My Thanks to the Duke of Bavaria

I mean that sincerely. I wish a thousand appreciations to HRH Duke Franz of Bavaria. Why, you may ask? Because with the recent focus on Spain, the abdication of King Juan Carlos and the installation of His Majesty King Felipe VI the neo-Carlist republicans have been coming out of the wood work in the last few days doing their best to help bring about a Third Spanish Republic. I had to ask myself why these pretended legitimists are such a bigger pain than the neo-Jacobites out there (and they are out there, at least on the web) and the only conclusion I can come to is that the neo-Carlist republicans have a pretender to rally to and the neo-Jacobites do not because Duke Franz, God bless him, nor any of his predecessors going back to Bonnie Prince Charlie ever tried to claim to be the King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France. The neo-Carlist republicans, on the other hand, have Prince Sixte-Henri de Bourbon-Parma as their figurehead and I can only assume that is why they are so much more active in causing problems and trying to kill monarchism in Spain forever. So, on behalf of every actual monarchist and loyal monarchists across the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms (if I may be so bold), thank you Duke Franz, thank you from the bottom of my heart and I do pray God that you one day be restored to your rightful throne (as King of Bavaria).

Some, undoubtedly, will accuse me of being intentionally antagonistic by referring to the neo-Carlists as republicans. In the first place, I have no problem with that considering how antagonistic they have been recently and secondly, I say that because that is exactly what they are. Spain has a monarchy, they do not support it. They have nowhere near enough support to bring about any of the sort of changes they want, so by opposing the monarchy they are actively assisting in the creation of another republic. They are hurting the cause of monarchy and helping the cause of the republic, hence they are republicans whether they are honest enough to admit it or not. There is also no way on God’s green earth they could be called legitimists. The neo-Jacobites may or may not be republicans depending on their attitude to the British monarchy but that they are legitimists no one can deny. In the French royalist community the legitimist royalists are legitimists without question. The neo-Carlists, on the other hand, are nothing of the sort. In this area, again, they are republicans. This should be quite obvious by the very person of their royal front-man Prince Sixte-Henri. He has absolutely no legitimate claim on the Spanish throne at all. Period. He is leader of the neo-Carlists solely because he proved more popular than his brother Prince Carlos Hugo, who himself had no legitimate claim either.

The true Carlists of history came into being officially because of a legal dispute but also because they really did not like the wife of King Fernando VII who would be regent on behalf of his young daughter Queen Isabella II. In truth, both sides had some tradition on their side. As a legal matter, the Carlists were completely correct, King Fernando VII had not acted according to the law in the way in which he named his daughter as his successor. What is a bit ironic is that the Carlists were the ones who favored an absolute monarchy while the forces of the Queen Mother Maria Christina favored constitutional monarchy and it was the fact that Fernando VII was the last absolute monarch of Spain that made him think he could just do as he pleased and make his daughter his successor rather than his brother. As far as tradition goes, the Carlists were fighting to uphold the traditional Salic Law which did not allow a woman (or in this case girl) to become monarch under any circumstances. On the other hand, this had only been the tradition since the House of Bourbon replaced the House of Hapsburg in Spain which had died out. The earlier tradition in Spain allowed for female monarchs though males still had preference.

However, in an effort to gain greater support, the Carlists decided that while they were very attached to the Bourbon tradition of Salic Law, they were not so attached to the Bourbon tradition of centralizing power and so they denounced this and thus attracted a great deal of support from the regions that resented the loss of their old privileges to the government in Madrid. So, they were traditional in some ways, not so traditional in others but that they were legitimists no one could deny. That remained the case up until the time of HRH Infante Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime. He was the last male-line descendant of the original Carlist pretender the Count of Molina (Carlos V to his supporters) and after his death the senior male descendant of King Carlos IV (the last monarch before Fernando VII and all the trouble) would be the (by then deposed) King Alfonso XIII of the rival line. So, it was at that point that the Carlists ceased being legitimists because if they had, they would have embraced King Alfonso XIII and then his son Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona, his son King Juan Carlos I and his son King Felipe VI and we would not be having any of this fuss today. Instead, however, they abandoned bloodline legitimacy in favor of ideological popularity and Infante Alfonso Carlos (again, breaking the very laws the Carlist rebellion originally started over, only more so) determined that he could decide who would be his rightful successor and he chose the nephew of his wife, Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma.

Things really came to pieces during that time with the Carlists being split into a number of factions and that has continued until today with the most prominent faction basically deciding who the “legitimate” heir to the Spanish throne is based on his religious and political opinions, thus it landing on the person of Prince Sixte-Henri who is not even the legitimate heir to the Duchy of Parma to say nothing of the Kingdom of Spain. Infante Alfonso Carlos, the last legitimate heir of the Carlist line, had ordered his adherents to support Generalissimo Francisco Franco in the Spanish Civil War and they played a considerable part in his success and were a significant force in Spanish politics in the aftermath. However, their breakdown in unity, their abandonment of bloodline legitimacy and so on meant that they lost influence rapidly during the Franco years and have never since been a political force worthy of serious consideration. In recent years, or decades at this point, many (of the faction that did not go the Marxist route) attached themselves to the cause of Catholic groups such as the Society of St Pius X or those that refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Pope, saying that there has been no Pope since Pius XII or John XXIII (there is disagreement on that point). Obviously, it is a mess and even if they all came together they would still not have sufficient support to effect their grandest wishes and as it stands now, their own in-fighting would preclude them from even making a genuine effort at effecting change of any sort.

The problem with these modern-day neo-Carlists is that they manage to be both practical republicans in the present and totally insult the memory of the original Spanish Carlists who were legitimist monarchists at the same time. The fact that they carry on as they do, even in times of crisis for the Kingdom of Spain, is enough to make one speculate that they may be more than just inadvertent republicans, helping the cause of republicanism out of ignorance. They would have to get their own house in order before being able to have any chance of even the slightest effort at an actual political impact in Spain and so far they cannot even agree on which house is their own to start getting it in order. So, they attack and slander the existing and legitimate Spanish Royal Family, adding their voices to all those of the enemies of monarchy while having nothing but an even more godless republic to replace it with and, moreover, while their list of things they oppose grows longer. For example, while remaining staunchly Catholic, they condemn the Spanish monarchy for not being sufficiently Catholic while also condemning the Pope and the leadership of the Catholic Church for not being sufficiently Catholic. Perhaps, then, instead of wishing to change the government, monarchy and entire Royal Family of Spain they should focus first on making the Catholic Church more to their taste and teach and behave the way they think it should and then perhaps their dissatisfaction in Spain will take care of itself, perhaps the existing Royal Family will be given proper instruction and become ideologically acceptable to them. Focusing on one impossible goal at a time might make sense to some people.

Anyway, having probably wasted my time with that last bit there, I want to point out that not everyone, certainly not all Catholics, share this same ignorance and this can be proven by looking to Russia. First, keep in mind that the place in question here is the Russian Empire that was officially and zealously Russian Orthodox and recall that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches have not gotten along very well for about a thousand years or so. I have read a number of history books written by Catholic authors which deal with the subject of the Russian Revolution. These were extremely partisan books which were not bashful about recounting the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations as being pretty black and white, with the Catholics in the right and the Orthodox in the wrong, one even going so far as to joke (I think?) that the sacking of Constantinople should be a feast day on the Catholic calendar. Now, keeping all that in mind, not one of these books recounted the Russian Revolution as anything other than the horror it was and while some may have had some criticism for the Emperor and Empress, every single one regarded them as good, God-fearing people who died a heroic death at the hands of the worst criminals imaginable.

Why do I point this out (this is a post about modern Carlists that started in Bavaria and has gone to Russia, don’t act so surprised)? Because even though each of these very partisan, Catholic authors would have regarded the ideal as Russia and the rest of the Orthodox world reuniting with Rome while offering their abject apologies and for Russia to become a Catholic empire “eastern style”, they knew that such a thing was not about to happen and that what did happen was that the traditional, religious, God-fearing Russian Orthodox monarchy was replaced by a murderous, godless Bolshevik regime that waged war on the very idea of any religion. In the same way, these same Catholic authors condemned the overthrow of King Charles I of Britain despite the fact that he was a Protestant because what was bound to come after was not going to be a Catholic Britain but a Puritanical one. On the opposite side, I have never come across a Protestant, British monarchist who cheered the French Revolution because it brought down a “Papist” monarchy that did not have a government or a church that they approved of. Would they feel different if the very Catholic and absolute monarchy of France had been replaced with one that was constitutional and Protestant? Perhaps, but that is not what happened and no one would be so great a fool as to think there was any chance of it.

That is the bottom line and that is one major reason why I call these neo-Carlists republicans. There is no more chance of the current Spanish monarchy collapsing and everyone in Spain deciding to make Prince Sixte-Henri of Bourbon-Parma the absolute monarch of a new Spain religiously administered entirely by the Society of St Pius X than there was of the French Revolution turning the country into a Protestant constitutional monarchy or the Bolshevik revolutionaries deciding to turn the Russian Empire into a Catholic monarchy. The odds are absolutely as ridiculously infinitesimal as that. Spain will have the monarchy it has or it will have no monarchy at all. For my part, being a monarchist is simple; I support the monarchy, the monarchy which would be reigning over me if things had gone differently in the past (and perhaps if there had been no series of wars over the succession the Spanish Empire could have been maintained) and I have drawn the line in the sand here. I cannot change the past but I can make a stand in the time and place that I am now and I say that I want no more monarchies to fall. In the world where I live, in the time that I live here, I can say, “no farther, not if I can help it”. It is for that reason that I will not abide or tolerate in any way anyone who does not support the precious few monarchies we still have with us today and why I say ‘thank you’ again to the Duke of Bavaria and why I say sincerely ¡Viva Felipe VI!

(Additional Note: The night before posting this I received two or three confirmations that neo-Jacobite republicans do exist and are indeed adding their voices to the republican mob, so I may have spoken too soon with my praise. I will hope otherwise and in any event still appreciate the Duke, and his predecessors, for having more sense.)

On the Legitimacy of Monarchs

One of the problems with this medium (of the media) is that new people come along and start reading but have no idea what has already been written about unless they go back through the archives beyond the front page. New readers are, of course, not a problem but it does mean that one is often questioned on a point covered in the past, at times covered repeatedly though the questioner is ignorant of this. I have tried to set things out in the “About” section and, of course, anyone can peruse the archives as they wish, yet, not everyone is going to do that. Many, the majority probably, will simply start with the front page and go from there. One such issue that comes up from time to time, more often than I would like certainly (hence the page devoted exclusively to the subject) is royal legitimacy. This is a subject your resident mad man finds increasingly tiresome and frankly, though it is perhaps flattering in a way, I am astounded that anyone would seek out a blogger for the ultimate and absolute definition of “truth” in the universe. It sounds absurd to put it like that, but that is often what it comes down to. The republican mentality and what the former Pope or Pope Emeritus or Co-Pope or whatever Benedict XVI is supposed to be now once called the tyranny of relativism has done its work well. Speaking of the Roman Pontiff, there once was a time when the legitimacy of any monarch, in Catholic eyes, depended on the endorsement of the Pope. Such is no longer the case as there are people who deny the legitimacy of the Pope while still calling themselves Catholics.

That underlies one reason why I refuse to start down the rabbit hole of arguments over royal legitimacy; because there is no end to it. Almost every single monarch still reigning in Europe has some group of people, no matter how small, denying their legitimacy to occupy their throne. And, for the one or two others, I dare say some of the arguments against other monarchs could be applied to them as well. There are some who even delight in feuding over the legitimacy of monarchs who are not even reigning and dynasties which have not actually held a throne in over a hundred years. What this is supposed to accomplish in the reality of the present remains a mystery to me. Two groups that have always stood out the most to me are the Jacobites of Great Britain and the Carlists of Spain. Both were monarchists for whom I have the utmost respect and the greatest sympathy. Had I been alive in their day, I would have certainly been among their ranks of supporters. In the case of the Jacobites, they resisted gallantly and fought like heroes. They were eventually defeated but they remain, for me at least, an honorable memory. In time, they realized that their cause truly was lost and reconciled themselves to the new royal line. The tiny minority today who has taken up their name and denies the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II are, frankly, no better than republicans and by their very actions insult the legacy of the actual Jacobites.

I say that because, even in the days when actual Jacobites were still alive, men who had actually fought with “Bonnie Prince Charlie”, they recognized then that times were changing and the temper of society was not as it had been in the past. Many came to America and settled in the piedmont of North Carolina. When the American War for Independence broke out, there was no talk from these men of “German Georgie” but rather they rallied to the Crown and in support of King George III, recognizing that the monarchy under a different royal relation than they would have preferred, was far better than supporting godless republicanism. The Jacobites had, in a way at least, been fighting for the “Divine Right” but more or less since the victory of King William III, the Crown ruled by the right of Parliament. However, the American rebels were denying any right for a Crown at all, further than that, they were denying even a place for any Crown at all in national life. This was, obviously, something no Jacobite would find it easy to tolerate. If the people had turned against the very idea of monarchy; how on earth could they be expected to understand the significance of royal bloodlines and dynastic legitimacy?

The Jacobites remain, for me, an honorable memory and an example of truly steadfast monarchist loyalty. That in no way changes my view that the one and only monarch of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is Queen Elizabeth II and that she should be supported and defended to the last measure. The public sentiment has changed quite drastically even from what it was in 1776, even in Britain. As I would assume most monarchists know, the legitimate heir to the Stuart royal line (which was what the Jacobites supported) is, today, Duke Franz of Bavaria. I assure you that the vast majority of people in Great Britain have never heard of the Duke, have no idea who he is and have absolutely no interest in bringing this elderly Bavarian royal bachelor over to London to become their monarch. As it happens, Duke Franz himself has never voiced any such desire either. From his actions it can be assumed that he would be perfectly happy to occupy the throne of a restored Kingdom of Bavaria were he to be asked, but no more than that just as no heir of the Stuarts has actually claimed the Crowns of England, Scotland and Ireland since the death of the last actual male descendants of King James II himself. The point is that, as things stand now, the only option besides a Great Britain and Northern Ireland under Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors is a Great Britain and Northern Ireland with no monarch at all, and it is as simple as that. The public mentality has changed and they no longer accept any legitimacy other than that bestowed by the public will. The monarchy remains because the public wish it to remain and they have not the slightest conception of even the mentality behind legitimacy based on royal bloodlines and this giving someone an inherent, God-given right to be the monarch of their country. That is simply the fact of the matter, deplorable though it may be. Carrying on that fight today would be rather like a Latin-mass traditional Catholic trying to convince a population of Buddhists of the invalidity of Vatican II. You have your priorities grossly out of order.

Next we come to the Carlists who are a very unique case to say the least of it. Here was a group of legitimists who lost the war, lost many wars in fact only to finally have their cause prevail in the end at which point they refused to accept victory and resumed the war (though only in words and mostly confined to the internet these days). In some ways, the Carlists remind me of the pro-Orange majority of the Church of England back in 1688. They were a church that existed only because of the principle of non-resistance to royal authority that was arguing that the church must resist the royal authority. Similarly, the Carlists were absolute monarchists who were driven to rebellion by the actions of the last absolute monarch of Spain, King Fernando VII, who declared his daughter rather than his brother to be his heir and successor. However, he did not do this by the traditional legal process but simply decreed it on his own absolute authority and so, after his death, the Carlists rebelled against his daughter and proclaimed his brother Don Carlos to be the true King of Spain. For myself, I have no doubts that the Carlists were on the side of the angels in their cause, however, one could make a legitimate case that, after a certain point, they were doing Spain more harm than good by continuing on rather than seeking some sort of reconciliation. Eventually, the country went to ruin, the empire fell away and even if they had been militarily successful, the Carlist heir would have had far less of a realm to rule as a result of the long succession of wars.

This was something that Britain did not suffer. The Jacobite risings were fewer and less severe than the Carlist wars and the British Empire did not suffer as a result of them. In Spain, on the other hand, the situation deteriorated to such an extent that both sides were increasingly discredited so that it was decided to reject the Bourbon dynasty as a whole and import a monarch from the Italian House of Savoy. When that failed to solve the problem, Spain became a republic for the first time in history though it was so inept that it thankfully was short-lived. The monarchy was restored, the old conflict resumed and soon enough another republic was declared that proved far more disastrous. Happily, with the death of Infante Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime in 1936 (“King Alfonso Carlos I”) it seemed that the legitimacy problem was solved as the exiled King Alfonso XIII then became the senior male descendant of King Carlos IV (the last monarch before Fernando VII). That should have been the end of it according to the original bone of contention which was the suppression of Salic Law by Fernando VII which had been in place ever since the Bourbon royals came to Spain (ironically, the older tradition in Spain had allowed female succession).

However, as we know, that was not the end of it as there are still people claiming to be Carlists and in opposition to the existing Spanish monarchy in spite of the fact that King Juan Carlos is the undisputed, senior male descendant of King Carlos IV. Like him or not, he is the legitimate King of Spain, period, end of discussion. The problem is that the modern-day neo-Carlists started changing the standards by which they judged royal legitimacy. With the death of the Duke of San Jaime, it ceased to be based on bloodline legitimacy and became all about religious and political ideology. Of course, even in that they could not agree with themselves and broke up into communist and anti-communist factions (as absurd as that seems) and it basically came down to “the legitimate heir is whoever we think is best”. Now, obviously, one does not have to be much of a monarchist to see that this is a mentality totally at odds with the very idea of hereditary monarchy and which is much more akin to some sort of republicanism. It no longer is accepting whomever Heaven shall provide and turns into accepting whoever I think is best. And, just like in Britain, these neo-Carlists (aside from the leftist lunatics) aid the republican cause by attacking their monarch and monarchy at every opportunity seemingly oblivious to the fact that Spanish society is about as far from being staunchly monarchist and traditional Catholic as one can possibly be. To the extent that they acknowledge it all, they blame it all on the King. This is absurd and unfair and it is easy to see why.

There had been terrorist campaigns by regional separatists and communist groups for some time before the death of Generalissimo Franco. Spain was not some sort of solidly right-wing, traditional Catholic place before the King took over. The prospect of another civil war was a major concern for people at the time as the extremes on the right and on the left had not gone away. King Juan Carlos decided that the only way to avoid this was with a constitutional monarchy in which the public could vote for whichever side they pleased, vote them into power and vote them out again. The idea that everyone was happily pro-Franco in Spain before the King restored the constitutional monarchy is rather disproved by the first election results in which the wishy-washy coalition came in first with 35% of the vote, the socialists came in second with 30%, the communists with 10% and the Popular Alliance (the most pro-Franco of them all) earned less than 9% of the vote. The point being that the people could have told the King, “no thanks” and voted for the old National Movement to continue just as they could have voted down the new constitution of 1978 and held on to the old one but, again, they did not. The King of Spain did not come in, suppress Francoism (or whatever one chooses to call it) and force liberal democracy down the throats of the Spanish people. To avoid violence and unrest, he simply gave them the choice and they decided to go in a very different direction. The Spanish Falange had been in major decline since the 1960’s and it was also no fault of the King that, upon the death of Franco, the National Movement splintered into several feuding factions, none of which have been politically significant since.

It is also a fact that the Falange, the National Movement, was never solidly monarchist and traditional in the first place. Originally, the Falange was, in fact, staunchly republican and, I would argue, some of their more left-leaning and populist policies probably helped the Spanish public get to the point that it is today. It was very modernist and revolutionary but those parts were simply pushed aside after the rise to prominence of Franco who was not a political ideologue but simply a monarchist and traditional conservative. It was Franco who basically forced the Falangists and Carlists together into one movement (the regionalism of the Carlists also being forced to give way to national unity just as certain elements of the Falange program had to give way to accommodate the alliance). So, to sum up, Spain has come a very long way since the days of absolute monarchy and wars over bloodline legitimacy. The legitimate monarch is on the throne of Spain and tearing him down will not bring the old Spain back. The only options available for that are the same options that have always been available; coercion or persuasion of which the only realistic option is persuasion. That means defeating your enemies in the voting booth which can only be done by converting society to a more traditional way of thinking because if the King of Spain falls the result will not be the emergence of another Franco but the emergence of a (God forbid) Third Spanish Republic.

This is why, on the “Legitimacy” page, the first line is, “First and foremost, it is the official position here at The Mad Monarchist that the legitimacy of the remaining reigning monarchs of the world is not to be called into question.” As I said there, monarchists today are an endangered species and no longer have the luxury of feuding over centuries-old dynastic disputes, many of which involve monarchies that have not even existed in over a hundred years. When the very idea of monarchy has been discarded by so many in favor of revolutionary republicanism, this is the time to man the battlements, flood the moat and pull up the drawbridge, not assist the enemy by giving them another reason to disregard their reigning monarchs. These republicans know, even if some monarchists do not, that 9 times out of 10, when a monarchy is abolished, it is gone forever. Restorations are rare things and so long as even the bare bones of a monarchy remain, I will fight to preserve them so that, perhaps, one day society can be brought back to its senses and monarchy resume its rightful place and in proper fashion. That means, it doesn’t matter if I agree with everything a particular monarch or royal says or not (I have to bite my tongue quite a bit sometimes), it means I don’t have to approve of how every existing monarchy functions or what policies their elected governments pursue because, as hard as it might be, refurbishing an existing monarchy is a great deal easier than restoring one that has been overthrown.

In explaining some of the myriad of dynastic disputes to one perplexed person, I was asked why everyone else in the world could not be like Japan; just have one monarchy, one dynasty and no arguments about it. My reply was that we all could but it would require doing something that few people, even some monarchists, seem able to do which is to regard the monarch as sacred and inviolable. If you like and agree with the monarch, wonderful, if not; blame the advisors, blame the politicians, pull the whole world down around the monarch if you like, but the monarch must remain sacrosanct and above all such things. What the world needs right now is a change in values, a change in the heart and in attitude and if that happens, political change will follow naturally and genuinely. I would encourage everyone to push for and strive for and argue for a more traditional society, a return to basic common sense and natural law but I would also urge everyone to not assist the republicans by making an enemy of any monarch but rather display a steadfast loyalty and devotion that is stronger than any passing trends of social fashion.

Monarchist Profile: General Ramon Cabrera y Griñó

Of all the Carlist generals of the civil wars in Spain, probably none was so controversial as General Ramon Cabrera y Griñó. The ruling government and their supporters viewed him as the embodiment of all of their worst fears about the Carlist movement; a vicious, bloodthirsty reactionary. The Carlists themselves originally viewed him as a hard but powerful leader, someone who was willing to do whatever was necessary for the cause. Ultimately, however, he was a man who would come to be seen as a traitor by both sides in the conflict he fought in. The man who would later be known as the “Tiger of Maestrazgo” was born in Tortosa on December 27, 1806 to the owner of a merchant sloop who died when he was only 5-years-old. As a boy he was sent to study at a seminary where he was known for his lackluster grades and rowdy behavior. He entered minor orders but when the time came for his ordination to the priesthood the Bishop refused, observing that his vocation was not with the Church but that he would probably make a good soldier. He joined the Spanish army and was soon involved with the Carlist faction following the death of His Catholic Majesty King Fernando VII. Exiled from Barcelona because of this he later escaped to Morella and in 1833 joined the gathering army of Don Carlos who claimed the throne in opposition to the infant Queen Isabella II and her domineering mother Maria Christina.

He soon became prominent amongst the Carlists and in 1834 was promoted to colonel in the forces of General Manuel Carnicer, commander of Carlist forces in Aragon and Valencia until his execution by the government. Cabrera then took the place of his late commander and lead numerous and successful raids against the forces of Queen Isabella II, defeating numerous efforts sent against him and gaining a reputation as a daring commander. His courage was never in question as he was wounded several times leading his men from the front. Probably no other Carlist general was so feared by the Cristinos (named for the regent-queen mother) as Cabrera was. Not only was he usually victorious but he was merciless against his enemies and soon became known for having prisoners executed and showing no reservation about killing non-combatants and destroying private property. This made him greatly feared and reviled by the forces of the Queen but it also gave some of the adherents of Don Carlos pause who felt he was sullying the reputation of their noble cause. No doubt his actions were publicized by the Cristinos as examples of Carlist cruelty to win public support in putting down the rebellion.

There was also some context to this to keep in mind. When the government forces proved unable to defeat him, in a fit of rage General Agustin Nogueras has Cabrera’s mother arrested and later shot in 1836. It was this act which encouraged Cabrera to show no mercy at all and his troops became known for taking no prisoners and killing the wives of government generals in retaliation for his own loss. In the First Carlist War his troops reached the outskirts of Madrid and waited for Don Carlos to come and occupy the capital but his forces never arrived. He continued to be victorious and in 1838 Don Carlos granted him the title of Count of Morella in recognition of his service. Divisions among the Carlist high-command led to much of their support falling away (some Carlist generals executing each other) until General Cabrera was the only Carlist commander left in the field, still carrying on the fight. It was only when he fell ill that the Cristinos were able to encroach on his area of operations and he was forced to retreat across the border to France. He was arrested, imprisoned, later paroled but finally came to live in Lyon for several years on a French pension.

King Louis Philippe had, at one point, allowed Cabrera to leave France for England where he met with Don Carlos who had himself been forced to go into exile. While there he clashed with the pretender over his abdication in favor of his son Carlos Luis in 1845. Still, he did not deviate from the course he had long ago taken. When the Second Carlist War broke out in 1847 it was an ill-organized affair and Cabrera thought it had no chance of victory. Nonetheless, when the new claimant, Carlos VI, called on him for support Cabrera returned to Spain and organized a guerilla army in Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia. Nonetheless, as expected, after several years of raids and skirmishes the Carlists are again defeated and in 1849 Cabrera returned to France. In 1850 he moved on to England where he married the heiress of a wealthy merchant and set up house in Wentworth. He was aware of subsequent Carlist uprisings but was not personally involved.

General Cabrera, by that time a wealthy man in England, gave financial support to the Carlist claimant but being removed from the mountains of Spain to Great Britain gave him a different perspective on the world. He began to view the Carlist cause as hopeless, that the days of dynastic struggles deciding the course of history were over and when plans were brought to his attention for the Third Carlist War he refused to endorse them. He was also offended by the number of new men the latest Carlist pretender (Carlos VII) gathered around him rather than old fighters like himself. Finally he determined that the way to help Spain was to accept the existing monarchy and work to move it in a more traditional and conservative direction. Needless to say, most Carlists did not follow his line of thinking. Nonetheless, in 1875 he announced his support for the restored monarchy of King Alfonso XII and called upon other Carlists to do the same (very few did). King Alfonso XII recognized his rank and noble status in return for this show of support while Don Carlos naturally denounced him as a traitor to the cause and his legitimate monarch and revoked his rank and titles. After that many Carlists wanted to see Cabrera dead and he never returned to Spain again, dying in London on May 24, 1877.

In the end, his change of coat helped no one. His position did not change at all, he swayed no Carlists into giving up their rebellion nor did the Alfonsists gain much satisfaction in having the most vilified of all the Carlist leaders join their ranks. After his death, King Alfonso XII granted his widow a pension but in 1899 after the loss of the remnant of the Spanish empire to the United States she renounced it, donating the money to the Spanish treasury. The reputation of General Cabrera will always be a mixed one. The one side would never forgive his atrocities while the other would never forgive his betrayal of their cause (no matter that he was ultimately proven correct about the futility of it). However, few would deny his reputation purely as a military leader. His enemies, who often despised him, were forced to admit that he was an extremely able and clever general, a natural tactician and master of guerilla warfare. A lack of competent leadership was always one of the major weaknesses of the Carlist forces but, at least on the battlefield, General Cabrera is an example of an exception to that trend. His record of success speaks for itself.

Monarchist Music: Oriamendi

For God, for Country and the King.
This is what our forefathers fought for.
For God, for Country and the King.
And this we will fight for as well.

We shall fight all together,
All together in union
Defending the banner
Of Sacred Tradition.(repeat)

By cost or by gain,
Acquired it must be -
Returning the King of Spain
To the court of Madrid. (repeat)

For God, for Country and the King.
This is what our forefathers fought for.
For God, for Country and the King.
And this we will fight for as well.

Monarchist Profile: Tomás de Zumalacárregui

Tomas de Zumalacarregui y de Imaz was a controversial figure, and remains so, though none could deny his zeal or ability. His inclusion here may be questioned by virtue of the fact that this adamantly monarchist soldier came to fame in a civil war, not between monarchists and republicans, but between rival royal claimants (always sad when that happens). I speak of course of the Carlist wars in Spain and Zumalacarregui stands out as being a great military leader for the Carlist forces who were ordinarily lacking in that regard. He was a Basque born in 1788, the son of a lawyer. His first military experience came with the invasion of Spain by the French forces of Napoleon Bonaparte. He joined the Spanish Royal Army, saw combat at Tudela and was eventually taken prisoner. Managing to escape, he saw about his family and promptly joined the guerillas fighting the French occupiers.

As a member of irregular forces Zumalacarregui stood out for his firm principles. More of the strong, silent type he was a devoutly religious man who fought for independence and the most noble traditions of the Catholic Kingdom of Spain. As soon as possible he rejoined the regular Spanish army and became an officer. He proved his natural ability on the battlefield, was promoted to captain and once King Ferdinand VII was restored to his throne Zumalacarregui worked to even out his military experience with studying the art of war in books. He was staunchly royalist and was disgusted by the spread of liberalism throughout Spain following the French occupation. When the 1820 Revolution erupted liberal officers betrayed him to the revolutionary government as a reactionary but the Basque captain was not removed. Yet, when the government found out he was organizing royalists they did act and he was forced to go into exile in France.

He returned from France in 1823 with other Spanish royalists to restore the power of King Ferdinand VII and he was promoted to lieutenant colonel in 1825 and colonel in 1829 for his courage and proven steadfast loyalty to the Crown. However, as the King determined to make his daughter his heir without bothering about the law and traditions of Spain Zumalacarregui, who had fought for Ferdinand VII all is life, was known to be opposed to this and supportive of the succession of the King’s brother Don Carlos. Uprisings on behalf of Don Carlos began as soon as the King died and his daughter was proclaimed Queen Isabella II by the more liberal faction directed by her mother Queen Maria Cristina. However, the pious soldier held back, naturally hesitant to take up arms against his countrymen.

The Carlists suffered a number of setbacks before Don Carlos (King Carlos V to his supporters) named him commander of Navarre and Zumalacarregui answered the call and joined the Carlist forces fighting for the traditional Catholic Kingdom of Spain that he held most dear. Under his leadership the Carlists stopped being simple dissidents and took on the form of a regular military force. He trained his men, instilled discipline and self-confidence and proved a very adept and resourceful commander, arming and supplying his army almost exclusively from materials captured from the enemy (known as Cristinos). He was also a very honorable man who did away with executions while his enemies often had Carlist prisoners executed by firing squad. His experience during the French occupation paid dividends and he proved a master of unconventional warfare.

Battle after battle was won by Zumalacarregui and his troops adored him for his skill that gave them victory, his religious faith that inspired them and his concern for their welfare. The top command, however, did not make the best use of him partly due to fears of his being too popular and a potential threat. Their fears were entirely misplaced as there was no one more loyal and less ambitious that the stern, quiet Basque general. By 1835 he had secured most of northern Spain for the Carlist cause, commanded an army of over 30,000 men and for the first time gave Carlos V a military rated better than that of the Queen-regent. He wanted to march at once on Madrid to see Carlos V properly installed as King but he was overruled and ordered to attack Bilbao on the north coast in his native country. While besieging the port he was wounded in the leg and died on June 24, 1835.

His death was controversial with many claiming that if his English doctor could have treated him rather than the surgeons sent by Don Carlos he would have lived or that the war could have been one if he had been allowed to march on Madrid instead of being diverted to the coast. What few could dispute is that the Carlists would never have the benefit of another general of quite the same calibre as Zumalacarregui who was the complete package of reserved demeanor, heartfelt patriotism, deep faith, honorable principles, courage, skill and resourceful military talent who could command the hearts as well as the obedience of his men. Even the most bitter enemies of the Carlist movement would be hard pressed to say anything negative about this great and upstanding Spanish monarchist.

Controversy, Carlism and Juan Carlos

Over the years I have heard from many self-described monarchists who have nothing at all good to say about King Juan Carlos I of Spain, usually from the camp of the small but committed modern day Carlists, or perhaps I should say -one of the many camps. It has happened often enough to prompt me to state my perspective on the issue even though I try to stay out of dynastic disputes here on the blog for the sake of unity amongst the minority of monarchists still scattered about the globe. Longtime readers and followers from Yahoo! Will likely already know that, in the time and place that it mattered, my own sympathies are with the Carlists. In choosing that side I have the benefit of hindsight. How the Carlist pretenders might have ruled Spain we can only guess but history certainly shows that their opponents and their policies were not good for the long-term strength and stability of the King of Spain.

Aside from this, I also take the Carlist side because of the legality of their original case as well as my sympathy with their overall attitude of rejecting the modern mass political system and so-called “enlightenment” ideals in favor of old fashioned altar and throne monarchy. They put up a long and gallant resistance and in the story of Spanish history I consider them the “good guys”. However, that does not translate to any opposition on my part to the Spanish monarchy today or King Juan Carlos personally. One of the problems the Carlists had in recent times, probably due to such a long period as the underdog, is that they fractured and as they became an ever smaller and less significant minority many became even more fanatical in their opposition to any and everyone who did not coincide with their own exact position. Such as King Juan Carlos.

Exactly who the legitimate Carlist claimant is disputed today among a number of individuals (something problematic all on its own) and despite what many may think one of those who is considered legitimate heir to the Carlist mantle is King Juan Carlos himself. However, much of the movement known as Carlism today has more to do with religion, politics, social issues etc rather than royal bloodlines. I also consider the fact that monarchists should not throw away the preferable in pursuit of the ideal, which is where King Juan Carlos comes in.

I have certainly not agreed with every act that King Juan Carlos has put his name to. I like him personally, I would prefer it if he would take more of a principled stand on certain issues but then I could say the same for virtually every monarch in Europe. I also do not think, as some seem to, that Juan Carlos alone could stop the current trend of Spanish government and society. Were he to do so, the most likely outcome would be that the monarchy would be abolished and a leftist republic established. With the current situation there is at least the framework in place for an eventual recovery. As far as claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy (and I will say again that the current king is heir of one of the line of Carlist claimants) simply being the monarch in these difficult times counts for a great deal. I take the same attitude regarding King Juan Carlos in Spain as I do Queen Elizabeth II in Great Britain where you will still find some diehard Jacobites who insist that the Duke of Bavaria is the rightful king and they hold the reigning Queen in utter contempt. For me, in both cases, regardless of past merits, the only possibilities for Spain or Great Britain is their current monarchs or a republic and the last thing the world needs is yet another republic.

For all of these reasons, though I have the utmost respect for the Carlist tradition and though I certainly do not agree with every act King Juan Carlos has put his name to, I will recognize and support him as the King of Spain and encourage in any way I can his maintenance on the throne. If one disapproves of certain actions of the government my answer would be to give the King a more safe and powerful part in government rather than disregarding the King altogether as he has made no secret of his personal opposition to a number of bills he has felt obliged to sign. For myself, given the option of King Juan Carlos or another Spanish republic it is a very simple decision as to which side to take. Viva el Rey!