Favorite Royal Images: Nile Princess

HRH Princess Faiza of Egypt

Monarch Profile: Ismail the Magnificent, Khedive of Egypt

Ismail Pasha may not have been the most successful Egyptian monarch in history but it certainly was not for lack of trying. His reign was a period of great aspirations, big ideas and grand ambition. His goals were not always reached but he cannot be faulted for thinking small. Ismail Pasha did his best to usher in a new era of power and prestige for Egypt and even hoped to make Egypt a great power again, at least on the regional level. Out with the old and in with the new might have been his motto, modernization, development and expansion were his hopes. Ismail Pasha was born on December 31, 1830 at the Al Musafir Khana Palace in Cairo, the second of the three sons of Ibrahim Pasha, the grandson of the Albanian general Muhammad Ali who was the founder of the Egyptian royal dynasty. His mother was Hoshiar, third wife of Ibrahim Pasha who was said to have been the sister-in-law of the Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II. Ibrahim Pasha was a celebrated national hero in Egypt for his many remarkable military victories and his role, under his father Muhammad Ali, in extending Egyptian rule over a wider area from Syria to Crete. Ibrahim Pasha had also traveled in Europe and during some of his campaigns had a French officer as his chief aide. As such, it is not surprising that he gave his son Ismail a more European education.

From an early age it was impressed on Ismail Pasha that Egypt would have to embrace new ideas, learn new methods of addressing old problems and adopt at least some of the knowledge of Europe if the country was to thrive and prosper. That being so, Ismail was sent to France for his higher education, attending the Ecole d’etat-major in Paris. After finishing his education he returned to Egypt and, following the death of his elder brother by drowning, became heir to the throne of his uncle Muhammad Said Pasha. It was Said of Egypt who built the first railroad in Egypt and who sent a battalion of Sudanese troops to aid the embattled Emperor Maximilian of Mexico at the request of the French. Ismail, however, was kept busy as an envoy representing Egypt in foreign courts such as to the Emperor Napoleon III in Paris, the Pope in Rome and the Sultan in Constantinople. He was not without accomplishment in his native lands though as in 1861 his uncle entrusted him with the command of a column of 18,000 troops sent to put down an uprising in the Sudan. He was then quite accomplished in diplomacy and military affairs when he succeeded his uncle on the Egyptian throne on January 19, 1863.

One of his accomplishments (though it took some time) was to obtain Ottoman recognition of his title as Khedive of Egypt. He and his predecessors had used the title for some time in Egypt but the Ottoman Sultan still only recognized them as basically provincial governors. However, Egypt was already effectively independent of Turkish rule but there was still a desire to maintain titular links to the Ottoman Empire and of course the religious links with the Sultan who was the Caliph of Islam. In 1867, in return for greater tribute payments, the Sultan finally recognized Ismail Pasha as Khedive of Egypt. Further, the Sultan authorized a change in the rules of succession to allow the throne to pass from father to son rather than brother to brother which Khedive Ismail hoped would bring greater stability to the country. In 1873 the Ottoman Sultan also recognized the full autonomy of Egypt from the government in Constantinople, giving official sanction to what had already been the actual state of affairs for some time. From a distance, it may seem rather trivial but these were important steps in maintaining peace between Ottoman Turkey and Egypt, achieving all but a recognition of Egyptian independence on the part of Turkey while maintaining the country as a nominal part of the wider Ottoman Empire. This recognition also helped Egypt in diplomacy with other foreign powers.

All of this was also part of an overall agenda by Khedive Ismail to bring Egypt more ’up to date’ as it were. He was determined to see Egypt restored to some of her old, former glory as a modern, advanced and prosperous country. If possible, he also wished to see Egypt become a significant regional power. The Khedive launched a massive and ambitious program to build up the infrastructure of Egypt, improving internal communications, promoting business and commerce as well as giving patronage to the arts. Egypt obtained its first theatre and opera, new industries sprang up, cities were expanded, ports improved, palaces were built and railroad construction expanded at a feverish pace. In 1866 the Khedive established the first representative body in the history of Egyptian government; an advisor body of local leaders from across the country which, not surprisingly, over time began to take on more and more the look of a national parliament. He also tried to improve the public image of Egypt around the world by cracking down on the slave trade that was still going on, particularly in southern Sudan. Business was booming in Egypt thanks to all these changes and foreign investment increased considerably. In less than ten years on the throne Khedive Ismail had brought about remarkable and beneficial progress in Egypt. With the domestic front doing so well, the Khedive began to turn his attention to foreign relations and international achievements.

The new industries growing up in Egypt brought with them a need for natural resources and this, combined with a desire to assert regional supremacy and gain greater respect on the world stage, prompted Khedive Ismail to embark on a campaign of expansion to the south. His goal was to extend Egyptian control up the entire length of the Nile and to dominate the entire Red Sea coast. Many of these areas had, in the past, been claimed by the Ottoman Empire at the height of Turkish expansion and, as Egypt was still nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, this gave Egypt at least some grounds for moving south. In preparation, the Khedive had also endeavored to build up the Egyptian army and hire veteran soldiers from foreign countries to modernize the military. Many of those who were brought in were Americans fresh from the Civil War. General Thaddeus P. Mott, a veteran of the Union army and numerous conflicts around the world, gained rank in the Ottoman army and was enlisted by Khedive Ismail to recruit American military experts for service in Egypt. A number of officers were enlisted with recommendations from none other than Union General William T. Sherman and those Americans (from both Union and Confederate armies) included such men as Generals Charles P. Stone (another Union army veteran) and Henry H. Sibley and William W. Loring (former Confederate generals). Coastal defenses and the artillery were improved a great deal.

The Egyptian forces pushed south, annexing what is today the southern Sudan, and in 1875 marched into territory claimed by the “King of Kings” of Ethiopia. One of the Americans, General William L. Loring, had been promised command of this expedition but, unfortunately, the position went to Ratib Pasha who had previously been the slave of the former viceroy of Egypt and who had relatively little military experience. The result was disorganized and badly coordinated advance that met with a crushing defeat at the hands of Emperor Yohannes IV of Ethiopia. Initial setbacks were hushed up but a second effort met with a similar fate. The Egyptians who had marched into disaster blamed the Americans the Khedive had imported and most were sent home though in large part due to the great expense of the war and the fact that the Khedive needed to cut costs to make up for this. It was an embarrassing ordeal but proved to be only one dark spot on an otherwise glorious reign.

He impressed foreign monarchs, saw the completion of the Suez Canal and made Egypt a focus of world attention. Unfortunately, his ambitious programs of modernization, rejuvenation, industrialization and expansion all put Egypt heavily in debt. This gave foreign powers an excuse to intervene in Egyptian politics and, at the end of his life, Khedive Ismail was forced to effectively become a constitutional monarch. Most of the effects of this were to be felt by his successors. The monarch known as Khedive Ismail the Magnificent died on March 2, 1895 and was buried in Cairo. Even after the downfall of the Egyptian monarchy and a great deal of negative and unfair coverage, he remains one of the most admired Egyptian royals of the Muhammad Ali dynasty.

Favorite Royal Images: Classic Egyptian Royalty

I know it would never be tolerated there today, but I do love the classical Egyptian style. Who is this royal? That I cannot say for certain, it looks to me to be Princess Iffet Hassan but I could be wrong. If anyone knows for sure, please leave a comment below but that picture was too good to pass up.

Unpopular Democracy in Egypt

Your humble blogger is somewhat perplexed today. All day long all the news has been talking about is the military coup in Egypt. I’m confused; isn’t a military coup the norm in Egypt? President Morsi (lately declared deposed) was the first Egyptian president chosen by the democratic process, other than that, every change in government has been brought about by a military coup. I fail to see what is newsworthy about another in the long list of military coups in Egypt. However, the current situation does provide the world with a “teachable moment” as they say. Of course, few to no one will bother to see the obvious but no one can say we didn’t try. Like so much of the rest of the world, Egypt is in a deplorable condition and no matter who is holding power at the moment, it is no time to be celebrating. Religious fanatics are disturbing the peace, the economy is a shambles, tourism has dried up and is not likely to return so long as riots are the preferred method for changing the national leadership and tanks and soldiers on the streets are a common sight. Egypt has a lot going for it but, looking at the country today, it is hard to believe that at one time (granted, several thousand years ago) Egypt was fabulously wealthy and the Egyptians had but to lift their hand and the whole world would tremble.

If anything, what is going on today should be a lesson to everyone that democracy is not the cure-all for every problem in the world. Remember, the people protesting in the streets now are the same one who were protesting in the past for Mubarak to be ousted and for there to be democracy so they could have a leader of their own choosing. Now these same people are in the streets again because they are unhappy with the leader they chose. International observers said everything was handled fairly, the people of Egypt voted and Morsi was the winner with his Muslim Brotherhood gaining a majority in parliament. It wasn’t a huge majority of course, but a majority and that is all that matters. Now, I have heard that a petition went out calling for the removal of Morsi that had more signatures (by far) than the total number of people who voted for him. So, where were all these people on election day? It is hard for me to have sympathy for people who vote in a bad politician, mostly because I think politicians are almost inherently bad as a whole (with very, very few exceptions) and I think people should know better. I also think people tend to get the government they deserve and even the government they want regardless of democracy. This military coup was certainly not democratic, yet, the people wanted it and they got it. Communist China may not be democratic but if the people were really unhappy with the Communist Party and really wanted change they would have it. When a billion people make up their mind to have something, you can rest assured that they are going to get it.

King Farouk

Speaking only for myself of course, I am glad to see Morsi go. I was also glad to see Mubarak go. That one made me a little nervous but I certainly shed no tears over his fall from power. And, just in case anyone is curious, I can assure you that whoever replaces Morsi will be someone I will be glad to see go in his turn as well. I do not like any of them, I have not liked any Egyptian government since 1953 and I will not approve of any Egyptian government until the monarchy is restored. There was even a reminder of the old Kingdom of Egypt yesterday as it was reported that Princess Fawzia (probably best known as the first wife of the last Shah of Iran) passed away at the age of 92. Egypt had a perfectly good monarchy, there was no reason to abolish it whatsoever and because of that, everything that has happened since fails to move me much. It is all a case of reaping what has been sown. King Farouk may not have been a perfect man in every way but he was certainly no tyrant, no over-zealous fanatic nor did he ever make war on his own people. Even in a limited capacity, the exiled King Fuad II could make life in Egypt better as it is, without holding government power himself, but simply by appointing or removing from office the one who is chosen to hold government power without the need for one military coup after another.

Monarchists are rightly frustrated though as King Farouk of Egypt was unpopular mostly because of a mistake. Much of the opposition to him and to the monarchy in general, came from the idea that he was closely associated with the British occupation of Egypt. In fact, the British were not overly fond of King Farouk either because they knew he really would have preferred they left his country. During World War II he was very friendly with the Italian Royal Family and the British believed he was hoping for the Italo-German forces to drive them out of Egypt. At one point during the war Britain actually deployed military force to compel the King to accede to their wishes and he had to be browbeaten into joining the war alongside Britain and even that was after the conflict had moved far away from Egypt. Furthermore, King Farouk was not the only one of his dynasty to be displeased with the British presence. At the start of World War I the British deposed Khedive Abbas II because he supported the Central Powers rather than the Allies. It was also then that the nominal ties between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire were officially broken. Now, in all fairness, I have to add that, in my view, where the British Empire has been things usually get better rather than worse for their presence, but that is not the issue. Revolutionaries turned the people against the King by portraying him and the Muhammad Ali dynasty as a whole as the willing accomplices of the British when in fact the exact opposite was true.

Finally, of course, the monarchy was abolished under the nominal reign of King Fuad II, a mere child, before he ever had the chance to prove himself as a monarch. Instead, Egypt got a succession of military dictators and now one would-be religious dictator, all coming and going with a great deal of storm and stress. The people demanded an end to military control of the government and democratic elections. They got what they wanted and now they are cheering because the military took control and tossed out the democratically elected president. Oh how fickle the mob can be.

Siege of Khartoum Begins

It was on this day in 1884 that the 319-day siege of Khartoum in the Sudan began with the rebel forces of Mohammed Ahmed, who claimed to be the "Mahdi" besieged the Egyptian garrison of the city commanded by the British veteran General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon. Because of his presence and the subsequent involvement of other European forces against the rebel army such as Great Britain, Belgium and Italy, all Christian powers, and the Christian forces of Ethiopia, sometimes one can get the impression that this was a clash between the forces of Christianity and Islam -which it most certainly was not. Some have also come to see the conflict as a war for Sudanese independence, a trend probably colored by the subsequent independence of the Sudan from Egypt. Again, however, that was not the case.

At its core, the war against Mohammed Ahmed was a war within Islam, a conflict of Muslim against Muslim and the forces of the self-proclaimed "Mahdi" should not illicit sympathy from anyone. The Ulema denounced him and his pretensions and those were extensive as he was determined to bring down the Khedive of Egypt himself and by refusing to recognize the authority of the Khedive he was also refusing to recognize the authority of the Ottoman Sultan on whose behalf the Khedive ruled. One can certainly have sympathy for the Sudanese people who, in many cases it is true, did not have the best life in their native land, but Mohammed Ahmed was not fighting a war on behalf of the people as some today seem to think. He was fighting to advance himself and his grandiose claims to be the messiah and in doing that he intended to overthrow every existing legitimate authority in the Islamic world that did not submit to him, which effectively came to everyone as no serious Islamic scholar could support his fragile case. He wanted to bring down the Khedive, the local rulers of Arabia and even the Sultan himself.

Some may tend to discount this as being too far-fetched for someone leading a horde of desert tribesmen against modern armies with modern weapons. However, what can be considered too far-fetched coming from a man who starts his campaign by declaring himself to be the messiah? No, this was a real and legitimate threat, a threat to the established, existing, legitimate authorities of the region as well as a religious challenge of the first order within Islam. It is admirable that countries of different religions were willing and able to come together to stop this threat to world peace and legitimate authority before it could do even more damage than it did. It is not difficult to see that there is a lesson in this historical episode for people today.

MM Video: King Farouk of Egypt

MM Video: Fawzia of Egypt

Today in History

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

MM Video: Egyptian Royal Family

Message from the Exiled King of Egypt

(from blog member The Radical Royalist)

In the name of Allah the benevolent and the merciful.

"We Ahmed Fouad II of Egypt, deeply saddened by the tragic events experienced by our beloved country, wish wholeheartedly for a swift solution to the present crisis.

"Our prayers accompany families who have suffered losses of dear ones.

"Our best wishes for a prompt recovery are extended to those who have been injured.

"We hope most sincerely that these unfortunate victims will be truly the last and that there will be no more bloodshed.

"Let us hope that the whole Nation and its people will recover peace and well being and take the path of democracy. Social and economic development can only come through peaceful dialogue.

"May Allah protect my beloved Egypt and the Egyptian people."

Some Thoughts on Egypt

All of the talk and tumult over Egypt has been aggravating my damaged mind with increasing regularity. First, I *really* wish people would stop referring to President Hosni Mubarak as a “pharaoh”. You can pick out the most terminally inbred retard from all of them and it is still an insult to such a lofty title of those giants of the ancient world to apply it to Mubarak. Secondly, I am *really* getting sick of the comparisons to Imperial Iran and the constant refrain of “Well, the Shah was a bad guy too but what replaced him was worse…” The Shah was NOT a “bad guy”. It is absolutely no exaggeration to say that he was the most humane and benevolent leader modern Persia/Iran has had. The only people who treated in a less than kind way by the Shah were commie revolutionaries and radical terrorists; both of whom could be dealt with in no other way and neither of whom anyone with the slightest bit of decency should have any sympathy for whatever.

Similarly, I fail to understand why everyone is saying that this situation reminds them so much of the Islamic Revolution in Iran (particularly those skeptical of the way things are going). Why do they not say it reminds them of what happened in Egypt? Let the record show that, just as in Iran, the U.S. was also passively cooperative in the overthrow of the Egyptian monarchy. King Farouk was written off by the United States, the CIA wanted to see him go and had plans for how to handle the situation and, just like the Shah, when his enemies moved against him, King Farouk naively appealed to the United States for help but of course none was forthcoming. Gamal Abdel Nasser and other army officers overthrew the King and, once all was said and done, Egypt was a republic with Nasser as president. Like many causing trouble in Egypt today, he had his own ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, he was a militant pan-Arab nationalist and although he claimed to be “un-aligned” his ties to the Soviet Union were extensive and well documented. He did, however, anger both the Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood when he made Egypt a single-party dictatorship, cutting out all groups but his own.

This first came to my mind when one of the cable news channels showed a group of Egyptian protestors voicing anger at the U.S. President, demanding, “Where are you Obama?” Which underlines why most Americans have become rather callous about how they are viewed in the rest of the world. The U.S. will be blamed by some in any event, either for getting involved or for not getting involved. Then, of course, there are those shameless few who will harangue the U.S. to get involved only to condemn them for doing so after they find they don’t like the results. As far as I’m concerned, the slate should be wiped clean on that front and the U.S. give isolationism another try. And not just “non-interference” but full blown isolationism. Just don’t expect me to be entirely consistent on that front, but I’m tempted, I’m really tempted.

However, if there is anything that we should have learned by now, yet precious few seem to, is that democracy is not the answer to every problem. I just don’t understand the mentality. Are the advocates *really* so diluted as to think that the majority will always agree with them? How many times does the democratic process fail, how many times is an elected or widely popular leader have to tear the world apart before we all get the message that the 51% of the public is not infallible? Besides which, in case any haven’t noticed (and if you haven’t you should seek psychiatric help -I can give you some phone numbers) it is all a colossal lie anyway. Vice President Joe Biden recently said that Mubarak was not a dictator. Now, I don’t think Biden has the sense that God gave geese but I have to feel a little for him now that he’s being ridiculed for that statement. Until the riots started every U.S. administration in recent years would have said the same.

I do not expect the U.S. or the E.U. (or the U.N. while we’re listing initials) to do anything about Egypt, nor would I want them to. However, the utter, flaming, shameless *hypocrisy* constantly spouted makes me mad enough to chew glass. We’ve had Obama and company parade before us saying how the U.S. supports universal human rights, supports the Egyptian people, wants their demands met but wants no bloodshed on either side and wants Mubarak to turn the internet back on. All this while they are still taking down the decorations from the party Obama just threw for the President of Communist China! A president who himself butchered countless innocent people while serving as governor of occupied Tibet and was one of the first party leaders to call for the violent suppression of the pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square! Robert Gibbs said that the Obama administration does not ‘take sides’ in conflicts between the Egyptian people and the government. Well, news flash, YES they do. So does virtually every other country in the western world.

They can talk democracy all they want but the fact is that no one would care in the least about Egypt if it wasn’t for the Suez. If there is a horribly oppressive government that doesn’t make trouble and allows the oil through, no one will really care how oppressive they are. We may annoy the Chinese about their human rights record but we know, and they know, that no one is going to do anything about it. I do wish that King Fuad II had a higher profile in Egypt (I believe it was only last year that he gave his first interview in Arabic for Egyptian TV). He could hardly do worse than the succession of generals-turned-presidents have done but he would also face the same hard choices of many monarchs in the region; trying to please two diametrically opposed parts of the world at the same time while trying to appear simultaneously strong and “democratic”. I cannot see the monarchists of Egypt having much influence here, unfortunately. If a more moderate regime is established they may at least have the chance to compete more openly in the marketplace of ideas but, alas, I cannot be too hopeful. Mobs of angry people in the streets do not tend to foreshadow the establishment of moderate and benevolent governments.

Consort Profile: Queen Zenobia of Palmyra

From Hannibal of Carthage and Attila the Hun to Queen Boudicca in Britain it often seems that Romans attributed as much fame to their enemies as to their own heroes and one of those famous for her opposition to the power of Rome was Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. Born in 240, in Palmyra (in what is now Syria) Zenobia was known for her beauty, intelligence and athletic physique. Mostly of Arabian descent she was also extremely proud of Ptolemy connection through her mother, a relative of the famous Cleopatra of Egypt and who taught the young Zenobia to speak fluent Egyptian. The country was to play a major part in her future and her first step on the road to world fame came when she entered into an arranged marriage with King Odaenathus of Palmyra. The country took its name from the wealthy merchant city of Palmyra which had broken away from the Roman Empire and tried to grow to rival them with their own Palmyrene empire.

Queen Zenobia fully embraced this vision of the future and was just as aggressive and determined as her husband was. She was also known for accompanying the King on hunting trips and bagging more than her share of game. However, she was less enthusiastic about accompanying her husband to bed and would only share his company for the purposes of procreation. Widely revered and respected among her people there was no controversy when she took control of Palmyra herself following the assassination of the King and his son by his first wife in 267. Officially ruling on behalf of her own son by the King, Vaballathus, she showed her ambition by assuming the titles of Augusta and Augustus for herself and her son. Determined to carry on the goals of expansion and greatness, Queen Zenobia shocked the world when she invaded Egypt, a shock which only increased when she succeeded in conquering the ancient country and making herself Queen of Egypt.

The Romans had been wary but hopeful about Zenobia and the rising power of Palmyra. Early on she had taken the Palmyrene line that their goals were benevolent towards the Romans; to protect the Eastern Empire from their old enemy the Sassanids. However, her violent conquest of Egypt (carried out with the aid of a faction of Egyptian sympathizers) and her defeat of the Roman prefect, who was captured and beheaded, caused horror and outrage across the Roman Empire. The Romans tried to make peace with her and bring her back on side, but Queen Zenobia was having none of that, she was doing quite well all on her own. With her realm already stretching from Syria to Egypt she launched further campaigns north, eventually reaching as far as Ankara, Turkey. She marched with her infantry and rode with her cavalry and became quite a celebrity by the standards of the day. After taking control of what is now Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, half of Turkey and the vital trade routes that passed through this area the warrior Queen of Palmyra finally attracted the attention of the Emperor himself.

The Roman Emperor Aurelian had been fighting Gaul, defeating the Alamanni in northern Italy and the Goths in the Balkans. Deciding to take the situation in hand himself, he embarked his legions and headed for Syria. Queen Zenobia was determined to meet them despite an oracle warning her that her forces would be driven off by the Romans like doves chased by hawks. Nonetheless, she led her troops into battle herself against Emperor Aurelian near Antioch. The result was a crushing defeat for Zenobia and another victory for the Romans. Her forces fled and Zenobia was taken prisoner. Turning on the charm, she pretended to be no more than beautiful dupe, an innocent used as a figurehead by her advisors who were responsible for the war. Sadly for her, the Emperor was not so gullible. He took her back to Rome and draped her in gold chains and heavy jewels as he paraded the captured queen consort in his celebratory triumph. What became of the famous Queen of Palmyra after that low point is a matter of some dispute.

Some say the Romans had her beheaded, others that the proud queen starved herself to death rather than live with defeat. Probably the most accepted account, however, is not so dramatic. According to this story she was released by Emperor Aurelian who had mercy on the beautiful, brave queen and gave her a villa in Trivoli. She later married a Roman senator and lived the good life for the rest of her days as a popular socialite and dabbling in philosophy. She had several daughters by her husband and died of natural causes sometime after 274 AD. This would have been quite a step down for a woman who had once dominated the near east, but compared to most of those who set themselves against the Roman Empire and lost, she came out pretty well.

Monarchism in Egypt

Recently the UK newspaper “The Guardian” (of all people) published an article about the revival in Egypt of interest in their Royal Family and former kingdom. Whereas in the old days the monarchy was condemned by the revolutionary radicals who seized Egypt and the former King and royals could only be spoken of with condemnation, things have been changing. Books on the old kingdom are flying off the shelves, visiting royals of the Mohammad Ali dynasty are hounded for interviews and while speaking supportively of the monarchy is still not something conducive to health and long life in Egypt, one can now at least speak of them without condemning them. It is entirely fitting that this should be so. The unfortunate King Farouk may have had his problems and shortcomings but, unlike some that came after him, he was not a cruel or oppressive leader and he represented a dynasty whose history has been bound up with Egypt for centuries.

Perhaps with the benefit of hindsight people will begin to look dispassionately on the revolution which saw the King of Egypt deposed and replaced by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Much of this stemmed from ties between the monarchy and the British and the loss of the 1948 war with Israel. However, the King was certainly not a subservient British lackey and when it comes to unsavory political ties Nasser has him beat in spades having tried to form an alliance with the Italian Fascists in World War II and during the war with Israel offering his first support to Grand Mufti Amin al-Husayni who had been very supportive of the Nazi regime during the war. He would, as dictator of Egypt, go on to support what he called “Arab socialism” and the republican government, if it has succeeded in nothing else, it has done so in bringing their country down to the gutter and robbing it of the grandeur and mystique it knew as a monarchy.

Because of the political situation in Egypt any open advocacy of monarchy is taboo. However, there are some groups on-line which, though they are careful to say that they are not pushing for a restoration, exist to keep alive the history and foster interest in the Egyptian monarchy. You can find such groups on sites like flickr and Facebook. You can also read the full article mentioned above at The Guardian.

Consort Profile: Princess Fawzia of Egypt

Although the first wife of the last Shah of Iran was to have a short stay in the world spotlight, she has never been forgotten. She was born Her Sultanic Highness Princess Fawzia bint Fuad at Ras el-Tin Palace in Alexandria, Egypt on November 5, 1921 to HM Sultan Fuad I of Egypt and the Sudan by his second wife Nazli Sabri. Among her varied royal bloodline was Suleiman Pasha, a French colonel under Napoleon who converted to Islam and updated the Egyptian army. Her nephew Fuad II who go on to be the last King of Egypt. Big changes were going on for the Egyptian Royal Family at this time. Her father dropped the title of Sultan in favor of King and enacted a new constitution to limit the power of parliament. Egypt wanted to make itself more known on the modern world stage and Princess Fawzia was expected to play a part in that through her marriage to the young heir to the throne of Persia.

HIH Prince Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran came to Egypt the ask for the hand of the teenage Princess Fawzia and according to the princess they were both quite infatuated with each other. The proper arrangements were made and the couple were married on March 16, 1938 in Cairo. After their honeymoon the two had another wedding ceremony in Tehran. Not long after, in 1941, the Crown Prince succeeded his father as Shah of Iran with Princess Fawzia being elevated to “Queen of Iran”. She was an instant celebrity, not just in the Middle East but around the world as commentators raved about the Egyptian royal beauty who was now Queen consort of the Iranian Empire. Cecil Beaton of Life magazine called her an “Asian Venus”. However, idyllic as her life seemed, she had many problems.

Almost immediately things began to go wrong for the royal couple. Princess Ashraf, twin sister of the last Shah, and Fawzia took an immediate dislike to each other and tensions soon developed between the two families at large. Queen Fawzia reportedly felt neglected by her husband and found life in Tehran hard to adjust to and somewhat more stark and lonely than the court in Cairo. Not long after the birth of Princess Shahnaz Pahlavi the Queen’s brother, King Farouk I of Egypt, prevailed upon Fawzia to get a divorce. This was granted, in Egypt, in 1945 but was not recognized in Iran until 1948 although both countries insisted that their good relations remained intact. Now Princess Fawzia of Egypt and the Sudan again, the harshest condition was being separated from her daughter who, as a condition of the divorce, had to remain in Iran and had no contact with her mother until she turned 18. The Egyptians blamed the Iranian climate on the divorce while Iran said it was the inability of Fawzia to give the Shah a male heir. In reality however, it seems to have been simply, what we would call today, irreconcilable differences.

A year later, in 1949 in Cairo, Princess Fawzia married Colonel Ismail Hussain Shirin and in the following years had two children by him; a daughter and a son. With the fall of the monarchy in Egypt many in the family moved to Switzerland, however, Princess Fawzia remains the senior member of the Egyptian Royal Family. Although the head of the family still lives in exile in Switzerland the Princess lives in Egypt.

MM Video: Kings of Egypt