Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Madalogue on the Nature of Monarchy
I was recently discussing American politics with a staunch conservative who places the blame for the current woes of the US on the failure of political leaders to abide by the Constitution. It is a position I am largely in agreement with, however, I could not resist the urge to question the fundamental nature of constitutional government as a whole and brought up the situation in the late Russian Empire where the idea of a constitution was considered unthinkable and was only implemented several years into the 20th Century. Needless to say it did not save the Russian Empire but ever since then there has been at least some argument as to whether the solution was a stronger constitution and those who thought any constitution was a bad thing.
Needless to say this person thought that any constitution would be better than none. However, I countered by pointing out that it is impossible to codify justice, humanity and good government and that, even in so successful a model as the United States (as this person first pointed out) constitutions either become an ignored formality or a bloated, oppressive bureaucracy at the hands of power-hungry politicians. I said it was with good reason that the Russian Tsars for so long forbid a constitution because they had seen the countries which implemented them and, from their point of view at least, none had done well. They wanted no politics, no political parties, no factions and ideological disputes dividing and hardening their people. The Tsar could rule with the human touch while any constitution inherently cannot.
The republican (a very conservative and Christian individual) then asked if that was the only option in Tsarist Russia; unfettered democracy or dictatorship. I responded that the Tsar would not have seen himself as a dictator anymore than the patriarch of large family would view his own authority as dictatorial. This good Christian then tried to get ahead of me saying that it would have to then depend on whether the Emperor served the best interests of his people or simply his own. I put a question in response, ‘Do all parents truly serve the best interests of their children?’ Although the vast majority do, naturally and without prompting, yet there are those parents who are cruel to their children. Still, any good society would never think of violating the ‘Divine Right of Parents’ to raise their children as they see fit. It was conceded that I might have a point there and so the discussion ended.
Now, I am not trying to advocate for absolutism here (nor am I attacking the idea), as has often been stated I would prefer even the most toothless of monarchies where they are for at least having the benefit of a head-start in rebuilding over revolutionary republics. However, I do think that one of the key components of monarchies and what makes even an absolute monarch far different from a dictator is that familial bond which unites a traditional monarch to his or her people in the way that no appointed dictator or strongman who claws his way to power ever could.
For truly, is not every parent an absolute monarch over their own children? Would they not rightly object to any effort by a government or a legal code to interfere with how they manage their household or raise their children? Parents naturally do their best for their children because they are their own and similarly, in a way no politician ever could, monarchs do what is best for their people because they are *their* people, bound to them by blood, history and sacred tradition. Some might still dismiss this as condescending paternalism but is a cold political machine that sees people merely as nameless numbers, units, poll results to be manipulated or interest groups to turn against each other for their own benefit preferable? I suggest not.
Needless to say this person thought that any constitution would be better than none. However, I countered by pointing out that it is impossible to codify justice, humanity and good government and that, even in so successful a model as the United States (as this person first pointed out) constitutions either become an ignored formality or a bloated, oppressive bureaucracy at the hands of power-hungry politicians. I said it was with good reason that the Russian Tsars for so long forbid a constitution because they had seen the countries which implemented them and, from their point of view at least, none had done well. They wanted no politics, no political parties, no factions and ideological disputes dividing and hardening their people. The Tsar could rule with the human touch while any constitution inherently cannot.
The republican (a very conservative and Christian individual) then asked if that was the only option in Tsarist Russia; unfettered democracy or dictatorship. I responded that the Tsar would not have seen himself as a dictator anymore than the patriarch of large family would view his own authority as dictatorial. This good Christian then tried to get ahead of me saying that it would have to then depend on whether the Emperor served the best interests of his people or simply his own. I put a question in response, ‘Do all parents truly serve the best interests of their children?’ Although the vast majority do, naturally and without prompting, yet there are those parents who are cruel to their children. Still, any good society would never think of violating the ‘Divine Right of Parents’ to raise their children as they see fit. It was conceded that I might have a point there and so the discussion ended.
Now, I am not trying to advocate for absolutism here (nor am I attacking the idea), as has often been stated I would prefer even the most toothless of monarchies where they are for at least having the benefit of a head-start in rebuilding over revolutionary republics. However, I do think that one of the key components of monarchies and what makes even an absolute monarch far different from a dictator is that familial bond which unites a traditional monarch to his or her people in the way that no appointed dictator or strongman who claws his way to power ever could.
For truly, is not every parent an absolute monarch over their own children? Would they not rightly object to any effort by a government or a legal code to interfere with how they manage their household or raise their children? Parents naturally do their best for their children because they are their own and similarly, in a way no politician ever could, monarchs do what is best for their people because they are *their* people, bound to them by blood, history and sacred tradition. Some might still dismiss this as condescending paternalism but is a cold political machine that sees people merely as nameless numbers, units, poll results to be manipulated or interest groups to turn against each other for their own benefit preferable? I suggest not.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Consort Profile: Empress Theodora
Empress Theodora, one of the most dynamic women of her time, remains to this day probably the most famous Byzantine empress in history. Like her husband, Justinian I, she is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church and is venerated every year on November 14. Her origins are a mystery, probably being born sometime in 500 with her birthplace listed by various sources as Crete, Cyprus or Syria. In any event she was of humble origins and originally was a dancer in the circus. When business became bad she was forced onto the streets in Egypt where, hungry and penniless, she was taken in by the monks of a nearby monastery who she received care, accommodations and became converted to what is known in the west as the monophysite heresy.
Eventually she met Justinian, a general in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, and became his mistress. Justinian loved her fiercely despite her background and raised her to patrician rank. He was drawn to her rustic simplicity, her pale, petite figure and her captivating eyes. He finally married her and showered her with affection and lavish gifts. In 527 Justinian became Augustus of the East Roman Empire and Theodora was crowned with him as Empress. While he was absorbed with his goal of regaining the entire Roman Empire she dealt with religious matters and was determined to promote a monophysite patriarch of Constantinople. Justinian was Orthodox of course but he gave Theodora considerable powers and neither was said to make a move without the consent of the other, ruling more as partners than sovereign and consort.
In relations with the Church in the west she helped orchestrate the elevation of Pope Vigilius on the understanding that he would favor her beliefs. However, once installed on the Petrine Throne he had a change of heart and refused to change anything. In a rage Empress Theodora had him arrested and brought to Constantinople, but he never gave in and eventually outlived the Empress. In the east her courage and decisiveness were instrumental. It is no exaggeration to say that by her leadership she saved the throne of her husband during the Nika riots which threatened to topple Emperor Justinian.
Together with her husband Empress Theodora oversaw the rebuilding of Constantinople into one of the most spectacular cities in history. She helped in the building of hospices, churches and refuges for the poor. She is also credited with influencing new laws to protect women, making rape and kidnapping capital offenses, no matter if the woman was noble or common born. Women could not be forced into the entertainment industry or prostitution and could not be put in prison for debts. Instead they were to be placed under the supervision of religious women to work off their debt. This was necessary because of the rape and abuse women often suffered in prison. She cracked down hard on prostitution, buying the freedom of many girls herself, meting out harsh punishment to their captors and setting up establishments to help them get back on their feet in legitimate ways.
Empress Theodora died of cancer on June 28, 548 and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Emperor Justinian was extremely distraught by her loss and continued to work for religious unity between the monophysite and Orthodox camps. Her religious policy could be seen as damaging but her willingness to work within the established framework has also been pointed to as something which kept the east and west from separating sooner. Nonetheless, what can be said of her is that she was a pioneer of sorts in the fair treatment of women and it is largely thanks to her that women in the Eastern Empire had more rights than those in any other part of the world at the time. She was a beloved and valued consort to one of the greatest monarchs of the Byzantine Empire and during whose reign Constantinople came about as close as she ever did to fully recovering the glories of the old, united, Roman Empire.
Eventually she met Justinian, a general in the army of the Eastern Roman Empire, and became his mistress. Justinian loved her fiercely despite her background and raised her to patrician rank. He was drawn to her rustic simplicity, her pale, petite figure and her captivating eyes. He finally married her and showered her with affection and lavish gifts. In 527 Justinian became Augustus of the East Roman Empire and Theodora was crowned with him as Empress. While he was absorbed with his goal of regaining the entire Roman Empire she dealt with religious matters and was determined to promote a monophysite patriarch of Constantinople. Justinian was Orthodox of course but he gave Theodora considerable powers and neither was said to make a move without the consent of the other, ruling more as partners than sovereign and consort.
In relations with the Church in the west she helped orchestrate the elevation of Pope Vigilius on the understanding that he would favor her beliefs. However, once installed on the Petrine Throne he had a change of heart and refused to change anything. In a rage Empress Theodora had him arrested and brought to Constantinople, but he never gave in and eventually outlived the Empress. In the east her courage and decisiveness were instrumental. It is no exaggeration to say that by her leadership she saved the throne of her husband during the Nika riots which threatened to topple Emperor Justinian.
Together with her husband Empress Theodora oversaw the rebuilding of Constantinople into one of the most spectacular cities in history. She helped in the building of hospices, churches and refuges for the poor. She is also credited with influencing new laws to protect women, making rape and kidnapping capital offenses, no matter if the woman was noble or common born. Women could not be forced into the entertainment industry or prostitution and could not be put in prison for debts. Instead they were to be placed under the supervision of religious women to work off their debt. This was necessary because of the rape and abuse women often suffered in prison. She cracked down hard on prostitution, buying the freedom of many girls herself, meting out harsh punishment to their captors and setting up establishments to help them get back on their feet in legitimate ways.
Empress Theodora died of cancer on June 28, 548 and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Emperor Justinian was extremely distraught by her loss and continued to work for religious unity between the monophysite and Orthodox camps. Her religious policy could be seen as damaging but her willingness to work within the established framework has also been pointed to as something which kept the east and west from separating sooner. Nonetheless, what can be said of her is that she was a pioneer of sorts in the fair treatment of women and it is largely thanks to her that women in the Eastern Empire had more rights than those in any other part of the world at the time. She was a beloved and valued consort to one of the greatest monarchs of the Byzantine Empire and during whose reign Constantinople came about as close as she ever did to fully recovering the glories of the old, united, Roman Empire.
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Death of a Queen
It was on this day in 1587 that Her Majesty Mary I, Queen of Scots, went to her eternal reward, being executed by her cousin and fellow monarch Queen Elizabeth I of England. I must confess the is something I have never been able to forgive the celebrated 'Good Queen Bess' for. It was not simply that the evidence against her have been pretty much universally accepted to have been forgeries, a classic case of entrapment, but more so because of the dangerous precedent it set. It is at least to the credit of Elizabeth that she agonized over the decision, most for that very reason; being a reigning queen herself she was not enthusastic about sending one her fellow monarchs to the chopping block.Of course, monarchs have long made war against each other, unfortunate but often unavoidable, but this was something different. Having a court sit in judgement on an anointed queen, a sovereign monarch, even in a different country, was quite an unheard of thing. Sadly, only one generation would pass before such a fate befell another monarch of the House of Stuart. For a monarchist like myself such a thing is unthinkably ghastly, that any monarch should be made to answer to any court of law, that any collection of jurists should judge the guilt or innocence of someone chosen by birth, anointed by God as the sovereign of the realm. Their persons should be regarded as sacred, inviolable and given the situation even at the time it still seems tragically useless to me. The Church may not have judged Queen Mary a martyr (at least they havn't yet) but she is still a martyr for monarchy just as much as her grandson Charles I or King Louis and Queen Antoinette in France.
May the Queen of Scots rest in peace forever in the light of God's Holy Face.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Anniversary of Jordanian Accession
On this day in 1999 Abdullah bin al-Hussein became King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. During his short reign he has proven a model monarch to the world and for the Middle East in particular. He presides over a strong monarchy but a humane one, a country where true progress is advanced but tradition is still respected. His stable leadership, his defense of Jordan from all varieties of radicalism have attracted foreign investment and made the economy improve a great deal in recent years despite Jordan having almost no oil and very little water. Since 1993 he has been married to his famous and lovely wife Queen Rania. They have four children. King Abdullah II is a 43rd-generation direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammad. The Mad Monarchist extends congratulations to His Majesty and may he reign for many more years to come.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Anniversary of the Queen's Accession
It was on this day in 1952, with the passing of the great King George VI that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom officially came to the throne of Great Britain and the other Commonwealth realms. May her reign continue for many, many more years to come. God Save the Queen!
Papal Profile: Pope Benedict XV
Giacomo della Chiesa was a small, frail man, known as "Tiny" while in the seminary, but as Pope Benedict XV he had the very big job of guiding the Church, fortified in doctrinal truth by Saint Pius X, through the horrific years of World War I. He had been a cardinal for only three months before his election as "Supreme Pontiff" but had considerable experience as a papal diplomat during the reign of Leo XIII.
The election of such a newly created cardinal was a clear indication, that particularly in the Europe of 1914, that the Church needed someone with the ability to negotiate with surrounding countries and deal with the problems facing the world in a very practical way. Benedict himself, being the little, compassionate man that he was, stood in total horror of the effects of modern, industrialized warfare.
Throughout the conflict, his entire energies were spent in the pursuit of an arranged, negotiated peace. To accomplish this, he adopted a strict policy of impartial neutrality. He refused to comment on any nation-specific charges of atrocities but spoke out at length on the cruelty and inhumanity of the war as a whole, urging all nations to cease and come together in reconciliation. He proposed that all conquered lands be returned to their former owners and that each nation pay for its own reconstruction. Neither side was pleased with his impartiality, calling him, alternately, the 'Boche Pope' and 'der Franzoesische Papst'. His calls for peace were ignored by all the major powers save Emperor Charles I of Austria and King Albert I of the Belgians (both devout Catholics) and their efforts were thwarted by their more powerful allies.
However, it must be remembered that, at this time, the Pope was still treated as a prisoner of the Vatican, and still claimed temporal authority over Rome and the Patrimony of St. Peter. This was significant in that, hoping to gain papal favor, Germany offered to restore Rome to the Pope after the eventual defeat of Italy. It also meant that his fellow Italians were anxious to prevent the Pope from having any voice in international politics.
Italy, rightly so, was afraid that if the Pope became the arbiter of European peace, he might seek redress for the illegal seizure of his own country in the preceeding century. Due to this, in one of the secret, under-handed agreements all too common at the time, Italy forced the other allied powers to agree, in 1915, that they would not deal or negotiate with the Pope at all. Thus, the war went on until 1918, and afterwards Benedict was even denied representation at the peace conference in Versailles.
Although greatly relieved that the war had ended, Benedict XV showed considerable foresight in his great displeasure with the peace terms. He viewed the Treaty of Versailles as an un-Christian act of vengance against Germany and could hardly have been pleased with the replacement of so many Catholic monarchs with anti-clerical, nationalistic, socialistic regimes.
Yet, the Pope was determined still to come to the aid of his beleagured flock. In fact, he all but emptied the Vatican treasury, giving some 82 million lire to aid the wounded, impoverished and homeless people left in the wake of the war. He also began trying to project a more open and friendly face of the Church and sent envoys across the continent to arrange concordats with the new governments to secure the future of the Church in Europe. In 1920 he even went so far as to officially allow other Catholic rulers to visit the King of Italy at the Quirinal (the former papal residence). He also allowed Catholics to participate in Italian politics once again, blessed the somewhat radical Catholic 'Partito Poplare', reconciled with France, which included the great canonization of St Joan of Arc in 1920 and encouraged the growth of trade unions to fight for workers. Sadly, not long after peace was finally secured in Europe, Pope Benedict XV died in 1922.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Obama's Man Bashes Pope
Yet another one. One Henry Knox, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, went on a tirade against His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching against the use of condoms (and all artificial birth control) which he blames for spreading AIDS in Africa. Harry Knox said, "The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus. …The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further."This never fails to outrage me, and I think it should outrage all Christians and most religious people in general. For one thing, it is incorrect on the face of it and Knox has refused to retract his statement even when presented with the facts that pushing condoms as the "full proof" means of preventing AIDS simply encourages risky behavior (i.e. fornication) and sooner or later someone will forget their condom, it will break, slip off etc, and people get AIDS. On the other hand, if they were to follow the Pope's advice and have "relations" only with their spouse there is *zero* chance of getting AIDS. Oddly enough Mr. Knox is also a homosexual activist -yeah, let me repeat that: the *homosexual activist* is blaming a German cleric who has taken a vow of chastity and preaches no sex outside of marriage for *spreading AIDS*.
These people utterly frustrate me. It is just such an asburd argument. Do they think all Africans are Catholics and contracted AIDS only because the Pope said condoms are immoral? Do they really think that the millions suffering from AIDS are all Catholics who are absolutely obedient to the Pope when he speaks against condoms but turn that absolute obedience off when he says there should be no sex outside of marriage? How could anyone be that ignorant and contradictory?! Obviously, they are not and this stuff shows up for what it really is which is simply another attack on a traditional authority figure, a Christian religious leader and an advocate for traditional morality. The President would do well to fire this slanderous degenerate but I will not hold my breath for that. Thankfully, the Pontiff is also not the sort of man to hold back the truth or change his position based on such verbal attacks and popular opinion -so long live the Pope!
Monarchist Profile: General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
One of the most remarkable figures to come out of the Great War was German Major General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. He came from a distinguished family in the minor nobility of Pomern, entered the army and saw service in China during the Boxer Rebellion. Prior to World War I he was posted to command the colonial forces in German East Africa (modern Tanzania). When war broke out some wanted to offer little to no resistance but von Lettow was having none of that. He determined to fight and to tie down as many Allied troops as possible so that these forces could not be employed on more vital fronts and throughout the war he did precisely that.
Securing his reputation as one of the most brilliant irregular warfare commanders in history von Lettow defeated, evaded and tied down hundreds of thousands of Allied troops. As impressive, if not more so, than his strategic genius was his ability to supply and sustain his tiny army entirely by living off the land, improvising their own homemade materials and capturing enemy supplies. The combined forces of the British Empire, the Belgian Congo and Portuguese East Africa all failed to corner and defeat von Lettow and his ragged force of African soldiers and German officers. He ended the war with a spotless record, the only German commander to successfully invade British territory, laying down his arms only after he was informed that the German Empire had collapsed.
It was, however, his actions after the war that prompt his inclusion here. General von Lettow was an officer of the old school and while still with the post-war German army he placed his forces at the disposal of the monarchist leaders of the Kapp Putsch. The failure of this effort ended his army career though he could still be prominently seen on military occasions wearing his wide-brimmed colonial hat. The Great War in East Africa was fought with great chivalry and mutual respect and von Lettow became good friends with many of his former enemies. Because of this, Adolf Hitler offered him the post of ambassador to the UK but von Lettow refused to serve the Nazi regime in any capacity.
Because of this Hitler had him placed under strict surveillance (one can also imagine that Hitler was not as enthused as some others about the old general’s war record considering that the bulk of his army were Black African soldiers). The Second World War left von Lettow destitute but his former enemies in Great Britain came to his rescue and donated enough money to pay him a pension in his final years. When West Germany recovered he was able to enjoy a comfortable living again and even visited East Africa one last time where he was warmly received by the veterans who had once served under his command. He died in 1964 a celebrated war hero, admired by friend and foe alike and a loyal servant of his king and Kaiser.
Securing his reputation as one of the most brilliant irregular warfare commanders in history von Lettow defeated, evaded and tied down hundreds of thousands of Allied troops. As impressive, if not more so, than his strategic genius was his ability to supply and sustain his tiny army entirely by living off the land, improvising their own homemade materials and capturing enemy supplies. The combined forces of the British Empire, the Belgian Congo and Portuguese East Africa all failed to corner and defeat von Lettow and his ragged force of African soldiers and German officers. He ended the war with a spotless record, the only German commander to successfully invade British territory, laying down his arms only after he was informed that the German Empire had collapsed.
It was, however, his actions after the war that prompt his inclusion here. General von Lettow was an officer of the old school and while still with the post-war German army he placed his forces at the disposal of the monarchist leaders of the Kapp Putsch. The failure of this effort ended his army career though he could still be prominently seen on military occasions wearing his wide-brimmed colonial hat. The Great War in East Africa was fought with great chivalry and mutual respect and von Lettow became good friends with many of his former enemies. Because of this, Adolf Hitler offered him the post of ambassador to the UK but von Lettow refused to serve the Nazi regime in any capacity.
Because of this Hitler had him placed under strict surveillance (one can also imagine that Hitler was not as enthused as some others about the old general’s war record considering that the bulk of his army were Black African soldiers). The Second World War left von Lettow destitute but his former enemies in Great Britain came to his rescue and donated enough money to pay him a pension in his final years. When West Germany recovered he was able to enjoy a comfortable living again and even visited East Africa one last time where he was warmly received by the veterans who had once served under his command. He died in 1964 a celebrated war hero, admired by friend and foe alike and a loyal servant of his king and Kaiser.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Royal Profile: Grand Duke Michael of Russia
Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich Romanov was born on November 22, 1878, the youngest son of Tsar Alexander III, younger brother of the ill-fated Tsar Nicholas II. For a time, after the death of Alexander III in 1894 he was second-in-line to the Russian throne. Displaced by the birth of the Tsarevich Alexei, given the condition of the poor boy, it was still somewhat expected that Grand Duke Michael would one day be the Tsar of all the Russia’s. Some controversy exists to this day as to whether or not he may actually have been the last Russian Tsar, if only for a short time.
The three sons of Alexander III have never been very well treated in the history books and Grand Duke Michael probably has suffered the worst; often dismissed as an empty-headed dupe. On the whole, this is quite unfair. The Grand Duke does seem to have been rather naïve, his father once saying that one could tell him anything, but he was also known to be extremely kind and good natured; a man of compassionate character. Being the youngest he was often doted on but despite this was not spoiled or haughty.
His sister-in-law Alexandra (who never missed many faults) found him delightful. He did not take things too seriously, was light-hearted, kind and much adored. His primary hobby was collecting automobiles, new fangled contraptions that were not too common in Russia. He loved collecting them and he loved driving them, racing around the country at speeds that would seem quite slow by modern standards but which were quite thrilling at the time. He turned a car over while traveling with his sister, Grand Duchess Olga (his most constant companion from childhood), but neither were hurt.
In matters of the heart, Grand Duke Michael was quite unlucky. His first potential bride, Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was dismissed by the Church for being too closely related. His second was disallowed for being a commoner and some rather harsh members had to be taken to keep them apart. The third, Natalia Wulfert, was also unacceptable for her common status but the Grand Duke had a child with her and, against the wishes of his brother, while on a visit to Vienna he married her in a local Serbian Orthodox Church. Nicholas II was outraged, stripped the Grand Duke of his military rank, froze all his assets, seized his property and exiled him from Russia. He and his wife lived afterward in Switzerland, France and Great Britain.
When war broke out in 1914 Grand Duke Michael went home to fight for Moth Russia and was promoted to the rank of major general and given command of the Caucasian Native Cavalry. He was a capable commander, very popular with his troops and was decorated with the St George Cross for his leadership. With the war perhaps putting things into perspective Nicholas II was prevailed upon to legally legitimize the Grand Duke’s son, though he was, like his mother, given only a lesser title. The Grand Duke was promoted to lieutenant general and served with distinction in the famous Brusilov offensive but he was unpopular with the chattering classes and suffered from stomach ulcers. His commander, the famous General Alexei Brusilov, said of him that he, “was an absolutely honorable and upright man, taking no sides and lending himself to no intrigues…he shunned every kind of gossip, whether connected with the Services or with family matters. As a soldier he was an excellent leader and an unassuming and conscientious worker”.
Michael was on leave with his stomach ailment when the revolution came but he rushed to the Winter Palace to support his brother. When the Tsar was finally forced to abdicate he did so on behalf of himself and his son and named Grand Duke Michael his heir. Before he knew what had happened soldiers announced the accession of Tsar Michael II. The Provisional Government quickly came calling and Michael recognized that they were in control and he was not (some arguing over whether the abdication of the Tsar was legitimate or legal) but he never abdicated his position. In due course he was arrested, released and arrested again. There was talk of him leaving the country with the Empress Dowager but Great Britain would not have them. Instead he prepared his family to go to Finland.
However, when the Bolsheviks seized power Michael was arrested again and on June 12, 1918 was shot in the back of the head by his communist captors; the first Romanov to be murdered by the Reds. However, the story of Grand Duke Michael did not end there as the local secret police concocted a story that the Grand Duke had escaped and disappeared. Especially after the mass murder of Nicholas II and his family many White Russians seized on this story as a source of hope and fought in the name of Grand Duke Michael or Tsar Michael II for several years after his death.
The three sons of Alexander III have never been very well treated in the history books and Grand Duke Michael probably has suffered the worst; often dismissed as an empty-headed dupe. On the whole, this is quite unfair. The Grand Duke does seem to have been rather naïve, his father once saying that one could tell him anything, but he was also known to be extremely kind and good natured; a man of compassionate character. Being the youngest he was often doted on but despite this was not spoiled or haughty.
His sister-in-law Alexandra (who never missed many faults) found him delightful. He did not take things too seriously, was light-hearted, kind and much adored. His primary hobby was collecting automobiles, new fangled contraptions that were not too common in Russia. He loved collecting them and he loved driving them, racing around the country at speeds that would seem quite slow by modern standards but which were quite thrilling at the time. He turned a car over while traveling with his sister, Grand Duchess Olga (his most constant companion from childhood), but neither were hurt.
In matters of the heart, Grand Duke Michael was quite unlucky. His first potential bride, Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was dismissed by the Church for being too closely related. His second was disallowed for being a commoner and some rather harsh members had to be taken to keep them apart. The third, Natalia Wulfert, was also unacceptable for her common status but the Grand Duke had a child with her and, against the wishes of his brother, while on a visit to Vienna he married her in a local Serbian Orthodox Church. Nicholas II was outraged, stripped the Grand Duke of his military rank, froze all his assets, seized his property and exiled him from Russia. He and his wife lived afterward in Switzerland, France and Great Britain.
When war broke out in 1914 Grand Duke Michael went home to fight for Moth Russia and was promoted to the rank of major general and given command of the Caucasian Native Cavalry. He was a capable commander, very popular with his troops and was decorated with the St George Cross for his leadership. With the war perhaps putting things into perspective Nicholas II was prevailed upon to legally legitimize the Grand Duke’s son, though he was, like his mother, given only a lesser title. The Grand Duke was promoted to lieutenant general and served with distinction in the famous Brusilov offensive but he was unpopular with the chattering classes and suffered from stomach ulcers. His commander, the famous General Alexei Brusilov, said of him that he, “was an absolutely honorable and upright man, taking no sides and lending himself to no intrigues…he shunned every kind of gossip, whether connected with the Services or with family matters. As a soldier he was an excellent leader and an unassuming and conscientious worker”.
Michael was on leave with his stomach ailment when the revolution came but he rushed to the Winter Palace to support his brother. When the Tsar was finally forced to abdicate he did so on behalf of himself and his son and named Grand Duke Michael his heir. Before he knew what had happened soldiers announced the accession of Tsar Michael II. The Provisional Government quickly came calling and Michael recognized that they were in control and he was not (some arguing over whether the abdication of the Tsar was legitimate or legal) but he never abdicated his position. In due course he was arrested, released and arrested again. There was talk of him leaving the country with the Empress Dowager but Great Britain would not have them. Instead he prepared his family to go to Finland.
However, when the Bolsheviks seized power Michael was arrested again and on June 12, 1918 was shot in the back of the head by his communist captors; the first Romanov to be murdered by the Reds. However, the story of Grand Duke Michael did not end there as the local secret police concocted a story that the Grand Duke had escaped and disappeared. Especially after the mass murder of Nicholas II and his family many White Russians seized on this story as a source of hope and fought in the name of Grand Duke Michael or Tsar Michael II for several years after his death.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Hapsburg Heir Loses His Consort
It is now being widely reported that Her Imperial Royal Highness Archduchess Regina von Hapsburg passed away this morning at the age of 85 at her home in Pöcking near Lake Starnberg in Bavaria, Germany at 8:40 AM. The Archduchess was the wife of His Imperial Royal Highness Archduke Otto von Hapsburg, rightful Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary etc. Their oldest son, Archduke Charles, said, "My mother was an example to all of us, with her we lose a great personality, who has formed us with her steadfast faith and her positive approach to life". Not many details are available yet but the archduchess has been having heart problems for quite a while.She was born Princess Regina Helene Elizabeth Margarete von Saxe-Meiningen on January 6, 1925 in Würzburg, Germany. She married Crown Prince Otto of Austria, eldest son of the Blessed Emperor Charles and Empress Zita of Austria-Hungary. HH Pope Pius XII blessed their marriage which was held at the Church of the Cordeliers in Nancy, France. They made their official residence at the Villa Austria in Pöcking, Bavaria. She gave her husband five daughters and two sons during a lifetime of service and devotion to her beloved husband and the House of Hapsburg. She will be sorely missed and The Mad Monarchist sends prayers and condolences to the Imperial Royal Family.
May the Archduchess rest in peace in the arms of the angels...
Mad Rant: The Pope in the U.K.
It was confirmed not long ago that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting England and Scotland sometime toward the end of this year, in part to mark the beatification of the venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. However, if anyone thought Britain had left the days behind of a papal visit being controversial they would be sadly mistaken. A small but very vocal group of critics have already started condemning the papal visit well in advance of the pontiff's actual arrival, the date for which has not even been set yet. The Pope has made no effort to avoid the controversy, stating again recently his opposition to the anti-Catholic laws currently on the books. If you listened only to (mostly irreligious liberal) MP's you might think these would be the laws barring Catholics from the royal succession. However, the Pope seems more bothered by the laws which require Catholic adoption agencies to hand children over to homosexual couples.So, gay activist groups and atheists who would oppose the pontiff simply for who his boss is, are planning the largest gatherings they can muster to protest the papal visit. Yes, these are the people most offended by the Pope coming to Britain. Even the Church of England has been nice and polite about the visit even though they have been rather upset as of late about the Pope throwing out the welcome mat for defecting Anglicans upset over gay "marriage", women priests and the renunciation of details like *the Bible*. Though, to be fair, the influx of conservative Anglicans going Roman has also upset liberal Catholics so the policy seems to be good for ecumanism all the way around. So, in a nutshell, these gay and atheist groups are upset with the Pope for (gasp) upholding Christian doctrine and refusing to change 2,000 years of tradition and teaching in his Church to conform with modern trends. Anyone else find this odd?
To hear these people go on about the adoption issue one would think that the Catholic Church in Britain had cornered the market on adoption agencies. Listening to them one would think that the Pope's strict adherence to Church teaching is putting a stop to all homosexuals from having a family. Of course, that is far from the truth. Gay couples can go to other adoption agencies (such as those run by the government) and given the Church position on homosexuality one would wonder why they would even want to give their "business" to any group associated with the Catholic Church. The truth, of course, is that these are but mere excuses by a group of people who oppose the Catholic Church and the Pope who leads it. I'm sure it must be frustrating for them; finally bumping into the one European sovereign who cannot be bullied or influenced, who remains the last legally and effectively absolute monarch in the western world.
They also have to deal with the little sticking point that the Pope has no means of actually enforcing his wishes, that the Catholic Church cannot even compel its own members to follow Church teaching much less compel anyone else to. They can, of course, through their pressure and numbers, pass laws to force the Catholic in Britain to fall in line, but they cannot force the Supreme Pontiff to change his position no matter what they do. They cannot silence him and they cannot intimidate him. After all, Benedict XVI formerly led the congregation once known as the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition -those types do not tend to scare easily. Fearful that the people of Britain might get wise to all of these facts they have also tried to appeal to their pocket book and have voiced outrage at how much money the papal visit is going to cost British taxpayers. This, however, is, if anything, even more absurd. If they oppose the Pope coming to Britain on purely fiscal grounds (or really any other for that matter) they should blame their own Prime Minister Gordon Brown for extending the invitation to His Holiness in the first place.
I must say I have been glad that the C of E, while not exactly enthusiastic, has been at least as polite and welcoming as it has been. I would like this visit to be a line in the sand on behalf of the entire Christian community in Great Britain, Catholic or Protestant, on the basis that as they do not force anyone to join their ranks or accept their beliefs it will not be tolerated for the homosexual and atheist agitators to force sincere Christians to abandon their sacred doctrines in order to please them. Alas, given the state of Christianity overall in Great Britain, I cannot be too hopeful about that. If nothing else they should at least remember that England used to be known as the land of good manners and treat the Pontiff with all the respect due to a visiting sovereign and religious leader. If not, as long as they continue to try to destroy the religious and culture roots of Europe and the Christian west I shall remain just as opposed to resisting them every step of the way. And, I shall remain ...... The Mad Monarchist.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monarch Profile: Emperor Montezuma II
Montezuma II, Emperor of the Aztecs, is one of those figures from history whom most know in passing. They know him as a failure, as an unpopular monarch and as the last Aztec emperor. In fact, all of these assumptions are incorrect, at least to some degree as can be assessed by separating fact from opinion. The popularly held image of Montezuma II is to a large degree tainted by the fact that he had the misfortune to rule during the time of the arrival of the Spanish, after which life in Central America would never be the same again. It has become, because of this, rather difficult to separate Montezuma from that defining historic event.
We do not know when exactly Montezuma was born but an often speculated year is sometime in 1466. His father was the Emperor Axaycatl though he did not immediately succeed him as the Aztecs did not have binding rules of direct hereditary succession. Rather he succeeded his uncle, Emperor Ahuitzotl in 1502 (10 Rabbit in the Aztec calendar). His name, Montezuma II (to differentiate him from an earlier ancestor of his who was also named Emperor Montezuma) has been translated as the ‘Eternal Almighty Lord of Majestic Anger’ or something along those lines. Far from being an ineffective failure as a monarch, an image based on the very end of his reign, we see that Montezuma II was actually a feared and respected ruler who took his duties very seriously and under his leadership the Aztec Empire reached its zenith of size and power.
It would be difficult for us today to imagine what life was like in the world of the Aztecs. They dominated the central valley of Mexico and artifacts indicate that they had intermittent (at least) trade with the Native American nations far into North America and South America alike. They were ingenious agricultural engineers, builders and astronomers. The capital city, Tenochtitlan, rivaled even the Eternal City of Rome in size and splendor. An observer would have seen Emperor Montezuma II treated almost as a god himself. Adorned with precious stones and rare feathers, surrounded by his many wives and 200 elite bodyguards, his person was sacred. Carried on a palanquin or having precious coverings laid in his path as he walked his feet never touched the ground.
Montezuma II was, by the standards of the quite brutal Aztec beliefs, a very religious man. He consulted his priests on all important matters, embellished the temples of the city and human sacrifice was constant. Today it has become fashionable to downplay this element but besides damaging the truth it insults the Aztecs as well for it was the heart and center of their religion and they considered it essential. Wars were fought as much to gain prisoners for sacrifice as to gain land or power. Prisoners were led up the steps of the Great Pyramid almost constantly as sacrifice was deemed necessary to even make the sun rise. During high religious festivals blood flowed down those steps in rivers. I will not go into all the details (and I could go into quite gruesome detail) but that much at least should be kept in mind when one hears the Spaniards who put a stop to it all being condemned too harshly.
It is not concretely known how many wives and concubines Montezuma II had, or even exactly how many children though the number is usually set at 19; 8 girls and 11 boys. As Emperor he gave more power to the nobility and tried to raise the status of the monarchy from forbidding commoners to set foot inside the royal enclosures even for the most menial employments. During his reign he launched wars against the Xoconosco in what is now the state of Chiapas and Tehuantepec, the Zapotec and the Yopi, conquering them all and bringing them into the Aztec Empire. Suffice it to say that by the time the Spaniards arrived Montezuma II was the most powerful man in all of Central America and feared and revered as such.
Hard facts are difficult to come by with Montezuma but one common story is that all of this success had an effect on him and he became rather paranoid and fatalistic. There were reportedly signs in the heavens that his soothsayers warned were ill omens and for which the priests advised more sacrifice.
In any event, the Aztec world was turned upside down in 1519 when Hernan Cortes and the Spanish landed on the coast and began marching inland. Rumors flew; were these men or gods. It would be similar for us today to imagine Martians landing on the earth. Spies tried to inform Montezuma of the strange things they witnessed. These men came on mountains that moved across the sea (ships), had bodies made of stone (armored helmets and breastplates) and ran about on gigantic deer with no antlers (horses). In fact, some of the first to view Spanish cavalry thought man and horse were a single beast. Montezuma sent emissaries to meet the Spanish but neither side new what to make of the other.
The Aztecs were a warrior people and their conquests meant many subject peoples were willing to ally with the Spaniards for the chance of freedom from the Aztec yoke. One of the most important of these was the Tlaxcala and their alliance with the Spaniards sparked unrest and rebellions as well as outright attacks. Montezuma II sent gifts to the Spaniards as a way to show them his wealth and thus his power but this was likely taken as a sign of weakness and only spurred the Spanish on to find more. When they reached Tenochtitlan Emperor Montezuma met with Cortes and gave him VIP accommodations, treating him as an honored guest for several months.
At some point the Spaniards launched a coup and put Montezuma under arrest. This was not immediately known, but when the horrified Spanish broke up a sacrificial ceremony the people rose up against the Spanish presence in the city and attacked the royal enclosure. What happened next remains a mystery. The Spanish say that Montezuma was trying to calm the rioting crowd when he was hit in the head and killed by his own people. Aztec sources say the Spanish killed him before being forced out of Tenochtitlan. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that on that unknown day in June of 1520 Emperor Montezuma II died.
Another common misconception is that Montezuma II was the last Aztec emperor, when in fact there were a number after him. His sons were all killed during the war with the Spanish, some claim because they wanted to surrender but this is speculative. The reasoning could have as easily been to prevent infighting during the crisis. Through his daughters the descendants of the Aztec Emperor live on to this day as part of the nobility of the Kingdom of Spain.
We do not know when exactly Montezuma was born but an often speculated year is sometime in 1466. His father was the Emperor Axaycatl though he did not immediately succeed him as the Aztecs did not have binding rules of direct hereditary succession. Rather he succeeded his uncle, Emperor Ahuitzotl in 1502 (10 Rabbit in the Aztec calendar). His name, Montezuma II (to differentiate him from an earlier ancestor of his who was also named Emperor Montezuma) has been translated as the ‘Eternal Almighty Lord of Majestic Anger’ or something along those lines. Far from being an ineffective failure as a monarch, an image based on the very end of his reign, we see that Montezuma II was actually a feared and respected ruler who took his duties very seriously and under his leadership the Aztec Empire reached its zenith of size and power.
It would be difficult for us today to imagine what life was like in the world of the Aztecs. They dominated the central valley of Mexico and artifacts indicate that they had intermittent (at least) trade with the Native American nations far into North America and South America alike. They were ingenious agricultural engineers, builders and astronomers. The capital city, Tenochtitlan, rivaled even the Eternal City of Rome in size and splendor. An observer would have seen Emperor Montezuma II treated almost as a god himself. Adorned with precious stones and rare feathers, surrounded by his many wives and 200 elite bodyguards, his person was sacred. Carried on a palanquin or having precious coverings laid in his path as he walked his feet never touched the ground.
Montezuma II was, by the standards of the quite brutal Aztec beliefs, a very religious man. He consulted his priests on all important matters, embellished the temples of the city and human sacrifice was constant. Today it has become fashionable to downplay this element but besides damaging the truth it insults the Aztecs as well for it was the heart and center of their religion and they considered it essential. Wars were fought as much to gain prisoners for sacrifice as to gain land or power. Prisoners were led up the steps of the Great Pyramid almost constantly as sacrifice was deemed necessary to even make the sun rise. During high religious festivals blood flowed down those steps in rivers. I will not go into all the details (and I could go into quite gruesome detail) but that much at least should be kept in mind when one hears the Spaniards who put a stop to it all being condemned too harshly.
It is not concretely known how many wives and concubines Montezuma II had, or even exactly how many children though the number is usually set at 19; 8 girls and 11 boys. As Emperor he gave more power to the nobility and tried to raise the status of the monarchy from forbidding commoners to set foot inside the royal enclosures even for the most menial employments. During his reign he launched wars against the Xoconosco in what is now the state of Chiapas and Tehuantepec, the Zapotec and the Yopi, conquering them all and bringing them into the Aztec Empire. Suffice it to say that by the time the Spaniards arrived Montezuma II was the most powerful man in all of Central America and feared and revered as such.
Hard facts are difficult to come by with Montezuma but one common story is that all of this success had an effect on him and he became rather paranoid and fatalistic. There were reportedly signs in the heavens that his soothsayers warned were ill omens and for which the priests advised more sacrifice.
In any event, the Aztec world was turned upside down in 1519 when Hernan Cortes and the Spanish landed on the coast and began marching inland. Rumors flew; were these men or gods. It would be similar for us today to imagine Martians landing on the earth. Spies tried to inform Montezuma of the strange things they witnessed. These men came on mountains that moved across the sea (ships), had bodies made of stone (armored helmets and breastplates) and ran about on gigantic deer with no antlers (horses). In fact, some of the first to view Spanish cavalry thought man and horse were a single beast. Montezuma sent emissaries to meet the Spanish but neither side new what to make of the other.
The Aztecs were a warrior people and their conquests meant many subject peoples were willing to ally with the Spaniards for the chance of freedom from the Aztec yoke. One of the most important of these was the Tlaxcala and their alliance with the Spaniards sparked unrest and rebellions as well as outright attacks. Montezuma II sent gifts to the Spaniards as a way to show them his wealth and thus his power but this was likely taken as a sign of weakness and only spurred the Spanish on to find more. When they reached Tenochtitlan Emperor Montezuma met with Cortes and gave him VIP accommodations, treating him as an honored guest for several months.
At some point the Spaniards launched a coup and put Montezuma under arrest. This was not immediately known, but when the horrified Spanish broke up a sacrificial ceremony the people rose up against the Spanish presence in the city and attacked the royal enclosure. What happened next remains a mystery. The Spanish say that Montezuma was trying to calm the rioting crowd when he was hit in the head and killed by his own people. Aztec sources say the Spanish killed him before being forced out of Tenochtitlan. Whatever the truth, the fact remains that on that unknown day in June of 1520 Emperor Montezuma II died.
Another common misconception is that Montezuma II was the last Aztec emperor, when in fact there were a number after him. His sons were all killed during the war with the Spanish, some claim because they wanted to surrender but this is speculative. The reasoning could have as easily been to prevent infighting during the crisis. Through his daughters the descendants of the Aztec Emperor live on to this day as part of the nobility of the Kingdom of Spain.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Day Texas Left the Union
On this day in 1861 the Texas legislature voted to secede from the Union, the seventh state to do so. This action was taken after delegates from across the state met in a secession convention and declared that, “Therefore, We the people of the State of Texas, in convention do declare and ordain…that the compact under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union…be and is hereby repealed and annulled…” The legislature then voted 166 to 7 to dissolve the Union (the second largest majority of any seceding state) and the issue was then put to the voters for approval or rejection. In the referendum that followed secession was approved by a massive majority of 46,129 to 14,697. The ordinance of secession was written to officially go into effect on March 2, the anniversary of the day in 1836 that the independence of the Republic of Texas was declared from Mexico. Governor and former President of Texas Sam Houston opposed secession and his office was later declared vacant when he refused to give allegiance to the new government.*The actions of the current administration has caused some of this history to be brought to mind again as the sitting Governor of Texas last year warned the federal government that their overreaching and socialist policies, if pursued further, could lead to secession. However, this was clearly worded as a warning rather than a promise or an avocation as he quickly added that we have a good union and it would be a shame to see it dissolved. However, in the most recent gubernatorial debates all of the three conservative candidates said they would at least consider invoking state sovereignty to nullify any law allowing a federal takeover of the healthcare system and two of the three professing that dissolution of the union between Texas and the other states could be a possibility albeit one that should be considered a last resort.
*A monarchist note: one of the most popular commanders of Texas troops in the ensuing war was a French prince (who will be covered in a future profile) and others went on to fight for Emperor Maximilian of Mexico after the war.
A Sad Anniversary for Portugal
As a blog reader reminded me, today is the anniversary of the regicide of His Most Faithful Majesty King Carlos I of Portugal in 1908. His reign was troubled by a number of issues, one of the first of which was a colonial settlement with Great Britain which was practical but unpopular. There was also a rapidly worsening economic crisis for which the King was often unjustly blamed, mostly by rabble-rousers trying to gain power by turning public opinion against the monarchy. The Royal Family was returning home to Lisbon when they came under attack from two republican terrorists. One, a former sharpshooter in the army, had a rifle hidden under his coat and opened fire. The King was killed instantly, the Crown Prince Luis Filipe was mortally wounded and Prince Manuel was slightly wounded as well. Europe was shocked by the news. It had been hoped that the days of royal murders had ended with the start of the 20th Century but it was not to be. The throne passed to the young King Manuel II but the Portuguese monarchy was not to survive much longer. When neighboring Spain also fell to republicanism monarchy was all but gone from Iberia. Like other murdered monarchs before him, and others after, King Carlos I suffered unjustly at the hands of traitors with talent as propagandists who succeeded in making at least a large portion of the public blame the King for all of the ills Portugal was suffering which was actually the result of many mistakes by the ministers of many governments over a considerable period of time. Perhaps, one day, the truth will take the place of lies and baseless accusations in judging the case of King Carlos I of Portugal.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Latest from Mother Russia
The office of the Romanov Imperial Family have stated, through an interview with a family spokesman, the requirements they have for returning to Russia, which are essentially granting a legal residence and the rehabilitation of the Romanov family name. Interestingly enough HIH the Grand Duchess is not pressing for the restoration of the Romanov family properties confiscated by the state. The statement indicated they may accept compensation for the extensive properities but would not take the actual properties back even if offered. This would include extensive tracts of land, numerous houses and palaces of historical and cultural importance. However, on the second score, HIH has filed a legal claim with the Russian authorities calling on them to rehabilitate in law the name of the Romanovs, particularly of course, HIM Tsar Nicholas II, saint and martyr. The Grand Duchess has stated that this is a matter of principle and of justice and she attaches the greatest importance to it. Also, yesterday Grand Duke George Mikhailovich arrived in Moscow for an official visit which include a number of activities but mostly centered around the enthronement of the Patriarch Kiril.
Happy Birthday Queen Beatrix
Today HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands celebrates her 72nd birthday. She was born HRH Princess Beatrix Wilhelmina Armgard of the Netherlands, Orange-Nassau and of Lippe-Biesterfeld at Soestdijk Palace in 1938 to then Crown Princess Juliana and Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld. Among her five godparents were Duke Adolf Friedrick of Mecklenburg and HM King Leopold III of the Belgians. She became Queen of the Netherlands in 1980 when her mother abdicated and since that time has provided steady, calm and courageous royal leadership to her country. She can truly be called courageous as she has had to deal with a number of volatile issues throughout her life from her marriage, problems involving Royal Family members and most recently an attack on her life and the lives of her family just last year. Ranked as one of the wealthiest royals in the world she would truly say that her real wealth is the loyalty and affection of her people which is widespread and heartfelt. The Mad Monarchist joins all loyal Nederlanders and all supporters of the House of Orange in wishing Her Majesty a happy birthday with many more to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
