Princess Madeleine Engaged to Wed!

The hearts of young men are breaking around the world today as it was announced that HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden is engaged to marry her longtime boyfriend Jonas Bergstrom. The Mad Monarchist joins all others in wishing the Princess and her fiance heartfelt congratulations and best wishes for a happy marriage.

MM Video: Portuguese Monarchs

Shameless Plug

Monarch Profile: King Sigismund III of Poland

The reign of King Sigismund III of Poland is often spoken of as the beginning of the end of Polish greatness. In terms of worldly success he certainly met with many defeats and setbacks. Yet, he was also one of the great Catholic champions of Europe and his reign can also be seen as one of many opportunities for an even greater Poland had things gone just a little differently. He was also a man of principle who would follow the hard but upright path rather than compromise his values for a more sure chance at success. As a monarch who reigned during the Catholic Reformation (also called the counterreformation) he constantly worked to see the restoration of all of his subjects to the true faith embodied in the Church of Rome. Oddly enough for such a staunchly Catholic monarch his story begins in the staunchly Protestant Kingdom of Sweden.

Sigismund was born on June 20, 1566 to Katarzyna (Catherine) Jagiellonka and King John III of Sweden at Gripsholm. His parents, at the time, were being held prisoner by King Eric XIV but despite the Protestant domination of Sweden young Sigismund was raised as a Catholic. Regaining the throne of Sweden would be one of the primary driving forces in his life. His Polish connection came through his mother who was the daughter of Sigismund the Old and the Jagiellonka family had been the royal family of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth since King Wladyslaw II obtained the crown in 1386 through his Angevin wife. In 1587 Sigismund stood for election to the Polish throne after the death of King Stefan Batory. He was supported by Chancellor Jan Zamoyski, the dowager Queen Anna and the nobles loyal to the Zborowski family. With this network behind him he was duly elected King of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth on August 19, 1587 with the blessings of the primate of Poland Stanislaw Karnkowski. From that time his official name and title became Sigismund III, by the grace of God, king of Poland, grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Masovia, Samogitia, Livonia and also hereditary king of the Swedes, Goths and Wends; the later titles being in reference to the claims of his father to the Swedish throne.

However, as was often the case with the Polish electoral monarchy, the outcome was strongly contested by the losers who backed the Emperor Maximilian III for King of Poland. Upon hearing of his election King Sigismund slipped through the clutches of the Protestants in Sweden and landed in Poland on October 7 and quickly agreed to give up some royal powers to the parliament of the commonwealth in the hope of wining over some of his enemies and settling the disputed election. He was proclaimed by the Lesser Prussian Treasurer Jan Dulski as king on behalf of the Crown Marshal Andrzej Opalinski and after journeying to Krakow he was crowned on December 27. It would have seemed that the issue of who would be King of Poland had been settled by Emperor Maximilian III invaded at the head of his army to claim his crown. Thankfully, hostilities did not last too long as hetman Jan Zamojski at the head of a Polish army loyal to King Sigismund met and defeated the Austrians at the battle of Byczyna and took Maximilian III prisoner. However, at the request of Pope Sixtus V, King Sigismund III released Maximilian who surrendered his claim to the Polish commonwealth in 1589. King Sigismund also tried to maintain peace with his powerful neighbor by marrying Archduchess Anna of Austria in 1592. His was always his intention to be allied with Catholic Austria against the Protestant forces that were tearing Christendom apart.

When his father died King Sigismund III requested from his parliament that he be allowed to claim his inheritance as the rightful King of Sweden. The Poles had no objection and when he promised to respect Lutheranism as the official religion of Sweden the Swedes went along with the idea as well and Sigismund was crowned King of Sweden in 1594. He appointed his uncle, Duke Charles, to rule as regent on his behalf in Sweden while he remained in Poland since the Swedes and the Commonwealth were not united politically but simply had a personal union by sharing one monarch. However, tensions grew quickly with Sweden as despite the legal guarantees, King Sigismund was a devout Catholic and this made the Swedes nervous. The Protestant firebrands warned that Sigismund had the ultimate goal of making Sweden Catholic again. As proof they pointed to the Union of Brest Sigismund set up in 1596 which brought many Eastern Orthodox into the Catholic fold and led to the modern day Ukrainian Catholic Church, to his friendship with Catholic Austria and his support for the Catholic Reformation, particularly the Jesuit order, which was spreading out to refute Protestantism and regain lost spiritual ground for Rome.

Combating heresy and giving Poland, long a politically chaotic country, a strong and stable government were the primary goals of King Sigismund. Toward this end he moved the royal palace from Krakow to Warsaw and oversaw the arrival of the Jesuits who set up many schools throughout Poland and became chaplains and confessors to many families. The Catholic Church in Poland rebounded strongly during the early years of the reign of King Sigismund III. Their preaching was very well received by the public and along with their staunch defense of the faith they also reminded Poles of their crucial role as the first line of defense for Catholic Christendom against the Russians and the Turks. However, trouble was never far away for King Sigismund and 1598 was a particularly painful year. His wife Anna died (he later married her sister Constance of Austria in 1605) and he saw the outbreak of rebellion in Sweden led by his own uncle and regent who portrayed himself as the Protestant champion of Sweden fighting against their Polish Catholic monarch. King Sigismund moved against him which a combined Swedish and Polish army. He won some early victories but the climax came at the battle of Stangebro in which his 8,000 strong army was defeated by the 12,000 men of Duke Charles. The Swedish loyalists were executed by the Protestant government and after the King returned to Poland he was declared deposed and his uncle was proclaimed King Charles IX of Sweden in 1600. A number of Swedish Polish wars resulted but the personal union was never to be recovered despite the many persistent efforts of King Sigismund.

Trouble was also plentiful on the southern border where Poland was drawn into the wars of local nobles and the Austrian Hapsburgs against the Muslim Tartars and Turks. King Sigismund was anxious to help Austria and was promised territorial gains for Poland in return for his assistance. He sent in a mercenary army fresh from the wars in Russia to Moldavia but in 1620 the Polish forces were defeated and Sigismund was forced to renounce his claim to the principality. It was a setback but resulted in a negotiated peace and was no stunning victory for the Muslims who had vowed to destroy the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth and in this aim they certainly failed. Almost at the same time as these troubles, and those with Sweden, Sigismund was fighting a war with Russia. Those who remember the World War II era of Polish wars against Germany and Russia should set any preconceptions aside because in the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was the Poles that were a force to be reckoned with, especially their elite heavy, winged, hussars. The Russians had been fighting amongst themselves and King Sigismund got involved, as did Sweden though they were never firmly on one side or the other. At one point the Russians invited the son of King Sigismund to become their Tsar but Sigismund would not allow it. He though he himself might become the master of Russia and though this did not happen the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did win a number of victories and gained more territory. At one point Polish troops even captured Moscow as astounding as that might seem today. On the downside the whole conflict meant that any lasting union between the Commonwealth and Russia was out of the question.

Throughout all of these constant wars King Sigismund also tried to stabilize and streamline the Commonwealth government. The electoral monarchy in Poland had created a nobility with rather too extensive powers and a great deal of division. Sigismund worked to gain more power for the king as well as to allow government business to pass with a majority of votes of the parliament rather than unanimity which was extremely hard to achieve and men that things often did not get done. All these actions led to a rebellion but the King was ultimately victorious and despite what his many detractors might say his reign marked a period of Polish greatness the likes of which has not often been seen. He made the Commonwealth very much the dominant power of Eastern Europe and just as importantly ensured that Poland remained a solidly Catholic country in the face of Protestant incursions. He was a brave man, a talented monarch and something of a renaissance man as is evidenced by his devout faith and his artistic talent as a painter and goldsmith. Had things gone just a little bit different he might have been the father of a Catholic dynasty that stretched across Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Moldavia and Russia. It did not happen, but that should not detract from his greatness as one of the royal champions of the Catholic Reformation period. King Sigismund III died on April 30, 1632 at the age of 65 in his castle at Warsaw and was succeeded by his son King Wladyslaw IV.

Mad Rant: The US Goes SS

Conspiracy theories seem to be all the rage in recent years on both sides of the political isle.

Liberals shouted that 9-11 was an "inside" job and lately conservatives have been shouting that Obama is not really a US citizen. Liberals who once went into orbit at the mere mention of the name "Haliburton" see nothing wrong with Obama's refusal to make his birth certificate public or with his Secretary of Homeland Security categorizing anyone who opposes such things as abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration or one world government as a "right-wing extremist". Lately there was another fuss made about the construction of FEMA camps across the country, supposedly to be ready in case of any disasters like a hurricane or an outbreak of swine flu. Well, now there is an even bigger story making the rounds.

This article on WorldNetDaily gives the details and evidence. It seems the U.S. Army and National Guard have been advertising for "Internment/Resettlement Specialists" to work at internment/resettlement camps located throughout the country and on U.S. military bases. The Department of Defense claims to know nothing about it, yet the ads are right there for all to see on the official US Army website, the National Guard website and the popular job search-engine Monster.com. So what are we to think? Am I still a member of the tin-foil hat brigade for thinking that something smells wrotten in Denmark when the US military starts to advertise for recruits to be potential concentration camp guards? Maybe I would not be so sensitive on the subject had not my President's own Internal Security Chief categorized me as a potential terrorist for being against communism, opposing Obama's policies and not being in love with the idea of world government!

If anyone can look at the evidence provided and not feel just the slightest bit creeped out about it I will gladly admit that there is something wrong with me. I have made peace with that long ago. If the "sane" people consider this sort of thing okey-dokey I'm perfectly happy to be counted among the insane. I will admit it. I am deranged, I am a right-wing extremist, I am paranoid and I am ... The Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: Swedish Royals

Monarchist Profile: Joseph Comte d'Maistre

A personal favorite and surely one of the greatest scholarly monarchists of all time was Joseph Comte d'Maistre, a native of the Kingdom of Sardinia who became one of the great champions of counterrevolutionary thought. Seldom has there ever been so thoughtful and eloquent an advocate of religion and traditional authority. Born in 1753 his ethnic background was French but he served the King of Sardinia being a native of the Duchy of Savoy. His most prominent posts were as a minister to his own King and as an ambassador to the Imperial Russian court at St Petersburg. A product of Jesuit education, he seems to have toyed with some "enlightenment" ideas in his youth but quickly saw their folly and became one of the most outspoken intellectuals in Europe against the ideals of the so-called "Enlightenment" and all that it represented.

He did some of his best work on the French Revolution (which at one point forced him to flee his country) and he described the Reign of Terror (which swallowed revolutionaries as well as it progressed) as a sort of divine retribution for the crimes of the Revolution and the Enlightenment which he saw as the seed-bed of it all. For de Maistre it was the Enlightenment which was to blame, it was this movement which had turned people away from God and traditional authority and left them weak and open to the vague, utopian idealism of the revolutionaries. He advocated a strong aristocracy, a strong monarchy and a strong Church. He was a big believer in the goodness and the necessity of hierarchy and wrote what was, possibly, his masterpiece on the subject of the power and authority of the Pope. One could say that de Maistre was an ultramontane before ultramontanism was "cool". He described the Church as a monarchy with the Pope as its sovereign and that the absolute and infallible authority of the Pope was essential to maintaining the proper order in Christendom as a whole. He was unashamedly what one today might call a Catholic triumphalist.

De Maistre, however, was not simply a religious mystic. He argued for divinely-based monarchy on the grounds of practicality as well, though not to the extent that some others did. He has often been criticized for what might seem like an uncaring attitude toward evil and war and the like. However, this attitude was, in reality, d'Maistre being realistic. Knowing that this side of Heaven evil and war will never be eliminated he tried to show what higher purposes could be served by them. Evil existed in the world to create a sharp contrast with the goodness of God, making it somewhat easier for mankind to discern the narrow path to salvation. War was often a means of punishing the wicked and a sort of earth-bound purgatory as d'Maistre saw things. He had a huge impact on what was to be the future of counterrevolutionary conservatism across Europe and even stretching to other parts of the world.

If one wants to truly appreciate the greatness of the Comte d'Maistre one need only look at the quality of those enemies of his who he worked into an absolute frenzy. A prime example is that of Emile Faguet who called de Maistre, "a fierce absolutist, a furious theocrat, an intransigent legitimist, apostle of a monstrous trinity composed of Pope, King and Hangman, always and everywhere the champion of the hardest, narrowest and most inflexible dogmatism, a dark figure out of the Middle Ages, part learned doctor, part inquisitor, part executioner". Were I the count, I would take that as the greatest compliment.

Absolute vs Arbitrary Monarchy

I am back from my little hiatus, a little earlier than expected but still just as deranged. I wanted to take a moment for a short look at the difference between absolute and arbitrary monarchy. First let me say that as a plain and simple monarchist I support all monarchies whether symbolic, limited or absolute, however, I stress the difference between absolute and arbitrary. The best explanation for this I have found was given by one of my heroes; the great French monarchist Bishop Jacques Bossuet who wrote "Politics Taken from the Very Words of Sacred Scripture" which is a must-read for all Christian monarchists in my opinion. Bishop Bossuet was considered one of the greatest preachers of all time and was a most eloquent and learned man.

Bossuet is most known as an advocate and defender (from a religious standpoint) of absolute monarchy at the court of that most famous of western absolute monarchs; Louis XIV. However, Bossuet pointed out that an absolute monarchy need not and should not be an arbitrary monarch. To him, absolute monarchy simply meant that the position of the king was divinely ordained and sacrosanct yet the person of the king himself could be criticized and Bossuet himself often reprimanded Louis XIV for his irregular private life. He said that the power of the King had to be absolute in order for him to be able to do good and suppress evil, so that he could carry out the duties he was charged with and could not be pressured or manipulated by any. At the same time though, his power could not be arbitrary. In other words, the monarch could not do anything and everything but was restricted by established tradition, organized religion and so on. To put it another way, a monarch should have all the power he needs to do his duty which is absolute and cannot be challenged but not the power to do absolutely anything he wishes.

MM Video: Kaiser Wilhelm II

Happy Birthday Charlotte!

Yesterday (as of 2 hours ago) Charlotte Casiraghi, daughter of HRH Princess Caroline of Hanover and Hereditary Princess of Monaco, celebrated her 23rd birthday. The Mad Monarchist joins the lovely Charlotte's many legions of fans in wishing her a very happy birthday with many, many more to come!

Mad Rant: Checking In On Totalitarian Politics

This is The Mad Monarchist, coming to you from the northern command via the laptop of my right-hand man "Teapot". Not having access to my own archives I cannot post in the usual fashion, on items on the agenda, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say a bit about totalitarian politics though I do not mean the sort of totalitarianism that first springs to mind for most people. No, I am not talking about dictators, tyrants or absolute monarchs (who are seldom if ever as "absolute" as their republican counter-parts). No, I am speaking of the sort of totalitarian politics that seeks to establish a code to cover all possibilities; effectively or rather ineffectively taking the human out of politics altogether. The sort of totalitarianism I am speaking of is that which can be seen in things like the League of Nations, the European Union or the United Nations. It is no coincidence that they share many deep, core values with the godless Bolsheviks of the Soviet Union or Chairman Mao's army of blue ants.

We can also see foreshadows of this thinking in that most infamous of events the French Revolution. However, it is perhaps better for our purposes here to start with the League of Nations. The stated goal of the League of Nations was quite a benevolent sounding one -to prevent another bloodbath such as had recently been seen in the First World War. They thought that by establishing a sort of toothless one-world-government that they could prevent World War II from ever coming about. Obviously, they failed entirely but that did not stop these same political totalitarians from trying again after World War II with the United Nations. That, of course, did nothing to prevent the numerous conflicts of the Cold War or any of the other independent conflicts that have raged ever since. Their essential mistake, or at least one of them, was to think that by coming up with a sufficiently intricate code for everyone to follow that they could eliminate human error from the government of nations. There's one born every minute don't they say...

The problem with the outbreak of World War I was not the lack of an international code. The problem was government ministers making bad decisions. The problem with the outbreak of World War II was not the failure of the League of Nations (though it did fail miserably) it was government ministers making bad decisions. The outbreak of the Cold War was not because of the lack of a perfect organization with the perfect code it was the result of people making decisions. Just like the satanic communist revolutionaries and just like all of the efforts around the world to grant the government control over industries and more and more of our lives these people on the international level continue to think that if they can just get everything under the control of some group of politicians everything will be fine - despite all evidence to the contrary.

One reason why this agenda is pushed is because of political leaders who have gained so much power and so much prestige that they adopt the CYA policy and endeavor to lessen their own responsibility by abdicating as much as possible to an ever higher and wider group of political flunkies. Dispersal of responsibility -it is the same reason why a person is less likely to do the difficult but right thing the larger the group is of which he is a part. No one wants to stand out, no one wants to be blamed and no one wants to rock the boat. It's security in numbers. The part that pinches, however, is that none of this can ever be a cure-all for people making bad decisions. The only thing that can help that is people knowing right from wrong and making the right decision. No code will ever be perfect enough or complete enough to take away all hard, moral decisions, nor will one ever be found to compensate for one guy with a silver tongue and a wicked agenda.

The late, great Czar Nicholas II of Russia was pressured some time before the end of the Romanov dynasty to abdicate or at least abolish the autocracy and share power with the Duma. Nicholas II would have liked nothing better, but he felt that as much as he would prefer to be a private citizen, he was responsible to God for the government of Russia and that while he could abdicate that power to others he could never abdicate the responsibility and so felt he had no choice but to continue to rule and do his best as he saw fit. Nicholas II answered to God. Who do you think the political stuff-shirts at the UN or EU think they answer to? From what I can tell they answer to no sovereign, nor to the people nor to God so who is left? As this plague of political totalitarianism continues to spread, ask yourself for whom is the benefit? From what I can tell this quest for the most perfect and totalitarian governing system is not leading us down a benevolent path. I may be wrong and I may be paranoid but I am, in any event, The Mad Monarchist.

The Mad Monarchist Rides North

The Mad Monarchist is taking it on the road today and will be relocating to the northern compound in the Alamo City for a while so posting may interrupted for a time. I will update if possible while I'm hiding out in our former provincial royal capital, but if I am not able you will know the reason. Once back in the familiar wilds of the frontier things should return to "normal" but I cannot say exactly when that will be. In the meantime, if you need a further dose of the madness you can head over to Mad for Monaco and read about the trials and tribulations of Prince Florestan or the many scandals of Princess Catherine-Charlotte to name a few recent posts. So, call me gone, I am takin' it on the road, I am going on the lamb, I am hitting the dusty trail and I am ... The Mad Monarchist.

Royal Guardians Profile: The Palatine Guard of Mexico

When Archduke Maximilian von Hapsburg became Emperor of Mexico in 1864 he spent his voyage across the Atlantic planning the details of his court. He was determined that the Mexican Empire would be the most ornate, well ordered and glamorous monarchy in the New World. Of course, no such monarchy would be complete without an imperial palace guard and so, orders were drawn up for a company of Palatine Guards. The uniform of the guard was somewhat Germanic in style but was certainly the most colorful in the Mexican Imperial Army. Full dress included a red tunic with white and green trim, white leather breeches with black thigh-high leather boots, white leather gloves and a silver helmet topped by a Mexican eagle. Troops were armed with a sword and halberd for ceremonial duties guarding the National Palace, Chapultapec Castle and protecting the Emperor. The troops were foreigners and beards were virtually regulation. Count Karl de Bombelles was made commandant of the guard who could also been called on for combat duty. On such occasions they wore an undress uniform of a green frock coat with scarlet cuffs, green trousers and a white French style kepi. Unfortunately, when Emperor Maximilian marched off to his last stand at Queretaro he left all of his remaining foreign troops behind, including the Palatine Guard. As a result they were not on hand for his capture and were surrendered almong with Mexico City to the republican forces of General Porfirio Diaz.

Restoration Rumors in Russia

To an increasing degree ever since the fall of the horrid Soviet Union nostalgia has been growing around the Romanov dynasty. Peaks came on several occasions, particularly the reburial of the remains of Czar Nicholas II and his family as well as the canonization of the last Czar, Czarina and their family as martyrs for the Russian Orthodox Faith. This fascination has only increased lately with the upcoming 400th anniversary of the Romanov rise to power. However, what has lately been more remarkable than anything was the words of Alexander Belov of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration who stated that, not only are feelings growing warmer toward the Imperial Family but that there have actually been talks inside the Kremlin about the possibility of a Romanov restoration in a constitutional monarchy version of the Russian Empire.

HIH Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna has gained an ever higher profile and even many who would not actively support a monarchial restoration have come to the conclusion that such a thing would not be harmful. As Belov carefully put it, in a constitutional monarchy as is common in western Europe, monarchs are incapable of doing harm (due to their lack of political power) and can only be a help to the country and people of Russia. According to Belov such a plan is "in the works" with talks underway about ideas for a restored Russian Empire in which the Czar (or Czarina) would reign while the Prime Minister rules. This would probably be the best that can be immediately hoped for in Russia today as many have already said that the autocracy is back in all but name in the person of current PM Vladimir Putin. It is believed that he would be more open to a restoration in which he continues to hold the power he has held ever since becoming president. It would, however, require a firm break from the Soviet past which would no doubt be difficult for many, the former KGB agent Putin among them.

These "talks" may be exaggerated but it is at least exhilarating to kindle the embers of hope that there may be the slightest chance of a restoration of the Romanov dynasty. Of course, in the absence of the autocracy it would not be a total restoration, but it would be a *huge* step in the right direction and a major statement not just to Russia putting to rest the nightmare that was the Bolshevik Revolution but also to the entire world which followed the satanic communist example from Cuba to North Korea. If even a limited monarchy could be restored in Russia it would be a major shot in the arm to the cause of kings all around the world. After the horror that was the Russian Revolution, Civil War, Cold War and so on; the conclusion could be drawn that if a restoration of the Romanovs could happen in Russia a return to monarchy could happen anywhere. I hope, I wish, I pray that this will continue in the best way and that whatever it takes will happen to put a Romanov back on the Russian Imperial throne.

God Save the Czar!

MM Video: Qing Emperors

Monarch Profile: King Gustaf V of Sweden

Possibly the most controversial Swedish monarch to reign in the 20th Century was King Gustaf V. Today Sweden is known for having an entirely symbolic monarchy but that was not the case in the reign of Gustaf V who had no hesitation about being a king and acting like one. He was born on June 16, 1858; the eldest son of King Oscar II. In 1881 he married Princess Victoria of Baden who herself had Swedish royal blood in her veins. On December 8, 1907 he succeeded his father as King of Sweden. His conservative attitudes quickly came to the surface as he opposed the liberal trend that had been sweeping the country for some time. He opposed the spread of democracy, the increasing demands of labor union groups and political interference with the military budget. King Gustaf V was the last Swedish monarch to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the military, which he did until 1939, and was a duty he took very seriously.

Sweden remained neutral during World War I but there were real concerns on the Allied side that the Swedes might intervene on the side of the Central Powers. Queen Victoria was naturally sympathetic to the German side and Kaiser Wilhelm II thought highly of her. To what extent Gustaf V favored the German cause is debatable but much is attributed to the sympathy of his German wife and his very conservative character. Concerns that Sweden would join the Central Powers became a big enough issue that Gustaf V organized a meeting with the other Scandinavian powers to demonstrate their unity and their resolve to remain neutral. However, Sweden did benefit greatly from increased trade because of the war. More controversial would be his actions before and during World War II.

Many unfair accusations have been made about Sweden and Nazi Germany which are not worthy of consideration. King Gustaf V tried to persuade Hitler to drop his anti-Semitic policies while on a visit to Berlin but to no avail. Much has been made of the King's letter of congratulations to the Nazi leader following the German invasion of the Soviet Union for what the King called taking on the "Bolshevik pest". His PM tried to stop it but the King sent the letter anyway. However, it is important to keep in mind the fact that Swedes had been greatly alarmed by the Soviets gobbling up the Baltic states and especially the unprovoked Soviet invasion of Finland. The region had once been within the realm of Sweden, the Swedes were naturally sympathetic to the valiant Finns, feared Soviet aggression getting closer to them and many Swedes had volunteered to go to Finland to fight the Red Army. Because of the events and politics of World War II it is all too convenient to forget that Hitler had not been the only dictator who had been invading and conquering weak neighbors. The King, in fact, wanted to do more to help the Allies, even to the extent of allowing Allied troops to pass through Swedish territory but the government, fearing Nazi retaliation, would not allow it. He also used Swedish neutrality to try to gain better conditions for those held in Nazi prisons and welcomed many refugees.

The year after the war Sweden was an early member of the United Nations but thanks to the influence of the Social Democratic Party, which King Gustaf V always opposed, alliances went no farther and Sweden remained mostly neutral in the Cold War as well. In many ways Gustaf V was the last "traditional" King of Sweden. Changes were already underway during his reign which he resisted but which would come into effect later. He viewed his kingship as a duty and not something he could completely place in the hands of others. There might have been more strife in the government had not his reign been so busy with a European crisis after another. He died in Stockholm in 1950 leaving the throne to his son Gustaf VI Adolf whose long reign would see a more total transition of life and government in the Kingdom of Sweden.

Consort Profile: Eleanor of Aquitaine

One of the most famous queen consorts in English history and one of the most famous and powerful women in the world in her time was Eleanor of Aquitaine. When Eleanor was 15 she succeeded her father as Duchess of Aquitaine and Countess Poitiers. Only a few months later she married King Louis VII of France. She was known for her education, love of outdoor sports and her outgoing personality. Louis was absolutely smitten with her even though she was far from popular with most others. The leaders of the Church were often critical of her outspoken and flamboyant style and many at court rolled their eyes at the amount of money Louis spent on her.

When Louis VII came into conflict with Pope Innocent II the Queen tried to influence St Bernard of Clairvaux to intercede with the Pontiff in their favor. St Bernard did no such thing and reprimanded the Queen for being on the wrong side of the argument and for meddling in political matters. Louis felt terrible about the whole ordeal and determined to make up for it by answering the call of Pope Eugenius to march in the Second Crusade. To the shock of everyone Eleanor insisted on going along. Since a great deal of men and money were coming from her extensive estates she considered it her right. Eleanor was considered a distraction, which was probably true, but she was also blamed for disasters that were not her fault and her good advice was often ignored. Louis VII was simply not cut out to be a great crusader. Finally he placed his wife under arrest and her situation was not helped by the affection she showed her uncle, Raymond of Antioch with whom most believed she was having an affair (probably untrue).

The whole enterprise was the effective end of their marriage and the couple soon sought an annulment. Pope Eugenius III tried to reconcile the pair but it was to no avail and on March 11, 1152 Louis and Eleanor dissolved their marriage and an annulment was finally granted. Still the mistress of vast and wealthy lands Eleanor was not lacking for new candidates for marriage. She, however, set her sights on Count Henry of Anjou, Duke of Normandy. There were rumors that one of Eleanors lovers had been Henry's father, Geoffrey V, who warned his son against the lovely but worldly and ambitious woman. In any event, the two married on May 18, only 6 weeks after the annulment of her first marriage. In 1154 husband and wife were crowned King Henry II and Queen Eleanor of England.

In the years that followed she gave Henry II five sons and three daughters however the two fought constantly and over time Henry's affairs became impossible for Eleanor to overlook or ignore. When their son Henry led a rebellion against his father Eleanor supported him and when the campaign failed Henry II had his wife arrested and put under house arrest in various places and was only released for certain religious holidays. This situation lasted until Henry II's death in 1189 when Eleanor's favorite son became King Richard I of England. Richard ordered the release of his mother and she effectively ruled England on his behalf during Richard's absence. It was Queen Eleanor who negotiated the ransom of Richard with the German Emperor after he was captured on his way home from the Third Crusade. She outlived Richard and still carried out official duties during the reign of her son King John before her death in 1204, outliving all but two of her children. Her story has been retold many ways in many styles ever since and even now she remains a figure of fascination and controversy.

Cinema Royals: Fanny Ardant

First, a word of religious warning for readers of the Roman persuasion. The award winning 1998 film "Elizabeth" certainly does not try in the least to be fair toward the Catholic point of view and virtually every Catholic in the movie is portrayed as a horrible villain --but some still play it very well. My absolute favorite character in the movie was Queen Marie d'Guise played by Fanny Ardant, who as this film shows is certainly growing old gracefully. She plays the part to perfection even though it is a part totally out of touch with historical reality. In this movie, Marie d'Guise is essentially a cruel, ambitious and somewhat degenerate French temptress who is killed (off camera) during an illicit liaison with Sir Francis Walsingham. Marie d'Guise (the real one) was nothing like this, in fact, if anything it was she who was the victim of English treachery, and on a superficial note, by the time of the reign of Elizabeth I, Marie d'Guise looked nothing like Fanny Ardant but had by then become a rather large and sickly woman. So, why do I like her? She plays the part very well, and who could resist a French woman of her mature beauty riding on to the battlefield with an armor breastplate over her dress, glorying in her triumph over the English army? Warrior queens are usually sure-winners with me. She completely captured the style the filmmakers were going for as being strong, cunning, attractive and dangerous. The real Marie d'Guise was totally the opposite as far as her morals but she was a strong woman and a gifted ruler, always willing to face the enemy. I'm sure the real Queen would not have appreciated how she was portrayed, though she probably wished she looked as good as Ardant at that stage in her life.

MM Video: Royal Scots

Boudreaux

Boudreaux

If he could read, he would read the Mad Monarchist