Papal Profile: Pope Leo XII

Pope Leo XII had a relatively short reign (five years) and is often overlooked, coming between the more prominent pontiffs Pius VII and Gregory XVI (his successor Pius VIII reigning only a little over a year). He was born Annibale Sermattei della Genga near Spoleto on August 22, 1760. He came from an aristocratic background, was born and raised in the family castle and he studied in Rome at the Academy of Nobles after deciding on an ecclesiastical career. His rise in the Church hierarchy was rapid under Pius VII and he would always hold that pontiff in very high regard. He served as papal nuncio in Cologne, in Bavaria and in Paris before the conclave of 1823 to elect a successor to Pius VII. Cardinal della Genga was the favorite of neither of the primary factions. However, the candidate of the conservative faction was blocked by the threat of the Austrian veto by Prince Metternich as he opposed any outside intervention in Italian affairs. The candidate of the other faction was seen as being too much under the total control of Austria to be acceptable and so della Genga was decided upon as a compromise candidate. He was elected on September 28, 1823 at the age of 63, taking the name of Leo XII.

Pope Leo XII was seen at the time of his election as the man who would take the papacy in a more pastoral and less political direction. He saw his role as putting back what had been lost during the years of French rule and carrying on with the policies of his predecessor. As was fairly common, there were unkind rumors spread about him at the time of his election, and many of his actions to restore everything as it had been before the revolution led to some unpopularity. He had gates shut around the public houses and “adventurers” could drink wine there but had to stand out in the street and have it poured through the gates. He enlarged the ghettos and re-confined the Jews of Rome to them, which did some damage to the economy, and he stopped the vaccination of Roman children for smallpox which was quite unpopular (he viewed smallpox as the judgment of God and vaccinations as an affront to Heaven). Surveillance was greatly increased throughout the Papal States and the long arm of papal law was swift and heavy. Many people who were members of or affiliated with the Carbonari were sent to the guillotine and a man found guilty of murdering a priest was executed with an axe -the last such execution in the Papal States, the guillotine being used exclusively until the end of temporal papal power under Pius IX. Fines were also common for secular or moral minor crimes and the eyes of Leo XII seemed to be everywhere.

Because of all of this, and the fact that Leo XII was rarely seen, being in poor health from the time of his election, caused the Pope to become quite unpopular amongst his own subjects. However, his action in religious matters were perfectly admirable. He encouraged the strengthening of the Society of Jesus and restored their educational system to them and he reiterated the condemnations of his predecessor against Freemasonry, tolerance and the idea that religious differences should be considered of little importance. He declared 1825 a Holy Year which shut down many businesses in Rome but attracted a large number of pilgrims. There were though some problems when it came to dealing with members of the Carbonari or other revolutionary organizations who came as pilgrims to Rome. When it came to religious affairs, there is no doubt that Leo XII took a very conservative and traditional stance. In terms of his own domestic rule he was downright reactionary but, it is important to note, this did not extent to his foreign policy. In this area he depended a great deal on the talents of Cardinal Consalvi whose opinions on religious matters he consistently ignored. Yet, when it came to dealing with other powers Pope Leo XII had a very practical and realistic approach.

He maintained friendly relations with Protestant as well as Catholic countries but was also very supportive of any effort to end anti-Catholic discrimination in Protestant lands such as Great Britain where he strongly backed the Catholic emancipation movement. However, his time seemed to pass quickly and his health had always been frail. He had received the last rites for the first time on the day of his coronation when it seemed that the long and arduous ceremonies had been too much for him. His end finally came on February 10, 1829 and, truthfully, he was not very greatly mourned by most of his Roman subjects. However, Pope Leo XII had always tried to do the right thing. Putting things back to the way they used to be was seen as an absolute good, even if that meant doing away with things most people generally considered beneficial. He was accused of being tyrannical but often this was only because he refused to tolerate what he regarded as evil, specifically those who spread political views that would ultimately undermine the foundations of the Papal States. Had his health been better he may have been able to accomplish more of his noble goal to see a religious revival across Europe, the abandonment of materialistic doctrines and a return to faith and obedience to God.

Royal Profile: Louise of Savoy

Princess Louise of Savoy was one of the most formidable royal women in France who never held the position of Queen-consort. She was born on September 11, 1476 at Pont-d’Ain to Duke Philip II of Savoy and Princess Margaret of Bourbon. From early in life she learned how cruel the world could be and that she would have to be made of tough stuff to make her way in it. At the tender age of seven she lost her mother and was sent to Anne de Beaujeau to be raised. Anne, at that time, was ruling France as regent for her brother King Charles VIII. For Princess Louise, her life was mapped out for her almost as soon as she could be aware of it. Only a few years later, at the age of eleven, she was married to Charles of Orleans, Count of Angouleme on February 16, 1488. This was not uncommon at the time and the two did not live together as man and wife until Louise was fifteen years old. Although he was not a faithful husband, Charles and Louise had a mostly happy marriage, both had a love of learning and deep-seated attachment to each other even if “true love” was not to be found. In 1492 Louise gave birth to their first child, Marguerite d’Angouleme and in 1494 to a son, the future King of France, Francois d’Angouleme. Charles also had two illegitimate daughters; Jeanne and Madeleine, who were raised alongside his own children by Princess Louise.

Despite his infidelities, Princess Louise was truly distraught when Charles fell ill and died in 1495, having caught a chill while out riding. She had faithfully nursed him in his final days and when he died Louise was left a widow at only nineteen years old. For others, this might have been the end of the story, but Princess Louise had a much sharper mind than most supposed and she was determined to do the best she could for her children. After King Louis XII came to the throne, she took her children and relocated to the court and made sure that her children received the very best education, benefiting from the latest flowering of the Italian Renaissance. She was herself very interested in the latest discoveries and took care to keep herself well informed about politics, the diplomatic situation and all the events at court. She was aided in this by her confessor, an Italian Franciscan named Christopher Numar of Forli, who would go on to great fame himself in the Catholic Church, being raised to the Sacred College (against his protests) by Pope Leo X. As her son grew to adulthood, Louise made sure that he remained close to the King. Francis became such a favorite of the King that he arranged the marriage of the boy to his daughter Claude in 1514. It all worked out as had been hoped and King Louis XII chose Francis to be his heir with his wife and Princess Louise as regents.

The following year King Louis XII died and King Francis I came to the throne but, for the moment, it was Princess Louise, mother of the king, who held the most power. Eventually she was given the titles of Duchess of Angouleme and later Duchess of Anjou but one of her first legal battles was over the inheritance of the Duchy of Bourbon which she claimed as did Duke Charles III of Bourbon. In an effort to settle the dispute she offered to marry the Duke who disparagingly refused her. The old saying that, “Hell hath no fury…” was never more true as Louise of Savoy turned her wrath against the Duke, using every bit of influence she had to destroy him and she effectively did. He was exiled, punished for rebellion against the King, lost his lands and titles and was never able to recover them while Louise of Savoy gained all she had claimed. The Duchess of Anjou displayed a great talent in political affairs, an astute understanding of the diplomatic situation and in general a great talent in all areas save the person of her son, King Francis, concerning whom she had a noticeable ‘blind spot’ which should not be considered surprising. She ruled as regent while he son was off leading his armies and it was Louise of Savoy who arranged the magnificent display for the visiting King of England at the “Field of the Cloth of Gold”. It was also Louise of Savoy who managed to scrape up the money for her son to stand for election for Holy Roman Emperor, even though (wisely as it turned out) she thought the effort was a waste.

As, effectively, the most powerful woman in France, Princess Louise tried to secure strong allies for the kingdom. Her attempt to make peace with England in 1524 was not immediately successful but she had more success in reaching out to the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. She asked for Turkish assistance in freeing her son (King Francis had been defeated by the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V and was being held prisoner in Spain) and for the Turks to launch an attack on the Hapsburg empire in the east to take pressure off of France. In 1529 she succeeded in making peace between France and the Holy Roman Empire as the primary French negotiator of the Treaty of Cambrai (aka the Ladies’ Peace) opposite her sister-in-law Margaret of Austria acting for the Empire. Not long after, the formidable mother of the King died on September 22, 1531. Still sharp and active to the very end she had been studying a comet when she caught cold and eventually passed away. Her valuable properties were left to the French Crown, which would be valuable future assets. Louise of Savoy may not be one of the best known royal figures in French history but she was one of the most astute and formidable women ever to hold a leading position in the Kingdom of France.

Monarch Profile: King Pedro V of Portugal

Pedro V of Portugal, also called ‘Pedro the Hopeful’ and ‘Pedro the Beloved’ was born in Lisbon on September 16, 1837 to the admirable Queen Maria II and King-consort Fernando II, he was their first child, the first of many. Queen Maria II took great care that he be prepared for his future position and brought up properly. The Royal Prince and Duke of Braganza was given the best education possible and from an early age he displayed a great curiosity, intelligence, kindness and a willingness to study hard and learn as much as possible. He was a serious little boy but also enjoyed artistic pursuits such as painting and music. The Prince read Greek and Roman philosophy, could speak Latin fluently and had a great interest in natural history. The Crown was to come to him swiftly. Doctors had warned Queen Maria II against having child after child is quick succession but she refused to desist, saying that if necessary she would “die at her post”. She did pass away from childbirth complications in 1853 making the 16-year-old Royal Prince the new King Pedro V of Portugal. The loss of his mother was a terrible blow but he had a large support network of siblings, all of whom loved each other and they displayed none of the inter-familial bickering that had scarred Portugal in the past.

For the first two years of his reign King Pedro V was acted for by his father as regent but from the start be began to study statecraft intensely as well as diplomacy and all the necessary subjects for an active sovereign. His first overseas visit was to Great Britain (the oldest Portuguese allies) where he met with Queen Victoria and became especially good friends with the Princess Royal Victoria, the future German Empress. Afterwards he and his party toured Europe, visiting Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Austria, Prussia and other German states. Later he also visited Switzerland and Italy. When he became old enough to take up the direction of the Portuguese state himself, he was warmly welcomed by his people but also faced a nation in considerable trouble. A cholera epidemic had broken out in Lisbon and surrounding areas, costing thousands of lives, but the brave young monarch refused to relocate and preferred to stay and comfort his afflicted people even at the risk of his own life. There had also been crop failures which necessitated the importing of food which caused problems for the economy and government finances.

Through it all, Pedro V took his duties very seriously. He was as conscientious a monarch as one could hope to find. He never took precipitate action but would study all proposals very carefully, weighing the possible benefits and possible detriments, before he would give something his endorsement. He cared deeply for his people and wished no harm to come to them through some hasty action, even if well intentioned. To improve the quality of life of his people, King Pedro V embarked on a program of infrastructure modernization as well as promoting literacy and education. His reign saw a dramatic upsurge in the construction of roads, bridges, railroads and telegraph lines linking the major population centers. He also built new schools, often funded at his own expense, ordered Portuguese translation of the latest books on scientific discoveries and was fond of handing out books to children as royal gifts. He traveled extensively throughout the country to see firsthand what actions were required, where improvements were needed and what the lives of all of his people were like. He preferred to see for himself rather than listen to the reports of others. The King also wrote articles, under an assumed name, on military issues and current events for several popular periodicals.

Matters of the heart were also not neglected. In 1858 he married Princess Stephanie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, first by proxy in Berlin and then in person in Lisbon on May 18. The British had helped to introduce the young couple and they seemed very happy and devoted to each other with all the necessities for a very long and happy marriage. However, unfortunately, tragedy came very quickly and the following year Queen Stephanie died of diphtheria. Queen Stephanie had won over everyone immediately with her warmth and generosity and the King and Portugal as a whole were greatly saddened by her sudden and tragic death. This probably also helped motivate King Pedro V toward the efforts he made throughout his reign to improve public health throughout his reign. The healthcare system improved very much during his reign thanks both to policy and the spread of hospitals and education on sanitation and fighting the spread of diseases. A special hospital for children suffering from mental illness was founded by the King in memory of and named after his late beloved wife.

All of this added to the great affection the Portuguese people had for Pedro V, who took such a great personal interest in their welfare and in being accessible to all his people. He disliked ceremony and was more inclined toward the practical. For example, he abolished the custom of hand-kissing, which he thought gave the impression that the King was a god as well as kneeling in the royal presence, again, something he thought suitable only for Church and the presence of God. Pedro V also had a suggestion box installed at the palace where his subjects could write to him directly about their problems and he took great care in reading and responding to these messages. Also in a very innovative step, the King abolished the death penalty in Portugal which he viewed as cruel and wasteful. Only God gave life and only God could take it in his view and he desired that the handling of prisoners should focus not on punishment but on rehabilitation and returning criminals to a proper sense of right and wrong as productive members of society. The King also continued, throughout his reign, to support a greater understanding of literature and scientific innovations amongst his people and would himself often go to the institutions he set up to listen to the lectures being given.

King Pedro V, who introduced the telegraph and railroad to Portugal, also wished for better communications between Portugal and the wider world. He saw to it that the shipping schedule between Portugal and the Portuguese colonies in Africa were increased and in 1860 agreed to the Peace, Amity and Trade Treaty between Portugal and the Empire of Japan which was signed by his representatives in Tokyo. The first article stated that, “There will be eternal peace and friendship between His Most Faithful Majesty, the King of Portugal, his heirs and successors and His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan, as well as amongst their domains and subjects”. The treaty has remained in effect since that time, the only problem arising over the Japanese occupation of East Timor island but this was done after Dutch and Australian forces had occupied it first and the Japanese later handed the colony back over to Portugal. Pedro V also signed a contract in 1855 to link Portugal and the United States via underwater cable and the year before he emancipated all the slaves belonging to the Portuguese government.

Few monarchs have been so widely loved as King Pedro V and few suffered as many misfortunes. In 1861, possibly after drinking tainted water from a pond while on a hunting trip, the young monarch fell ill with cholera. His brother, Prince Fernando, came down with it as well and the King remained at his side as long as possible. Many other members of the Royal Family were also stricken with the disease. Sadly, after a reign spent trying to eradicate the sorrow caused by such diseases, King Pedro V passed away on November 11, 1861 at the age of only 24. From Britain to America world leaders expressed their sadness at his loss and the Portuguese were so distraught and bewildered by his sudden end that some convinced themselves he must have been the victim of a conspiracy and rebelled. It was, however, simply a tragedy, the life of a promising young king cut all too short. In the time he had been given, he accomplished a great deal and we can confidently assume that, had he been given more time, his achievements could have been greater still for he had all the requisite qualities of a great monarch. He was intelligent, careful, compassionate, devoted to his people, faithful to God and his homeland and thoroughly committed to the ideal of royal service, to improve the lives of his subjects and the standing of his beloved country. Pedro V was a great king who left the world all too soon.

Favorite Royal Images: Romanian Princess

HRH Princess Ileana of Romania

The Fall of Tenochtitlan

It was on this day in 1521 that the Spanish forces of Hernan Cortes occupied Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire in one of the great, historical turning points in the history of the Americas. This marked the beginning of the end of the city-state of Tenochtitlan and the Aztec domination of central Mexico. Given the fact that history is set in stone and cannot be changed, it can be somewhat amusing to see how the perception of this pivotal historical event has changed so dramatically over the centuries. Once upon a time it was viewed as a glorious triumph, the triumph of Hispanic civilization over native barbarism and the (eventual) conversion to Christianity of a backward, heathen people. Today the more common perception is one of cruel and greedy Europeans slaughtering and exploiting helpless native innocents, destroying their glorious culture and replacing it with one of rigid rules and hierarchy. As is usual with such dramatic swings in perception and opinion, both of these extremes are right to an extent and both are wrong to an extent. Relatively few today may disagree with the common view, but at least some disagreement remains and it can be a controversial subject. In the same way, the image of the two great men involved, the conquistador Hernan Cortes on the one side and Emperor Montezuma II on the other, also remain hotly debated.

The conquest of Tenochtitlan was, on a basic level, a glorious event in that it was a great victory for a very small Spanish force against a far mightier foe. It was a triumph for Hispanic civilization in that what had been the Aztec Empire became, eventually, the Viceroyalty of New Spain with Tenochtitlan, renamed Mexico City, as the capital. Likewise, it was a triumph for the Roman Catholic Church over the native Aztec religion with, ultimately, the Catholic Church gaining about as many new members as had been lost to the Protestant movement. What is untrue is that the Aztecs were a backward or ignorant people. At the time, Tenochtitlan was larger than any city in Europe, the inhabitants were sustained by a truly brilliant system of agriculture and we know from archaeological discoveries that the Aztecs had trade ties with other Native American civilizations as far away as the middle of North America and South America. It is true that the Aztecs lagged behind western countries in many areas but in many cases this was due not to any lack of creativity or understanding but in a lack of understanding how to utilize things. They built magnificent temples and palaces and huge pyramids but never utilized the wheel even though we know they understood the concept from things like toys for children which had wheels in place of legs. They kept records and were highly artistic, traded with other nations and had a bustling economy and yet they never produced a written language, they simply used more complicated methods (like hieroglyphics) to reach the same end.

The Aztecs then were neither backward primitives nor were they helpless. In fact, they were a warrior people who often depended on other conquered peoples for innovation while themselves further mastering the art of war. Compared to the Spanish their weapons were primitive yet they were extremely effective for all of that. Despite lacking steel blades, they had clubs studded with sharpened rocks that could disembowel a horse with a single blow. Their weapons were extremely deadly and extremely effective and, in fact, not terribly different as to their basic level of technology from what the Spanish used in vanquishing them. Firearms were very few in the Spanish army that landed with Cortes and they did most of their fighting with swords, lances and crossbows rather than the canon or the harquebus which would have been of significantly less value anyway given humid, jungle conditions they were operating in and the fact that they were so slow to fire the enemy would have been upon them before they could fire more than one or two shots. In any event, even if the Spanish had been armed with “futuristic” flintlock muskets the Aztecs should have been able to overwhelm them easily by sheer weight of numbers.

There were two basic reasons for the defeat of the Aztecs, one of which involves their culture and religion but the secondary one was not their weaponry but their tactics and strategy which were not as sophisticated as those of the Spanish. There was also the often-overlooked fact that the Spanish had large numbers of native allies who, despite being just as bewildered as anyone at the sudden appearance of these strange foreigners, quickly and enthusiastically allied with them to throw off the yoke of Aztec rule. This is where we are drawn into the overall Aztec religion and culture. Although most today would prefer not to emphasize this point, the religion of the Aztecs was based around regular human sacrifices. Because of this, when engaged in warfare against their neighbors, the Aztecs did not focus on killing their enemies as much as they did on capturing as many as possible as these captives were then offered as human sacrifices. Their military tactics were based on this and thus they were at a considerable disadvantage when confronted by the Spanish whose tactics were based around destroying the enemy rather than capturing them. The Aztec practice of enslaving subject peoples and offering captives as human sacrifices also meant that they were not the most popular people in the neighborhood and their subject peoples were eager to join with anyone, no matter how strange they might be, in overthrowing them.

There was, of course, much that was great and glorious about the Aztecs and their culture. The dispassionate observer could also point out that the Spanish could commit acts of cruelty on their own as any people are bound to but even the most irreligious and dispassionate observer would have to admit, I think, that the Aztec religion was horrific. Naturally, the Aztecs did not think this was so, this was simply their religion, however, those who wish to downplay this aspect of Aztec culture (usually in an effort to vilify the Spanish) do a disservice, not only to the truth, but to the Aztecs themselves by belittling what was, to them, the heart of the spiritual beliefs. It should be remembered that it was the Aztecs themselves who left behind the accounts which emphasized this and according to the Aztecs themselves, on certain special occasions, they might sacrifice tens of thousands of people every day on their numerous pyramids. Two wrongs, of course, do not make a right but this fact should not be forgotten or the horror of it shrugged off in an effort to portray the Aztecs as the innocent victims of Spanish cruelty. Again, they had many admirable qualities and accomplishments, but they were far from being as pure as the wind driven snow. The Spanish were horrified by this and even tried to convince Emperor Montezuma II of the barbarity of it, saying that such practices were unworthy of so great a man as he.

Of course, by the time Tenochtitlan fell, Montezuma II had long departed this world. That is another common misconception; that Montezuma II was the last Aztec Emperor. He was not, in fact he was not even the next to the last or the next to the next of the last. But that brings us to one of the last and most ridiculous claims about this historical episode which is the “hierarchical” Spanish imposing their own system on an otherwise simple and egalitarian native society. This is clearly ridiculous but it plays upon some popular stereotypes. The Spanish were Catholics after all and the Catholic Church is “very hierarchical” (a bizarre phrase if ever there was one) and many people do have the perception of all Native American peoples being nature-worshipping egalitarians. Honestly, some Native American groups were fairly egalitarian but these tended to be the least advanced and a civilization as large and powerful as the Aztecs could certainly never have been built without someone being in charge and making use of a strict chain of command.

In fact, if anything, the Aztecs might have been “more hierarchical” than the Spanish. The Aztec Emperor was treated with extreme reverence, as a semi-divine figure, the earthly representative of the gods and had the most exalted position. He had the best of everything, including women (Montezuma II reportedly had around 1,000 wives and concubines all to himself) and slaves carried him on a litter everywhere he went or spread fine mats in his path as he walked as his person was considered too sacred for his feet to even touch the ground. This was obviously a far different position from the politics of the monarchies of western Europe in the High Middle Ages in which dealings between monarchs, nobles and common people had more of a contractual style about them. And, aside from the Aztec Emperor there was also an aristocracy and a priestly class who held special privileges. There is nothing, of course, wrong with any of that, but it is, again, another aspect of the Aztec civilization that many today seem to prefer to leave out.

So, we should try to keep a more honest and realistic view of such a significant historical event. Certainly neither side was perfect, there was a great deal of destruction, plundering and viciousness that accompanied the fall of Tenochtitlan, however the changes also brought an end to the barbaric practice of human sacrifice and at least some relief for those subject peoples who had been enslaved by the Aztecs. The fall of Tenochtitlan was a turning point in the history of the Americas but it was also by no means “the end” of the Aztecs. In fact, for several decades there continued to be an Aztec Emperor, the last one passing away in 1565. However, it was the end of a chapter and the beginning of a new one in the history of Mexico.

MM Video: Tang Dynasty

MM Video: Children of Monaco

Politicians Are a Good Argument for Monarchy

Recently I tried to highlight the absurdity of elected politicians as the best possible argument for monarchy and was rather surprised at the number of people who claimed not to understand the point I was making. I was asked again and again what a bunch of ridiculous politicians had to do with the argument of republicanism versus monarchy. I also, apparently, confused some poor souls by including the likes of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown amongst the examples as these men were both from a monarchial system. Well, allow me to try to explain the point. My starting point for this tactic was the fact that I have developed the habit of answering people who ask me why royals “deserve” their position and finery by asking, “Why do you think politicians deserve more?” It seems to me that is often a potent ‘weapon’ left unused in the monarchist arsenal. Many republics think that royals don’t “deserve” their status, their palaces or yachts. They think royals should have less but these republicans are seldom called upon to explain why they think politicians deserve more. In my experience, the dreary, ridiculous and at times downright stupid or even wicked reputation of politicians has made many otherwise lukewarm people come down on the side of monarchy when the question comes up.

It is amazing how so many people in the world are passionately loyal to the republic as an ideal while widely despising politicians in general. Bizarre as that is, the low opinion most people have for the vast majority of politicians is one of the most valuable weapons in the monarchist arsenal. Politicians are inherently divisive figures, even the most beloved and highly praised amongst them. In the United States, I doubt any president (certainly in my lifetime) has been so idolized, praised and celebrated as President Obama. Yet, roughly half the country not only does not revere him but considers him the worst president ever. President Ronald Reagan, for another example, has become near-deified by the right since his death yet in his own time, popular though he was, the left considered him a senile buffoon at best and a dangerous warmonger at worst. Franklin D. Roosevelt was popular enough to be effectively elected President-for-life yet there were people like my grandfather who considered him a disaster, that his “New Deal” was the “Raw Deal”. Politicians can only ever seem to be adored by half the populace at best or despised by all at the worst. In Britain, Margaret Thatcher is still loved by many Britons but hated by others. Politicians are simply naturally divisive and, when real power is at stake, they will not hesitate to intentionally divide the public to advance their careers.

I know, many people don’t seem to like it when I advance this argument, saying that it is somehow unfair to promote monarchy simply by saying it is better than the alternative. The bottom line though, is that it IS better than the alternative and that is the world we live in. It is worth the effort, I think, to point out to people just how unspeakably ugly republican politics can be contrast that to the beautiful tranquility of a monarchy with a monarch who can be the one pristine patch of a government otherwise devastated by scorched earth political campaigns. There will, of course, always be mud-slinging malcontents but in most monarchies at least these are a minority when it comes to the sovereign. Take the United Kingdom as an example. Most people like the Queen very much, some admire her and are greatly devoted to her and others, at least, see her as a benign and benevolent figure who does no harm to anyone and does a great deal of good for many people. She is a respected, admirable figure on the world stage. Now, compare this with the current presidential election in America in which the partisans of the President recently accused his opponent of practically killing someone. When republicans in Great Britain say that they want a republic; is this the sort of ugliness they wish to share?

Actions have consequences (how many times has that come up) and just because something may not be the “best” argument, does not make it an invalid one. I doubt most monarchists are utopians and I at least will freely admit that there has never been a perfect government and every monarchy that does or has existed has had their share of faults and imperfections. However, republicans should take a long hard look at what they are getting into before scrapping centuries of tradition and a tried and tested form of government that has worked perfectly well. One reason I could never be a utopian is the fact that humanity so often repeats the same mistakes and refuses to see facts that are right in front of them. Would the people of France who supported the Revolution have done so if they could have foreseen the “Reign of Terror” that was to follow? I doubt it, and yet, time after time a majority have returned to republicanism, closed their eyes to the facts and embraced the myth of the Revolution. In a more controversial example, how many countries have condemned the United States for intervening in their affairs who have themselves called on America for help in times of crisis, over and over again? On the whole, humanity seems fairly thick to me.

In the time of the American or French Revolutions people could at least plead ignorance. There were no other major republics in the world to compare themselves with. But after that, royalists could have posed the question, “Is the chance of a George Washington worth the risk of a Robespierre?” Today the argument is even more compelling as there have been far, far more republican leaders of the Robespierre type, many of them far worse. Additionally, most people should not have to be reminded of the likes of Mao, Stalin or Hitler to see the danger in republicanism. Everyday politicians should do the job on their own with their lies, pandering, nastiness and scandals. However, it still seems to me that the divisiveness of politicians is a better argument than even most of those. A moral failing on the part of a national leader often harms only him/herself. It looks bad but doesn’t usually harm the country as a whole itself. A country is harmed, however, when politicians so wantonly turn people against each other for their own benefit. Anything that can be used to divide people has and is being used by politicians the world over to divide them, from race to religion to how much you have in the bank. Particularly in the western world, there doesn’t seem to be much to unite people to begin with these days and politicians actively work to make existing divisions even worse by telling different groups of people that “the other guy” is their enemy.

At times it is necessary to put the grander arguments aside to reach the hoi polloi who like to think themselves practical creatures (even if they are not). And the fact is that one can have a monarch or a president and most presidents are nothing to write home about and you will immediately encounter resistance from some quarter when potential presidents are named. If politicians as a group are so despised, why reward them with an even grander office and, in some cases, vastly more powers -more than most monarchs could dream of having? The simple truth is that monarchs are prominent individuals. Everyone in the English-speaking world knows who Queen Elizabeth II is and everyone in the Spanish-speaking world knows who King Juan Carlos is. Republican leaders, on the other hand, are well known only if they hold powers that monarchs would never be allowed to have or if they get caught behaving badly. Everyone in the world knows the who Queen of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc is but no one knows who the President of Germany or Italy is. They know who the chancellor is because she exercises political power and most knew who Berlusconi was simply because of the scandals attached to him.

The bottom line is, republicans should be forced to answer this question. It may not be the best argument, but it is a valid one. Anyone who wishes to change the structure of government should have to demonstrate how that change will be an improvement. If they want to have a president instead of a monarch, they should have to start naming some names of who they have in mind. The reason they don’t do this on their own is because they know it is a losing proposition. It has been argued that the primary reason the republican referendum in Australia failed was because there was no clear picture of what sort of system would replace the monarchy and most people, even if not avowed monarchists, decided that what they had was too good to risk on an unknown. British republicans, for example, should have to answer the question; will it be a President Brown or a President Cameron? Either answer could only increase support for the monarchy. And as for those in Canada or Australia who wish to make the Governor-General the President and keep everything otherwise as it is now, the fact should be pointed out that most people in the world have no idea who the Governor-General of Canada is, not terribly many probably know who Stephen Harper is but everyone, from America to Africa to Asia knows who the Queen is. Politicians can truly be one of the best weapons in the monarchist arsenal.

Consort Profile: Prince George of Denmark

Prince George, consort to Queen Anne of Great Britain, was born on April 2, 1653 in Copenhagen to King Frederick III of Denmark and Sophie Amelie of Brunswick-Lueneburg, their youngest son. Though there was little chance of him inheriting the Danish throne, Prince George seemed destined for great things. He was given a top level education with somewhat of an emphasis on military subjects, which is not surprising given that younger sons of royal houses were usually expected to take up a military career. He grew to be a well-rounded young man, he toured Europe, lingering in France and England so he had a good grasp of European affairs. He took his religion seriously and was genuinely interested in a variety of subjects but, perhaps because he was not subject to the pressures of an heir to the throne, had a rather relaxed attitude that put people at ease and made him seem very casual on the surface. His reputation was such that in 1674 no less a figure than King Louis XIV of France proposed him as a candidate to be King of Poland. However, Prince George refused to give up his Lutheran faith and Catholic Poland would not have a Protestant monarch, so the opportunity passed him by, going instead to the famous John Sobieski. Still, he distinguished himself during the Scanian War between Denmark and Sweden, fighting alongside his brother, by then King Christian V, at the battle of Landskrona. His actions were admirable but feuding Danish generals put them at a disadvantage and the battle was a Swedish victory.

Meanwhile, over in Britain, King Charles II was looking for a husband for his niece, Princess Anne, daughter of the Duke of York (later King James II). Royal marriages were a tricky subject at this time because anti-Catholicism was at a high point in Protestant Britain yet the King was supported by King Louis XIV of Catholic France. Prince George was known to be a devout Protestant and so was acceptable to most in London and Britain and Denmark were both rather upset with The Netherlands at the time. The hope of an Anglo-Danish alliance against the Dutch caused the King of France to support such a marriage just as it made the Dutch Prince of Orange (who was married to Anne’s sister Mary) oppose the match. James, Duke of York, was a staunch Catholic but he approved of his daughter marrying Prince George if for no other reason than that it pleased Louis XIV and angered his Protestant Dutch son-in-law. So, the agreements were all made and on July 28, 1683 Princess Anne and Prince George were married at St James’s Palace in London. Prince George was happy with his wife but found life in London rather too hectic for his laid-back personality. The court was riddled with gossip and intrigue and drama of all sorts between the allies of Holland and France, the Catholics and the Protestants, the girlfriends of the King and Prince George wanted no part of it. A quiet life and domestic happiness were his primary goals.

When it came to family, Prince George certainly went above and beyond the call of duty. Within months of their marriage Anne was pregnant with the first of seventeen children. However, to their great sorrow, these many pregnancies resulted in miscarriage after miscarriage, stillborn after stillborn with only one child surviving infancy and that one did not live to see his twelfth birthday. When King Charles II died the Duke of York became King James II and Prince George, now husband to a King’s daughter rather than niece, was given a place on the Privy Council. His brother-in-law refused to attend, being offended at Prince George being given preference over him, which is somewhat ironic given how little Prince George thought of such things. He critics describe him as being fat and dull but, in truth, he was quite intelligent but simply had no desire to get involved in court drama. As a foreign spouse he was content to remain on the sidelines, assisting his wife when needed but preferring peace and quiet to cliques and schemes. When William of Orange was preparing to invade England to overthrow King James II, Prince George was forewarned by his contacts in Denmark and he let it be known that moral was low in the English army and he would accept no post from his father-in-law, correctly predicting that he would lose the contest.

Protestant enemies of King James II had gravitated toward Princess Anne and Prince George but although Princess Anne joined those who raised doubts about the legitimacy of her newborn half-brother, Prince George preferred to stay out of it for the most part. Still, the time came when a side had to be taken and the King was rather upset when Prince George (the son-in-law he liked) declared for Prince William (the son-in-law he did not like). James II was forced to exile in France and the Prince and Princess of Orange became King William III and Queen Mary II. Prince George was rewarded with the title of Duke of Cumberland. However, relations between King William and Prince George were never friendly. The King never trusted him with any responsibility and only paid the extensive debts he owed to Prince George when Queen Mary II died and Princess Anne was the only Protestant left to inherit the throne. In 1702 William III died and Queen Anne took the throne with her faithful Prince consort beside her. She promptly appointed him commander of the army and Lord High Admiral but these offices were mostly ceremonial and Prince George had little to do with either branch of the forces.

Many of the accounts which dismiss Prince George as a nonentity can be attributed to the very different attitudes toward male consorts at a time when such were a rarity. The only previous examples had been Philip II of Spain and William of Orange, both of whom insisted on being granted the title of King and, in the case of William, the authority of a reigning monarch. Prince George, however, was ahead of his time in neither demanding nor desiring such a position. He was content to take second place to his wife the Queen, advising or assisting her when needed but making no effort to establish his own network of support and power base as so many expected. This does not, however, mean that he was unimportant. On the contrary, the moral support he gave to Queen Anne was vital. She had not had much preparation for becoming a reigning monarch and particularly after the loss of their only surviving child she was quite sad and became increasingly religious. This was something Prince George had in common with his wife and his own religious convictions are evident in the fact that, despite efforts to suppress non-conformists, he never joined the Church of England and remained a Lutheran throughout his life. He was a quiet and humble man but a devoted husband who was a great source of strength to his wife the Queen. He was, perhaps, overly fond of a well-set table but he was also friendly, trustworthy, honest and unassuming. A good man overall. In 1706 his health became noticeably worse and he had long suffered from asthma and dropsy. He died on October 28, 1708 at Kensington Palace at the age of only 55. Queen Anne was certainly worse off for his loss.

Monarchist Profile: Vincenzo Gioberti

During the era of the unification of Italy, few people were so well known as Vincenzo Gioberti. Today, however, he is seldom remembered at all despite the fact that his writings were some of the most widely read in his own time. He had an exalted view of religion yet was often condemned by the religious authorities of the day. He was a member of revolutionary organizations but was a zealous monarchist. The plan he put forward for the unification of the Italian people, based on cooperation between Turin and Rome, was accepted by both the Pope and the King of Piedmont-Sardinia. The problem was that they were never able to accept it at the same time. When one embraced it, the other rejected it and when the other finally came around to accepting it as well the one had passed the point of such an agreement. It must have been maddeningly frustrating for Gioberti but he was a man who often found himself at odds with those who championed the most; his Church and his monarch. However, had his ideas been accepted, there is no doubt that the unification and early history of the united Italy would have been considerably different.

Vincenzo Gioberti was born on April 5, 1801 in Turin, in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia and early in life he decided on a religious career. He trained for the priesthood with the fathers of the Oratory and in 1825 was ordained priest. As a young priest he was influenced by the writings of the revolutionary republican Giuseppe Mazzini. He rejected his anti-clericalism but embraced the idea of Italian unity wholeheartedly. While others in the revolutionary camp looked to Freemasonry and the Carbonari to create a “new religious synthesis” in Italy, Gioberti believed that it was the Catholic Church that was the pride and glory of Italy and that it was the Churchy, under the leadership of the Papacy, that was uniquely qualified to lead the Italian people to national unity, renewed vitality and renewed greatness. Since the fall of Imperial Rome it had, after all, been the great Pontiffs of the Italian Renaissance who had come the closest to forging a pan-Italian political unity, which was also a time of artistic and scientific flowering. As Gioberti saw it, the Church was uniquely qualified to bring about such a rejuvenation against and that the Papacy was the one focus of unity that everyone had in common and which could bring together all Italians in a common cause.

This was music to the ears of the Piedmontese monarch King Carlo Alberto and he made Gioberti his court chaplain. Many, however, opposed Gioberti from the start because of the influence he had with the King. Many at court opposed his political views, fearing any change to the status quo. The fact that Gioberti was known as an Italian nationalist and an acquaintance of Mazzini, well known in the Young Italy movement, caused many to consider him dangerous. He himself had done nothing wrong and he had not a disloyal bone in his body but fears were running high and simply being on speaking terms with members of the group that was plotting republican revolution in Piedmont and the other Italian states was enough to bring the police down on him. Gioberti was also a prolific writer and philosopher whose ideas sometimes got him into trouble. He was critical of Pope Gregory XVI and the Jesuits and his speculations caused some in the Church to doubt his orthodoxy and in response to all this pressure in 1833 he resigned from his post at court. Nonetheless, his enemies pounced and he was arrested for conspiracy, imprisoned for a short time and then banished without ever having been given a trial. He went to Paris but spent most of his time in Brussels where he published his famous work ‘The Moral and Civil Primacy of the Italians’ which was to become so widely read in 1843.

It was primarily this work by which Gioberti made the cause of Italian unification something that respectable, middle class people could get behind rather than being the exclusive domain of anti-clerical republicans and bomb-throwing revolutionaries. He recounted the glories of the civilization of the Italian people and in the cultural, non-political sphere, it was certainly the Papacy that was the most brilliant jewel of all. Gioberti envisioned a coming together of Rome and Turin, the spiritual greatness of the Holy See with the secular greatness of the Royal House of Savoy. He proposed that the princes of Italy grant representative government on their own local levels with consultative assemblies to advise but not govern the states. The states of Italy should then bind themselves together in a federation under the supra-national leadership of the Pope in order to have a common military, foreign policy, overseas colonies and a customs union while each state retained its own monarchy and unique local traditions. He rejected the republican nationalism of Mazzini which sought to weld all Italians from Turin to Naples into a single, uniform entity in favor of a more federal model of “consultative monarchies” which would be somewhat similar to what the German states eventually achieved several decades later.

Given how Italian history played out subsequently, many historians have dismissed the ideas of Gioberti as naively unrealistic. Yet, it was actually his vision which had the most history behind it. The last era of real Italian greatness had been the Renaissance period and during that time the Italian states were frequently united in a common cause by the leadership of the Pope. The most well known example was probably that of Pope Julius II who led Papal troops in person along with the other allied states to drive the “barbarians” out of Italy. However, even going back to the Middle Ages the Popes frequently arranged alliances of the Italian states toward a common goal or against a common threat. All Gioberti was really proposing was a more formalized and permanent version of what had existed at many points in the past throughout the course of Italian history. In that way, his vision was perhaps the most realistic of all. Gioberti embraced the cause of the Risorgimento whole-heartedly and he firmly believed that the Risorgimento could only truly flourish within the embrace of the Church. Second to the Papacy, his greatest loyalty and praise was reserved for his native ruler; the King of Piedmont-Sardinia who alone had the political and military muscle to see this plan brought to fruition. The Pope could make unity a fact and the Savoy could defend it.

Many people were won over by this argument, among them the future Pope Pius IX who read the book in which it was put forward in 1845. The next year, as Pope, it seemed to many that Pius IX was going perfectly step by step to put the vision of Gioberti into effect. He spoke of the Italian nation, authorized a consultative assembly for the Papal States and began encouraging greater unity and cooperation among the Italian princes. People across the peninsula cheered these moves and it seemed that Gioberti had truly shown the way for the best possible sort of unification. However, Gioberti had said that all depended on the alliance of Rome and Turin and it frustratingly seemed that when Turin favored his philosophy, Rome adamantly opposed it only to see Rome embrace the idea after Turin had discarded it. In 1848 Gioberti returned to his homeland and was warmly welcomed. King Carlo Alberto offered him a seat in the Piedmontese senate but, feeling unworthy, Gioberti turned it down. Still, he was elected to represent his home district in the Chamber of Deputies and eventually became Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia. Finally in a position to put his ideas into effect, Gioberti immediately began trying to reconcile the opposing sides of the revolution, sending an envoy to the Pope, who had fled to Gaeta, with orders that he talk to the leaders of the Roman Republic along the way.

Needless to say, Mazzini refused to be convinced. He had, in fact, promoted Gioberti to write his famous “Primacy” by urging him to a write a ’catechism for the Risorgimento’ but Mazzini was totally opposed to what Gioberti reduced, despising what he called the “ultra-Romanism” of it as well as the glowing tributes to King Carlo Alberto. Gioberti’s ambassador received no warm welcome in Gaeta either with the Pope at first refusing to meet with the man at all. Since Gioberti had dared to even speak with the revolutionaries, the Pope refused to give him any hearing. Many have since said that if only the moderate Pellegrino Rossi (the Minister of Justice and the Interior of the Papal States) had not been assassinated and still close to Pius IX, everything might have turned out differently. However, from that point on the Pope adopted a different political attitude and there would be no movement toward a federation of monarchies as a method of achieving Italian unity, only the single monarchy or the republic.

Gioberti left office not long after the accession of King Vittorio Emanuele II and after disagreements with the government he left politics. He was sent on a diplomatic mission to Paris and remained there for the rest of his life, refusing a government pension or any religious assistance. He died of a stroke on October 26, 1852.

Images Page

Surprise! No warning this time, sorry, but it's been hectic at this end. The Images page has been updated again. We have bid farewell to the Romanovs and their place has been taken by the Belgians. I know at least a couple of you will like the change. If I don't forget (always a distinct possibility) next time the images will be from a far east direction.

Royal Profile: HSH Princess Stephanie of Monaco



If there is one member of the Grimaldi princely house who has created more than her share of controversy it is Princess Stephanie, the youngest child of Prince Rainier III and Princess Grace; the one even at a young age whom Princess Grace referred to as her wild child. Some of her actions may have caused gasps from the faint of heart and raised a few eyebrows, but Princess Stephanie has also displayed an abundance of creativity, a restless energy and a down-to-earth way of connecting with people and helping people. She is living proof that it is often those who are considered outcasts at times who most sympathize with and most help the outcast and most downtrodden of their fellow man. Throughout her life Princess Stephanie has been a model, fashion designer, singer, mother and patron of charitable causes. She has gained a great deal of wisdom over the years from the many ups and downs in her life but she has never lost her rebel spirit and her mischievous but always compassionate heart.

Princess Stephanie was born Stephanie Marie Elisabeth Grimaldi, Countess of Polignac on February 1, 1965, the youngest child of Prince Rainier III and Princess Grace of Monaco. From a very early age she was known as a precocious and energetic child. She was given a proper education from the start but was always more drawn to the creative and the artistic than the cerebral. It would probably be impossible to overstate the significance of the fact that it was young Princess Stephanie who was riding with her mother back to Monaco when the accident occurred that took the life of the beloved Princess Grace on September 13, 1982. Stephanie survived but her mother did not and she was not even able to attend the funeral because she was still hospitalized recovering from her own injuries. This had a tremendous impact on the poor girl and would affect the rest of her life. It is also a large part of the reason why I will not tolerate dismissive criticism of Princess Stephanie.

Few people who have not had the misfortune to experience it can imagine the pain and emotional suffering that goes along with surviving an accident that takes the life of someone else. I am among those fortunate ones, but members of my family I am very close to have and I am painfully aware of the hurt it causes. Not only did Princess Stephanie go through such trauma, but it was made worse by the fact that it was her own mother and at her age losing a parent would be traumatic enough without being in the same accident and having to face the feelings of guilt that arise from the fact the you walked away and your beloved mother did not. Even with this worst of scenarios there was even more hardship heaped on the young princess with the thoughtless and hurtful rumors that she had really been driving the car and that the palace had covered it up. It was all totally untrue of course, Princess Grace had been driving, had suffered a stroke and thus lost control of the vehicle. However, just imagine what an extra amount of torment Princess Stephanie had to endure by being subject to the whispers that she was responsible for the death of her own mother. Add to all this the fact that she spent a long time afterwards going through the physical pain of her injuries and it was not until the following year that she had completely recovered; from the physical wounds at least. It would take some time for her to work through the emotional issues associated with the whole incident.

Following her recovery in 1983 Princess Stephanie began working as an apprentice at Christian Dior under Marc Bohan, a friend of Princess Grace. Some might have thought it was Stephanie who was doing Bohan the favor as here mere presence brought a great deal of publicity to Christian Dior and before the end of 1984 Princess Stephanie was a fashion model and appeared in numerous European and American magazines including Hola!, Vogue and Vanity Fair throughout 1985 and 1986. This line of work ended, however, at the insistence of Prince Rainier III who was not happy about his daughter working as a model. Yet, the creativity of Princess Stephanie could not be contained and toward the end of 1986 she came out with her own swimwear line and when the line was officially unveiled her family supported her and the world was treated to pictures of the lovely princess modeling her own creations. Princess Stephanie was on magazine covers all around the world from Europe to the U.S. and Brazil to Japan. However, Stephanie was too restless to stick with the fashion industry for long and began looking for others ways to express herself and find an outlet for her creativity. It was then that she turned to music.

February 1986 saw Stephanie release her first single, the hit "Ouragan" or "Irresistible" as it was titled in English. It was a great success, quickly rocketing to the International Top 10 and ultimately selling some five million copies. In September she released her first full album with many new songs including the smash hit "Flash" (in English "One Love to Give") which sold over two and a half million copies. In 1987 she released another single with the profits donated to UNICEF. That same year, to continue her music career and move in with her boyfriend-of-the-month Mario Oliver, Princess Stephanie moved to Los Angeles, California. Unfortunately, Princess Stephanie learned how fickle the music industry could be. After five years her next album was finally released and was greeted with lackluster sales and poor critical reviews. The open-minded liberals of LA seemed more obsessed with punishing a Princess than giving her music a fair hearing. They prefer their artists to be starving heroin-addicts from out of the gutter after all. Princess Stephanie ended her musical phase with an anonymous part in a Michael Jackson album.

On the bright side, she had produced some very good work and with the end of that chapter could move on to other creative endeavors. In 1989 Princess Stephanie came out with her own perfume line and in the succeeding years became an unofficial spokesperson for the Replay Store and Café with her own store in Monaco. She also opened one in Barcelona in 1997. By this time Princess Stephanie had become a mother and, although it is a long and complicated story, I might as well go ahead and dive into the personal life of Princess Stephanie. Over the years her boyfriends, companions and husbands have been numerous and frequently changing and often included men of less than admirable reputations. As stated, I tend not to be critical of this often criticized behavior, mostly because of what Stephanie had to endure. It has also been stated that, in French pop-culture, the princess who hangs around with ruffians is somewhat romanticized as an ideal, a sort of fetish over breaking the rules.

Among the many bad boys Princess Stephanie has been associated with was a man convicted of car theft, an alleged rapist and a convicted con man who had served time in prison for fraud and theft. She also had flings with a Spanish singer, a French actor, a record producer, American actor Rob Lowe whose lack of French language skills ended his future with the Princess, a football star, and Belgian bodybuilder and actor Jean-Claude Van Damme. In 1992 Stephanie began a relationship with her bodyguard Daniel Ducruet by whom she had two children; Louis Ducruet born in 1992 and Pauline Ducruet born in 1994. The couple finally married in Monaco on July 1, 1995 which legitimized their children in Monegasque law and put them in the line of succession. This might have been the start of a more calm period of happy family life for Princess Stephanie, but heartache found the rebel princess again when photos came out of Ducruet frolicking with a Belgian stripper. He was promptly expelled from the upper echelon of Monaco society and a divorce was granted on October 4, 1996. Princess Stephanie had been robbed of wedded bliss and her romantic misadventures were set to continue.

Stephanie still seemed to be drawn to those charged with her protection as things got rather serious between her and her chief of security Jean Raymond Gottlieb, a former Paris policeman and ski instructor. Soon Princess Stephanie was obviously in a family way again. On July 15, 1998 Princess Stephanie gave birth to a daughter, Camille Marie Kelly, named after her grandmother, in Monte Carlo and the Princess Grace Hospital Center. Everyone assumed that Gottlieb was the father though Princess Stephanie refused to reveal who was. Ducruet said the child was not his and an exasperated Prince Rainier III ordered his daughter to leave Monaco. That may not have been the best move in the long run as she went to the ski resort at Auron and fell in love with a Corsican bartender and was even spotted waiting tables from time to time. For someone who had never been impressed with the attention and pressures of being a princess Stephanie seemed desperate to be an anonymous, "ordinary" person. Nonetheless, after about 6 months that little fling was over and Princess Stephanie moved on.

In 2000 Princess Stephanie began a relationship with the Swiss circus owner and elephant trainer Franco Knie who she met a festival in Monte Carlo when awarding him a prize for Best Animal Tamer. Unfortunately, Monsieur Knie was married and the affair only became known publicly in 2001 when Knie announced that he was leaving his wife for Princess Stephanie. For several months thereafter Princess Stephanie and her children traveled with the circus, living in less than luxurious conditions, and her daughter Pauline became so infatuated with the elephants that Knie included her in the act. However, by the next year that relationship was over as well.

Throughout 2003 Stephanie was linked with Princely Palace head gardener (another married man), her former brother-in-law Philippe Junot and the Portuguese-Spanish trapeze artist Adans Lopez Peres, ten years younger than her and also a member of the Circus Knie. It was rumored that the two married and in the summer of 2004 a German newspaper reported that the two were divorcing and Stephanie was again seen with former husband Ducruet as well as Franck Brasseur, a married croupier. By November Stephanie and Peres were divorced and Stephanie was later seen dating another bartender and a French actor and musician. So far she has not shown any indication of wishing to marry again. She has also consistently tried to keep her children out of the public limelight and has said she wishes them to have as normal a life as possible, which may prove a futile effort.

Recently Princess Stephanie has taken on some more traditional royal duties. The death of Prince Rainier was a terrible blow to her. Despite their differences over the years she was very attached to him and her father had been her rock of stability throughout her many trials and ups and downs. However, she has said that his memory is with her constantly and she has become very involved in the fight against AIDS and helping AIDS victims around the world. She has become a UNAIDS ambassador and set up her own foundation, called Fight AIDS Monaco, to help the victims of the disease and to fight against the stigma that often goes with it. In this she seems to have found a niche for her particular talents, being a very loving person and also as someone who has been treated as something of an outcast by many she has more sympathy for these, the least of her brethren, than others might.

The years and her many high and low points seem to have brought Princess Stephanie a certain degree of worldly wisdom. She also does not ignore the spiritual side of life. In a recent interview she said, "It is important to believe in something. I am Christian and am baptized. Catholicism is the religion of state here and I respect it deeply". She went on to condemn excess and religious radicalism and expressed the view that, as the Bible says, all must work out their own salvation in fear and trembling. Over the years she has certainly been known as the wild child, the rebel princess and has made many eyes roll, however, she has had to deal with circumstances few other people in the world can understand. She has had to endure pain and emotional hardship the likes of which most onlookers and gossip columnists will never be able to comprehend. However, through it all her character has remain unchanged. She remains someone who is ready to help others, someone who refuses to quit and always displays her creative nature, her restless and rebellious nature and her indomitable spirit.

Favorite Royal Images: Empress of the Sun

Her Imperial Majesty the Empress of Japan, a radiant woman, inside and out.

Mad Motivation: Uncle Ho the Hypocrite

Monarch Profile: Emperor Hiep Hoa of Viet-Nam

Nguyen-Phuc Hong Dat, who would be the sixth emperor of the Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam, was born Prince Nguyen-Phuc Ung Thang on November 1, 1847 in the Forbidden City of Hue. He was the youngest son of HM Emperor Thieu Tri and had a normal upbringing for a Nguyen prince, he was kept mostly in the comfortable seclusion of the “Great Within” and was given a traditional Confucian education by the appropriate mandarins. In 1865 he was raised to the rank of Duke of Lang and no one, in those days, expected there would be any chance that he would ever come to the throne. However, dramatic changes were coming for the ‘Land of the Ascending Dragon’ and coming very quickly. France was looking to offset British gains in the Far East and had taken an interest in Vietnam since the time of King Louis XVI. For Emperor Napoleon III the road to Indochina was paved by the many Catholic missionaries who had been at work in the country for some time. The Nguyen Dynasty first showed great tolerance and even favor to the Christians but the two sides eventually had their problems.

France rushed to defend the missionaries, there was a rebellion in Vietnam, land had to be ceded to France to end the war with them so the rebellion could be crushed and added to all this drama was the fact that Emperor Tu Duc had no sons. Upon his death the succession came to be manipulated by three regents and there were struggles for power and in 1883 Vietnam saw no less than three emperors take their turn on the Golden Dragon Throne. In the year of 1883 Vietnam was in the grip of an immense crisis. Earlier, the Vietnamese had called on Imperial China for help in dealing with the French but, to the shock of everyone in the neighborhood, the army of the massive Qing Empire was defeated by the French who then became the acknowledged masters of the region. The Vietnamese were somewhat divided over how to deal with this situation. Some wanted to ally with the French, survive by staying in their good graces, while others would have nothing to do with the “foreign devils” other than to destroy them and anything they brought with them, be it their trade goods or their religion.

This, the effort to fend of France while struggling internally for power, was the cause of the rapid turnover in the imperial succession. After the death of Emperor Tu Duc the throne had gone to Nguyen Duc-Duc but he reigned for only three days, not long enough to even be given reign-name. To replace Duc-Duc (who would soon be murdered) the powerful regents Nguyen Van Tuong and Ton That Thuyet (Tran Tien Thanh being the less ambitious third), after a great deal of fretting and threats and arguments, decided to enthrone the 37-year-old cousin of the “3-Day King” and son of Thieu Tri. Prince Ung Thang was an upright man, not ambitious but very proud. He knew, as most at court did, of the dubious reputation of the regents and he had seen what sad fate had befallen his cousin Nguyen Duc-Duc. The Prince wanted nothing to do with the regents and their plots and schemes and the regents were not extremely enthusiastic about him either. However, the prince was finally persuaded to accept the throne by the very astute and very powerful Grand Empress Dowager Tu Du. She was the second wife of Emperor Thieu-Thri, mother of Emperor Tu Duc and the woman about whom it was said that she only had to lift her little finger and the whole world would tremble. So, with that, no matter how much the regents wanted to get rid of him and no matter how reluctant he was, the Prince took the reign-name of Hiep Hoa and was formally enthrone as the Son of Heaven and Emperor of the Great South on July 30, 1883.

Problems continued to fester between the pressure from France on one hand and the ambitious schemes of the regents on the other. It was on August 30, 1883 that Emperor Hiep Hoa saw the troublesome sign of a blue-hued sun, interpreted as foretelling doom. This omen soon proved correct as French ships under Admiral Courbet blocked the Perfume River leading to Hue and began bombarding the Vietnamese coast. By the power of canon France forced a protectorate treaty on the Emperor. Of course, they tried to be as civil as possible about the whole affair. Admiral Courbet told Emperor Hiep Hoa, “We have no intention to annex your country but you must accept our protection. This is the only way your dynasty can survive.” The Emperor did not need his court astrologers to tell him what that meant and Hiep Hoa had no choice but to sign the document, the Harmond Treaty, making France “protector” and master of Vietnam’s foreign relations.

Many of the mandarins at court were outraged by this and, even though they had done nothing to save the situation, blamed the Emperor for giving in to the French, totally ignoring the fact that the Emperor had little choice in the matter. But the blame was placed on him, particularly by the two most ambitious regents who portrayed themselves as the champions of national independence and the Emperor as the man who had given in to the “foreign devils”. They ignored their own inactivity, even ignored the French for the time being, and placed all responsibility on the Emperor. The regent Ton That Thuyet (who had brought down Emperor Duc-Duc) had sufficient power at court and audacity to insult Emperor Hiep Hoa to his face, in front of the entire court. When Hiep Hoa tried to assert his authority, the regent refused to kowtow to him, a shocking breach of protocol and defiance of imperial authority. This was serious and fearing (rightly so) for his life, Hiep Hoa had no one to turn to but the French protectorate for help. He had signed the treaty with the French and so now called on them to save him from the power-hungry regents. Unfortunately for the Emperor, Ton That Thuyet found out about his secret diplomatic dealings and on November 28, 1883 had the Emperor, Son of Heaven himself, arrested and confined.

For Hiep Hoa, all of his worst fears about taking the throne had been realized. A show trial was organized, in a strictly private, “closed court” session in which Ton That Thuyet charged his Emperor with all sorts of ridiculous things such as wasting government money, failing to follow the “advice” of the regents (in other words he refused to be ruled by them) and most seriously of plotting with the “foreign devils” by signing the Harmond Treaty with France. Naturally, no consideration was given to the fact that the Emperor had been almost literally forced at gunpoint to sign the treaty, neither was any consideration given to the fact that Vietnam would have faced certain destruction and defeat and the overthrow of the Nguyen Dynasty if they had refused to ‘play ball’ with France. But it was never meant to be a fair trial anyway and the result was a forgone conclusion. Regicide was not unknown but it was still considered an ugly business and best avoided but it effectively came to the same thing as Emperor Hiep Hoa was forced to commit suicide by taking poison. He was essentially given the option of taking the honorable way out rather than being executed. So it was that Emperor Hiep Hoa died on November 29, 1883 and afterwards all those who had been loyal to the Emperor were likewise murdered by Ton That Thuyet and Nguyen Van Tuong. When their fellow regent Tran Tien Thanh protested against such cruel and repressive measures the other two regents had him assassinated as well and the crisis in Vietnam continued.