Henri, the Unhappy Prince of Denmark

Prince Consort Hendrik of Denmark recently made it known, and the Royal Palace office in Copenhagen confirmed, that he does not wish to be buried alongside his wife Danish Queen Margrethe II. He has said that he does not wish to be buried in his native France so, we presume, he does wish to be buried in the Kingdom of Denmark but not with his wife the Queen. The Palace confirmed that this was because Prince Henri is unhappy with his title of "Prince Consort" and this is nothing all that new. For many years now the word has been circulating about how Prince Henri was dissatisfied with his title and that he resents not having been made "King of Denmark". The official statement from the palace said that the Prince did not appreciate not having equal status with his wife and this is something that has come up with him before. In 2002, he left Denmark in a huff after his son the Crown Prince hosted an official reception in the absence of the Queen since, as heir-to-the-throne, he is second in the royal hierarchy. This offended Prince Henri though he did finally return with the Queen granting to their children a new hereditary title based on that claimed by the French family of her consort. So, again, this is not exactly coming out of the clear blue sky, this is something Prince Henri has been upset about for many years now.

Most of the comments I have heard or seen have been extremely critical of the Prince to say the least of it. Given that, let me say at the outset that, yes, I think the Prince is being childish and that his devotion to his wife should outweigh any question of titles when it comes to where he spends his eternal rest. That being said, this is an issue that the monarchies of Europe have set themselves up for. First of all, we should consider precedent and recognize that this issue has come up before though not in Denmark where Margrethe II was herself almost unprecedented in that she is the first queen regnant Denmark has had in a great many centuries and only the second in the entire history of the western world's oldest monarchy. However, other countries have had to deal with this issue. In the Kingdom of Portugal, the husband of a queen regnant was always titled "king". The French, Germans, Italians, Poles, Belgians and so on never had a queen regnant. England has and the first (not counting Matilda) was Queen Mary I whose husband, King Philip II of Spain, was also titled "King of England". Queen Isabella II of Spain was married to the Duke of Cadiz who was titled "King Consort". Queen Juana of Castile married Philip "the Handsome" of the Habsburgs and he became King Felipe I of Castile, delivering Spain to the House of Habsburg. Her mother, Queen Isabella I of Castile, was of course married to Fernando of Aragon who was a king in his own right. Lord Darnley, husband of the ill-fated Mary Queen of Scots, was titled King Consort and Queen Victoria of Great Britain & Ireland had wanted to make her beloved Prince Albert "King Consort" but the government would not hear of it and so he had to settle for "Prince Consort" instead. The Habsburg domains have had one female ruler, Empress Maria Theresa, and her husband, the Duke of Lorraine, was ultimately elected Holy Roman Emperor. However, none of the English queens since Mary I have done the same, likewise all of the consorts of the Dutch queens have been 'prince consort' and not kings.

So, it has been done, it is only that it has not been done lately. The reason, in the past, was due to Europe being rather more Christian than it is now (which is to say it was Christian, or at least was serious about trying to be). In the vilified days of old, husbands were expected to be the head of their family, the master of the house, in other words the 'boss' and so it was often not thought appropriate that a husband should have a title subservient to that of his wife. Yes, that was then, this is now and this was never an issue in Denmark before but I point it out simply for the sake of context. Prince Henri's desire is not unheard of, just rather unheard of for this century. However, plenty of things are accepted these days that would have been unheard of in those maligned centuries past. Yes, again, I think Prince Henri is doing himself no favors with this petulant behavior but I dare say this will come up again and probably more frequently in the future.

After all, look at it this way: most of the monarchies of Europe have done away with male preference in the succession because the west has abandoned the traditional, Christian, view of the family. This has happened in the name of the 'equality' of the sexes (though obviously not of age but don't get me started on that issue). So, as queens shall become more common in the future of the European monarchies with Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden all set to have female monarchs next time around, the egalitarian mentality will beg the question; why is a woman who marries a king given the title of 'queen' but a man who marries a queen is only given the title of 'prince'? Personally, I would not expect anyone to care that much as few seem to care about men being treated unfairly compared to women. Whenever that happens, the feminists suddenly turn all 'patriarchal' and say, "be a man and stop complaining". However, Prince Henri has objected and I would not be at all surprised to see some in the future take up the issue simply as a way of forcing more innovation on the remaining monarchies or just as an excuse to accuse monarchy of being inherently opposed to egalitarianism (which it is). So, yes, by all means, ridicule Prince Henri for his un-gallant behavior but also ask yourself; in this age of supposed equality, why do the girls get to be queens but the boys do not get to be kings when they get married?

Personally, I think it is just another example of the idiocy of the whole egalitarian mindset and particularly of the outright absurdity of trying to enforce "equality" on a monarchy, but, maybe that's just me...

A Tale of Two Interviews

Recently, two royals gave interviews; Britain’s Prince Harry and Princess Marie of Denmark (wife of Prince Joachim). Of course, of the two, the interview with Prince Harry, for Newsweek magazine, got the most attention as any news involving the British Royal Family invariably does; they are playing to a larger audience after all. However, that might not be a bad thing as the interview given by Princess Marie could easily be taken as shockingly outrageous by the oh-so-sensitive “social justice warrior” crowd. Needless to say, I loved it for the very same reasons they would find it offensive. It is probably for the best that fewer people will see it because I can see (knowing how these SJW types think) how it could be used to portray Princess Marie as a horrible person (like me), which she certainly is not. This is, though, the common thread between the two interviews because, as did the son of Albion who sent me the article, I could tell from the headline alone that this would be a gift to the traitorous republicans of Britain and the Commonwealth and I knew exactly how they would (and have) twisted the Prince’s honest observations to fit their agenda.

Starting with Prince Harry (an article on the interview can be found here), the one line that was singled out from the entire interview to plaster all over the headlines was his relating that no one in the House of Windsor really wants the “job” of being monarch. He said, “Is there any one of the Royal Family who wants to be king or queen? I don’t think so, but we will carry out our duties at the right time.” It is no coincident that this one line was singled out for the most attention rather than the Prince’s follow-up remarks about the dedication to duty the Royal Family has and the importance of the monarchy for people in Britain and across the Commonwealth. No, they seize on the line about no one wanting the top job because it fits in well with a traditional republican narrative, I call it the “nice guy” republican narrative. This is the one that says, ‘see, the royals don’t event want to live the sort of life they do, they have no freedom, so the best thing we could do for them is to abolish the monarchy and set them free from their gilded cage!’ or some such similar nonsense.

This is a typical republican response to monarchies that enjoy high popularity as it allows them to advocate abolishing the monarchy without attacking the monarch but, rather, posing as the ‘saviors’ of the Royal Family. The problem with this is that it is one, rare, republican argument which actually has facts behind it, what is despicable is the completely dishonest and disingenuous way they use it. The truth is that, yes, the royals do not have quite so envious a position as people think. They are constantly under tremendous scrutiny, have obligations they never asked for, have much of their lives planned out months in advance and have less personal freedom than anyone in their country. They have no freedom of movement (for the monarch anyway), no freedom of speech and no right to vote among others. They have all of the stress and scrutiny of a position of authority but none of the power to go along with it. Were they to lose their royal status, they would simply be very wealthy private citizens and could live their lives without a care in the world or any concern for public opinion. I have no doubt it would be quite liberating.

The republicans, however, seldom actually fool anyone with their supposed concern for the happiness and freedom of the royals. They are, after all, a big reason why the royals have so little. However, while what the Prince said was doubtless true, the Crown being an awesome responsibility that no sane person would want if they truly understood the consequences of it, he should not have said what he did as it simply does not play well with the modern public. Thanks to the media, academia and so on, all of which is inundated with Marxist “values” far too many people have been taught to view everything with an envious lens. The last thing the modern masses want to hear is someone complaining about his life who lives in a palace, dates bombshells, skis in the Alps and so on while they live in a council house and eat takeaway. It’s not right, it’s not healthy but that people for you. The idea that common people live poorly because royals live well is a canard that should be obvious yet it has been deployed to some effect at least as far back as the French Revolution, so it should not be discounted.

Most concerning to me was Prince Harry’s expressed desire, including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, to “modernize” the monarchy when their time does come. I do not like the sound of that, mostly because I am gun-shy about anything involving modernity. In my experience, whenever anyone talks of “modernizing” something the result is usually plainer, uglier, less meaningful and more ridiculous than it was before. However, it is probably not a coincidence that this interview was with an American periodical and if Prince Harry sticks with his current girlfriend he will certainly gain a great deal more attention in the United States and break new ground. If the Prince and Meghan Markle take this all the way, Meghan could become the first mixed-race American actress to become a royal princess. That would certainly please the diversity crowd. However, even then, as with President Obama, I can already predict that, being half Irish-American, there will be some who insist she is not “Black enough” to count. Of course, Prince Maximilian of Liechtenstein married a 100% African-American some years ago, giving Europe their first Afro-European prince but, of course, that is Liechtenstein which hardly shows up on the radar, they are not *technically* royal and I am quite confident that more than 99% of Americans have no idea where Liechtenstein is or even what it is.

Anyway, the bottom line is that while Prince Harry would certainly get a great deal of attention if he stuck with his current ‘flavor of the month’ the sort of crowd that would be most impressed by that is the same sort that is never satisfied so pandering to them would be futile. However, it does also provide a tenuous connection with the subject of the second interview, Princess Marie of Denmark (her interview can be read here) who is the second wife of Prince Joachim of Denmark, his first wife being Alexandra Manley, a mixed race woman of Euro-Asian ancestry from Hong Kong who was previously Princess Alexandra, now Countess of Frederiksborg and soon to be no longer on the government payroll. Their breakup was the first royal divorce in Denmark since 1846, so, rather significant. Both have since remarried, Prince Joachim to Marie Cavallier, a native of Paris, France in 2008. Her father-in-law is also French and both converted from Catholicism to the Lutheran Church of Denmark for their marriages.

Princess Marie gave a perfectly pleasant and perfectly frank interview and came off looking like an altogether nice person, open, honest and good natured. I think more highly of her after reading it. However, as stated as the outset, she did say some things that the SJW crowd would be quick to pick apart and pounce on if they were to actually read it (which I doubt any will). Some parts would likely have raised more eyebrows in the past than they would now. Her remark that, coming from France, she had to adjust to how much earlier people start to work in Denmark, would have, in years past, caused some huffing about stereotypes of Gallic laziness versus the Protestant work ethic but I don’t think anyone notices that anymore. What they would, however, surely seize on was her remark that, in explaining how much more trusting Danes seem to be than other people and asked if this had anything to do with the size of the country, “The size probably plays, because the territory is homogeneous. But we must also take into account our very ancient history. We have the oldest monarchy in Europe and are deeply attached to our traditions. At the same time, the country is very modern. Education also plays a great role.”

For those of you fortunate enough not to know how the mind of the fanatic, revolutionary leftist works, saying that a “homogeneous” country is a positive thing is one of the worst things you could possibly do. No, homogeneous societies are bad and only diverse societies are good (at least when it comes to western countries anyway). Princess Marie and any Dane who would say it is a good thing for Denmark to be Danish would certainly get an ear-full from any “social justice warrior” who would berate them as terrible “racists” for such thinking and demand that they acknowledge that Denmark has never been very good and never will be until more Africans, Arabs and Asians are bought in to bring all the benefits of “diversity”. According to these people, Denmark has always been substandard precisely for being so homogeneous. Princess Marie, needless to say, was not thinking of any of this and seems to be an entirely good natured, optimistic type of person. She was, I have no doubt, simply relating what used to be considered common sense; that a small group of people who are alike, share the same values and are generally on the same page will be able to trust each other and get along with each other much easier than if the opposite were true.

Princess Marie was then asked about Prince Joachim, the interviewer pointing out that he is half French. She responded with glowing praise for her hubby, saying that he inherited great qualities from both his parents but emphasizing that, “He’s indeed the perfect Dane…” which I am sure some could find fault with. However, that would be as nothing compared to her answer to a question about the negative portrayals of Denmark, this coming after she related how wonderful she thought Denmark and all things Danish are. The Princess seemed at a loss as to what could possibly be a negative cliché about Denmark so the interviewer proposed the notion that Denmark is a country of Vikings. In an answer that would surely upset the snowflake crowd, Princess Marie brushed this aside, seemingly oblivious to the idea that anyone could possibly consider being associated with the Vikings as a bad thing. She actually agreed with the stereotype but thought it was a positive thing saying, “It’s also true. My husband is never sick. He never goes to the doctor. He’s very tough. He’s quite a Viking. They have very good genetics!”

I really loved this answer. The interviewer was doubtlessly thinking of big, brawny blondes killing and looting as the epitome of what it means to be a Viking. Princess Marie, however, chose to instead take pride in the Vikings as strong, robust people who were very tough, went on to associate her husband with them, in a very positive way, and then just to make sure the SJW types would reach critical mass, praised the genetics of the Vikings, inherently implying that some people have better genes than others. Again, I have no doubt such a thought never entered the Princess’ mind for a moment, but that is just the sort of thing that the people who are constantly on the hunt for something to be offended and outraged over would seize upon as being terribly insensitive, even “racist”. Frankly, I simply found it to be refreshingly positive and very charming that the Princess can be blissfully unaware that such unpleasant and manipulative people exist in the world who might zero in on such innocent remarks. Again, I came away from reading the interview with a higher opinion of Princess Marie than I had previously. I point these examples out simply to show that royals today, in spite of their diminished roles, must tread a very difficult path because their enemies are every watchful, ever deceitful and have no depths they will not stoop to in order to undermine the last vestiges of tradition that exist in the world today.

Story of Monarchy: The Kingdom of Denmark

In all the monarchies of the western world, none can match the longevity of the Danes. The venerable Danish monarchy can boast of having the longest unbroken hereditary succession in the world other than Japan. As such, the history of Denmark stretches back to traceless antiquity. Scientists have found evidence of human habitation in Denmark going back 11,000 years though very little is known about the people that lived there at that time other than that they survived by hunting and fishing. With the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the onset of the “Dark Ages” things began to become more exciting for the people of Denmark who, under their various chieftains, struck out on Viking raids into neighboring countries. In the 800’s Danish Vikings conquered most of southern England while others conquered and settled on the northern coast of France. Referred to as the “Northmen” or Normans, this area has since been known as Normandy. These Danes were Vikings but eventually adopted French culture, mixed with the local population and converted to Christianity.

Sweyn Forkbeard

About the year 950 AD the Danes were finally united into one country by a chieftain known as Harald Bluetooth. It was his son, Sweyn Forkbeard (and you have to love those Viking names) who led the Danish conquest of England which was completed by 1013. King Sweyn Forkbeard was, in turn, succeeded by his son King Canute the Great who conquered Norway in 1028. This represented a high point in Danish history but it was to be rather short-lived. After the death of King Canute the Great things began to come apart, aided in so small part by the fact that various chieftains battled over the throne. While civil war prevailed at home, Denmark lost control of England and Norway as well as other territorial holdings outside Denmark itself. However, when your history is as long as that of the Kingdom of Denmark, there is time for more than one high point and, in a way that seems rather foreign to people today, the Danes were not deterred by these setbacks and as soon as the domestic problems were settled, began to expand again to build another era of power and glory for their country.

A new Danish empire stretching across the shores of the Baltic Sea was established by two particularly powerful monarchs with the same name; King Valdemar the Great (1131-1182) and King Valdemar the Victorious (1170-1241). Thanks to their successful campaigns, the lands of the Kingdom of Denmark stretched across much of northern Germany, the island of Gotland and east to what is now Estonia. It was also King Valdemar the Victorious who gave Denmark its first legal system known as the “Jutland Code”. This law code was to remain in effect in Denmark until 1683 and influenced subsequent Danish law codes far beyond that. However, the Danish empire built by the two Valdemars eventually met its match with the rise of the German merchant city-states that banded together in the Hanseatic League. Denmark lost most of its continental possessions to the League as well as absorbing an amount of German customs due to proximity and close interaction. But, you can’t keep a good Dane down and as the 1200’s gave way to the 1300’s the Kingdom of Denmark began to rise again.

Queen Margaret I

The island of Iceland became a Danish possession in 1380 and would remain such until the middle of the last century. The late 1300’s also saw the emergence of one of the most famous and formidable characters in Danish royal history; Queen Margaret (1353-1412). During her time on the Danish throne, Queen Margaret was able to unite under her rule all of Denmark, Norway and Sweden by 1397. These countries did not become Danish possessions but retained their own national governments. They were, however, united in personal union with Queen Margaret of Denmark. This union of the Scandinavian countries survived Queen Margaret but not by much. It began to come apart when the Swedish nobility rebelled against King Christian II of Denmark (1481-1559) and the Swedes succeeded in winning their independence from the Danish crown in 1523.

Baptism of Bluetooth

On the religious front, the beginning of Christianity in Denmark dates back to our old friend King Harald Bluetooth. There are conflicting accounts as to how exactly it happened but all agree that King Harald Bluetooth was the first to convert to Christianity and was the first Catholic monarch of Denmark. He even had his father, Gorm the Old, (honored as the originator of the Danish monarchy) removed from the old pagan burial mound and reburied in a church. King Harald Bluetooth helped to spread Christianity though it would take some time before the faith was accepted in Norway and Sweden. However, eventually it was and Denmark was a Catholic country as were Norway and Sweden. So firmly were these lands a part of the wider Christendom that Christian knights from the most distant northern land of Norway even participated in the Crusades to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. However, by the sixteenth century, religious changes arrived in Denmark and were to change the course of Danish history.

King Christian III

In 1536 King Christian III of Denmark (1503-1559) became a Protestant, adopting Lutheranism and making the Lutheran church the official state religion of the Kingdom of Denmark. Prior to this, as elsewhere, the Catholic Church held extensive properties and assets in Denmark. When King Christian III embraced the Protestant cause, he seized all of these assets for the Crown of Denmark and in so doing greatly increased the wealth and power of the Danish monarchy. This also, of course, separated Denmark from the countries of Catholic Christendom but it did not mean peace and tranquility with the Protestant powers either as this was followed by a long period of conflict with the Kingdom of Sweden which had also become officially Lutheran as well. For most of the next two hundred years Denmark and Sweden were often at war. The Danes were trying to force Sweden back into the personal union with Denmark while the Swedes were growing more powerful and ambitious and wished to secure control of the Baltic shores and to obtain an outlet to the North Sea and Atlantic Ocean. Denmark and Norway stood in the way of this goal and frequent warfare ensued. The fighting was fierce but between 1649 and 1660 the Swedes succeeded in gaining access to the ocean and expelling the last Danish footholds from the Swedish mainland. Over the next two centuries the Danes would fight to regain the territory lost to Sweden with the situation not really calming down until the Napoleonic Wars.

The defeats at the hands of Sweden were certainly demoralizing but they did prove rather beneficial for the Danish monarchy. The nobility of Denmark had been devastated by the wars with Sweden and this gave rise to the middle classes increasing their power and eliminated the nobility as a major rival for power with the King. The middle classes wanted stability and the opportunity to advance themselves and so joined with the King in opposition to the aristocracy and so it was that in 1660 King Frederick III (1609-1670) made the Kingdom of Denmark an absolute monarchy and, officially, a hereditary monarchy. In the old days, the monarchy was elective but effectively hereditary as the eldest son of the previous monarch was invariably chosen to be the next king but Frederick III made this official. Even modern historians have had to admit that royal absolutism benefited Denmark.

King Frederick VI

Absolute monarchy brought greater stability to Denmark which in turn brought about a flourishing of commerce and, with the increased wealth, also a flourishing of the arts as monarchs sponsored great artists. In 1721 the Danes settled Greenland and in 1788 serfdom was abolished in Denmark by King Christian VII (1749-1808), though as most regarded him as quite insane, it was actually his doctor and later brother and regent who produced these changes. The end of serfdom meant the end of the huge estates which hurt the economy in the short term but eventually led to improvements in farming that benefited the country as a whole. It was under the regent, later King Frederick VI (1768-1839), that the Napoleonic Wars first came to Denmark when the British launched two attacks on Copenhagen, in 1801 and 1807, to stop Denmark from trading with France and frightening Sweden, Prussia and Russia away from the same. A period of hostility between Britain and Denmark ensued with the British taking the view that Denmark was essentially taking the side of France and, as such, when Napoleon was ultimately defeated, Denmark would have to pay a price as well to the victorious allies. In 1814 the Kingdom of Denmark was forced to hand over Norway to the Kingdom of Sweden as their compensation for the Swedes giving Finland to Russia.

Like the country as a whole, King Frederick VI was embittered by this loss and a gloomy mood seemed to hang over Denmark in the aftermath. The King abandoned the tentative liberalism of his youth and turned hard reactionary though he did allow for consultative assemblies on the local level. This, however, produced two problems in the decades that followed; disputes between the Danes and Germans in the Schleswig-Holstein region and increasing demands for even more democracy and representative government in Denmark. The absolute monarchy came to an end in Denmark with King Frederick VII (1808-1863) who signed a new constitution that allowed for the creation of a Danish parliament and made Denmark a constitutional monarchy in 1849. There was also the growing crisis over Schleswig-Holstein to deal with. Did the new constitution apply to these areas? To make matters worse, these lands were becoming of greater interest to the Germans at a time when the Prussians were starting to move to displace the Austrians as the dominant power in the German-speaking community.

Victorious Danish troops

Schleswig was a Danish dependency while Holstein was a German dependency but both were ruled by the Crown of Denmark. The Germans in Holstein wanted not only their own territory but Schleswig as well to be part of the German Confederation (the presidency of which was held by the Austrian House of Habsburg). In 1848 Holstein and southern Schleswig finally rose up in open revolt against Denmark. The Prussians and later the Austrians gave aid to the rebels in their fight against the Danes. The result was the First War of Schleswig of 1848-1851 and later the Second Schleswig War of 1864. In the first war, despite the rebels being aided by the German Confederation (primarily Prussia), the Kingdom of Denmark was victorious. Some people in Norway and Sweden volunteered to fight for Denmark because of their fear of the growing power and expansion of the Germans at the expense of a Nordic neighbor.

Danish attack in the Second Schleswig War

The second war, in 1864, was generally a hopeless fight as both the Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Empire aligned against the Kingdom of Denmark. Not only were the Danes hopelessly outmatched by the relatively new Danish politicians interfered with the army in how to conduct the war, leading to the Danish forces being poorly deployed to repel the German invaders. The Austrian and Prussian invading columns pushed the Danes back where forced to retreat or risk being surrounded. Fighting and retreating February, often in blinding snow, was a bitter and grueling experience. The Danes fought hard and were able to win some engagements but most were delaying actions, stalling the inevitable Austro-Prussian advance. Bismarck also pushed the Austrians to go along with invading Denmark itself, not stopping with the conquest of Schleswig-Holstein. At Heligoland the Danish navy won at least a tactical victory though it would not effect the outcome of the war. Ultimately, King Christian IX of Denmark (1818-1906) was forced to accept an unfavorable peace being totally outmatched by Prussia and Austria while being unsupported by his Scandinavian neighbors. Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg were handed over to the victorious Germans and King Christian IX immediately became a very unpopular monarch for, evidently, not being able to work miracles.

Nonetheless, in the ensuing years, Denmark become more and more prosperous. Industry and trade expanded, new farming methods were devised and cooperative enterprises were developed. The Kingdom remained neutral during World War I and in 1918 granted independence to Iceland though it remained in union with the Crown of Denmark. In 1920 a political shift occur when King Christian X (1870-1947) dismissed his elected cabinet and this brought about a left-wing backlash that further subordinated the Crown to the elected government. Though, that same year, following the collapse of the German Empire, northern Schleswig voted to rejoin the Kingdom of Denmark. However, the era of peace was not to continue indefinitely. With the outbreak of World War II, Denmark and her neighbors thought they could remain neutral but this proved impossible, mostly due to efforts to infiltrate Norway. On April 9, 1940 the Germans invaded Denmark. The government had largely neglected the armed forces and put all of their faith in other countries respecting their neutrality. As a result, Denmark was taken by surprise and was practically helpless in the face of the German attack.

King Christian X

The Danes were thus unable to resist and so, effectively, they didn’t resist and the German occupation of Denmark was completed in a matter of hours. It was a strangely peaceful and swift end to over a thousand years of independence. It is often forgotten that until April of 1940 the Kingdom of Denmark had never been conquered in all of its very long history. Fortunately, the Germans were initially on their best behavior, the Nazi government portraying Denmark as the ‘model protectorate’. In time, however, that relationship began to break down with the Danish underground carrying out acts of sabotage and Danish workers going on strike which resulted in greater German repression of the population. In the summer of 1943 King Christian X was placed under German guard, the Danish army was disbanded and the parliament ceased to function. The Danish navy sank their ships to prevent them being confiscated by the Germans. A “Freedom Council” was organized to coordinate resistance against the Germans and when Jews began to be arrested for deportation the Danes worked to smuggle more than 5,000 into neutral Sweden. In 1944 the Germans even disarmed the Danish police but, as we know, by the following year the war ended and Denmark was liberated from German control.

King Frederick IX (1899-1972) came to the throne in 1947 and presided over Denmark joining the United Nations and abandoning neutrality, which had not proven an effective defense, in favor of joining NATO in 1949. During the war the Allies had occupied Iceland and during that time Iceland severed ties with the Crown of Denmark and became a republic. Themselves under German occupation at the time, Denmark was unable to respond to this. In 1953 a new constitution was adopted which saw Greenland upgraded from a Danish colony to an independent country but still within the Danish Commonwealth in union with the Crown of Denmark. In 1953, following a referendum, the Danish monarchy changed to allow women to succeed to the throne for the first time in the modern history of Denmark and upon the death of King Frederick IX he was succeeded by his eldest daughter Queen Margaret II, the first female Danish monarch since the fourteenth century.

Queen Margaret II

An accomplished artist and sometime translator, Queen Margaret II has presided over a tumultuous period of Danish history with the rise of the European Union, the end of the Soviet Union, NATO participation in the “War on Terror” and an unprecedented rise in immigration to Denmark. The Queen spoke out in 2005 about the rising population of Muslims in Denmark and raised some eyebrows on the left when she said that Danes had to stand more firmly for their principles and culture and be more clear about what immigrants are expected to do when coming to Denmark, regardless of what unkind names Danes may be called for doing so. This was said in the context of a contentious debate in which any who oppose total open borders and unlimited immigration have frequently been labeled “racists”. Quality of life in Denmark has remained consistently high and society remarkably united. Recently, however, parliament did voice objections when it was learned that Danes are now a minority in a number of Danish cities. The Queen is highly respected in the country and her heir, Crown Prince Frederick and his Australian bride Crown Princess Mary, are likewise popular. As it stands now, the oldest monarchy in Europe faces challenges but seems secure for the foreseeable future to carry on their remarkable longevity.

World War II and the Scandinavian Monarchies

Across Europe, even among those monarchies which survived World War II, none had as much influence as they did before the conflict. The war itself, however, was not always the direct cause of this but, nonetheless, it came at a time when wider events over a number of years brought about such an outcome. The fact is that the monarchs who reigned during the time of the Second World War had considerably more authority, regardless of any actual constitutional changes, than those who came to the throne after the conflict was over. This was certainly true in the Low Countries but, while perhaps less noticed, was equally true in the monarchies of Scandinavia. Even the one country which managed to avoid actually participating in the war, the Kingdom of Sweden, was not untouched by the conflict or unaffected by the wider repercussions of both the First and Second World Wars. The monarch on the throne throughout the period was His Majesty King Gustav V who is remembered as the last Swedish monarch to date to intervene in the affairs of his government.

In 1907, when he came to the throne, King Gustav V had extensive legal authority in political matters. However, in the reign of his father, parliament had more strongly asserted itself and, originally, King Gustav V went along with this new way of doing things. This changed with the coming of World War I. The King favored increasing Swedish military strength while the recently elected Liberal government did not. When a crowd of concerned citizens demonstrated in front of the palace in favor of strengthening the Swedish military in case the country were to become engulfed in the upcoming conflict, the King acted on his own to address the crowd, whose views were in accord with his own, to assure them that this would be done. The Liberal prime minister objected to this, King Gustav V responded that he was well within his rights to speak to his subjects on such a matter, as both their sovereign and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, which prompted the government to resign at which time the King appointed a more conservative administration to replace them.

That would be the last time that a Swedish monarch would directly intervene in government. The collapse of Russia, spread of communism and the economic disaster that accompanied the end of World War I, worked to pull Sweden dramatically to the left. In 1917 the King tried to appoint another conservative government but found no support, the most power being held by what amounted to democratic socialists on the one hand and less-than-democratic socialists on the other. Still, World War II played a part as well and in a way related to World War I. The Queen consort, Victoria of Baden, was a German and in the First World War the King was widely believed to be sympathetic with the German Empire and the cause of the Central Powers. Similar accusations would be made concerning the King and Nazi Germany in World War II which certainly had a more negative impact on his popular perception than any possible sympathy on his part for the Kaiser would have had. Little to nothing on that score can be proven but the allegation alone was enough to do damage.

The most serious accusation in this regard, though again, it has never been proven, revolved around the King interfering in government again. The issue was the 1941 demand from the Germans, at the time of the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, to allow German military forces to move from Norway, through Sweden to their fellow Axis partner of Finland. According to the prime minister, King Gustav V intervened in this matter, threatening to abdicate if the government did not accede to the German demand. Anti-royal controversialists often mention this in conjunction with another allegation, accusing the King of sending congratulations to Hitler for his victories against the “Bolshevik pest” of the Soviet Union. Others have claimed that the King similarly favored allowing Allied troops to move through Swedish territory but that it was the government which refused and there is no doubt that the King also spoke up on behalf of the Jews and that he tried to arrange peace talks to end the war early on.

All of this was used to smear the character of King Gustav V after the war ended in an Allied victory. However, few people care to consider the basic fact that if the Germans wanted to move troops through Sweden they were certainly capable of doing it whether the Swedish government agreed or not. Given the depleted state of the Swedish armed forces, the Germans could have conquered the country and occupied it with as little difficulty as they did in Denmark and Norway. At a time when Sweden was literally surrounded by Germany, German allied Finland and German occupied Denmark and Norway, the British could have done nothing to help them and Hitler could have wiped out Sweden easily if they had defied him. Under the circumstances, a refusal would have been hailed as noble and courageous in the rest of the world but it could easily have resulted in invasion, occupation and the total loss of Swedish independence. If the King did intervene to urge the government to let the Germans move through, in such a situation, it would be hard for any rational person to say he did wrong.

There was, in any event, no shortage of gossip and allegations against King Gustav V, even among his fellow monarchs. There were rumors that he tried to interfere in the Norwegian succession, bypassing the King and Crown Prince for the royal grandson, today’s King Harald V and King Haakon VII of Norway reputedly referred to the King of Sweden as ‘the old scoundrel’ and believed him to be pro-German. The fact that Sweden would have been much the worse off by taking a hostile attitude toward the Germans or the fact that a great many Jews found refuge in Sweden because of its neutrality, did not amount to much in the post-war years where mere mention of the word “Nazi” and any hint of being in the least bit tainted by anything less than a zealous commitment to their extermination is sufficient to cause people to switch their brains off and become totally irrational. After Gustav V died in 1950 at age 92 he was succeeded by his son King Gustav VI Adolf and by the next decade republicanism and the total abolition of the monarchy had become mainstream. By the time of the next monarch, new constitutional changes saw the Swedish Crown stripped of absolutely all residual powers, which did tend to thwart some of the arguments of the republicans as there is no president on earth with less power than the King of Sweden.

The Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway are a different story. Both were pulled into World War II for the same reason. The short version is that Winston Churchill was so convinced the Germans would violate Norwegian neutrality that he decided to violate it first, laying mines in Norwegian territorial waters. A landing by ground forces was also planned by the whole British campaign in the far north was an utter fiasco. Germany responded with swift and overpowering force. To move against Norway, Germany had to go through the Kingdom of Denmark. After a long period of decline from the ranks of being a major power, as well as a long period of peace which many people thought would last forever (something seemingly everyone is likely to do), the Danes were practically powerless to resist the German invasion. So, they basically didn’t and the Kingdom of Denmark was occupied in less than 24 hours.

The Kingdom of Denmark was supposed to be Germany’s “model protectorate”. They assured the Danes that they were friends, not conquerors and that their independence would be respected with German occupation forces remaining only so long as was necessary for the war situation. The Danes didn’t buy it and soon began carrying out acts of sabotage. Their monarch, King Christian X, condemned such actions, as he was bound to, but also defied the Germans as far as he was able. He refused to enact anti-Semitic legislation they pushed, refused to hand over Danes to the hands of German justice who had been caught in acts of sabotage or helping Jews escape to Sweden and he famously continued his solitary horseback rides every morning through the streets of Copenhagen. The Germans wanted him to stop, particularly as these came to be occasions of outbursts of public support for the monarchy and Danish patriotism, but the King refused. When the Germans demanded he accept a German escort to act as his bodyguard on such occasions, the King famously said that every Dane was his bodyguard. King Christian X did finally have to stop though when he was thrown from his horse and injured in late 1942 (allegations that the horse had Nazi sympathies have not been corroborated).

By the end of World War II and the German occupation, the Danes and their monarch never seemed to be closer. It was a stark contrast to how the unfortunate King Leopold III of the Belgians was treated for also remaining in his country during the German occupation. King Christian X of Denmark was admired and respected by almost everyone and his prestige seemed to have never been greater. Yet, even in the oldest monarchy in Europe, which has weathered the republican storm better than most with its very deep roots, no monarch after King Christian X would ever have quite the same level of power and influence in state affairs. It is hard to see how the war played a part in this change, yet that it happened cannot be denied. The monarchy before the war was very different from the monarchy after the war, or, at least, after Christian X. Under his successor, King Frederick IX, the Kingdom of Denmark began to change, becoming, as it was known, a “democratic monarchy”.

In truth, however, the wartime prestige of the monarchy was no more than King Christian’s ‘Indian Summer’. After World War I there had been a dispute over the territory Denmark had lost to Prussia in the 1864 war. The Danish government wanted the inhabitants to vote on whether they wished to rejoin Denmark while Danish nationalists wanted the territory annexed outright. King Christian X agreed with annexation, intervened and the government fell which the King replaced with a more conservative temporary government until the next election. This was the “Easter Crisis of 1920” and it resulted in a fierce left-wing backlash against the monarchy led by the Social Democrats. Faced, for the first time in her ancient history, with the loss of the Danish monarchy, King Christian X had been forced to retreat, dismissing the government he had just appointed and accept his status as a virtually powerless monarch. The war years boosted his prestige but it did nothing to change the political situation. The monarch retains some considerable powers on paper but Danish judges have interpreted these to belong to the King’s government and not the King (or Queen in today’s case) personally.

One other point of contention for Danish monarchists, widely overlooked in foreign lands, which resulted directly from World War II was the loss of the Danish Kingdom of Iceland to republicanism. From 1918 to 1944 Iceland was an independent kingdom in personal union with the Crown of Denmark. However, in May of 1940 British troops invaded and occupied Iceland. The local government protested this violation of their neutrality but made no effort to resist. The British later handed the keys over to the United States and in 1944 a referendum was held which resulted in Iceland becoming a republic, severing all ties with the Crown of Denmark. King Christian X showed impossibly good grace by sending them his congratulations but many on the right in Denmark felt betrayed and not unjustly so. As they were under German occupation at the time, they could hardly argue their own case for maintaining their existing relationship with the island and even if there was nothing untoward about it, one cannot escape what political pundits today would call very “bad optics” to have a referendum during wartime while being occupied by a foreign army which is at war with the foreign army occupying the ‘home’ country.

Finally, any talk of Iceland, monarchy and World War II, will usually produce some mention of the so-called conspiracy for a Nazi monarchy. I mention it only because someone is bound to speak up if I do not but there really is not much to say on the subject. It was never a conspiracy, never something that was going to happen, it did not happen and so is hardly much of a story. An important, though often left-out point to make clear though, is that this suggestion of a Nazi monarchy in Iceland was made *before* the Germans had occupied Denmark (seat of the existing Icelandic monarchy) and thus also some time before the Allied occupation of Iceland. There is some variation in accounts of this episode but the usual version is that a group of pro-Nazi Icelanders approached the German government about making Prince Friedrich Christian zu Shaumburg-Lippe the King of Iceland. The Prince had been a fairly early member of the Nazi Party, joined the Brown-shirted Storm Troops (SA) and rose to be an assistant to Dr. Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. He was in fact, considered to be on the leftist, socialist, side of the Nazi Party. In any event, it didn’t happen. The Prince said Goebbels favored the idea but Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop did not. However, regardless of that, it is not as though Iceland was ruled by a pro-Nazi party at the time, so such an offer would have had no real meaning anyway.

Last, but not least, we have the situation in the Kingdom of Norway. The Norwegians were the most recently independent of the Scandinavian monarchies, having detached themselves from a personal union with Sweden in 1905. The people voted to establish a monarchy rather than a republic and invited Prince Carl of Denmark to take the throne as King Haakon VII of Norway. He realized that there had been a sizable minority who had favored a republic and the recent democratic process which had brought about the break with Sweden was a sign of the times so he knew from the outset that his royal powers would be limited and was partly chosen for the very reason that he made no objection to such restrictions. By 1928 he was obliged, by the democratic process, to appoint a government led by the Norwegian Labor Party which advocated abolishing the monarchy (something later dropped from their program).

World War II spread to Scandinavia, as mentioned, because of events in Norway. Denmark was a mere stepping stone, invaded and occupied within a day. Norway would take somewhat longer for, as Norwegians at the time proudly said, “we are a longer country”. The British effort to establish a Scandinavian front was a total fiasco, very ill-organized and the German attack was swift, efficient and overpowering. King Haakon VII knew his country stood no chance and immediately made plans, upon the outbreak of war, to establish a government-in-exile in Britain. The Germans did their best to capture him and the Royal Family but in an arduous series of movements, they were able to elude them and ultimately take a British warship into exile. The German attack had begun on April 8 and the last major Norwegian stronghold fell on May 5 with the King and party leaving the country on June 7. The King and Crown Prince Olav, the symbols of Norwegian resistance, went to England while other family members were sent to safety in the United States. Pockets of Norwegian forces carried on fighting for much longer and, of course, Norwegian forces in exile and underground resistance movements persisted in fighting for the duration of the war.

It would be hard to overstate the significance of the King during this time of crisis for Norway. He had taken the lead in rejecting the German demands to submit peacefully to their occupation, expressing his desire to abdicate if the government chose to cooperate with the Nazis and as the King he was the living symbol of Norwegian government legitimacy in the fight and in the years of exile. Unlike Denmark, there was no room for any doubt at all that the fate of the Norwegian monarchy depended on an Allied victory. The Germans had a willing client in Vidkun Quisling standing ready and after efforts to coerce the government in Norway to depose the King, the top German official simply declared on his own that the King of Norway had forfeited the Crown and that he, nor any of the Royal Family, had any right to ever return to Norway again. King Haakon VII was the symbol of Norwegian resistance to the Germans, he was also very much the “voice” of the resistance due to his BBC radio addresses to Norway and thanks to him the Norwegians were able to contribute a great deal more to the Allied war effort than most people realize. He was extremely popular as a result of all of this and when he died in 1957 he was mourned almost as much in Britain as in Norway.

His son and successor, King Olav V, had played a major part in the Norwegian war effort, being appointed an admiral in the Norwegian navy, a general in the Norwegian army and in 1944 the Norwegian Chief of Defense. He oversaw the Norwegian contribution to the Allied armed forces and at the end of the war was in charge of dealing with the disarmament of the surrendered Germans. Nonetheless, by the time he came to the throne, things had already changed from what they had been in the war years when his father was so identified with Norwegian patriotism that “H7” became the symbol of the resistance. Although, legally, the royal powers did not change, having been limited at the outset, there was definitely a new, more republican, sentiment about the country. When King Haakon VII had come to the Norwegian throne, he had been given a proper coronation. For King Olav V there would be no coronation, only a church service after his swearing-in ceremony which was officially boycotted by the ruling Labor Party (though some members attended anyway).

Like his father, King Olav V never made any trouble for the politicians but, seeing which way the winds were blowing perhaps, he also made an effort to be seen even more as “down to earth”. The closest his father ever came to a confrontation was taking a drink of illegal alcohol after coming into a hotel, cold and soaked. King Olav V would not even go that far, even using public transportation during the energy crisis of 1973. He could also often be seen driving his own car. All of this had the intended effect on public opinion as this egalitarian style caused him to be dubbed, “the People’s King”. Again, to be sure, the current Norwegian monarchy started out a much shorter chain than their neighbors in Sweden or Denmark but, nonetheless, one cannot escape the fact that the style of the monarchy even in Norway was rather different in the first reign after the war that it had been before the conflict, whether the war actually had any impact on it or not.

What we can see is that many monarchs had an increased status during the war years due to the state of emergency that, of course, ended when the war was over. There was also an increase in national unity because of the war which, likewise, ended when it was over. This was something that some monarchs commented on as being regrettable. The status of many monarchies also saw the status of the monarch decline with the status of the country due to things like de-colonization and the polarization of the world into an American camp and a Russian camp. European monarchies also often saw leftwing parties come to power after World War I, then brought back after World War II and with a huge influx of American aid money which made unsustainable spending programs and social welfare states take root which governments have become more desperate to try to uphold. It is certainly no coincidence that the leftist parties pushing these policies have invariably been either openly anti-monarchy or at the very least possessing a very republican mentality even if not openly calling for the establishment of a republic.

Favorite Royal Images: A Danish Empress of Russia

Empress Maria Feodorovna of Russia

(Dagmar of Denmark) consort to Czar Alexander III

(for photos and portraits, Empress Maria has always been a particular favorite, she has such depth to her eyes, every image is almost hypnotic)

What About Scandinavia?

I probably talk about predominately monarchial Scandinavia less than I think I do (wow, three I’s in the first sentence, how solipsistic of the awesome me). It is not because of any lack of respect for the Scandinavian countries, all but one of which are monarchies (unless you count Iceland) which, I assure you, is not the case. For someone who was enthralled with Viking stories as a boy and who had a very colorful aunt who was fond of telling people, “I’m not a damn Jankee, I’m a Norwegian!” I have always had a soft spot for Norway. The Kingdom of Denmark also holds a special place in my heart, as I think it should with all monarchists, as the oldest monarchy in Europe and for being so comparatively revolution-free. I’m also very fond of Queen Margrethe II, though maybe not for the best reasons. I have long admired Sweden, mostly for the great military leaders it produced in centuries past and even republican Finland earned my respect ever since first learning about the valiant defense they offered against the Red Army in the Winter War. One reason you don’t hear much about Scandinavia is because they tend to all be rather orderly countries. What problems they have tend not to be broadcast around the world, they tend to be neutral and they just don’t rock the boat so to speak.

However, I wanted to take a moment to talk about the monarchies of Scandinavia because there do seem to be some misconceptions about them. Especially in the United States, the Scandinavian countries can be quite divisive. People on the left portray them as being absolutely heaven on earth (ignoring the whole monarchy part) where rich people do not exist, everyone is taken care of, Christianity is dead and everyone embraces multiculturalism thanks to a government program encouraging people to show how un-racist they are by having sex with African immigrants (*and no, that is not a joke, they actually did that). On the other hand, people on the right in America tend to view Scandinavia as resting somewhere around the seventh circle of Hell as a region where people are taxed into state dependency, having all their creativity and ambition purged by an oppressive government and where conformity has created a population of wimps who only take pride in how quickly they are dying out and how efficiently they use the corpses of their loved ones as an environmentally friendly energy source (*and no, that is not a joke, that actually happened). So, who is right? Are the Scandinavian countries a utopia that proves socialism works or simply crowned Marxist republics that must be lying about how happy everyone there is?

The truth is really neither one. The Scandinavian countries are not as wonderful as some people think but nor are they as bad as others seem to think. It is true that they are big believers in wealth redistribution so that there is very little income inequality in the Scandinavian countries. Some think that is good, others think that is bad. Society is not so divided by class in these places but that does go with limits to individual rights because it places limitations on success. It is true that crime is very low in these countries, at least compared to some other parts of the world but it is also true that many crimes go unreported because they are concentrated amongst the immigrant community and the authorities prefer to ignore it for fear of being accused of racism if they arrest someone who is not light complexioned. It is true that the monarchies in these countries are totally or effectively ceremonial, however, it is also true that they are widely popular still and are considered by most to be an integral part of the culture and framework of the country. Their populations are, on the whole, quite conformist in that they do tend to hold the same values and opinions on most things but this is not too different from most of the rest of Europe these days and differing points of view do exist. So, let us take them one at a time:

The Kingdom of Sweden is probably the most often singled out as being a socialist success-story (as if such a thing could exist) and being the most nominal monarchy in the world (I would say at least Andorra has them beat on that front). First of all, it is true that Sweden has a tax rate that is nothing short of punitive and they are very free with the government handouts. However, they are certainly not Cuba or North Korea. Socialism does not work, as has been proven all around the world, but Sweden is not so socialist as some might think. First of all, in the old days before the 1960’s the Kingdom of Sweden was one of the most economically free countries on earth. It had very low taxes, very few but quite common-sense government regulations and it had a booming economy and was a major industrial powerhouse. However, as I have often said, one of the biggest problems with capitalism is that it makes countries rich enough to think they can afford socialism and that is basically what happened in Sweden. They got so rich that people started crying about fairness and income inequality and so they went drastically in the socialist direction and, as a result, economic growth ground to a halt, production plummeted and successful people fled the country. However, because of that, Sweden was almost forced to start moderating and moving back in the opposite direction, at least somewhat so that today, although Sweden has the reputation of being very socialistic and the United States has the reputation of being very capitalistic, the amount of regulation and wealth redistribution in Sweden is not that different from the United States.

Now, like the United States, the level of promises made to the people by the government in terms of entitlements is simply not sustainable because these types of socialistic programs depend on an ever increasing number of young workers to pay the tax burden for the sick, the old and the unemployed and the numbers just don’t exist even with Sweden opening its borders to a huge influx of foreigners. These policies cannot carry on indefinitely, the numbers just don’t add up and that will be a big problem in the future. Sweden has never had a huge population, it is simply a country that cannot support one and the native population is practically stagnant while the immigrant population is growing. It’s still not enough to save the future of the welfare state but it does not take a math genius to see that it will ultimately mean that the Swedish population is simply going to be replaced by an ethnically non-Swedish one in the not-too-distant future. It is also true that it is one of the most irreligious countries in the world. However, it is still an officially Christian country, with the Lutheran church as the official state church of Sweden and, of course, it is still a monarchy. The monarch is officially ceremonial with no role in government at all but he does chair the Council of State, opens parliament, appoints the prime minister and all the usual duties so he is at least still able to inform, be informed and give his advice on government matters. He is not totally inconsequential and the majority of the people support the monarchy.

The Kingdom of Norway, the youngest of the Scandinavian countries in terms of its current monarchy, is also a very heavily taxed and heavily regulated country with little income inequality and a generous welfare state. Though, again, it is really not that different from the supposedly hyper-capitalist United States. All of the Scandinavian countries, in fact, have a lower corporate tax rate than the United States so, in a way, they are friendlier to those “evil” big businessmen and corporations than the United States of “Greed is Good” America. What keeps the Norwegian economy in such seemingly good shape in spite of these socialistic policies is the fact that they have a great deal of mineral wealth and I mean, of course, oil. The Norwegian government makes a ton of money from oil and that money is used to fund social welfare programs and so people are going to tell the survey-takers that they are very happy when they get a big oil check from the government on a regular basis. It also helps that they have a very small population in Norway. Like many Middle Eastern countries, when one has huge oil income (in government hands) and a small population (there are far more people -as in several million more- in New York City alone than in the entire Kingdom of Norway), it is easy to have a high standard of living even when the government is wasting money extravagantly.

On the social front, Norway has a higher birth rate than many European countries, but it still is not good, it just is not quite as bad as others. Statistically, Norwegians are still going extinct but they will probably be around to see other European peoples go extinct first. Like Sweden, they are a predominately irreligious country but, again, also still an officially Christian one with the King of Norway titled as the “High Protector of the Church of Norway” which is, of course, Lutheran. However, before one thinks of blaming social ills in Norway on the King because of this, remember that it is not dissimilar from the situation with the Church of England. The King is not a cleric and many of the Lutheran bishops, like so many others in so many other churches, have at times seemed more interested in being relevant and popular than being doctrinally traditional. About 20% of the population are immigrants but their natural growth rate is much higher than that of the native population so, again, it is not difficult to see what those numbers mean for the future of Norway, long-term. Conformity is high but not total and what seems like a population united in shared liberal values can be misleading. The refusal to give a legitimate voice to dissenting views leads to frustration and then violence such as was seen in the mass-shooting of 2011. Many other festering problems are simply being ignored because it would be “politically incorrect” to address them. However, in Norway the King does play a part in government, not being purely ceremonial but more like Britain for example, and Norway has a much greater “independent” streak than many realize. Norway, for example, is a member of the European Economic Area but did not and has not become a member of the European Union and is not a part of the Eurozone which is very much to their credit. So, problems exist, but compared to others, Norway is in a better position to reject bad policies and get back on the right track.

Finally, we have the Kingdom of Denmark, most venerable of the monarchies of the Old World. Here again, I think many people have many misconceptions about Denmark simply because these countries are often lumped together as being part of a uniform, leftist, socialistic, egalitarian Scandinavia which is an over-simplification. The Kingdom of Denmark, for example, is a member of the European Union but is not a member of the Eurozone and still uses the Danish krone as its official currency. It is a typical tax and spend country but it may surprise a great many people to know that on two of the major indexes for measuring economic freedom, the Kingdom of Denmark was ranked higher than that supposed champion of free market capitalism the United States of America. Who would have guessed that? It certainly is not the reputation Denmark has and yet, it is true; Denmark is basically a more economically free country than America. This is due almost entirely to the level of government regulation of the economy. Compared to America, Denmark has a very low level of government regulations while it does have a punitive tax rate and a very generous welfare state. So, the basic difference is that it is actually easier to go out and make money in Denmark than in the United States but, on the other hand, the government will take more of it away from you to give to your unemployed neighbor. As in the other Scandinavian countries, this government generosity with other people’s money attracts many immigrants and while some of that can be regulated, immigration among EU-member states of course cannot so there is a demographic problem similar to that in Norway and Sweden. What is being paid out or is promised to be paid out, compared to what can possibly be taken in by the state just cannot be sustained long-term in Denmark or any of these other countries as things stand.

As elsewhere, the level of irreligion in Denmark is quite high but it is an officially Christian country, no separation of church and state but with freedom of religion. Like the others, it is very egalitarian but I think many would be surprised by how traditional the Danish monarchy remains. Until the middle of the Twentieth Century it had probably the most old fashioned and strict court protocol of any monarchy in Europe and even today, traditional ceremony and protocol are maintained by the Danish court to a degree probably present nowhere else in Europe. The Queen is enthusiastically supported by the people with a roughly 90% approval rating and she retains considerable authority. She presides at meetings and her views are taken seriously. She can even issue laws on her own in an emergency according to clause 23 of the Danish constitution. Some may be surprised that the Danish monarch has a much more free hand than many of her fellow sovereigns. The Queen writes her own speeches and her public messages are much less regulated by the government than in, for example, Great Britain. She is not mere window-dressing and while she certainly shares the overall values of most of her people, she does not bend to fashionable trends either. When people criticized her smoking habit, she told them to butt out; when activists condemned her for wearing fur, she told them to go climb a tree and when multiculturalism led to violence over Danish cartoons the Queen was the only head of state to single out the culprits by name and say that they had to be confronted even if it meant to, “run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance”. If I haven’t said so lately, I think the Queen of Denmark is awesome.

And that, is the overall situation in the monarchies of Scandinavia. Honestly, they are not all that different from the supposedly so much more capitalistic United States when it comes to taxation and wealth redistribution. In truth, most First World countries have adopted fairly similar models of a mixture of socialism and capitalism with governments simply arguing over the degree to which they allow people to keep what they earn. Sweden used to be very economically free, went far to the left, living off the wealth accumulated in the past and since that well ran dry has been moving ever so slightly more to the right in economic terms. Norway is doing pretty good thanks to few people, lots of oil and telling the EU, “no thanks” and Denmark has low regulations, a rather grand monarchy and recently put out a sign saying “Seek asylum elsewhere”. They all have problems to be sure and the basic economic model used by all three (and so many more) is simply not possible to continue in the long-term. However, they still have the tools to correct and rebuild and the monarchies in these countries provide something important, socially and economically even in the cases where they are reduced to only a ceremonial status and that is a sense of unity and stability. Monarchists say that a lot and republicans tend to dismiss it but anyone who follows the stock markets of the world can tell you that the simple perception of stability by people can make a huge difference. Even communist Chinese state-run CCTV once made this point, asking an expert why Japan, with its rapid turnover of governments, does not scare away investment like many other countries do with similar political instability. The expert replied that a big part of it was His Majesty the Emperor who, even while having no part in politics, provides a sense of stability just by being there. Even symbols can be very important and if you don’t believe me, try burning the Stars & Stripes in middle America or wearing a t-shirt with the Dalai Lama on it in downtown Peking. The Scandinavian countries have their problems and they have their positive aspects and their monarchies are definitely positives.