Reflections on the Black Hundreds

The period encompassing what turned out to be the final years of the Russian Empire has been the subject of intense focus by historians around the world and a preponderance have done everything possible to slander and defame the Romanov monarchy and all those who supported it. As a result, it has become all too common for people to take for granted that the Russian Empire was an evil regime and that all who supported it were villains and all who opposed it were heroes. Of course, seldom mentioned is the fact that most Russians retained their loyalty to the Czar and that none of the revolutionary regimes which succeeded the monarchy came about by the democratically expressed will of the people which the revolutionaries always claimed to champion. However, that is the situation and one group which had been particularly vilified, due to the fact that few to none were so zealous in their support of the Russian imperial monarchy, was the group of people who came to be known as the Black Hundreds. As usual, while the Black Hundreds have been vociferously demonized, at the same time most doing so have little to no understanding of who the Black Hundreds actually were, why they came into being and why they did the things they did.

In the first place, it is important to keep in mind that there was never a single organization known as “the Black Hundreds”. The name was applied to a number of separate organizations of various sorts that all held the same basic point of view. There was no official starting point for them, no single program and no centrally directed campaigns governing their actions. The Black Hundreds were reactionary in that they emerged in response to the increasing revolutionary activity in late Imperial Russia and they were conservative in that they sought to preserve the Russian Empire as it was which is exactly why so many others then, and particularly now, opposed it; because the Russian Empire did not fall in line with prevailing liberal world opinion being a staunchly Orthodox Christian absolute monarchy. The Black Hundreds looked at the turmoil, treason and violence that was becoming ever more commonplace in Russia, the national setbacks the country had suffered and, not surprisingly, yearned to go back to the example of Russia at its zenith of power under Czar Nicholas I. They endeavored to be the defenders of the three pillars that made up the motto of Czar Nicholas I, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”. Those are the things they defended and would fight for.

Contrary to what most believe, most of what the Black Hundreds did to further their cause was peaceful. They held special prayer meetings and Church services, organized lectures to educate the public on the sacred nature of the monarchy, the central role of the Church and the dangers posed by the revolutionaries. They held marches and demonstrations to show their loyalty to their Czar and to counter opposition rallies held by the revolutionary crowd. This is something that, while not being the whole story, is invariably ignored altogether but the fact is that the major of the activity of the Black Hundreds was completely non-violent and consisted of praying for their Czar and motherland and educating the populace on the importance of faith, loyalty and the Orthodox monarchy. However, there is also no denying the fact that there were those among the Black Hundreds who went further and not a few. This is the part that most historians talk about and are only too happy to relate. Anyone who has read anything about this period of Russian history will certainly have heard of the assortment of assassinations, violent demonstrations and pogroms in which the Black Hundreds were implicated. They are also usually quick to point out the support for the Black Hundreds that came from the Imperial Family when mentioning these.

There is no denying that such events took place, however, the context of these violent acts are invariably ignored completely. The Church services, patriotic demonstrations, newspaper publishing and educational campaigns are ignored entirely and all the focus is on killings, violent demonstrations and particularly the pogroms. However, these were, again, actions taken in response to the violence, acts of treason and murder taken by the revolutionaries. If one understands the desperate situation Russia found itself in, it should be no surprise that there would be those who determined to take a stand and to fight back against it. In terms of law enforcement, the government could do only so much. There was revolutionary infiltration of the police after all and even had their been no traitors or corruption in the police force, for an empire as vast as Russia with so huge a population there was only so much they could do. The authorities could not be everywhere at all times and the revolutionaries were very adept at covering for each other and manipulating the legal system to their own advantage. The Black Hundreds were motivated to action by the dangers afflicting their country and were not prepared to sit back and do nothing while their motherland, their Czar and their faith was under attack.

Several politicians, for example, who had shown themselves to be enemies of the monarchy, were assassinated by elements of the Black Hundreds. Regardless of what one thinks of such actions, the fact is that they paled in comparison to the number of assassinations carried out by the revolutionaries and their motivations were completely different. Acts of violence committed by the revolutionaries were done in an effort to derail the legitimate Russian government, to thwart actions to improve the country and to cause chaos and turmoil. The acts of violence committed by the Black Hundreds were done in an effort to destroy treasonous elements (who made no secret of their treason by the way but in fact gloried in their status as traitors) and to protect the Russian Empire as it existed and had always existed. When they found revolutionaries or people supporting what was essentially treason or anyone who threatened the Russian monarchy, Orthodoxy or the unity of the Russian Empire, they took action. The revolutionaries were not playing by the rules, as it were, so the Black Hundreds saw no reason why they should not respond in kind. If the revolutionaries were prepared to kill to destroy the Russian Empire, the Black Hundreds were willing to kill to protect it.

Another point that is often overlooked is that, while some Black Hundreds groups lasted until the Russian Revolution of 1917, most formed around 1905 and had ceased to be very relevant by 1907. During that time there were many acts of revolutionary violence and political assassinations by those trying to bring down the Russian Empire. During the Russo-Japanese War, increased stress on the national infrastructure caused strikes, riots and protests, the most infamous being “Bloody Sunday”. Enemies within Russia were very active and foreign elements were also on the offensive from outside with Japan providing funding for dissidents working to undermine and bring down the monarchy. The actions of the Black Hundreds, in short, did not spring up for no reason but were a reaction to very real and present threats against the Russian Empire and the Orthodox monarchy that was its foundation. Among the revolutionaries that the Black Hundreds took action against, a prominent element was the Jews and since the Black Hundreds have come to be so associated with anti-Semitism (which is still going on today), this has to be looked at.

There was, without question, plenty of anti-Semitism in the ranks of the Black Hundreds. The Jews were seized upon as a primary enemy, if not the primary enemy of everything that the Black Hundreds stood for. There is no denying that and it is clearly wrong to persecute anyone who was innocent of any crime. That is something pretty widely accepted. Just as important though, is to understand where this animosity came from and why it was not terribly surprising. There were certainly many Jews who were unjustly persecuted but there is also no denying the fact that the Jewish population was greatly overrepresented in the ranks of the revolutionary agitators. A disproportionate number of the revolutionaries plotting acts of terrorism to bring down the monarchy were, in fact, Jews. Given that, it is at least understandable why the defenders of the Russian monarchy would often take on an anti-Semitic mindset. Their fear and suspicion toward the Jews was not completely unwarranted. Plenty of Jews, in and outside of Russia, were enemies of the Russian Empire and made no secret of the fact. During the Russo-Japanese War for example, the Japanese war effort was bankrolled by a prominent German-American Jew named Jacob Schiff who loaned Japan huge amounts of money because he detested the way Jews were treated in Russia and hoped that a Japanese victory would destroy the Russian Empire.

Of course, when faced with enemies within from a minority group that was of a different race and different religion, some of whom had ties to foreign powers and supported anti-Russian elements at home and enemies of Russia abroad, it is no wonder that many in the Black Hundreds would become anti-Semitic and take it to extreme lengths. Unfortunately, this is far from uncommon. It often seems that the world is incapable of dealing with the Jews the same as any other people but only ever deals with them in an extreme way, blaming them for all the problems in the world one day and then not allowing any criticism of them at all the next. Even when groups such as the Black Hundreds had understandable reasons for being suspicious of the Jews, all too often this builds to absurd proportions so that we have the creation of a bogeyman which can still be seen among many today, something I have come to call “the magical Jew”. This is when anti-Semitism is taken to such lengths that people attribute super-human qualities to the Jews, as if they have magical powers to successfully deceive, dominate and exploit whole nations, which is all the more odd considering that those making such accusations often claim that the Jews are an inferior people to their own while at the same time claiming that these Jews are, by some “magic” able to completely dupe, outsmart and control entire countries full of people supposedly superior to themselves.

Such attitudes are, of course, completely absurd. In the case of the Black Hundreds, however, the villainy they attributed to the Jews was exaggerated but not totally unfounded. Their fears and suspicions were based on real threats and, as stated above, among those who were threatening the very existence of the Russian Empire, who were building bombs, assassinating royals and colluding with enemy nations, the Jews were disproportionately represented. How most of the Black Hundreds felt about the Jews is well known but what is less well known is why they felt that way. This was not blind hatred that came out of nowhere. Any enemy of the Russian monarchy was an enemy of the Black Hundreds and, unfortunately, many of the enemies of the Russian monarchy were Jews. It is unfortunate that some went too far with that but, given the context of when the Black Hundreds were at their peak, they were not something to be condemned. I certainly would not. It was a violent time and many tragic things happened but when their country and their Czar were being threatened, the Black Hundreds decided to do something about it, to take action and do whatever they could to defend that which was most precious to them and that is something I find laudable.

It was, however, a rather short-lived movement. Still, some groups of what had been the Black Hundreds remained to the end of the Russian Empire. It might surprise some to know that they were often the harshest critics of the White Russian faction. They were critical precisely because they were so loyal to the monarchy and while the Whites were certainly the “good guys” of the Russian Civil War, they were not all monarchists and for the Black Hundreds, absolute loyalty to the Czar and the Russian Orthodox faith were non-negotiable positions. Have these attitudes survived? It is hard for me to say. Recently, groups laying claim to the Black Hundreds legacy have reemerged over the turmoil in Ukraine, backing the position of Ukrainian re-union with Russia and blaming the current crisis on Jews in the Ukrainian government. How similar they are to the actual Black Hundreds of the past I cannot be certain. Were they so active in pushing for the full restoration of the monarchy in Russia rather than extension of the rule of the current Russian regime over Ukraine I would be more positive but I have yet to see that and remained concerned that, as has happened in other countries, the government may be winning monarchists over with gestures and promises while having no intention of ever actually doing anything to restore the monarchy. For that, the ultimate goal of the Black Hundreds of old, only time will tell.

Monarchist Monarchs, Part I

I am often asked who my favorite monarch is and my reply is always the same; I could never pick just one favorite monarch and even then, some of those who are my favorites are not necessarily always the best. However, I can say with no fear of causing undue shock that my favorite type of monarchs are the most monarchist monarchs. By that, I mean those who have taken action in various ways to support not only their own monarchy but the cause of monarchy in general, whether by supporting other monarchies beyond their borders or supporting the principle of monarchy beyond the point that it would effect themselves directly. What follows is some favorite examples of such monarchs, though the list is not exhaustive of course and future posts may add to it. It also should be kept in mind that events (fate, the hand of God, time and chance etc) play a role in such things. There doubtlessly were and are monarchs who are just as monarchist as any on this list but who never had the opportunity to show it.

The start and spread of the Protestant Reformation was certainly a painful period for the western world with Christians fighting Christians as never before and thus also Christian monarchies fighting each other as well. Some monarchs embraced Protestantism while others opposed it and some peoples were inspired by it or perhaps simply used it as an ideological shield to actions they wished to undertake in any event, to rise up in rebellion against their princes. Such was the Peasant’s Revolt in Germany and later, encouraged also by economics, the Dutch Revolt in the Netherlands which was, at that time, ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs. The Dutch rebels embraced republicanism, albeit republicanism of a very unique sort that most today would not recognize, though their greatest leader was a prince and one who came to Protestantism rather late in the game, perhaps as much to attract the support of Protestant powers as religious conviction. The primary enemy of the Dutch republicans was, of course, the man the were rebelling against; King Philip II of Spain. King Philip II of Spain also happened to be a very monarchist monarch.

Given the background just covered, one cannot attribute simplistic motives to the leaders of the time and King Philip II certainly had more than monarchist reasons for doing the things he did, yet monarchist they were nonetheless. A fought the Dutch because the were in rebellion against his royal authority, also because they tended to be Protestant and also because their form of government was scandalous to him. Not every monarch felt the same way such as Queen Elizabeth I of England who sent vital support to the Dutch republicans as a way of bedeviling her Spanish royal rival. King Philip II evened the odds by doing the same to his former sister-in-law by supporting rebels (though not republican ones) in Ireland against the English Queen. Once again, it also mattered that the Irish were Catholic and the English monarch was Protestant. King Philip II always sought to further the cause of Catholicism and to fight against the expansion of both Protestantism and Islam and some may wonder if this was not his sole motivation and any ideas he had about the importance of monarchy had nothing to do with it but the facts do not support such a supposition. As with everything, King Philip regarded Catholicism as inseparable from monarchy anyway.

However, King Philip II was a monarch who took royal power seriously (though he was no arbitrary tyrant as he respected the laws and traditions of his various domains). He was so staunch a Catholic that he considered even Pope St Pius V insufficiently zealous, yet he was himself at odds with the Supreme Pontiff on more than one occasion (though, fortunately he never took it as far as his father had). It is evidence enough that Philip II was a loyal son of the Church even when he was sometimes considered a papal adversary that even today the most zealous Catholics tend to take the side of the King over that of the leader of the Catholic Church. King Philip II was a Catholic champion but he was also a monarch who believed in monarchy and would not allow the Pope to diminish his own legitimate authority or shy away from opposing the Pontiff politically, though such occasions were very much the rare exception.

Political realities, religion and the principle of monarchy came together again when King Philip II sent Spain’s “Invincible Armada” (which turned out to be all too ‘vincible’) against England. There were numerous motivations for this but one was certainly the regicide of Mary Queen of Scots by Queen Elizabeth I of England. Putting a monarch to death was a shocking event and one monarch subjecting another to a trial and execution was perhaps even more so. The Scots Queen was beheaded in 1587 and the Spanish Armada set sail the following year which, as we know, was unsuccessful in its aim of invading England and overthrowing Queen Elizabeth I.

The Dutch, however, were not without monarchist monarchs of their own in several of the Princes of Orange. They were not actually monarchs of course at the time but I always tend to think of them as monarchs who had not yet come into their own. Fairly early on there emerged two factions in Dutch politics; the republican party and the Orange party which was distinctly royalist. Prince Frederik Hendrik began to really make the Dutch republic a monarchy in all but name. He was made a knight of the Garter by King Charles I of Britain and the English Princess Royal was married to the heir of the Prince of Orange, Willem II. It is hard to choose a favorite of the two of them but for monarchist credentials I think I would have to go with Prince Willem II of Orange rather than his father. His father was, of course, a giant figure in Dutch history, a masterful military commander as well as an astute statesman but it was Prince Willem II who actually took to the field to fight for the idea of a Dutch monarchy and a powerful, Calvinist (because he saw himself as a champion of his religion just as Philip II of Spain did) ‘Kingdom of the United Netherlands’. Of course, each side also had their confederates in Britain as the English Civil War was the pivotal monarchy vs. republic contest of the time. Prince Willem II naturally favored the side of his father-in-law and thus there were many close ties between the Orange party in the Netherlands and the royalist Cavaliers in England. Prince Frederik Hendrik had also supported King Charles I in his domestic troubles and had even considered bringing his highly professional and experienced Dutch army to England to help the royalists win their war.

However, it was Prince Willem II who actually went the furthest, even to war before his all-too-short life ended to advance the cause of a Dutch monarchy while also doing all he could to help English royalists. His widow, naturally, also gave aid and shelter to her brothers King Charles II and the future King James II. The English dictator Cromwell even went to war with the Dutch republic and at least some of the motivation behind that was because so many English royalists were harbored there and the House of Orange had been so supportive of the Stuarts (which sound ironic given what would happen later). Also worth mentioning, in connection to the English Civil Wars, was another monarchist monarch very far removed from the British Isles; Tsar Alexis I of Russia. He was only the second Romanov to rule Russia and was a great monarch all around. Tsar Alexis I presided over the last flowering of Muscovite culture before the campaign of westernization, he was a powerful monarch, a devout Orthodox Christian and it was he who took the first steps towards modernization though in a more limited and conservative way than Peter the Great would. He tried to rebuild the Russian economy after a costly war with Poland by promoting trade. Yet, though it certainly was not beneficial to his country, Tsar Alexis put principle before profit and cut off all trade with England after the regicide of King Charles I. The fact that someone so far removed from the issue that he could do practically nothing else about it always impressed me all the more. Tsar Alexis I had no real vital interest in what happened in Great Britain and any actions he took would have little impact (the English Commonwealth certainly did not suffer unduly for lack of trade with Russia) yet, he nonetheless did what was in his power to do to show that he would have nothing to do with a regime which had murdered its legitimate, anointed sovereign.

The one other monarch which probably did more than any other to support the cause of monarchy was the great King Louis XIV of France. As a man who was not above getting his hands dirty if it would advance French interests, his reputation was not so pristine as the Tsar of Russia (he did deal with Cromwell, as did the Dutch but that was the republican faction rather than the Orange party), yet King Louis XIV was certainly a big believer in monarchy and the sacred nature of monarchy which anyone who knows anything at all about him can attest. He also gave support to the British Stuarts in their hour of need but I think what stands out as the most laudable thing he did for the cause of monarchy came after the Stuart restoration. In the end, it was a promise he was never called upon to fulfill but he did promise his support and even a French army should it be necessary to keep King Charles II on his throne and defend the British Crown from republican traitors. It was also thanks to the subsidy King Louis XIV that Charles II had the funds to dissolve Parliament and rule in his own right for the final years of his life. This was not insignificant as it prevented Parliament from being able to force the King, by the power of the purse, to disinherit his brother and place the succession under the control of Parliament. This would have effectively meant that the Crown was in the gift of the Parliament and that the King of England, Scotland and Ireland reigned ‘by the grace of Parliament’ rather than “By the Grace of God” as is right and proper. When King James II was overthrown, Louis XIV gave him shelter and support and finally French troops to aid in his attempted restoration in Ireland, which, as we know, ended in failure at the Boyne. Practical reality finally compelled Louis to come to terms with Britain’s new Dutch monarch but while he was obliged to withdraw most of his support from the exiled James II, he never forced him to leave the country and even tried to find a crown for him in Poland but James refused the offer.

After the English Civil Wars there was not much opportunity for a monarch to prove their monarchist zealousness in the way we are looking at here for quite some time. The next major clash between republicans and royalists came with the American War for Independence and Britain had been riding high for so long that most were not unduly distressed to see Britain humbled. In some ways it seemed as though the crowned heads of the world were eager to embrace the new American republic. The French Revolution was another story but in that regard it is still difficult for individual monarchs to stand out since almost all were united in their opposition to the monstrous French regime. After the rise of Napoleon, almost every monarchy was also forced at some point to come to terms with the new regime in France. It is for that reason that one monarch stands out, to me at least, and that was the much maligned Tsar Paul I of Russia. He was a staunchly monarchist monarch which was even displayed when he did finally come around to recognizing Napoleon. Paul I was a monarchist very much of the legitimist variety and it was this that ultimately led to his falling out with the Allies and why many have accused him of having an erratic foreign policy (often cited amongst the evidence for his being insane).

Naturally, he detested the French revolutionaries and was prepared to give any assistance he could in thwarting them. However, when the struggle was well underway he became disenchanted with his allies, such as Britain and Austria, due to their lack of legitimist principle. For example, when Napoleon conquered northern Italy and destroyed the Republic of Venice (and eventually every ancien regime in Italy) Paul I found it shocking that the Austrian Empire would come to terms with what was then still the First French Republic (which had the blood of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette on its hands) to divide the territory of ruined Venice between them. Later, after the French were driven out, Austria kept northern Italy for itself rather than restoring it to its pre-revolutionary Italian rulers. Even more bitter to Paul was the case of Malta as Tsar Paul I had long had a great love and fascination for the Knights of Malta and their heroic exploits. The French had conquered the island and the British had aided the Maltese in overthrowing them but then the British had kept Malta because of its strategic location whereas it was the dream of Tsar Paul to see the island restored to the Knights of St John. Of course, there were also other examples, but these are indicative of why the Russian Tsar fell out with his allies and even pondered sending a Russian army to evict the British from India. It helped him come to see Napoleon as perhaps not that much worse than the other rulers in Western Europe and he reasoned that his elevation to emperor was at least a move back towards monarchy and away from revolutionary republicanism. For all of that, Tsar Paul I has always seemed to me one of the most staunchly monarchist monarchs of the early Revolutionary-Napoleonic period.

Thankfully, in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, there was a somewhat greater degree of monarchial solidarity in Europe as most everyone recognized that it was in their own interest to maintain the principle of monarchy. Since republicanism threatened everyone, it was more common to see monarchs coming to the assistance of each other when they were threatened. Yet, there were also disagreements as to what formula for monarchy was best to preserve the institution. This was on display in civil wars in Spain, Portugal and Italy in particular. As constitutional monarchists battled against absolute monarchists many, particularly the powerful British Empire, tended to favor the constitutional monarchists. Many absolutist-sympathizers of course have very uncharitable views about Britain because of this, yet it should be kept in mind that many people viewed constitutional monarchy (and Britain was the most shining example) were more conducive to stability and the long-term survival of monarchy than absolutism was. This was the view that absolute rule invites rebellion and disorder, possibly resulting in the overthrow of monarchy and the victory of republicanism, while constitutional monarchy was able to give the people enough of what they wanted to keep them peaceful and orderly and to take out their frustrations at the ballot box rather than barricades in the streets. Give them elected representatives, was the idea, so that they have politicians to hold to account rather than blaming their monarch for any misfortune that may come along.

This issue remained at the forefront and particularly came into view with the outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848. In that time of crisis, many monarchs had to fight to maintain their thrones but one monarch stood out as being safe enough at home to champion the cause of monarchy abroad and that was Tsar Nicholas I of Russia. He was certainly a monarchist monarch and an absolute monarchist (and monarch) at that. His political views were illustrated early on by the curtailment of the power of the government in Congress Poland (of which the Russian Emperor was also King). When the Poles protested, favoring a constitutional monarchy, the Tsar sent in Russian troops, dismissed the Polish constitution and from then on ruled Poland as a conquered province rather than an independent country in personal union with the Tsar. Nicholas I also offered to come to the aid of any European monarch who came under threat from republican traitors or even constitutional monarchists whom he tended to view as subversives. None availed themselves of his help until the Revolutions of 1848 when the Austrian Empire came to be in a desperate state. Rebellions by the various ethnicities of the polyglot empire seemed to be breaking out all at once. The Italians were seizing control of northern Italy, riots had broken out in Vienna and the Hungarians were rising up and showing signs of being determined to take Hungary out of the Austrian Empire. The Hapsburg Emperor fought back hard but it seemed doubtful that he had the military strength to suppress both the Italians in the west and the Hungarians in the east at the same time. In 1848 the Austrian Empire really did seem on the brink of collapse.

However, Tsar Nicholas I came riding to the rescue. Even though his country was not under threat and even though one could argue that the break-up of the Austrian Empire would have presented favorable opportunities for Russia, the man known as the “Iron Tsar” and the “Gendarme of Europe” did not care about such things. A monarchy was imperiled and he would lend assistance regardless of the circumstances. He sent a large Russian army into Hungary in 1849 to stamp out rebellion there and this was successfully accomplished with the rule of the House of Hapsburg being restored there. Nicholas I also sent his moral support to the King of Prussia not to give in to those who were demanding a constitution. No one can doubt that the Russian Emperor would have sent his army to Berlin to help prevent such a thing if the King of Prussia had asked it of him. For the Tsar, it was a matter of principle and he had an absolute clarity on the subject. The Revolutions of 1848 ended with most monarchies having been shaken but having survived. The crowned heads of Europe would not feel such nervousness again on such a scale until the outbreak of the First World War. More on that next time.

Continued in Part II

Monarchists Today: Germany

The most prominent monarchist group or movement (that I am aware of) in Germany is the group “Tradition und Leben”. It was officially registered with the German authorities in Cologne in January of 1959 but existed prior to that in an organizational stage. “Tradition und Leben” seems to be a good group and, given their platform, there are probably some who would be surprised to hear yours truly say that. However, I say it because they are being serious and realistic about the restoration of monarchy in Germany and for no other reason. In these times when the internet is such a dominant part of everyday life, one will often come across what I like to call “e-monarchists” who are often strident, childish and totally unrealistic in both their aims and methods. Oftentimes they do not really want to restore monarchies so much as they want to turn the clock back and if that were not unrealistic enough many want to go beyond that to arguing for some ideal alternate reality of their own where all of their preferences are put into effect. Trying to please or even trying to deal with these types at all is a waste of time and it makes no difference because these are, again, “e-people” who exist solely to gripe on the internet and social media. They may as well just be names on a screen -they do not exist in reality.

Unfortunately, I have to deal with these “e-people” more often than I would like doing what I do. They often pop up when the subject of German monarchy arises. Some will recoil in horror at the thought of there being a King of Prussia again, others would prefer a republican Germany to anything other than a full return to the Holy Roman Empire, still others want to re-draw the map of Germany and most of central Europe entirely and a few will quote centuries old laws by long defunct entities to assert that it is impossible to restore monarchy in Germany or that doing so could only be accomplished by warfare. In other words, these people are not being realistic, are not living in the real world. “Tradition und Leben” on the other hand, is made up of actual people, actual German monarchists and members of the former ruling families of the German states. They accept the facts of their current situation and are working from there in such a way as to have the best chance of seeing as many of the old German monarchies restored as possible. Personally, there is much about the current state of affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany and most of Europe that I find less than ideal and I wish it were not so but the situation on the ground is what it is and wishing will change nothing. The German monarchists of “Tradition und Leben” are working within the existing framework to make the case to the modern German public for the restoration of monarchy.

Readers will know what I mean by that when I say that the motto of “Tradition und Leben” is, “We crown democracy”. They are not trying to set the clock back to pre-1918 days when the King of Prussia and German Kaiser more or less had final say on everything. “Tradition und Leben” advocates converting the existing federal republic into a constitutional monarchy in which the German Kaiser presides over a parliamentary democracy. The chancellor would still be the one to run the government and, in what is probably a very strong ‘selling point’ for the modern German public, it does not presume that all the old German royal houses will be restored at once but that this should be done on a state by state basis as the people prefer. So, the federal union would exist as it does today but with some states being republican and other states being monarchist as the local population chooses. Of course, they would like to see all the old monarchies restored but this emphasis on local choice is probably a smart move and a means of advancing the monarchist cause in a non-threatening way for a public that has been taught to view monarchy in a negative light. They are also pro-European Union (which I am not but the majority of Germans is) and they are adamant that absolute nothing but peaceful means will see monarchy restored (so, yes, there can be a German monarchy again without invading Poland).

“Tradition und Leben” also (quite correctly) recognizes Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia as the legitimate head of the House of Hohenzollern and the heir to the German throne in recognition of the tradition and history of Prussian leadership in the creation of the modern, united Germany. This is a group that has well established roots in Germany. Their “father”, so to speak, was the German monarchists who got together after World War II under the motto, “Letters for Tradition und Leben”. Their “grandfather” organization was the “Bund der Aufrechten” founded by German monarchists in Berlin in 1918 (the final days of the German Empire) and which was banned along with all other anti-republic groups in 1922 and which continued to be suppressed by the Nazi Party. Prince Oskar and Prince Eitel Friedrich of Prussia, sons of the last Kaiser, were both members. Some members of this group were also part of the now famous anti-Nazi Kreisau Circle. “Tradition und Leben” is working with the existing system, taking into account the current situation and values in Germany to advance the monarchist cause. It is hard work to be sure but the statistics show that they are having an effect. A poll taken in 2010 found 13% of respondents in favor of having a monarch reigning over Germany and by 2013 that number had risen to 19% in favor with the greatest increase being among young people and a much higher percentage at least expressing an interest in monarchy. This is all good news and shows that the effort being made by German monarchists is not being wasted. The numbers are improving and going by current trends the support for monarchy in Germany should increase rather than decrease.

“Tradition und Leben” strives to educate the public on Prussian history and organizes lectures, trips, special exhibitions and group discussions about monarchy and the monarchist tradition in all parts of Germany. They talk about the German roots of monarchy, not just from 1870 but back to the German Confederation and the Holy Roman Empire of the German People as well. Some members meet regularly to commemorate the birthdays of the Prussian King Frederick the Great and the last German Kaiser Wilhelm II. “Tradition und Leben” also makes regular pilgrimages to the grave of the last Kaiser in The Netherlands to mark the passing of the late monarch or for other occasions. They strive to show the modern German public how monarchy and democracy are compatible and that the restoration of monarchy in Germany is possible. That is an important point to make as so many people (and the aforementioned “e-monarchists” do not help this) tend to view monarchy in Germany as belonging to the past, something that cannot fit in to their world in the here and now and so simply do not give it any consideration. “Tradition und Leben” says, quoting Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, that, “There is nothing impossible in politics”. We wish them all the best in their efforts even if their views and our own are not exactly in perfect alignment on every issue. Let the monarchy be restored and then we can go from there in perfecting it. Those interested or German readers who would wish to join in supporting “Tradition und Leben” can go to their website at www.pro-monarchie.de for all the details.

*Addition: Interested parties may also wish to visit http://www.aufrechte-monarchisten.de/