Consort Profile: Sophie of Wurttemberg

Queen Sophie, consort of King Willem III of the Netherlands, was born in Stuttgart on June 17, 1818 to King Wilhelm I of Wurttemberg and Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna of Russia who was the daughter of Czar Paul I. She died shortly after Sophie’s birth and Sophie was raised by her aunt Catharina, wife of Jerome Bonaparte, one-time King of Westphalia. In the aftermath of being raised to the status of a kingdom during the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Family of Wurttemberg were anxious to further establish themselves through dynastic alliances with the major houses of Europe. Marriage ties were made to the British Royal Family and King Otto of Greece and Duke Wilhelm of Brunswick were considered as potential husbands for her. However, her father King Wilhelm I did not consider Greece stable enough for the investment of his daughter.

Instead, previous marital ties were reinforced. Sophie’s aunt, Anna Pavlovna, had been married to King Willem II of the Netherlands and she was betrothed to their son; Willem III, Prince of Orange. The two first cousins were married in Stuttgart on June 18, 1839. She was a very intelligent, driven young woman and her family (along with several other observers) expected that she would ultimately be the dominating force in the Netherlands once her husband came to the throne. However, Willem III was already dominated by his Russian mother. Surprisingly enough she had been against her son marrying her niece and she opposed her from day one. This did nothing to help the marriage of two people who were almost polar opposites to begin with.

The new Prince and Princess of Orange did their duty and produced a son and heir in 1840, followed by another son in 1843. In 1849, with the passing of Willem II, the couple became King Willem III and Queen Sophie of the Netherlands. Willem III was a reluctant monarch but, coming from a military background, expected to be obeyed without question and had a volatile temper. Queen Sophie, on the other hand, was considered liberal by the standards of the day and while she was well educated and gloried in learning, particularly history. Perhaps resenting a wife most considered smarter than him, Willem III tried to forbid intellectual pursuits at his court. In 1851 the couple had their last child, another son, but it soon became clear their marriage existed in name only as Willem III became infamous for his adultery with his reputation for debauchery even reaching the United States.

The Queen was tormented by this and in time the affairs and bursts of temper on the part of King Willem III drove Queen Sophie to publicly denounce him as an unfit monarch. She said she could better rule the country and that may have been true but it was not about to happen and the undermining of Willem III did not make anything better. Their standoff came to its worst point in 1850 with the death of their son Prince Maurits. He suffered from meningitis and Queen Sophie wanted to call in more doctors to care for him but Willem III dismissed the idea that it was anything serious and refused to allow it. Five years later Queen Sophie managed to live apart from her husband, at least during the summer months and spent greater amounts of time back in Wurttemberg.

Queen Sophie tried to carry on as a traditional consort but it was extremely difficult for her. She corresponded with more moderate monarchs like Queen Victoria of Britain and Emperor Napoleon III of France as well as leading scholars and thinkers from around Europe but her husband disapproved. She was a patron of the arts, a leader in promoting the ethical treatment of animals and she sponsored a number of charities and construction of public parks. Still, she was lonely, unhappy and viewed her husband as a simplistic autocrat. When she died on June 3, 1877 she was, according to her final wishes, buried in her wedding dress as she had long considered that occasion to be the real end of her life. The King did not mourn her much and many people tended to view the intellectual German lady as aloof and withdrawn while Willem III was generally popular with the Dutch public for his simple, unassuming ways. Yet, at the very least, Queen Sophie can be judged as a royal ahead of her time and even in her own time she was widely respected and sympathized with across western Europe.

Solemnity of the Sacred Heart

Yesterday the Roman Catholic Church celebrated the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This was an ancient Christian devotion but one revived and popularized by the French visionary St Margaret Marie Alacoque and from the very beginning had a very strong connection with monarchy and more than possibly any other devotion came to be associated with counterrevolution and Catholic monarchy. When St Margaret Marie had the visions of the Sacred Heart of Jesus she actually went to King Louis XIV of France to ask him to emblazon the image on his coat of arms; which he did not do. When the Revolution came to France, and barbaric, atheistic republicanism with it, the loyal Catholic monarchists who rose up against the revolutionary regime wore the Sacred Heart as their badge and this was often their only item of uniform.

Perhaps because of this, the Sacred Heart became a very common symbol in royalist and counterrevolutionary movements across the world. Even in the 20th Century, when Catholic traditionalists in Mexico rose up against persecution the Sacred Heart was one of their most prominent symbols. It was also extremely widespread in Spain among the Catholic monarchists in the Carlists wars it was very common and in the Spanish Civil War amongst the Carlist and some of the nationalists the Sacred Heart was everywhere; on flags, banners, badges and even carved or painted onto rifles and military vehicles. The Solemnity of the Sacred Heart was instituted by Blessed Pope Pius IX who was a great defender of monarchy, an enemy of revolutionary republicanism and was the last papal monarch prior to the signing of the Lateran Treaty with Italy.

Monarchists and Catholic monarchists in particular of course, should be on the lookout for images of the Sacred Heart. If you see someone wearing a Sacred Heart medal or badge; they just might be on your side!

Happy Birthday Queen Elizabeth!

Although not exactly a year older, as most readers of this blog will already know I'm sure, today is the day that the United Kingdom and a number of other Commonwealth countries officially celebrate the birthday of HM Queen Elizabeth II. There will be the magnificent trooping of the colour; a custom started to make the monarch familiar with the flags of his/her regiments, salutes by the royal artillery and the always expected waving from the balcony. It is a grand ceremony carried on in a regal style that the British are famous for. The Mad Monarchist wishes Her Majesty the Queen a very happy birthday and joins all of her loyal subjects around the world in a heartfelt cheer of 'God Save the Queen'!

Royal News Roundup

Everyone has heard by now about the dust-up involving Israeli commandoes boarding a Turkish convoy that attempted to run their blockade of Gaza. This gas caused ripples from Washington DC to a gay-pride parade in Madrid that turned away the Israeli gay contingent, so outraged were they about the plight of the Palestinians. Now, not surprisingly, HM Queen Rania of Jordan has weighed in on the subject. She minced no words in denouncing the actions of Israel, accusing them of making Gaza a “prison” and trying to defend evil policies by accusations of ant-Semitism. It should be noted that Queen Rania herself is of Palestinian origin and she has taken some criticism for this very strong opinion piece on such a controversial issue. Her position surprises no one but some hold that it should have been voiced by someone other than the Queen consort of Jordan.

HM Queen Elizabeth II, as most know by now, can surely sympathize with the old complaint that good help is hard to find (considering some of the antics of her employees that have been so notorious). Now there is a new one to add to the list via the southeast Asian Kingdom of Thailand. A British red-shirt protestor who was arrested during the recent government crackdown was discovered to have worked at Buckingham Palace as a porter in the 90’s. He was caught on film inciting others to loot and burn a Bangkok shopping mall.

On Wednesday HRH Princess Raginhild of Norway celebrated her 80th birthday (hat tip to Le Prince Regent in Ireland). The princess is the elder sister of HM King Harald V of Norway and has become known for conservative and traditional views. Her most famous (or infamous to some today I suppose) was probably her reaction to the less than conventional marriages of Crown Prince Haakon and Princess Martha Louise which she felt were lowering the prestige of the Norwegian monarchy. She even said on TV that she hoped she would not be around to see an unwed mother and former drug addict become Queen consort of Norway. A little harsh? Maybe so, but God bless her for being honest, sticking by her principles and not going with the flow of modern society. The Mad Monarchist wishes the Princess a very happy birthday.

In Vatican City His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI held mass for the closing of the “Year of the Priest” which is ending on a rather sad note due to all the recent abuse controversy. The Pontiff apologized yet again for the abuses inflicted by errant priests and begged the forgiveness of God and the victims involved. He also promised new and sterner measures would be taken within the Church against such offenders. In the past the Pope has referred to such priests as “filth” who must be purged from the Church and before his election to the Throne of Peter he led Vatican efforts to crackdown on such perversity. At the mass he also defended clerical celibacy which many have used the abuse crisis to attack.

HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco has been keeping a busy social schedule lately. Thursday His Serene Highness and longtime girlfriend Charlene Wittstock opened the 50th anniversary of the Monte-Carlo Television Festival, started by his father back when TV was new. The following day the couple were in South Africa for the start of the World Cup competition. Prince Albert is an avid soccer fan, Charlene likely enjoyed the opportunity to return to her native South Africa and both are, as most know, former Olympians who share a great love for sports in general.

Also on Thursday HRH Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg started an official state visit to Croatia, though he was flying solo this time. The Grand Duke met with the Croatian President and Prime Minister and, in light of the support Luxembourg gave to bringing Croatia into NATO were mostly focused on getting the Grand Duke on board for bringing Croatia into the European Union. Of course, this subject always makes me ask “why” when the EU is hardly on firm ground as it is and it never fails to strike as absurd for countries like Croatia which only very recently gained the independence they so long sought would want to sign away their sovereignty by joining the ever-encroaching EU.

Mad Rant: The Ridicule of Royals

Certain political leaders (not just one and not just a few) like to explain any opposition to the current liberal republican dominance as a hatred of "freedom". What freedom could that be? One of the freedoms supposedly held most sacrosanct today is the freedom of speech. I say supposedly because it matters a great deal what or who one is speaking about as to how far that freedom goes. Speak out against traditional authority and you are a heroic freedom fighter. Speak out against the wrong group of people and you are a hateful bigot, speak out about the republican form of government and you hate freedom, speak out against republicanism and you must be insane. To mock and ridicule, even in a simply humorous way, a minority group and you will be punished for your "hate speech" -at least depending on who you are. So, a religious leader telling his people that homosexuality is immoral is guilty of a hate crime but if you're selling pornography like Larry Flynt you will be celebrated as a champion of the freedom of speech.

Now, so there is no misunderstanding, let me say that I would rather have a freedom of speech that goes too far than to have none at all. However, it seems absurd to have to limit ourselves to a choice between two such extremes and, as has been shown, such rules that are enforced are never enforced in a consistent way. What I do have a problem with is useless "speech" that accomplishes nothing in terms of putting forth a rational opinion but which simply mocks and ridicules for a cheap laugh. Nor do I even have a problem with that in all cases but I do have a problem with it when directed at royals. This is one reason why I have always defended the laws, often attacked in the western world, which protect the King of Thailand for instance.

I have no problem with people mocking politicians (who in most countries are the ones who actually hold political power). I do not because politicians seek fame and notoriety, they seek power and they must take the ridicule along with the sycophancy in my opinion. However, I do not think that should apply to royals who, after all, did not seek the position they hold but were born to it and who, more often than not, have no power over the lives of their people anyway. I have a little bit of sympathy for simple celebrities in this regard, who are, after all, private citizens, but not as much as they too seek fame, attention and public notice to advance their careers. I was reminded of this when hearing a comedian refer to the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall as "Chuck and Cam". The Prince and Duchess, of course, took it with a laugh, but why should any royal be free to mock and defame simply for being a royal when they never asked to be put in that position in the first place?

In most countries freedom of speech was enacted for fairly noble reasons. Yet, what is the noble reason behind rock songs that mock Queen Elizabeth II, slanderous cartoons of the King of Spain or putting the face of the Dowager Queen of the Belgians on underclothes? How does that show support or opposition to any political policy or agenda? It is all simply useless, juvenile insults directed, again more often than not, and monarchs and royals who have nothing to do with policy or legislation. Part of the job of even ceremonial monarchs is to provide a rallying point, tied to the history of a country, to unite the people. This useless mockery undermines that important function and in my view should be outlawed. Insult and mock politicians all you like. They asked for it. But such pointless and defamatory attacks and slanders on royalty should be outlawed or at the very least be considered in as poor taste as racist cartoons and ethnic stereotypes. Of course if one were to question in any way the current definition of free speech or to dare to expect that royals should no more be mocked for their family ties than others for their skin color one would have to be...a Mad Monarchist.

The Emperor's Library (IV): Emperor Nero

Even those who know next to nothing about Roman Imperial history have at least heard of the Emperor Nero. However, most know him as the monarch who ‘fiddled while Rome burned’ and that he blamed the Christians for setting the fire while actually having done the deed himself. Unfortunately, there is no real evidence that he did commit this crime for which he is most famous. Most sources point to him being less than a ‘good guy’ and yet there can also be little doubt that his reputation has suffered greatly from assumptions being spoken as fact and then embellished over the years in each retelling of his deeds. Countless histories, novels, plays, poems and Hollywood films have nonetheless ensured that the popular image of the Emperor Nero is that of a megalomaniacal, hedonistic, murderous tyrant. The truth, as usual, is likely much more complex.

He was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus on December 15, 37 AD in Antium. His father was a well-to-do Roman from a long influential family and his mother was Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus and sister to the notorious Emperor Caligula. As a young child Nero learned how dangerous imperial connections could be. His father died when he was three and Caligula had his mother exiled to the Pontian islands when he was very small. She was not welcomed back at Rome until the reign of Emperor Claudius who married Agrippina in 49 and adopted her son as his own which is when he became known as Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus. In 51 AD Emperor Claudius named him heir to the throne and a couple of years later arranged his marriage to his daughter Octavia. With the death of Claudius, Nero became Emperor of Rome when he was just 16-years-old.

The transition went smoothly and a new era seemed to have dawned for the Roman Empire. Nero promised a ‘back to basics’ approach with Emperor Augustus as his model. The senate would have a greater say in national matters, be more respected and the new Emperor would reign with humanity and generosity. He was aided at this time by his teacher, the famous stoic philosopher Seneca. Yet, despite these high words and great promise, the accusations started rather quickly with the death of Britannicus, the natural son of Claudius. A few months into the new reign he dropped dead at an official dinner. Nero said it was epilepsy and had the body cremated the very next day. It was immediately said that Nero had poisoned Britannicus as a rival to his throne after his mother Agrippina turned on him.

This would all seem to make sense, but to use this case as an example, it also tends to ‘smell funny’. Most of this story comes from a single source, Tacitus, who apart from his own prejudices, bases most of his information on the period on earlier accounts written by enemies of the emperors who often seemed in competition to out-do each other in lurid tales of imperial cruelty. In the case of Britannicus we see more of the same; familial hatred, molestation and murder. The account goes so far one is inclined to disbelieve it. If one were to believe every such story it would seem that the Roman Empire was ruled exclusively by insane, murderous, incestuous pedophiles -which would seem to be a fairly far-fetched notion indeed. For Emperor Nero himself, the accusations made against him are multitudinous even if not reaching the extremes of some others.

That for which he has gained the most infamy was the murder of his mother Agrippina in 59. Normally portrayed as an ambitious and scheming woman who sought her own power through that of her son, if Nero is guilty of the crime most attribute to him, it is not all that outrageous as it may sound. Challenging the authority of a ruling Emperor is never a good idea after all. However, aside from this, it must be kept in mind that the numerous attacks, acts of thievery, rape and assorted sexual perversions on the part of Nero are all stories without any facts to back them up and began as simple rumors in his own time. That is not to say that all the stories were false but nor should they all be taken as an absolute certainty. What we do know from numerous accounts is that Emperor Nero was extremely fond of music and the theatre and that he enjoyed singing and playing the lyre. His musical talent is often mocked but this may have been more of a reaction to what many considered behavior ill-fitting a Roman Emperor than a true picture of his abilities.

In his more public “private” life Emperor Nero divorced his wife Octavia in 62 to marry his mistress Poppaea (whose husband he had appointed governor of Lusitanian -roughly speaking modern Portugal). Octavia was killed soon after but Poppaea did not outlive her by much when Nero supposedly killed her in a rage in 65 after which he married again though the lurid rumors of his romantic escapades continued unabated. Yet, this was the same man who, upon first coming to the purple, agonized over signing his first death warrant and who advanced well respected and learned men in his government. Many of the later government policies that were very unpopular (higher taxes, land confiscation, inflation and treason trials) did not actually originate with Nero but with his scheming minister Tigellinus.

One of the most infamous incidents to which the unpopularity of Nero is attributed was the great fire of Rome in 64. Because the Emperor later built a magnificent palace on land destroyed by the fire many accused him of setting it himself and hence the popular story that Emperor Nero, “fiddled while Rome burned”. Today this is often taken for granted to be a fact based on the circumstantial evidence that Nero built a palace where the fires had burned (a motive) and because he blamed the Christians for it and had many martyred (most famously Sts Peter and Paul). Again, however, there is no solid proof of this and it is also often forgotten that Nero was not in Rome at the time but rushed back upon hearing of the disaster. He organized numerous measures to help the victims such as opening up cheap stores of grain to the public and allowing public buildings to be opened to those who had lost their homes in the fire. He afterward enacted strict regulations to prevent such a disaster in the future and his overall economic situation, like Rome as a whole, suffered terribly because of the fire.

Much of the persecution associated with the reign of Nero likely stems from these money troubles and led to intensified hatred between the senate and the Emperor -a not altogether uncommon occurrence. Still, unlike some emperors, Nero was not a big traveler and stayed mostly at home. His only foreign trip was a grand tour of Greece undertaken not so much for political reasons but for the great esteem in which Nero held all things Greek, finding the somewhat more literary and artistic atmosphere much more to his liking. He wanted to participate in as many Greek customs, festivals and games as possible, all of which he greatly enjoyed but which still lowered his popular image as such exhibitions were considered unseemly for a Roman Emperor.

However, given how unpopular Nero is held to have been, it should be kept in mind that this was largely centered on the senatorial class. In fact, many at the time criticized Emperor Nero for being too obsessed with keeping the favor of the common people. Early in his reign he passed many laws aimed at making life better for the lower classes such as reducing fines, legal fees, protecting the rights of freed slaves, fighting corrupt tax collectors and bureaucrats, made tax records public and even tried to abolish all indirect taxation. Military victories over Parthia made him extremely popular in the eastern half of the empire and when harsh measures provoked the rebellion in Britain of the famous Queen Boudicca, once it was suppressed Nero put a more moderate man in charge of the region. Overall his policies seemed aimed at making the Roman Empire a more traditional, possibly more Greek style of monarchy. Yet, the bias against Emperor Nero was talked about as early as the Romanized Jewish historian Josephus who pointed out that Nero was slandered by many for personal motives having nothing to do with pursuing truth.

In the end, his unpopularity with the senate and anger over his economic policies provoked a rebellion against him. It is often thought that if he had made a bold stand he might have survived but he attempted to flee to the east (where he was more popular and even held to godlike status by some) but even his guards abandoned him. Fearing that he would be captured, humiliated and executed anyway he stabbed himself in the neck on June 9, 68 AD. He was obviously not good in a crisis and his rule became worse over time. He was not an upstanding moral man but he was also probably not the monster he is often portrayed as. Perhaps most infamous for his persecution of Christians, and understandably so, these were a fairly a small minority at the time and most of the other crimes he is accused of are based on rumor rather than fact. He was no model monarch by any means, certainly not, but he was certainly a much more complex individual than is often recognized and not without at least some qualities and actions in his favor.

Favorite Royal Images: Death of Nero

It was on this day in the year 68 AD that Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Emperor of Rome, died by his own hand at the height of a coup against him. "What an artist the world is losing!"

The Civil War and Restoration in America

As would later happen during the American Revolution, the American colonies were divided along with the rest of English society throughout the civil wars between Crown and Parliament. The background of each individual colony was to determine how each reacted to the war, regicide and eventual Stuart restoration in 1660.

This was still a formative period for America, and generally the colonies were already more than occupied with political disputes, conflict between religious groups, the Amerindians and simple survival. However, also as during the Revolutionary era, it was the northern colonies which largely favored the cause of Parliament. This is not surprising considering that these were Puritan-dominated areas which naturally looked favorably on the Puritan police-state of Oliver Cromwell. Particularly in the Massachusetts area, these were colonists who had left England because the established Anglican Church was considered “too Catholic” for their more radical tastes. Considering that this attitude existed even in the time of Queen Elizabeth I and King James VI & I, it could only have been strengthened by the even more traditional and conservative King Charles I and his Arminian Archbishop Laud of Canterbury. The Puritans had opposed the Elizabethan uniformity, the Bishop's War fought by King James and were the driving force against the monarchy under King Charles I. In fact, after King Charles II was restored to the throne, Massachusetts was the very last colony to recognize him, refusing to do so until August of 1661.

The colony of Rhode Island, while not exactly enthusiastic, was having enough internal troubles to proclaim Charles II their king in October of 1660, though probably more out of hope of gaining a royal ally than pure devotion to the monarchy. In fact, throughout the conflict, many colonial authorities found it safer to remain neutral and wait for one or the other to emerge victorious before declaring their loyalty.

It was though, in the southern colonies where the monarchy was to find its most widespread support. Again, the situation would be similar during the Revolution, and here also the original foundation of the colonies made the difference. Probably the most firmly loyal colony was Virginia, with Maryland right behind. Of all the colonies, Virginia had been from the very beginning, the most uniformly Anglican of the settlements in America. Here was the colony whose population most resembled a simple transplantation from England.

The Virginia colonists, by and large, were not people running away from persecution or intolerance, nor were they dreaming of establishing a new, radical, utopian society; rather, they were people who came calmly and willingly to North America in search of economic opportunities. Like much of mainstream English society, they were not exactly zealous or extreme on the subject of religion, but they were still firm members of the Church of England and supported the efforts of King Charles I to defend it. To most, religion was simply another form of patriotism, and thus the Parliamentarians were seen as traitors to God and the King for fighting their supreme political and religious leader. Besides being more completely Anglican, they had also benefited from royal favor and so were certainly not enthusiastic about the republican interregnum. Moreover, the restored Charles II was a king very much to the taste of Virginians; being much like themselves, practical, tolerant and able to enjoy himself. These were people who prided themselves on being proponents of common sense rather than religious or political fanaticism.

Probably the second most loyal colony, though still somewhat divided, was Maryland. In this case, the history of the foundation of the colony explains both the turmoil but also the ultimate loyalty of Maryland to the Crown. It has the distinction of being the only colony founded by religious refugees of the Catholic faith. This fact, along with the personal friendship between King Charles I and the colonial proprietor, Lord Baltimore, meant that the founding families of Maryland were very supportive of the monarchy, especially the toleration King Charles showed to Catholics and the restoration of certain Catholic traditions to the Church of England by the Arminians. However, Maryland was a much more diverse colony than many of the others and had a policy of religious toleration. This was a result of the intolerance the Church of Rome had recently suffered under Queen Elizabeth, but also, probably even more so, because there simply were not enough Catholics to make a viable colony. The result was a large portion of more recent immigrants of various smaller Protestant sects who favored the cause of Parliament, in contrast to the older Catholic families who favored the cause of the King. However, Maryland had been founded as a semi-feudal colony, so as the proprietor went, so went the colony, and the proprietor was firmly and zealously royalist.

If this seems to be a somewhat incomplete picture, we must also keep in mind that, at this point in history, the modern area of New York was still the Dutch colony of New Netherland, and would remain so until its conquest in 1664. The Carolinas had, likewise, yet to be firmly established and the rest of the continent was divided between the Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain. When considering that the Dutch Republic had been, more or less, saved from royal reconquest by the English under Elizabeth I, and how horrified were the absolute monarchs of France and Spain at the overthrow and regicide of King Charles I, it is fairly safe to say that the vast majority of North America was on the side of the Crown rather than Parliament.

After the restoration of 1660 conditions in the colonies generally began to improve. Charles II was tolerant and no one, it seemed, had any real problem accepting the few terms he did impose. However, the lack of enthusiasm shown for the restoration of the monarchy in the northern colonies did not go unnoticed. Connecticut and Rhode Island were rewarded for their eagerness to accept the restoration, Connecticut even being given control of New Haven, which had proclaimed for the King only in June of 1661 and which had harbored two of the judges, William Goffe and Edward Whalley, who had voted for the regicide of Charles I.

Massachusetts, however, remained obstinate and repeatedly refused to accept the terms of the new charter proposed by Charles II, despite the earnest assurances of the king that their rights and religion would not be limited or interfered with in any way. In fact, the actions of Massachusetts were coming uncomfortably close to treason. A commission sent by the King found that they had encouraged a policy of non-cooperation with Crown officials, had welcomed and cheered the judges Goffe and Whalley while passing through Boston and that the Massachusetts leadership had been playing for time in the hopes that the recent outbreak of war with Holland would force the Crown to concede. Ultimately, Massachusetts prevailed and was able to continue on as before, under the old charter. This was a result of the fact that the commissioners had been captured by a Dutch ship on their way home, the royal government was still being reestablished and fairly unsteady at the moment, as well as the added burdens of fire and plague in London and a rampaging Louis XIV on the continent, all of which kept Charles II from dealing with Massachusetts. This was also an early case, to be oft repeated later, of Massachusetts taking a hard line against Crown officials and expecting to get their own way.

The most striking thing about the American reaction to the English Civil Wars is the evidence that, in spite of all the time that has past, America has not changed all that much from these early colonial times. Much as it was during the American Revolution and even similar to present day, the northern colonies were the most liberal, politically and religiously, while the south was, from the start it seems, the most conservative. Massachusetts, which was the most reluctant to accept the return of the monarchy, would become the first colony to openly revolt against the Crown while the more loyal colony of Maryland, a hundred years later, was to provide more than a few Tory units to fight against the revolutionaries in that same conflict. We can see how, largely as a result of religious foundation, our colonial roots shaped our views on God, King and country even still today.

MM Video: Catholic Popes

The Popes of the Roman Catholic Church from His Holiness Pope Leo XI to the current Pontiff, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. The titles of the Pope include, "Bishop of Rome, Primate of Italy, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City and the Servant of the Servants of God". The Popes, as the bishops of Rome, trace their spiritual ancestry back to St Peter to whom Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Shameless Plug

Monarchist Profile: José Manuel de Goyeneche

During the Revolutionary Wars in Latin America, one of the leading Spanish royalists was the Grandee of Spain Jose Manuel de Goyeneche y Barreda, Conde de Guaqui. However, unlike most of the high-ranking royalists he was not native to the Peninsula but was born in Arequipa in what was then the Viceroyalty of Peru on June 12, 1776 into an esteemed military family (on the paternal and maternal sides) who traced his ancestry all the way back to the original Spanish conquistadors. He was sent to Spain for most of his education and entered the army as a cadet, quickly earning promotion; first as a lieutenant of cavalry and later a captain of grenadiers. He gained prestige for his participation in the two Spanish victories over the British at Cadiz before being sent to Peru during the French invasion of 1808 to ensure loyalty to the newly enthroned King Ferdinand VII.

Back in South America Goyeneche had broad powers to arrest or execute anyone engaged in rebellion against the King of Spain and to remove from office any official, no matter how powerful, who did not recognize his authority. Viceroy Abascal named him Captain-General of the royalist forces in Peru and in 1809 dispatched him to put down the revolutionary forces at La Paz, Bolivia. In this task he was completely successful, suppressing the rebels and having the 12 top leaders of the revolt executed. After returning to Cusco he learned of the outbreak of the May Revolution in Buenos Aires, Argentina. When Bolivia again fell to revolutionary forces he moved south and signed a meaningless peace with the rebel leader Juan Jose Castelli. Both armies used the interlude to prepare for the upcoming campaign.

Castelli moved to violate the truce first, attempting to surround Goyeneche and his royalists but Goyeneche predicted such an event and attacked first and the result was a solid victory for the royalists on June 20, 1811 at the battle of Huaqui. Thanks to Goyeneche and this stunning victory the advance of the revolutionary forces had been stopped cold and the leaders in Argentina pulled back in a panic, hurriedly making preparations to keep their movement alive. The royalists advanced in the following weeks, re-taking all of Bolivia (Upper Peru at the time) for the King of Spain. In recognition of his great victory Goyeneche was enobled as the first Conde de Guaqui. However, the advance of the royalists was slowed by heavy and tenacious fighting in the Salta Province of north Argentina.

The rebels fought mercilessly, even arming women and children to shoot down the royalist soldiers. Progress was slow but Goyeneche was thorough and moved inexorably forward, dealing with the rebels with a ruthlessness equal to their own. When another rebel army (under the famous General Belgrano) threatened his position Goyeneche sent General Pio de Tristan to drive him back. Unfortunately for the royalists the result was a victory for the revolutionaries. Belgrano followed this up with another victory at Salta, taking Tristan prisoner (who later joined the independence movement) and exposing the southern flank of Goyeneche and his royalist forces. With no other option the general retreated and turned in his resignation. His command was given to General Joaquin de la Pezuela and Goyeneche left his homeland and returned to Spain.

Once back in Spain a grateful monarch named Goyeneche Lieutenant General of the Royal Armies, set him to work with others to develop plans for the reconquest of Latin America and made him a knight of the Military Order of Santiago. He was also elected to the Cortes. He died in Madrid on October 10, 1846 an honored figure in Spanish government and society.

The Oldest Monarchy

Think you know who has the oldest monarchy? What exactly does one mean by oldest "monarchy"? Find out about some facts you may know, some you may not via Mad for Monaco about The Oldest Monarchy.

Cinema Royal: Tami Stronach

I have never been a big fan of the “fantasy” movie genre (may the Tolkien fans forgive me) but one of my favorite books as a youth was (and remains) “The Neverending Story” by German author Michael Ende. This was made into a pretty good movie which was followed by a fairly stinky sequel (with no disrespect to the late Jonathan Brandis, God bless you) and then a third, little-seen sequel that stunk so bad I’ve never been able to get close enough to watch it. Ende did not like the first film, and it did stray a good deal from his book, but I liked it overall and, to be fair, much of what is in the book could simply not have been done with the special effects technology available in the 80’s. In the film she was portrayed by child actress Tami Stronach, a Scottish-Israeli girl born in Iran. Incidentally, it was the fall of the Shah and Iranian Revolution which forced her archaeologist parents to flee Iran.

In the movie the Childlike Empress appears only at the very end in the climactic scene but little Stronach has to do some heavy-duty acting in that one scene and I think she did very well (it was her only film role as her parents did not want her going down the usually tragic route of child actors). In the book her character is much more prominent and her position as the Empress of Fantasia (Phantasien/Fantastica in the book) in the novel and displays qualities that Ende surely picked up while living in Japan. In the book it is explained that the Childlike Empress does not really hold political power (there being really no government) nor does she have laws or armies to protect her as no one would think of attacking her because the very existence of her subjects is bound up in her own and she accepts all of her subjects as they are, good or bad -a very Buddhist sort of outlook one might say (though I will add, overall at the end of the book has very Christian themes). This at least appears to change in the book but I will try to stick with the film as much as possible here.

As stated, the Empress and her realm are one and just as the various creatures of Fantasia could not live without her, so too when the land of human fantasy is threatened by “the Nothing” the Empress becomes deathly ill. This gets the story going as a young warrior (Atreyu aka the kid from Battlestar Galactica for 70’s folks) is chosen to embark on a quest to find a cure for the Empress to restore her health and save Fantasia from “the Nothing” which is a vast and growing empty void caused, we are led to understand, by a growing lack of human imagination born of hopelessness. The young warrior returns finally to the Ivory Tower (home of the Empress) at the end of the movie thinking he had utterly failed only to have his young monarch (who in the book is referred to as ‘the Golden Eyed Commander of Wishes’) that he has not.

We see a glimpse of the larger story; that it is the Childlike Empress alone who sees the bigger picture, she knows what will cure her but the adventure was necessary to captivate the attention of the young boy reading the book in which their story is written who is to be her salvation; simply by giving her a name. This is true to the book, though for some reason in the movie they seem to imply that the young reader (one Bastian Balthazar Bux) chooses the name of his late mother for the Empress though the book says no such thing. The name he finally shouts out is the same as that in the book (“Moonchild”) but would seem a rather absurd name unless the mother was the daughter of a couple of 1960’s Deadheads or something.

Just in case there are some who have not yet seen the film I will try not to give too much away, but the young Tami Stronach really shines in her short but pivotal scene and with only a few lines is called on to convey a range of emotions from sympathy, amusement, severity, fear, urgency, abject terror, sadness and reassuring calm. I’m no acting expert but that would seem a rather tall order for such a young child actress; nonetheless she plays the part to perfection. For those not put off by the genre I would say the movie is definitely worth a look (or a second one if you’ve seen it already) but more as a prelude to reading the book in which you get the full story and a much more deep, meaningful, insightful and satisfying one at that. I am, as stated, not a fan of the genre but I have a soft spot for the movie and the book remains one of my favorites. Many years ago when I was in school I had a replica of the emblem of the Empress made and would occasionally get comments (always good ones) from those my age who remembered it from their childhood. I might have to go find it again…

Royal News Roundup

On May 25 HIH Prince Hasan Orhan Efendi of the former Ottoman Empire died in Cairo, Egypt at the age of 64 after a long struggle with cancer. The Mad Monarchist sends condolences to the Imperial House of Osman on this sad occasion. Across North Africa HRH Princess Lalla Salma chaired a “celebration” for the World Health Organization’s “World No Tobacco Day”; a worthy cause perhaps but one that does not impress The Mad Monarchist. Their slogan was that every day should be ‘no tobacco day’. Perish the thought or besides myself there will be a great number of cranky royals.

On Wednesday HM King Constantine II of the Hellenes celebrated his 70th birthday. It was 37 years ago that the monarch was forced into exile and given all that has happened recently one cannot help but wonder if any Greeks have reflected on the wisdom of their form of government as well as their economic policies. Will anything come of it? Most likely not, but even that says something. Were Greece a monarchy undergoing such hardship it would be at precisely such a moment that republican revolutionaries would strike to bring down the monarchy, taking advantage of the national misfortune. That monarchs do not attempt the same is something in itself worth consideration. In any event, a happy birthday to His Majesty the King!

Friday, HH Pope Benedict XVI traveled to the Greek half of the divided island of Cyprus, despite the recent murder of a bishop and apostolic vicar in Turkey one day before the bishop was to go to Cyprus in preparation for the papal visit. The Pontiff will be meeting with Catholic and Orthodox representatives to address the ongoing exodus of Christians from the Middle East, particularly the Holy Land and Iraq where the Christian presence is dwindling to almost nothing. The Pontiff will not be visiting the Turkish half of the island but has not ruled out meeting with Muslim leaders. Orthodox leaders denounced Muslim aggression on the island but the Pope did not comment. I guess (if I may be allowed a bit of impertinence) that in a conflict between Christians and Muslims some in the Vatican don’t want to take sides.

In Scandinavian royal news Crown Princess Mary of Denmark lent her voice to the campaign to end bullying in schools (a worldwide problem I guess) and it was pomp and ceremony, finery and fanfare in the Kingdom of Norway where the Royal Family hosted a state visit by HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands Tuesday-Friday. Speeches were exchanged, though I could have done without King Harald mentioning the shared devotion of Holland and Norway to the UN, while Queen Beatrix focused on the long friendship and old ties between the two Royal Families. Sweden is still making plans for the upcoming wedding and at the moment the Crown Prince and Princess of Denmark are in Washington DC to promote their homeland, among other things, and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Danish embassy there. There are not expected to meet with the President.

In the East, Naoto Kan, a vocal populist leader from the more leftist wing of the Democratic Party was won election to be the next Prime Minister of Japan. He will be formally installed in office by HIM Emperor Akihito later this month. He will try to work a miracle ahead of upcoming elections at a time when Japan is plagued by overspending, massive debt and a welfare-state sure to go under due to the dangerous lack of young people; yet another country feeling the effects of committing itself to extinction through a lack of reproduction. We need babies folks -it is no joke; they’re not just cute, they’re necessary.

Monarch Profile: King Charles X of France

Surely one of the most staunchly monarchist of all monarchs was His Most Christian Majesty King Charles X of France. As the younger brother of King Louis XVIII and the martyred King Louis XVI he had first-hand knowledge of what horrors revolutionary republicanism could bring. Yet, his reaction to those events, before and during his rule of France, caused controversy. He was determined, possibly more than any other post-revolutionary French monarch, to see the horror that was the French Republic totally expunged from national life and to return, in fact and in spirit, to the ancien regime that had preceded it. That alone would be sufficient to make him one of my favorite Kings of France.

He was born Prince Charles Philippe of France on October 9, 1757 the youngest son of the Dauphin Louis Ferdinand and the Dauphine Marie Josephe at the Palace of Versailles. When he was born his grandfather King Louis XV bestowed on him the title of ‘Count of Artois’. He learned that tragedy would be a part of his life at an early age with the loss of his father in 1765 and the loss of his mother in 1767 when he was only 9-years-old. He grew up in the care of others and in 1773 married Princess Marie Therese of Savoy and in 1775 welcomed his first child into the world; Prince Louis-Antoine, Duc d’Angoulême. In 1778 he had another son, Prince Charles Ferdinand, Duc d’Berry.

Charles was a very handsome man with a reputation for being something of a playboy. In time this extended to accusations of an affair with his sister-in-law Queen Marie Antoinette. This was certainly not true although the two were good friends who shared a love for the theatre. Still there were plenty of problems for Charles. He had money problems and a relative (Prince Louis Philippe, Duc d’Orleans) who was plotting against him but the misfortunes of his country overtook his own. Prince Charles boldly advocated taxing the aristocracy (but not taking away their power) to save France from financial disaster. He opposed giving more power to the Third Estate, fearing (rightly so) that it would spiral out of control and for this the same people who called him a traitor to his class for supporting the taxation of the nobility then accused him of being ‘more royalist than the King’.

When the revolution came Charles left France (on orders from his brother) and set to work plotting a counter-revolution until a letter from Queen Marie Antoinette halted the plan, at least for the moment. When the King and Queen were subsequently arrested he called for an invasion of France with other prominent exiles to restore the Bourbon monarchy. While Prussia and Austria made war plans and the King and Queen were murdered Charles went to Britain where King George III gave him asylum. In 1814 he returned to France with royalist forces and after the fall of Napoleon briefly held power until the return of his brother King Louis XVIII.

Having resumed a high place in France he was less than enthusiastic about the comparatively liberal constitution his brother enacted at the behest of the Allied powers. He thought Louis XVIII not royalist enough while the King thought Charles too reactionary and liable to provoke another revolution. In 1820 personal disaster struck Charles when his son and heir, the Duc d’Berry, was assassinated at the opera. However, the wife of the young man was pregnant and safely delivered a son so the succession remained secure for the foreseeable future. Not long after, in 1824, Louis XVIII died and his brother succeeded him as King Charles X. His reign was to be pivotal; France would either be a traditional monarchy or a revolutionary republic, for Charles X there was no middle ground.

Immediately King Charles X began returning the traditional powers of the nobility and the Church. The following year, going back to time-honored French tradition again, Charles X was anointed with the Holy Oil of Clovis at the Cathedral of Rheims. He saw the stability of his reign as being built on the aristocracy and the Catholic Church. He put his friend Jules de Polignac in charge of the government and instead of waging war against other Christian nations as the revolutionaries had done, he turned his foreign policy against the Muslim raiders in the Mediterranean which led, in 1830, to the French conquest of Algeria, a territory France held until the 20th Century.

However, despite the best efforts of King Charles X the revolutionary fever in France had not been completely cured and as his enemies stirred up opposition against him instability increased. There were the usual calls for reform but Charles X had seen his brother give in to the reformers and die for it; he would not submit, famously saying that he would rather spend his days sawing wood than reign as a constitutional monarch in the British fashion. To his way of thinking the revolution, and everything connected with it, had to be rejected and shunned. Unfortunately, there were enough in the country who did not see things that way and the result was a suspension of the government which led to the outbreak of the July Revolution. Chaos reigned in the streets but Charles would not give in and so, more liberal but less radical minds called on Louis Philippe, the Duc d’Orleans, to take the throne.

Quickly trapped by riotous mobs the King decided that he would abdicate in favor of his grandson on August 2 but nonetheless a week later Louis Philippe was declared “King of the French” by the Chamber of Deputies in what was to be a royal-revolutionary hybrid regime. The young King Henri V was ignored and Charles X, with his family, was forced by a murderous mob to go into exile in England where they were met by crowds waving the revolutionary tricolor. Charles remained in uneasy exile in Britain until 1832 when Emperor Francis I of Austria offered him a palace in Prague. He spent the rest of his life in the Hapsburg dominions and died in Austria on November 6, 1836 upholding the rights of his family line and the cause of the traditional Kingdom of France to the very end.

Consort Profile: The Ekh Dagina

The first wife of the last Mongolian monarch was Empress Sharav Dondogdulam, also known as the Ekh Dagina. Like much of Mongolian history and historical figures, precise facts about her life are hard to pin down. Some sources give the date of her birth as sometime in 1870, the same year as her future husband, but others say it was later such as in 1874. Even the very nature of her existence is contested. One, more secular, version of her story is that she was born at Baldan Bereeven Khiid, Mongolia and lived a generally normal life for a Mongol girl until the Tibetan-born “Holy Shining One”, the Bogd Khan, married her and moved her into the Winter Palace. Others, however, insist that Empress Dondogdulam was not really human at all, but a divine being in human form (a fairly common Mongolian belief at the time and to a much lesser extent even still today). This was supposed to verified by the fact that the subject in question had no belly-button because they were not born to mortal parents. Whether or not the Empress had a belly-button is anybody’s guess I suppose.

Exactly what sort of consort the Ekh Dagina was is hard to acertain. The only sources which we have to go by are unreliable and contradictory. Some have portrayed her as a tragic figure, a victim of circumstance whose marriage to the Bogd Khan was something to endure rather than enjoy. My first response to that view is that most Mongolian wives even today would be viewed as tragic figures by women in the western world and although the Empress had her own hardships to endure, in a land where survival was often a struggle, she lived better than probably any other woman in the country. The “Holy Shining One” reportedly fell madly in love with her and this prompted a change in how things worked with the religious hierarchy perceiving that he was going to have Dondogdulam one way or another and better that he marry her than carry on an affair with an unofficial concubine. His attachment to her might discredit somewhat the idea that she was a figure to be pitied because of her husband. The history handed down by the communist stooges of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, portray her in the same unsavory fashion they portrayed her husband. Their accounts tell of an ambitious and scheming Empress who conspired against and assassinated nobles who might have been a threat to the theocratic monarchy. They even claim that she had the Mongolian prime minister poisoned in 1919.

On the opposite end of that spectrum we have the fact that she was extremely popular, even beloved, by the Mongolian people. She was not a very public figure and one might have thought the “Holy Shining One” renouncing his vows to marry would have made his wife a scandalous figure and yet that was not the way in Mongolia. The Empress was adored and revered by the public and it was maintained that she was the reincarnation of the goddess Tara. So, while her husband was the “living god of Urga” she was viewed as a living goddess herself and when her husband was formally enthroned as the Holy Emperor of Mongolia she too was hailed as the “Great Mother of the Country”. Long after her death in 1923 Mongolians flocked to a spring where the Empress used to go to worship believing that it had healing powers because of her association with the site. Of all the incomplete and contradictory information existing about the Ekh Dagina, that level of devotion may be the most revealing and most accurate measure of her life as the last Mongol empress but one.

O'Reilly's Swipe at Royal Support

Just a short note -I could not stop myself- concerning last night's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News Channel. In a story about the latest fiasco involving Sarah Ferguson Fox News (part of the Rupert Murdoch media empire) commentator Bill O'Reilly made an off-hand comment which suggested that loyalty to the British Royal Family is basically confined to a small core of English patriots. I agree with O'Reilly fairly often but this was simply ridiculous. First he stated that the Irish hate the Royal Family; which is probably overstated but not totally unfounded if one has in mind only the citizens of the Irish republic. However, though they may not consider themselves "Irish" the Unionists of Northern Ireland are among the most loyal subjects Her Majesty the Queen has. He also dismissed the Scots -also untrue as even the Scottish National Party (with whom The Mad Monarchist is not in sympathy) supports retaining Her Majesty as Queen of Scotland and there are of course loyal subjects of the Queen across the Commonwealth; certainly not as many as I would like, but present in considerable numbers. The British Royal Family may have its detractors (who must be opposed fiercely) but the Royal Family, I would wager, is more popular across the U.K. than probably any president or sitting government in any modern western republic -thank God.

Favorite Royal Images: A French Princess

HRH Princess Sophie of Orleans

(Note: this should not be taken as a sign of my opinion regarding the disputed succession one way or the other, I simply find it a lovely picture)

Papal Profile: Pope Innocent XI

It was on May 19, 1611 that Benedetto Odescalchi was born to well-to-do business family from Como, Italy. Drawn to the Church, he took holy orders and soon rose to be a papal legate and was made a cardinal while still only a priest. On September 21, 1676 at the age of 65 he was elected to the Throne of St Peter and took the name and title of Pope Innocent XI. At a time when the Church was often at odds with the fabulous King Louis XIV of France, history’s most famous absolute monarch, it was, perhaps, fitting to have a Pontiff whose named called to mind the height of power achieved during the reign of Innocent III in the Middle Ages; a Pope known for bringing Christian monarchs to heel.

Whereas his predecessor, Pope Clement X, did not protest as Louis XIV extended his authority into more ecclesial matters, Pope Innocent XI immediately denounced the so-called “Gallican Articles” which most of the clergy in France had supported. The relations between France and Rome sunk to new lows and Louis XIV thought he might regain some papal favor (and serve his own interests) by revoking the Edict of Nantes in 1685 which granted religious freedom to French Protestants. However, Pope Innocent XI was less than pleased, saying, “Christ would not have done thus. Men must walk into the temple of God, they cannot be dragged”. Throughout the rest of his reign the Pope would be opposed by the most powerful Catholic monarch.

Trying to make the King of France bow to anyone might have been a futile effort but Pope Innocent XI was also determined to bring Christian monarchs together in opposition to threatening advances made by the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans. The Pope arranged a German-Polish alliance that brought the heroic King John III Sobieski of Poland riding to the rescue when the Muslim armies were about to overrun Vienna, Austria. A new imperial-holy league was organized by Innocent XI and he gave material, moral and financial support to a counter-offensive against the Turks which liberated Hungary and the city of Belgrade. In southeast Europe at least, Christianity was triumphant.

In the north there were more problems. Catholic hopes had soared when King Charles II of Britain converted on his deathbed and was succeeded by his openly Catholic brother King James II. The Pope advised the new King of England, Scotland and Ireland to move slowly and carefully, knowing that the English had developed a paranoid fear of Catholics, before trying to restore religious freedom to Catholics and dissenting Protestants. However, James II was tied by blood and money to the King of France and he paid no attention to the warnings of Innocent XI. He went ahead with his program of religious freedom, British Protestants were terrified and James was promptly overthrown by a Protestant coup in concert with a Dutch invasion. The chance for a Catholic revival in Britain had been lost and Pope Innocent XI, whose opposition to Louis XIV had put him on the generally Protestant side of that conflict, died only the next year in June of 1689.

The image of Pope Innocent XI depends a great deal on who is painting the picture. Many British and French Catholics still have a little lingering dislike of him. In fact, more than 50 years after his death French cardinals still blocked efforts to canonize the pontiff in 1744. It was not until 1956 that the Pope was declared Blessed Innocent XI and a declaration on his sainthood seems unlikely. However, despite the considerable opposition he aroused, it was mostly due to his staunch defense of the independence of the Church. He was not a lavish pontiff and left the treasury in surprisingly good shape, he was sincerely and devoutly religious and committed to cleaning up the Church and defending Christianity. All in all, a great man.

MM Video: Alexandra of Luxembourg

HRH Princess Alexandra of Luxembourg, Nassau and Bourbon-Parma was born February 16, 1991 and is the fourth child and only daughter of HRH Grand Duke Henri and HRH Grand Duchess Maria Theresa of Luxembourg.