MM Video: Albert II of Monaco

MM Video: Prince Consort Philip

A little birthday tribute.

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, Their Imperial Highnesses Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako were out last weekend in Miyagi prefecture inspecting damage done by the 9.0 earthquake in the devastated city of Iwanuma. Ever since the earthquake and tsunami disaster in March the Imperial Crown Princely couple have been visiting evacuation centers in and around Tokyo, meeting with refugees and families but this was the first time they actually inspected the devastation at the scene of the crisis. The mayor met with them and the Crown Prince prayed for the victims of the terrible destruction. Many were surprised to see Crown Princess Masako accompanying her husband as she had lately been attending school with their daughter Princess Aiko after she took time off due to bullying. However, Princess Aiko was not in school at the time so the Crown Princess decided to go along with her husband. Ever since the teasing or bullying incident last year the Crown Princess has been accompanying her daughter to school. Given the trouble the Crown Princess had in having her daughter, a little over-protectiveness would be natural, but all of this certainly does nothing to allay concerns that the female members of the Crown Prince’s family are made of glass and may not be ‘up to the job’ required of the Imperial Family.

In the far north, on Monday the Bernadotte family was out in force for the celebration of National Day in Sweden. Even Princess Madeleine flew in from New York to take part, despite the fact that most Swedes these days do not mark National Day at all anymore. However, the royals did their duty as always, the women looking particularly charming in their blue and yellow national dresses and with Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel opening the gates to the palace, as is done every year, so the public can be given a tour of the place. It has been a rough few weeks for the King of Sweden lately with lots of allegations floating around of past bad behavior, virtually none of it backed up by actual evidence but which has caused his popularity to decline due to the incessant media attention on the subject. More Swedes are now favoring the King to abdicate in favor of his very popular daughter. I hope the monarchy emerges unscathed and while I am not a fan of abdications (I prefer the ‘till death do us part’ royal tradition) if the King does so the monarchy will be in good hands I think with Crown Princess Victoria of whom I have always had a very favorable impression. For the record though, I am not a fan of gender-neutral succession either.

The House of Windsor had perhaps the biggest royal news of the week though. A truly historical event as His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh turned ninety years old on Friday. For a very long time the media has made a great deal of sport about Prince Philip but he is one of my very favorite members of the British Royal Family. It was just another ‘day at the office’ for Prince Philip (who has long kept one of the busiest schedules of any Royal Family member) as he hosted a special luncheon for a charity devoted to helping the deaf. However, around the world there were honors as well. The Queen appointed her husband, a naval veteran of World War II, to the rank of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada appointed the Prince to the highest rank in the combined armed services of Canada, in London there was a 62-gun salute and the Grenadier Guards band at Buckingham Palace played “Happy Birthday” at the changing of the guard in his honor. Prince Philip is the oldest royal consort and the longest serving royal consort in British royal history. Reportedly, his schedule will be cut down now and, at the age of 90, perhaps it would be best to slow down just a little. Of course The Mad Monarchist wishes His Royal Highness a very happy birthday with many, many more to come. And, since today is the day that the birthday of the Queen is officially celebrated in the U.K. (with my favorite ceremony, the Trooping of the Colour, taking place among others) we can add to that our best wishes and congratulations to Her Majesty and a heartfelt shout of God Save the Queen!

Consort Profile: Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother

The late, beloved, Queen Mother of Great Britain, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the last Queen-Empress of India, was born on August 4, 1900, the ninth of ten children born to the Earl of Strathmore and his wife Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck. Her birth was registered in Hertfordshire though it is still a matter of dispute exactly where she was born. She grew up at Glamis Castle in Angus, Scotland. As a young girl she was known for her love of dogs, horses and outdoor sports -things she would later pass on to her daughter, the future Queen. During World War I the family castle took in wounded soldiers and the teenage Elizabeth helped care for them and keep the place running. Many of the BEF veterans who stayed there could not praise her care and kindness highly enough, for them, she was an absolute angel of mercy. It was after the war that she made the acquaintance of HRH Prince Albert, Duke of York. The Duke was soon smitten and his close friend Sir Louis Greig encouraged him to marry Elizabeth. In 1921 he popped the question, but Elizabeth turned him down. She was reluctant, as she said, “never again to be free to think, speak and act as I feel I really ought to”.

However, the Duke of York was adamant that he would have no other girl but Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Queen Mary, after meeting her, agreed. After Elizabeth appeared as a bridesmaid at the wedding of Albert’s sister Princess Mary in 1922 the Duke proposed again and, again, Elizabeth turned him down. However, in 1923 the persistent Duke proposed again and the third time was the charm. Elizabeth agreed and the couple were married on April 26 at Westminster Abbey with the new Duchess of York placing her wedding bouquet on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior in an unplanned tribute, an act which has been repeated by every royal bride thereafter. Despite her hesitation in joining the Royal Family there was no doubt of the level of devotion that the new Duke and Duchess of York felt for each other. The two traveled extensively from Northern Ireland to Aden to Africa and in 1926 welcomed their first child into the world, HRH Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen. The Duchess of York was also a compassionate and comforting support to her husband as he worked to overcome his speech impediment as he was called upon to make more public speeches as part of his royal duties.

The Duchess Elizabeth was a very devoted and “hands-on” mother and when the York couple went on a visit to Australia and the Pacific islands she was extremely distraught over having to leave little Princess Elizabeth behind. However, she was a big hit at every venue they visited and proved to be a master of the little, unscripted gestures that won over hearts wherever she went such as when she was shaking hands with locals in Fiji. A dog wandered up amongst the group and, with a smile she shook the paw of the curious pup as well. In 1930 another daughter, Princess Margaret Rose, was born and the family settled into a happy routine. They were a close-knit group, supportive of each other and very comfortable in their secondary role. However, all of that was about to change when King George V died in 1936 and Albert’s older brother became King Edward VIII, surrounded by controversy from the very start over his on-going relationship with Wallis Simpson. After only a few months King Edward VIII decided to abdicate in order to marry Simpson and in December Prince Albert Duke of York became King George VI, his devoted wife being crowned alongside him.

There was some family tension over this, and the now Queen Elizabeth was understandably less than thrilled at her elevation. She had been reluctant enough to endure the scrutiny and pressure of marrying the younger royal son, now the abdication had made her husband King and herself Queen. The stress on the new King George VI was considerable and there was some feeling that it had been unfairly thrust upon him by a brother who put personal wishes before national duty. However, there would be none of that with the new King and Queen who were devoted to duty from start to finish. In the prelude to World War II, the King and Queen understandably wanted peace and to avoid conflict if at all possible. However, the Queen was not blind to the threat that Nazi Germany represented and, seeing her on television, Adolf Hitler famously called Queen Elizabeth, “the most dangerous woman in Europe”. When World War II came, King George and Queen Elizabeth embodied the motto “Keep Calm and Carry On”. King George focused on his duties as Commander-in-Chief, the Queen worked to comfort the public and maintain morale while Princess Elizabeth joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

Queen Elizabeth was known for her ever present smile and her impeccable appearance. When visiting some victims of the London bombing by the German air force, an aide asked if she was not, perhaps, a bit over-dressed for visiting people in the ruins and rubble. The Queen gave him a stern look and replied that they would all wear their best if they were coming to see her so she could do no less to visit them. As she visited these people the Queen must have felt a bit of guilt that amongst so much suffering her home and family had remained relatively unscathed. That all changed though when Buckingham Palace itself was hit by German bombs and the Queen said that, in a way, she was glad. No one had been hurt and she said, after that, that she finally felt she could look the East End in the face, having experienced what so many of them had experienced. When the threat of a German invasion was at its height she even learned to use a pistol -just in case. The war was a terrible ordeal but it brought the British people and the Royal Family together as never before and the Queen was a big part of that.

Peace came as a relief but the stress had taken its toll on the King whose health deteriorated rapidly. The Queen was very protective of him and could be quite combative such as when she hit someone with her umbrella who she (mistakenly) thought was threatening the royal party. She was absolutely devastated when King George VI died in 1952 and, for a time, retired to Scotland, but was persuaded to return to public service out of her sense of duty and her wish to help her daughter, newly crowned Queen Elizabeth II. Known as HM Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, she remained, easily, the most widely popular member of the Royal Family, both because of her charm and friendliness and also because of the history she represented, memories of World War II and her calm in times of crisis. Britain was going through drastic changes as the British Empire was dismantled and socialism was brought in. Someone asked the Queen Mother what it was like to be a “Queen-Empress” because, with the independence of India, she was the last to hold such a title. She replied that, “it was very nice while it lasted”.

A supportive mother, a loving grandmother and a devoted public servant, the Queen Mother kept going even after turning 90 years old. She moved a little slower and her drinks got a little stronger but she kept on going, always with a smile, always setting just the right tone for every occasion. She suffered from a number of falls at home that slowed her down even more but even after turning 100 and breaking her pelvis in such a fall, she still insisted on standing for the national anthem at a service honoring King George VI -and she was over 101 years old. In 2002, to the great surprise of many, she attended the funeral of her younger daughter Princess Margaret but did not want anyone to see her since she was forced to use a wheelchair. The Queen Mother died on March 30, 2002 at the age of 101, the oldest member of the British Royal Family in history up to that time. As she lay in state at Westminster Hall her grandsons, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward and Viscount Linley (son of Princess Margaret) stood guard over her in a tribute known as the Vigil of the Princes, an honor performed only once before after the death of King George V. The Queen Mother was more beloved and respected than almost any other consort in British history and she deserved every bit of it.

Anniversary of the King of Thailand

It was today in 1946 that HM Bhumibol Adulyadej became King of Thailand upon the mysterious death of his older brother King Ananda Mahidol. He remains the longest serving head of state in the world today, beloved in his country for his service to his people and respected around the world for keeping Thailand on an even keel during many decades of tumult in the region. Long live the King!

Remembering Rainier III

April 6 was the day in 2005 that HSH Prince Rainier III of Monaco departed this life. May 9th marked the anniversary of his inheriting the throne of Monaco from his grandfather Prince Louis II and May 31 was the anniversary of his birth in 1923 to Prince Pierre de Polignac and Princess Charlotte of Monaco. One of my favorite modern monarchs, Rainier III is a man most people know, but few seem to know much about. To remedy that, I thought it appropriate to highlight a couple of articles from my sub-blog Mad for Monaco.

Prince Rainier was a man of strong convictions and deep faith as related in Rainier III: A Man & Monarch of Integrity.

Prince Rainier was also the only modern monarch in western Europe to suspend the constitution and rule by decree in response to an economic and political effort to sideline him. Read about that in Onassis vs. Grimaldi.

QA with MM

I don't know if it will be of interest to anyone, but recently I was interviewed by a member of the Political Science Club from my former university. It was supposed to be a "rapid fire" session so I could not get into too many details and it seemed to rather get 'off the point' to me but, if anyone is interested, I thought I would post it here.

Q: Why is a monarchy better than a republic?
A: There are many reasons, one being that a monarch has a vested interest in doing their best to pass on a prosperous country to his son whereas transitory politicians are simply out to get as much as they can while they can.

Q: Is any revolution ever justified?
A: It’s hard to make a blanket statement like that but I would say that any violent revolution against a legitimate authority is unjustified, so long as that authority is not endeavoring to force you to act against God. However, some revolutions have certainly been more justified than others.

Q: So, the American Revolution was not justified then?
A: Absolutely not. It was a revolt of the rich, led by a bunch of spoiled elites who were afraid that their free ride was coming to an end. I will grant though that it worked out better for America than in most places, and, it was not a true revolution but rather a war for independence or a war of secession.

(PSC: Keep it short remember.
MM: I am trying.)

Q: Am I correct to assume then that the French Revolution was unjustified?
A: Yes, absolutely and of course it was far worse. However, the French at least had the excuse of actually suffering. The American colonists were living better than the people in England were.

Q: Hasn’t the popularity of republican governments, starting in the last century proven that republics are better?
A: LSD was popular in the 70’s, didn’t make it a good thing.

Q: But hasn’t there been more progress and prosperity in this and the last century under republican rule than there was under the monarchies of history?
A: Depends on what you consider “progress”. The last century also gave us the two worst wars ever fought on earth, the Cold War, the breakdown of the family and now the War on Terror. I wouldn’t call the 20th Century a resounding success.

Q: Would you at least agree that government today is more accessible than in the absolute monarchies of the past?
A: Are you trying to be funny? Of course not. Even in pre-revolutionary France any peasant could walk into the palace at Versailles and talk to King Louis XIV if he wanted to. Try that at the White House and you’d never get past the front gate.

Q: Do you think America would be better off today if the British had won the Revolutionary War?
A: I can’t say, I have no crystal ball to see alternate realities but I do know we would not be an oppressed nation of enslaved peasants. We would probably be a more conservative version of Canada with the Queen on the dollar bill.

Q: Doesn’t democracy make governments more accountable?
A: Not all republics are democratic, first of all, but no, any government can be accountable or unaccountable as they choose. Their title makes no difference.

Q: But doesn’t it help being able to vote the President out of office?
A: Not really, because he knows he only has 4-8 years at best anyway and during that time can pretty much do as he pleases.

Q: He can be impeached though. Would a monarchy be better if the king could be impeached?
A: First, impeaching the President is debatable. In the US, the oldest major republic in the world, only two presidents were ever impeached and neither was actually removed from office. On the other hand, monarchs have been impeached throughout history, it just rarely comes to that because it is rarely necessary.

Q: But can’t leaders elected from among the people, who are one of the people, look after their interests better than a hereditary monarch just by being one of them, even though the monarch may have all the best intentions?
A: Again, definitely no. And history will support me. Chairman Mao was “one of the people”, so was Hitler, so was Stalin, so was Pol Pot.

Q: So a popular leader is always bad in your view?
A: Certainly not, but being ‘of the people’ does not always mean doing what is best for the people. Julius Caesar was an aristocrat but he was for the ordinary people and it was the ordinary people who loved him and the aristocrats who murdered him.

Q: Is there any question you can answer without a caveat attached?
A: Of course I can, but it may not be likely.

Q: Now who’s trying to be funny?
A: I’m perfectly serious and this is why I don’t believe in ideologies. I don’t believe there is any one system or any one political formula that, if everyone just adhered to “this” we would have paradise on earth. Humanity doesn’t work that way.

Q: And monarchy isn’t a political ideology?
A: No, which is obvious by how different even the few monarchies in the world today are. The Netherlands in not like Liechtenstein, Sweden is not like Monaco, Japan is not like Brunei and so on.

Q: So there is no “monarchist” political system, so to speak.
A: Not really, no.

Q: Then is there any practical benefit to having a monarchy that is just symbolic?
A: Absolutely there is. Even on their own, symbols have power. Ask the kid who tried to burn the American flag at LSU. Symbols are very important.

Q: What is it then that monarchies today symbolize?
A: As in all times, they symbolize the total history and experiences of their people, they symbolize the country itself. In Japan, the constitution spells it out exactly that way, the Emperor is the embodiment of Japan itself. Go across the world to Norway, it is the same story, the King of Norway is the symbol of Norway. The history of his family is the history of the country.

Q: One last question, why is Baron von Ungern so prominently featured on your blog, almost like an alter-ego or something? Wasn’t he about as horrible as you can get?
A: By most accounts he was pretty horrible, I’m not sure I believe all of them.

Q: But why associate with the memory of someone like him instead of a more upstanding sort of monarchist?
A: The shortest answer would be because I just like to push the buttons of the revolutionaries and besides which, for staunch republicans, no matter which monarchist I used for a mascot they would consider them just as bad, I’m sure, as my friend the Baron. That, and they have absolutely no sense of humor.

Q: Nothing to do then with why you don’t use your real name?
A: No, believe it or not, I’m very unpopular in the “upstairs” of the movement and many years ago I promised to shut up and go away. I havn’t heard from any of them since, I think they’re trying to forget me but I decided to use a pen-name so I could continue to do what I believe in without breaking my word.

PSC: Thanks for the time. I’m sure this one will stand out.
A: Probably a safe bet.

Ann Coulter Defends the Martyred Queen

I know plenty of people will get uptight about my saying anything at all nice about Ann Coulter. "She's a republican!" True, but she has also said that a monarchy is not always bad -and coming from an American that's something at least. "She's a Neo-Con!" Maybe, I've heard so many people of such a variety called that as an insult that I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean anymore. But, one thing I have always liked about Ann Coulter is that she infuriates all the right people. She has also done something I never thought anyone in "mainstream" political discourse would ever do: condemn the French Revolution. In her latest book, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America", Miss Coulter does that and actually tells the TRUTH about the martyred Queen Marie Antoinette who has suffered more unjustly in the popular culture than just about any other royal figure. Now, I am not trying to paint a rosey picture here, she takes her swipe at the French monarchy too, no doubt about it, but she does speak of the Revolution as the true horror that it was and condemns past and present efforts to portray it as some sort of righteous crusade for liberty and freedom. She also relates how it resulted in the exact opposite and, as I said, she puts the lie to the many false rumors about Marie Antoinette.

I admit, I was surprised to see any American political commentator telling the truth about the Queen when even those who know the truth cannot pass up an opportunity to add to the popular misconception of her. In chapter six of her book, "The French Revolution: When Liberals Attack" She states that the Queen was not some cold woman, living in lavish luxury and delighting in the plight of the masses but rather compares her to Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. She relates how the Queen was simple in her tastes, concerned about the poor and even broke down some of the class-structure rules at Versailles and invited poor children to the palace to have dinner with her own. She also makes clear that the Queen never said, "Let them eat cake" -a truth which cannot be repeated often enough. Miss Coulter also demolishes other popular misconceptions, such as the storming of the Bastille actually accomplishing anything or that liberty and freedom were actually the result of the Revolution and she spares no details in telling of the many and grotesque horrors visited upon France by the Revolutionaries.

Can I recommend her book? That would be a silly thing to do in speaking to a monarchist audience. I'm sure those inclined to agree with Ann will read it and those who are not will avoid it like the plague. I simply point it out and applaud her for telling the truth in this area of history where the lies have been so cemented in place over the centuries by republicans of every stripe.

Favorite Royal Images: Young Sun of France

A youthful King Louis XIV, the "Sun King" looking like a young Roman conqueror

Mad Motivation

French Prince Goes "Texan"

I was surprised to come across this; it seems that HRH Prince Jean de France, Duc de Vendôme (Orleanist line) has become an honorary Texan:

David Dewhurst

Lieutenant Governor

To all to whom these presents

shall come, Greetings: Know ye, that

this certificate is presented to

His Royal Highness

Prince Jean de France, Duc de Vendôme

This certifies that the Texas Flag herewith was flown

at the Capitol of the Sovereign State of Texas

in your honor and to hereby welcome you

to the great State of Texas as an

"Honorary Citizen"

on

April 25, 2011

Austin, Texas

Nice to see a Prince of France, 'joining the ranks'. However, I should hasten to point out, lest any legitimists get their feathers ruffled, this is a very common thing to give out. Almost anyone can apply and be given the same treatment for a number of reasons. However, I thought it was interesting, and I'm glad to see honorary citizenship extended to a prince. As regular readers will know, Texas and the Kingdom of France have a long history as can be seen by the Bourbon flag still flying proudly amongst the famous "Six Flags" of Texas.

Monarchist Military: The Royal Italian Armed Forces

I am a sucker for hard-luck cases (as most know) and one group that had some very hard luck in its day was the Royal Italian Military. Much of this, it must be said, is due to an over-emphasis and exaggeration of their role in World War II in which the only thing most remember is the failed invasions of Egypt and Greece after which Germany had to come to the rescue. However, this gives us a rather skewed picture of the armed forces of the King of Italy and to get a better understanding it is necessary to go back and look at the broader history of their exploits and accomplishments. The Royal Italian Army had its roots in the Savoy army of Piedmont-Sardinia and their rise to preeminence on the peninsula was due in no small part to the fact that the Savoyard army was the best and most professional of all the Italian states. Their victories over the Austrians were critical though they are often glossed over as the French or other Italian states were usually fighting alongside them.

This always bothered me; the idea that some would try to rob the military of one side of their laurels just because they had allies. It doesn’t seem to happen with anyone else. Take World War II; would anyone denigrate the heroic contribution of the forces of the British Empire just because the American forces made up the bulk of Allied strength in the west or that the Russians did most of the heavy-lifting? I would certainly hope not. Such a double-standard does seem to often be applied to the Italians however. Nonetheless, this is an injustice. From northern Italy to the Crimea the troops of Piedmont-Sardinia fought tenaciously and were on the winning side and as such should deserve their share of the credit for the victories won.

In the early days of independence the Royal Italian military fought a successful war against Ottoman Turkey, participated in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion in China and aside from the embarrassing mishap in Ethiopia in 1896 fought to a successful conclusion a number of colonial campaigns in north and eastern Africa. The Italian forces were also innovators on a number of fronts. It was in 1911, during the war with Turkey, that the Italians became the first to use aircraft in combat, bombing Turkish bases in what is now Libya with both planes and air ships. They were the first to use armored cars in combat, were pioneers in the area of fast-attack torpedo boats and they were some of the first to understand the true potential of aerial warfare and the versatility of armored warfare. The Italian innovations in the field of military history truly are remarkable and few would try to deny them even if critical of other areas.

During World War I the Italian armed forces fought in terrible conditions and suffered very heavy losses against the Austrians but ultimately emerged victorious. Again, however, being one of many Allied powers, they are often denied much credit for this. However, the Italian contribution was significant. Italy lost considerably more men in World War I than they did in World War II, despite fighting major campaigns on various fronts. The Battle of Caporetto was certainly a disaster but the turn-around after that, following a change in command, was truly remarkable and a credit to the Italian fighting man. Few other armies in history have come back from such a disintegration, stood their ground, halted a previously victorious offensive and recovered sufficiently to go on to final victory. They also were fighting on a front, deemed by even the likes of Hindenburg, as the most dangerous and difficult of the war, worse even than the western front due to the extreme cold and mountainous topography. It is also often forgotten what hard fighting was done by the Italian colonial forces in World War I. The Turks had not forgotten their earlier defeat and were eager to encourage Islamic forces to rise in rebellion against the Italians in the hope of restoring Ottoman Turkey as master of the eastern Mediterranean.

Italy came out of World War I bloodied, exhausted but victorious and having learned some hard lessons about the realities of modern warfare. They were disappointed when the other Allies failed to deliver on the promises they had made to induce Italy to enter the war though and that would play a pivotal part in the souring of relations between the Italians and Great Britain and France particularly. In the inter-war years one of the most major military campaigns undertaken by the Royal Italian Armed Forces was the intervention in the Spanish Civil War. Again, people forget this, but the Italians contributed more fighting men, more planes, more naval forces to that conflict than any other power. They were there to support the success of General Francisco Franco and I have no qualms about saying I think this was the right side to support. The fighting was fierce but Franco finally won the day. The Italian contribution to this was not minimal, neither the considerable land forces or the often-overlooked naval contingent where Italian submarines provided vital service by sinking republican supply vessels from the Soviet Union.

The only other major military operation before World War II was the conquest of Ethiopia (some may mention Albania but that was not a major operation as, though the fact is often ignored, the country was already an Italian protectorate to begin with). The conquest of Ethiopia was, of course, controversial, but we are not dealing with politics here, simply the military situation. For years the basic facts of this war have been exaggerated to the point that armchair historians smugly shrug off the whole affair as little more than a large-scale massacre with the Italians trampling to an easy victory over a handful of defenseless primitives. This annoys me. Not only is it factually inaccurate but it is extremely insulting to both the Italians and the Ethiopians. Even more so to the Ethiopians really. One side (the Italians) was clearly superior to the other (the Ethiopians) but that does not, by any means, imply that the war was easy for anyone. To understand this, a few things have to be considered.

First, the Italians definitely had the superior force in terms of quality. They were better trained, better disciplined and better equipped. That does not diminish the fact that the Ethiopians also had some advantages of their own. They were fighting on their own ground, which is always an advantage, they had a definite numerical superiority to the Italians and, despite popular perception they were not a bunch of primitives fighting with sticks and stones. They had modern rifles, machine guns and artillery, just not in the numbers necessary nor did they have any practical experience at modern warfare. However, it is a disservice to condescendingly dismiss them. They were fierce fighters who had been used to almost constant warfare in the many tribal conflicts that long troubled the Ethiopian Empire. Certainly they were at a clear disadvantage but defeating them was no walk in the park for the Italians, it was no small accomplishment. Likewise, as much if not more than the battlefield accomplishment, was the astounding logistical feat carried out by the Italian Royal Army. Ethiopia is a country roughly twice the size of France, with a hostile climate, extremely rugged and inhospitable terrain and absolutely no modern infrastructure. It may be hard for civilians to understand just what an accomplishment it was to move, supply and maintain multiple military forces in a country that, prior to the Italian invasion, had not one set of train tracks or one modern road.

And so, finally we come to World War II, the last conflict the Italian military would ever fight in the service of a monarch. It was, ultimately, a defeat but, again, aspects of this are often exaggerated to the point that most have, I think, an inaccurate view. Undoubtedly, the Royal Italian military was unprepared for World War II and the military leaders tried (in vain) to persuade Mussolini of this fact. In terms of industrial capacity the other nations of Western Europe simply had too much of a head-start over Italy. In areas where industrial capacity had less of an impact, the Italian forces did quite well. For example, the Italian conquest of British Somaliland and French Somaliland was a resounding success with Italian forces even occupying border areas of British East Africa and the Sudan. Likewise, when the Allies launched their eventual counter-offensive in this area the Italian colonial forces put up a tenacious fight (with considerable local support as well) despite the odds against them. Egypt would be a different story.

Most who know something about World War II know the basics of the first Egyptian campaign. An over-confident Mussolini orders the Royal Italian Army to invade Egypt, expecting an easy victory over the vastly outnumbered British garrison only to have the British soundly defeat the invasion force and launch a counter-attack of their own that pushed all the way into Libya. This forced Mussolini to turn to Germany for help and so was dispatched the soon-to-be famous German Africa Corps under General Rommel. The invasion of Egypt was a disaster for the Italians, no doubt about it. Their equipment was decades behind what the British had, much of it being little beyond what was used in World War I and technology had advanced at breakneck speed between the wars. What I find interesting is the different attitudes concerning the defeat in Egypt versus the conquest of Ethiopia. In both cases you had one side with a clear numerical advantage and another side with a clear technological advantage, yet many shrug off the Italian victory while applauding the British victory over such a larger force.

The Kingdom of Italy reached its peak in terms of size during those years but, as we know, following those early days, things went quickly downhill. However, that should not be used as an excuse to denigrate the Royal Italian Armed Forces. Concerning the botched invasion of Greece (which again, the military high command advised against) there was a big piece of simple bad luck involved. It just so happened that prior to the Italian invasion the Greek dictator Metaxas had implemented a huge program of reforming and strengthening the Greek armed forces, so aside from the problems of weather and terrain the Italians were hitting the Greeks when they were at their best while the Italian forces had been worn down by numerous campaigns during and before World War II. It should also be remembered, since the brilliant exploits of German Field Marshal Rommel in North Africa are so famous, that the Africa Corps Rommel led so well and to such stunning success was 2/3 Italian and there were a number of units that performed heroically throughout the war.

Finally, one quality which should not be overlooked when evaluating the Royal Italian Armed forces was their staunch loyalty to their King. Even those brought to the height of their careers during the Fascist era almost invariably put their first loyalty with King and Country. Of all the Marshals of Italy, only one, Rodolfo Graziani, continued to support Mussolini after King Victor Emanuel III dismissed him. In fact, the man widely considered the best Italian general of the war, Marshal Giovanni Messe, was a staunch royalist who had won battles in Greece, Russia and Tunisia and who later led the forces loyal to the King in the Allied cause against the German occupation of Italy. This was a key difference between Germany and Italy in World War II. In Nazi Germany, the first allegiance of the military was given to Adolf Hitler personally. In Italy, where a monarchy still existed no matter how suppressed, the military was loyal to the King, not the government, and thus the Italian armed forces were not obliged to follow one man intent on dragging their country down to ruin alongside him as was sadly the case across the Alps.

MM Video: Jacobite Lineage

MM Video: The German Empire at War

Prussian Loyalists Mourn the Kaiser

Today marks the anniversary of the death of Kaiser Wilhelm II, last German Emperor and King of Prussia, in his exile at House Doorn in the Netherlands. The Radical Royalist gives an in-depth report on the event and the last home of the fallen Prussian monarch. Prussian monarchists are also set to commemorate the upcoming anniversary of the House of Hohenzollern as well as the wedding of the heir to the former throne, Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia (seen above with his bride-to-be), great-grandson of the last Kaiser.

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Middle East, the recent remarks of one Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia caught my attention. In an interview on CNN he said that he was actually unhappy about the rising oil prices in Europe and North America. Skeptical? You probably should be. In both continents, just to get this out of the way, prices are artificially inflated. In Europe it is more due to taxes and in the US due to Obama printing more money and thus lowering the value of every dollar in circulation. That makes everything cost more. However, while I doubt Prince Alwaleed is crying himself to sleep over the high cost of oil, he went on to make a very valid point and one that is absolutely never talked about. His concern over high oil prices was that they were driving more and more westerners to look for alternative sources of fuel and when the pendulum starts to swing in that direction Saudi Arabia is going to be screwed with a capital “S”. The Prince is absolutely right on this score. Saudi Arabia has absolutely nothing else besides oil and if America and Europe started using domestic energy or renewable energy the whole Kingdom of Saudi Arabia becomes nothing more than the world’s largest sandbox. And if you think there is trouble in the Middle East now, violence and unrest, let that future become a reality and it will become clear very, very fast that, ‘we ain’t seen nothing yet’.

Moving south, in Africa the controversial absolute monarch of Swaziland, HM King Mswati III, has announced that the celebrations planned for his upcoming Silver Jubilee have been canceled due to the poor state of the already generally impoverished Swazi economy. The King and his many wives have attracted a great deal of criticism over the years for their lavish lifestyle. Supporters of western-style liberal democracy have also long criticized the King for his absolute rule and ban of opposition parties in the southern African kingdom.

In Europe, it has been a busy week for the royals of the Low Countries. Last weekend Crown Princess Maxima of the Netherlands celebrated her 40th birthday. Later in the week the Prince and Princess of Orange attended a special concert to benefit the people of Japan. In Belgium, Queen Paola marked the International Day of Missing Children in Brussels on Wednesday by meeting with 300 Belgian children and stressing to them the importance of safety, particular in dealing with strangers, in person or on-line. The Queen was rather shocked by how many chatted on-line with strangers. She also stressed the importance of speaking up when an adult behaves improperly toward them. Also, on a happy note, Princess Louise of Belgium celebrated her first communion on Thursday, an event attended by pretty much the whole Belgian Royal Family. Finally, the Grand Ducal couple of Luxembourg made a state visit to Norway Monday and Tuesday, meeting with their Norwegian counterparts with all the appropriate finery. There are few things better than when royals get together.

Also, Prince Albert II of Monaco has had a busy week. Sunday saw the final festivities for the annual Monaco Grand Prix with Charlene congratulating the winners for the first time as she will doubtlessly do many more times in the future. Following that, the Sovereign Prince visited Estonia on a 2-day trip, meeting with government officials and taking some time to walk the streets and meet the locals. In the meantime, Charlene has been focusing on her new role as Global Ambassador for the Special Olympics which looks to be her primary “pet” charity -something quite appropriate for a former Olympian to do. And, of course, the date for the big Princely wedding is rapidly approaching.

In Spain, on Monday, the Prince and Princess of the Asturias met with some high-ranking Catholic clerics at Zarzuela Palace on the preparations for the upcoming World Youth Day in Madrid which will be held August 16-21. However, the big news on the Spanish front continues to be concerns over the health of King Juan Carlos. The King even chided the media for focusing on the issue, wondering if some wished him dead. However, this week it was announced that the King underwent surgery to install an artificial knee to alleviate pain from some old sports injuries. The King was reported as coming through it all perfectly okay. This would explain why the monarch was seen walking with a cane in some of his recent public engagements. Of course, we wish His Catholic Majesty a safe and speedy recovery.

Finally, concerning the House of Windsor, HM the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh visited the Isles of Scilly for the first time in almost 45 years. The public and local officials were very happy to greet the Queen and had nothing but the highest praise for Her Majesty on the occasion of her visit. Also, far to the north in Scotland, as we have lately discussed Queen Marie d’Guise and King James V, I was glad to see that an ambitious renovation project has been completed on Stirling Castle, restoring it to its exact appearance during the time when Stuart royals like Marie d’Guise and James V lived there. From the photos of the place, it looks fantastic to me, though I am biased toward the style of the Stuart/Tudor period of British history.

Mad Rant: "Theoretical Monarchists"

I have mentioned it before, I am sure, but perhaps not in detail but one of things that really gets on my nerves are what I like to call “theoretical monarchists”. In one regard, I am loathe to bring this subject up because I am a pan-monarchist and I would like nothing better than to see all monarchists supporting each other rather than tearing each other apart when we are such a scattered minority. It is for this reason that there are certain subjects I refrain from talking about here. That is the main reason why I am not as forceful on religious issues as I am normally. I do not deny my own religious beliefs (nor do I think it is much of a secret where my religious loyalties lie, the confusion of some not withstanding) and while I do not avoid the subject, I at least try to do my best to avoid offending. Similarly, I do not make an issue of disputed successions here. In at least some of the cases (there are many) I do favor a particular side. In others the cases argued are so deep in varying legal interpretations I simply have no opinion because I have not deigned to take several years to study all the details to come to an informed opinion. However, again, I try my best not to cause offense because, whether dealing with France or Italy or Russia I would regard any of the candidates as an improvement over the existing republican system.

However, there are some who are so entrenched in their views and opinions that they would rather hand victory to the republicans than see a royal they do not favor on the throne. How these people then consider themselves monarchists baffles me. What I find just as aggravating, and who I frankly refuse to deal with more often than not because of that, are those who claim that they are “monarchists” and even “more monarchist” than anyone else yet do not actually support their own monarch or monarchy. In fact, some (and I am not exaggerating) do not actually support any monarchy that currently exists in the world because they all fail to meet their rigid and lofty standards. These are the people I call “theoretical monarchists”. They may be royalists in theory but in practical terms they are really no different than the republicans they so despise. I am a simple man (probably the one thing every reader here would agree with) and I am a simple monarchist. I know I am a bit deranged, but to me, being a monarchist means you support having a monarchy; you want to maintain those that survive and restore those that have fallen. Simple as that.

Elizabeth II -actual Queen

Allow me to be as blatant as possible: if you live in a monarchy and do not support your monarch, I do not consider you a monarchist. In the past, those who fall into the “theoretical monarchist” category that I came across involved Great Britain or the British Commonwealth. I refer of course to the die-hard Jacobites, all of whom I have dealt with having been Catholics (and I don’t mean to pick on Catholics but, get ready, because the issue comes up again). They don’t support the Queen because the true monarch is Duke Francis of Bavaria. However, I have not heard much out of them lately. In my experience, most Catholics in Britain or the Commonwealth that I know of, positively go out of their way to show how their loyalty to HM Queen Elizabeth II is just and proper and totally support the monarchy. In fact, I have been rather surprised by how many Catholics are adamantly loyal to the British monarchy given how virulent and widespread anti-Catholicism remains in the UK. Despite all that has happened over the centuries, bring up the subject of Catholicism around a crowd of average Britons (even monarchists) and you can count down the seconds before “Bloody” Mary or the Spanish Armada is brought up or how long it takes for the hapless King James II to be slandered in the vilest terms. Again, given that, I’m rather impressed by how loyal most British Catholics seem to be to the monarchy.

Rather, it is another country near and dear to my heart where I have recently found the most adamant and vociferous “theoretical monarchists” and it is a peculiarly Catholic strand. I refer, of course, to the Kingdom of Spain. As I’m sure you all know, I have the Mad Monarchist Channel on YouTube and while I have only once or twice ever seen a comment on a video of the British Royal Family protesting their illegitimacy, any time I put up a video dealing with the modern Spanish Royal Family there will be a string of comments (or attempted comments anyway) slandering the King, the Royal Family and stressing that some Carlist pretender or another is the “real” King of Spain and their family the “real” Spanish Royal Family. Good Lord, saints and angels is this tiresome! Some may think me biased due to the fact that I *like* the King of Spain personally but I really fail to see any reason for such opposition and it severely tries my limited patience. As far as I can tell, contesting the rights of King Juan Carlos I makes even less sense than contesting the rights of Queen Elizabeth II and that makes no sense at all.

Juan Carlos I -actual King

I understand where the Carlists are coming from, I understand the whole origin of the Carlist Wars. Historically, I would have been on their side and I think their cause was the right one. However, every way I have looked at the Carlist line of succession I keep coming back to (gasp) none other than King Juan Carlos. This is one reason why the various factions of Carlists make less sense to me than even the die-hard Jacobites. The Jacobites at least can point to an orderly succession of heirs to the Stuart lineage. I have never come across a Jacobite or any other monarchist who did not agree that the Duke of Bavaria is the legitimate successor to the royal line of the deposed King James II. However, the Carlists have several candidates and are divided into several factions, becoming ever smaller (and they were a minority to begin with) and those they put forward have no legitimate claim, as I see it, on the throne of Spain at all. Unless there is some pertinent information I am lacking it seems that at some point they just decided to pick a prince who agreed with them on political and religious matters and declared him the “legitimate” heir.

This is not what I would consider monarchist behavior. Monarchists are (in my view) supposed to be loyal to the prince God gives them and sometimes that can be a real test. However, putting aside all of that, there is the practical issue that no Carlist claimant has ANY chance whatsoever of becoming the King of Spain. The one and only King of Spain is His Catholic Majesty Juan Carlos I and if he falls Spain will be a republic, not a Marxist Catholic kingdom (as favored by some Carlists) or a traditionalist Catholic kingdom (as favored by other Carlists). The only options in Spain today is the monarchy that exists or a leftist republic. If you support the King and the continuance of the Kingdom of Spain I consider you a monarchist. If you are Spanish and, for any reason, not loyal to the King, I do not consider you a monarchist in any meaningful sense of the term. You might as well be a republican for all the good your “theoretical monarchism” will do.

Paul VI -actual Pope

Of course, as I said, these “theoretical monarchists” (in this case) are Catholics and one would think that the issue could be settled quite simply by looking to the Holy See for guidance. Oh, but you would wrong there silly Willy! When I say these people are Catholics I should probably instead say that these people are “Catholics” because their loyalty to the Holy See is rather ‘hit and miss’ as well. Tiresome, tiresome, tiresome. Again, on the Mad Monarchist Channel I recently put up a video of His Holiness Pope Paul VI (and many of you will already know where this is going). Let me state for the record that Paul VI is definitely not going to be making “My Favorite Popes” list, but I do not write articles or post videos of only those I like. Only by the next morning of posting that video I had five or six messages slandering Paul VI, denouncing him as illegitimate or (my favorite) that he was really an imposter while the “real” Pope was kept in a secret Vatican prison.

As I said, I am not the biggest fan of Pope Paul VI, but this stuff is obviously ridiculous. Just as I would say about self-proclaimed monarchists in Britain regarding the Queen or in Spain regarding the King, it seems a simple matter to me that if you are a Catholic you are loyal to the Pope, whoever that might be. If you’re not loyal to the Pope, you’re not Catholic. I certainly do not agree with everything that every monarch does but, as a monarchist, I still support them. A Catholic may not like every thing the Pope does or says but Catholics should still support him. Regarding Paul VI, I don’t like many of the changes he presided over, I certainly don’t like the gutting of the Curia, the abolition of the Noble Guard and the Palatine Guard or his discarding of the Papal Tiara. However, none of that changes the fact that he was the Pope. If the wildest stories against him are believed it would seem obvious to me that any claim to divine protection for the Church would be sacrificed.

This is a difficult issue, I know. But monarchy is not about popularity, it is about legitimacy and traditional authority -not popular authority. Monarchists are usually fine with that as long as the monarch (usually historically) was on their side but it becomes problematic when modern monarchs do things that very traditional monarchists do not approve of. I understand that can be difficult. However, whether it is the Queen of England, the King of Spain, the Dalai Lama or the Pope, my support for them as legitimate sovereigns does not depend on whether or not I agree with them. To do otherwise does not seem at all “monarchist” to me. And seeing people who call themselves royalists yet find some fault with virtually every reigning royal in the world, baffles me. At a time when actual monarchies are such a small minority in the world, it should not be too much to ask that monarchists support those few that remain. To do otherwise simply makes one a theoretical monarchist and a practical republican. And it makes me a very … Mad Monarchist.

Royals at Eternal Rest

Monarchist Profile: General Franz Graf Thun-Hohenstein

Count Thun-Hohenstein may not be widely known in Austria (or the Czech Republic) today, but he has a very unique position in history as the leader of the only major Hapsburg military force to fight on the American continent in the 19th Century. He was born on July 27, 1826 in Bohemia and in 1844 entered the Imperial Royal Army as an officer cadet with Infantry Regiment No. 28. Promotions and transfers followed and it was while serving with the First Infantry as a captain that he saw his first major action in Italy during the Revolution of 1848. In March he and his men were engaged in heavy fighting in Milan, street to street and house to house. Other battles in other cities followed (including Vienna) but it was his courage and heroism at Milan and Vienna against the revolutionary forces that earned him the Military Merit Cross. He fought with distinction in numerous other battles throughout 1849, being wounded in action and for which he received much praise and many commendations. In the aftermath of the conflict, he was so highly regarded that he was promoted to major and later personal adjutant to the famous Field Marshal Radetzky.

The legendary field marshal died in 1857 and Thun-Hohenstein was sent back to his regiment and given the prestigious appointment to command the grenadier battalion in 1859. He fought at the brutal battle of Solferino in the 1859 war and his conduct on that occasion earned him a commendation from Emperor Francis Joseph himself. His conduct in other battles earned him more decorations (the Order of Leopold among them) and finally promotion to full colonel. By this time he had achieved a high reputation for skill, courage and efficiency whether fighting the French, Italians or assorted revolutionaries. So, it was no great surprise when Archduke Maximilian of Austria, who had recently agreed to become Emperor of Mexico, chose Graf Thun-Hohenstein to be the commander of the Austrian forces he wished to take to Mexico with him as added security. The French were carrying the bulk of the conflict against the Mexican republicans but it was only natural that Maximilian and Carlota welcomed having some soldiers from their own countries as well.

So, in 1864, Emperor Francis Joseph authorized the formation of the Austrian Volunteer Corps which recruited out of Laibach in Slovenia. Men enlisted from almost every corner of the Hapsburg empire and Graf Thun-Hohenstein was the man Maximilian wanted to command the force. The Emperor agreed to transfer him to the Imperial Mexican Army and he, in due course, took command of the 6,800 men of the Austrian corps as well as the two battalions of Belgian volunteers as the formations were grouped together into the “Imperial Mexican Corps of Austrian and Belgian Volunteers”. After crossing the Atlantic, Thun-Hohenstein established his headquarters at Puebla and his forces would operate mostly in eastern Mexico. However, as was bound to happen, he was often at odds with the French over his desire to maintain the Austrian corps as a totally separate entity under his own command, apart from the French forces. He was immediately at odds with the French commander Marshal Bazaine and this eventually led to a souring of his relationship with Emperor Maximilian as well.

Nonetheless, the Austrian forces were often called upon to act in smaller detachments, as flying columns to counter insurgents and as shock troops to stiffen less reliable forces. He was praised and decorated for his efforts (though not as much as the commander of the Belgian contingent which enjoyed the unqualified support of the Empress) but his relationship with his French and Mexican counterparts remained tense. Things worsened when the French began to pull out of Mexico such as at a battle near San Luis Potosi where a small force of Austrians were decimated while a French column sat within earshot and took no action to come to their aid. It thus came as no great surprise that when diplomatic pressure forces the recall of the foreign troops in Mexico, Graf Thun-Hohenstein refused to remain on hand and join the regular Mexican Imperial Army. Nonetheless, he was further honored by Emperor Francis Joseph with the Order of the Iron Crown upon his return to Austria. The record of the Austrian corps had been impressive. With 55 battles fought only 9 of them could even be argued to be defeats.

As the fighting in Mexico ground to its eventual, glorious doom, the count was recalled to service in the Imperial Royal Army with promotion to major general and a brigade to command. Transferred from Innsbruck to Trient and finally given command of the 25th Infantry Division he earned further praise and honors for his services before being promoted to lieutenant marshal in 1873 and put in command of the Tyrol military sector, an area he regarded as his second home. He married in 1877 and won further promotion, especially for his action in dealing with a disastrous storm in the winter of 1882-83. Poor health finally forced him to retire from active duty and he died on July 30, 1888 with the rank of Feldzeugmeister.

Papal Profile: Pope St Sixtus II

One of the earlier Bishops of Rome, St Sixtus II was a Greek Christian, elected to the Throne of St Peter in August of 257 AD. Due to the persecutions Christians were suffering at that time, his consecration was done in secret. He reigned for only one year, but in that short time he left an example that has endured throughout history. The legacy that stands out the most from his pontificate is one of reconciliation and strengthening of the unity of the Catholic Church. During the previous pontificate of St Stephen I, a quarrel had broken out with Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in North Africa over the repentant followers of Novatian, an anti-pope who tried to usurp power from 251-258. Pope St Sixtus II managed to repair the relationship between the Bishop and the Papacy, as well as bringing back other churches that had broken away because of this dispute into full communion with Rome.

These actions displayed the wisdom and compassion of St Sixtus, but upcoming events would vividly illustrate his courage and devotion as well. In 253 AD Valerian became Emperor of Rome and soon instituted a massive persecution of Christians. Although praised for restoring some semblance of order in the east, Emperor Valerian fanatically believed that the erosion of Roman power was due to the anger of Rome's pagan gods over the presence of the Christians, who refused to worship their idols. The Emperor outlawed all liturgical worship and cut off access to the catacombs, where Christians were known to gather in times of danger. His record was so great that in the same year that Sixtus II became pope, Emperor Valerian was given the title, “Restorer of the World”. The Christian minority, however, certainly did not join in the praise as many were being put to death.

Naturally, the leader of the Christians, the Bishop of Rome, was a prime target. Valerian issued an imperial decree that all bishops, priests and deacons of the Christian religion were to be immediately put to death. However, Pope St Sixtus II continued to carry out his duties to God and the Church, disregarding the threat execution. On August 6, 258 the Pope was celebrating Mass in a chapel in the catacombs of Praetextatus, a Christian burial site also known as the cemetery of St Calixtus. Their only light was by candles, and voices were hushed as the Pope presided over the forbidden ceremony, calmly determined to give his life in obedience to Christ's command, "Do this in memory of Me".

As the Mass continued, the people forgot the danger they were in as Christ filled their hearts and minds. Suddenly though, the outside world came crashing in. The door was forced open and Roman troops, carrying torches overhead, filed into the small chapel. With soldiers blocking the door, their commander called out, "Give me your leaders or we will kill you all." Pope Sixtus II stepped forward, and calmly said, "I am the Bishop of Rome, let the rest of these people go." Just as he had spoken, the four deacons who had been assisting him in the Mass came forward and said, "We are deacons, we are also guilty of worshipping the true God."

The Roman commander ordered the rest of the people to be taken out of the chapel and restrained the five leaders in front of him. Immediately they were forced to the ground as the soldiers drew their swords and decapitated each one. St Sixtus II was not the first or the last to be martyred in the persecutions of Emperor Valerian. Even Bishop Cyprian of Carthage was later put to death, along with many others. However, his death provided yet another heroic image for the early Church and gave heart to the Christians of Rome to continue to endure their suffering for the sake of God. It was the first major crisis of the kind the Church had faced since the death of Nero, and the strength of heart the Christians gained ensured that Christianity would endure the horrific persecutions. The same could not be said for Emperor Valerian. When Persia tried to invade Syria and Armenia Valerian rushed to the east with his armies to stop them. However, he suffered a stunning defeat, was taken into captivity and died a wretched prisoner of the Persian army.