Favorite Royal Images: An American Classic

HSH Princess Grace of Monaco

Royal News Roundup

Starting with the English-speaking world, last weekend HM the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh led the way in paying tribute to the British and empire war dead. It should be clear to anyone how much more this means coming from royals like the Queen and Prince Philip who both served in uniform during wartime rather than a politician who has never been in the military or been in danger of enemy fire. In more troubling news, the last coronation ceremony in Christendom came under threat last week as an atheist lawyers group called the National Secular Society or NSS launched an investigation into bringing a legal case against the British coronation ceremony, claiming it is a violation of “human rights”. They are seeking to have the coronation replaced with a secular, non-religious ceremony. Their tool in this act of cultural destruction is, not surprisingly, the European convention on human rights. So far, the Church of England has pushed back against this attack, saying it is politicizing the coronation and would be a misuse of human rights laws for partisan purposes. Those eager to dismiss this attack as trivial might recall that this same group was one of the strongest advocates for the changes to the succession law that eventually were taken up by the government and enacted.

Today, the British coronation is the only Christian coronation still performed in Europe with all other monarchs having a simple “swearing-in” ceremony (which sounds rather political) and the Pope having an “installation mass” (which sounds like getting a new washing machine). The effort does reveal the secularist mindset for all to see. They want the freedom to not participate in religious services, which they have, but then they also want to ban other people from participating in religious services. They say the coronation violates the human rights of the non-Christian and non-religious and yet do not consider secular ceremonies to violate the rights of those who are Christian or who are religious. They are also encouraging a total lack of freedom by attacking the symbols and traditions of the country and culture that allowed them the right to exist in the first place. This simply sends the message that if you value your religion, your traditional culture and so on, then you should not allow people of other beliefs into your country and you should not allow dissent to be voiced, because if you give them that freedom, they will repay it by trying to destroy that which you hold dear. If the coronation ceremony violates the “human rights” of atheists and non-Christians, my solution (even as a non-Anglican) would be to encourage all atheists and non-Christians who feel their rights are being violated to leave the country and shake the dirt from their boots as they do so. But, of course, I’m sure that would be considered terribly intolerant. Anyway, in lighter news, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall continued their visit to India and also visited Ceylon and both the visitors and the visited seemed to be enjoying themselves immensely.

Moving to the continent, the King and Queen of The Netherlands visited Russia and met with President Vladimir Putin. There was some unpleasantness as protestors hurled tomatoes at the Dutch royal couple while on their way to a gala concert in Moscow. Fortunately, no one was hit and two of the culprits (a 23yr old man and 18yr old woman) were sentenced to 15 and 10 days in jail. Were these right-wing Russian nationalists angry at Dutch interference in their energy industry or the trouble with the Russian diplomats in Holland? No, these were actually members of “The Other Russia” opposition party who blame, ridiculously enough, King Willem-Alexander for the suicide of a Russian dissident who was denied asylum in The Netherlands. Meanwhile, in Belgium, retired King Albert II attended mass for King’s Day this week, something which he has not done since his late brother Baudouin was alive. By tradition, the reigning King never attends King’s Day services but as Albert II is now retired, he was on hand this time while King Philip stayed at home. There was troubling but not surprising news for the Crown Princess of Norway who has been having severe neck problems recently, forcing her to cancel many plans. It was announced this week that she will be undergoing surgery to try to correct the problem. Crown Prince Frederick and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark arrived in Mexico for a visit on Monday and the Prince and Princess of the Asturias made a visit last week to California.

In Asia, President Putin of Russia called King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on Sunday to discuss ways of easing the tensions between the two countries. Relations between Russia and the Saudi kingdom have worsened due to Russian support for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who most Arab monarchs would like to see gone, and over Russian support for Iran and the Iranian nuclear program. Saudi Arabia and most Sunni Muslims in the region greatly fear the Shia Islam theocracy in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Russia was sharply critical of Saudi Arabia turning down a seat on the UN security council and recent efforts at reconciliation have had no success. It is rumored that Saudi Prince Bandar, on a trip to Moscow, offered Russia a $15 billion arms deal in exchange for Putin dropping his support for the Syrian dictator but the offer was declined. Russia denies any such thing was even discussed. Across the continent in the Kingdom of Malaysia, AFP ran a story this week on the trouble being caused by the lavishness of royal titles in that country. Particularly the title “Datuk” or ‘sir’ has been bestowed rather generously so that some are now complaining that the title no longer is all that special. Allegations have also arisen of corruption in the way the title is sometimes obtained. Estimates of the number of people in Malaysia who hold royal titles run into the tens of thousands. Fake or purchased titles are also a persistent problem. And in Japan, actor-turned-antinuclear activist-turned politician Taro Yamamoto continues to be the center of controversy over the letter he handed to HM the Emperor regarding the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Many conservatives have called on Yamamoto to resign for attempting to politicize the monarchy while others defend him saying that what he did is being exaggerated in order to keep attention off of ending nuclear power use in Japan. Others, most outsiders who hold nothing sacred and want to impose their lack of values on others, say the whole episode only highlights how the Emperor is still too highly revered for a modern, democratic country. Some, of course, have, like always, brought up again the late Showa emperor, World War II etc. It all really needs to stop. Finally, in another break with tradition, it has been announced that HM the Emperor will be the first Japanese emperor in about 400 years who will not be buried. Instead, when the sad occasion comes, the TM will be cremated and placed in simple tombs within the Imperial mausoleum in Hachioji.

Monarchist Profile: General Pavel Rafalovich Bermondt-Avalov

The period of the Russian Civil War was a troubled and chaotic time. In the Bolsheviks, the White Russians faced a fanatical enemy that was out to destroy absolutely everything they believed in, all that Imperial Russia had stood for, not just in politics but in spirit as well. Given that, it is not surprising that many were driven to extreme measures or took positions that seem bizarre in retrospect. Unfortunately, many people ignore the context and as a result most participants have come to be seen as controversial figures. One such figure was General Pavel Rafalovich Bermondt-Avalov. He was born Pavel Rafalovich Bermondt on March 4, 1877 in Tbilisi, today the capital of Georgia but at the time, of course, part of the Russian Empire. He added the name Avalov to his own after he was adopted by the Georgian prince Mikhail Avalishvili (Avalov). From fairly early in life he seemed to have two great interests: music and the military. Given that, it is not surprising that he combined the two, being given a musical education before joining the Imperial Russian Army in the capacity of a musical conductor with the Transbaikal Cossacks in 1901. He rejoined the regiment as a volunteer in 1904, gained the rank of ensign and was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church all in the same year as serving in the war against Japan.

In 1906 he transferred to the Ussuri Cossacks (which would always be considered his “home”) and in 1909 transferred again to the First Lancer regiment. By 1914, when World War I began, Bermondt-Avalov was a decorated veteran and had earned promotion to captain. He did so while serving as the adjutant to the commander of the II Caucasian Army Corps. During his years of service in the Great War he was wounded seven times and earned numerous more decorations including the St George Cross and the Order of St Anne, fourth class, for bravery. He was also, it should go without saying, a loyal and dedicated servant of his Emperor and this was displayed immediately at the time of the Revolution of 1917. Bermondt-Avalov was elected commander of a lancer regiment in St Petersburg and, as such, was officially given the rank of colonel by the Provisional Government. However, whereas many had adopted a cautious “wait and see” attitude, Bermondt-Avalov did not and immediately began planning a monarchist coup against the Provisional Government. However, nothing came of it and eventually he retired to Zhitomir, thoroughly opposed to all regimes that were not that of the Tsar, regarding them all as illegitimate; which they certainly were.

The following year, in 1918, he was made recruiting officer for the southern army in Kiev, in the Ukraine. While there he fought to defend Kiev from the revolutionary forces of the Directorate of Ukraine which had formed in opposition of the Ukrainian State formed by the anti-Bolshevik Hetman Pavlo Skoropadskyi. The Directory was successful as German and Austrian forces were being withdrawn and Bermondt-Avalov was taken prisoner. However, he managed to get himself handed over to the Germans and while in a POW camp began to rally his fellow prisoners to join with the forces of Imperial Germany to combat the spreading menace of the Bolsheviks and restore the Russian Empire. It was also in 1918 that he received his promotion to major general. One of the things that made Bermondt-Avalov stand out was his outspokenly monarchist position. Many of the White Russian commanders, in an effort to form the most broad coalition possible, preferred to remain silent or ambiguous about what exactly they were fighting for; the old Russian Empire, a constitutional monarchy, something like the Provisional Government, but for Bermondt-Avalov there was no ambiguity. His forces were fighting for the restoration of the monarchy, absolutely and unequivocally.

Bermondt-Avalov and his recruits were moved to the Baltic as part of the German-backed West Russian Volunteer Army which also included a remnant of German troops led by the monarchist General Rudiger von der Goltz who was determined to keep the area, particularly Latvia, out of Bolshevik hands. This was 1919 and the Germans, the remaining hardcore at least, were desperate to hold on to their influence in the Baltic and while their aims were not identical to those of the White Russian forces, they could both cooperate in fighting their common Bolshevik enemy. Latvia declared independence during this time, for example, which Bermondt-Avalov did not recognize as his aim was for Latvia to be part of the restored Russian Empire as before, though he did agree that it should have autonomy. The basic situation was that the German and White Russian factions were trying to use each other for their own purposes but, momentarily at least, it worked to the benefit of both. However, problems arose over financial funding for keeping these forces, usually around 50,000 men, equipped and in the field. The Allies had been willing to look the other way as far as the Germans were concerned so long as they were fighting the Bolsheviks but they were naturally not prepared to help them and as the German Empire collapsed so too did any support from Germany.

In spite of these problems, for a time the West Russian army was successful. Bermondt-Avalov and his men captured Zemgale, most of Courland, Samogitia and marched in triumph in Riga. However, the plucky little Latvians wanted their own independent country and fought fiercely against them. Eventually they were joined by like-minded governments in Estonia and Lithuania and these combined Baltic forces eventually were able to overpower the West Russian Volunteers. As their support dried up in Germany and the Baltic states joined forces to oppose them, the West Russian army was forced to fall back and retreat to German territory by the end of the year. General Bermondt-Avalov moved to western Europe, settling in Germany in 1921 and by 1925 published a memoir in Hamburg called ‘In the Fight Against Bolshevism’.

He tried to remain active in Russian-exile politics, taking a hint from the political factions rising in popularity at that time in an effort to launch a far-right counterrevolution in Russia. At times he made alliances with German right-wing groups (many of them with monarchist sympathies) such as “Steel Helmet” to fight the communists. Eventually, however, his efforts were suppressed by the German government. In doing so he came to have connections with some less than savory characters such as Heinrich-Ludwig Link. When Link spoke disparagingly of Adolf Hitler it got Avalov into trouble as well and in 1939 he was arrested by the Gestapo. After spending a year and a half in prison he was released thanks to a personal request from Benito Mussolini and deported to the Kingdom of Italy. From there he moved to Belgrade and after the 1941 coup said “farewell” to Europe and moved to the United States. He died in New York City on December 27, 1974 at the ripe old age of 97 and was buried at a local Russian Orthodox monastery.

The Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires: Friends at the End

Throughout the history of Europe and the Middle East, two names which stand out are the Ottoman Empire and the “Hapsburg Empire” (Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary in their turn). In many ways, the titanic struggle between these two forces determined the fate of Europe even as we know it today. There was a time when the Ottoman Empire was the superpower that sprawled across three continents, stretching from the borders of Persia, across the Middle East, North Africa and up into southern Europe. The Christian powers trembled at the advance of the Ottoman Turkish armies as they absorbed Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, much of Hungary and into Austria itself. It often seemed that the only thing stopping the Turkish conquest of Europe was the armies of the Hapsburg emperors. In 1529, when the Ottoman Turks were at their peak of expansion in Europe, it was the armies of the Hapsburg Emperor Charles V that stopped them at Vienna. When they tried a naval attack on Italy it was another Hapsburg, Don John of Austria, who led the Christian fleet to victory at Lepanto and when the Ottoman Turks were about to crush the Knights of Malta it was the Spanish forces of the Hapsburg King Philip II who arrived to save the day. Yet, in the conflict that was to determine their ultimate fate, the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires fought side by side.

Politics can make for strange bedfellows but it was certainly a monumental twist on history to see troops of the Hapsburg Emperor fighting to defend the Ottoman Empire in Turkey itself and across the Middle East. The ancestors of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary had gained much of their military tradition fighting to defend themselves and Europe from the Ottoman Turks, yet, although it is little known today, in World War I they were fighting to defend the Ottoman Empire from the British and French (for the most part). Of course, this was not the only such reverse. After all, previously, France and Britain had fought to defend Ottoman Turkey from the Russian Empire only to have France, Britain and Russia allied against the Ottomans in World War I. And, in the past, France and Britain had both had much friendlier relations with the Ottoman Empire in the days when the Hapsburg Emperor was fighting Turkish armies in the Balkans. However, after the loss of their last, major territories in Europe, the Ottoman Empire had been eclipsed as a rival to Austria-Hungary by other powers such as Russia and Serbia while the Ottoman and German Empires had grown increasingly friendly. When World War I came, the Ottoman Empire soon joined the side of the Central Powers in the hope of reclaiming lost territories in Africa, the Caucasus and perhaps even expanding eastward toward the Turkish ancestral homeland in central Asia.

While fighting was almost always raging on the periphery of the Ottoman Empire, with the British in Egypt and Iraq and the Russians to the north, it was the Allied assault on Gallipoli that most threatened the heart of the Turkish realm. As Allied troops stormed ashore and began digging in, Turkish war leader Enver Pasha called on Germany and Austria-Hungary for help. The only problem was that with the Kingdom of Serbia still offering determined resistance in the Balkans, the route to Turkey was cut off. That all changed, however, in the autumn of 1915 when German and Austro-Hungarian troops under German Field Marshal August von Mackensen defeated the Serbian army and cleared a path for direct assistance to the Turks. Most of the help that arrived came from Germany but Austria-Hungary sent aid as well in both combat and support units. In December of 1915 two artillery units were sent down the Danube River to arrive at the front in Gallipoli. These were the howitzer battery No.36 posted at Sogan lidere across from Sedd-ul bar and mortar battery No.9 which was posted around Anafarta, lobbing shells at the hard-pressed Australian and New Zealand troops dug in there. The howitzer battery 36 was later sent to the coast at Smyrna where it sank the British monitor M30. Half of the mortar battery was reassigned to coastal defense as well but at Mt Carmel near Haifa in Palestine with the remaining guns switched out and renamed the field artillery battery No.20. This unit went on to serve at the second and third battles of Gaza and the two battles in the Jordan valley.

In 1916 Austria-Hungary sent a mountain howitzer division to aid in the Turkish campaign to rest control of the Suez Canal from Great Britain (for the second time). The effort was not a success but the Austro-Hungarian troops offered fierce resistance and proved their worth at the battle of Romani. When the Turkish line collapsed, they held firm, inadvertently serving as a rearguard and putting up such a fight that they were able to hold off the enemy long enough to escape without the loss of a single gun. During their time in the Middle East, this unit went through a number of name changes as their weapons were upgraded. In 1917 they were renamed the Imperial and Royal Mountain Howitzer Division in Turkey and later the Imperial and Royal Field Howitzer Battalion in Turkey. They fought with great skill and determination in the three battles of Gaza (in which they destroyed several British tanks), the two battles of the Jordan valley and covered the Turkish withdrawal toward Aleppo. Austria-Hungary also supplied the Turks with a great deal of support personnel such as military instructors (mostly in artillery), ski instructors for the troops fighting the Russians in the Caucasus, motor transport units and medical units such as a field hospital in Jerusalem and two mobile field hospitals (think of them as the grandfathers of the MASH units many are familiar with). These units saw action as well such as when one field hospital was wiped out in an Australian air raid. These forces from Austria-Hungary served up until the very end of the war for the Ottoman Empire, withdrawing as Turkish forces retreated until they were posted near Constantinople by the time Turkey asked for an armistice.

Austro-Hungarian troops assembled in Palestine, 1916

Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary with Turkish officers

Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman officers in Turkey

Austro-Hungarian troops marching into Jerusalem, 1916

Mad Rant: The More Things Change, The More the EU Stinks

Recently, yours truly went on a tear about how, when it comes to Russia, a great many people seemed to have missed the memo about the Soviet Union collapsing under the weight of its own stupidity. The Cold War is supposed to be over; right? Yet, the U.S. is giving war guarantees to the Baltic states, Poland, maybe even Georgia for seemingly no other reason than to antagonize Russia. After all, if Putin got a wild hair and decided to invade any of these countries, does anyone really believe the U.S. would be able or willing to go to war with a nuclear-armed country over it? That would be against the rules after all; the U.S. only goes to war with countries that do NOT have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, while I would salute the Putin regime in Russia for efforts taken to defend Christianity, in Russia, and to combat the plummeting Russian birthrate, when it comes to foreign policy, it seems that there are so few good ideas that the boys in Moscow have to raid the files of the old Soviet Union. This also means making nice with some countries that have pretty abysmal records when it comes to Christianity; something which flies in the face of the portrayal of Russia as the last bastion of Christendom, particularly made during the Syrian fiasco.

After all, Russia is still besties with Castro’s Cuba, the terrorist regime in Iran and the Viet Cong government in Hanoi. About the only thing different from the foreign policy of the Soviet days is that Russia seems to be trying to make nice with Communist China which even the Soviets had better sense than to do. That was mostly because both wanted to be in the driver’s seat of such an alliance and, as far as the bandits in Peking are concerned, that has not changed. If this is real, watch out for Moscow taking orders from Peking (a good indication being if the arms sales to Vietnam suddenly stop) and if not, we will know it was all just a charade undertaken in the hopes of making the idiots in Washington soil themselves. It seems odd from both sides of the world. The Cold War supposedly ended and yet even those governments which most professed their willingness to make amends with Russia (Bush inviting Putin to the ranch and calling him a good guy then Obama sending Hillary Clinton over with that ridiculous “reset” button) have each gone out of their way to needlessly antagonize Russia. How this helps America in any way no one has ever explained to me. On the other hand, Russia seems stuck in the foreign policy ruts of the Soviet Union. So much has changed (for the better) in Russia since the USSR collapsed and yet, on the world stage, it’s like they have no new ideas at all and can only instinctively repeat every policy of the Soviets.

Now, I told you that story in order to tell you another one. After that tirade, this person asked me why yours truly, living in the west, should be so opinionated on matters concerning Russia, East Asia and Southeast Asia instead of the “western world” such as Europe? Of course, as anyone who has been around me can attest, I can blather on at length on almost any political subject but I was told, and it may be true, that I seemed more “animated” when talking about the situation in monarchies like Japan or Thailand than the continent with the most monarchies: Europe. True, I have ties of family and friendship with Japan and Indochina but the same could be said for Europe. Then, of course, there is Russia which I have no personal ties with at all but which I have a great cultural and spiritual fondness for, viewing Imperial Russia as sort of the “last outpost” of traditional, Christian monarchy before the flood of revolution came crashing in. I was, needless to say, a little astonished by this line of questioning because I am deeply concerned about Europe and the remaining European monarchies in particular. However, the response I came up with was the European Union. I think it embodies all of the problems I have with modern Europe and why it sometimes can be hard to really care about the continent.

Say what you will about Russia, for example, but it is a country and a nation and proudly so. They have an illegitimate government and I sometimes stand aghast at their stupidity but one thing no one could ever say about Russia is that they let others boss them around (again, this might be changing as it concerns China but we will have to wait and see). Russia will do what it thinks is best, whether it really is or is not, and does not really care what the rest of the world thinks about it. Since the European Union has really started to spread its tentacles and take on the trappings of being the “United States of Europe”, quite unlike Russia, they seem to be drowning in a sea of blandness. Individual countries become less prominent, less important and, as such, so do their national leaders, ten of which are monarchs. Whether you like him or not, there is certainly no equivalent of Mr. Putin in Europe. There are few to no bits of news that rise to the level of national drama because the EU keeps a tight lid on all that stuff, everyone is supposed to be on the same team. The most harsh thing to say would be to ask an admittedly hurtful question. Why should anyone else care about your country when you do not care about it yourself? That sounds harsh, I know, but just consider the facts. The United Kingdom is probably the most EU-skeptic country in Europe and yet, as far as I know, the most prominent anti-EU party, UKIP, has not been able to gain a single seat in Westminster. That is troubling. At least, if you think countries and nations are not interchangeable and everyone is just like every other.

The European Union, as I believe the rather colorful leader of UKIP has said, is in fact out to destroy nation-states entirely, which means destroying nations and they are doing it. They and the whole liberal, leftist, globalist elite clique that they run with. And it really isn’t even that difficult and we have a perfect object lesson in the case of Kosovo. The only difference between Kosovo and other places is that the Albanian population was already there. However, think about it: think about all of the immigration laws, refugee laws, asylum seeker laws. People can basically come from anywhere to any country in the European Union because enforcing national borders somehow violates “human dignity” and the “free movement of peoples”. So, there is nothing you can do to stop people from another nation moving into your own and once they are there, you must give them the same privileges as the natives and allow them to live as they lived in whatever their country of origin was because to do otherwise will get you a trip to the European Court of Human Rights. So, nothing to stop foreigners from coming in and since we are all good democrats in Europe these days, once enough have come in they can vote to change the laws to be just like the homeland they left behind and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. And if the thought even crosses your mind that you wish you could do something about it then you are probably an evil person who needs sensitivity training. The EU has set up a system which practically guarantees the total destruction of its member nations.

This is a uniquely European problem. It exists in some other western countries as well but still nowhere near to the degree it does in Europe. This mentality does not exist in Russia or almost anywhere in Asia. That is partly why there seems to be more tension in other parts of the world. There are tensions between, for example, China and Vietnam because the Chinese still want their country to “win” and the Vietnamese think their nation is not the same as China and they do not want their nation to be dominated by another. And these are both officially communist states! Yet, the hundreds of years of struggle between the two has not been forgotten. Even with an internationalist ideology officially in power, their attachment to their own people and their own country remains. Why does Europe seem to be different? Again, my only explanation is the European Union. There are, of course, other roots to this mentality, reasons for this and for that, but the EU really sums it all it up quite nicely. It is a union of nation-states that seems driven to destroy its member nations completely and has set up the perfect economic and political system to make that happen. And it is because I do care about Europe that this makes me a very, very … Mad Monarchist.

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, in Japan TIH Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako visited the city of Kamaishi, Iwate which was particularly hard hit in the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011. This was especially significant in that HIH the Crown Princess accompanied her husband and is her first official trip with an overnight stay since January of 2010. The Imperial couple met with local residents, comforting and encouraging them. HIH the Crown Princess took the hands of a disabled woman in a wheelchair who was moved to tears by the occasion. Moving south, in the Kingdom of Thailand, doctors have reported on the health of TM the King and Queen saying that their health is improving. The revered King has been in a fragile state for some time but it was only recently made known that the Queen has been suffering from numerous ailments as well, downplaying her own problems in order to dutifully attend to her beloved husband. It is good news to hear and we wish them all the best. A Thai royal delegation was also sent to the state of Assam in India to present gifts at the Namphake Buddhist Monastery as part of the Royal Kathina Ceremony, commemorating the migration of the Tai-Phake people. Further south still, in Malaysia, the King called upon the people to embrace a spirit of moderation and respect for the constitution. The Kingdom of Malaysia has been troubled recently by very bitter political disputes. However, he also warned that if such problems as the inability to differentiate right from wrong, insults to religion and the royal institution as well as human rights could prove destructive for the country if not addressed. We fully agree.

In the Middle East, the Arab monarchies continue to be troubled by the on-going civil war in Syria. Not for the first time, King Abdullah II of Jordan has warned that the massive influx of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees is dangerously depleting Jordanian natural resources and asked for international assistance to deal with the humanitarian crisis. Has anyone in the wider world, perhaps, been struck by the observation that whenever problems arise in the neighboring republics it is always to the stable and moderate Kingdom of Jordan that most people invariably flee? Water and energy are in particularly short supply as Jordan has been inundated with more than half a million refugees since the Syrian civil war began. Meanwhile, in Qatar, which has been a strong supporter of the Syrian rebels, the Emir has strongly criticized the call for “unconditional” peace talks in Syria, saying that such talks should, basically, be very conditional and the conditions should be “achieving justice” for the Syrian people.

And, in Europe, more unpleasant news for the Spanish Royal Family came this week. On Monday a court confiscated a villa owned by the King’s son-in-law Inaki Urdangarin (husband of HRH Infanta Cristina) to cover an $8.2 million bond for liability in his case. HRH the Infanta’s finances also continue to be scrutinized by the court prosecutors who seem desperate to find someone in the Royal Family guilty of something. Also, in less than pleasant news, the Royal Palace released a date for HM the King’s hip replacement surgery. Fortunately, there was happier news further north. The new King and Queen of the Belgians met with the new King and Queen of The Netherlands at The Hague, which is a rather historic event considering that the two countries have not both had a king since 1890 when King Willem III was reigning in The Netherlands and King Leopold II was reigning in Belgium -though I doubt either monarch would want to bring up those particular predecessors on such an occasion. In Scandinavian royal news, TM the King and Queen of Norway began a controversial 3-day visit to Turkey last week, controversial because of the Turkish crackdown on protestors last summer and concerns by human rights and free speech activists over repression in Turkey.

(Just as an aside: While Turkey is an illegitimate republic I have no sympathy for whatsoever, some things need to be kept in mind. It is perfectly true that Turkey has more journalists in prison than any other country but that phrase should be followed by “that we know of”. Remember, countries like the People’s Maoist Republic of Chinese Oppression or the North Korean Kim Family Slave Labor Camp do not make it known to the world who they arrest, how many people they have in prison or how many people they execute. Turkey may have more journalists in prison than any other country and that’s not buddies but before anyone thinks them the worst in the world, remember that North Korea just shoots them and China makes them disappear and claims they never existed in the first place.)

Finally, in British royal news, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were given a warm and typically colorful reception on their visit to India. The royal couple participated in a Hindu fire ceremony at the sacred Ganges River among numerous other engagements. Back home, while Prince Harry continues to prepare for his polar trek, HM the Queen welcomed a state visit by the President of South Korea with all due pomp and ceremony. The Queen and Prince Philip rode with Madame-President Park Geun-Hye in a horse drawn carriage to Buckingham Palace to the sound of a 41-gun salute by the Royal Artillery. The President later joined Prince William at a ground-breaking ceremony for a memorial to British troops who fought in the Korean War against the communist forces of China and North Korea. The irony of attending such a ceremony, recalling the war in which China and North Korea tried to destroy South Korea by a President who has met with the President of China but refuses to meet with the Prime Minister of Japan was not lost on the BBC which asked the President about it while on her way. President Park said it would be pointless to meet with the Japanese Prime Minister since they refuse to apologize for the period of Japanese colonial rule over Korea from 1910 to 1945. I suppose I missed hearing about when the President of Communist China apologized for invading and trying to destroy South Korea, making it okay to talk to him.

World War I: The Blame Game

Although in many cases it accomplishes little to nothing, people do seem to endlessly enjoy playing the ‘blame game’. For monarchists, who often enjoy it as much as anyone, there is probably no better occasion than World War One. This is understandable since, while there were republics in the Americas, China, Portugal and France, monarchy was still the rule rather than the exception before the First World War whereas after the conflict republicanism became dominant on the continent with the fall of the German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires, the creation of new republics in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States and which saw, eventually, the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East. The world was a much more monarchist place before 1914 and a much more republican place after 1918 and so many monarchists go looking for a guilty party to blame. Some blame the Central Powers, some blame the Allies, some blame Austria, some blame Germany and some even blame the United States which seems rather odd considering that the United States did not join the war until the very last stages of the conflict. Some blame “Prussian militarism” and some blame British paranoia over the growing colonial and industrial competition Germany represented.

There seems to be no end to it. Personally, my position has always been that in the case of World War One, the blame game is useless. I say this for two primary reasons; because there was so much blame to go around in starting the conflict that no one side or even one country can be held to be more guilty than any other and secondly because, I believe, once started, there was no possible way in which it could have ended well. In the first half of the conflict, there was still too much fury and hope for victory for either side to stop and in the second half, both sides had lost too much to agree to make peace without having something to show for it. However, let us take each of these points in order. In looking at the major participants in the outbreak of war in August of 1914 there is scarcely a country involved that does not share some blame for causing the conflict to happen in the first place or to spread to catastrophic proportions. The only truly innocent country involved was the unfortunate Kingdom of Belgium which simply happened to be a victim of geography. The Belgians truly had no choice but to fight and the noble King Albert I could not have acted other than he did for his own honor and that of his country. However, aside from Belgium, there is plenty of guilt to go around.

Starting with the spark that set the whole thing off we have the Kingdom of Serbia. Truly, if there was one completely guilty party in this whole affair it was the murderer Gavrilo Princip who assassinated two innocent people. Putting aside their status, these were a loving husband and wife, parents of three children, murdered in cold blood. Moreover, the Archduke was a man who wanted to do better by the Slavic peoples of Austria-Hungary. He had clashed with those in the Austrian army who advocated war with Serbia and there was no love lost between him and the Hungarians because of his desire to include the Slavic peoples in the power-sharing of the Austrians and Hungarians. Serbian nationalists hated the Archduke not because they feared he would make things worse for the Serbs but specifically because they feared he would make things better. Serbia must bear some blame for this, for the government connections with the secret society that carried out the assassination (which has been proven) and for the hatred that was prompted against Austria-Hungary by the proponents of a “Greater Serbia” that paved the way for this kind of mentality and the act of terrorism it produced. Although the weakest of the guilty parties, Serbia nonetheless has blood on its hands.

Secondly, we have Austria-Hungary. In as much as it was the heir to the Austrian throne that was murdered, Austria was undoubtedly the victim and not the aggressor in the earliest stage of what became the conflagration. However, the Austrian government had plenty to do with turning a single tragedy into a war (the Hungarians had little to nothing to do with it as the Hungarian government had always opposed war with Serbia or any action that would bring more Slavs into the Dual-Empire). It was Austria which issued the ultimatum to Serbia that no one thought for a moment Serbia could possibly agree to. Yet, even when Serbia shocked Europe and agreed to almost every demand, it did not dissuade those who thought a war with Serbia was vital to the survival of Austria-Hungary. Several efforts to have talks for maintaining peace were spurned and the Austrians failed to take Russia seriously, confident as they were in German support. However, it must also be said that Emperor Francis Joseph himself was no villain in all of this and only signed the declaration of war against Serbia after being told (falsely) that the Serbians had made the first move and attacked Austria. While Austria cannot be blamed in any way for World War One as a whole, there is no question that many in the Austrian government were responsible and proudly so for starting a war with Serbia.

Next, we have the Russian Empire. This is an extremely complex case as Russia actually tried very hard to prevent the escalation of the crisis, was always comparatively honest about her actions and motivations and yet, in the end, it was Russia that turned what would have been a localized, Balkan conflict into a European and thus World War. Probably too much has been made about Russian support for Serbia as a factor in the start of World War One. It is true that Russia was eager to reassert herself as a major power. Russia had been humbled militarily by the Empire of Japan and then humbled diplomatically by the Empire of Austria-Hungary over the annexation of Bosnia. However, the Russians were under no illusions as to what a war with Austria and Germany would mean and it was Russia, while honor-bound to stand as the defender of the Orthodox Slavs, which urged Serbia to accept the Austrian ultimatum and it was this urging by Russia, probably more than anything else, that influenced Serbia to agree to most of the Austrian demands. Here again we also see that it was the monarch, Emperor Nicholas II, who was least enthusiastic about going to war. He first ordered a partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary only to be met with hysterics from his officials at which point he reluctantly agreed to a general mobilization. Russia was not acting out of malice or bloodlust but, nonetheless, it was Russian intervention in what had, until that point, been an Austro-Serbian dispute that widened the conflict to include France and Germany. It seems all the more a pity given what eventually became of the Russian Empire and because the security nor interests of Russia were actually under threat.

Of all the major players, of course, it was the German Empire that ended up being forced to take all the blame for the outbreak of World War One and no one figure more than Kaiser Wilhelm II. That, as many would later admit, was and is totally absurd. Germany was absolutely not solely responsible for the war and the Kaiser actually went to great lengths to try to stop it. That being said, Germany was likewise not completely innocent in the spreading of the conflict either. It is true that Germany only mobilized after Russia did the same against Austria but it had been the Germans who had given the famous “blank check” to Austria-Hungary but, more than that, it was German knowledge which most condemned German actions. The Kaiser admitted that with the Serbian response to the Austrian ultimatum, there was very little justification for war and the delay in mobilizing against Russia was openly said by the German chancellor as simply a way to lay all blame at the Russian doorstep in an effort to keep Britain neutral by portraying Russia as the aggressor. Again, however, at the last minute, the Kaiser tried to avert a larger war by seizing on the possibility of Franco-British neutrality and ordering his forces to abandon the western offensive and shift to the east. His top general, “Moltke the Younger” simply defied him and said this was not possible. In fact, it was possible as the German plan called for all forces to be moved east after France was defeated anyway and after the war the supervisor of the German railroad network wrote an entire book explaining just how it was completely possible for Germany to have called off the attack on France and Belgium and concentrate solely on Russia. It is also true that the demands made to guarantee French neutrality, such as stationing German troops in French fortresses, was something no French government could ever be expected to agree to.

The French, however, were certainly not innocent either. Ever since the humiliation of 1870 France had been preparing for another war with Germany and they were determined that their would be another war and the entire French strategy was geared toward the offensive. France also had the least reason, other than Britain, for getting involved at all. On the continent of Europe one can hardly be more removed from Serbia than France. If Austria invaded Serbia, if Russia invaded Hungary or if Germany invaded Russia, none of it threatened France in any way. France was, of course, allied to Russia but their alliance stated that if either party was attacked by Germany, Italy or Austria-Hungary then the other would go to war. However, the fact of the matter is that neither Austria or Germany had attacked Russia nor did either have any original intention to. Germany became involved only for fear that Russia would attack Austria-Hungary and even when war did break out, it was Russia that invaded Germany and not the reverse. Yet, one of the most guilty of guilty parties on the French side was the French ambassador to Russia Maurice Paléologue who, despite the French government attempting to drawback somewhat, worked feverishly to urge the Russians to take action against Austria, stand firm against Germany and basically do everything possible to provoke the spread of the conflict from the Balkans to the rest of Europe. If Russia is to bear the blame for escalating the crisis into a world war, the French ambassador must be included for acting on his own authority to harass and cajole the Russians toward taking that fateful step. And, again, at any time France could have justifiably said that the terms of the alliance did not apply, that there was no need for Russia to mobilize against Austria and no need for France to mobilize against Germany but they chose not to. Because far too many in France were determined for there to be another war with Germany, to erase the humiliation of 1870 and regain Alsace-Lorraine from the German Empire. In fact, given the reluctance of the Tsar to go to war at all, it would not be an extremely great stretch to say that France was as much if not more to blame for the localized conflict becoming a world war than anyone else was.

Finally, we have Great Britain whose guilt, perhaps more than any other power, resides mostly in what Britain failed to do rather than what Britain actually did. If one wanted to get really specific about playing the blame game with the British, it might be difficult since one of the problems in Britain was that their left hand didn’t always know what their right hand was doing. At times the British tried to appear both aloof from continental matters and, at others, as a force for peace in solving European conflicts. The problem with even the proposals Britain did make for peace talks to head-off a European war was that the Central Powers were not inclined to view Britain as an honest and impartial broker. In the years preceding the war Britain seemed gripped by an anti-German hysteria that exaggerated potential problems out of all proportion to reality. Much of this stemmed from British frustration at Germany becoming an economic and colonial competitor to Great Britain and building a High Seas Fleet that grew to be second in size only to the Royal Navy. However, if one can put the hysteria aside, the facts are clear that the German colonial empire was nowhere close to rivaling that of Great Britain or even France (the second largest colonial power) and the Imperial German Navy, while the second largest in the world, was still less than half the size of the massive Royal Navy. Even when it came to industrial and economic competition, Germany was nowhere near as great a threat to British profits as was the United States.

Great Britain had no real reason to get involved in the war breaking out on the continent. British security nor the British Empire were directly threatened and by Britain getting involved, this ensured that the war would spread to Africa, the Middle East and Asia. It is also unlikely in the extreme that the United States would have ever joined the war had it not been for Britain. The British also may well have been able to stop the conflict from unfolding if men like Sir Edward Grey had not been so vague in communications with Germany. It must also be said that, while certainly noble, Britain was not technically under any obligation to go to war over the violation of Belgian neutrality. The treaty gave the option but not an obligation. However, if Britain had made it perfectly clear to the Germans early on that they would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with France and that Britain would declare war if the Germans entered Belgium, it may well have given Berlin enough pause to step back from the brink and convince Austria to do the same. However, the British never made their intentions clear until it was too late, when German armies were already massing on the Franco-Belgian border and offensive plans had already been put into effect. Here again, one figure who certainly cannot be blamed is King George V. While he was certainly of the opinion that the conflict was all the fault of the Kaiser, it is also true that the King himself had no idea just how bound his own military was to defending the French. Secret agreements were in place that not everyone in the halls of power in London, including the King, knew anything about. The Royal Navy was key to this and the man in charge there, Winston Churchill, was just as consumed by anti-German sentiment as Sir Edward Grey and just as anxious for Britain to go to war. Lloyd George could have stopped it, but for his own desire for power, tipped the scales in favor of war. Belgium was simply an excuse Lloyd George used to justify his decision which is all the more ironic given that Churchill had plans prepared to blockade the Belgian coast even if Germany did not invade; thus Britain secretly tied herself to France regardless of Belgium and even if the Germans had not violated Belgian neutrality, the British would have. Grey and George were at least troubled by the oncoming war (Churchill was jubilant) once it was too late to stop it but neither had been willing to stop it when they had the chance.

So, whether one looks at Austria, Russia, Germany, France or Britain one can find plenty of blame to go around. Not a single monarch, it should be remembered, wanted war and yet, thanks to the politicians that surrounded them all, that is what the world got. Once it had begun, there really was no reasonable outcome other than total disaster. Some have argued that if the peace proposals of Emperor Charles of Austria had been accepted, all would have been well. Yet, not only were the Allies opposed to such an offer but Germany was as well so it seems unlikely that anything would have come of it. Both sides had lost far too much and, particularly for the Allies, too many promises had been made to win more countries to their cause, for there to have been a ‘peace without victors’. Others have said that if the United States had only stayed out of the war, Germany would have won or else both sides would have exhausted themselves and been forced to sue for peace. We can never know for sure what might have happened, but I tend to be rather skeptical of that line of thinking which usually comes from the “blame America first” crowd. It is possible, but given how few Americans had arrived by the time of the ‘Kaiser’s Offensive’ it is hard for me to believe that a relatively few, inexperienced Americans were such super-warriors as to have played the crucial role in halting the attack and saving the Allies. America came into the war so late and was only really fighting in real strength at the very end when Germany had already seen her allies defeated or on the brink of collapse, her last hope for an offensive victory dashed, her population near total starvation and with British and French tanks proving an increasingly pivotal weapon on the battlefield I tend to think the Allies would have won even if the AEF had stayed home.

And again, what would it have solved anyway? Austria-Hungary was already doomed given the extensive promises the French and British had already made to the Czechs, Romanians and Serbs. The Russian Empire collapsed before American involvement, communism would have still spread its poison into Germany, precipitating the collapse of the German Empire. In fact, if the war had dragged on longer, the result may not have been a peace without victors but a total collapse of Germany into hunger-driven revolution, a repeat of tragic Russia. The Ottoman Empire was already doomed and its carve-up between Britain and France agreed upon. And, to go back to America again, if there is blame on that front, Germany must share some with Britain as well. The British worked feverishly to get America involved (not that it stopped them from blaming America for doing so when it was over) but Germany played a hand with the infamous Zimmermann Telegram which truly must go down in history as one of the most stupendously idiotic foreign policy decisions by any country in the history of the world. If Zimmermann himself had not admitted to sending it, I would have been inclined to disbelieve it simply on the grounds that no one in Germany could possibly have been that completely stupid.

The peace, it should go without saying, could have been handled much, much better. Even the preachy, sanctimonious American President Wilson later admitted that he really had no idea what he was doing when he strutted over to Europe blathering about “self-determination”. Well, okay, thanks for admitting to screwing everything up after the fact -that really helps. Yet, once again, so much of what was botched was botched long before the Allied leaders met at Versailles. France and Britain had already made promises to the Poles, the Czechs, the Romanians and so on. This is why I have always maintained that the disaster of the Great War did not come in 1918 or 1919, not with Versailles or Trianon but with the outbreak of war in the first place in that fateful August of 1914. The disaster was not how it turned out but that it ever happened at all, because once the nations of Europe started down that road there was really no way out that did not end in disaster. Even for the winners, it still ultimately ended in disaster though it would take another, even bigger, world war for everyone to realize it. This is also why the blame-game is a rather pointless exercise. No one had their hands clean, everyone made mistakes and everyone suffered for them. There was simply no one, guilty party who was truly responsible. All the major powers of Europe were guilty in part and the disaster was caused not by one or the other but by the fact that in 1914 almost the entirety of western civilization decided to start killing each other. Empires collapsed, monarchs fell, political extremism ran rampant and in so many ways the world has been a much uglier place ever since.

Note to Readers

In order to be timely, the regular "Royal News Roundup" will not be posted tomorrow. Monday's post will be on an issue related to the Great War and the royal news report for last week will appear on Tuesday. Thursday and Friday will see articles posted on a rather unusual World War I friendship, a Russian monarchist who was a Great War veteran and who also ended up fighting side-by-side with some former enemies. I hope you will look forward to it. For those unaware, an overview of the weekly schedule is usually posted on Facebook on Sundays, so feel free to follow me on Facebook if you are not already. Thanks for reading and stay 'mad' my friends.

MM

Defending the Kingdom of Belgium

I have long found the Kingdom of Belgium very interesting, both for its own history and for the wide array of opinions so many have about the country. For a place that so many are constantly predicting imminent doom for over the inability of the two major regions to come together, I have seen opposition to the Kingdom of Belgium bring together leftist republicans and religious, royal legitimists. An odd pair to be sure. It should go without saying that, in spite of any number of disagreements over one thing or another, I totally support the Kingdom of Belgium and hope it long continues to disprove the naysayer’s and survive. Especially in these modern times when monarchies are so few and far between I would much prefer to see all monarchists come together in defense of the Kingdom of Belgium if only for the sake of defending the principle of monarchy and sparing Europe from yet another, bland, boring republic. When it comes to Belgium, however, the issue is not really the monarchy but Belgium itself. The value of the monarchy has been proven and there is really no “Belgian” republican movement at all but only those who wish to see Belgium itself wiped from the map. So, in this case, one must defend the Kingdom of Belgium rather than the Belgian monarchy specifically.

The primary argument of those opposed to the Kingdom of Belgium is one most are probably familiar with and yet, as is often the case, I find it completely impossible to understand. The argument is that Belgium is not a “real” country but is rather an “artificial state” that was just cobbled together for the sake of political convenience by the British, French and Germans. According to this argument, in 1830 the “Great Powers” of Europe just drew a few lines on the map, named it Belgium and had a respected minor German royal sworn in as King. The people, this line of thinking goes, have nothing in common, do not constitute a natural or valid nation and were just artificially lumped together in 1830 and have been feuding with each other ever since in this political equivalent of a “shotgun marriage”. It is as though Flanders and Wallonia were two teenagers, Flanders being the daughter of The Netherlands and Wallonia being the slightly Latin house boy. Then one day the two teens ran away from home, Wallonia held Flanders down and got her pregnant and as The Netherlands wanted to kill them both, Britain, France and Prussia showed up and said Wallonia had to marry Flanders to make an honest woman of her -or there was going to be trouble. So they settled on a piece of land between The Netherlands and Luxembourg, built a house, had children called Belgians and have been threatening to divorce each other ever since because they never really loved each other anyway.

If that sounds rather silly; it should. The Belgian people may not have had an independent country of their own until 1830 but they had been living together for many, many centuries prior to that. One could go all the way to Roman times and see the area of modern-day Belgium called, basically, Belgium on any map. It is though, admittedly, a tricky subject when it comes to tracing the ancestry of peoples that far back (people are still arguing over whether Charlemagne was French or German and that was many centuries later) but, fortunately, we do not have to go back that far. It was in 1549 that the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, also King of Spain (who was born in what is now Belgium), signed the Pragmatic Sanction that grouped together, roughly, what are the Low Countries of today as the Spanish Netherlands, quite apart from France and Germany. Under the Dukes of Burgundy this area, which had a mixture of languages even back then, even achieved a sort of independence in all but name and were extremely prosperous.

Duke of Parma

Then, there was the Dutch Revolt in which religion came to play a part with Protestantism taking hold in the northern provinces while Catholicism remained dominant in the south. The Dutch proved to be tough and tenacious fighters and seized control of much of what is now Belgium in the course of the conflict. However, things changed when King Philip II of Spain sent in his Italian nephew Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma to take charge of things. He happened to be one of the most brilliant captains in European history and soon he had led the Spanish forces to reclaim Flanders, Brabant and Brussels. In 1585 his forces retook the city of Antwerp and it was with that victory that what we know as Belgium was ensured as a distinct and separate entity from not only France and Germany but The Netherlands as well. In due course it would become known as the Austrian Netherlands because the Hapsburgs of Austria reigned over it but the region, then as now, was still known as Belgium. The people, even during the period of Austrian rule, were likewise still referred to as Belgians.

In fact, not only does the history of Belgium as a unique political entity go back many centuries, so does the history of people of radically different ideas coming together in common cause. For instance, in 1790 there was a short-lived bid for independence when radicals inspired by the revolutionaries in France (and more distantly America) came together with Catholic conservatives opposed to the religious reforms of the Hapsburg Emperor Joseph II to create the United States of Belgium. They even flew a black, yellow and red flag though not exactly the same as the current design and had two official languages; French and Dutch. The revolt was eventually crushed by Emperor Leopold II but given all of that, it seems ludicrous to say that Belgium, a country of French and Dutch speaking peoples with a black, yellow and red tricolor was something invented from scratch in 1830. One could even call it a sort of restoration but as a monarchy instead of a confederate republic. In any event, the point is that Belgium, while not independent, was a distinct place of its own long before 1830. Even immediately before, if one looks at the Napoleonic period one can see military units of the Austrian Imperial forces referred to as Belgian units and when the United Kingdom of the Netherlands was established by the Congress of Vienna, Belgium remained distinct even then. It was, in fact, intended to be a sort of dual-state. Even the troops that fought in the battle of Waterloo were often referred to as the “Dutch-Belgian” troops and both Amsterdam in The Netherlands and Brussels in Belgium were considered capital cities of the new United Kingdom.

King Willem I

When the unrest first began in 1830 that ultimately led to the creation of the modern Kingdom of Belgium, it was not originally all that revolutionary. Many simply wanted to restore things to the way they had been envisioned when Belgium had been passed from the Austrian Emperor to the Dutch King. The first cries were for the autonomy of Belgium rather than for independence, a desire to repeal the laws enacted by King Willem I that favored Protestants over Catholics and the Dutch language over French in Belgium, a predominately Catholic and French-speaking country (even in Flanders at that time, the elite, the educated and the politically involved almost invariably spoke French). The people who made up the Kingdom of Belgium that was born legally in 1830 were not, therefore, a grouping of two alien peoples with nothing in common. They had been together for centuries and were united by religion, a shared history and even by language at least as it concerned those who were active in politics. The French, whose intervention was key in preventing the Dutch army from suppressing the Belgian rebels, had their own agenda but it was certainly not the case that leaders in London, Paris and Berlin simply woke up one morning and decided to create a new country. Their goal was to prevent a long and ugly war that would destabilize Europe. The Belgians were already a “country” and already a people with a long history, the Great Powers simply stepped in to settle the divorce of Belgium from The Netherlands peacefully.

Given all of that history, I fail to see how anyone can call the Kingdom of Belgium an “artificial state”. This was an area that had existed for centuries that was quite distinct from France, Germany and The Netherlands. It had a population which had been governed together for hundreds of years and the differences in language never seemed to matter all that much. During all that time, though it was not official and plenty of other local names were used, the overall area was still often referred to as Belgium and the people as Belgians. They lived and worked together and finally rose up together to claim their independence as a constitutional monarchy. The Great Powers did not cause this to happen, they simply helped settle the matter. They certainly did not “create” the Kingdom of Belgium. Especially early on it was even a far more cohesive country than the Austrian Empire (later Austria-Hungary) or even the Kingdom of Spain. Certainly there were differences in local customs and language when one compared Flanders to Wallonia but the same could be said about England and Scotland (which once spoke a form of Gaelic), Piedmont and Calabria, Prussia and Bavaria or Brittany and Lower Navarre in France.

There is really no justification at all in calling Belgium an “artificial state”. There are plenty of problems in the kingdom today, to be sure, but the difficulties are no reason to simply surrender and see the kingdom destroyed. Personally, I think the only thing Belgium really needs to solve its problems is an old-fashioned religious revival. All throughout Belgian history, the shared faith of the people seemed to be the greatest force holding them together. Observers will note that, in the past, every time there was a major uprising in Belgium it was a reaction against interference in their religion. And the Belgians always won. There was the struggle against the Hapsburg religious reforms, there was the struggle against the French Republic, against Napoleon, against the Dutch King and even after independence there was the reaction to the Liberal governments, the Liberal and Socialist coalition and all were motivated entirely or in large part to some activity that was detrimental to the religious life of Belgium. To this onlooker it seems that it was only when faith ceased to play a central role in daily life that the Belgians began to feud among themselves. However, any country that could see the forces arrayed against them in August of 1914 and stand firm, fighting to the last until victory was won, should be able to get beyond the petty differences of today.

As for the monarchists of the world, at a time when monarchy is such an endangered species and under constant threat all around the world, everyone should be united in support of the Kingdom of Belgium. The Belgian Royals are the only reigning members of one of the most venerable dynasties in all of European history, they are tied by blood or marriage to such historic royal houses as the Bourbon, Hapsburg, Savoy and Hohenzollern. No one should also be under the illusion that what happens to Belgium could not happen to the country you live in. All of the arguments made about the Kingdom of Belgium could easily be made about a great many other monarchies from Canada to Spain to Malaysia. In terms of the policies of passing governments, there is much that I would disagree with most Belgians on, however, governments are transitory things while monarchy is to stand permanent and immovable. If Belgium were to be destroyed, it would only result in one or two more republics and a bureaucratic re-shuffling of EU borders in Brussels which, in fact, might make the EU even stronger with Brussels itself becoming an EU-city state, a sort of “Papal Rome” for the United States of Europe. The Kingdom of Belgium is not an artificial state, it is an old and important piece of western civilization and all monarchists should stand united in support of the King and Kingdom of Belgium.

Story of Monarchy: The Kingdom of Prussia

The story of Prussia begins with the German crusader knights of the Teutonic Order. After defending Hungary from the Cumens they were kicked out in 1225 and the following year were invited to what is now Poland by Duke Konrad I of Masovia to fight the pagan Pruss, which is where the word “Prussia” comes from. Today it seems somewhat ironic given the somewhat excessive pride associated with the Prussians, particularly as being the quintessential “Germans” and leaders of German unification that their very name comes from a Polish word rather than a German one. However, the Teutonic Knights fought a long and bitter campaign throughout the Baltic region and over time more and more Germans settled on the lands guarded by the Teutonic Knights. Those original German warriors would become the forefathers of the Prussian nobility with many Junkers tracing their lineage all the way back to those crusading Teutonic Knights. Eventually they established their own domain called the State of the Teutonic Order or simply the Ordensstaat by 1230. This established some of the key features that would characterize the stereotypical Prussian for centuries thereafter such as the centrality of the landed aristocracy, the strong military tradition and the national colors of black and white. At its peak the Order’s State stretched across parts of what is now Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia and parts of southern Sweden.

In the complicated feudal system of this period, for the land they held the Knights were beholden to the King of Poland, however, as the order was German and religious they were subordinate only to the Pope and the German Holy Roman Emperor. All of that changed, however, in 1525 when the Grand Master Albert of Brandenburg renounced Catholicism and became a Lutheran. He secularized the order and his uncle, who happened to be King Sigismund I of Poland, made him the feudal lord of the Order’s State as the Duke of Prussia. As a member of the Brandenburg branch of the House of Hohenzollern he also ruled a great deal of territory in what is now east Germany and after renouncing the religious life was able to found a dynasty which became the House of Hohenzollern everyone now associates with Prussia. His son died with no sons surviving him but his daughter had married the Elector of Brandenburg and so Brandenburg and the Duchy of Prussia were brought together. Nonetheless, it was a patchwork family territory and there were constant struggles to defend it, particularly in the Thirty Years War when the whole area was dominated by Sweden, the military powerhouse of northern Europe at that time. It all served to reinforce the importance of military strength in the Prussian mind.

The Duke still had to pay court to the King of Poland as his feudal lord, at least for the eastern half of his domain, but this annoyance was done away with after Prussia came to be competed over by the Kings of Sweden and Poland. The King of Sweden offered full sovereignty to win Prussia over and, so as not to be outdone, the King of Poland later did the same. In the end, of course, neither would control Prussia. The duchy became a sovereign territory though still partially within the Holy Roman Empire which made for some complications, particularly as the title of Holy Roman Emperor did not count for very much as only occasionally were there monarchs sufficiently strong enough to actually enforce their will across the whole of the German-speaking empire. During this time the great Prussian figure was Friedrich Wilhelm I, Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, known to history as the “Great Elector”. He promoted trade to build up the economy and most importantly greatly strengthened the Prussian military so they would not be kicked around like they were in the Thirty Years War. Prussia had already been made sovereign on paper but it was the Great Elector who made it sovereign in fact. He reformed and reorganized the government and strengthened Prussia in every way. He was a gifted leader on the battlefield and would set an early standard for the Prussian warrior kings who were to come after him.

In 1688 the Great Elector’s son became Friedrich III, Elector of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia and it was he who would benefit first from all the hard work of his father. During the War of Spanish Succession, Friedrich offered Prussian assistance to the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I in exchange for his making Prussia a kingdom. This was a little tricky as there were supposed to be no other kings in the empire besides the Emperor himself. However, Leopold needed Prussia and Friedrich could argue that much of his lands had never been and were not part of the German Holy Roman Empire. By this time, it also had to be recognized that Prussian independence had become a fact whether it was recognized in law or not. Finally, just to soften things a bit, Friedrich agreed to be known as “King IN Prussia” rather than “King OF Prussia” which was seen as being less of a challenge to imperial authority. In 1701 the Elector of Brandenburg crowned himself “King Friedrich I in Prussia”, effectively founding the Kingdom of Prussia that would stand until the end of 1918. Over time, the nominal authority held over the Brandenburg half of Prussia by the Emperor would become more and more nominal until it was no more than a formality, easily ignored. After Friedrich I, his son King Friedrich Wilhelm I or the “Soldier King” strengthened Prussia all the more, building a magnificently disciplined, trained and equipped army.

This was a necessity and many people who speak contemptuously of so-called “Prussian militarism” fail to keep in mind the context of the situation. Throughout their entire history the Kingdom of Prussia (and its ancestors for that matter) had been placed in a geographically dangerous position. They were never a large country, never extremely wealthy or populated and yet they were surrounded by much larger and more powerful forces. Today most are used to seeing Prussia or the German nation as a whole as militarily dominant, however, this was not the case in those days. Early on it was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that was the dominant power of Eastern Europe and later it was the Kingdom of Sweden that dominated the Baltic, Scandinavia and much of what is now northern Germany. Even later on in the history of the young Kingdom of Prussia they faced much more powerful countries on almost every side such as the Imperial heartland in Austria to the south, the French in the west and the Poles and Russians to the east. The Kingdom of Prussia could never have an army that could match someone like France or Russia in size and so the Prussians determined that if they could not be bigger, they would just have to be better and Prussian soldiers were trained and drilled until they became a military machine unlike any other in the world. The discipline was often extremely harsh but it was a matter of survival and so in Prussia, the army came first.

Friedrich Wilhelm I built the army to an epic standard but it was his son who put it to use and in doing so secured the position of the Kingdom of Prussia as a major power that was here to stay. With the accession of King Friedrich II, better known as “Frederick the Great” the Kingdom of Prussia came down with a chronic case of awesome. Frederick the Great was the first to drop all formalities and officially become “King OF Prussia” and he proved that, though a comparatively small country, Prussia was a force to be reckoned with. In 1740 Emperor Charles VI died and his daughter, Maria Theresa, became Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary. However, despite her father spending himself into poverty to buy the goodwill of the other powers to his daughter succeeding him, it did no good and everyone ganged up on Maria Theresa of Austria on the basic argument that she couldn’t rule because, you know, she was a lady. But, lady though she was, she was also one tough chick and not about to let the other powers of Europe walk all over her. She fought back with everything she had, particularly to defend the extremely lucrative Silesia region from the Prussians.

Unfortunately for Maria Theresa, the world was first introduced to what a military genius Frederick the Great was. He wielded the Prussian army with greater skill and discipline than anyone had thought possible and soon it seemed that big, powerful Austria was about to be crushed by the upstart little Kingdom of Prussia. Fortunately for Austria, just when they were on the verge of defeat, the fierce, fighting Hungarians came riding to the rescue of their queenly damsel in distress. Austria was saved from disaster but Prussia had still won most of what they had been fighting for in the first place. During his reign the world marveled at the military accomplishments of Frederick the Great. At times virtually every major European power was arrayed against him and yet, he still managed to out-fight them all. Still, even his brilliance could not change the laws of mathematics and over time Prussia was worn down to the brink of collapse. The Prussian armies were filled with conscripts, criminals, many men who were simply kidnapped, the country was drained of resources and it seemed that a total collapse was inevitable. Frederick the Great was even contemplating suicide when, in what became known as the “Hohenzollern Miracle” the Russian empress died and the new Tsar was an avowed fan of “Old Fritz” (as his men adoringly called him) who took Russia out of the war, signed an alliance with Frederick and allowed the Prussians to win in the end. They had been brought to the brink of total destruction but thanks to their matchless army, the military genius of Frederick the Great and a little bit of simple luck, Prussia had survived and the lesson was not soon forgotten.

Under Frederick the Great the Kingdom of Prussia had a matchless army, an advanced economy and an innovative educational system. However, things declined somewhat under his successors. The Prussians fought for the royalists against revolutionaries in The Netherlands and joined the fight against revolutionary France, however, under the leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte, Prussia was defeated. The old spirit seemed to have gone and even Napoleon realized that in the past things had been different, remarking to his marshals when visiting the tomb of Frederick the Great that if “Old Fritz” had still been around they would not have been standing there. However, Queen Luise, consort of King Friedrich Wilhelm III helped revive the Prussian national spirit. Extremely gifted military leaders emerged, German (not just Prussian) patriotism was aroused and in the end it was the Prussian army that charged to the rescue at the battle of Waterloo, defeating Napoleon and saving the British who had been stretched to the breaking point holding off massive French attacks all day. The Kingdom of Prussia emerged stronger and more respected than ever. Prussia also became a focus of pan-German nationalism and a potential source of unity for the German speaking people after the Emperor of Austria made it clear he didn’t want the job.

It took a while for the very traditional Prussian kings to warm to this idea but it was finally presented in a way that was acceptable under the political leadership of Otto von Bismarck. The German people would be united but for that to happen they had to overcome the roadblock that was the Austrian Empire and then confront some great, traditional enemy that would rally the German peoples together. This was accomplished under King Wilhelm I with three giant figures in Prussian history; the political leadership of Bismarck and the military leadership of Graf von Roon and Graf von Moltke. After a little war with Denmark just to get warmed up, the Prussians defeated Austria in less than three months making Prussia the dominant power amongst all the German-speaking people outside of Austria. Then, in 1870 Bismarck was able to provoke the French Emperor Napoleon III into taking a swing at him and the German states rallied behind Prussian leadership to go to war. The French Empire was swiftly and soundly defeated and at the famous Hall of Mirrors in Versailles the assembled German royals proclaimed the King of Prussia “German Emperor” (not Emperor of Germany, though then as now it was often written that way). Under Prussian leadership the German people had been united, the German Empire (or Second Reich) was formed and, with the defeat of France, had become the strongest power on the continent of Europe.

The German Empire, with the Kingdom of Prussia being the largest and most powerful member state, prospered dramatically. German industry thrived, the German navy became the second largest after Britain and colonies were obtained that made Germany the third largest colonial power. All of this caused tensions with Great Britain and soon the British had formed a diplomatic cordon around Germany by allying with France and Russia. Germany, and her monarch Kaiser Wilhelm II, were portrayed as aggressive and threatening and, drawing on a distortion of past history, “Prussian militarism” was blamed. This was so emphasized that it could seem that the British did not see “Germany” so much as ‘Prussia and pals’. It was, however, a distortion as, during the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II for example, Germany was less militarized than France and fought fewer wars than Great Britain. In any event, for a variety of reasons, in 1914 the First World War broke out and Germany found itself opposed by almost every other major power on earth. In the best Prussian tradition the German armed forces put up a spectacular fight but, although there seemed to be a strange sort of repeat of the “Hohenzollern Miracle” it came too little, too late and the German Empire was defeated. Kaiser Wilhelm II, the last King of Prussia, was overthrown, as were all his brother monarchs, and Germany became a republic. A great deal of territory that had belonged to the Kingdom of Prussia was lost, mostly to Poland

The republic was a chaotic mess and then a frustrated Austrian painter took over the country and pretty soon World War II broke out in Europe. It was another tremendous fight with the military high command still largely dominated by men from the former Kingdom of Prussia who had learned their trade fighting for the Kaiser. Still, it ultimately proved to be a lost cause and the Allies still had not forgotten their favorite bogey man of “Prussian militarism”. When it was over, Germany lost even more territory and the state of Prussia was completely erased from the map. Still, even to this day, especially in the army, traces of Prussian influence can still be seen and proud Germans, regardless of where they are from, must give all due credit for the very existence of Germany to the late Kingdom of Prussia.