RIP King Michael of Romania

As most of you have probably heard, His Majesty Michael I, the last King of Romania, died yesterday in Switzerland at the age of 96. A sad day, to be sure, for the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, for all loyal Romanians and for monarchists everywhere. He was a good man and those interested can find out more at the links below about his life and the part he played in Romanian national life at a critical time for the world. When it comes to monarchs in general, what they represent is always far greater than the individual and their own virtues or flaws; so it is with the death of kings as well. King Michael I represented a great hope for a return to traditional authority in Romania or, at least, a hope for the future by providing a 'foot in the door'. Perhaps it is the emotion of the occasion but I cannot be as optimistic as I was before about a royal restoration of some sort in Romania now that the last king has gone to join his ancestors. There were brief occasions when it seemed a very real possibility, all of them missed opportunities but as long as he lived I thought there was a better chance than their could ever be without him.

King Michael I had lived long enough to see the collapse of the communist regime that forced him from his throne and into exile. He was able to return home, gain some official recognition from the existing (usurper) government and even undertook efforts on their behalf as a sort of unofficial ambassador-at-large for his country. Because of his actions in World War II, he was highly respected even among many who are not and would never think of themselves as monarchists. For that reason, I had long hoped that he might be able to be restored, at least as a ceremonial, constitutional monarch, as a sort of symbolic tribute to an elderly man who had lost everything for standing up to the communist oppressors. I could have seen a republican government doing that, seeing it, as they would, as a rather empty gesture of no real importance but one which would, nonetheless, restore the monarchy on an official basis and provide a place from which to advance farther toward a state of affairs more acceptable to Romanian monarchists. As the King entered extreme old age, I thought it unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility that something might be negotiated to correct the past wrong and restore him to his throne before his death. Alas, it was not to be and I fear things will be much more difficult for Romanian monarchists going forward.

It must also be said that King Michael himself, the Royal Family and monarchists (not unusually unfortunately) also sometimes got in their own way. Changes to the succession, involvement in politics and other issues were not helpful. I am not as critical as I might be as changing the rules of succession for non-reigning dynasties has always been a difficult issue and the political situation is an impossibly fine line to walk. Stay aloof and you have nothing concrete to offer, get involved and you are seen as partisan and a source of division rather than unity. It is certainly a difficult situation. Hopefully, the next generation will carry on and will achieve success but without King Michael and his remarkable life story I think it will be much harder for them.

For more about the life of the late King:

Monarch Profile: King Michael I of Romania

The Story of the Kingdom of Romania

Romanian Royal Struggles in World War II

May the last King of the Romanians be welcomed by choirs of angels into the Kingdom of Heaven and May he Rest in Peace in the light of the Holy Face.

May his cause be vindicated by the successful restoration of the monarchy, a return to traditional authority, grounded in faith and family and may Romania be lifted to her full potential as a people and as a country.

This is my sincere wish. -MM

Castling Prince Harry

As some of you may have heard, Prince Harry is getting married and, apparently, many people have a lot to say about that. Many people also have a lot to say about what other people are saying. As is not unusual for me in such cases, both sides shouting at each other are people I find annoying. One side is mad because other people have opinions on the subject and they are wrong; this is, in fact, rather out of the ordinary as a royal marriage and that can be legitimately talked about. On the other hand, the people who are complaining the most are complaining about the least important “issue” with this marriage. Prince Harry is marrying Meghan Markle next May at Windsor Castle. This is legitimately a cause for comment due to a number of reasons. Meghan Markle is a commoner (not very unusual at all anymore but still an innovation in historical terms), she is an American, she is several years older than the Prince, she is divorced, she is an actress (not a line of work traditionally considered socially acceptable) and she is of mixed-race background with a White father and a Black mother which seems to matter more to both sides than any of the other issues.

Another issue which seems to have been given no attention at all is that it was announced that Miss Markle will be baptized and confirmed into the Church of England the day before the wedding which, I assume, means she has never been a member of any Christian church before. Ordinarily, that would also be rather a big deal but it doesn’t seem to be to most, not even to the Church of England, nor does the fact that she is divorced. No, the biggest, most talked about issue is the racial issue which I have a hard time getting a grasp on simply because it only seems to be an issue because people say that it is an issue and point it out. I doubt most people would even know about it if someone else had not told them about her parentage. I think most people, knowing nothing else but what they see, would just take for a White girl with a tan. Yet, today, everyone is hyper-sensitive on this issue and so it might as well be dealt with right at the outset. Does it matter to me? Yes and no. Sorry to be ambiguous but it really does come down to being no big deal in one way and rather “problematic” in another, neither of which, it is important to add, have anything to do with Prince Harry or Miss Markle but rather with reaction to their coupling.

The reason is doesn’t matter is because interracial marriage is not anything new nor does it have anything to do with anyone other than the two people involved. It is not very common, most people choosing to marry people like themselves, nor is it “groundbreaking” even for royals. It isn’t even much of an interracial marriage given that one of them is White and the other is half White. Regular royal watchers will know that this has happened before and I don’t remember anyone making a big deal about it, perhaps because previous examples were from non-English-speaking monarchies. HRH Prince Joachim of Denmark married a woman of mixed European and Chinese ancestry in 1995, Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg, (the two divorced in 2005) and HSH Prince Alois of Liechtenstein married an African-American woman in 2000, Princess Angela of Liechtenstein. It is also not completely unknown outside of Europe. The late King Hussein of Jordan married Queen Noor, an American of Syrian and Swedish ancestry, Princess Ubol Ratana of Thailand gave up her royal status to marry a White American man, Peter Ladd Jensen, in 1972. However, the princess did have to give up her status for this, her husband was given no titles or court recognition and the two divorced in 1998. The last King of Sikkim married a White woman from the United States as did the son of the last Crown Prince of Korea though he had no official status at the time and both of these marriages ended in divorce. The last Emperor of Vietnam married a French woman while in exile and I believe I recall a member of the Cambodian Royal Family marrying an American from New Jersey in 2002 (possibly not the first but don’t quote me on that). The most prolific were the Ottoman Sultans whose harems were almost completely full of women from the Balkans and southern Russia but, of course, those were not exactly voluntary marriages.

Obviously, interracial royal marriages, while not the norm, are certainly not unprecedented. In and of itself, it is not a major issue. Most, as you can see, have been second sons or granddaughters and thus not in direct line for the throne and the same could be said about Prince Harry. Were this not the case, there would probably be more uproar over it. Even for non-reigning royals, such as the heir to the Korean throne, many in the Royal Family were not pleased and pushed for ending the marriage, which was finally done on the pretext of it producing no children. It is not that out of the ordinary but neither is it terribly common and thus should not be seen as anything “threatening” to the royal line in and of itself. People should be able to marry whomever they wish and, as mentioned, most prefer to marry people who are like themselves. On the other hand, neither are most people royalty and if marriage was about romance and nothing else there would not be so many laws concerning royal marriages. For example, if Miss Markle had been a Catholic rather than non-religious, Prince Harry would not have been able to marry her or at least not without forfeiting his place in the Royal Family. Like it or not, the marriages of royals have been and in most places still are matters of state as well as the heart. However, suppose, just for a moment, that Prince Harry had proposed to an alternate version of Meghan Markle, one that was not divorced, not an American, one that was born and raised Church of England and even of aristocratic background but still the daughter of a White father and Black mother. Would there still be an issue? Yes, even though there shouldn’t be.

The problem is a societal one. The problem is that all the people saying you *have* to be ecstatic about this marriage because the bride-to-be is mixed-race are just as fanatical as those saying you *have* to be upset about it for the same reason. The problem is not these two individuals, the problem is the context in which studies have shown that the media, in Britain, have been pushing a false representation on this issue, presumably in order to foster the more rapid transition of the British Isles from one population to another. Interracial couples, while obviously more numerous in the past as the population becomes more mixed, are still quite rare and yet the media in Britain, studies have shown, portray a disproportional amount of interracial couples in order to influence people into thinking this is more common than it actually is. This puts pressure on people to conform with trend of population replacement as well as inflaming the racists who then provide just the sort of bogey man the people in power want to see (because they have always defeated them due to the fact that your average Brit is not a hateful, violent, bigot). As a result, the problem is not the couple in question but the hyped up level of virtue-signaling that is bound to go along with this as well as enabling people to call anyone who does not jump with joy over this event a racist.

Keeping in mind that Prince Harry is now quite a ways down on the line of succession (and more so since the abandonment of male primogeniture) and this really should not be such a big deal, the bottom line is that the fact that the bride to be is partly of another race than the husband to be is only a side effect of the far more central problem this is product of and why, no, I was not overjoyed with Prince Harry’s choice. First of all, in no particular order, she is an American and I have long said that it would be better for the monarchy if Prince Harry would marry a girl from one of the Commonwealth Realms as it would help strengthen ties with the monarchy in those countries. She is divorced which, in my old fashioned views, would make her unacceptable just as it once did for Mrs. Wallis Simpson. She is also common and before anyone brings up the Duchess of Cambridge, I was not exactly thrilled about her nouveau riche background either, though she had none of the other problems Miss Markle does. It is not unprecedented, in fact it is the rule rather than the exception these days, that still doesn’t make me have to like it. However, there is more to it than being common alone. This is someone who has been an actress and I don’t doubt she will probably be the first member of the Royal Family to have been seen half naked in sex scenes on television. This was another one of the things that not so very long ago would have been considered an immediate disqualifier to say the least of it. There is also the religious issue but, frankly, that doesn’t bother me as much as it probably should simply because the clergy doesn’t seem to either and that would have to be the bigger priority.

I am certainly not against interracial marriage as an individual choice and certainly not the slightly interracial marriage that this would be, it is when people start pushing it as part of an agenda that I have a big problem. I am against royals being “unequally yoked” to borrow a phrase from Scripture. As far as I am concerned, the biggest problem with this marriage is not the marriage itself, even with all of the “issues” it comes with but rather it is the more fundamental problem underlying it. That problem is the on-going leveling of the remaining monarchies of the world which has resulted in modern royals being seen as simply celebrities and thus having no problem viewing an actress as suitable material to be accepted as one of their own. I believe royals are different and can never be the same as ordinary people, that they should be set apart, exclusive, lofty and even a dramatic and overt reminder of the truth of inequality as a fact of life. That is my biggest problem with this and just as the mixed-race aspect is played up to feed a narrative that encourages something negative, it also coincides with things like royals going to school with the commoners, associating with the wealthy, liberal elite almost exclusively, with the abandonment of male primogeniture, traditional court protocols and the idea that imaginary things like “fairness” and “equality” have any part other than a destructive one in any sort of monarchy.

The State of the Khmer Kingdom Today

The often overlooked Kingdom of Cambodia was in the news recently as the pliant Supreme Court ruled to ban the primary opposition party in the country, clearing the way for the ruling Prime Minister Hun Sen of the Cambodian People's Party to sail to (another) easy victory in upcoming elections. I tend to think that many monarchists pay too little attention to Cambodia, thinking that since the monarchy was restored, the important job was done and we could move on. The truth, as usual, is not so simple and I am particularly sensitive to this case. I have personal ties to the Khmer kingdom that make it impossible for me to gloss over. I have family who were involved in the war there, both the U.S. and Vietnamese interventions, a Cambodian cousin (by marriage) and another cousin who moved there with her family last year. If you know what the situation is like 'on the ground' you will know that Cambodia is nothing like its official description as a run-of-the-mill "constitutional monarchy". It is effectively a socialist dictatorship using the monarchy for cover.

A Khmer Rouge King

As usual, to understand the situation, one has to look back at the recent history of the Kingdom of Cambodia. Prior to World War II the country was effectively a colony as part of French Indochina. In 1941, thinking he would be easier to work with, the French authorities influenced the Crown Council to choose Norodom Sihanouk to succeed his grandfather as King. He remained in power during the Japanese occupation, declared independence from France at their prompting and essentially held power in the country ever since 1941 (he did abdicate for a time in favor of his father but still held control of the government during that time). He became extremely popular but as communist subversion increased in the country, King Norodom Sihanouk tried to play both sides of the fence between the French and later the Americans on one side and the communists, particularly China, on the other. Ultimately, anti-communist/anti-Vietnamese uprising resulted in the King being deposed in 1970 while he was out of the country and replaced by General Lon Nol. This caused King Sihanouk to do an 'about face' and urge his people to go to the jungle and join the communist Khmer Rouge.

When the U.S. pulled out of Indochina, the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1975 and enacted a puritanical, fanatical, communist makeover of the country with the King as their 'front man' on the world stage. This has led to some lasting controversy given that the Khmer Rouge butchered about a third of the entire population during their time in power. They were not removed until the ruling dictator, Pol Pot, insanely launched an attack on the neighboring Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He may have expected that his forces and China would crush the Vietnamese between them but he learned the hard way what the Americans, French and others, including the Chinese themselves, could have told him; fighting the Vietnamese is not something to take lightly. The Vietnamese basically wiped the floor with Pol Pot's forces, took over the country and installed their own government in 1979. One of the figures they put in power was a former Khmer Rouge cadre leader named (you guessed it) Hun Sen who had fled to Vietnam several years earlier. The Chinese did not approve of this, having backed the Khmer Rouge and because the Vietnamese were backed by Soviet Russia with whom China had a very tense relationship. However, King Sihanouk refused to go along with any pro-Khmer Rouge at this point, being glad to finally be free of them.

Prince Ranariddh

Under various titles, Hun Sen has effectively been dictator of Cambodia ever since the Vietnamese installed him after overthrowing Pol Pot. The UN finally got involved, held elections and the people voted to restore the monarchy so King Norodom Sihanouk was back but Hun Sen was going nowhere. He was forced to join in a nominal coalition government with the royalist party FUNCINPEC, an opposition party founded by the King and led by his second son Prince Norodom Ranariddh. It seemed like a basically normal constitutional monarchy from the outside but such appearances were deceiving. Hun Sen still had the strongest position and in 1997 carried out a coup against Prince Ranariddh when the Prince started to publicly complain about Hun Sen have more than half the power he was supposed to have. In the next elections, and practically every election in Cambodia has been deemed highly suspect, Hun Sen became sole Prime Minister and immediately began building up a cult of personality around himself as the "strong man" leader of Cambodia. King Norodom Sihanouk, who had more political experience than anyone, had his number from day one, famously referring to Hun Sen as the "one eyed lackey of the Vietnamese". However, Hun Sen still had opposition parties to deal with and the very revered King to at least hinder him if not stop him from doing whatever he wants.

The opposition parties were not terribly difficult to deal with. Hun Sen could always find an excuse to arrest opposition figures, suspend their rights or in some way make sure that his party came first in every subsequent election. A favorite tactic of his, used more than once, was to take advantage of the long-standing dispute between Thailand and Cambodia over the exact location of their border. Whenever an election was coming up, Hun Sen would send military forces to the border, the Thais would respond by sending their own troops to the border and this was used as justification for Hun Sen to declare a state of emergency and martial law, putting the army on the ground to make sure people voted for the CCP, and then backing off when the elections were over. The only one with the prestige to challenge Hun Sen was King Sihanouk who, while his actual powers were extremely limited, could be a major problem for the prime minister due to his widespread popularity. King Sihanouk could force Hun Sen to back down by threatening to abdicate and the King still had considerable support from China, though many Chinese communists wondered why they spent so much money on a foreigner and a monarch.

King Sihamoni w/ King Sihanouk

When King Sihanouk died, in Peking, in 2012 the largest obstacle to Hun Sen was removed. In my opinion, I think King Sihanouk wanted Prince Norodom Ranariddh to succeed him but, and again this is only my opinion, the Crown Council chose Norodom Sihamoni to be the next monarch. Prince Ranariddh had his problems, whether genuine or arranged by his enemies in the ruling party, who can say, but it seems to me that the Crown Council was influenced by Hun Sen to choose Prince Norodom Sihamoni because he wanted someone who would not pose a political threat to his hold on power and not be as difficult and opinionated as King Sihanouk had been. King Sihamoni seems a very nice man and all Cambodians should be loyal to him, however, it just seems to me that when your choice for king is a gay ballerina from France, you are probably choosing someone who does not fit the bill of a king likely to stand up to a dictatorial prime minister. The royalist opposition has been divided with Prince Ranariddh forming his own party for a time and it is anyone's guess if this was a legitimate internal dispute or not. Personally, I suspect the CCP of being involved in breaking up their biggest rival but I may just be paranoid. Anyway, the bottom line is that there is no longer a monarch with the experience, international support and local prestige to stand up to Hun Sen, the royalists have been troubled by scandal and division and now the primary opposition party has been banned and, it is no coincidence, just before national elections.

Cambodia still has ties to Communist China but the reality that people need to understand is that the country is a dictatorship under Hun Sen with a figurehead monarch. If you want to know who is really in control, it is not that difficult if you take a broad view and not get bogged down in the local political squabbles that often do not amount to munch (even the royalists have long been accused of being what Americans would call 'controlled opposition'). Remember that the communist Vietnamese "founding father" Ho Chi Minh had originally founded the Indochinese Communist Party and he expected and planned to become the communist dictator of all of what had been French Indochina, not just his native Vietnam. Keeping that in mind, recall that Laos is effectively under Vietnamese occupation to this day and that Hun Sen was first put in power in Cambodia by the Communist Vietnamese and has remained in power ever since. If you ever go to Cambodia you will also notice that the army officers all speak Vietnamese. That should be a huge, huge clue as to who is really in charge in Cambodia and who is pulling the strings of Prime Minister Hun Sen. The King is still there but Cambodia is still in need of a true royal restoration.

Catalonia, Separatism & Small States

The day of the great independence referendum in the Catalonian region of the Kingdom of Spain has now come and gone and the result is that, true to their word, the Spanish government did not allow it to happen. Spanish police and the Civil Guard were deployed prior to the day votes were to be cast to raid polling stations, seize ballot papers, prevent people from voting and arrest ringleaders. Catalan separatists responded with cries of fascism and militarism, as well as producing ballots Catalans could print out at home. That, of course, only reaffirms the comment made by the Spanish prime minister that the referendum was a mere mockery of democracy. It is hard to say how he is wrong. Separatist leaders gave no guidelines by which success could be judged, no level at which voter turnout would be deemed sufficient to declare it legitimate, the voting process would be in the hands of the separatists themselves as would the process of counting the votes. It sounds rather like the referendum which gave birth to the Italian Republic in that regard.

Certainly, the entire affair contained a great deal of what the political class calls “bad optics” for the Spanish government with scenes of police smashing into polling stations and roughing up Catalan voters. However, what else could have been expected? The Spanish courts had already ruled that such a vote would be illegal and would have no validity, the organizers were openly flouting the law and the only recourse left was the use of force by the state. However, “optics” do matter these days and have for a long time actually which is why President Lincoln in the United States ordered the re-supply of the sacrificial garrison at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He knew the outpost was doomed but he wanted the “optics” of the southerners firing on the American flag in order to boost northern support for a war of conquest against the breakaway southern states. The Catalan separatists were also clever enough to keep the issue simple, far more simple than it actually is, by giving the people the choice of only two options; the status quo or a Catalan republic. Thus, all we know about what sort of state they were proposing was that it would not be a monarchy.

These are certainly troubled times for the once proud and powerful Kingdom of Spain and there seems no hope of anything getting better in the immediate future. Separatist leaders have already, in spite of no vote really being held, declared themselves the winners with Carles Puigdemont saying that Catalonia has, “won the right to an independent state in the form of a republic” and that the way is now open for a unilateral declaration of independence. Again, it is noteworthy that the only thing the separatist leader can say to describe his ideal, independent, Catalonia is that it will be some sort of republic. What would actually resist remains to be seen as the separatists have portrayed independence as all things to all people, presenting differing visions cut to the customer’s satisfaction. To the socialists, it will be more socialist than ever, to the liberals it will be more capitalist than ever, to the Muslims, well, they were promised a ‘mega-mosque’ to be built when independence is achieved. They have no doubt about what sort of state they want and their views cannot be ignored considering that Catalonia has the highest percentage of Muslims among the Spanish regions. In fact, if Catalonia became independent, it would have the third most Muslim population in the neighborhood with a greater percentage than either Britain or Germany.

What has been odd is the number of people on the slightly right-of-center side of the political spectrum taking up the cause of Catalan independence. For the most part, these have been people and news outlets far removed from Spain who are mostly responding to the aforementioned “optics” of the situation. An independent Catalan republic would certainly be no bastion of conservatism or traditional European values (as the size and growth of the Muslim population rather clearly demonstrates). It would not even be all that “independent” given that they are even now looking to the EU to intervene on their behalf. So far, EU authorities have been rather lukewarm on the subject of Catalan independence, certainly showing none of the enthusiasm they failed to hide on the issue of Scottish independence. This, I contend, is simply because of money. Spain owes the EU a great deal of it and Catalonia accounts for about a fifth of the Spanish economy. If Catalonia were able to leave Spain, it would mean Spain would be even less likely to pay back its debts. Further, regions of Spain would likely then begin abandoning the sinking ship so that they are not the last one left holding the bill.

Due to a couple of comments, I think it also worth addressing the broader point of the ever-dividing states of Europe. I do not think I made it clear enough before why I think these ever smaller states are helpful. In the first place, whether one is speaking of Catalonia or Flanders or even Scotland, the immediate or ultimate end of these movements are to create more republics which is repugnant to my monarchist loyalties. However, even were they not, they would hardly be in a position to be truly independent. Some, more often the libertarian-minded rather than reactionary, also put forth the notion of micro-states. The problem with these is that they are too small and too incapable of the practical necessities of actual independence to withstand the stresses they would inevitably face. Those who point to the benefits of free market economics, and they have a case certainly, point to examples such as the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong which, while self-governing, was a colony and not independent. The Principality of Liechtenstein, while legally sovereign, is not capable of total independence and for most of its history has not been, previously being part of the First German Empire, currently part of a customs union with Switzerland.

The point can be made quite clear, I think, by pointing out the obvious which is that any small state which, unlike an independent Scotland or Catalonia or Flanders, truly wishes to go against the prevailing world order, will find itself isolated and vulnerable. Consider, for example, the fate of Rhodesia or South Africa prior to Black rule. These were not micro-states, in the case of South Africa it is a quite large state. However, even with their considerable resources, they were ultimately unable to stand against a hostile globe that treated them as pariahs. Even in the case of a Liechtenstein or a Monaco, these countries have had to bend to the international elites to one degree or another in order to retain their sovereign status. However, if you are not prepared to do business the way the masters of the current world order demand, such a state would be slapped with every sort of sanction imaginable. You have to have enough resources to be self-sufficient or otherwise have a patron to whom you are answerable like China is to North Korea. This is why there really is no substitute for winning the battle, winning the argument, because withdrawing is not possible when dealing with control-freaks.

Why the Catalonia Crisis Matters

As most readers are probably aware, the Kingdom of Spain is in the midst of a crisis. The Catalans are threatening to break away and issue a unilateral declaration of independence in spite of legal rulings from Spanish courts that such a thing would be illegal and threats from the central government in Madrid to have Catalan leaders arrested if they go ahead with their promised referendum on independence. As most are also probably aware, this is not a new problem, Catalonia has been threatening to break away for some time now nor are they the only ones. This also comes at a time when the Kingdom of Spain is still dealing with an economic crisis, the migrant crisis and at a time when it seems that the Spanish have less holding them together than in ages past.

Even this, as most students of history know, is not a recent problem but one that has become, sadly, the rule rather than the exception. When the Spanish have been united and all pulling in the same direction, they have accomplished astounding things. Spain reached unprecedented levels of wealth and prosperity, social cohesion, blazed new trails in exploration, conquered empires and subdued continents under such conditions. Spain was once the backbone of western Christendom, the power which ensured the Catholics rather than the Protestants retained Belgium and France and which played no small part in the retention of Catholicism in much of central Europe during the Thirty Years War. All of that, unfortunately, seems like a very distant memory that few today feel any connection with. Since the French Revolutionary Wars, roughly, Spain has been in a period of recurrent internal unrest. The country which triumphed over enemies as diverse as the British Empire, the French Empire and the Ottoman Empire found itself unable to triumph over the enemy within which has been internal divisions.

It was the internal divisions fostered by the invasion and occupation by the Napoleonic French which first caused the Spanish empire to crack and begin breaking apart. Efforts to deal with this were, at first, successful but, alas, internal squabbling in Spain itself prevented such victories being followed up. The struggle between constitutional and absolute monarchists seemed to have been done when King Fernando VII, backed by his Bourbon cousin King Louis XVIII of France, restored himself to power but his death then set off a series of conflicts over the succession; the Carlist Wars. There were a number of these and, though the Carlists were never victorious, their persistence meant that the Spanish were mostly focused on fighting each other rather than external enemies. That, unfortunately, was only the beginning as the divisions became only worse with time.

During the reign of Queen Isabella II, despite the Carlist trouble, the Kingdom of Spain did seem to be on the cusp of a rebound. Efforts to reclaim lost territories or forge new relationships to Spain’s benefit were going well, Spain had the fourth largest navy in the world, rebels in Cuba and the Philippines were successfully subdued and one former colony, the Dominican Republic, even returned willingly to submission to the Spanish Crown. Spain seemed on course to recover its lost glory and former place of prominence as one of the great powers. However, not only did the Carlist opposition persist but their enemies, the ruling government, began to fragment and begin fighting amongst themselves. Queen Isabella II, unacceptable to the Carlists, proved too conservative to be acceptable to the liberals who had previously supported her. She was forced out and the ruling elite decided to give monarchy one more chance.

As the division over the Bourbon succession seemed hopelessly permanent, the Spanish government decided to start over from blank paper with a new dynasty, importing the Italian Duke of Aosta to be King Amadeo I of Spain. This solved nothing, another Carlist uprising flared up and the party which had brought in the new king also began fighting among themselves so that, after less than three years in Spain, King Amadeo I declared the country ungovernable, abdicated and went home to Italy, sorry that he had ever attempted such an enterprise. This resulted in the, thankfully short-lived, First Spanish Republic as the revolutionary party, which had always opposed the monarchy, was bolstered by the fact that the monarchists seemed unable to maintain a functioning monarchy anyway. The republic did not last long but it set a dangerous precedent and should have been a warning to all that if the monarchy was to only be a source of division, a republic would be given a chance.

As it was, King Alfonso XII, son of Isabella II, was put on the throne. He defeated the latest Carlist rebellion, suppressed another in Cuba and was able to get some degree of calm in the political sphere at home by allowing both liberals and conservatives to take it in turns governing the country. They were still divided of course, but seemed willing to accept the rule of the other while they waited for their turn to come again. Prosperity began to return once the Spanish stopped fighting each other and got back to the business of doing business. Unfortunately, the reign of King Alfonso XII was a short one. He died in 1885, just before his twenty-eighth birthday. The throne passed to his son, King Alfonso XIII, and soon the old divisions began to reappear. A relatively new part of this division was the emergence of the Catalan nationalist movement. Although somewhat present in the past, it began to emerge in a new way with the First Spanish Republic and received a large boost after 1898 and the defeat of Spain by the United States. The leading industrial region of Spain, Catalonia lost the markets for her manufactured goods in Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippines after that war.

Flag of the Kingdom of Aragon

In the old days, Catalan nationalism had been tied to maintaining or regaining their privileges from the time of the Kingdom of Aragon. The unity of Spain had always been a fragile thing. Even when most of the country was under Moorish rule, the Christian kingdoms still fought among themselves and when unity was finally achieved it was only by marriage, only a personal union and the relationship between the people and the king was a contractual one. The people submitted to the Crown but only conditionally. Later, Catalan nationalist became more liberal. General Juan Prim, leader of the Revolution of 1868, which brought down Isabella II and ultimately replaced her with Amadeo I, was a Catalan. The First Republic was their great hope but, after its failure, they focused mostly on pushing for as much autonomy as possible and were not necessarily opposed to the monarchy. However, the increased divisions and unrest in Spain during the era of King Alfonso XIII, led to the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera who cracked down on any hints of separatism. Catalan nationalists then began to go solidly republican.

Catalan separatist flag

When King Alfonso XIII was overthrown and the Second Spanish Republic was declared, the Catalan nationalists went along in the hope of establishing Catalonia as a subsidiary republic. Needless to say, when the Spanish Civil War ended in victory for Generalissimo Francisco Franco, all of that was suppressed. Franco wanted an end to all of the bickering, infighting, regional unrest and political divisions that had been plaguing Spain for so long. Immediately before the victory of Franco and his Spanish nationalists, the leader of the Catalan nationalists declared the independence of the Republic of Catalonia before leaving the country and claiming to lead a government-in-exile. All hints of Catalan separatism were firmly suppressed by Franco and, though Franco was a monarchist, it is likely that his reluctance to not bring back an actual monarch until after his death was due to how divisive rather than unifying the Spanish monarchy had become.

Once Franco was dead and gone, however, the Catalan separatists came back in a big way. In 1979 Catalonia gained a degree of autonomy from the Spanish government and, after another vote in 2006, this autonomy was expanded. However, there has been no shortage of problems in Spain and there have been no shortage of Catalan separatists, on both the left and the right (or “right” as we are basically talking about socialists and liberals here) who are quick to offer Catalan independence as the answer. This is an old problem and one that has been building in its current form for decades at least. Why should any of this matter, particularly to anyone who is not Spanish? It matters because the Kingdom of Spain matters. Spain is never going to rise above its current lower-tier status if these internal divisions persist and if the Catalan nationalists are successful, the results could have far-reaching consequences well become the present day boundaries of the Kingdom of Spain.

The most unthinkable possibility would be if the vote results in a declaration of independence which the Catalans inflexibly stand by and which Madrid inflexibly opposes which would result in another Spanish Civil War. If, however, it goes forward and the government does not use force to suppress it, we are then presented with the very real possibility that other regions start to abandon the sinking ship that is Spain, no one wishing to be the last one left holding the bill for Spain’s massive debt. What happens when the Basques or the Galicians decide to follow the example of the Catalans? Then you have the cascade effect this could cause across Europe, starting with areas already known for their separatist tendencies such as Scotland in the UK, Flanders in Belgium, Venice or Sardinia in Italy, similar Basque and Catalan separatists in France, their example to be followed by the Corsican, Breton, Savoyard and other separatists. Will the Frisians of the Netherlands or the Bavarians of Germany be far behind? Where does it all end?

Many of these, most of them in all probability, have also stated their desire to carry on within the European Union, which means not so much true independence but more a desire to have the benefits of autonomy with none of the responsibilities. We would be left with a collection of tiny, powerless statelets which are, far from independent, all the more dependent on larger powers for their defense and access to profitable markets. Secessionists in places such as the American states of California or Texas could be (and in the case of Texas have) successful independent entities if their adopt the correct policies. Both have large markets, considerable farm land, their own energy sources and access to the oceans, the ‘highway of the nations’. The same could not be said for these tiny regions of Europe. In many of these places, the separatists do have some legitimate points on their lists of grievances in my view. However, the breakup of once major powers into powerless micro-states will not solve them or, at best, simply replace them with other, usually larger, problems.

I deplore the state that the Kingdom of Spain is in presently. However, I do not want to see Spain disappear from the map. With real unity and the correct policies, Spain could rise again to be a major power in Europe. I would like to see that. Further, I think it would be to the benefit of everyone if a revived Kingdom of Spain then went on to strengthen ties and form a stronger coalition of all the Spanish-speaking countries. If that could be accomplished, if all of the Hispanic lands could be united and all pull in the same direction, you are not just talking about a major power but a potential super-power. That is something I would like to see and I would love to see the cascade effect from that possibility, with other European countries doing the same.

Charlottesville and the Need to Do Better

As most of you are no doubt aware, there was a bit of dust up in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday. The original issue was the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park (formerly named Lee Park but re-named recently for the sake of tolerance and diversity). A disparate group of White people came together under the name “Unite the Right” to hold a demonstration in protest to the removal of the statue. It is worth bearing in mind that General Lee himself was not a slave owner, thought slavery was wrong and had opposed secession. This group included people with varying view points from simple pro-White advocates to actual White supremacists (Neo-Nazis and KKK). Some were, in my view, good and some were clearly bad. However, they agreed on the subject that the statue should stay where it is and they obtained a permit from the city to hold their demonstration.

That was when the problems began. Shortly afterward, the city revoked their permit and “Unite the Right” had to appeal to the courts which did finally rule that they had civil rights like the right to assemble and the right to free speech and so ordered the city to reissue their permit. However, as soon as it became known that these people would be holding their demonstration, leftist groups, “Antifa” among others, called on all of their supporters to rally at Charlottesville on the same day to shut down the event. The original demonstration was scheduled to begin at noon but, long before that, a state of emergency was declared as violence broke out between the two sides and so it was cancelled. The police had been ordered to “stand down” and so it is no surprise that a brawl ensued, injuring many and leading to the death of one woman who was hit by a car that sped into a crowd of leftist counter-protestors.

A few things should be clear from the facts of this situation. On the one hand, the organizers were clearly unconcerned about what sort of image they presented to the American public (or were intentionally ‘clowning’) as you cannot hold a demonstration, preceded by a torchlight procession, with Roman salutes and swastika flags and then cry “unfair” when the other side calls you a bunch of Nazis. These people guaranteed that the statue will be removed and that no one with any official position will go anywhere near them. Secondly, it is also perfectly clear that even if they had been goose-stepping down Emancipation Park in brown shirts, they had gone through the legal process to do it and had every right to be there. The Antifa types who came to challenge them did not, the police and civil authorities did not do their duty and have heaped all the blame on one side. It also, needless to say, made no difference to the mainstream media that the leftist counter-protesters had such flags on display as that of the Soviet Union (which killed more people and invaded more countries than Hitler ever did) as well as one or two of the Spanish Republic, that leftist regime which put more people to death in a few months than the supposedly notorious Spanish Inquisition snuffed out in as many centuries.

I can imagine two different things coming from this; those who made up “Unite the Right” will shrink away into obscurity having again portrayed themselves as simply the Nazi Party USA (one of the organizers was Richard Spencer who some may remember from his “Hail Trump! Hail Victory!” speech) or this will ratchet up the extremism on the part of the White identity types who can reasonably say that while others have been allowed to demonstrate, they were not and that while others have been allowed to speak, they are not. Racial or ethnic advocacy groups are allowed for everyone but them and thus there is no need to bother with staying within the law. The law only applies to certain people. So, I am not much of a prophet, I think it will either get calmer as more people just accept the situation or it will not if they choose to fight back.

No doubt some are already wondering what any of this has to do with traditional authority or the cause of kings. Well, for one thing, it displays the hypocrisy of the liberal republican form of government, as I have mentioned numerous times in the past. All of their “liberty” and “fairness” and “rule of law” only seems to apply in the abstract, never when it really matters. You have rights until a crisis arises and President Lincoln suspends habeaus corpus, President Wilson puts you in jail for playing German music or President Roosevelt confiscates your property and puts you in a concentration camp. You have the right to elect you leader, until you elect a leader the ruling class disapproves of and then he is blocked at every turn. You have the right to free speech and assembly until someone shows up, causes a brawl and then the whole thing is shut down on the grounds of being unsafe. You can say what you want, unless the powers-that-be determine what you are saying is “hate speech” in which case they can shut you down. Fail to enforce immigration laws and you’re a “sanctuary city” but fail to issue a marriage license to a gay couple and you go to jail (see Kim Davis). Liberalism sounds so great in the abstract but in practice it means, liberty for “us” but not for you.

Secondarily, I also noticed a number of people on our own side making the case, and God bless them for it, that monarchy, traditional values and authentic Christianity are the only things that can “unite the right”. Unfortunately, and this is where we need to do better, I could not agree. Yes, me, the “Mad Monarchist” could not agree that this was a truthful statement. Why? Because the fact is, we are not united even among ourselves and I certainly know as I get the angry messages almost on a daily basis. For some, usually the Catholics, it is a sectarian issue as only Catholic monarchies will do. Even there, many problems arise over what the definition of “Catholic” is these days. The ones who tell you it is perfectly simple are also the ones who usually say Pope Francis is of course not Catholic at all. See the problem? Monarchists do not agree on the map, they do not agree what people deserve to have their own countries and for many of those who do, they cannot agree on who should be the monarch of those countries. The best example of this is the royalists of the various branches of the House of Bourbon. In France, Spain, Parma and the Two-Sicilies, in every case there is division over who should be the monarch now or who should be the monarch if there was to be one.

This is a source of tremendous frustration for me and if you want to know more about a particular example, illustrating what this leads to, I refer you back to my past article, ‘France: Republican By Default’. Monarchists probably get tired of my scolding but it is something that must be learned because the republicans have certainly learned it and used it to their advantage. President Adolphe Thiers referred to the republic as the form of government that “divides us least”, which was sadly true and should make every monarchist deeply ashamed. There were also more mocking comments comparing the Count of Chambord to George Washington as the “Founding Father” of the Third French Republic. Likewise, republicanism in Spain first reared its ugly head due to the inability of Spanish monarchists to unite behind one monarch. After fierce fights between the rival branches of the Bourbon dynasty, it was decided to start over from blank paper and bring in a monarch of the House of Savoy. Yet, the old divisions refused to be reconciled, ending in King Amadeus abdicating in disgust and going back to Italy at which time the First Spanish Republic came into being. Once again, two Bourbon rivals refusing to reconcile on who should take the throne ended up with there being no throne at all.

I could go even farther and say that many monarchists have become so entrenched in their partisan divisions that, were it up to them, the western world would be engulfed in near total anarchy since no agreement, no treaty, no decision by governments or crowned heads could ever have validity. This comes into play, for example, concerning those countries which, in my experience, many monarchists outside of those countries think should not exist at all. The Kingdom of Belgium, for example, should not exist according to many monarchists. Never mind that the crowned heads of Europe all agreed that it should, that doesn’t matter to them. The Kingdom of Italy, likewise, should not exist according to many (non-Italian) Catholic monarchists, never mind that it was finally endorsed by the Pope with the Lateran Treaty by which the Holy See recognized it and in return the Kingdom of Italy was made an officially Catholic monarchy. No, for many, the Lateran Treaty is worthless paper and even the disgraceful depths the Italian Republic has sunk to is not enough to make these people think maybe the Savoy monarchy wasn’t so bad after all and just maybe Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII knew what they were doing.

If you cannot agree on who is a monarch, who should be a monarch or which peoples are even deserving of a country, I find it hard to believe there could ever be any appreciable unity on actual matters of policy. Concerning the United States, I am not even sure what is being proposed. Again, I have seen plenty of diversity of opinion among monarchists as to whether the United States of America should even exist. For the record, though I would have opposed independence in 1776, I regard the United States as being valid ever since His Britannic Majesty King George III saw fit to recognize the independence of the 13 former colonies. I don’t have to be best pleased about it, but it happened and I accept such agreements as binding. American monarchists do not agree on the status of the country itself, is there agreement among American monarchists on any significant policy? The protesters of “Unite the Right” probably do not agree on all that much among themselves but they do agree that the majority White/European population of the United States is being displaced and they all oppose this. Could monarchists in this country agree or disagree with that position with any appreciable amount of consensus? Unfortunately, I tend to doubt it.

Mark Steyn (a Canadian United Empire Loyalist) once said something to the effect of, mainstream society will be debating trans-gender bathrooms when the mullahs nuke us. If monarchists do not shape up, we will be arguing over whether the Duke of Bavaria should be the King of England, whether the Duke of Calabria or the Duke of Castro should be King of the Two Sicilies whenever Italians stop wanting their own country, whether a Habsburg or a Hohenzollern should be German Emperor whenever Germans finally stop wanting to be a republic or whether the man in white in the Vatican is really the Pope or not when the last descendants of western civilization are killed off. By and large, proper western civilization has already collapsed, what remains to be seen is whether the people whose inheritance it is will have a future or not. I don’t want monarchists left out of that struggle but, as I said to all those who criticized the (very easily criticized) “Unite the Right” crowd; where were you? Where was your demonstration?

Believe it or not, there have been some, or at least something of the sort but, again, because we are so divided, they attract a mere handful and thus no one pays attention to them. Recently, I commented that the problem with many royalists is that they don’t want to join the fight unless they know and approve of what the result is going to be, which is rather like refusing to play a game unless you already know you’re going to win. I was told that the “traditionalists” (for lack of a better term, I know it’s tossed around a lot) simply don’t want to commit suicide in a hopeless fight. That may be true and it may be that I have too pessimistic of an outlook. I have heard that the younger generations are more traditional than the more current ones but, to me, that hardly seems a difficult record to achieve and the swiftness from which we have moved from class equality to racial equality to gender equality to ‘people are born gay’ and now ‘people are not born male or female’ must have blinded me to the underground surge of traditionalist values that are about to burst forth in the coming years. In any event, as I’ve said before, being a Texan, I favor fighting every battle like it’s the Alamo. Which is to say, fight every fight as if it is your last, never mind about whether you can win or not. Personally, the utter and absolute hatred I have of the enemy, makes any fight worth it no matter what the odds are.

The bottom line is, we need to shape up, we need to improve and we need to stop fighting among ourselves and start fighting the enemies of all we hold dear. Those enemies still want to see “the last king strangled with the entrails of the last priest” and they don’t care who that king or priest are or what their opinions or dynastic branch is. We really need to put our divisions aside, draw a line in the sand and say the enemy will go no farther. From there, we push on but, as I know I’ve said before (sorry for being repetitive), right now we should at least be able to agree on the need to stop the bleeding before the patient dies.

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...

The Crimean War All Over Again?

The U.S. Senate, you know, the upper house of the American legislature with a Republican majority that could not muster enough Republican votes to appeal ‘Obamacare’ which they spent the last seven years promising to do, did manage to pass a sanctions bill against Russia, with Iran and North Korea added as an afterthought, with a huge bi-partisan majority of Republicans and Democrats. Because North Korea was added it must now go back to the House of Representatives but is certain to pass there, again, with Democrat and Republican support, with a large enough majority to override any presidential veto. The Trump has said he will sign it, despite some earlier misgivings, I think simply because he will look impotent if he vetoes a bill that becomes law anyway. Some people, on both the left and the right by the way, have warned that this is insane as sanctions usually end with war and, as Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons, such a thing could be disastrous.

U.S. forces in Narva, Estonia (which borders Russia)

What is the reason for this? It depends on who you ask. The Democrats, of course, are still wailing about Russia “hacking” the 2016 election, “attacking our democracy” and so on while the Republicans justify their support (as some Democrats do too) by pointing to Russian actions in Ukraine. The Ukrainians, coincidentally I’m sure, have also recently been talking about joining NATO and the European Union but no one in the halls of power in Washington DC or Brussels think Russia should have any reason to worry about that. However, the European Union (pertinent here as it contains most of Europe’s remaining monarchies) has said they are less than thrilled about these sanctions which will impact European companies which do business with Russia, particularly in the energy sector as Europe buys most of their natural gas from Russia. It is a far cry from the tone of the same European leaders who wailed about Russian interference in the French presidential elections or Russian interference in the “Brexit” vote and who backed the NATO military buildup in the Baltic. The EU, it seems, wants to endlessly provoke Russia but does not want to actually put their money where their mouth is.

The American politicians, needless to say, do not want war with Russia either (though a war with Syria or Iran is something I would not consider beyond them) and they would be doing none of this if they believed for a moment that Russia would ever fight back. The more dim even act as though they are completely ignorant of the fact that the choice between war or peace with Russia is one that is not only up to them but up to the leadership in Moscow as well. I really wish people would learn from history, the common lament of historians of all ages I am sure. All of this should remind us of the Crimean War and not just because Crimea and Ukraine are again at issue. For those not familiar or who would like to refresh their memory, read this past post about the Clash of Monarchies in the Crimean War. Suffice it to say that neither Britain or France really expected to get into a war with Russia over what amounted to a sort of turf-feud between Christian factions in the Holy Land. Napoleon III of France, who took the side of the Catholics (silly man), was satisfied by Turkish concessions on the issue and the British, being a Protestant country and not Catholic or Orthodox really had ‘no dog in the fight’, so to speak, concerning the original issue. How then did this all come to war?

British troops depart for Crimea

The answer lies with the British, specifically the British politicians and their allies in the media. Already sounding familiar isn’t it? One political faction in Britain wanted to fight, or at least said that they did, while the other urged compromise. They were more concerned about fears of Russian rivalry on the wider world stage, about areas where the British and Russian empires were bumping up against each other in Central Asia. They portrayed the Russians as brutes and Czar Nicholas I as a ruthless tyrant who suppressed opposition, killed dissidents and so on. Doesn’t that sound familiar? They could not compare him to Hitler of course but no doubt they did the best they could along those same lines. Their allies in the media pumped up public outrage against the Russians, picking on the poor, victimized Turks, and the demand for action by the British government began to grow at an alarming rate. This is how, in the end, the Her Majesty’s government was forced by public pressure, their own alarmism and brinksmanship into a war they did not really want over issues that could not be clearly defined.

After having stoked the fires of anti-Russian sentiment to such a degree, the politicians in London were left with no other option but to make good on their threats rather than face the public humiliation of backing down from their hysteria. The Czar of Russia was not averse to talking the matter over but he was also not about to back down over an issue in which he clearly felt that he was in the right. He would not and, given his character, could not simply wash his hands of the large Orthodox Christian population living under Ottoman rule in the Holy Land and the Balkans. The result was a war in which nearly 40,500 British troops were killed, France lost over 100,000, Sardinia lost just over 2,000 and the Turks lost almost 45,500 men. The Russians lost the war of course and had casualties of over half a million, just over 500,000 compared to total Allied losses of just over 200,000. Their position was severely weakened and yet, what had the Allies really won with their victory over Russia in Crimea? The French abandoned their interests in the region when another republic replaced Napoleon III, brought down by the Germans in 1870, and the Russian Imperial Navy was soon back in the Black Sea and the British could do nothing about it since neither the French or Germans would support them. Hopes the British had of added Alaska to Canada were thwarted when Czar Alexander II sold the vast territory to the United States. What had Britain gained? Not much.

President Vladimir Putin

What is possibly the most frustrating thing for me about so many of these international issues is the empty preening of the political classes of the various countries which they often represent. For example, the U.S. is going to put harsher sanctions on Russia because they “interfered” in the last U.S. election and they invaded a neighboring country. Okay, let us suppose for a moment all of that is true, you could also say the same thing about Communist China and yet, not only does the U.S. refrain from putting sanctions on China but both parties howled in anguish when they thought the Trump was going to start a “trade war” with China. Are the Ukrainians more worthy of support than the Tibetans, Indians or Vietnamese? Was the Chinese desire for a Bill Clinton victory any more interfering than the Russian desire for a Hillary Clinton defeat? The answer is that putting sanctions on Russia has no impact on the U.S. because America does very little business with Russia anyway. It does a great deal of business with China, as everyone else does, even Taiwan, and so sanctions on China would be even more problematic for America than the sanctions on Russia are for Europe.

It is, I think, worthwhile to take a step back and look at the basic situation here. Russia does not have military forces or military bases in any country bordering the United States. Russia has not attacked the United States and the same European leaders who howled about Trump rubbishing NATO during the campaign and demanded reassurance of America’s commitment to their defense are now not wanting to get so tough on Russia after all. Iran, likewise, (and regular readers will know what I think of the monstrous and illegitimate regime in Tehran) is no threat to the United States and never have Shiite Islamic terrorists attacked the United States itself. Sunni Islamic terrorists have, many, many times and yet we are sanctioning the Islamic Republic of Iran while selling weapons to the (Sunni) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. North Korea, finally, is more problematic and yet, one could make the case that they would not be threatening America if American forces were not right next door in South Korea and Japan. The South Korean government, particularly the new President, does not want to take a hard line with North Korea and is very friendly with China. So, on that front, my question is; if South Korea is not worried about the North, why should Americans be? Pull the U.S. forces out and let South Korea handle the situation.

Where sanctions tend to lead...

Both sides of most of these issues are doing a great deal of talking and threatening and most of them do not really mean a word of what they are saying. However, my concern is that the Democrats and Republicans in America are creating a media hysteria that will pull them into a war with Russia, a stupid, pointless war even if it be victorious, just as happened to Britain in the Crimean War. I would also point out again that the ultimate decision between war or peace is not up to the stuff-shirts in Washington alone. The U.S. once put sanctions on Japan, tougher and tougher sanctions all while proclaiming how the U.S. only wanted peace. On the Sunday morning of December 7, 1941 they found out the hard way that the other side has a say in when wars start too, not just your own. I would hate to see that happen again, particularly when no vital interest is at stake and on behalf of alliances that are a total farce.