The Abdication of King Juan Carlos

It came as quite a surprise yesterday morning to wake up to news that His Majesty King Juan Carlos I of Spain had announced his intention to abdicate. First seeing it in the Spanish-language media, I even got a second opinion to make sure I was not mistaken (not that the word “abdica” leaves much room for doubt). I had not picked up on any hints about this from the King and HM Queen Sofia had flat out said it would not happen. Obviously, after the absurdly idiotic and hysterical outbursts toward the King dating back to the now infamous hunting trip in Africa (which cost no Spanish taxpayer anything, everyone seems to forget) there were calls for abdication and even some treasonous crowds in the streets demanding an end to the monarchy altogether (and if history is anything to go by, we could count on the “Third Spanish Republic” being the worst one yet). However, it seemed that the King was prepared to shoulder the burden and carry on in spite of all of that, even with increasingly problematic medical problems to deal with. But them, of course, on top of all of that was the legal battles surrounding HRH Infanta Cristina. Perhaps, taken all together, it has become too much for the King to deal with.

Long-time readers will know that I do not generally regard abdications favorably. Of course, in some countries, it has become such a common practice for so long as to have practically become a tradition, however, I have always preferred the idea of ‘wearing the crown’ as a lifelong commitment, a sort of marriage if you like, in which, like Queen Elizabeth I of England, a monarch is “married” to his or her country, till death parts them. Sometimes it is necessary that a monarch ‘take one for the team’ as with King Edward VIII in Britain or King Leopold III in Belgium and some have pointed out that this may have been the case with King Juan Carlos; that he realized his presence was having a negative effect on the monarchy, that his reputation was not going to recover to the soaring heights it had previously enjoyed and that it would improve the prospects of the long-term survival of the monarchy for him to step aside in favor of the Prince of the Asturias, a young 45, still on the dashing side and untainted by scandal. If that is true, it is to the credit of the King for putting the monarchy before himself, though it would still pain me to see the opponents of the King effectively winning by default.

That is my biggest concern; that this will be taken as a victory for all those who made themselves the enemies of King Juan Carlos personally and who orchestrated the whole ridiculous uproar against a monarch to whom every Spaniard owes a debt of gratitude. The entire fashionable trend lately toward abdication is one which I do not look on favorably. I thought Spain was sheltered from it, but it seems such is not the case. Really though, if the Pope can abdicate no monarch handing in their resignation should come as much of a surprise these days. So far (someone will correct me if I am wrong), the last monarch to reign until his death was HSH Prince Rainier III of Monaco. It has a long tradition in the Netherlands, has not been uncommon in Luxembourg, King Albert II of the Belgians abdicated in spite of only one other monarch (his father) abdicating and that under very unique and unfortunate circumstances. Pope Benedict XVI abdicated (at least ‘sort of’) and there has been a good deal of chatter about it in Sweden and some even insist on bringing up the subject in the UK. It is worrisome that this may become such a trendy thing to do that monarchs not inclined to abdicate might feel pressure to do so.

As it concerns King Juan Carlos personally, I am sad to see him go and sad that it came at such a time. True, it may be for the better, but I had hoped he would get through the current unpleasantness and see his popularity restored after the public came to their senses. Rather like how everyone in Britain went hysterically off the deep-end when Diana died and, in time, came to feel rather embarrassed about it and realized that the Queen they had been so critical of was right all along. I was hoping for something like that to happen. Partly, I will admit, is because I like the King of Spain himself and I would hate for his reign to end on a low note. Looking back, I have probably banned or blocked more people for attacking King Juan Carlos than for any other reason. Just as the King would never tolerate anyone speaking ill of Generalissimo Franco in his presence, I would not tolerate anyone slandering King Juan Carlos in mine (or any place I hold sway) particularly questions of his right to the throne which is absurd and which idiocy I have become so disgusted by, I will not tolerate anything of the sort at all. He was a prince who was born and raised in exile but who was not content to stay that way but who actively worked to see the Spanish monarchy restored. I wish more non-reigning royals had the same attitude.

In his message, the King made mention of his past saying, “Loyal to the political wishes of my father, (Infante Juan Count of Barcelona) from whom I inherited the historical legacy of the Spanish monarchy, I have always wanted to be a king for all Spaniards. I identified with your aspirations, felt joy at your successes and suffered when pain or suffering overwhelmed you.” Stability and a freedom that allows for political change without resorting to violence are things Spain owes to King Juan Carlos and yet, he has also never been one to allow popularity to influence him. His refusal to join the crowd in bashing Generalissimo Franco is one is example of this, another (which I will always be grateful for) was his staunch defense of the national pastime of bullfighting which has come under ever increasing condemnation during his reign by animal rights activists. In a BBC interview the King was once pressed on this question and even Queen Sofia, who does not favor the national pastime, compared it to fox hunting in England. It should not escape notice that fox hunting has since been banned in England, despite its long history and place in the culture, yet the bulls continue to run in Spain. He has been known as a monarch who is approachable, down-to-earth but also not above speaking his mind such as when he famously asked the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, “Why don’t you shut up?”, something that became a pop-culture phenomenon.

According to the King himself, the abdication came as a result of a feeling that he was no longer equal to the task required of him. It may be that there was more to it but I do not doubt his sincerity in saying, “My sole ambition has always been, and always will be, to help attain progress and wellbeing for all Spaniards in a climate of freedom. I want the best for Spain, to which I have dedicated my entire life and at whose service I have placed all my ability, my enthusiasm and my work. My son Felipe, Prince of Asturias and heir to the Crown, embodies the stability that is a defining feature of our monarchy. When I turned 76 last January, I felt that the time had come to prepare the handover to make way for someone who is in the best possible condition to maintain that stability”. He went on to praise the Prince of Asturias, to express confidence in the support he will have from Princess Letizia and to thank his own consort saying, “My gratitude also goes out to Queen Sofia, whose cooperation and generous support have never failed me.” That is certainly true and Queen Sofia has always been, in my estimation, one of the most admirable and praiseworthy royal figures of my lifetime.

The King ended his remarks by saying, “Spain will always be in my heart” and I have no doubt that is true. I hope the King will always be in the heart of the Spanish people and that, perhaps, with this abdication, a little more sober reflection will be undertaken that will allow everyone to assess the reign of King Juan Carlos as a whole and come to a better appreciation of the man and monarch. I cannot help but to have preferred this change were not happening until God called the King to His mercy but, the decision having been taken, I hope it will be for the best in preserving the Spanish monarchy long-term. King Juan Carlos I has abdicated, long live King Felipe VI!

Adieu Albert II

Abdication Chatter the World Over

Abdication seems to be in the air these days. HM Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands announced her upcoming abdication first (now rapidly approaching), which was no great surprise. Then, Pope Benedict XVI surprised everyone by his sudden abdication and now talk of abdication seems to be all the rage from one side of the world to the other. One case, and surely the most problematic, is in the troubled Kingdom of Spain. Chatter has been increasing as of late that HM King Juan Carlos I should abdicate in favor of the Prince of the Asturias, with some going so far as to suggest that the survival of the monarchy may depend on it. I hope that is not the case, but the way things have been going lately, I cannot help but be rather nervous about the subject. It seems incredible, at least to me, that the image of the King of Spain could have fallen so far, so fast over what seems (again, to me at least) something so trivial. It started with the safari in Africa and that greatly offended me. Not that the King might have dispatched a ponderous pachyderm but that the peevish public should pout so over that rather than their elderly monarch breaking his hip.

We are told that it was not just that the King might have shot an elephant but that he was vacationing while Spain is in the grip of a disastrous economic crisis and is faced with “harsh” austerity measures. Sorry, I don’t buy it. His Catholic Majesty’s little hunting trip did not cost the Spanish taxpayers a single euro and I see no reason why the King should suffer for the poor economy caused by the idiotic politicians that the Spanish public voted into office. It was the people, not the King, who voted for the men who spent money Spain did not have and it was they who kept voting for more spending, more borrowing and on and on until doubts began to surface about the ability of Spain to make good on such a vast debt. Then came the scandal involving the King’s son-in-law and lately the Infanta Cristina which is almost as ridiculous. Overnight it seemed that Spain became a completely different country. A public that once adored their monarch for giving them democracy suddenly became angry and demanded apologies (which they got). How about every Spaniard who voted for the last couple of decades apologize to the King for ruining his country and to their children (the few that have any) for sacrificing their future for their own immediate comfort?

When he came to power, King Juan Carlos gave the Spanish people the right to choose. It should be obvious to all by now that they chose wrongly and now they are mad at the King who made it possible for them to have a choice. I see behind all of this a simple but tried and tested political tactic of distraction. The politicians do not want to be blamed of course, even though they drew up the bills, voted on them and passed them into law. The public, likewise, does not want to accept responsibility for their own short-sighted decisions and so the King and Royal Family make for very convenient targets for public anger and frustration. Spain did not fall into financial crisis because the King went on safari or even because of any of the allegedly creative means of saving money devised by his son-in-law. Spain fell into financial crisis because of the voters, the politicians they elected and the decisions they made. Yet, in the end, it may be the King of Spain himself, the one innocent party in the whole of the Spanish government, who is the only one to lose his job because of the mess the country is in.

And so, the issue of abdication is being put about. Will it happen? I hope not and not just because I like the King personally. It would set a dangerous precedent in a country which has not had the most stable monarchy in the world to say the very least of it. If His Catholic Majesty himself has spoken on the subject, I have not heard about it. Some time ago, I do recall HM Queen Sofia saying that abdication was never going to happen. I hope she is right, even though I have no doubt that Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia will make an excellent King and Queen when their time comes. However, Queen Sofia herself is an example of how radically Spain has changed in recent years. Once, no one would have dreamed of saying an unkind word about her. Then, everyone blinked one day and suddenly she was being attacked in the media for being opposed to gay “marriage”. Yeah, imagine that, the *Queen of Spain* supporting the position of the Catholic Church on marriage. Go figure, huh?

Recently, far away from the Spains on the other side of the world, the subject of abdication has also been brought up and this one seems not quite so simple. The “where” is Japan, “Land of the Rising Sun” but the “who” is not the Emperor but rather HIH Crown Prince Naruhito. 81-year-old religious studies scholar Tetsuo Yamaori recently wrote an article suggesting that the Crown Prince should abdicate his position as heir to the throne for the sake of his family. There was talk about a new face for the monarchy, a new style and all that usual nonsense (at least as I see it) but the bottom line was one that, I have to admit, had at least somewhat of a ring of truth to it. The abdication was really suggested not so much for the sake of the imperial heir himself but for his wife Crown Princess Masako. Yamaori pointed out, quite correctly, that it has been ten years since the Crown Princess had her nervous breakdown (for lack of a better word) and has been kept out of the limelight, staying away from usual “royal” duties. Further, all of the medical reports on her for the last ten years have sounded very much the same, talk of progress but no end or full recovery in sight.

The basic proposition, in so many words, was that the Crown Princess is just not up to the “job” of being Crown Princess or, one day, Empress consort. If she is unable, is it perhaps best for her to make room for someone who can? That is where the idea of abdication comes in. Yamaori suggests that the time is at hand for the Crown Prince to make a choice and perhaps the best choice for his wife and daughter would be to renounce their positions in favor of his younger brother and sister-in-law whose son, according to the current rules of succession, is set to become Emperor of Japan in the future anyway. I have to admit, as much as I dislike abdications in general, this seemed to make some sense to me. The ardent fans of Crown Princess Masako may take it as a slight against her, but it certainly is not as far as I am concerned. She seems like a very kind and lovely woman and I have nothing but the fondest feelings for her. However, I have been annoyed by the way some people have seized on her case as a way of being critical of the monarchy, as though she is the poor, suffering victim of “the establishment” in much the same way that some did regarding Lady Diana in the UK. If they still held such a view, would it not be best to free her from her gilded cage? Personally, I do not take such a view, nor have I ever viewed the Imperial Household Agency as the bogey man that so many others seem to. However, it does seem fairly clear that Crown Princess Masako is simply not up to the task of fulfilling her duties. This little hiatus has been going on for a decade now.

I always like to see monarchy pass from father to son regardless of the circumstances but is it possible that, perhaps, the more moral thing for the Crown Prince to do would be to look to his own family first and, if the current arrangement is one they cannot thrive in, to remove them from it? Again, little Prince Hisahito is set to become emperor someday anyway, so stepping aside in favor of Prince Fumihito of Akishino would only mean that the line would go from father to son to grandson rather than from father to son to nephew. It is in my nature that I never like to see things changed, but could this perhaps be for the best? Of Spain I have no doubt but concerning Japan I am less sure. In an interview, Yamaori asserted that when the balance between religious authority and political power is upset the country invariably falls into disaster. I would tend to agree and might even suggest that, on the other side of the world, Spain is proving the point.

Feel free to share your thoughts; to abdicate or not to abdicate -that is the question.

The Pope a Target?

HH Pope Benedict XVI opened Holy Week with the Palm Sunday mass in St Peter's square in the Vatican but in all the news coverage His Holiness' actual religious message was overshadowed by continuing accusations of clerical abuse in Europe, particularly in Ireland and Germany. Is it not odd how all of this comes about just as such similar controversy had died down in the United States. One might think that if people were going to come forward with decades old claims they would be encouraged to do so when others are doing the same rather than waiting until it dies down on one continent only to flare up in another -so that the controversy never ends. But enough about that -that's for a religion blog somewhere to cover.

What has captured my attention in all of this is the calls for the Pope to "resign" (to be correct; abdicate) over these latest scandals. So far these have only come from what a Vichy French police captain would call the 'usual suspects'; secularists, enemies of the Church, the liberal media etc. However, what I find disturbing is that this is not a new suggestion. Readers will recall that when the late Pope John Paul II was near the end of his life and quite infirm there were calls from these same people (all sounding very sympathetic and concerned of course) that John Paul II abdicate as well. Now, they want Benedict XVI to abdicate because of accusations that the Church in Europe has a number of degenerate clerics.

Why is it that all of a sudden, no matter what the problem or situation the "answer" is always for the Pope to abdicate. Is it just me or does it seem like something that would have been absolutely unthinkable only a few years ago keeps being suggested as a 'proper response' to everything? Okay, fair warning, here is where the Mad Monarchist is going to head home to CrazyTown. Could it be that these anti-religion types are simply desperate for the Pope, this one, this last or a future one, to abdicate simply so that the precedent will be set? If such a thing were to happen it would, one could imagine, make it easier for a Pope to pushed aside or done away with.

We have already seen republicanism on the rise in Sweden, attemps on the life of the Dutch Royal Family, calls for the succession in Belgium to be changed, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg stripped of his role in government, bi-partisan opposition to the Spanish monarchy and the republicans in the UK admit that they are simply waiting for the Queen to go to her reward to make their move. The Pope, however, cannot be silenced or influenced and the attempt to kill John Paul II failed and now we have increased calls for abdication. So, if in the future the Pontiff (who is always difficult for the revolutionary crowd) is shuffled off the scene the reason can be given that he abdicated for some reason or another and it is 'no big deal' because abdication has been done before and is nothing out of the ordinary. Call me mad, call me paranoid (and medical opinion would be on your side) but I cannot help but wonder......

The End of Imperial China

It was on this day in 1912 that His Imperial Majesty, Xuantong, “Great Emperor of the Great Qing Dynasty, Grand Khan of Tartary, the Lord of 10,000 Years and the Son of Heaven” formally abdicated, bring the Manchu dynasty and thousands of years of imperial tradition in China to an end. At the time the Emperor was only 6-years-old and was acted for by the Empress-Dowager Longyu who was quite out of her depth and had no one to turn to but the military strongman General Yuan Shihkai (who ultimately proved untrustworthy). In an alliance with the revolutionaries he was able to secure the abdication of the Qing in exchange for political power for himself. The downfall of Imperial China came in such a sudden, confused collapse that the true historical significance of it escaped many, and still does to this day. Consider for a moment that until February 12, 1912 there had been an Emperor of China continuously since at least 221 BC.

To give westerners a little context on this, consider that when the first Emperor of China came to the throne Hannibal had just become commander of the armies of Carthage, the Ptolemy’s ruled Egypt and the Roman Republic had just built its second circus. Carthage would rise and fall, Egypt would fade from the ranks of the great powers, the Roman Republic would become the Roman Empire, rise, divide, fall, come back as the Holy Roman Empire, rise, fragment and fall, the Ottoman Empire would rise, nearly conquer Europe and then fade into the background while all the while the succession of Emperors in China continued. Dynasties rose and fell but there was always a “Son of Heaven” on the Dragon throne until this day in 1912.

The scattered groups opposed to the imperial system had very little in common (which would ultimately lead to decades of anarchy among feuding warlords) but most agreed on racial xenophobia; hatred of the Manchurians was all they agreed on in many cases. It is, therefore, ironic that Sun Yat-Sen, who believed himself entitled to leadership in a post-imperial China, waved the Han nationalist flag while spending much of his life in the United States and coming back to China with a hunchbacked American lackey in a ridiculous uniform clanking with worthless medals who expected to become military commander of the new republic. All the ideas expressed were foreign and foreign advisors were never far from even the most rabid sounding nationalists.

Sun Yet-Sen even went to pay homage to the tomb of the last Ming emperor simply because he was the last Han monarch to rule China before the Qing dynasty came to power and Manchu and Mongol princes assumed the places of importance. However, we should not be too surprised at this. The same man who railed against the decadent Manchu court was a flagrant philanderer, the same man who called for freedom and democracy was an absolute autocrat who would have nothing to do with any organization or party he did not control and the same man who berated the widespread corruption of the late Qing period presided over a provisional government that set a new standard in graft, nepotism, cronyism and corruption of every kind.

On the other side of the thick walls of the “Great Within” the boy Emperor did not really know what monumental event had taken place either. Nothing much changed in his daily life and inside his Forbidden City he was still treated as the Lord of 10,000 Years, partly because not everyone was convinced all the sudden changes that had taken place would be permanent. Most elites tried to keep a foot in each camp and for the Manchurians and traditionalists at least there was still hope that after the novelty of the republic had worn off the people would come back to the system they had known for thousands of years. This was only the beginning of the troubles modern China would face, but it all started with the end of the imperial era, the end of the Great Qing, 98 years ago today.

An Emperor's End

It was on this day in 1945 that the last Emperor of Vietnam abdicated his throne, handing power over to the representatives of the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam". The communist-led VietMinh had already taken effective control of the country before presenting their demand for the Emperor's abdication. The Allied powers had already ignored the Emperor's declaration of independence and with the VietMinh holding all the cards he had little choice in the matter. It was suggested he might flee to the imperial tombs and try to hold out and bide his time, but the Emperor, educated in France, recalled what fate befell Louis XVI for his effort to flee the forces of revolution. Others suggested using the Japanese to defend the "Great Within" as they were still on hand and had yet to be disarmed. This too Bao Dai refused saying he could not use a foreign army to spill the blood of his people. He only asked for a formal ceremony that would be in keeping with the dignity of the Nguyen dynasty. On August 25 he dressed in his formal dragon robes and stood on the balcony over the Ngo Mon Gate to the Forbidden City and read out his abdication. He handed over the imperial sword and seal to the envoys of the new government and the Nguyen dynasty flag was lowered from the "King's Knight" tower and replaced by the red banner. With that, thousands of years of royal history were cast aside and for the first time since the founding of the nation by the Hung kings in 2879 BC Vietnam, the Great South, the Land of the Ascending Dragon, was without a monarch.

The Abdication of Leopold III

It was on this day in 1951 that His Majesty Leopold III, King of the Belgians, abdicated his throne in favor of his son Crown Prince Baudouin. I have always had slightly mixed feelings about this as I am biased by the fact that I consider King Baudouin to have been one of the greatest monarchs to have reigned since the Second World War. I see him as a monarch who behaved with the greatest regal dignity, showed great foresight and good judgment and who displayed immense moral courage. I am thus thrilled that he became King and that the world had him for as long as it did. That being said, I have also always felt that King Leopold III has been one of the most unjustly maligned monarchs of his time; and continues to be so without the slightest justification. First, however, a little background.

Leopold was born in 1901, son and heir of the great “Soldier King” Albert I who gained fame for his gallant leadership of the Belgian Army during World War I. As crown prince, the teenage Leopold won considerable admiration as well for joining the army and serving in the trenches as a regular soldier. He completed his higher education after the war and in 1926 married Princess Astrid of Sweden. They were young, handsome, devoutly religion and very devoted to each other and soon had three children. Everything must have seemed perfect. Then, in 1934 Leopold was thrust into kingship by the sudden death of Albert I in a climbing accident. Only a year later his beloved Queen and fourth (unborn) child were killed in a car accident in Switzerland. However, the greatest test and most controversial period of his life came with the onset of World War II and the German invasion of Belgium in 1940.

After the hard lessons of World War I King Leopold III had not neglected military defense and the Belgian army performed heroically in the practically hopeless fight against Nazi Germany. Luxembourg was occupied in a day, the Dutch surrendered in four days but Belgium held out for 18 days. Yet, others at the time and since have feigned outrage when King Leopold III announced the surrender of Belgium and that he would not go into exile but would stay in Belgium and endure the occupation along with his people. Some then and since viewed this as a sell-out of the Allied war effort, however, Belgium itself had been sold out with many of her compatriots already looking to their own escape while the Belgians sacrificed themselves buying time for them. Yet, simply by staying behind many have tried to portray the King as some sort of collaborator when nothing could be farther from the truth. He was kept as a virtual prisoner by the Germans, refused all of their efforts to deal with him and Belgium was placed under military rule. There were, in fact, strong factions in the Nazi camp, especially the Dutch and Flemish Nazi collaborators who wanted a "Greater Netherlands" who wanted to destroy Belgium completely as a country. Toward the end of the war SS Chief Henry Himmler had the King arrested and taken to Germany where he was not freed until the arrival of American troops.

Leopold III went into what was thought to be a temporary exile in Switzerland while his return to Belgium was discussed. The divisions came out and it was eventually decided to put the issue to a vote after the King had been legally cleared of all charges of collaboration (another fact that is often ignored). The result was a majority of Belgians voted for their King to return and yet the losing side loosed a series of strikes, riots and clashes with the authorities. It was only then that Leopold III, despite winning the vote, decided that if his return would cause divisions among his people that he would abdicate. Yet again he put his people and country ahead of himself and pass the throne to his son Baudouin. He continued his intellectual pursuits until his death in 1983.

*Edit: To read some text from King Leopold's abdication and a video of the event check out this post at The Cross of Laeken where plenty of other info on Leopold III can be found.