Mad Rant: Learning from History

As someone who is a history lover I am constantly frustrated by both the endless arguments over history and the failure of so many people to learn anything from it. Sadly, it often seems true that, “The only thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history”. First, there are the arguments and endless debates over it. Consider this: today science is probably the one thing upheld above all else as being sacrosanct and beyond question. How many times have you heard the phrase “you can’t argue with science”. To a degree this is true. Science is a way of explaining and understanding the natural world and there are certain laws in nature that cannot be disputed. Argue about gravity all you want but if you drop a hammer it will still fall. However, especially in the advanced scientific studies of our time, much of it involves things that are microscopic, things no average person can see, touch, taste or smell for themselves. Given that, I am often surprised that there are not even more arguments about science. History on the other hand, is constantly argued about, it is “a set of lies agreed upon” as someone (I think Napoleon) once said. Yet, taken on its own, history is something that should never be argued about. It is simply what happened, it cannot be changed and should be evident to all. We live it every day.

However, it seems we love to argue about history mostly because we never want to admit when we have made a mistake. This was not always the case, but it certainly is so today and drives me up the wall. The constant, willful ignorance on daily display absolutely staggers the imagination. Monarchists should feel this particularly deeply because history is on our side. When you look at history and see what happened, nothing could be more obvious than that the world should be embracing monarchy joyfully and gratefully. When the British monarchy fell they got a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell who made practically everything illegal. When the French monarchy fell they got the Reign of Terror, when the German and Austrian monarchies fell they ultimately got Hitler, when the Russian monarchy fell they ultimately got Stalin, when the Chinese monarchy fell they got the bloodiest civil war in history and then Chairman Mao, when the Iraqi monarchy fell they ended up with Saddam Hussein and the list goes on and on and on. On every continent, with very few exceptions, the story is always the same. Moreover, it is not as though people got rid of their monarchies and ended up with something that was a little worse, it was almost always *infinitely* worse. You would think, after even just one or two of those examples, the people as a whole would have caught on by now!

You can see the same thing in other areas. When it comes to politics, outside of monarchy I’m not very strident. It seems to me that it should be pretty simple; try things until you find what works and then do that. Look around, see what works for others and if something doesn’t work -stop doing it; if it does work -do more of it. One area I do get rather passionate about is when dealing with socialists and/or communists (most of the communists of history were actually socialists as they never survived long enough to make it to actual communism). I have often screamed at the bickering politicians on my TV screen, “WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS?!?!” Attention all socialists and/or communists! Attention! This has been tried! Look at Cuba, look at North Korea, look at the Soviet Union, I could name a long list of examples: IT DOESN’T WORK!!! The evidence of history is obvious and yet, constantly, year after year, hordes of people, like so many lemmings, keep scurrying like mad toward that same old cliff.

I am really at a loss to understand it. When I was in college I, like most people, had almost exclusively socialist professors but one at least was honest enough to be open about it. He was a card-carrying Marxist and made no effort to hide the fact that he was out to convert others to the “red religion”. I put it to him, if Marxism was so great and the answer to all the ills in life, why were the people in Soviet Russia so poor? Why was East Germany so vastly worse off than West Germany? Why is South Korea a veritable paradise compared to the 1984-brought-to-life nightmare that is North Korea? His only answer was, of course, that in all of these countries (and more) they just had not implemented Marxism properly. They just didn’t really understand it and do it right. I could not restrain myself from pointing to the absurdity of the notion that in all the schools and universities in all of the Soviet Union, Red China, the Communist bloc and so on with all of their millions of disciples, in all of that, none of them had managed to figure out what this one professor of geography on the Mexican border had. Seriously? It’s, it’s just mind boggling … absolutely mind boggling.

Take a long look at China right now and the communist-bandit government that sits in Peking pretending to have legitimacy. The Chinese have at least been sensible enough to see that the path of Maoism was a pathway to extinction, though they still wave the red flag and the massive portrait of the Chairman still hangs over the Tiananmen Gate. Today socialists all over the western world (where economies are collapsing like dominos because of their “egalitarian” policies) nearly wet themselves with excitement over the “success” of the state-run economy of Red China. Look at the rate of growth, they say, look at how the PRC is poised to become the new economic superpower in the world. Yeah, okay, calm down comrade Sparky, a great deal of the “success” of Red China is a charade, though I will repeat again that they are not as suicidally stupid as many in the west seem to be. Nonetheless, there is still widespread poverty in the interior and in the countryside of China and the statistics showing growth all come from the government which has a vested interest in appearing successful. They are flushed with pride at merely coming within sight of a somewhat comparable standard of living to western, First World countries on the part of a relatively small segment of their own society.

Because of this, many people seem to think the gang of criminals in Peking is doing everything right and that they are the example to follow. This is only possible because the bar has dropped so low. Anyone willing to take an honest look at history in China would note that there was a time when, forget a few coming close to the average of western Europe, China was far, far beyond Europe and every other corner of the world in prosperity, social stability, education and scientific and technological innovation. Of course, that was back when the traditional Chinese imperial system was still going strong. Am I saying you absolutely cannot have one without the other? Not exactly, but that is how it worked out. That IS a fact of history. It should at least make people stop and think: “Under our traditional system, which we developed ourselves and which was adapted to our own culture, values and customs, we achieved the peak of our civilization and were the most advanced empire on earth. Under this new system we have to kill and enslave people to maintain order and have lost tens of millions to starvation. Hmmm…maybe we were a little hasty in ditching the imperial system to embrace a foreign ideology totally alien to our civilization.” It’s worth thinking about.

I know people probably get tired of monarchists pointing to the failure of the Weimar Republic in Germany and the provisional government in Russia and the eventual rise of Hitler and Stalin but that’s only because their presence in the world so blatantly illustrates what a blunder it was to abolish those two monarchies. Any rational person would think that just one ‘Joseph Stalin’ would be enough to put people off the idea of overthrowing their monarchy or at least think really long and hard about the potential consequences. The man butchered tens of millions of people -intentionally! Given that so many of the deaths in China were due to starvation because of idiotic policies, it is quite possible that Stalin intentionally killed more people than any other figure in history. That shouldn’t be something we easily shrug off. Furthermore, it wasn’t *just* Stalin, it was also Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Colonel Qaddafi and so on and so on (and so on). The historical record is pretty clear folks. Yeah, I know, there was George Washington and pals but even after a couple hundred years of history the American experience remains the exception rather than the rule. In fact, most countries that have intentionally tried to copy the American model as closely as possible have failed miserably so something tells me there was more to it than simply having the right political “formula”.

So, what is it? Why can’t people see what is right in front of their face? Why, after Cromwell, is there even a single republican in any English-speaking country? Why, after the Reign of Terror, has France returned to the vomit of republicanism time and time again? If the long list of genocidal tyrants, terrorists and even a cannibal or two is not enough to shock people back to their senses, what on earth is it going to take?! It seems so blatantly obvious that I must be mad indeed if what I see so plainly remains unseen to the majority of the rest of the world. Surely this is not some great secret? After all, when republicans are pressed to name a truly terrible monarch, most must reach back centuries in time, some over a thousand years if they want to dig up someone like Caligula or Nero. Monarchists, on the other hand, can point to a horde of contemporary examples in the world around us today and a long list of even worse examples going back only a few decades of truly horrible leaders of republics. It is also true that whereas most monarchists recognize the few truly terrible royal figures of history and do not celebrate them at all, there are (and I really can’t believe my eyes at times like this) still people in Russia who march under portraits of Stalin!

This alone is enough to make me a reactionary and totally reject the Whig version of history. If mankind were constantly improving over time, one Reign of Terror would have been sufficient to learn the lesson. One Mao should have been enough to make every country cling to their monarchy with passionate devotion. That this has not been the case speaks quite ill for the “enlightened” nature of mankind. It is a wonder any royal would even want the position of reigning over a country in this day and age. Who would want to pick up the burden of Charles I, Louis XVI, Maximilian of Mexico of saintly Nicholas II and ‘reap their old reward: the blame of those they better, the hate of those they guard’, “The cry of hosts ye humor, (Ah, slowly!) toward the light: -Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?” Yet, so many do, believing the same utopian lies, repeating the same mistakes, suffering the same disastrous fates and yet doing it all over and over again. We can only carry on sounding the alarm, and this we must do, but the famous sheer ignorance of people in large groups never ceases to make me a very alarmed, very frustrated and very - Mad Monarchist.

Just a Note on the Duchess of Cambridge

As I'm sure everyone knows, HRH the Duchess of Cambridge recently made her first public speech yesterday at The Treehouse in Ipswich, all very nice, very good cause and she spoke very well and all that. I just wanted to take a minute to draw attention to that great head of hair. I'm serious. Of course she's as lovely as can be, but for some reason it struck me seeing her at this event that it's been quite a while since I've seen such fine, feminine locks on a British princess. Lady Diana had short hair, Princess Anne usually wears her hair 'up', the Duchess of Cornwall has a pretty short 'do' and even HM the Queen keeps her hair fairly short. I'm certainly not saying short hair is in any way unattractive, I've known plenty of lovely ladies with short hair (even very short hair) and amongst the House of Windsor Lady Gabriella has rocked the short look (and looks just as good with it long) but I do like seeing the Duchess of Cambridge wearing her hair as she does. I hope she keeps it up, think of it as compensation for Prince William who, like so many, is getting quite thin on top (you've noticed, I know you have). Just something that struck me -thought I'd mention it. Love the hair Your Highness!

Favorite Royal Images: Queen Alia

HM Queen Alia of Jordan -a beautiful and remarkable lady she was

Mad Motivation: The History of Iraq

Royal Profile: Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi

Prince Luigi Amedeo, Duke of the Abruzzi is one of those royal figures who seems out of time, as if he would fit in better in a more adventurous, colorful period of distant history than the era he was actually born into. He was born Luigi Amedeo Giuseppe Maria Ferdinando Francesco di Savoia-Aosta, at the time a prince of Spain, on January 29, 1873 in Madrid to HM King Amedeo I of Spain (previously and subsequently Duke of Aosta) and his queen Maria Vittoria dal Pozzo, the last of three sons born to the couple. His grandfather was King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy. Not long after his birth he much put-upon father declared Spain ungovernable and abdicated, happily returning to Italy where the prince became known as the Duke of the Abruzzi. Even in his youth he was a world traveler and it is tempting to think that his visits to places as far flung as Eritrea in east Africa and Vancouver, Canada might have put him on the path he would follow for the rest of his life, conquering mountain peaks, hostile seas, arctic ice fields and burning deserts.

Exploring the most remote and rugged corners of the earth became his passion and in 1882 he began training as a mountain climber on Mont Blanc and Monte Rosa in the Italian Alps. In 1897 he set off on an epic adventure to the mountainous U.S.-Canadian border to climb Mt St Elias in search of a native legend known as the Silent City of Alaska which was said to appear over a mountaintop glacier. Prince Luigi and his party conquered the mountain and did indeed see the “city” which was actually a mirage but, by all accounts, one that had to be seen to be believed such was the magnificence of the sight of it. The trek had paid off, the accounts each member gave to the papers afterward were more fantastic than the one before. However, the Duke of the Abruzzi was only getting started. In 1899 he organized an expedition to reach the North Pole. As with most of his expeditions, the story reads like something out of an adventure novel.

First the Prince and his party traveled to Oslo, Norway (then called Christiania -this was when Norway was united with Sweden) where he bought a whaling ship which he named the ‘Polar Star’. The Duke was an accomplished sailor as well and they braved the icy seas to reach Archangel in northern Russia. Donning their best finery they were welcomed by the local Tsarist governor, civil officials and a colorful collection of foreign representatives present at the frosty port of call. Special celebrations were held in honor of the royal visitor and the international gathering in the Russian port were treated to a special performance of a play set in the Middle East followed by the orchestra striking up the Italian royal anthem in honor of their guest. Before departing the Catholic Italians were invited to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and finally they set sail for Franz Joseph Land where they planned to wait out the worst of winter before going by dog sled to the North Pole. Unfortunately, the Prince lost two fingers to frost-bite during the grueling winter which made him unable to handle a dog sled, forcing him to leave the last leg of the expedition in the hands of his subordinate Captain Umberto Cagni.

Although denied his prize of reaching the pole himself, Prince Luigi was still eager to boldly go where no man, or at least very few men, had gone before. With visions of Henry Morton Stanley dancing in his head, in 1906 he set out on a trek across the remote African wilderness of what is now Uganda to explore the Ruwenzori Mountain Range. In doing so he reached the top of some sixteen mountains one of which was named Mount Luigi di Savoia in his honor. Buoyed by his African adventure, only two years later in 1909 he gathered another expedition and set off to climb K2, aka “Savage Mountain” the second-highest peak on earth in the Karakoram Range on the Pakistan-Chinese border. They were ultimately unable to reach the very top, attaining a top elevation of 6,666 meters with their route known forever after as the Abruzzi Spur. In 1910 Prince Luigi and his team took on Chogolisa (Bride Peak) in the same overall mountain range, some of the most rugged and dangerous terrain on earth. Again, they did not reach the summit but set a new world record for the elevation they did reach. He was celebrated across the world, nowhere more than in Italy of course, and was a celebrity to intrepid explorers everywhere.

Prince Luigi had also trained with the Royal Italian Navy and by 1911 held the rank of vice-admiral and from 1911 to 1912 was given the post of Inspector of Torpedo Craft. This was more significant than it probably seemed at the time as free-swimming torpedoes were a recent innovation and would not actually sink a ship until a German u-boat did the job for the first time in 1914. However, this was an area that the Italians would later excel at and would achieve some stunning successes against the formidable British Royal Navy using tactics that began with those first torpedo craft developed under the Duke of the Abruzzi. When World War I broke out in 1914, Italy joining the fight a year later, the Duke was given command of the Italian Adriatic Fleet at Taranto with the formidable battleship Conte di Cavour as his flagship. As in the North Sea though, there was little combat between the main battle fleets of Italy and Austria-Hungary, each being content to keep the other side as inactive as possible while small-scale raids probed for weakness. However, Prince Luigi and his ships performed one of the great missions of the war when the rescued the long-suffering Serbian army which, in a combined German-Austrian-Bulgarian offensive, had been driven from their homeland. Were it not for the timely arrival of the Duke and his Italian fleet the Serbs would have been wiped out completely. Their rescue enabled them to rejoin the fight at the new Allied front in Greece and ultimately go on to see Serbia liberated from Austrian occupation.

After the war, with all of his accomplishments, Prince Luigi was one of the most popular members of the Italian Royal Family. Even the previously zealous republican Benito Mussolini was quick to avail himself of the Duke’s experience in Africa when it came to negotiating a new friendship treaty with Ethiopia in 1928. Prince Luigi journeyed to the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa to present gifts of friendship to Haile Selassie, including a Fiat 3000 tank which he later used in thwarting a coup led by forces loyal to the reigning Empress Zewditu. One can imagine that Mussolini probably later regretted such generosity. In 1932 Prince Luigi tried his hand at running the new Italian shipping line which had formed from a merger of all the previous transatlantic lines. However, it did not work out will as the Prince had nothing of the businessman about him and found dealing with company executives impossibly frustrating. Instead, he moved to the Italian colony of Somalia where he established his own model plantation. The African wilderness was far more to his liking than a desk in an office building.

The Duke of the Abruzzi had led a life most men would only dream about. The only thing lacking was a romantic interest he could carry off into the African sunset. There had been an earlier romance with an American woman named “Kitty” Elkins, the daughter of a wealthy West Virginia Senator. She was likely the one great love of his life but his cousin King Vittorio Emanuele III was adamant that no prince of the House of Savoy could marry a commoner. Prince Luigi was frustrated by this but, since the relationship could go nowhere, his brother, Prince Emanuele Filiberto Duke of Aosta (a hero of the Great War) convinced him to give the girl up and move on. This he did, only finally marrying a Somali woman named Faduma Ali toward the end of his life when he was no longer concerned with the consequences. He died in Jowhar, Somalia on March 18, 1933 at the age of 60 and, as per his wishes, was buried near a local river. Missing no opportunity to put himself forward, Benito Mussolini presided at his funeral, hailing the Duke of the Abruzzi as the last in a long line of great Italian explorers history would never forget.

This may have been an exaggeration, but if so, it was only a slight one. Prince Luigi-Amedeo simply had the misfortune to be born into a time when there were not many untouched corners of the world left for mankind to conquer. Had he been born earlier it is certainly easy to imagine him being counted among the great Italian explorers of history such as Marco Polo, Giovanni Caboto, Amerigo Vespucci or Christopher Columbus. It was simply his nature to strive for the seemingly unobtainable, to go to the places most difficult to reach and to prove that he was equal to any challenge the land or the sea could throw at him. Hopefully, in the end, he finally found what he was looking for in all his travels to the farthest reaches of the earth.

The King is Dead, Long Live the King

From the Government of the Kingdom of Tonga:

19 March, 2012. The Prime Minister, Lord Tu'ivakano made a brief announcement to the nation this morning at 7:00 AM on radio in Tongan language, of the passing away of Tonga's Monarch.
He said...'It is with deep humility and profound sorrow, shared by the Royal Family, Nobles, Government, Church Leaders, and the people of Tonga, that I respectfully announce the most lamentable passing away of His Majesty King George Tupou V, which occurred in Hong Kong, at 3:00 PM on 18th March 2012, during his visit there.'

He added that His Royal Highness Crown Prince Tupouto'a Lavaka was at his bedside when the King passed away.

Today, let us joined together in prayer for the Royal Family and the people of Tonga, as the Prime Minister concluded the sad announcement.

Further details and the arrangements for the State Funeral will be made known once available.

Long live His Majesty ʻAhoʻeitu ʻUnuakiʻotonga Tukuʻaho, the new King of Tonga

MM Video: Leopold II of the Belgians

MM Video: Leopold I of the Belgians

Monarch Profile (St Patrick's Day Special): Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, High King of Ireland

King Mael Seachnaill II, King Malachy II or Malachy the Great is another one of those giant figures from the royal history of Ireland that, frankly, most people have probably never heard about. Many details about his life, especially his early years, remain a mystery but he was born probably in 948 AD into the Clann Cholmáin sept and became a tribal leader of the Uí Néill and later the King of Meath. This put him in the running to be King of Tara or High King of Ireland as the position usually alternated between the septs of the Uí Néill. In 980 AD he succeeded Domnall ua Néill as the High King of Ireland, which, it should be added, did not imply direct rule over every one of the minor Irish kingdoms but that he was generally recognized, symbolically at least, as the first among all the Irish kings and occupied the highest position in Ireland. This could but did not always translate to cooperative unity and such unity was something Ireland was in need of as this was at the height of the Viking invasions. All over the north of Europe the Norsemen were pouring down with a ferocity the likes of which most at the time had never seen before. Oftentimes these are portrayed simply as raids, intended for nothing more than plundering. However, while this was often true, the Vikings were also expanding and had established strong footholds in many foreign lands, including Britain and Ireland.


The same year Malachy II assumed the High Kingship the Viking King of Dublin, Olaf Cuarán, called in his vassals from across the Scottish isles and all his lands to attack Meath. A victory there would have taken the Vikings one large step closer to the eventual total domination of Ireland. However, King Malachy II was more than up to the challenge and he met the Vikings at the battle of Tara, one of the most pivotal clashes in Irish history. The fighting was fierce but, thankfully for the Irish, King Olaf and his Vikings were defeated, his own son and heir, Reginald, being killed in the battle. King Malachy II seized the initiative and launched an immediate counter-attack while the Vikings were in disarray and pursued the remnants of their army back to Dublin to which he laid siege. After only three days and three nights the city of Dublin surrendered and what was arguably the most prominent Viking bastion on the island passed into Irish hands. The overall struggle between the Irish and the Vikings was a long way from over but a powerful blow had been struck and King Malachy II earned great praise and widespread fame for his crushing victory.

As was usually the case in Ireland at this time, internal rivalries were often just as much a threat as external invaders and Malachy II began to take notice of an inspiring, up-and-coming warrior king named Brian Bóroimhe (the famous Brian Boru). In an attempt to keep the peace Malachy II called a special conference of the royal leaders at Clonfert in 997 and a deal was worked out by which Malachy II would remain the nominal High King of Ireland and have authority over the north of the island while King Brian Boru would have control over the south (excluding those areas ruled by the Vikings of course). Afterwards each side exchanged hostages they had taken fighting the Vikings as a symbol of their goodwill and cooperation. With their alliance secured they then worked together to continue the war against the Viking presence in eastern Ireland. The situation grew worse when the Leinstermen, already enemies of the Uí Néill, revolted against Munster and King Brian in cooperation with the Vikings. Brian and High King Malachy consolidated their forces and met the Vikings and Leinstermen at the battle of Glenmama on December 30, 999. The result was another solid victory for Malachy II, another serious setbacks for the Vikings of the Dublin region and it solidified the place of Brian Boru.

However, it was not long after that victory that the alliance between the two most powerful Christian Irish kings collapsed. Things deteriorated after the year 1000 and rivalry grew up between the pair. In 1002 Malachy II was defeated by the Munster forces and had to give up the High Kingship to Brian Boru. The new High King went on to numerous great deeds of his own and also dealt the Vikings a crushing blow but it was ultimately a war he won but did not survive. In 1014 at the battle of Clontarf Brian Boru and his son and heir were both killed along with many of his subordinate commanders in the bloody fighting that was nonetheless victory. Once again, Malachy II returned to the position of High King of Ireland with the help of loyal clan leaders in the north, however, this time his place was highly contested and he was unable to see much accomplished for Ireland because of it. The position of High King went into a period of decline and would not become very important again until several decades later.

Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, High King of Ireland, died on September 2, 1022 at Lough Ennel in County Westmeath and was buried in Armagh with all due reverence. Married twice, he had six children, half of whom survived him. Malachy the Great will always be remembered, in Ireland at least, for his great victory at the battle of Tara and that alone would be enough to ensure him an honored place in Irish history. It was a blow from which the Viking Kingdom of Dublin never really recovered from and although overshadowed by the later victory of Brian Boru at Contarf, it is possible that Brian would not have been successful then were it not for the earlier victory of his predecessor as High King at Tara. High King Malachy II deserves to be remembered as a great defender of Christian Ireland and a key figure in the ultimately successful struggle against the pagan Vikings which ensured the survival of the Irish people as they had been.

Monarch Profile: King Leopold III of the Belgians

The first King of the Belgians to ever abdicate his throne was born Leopold Philippe Charles Albert Meinrad Hubertus Marie Miguel, Prince of Belgium, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Brussels on November 3, 1901 to then Prince Albert of Belgium and his wife Princess Elisabeth of Bavaria, the first of their three children. Within ten years the couple would be King Albert I and Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians and little Prince Leopold would be heir-to-the-throne as Duke of Brabant. The royal couple were attentive to all their children but onlookers surmised that Prince Leopold was the darling of his mother and both parents took care to impress upon them a sense of duty, compassion and religious devotion. All would be tested with the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 when Belgium was invaded by the Germans. It was the most dire crisis Belgium had faced since winning independence, the very existence of Belgium hanging in the balance and Prince Leopold was determined, even as a very young man (a boy practically) to do his part. The King and Queen were naturally reluctant but at a time when all Belgians were making every sacrifice to save their country, how could they refuse?

So, while King Albert commanded the army and Queen Elisabeth tended the wounded, Prince Leopold served at the front as a regular soldier with the 12th Regiment of the Line (which is today named after Leopold and the oldest Belgian regiment still in service). Yet, Prince Leopold, unlike other soldiers, would be a king one day and had to be prepared so in 1915 he was sent to Britain to attend Eton College. After the war was won and the fighting ended the young Duke of Brabant continued his education at St Anthony Seminary in Santa Barbara, California in the United States. After finishing his education he returned home and a few years later met the stunning Princess Astrid of Sweden at a ball. The niece of King Gustav V, she was a famous beauty with kind eyes and a heart to match. A full blown romance came quickly and in 1926 the two were married in civil and religious ceremonies in Stockholm and Brussels. Leopold and Astrid were the “it” couple of the day, the handsome young prince and his beautiful, delicate princess captured hearts wherever they went. Princess Astrid, a Lutheran who took religion very seriously, converted to Catholicism after their marriage.

Their union was a very happy one and a year later their first child, Princess Josephine-Charlotte was born, followed by a son and heir, Prince Baudouin, in 1930 and another future King, Prince Albert, in 1934. Earlier that year, King Albert I had died tragically in a mountain-climbing accident in the Ardennes and the grieving young prince was sworn in as His Majesty Leopold III, King of the Belgians. Thoughtful, eager and determined he set out to be the best monarch he could but already tragedy was stalking him. In summer the following year the much beloved Queen Astrid died in an automobile accident while on vacation in Switzerland. King Leopold III, having his beloved wife torn from him, had to face the future as a single parent while also being the new monarch of a country beset by many problems with the rise of extremist and revolutionary parties that would soon lead to World War II. Leopold III tried to be the best king and father he could be but he often seemed to have little support. He often clashed with his ministers as the first tensions began to rise between the two language communities in Belgium. Putting their own careers first, the politicians were often at odds with the King who looked out for the welfare of Belgium as a whole.

The biggest crisis of all, of course, was World War II and here King Leopold III has suffered the most unfair criticism. He was as alarmed as anyone by the rise of the aggressive Nazi Party in Germany, the rearmament and expansion but he also realized that the more powerful Allied nations such as Britain and France were not prepared to do anything about it. Once this became clear the King tried to avert disaster by returning to the original Belgian policy of neutrality in the hope that his country could avoid a repeat of 1914. As we know, this was not to be and the King of the Belgians again had to take to the field in command of his army to try to fend off a German invasion. These were not the Kaiser’s troops Belgium was facing this time though and all the Low Countries were invaded in a crushing blitzkrieg which the veteran German forces had perfected in the conquest of Poland.

As it happened, Belgium held out longer than any of her neighbors. Tiny Luxembourg was occupied in a day, the Netherlands fell after four days but Leopold III and the Belgians held out for eighteen before finally being totally cut off and faced with total annihilation. The King was forced to make the difficult decision of surrendering his army. The Belgian government, with whom he was not on good terms, quickly fled across the Channel to Britain but Leopold III decided to remain in Belgium and face the uncertain future alongside his people in the hope that his presence might be able to help them in some way. This infuriated his government but comforted his people during the dark days of the occupation. Some went so far as to accuse the King of being a collaborator but nothing could be further from the truth. He was a prisoner of war, kept under a close watch by the Nazi authorities while the fate of Belgium as a country remained in limbo. Leopold III had one meeting with Adolf Hitler in which he tried to gain some assurance that Belgium would continue to exist but nothing concrete was ever determined. Emotionally, it was a crushing period for the lonely, isolated prisoner-king. Finally, he obtained some degree of comfort with a new companion, Lilian Baels, whom he married in 1941.

The marriage, when it was made public, was spun in such a way as to be unpopular with the public, but the comfort Princess Lilian (she was never titled as queen) provided to the King was invaluable and in the ensuing years the couple had three children; a boy and two girls. In 1944, with the end of the war in sight, King Leopold III penned what was to be his very controversial (but unnecessarily so) Political Testament. He showed great foresight in his concern over the issue of unity between the two language groups which had been exacerbated by the Nazi occupation as many Flemish nationalists had collaborate with the Germans in the hope of joining Flanders to Holland to create a “Greater Netherlands”. He called for solidarity between all classes and both language communities, holding ministers legally responsible for their actions in government, an emphasis on unity and national patriotism, that those who had caused division among the public publicly repudiate their past positions and a strengthening of the bonds between the Kingdom and the Belgian Congo with a staunch defense of their sovereignty.

There was nothing outrageous in anything that the King wrote, however, the timing of it aroused great opposition as it was seized upon by competitive ministers (and frankly disloyal people) who portrayed it in the worst possible way, as if the King was preemptively regarding the Allies as potential enemies; though he said nothing of the sort. When the Allied armies were approaching the Nazis took the King and Royal Family into custody, taking them to Germany and very nearly killing them all before they were liberated by the United States Army. By that time a very antagonistic government was reestablishing itself in Brussels and refused the King permission to return, appointing his rather difficult brother, Prince Charles Theodore, as regent of Belgium in his place. Leopold III had no choice but to transfer his exile to Switzerland to await the outcome of events in Brussels where, as he had warned, civil disturbances began to break out. Socialists and would-be revolutionaries took full advantage of the murky political situation to try to accomplish their aims of toppling the monarchy and erecting a Marxist republic.

In 1946 an official inquiry cleared the King of the ridiculous charge of “treason” that had been made against him and it was finally decided to put the matter of his return to a referendum. Belgians went to the polls to vote on whether or not they wanted the King back. Flanders voted overwhelmingly in favor of his return while Wallonia, where the socialist radicals had the greatest hold, was the source of the strongest opposition. Nonetheless, the results were clear; by a 57% majority the Belgians wanted King Leopold III to come back to them and resume his reign. The King happily returned but, of course, it was not to be as simple as that. The socialists refused to accept the outcome of the referendum and in 1950, the year of his return, orchestrated the most violent general strike in Belgian history to force their wishes on the country. King Leopold was deeply torn by all of this. He had suffered immensely throughout his life but his commitment to his duties as monarch had been the one constant throughout it all. Now, a violent minority was forcing him to give in to their demands or risk a civil war in Belgium. Agonizingly, Leopold III decided that if it was going to cost the lives of his people, he would have to give up the throne. On August 1, 1950 the decision was made and he abdicated in favor of his son and heir. It all went into effect the following year when Baudouin was sworn in as King of the Belgians. Leopold retired from public life, though he continued to advise his young son for several years, and spent his time with his family or traveling the world on intellectual pursuits, studying remote places and peoples.

King Leopold III, almost certainly the most unjustly maligned of all the Belgian Kings, passed away on September 25, 1983 at the age of 81 and was buried in the royal crypt, next to his first wife, at the Church of Our Lady of Laeken. Probably no other Belgian monarch had been forced to deal with such a steady succession of personal and political tragedies as Leopold III, bad luck seemed to shadow him throughout his life. Yet, in spite of it all, he remained a dutiful and gallant monarch, a devoted husband and father, a man of faith and convictions. His Christian sincerity was, perhaps, best displayed in his lack of bitterness despite the gross injustices committed against him. He was a fine man who did his best in the most difficult of circumstances and deserves much more credit from history than he has hitherto received.

Beware the Ides of March

Science-Fiction Royalty

!!Reader Warning!! This post contains images which may not be appropriate for very sheltered children or people living in the state of Kansas. -MM

Royalty in Science-Fiction is a subject I have been asked about more than once but have been reluctant to address. For one thing, Sci-Fi fans tend to be a little on the dogmatic side and I really don’t know much about the genre. I liked “Quantum Leap”, “Battlestar Galactica”, “Dune” and the old “Star Trek” series (if there’s no Kirk, Spock or Scotty it ain’t Star Trek in my book) and I liked the old “Star Wars” films but that’s about it. So much of it always seemed too preachy, leftist, incomprehensible and, well, just silly for me to take seriously. However, in all fairness, I’ve also never been terribly fond of much of anything in the Fantasy genre which I know many monarchists absolutely love. I have heard many, many good things about “The Lord of the Rings” and “The Chronicles of Narnia” but I’ve just never had any interest in trying to get ‘into’ them. Lest any think I am being biased, most of the fantasy stuff I have liked (books or films) are ones that I either had to read back in my school days (z.b. “A Wrinkle in Time”, “The Neverending Story”) or watched with someone else when it was their choice. In fact, much of the same goes for Sci-Fi -I saw the “Star Wars” prequels but rest assured I did not pay a dime to see them, and I am thankful for that as I would have felt profoundly ripped off (my apologies to any fans).

Longtime readers will recall I have addressed monarchy in “Star Wars” before (here), so I will not be delving into that too deeply but will take a look at least at what Sci-Fi examples of dealing with monarchy that I am familiar with. Based on what little I have seen, I think there seems to be an assumption on the part of many monarchists that the Sci-Fi genre is more friendly towards monarchy than it actually is, perhaps because Sci-Fi is often lumped together with the Fantasy genre which, while I know even less about it, is probably more pro-monarchy than any other. It tends to be more ‘fairy tale’ in nature and fairy tales and monarchy absolutely go hand-in-hand. Sci-Fi, on the other hand, based on what I have seen, seems to be more hostile toward monarchy than not. In my experience, when dealing with royalty from outer space the norm seems to be that they are evil at worst, spoiled brats at best and, if they are female, very, very scantily clad. Even in the “Star Wars” spoof “Space Balls” the princess was portrayed as an immature, spoiled brat. This may be why those Sci-Fi selections I do like tend to have nothing to do with monarchy at all so say nothing negative or positive about it either way. One thing I do like is imagination and weirdness. That being so, there’s no better place to start than “Flash Gordon”.

Emperor Ming the Merciless

I can’t help it, when I think of Sci-Fi movies, I think of “Flash Gordon”. It took all the usual stuff I hate most about Sci-Fi and just went so extremely over-the-top with it I ended up actually liking it. I thought it was hilarious and a pretty fun movie. However, we do see the usual negative portrayal of monarchy on full display. I refer, of course, to one of the most famous fictional villains of all time; Emperor Ming the Merciless. In the big “Flash Gordon” movie he was played by the incomparable Max von Sydow and, according to George Lucas, we have Ming the Merciless to thank for inspiring his later monarchial and aristocratic villains The Emperor and Darth Vader in “Star Wars”. Yep, it all started with the vicious, sadistic and fashionably flamboyant Emperor Ming. I hate two things about the character of Ming the most: I hate that they made him a monarch of course and I hate that they went with the whole Fu Manchu, evil-Asian villain stereotype. As far as villains go, Ming the Merciless is about as villainous as they come. He’s really just pure evil. There’s no rhyme or reason for him, he’s just a sadistic jerk. He started pelting earth with death rays (and you can’t be a sci-fi villain without a death ray) just for kicks. He demands slavish obedience or death and those are the only options.

Princess Aura

We also get another anti-monarchy stereotype with “Flash Gordon” and that is in the person of Ming’s daughter Princess Aura. She’s evil, alluring and, from the look of her wardrobe, pretty chilly. Ming is just as merciless when it comes to his own daughter, his cruelty toward her only adding to his own villainy. Princess Aura, however, at least is not as pure evil as her father since she does sort of come around to being on the side of the good guys in the end. Though, that’s debatable, best as I recall it may have just been selfishness on her part but I do remember she ended up helping out the heroes and being severely punished for it. Not being an expert on all things Sci-Fi, I don’t know if she was the first space princess to wear a metal bikini as a costume, but I do know she wasn’t the last. That has become almost as standard as having a villainous emperor. So, there are Ming the Merciless and Princess Aura, two typical members of outer space royalty: evil, arbitrary and sadistic emperor and spoiled, barely clothed princess. Moving along then.

The Emperor

Enter the world of “Star Wars”, a movie which came out before “Flash Gordon” but which was a totally new franchise. “Flash Gordon” had been around since the 30’s and, in fact, George Lucas only came up with “Star Wars” because he was not allowed to do a “Flash Gordon” movie, which had been his first choice. In “Star Wars” we get all of the basic stereotypes but they take some time to come out. First, we once again have the villainous, arbitrary and sadistic emperor. In fact, in the original films, he didn’t even have a name, he was simply “The Emperor”. He is spoken of (with fear and trembling) in “Star Wars” but is not actually seen until “The Empire Strikes Back” and then only as a holographic image. I have heard they have since changed that image to that of the actor who later played the Emperor. If so, I would categorize that as George Lucas ruining something with his mindless tweaking. That first glimpse we get of the Emperor was very effective, very creepy. I am told it was made by superimposing the eyes of a chimpanzee on the face of a woman and then dubbing in a masculine voice. However they did it, I thought it worked great and if they changed that it’s only one more reason for me to skip the “re-mastered” versions.

How they bow & scrape on the death star

In “Return of the Jedi” we finally see the Emperor in person after already getting used to Darth Vader as the resident super-villain of the “Star Wars” universe. It says something about the Emperor that even the awesomely sadistic Darth Vader is considered to be a teddy bear compared to the Emperor. True, he lacks the sense of style of our friend Ming the Merciless, sticking to a simple black hooded robe, but he’s no less pure evil. Destroying whole planets just to set an example -done. Establishing a system of rule based purely on fear -done. Willing to sell-out your most devoted henchman in order to advance your cause -done. It was also in “Return of the Jedi” that we got another staple of sci-fi royalty: a space princess in a metallic bikini. Yes, to the eternal joy of frustrated nerds the world over, Princess Lea finally joins her objectified sisters of the golden bikini. Sure, it is only because she’s being held prisoner by a slug-like alien mobster but, hey, they had to work it into the story somehow right? Princess Lea generally fares better than most sci-fi princesses -but not by much. Our first introduction to her in “Star Wars” was, as usual, as a princess who, while certainly tough, determined and one of the good guys, was nonetheless spoiled, arrogant and just rather stuck-up, even going so far as to insult the men rescuing her for doing it improperly. Her image recovered in “The Empire Strikes Back” but it was also at that point that she stopped being so much a female heroine and more just the typical girl in a romance and by the next movie she’s in a metallic bikini with a dog collar chained to an alien mob boss. What a downward spiral.

Princess Lea

It is okay for Princess Lea to be a good guy because she’s fighting for the republic. Though, why there are princesses and lords and knights in a republic we are never really told. “Star Wars” is rather odd that way. Overall, the Empire comes off as being far more egalitarian than the Republic. We don’t see much of it but we are led to believe that there is the Emperor, Lord Vader and there the ‘upper class’ ends. Everyone else is simply military personnel and they advance on merit (you screw up, you die, someone who didn’t screw up gets your job -very meritocratic). On the other side we have a princess, of what we don’t know, as well as knights and eventually a queen. But, if I start getting into all the stuff there that makes no sense, we’ll be at this all day, so we’ll move on. I think I mentioned “Dune” at the beginning so why not toss that example in. Again, I’ve never read any of the books (I almost never read fiction, I have nothing against it, I just hardly ever do) but I liked the movie and I liked the more recent mini-series. However, there again we have the evil, dastardly Emperor and once again he also has a daughter who is spoiled, arrogant and so on but who does more or less come around to the side of the good guys. “Dune” may deserve a bit of a pass though because it is set in a purely monarchial, feudal sort of universe. There are no republics or republicans, there is an Emperor and then there are the aristocrats, some of whom are good (Duke Leto) and some of whom are bad (Baron Vladimir). I don’t think there was a princess in a metallic bikini, best as I recall, but there was certainly plenty of flesh being flashed in the mini-series lest anyone think “Dune” was above that sort of thing.

Finally we come to “Star Trek” and, as stated, I can only really speak to the actual, original show. The rest I’m not that familiar with. I’ve been told that the Klingons got an emperor in “Star Trek: The Next Generation” but, based on a little poking around I’ve done for this write-up, if that’s true no one seems to have noticed. Anyway, one thing you need to know about “Star Trek” and probably most pop-fiction these days is that anything called an “empire” is bad. If there are bad guys, they have an empire. So, in “Star Trek” the most frequently recurring bad guys were the Klingons and the Romulans. Neither have an “Emperor” but they are both referred to as empires. Why? Because they’re bad guys and that’s all there is to it. As best as I can recall, we only ever saw one monarch in “Star Trek” and that was in the last season episode “Elaan of Troyius”. In the context of just that last season of the show, I have to say it comes off as very anti-monarchy.

"Her Glory" The Dolman of Elaas

I present as exhibit A the issue of the reception of the reigning monarch of Elaas. Just to fill in; the USS Enterprise was charged with escorting the ruler of Elaas, known as the Dolman (and here I was thinking that was a Hungarian cavalry jacket) to the planet Troyius to marry the local ruler and end the war between the two worlds. When the Dolman is beamed aboard the only special consideration is that Kirk and company drop to one knee, and even that is only at the prompting of some surly bodyguards. Compare this to another episode in the same season (and probably the worst ever in my book) called “The Savage Curtain”. In that one, they beam up Abraham Lincoln (no joke) and even though Kirk himself says he doesn’t believe it can possibly be the real Abe Lincoln, he orders “presidential honors” be given which include a security detachment, a musical recording of salutary drums, a boatswain whistle to pipe the guest aboard and everyone in full dress uniforms. Now, compare that to when the ruling monarch of a sovereign planet beams up and the only special attention is a reluctant drop to one knee and some annoyed expressions.

Sadly, it gets no better from there. The Dolman of Elaas (played by France Nguyen) is basically a combination of the stereotypical sci-fi evil emperor and scantily-clad princess put together. Her preference seems to be to wear as little as possible, she is violent, spoiled, rude, petulant, vindictive and, well, rather dumb. She nearly kills the ambassador of her husband-to-be and tries to seduce Kirk into marrying her and using his starship to annihilate her enemies. Yeah, she’s a real peach. In the course of the episode we find out the Klingons are trying to thwart the mission by sabotaging the Enterprise and then showing up to blast it to bits after disabling the engines. The Dolman, totally unintentionally, helps to get the engines working again, allowing Kirk to smack the Klingons hard enough to convince them to give it up and go home. The Enterprise goes on and we are to assume the Dolman marries the ruler of Troyius and presumably everything works out thanks to Kirk teaching her that she has to treat people with courtesy if she doesn’t want everyone to hate her. As “Star Trek” goes, I thought it was one of the better episodes but it still manages to cram in every typical sci-fi prejudice against monarchy in under an hour.

Others may know some more positive examples to point out. As I said at the beginning, I like this or that but am no expert on the genre. I wouldn’t know Dr. What from Stuff I Lost in Space or Babylon Nine from Deep Space Five. The only sci-fi TV shows I ever watched had nothing to do with royalty or monarchy. The closest thing probably would have been Imperious Leader on “Battlestar: Galactica” and even that was just a robot in a lizard costume so I hardly think that counts. Based on what I have seen, the image is a very negative one and full of constantly repeated stereotypical characters. For all you sci-fi fans out there, feel free to make use of the comments box to let me know if there are better examples out there. From what I’ve seen, the genre has not been kind.

What Kind of Monarchist Are You?

Monarchists need to ask themselves a serious question: what are they all about? There are two possible answers, neither of which is “wrong” but certainly distinct. Are they people with an historical interest in monarchy, history, royal genealogies and traditionalist philosophies who wish to study these areas and discuss them with like-minded individuals or do they wish to have an actual impact on the political layout of the world by defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones? In the past, I have referred to these types as “theoretic monarchists” and “active monarchists”. Again, there is nothing wrong with being either one and many are both. Certainly I have never known of an active monarchist who did not have much or all of the attributes of a theoretic monarchist. However, not all theoretic monarchists are active monarchists and this is important because those who are not often, consciously or not, hinder and oppose those who are. As anyone can tell, your resident mad man is one of those who is both. Any look at this weblog with its combination of royal history and monarchism can see that. I have also, fairly regularly, crossed swords with theoretical monarchists who stand opposed to active monarchists, some of whom (some) really cannot see what they are doing.

In many such cases these are people who oppose, to one degree or another, many or most existing monarchies because they are not “monarchist” enough or because they are of a different religion or because they support an alternative royal line or family. I am often quite annoyed by such individuals for the following reasons: if a monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, it is because republican attitudes have become too widespread and mainstream in society so if the existing monarchy falls it will without question be replaced by a republic rather than a more traditional sort of monarchy. Given that, opposing an existing monarchy for being “too republican” only to have it be replaced by an actual, outright republic strikes me very much as cutting off your nose to spite your face. If your monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, my radical reaction would be to work on making it more monarchist rather than giving up on it and letting the republicans win. For those who withhold support from monarchies because they have a different cultural or religious affiliation than yourself, my simple reaction is to say that these people need to realize the power of fashionable trends. Every monarchy that falls and is replaced by a republic only increases the momentum of the “trend” of republicanism.

There was a time when monarchies were the rule rather than the exception. New countries that emerged usually became monarchies as well in this environment. Even after the birth of modern, revolutionary republicanism, when monarchy was still the standard across the world, monarchist factions remained an ever-present force. Brazil gained independence as a monarchy, in Mexico it was the monarchist faction that won out in securing independence and acting as the first national government and even in the United States, at the very beginning, there were those who wanted to establish a monarchy and make General George Washington the king. However, as republics became the more dominant form of government and as more monarchies around the world fell, be they in Europe, the Americas, Africa or Asia, it became expected that emerging or newly independent countries would automatically be republics. Monarchy ceased to even be considered as a serious option. Nepal is a nation as culturally far removed from my own as possible. The dominant religion is Hinduism and of all the major faiths of the world, Hinduism is probably the one I know the least about. Yet, when the Kingdom of Nepal fell it disturbed me greatly, both because a truly unique country (the last remaining Hindu monarchy) was lost to the world but also because it made monarchy in general an even more “endangered species”. Already a tiny minority in the world, the number of existing monarchies was depleted further. What is only one country, some might ask? When monarchies are as few as they are today, every single one must be viewed as precious by every monarchist in the world.

Finally, for those who oppose existing monarchies because they support a rival claimant to the throne, my reaction is closely related to those who oppose existing monarchies for being insufficiently “monarchist”. In many cases, I greatly sympathize with these people because, more often than not, their philosophy, values and attitudes are ones I totally share. The problem is that they have divorced themselves from the reality that surrounds them and, in many cases, are seeking the impossible. Not the difficult or the unlikely but truly the impossible. They are, in a way, simply angry that it is 2012 and not 1912 or even 1712 or 1612. Unfortunately, tear down every monarchy (or republic for that matter) in the world if you like but it will never be 1612 again. As stated, I often sympathize with these people because I personally see little point in being a monarchist if legitimacy means nothing to you and because, in the course of history, I look at each event in the context of its own time and sympathize with whichever side was, as I see it, the most “monarchist”. For example, in 1688 in the British Isles I would certainly have been a Jacobite. Most at the time likely saw things through the lens of religion rather than politics but from a purely monarchist perspective one could look at it like this: the Jacobites were those fighting for their legitimate, recognized King to whom they had all sworn allegiance. Regardless of the circumstances, I would have felt compelled to remain loyal to the King I had given my oath to. Further, looking at history, the monarchy was clearly stronger, at least in the authority it wielded, prior to 1688 as opposed to after.

For the sake of keeping peace, I don’t like to be too forceful about taking sides in monarchist vs. monarchist quarrels like this but, there it is: I think the Jacobites were right and their staunch loyalty admirable. But, alas, they didn’t win and eventually the direct line died out and the royal line that replaced them on the throne was recognized by all other powers and even by the Pope in Rome. Such things happen, the world keeps turning and life goes on. Even today, the Jacobites remain for me an honored memory. However, I have a problem with those die-hards who exist today who would withhold their active support and allegiance from the current British monarch because of their devotion to the Jacobite cause. The days of the old Stuarts are gone forever and are not coming back. It is the uselessness of it that I find more frustrating than anything. After all, these people who are so defiant and rebellious on paper or in the world of internet forums and chat rooms are not so bold as to actually do anything that would require some bravery or sacrifice on their part. They might slander and belittle HM the Queen but they are not about to stop paying their taxes and go to jail for it.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the current heir to the Jacobite claim, Duke Francis of Bavaria, has no desire whatsoever to press that claim or to be the “King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France”. That alone would, I think, cause most people to ask, “What’s the point then?” when it comes to modern-day Jacobites. There is also the fact that there was more to the Jacobite cause than legitimacy alone. They also believed in a different sort of government and overall organization of society. Their other political beliefs all sound good and preferable to me I might add, but even if modern Britons wanted Duke Francis to come be their king and even if he himself was willing to accept the invitation, that would still change nothing about the way the United Kingdom of today is governed other than whose profile is on the stamps. For things to truly be the way they were in Stuart Britain, laws would have to change, which means Parliament would have to change which means the hearts and minds and values of the entire public would have to change. That is something that would be harder to do than changing the monarch and something which could be done without changing the monarch and, I would say, something that should be done in any event.

I come to this same point in dealing with another such group of theoretic monarchists; the Carlists of Spain. The Carlists are a different kettle of fish from the Jacobites in that they have no common ideology nor even a common alternative for monarch but they do share some similar roots. Also, in the same way, I cannot help but sympathize with the original Carlists or history. They were the more monarchist in my view, the more traditional, the more religious and, as I see it, they had the law on their side. However, like the Jacobites, they too were not ultimately successful. Unlike the Jacobites, they remained a cause others could attach themselves to in order to further other rebellions and movements which dragged on for a very long time. They also eventually splintered into very, very different groups. The way I see it, the history of Spain worked this problem out with the accession of HM King Juan Carlos I, the senior male heir of King Felipe V, the previous line giving way to King Alfonso XIII in 1936. By the very rules the Carlists based their original claim to the throne on, King Juan Carlos I is the only possible legitimate monarch for Spain. Obviously, royal blood lines are not the determining factor for these individuals, rather it is the overall nature, and particularly faith, of modern Spain.

Of course, as I think any good monarchist should, I lament the fact that Spain has fallen so far from the great bastion of Christian monarchy that it once was and that it has been reduced to such a state (being a child of the former Spanish empire myself). However, once again, the fact remains that the only alternative to the current monarchy would be a republic and even if that were not so, simply having a different monarch at the top of the political pyramid would not change the morals and values of Spanish society. Given that, I really don’t see how their anonymous name-calling against the King does anyone any good but the republicans who most espouse everything they most condemn. If these people have any clear path to the “victory” they seek, I have not seen it nor have I seen them actually do anything that does not simply make them look ridiculous, dangerous or simply irrelevant. In a way, with their attacks on the existing monarchy, they are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. They fail to grasp the simple truth that the sort of traditional Catholic monarchy of the past which they so admire cannot simply be imposed on a population that is no longer traditionally Catholic. This points to a fact about monarchy most of the mainstream ignores; the reflective nature of it.

Perhaps more than some would like to admit, monarchies reflect the values and mindset of their people, to one degree or another. Regardless of things like democracy or monarchy, at a certain level every government that exists and has existed in the world does so because of popular support. They exist because a majority of the people support them or at least submit to them. Hence the saying that we all get the government we deserve. When monarchs were so devoted to things like religion, to the extent that they were willing to go to war over matters of faith, it was during a time when the people also considered religion the most important thing in the world. In this way, in a broader sense, royals are the same as anyone else in following along with the prevailing trends of society. They, like any of us, are products of the world around them. No monarch, certainly not one strictly limited in their powers, can single-handedly change the entire perspective and values (or lack thereof) of their people. I would love for societies and their monarchies to be more traditional, but that cannot happen until the public at large see the error of their modernistic ways and return to timeless truths long established.

If we are to be active monarchists, we must be realistic in judging the topography of the battlefield, the strength and tactics of our enemies and then take back the field one hill at a time. In this day and age, our only weapons are our voices and the odds are tremendously stacked against us. It would be a waste of time to fight amongst ourselves over how we came to be in this state just as it would be a waste of time to argue over which flag we raise in victory when we have yet to take one step in storming the walls. This doesn’t mean we all agree on everything but we should at least try to avoid doing each other harm. I have also noticed that many of the most uncompromising theoretic monarchists who like to say they are active monarchists do not usually last long. They think one argument which convinced them will instantly convince all who hear it. When this does not happen they become discouraged and give up, either dropping the issue entirely or confining themselves to simply denigrating everyone of every side. Again, this is not a recipe for long-term success.

This is not to say that analyzing and debating events of the past is a total waste, it is important to evaluate what happened, what worked, what did not and adjust our present-day arguments accordingly. This is also not to say that we must reject the values of the past simply to be more popular today. I would personally see little point in being a monarchist were that the case. It does mean that we must carefully tailor our tactics to the audience we wish to convince that these values of the past do have meaning and worth. For example, arguing the merits of one royal bloodline over another to a modern person who thinks public opinion is the sole source of authority would be a total waste of time. That person would have to first be convinced of the value of monarchy, the stabilizing benefits of royal legitimacy and perhaps even the sacred nature of the Crown before he or she would even understand why bloodlines are worth any consideration at all. Similarly, you are not going to convince someone that they should embrace, for example, the ideal of a Christian monarchy if they are not even convinced of the truth of Christianity itself.

In my own arguments with republicans I have long tried to tailor the message to the individual and then follow a given set of steps in trying to show them that, first, monarchy is not evil, inherently tyrannical or something to be feared, then that it has real benefits and advantages and finally that much of modern accepted republicanism is hypocritical and based on total falsehoods. However, that is something monarchists can never get to if they are not sure themselves of what kind of monarchist they are. The important thing, I would say, is for monarchists to at least make an effort to do no harm to each other -there are plenty of republicans willing to do it for you. If you are a theoretical monarchist, there is nothing wrong with that and there are plenty of avenues available for you to pursue your interest, whether it is intellectual debates about history or talking about fashion and jewelry. If you are an active monarchist, you must be realistic if you wish to have an impact. Rome was not built in a day and we cannot change the world over night, we must take things as they are and work step by step to improve society around us. Nothing will ever be exactly as it was but if we make good arguments, build on the remnants we still have and work methodically, one step at a time, we can make a difference. The first question to ask before getting started is, again, what kind of monarchist are you?

Favorite Royal Images: A Future King

Today, he's the King of Sweden

Mad Motivation

Consort Profile: Queen Esther of Israel

One of the most famous women, and perhaps the most famous queen, in Jewish history is Queen Esther, consort to a King of Persia and a great heroine to her people. Her story is, or at least should be, well known to all Jews and Christians (if they read their Old Testament). As with almost anyone from Biblical times, there are a great many details about Queen Esther than remain a mystery, however, the important points are clearly recorded. She was born with the name Hadassah, we know not when or where. Her story begins with that of the man who would be her husband, there being some debate as to his identity. The Bible identifies him as Assuerus, “who reigned from India to Ethiopia over a hundred twenty-seven provinces” with the city of Susan as his capital. So, a big shot in Persian history without question. Traditionally it was thought this referred to King Xerxes I of the Achaemenid empire but more recent scholars have theorized it to have been a king of the later Sassanid empire.

In an effort to show off his greatness, King Assuerus held the party to top all parties, inviting all his regional governors and all the great men of Persia to party hardy for nearly 200 days. Of course, no such display could be complete without showing off your smoking hot trophy wife so King Assuerus, after getting gloriously drunk, called for his queen, Vasthi, but she refused to come. Somewhat astounded, the King was warned by his advisors that such defiance might provoke a wave of feminism which would leave all the great men of Persia frustrated and sleeping on their sofas. So, Queen Vasthi is given the boot and King Assuerus starts the hunt for a new royal consort. Every province was to send their most beautiful virgins for his inspection, with each undergoing a full year of preparation to make them suitable choices for the ruler of most of the known world at the time. After making his inspection, King Assuerus chose a famously beautiful Jewish girl named Esther, previously known as Hadassah. It is said that she was an orphan who had been raised by her cousin, a man named Mordecai. Hailing from the tribe of Benjamin she had stayed with her cousin, who was more like her father for all intents and purposes, even after Cyrus had allowed the Jews to return home to Jerusalem.

Queen Esther was presumably chosen for her loveliness but quickly proved her loyalty as well thanks to Mordecai who overheard two guards plotting to assassinate the King. He told Esther who told the King who had the men put to death. However, it was also Mordecai who would be the inadvertent instigator of the troubles to come. When he refused to bow down before a favorite prince of King Assuerus the prince, Aman, decided to take his revenge on all the Jews in the Persian Empire. He charged the Jews with spreading sedition against the King and obtained his approval on an order for their total annihilation. Mordecai went into mourning over this plan of genocide and tried to get Queen Esther to intervene with the King, pointing out that she would likely be killed too if the order was carried out. However, the Queen had to stay in the harem with the lesser concubines and could only go to the King if he called for her to attend to him. To do otherwise would see her killed instantly.

To add to her worry, the King had not called for her attention in about a month so she had no expectation that a summons would come in time. She had everyone in her own household and all her fellow Jews in Persia pray and fast for three days before Esther finally determined she could wait no longer and bravely decided to go on her own to see the King -summons or no summons. Thankfully, King Assuerus was not unhappy with her at all and when she appeared before him was exceedingly glad to see her. Once again enthralled by her, the King promised to grant her any request, even should she ask for half his empire, he would hand it over instantly. Showing she had brains to match her beauty and bravery, Queen Esther instantly formulated a plan and asked for a banquet to be attended by herself, the King and Prince Aman. It was done and during the banquet, when the king was compliant and feeling no pain, she asked him to hold another the next day. The King did so even while the gallows were being prepared to hang poor Mordecai.

Esther and the King in Italian Renaissance style

Such high living caused King Assuerus to have some trouble sleeping and he ordered someone to read to him some of the recent headlines from ‘The Persian Chronicle’ in the course of which he was reminded of how Mordecai had saved his life. He asked his servants how he had rewarded the man for this good deed only to be told he had not rewarded him at all. Well, the King couldn’t have that; it just made him look plain rude and ungrateful. So, he began to wonder what he could do to reward so valuable a subject. The next morning when Prince Aman arrived to get the go-ahead to hang Mordecai the King asked him, “What ought to be done to the man whom the king is desirous to honor?” Being a very self-centered sort to say the least, Prince Aman assumed the King was referring to him, quickly said that such a man should be dressed in kingly robes, put on the King’s own horse, have a crown put on his head and have all the princes and nobles hold his horse and sing his praises. One can imagine the shock when the King said, ‘Great idea! Go do that to Mordecai the Jew who sits outside the palace gate!’

Prince Aman was positively mortified and ran home to his wife, crying and wailing only to have her tell him he better suck it up and make nice with the Jew before the King gets angry. Just then the king’s eunuchs arrived to summon the prince to Queen Esther’s second banquet. He attended and the King asked Queen Esther again what he could do to show her his appreciation. Finally Esther said that Prince Aman was planning to massacre all of her people at which point the King stormed out in a fury and Prince Aman started doing some really fast talking to make nice with Queen Esther so that she might persuade the King to not tear him into little pieces when he came back. Yeah, probably not a good idea considering that Queen Esther was laying on her bed at the time and when the King came back he found Prince Aman all flushed and in a nervous sweat on the bed with his wife. “Fury” probably doesn’t begin to describe it. Immediately he had Prince Aman taken out and hanged on the same rope the prince had planned for Mordecai to set off his little genocide.

Esther portrayed in the film "One Night With the King"

The disaster was averted and to show his gratitude King Assuerus gave Aman’s palace to Queen Esther. She told the King that Mordecai was her “uncle” and the King gave him the prince’s ring. Queen Esther also put Mordecai in charge of her new palace, which beats sitting outside the gates all day. Queen Esther then fell before the King and begged him to call off the genocide against the Jews. Until that banquet Assuerus had not known his queen was a Jew at all. Naturally, he called off the genocide, discounting the late Aman’s claims of sedition and even went a step further by sending out orders throughout his empire that all the Jews were to be given permission to take their revenge on those who had planned to do them harm, to basically wipe them out and take their stuff. They snuffed out those who had been prepared to kill them but didn’t go on quite the rampage the King had authorized and didn’t take any loot from them. Nonetheless, the Jews in the Persian empire declared the occasion a new holiday for their people when they were saved from death thanks to the intervention of good Queen Esther, the orphan who became a queen who risked death to save her people from genocide. Certainly, queens do not come any better than that.