Japan: Champion of Monarchy in Asia

If there is one thing that warms my mad monarchist heart, it is seeing existing monarchies supporting each other and, just as if not more importantly, giving aid to the monarchist cause in countries overrun by republicanism. In our own time we have seen countries pull together out of a shared devotion to their own republican political ideology (liberal democracy on one side, communism on the other) but in recent years there has been very little of this from monarchial countries. It has happened in the past, such as when Tsar Alexis of Russia cut off all trade with England after they cut off the head of their King, when the Prussians sent troops to aid the royalist Orange Party in the Netherlands under attack by republican forces  and when the crowned heads of Europe came together to declare war on republican France after the regicide of King Louis XVI, not excluding the British who had long been the traditional enemy of the Kingdom of France. We saw it when Tsar Nicholas I sent troops in to crush rebellion against the Austrian Empire in Hungary because it was recognized that revolution and republicanism are cancers that spread easily. There were other times, when such solidarity was called for but never achieved such as when the Queen mother of Spain (and the German Kaiser) called for monarchial solidarity against the United States in the Spanish-American War but such cooperation was not forthcoming.

Imperial Solidarity

Once the twentieth century really got going, however, things seemed to change. Suddenly, the common bonds of monarchy seemed to be set aside in favor of agreements and alliances that (it was thought) would be more beneficial to the countries in question, though this was invariably not the case. The Orthodox and autocratic Russian Empire, probably the most devotedly monarchist power in Europe, allied itself with the very liberal French Republic. During World War I, monarchies made war on each other as never before and (since so many fell as a result) as they never would again, dragging the United States into European affairs in the process. There was not a great deal of monarchial solidarity displayed by the Allies (two of the major participants being republican France and America) and while there was more on the side of the Central Powers, even there Germany made the terrible mistake of, albeit very reluctantly and temporarily, making use of the communists in taking the Russian Empire down to get Russia out of the war. The aftermath saw even more bad decisions being made, such as the British Empire putting sanctions on the Kingdom of Italy while signing a naval treaty with Nazi Germany or breaking off their alliance with the Empire of Japan in favor of one with the United States of America. Remember that by the terms of that treaty, Japan was pledged to help defend the British Empire in Asia whereas, even after Britain and America became war time allies in World War II, the U.S. government under Franklin D. Roosevelt made it clear that he wanted the British Empire to be dismantled.

HM the Meiji Emperor

In the midst of this unfortunate trend, although it can sometimes seem like few notice the facts sitting right in front of them, it was the Empire of Japan that was the rare exception, supporting the principle of monarchy and giving aid to monarchists of other nations -even former enemies. The Japanese were well aware of the dangers of revolutionary republicanism and had been for longer than most probably realize. During the period when Japan began to withdraw from isolation, the first to go overseas to Europe learned about the French Revolution and some began to advocate something similar once they returned home. Thankfully, the Japanese public was too staunchly faithful to the Emperor and the whole concept was too distastefully foreign for this to ever get very far but the imperial government recognized that this ideology was a danger that had to be resisted. Japan had looked on with alarm at the triumph of republicanism in China after the 1911 Revolution and the Empire of Japan had dealt with at least pseudo-republicans in the past such as on Taiwan in the First Sino-Japanese War and with some of the rebels who opposed the Meiji Restoration.

When the Empire of Japan first emerged onto the world stage, monarchy was still dominant in the world and the only close neighbors of Japan; Korea, China and Russia, were all monarchies as well. Some conflict was probably inevitable. As Japan modernized, the need for resources grew greater and one early source of vital food imports was Korea. However, Korea was a vassal of China and the Chinese were not too pleased with the increased Japanese involvement in Korea and had a long history of being rather contemptuous toward Japan, mostly for refusing to recognize Chinese supremacy. The first two external wars fought by the Empire of Japan after the Meiji Restoration were, if you reduce it to the most simplistic level, over Korea. First they drove the Chinese out but were robbed of much of their victory when Russia, France and Germany ganged up on the Japanese, forcing them to give back some of their winnings. Russian power was expanding in the region and Japan offered to accept Russian dominance in Manchuria (Chinese power being on the decline) if the Russians would stay out of Korea. Their offer was not accepted and the Russo-Japanese War basically determined whether or not Korea would be a part of the Empire of Japan or the Russian Empire. The Japanese were victorious and in 1910 the short-lived “Great Han Empire” (Korea) was annexed by Japan.

Japan-Korea Teamwork

There is still a great deal of bitterness over this whole period on the part of Korea, some of it completely understandable and some of it incredibly petty. However, restricting ourselves to just the situation of the monarchy, the Japanese were much more careful than other powers in ensuring that the monarchial principle was not damaged. The Korean monarch was reduced in rank to what most Korean monarchs had always been but retained that title, remained in his palace and along with the aristocracy, received generous payments from Japan to allow them to live the lifestyle they had become accustomed to. Keep in mind, according to the modern Korean republics (or at least the south anyway) these were the inveterate enemies of Japan and the Japanese annexation, yet, this is how they were treated. The Korean crown prince was educated in Japan and treated like a son by HM the Meiji Emperor (in fact, some felt he was treated better than the Emperor’s own son). Members of the Korean Royal Family continued to hold prominent positions throughout the remaining years of the Empire of Japan. It was a far cry from the British exiling the last Mughal Emperor to Burma, the French exiling the monarchs of Vietnam or Madagascar to far away countries or even the United States in Hawaii imposing republicanism and abolishing all royal titles.

Emperor "Henry" Puyi with the Japanese

The next major conflict for the Empire of Japan was the First World War, which Japan joined on the Allied side because of their treaty with Great Britain. The Japanese secured the capture of the biggest German base in the Far East and provided warships to escort troop ships from British possessions in Asia and Australia to the European battlefront. Toward the end of the conflict, republicanism and in particular communism became a more prominent concern for Japan. The two largest and most powerful neighbors of Japan, China and Russia, both fell into republican chaos and civil war. In both cases, the Empire of Japan responded by supporting the loyal monarchists wherever possible, even though these people represented the two empires that had previously been the enemies of Japan. In the face of the encroaching forces of communism in Russia and the republican chaos in China, however, that did not matter. Japan began to support and protect the last Emperor of China after his expulsion from the Forbidden City as well as Qing loyalists who hoped for his restoration. The Japanese sent the largest expeditionary force of any of the Allied nations that intervened in the Russian Civil War and the Empire of Japan was quick to support the White Russian forces in the field and even after they had been forced into exile, mostly in Manchuria.

Mongol Prince Demchugdongrub

Along with supplying White Russian exiles with a safe haven, money, guns and military supplies, the Empire of Japan also provided sanctuary, support and security for the last Emperor of China and Qing Dynasty loyalists. Ultimately, as we know, the Japanese also made possible his restoration to his ancestral throne in Manchuria with the establishment of the Empire of Manchukuo. The importance of this should not be shrugged off. How rare is it that an overthrown monarch is ever able to regain their throne, even if only a part of the realm they once ruled? And this was not just for a few years but for more than a decade. It was also from their base in Manchuria that Japanese forces gave aid and assistance to the monarchists of Inner Mongolia who wished to see the communist client-state in Outer Mongolia overthrown and all Mongols reunited under a restored monarchy. The Mongol prince at the head of this effort was Prince Demchugdongrub (aka Prince De Wang) and his family. The Prince was a distant relative and long-time friend and supporter of the last Manchu Emperor and, for years, the Japanese had tried to coordinate a monarchist alliance of the Japanese, Manchu and Mongol peoples across northeast Asia. This was the reason behind the (short-lived) arranged marriage of the Japanese-raised Manchu Princess Kawashima Yoshiko to the Mongol Prince Ganjuurjab whose father would be a general in the Inner Mongolian Army of Prince De Wang.

Prince Cuong De

Even during World War II, the Empire of Japan promoted monarchy wherever possible. The earliest ally of Japan in southeast Asia was the Kingdom of Thailand and in Indochina the Japanese supported Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam becoming independent monarchies again while always respecting the reigning monarchs whether they were friendly toward Japan or not. In Vietnam, for example, the Prince Cuong De had long-established and friendly ties with Japan whereas the reigning monarch, Emperor Bao Dai, had spent much of his life in France. Yet, the Japanese worked with the reigning monarch and supported those sects who were monarchist (the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai for example) while the United States (short-sightedly) supported the communist-led Viet Minh. In Laos, the King was pro-French and so the Japanese worked with a prince who favored independence yet made no effort to depose or harm the pro-French King. In the states of Malaysia, the Japanese restored two monarchs who had unjustly been deprived of their thrones but never removed any reigning monarch even those that supported Britain over Japan. After driving the British forces out of Burma, the first instinct of the Japanese was to restore the native monarchy under a grandson of the last King Thibaw and it was only when they found no support for such an initiative that they turned to Dr. Ba Maw. Even then, when he was installed as head of state he did so with much of the ceremony of the old Kingdom of Burma which some took as a sign that he might have restored the monarchy eventually with himself as king which there was nothing to prevent him from doing given that Burma had no royal succession law and traditionally the throne went to whoever could take it. To further tantalize, Dr. Ba Maw was the son of a royal official to the last of the Burmese kings, and a staunch monarchist who opposed the British out of his loyalty to the Royal Family of Burma.

Of course, I know there will be those who doubt the sincerity of the Japanese in these events as there are many anti-monarchy and/or anti-Japanese people who would decry anything Japan did for any reason. I am sure some would say that Japan only did this because it served Japanese interests. My only response to that is to ask, “So?” Do you really expect any country to act against their own interests? Do you expect a nation at war to give aid to those who oppose them and support their enemies? Would anyone expect that? Of course not. Thankfully, as a monarchy, it was in the interest of Japan to support monarchy and that just happened to be in the best interest of all those involved as well, in my view certainly. Others, monarchist opponents perhaps, might ask, ‘well, why didn’t Japan try to make the whole of China a monarchy again, or make The Philippines a monarchy?’ or, in other words, impose a monarchy on people who did not desire one. The obvious answer is that Japan was trying to solve problems, not create new ones by trying to impose a form of government on people who did not want it. However, to any who would downplay the pro-monarchy policies of the Empire of Japan, I have a simple question, “Who did more?” That is all. If what they did was not enough to be praiseworthy for proponents of monarchy, show me a country that did more. I would be glad to hear about it and give them all due praise as well. As for the Empire of Japan, the record speaks for itself. Some, I am sure, may be unable to get beyond old grudges but as a pan-monarchist if for no other reason, I for one will always have a heartfelt salute for the Empire of Japan, champion of monarchy from Russia to southeast Asia.

Monarch Profile: King Joao II of Portugal

Amongst the illustrious list of Portuguese monarchs, one name that always stands out is that of King Joao II. He was a man often unpopular with the elites of his own country yet who was widely admired in his own time by monarchs across Christendom and history remembers him as one of the most successful kings Portugal has had. He was born on March 3, 1455 in Lisbon, the son of King Afonso V and Isabella of Coimbra. A vigorous and upstanding youth, early on he earned a reputation for courage and independence. With the long-standing counteroffensive against the forces of Islam still raging, Prince Joao fought alongside his father in the campaigns in North Africa. After the conquest of Arzila (in what is now Morocco) in 1471 the King made him a knight and in 1473 he was married to his first cousin Infanta Leonor of Viseu. His aversion to court politics and his reputation for going his own way without being influenced by others caused some resentment amongst the Portuguese nobility who feared that, when he came to the throne, their own power would be diminished. Sometimes being an honest man is enough to make enemies. Ironically enough, given how Portuguese history would later unfold, one of his opponents was the Duke of Braganza.

Afonso V had tried to make himself King of Castile and Leon but was unsuccessful, defeated by Fernando II of Aragon (one half of the famous Isabella and Ferdinand royal duo) and after being deceived by the King of France he was frustrated and depressed, abdicating his throne and retiring to a monastery in 1477. Joao II succeeded him but did not formally inherit the title of King of Portugal until the death of his father in 1481. As many of the nobles had feared, immediately after coming to power, King Joao II worked to strengthen the monarchy at the expense of the aristocracy which, to his mind, had grown too large and manipulative. Not surprisingly, many nobles began to plot against him. One of the leaders was the Duke of Braganza who tried to enlist the help of Queen Isabella I of Castile in overthrowing the Portuguese monarch. Unfortunately for the Duke, his letters were intercepted by agents of the King who then banned the House of Braganza, executed the Duke and confiscated his property. For her part, though she could be considered a natural enemy given the actions of his father, Queen Isabella the Catholic was rather impressed by the strength of King Joao II, referring to him as “El Hombre” (The Man). Even his adversaries admired his ability.

Nobles were henceforth forbidden to administer justice on their lands with the Crown becoming the sole source of law and order. The Duke of Viseu had the distinction of being stabbed by the King personally for leading an aristocratic conspiracy against him. The Bishop of Evora was among those executed and who had their property confiscated for plots against the King. All of this seems quite harsh to people today but it must be seen in the context of history. The liberalism of Afonso V, building on extensive concessions to the aristocracy in the past, had really made the country rather top heavy and unstable. Previously, the King was usually not the most powerful man in Portugal and the government of the country was little more than a battlefield for the intrigues of the elites, scheming and feuding with each other to increase their own wealth and authority. The confiscated property of these nobles put the monarchy on a solid financial footing and the King made sure that there was one authority, one administrator of justice and one unifying force in the country and that was the monarchy. Overall, the Kingdom of Portugal was considerably better off because of it and the result was increased peace, stability and prosperity.

Another important accomplishment King Joao II can be credited with is restoring the Portuguese emphasis on exploration which had been increasingly sidelined since the death of the famous Prince Henry the Navigator. Although his primary aim was Portuguese expansion down the coast of Africa, his support for exploration in general had immense long-term benefits for the country, particularly the discovery of a route to India and Portuguese entry into the lucrative spice trade. During his reign Bartholomew Diaz rounded the Cape of Good Hope at the bottom of Africa in 1486 and in 1498 Vasco da Gama reached India. Portuguese explorers also discovered the Congo River and made expeditions into Ethiopia (and India) in search of the lands of “Prester John”, a Christian king believed to rule over a marvelous country somewhere to the east, surrounded by Muslims or other non-Christian peoples. That turned out to be a tall tale but the exploration, new outposts established and new trading routes gained proved to be a great benefit to the Kingdom of Portugal and, by extension, to Europe as a whole.

Also, unlike his father, King Joao II tried to keep peace with the neighboring Spanish Kingdom of Castile. However, this was difficult as tensions were inevitable due to competition in the fields of exploration and colonial expansion. A crisis seemed in the making following the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. Starting in 1485 the ambitious Italian explorer had tried to persuade King Joao II of Portugal to sponsor his voyage. However, the Portuguese experts (correctly as it turned out) believed that Columbus was completely wrong in his estimation that East Asia could be so close, just a short voyage westward across the Atlantic. After being turned down more than once, Columbus gave up on Portugal (which had found an eastern route to India by then) and made his famous agreement with King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. When he returned with news of a vast new landmass, Columbus was probably rather eager to rub it in the face of the King who had turned him down. King Joao II was also just as upset at the opportunity he had missed. He warned the Spanish King and Queen that, according to the treaty negotiated by he and his father ending the Castilian War of Succession, much of this new found territory should belong to Portugal rather than Spain and he would use force to seize it if he had to.

King Fernando & Queen Isabella

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella had, of course just finished fighting the war that expelled the last of the Muslim invaders from Spain and they were not eager for another conflict. They also knew that King Joao II was a hard and determined man who was not to be taken on lightly. The future of their monarchies was also in question due to the succession resting on only one frail son. A negotiated settlement was obviously what was called for and so Pope Alexander VI stepped in to work out an agreement. The result was the Treaty of Tordesillas which divided the unclaimed lands of the world between Portugal and Spain with the Portuguese being given everything to the east of the line (Africa and Asia) and Spain being given everything to the west of the line (America). Because the coast of Brazil extended beyond the line, because of this agreement (which was modified) the Kingdom of Portugal received what would become the largest Portuguese colony of all and the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the colonial empire of Portugal. If King Joao II had not stood firm in pressing for the rights of his country, this might never have happened and the Brazil we know today might not exist at all.

One other area in which King Joao II greatly benefited his country was in putting it on a sound financial footing. This was no small task as he had inherited a country that was effectively broke. His response to this worked hand-in-hand with his breaking the power of the aristocracy. For one thing, confiscating the property of traitors brought income to the government but more importantly it meant that status was not the sole determining factor in achieving positions in government. The King assembled a special council to oversee the restoration of the economy and he selected its members from amongst the best and brightest in Portugal, choosing men whose talent could be seen by proven success. Their oversight, combined with the increasing income from the new trade routes and colonial outposts helped pay off the national debt and put Portugal back in the black. In time the Kingdom of Portugal would become one of the wealthiest countries in the world thanks to these changes.

A problem that King Joao II proved unable to surmount was that of the succession. King Joao II had only one son, Prince Afonso, to succeed him. However, the future seemed bright as the Spanish monarchs had only one son as well and he was not in good health. Prince Afonso was then married to Isabella of Aragon (eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella) and it seemed likely that the future King of Portugal would become King of Castile and Aragon as well. Unfortunately, in 1491, Prince Afonso died in a fall from his horse, leaving King Joao II without a male heir of his own. At the time, many suspected a Castilian plot behind this but it was never proven and most likely never will be. King Joao II tried to have a natural son of his legitimized to succeed him but it was to no avail. He died at the age of 40 on October 25, 1495 in Alvor. He was succeeded by his first cousin who became King Manuel I (a devoutly religious man who would reign over a period of great success and prestige for Portugal). Still, aside from unavoidable misfortune with the succession, King Joao II had been a great monarch in every way. He left the country stronger, more secure and more prosperous than he had found it and he earned a great reputation across Europe. He could, at times, seem harsh but he was successful and improved his country by his leadership.

(Additional Note: Part of the reason why King Joao II sometimes is portrayed as having a worse reputation than he should is no doubt colored by those who said he most embodied the leadership portrayed in “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli. Whether this is accurate or not can be endlessly debated, however what cannot be debated is that the principles of the ‘Renaissance man’ Machiavelli were far more than simply “the ends justify the means”. Most have no real knowledge of the work or of Machiavelli himself who was a republican)

Got Questions?

Since some have asked, I am doing something of a 'test-run'. You will notice a new button on the upper right of the page, underneath the title image and to the right of the "Texas" button that says "Questions". That is the page to go to if you have anything you would like to ask yours truly, The Mad Monarchist. Having been accused of being somewhat reclusive, I want to remedy that impression if, in fact, it does exist. Based on what posts are popular and the comments that are left, I never thought there was much left for anyone to be curious about or that there was anything else any sizable group of people had any desire to know about, rest assured, it is not that I am trying to be exclusive. I am quite free with my opinions, my views on just about any given subject, be it monarchy related or not. If there is a number of you out there who have questions, post them in the comment section of the "Questions" page (I may also post this or something similar on my Facebook page) and I will answer whatever questions you have, either in a written post or in a Youtube video which will be posted here, provided of course there are enough questions posed to make it worthwhile. So, feel free to ask me anything, it could be about a monarchy past or present, some political event, the color of my office walls -it's up to you. If there isn't anything anyone cares to know, we will move on, if there is a great deal it might become a regular feature. That's up to you. So, send me your questions if you have them.

MM

Favorite Royal Images: A British Queen of Spain

HM Queen Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg

consort to His Catholic Majesty King Alfonso XIII of Spain,

godmother of HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco

MM Special Report: The Situation in Spain

No doubt, the biggest royal news this week comes from the Kingdom of Spain with the major headline being HRH Infanta Cristina being declared a suspect and being subpoenaed for tax evasion and money-laundering on Tuesday. This is the first time a direct relative of HM King Juan Carlos of Spain has been so treated by the court. This drama has been playing out for most of the last year so it may be helpful to give a general review of just what is going on in the Land of the Setting Sun. It has certainly been a difficult time for the Spanish Royal Family to say the least of it with polls showing a majority of Spaniards now in favor of the King abdicating and support for the monarchy dropping to below 50%. What we have here is a legal case against one member of the Royal Family (by marriage) which coincided with some very bad press for the King and so was seized upon by many with their own agendas to use the monarchy as their own whipping boy. The Infanta was brought into the case, this time, not by the government but by a third party group with their own case, a group known for launching legal cases simply to gain publicity. Here is the rundown on what has been happening in Spain, just for a refresher:

The first accusations came in 2011 when Inaki Urdangarin y Liebaert, Duke of Palma de Mallorca, retired Olympic handball player and husband of HRH Infanta Cristina (youngest daughter of TM King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia) was alleged to have lined his own pockets with public funds through the Noos institute which was followed by an investigation by the Spanish Anticorruption bureau. Specifically, the accusations were that he had persuaded Spanish officials to sign contracts with his company, the Noos Institute, for work that was never done and which was highly overvalued, paid for from Public Administrations. By the end of the year the Anticorruption Nureau claimed that the Duke was sending money to tax havens in the United Kingdom and British Honduras. That same year the Duke was suspended by the King from all official royal functions and the King stated that justice would be applied equally to everyone with the Palace content to let the investigation run its course. In 2012 the Duke was formally brought before a judge to answer charges of corruption by the state prosecutor, the Duke being one of 14 others being investigated for what amounts to embezzlement.

It should be noted here that the case against the Duke has yet to be concluded, he has not been found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. At first, the focus (legal focus anyway) was on him and not on HRH the Infanta or any other members of the Spanish Royal Family. However, as 2013 rolled around, the Spanish monarchy became the focus of a great deal of bad press. Negative portrayals of the King in the media were once unheard of but after a privately-funded hunting trip to Africa the King was seized upon as a convenient distraction for the bad decisions of those in the government dealing with the economic crisis. Naturally, anti-monarchy groups were quick to pile on and there seemed to emerge an obsession with somehow linking the case against the Duke with the rest of the Royal Family. In April of 2013 the presiding judge named HRH Infanta Cristina as a suspect and the following day the anti-corruption prosecutor announced he would appeal that decision. He did and it was overturned, having been found to be without merit. That was the government bringing the charge keep in mind and it was dismissed. What came about last week is something completely different.

So, who is behind the charges against the Infanta this time? Regular readers might remember the Royal News Roundup from the sixteenth of last month reporting on the Infanta being sued by the publicity-seeking far-right group “Manos Limpias”. That is who is responsible for this and Miguel Roca, attorney for HRH Infanta Cristina, has said he will appeal the summons. Hopefully the result will be the same as the last time this was tried. It is the pressure group “Manos Limpias” that is accusing the Infanta of tax evasion and money-laundering and it should be noted that the government tax authorities have not brought any charges and the government prosecutor has said there is no case to answer. So, who is “Manos Limpias”? They are a registered trade union founded in 1995 as an anti-corruption pressure group by Spanish lawyer Miguel Bernad Remon, former Secretary General of the National Front (Spain) and formerly associated with the Fuerza Nueva party, one of a number of neo-Falangist groups using that same name. It has only 6,000 members and is most known for gaining publicity by launching legal cases against high profile targets.

So far, to repeat, the case against the Duke has yet to be proven and nothing has been proven that the Infanta had anything to do with it. The alleged connection stems from the Infanta being on the board of Noos and being co-owner with her husband of the company Aizoon which some are now claiming was a front for laundering embezzled funds -all of which has yet to be proven. The Palace has said simply that they respect the justice system and that this investigation only proves that no one is above the law and they will wait for the final verdict to be handed down. That is all well and good but regardless of how the case turns out, whether or not the Duke or the Infanta are found guilty of any wrongdoing, it does not negate the fact that many have latched on to this unfortunate series of events with despicable glee and have been all too willing to use the troubles of the Royal Family to advance their own agenda, whether that is a group seeking publicity, politicians seeking a distraction and a scapegoat for their own incompetence in dealing with the financial crisis or those treasonous groups who are anxious for any opportunity to bring down the Spanish monarchy and proclaim a Third Spanish Republic. How quickly people seem to forget the horrors of the Second Spanish Republic or the stunning incompetence of the First or the brutality of the civil war that resulted from these failed regimes. Regardless of the decision of the court, all Spaniards should be grateful for the monarchy, for the safeguards it provides and for the invaluable service it has given over the many centuries of Spanish history.

Viva el Rey!
Arriba España!

Royal Friends of Texas: Sweden

On the face of it, Texas and the Kingdom of Sweden would seem to have very little in common. Sweden has a monarchy, Texas does not. Sweden leans heavily to the left in politics, Texas leans more to the right. Sweden is not very religious these days while Texas still takes faith fairly seriously. Yet, Sweden and Texas do have some things in common such as having an independent streak when it comes to defense issues, taking the art of having fun very seriously and for some reason making many of their neighbors nervous. The Kingdom of Sweden had little to no contact with Texas during the colonial days and the era of the Republic but Swedish immigrants began coming to Texas in 1848, not long after Texas joined the Union. In time, because of immigration from Sweden and the movement of Swedish-Americans from the northern United States, Texas came to have the largest Swedish population of any state in the American south. There were, however, individual Swedes who came to Texas even earlier such as Swante M. Swenson who came to America in 1836. He traveled to Baltimore, Maryland and then to Alabama where he met up with his uncle Swante Palm (Swen Jaensson) in 1844.

S. M. Swenson

Swenson became very prosperous and soon purchased a plantation in Fort Bend County. He became good friends with General Sam Houston, former President of Texas, who urged him to invite more Swedish immigrants to move to Texas and settle the interior of the state. Swenson took his advice and in 1848 brought the first group of 25 Swedes to Texas, mostly from Barkeryd parish in northern Småland and most of whom were relatives of Swenson and Palm. After selling off his assets, he took the new settlers and started a new life in central Texas. More immigrants came later, being forwarded travel money in return for their labor after they arrived. A depression in 1873 slowed things down a bit but by 1878 immigration had resumed. By 1880 there were 364 Swedes listed on the Texas census. During this time Swenson had prospered enough to buy a large amount of property in Northwest Texas on which he established SMS Ranches which were operated by his sons and employed many ranch managers and cowboys from the Swedish immigrant population. They adapted well to life in Texas while adding some Swedish flavor to the Lone Star State. In 1899 the Swensons founded the town of Stamford in Jones County, populated primarily by Swedish immigrant ranchers and farmers.

By 1900 there were more than 4,000 Swedes living in Texas but within the decade, immigration dropped off. However, as mentioned, more Swedish-Americans began arriving from the north, many from Illinois. Even today, the Kingdom of Sweden is known for its many newspapers and the Swedes in Texas were no different, founding a number of them, the most prominent and long-lasting of which was the “Texas-Posten” which was published in Austin from 1896 to 1982. In 1906 Swedish Texans sponsored the establishment of Trinity Lutheran College in Round Rock and in 1912 Methodist Swedish Texans founded Texas Wesleyan College in Austin. Both closed by the 1930’s but Trinity Lutheran College merged with Texas Lutheran College to become Texas Lutheran University in Seguin and the assets of Texas Wesleyan College were sold to the University of Texas with some of the funds going to establish the Texas Wesleyan Foundation which provided scholarships for hundreds of Texas children of Swedish ancestry. By the 1940’s there were large concentrations of Swedish Texans in and around Stamford, Lyford, Melvin, Brady, Dallas-Fort Worth and Waco. Even where there are not large Swedish populations, the Texans of Sweden have left their mark on the map with places like Govalle, Lund, Manda, New Sweden, Hutto, Swedonia, East Sweden, West Sweden, Palm Valley, Swensondale and even Bergstrom Air Force Base. By 1980 almost every major city in Texas had a Swedish population of several thousand.

King Carl XVI Gustaf

Additionally, the Swedes have left their mark on Texas. When most people think of Texas, they think of cattle ranches, cowboys and oil wells and there are plenty of those but they may not realize that Texas is a major center for things like computers, rocketry and space exploration too. The Swedes proved themselves capable of being ranchers and cowboys early on but they also stood out in other fields as well. For example, the co-founder of Texas Instruments which pioneered such developments as silicon transistors, integrated circuits, pocket calculators and semiconductor microprocessors was Swedish Texan Erik Jonsson. Another notable figure was Carl G. Cromwell, former mayor of Dallas who contracted the drilling of the famous Santa Rita oil well and who became drilling superintendent for the Texon Oil & Land Company. Swedish culture can be found in many parts of Texas and the long ties between the Kingdom of Sweden and Texas were celebrated especially in 1988 to mark the anniversary of the arrival of the first Swedish settlers. The festival was called “New Sweden ‘88” and included many cultural events in central Texas but the highlight, of course, was the visit to Texas of HM King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden, making the King the first Swedish monarch to ever visit Texas. Today there are over 100,000 Texans of Swedish birth or ancestry and hopefully the close friendship between Texas and the Kingdom of Sweden will only grow stronger in the future.

Favorite Royal Images: A New Queen

HM Queen Elizabeth II

the picture of royal dignity

The Divine Right of Kings

Many people have heard about the Divine Right of Kings and some probably have a vague idea of what it means. If asked, they will reply that it refers to the idea that a king has absolute power and is accountable to no one but God in Heaven for his rule of his country, a country entrusted to him by God. Much fewer, however, are probably aware of the deeper meaning of the Divine Right of Kings, where the idea came from or how short-lived the idea was. For all of the talk about the Divine Right of Kings, it really was an idea that never held sway for very long in historic terms. One basic assumption that many make, that this was a relationship simply between God and the king, is actually somewhat mistaken. It is, as much, about the Royal Family as it is about the king himself. Many people are probably also not aware that the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, though most associated with the Christian monarchies of Europe, actually has Jewish rather than Christian origins. This was an idea that did not take hold in the original Christian Roman Empire but it began to have more influence after the fall of Rome but as the Dark Ages moved into the Middle Ages and beyond, the Divine Right of Kings came to be opposed by the Roman Catholic Church to varying degrees, reasserted itself somewhat in the early spread of Protestantism but, after that, was soon replaced with the “Divine Right of the People”. So, let us review where the roots of this idea can be found.

The Divine Right of Kings has been traced by some, like Filmer, all the way back to Adam in the Garden of Eden when God gave Adam dominion over all creation. Not too many, however, took things to that extreme and not because it was impossible to trace a family line back to the first man on earth as one might assume but more because, if one accepts that Adam was the father of all humanity, being descended from him is not that special. More often it came down to being a descendant of King David of Israel and, once upon a time, it was very important for royal families to be able to trace their ancestry back to that Old Testament monarch who was called a man after God’s own heart. The reasoning behind this can get a little bit confusing so it is best to start at the beginning. The Divine Right of Kings goes back to the Divine Right of King David and the Davidic line of kings who ruled the people of Israel. This came about because of the seventh covenant between man and God and, in many ways, it is perhaps one of the most fascinating interactions between the human and the divine to be found in the books of the Bible.

For one thing, one cannot help but take special notice that this was the seventh covenant between God and man, since the number seven has always had a special significance, the number of perfection. The seventh day was the day God rested and commanded to be kept holy, there were the seven eyes of God, the seven feast days of God, seven blessings, seven dispensations, in the Christian world there are seven sacraments, seven cardinal virtues and seven deadly sins, the seventh angel announcing the apocalypse and being the last to punish the world which ended with seven plagues. The Bible is literally riddled with the number seven and it seems only natural that the seventh covenant would stand out even if simply for being the seventh. However, it must also be said that, this was according to the list I learned in school. Some number the covenants differently, so you may take or leave that as you please. What is also interesting and unique about the seventh covenant was that it was the only covenant with man that God made unconditionally. Every other covenant or agreement between God and man followed the pattern of doing something in return for something else. So, God would tell man, if you do this and refrain from doing that, I will do this for you. The seventh covenant was different. There were no conditions, simply a promise from God to King David.

That promise, the seventh covenant, was the original Divine Right of Kings. It stated that King David and his descendants had a “divine right” to rule God’s people, referring here to the people of Israel, and that this right was absolute and could never be taken away. God said that because he loved King David so highly that even if his descendants should do wrong, while God would punish them for their wrongdoing, for the sake of King David their divine right to rule would never be taken away from them. Eventually, of course, things in Israel changed as did the interpretation some applied to this covenant. Eventually, of course, there ceased to be Davidic kings ruling Israel. The land was divided, eventually becoming a client state of the Roman Empire and, after a rebellion, being totally crushed and ruled by the Emperor of Rome. Some would say this has no bearing on the covenant since God only promised that the “right” to rule would never be lost but said nothing about their actual rule. That, however, would ultimately become a Jewish question and remains so to this day as there are still a small minority within the State of Israel who wish to see the traditional kingdom restored under a descendant of David. For the Christians who emerged during the time of Roman rule, this covenant came to have a meaning that was more spiritual than genealogical -though genealogy still mattered of course.

In time, early Christians adopted the position that it was the Church that was the “people of God” and that the Davidic covenant was fulfilled in a spiritual sense by Jesus Christ. He was of the Davidic bloodline and was the eternal King of all and everyone. So, by this reasoning, the covenant remains fulfilled with Christ the King reigning in Heaven, represented on earth by His Church. However, in time, religious thinkers and royal princes alike would start to try to pull the Divine Right of Kings down from the Heavens and apply it to life on earth again. It is understandable that there was some confusion. Christianity was building on the earlier Jewish traditions but clearly most were not Jews and never had been. Even in the New Testament there was already some argument over what Jewish traditions were to be kept and which were no longer relevant. This also came about during the reign of the Roman Empire under monarchs who had nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. Nor was the imperial monarchy solidly based on bloodline (though it certainly mattered). It was a hereditary succession more often than some think and that was almost always the preferred route but the emperors never technically reigned only because of their bloodline. An emperor did not rule in the name of God (they were not Christians until the latter stages of the empire) but in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome (SPQR). However, the Roman Empire eventually fell, in the west anyway, and new kingdoms rose up to take its place. As these kingdoms rose in power so to did an interest in the Divine Right of Kings.

In the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west, power devolved throughout western Europe to the barbarian or Romanized barbarian tribes who had their own chieftains who rose to kingly status as the status of their people rose. Tribes became nations that became established countries and so kingdoms. In Rome itself the power vacuum was filled by the Pope and ultimately it was the Pope who restored or created a new “Roman Empire” (depending on how one views it) with the coronation of Charlemagne. However, even there, the seeds for some division existed as work was done to show that Charlemagne was descended from King David and later on the genealogies which many royals used to show their descent from King David (and thus making them inheritors of the divine right) were based on their descent from Charlemagne. Ultimately though, there was less emphasis placed on the sacred bloodline amongst the German peoples because the German hereditary rulers based their legitimacy on titles gained from the (German) Holy Roman Emperor who owed his title to the Pope. Eventually, this would mean that the Catholic Church was less tolerant of the idea of the Divine Right of Kings as this attested that a king ruled because God willed it and he had only God to answer to whereas the Catholic position tended to be that the king ruled because the Pope granted him legitimacy and, if he ruled in such a way that displeased the Pope, that same Pontiff could revoke his legitimacy, excommunicate him, depose him or absolve his subjects of their allegiance to their king.

That being said, there were Catholics who believed in the Divine Right of Kings and Catholic bishops who defended and upheld it. These, however, tended to be outside of the Holy Roman Empire where, it would make less sense anyway as the imperial throne was electoral and not bound to a single family though it eventually became effectively so. Rather, the monarchy most associated with the Divine Right of Kings in the Catholic world was the Kingdom of France, most especially during the zenith of its power and prestige under King Louis XIV, often cited as the quintessential absolute monarch. It also came to be expounded in Great Britain under the Stuart monarchs, starting with King James I who was quite a champion of the Divine Right of Kings, at least in theory (he was a practical enough man to know not to carry things too far with Parliament). King James I championed the idea, as did King Charles I or at least many of his most ardent supporters did and so it was not surprising that his son King James II did as well. It is because of King James II and King Louis XIV in France that many Protestants, particularly in the English-speaking world, came to portray the Divine Right of Kings and even just plain and simple royal absolutism as being a Catholic thing when, of course, the matter was not as simple as that. The Pope, as most know, opposed the King of France and was so adamant about it that he sent extensive financial support to the Protestant Prince of Orange who, though fighting against France, also invaded Britain and overthrew the last Catholic British monarch.

Not everyone who supported King James in Britain or King Louis in France were ardent believers in the Divine Right of Kings but it should be noted that where the concept of the Divine Right of Kings is embraced, one will see a much greater emphasis placed on the royal bloodline which would be treated as something sacred. This was certainly the case in France and can also be seen as a strain running through the Jacobites of Great Britain. Some, of course, would not have admitted such a thing, but others certainly would have. Samuel Johnson summed it up by saying, “A Jacobite, sir, believes in the divine right of kings. He that believes in the divine right of kings believes in a Divinity. A Jacobite believes in the divine right of bishops. He that believes in the divine right of bishops believes in the divine authority of the Christian religion.” In fact, as the case of King James I would indicate (who was a Protestant), the Divine Right of Kings got something of a boost from Protestantism. The most obvious example of this in Britain is when King Henry VIII of England decided he was not answerable to the Pope and converted the Church IN England to the Church OF England, effectively saying that there was God and then the King with no Pope in the middle. Other Protestant monarchs would make similar cases and there were a number of Protestant absolute monarchs.

However, the Divine Right of Kings began to fall out of favor because of opposition from both sides of the religious divide. In Catholic countries there was always tension between the monarchs and the Pope. Monarchs resisted Papal foreign policy, Popes resisted interference in the Church from monarchs and so on. A strict reading of the Divine Right of Kings would not necessarily mean this would have to happen. If Popes and Kings both kept to their own sphere it might not have been a problem but neither seemed able to. Bourbon France and later Bourbon Spain were the last bastions of divine right monarchy in many ways and in those countries, Princes of the Blood had the highest status and being “of the blood” really meant something. However, they eventually were lost to the French Revolution in France and even in Spain the absolute monarchy eventually came to an end. Some legitimists in France still carry on some of the basic principles of the Divine Right of Kings but even then it is usually not outright as it would put them in an uncomfortable position with the Church and most are staunch Catholics. In Spain, the Carlists maintained it longer than most would have thought possible but, eventually, they fragmented and those claiming the title today have basically said bloodline no longer matters at all, only ideological adherence.

In the Protestant countries, the idea of the Divine Right of Kings started out quite strong but it tended to fade even faster than in Catholic countries where it had never been fully embraced to begin with. The problem with the Protestant countries was that things like monarchy and religion are based on tradition and in every Protestant country, the tradition had been Catholic. So, it proved very difficult to call into question the authority of the Pope without some quickly calling into question the authority of the King or the national church. Also, because the Catholic Church was entrenched in all these countries, suppressing it and all those who believed in it was no easy task. Monarchs had to have the support of powerful people to accomplish this and these powerful people wanted some say in how the King would do things. This meant that there was a rise in parliaments and elected assemblies which came to compete for power with the King and eventually would supplant God as the source of royal legitimacy. For example, although the British & Commonwealth monarch still reigns “by the grace of God” according to the motto on the coins, since 1688 it was made increasingly clear that the monarch reigns by the grace of Parliament. It is Parliament that decides policy, Parliament which regulates the succession to the throne and thus determines who shall and shall not be monarch. The matter was effectively taken out of the hands of God (in a manner of speaking) and left to elected assemblies.

That highlights one of the main misunderstandings about the Divine Right of Kings which is that it is simply another word for royal absolutism. This is not true as it was more about royal legitimacy than royal power. It meant that there was a sacred bloodline which God had chosen to rule and no one could usurp that rule. It also meant that the monarch answered to God alone and thus was absolute but, as the famous Bishop Jacques Bossuet (usually cited as a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings) wrote, absolute power is not the same as arbitrary power which is another mistake most people make. It is also true that, whether a good thing or not, the Divine Right of Kings never held sway over the whole of Christendom nor was the concept widely supported for very long. It was really never an issue at all in Eastern Europe and in the West it had intermittent support before finally being rejected by Catholics and Protestants alike. Still, it lingered for quite a long time and even in days when no one would have seriously upheld it, it is interesting to note that most royal houses liked to have a genealogical record on hand, showing their lineage back to King David. Even if their position and authority did not depend on it, this was reassuring to have. Unfortunately, the divine right also caused monarchists to become their own worst enemies in some cases as arguments over legitimate bloodlines were pursued so fiercely that some people began to believe, like the French, that a republic would be less divisive -a terrible perception all monarchists should strive to overcome.

American Mismanagement in South Vietnam

Even decades later, the United States remains haunted by the memory of Vietnam. Despite winning every battle, perception prevails that the U.S. “lost” the war in Vietnam. And this is not surprising, after all, given that the purpose was to prevent the conquest of South Vietnam by communist-ruled North Vietnam and, in the end, it was the communists who ended up ruling the entire country. Never has America fought a war so riddled with mismanagement, misunderstanding, deception and confusion both on the field of battle and on the home front. The American people were promised “peace with honor” but were delivered a South Vietnam torn to pieces and an American government dishonored by abandoning an ally to oppression and death. The American people were told that the war could not be won at a time when U.S. troops were everywhere successful. The South Vietnamese were told that America stood behind them only to see mobs of American students waving the flag of the communist terrorist groups, American celebrities hobnobbing with North Vietnamese officials and the American media denouncing them as a cowardly and untrustworthy people. American politicians set up leaders in South Vietnam and then tore them down only to later lament the instability in Saigon. They criticized France as a colonial power, for never giving South Vietnam “true” independence only to then orchestrate the downfall of South Vietnamese leaders who would not rule in the fashion the President of the United States saw fit. It was quite a mess.

Presidents Thieu and Nixon

Where did it all go wrong? The shortest answer would be another question. Where did it not go wrong? The politicians in Washington seemed to have an immense talent for making the exact wrong decision at almost every step. Thanks to the skill and courage of the U.S. armed forces and (when given the proper support) the South Vietnamese armed forces, on numerous occasions opportunities arose to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and yet, again and again, Washington made exactly the wrong decisions. Ironically, it was one of the most reviled of all American presidents, Richard Nixon, who came the closest to winning the war. Through his strategy of “Vietnamization” and the “Nixon Doctrine” he began to pull American combat troops out, leave the war up to the South Vietnamese but supporting them with advisors, material and the air support their government lacked. After gaining some battlefield experience and learning some hard lessons, this strategy worked. The South Vietnamese defeated the most massive communist invasions of their country and this, combined with American bombing in the north, forced the communists to the conference table. Unfortunately, when the malevolent Nixon was forced to resign, replaced by the spineless nonentity Gerald Ford, the Democrats in control of Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam and repudiated all promises made to that country, leaving them helpless in the face of a renewed communist offensive backed up by the Soviet Union.

That was the end but such mistakes and deception and lost opportunities had been present from the very beginning. In Vietnam we can see the pattern for similar disasters which befell countries all across Africa and Asia; colonial regimes brought down and replaced by communist tyrannies because of the United States splitting the anti-communist opposition over their own ideological hatred of “imperialism”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that a huge de facto American empire had been established ever since World War II. In virtually every case, this American opposition to colonialism (odd for a country that would never have ever existed without it) went hand in hand with a mindless opposition to monarchy, be it those of the local populations or the colonial power in such cases as that of Great Britain and The Netherlands. As it concerns Vietnam specifically, we can see the beginning during World War II under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt when he made no secret of the fact that, second to destroying the power of the Empire of Japan, his ultimate goal was to end the British-led Empire of India and French influence and control in Indochina.

Ho Chi Minh

From 1940 to 1951 all American foreign policy in regard to Vietnam was driven by removing France from the region. The United States, using the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, forerunner of the CIA), funded, armed, trained and gave material support to the guerillas under the control of a revolutionary later known as Ho Chi Minh. The American plan was to give these insurgents everything they needed to fight the Japanese who were in Vietnam and who, in 1945, supported Emperor Bao Dai in renouncing the treaties with France and declaring the independence of a reunited “Empire of Vietnam”. And, if, afterwards, these men fought the French who would naturally try to return after the war was over, FDR certainly would not be too upset about that. One might ask why, when Emperor Bao Dai had declared independence from France, the anti-colonial Roosevelt still considered him “untouchable”. The given answer is that this was done in partnership with Japan and anyone associated with Japan was considered ‘tainted’ in the eyes of FDR. However, the only real answer is that Bao Dai was a monarch and he was opposed for no other reason given that the United States was only too willing to support the republican Sukarno in Indonesia against the Dutch in spite of the fact that he had collaborated with Japan. No, FDR would have nothing to do with the Vietnamese Emperor and when Ho Chi Minh, only a short time later, issued his own declaration of independence, it was almost a word-for-word copy of the American version. When the communists then forced Emperor Bao Dai to abdicate it was with every indication that they had full American support thanks to the policies of FDR.

Vietnam was divided into two zones, north and south, with the north being occupied by China and the south by Great Britain. Ho Chi Minh allowed the French back in the north in order to get rid of the Chinese (the nationalist faction) while maintaining his own power base. In the south, the British prevented the communists from taking over, even offending American sensibilities by taking the very logical step of re-arming the surrendered Japanese to maintain order and prevent the communists seizing power before the French could reestablish themselves. During this time it was President Harry Truman (Democrat) in the White House and he had little time to bother about Vietnam as he had his hands full trying to prevent General Douglas MacArthur (Republican) from winning the war in Korea too completely so as to become a political rival. Harry Truman was all about containing communism but not defeating it, always fearful of Red Chinese or Soviet intervention. In fact, during most of this period the political elites in Washington displayed an inordinate fear of the Soviet Union. They seemed utterly oblivious to the fact that communism not only encourages incompetence but that, especially after the crisis of World War II had passed, Stalin seemed determined to seek out any talent in Russia and destroy it. The United States did not begin to take a real interest in Vietnam (or Indochina as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were still grouped together in the French Union) until the administration of President Eisenhower (Republican).

Dwight D. Eisenhower

It was President Eisenhower who first began to make the case to the American public that communist expansion in Indochina had to be stopped and if that meant supporting the French then so be it. However, Eisenhower was somewhat tainted by the anti-colonial attitude as well. The first opportunity to stop communism in Indochina had already been squandered by FDR (and Truman continuing his policies) by failing to support the Empire of Vietnam and actually supporting the communists outright. Eisenhower would be the one to let the next opportunity for real victory slip through his fingers. To his credit, Eisenhower did strongly support the French effort in Vietnam. Eventually, the United States was bankrolling the vast majority of the French war effort. However, Eisenhower was reluctant to get too involved for political reasons. He had swept to office on the promise of ending the war in Korea and it would not serve his public image to then turn around and commit American troops to Vietnam. He was also determined to (and did) drastically downsize the American military, putting all his faith in a huge nuclear arsenal to deter any enemy powers.

Eisenhower also had his political enemies at home to worry about, particularly the rising star of presidential aspirant Senator John F. Kennedy. While Eisenhower was urging more support for the French in stopping communism in Vietnam, Kennedy was condemning this as American support for colonialism and advocated a “third force” to combat the Reds in Vietnam. By this time the French had restored the former Emperor as “Chief of State” of Vietnam and his fortunes were tied to those of France. Eisenhower had not great admiration or even interest in Emperor Bao Dai but at that stage Vietnam was still the responsibility of France and he did favor aiding the French so Bao Dai benefited by proxy. Kennedy and the anti-colonialist crowd, however, had their eye on a former mandarin, staunch Catholic and noted nationalist named Ngo Dinh Diem. He was singled out early on as someone untainted by association with Japan or France and was soon being built-up by the Kennedy crowd as the indispensable man who could “save” Vietnam and make it America’s “showcase for democracy” in Southeast Asia. And, this period was extremely significant as it presented the last, best opportunity to defeat the communist Vietminh before they became an established, recognized power.

French Foreign Legion in Vietnam

Contrary to what many think, the French actually did extremely well in their war against communism in Vietnam. Unlike the United States would do later, France fought offensively and most battles occurred in the north, in the communist heartland, rather than in the south where order was maintained by various local groups united in loyalty or at least common cause with Emperor Bao Dai. When it came time for the epic battle of Dien Bien Phu it was a last-ditch effort, not only by the French but by the communists as well. Actually, it was not such a complete disaster for France as many think. France could have gone on after the loss at Dien Bien Phu and probably won, however, the crucial point was the French home front where war weariness and communist subversion had totally killed the will to carry on the struggle for the French empire. That was what made Dien Bien Phu the “last stand” for France in Indochina. However, it was for the communists as well as they had been extremely worn down by their conflict with France, much more so than most realize and even after winning at Dien Bien Phu, their army was all but wiped out by it and it would take four years to really rebuild it to any appreciable degree even with massive outside assistance.

Dien Bien Phu then, was a pivotal moment and in that pivotal moment, Eisenhower was the man who blinked. Part of the reason was his own early opposition to the idea of European powers maintaining colonial influence as well. He had completely undercut the British in the Suez Crisis based on the ignorant assumption that siding with the nationalist republican faction in Egypt would win them to the side of America rather than the Soviets. It did not of course and only made the British understandably unwilling to do the United States any favors. Eisenhower said he would commit the bombers France needed to totally wipe out the VietMinh army at Dien Bien Phu if he could obtain British support for the move but Great Britain refused to cooperate. This, combined with his own reluctance to get more involved and the crowd in Washington howling against any American aid going to help restore the French colonial empire caused President Eisenhower to pass up the opportunity to crush the communist presence in Indochina with a single blow. After the defeat at Dien Bien Phu, France began to pull out and basically told America that Vietnam was their problem now.

Emperor Bao Dai

This did not bode well for Emperor Bao Dai who had his strongest foreign backers among the French (which is not surprising given that he had been educated in France and spent most of his youth there). Although in name his regime was the “State of Vietnam” and he was “Chief of State” it effectively amounted to a constitutional monarchy though by this time with a mostly absentee monarch. Everything he had been through up to that point had made the Emperor a rather cautious and skeptical man. Now things were only set to get worse. Eisenhower was, at best, disinterested in how or by whom South Vietnam was governed but the Emperor was seen as being a creature of France and with the French on the way out there was a renewed drive to replace him with someone who would be the creature of the United States. With Emperor Bao Dai as “Chief of State” and his cousin Prince Buu Loc as Prime Minister, the regime did not seem sufficiently “American”. It was at this point that the name of Ngo Dinh Diem began to get more and more press attention and more attention in the halls of power in Washington DC. Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York, Justice William O. Douglas and Senators Mike Mansfield and John F. Kennedy were among the luminaries enlisted in the pro-Diem camp. This was the core of the “third force” idea of opposing both the French and the communists which reached such a pitch that even while the French and the non-communist Vietnamese of Emperor Bao Dai were in the midst of their climactic battle, Senator John F. Kennedy was saying, “Force them [the French] to give independence to Indochina and they will form a crusade for liberty”.

And as the Americans were replacing the French in Vietnam, and the Eisenhower years were drawing to a close, it was American pressure that persuaded Emperor Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as prime minister. Once in power, he immediately set to work consolidating his position, all along with American support, to crush the power of the autonomous military forces that existed in South Vietnam to unify the country and stamp out communism, though many of those he moved against were moved into the communist camp because Diem was determined to remove the autonomy they enjoyed under Bao Dai so long as they were loyal to him. American dollars also helped win him the support of some of these sects, momentary though it might have been. Finally, in 1955, U.S. Colonel Edward Lansdale helped engineer the referendum that removed the Emperor (residing at that time still in France) and made Diem the first President of the Republic of Vietnam. As Hilaire du Berrier wrote, “And it is part of the phenomena of American liberalism that any anti-western demagogue hard-pressed for a victory to hold up to his people has only to attack a king to enjoy American approval and recognition.” President Eisenhower sent in the first American advisors to the new republic and was the first to recognize the regime as a sovereign nation. When President Diem came to the United States for a formal visit, Eisenhower pledged American support to his government and urged his successor, John F. Kennedy, to do the same and make fighting communism in Southeast Asia a priority.

President Diem & U.S. Counselor Daniel Anderson

When Kennedy came into the White House, along with a gaggle of highly educated but woefully inexperienced young people, the United States sought to increase its role in Vietnam where it seemed that Diem had already, pretty much, finished the hard fighting. It was assumed that, after the embarrassment of the Bay of Pigs fiasco and other things, Vietnam would be a place where Kennedy could gain credit as a crusader against communism by taking the credit for a battle that seemed to have already been won. So, American “support” for South Vietnam became American “partnership” with South Vietnam, the first U.S. combat troops were sent in and American aid poured in as did the tributes to President Diem. However, as the U.S. presence increased, Diem pushed back just as hard, determined not to be an American puppet as the communists invariably portrayed him. Needless to say, as he did so, his image in the American media plummeted rapidly. The man who had been praised endlessly in the previous years was suddenly being portrayed as a tyrant.

In this, even for the first president of a new republic, anti-monarchist sentiment was common. Suddenly it was fashionable to point out that Diem was the son of a high-placed mandarin in the court of Emperor Khai Dinh, that his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, was married to a distant cousin of the last Emperor and that Diem was behaving more like a monarch than a president. In many ways, Diem was being attacked for the very same reasons that he was most feared by the communists; he was single-minded, ruthless and would stop at nothing to win. Especially after the Buddhist crisis, as the elite liberal media in America turned against Diem so too did President Kennedy. The expected easy victory for him was turning into a public relations embarrassment. Fuel was added to the fire by those in Vietnam who hoped to seize power. They contradicted the reports from military observers that the war was being won and portrayed the Diem regime as a ticking time bomb that Kennedy should drop as soon as possible. In one of the most dramatic foreign policy betrayals in American history, Kennedy decided to shed himself of Ngo Dinh Diem, the same man he had so long championed. Word was sent to the military elite in Saigon that Kennedy would stop all American aid to Vietnam unless Diem was removed. So, in 1963, a military coup removed Diem from power as per American wishes. Later, Diem, Nhu and any other family members they could get their hands on were killed. When Kennedy himself was later assassinated, someone asked Madame Nhu (widow of the murdered Ngo Dinh Nhu) if she had anything to say to Jackie Kennedy. Understandably bitter, her reply was, “Now she knows how it feels”.

Madame Nhu

However, unlike Jackie Kennedy who would remain an international celebrity and remarry to a fabulously wealthy Greek shipping tycoon, Madame Nhu would live out her years in obscure and very modest exile from her homeland. The last chance for a real victory in Vietnam was lost as, after the fall of Diem, political stability in South Vietnam became impossible. One general succeeded another in coup after coup in the following years while America assumed virtually sole responsibility for the entire war effort. America could have made the best of a bad situation with Diem, but that opportunity was tossed aside. America could have stuck with Emperor Bao Dai and his broad-based coalition but that was never even considered and America could have responded in force to help the French wipe out the communists but that opportunity was squandered as well. As the astute observer Hilaire du Berrier wrote later, “A one-hour, carrier-based air strike could have destroyed Ho Chi Minh’s decimated army in March 1954, saved the beleaguered garrison at Dien Bien Phu and changed the course of history. But there was a virus in the bloodstream of America that desired a Vietminh triumph. The story of Indochina is the story of the decline of the West.”

Royal News Roundup

Beginning in the British Isles, it was a crowded Christmas at home for the Royal Family with HM the Queen’s annual message highlighting how Britain has changed over the years and the many milestones the country passed in the last year. As 2014 got started the Prince of Wales met patients and caregivers at Cotswold Care Hospice. The Duke of Cambridge is all set to start a special course in agriculture at Cambridge University but, shamefully, he is not being welcomed with entirely open arms. One of the university’s newspapers has been encouraging people to follow the Prince around and is promising to reward those who snap embarrassing photos of the future King with a free t-shirt. It is all the fault of the Marxist egalitarian crowd so prevalent on modern campuses with outrage being focused on accusations that the Prince is only coming to the university because of his royal status rather than any academic qualifications. Odd how the supposed champions of equality came come off as being more snobbish than the royal heir who has spent time living on the streets with the homeless and scrubbing toilets in Latin America. Rather shameful. Once upon a time, any university would have been thrilled to have a royal student and people were once proud of their loyalty to their Royal Family. What a way to start the new year. Some legal experts, however, are pointing out that this is a dangerous maneuver and could result in harassment charges. One would hope so.

In Scandinavia, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark gave a New Year message in which she talked about families getting together, Danes remembering their past and with all of the diversity of the modern Danish Realm, holding firm to those things that unite everyone. She pointed to the aid Danes gave Jewish refugees some seventy years ago as something everyone can be proud and as an example of how Denmark should never be slow to help friends and neighbors. In neighboring Norway, King Harald V spoke of love as the foundation for society, promoted more interaction between the young and old and spoke in praise of the Norwegian constitution. “Love is a place to fix my eyes, the Constitution is a place to stand” the King said. In Sweden, a new documentary looking back at 2013 highlights the new generation of royals and featured King Carl XVI Gustaf telling his daughter Crown Princess Victoria not to over-exert herself but to remember to take time to rest and have fun in her future role as Queen of Sweden.

On the continent, in his New Year message, HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco called for caution in dealing with the increased competitiveness and the new globalization he called an “inescapable reality”. Of course he had to mention his favorite obsession (environmentalism) and also said, “Our Principality is a haven of happiness in an often tormented world. We must appreciate this happiness at its true value by continuing to display solidarity towards all those facing conflict, poverty or natural disasters elsewhere in the world”. Princess Charlene also spoke, wishing everyone a happy new year. Elsewhere this week, news has emerged that, back in the 1980’s HM King Juan Carlos of Spain told the British ambassador that he did not really want Gibraltar back for fear of the repercussions it was have for Spanish enclaves in North Africa. According to the ambassador, the King said of Spain, “If she recovered Gibraltar, King Hassan of Morocco would immediately activate his claim to Ceuta and Melilla”. Anglo-Spanish relations have, at times, become quite tense over the issue of Gibraltar and this revelation, while perhaps making Britons think more highly of the King of Spain is, I fear, also likely to be used by republican traitors in Spain itself to portray the King in a negative light when, of course, if this report is accurate, it merely shows the King being practical and dispassionate. And in Rome this week, in another move towards greater egalitarianism, Pope Francis abolished the title of monsignor in an effort to eradicate what he called “careerism” in the priesthood. The honorific title used to reward good service dates back to the reign of Pope Urban VIII. It was remarked upon on this occasion that in his previous role, Cardinal Bergoglio never recommended anyone for the title of monsignor and always preferred to be known as “Father” rather than “Your Grace”, “Your Excellency” or “Your Eminence” as he moved up the Church hierarchy.

Finally, on the Asian continent, Prince Khaled of Saudi Arabia announced this week a new reform of education in that kingdom, aimed at weeding out religious radicalism but did so while praising and pledging full cooperation for Haia, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (aka Mutaween). In another oil-rich monarchy, it was announced this week that American pop star Mariah Carey was paid one million pounds to sing three songs for the son of the Sultan of Brunei. Rather a steep performance fee but at least her taste in employers has improved from her past deals with the dictators of Angola and Libya. Also in Southeast Asia, one Raja Nor Jan, a rather notorious royal pretender, has somehow managed to obtain recognition from the International Court of Justice in The Hague for his claim to the Sultanate of Malacca (for whatever that is worth), the Malay empire that fell to the Portuguese in the Sixteenth Century. In the Kingdom of Thailand the revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great gave his new year message in which he urged his people to “think of the common good and Thai values in whatever you do”. The Prime Minister urged peace and calm but public demonstrations began again soon in the new year by anti-government (but pro-King and country) forces. And, in the Land of the Rising Sun, HM the Emperor gave a new year’s message that combined well wishes with practical advice. Along with remembering the victims of natural disasters and encouraging personal cooperation among all people, HM the Emperor also advised people to be careful in cleaning the snow from their roofs and of course assuring everyone of his continued prayers for the people and country.

Favorite Royal Images: A Picture of Grace

HSH Princess Grace of Monaco

Happy New Year!