things through as he wished. Might Imperial China have become a modern, constitutional monarchy, enjoying the advances of modern innovation while remaining faithful to long-held traditions? We can, of course, never know but it does provide a precedent which can be pointed to as an alternative for monarchists in China to this day. If China were to ever become the modern monarchy he envisioned, Emperor Guangxu would finally be vindicated in his vision for the future.

Off Topic Tuesday: Picking On Ron Paul

2011-12-20T00:43:00.000-06:00

Lord help me, I’m going to say something nice about Ron Paul. First, let me get some preliminaries out of the way: as I have already detailed in the past, Congressman Paul cannot win the GOP primary and he could never be elected President of the United States. We don’t elect people from the House of Representatives to the presidency, the pro-war crowd would never support him, the big business lobby would never support him (he’s too capitalist for them, believe it or not), the Jewish lobby would never support him, none of the racial minorities would support him, the university liberals would never support him and the religious right would never support him -and that’s pretty much everyone aside from the Libertarians. However, I cannot help but feel for the man due to the way he is constantly singled out and picked on, by the Right more than the Left (only because the Left know he’s unelectable and he serves to divide the Right) when, agree with him or not, he has been probably the most principled and consistent politician in office in the last few decades. He does not deserve to be treated with the ridicule he often is and, as I have also said before, he is also right on quite a few things.

Right now, as it is primary season when the contest is ‘who is conservative enough’, the one issue he is picked on the most is foreign policy. His stated position on foreign policy is one of non-intervention. Frankly, I disagree with that, however, I don’t think Ron Paul is as far off the reservation as he is portrayed as in the media. I have heard people say they are afraid of Ron Paul because he would never take us to war, even if it was necessary. But, that is not exactly true. Ron Paul would say that NO president should ever take us to war because the Constitution says it is the Congress that has the power to declare war and conclude peace. So, just because Ron Paul was President of the United States does not mean that the USA would never go to war, only that it would have to be done (as in the old days) by a vote of Congress. However, let us get right down to the nub of the issue and that is Iran. The big issue at the heart of all the controversy around Ron Paul in the GOP primary is that he refuses to say he would go to war with or bomb Iran and he does not believe that Iran is a threat, he does not believe they are close to having the bomb and yet he also says he wouldn’t really blame them or be concerned if they did get the bomb.

In the name of full disclosure let me say that I am in favor of bombing the Islamic Republic of Iran just on general principle. I regard them as a criminal, horrific and illegitimate regime that the world would be better without. That is all there is to it. However, here again, I think Ron Paul is being treated unfairly. The truth is that none of the candidates are anxious to go to war with or bomb Iran. They just like to talk tough and pretend that they are. When pressed on the subject they all say that the military option should “remain on the table” but that it should always be the last resort and they get very, very evasive when a reporter tries to pin them down on exactly what circumstances would prompt them to take military action. All of them (aside from Ron Paul) basically advocate doing the same thing the US has been doing to Iran for years but all to no avail. So, I really don’t think there is such a vast gulf between what Ron Paul and the other candidates, realistically, would do regarding Iran, he’s simply honest in saying what he thinks and too principled to go against his belief in non-interventionism just because that is what the primary voters would want to hear.

Congressman Paul (and I almost hate to say this) is also correct when he says that Iran is simply not a threat to the United States. Even if they had the bomb they have no missiles they could stick it on that could possibly reach North America. The only way Iran could pose a threat to the national security of the United States is if they smuggled a weapon into the country with a person carrying it. Which, by the way, is something that hardly anyone seems concerned with guarding against. The World Trade Center was not destroyed by missiles launched from Afghanistan. If the U.S. had occupied Afghanistan in 1999 or 2000, that would not have stopped 9-11. What would have prevented it would be keeping dangerous and unauthorized people out of the country and that is something the US is still not doing and shows no real interest in ever doing. Blowing up Iran (satisfying as I would find it) would not make America safer, secure borders and ports of entry and keeping a close eye on foreign nationals inside the country actually would. Whether Paul would do that or not, I don’t know, but I do know he is technically correct when he says that Iran is not a threat to the United States of America. A threat to Israel? Certainly. A threat to Europe? Possibly. And Ron Paul would have no problem with those countries doing whatever they pleased to protect themselves. He would say it is none of our business what Iran or Israel or Europe does.

The whole issue is a fraud. I say that as someone who is not an unqualified supporter of Ron Paul. He loves to describe the United States as an “American Empire”, and I totally disagree with that. He thinks that if the U.S. were more like Switzerland we would have no enemies. I totally disagree with that, experience having proven that the U.S. is just as often criticized for not getting involved as it is for getting involved. For me, World War I is the best example of this. The Allies begged and begged and manipulated and cajoled the U.S. into coming into the war and then, once America did and the war was won, promptly blamed every ill-effect of it on America getting involved, even for the Versailles Treaty which the U.S. never signed. Where I will agree with Ron Paul is that so much, perhaps even the majority, of U.S. intervention and the U.S. military presence overseas does not serve any practical value in terms of American national security. How is America safer because of the 50,000 troops in Germany or the 30,000 troops in South Korea? After all, if North Korea ever got a wild hair and decided to invade South Korea those 30,000 American troops would not make any difference at all. Thirty thousand men between two Koreas with armies numbering in the millions is not a drop in the bucket. I don’t see how the United States itself is any safer because of our bases in Afghanistan, Thisistan or Thatistan. Enemies of the U.S. are extending their influence into Central and South America and the eyes of Washington DC are on the Middle East and Central Asia.

I do not share the foreign policy outlook of Ron Paul but I see no point in doing favors for people who don’t like the U.S. and I see no sense in offending foreign powers we have no problem with in order to smack down some petty dictator who is no threat to American security in the first place. For instance, how does it benefit the United States to have bases in Central Asia that (evidently) terrifies the Russians? Everyone knows the U.S. has no intention, will or desire to actually fight the Russians -ever. So, why maintain these bases that frighten them so? Because of Afghanistan we are told. But why do we need to be in Afghanistan? The Taliban was removed from power, Osama bin Laden is dead and now feeding the fish at the bottom of the ocean. So, what is the point of our continued presence in Afghanistan? Well, if we leave now, we are told, the Taliban will come back and take over again. By that logic we should never leave any country (though I sometimes wonder if that is not a reality as we still have thousands of troops in Germany, Italy and Japan). And, though I don’t want to sound heartless, but if we leave and the Taliban does come back … who cares? The Taliban did not attack us, they were no threat to us and they could do us no harm, again, unless we allowed them into the United States and then failed to keep track of them -a problem no one wants to address.

Ron Paul also makes a valid point that is never considered. When he gives it, interviewers usually ignore it and carry on as if he had never said it. The point Ron Paul makes with Iran is that U.S. forces are or have been established in both Iraq and Afghanistan, putting them on the eastern and western borders of Iran. How would the U.S. react to an enemy invading and occupying Canada and Mexico? Of course, the U.S. would never tolerate such a thing. Since at least the American Civil War the United States has quite frequently displayed behavior she would never tolerate on the part of any other power. This has often caused confusion and anger on the part of foreign powers. For example, the Japanese raised no fuss when the U.S. took the Philippines from Spain and so were rather annoyed that the U.S. would make such a fuss over Japan taking Manchuria from China. I’m sure, in 1914, there were some Germans who found it odd that the U.S. which had so recently sent troops into Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean was so outraged at their own soldiers being sent into Belgium.

I was never fond of the “Monroe Doctrine”. It seemed to me like little more than the U.S. claiming all of North, Central and South America as a “republics only” club. This was the doctrine which the U.S. invoked in pressuring France to pull out of Mexico, leaving Emperor Maximilian high and dry and ensuring his defeat at the hands of the loyal American ally Benito Juarez. Yet, how many times has the U.S. done, in other parts of the world, pretty much the same thing France did in Mexico. The U.S. would not tolerate any other power “interfering” in the Americas, what the U.S. claimed as its exclusive sphere of influence, yet the U.S. seems perplexed that other countries would be upset at all over American interference in their own sphere of influence. Many would argue that it is the character of the regimes in question that we are dealing with that makes all the difference. It sounds nice and all, but that’s really an absurd line of reasoning as the U.S. (like any other country) deals openly and sometimes in a very friendly fashion with regimes many would regard as terrible dictatorships. That is all a matter of opinion, who is “untouchable” and who is not. Paul has mentioned before the absurdity of the U.S. trading with Red China while still maintaining an embargo on Cuba. I think it is absurd as well, though I do so as one who doesn’t think we should be trading with China, but it is a double standard nonetheless.

Again, I certainly don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, and he doesn’t have a prayer of getting elected President in this day and age or even winning a primary in either major party. However, it seems wrong to belittle or dismiss him. He has ideas worth considering, he has been proven correct in many of his economic predictions and he is presenting a challenge to the American people and the political establishment that, frankly, I love to see. Unlike many of my countrymen, including Ron Paul, I do not hold the Founding Fathers and the system of government they established as being “divinely inspired” or somehow sacrosanct (I would have been one of those horrible Tories had I been in New England in 1776). At the heart of all of his positions, Ron Paul is simply challenging people today to practice what they preach in terms of upholding the Constitution of the United States. If they really believe the Founders were so brilliant and the Constitution such a sacred document, they should have no problem in strictly adhering to it. That means no government interference in the economy, no entangling alliances, no military adventures or treating people as POW’s without a declaration of war and no cradle to grave welfare.

Additional note: one reason I cannot unequivocally support isolationism is the case of Iran itself. Ron Paul bemoans U.S. assistance in restoring the late Shah to power in Iran. I have no problem with that and one of (if not the) biggest complaints I have against Jimmy Carter was his failure to intervene and assist the Shah against the revolution that brought him down and elevated the current, horrific, regime to power.

The Case for Monarchy: France

2011-12-19T00:55:00.001-06:00

The Kingdom of France holds a special place in the heart of most western monarchists because so much of the subsequent dominance of republicanism and the idealization of revolution stems from its downfall. Even today it would not be totally untrue to assert, as past republican figures have done, that France IS the Revolution. Because the French Revolution assumed such a place of worshipful devotion it has been necessary for subsequent republican leaders to glorify the leaders of that horrific event and to blacken the name of the old Kingdom of France and in this they have, sadly, been mostly successful. For most people, the colors of blue-white-red, the French national anthem and even the guillotine evoke things like patriotism, the struggle for liberty, equality and fraternity, the overthrow of oppression and so on. Likewise, for most people, the Kingdom of France is often viewed as a terrible period of absolutism, exploitation, impoverished peasants being preyed upon by corrupt, distance aristocrats clustered around a hedonistic court presided over by power-mad monarchs and hypocritical clerics. Like most pieces of propaganda this is the result of ignoring unpleasant facts, facts that do not fit the narrative, and greatly exaggerating real problems to the point of inventing falsehoods.

France can be seen as revolutionary in one way. For almost as long as it has existed as a recognizable nation it has known a series of rises and falls. There was the rise of the empire of Charlemagne (though it is still a matter of bitter dispute among some whether this was a French or German accomplishment) which dominated western Europe before dividing and going into decline. Then there was the rise of France as the great right-arm of Christendom with French knights subduing enemies and rivals across Europe, from Sicily to the Balkans and who made up the bulk of the crusader armies that held out against the powerful forces of Islam in the Middle East. Then there was division, the Hundred Years War with England and a long period of relative weakness. However, France rose up again, briefly, before being submerged for a time in religious turmoil only to rise again and become the single most dominant power in western Europe. French explorers reached Canada and the Mississippi, France was the center of art, science and philosophy. During the reign of King Louis XIV it is no exaggeration to say that everything revolved around France as almost everything done by any nation at that time was a reaction to some action by King Louis. Yet, not long after, came a number of setbacks and finally the Revolution.

It is important to note that the only subsequent major French accomplishments on the world stage were achieved by, on one or two occasions, when the Kingdom of France was briefly restored, or during the two periods of the French Empire. Napoleon I dominated Europe for a time (not necessarily a positive accomplishment but definitely an accomplishment nonetheless), King Charles X extended French influence into North Africa, Emperor Napoleon III briefly extended French influence in the Americas, established the first real presence in Indochina and made France at least a major player in events in the Middle East, the Balkans, Italy and Africa. The French republic, any of the five, have, by comparison, accomplished very little and what they have managed to achieve was done with significant help from other powers and was usually simply building on the foundations already established by their monarchial predecessors. However, the royal period in France had high and low points as well. In any given time there is no doubt that the French have proven themselves capable of great things when they set their mind to it. Government can only help or hinder in this regard. The monarchs usually helped, the republic has, without exception, always hindered.

For the French, the real question is; what sort of France do they want to be? During all of the ups and downs of French history, there is an ample selection to choose from. It would be unfair to present the choice as being between the finest examples of the Kingdom of France and the most horrid examples of revolutionary republicanism. There is not much of a comparison between St Louis and Robespierre after all. At least for humane and civilized people. The problem is that the adherents of the republic often romanticize and justify what most French monarchists would consider the most wicked and terrible pages of their history. Republicans would justify things like the Reign of Terror and the Paris Commune and those who scorn the history of Catholic France in favor of secularism (and there are plenty of them) do see the likes of Robespierre or even Marat as more admirable figures than St Louis or St Joan of Arc. And, just for further consideration, there are those like Napoleon I, King Louis Philippe or Napoleon III who tried to combine the two.

Revolutionary republicans also tend to take the “Whig” vision of history; that progress means moving ever forward and that there is no time better than the present. Given that, one could point to even the grandest heights of royal France and fairly compare it to today. Is the France of today truly representative of the best the French are capable of? A monarchist would certainly say “no”. One can also look at the French Revolutionaries and their own ideals to judge how well they have lived up to them. Originally, they were quite nationalistic, as was seen in the vilification of the once beloved Queen Marie Antoinette as the hated foreigner, the Austrian and so on. Yet, at no time in history has France been less ethnically French than it is today. There are large numbers of non-French Europeans in France, a huge and rapidly growing Arab and African Muslim population and even the most prominent couple in France, the President and First Lady, are an ethnic Hungarian and an Italian. So much for the republic being more “French”. Of course, the Kingdom of France (and even the French Empire to an extent) were cosmopolitan places with their own sort of diversity but it was never enforced in such a way as to water down the distinct native population. A Frenchman was a Frenchman, a German was a German and a Spaniard was a Spaniard. Able to get along, but certainly not the same thing and definitely not interchangeable. Fraternity has been a failure.

What about liberty? Surely the republic has improved in that area over the old days of the monarchy? An objective observer would have to say, again, say “no”. The King was unelected and (theoretically) unaccountable to the people and yet much of French life today is regulated by the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels who are, likewise, unelected and unaccountable. And, unlike the kings of old, they do not even have the welfare of France as their top priority. Assuming their first concern is not themselves, they are expected to act in the interests of the EU as a whole rather than in those of a single country. If the republic has been such a blessing to France, so democratic, so accountable and such a champion of liberty, one would be forced to ask why they have had to have so many of them. For about a thousand years the Kingdom of France operated, in good times and bad, with the occasional change in the Royal Family line, on the same basic principles of a Catholic monarchy. Yet, just since the Revolution (just a little over two centuries ago) France has gone through a directory, a couple restorations, two empires, one “State” and a grand total of five different republics. In fact, many of the low points in the recent history of France can be attributed simply to political instability. Furthermore, for those who uphold the present state of affairs as ideal, one could hardly credit the Revolution for this level of liberty since plenty of other countries have almost identical rights and freedoms that never went through a revolution at all.

As for the goal of equality, that can be easily dismissed since no society has ever achieved it, nor are any ever likely to. A simple look at France today will show that there is still an elite, still those who have power, positions and privileges which others do not and who are treated better, even put somewhat above the law, just because of who they are. In short, like most modern supposedly egalitarian societies, they still have all of the failings of a titled nobility but none of the benefits. It should be clear to anyone by now, simply by observing, that an upper class will always exist. You can either admit it and expect a level of responsibility and noblesse oblige from that upper class or you can hypocritically ignore it and have it exist as an unofficial elite based more often than not on the negative aspects of self-advancement.

So, again, France must make a choice. What sort of France do the French want to have; the Catholic French monarchy that was the “Eldest Daughter of the Church”, the vanguard of Christendom and the most respected source of culture and civilization for centuries (recalling a time when even English and German monarchs spoke French almost exclusively) or the France of the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, anti-clerical genocide, a guillotine in every town, constant turmoil and instability and a country being sold-out by professional politicians and bureaucrats with no connection to the land or people at all? In the past few centuries the French have seen every alternative firsthand, the kingdom, the republic or something in between. All that remains is to make the choice. Of course, if monarchy is chosen there will still, sadly, be another choice to be made afterwards, but nonetheless, we can take this one step at a time. For my part, I look at France today and see a nation that has proven it can be so much more, so much greater and yet clings to what is easy and familiar even if it is mediocre at best and harmful at worst. The French have every right to aspire to greatness, to be a noble, righteous and chivalrous example to the world as they have been before. That is the example that should be embraced and that is why the whole culture of the revolution should be looked at for the horror it is, totally and finally rejected and the monarchy restored.

MM Video: Queens of Thailand

2011-12-18T01:25:00.002-06:00

MM Video: Christmas in Monaco

2011-12-18T01:24:00.000-06:00