Monarchist Profile: General Thomas Gage

The man who presided over the outbreak of the American War of Independence was Thomas Gage, the son of Viscount Gage, born in East Sussex around late 1719 or early 1720. The family had long been Catholic but Viscount Gage accepted the Church of England in 1715 and as young Thomas grew older he became an increasingly devout Anglican, and increasingly anti-Catholic. He attended the Westminster School alongside such future British military leaders as “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne, who would go on to glorious defeat as a general in the British army in America and Richard “Black Dick” Howe who would one day win great laurels for Britain on the sea as an Admiral in the Royal Navy. He graduated in 1736 and eventually joined the British army as an ensign, assigned to recruiting duties in Yorkshire. He later purchased a commission as lieutenant and earned subsequent promotion to captain, serving in Belgium as an aide to the Earl of Albemarle during King George’s War (the War of Austrian Succession). Afterwards he served in Scotland in the suppression of the second Jacobite uprising and later purchased the rank of major before being promoted to lieutenant colonel while serving in Ireland.

Thomas Gage was known as a good natured, upstanding man with none of the small vices and he made friends easily. Although his friendships extended to all classes, the most beneficial for him were with those in the upper ranks of the British military such as Lord Amherst. He tried unsuccessfully to be elected to the House of Commons before he was sent with his regiment to North America upon the outbreak of the French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War). During that conflict Gage served alongside George Washington at the disastrous battle of Monongahela in which a British column under General Edward Braddock was wiped out in a surprise French and Indian attack. Gage was wounded but took command of the 44^th Foot after the regimental commander was killed. General Braddock himself was killed and in the effort to assign blame the aide-de-camp of the late general pointed the finger at Gage which robbed him of the post of permanent commander of the 44^th. George Washington also later joined the chorus against Gage but simply because he resented British officers having greater authority than colonial leaders like himself.

Gage helped organize the first British light infantry while serving in America and was recommended for promotion to full colonel. In 1758, in Albany, New York, he married Margaret Kemble, a New Jersey-born young lady of famous beauty. Later Gage led the vanguard in the British army that attacked Fort Carillon, a disaster for the British and probably the most stunning French victory of the war in which less than 4,000 French troops defeated a British army of 16,000, inflicting heavy casualties. Gage was again wounded in the attack and despite the defeat was commended for his bravery and, partly thanks to his brother Viscount Gage, was promoted to brigadier general and placed in command of Albany under Lord Amherst. However, his decision not to move against a particular French fort as ordered angered his superiors and Gage was more or less sidelined for the rest of the conflict. Once the war was over and Canada was in British hands, Gage was made military governor of Montreal. His wife joined him and their first two of their seven children were born there. As an administrator he received mostly good marks though he found it hard to get along with the French lords and Catholic clergy who were at the top of the social hierarchy.

In 1763 Lord Amherst was recalled and General Gage was assigned to take his place in New York as commander of all British forces in North America. He helped bring a peaceful end to Pontiac’s rebellion but showed his vindictive side when he pressed a rather trumped-up charge of treason against the famed British irregular leader Major Robert Rogers (from whose unit the modern U.S. Army Rangers claim descent). As unrest and anti-British sentiment grew in the American colonies, Gage found he had to rely on treaties of friendship with the Indians in order to transfer the few British regiments on hand to the major port cities. His duties became less about securing the frontier and more about enforcing Crown authority on an increasingly rebellious population. In 1773 Gage returned to England with his family but the situation in the colonies continued to deteriorate with the so-called “Boston Massacre” and subsequent acts of Parliament, all unpopular, to bring the colonists to heel. Crown officials were becoming hated and Gage was considered the only man who could save the situation due to his years of experience in America and his close ties with leaders in London and the colonies. In 1774 he returned as royal governor of Massachusetts, the most troublesome colony and a hotbed of revolutionary sentiment.

Once back in America, after an initial warm reception, Gage began to draw criticism from both sides. The colonial “Patriot” groups despised him as the enforcer of unpopular British laws while many in London felt he was not being tough enough and allowed too many groups (most famously the Sons of Liberty) to carry on in spite of being flagrantly treasonous. Gage paid little mind to such groups. He was convinced that democracy was the real problem and that it was the local elected assemblies which were the breeding ground for sedition. He was content to see these dissolved while letting the rebel mobs vent their anger but at the same time he took measures to confiscate weapons and war materials that could potentially be used against Crown forces. Gage desperately wanted to avoid an all-out conflict, his years of service in North America having taught him that if it were to come to that, it would take a massive British army, a great deal of blood and treasure, to subdue the whole continent and that was a price he doubted that his fellow countrymen back in Britain were willing to pay. In that regard, Gage was ultimately proven correct, but it would take some time before the government in London came to the same conclusion.

When Gage was given direct orders to eliminate revolutionary activity, he took action, ordering the arrest of several ringleaders and the confiscation of weapons and ammunition. However, he had his troops move out at night in the hope of keeping a low profile and avoiding confrontation. As we know, thanks to Paul Revere and others, this was not successful and there was a confrontation at Lexington where was famously fired “the shot heard round the world”. After another clash at Concord and a running battle back to Boston the American Revolution was on and Gage and his garrison were under siege by a ragtag rebel army that greatly outnumbered his own. In the midst of this, something of a personal crisis also developed for General Gage and he decided to send his American wife back to England after accusations began to fly that she was secretly giving information to the revolutionaries. General Gage never believed the rumors, pointing out that all that was ever presented was circumstantial evidence, nonetheless, to avoid controversy he sent her to England. Meanwhile, additional troops arrived from England along with major generals William Howe, John Burgoyne and Henry Clinton to reinforce Gage and end the siege of Boston.

An elaborate plan was hatched but the rebels found out about it and moved in first, occupying, among other strategic points, Breed’s Hill. Gage launched an offensive against the position which became known in history as the battle of Bunker Hill. The British forces took heavy casualties and were repulsed more than once. But, their superior discipline and stoic courage won the day and finally, as they advanced again, the colonials broke into a panic and retreated. It had been a costly victory and did not change the overall strategic situation. London was not pleased and the battle was thrown onto the scales along with all the other complaints the national leadership had with Gage. He had won the battle but most, like General Clinton, recognized that Britain simply did not have the manpower to win such costly victories with frontal assaults. Gage was relieved of his command and replaced by General Sir William Howe, a great battlefield tactician but a man lacking in ‘killer instincts’.

General Gage returned to England, despite technically still being the governor of Massachusetts and was later promoted to full general after France entered the war and there were worries of a French invasion. There were many such times when Britain feared France was about to invade their island but, as before, such an attack never materialized. General Gage remained in touch with many of the Crown officials he had served with in America and gave testimony to support compensation claims made by American loyalists. Unfortunately, his health began to deteriorate rather rapidly and he died April 2, 1787. King George III, who was rather fond of Gage, referred to him as his “mild general” and the injustice of his rather low reputation is evident by how he was seen as too timid in Britain but too authoritarian in America. He had a good record of service behind him but was placed in an impossible situation with London pressuring him to be firm while knowing that any such action would only add fuel to the revolutionary fire by antagonizing the colonists.

General Gage, quite obviously, did not dislike the Americans and he correctly realized that they had been given far too much autonomy in their local assemblies for far too long. As a result, they resented any interference from London. Unfortunately, by the time Gage came along this situation had existed for too long to be overturned without provoking a full blown rebellion. Gage also realized, from his rather rough experience in the French and Indian War, that Britain would have to commit massive amounts of soldiers, hire foreign mercenaries and maintain a naval blockade of the entire continent to win an all-out war. In provoking him to action, London was effectively ordering him to start a war he did not have the tools to win. In the end, Boston had to be abandoned before the government realized that Gage had been correct and sent over the largest expeditionary force Britain had ever dispatched up to that time, complete with hired Hessians and a naval blockade. General Gage will certainly not be listed among the great captains of British military history but, he is nonetheless underrated.

Favorite Royal Images: A Royal Couple

Mad Motivation

Papal Profile: Pope Clement VII

Pope Clement VII must be one of the most maligned pontiffs the Catholic Church has had, and almost always unjustly so. His reputation suffers, not simply from his own actions, but from the time of his reign, at the end of the famous Italian Renaissance. The misdeeds (largely exaggerated) of some of the pontiffs of this era have caused many people to dismiss all of the “Renaissance Popes” as corrupt and worldly when, in fact, their ranks included men who were personally upright, modest and virtuous. Clement VII, however, was often criticized for his virtues rather than vices and suffered the misfortune of reigning at a time of great political danger for the Papacy under circumstances that few, if any, could have successfully mastered. However, he was diligent and did the best he could and while the threats he faced forced him to take actions which infuriated many world leaders, he also became an important and respected symbol and, for a time, a champion of Italian unity and freedom.

He was born Giulio di Giuliano de’ Medici in Florence on May 26, 1478, the natural son of Giuliano de’ Medici and thus the nephew of the famous Lorenzo the Magnificent. He was always serious, studious, intelligent and loved learning and intellectual conversation. In his youth he was made a Knight of Rhodes but his real rise began after his cousin, Giovanni de’ Medici, was elected to the Throne of St Peter as Pope Leo X. He was a very close and trusted advisor to the Pope and became Archbishop of Florence, the Medici stronghold that was always first in their hearts. In 1513 he was created Giulio Cardinal de’ Medici and was widely praised for his good judgment and sound advice to Leo X. The Medici Pope was himself very popular with the Romans for his elaborate ceremonies, numerous celebrations and lavish style, all of which provided people with much gainful employment. When Leo X was succeeded by the Dutch Pope Hadrian VI things were different and much more strict and austere. Needless to say, Hadrian VI was a very pious man but very unpopular with the Romans who longed for another Medici on the papal throne.

The next conclave was a long and hard one with the mob becoming increasingly impatient for a new Bishop of Rome. Finally, an agreement was reached and on November 19, 1523 Giulio de’ Medici was elected, taking the name of Pope Clement VII. He enjoyed a high reputation as a diplomat and statesman and must have seemed like just the right man for the job. Yet, giving advice and being responsible for making decisions are very different things and the new Pope was confronted with a world of dangers and would be faced by problems on almost every side. Still, none doubted his personal faith. He cut back papal spectacles and worked hard to save money (which was essential as the Papacy he inherited was nearly bankrupt) but rather than praise his frugality and good sense, he was criticized for being stingy. Instead of court entertainers, he preferred long discussions with imminent scholars and would even have the latest intellectual works read to him as he took his meals. He was a patron of the arts and building, at least as much as his limited finances would allow, and he could discuss aqueducts with an engineer as well as doctrine with a theologian.

Political concerns dominated the papacy of Clement VII, though that is certainly not what he wanted. An early example was the effort of King Henry VIII of England to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon. Clement VII valued the King of England for his hitherto staunch support of the Church, his condemnation of Lutheranism and his cooperation with Rome on the world stage. The last thing the Pope wanted was to see England lost to the Church over a marriage. What Henry was seeking was also not entirely unprecedented. However, Queen Catherine was a spotless figure and she was also the aunt of the King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V who had supported the election of Clement VII (who had been pro-Spanish as a cardinal) and the Emperor was prepared to put all the pressure at his disposal on the Pope to find in favor of Catherine. The Pope put off a decision as long as possible but in the end, the combination of imperial pressure and the personal case of Catherine herself, meant that Henry VIII was denied his annulment and the offended King took his country out of the Catholic Church.

Everything in his reign was exacerbated by the conflict between King Francis I of France and Emperor Charles V, ruler of Spain, the Low Countries and Germany. Everyone expected Clement to support the Emperor but despite his own history, the Pope feared the imperial domination of Italy and made an alliance with France. Unfortunately for the Pope, King Francis I was defeated by the imperial forces at the battle of Pavia and taken prisoner which forced the Pope to hastily come to terms with Charles V. The Emperor was not a man to trifle with. When he first learned that Clement had allied with the French, he was so infuriated that he wondered for a moment if Luther might have been correct about the papacy after all. However, he was also a practical man and once France was defeated and northern Italy was under his direct control, he preferred to have the Pope on his side instead of making him a defeated, embittered enemy. Clement VII signed a treaty of alliance with the Emperor that was practically identical to the one he had negotiated with France. But the threat of imperial domination over Italy, and thus Rome and the Papal States as well, remained the paramount concern of Clement VII. An effort was made to get the imperial commander on side by offering him the Crown of Naples but the general reported this to the Emperor immediately and the result was that the Sforza family lost their duchy, Spanish troops occupied Milan and the region came even more tightly under imperial control. Pope Clement was desperate to undo this situation.

The threat posed by the Emperor was real enough to Clement VII. Charles V was genuinely concerned about the new Protestant movement in Germany and also annoyed that the Pope would support the French against him. He made thinly veiled threats about calling a council, ostensibly to deal with the Lutheran problem, but which Clement and most others believed would result in Clement being deposed and replaced by a Pope who would be a loyal supporter of the Emperor. A council would be needed to deal with the Protestant question and reform in the Church was very much in need but by making such a council a threat to the Pope himself, Clement VII was determined to avoid a council at any cost. When King Francis I of France was released from captivity, Pope Clement VII quickly arranged another alliance with him against the Emperor. It was to be France, Milan, Venice and Papal Rome against the combined Spanish-German forces of the Holy Roman Empire. Even the “Warrior Pope” Julius II, who fought throughout his reign to drive the “barbarians” out of Italy, never attempted so ambitious a campaign and, unfortunately for the Church, Clement was no Julius II.

Still, this became a popular and patriotic cause throughout Italy as Clement VII had taken leadership of a movement to expel the foreign conquerors and, it seemed very possible, to unite the various states of the Italian peninsula under papal leadership so that their country would no longer be the battleground for German, Spanish and French armies. It was an early version of an ideal for an independent Italy consisting of the Italian states joining in common cause under the leadership of the Pope. Machiavelli suggested calling up a pan-Italian militia to replace the usual armies of foreign mercenaries to cement the people together in the coming struggle but Clement VII held back from such action, not wishing to provoke a fight with the Emperor if it could be avoided. Instead, he urged Machiavelli to look to improving the fortifications of his beloved Florence.

What was hoped to be a great papal-led war for the liberation of Italy quickly turned into a disaster. Under pressure from Venice, Clement VII appointed the Duke of Urbino commander of the papal armies, a man who held a grudge against the Medici family and did nothing while Milan was devastated, weakening the alliance. Then, Cardinal Pompeo Colonna, a long-time rival of the Medici and a supporter of the Emperor, marched on Rome. Some urged Clement to flee but he was determined to ‘die on the throne’ if necessary and called upon the Romans to defend him. No one seemed to care but they were soon sorry because the Colonna family army pillaged and ransacked the Leonine City, finally forcing the Pope to agree to a cease-fire. So, for four months the Pope was obliged to take no action while the armies Emperor Charles V marched down the Italian peninsula from Germany, most of whom were Lutheran landsknechts, and an imperial fleet crowded with Spanish troops landed on the coast. Giovanni de’ Medici and his “Black Bands” offered determined resistance in the north but the vital promised help from France was not forthcoming. The Italian forces may have been able to stop the Germans on their own had not a lucky shot killed Giovanni. The Pope began to be abandoned by his allies who looked to their own interests rather than staying united together.

After some last minute attempts at negotiation, the situation fell apart and the imperial troops, who were enraged at their lack of payment, mutinied and on May 6, 1527 fell upon Rome in a savage attack. The hasty defenses fell quickly and the imperial forces stormed into the city while Pope Clement VII, who was nearly killed, was rushed over to Castel Sant’Angelo while his Swiss Guards fought to the death, buying time for his escape. The Pope and as many Roman citizens as possible took shelter on the fortress while outside the most horrific and savage devastation in history took place. The tales of murder, torture, rape and sacrilege are truly too awful to even repeat. The fact that the Christians had surpassed even the pagans of old in their cruelty toward the Eternal City was not lost on even those at the time. Such barbaric cruelty had not been seen since the sacking of Constantinople, another Christian-on-Christian atrocity. A veteran of the wars against the Muslims in the south, even with all the fervor of a crusader, noted that the Turks never behaved with such viciousness toward a conquered enemy. Tens of thousands were slaughtered and the acts of disgusting cruelty were truly unspeakable. Even the Emperor, who had condemned the Pope in the harshest language, was shocked.

Naturally, for the rest of his reign Clement VII had no choice but to be as agreeable as possible with Charles V. At times he tried to induce the Emperor to take a firm hand against the Protestants but all the Emperor had to do was mention calling a council and the Pope would retreat into silence. Clement VII wore a beard for the rest of his reign as a sign of his mourning for the horrific sack of Rome. Emperor Charles V was not nearly as harsh with the Pope as he might have been, he restored most of the Papal States to the Church and used his armies to put the Medici back in control of Florence but there was no doubt that a power-shift had occurred and while the troops who perpetrated the sack of Rome had acted on their own, the Emperor had sent them to Italy to make war and subjugate the Pope, no doubt about it. In a famous painting showing the Emperor flanked by his defeated enemies, included among them is a portrayal of Pope Clement VII. Needless to say, it was after this that the Pope formally found against King Henry VIII of England and excommunicated the monarch along with Father Thomas Cranmer. The Pope also officially crowned Charles V "Emperor of the Romans" in the last such ceremony ever held. Pope Clement VII died not long after on September 25, 1534.

Pope Clement VII is often listed amongst the “bad popes” of Catholic history and this is really quite unfair. He was a very upright man, devout and not at all licentious, lavish or cruel as so many of his fellow “Renaissance Popes” are often thought of as being. He was simply caught in a terrible position and where his actions were often accused of being deceptive and himself untrustworthy, in each case it was because the Pontiff was trying to spare his people the suffering of war and to ensure his own freedom, which was the freedom of the Church. Even in his final days there were signs that he was contemplating another alliance with France to free Rome and the Italian states from the imperial grip. He was a patron of Raphael and Michelangelo (one of the few things he spent money on) and while Rome suffered more terribly during his reign than in any other period, it was precisely to avoid such a catastrophe that he had done everything in his power to keep foreign armies out of Italy. He also saw the Medici restored in Florence, joined to the great powers through marriage alliances and, despite all the misfortunes of his reign, he would not be the last Medici to occupy the papal throne.

Images Page

A small notice to everyone that sometime this week (probably Tuesday), it will be time to say buh-bye to the Bonapartes as the Images Page is changed out. The next to be featured will be a number of the Emperors (some great, some infamous) of the ancient imperium of Eternal Rome. Can I get an 'Ave Caesar' brothas and sistas?

MM Video: Emperor Thanh Thai of Vietnam

MM Video: The Russian Empire at War

Royal News Roundup

In the Far East, former King Gyanendra Shah of Nepal went on a five-day religious tour visiting several historic Hindu temples in the Himalayan country. Public reactions have been mixed with some welcoming the former monarch while others complain that the King is simply seeking to raise his profile to take advantage of the political problems for a bid to return to power. Of course, the key phrase there is “political problems” which shows that even those who oppose the monarchy know that their current system is not exactly working out well for them. Since the abolition of the monarchy, undertaken by Maoist guerillas, Nepal has been in a state of near-constant crisis as the red radicals clash with more moderate republican elements while each also try to keep the traditional monarchists from reasserting themselves. During his tour of the temples many Nepalese people brought flowers to their King and expressed their wish for him to return to power to “save the country”. The King recently told the press that the people are not happy and want a change, “…the return of the traditional monarchy, or it could be something else”. Not ‘something else’ Your Majesty -the monarchy. Stick to your guns! And, in the lands of the old “Middle Kingdom” a collection of jewelry from the last Emperor and Emperor of China is on display for the first time in Taipei, Republic of China, on loan from the Shenyang Palace Museum on the mainland.

In Middle East royal news, the opposition to limitations on the Parliament is growing in Kuwait. The small state has probably the most robust parliamentary system but recently the body has grown in boldness to frequently challenge the monarchy and the result has been a succession of parliaments dissolved by the Emir. Disputes have been growing as elements have been inspired by events in other parts of the Muslim world, particularly among the Islamists encouraged by the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well as among liberal nationalists who have also grown more hostile to the monarchy. Recently as Islamist government passed a bill restoring the death penalty for blasphemy which the Emir vetoed, leading to a great deal of anger from religion quarters and unrest among the more secular segment of society. After the latest row the cabinet offered its resignation. In the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, however, King Abdullah II has called for more political participation on the part of Islamist groups. These and other dissident groups have called for a boycott of elections coming up later this year, something the King hopes to avoid. The King said that “doors and hearts” were open to the Islamic Action Front and the Islamic Brotherhood as components of Jordanian society. These groups have been holding weekly protests for the last year now, among other things calling for an elected premier rather than one appointed by the King. King Abdullah also visited Europe this week and met with French President Francoise Hollande in Paris.

On the European front, Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit appeared on television in the Ukraine to ask young Ukrainians to join her in fighting the spread of HIV/AIDS. The Crown Princess is an ambassador for the UNAIDS program. To the south in Belgium King Albert II visited the Tour de France’s second stage while Crown Prince Philippe and Crown Princess Mathilde prepare to head to Africa for the celebrations marking 50 years since Belgium granted independence to Rwanda and Burundi. Further to the south, Charlotte Casiraghi competed in the Global Champions Tour in Monaco but the big news on the Monegasque front this week was the engagement of Andrea Casiraghi to his longtime girlfriend Tatiana Santo Domingo. Long rumored, Andrea’s mother, Princess Caroline, officially announced the happy news. The couple were introduced by Andrea’s sister Charlotte and have been more or less an item for most of the last decade. The couple currently live together in Paris. No details on the wedding have been released other than that it is expected to be held next year. Andrea Casiraghi is currently second-in-line to the throne until such time as Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene produce some children of their own. In Spanish royal news, Queen Sofia visited the Philippines this week, her fourth visit to the former Spanish colony. The Queen met with the President and visited several schools and other social projects funded by Spain. Back in Spain, of course, the Royal Family came out to congratulate the Spanish football team on their big win.

And in the British Isles, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh visited … Edinburgh! As part of her Diamond Jubilee tour the Queen and Prince consort traveled up to Scotland where there has been a great deal of chattering over the planned referendum on independence organized by the Scottish National Party (endorsed by the Scottish patriot Sean Connery who lives in Bermuda). They have dropped republicanism from their official platform but don’t let them fool you, if the union goes, so does the Scottish monarchy. Anyway, after receiving the keys at Holyrood House, the royal couple visited the portrait gallery, received the keys of Edinburgh and later held a special garden party. The Queen also attended a special service at the Glasgow Cathedral as well as visiting Perth and on Thursday the Queen announced the appointment of HRH Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, to the Order of the Thistle, the highest Scottish order of knighthood.

Finally, although I’m sure everyone has heard by now, monarchists had a moment of triumph to celebrate in the tiny Principality of Liechtenstein when the public voted by a very large (around 70%+) margin for the Sovereign Prince (or Prince-Regent in this case) to keep his veto power. HSH Prince Hans-Adam II pulled off a major coup that really upset many in the European community when he revised the Liechtenstein constitution to increase the powers of the monarch while at the same time making himself (and the rest of the government) more accountable to the public. The Prince retained the final word on all laws but the people can vote away the monarchy whenever they please. In this case the opposition (the pro-abortion crowd angry over Prince Alois foiling their efforts to bring the barbaric practice to Liechtenstein) said they did not want to get rid of the monarchy but simply reduce the princely powers. Prince Alois was having none of that and said that if he was refused the powers to do his job as he sees fit, he would prefer not to have that job at all. Not surprisingly, the people of Liechtenstein overwhelming chose to keep things just as they are; a micro-monarchial paradise in a sea of failed European republics.

Monarch Profile: King Baudouin of the Belgians

The reign of King Baudouin was an extremely difficult period for the Kingdom of Belgium and the monarchy itself faced considerable problems from the outset. During the course of his reign Belgium faced social upheaval at home, a radical change in values, the end the Belgian colonial empire and the beginning of the entrenched regional divisions of the country. Yet, through it all, it was King Baudouin who held the people together with his calm and steady leadership, impeccable character and firm commitment to his principles. Even those who were inclined to disagree with him on political and moral issues felt admiration for the King who stood up for what he believed in, who saw his role as one of service and who provided a source of continuity and national unity at a time when it seemed that his people were increasingly divided in their dealings with each other. His character and virtue made him an unassailable figure, respected by all even if not always universally supported. He was a popular monarch even when, on more than one occasion, he made it clear that he would not compromise his principles for the sake of popularity.

He was born HRH Prince Baudouin Albert Charles Leopold Axel Marie Gustave of Belgium on September 7, 1930 at Stuyvenberg Castle near Laeken in Brussels to Prince Leopold, Duke of Brabant (soon to be King Leopold III) and Princess Astrid of Sweden, the second child and first son. As a child his early years seemed to be dominated by service and hardship. In 1934 his father became King and only a year later his mother died in a tragic accident that left the whole country in mourning. As heir to the throne his dutiful and upright father raised him with a devotion to service and a deep faith in God. Even at a very young age he represented the Royal Family in outreach activities to the youth of Belgium and was very active in the Boy Scouts and doing volunteer work for charity. He was still a boy when Belgium was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940. After eighteen days of desperate fighting King Leopold III was forced to surrender and remained a prisoner of the Germans for the rest of the war. During the war years the King remarried, which later caused controversy in the country, but this was certainly not so among the family as Princess Lilian proved to be a great comfort, not only to the King, but her new step-children as well.

When the Allies invaded Europe in 1944 Leopold III, and later Prince Baudouin and the other children, were taken to Germany, closely watched by the SS. They were all almost killed when they were given cyanide pills which the Nazis told them were vitamin tablets. Thankfully, Princess Lilian was suspicious and did not distribute them to the family as instructed. After being transferred to Austria and enduring grueling conditions the family was finally rescued by the United States Army in May of 1945. However, a government hostile to Leopold III had established itself in Brussels which attempted to blame all the ills of the war on the King and named his brother as regent. Unable to return home, the family moved to Switzerland where they stayed until 1950. Prince Baudouin attended high school in Geneva, visited the United States and finally saw his father cleared of the ridiculous and slanderous charge of “treason” by a government commission. Prince Baudouin and his brother Prince Albert accompanied their father back to Belgium in 1950 after a plebiscite found in favor of fully restoring Leopold III to his proper place.

Unfortunately, subversive factions, particularly the strong Walloon socialist faction, opposed the King returning to the throne and mounted such a wave of protest that there was a real and immediate threat of civil war. To avoid this calamity, King Leopold III took the difficult step of abdicating in favor of his son. The new King Baudouin, a young man still, was thus swept onto the throne at a time of great turmoil, internal division and revolutionary opposition to the monarchy with virtually no preparation for the arduous position he was suddenly called to fill. He was heckled by a socialist republican at his swearing-in ceremony on July 17, 1951 but was determined to do his duty even while resenting the way his father had been forced aside by political pressure and the bully-tactics of the mob. The beginning of the reign of the fifth King of the Belgians could hardly be called auspicious.

King Baudouin had certainly not been anxious to take the throne under such circumstances, in fact, according to some, he was not anxious for the position of monarch at all and would have preferred to have renounced his royal status and become a priest. However, after all the pain surrounding the abdication of King Leopold III (the first abdication of a Belgian monarch in history) Baudouin was persuaded that two abdications in a row would be something the monarchy might not survive. Instead, King Baudouin was charged with restoring the prestige of the monarchy, reuniting the country and leading the country in recovering from World War II and facing all the new challenges already upon western Europe as a whole. One area that quickly became a point of crisis was the Belgian Congo, though this was not immediately evident. King Baudouin visited the vast central African colony for the first time in 1955 and was given a very warm and enthusiastic welcome by huge crowds of Congolese people who spoke of him adoringly as the “handsome young man” who was very concerned with their wellbeing and progress. However, the rabble-rousers and revolutionaries were hard at work in trying to stir up the public for total independence from Belgium and even toward hatred for Belgians and Europeans in general.

As the years went by the crisis quickly developed and grew worse at an alarming pace. The Congolese were allowed to form political parties and a huge number sprang up along tribal lines which created a confused situation the radicals were only too eager to exploit. Independence was agreed to as the ultimate goal but King Baudouin hoped that a moderate Congolese middle class could be cultivated to take government in hand and that the monarchy would be retained with Baudouin remaining King of the Congo as well as King of the Belgians, with his lieutenant able to exert a moderating influence on the emerging country. Unfortunately, the radicals demanded immediate and total separation and hateful rhetoric led to violence as Belgians and other Europeans were raped, murdered, sometimes beaten to death by mobs. Belgian forces had to be sent in to rescue people as even the local army proved unreliable. In 1960 King Baudouin returned to Leopoldville for the official hand-over of power to the new republican government. It would have been very easy and very popular for the King to tell the raucous mobs what they wanted to hear but instead he warned that great responsibilities came with independence and, most controversially, he praised his great-uncle King Leopold II for seeing the potential of the Congo and laying the foundation for its development. He also praised the Belgians who had ended the slave trade and who brought together the various tribes of the Congo to create the political entity achieving independence that day. It was his hope to show everyone in a positive light and to begin Belgian-Congolese relations on a friendly note.

However, it was not to be. The revolutionary hero Patrice Lumumba then took the stage, making an impromptu speech in which he castigated the Belgians, accusing them of years of “injustice, oppression and exploitation” as well as racism, giving some slight credit only in not openly fighting against the independence movement. The native revolutionary elements were fired up by the speech and the Belgians were embarrassed and infuriated. The King very nearly ended his visit then and there and returned to Brussels but swallowed his pride and continued with the planned schedule. In any event, any hope of Belgian-Congolese friendship and cooperation from that point on died an early death. Only a few days after the ceremony the Congolese army mutinied and went on a bloody rampage, chaos reigned in the cities and Belgians and other Europeans, those who were not killed, fled for their lives back to Europe or neighboring African countries. King Baudouin would visit the Congo again, on more than one occasion, when relations between the two countries improved but the lasting friendship and cooperation he sought were never achieved, mostly due to the political leaders who never tired of using past wrongs to advance their own careers and blaming Belgium for every misfortune, even decades after independence.

Yet, 1960 was not a sad year for King Baudouin as it was at the end of that year on December 15, that he married the Spanish noble lady Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragon. Some in the Catholic Church had helped bring the two together and they were a perfect match for each other, especially in the deep faith they shared. For the rest of their lives they were a devoted and loving couple, a strength and a comfort to each other in good times and bad. Although not much was made public, there was plenty of sadness as the Queen proved unable to have children and suffered a succession of miscarriages. However, their shared faith in God saw them through such difficulties. King Baudouin was often counseled by Cardinal Leo Joseph Suenens, Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels and supported the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement. The King often made pilgrimages to Catholic shrines, most frequently to Paray-le-Monial in France. He sought at all times to reign as a Catholic monarch and to look beyond materialistic concerns to moral problems in Belgium and around the world. This was no small task as his reign saw the rise of increasingly strident socialism, secularism and a growing hedonism among the young generation in particular. There were also many issues of national concern.

King Baudouin oversaw the sending of a Belgian contingent to participate in the Korean conflict with other UN partners, the first time Belgian forces had been sent so far to fight. There were strikes to be dealt with as the labor union movement grew in power but most significant was the growth of the Flemish nationalist movement and an increasing division of the Kingdom of Belgium along linguistic lines. Institutions older than Belgium itself split into Walloon and Flemish divisions and in 1962 a linguistic “border” was drawn across the country. 1970 saw the first of a series of “state reforms” in Belgium as the country was divided into cultural communities. In 1980 these gained their own governments and in 1993 Belgium completed the transition from a unitary to a federal state with communities and regions having their own directly elected governments to administer their own affairs. This coincided with a decline in support for the monarchy in Flanders which in itself caused Wallonia to become more monarchist by default as with these greater divisions it became more clear that the Crown, represented by King Baudouin, was one of the few sources of unity left in Belgium and something that had to be shared.

All of this was deeply troubling to King Baudouin, though some held out hope that if the two communities could not get along together, perhaps they would be able to get along apart but still remaining in the same country. However, King Baudouin was even more troubled, devout man of faith that he was, by the decline in traditional moral values that occurred as what was referred to as ‘the Belgium of our fathers’ was replaced by an increasingly secular and socialistic country with declining Church attendance and a focus on fights over wealth distribution rather than overall national concerns. The national debt skyrocketed as the government borrowed more and more money to fund social programs which only increased the anger of Flanders which, as the more prosperous half of the country, paid a greater amount to, as they saw it, fund the socialist spending habits of Wallonia. Traditional views on faith, marriage and family were also changing rapidly and this led to a near constitutional crisis in 1990 as these changes clashed with the religious convictions of the King.

In that year the Belgian parliament passed a new law legalizing (to a very liberal extent) abortion. Up to that point, King Baudouin had been distressed by the changes in the country but still cooperative. With this bill, however, the King could no longer compromise. Not wishing to make things more difficult than necessary, King Baudouin informed his ministers that if presented with such a bill, his conscience would not permit him to give it Royal Assent, necessary for the bill to become law. Prior to this point in Belgian history, Royal Assent had always been regarded as a mere formality. A bill may have been withdrawn at the request of the King but no monarch had ever before refused to sign something passed by parliament and set before him. On this issue, however, King Baudouin refused to budge. He regarded the bill as immoral, harmful and something he could not, under any circumstances, put his signature to. The politicians tried to find a way to make the King more compliant, arguing that he could sign it in his official capacity as King while opposing it in his private capacity as an individual. King Baudouin would have none of it. He would not sign it, could not sign it and that was that. A full-blown crisis seemed unavoidable.

Finally, a legal loophole was found by which the cabinet could act collectively in place of the monarch if the monarch ever became unfit to rule. In the face of the obstinate refusal of King Baudouin to put his name to an immoral bill, the cabinet voted to declare the King unfit to rule on April 4, 1990. The abortion bill was then signed into law by all members of the cabinet and on April 5, 1990 the government voted to declare King Baudouin fit to rule again and he was returned to the Belgian throne after being effectively deposed for a day. It was an episode of great worry for the country but, even though the Belgian people largely supported legalizing abortion (their values were not those of their king), they nonetheless respected the King for remaining faithful to his principles and, of course, it ultimately became law anyway without a crisis that might have brought down the monarchy and then probably led to the dissolution of Belgium entirely. Because of this near-crisis, King Baudouin (mostly outside of Belgium it must be said) has become an honored figure in the Pro-Life movement but others have, nonetheless, criticized the King on the grounds that, at the end of the day, the bill became law and abortion became legal. The truth, of course, is that King Baudouin could not have changed the moral values of his entire people nor could he coerce them into accepting his Catholic view of right and wrong. That is what would have been necessary to stop the law entirely. As it happened, the only options the King had were to sign or not to sign and he did all he could have done to stop the bill. He refused to sign it under any circumstances. King Baudouin should be saluted for his moral courage in the face of overwhelming pressure.

All of this weighed heavily on King Baudouin. The moral decline and the increasing division in Belgian society hurt him terribly and it is no surprise that he was known as “the sad King”. By his own example and the causes he championed he tried to promote traditional values and he did his best to bring the two sides of the linguistic divide together but to little effect. No one man could have succeeded in such circumstances but it speaks to his dedication that he did everything that it was in his power to do in an effort to right the wrongs that were plaguing his country. Even while his views were often ignored by his squabbling subjects, his presence was a comfort and a source of reassuring stability in a country undergoing dramatic and often bitter and bewildering changes. King Baudouin was, to some extent, rather taken for granted and it came as all the greater shock when, quite unexpectedly, the King died on July 31, 1993 of heart failure while on holiday in the south of Spain. Belgium was shocked and immediately plunged into mourning. As one young woman said, “We have lost our King, and only now do we realize what we have lost”.

There was an outpouring of moral support from around the world and the crowned heads of Europe took almost unprecedented steps which revealed how truly respected King Baudouin was among his peers. King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain rushed to the side of Queen Fabiola and accompanied her back to Belgium with the body of her late husband. His funeral in Brussels was attended by world leaders, non-reigning royals and monarchs from the Emperor of Japan to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain who almost never attended such events on the continent. It was a mark of her respect for the late King of the Belgians who, it can be noted, had not attended the funeral of her father, King George VI, due to hard feelings over how the British government had treated his beloved father King Leopold III. From Russia to Portugal virtually every royal house was represented and from around the world there was the Empress of Iran, the Crown Princes of Nepal, Morocco, Jordan and Thailand. President Mitterrand of France and President Mubarak of Egypt were among the republican heads of state who attended. President Gerald Ford represented the United States. Cardinal Godfried Danneels said at the funeral, “There are kings who are more than kings, they are shepherds of their people. King Baudouin was such a king.” After 42 years on the throne he was the longest reigning monarch in Europe at the time, a familiar and beloved figure.

King Baudouin had lived a modest life and was perhaps loved best by those with the least in his country. He was shy, polite but could also show anger in private, particularly when he found he had been given incorrect information on some subject or other. He had known many heartaches during his life, starting with the loss of his mother, World War II, the unjust and even vicious treatment of his beloved father, an increasingly divided country, strikes, natural disasters and moral decline. His most difficult moment was surely to be found in the Congo in 1960 where his hope that his presence would bring calm and friendship ended in animosity and chaos. However, he had inherited a monarchy gripped by crisis (through no fault of King Leopold but a fact nonetheless) and he had solidified it and made it a source of national pride and unity in a fractured land. His staunch Catholicism was lived out in his personal example and even while his people did not follow him, they respected him for his integrity. Most of all though, at the times of the greatest difficulty for him during his reign, whether it was the Congo in 1960 or abortion in 1990, King Baudouin showed that he had the moral courage to do what was right even if he knew it would not be what was popular. That alone would suffice to make him a great King and a great man. King Baudouin was the last living member of the Supreme Order of Christ, the most rare and prestigious of papal honors and Pope John Paul II, after visiting the resting place of King Baudouin, paid tribute to him as a man who put Christ at the center of his life and as a monarch who defended God, human rights and the rights of the unborn. His cause for canonization has been talked about but without progress. Nonetheless, King Baudouin was and is an example to all of a dutiful, dedicated and upright Christian monarch.

Consort Profile: Empress Mumtaz Mahal of India

Empress Mumtaz Mahal is one of the great romantic royal figures of history and while many people have probably never heard of her, absolutely everyone recognizes her final resting place, possibly the most famous monument to royal love in the world. But, more than just a pretty face, she was also one of the two great Mughal women who drove a number of reforms in the empire. She was born in Agra in April of 1593 as Arjumand Banu Begum, the daughter of Abdul Hasan Asaf Khan and a Persian princess. Her beauty and charm were legendary and when she first met the future Mughal Emperor, then Prince Khurram, it was a case of love at first sight. Struck by the stunning princess, the prince would have no other and the two were betrothed in 1607 when she was fourteen. Shah Jahan was so enamored with her that he swore he would have no other woman but her and that none could compare to her perfection. Given that, the only surprise is that it took five years before they were formally married in 1612. Romance aside, in keeping with tradition, Shah Jahan had two other wives as well but one can only feel sorry for the other two as there was never any doubt that Mumtaz Mahal was his favorite. Shah Jahan gave her that name, Mumtaz Mahal, which means “Jewel of the Palace” as a mark of his favor as well as entrusting her with the royal seal, Mehr Uzaz.

As with many royal marriages of the time, Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal were related. Her aunt Nurjahan was the wife of Shah Jahan’s father Jahangir but, after an initial period of favor, Nurjahan became prejudiced against her niece when one of her daughters from a previous marriage married Shah Jahan’s brother. With Shah Jahan, however, she was his greatest happiness on the world and traveled with him throughout the Mughal empire. Poets and songwriters wrote glowing, flowery tributes to her charm, beauty, grace and compassion. The other wives of Shah Jahan were treated correctly but were more like friends than anything else as it was always only Mumtaz Mahal who held his heart. From the days when he was a prince, chased about as a rebel, to the days when he ruled the Mughal Empire, Mumtaz Mahal was his constant companion, closest advisor, refuge and comfort. A compassionate woman, she influenced her husband toward justice and mercy and through her new rights and privileges for women became the law of the land in the Mughal Empire. Everyone adored her, none more than her husband, who lavished every devotion on her that it was in his power to give.

During their marriage, Mumtaz Mahal was gave birth to fourteen children, though half of them died in infancy. Whether it was watching elephant fights in the arena or going on military campaigns, the Empress never wished to leave the side of her husband and it pained him deeply to ever have her out of his sight. Their devotion to each other reached legendary proportions, it was truly a romance for the ages and one unsullied by suspicious, jealously or intrigues for political power as were all too common. It helped that the reign of Shah Jahan was known, even then, as a “Golden Age” for Mughal India, of power, prosperity and artistic masterpieces and at the center of it all was the devoted Emperor and Empress. Also noteworthy is the fact that, unlike at least one or two other notable consorts, Mumtaz Mahal never tried to influence her husband on political issues and certainly never attempted to consolidate any political power for herself. Rather, she used her influence only in the area of social issues to help those in need and she was always supportive of her husband, his decisions and his policies.

Mumtaz Mahal accompanied the Emperor whenever possible, despite being almost constantly pregnant. It was on one such occasion that her life was cut tragically short, journeying with Shah Jahan while he was waging war on the Deccan Plateau of central India. The Empress was at Burhanpur when she went into labor to give birth to her fourteenth child. Complications set in and she died on June 17, 1631. To say that Shah Jahan was grief-stricken would be an immense understatement. The Emperor was positively unhinged with sorrow at the loss of his most beloved wife. No one could comfort him, no one could calm him and for a year he cut himself off from the world as he mourned his wife who had been his greatest happiness in the world. His hair reportedly turned white, he seemed to age rapidly and forever after had the appearance of a bent and sorrowful old man.

When finally he regained his composure, with the help of his eldest daughter, the Emperor determined to build a monumental tomb for his beloved wife that would stand as a testament to her glory and his great affection for her. The result was the magnificent and world famous Taj Mahal at Agra which took thousands of Mughal artisans 22 years to complete and which covers some 1,003 acres. To this day it is considered perhaps the most spectacular achievement of Mughal architecture in India, the centerpiece of which is the massive, white marble tomb beneath which rest the bodies of Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan. It is all set in the midst of vast and magnificent gardens and it is all a tribute to one of the most beloved royal consorts in world history and a monument to one of the greatest royal romances of all time.

Reflecting on the Fourth of July

Here we are again, the day set aside by the United States of America each year to celebrate the Declaration of Independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Looking back these centuries later, one is tempted to wonder if it was all worth it or not. As most know, I am from Texas, practically an entirely different country from the United States, and I celebrate my “Independence Day” on March 2 rather than July 4 so I feel I can take a somewhat more dispassionate view on that unfortunate little temper tantrum known as the Revolutionary War. First of all, in hindsight, I cannot claim to have much angst about the way things turned out, monarchist or not. We cannot know what the world would be like today or how history would have unfolded if the United States had ever ceased to exist. I know many monarchists are extremely hostile to the United States and they would tend to object to the idea that there is any chance at all the world would not be near perfection without the United States but, honestly, no one can say that because none of us can ever know what might have been.

When someone learns that I am a monarchist the question is often put to me whether or not I would be happier living under British rule. Not all monarchists agree on this point but for me the answer is most definitely “no”. Socialized healthcare, no right to bear arms -no thank you. But, of course, that is a very silly question to ask a monarchist, especially one like myself. My home, Texas, was never part of the British Empire and has never fought against Britain at any time. Even if that were not the case, the colonies were not under direct British rule to begin with and if the colonists had lost or never made their bid for independence, it does not mean that British law would rule supreme in America. The American colonies would have continued to largely govern themselves with their own colonial assemblies and an appointed Royal Governor to oversee things. If the U.S. had not won independence, life here would still not be like life in Britain (it never was) nor like any other place in the world. Things would probably not be too drastically different. There would be no Mount Rushmore, no Washington Monument and no Liberty Bell. The Congress would likely consist of a Senate and a House of Commons and instead of a President and a (pretty useless) Vice President we would likely have a Prime Minister and a Governor-General just like Australia, Canada or New Zealand.

Personally, I would like to think that things would have been better if the United States had remained united with the rest of the English-speaking world and a partner in rather than a bystander (and sometime adversary) of British civilization, but, given my place in the world, I cannot complain about how things worked out. Aside from some troublesome ailments I must endure, I am quite comfortable and doing quite well. Unlike some other republics in the world, I can even argue on behalf of monarchy without being tossed in jail or sent to “education camp” to turn big rocks into little rocks. However, loyal and (mostly) law-abiding U.S. citizen though I am, honesty compels me to say that I nonetheless feel the Revolutionary War was unjustified and, were I (as the person I am) alive in that time and place, even knowing how things would turn out, I would be compelled to be a loyalist. Everything the rebel colonists were fighting for, short of independence, could have been achieved within the existing framework of the British Empire and I simply cannot see how any of the complaints of the colonial “Patriots” were sufficient to justify plunging the eastern edge of North America into war for eight years.

Veteran monarchists will be well aware of these facts, but newcomers may not be. The fact of the matter is that the American colonists were not being oppressed or victimized. On the whole, they lived far better than the counterparts in the British Isles. There was more social mobility, more overall prosperity, most people lived better lives, they ate more beef and thus even tended to be taller than most people in Great Britain or Ireland. They also paid next to nothing in taxes compared to British subjects in the home islands. As far as representation being a bone of contention, as most monarchists know, “No Taxation Without Representation” was strictly a slogan and nothing more. When Ben Franklin was sent to London to represent the colonies he was told that he was to never, ever, under any circumstances, accept an agreement which gave the colonies representation in the Parliament at Westminster. Colonial leaders were smart enough to know that the vastly greater population of Britain would mean that even if they had seats in Parliament they would be easily outvoted. So, they would gain nothing with representation and they would lose a very righteous sounding slogan that would get more people on their side.

Some will point to the many acts of Parliament that the colonists had a problem with. Alas, here again, the revolutionary propaganda does not hold up to modern-day scrutiny. For one thing, many of these acts, such as the Stamp Act, were never totally enforced and where, in any event, repealed almost as soon as they were enacted when the colonists began howling about them. The tax on tea is another overblown “outrage”. The fact is that the British East India Company sold tea at a cheaper price than any of her competitors and the colonists would have had to drink more than a gallon of tea each and every day to pay even just one dollar a year in tax. Hardly a crushing burden by any stretch of the imagination. Although not much talked about today, at the time, one of the acts considered most outrageous was the Quebec Act. It is not much talked about today because this was an act which granted freedom of religion to the Catholics of Canada, something which most Americans wrongly believed did not come about until the birth of the United States. The colonists were also none too happy about King George III restricting the colonial population to the colonies on the coast and reserving the territory to the west for the Native American tribes. Considering how tiny the population of the thirteen colonies was at the time, this could hardly be considered outrageous. There was hardly a dire need for “living space” when most of the existing colonies were largely empty wilderness.

None of the other usual patriotic clashes arouse my sympathy either. The Boston “Massacre”? Mob violence on a group of British troops simply doing their duty. Even the noted Patriot John Adams defended the British soldiers for their actions, serving as their lawyer at their trial. The Boston Tea Party? A criminal destruction of private property and nothing more. Even Benjamin Franklin was of the opinion that the perpetrators should have repaid the British East India Company for every bit of tea they tossed into the harbor. No matter how one looks at it (and I have been convinced of the Tory position since I was a young punk in high school) nothing in the list of colonial grievances seems sufficient to me to justify the taking up of arms, the shedding of blood and, most seriously of all, the breaking of the solemn oath of allegiance to the King. To repeat, I have no animus against the United States, I want nothing but success for the USA and the American people. What is done is done and history cannot be changed. But, as I believe John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things, and the facts being what they are, when it comes to the Revolutionary War, my sympathies must remain entirely with the Loyalists.

Favorite Royal Images: Grace in Black

HSH Princess Grace of Monaco. Almost every picture of her is one of my favorites I must admit.

Public Warning

A Mad Monarchist Political Statement

From time to time I have been asked to summarize my political outlook as a whole or my “world view” if you will. Admittedly, this seems silly to me as I have never been shy about voicing my opinion on any subject and reading here everyday would, I think, give anyone a good grasp of my political opinions. I have also never had all that great of an urge to map out what would be my ideal system given that neither my own or anyone else’s ideal system will probably ever come about. However, if it would inform or entertain anyone to read something more than the simple statement that, “I am a monarchist” this, I hope, will serve to answer those who would be interested to know what sort of political system I would prefer. Given that, I will say at the outset, it would be to have no “political system” at all.

I believe in the style of system broadly defined as “traditional authority”. For virtually any country this refers to some form of monarchy. This means that, as a monarchist, I am at heart a theoretical absolutist. That being said, absolutism is not exactly what most people today think it is. I favor absolute monarchy but not arbitrary monarchy nor would I favor any kind of arbitrary authority whatsoever being held by mortal men. The absolutism I favor is that which says the final and ultimate authority of a given country, the basis upon which all civil order is built, must be sacred, inviolable and impossible to remove. To maintain the distinction between absolute and arbitrary there should always be checks and balances and in a society in which traditional authority is paramount this role would be filled by the clergy and nobility for the most part. I am in no way in favor of tyranny and in fact prefer as the ideal government the least government of all. Governments in the High Middle Ages (a rather glorious period to my mind) were positively Lilliputian and often consisted of little more than the king and his court.

I am fully aware that it would require a massive counterrevolution in world political thought for the system I would consider most ideal (at least at this point in my life, my views are subject to change on the finer points and open to persuasion outside the areas of monarchy and religion) to ever come about in this day and age. Ideally I would prefer a “government” that is practically no government at all as modern humanity understands the word. A king, clergy and nobility is all the government I feel should be necessary most of the time with each looking to their own mission. In looking at history, I have never seen parliaments, politicians and political parties do well by any country in the world. All too often we look upon these things as the instruments of liberation whereas in truth they have enslaved the world to a ruling political elite, they have encouraged division, discord, mass politics and the horrors of “total war” in which whole populations are filled with an ideology and hurled en masse at the populations of other countries indoctrinated with a different version. People did not live in nightmarish conditions before the rise of mass politics, all-encompassing taxation or the welfare state. Monarchs looked after the major issues of national interest, the clergy looked after the spiritual welfare of the people and nobles looked after their land. The common folk lived happy self-sufficient lives and were vastly more independent than the citizens of the most liberal democratic republics of today.

Today it is most common around the world for monarchs to play no active role in government at all. I do not believe this should be the case. On principle, I will support any monarchy, no matter how limited, as preferable to no monarchy at all but monarchs should have the power to act. As the saintly Tsar Nicholas II of Russia put it, even if he gave away his power to govern, he could never give away the ultimate responsibility which was his alone. But then, we are asked; how does one guard against tyranny? To my mind, it seems rather simple. Let the monarch be absolute but be self-sufficient and leave little for the government to have to bother with in the first place. If the rights of everyone to that which is justly and legitimately their own would be enforced, there would be no need for much of the government as we know it today. If everyone supported their church there would be little problem for religious institutions to take the place of the social welfare state and, I tend to think, do a better job at it in the process. If private property rights were truly and absolutely upheld, the state would be left with little to do other than to maintain law and order, uphold contracts, carry out relations with foreign nations and defend the country. In these areas, not only could a monarch do the job of an elected or appointed government but a monarch could invariably do them far better.

How is this so? A monarch has a vested interest in maintaining law and order as violence and disorder tends to be detrimental to the survival of any monarchy. This is totally different from elected politicians who often have much to gain by causing division and stirring up civil strife. Provoking a problem and then demanding greater power in order to deal with it is a long established tactic among politicians. In the area of foreign policy, a monarch can maintain a coherent and consistent, long-term strategy in dealing with other countries in a way no temporary political government ever could. We have seen clearly enough in our own time the chaos and ill will that is bred by one government pursuing one foreign policy until the next election at which time that same country, under a new government, pursues the very opposite policy with old allies being tossed aside and the enemy of yesterday being treated as the friend of today. A monarch who is on the throne for life can cultivate real trust among other nations, builds years of experience and can pursue a straight and consistent course. Finally, in the area of defense, it should go without saying that a monarch invariably has stronger support amongst the armed forces than the average politician and, as the country is “their” country, again has a vested interest in defending the country to the very best of their ability against all enemies and will do so in order that they may pass it on to their heirs and successors.

A monarch should have sufficient executive powers to be of best use to the country for without sufficient authority they can neither do good nor repress evil. A monarch should be able to deal with specific situations as they arise without getting a legislature involved which can only pass laws that inevitably become a huge, tangled mess of often redundant or contradictory rules and regulations, always added to and seldom lessened. Considering, however, that the modern world is not about to do without our beloved political talking shop and army of overpaid bureaucrats, if we must have a legislature I would prefer it to be organized in a different way. I would think that something along the lines of the Estates-General of the old Kingdom of France (representing nobility, clergy and commons) or the original Cortes Generales in Leon-Castile or, perhaps, the colleges of the Imperial Diet of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. There would have to be some modifications of course, but some form of representation based on social groups or occupational background would seem to me to be a way in which to discourage the formation of political parties and mass politics. I would deem any form of representation preferable which provides a means of protecting the interests of its constituents without at the same time encouraging the development of political parties. Political parties, in my view, are about the nearest thing to pure poison there is for traditional society.

I will repeat though that if my ideal of absolute commitment to private property and vested rights were put into effect, there would be very little for any elected national assembly to do. Individuals would make their own decisions, manage their own affairs and there would simply be no reason to have a permanent national assembly of any sort. The only justification I can see for having a national assembly is so that the taxpayers can have a voice in how their money is spent. However, in my ideal realm there would be very little, perhaps even only intermittent, taxation in the first place. National assemblies basically sit to decide what to do with the resources of others. If we got rid of the government welfare state, if we reverted to the contractual agreements, private roads and private security forces of the High Middle Ages, the government would have no need for the vast majority of taxes that are collected today and thus no need for huge national assemblies to decide how such taxes are spent.

When it comes to external issues, foreign relations and the like, I would fit into neither the interventionist or isolationist camps. It does make a critical difference though on whether or not a country has a monarch who can carry out a consistent foreign policy throughout his or her lifetime rather than an elected head-of-state who changes with every administration. I would base interaction with foreign countries on the same basic system as those between people domestically, which is to deal with foreign countries based on mutual consent and be open about it. The old colonial empires hold no terror for me but everything should be done openly and honestly. If one country wants protection from another country, they should be prepared to offer something in exchange for that protection. I see nothing sinister about that nor do I see anything underhanded or disreputable in the policy that some once called “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. Arbitrary aggression (it should go without saying) is always to be condemned. This is not the same thing as giving aid to a country against a common enemy who is as much a threat to you as to another people. Nor is it the same as a country taking necessary action when the interests of its people are threatened.

Much of what happens today, in terms of “interests” overseas for countries is economic and is based on the fact that so many countries have indebted themselves to others and then react against the consequences of this. Any country which places itself in the hands of another runs a great risk but any country, the same as any individual, is free to take such risks if they determine that other factors outweigh it. My primary point here is that what is popularly known today as “imperialism” was far more beneficial and even moral than the “humanitarian”, international, social programs of today which shackle people in poverty, stagnate countries, prop up tyrants and drain the resources of one country (or group of countries) while returning nothing of value except perhaps for the small elite which manages the transactions and takes a bit off the top for themselves. Compare this to the past when, even with all their flaws, imperial powers necessarily had (to varying degrees) to develop countries simply as a consequence of pursuing their own goals. I would advocate something similar but simply more openly and insisting that agreements (or contracts) are strictly upheld and adhered to. In some ways this may be the most controversial of my opinions but it has only grown stronger over the years as I have looked into the facts of real world examples. I have no problem with groups of countries, usually with some measure of things in common, banding together for mutual benefit. I have a very big problem with irrational, idealistic international organizations like the United Nations which have done a great deal of harm all over the world and, I will add, I detest the very word “globalism”.

If one country does some favor, some good, gives some benefit to another country, they should not be expected to get nothing in return for this. Charity is a wonderful thing but “charity” which is coerced is not charitable at all and, indeed, destroys the charitable impulse. This applies on the national level as well as on the individual level. When this becomes institutionalized as a program it makes people dependent, causes resentment and does more harm than good, both to those who give the aide as well as those who receive it. Such actions also make people less charitable and less generous because caring for those truly in need is seen as the responsibility of some international organization or the government or some foundation or another. Actual charity is something which should be appreciated but never expected. Of course, aside from the long-term planning and consistency that comes from having a monarch, any government could adopt these kinds of policies if they decided to. The bottom line is that no one should expect free favors in foreign policy and no country should have to apologize to, defer to or subsidize any backward, impoverished, failed country simply for being more successful than they are.

To summarize, while I would oppose arbitrary power being wielded by anyone or anything, I do believe in absolutism. I hold that everyone, from the monarch down to his lowest subject, should be absolute in their position and in all which is justly and legitimately their own. No one should ever have the power to take from anyone anything, whether property or title, earned or legitimately inherited. No mob, no matter how numerous, can or should be able to tell a King that he is no longer King just as the neighbors of one community should not be able to vote to seize the property of the most successful amongst them or that the least successful should be eliminated as a needless burden to society. I hold to the absolutism of independence. A monarch should be absolute and independent in that his position is sacrosanct and inviolable, not that he may do anything to anyone for any reason as he pleases. In the same way, things like “rights” and “freedoms” which most people today talk about are the imaginary, meaningless words tossed around by revolutionary mobs and political assemblies. True freedom cannot come from elections, a political party or a piece of paper but only from independence. The only person who is free is the person who is independent. Such independence is the just reward of whoever achieves it and at the highest level the independence of the monarch is the independence of the nation and neither should have what is rightfully their own subject to the whim of popular opinion.

The agents of the monarch should act to uphold, defend and protect and not to compel or coerce. This means upholding the traditional family as strong family units are demonstrably essential to the wellbeing of any society. It also means upholding the moral code, the “Truth” which should be the heart of any country. Efforts to coerce people into accepting this would be futile but the Truth should nonetheless be defended from attack. One may not agree but while one cannot and should not be prevented from disagreeing, one should be prevented from tearing down. This applies to both the religious and the philosophical spheres. It may sound harsh to modern ears but surely most would agree that demonstrably harmful ideologies such as Nazism or Communism should not be tolerated but that a country must be protected from these dangers which have proven themselves dangerous. Choosing to hold such views is one thing but choosing to spread them or enforce them on others would absolutely not be allowed. To tolerate that which is harmful is surely taking open-mindedness to suicidal levels. Evil can never be tolerated and the good must be defended and any country or society which cannot agree on the difference between the two will not long survive.

I could go into detail about other specific issues but, this is meant to be a basic overview and not a comprehensive list of my thoughts on all current events and, I fear, I have gone on too long already. Obviously, as stated before, one would be hard pressed to take all of the above and find a neat place my views would fit into amongst the current, fashionable ideologies. Also, to repeat, outside of the areas of religion and monarchy (and my support for monarchy comes from religion) I am always open to new thoughts and convincing arguments. My views have modified in many areas over the years and may well again in the future, but at present this is my general point of view. I hope I have at least satisfied the curious and/or provided the casual reader with something of interest or something to consider, whether or not you agree. Indeed, perhaps especially if you do not as my views are certainly not popular or mainstream. That, I think, is putting it rather mildly but, that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: Carol II of Romania

MM Video: Belgium at War