MM Sunday Scripture

Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.

-Proverbs 19:10

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, it has been a rather stressful week for the Imperial Family of Japan, not least because of the recent test-detonation of a nuclear weapon by North Korea. On Sunday Yusuke Katayama was arrested, charged with using a remote computer to send a threat of a mass killing to a comic book event as well as making numerous other threats around the country including one to a kindergarten attended by HM the Emperor’s grandchildren. This has been a very bizarre case which included a search for a cat, computer virus threats and several coerced confessions which were later found to be false and which has caused no small controversy for the police. In Cambodia the funeral services for the late King Norodom Sihanouk were held on Thursday with the ashes of the King being placed in a palace, as per his wishes, next to those of his favorite daughter, Princess Kantha Bopha, who died at the age of three of leukemia in 1952. At the other end of the continent, King Abdullah II of Jordan told newly elected politicians on Sunday that he would seek to reach a “consensus” before naming a new prime minister and hailed the transition of Jordan to a parliamentary democracy. On Wednesday the state news agency of Saudi Arabia reported the death of Prince Sattam bin Abdul Aziz, half-brother of the King and Governor of Riyadh. No cause of death was given.

In Europe, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden has made it known that she will be taking a class on climate change at Stockholm University, both to broaden her horizons and because of her own personal interest in the subject. She will be looking particularly at the effects of “climate change” on Greenland. Presumably the Queen of Denmark has no objections. And speaking of the Danes, TRH Crown Prince Frederick and family were hitting the slopes in Switzerland this week for a little family vacation. Meanwhile, HM Queen Margrethe II has had to cancel a trip to Chile due to osteoarthritis pain in her back. The Crown Princely couple will step in to make the trip in her place. We wish our dear Queen Daisy a swift recovery. And, in Norway, the Royal Family had launched a major complaint against one of the most prominent gossip magazines in the country for numerous unwarranted intrusions into their private lives. It was reportedly the photos of the Crown Prince and his family during their Christmas vacation combined with inaccurate reporting about the trip that finally prompted the palace to speak up.

For the House of Windsor, HRH the Prince of Wales has spoken up in defense of small family-owned fish shops using traditional methods of smoking its own haddock and salmon. The shops have been in danger of closing since at the hands of the local council after a single passerby complained of the smell coming from one such establishment. Good for the Prince we say. The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall also spent time this week inspecting several establishments supported by their charities. However, it has not all been happy news as the Royal Family has been quite upset by the first photos of the Duchess of Cambridge showing her “baby bump” have been published by the same Italian rag that lately published the infamous sun-bathing photos of the royal couple. And, across the Channel in The Netherlands, HM Queen Beatrix visited Lech again and the palace released the first details about the future installation of the Prince of Orange as King Willem-Alexander when the Queen officially abdicates. Also, down in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume and new Hereditary Grand Duchess Stephanie have been featured on their own coins. The special 2 euro coins were presented to the royal couple by the Luxembourg Central Bank and commemorates their recent wedding.

The biggest news of course was the surprising announcement by HH Pope Benedict XVI that he will resign at the end of the month and retire from public view to devote his remaining years to prayer. Many world leaders have responded, including Catholic monarchs, to the news that left people around the world stunned. HM King Juan Carlos of Spain reflected on the “special relationship maintained by His Holiness with Spain, reflected in three memorable visits of Benedict XVI to our country” in a message posted on the website of the Spanish monarchy. HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco saluted the Pope for his courage, remembered fondly the recent visit he and Princess Charlene paid to the Pope in Rome and assured the Pontiff of the prayers of the House of Grimaldi. A papal resignation has not occurred since 1415 when Pope Gregory XII did so as part of the effort to end the infamous Western Schism. Vatican officials have said that the Pontiff will revert to being known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, is no longer to be addressed as “His Holiness” but will hold the title of Bishop emeritus of Rome. The process is already underway for convening the conclave to elect the next Bishop of Rome with many wondering what effect the papal resignation will have on the election. Some have guessed that this will be an opportunity to elect a younger man to the position while others have said it might have no effect in terms of the age of candidates if such resignations become commonplace.

The (Republican) Netherlands

The Netherlands as we know it today was born out of a rebellion against Spain starting in 1568, a long and horrific conflict known as the 80 Years War. This was during the reign of King Philip II of Spain, one of if not the most powerful monarchs in Europe. At first the rebellion was not very well organized nor did it have very clear motivations. Even then the Dutch ports were centers of lucrative trade and many Dutch businessmen were upset about Spanish taxes, others had political grievances and wanted greater autonomy within the Spanish empire and then there was the spread of Protestantism which motivated many people to rebel against the very Catholic Kingdom of Spain. The religious aspect can still incite the most passion but it was often not exactly central to what was going on. There were rebel leaders, for example, who had been perfectly content to be Catholics who later converted to Protestantism simply as a way to attract aid and support from other Protestant powers against the Spanish. Which is, of course, not to say that the religious aspect was totally unimportant, for a time The Netherlands was the religious battleground of Europe where Catholic and Protestant powers fought by proxy.

The rebellion became more organized in 1579 with the Union of Utrecht which first brought the rebel provinces of the northern Netherlands into closer cooperation. The last tie with Spain was cut in 1581 when King Philip II was declared deposed and the provinces. The Netherlands, even then, was divided between those of republican and royalist sympathies, even among the rebels. The republican model was adopted but a monarch (of sorts) was also chosen in the person of Francois, Duke of Anjou who was appointed “Protector of the Liberty of the Netherlands” in a treaty ratified in 1581, effectively making the Duke of Anjou the sovereign of the new Dutch Republic. However, the Duke of Anjou didn’t last long, and he was mostly chosen simply to attract more foreign support to the rebel side, but the idea of a republic with a (sort of) monarch watching over it would not go away. The immediate survival of the Dutch republic was still in question though. The Spanish were still the most formidable military power in Europe after all, however, in 1585 the Dutch gained a most valuable ally in the person of Queen Elizabeth I of England who saw the rebellion in the Netherlands as an ideal way to bedevil her rival and former brother-in-law, King Philip II, from a distance.

It is still sometimes debated how much an impact the English army had, however, the English navy certainly had an impact and most likely saved the rebel Dutch forces from total defeat at the hands of the Duke of Parma who was probably the most brilliant soldier of his time. The Dutch republic was saved and eventually carrying on the war became too costly for Spain and in 1648 King Philip IV recognized the independence of the United Provinces. The Netherlands became an established power that was to become a permanent fixture of the European scene from then on. It was legally a republic but, like the republican city-states in northern Italy, it was a “crowned republic”. The most prominent leader throughout the war for independence had been Willem the Silent, the Prince of Orange. He was elected to the position of Stadtholder which, effectively if not officially, became a hereditary office passed from one Prince of Orange to the next. Willem the Silent was assassinated in 1584 and his son, the Catholic Filips Willem, became Prince of Orange but not stadtholder. His successor and half-brother, Maurits van Nassau, did become stadtholder for all of the United Provinces of the Netherlands other than Friesland. He would also go down in history as one of the most brilliant and innovative military commanders in European history.

At that time, as at the very start of the Dutch revolt, there was a more royalist camp and a more republican camp and despite the fact that the Prince of Orange held what was essentially a republican political office, Maurits van Nassau took a very monarchist view of things when it came to preserving the House of Orange and their place in The Netherlands. His successor was his half-brother Prince Frederik Hendrik who was also quite successful as Prince of Orange and Stadtholder. He won some great military victories and secured peace with Spain. Observers looking in on how he lived and how he was treated by the people could be forgiven for supposing him to have been a monarch. He was under no illusions about the nature of his position and arranged for his son and heir to marry the eldest daughter of the British monarch to bind the House of Orange to the House of Stuart. It was also under Prince Frederik Hendrik that the Orange/anti-Orange, royalist/republican divide began to really strongly take shape and lead to political confrontations.

 When Prince Willem II succeeded to the position of his father it was clear that a confrontation was inevitable. Willem II sincerely believed that electoral politics were weakening The Netherlands and that a strong leader and clear, uncontested succession were needed. If he were to have had his way it might have been Willem II who became the first King of The Netherlands. The army was with him and when political maneuvering was going nowhere the Prince gathered his forces and laid siege to Amsterdam. Unfortunately for the “Orange Party” the Prince died of smallpox during the siege and while his infant son, Willem III, became Prince of Orange, the republicans were able to seize power and The Netherlands entered the period known in history as the period ‘without a Stadtholder’. The Dutch republicans also fought with but at times made common cause with the English republicans under Oliver Cromwell. The situation changed when King Charles II and the House of Stuart was restored to the British throne which greatly strengthened the hand of the Orange party. In the absence of strong republican leadership Prince Willem III became Stadtholder of The Netherlands as his father had been.

Willem III was a proud Dutch patriot and an ardent Calvinist who greatly impressed King Charles II, so much so that he tipped him off to the plan of King Louis XIV of France to conquer The Netherlands. He even considered allying with the Orange party to defeat the republican faction and see Willem III become a full-fledged monarch. That did not come about but the Orange party rose in prestige as Prince Willem III led a tenacious defense of his country against the French. He finally secured peace with France and a marriage alliance with Britain by marrying the daughter of the Duke of York. Then, most famously, in 1688 he was invited by English elites to mount a Dutch invasion of Britain to overthrow his father-in-law, then King James II, which he did in what has since become known as the “Glorious Revolution”. In the aftermath the Prince of Orange became King William III of Great Britain alongside his wife Queen Mary II. William was most concerned with his own country and paid little notice to the precedent this set in Britain where, for the first time, it was asserted that the Crown was in the gift of Parliament and that monarchs no longer reigned by “divine right”.

The death of King William III brought a period of turmoil in The Netherlands as he had no male heir. The King of Prussia claimed the Principality of Orange which William III had willed to Johan Willem Friso. Eventually a settlement was arranged which saw Friso’s son Willem IV become Prince of Orange. After another period of vacancy he also became Stadtholder of The Netherlands, the first to be so based purely on heredity. The royalist-republican division had been forced to take second place to other national emergencies but it came back in full force during the rule of Prince Willem V who succeeded his father as Stadtholder in 1766. He clashed with the anti-Orange party over both domestic and foreign policy. When the Revolutionary War broke out in America, the Dutch republicans were quick to side with the colonial rebels while Prince Willem V favored the British and did his best to stop efforts to aid the colonials and undermine King George III. Nonetheless, events ultimately pushed The Netherlands into war with Britain (which was not beneficial) and the Dutch republic was among the earliest powers to recognize the United States.

Spurred on by revolutionary movements in America and France, the anti-Orange party took to calling themselves the Patriots and became ever bolder in their opposition to Willem V. Eventually, confrontations broke out between the Dutch army and the Patriots but it was not until the intervention of King Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia that they were totally cleared out. The Prussian army marched in, dispersed the Patriots and sent them fleeing to France where they were harbored by King Louis XVI (at least until he was overthrown by the French compatriots of the very people he had helped). Aroused to the danger of republicanism, though he was himself still technically the leader of a republic, Prince Willem V was quick to join the allied war effort against the revolutionary First French Republic in 1793. However, things did not go well and in time French revolutionary forces, aided by Dutch republicans, invaded and occupied The Netherlands. Prince Willem V fled to Great Britain and it was the French, ironically, who abolished the Dutch republic, replacing it with one of their own until Napoleon gave the Dutch his brother as monarch.

Prince Willem V did not live to see The Netherlands put back in order but his son would and his son would preside over the final victory of the Orange party with the allied victory over Napoleon. Willem V died in 1806 and his son became Prince Willem VI of Orange but by the decision of the victorious allies at the Congress of Vienna, in 1815 he was proclaimed King Willem I of The Netherlands or The United Kingdom of The Netherlands which was expanded to include Belgium and (after a little horse-trading) Luxembourg. The Netherlands finally, officially, became a monarchy and quite a robust one at that. In time, the threat of rebellion would cause the Dutch monarchy to hand power over to elected leaders but the monarchs themselves have remained fairly consistently influential and the Orange monarchy is very popular in The Netherlands. However, while there may not be an anti-Orange party in The Netherlands today, there are still those who are carrying on the same spirit, who wish to sideline the monarchy as much as possible, remove it from any significant involvement in government and this can only have the effect of weakening the position of the monarch as national leader. The loyal Dutch are the real “patriots” and they must be ever vigilant against any hint of republicanism. The Netherlands has never been totally republican and the House of Orange has guarded and guided the Dutch people since the time of independence and that should never be forgotten or taken for granted.

Interventionism from America

Your humble blogger is often amused by accusations made in my direction of being, what most idiot insult-hurlers these days like to call, an interventionist neo-con warmonger. I can only find this funny because, focusing on the United States, I can see no legitimate justification for the vast majority of conflicts the USA has fought. However, to many people, that does not seem to matter because I do support a strong military and because I will not renounce the principle of interventionism itself. Sometimes, in my view, it is necessary. There are occasions when coming to the aid of one country is not only humane but also in the vital interest of the intervening country. There are also some movements which are so poisonous and so vile that I would stop at nothing to see them resisted to the utmost. The best example of this would be communism, which appeals to all people everywhere and which must be universal in order to be fulfilled, hence the Marxist cry for “workers of the world” to unite. This really makes me the odd man out as the most unpopular wars America has fought have been the wars fought against communism and these are ones that I do support because I will always be in favor of fighting communism, regardless of the circumstances. However, even that is not quite so simple, because many of the communist enemies the U.S. has fought have only arisen because of inept American intervention in the first place and this brings us to my main point.

It is not that I oppose any and all American interventionism around the world but I do think, and it seems extremely obvious to me, that the United States does not have a very good track record when it comes to picking the right side to intervene on. Sometimes, undoubtedly these interventions are done with the best of intentions but still, one could be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. seems to go out of its way to pick the worst side to get behind. As with most global problems of our day, the first major U.S. intervention overseas was World War One and there is plenty to work with there. It would not be the first time that a U.S. President elected on a promise of peace and neutrality took America into war. I am more forgiving on that score than many people today, because the U.S. had nothing to do with starting the war that was going to be disastrous no matter how it turned out and also because the infamous Zimmermann Telegram has to be one of the most mind-numbingly stupid acts ever committed by a foreign minister in world history. However, for good or ill the United States entered the First World War and the bad decisions were already racing ahead of events. In the first place, the U.S. purposely held off until the 1917 Revolution in Russia because the self-righteous Democrat Woodrow Wilson did not want to be allied with an autocracy like Imperial Russia. That, from an Allied perspective, was a major mistake.

Contrary to what many think, the Russian Empire showed numerous signs of being on the verge of a military comeback prior to the revolution and had the U.S. come in earlier, the war might have been ended sooner in their favor. By waiting, the Russian war effort collapsed and Germany was able to shift forces to the western front for a major offensive that was nearly disastrous for the Allies. Additionally, it was very stupid for the United States to have cheered the downfall of the Russian Empire because, as we all know, it was replaced by a weak government that proved incapable of standing up to the Bolshevik menace. It would not be the first time that the United States backed the downfall of one regime, considered unsavory, only to see the “good” regime that replaced it be overthrown by another that is truly horrific. Yet, American (and plenty of other) leaders never seem to learn the lesson. It would happen again in countries from Germany to Iran. One of the first big mistakes Wilson made was in refusing to talk peace with Germany so long as there was no radical change in government. This made those Germans desperate for peace willing to depose the Kaiser in return for an end to the fighting. So, the monarchy was gone and, again, a government took its place that would prove unable to stand.

This mistake was compounded by the controversy of Wilson’s famous “14 Points”. Many blame the fourteen points for being absurd just as they were but, that doesn’t really matter as they were never implemented and it was actually the Germans who were most upset about it. The Allies never took them seriously and Wilson, despite all his self-righteous rhetoric, went along with the other Allies in the re-drawing of the map of Europe which in no way followed the demographic guidelines he had originally called for. By the time it was over, there were Germans in Denmark, Belgium, France, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Hungarians in almost every neighboring country (Hungary was positively butchered in the peace settlement), there were Austrians in Italy and Italians in Yugoslavia and so on. It was a big enough mess that the U.S. Congress wanted nothing to do with it, repudiated Wilson’s double-dealing, refused to sign the Versailles Treaty and refused to join the League of Nations. Americans were so thoroughly disgusted that the country recommitted itself to a (somewhat) isolationist perspective, determined to never again make the same mistake of getting involved in a foreign war. It probably also didn’t help that there were people like Winston Churchill who had begged, cajoled and schemed endlessly to get the U.S. into World War I only to then blame every problem that arose from it on American intervention. The U.S. said, “no more”.

When the build-up to World War II came, American opinion had not changed. Some Americans volunteered to fight the Italians in Ethiopia, the nationalists in Spain and the Japanese in China but as far as the general public was concerned they wanted none of the emerging conflict. Just like Wilson before him, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for President on the promise that he would never send American boys to fight in a foreign war. However, pretty soon after war broke out in Europe, he began trying to figure a way to get the United States involved. American aid went to Great Britain and American ships even attacked German submarines in the Atlantic but, despite his best efforts, FDR could not bring sufficient pressure to bear on Adolf Hitler to make him take a swing at the United States. All of this was going on while the Congress had passed special legislation designed to keep America neutral in World War II but, of course, America was nothing of the sort. No one should be fooled either that FDR was motivated by concern from Great Britain. He positively despised the British Empire and seemed downright obsessed with ending British rule in India (the “capstone” of the empire) in particular. Take from it what you will but things really seemed to get moving around the same time that Hitler and his allies invaded the Soviet Union. Not getting anywhere with him, FDR turned to the east.

This is still controversial today, when it is talked about at all, but the facts are clear and plain for all to see. First, there was the McCollum memo, dated October 7, 1940, which outlined a plan for provoking Japan into committing an act of war against the United States that would turn public opinion in favor of intervention. Some dismiss the document but there is no denying the fact that the FDR administration eventually adopted virtually every recommendation made. However, there is also no denying the fact that Roosevelt was not against making the first aggressive move himself so long as he had “plausible deniability”. On July 23, 1941, five months before Pearl Harbor, FDR signed a top secret plan to launch a surprise bombing attack on Japan, a plan not declassified until the 70’s and then buried for decades after that. The plan was put forward by the commander of the American air force unit, the “Flying Tigers” who were American volunteers employed by the Republic of China in their war with Japan. The “Tigers” were secretly funded by the U.S. government to the tune of $50 million. It should be noted that sending U.S. personnel to fight under a foreign flag was a blatant violation of American neutrality laws passed by Congress; a body that did not share the desire of the President to intervene in World War II.

On July 25, 1941, only two days after signing off on the plan to bomb Japan, FDR signed the embargo against Japan in an effort to provoke them into firing the first shot in an attack that would incite the American public to not only favor entering World War II but immediately demand it. The secret plan called for an additional air fighter and bomber group to be sent to China to attack the Japanese home islands with incendiary bombs to cripple the Japanese infrastructure while “officially” under the flag of republican China. The plan, called JB-355, targeted Nagasaki, Osaka and Tokyo from bases in eastern China. It is also worth remembering that, in July of 1941, the Republic of China had not yet officially declared war on Japan either. It was only because of logistical delays that the plan had still not been carried out when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Aside from these plans, and unlike in the First World War, the fact of the matter is that Axis personnel were being killed by American air and naval forces in American planes and American ships long before the United States had declared war on anyone and was still claiming the status of a neutral power. Why is all of this significant to us today? The simple answer is because of the aftermath of World War II. Who came out ahead of the game when it was all over? Certainly not the French or British who, even in victory, were ruined by it and, in the long-run, not even the United States.

During the war the Allies (primarily Britain and the United States) made some serious mistakes in choosing who to support and who to oppose. Churchill made the decision (which the U.S. went along with) to cut off support for the royalist resistance in Yugoslavia and shift that support to the communist partisans. There were massive amounts of aid that went to the Soviet Union, which had, under Stalin, invaded numerous neighboring countries and massacred hordes of people, either outright or through enforced starvation. In the Far East the primary beneficiary of American aid were the Chinese republicans who had previously been supported by both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis had been some of the staunchest allies of the Republic of China before the signing of the Berlin-Tokyo Axis. By the time World War II was over, Nazi Germany was destroyed but Communist forces ruled all of Eastern Europe which doomed benevolent and pro-Allied monarchies such as Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. It meant death and oppression for millions of people and a military stand-off in Europe for decades to come. In the Far East, the defeat of Japan allowed for communist takeovers in North Korea, North Vietnam and, eventually, the communist takeover of mainland China. Each side in the civil war and certainly the subsequent Maoist regime, each killed far more Chinese people than even the most extravagant claims of the numbers killed by the Japanese. In Vietnam it was the United States which armed and trained the guerilla fighters of the man later known as Ho Chi Minh, to fight the Japanese, but who later expanded into the VietMinh which fought the war against France and later became the Viet Cong which killed so many Americans in the U.S.-Vietnam war.

In Europe, the U.S. took a more moderate stance. Having aided in the abandonment of Eastern Europe, a line was drawn and so long as it was not crossed the U.S. took no action in response to Soviet murder and oppression. East Asia was a different story. The U.S. backed Ngo Dinh Diem in overthrowing the former Vietnamese emperor only to later look the other way as Diem was deposed and assassinated. This brought about a series of coups and short-lived governments none of which benefited anyone but the communists. The U.S. turned on a wartime ally, The Netherlands, over their war in Indonesia which did not result in a regime that was friendly or even effective. In Cambodia the U.S. was complicit in the coup by General Lon Nol to overthrow King Norodom Sihanouk which forced the popular monarch into the camp of the Khmer Rouge, all but guaranteeing that Pol Pot would finally take power, which he did after the U.S. abandoned South Vietnam, in spite of earlier promises of support. Aside from the right or wrong of these decisions, a practical question that Americans should ask is, when has such meddling ever worked out for the better? Did America benefit by turning against the British in the Suez crisis? Did America benefit by supporting Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese and the Emperor of Vietnam? Did America benefit by withholding support for the Shah of Iran and thereby allowing the Ayatollah to seize total power?

Another case, very pertinent today, would be Afghanistan. Things were stable, peaceful and moving slowly forward in Afghanistan under the reign of King Mohammed Zahir Shah until he was overthrown by his cousin Mohammed Daoud Khan which the U.S. knew about but did nothing to stop or even warn the King of the danger. The result was that Afghanistan moved closer to the Soviets and began making trouble for Pakistan. Eventually there was a communist revolution and a Soviet invasion. The U.S. responded by sending weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, many of whom would later fight against the United States and which included a certain Osama bin Laden. Of course, today most also know that the United States once aided and supported Saddam Hussein who would later become an enemy of America. This was done because of shared opposition to the regime in Iran but, as stated above, that regime in Iran might not have ever existed at all if the administration of President Jimmy Carter had done more to support a man who had been a faithful and helpful American ally. We can go back even so far as the Mexican-American War when the United States paid a hefty sum (a bribe effectively) to the former dictator and perpetrator of several massacres Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna and shipped him back to Mexico in the hope that he would end the war to America’s benefit. Shockingly (yes, that’s sarcasm) it turned out that Santa Anna was rather untrustworthy and he ended up leading the war against the United States until his own people finally overthrew him again.

The fact of the matter is simply that the U.S. does not have a great record when it comes to picking foreign powers to support. Nor have many of the American administrations been as peace-loving and innocent as they claim to be. Given such a record, while not embracing strict isolationism (which, contrary to popular belief, the U.S. never did at any point in her history), it might serve America and the rest of the world if the U.S. simply took a step back from getting involved in almost every international situation and think through carefully any foreign intervention. If it seems difficult to know which is the lesser of two evils to choose, perhaps the best thing to do would be to not choose at all and leave foreign peoples to work out their own problems for themselves. Just a suggestion.

Monarchist Quote

Man is insatiable for power, he is infantile in his desires and, always discontented with what he has, loves only what he has not. People complain of the despotism of princes; they ought to complain of the despotism of man.

-Count Joseph De Maistre

Favorite Royal Images: An English Rose

HRH Princess Margaret Rose

1930-2002

Shocking News from Rome

To say I was shocked upon hearing this news first thing this morning would be an understatement. Tory Royalist called me up and I was told, "you're not going to believe this" and indeed it took a bit of frantic channel flipping and listening to the full statement before I accepted that this was not some sort of joke. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has announced his abdication as Supreme Pontiff, Bishop of Rome, etc, etc. Once the shock sunk in I began to wonder who might be next. The Pope announced his abdication (in Latin -how long will that last now) as being effective from the 28th day of this month, stunning the world. The only reasons given were basically age and infirmity, despite the fact that Benedict XVI is still a young man when compared to Pope Leo XIII who reigned into his 90's and he is certainly far more able than his immediate predecessor Pope John Paul II was in the final years of his papacy. The world has been stunned by this unprecedented event, coming on the heels of the abdication of HM Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands which also sparked a great deal of talk over the (possible but highly unlikely) abdication of HM Queen Elizabeth II. Not having time as yet to check the records, the only prior case of a papal abdication that comes to my mind is that of St Celestine V which happened over seven hundred years ago. There was never a rule against it (and one would be hard to enforce since the Pope can pretty much do as he pleases) but it is as close to being unprecedented as anything could be.

My initial reaction was one of bewilderment. Of all the recent popes, Benedict XVI is the last one I would have expected to walk off the job. John Paul II certainly would have had more justification given his very frail condition (the man could barely even speak) and it would not have surprised me coming from Paul VI who broke with a number of traditions and who was, by the end of his reign, a rather depressed man under criticism from every quarter. For Benedict XVI to abdicate however, I would have bet my last dime that such a thing would never happen. Yet it has. I have to say, in all honesty, my opinion of Benedict XVI is not quite the same as it was when I went to sleep last night, unaware of what was going on in Rome at the time. As I said at the announcement of the Dutch abdication, I am not terribly fond of abdications in general and this one even less so for a variety of reasons.

In some monarchies, like The Netherlands, abdication has become the norm rather than the exception. This is certainly not the case at the Vatican and, whereas the next King of The Netherlands is a known quantity, no one knows who will be elected to sit on the Throne of St Peter after Benedict XVI. He has done a good deal to "pack the college" as they say, but there is still no guarantee when it comes to elections. It also seems incredible that Benedict XVI could cite age and infirmity as reasons for his abdication given what was endured by John Paul II. The Pope also made mention of his increasing inability to travel and yet, such travels are hardly a job requirement. In the history of the papacy they are a recent innovation. I don't think any pontiff from Pius VII to Paul VI ever left Italy and, of course, from Leo XIII to Benedict XV no pope ever even left Vatican City. In short, none of the reasons given really seem to hold up in my opinion and it makes me rather sad to say so. The papacy does not have to be simply a young man's job.

As with secular monarchs, and perhaps even moreso, the individual ability of a Pope is but one aspect of a larger picture. He serves a purpose simply by being there, by just existing he symbolizes a great deal and he is there, not just for what he can do, but for his people to believe in, to be a reassurance that the chain is unbroken, the bridge is still standing and, to quote a famous poem, "God is in his Heaven and all is right with the world". He could have carried out his mission (in my opinion) without ever even leaving the Apostolic Palace if he did not feel up to it and, though I am sorry if this offends anyone, it just seems to me like throwing in the towel. From what I have seen, most seem to be shocked but wishing the Pope well and accepting that he made the right decision. For myself, I cannot totally agree. Some important steps were made during his reign for a return to tradition and who is to say what will become of that now? Everyone should hope for the best but it seems to me that this is not something that we should have to be faced with right now -and goodness knows I can already hear the conspiracy mill getting fired up. This will be their biggest boost since the sudden death of John Paul I.

I suppose I could look at it as a good thing that most people seem to be reacting as positively and trustingly as they are. However, and again I am sorry if this offends or upsets anyone, the nagging notion at the back of my mind continues to be that this is simply quitting. In my view, that is a luxury a pope does not have barring some extraordinary circumstances. The captain is supposed to go down with the ship and if God chooses you for a position, you do your best in that position until God himself calls you home and not before. If that means the Pope can no longer travel, no problem, the people can come to him. Again, I think of John Paul II who could barely speak and could not move around on his own at all, yet he continued to soldier on and gave the world an example about how to deal with suffering and how to honor and appreciate the elderly. This is significant to me only because I could accept such an abdication more easily if there was some better reason for it but old age just doesn't pass muster with me and I never thought Benedict XVI would be one to do it. True, as a cardinal he had tried to resign before but John Paul II would not allow it and the then Cardinal Ratzinger said that he could not simply retire while seeing what the Pope at the time was going through, with even greater burdens than he had, without giving up.

I wish I could be more positive about this and, believe it or not, I do try to look on the bright side of things once in a while but, so far, I really cannot see this as a good thing. Perhaps it will take a little time to see it differently. In any case, I wish the soon-to-be former Pope all the best and I hope a worthy man is chosen to take his place. One sure way to tell will be if there is a coronation or not. After all, we have been told that with Benedict XVI it was talked about but that there simply wasn't time to organize such a ceremony. Well, this time there shouldn't be any excuses. If the next pope wants one, there is no good reason why he shouldn't have one. That will tell us something about the man from the very start.

Monarchist Quote

The worst derangement of the spirit is to believe things because we want them to be so, not because we have seen them for what they are.
-Bishop Jacques Bossuet

MM Sunday Scripture

The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

-Proverbs 29:2

Royal News Special Report: Burying a King in Cambodia

Starting in the Far East, the biggest royal event this week was the funeral service for HM “King-Father” Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia. HM Queen Monique followed the coffin of her late husband, supported of course by HM King Norodom Sihamoni and they were joined by thousands of mourning Cambodians as well as foreign dignitaries including the French and Thai prime ministers and HIH Prince Akishino of Japan. The death of King Sihanouk marks the end of an era and many observers are not optimistic about the long-term survival of the monarchy. King Sihamoni has, so far, not shown the same drive and combativeness of his late father and younger generations seem less connected to the monarchy. Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has held power ever since being put in place by the Vietnamese following their invasion and overthrow of the genocidal dictator Pol Pot, has not accorded the new King the powers that are constitutionally his and which his father enjoyed. Historian David Chandler said, “Sihamoni is childless. The royalist party is in shreds,” and added that the general public, “loved Sihanouk, to an extent, and I think elderly people like the idea of there being a king, but Hun Sen and the younger generations couldn’t care less,” which does not bode well for the institution.

King Norodom Sihanouk, despite the constitutional limitations on his power, was still able to wield some influence because of his popularity and his lifetime of experience in the rough-and-tumble world of southeast Asian politics. He was known for his threats to abdicate and his frequent extended absences in China or North Korea to get the government to go his way. King Norodom Sihanomi, on the other hand, has so far seemed content to simply confine himself to ceremonial duties and religious festivals. The real power in the country, pretty much ever since the fall of Pol Pot, has been Prime Minister Hun Sen. Leader of the Cambodian People’s Party, Hun Sen was originally a commander in the Khmer Rouge but fled to Vietnam during the purges carried out by Pol Pot. He was supported by the communist Vietnamese and returned with them when the Vietnamese People’s Army invaded Cambodia and took down the Khmer Rouge regime. He originally served as Foreign Minister in the Vietnamese-installed government before becoming Prime Minister in 1985 with Vietnamese support. He has remained in power ever since with many accusations of brutality and human rights abuses surrounding him. A common tactic of his has been to provoke the neighboring Kingdom of Thailand around election time in order to call out the army to intimidate opposition groups.

FUNCINPEC, the royalist party, has been a frequent target of Hun Sen and his thug tactics (as has virtually every major party) but royal intervention has ensured that the royalist party has usually held some positions in what have officially been “power-sharing” coalition governments though, do not be fooled, it is always PM Hun Sen who has the final word on things. Given his background, it should come as no surprise that, while he has paid lip-service to the value of the monarchy in the past, he is a career politician with Marxist roots who is not a true monarchist at all. Hun Sen, and this is my opinion to take or leave as you see fit, is really a puppet for the powers-that-be in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. They are the ones he ran to in his time of crisis, they are the ones who put him in power in the first place and I have no doubt that he has remained in power thanks to their good graces. This is something that is not often talked about, mostly, I think, because it has become so fashionable to dismiss the whole “Vietnam conflict” as something unimportant and easily shrugged off. In fact, the situation that exists today is almost exactly what the Vietnamese communist leader Ho Chi Minh first envisioned decades ago and it should go without saying that monarchs have no place in that vision.

When Ho Chi Minh (as he would later be known) first came back to what was then French Indochina, his goal was instigate a communist revolution just as he had learned from his time with the French Communist Party (and their subterfuge would play a part in the undermining of the French war effort in Vietnam in the 50’s). However, he had, like all communists, grand ambitions. He did not intend for his communist dictatorship to include only the three reunited regions of Vietnam (Tonkin, Annam and Cochinchina) but the whole of Indochina with Laos and Cambodia being under Vietnamese communist rule as well. He got rid of the Vietnamese monarchy in 1945, got the French out and solidified his rule in the north by 1955 and by 1975 (though Ho Chi Minh had died by then) his successors saw off the United States and were supporting the communist takeover in Laos by the Pathet Lao and in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. The King of Laos went down with the ship and ended up being killed in a communist prison camp. The King of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk, was ousted with the support of the United States by his Prime Minister [the U.S. also more or less invented the Viet Cong; the O.S.S. (forerunner of the C.I.A.) actually armed and trained Ho Chi Minh’s guerillas in the 40’s to fight the Japanese. This hard core later became the Viet Minh which later became the Viet Cong -good job there Uncle Sam] and so was forced into the camp of the Khmer Rouge.

At that time, not everyone knew that Pol Pot was really the man in charge (he was a very secretive figure) and of course he eventually turned on the King and on the Vietnamese as well. Vietnam was also at odds with Maoist China, preferring the more safely distant U.S.S.R. for their support and so Pol Pot naturally allied with China against the Vietnamese. His nightmarish rule, which took the lives of five of the children of King Sihanouk, might have gone on much longer had Pol Pot not foolishly decided, in his unmatched paranoia, to actually attack Vietnam. This sparked a war across the whole region which ended in triumph for the Vietnamese. China invaded Vietnam, took a bloody nose and then declared “mission accomplished” and retreated back into China and the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, drove out Pol Pot and took over. Hun Sen was basically their stooge and has remained in power ever since and I am sure he would not still be there if he could not be counted on to do the bidding of the politburo in Hanoi. Laos, likewise, was forced to sign a treaty allowing Vietnamese troops to occupy the country and effectively made themselves a protectorate of Vietnam. I am sure the leaders in Hanoi were not happy about the referendum that saw King Norodom Sihanouk restored to his throne in a constitutional monarchy (especially given how friendly he was with China) but the result has been effectively what Ho Chi Minh dreamed of decades ago. Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam all ruled (in fact if not in name) by communist dictators who take their marching orders from Hanoi.

This is a serious time for monarchies in Southeast Asia (or at least other than Malaysia which seems quite strong). The power, economic and otherwise, and influence of China is growing ever stronger. Whether Cambodia will be more influenced in the future by Peking or Hanoi makes little difference as far as the monarchy goes as neither one could ever be supportive of the institution. The current King seems unable or unwilling to stand up to Hun Sen as his father did at times and many are now wondering if the monarchy will endure at all in Cambodia. Added to that is the fact that the beloved King of Thailand, Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great, is quite elderly and ailing while the Crown Prince is not so widely respected as his father which has caused many to wonder about the future of the monarchy in that country as well. Once upon a time, support for the monarchy could be taken for granted, but not so anymore it seems. One need only look at the number of supporters there are for the red shirts or the new lady prime minister of Thailand to see that respect for the monarchy is not so widely held as it once was.

Opinion on King Sihanouk is certainly divided in the monarchist community. He certainly did some things that were regrettable, though I try to keep in mind that it would be hard for anyone to survive in the times that he did without some such “compromises” and he did manage the almost impossible in actually restoring a fallen monarchy. Some, I know, will never forgive him. However, all monarchists should take his passing seriously. His loss is not a good thing for the cause of traditional authority around the world. I am worried about what is yet to come for both Cambodia and Thailand and we should not overlook the power of trends. Every time a monarchy falls, anywhere in the world, it makes things that much more difficult for those that remain just as it makes republicanism seem all the more inevitable and universal. I would hope that all monarchists would rally to the support of King Norodom Sihamoni and the Crown Prince of Thailand when his time comes, not because of their own persons, but because of what they represent which is what monarchy is supposed to be all about anyway. Let us hope that the grim predictions prove false and that historians do not one day look back at the burial of King Norodom Sihanouk as the day monarchy in the Indochinese region itself began to come to an end.

Story of Monarchy: Austria-Hungary Part II

Continued from Part I

A “Triple Alliance” was agreed to by Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary in 1882. For the Austro-Hungarians, the focus remained on the Balkans, particularly with the rise in pan-Slavic nationalism and the breakup of the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. By that time, Austria-Hungary had already occupied and administered the politically sensitive region of Bosnia in 1878. However, in later years, a new regime and a new dynasty came to power in Serbia which wanted to unite all the southern Slavic peoples into a “Greater Serbia”. This posed a threat to Austria-Hungary (given the large Serbian minority in the south) and was a potential block to Austro-Hungarian aspirations for expansions southward. Russia backed Serbia and Germany backed Austria-Hungary but was certainly not enthusiastic about the prospect of going to war on behalf of Austria-Hungary because of a crisis in the Balkans.

Although it might not have seemed so at the time, the countdown to the First World War began in 1908 when the Austrian Foreign Minister, Alois Aehrenthal, succeeded in outmaneuvering Russia and annexing Bosnia outright to Austria-Hungary. There was no immediate crisis over it but the action enraged the Serbians, embarrassed the Russians and caused Britain and France to take a more unfriendly view toward Austria-Hungary. Italy too was upset as, according to their treaty with Austria-Hungary, they were promised the return of Italian populated territories if Austria-Hungary ever made territorial gains elsewhere but these provisions were ignored. Germany remained supportive but was less than pleased with the development. However, they had little choice as worsening relations with France, Britain and Russia left Austria-Hungary as the only major continental ally Germany had. The annexation also dramatically increased the Slavic population of Austria-Hungary and this encouraged the view held by Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne, that a new compromise, similar to that made with the Hungarians, should be enacted to give the southern Slavs equal status with the German Austrians and Magyar Hungarians.

This, actually, made the Archduke an even greater potential target for Serbian nationalists as did the fact that Bosnia was generally doing better under Austro-Hungarian rule than it had previously. These groups, such as the “Black Hand” wanted there to be discord and not reconciliation between the Serb/Slav minority and the government of Austria-Hungary. For that very reason the Archduke was targeted for assassination while on a visit to Sarajevo in June 1914. Austria-Hungary was outraged and, once again, an ultimatum was sent and once again it was rejected, ensuring war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Also, just as in the past, the military was under funded. However, most would assume that Austria-Hungary could have been victorious in a war simply between themselves and Serbia but, as we all know, that was not to be the case. Russia stood ready to fight on behalf of Serbia and mobilized against Austria-Hungary. In response, Germany mobilized against Russia and when France stood by their Russian ally, against France as well. When German troops invaded Belgium the British declared war and in August of 1914 almost the whole of Europe fell into the abyss. It was not what Emperor Francis Joseph had wanted at all. In fact, his declaration of war on Serbia came only after he was told that Serbian forces had attacked first, which was not true. In effect, the politicians had deceived their monarch into war.

Austria-Hungary mobilized a massive army for the conflict but was hampered by many difficulties. Logistical support was woefully inefficient, Russia had all the Austro-Hungarian war plans in advance and the Dual-Monarchy was almost surrounded by enemies. The initial advance in Serbia was a humiliating affair while on the Russian front there was more success but Austria-Hungary suffered horrendous losses that could not be made up. German reinforcements were increasingly necessary to maintain so many fronts. In 1915 Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary and in 1916 the Serbian army returned with French and British support to a new front in Greece. In November of that year Emperor Francis Joseph died and was succeeded by his great-nephew Emperor Charles I. With the war situation deteriorating, in 1917 the new Emperor tried to arrange a peaceful end to the war but was rejected out of hand by the French and British. This also greatly enraged the Germans who thereafter viewed Austria-Hungary with suspicion and for the remainder of the conflict many, not without justification, viewed Austria-Hungary as a prisoner of the Germans.

In 1918 the situation began to fall apart for Austria-Hungary. France and Britain were encouraging the ethnic minorities to declare independence, the United States had joined the Allies, Germany was increasingly unable to provide support and the people at home faced starvation. In late October to early November the Italians launched a massive offensive that proved to be the last straw for Austria-Hungary and the Dual-Monarchy effectively collapsed. The same day the offensive began the government of Hungary ordered its troops to cease hostilities and return home. In the days that followed various other nationalities declared their independence and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. Emperor Charles I tried to save the situation by enacting a federal system to give all nationalities equal status in a “United States of Greater Austria” but, as with his peace efforts, no one seemed willing to listen. On the last day of October the Hungarian government declared the personal union with Austria dissolved and even in Austria itself there were German nationalists calling for an end to Hapsburg rule and union with the rest of Germany. By the time Emperor Charles bowed to the inevitable and released his ministers from their oath of loyalty, withdrawing from participation in the government (but never abdicating!) Austria-Hungary had already ceased to exist. It was truly the end of an era as it marked the first time in more than six centuries that a Hapsburg had not been ruling over Austria.

Emperor Charles I tried twice to regain his throne in Hungary, where the monarchy was legally restored but under a regent that proved uncooperative. He died in Portugal in 1922 and in 2004 was beatified by Pope John Paul II. Upon his death, the monarchial legacy of Austria-Hungary passed to his son, Archduke Otto, who also had hope of a restoration. Such a thing was discussed by the Federal State of Austria. Engelbert Dollfuss had repealed the ban on members of the House of Hapsburg entering Austria and he had restored the property of the Imperial Family that the first republic had seized. However, he was assassinated by the Nazis in 1934 in a failed coup attempt. His successor, Kurt von Schuschnigg, reserved for himself the right to restore the monarchy and seemed inclined to do so even sounding out Austria’s most powerful ally at the time, Benito Mussolini, on the idea which the Duce said he would not oppose. Once again though outside events worked to block the move. Adolf Hitler (a stridently anti-Hapsburg republican) moved immediately to annex Austria in an operation named “Otto”, presumably because it prevented him from regaining the throne of his father. Few people seem to realize how close this came to reality. Schuschnigg himself actually met with the Archduke (secretly) and told him the restoration would be carried out as soon as possible. Few people also seem to realize how paranoid the Nazis were about this eventuality.

A Hapsburg restoration, it was feared in Berlin, would revive Austrian pride and put them off of the idea of union with Germany. They also feared that the Czechs would embrace the Hapsburg Crown again and that, perhaps, even Hungary would renew the personal union and that these combined forces would move against Germany. But in 1938 the Nazis occupied Austria, annexed it to Germany, threw Schuschnigg in a concentration camp, renewed the anti-Hapsburg laws and forced Archduke Otto to go into exile in the United States, sentencing him to death in absentia. After the war he saw most of what he still considered “his” country, all those places that had once been Austria-Hungary, fall under Soviet control. He outlived the Soviet Union though, entered politics and became a leader in the movement for European unity. He died in 2011 at the age of 98, leaving the family legacy to his son, Archduke Charles, who has also dabbled in politics and resides in Salzburg, Austria.

Story of Monarchy: Austria-Hungary Part I

The story of the monarchy lastly known as Austria-Hungary, previously known as the Austrian Empire, has its roots in that entity known as the Holy Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Austrian Empire was the primary successor state of what had long been the Holy Roman Empire, that entity perhaps best remembered today from that line by the perpetually smug and smirking “Enlightenment” writer Voltaire who said, “This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. The intention of Voltaire (with whom The Mad Monarchist is certainly not in sympathy) was, of course, to simply pour scorn on a traditional European institution as pouring scorn was the one thing he did best, however, he was, in a sense, correct. Partly because of people like himself. The “Holy” aspect had fallen considerably after the advent of religious divisions within the empire and the so-called “Enlightenment” later, of which Voltaire was a part. The “Roman” aspect had almost always been an empty title, the Empire was German and not Roman or Italian. It was the Popes who actually ruled in Rome and who could be counted on to fiercely resist efforts by the Emperor to control that city. As for being an “Empire” it was more often than not hardly how people today would define one. At times strong monarchs would arise and dominate and centralize things but, for the most part, it was more a confederation of minor states than a united empire.

Truth be told, for quite some time before the Holy Roman Empire was formally abolished, certainly by the time that Prussia claimed royal status and began to rise as a power, what most people meant when they spoke of the Holy Roman Empire (or simply “The Empire”) was actually what would become the Austrian Empire. It was that considerable territory ruled by the House of Hapsburg, later the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, which had long held the first place in the Holy Roman Empire and which would continue to reign over the Austrian Empire and the subsequent “Dual Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary. The Austrian Empire came into being as a result of the victory of Napoleon of France over the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, resulting in the Treaty of Pressburg in 1805. Most of the German-speaking world then fell under the control or influence of Napoleonic France with the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1804 Napoleon had already crowned himself Emperor of the French and Francis II suspected that, as there had traditionally been only one emperor in the west and one in the east, that Napoleon was planning on becoming the next Holy Roman Emperor whether in fact or in name. To avoid such an occurrence, in 1806 Francis II abdicated his position (officially that of Emperor-Elect) and dissolved the Holy Roman Empire to become instead Emperor Francis I of Austria.

This did not end Austrian involvement with the rest of the German states, as some might have expected before the downfall of Napoleon, but it did move Austria in that direction. Previous Holy Roman Emperors had tried to solidify Austrian leadership in the German-speaking world; most recently with Emperor Joseph II (who Francis I greatly admired) but he was blocked by the Prussian King Frederick the Great. With the creation of the new Austrian Empire, while Austria joined in subsequent loose unions of the German states, most of the Hapsburg territories (of which Hungary was the largest part) remained on the outside. It was also during this period that the Hapsburg realm became even more diverse which inevitably weakened the position of the German-speaking Austrians. When making peace with Napoleon, Austria lost a sizeable amount of territory (such as Belgium) but was also ceded territory in Italy such as about half of all that remained of the old Republic of Venice. By the time it was all over, much of northern Italy fell under Austrian control as the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, ironically thanks to the success of Napoleon and revolutionary France (the First Republic).

In the end, the Austrian Empire emerged from the Napoleonic Wars in what seemed to be a very strong position. Distant territories that were very hard to defend were renounced but new territory was gained so that the Empire of Austria was easily one of the major European powers. Austria was blessed with a monarch like Emperor Francis I who was strong, practical and a man capable of making tough decisions as well as an “elder statesman” in the person of Prince Metternich who helped re-draw the map of Europe to maintain a balance of powers and to encourage a traditional monarchial bloc to guard against revolutionary republicanism that, aside from being an inherently bad idea, would disrupt the balance and could plunge the continent into war again. Austria also maintained a leadership position in the new German Confederation with the Austrian Emperor holding the position of President of the Confederation. Initially, with strong leadership in Vienna, allies abroad and a little simple luck, the Austrian Empire had relatively smooth sailing. However, although critics like to pretend Austria was a totally absolute monarchy, the Austrian Empire was a constitutional monarchy and government control of the budget proved to be a dangerous problem. This was primarily felt in terms of the military. With so many ethnic minorities all wanting more political power, a strong imperial army was essential but, all too often, the military was neglected when it came to funding.

These ethnic tensions combined with militant liberalism to boil over in 1848 when revolutions broke out all over Europe. Emperor Francis I was gone and Emperor Ferdinand I, though a perfectly wonderful man, was simply not up to the challenge. It was a moment of terrible crisis with riots in Vienna, rebellions in Italy and in Hungary. This could have very easily been the end of the Austrian Empire with northern Italy and Hungary engulfed in rebellion there was really only enough military strength to suppress one or the other but not both. There were also other uprisings in almost every minority group such as the Slovaks, the Serbs, the Poles and the Czechs. In the end, a new monarch came to the throne, Emperor Francis Joseph I, and the rebellions in Austrian territory were suppressed. In Hungary, the new Emperor asked Tsar Nicholas I of Russia for help and in a show of monarchial solidarity he sent a Russian army into Hungary to aid the Austrians in putting down the rebellion. Even then, the Hungarian rebels might have done better had it not been for the rebellion of minority ethnic groups in their own territory. This caused some to draw back and renew their support for the Hapsburgs, reasoning that they were stronger together than they would be apart and that an independent Hungary might lose considerable territories to ethnic rebellions of their own.

Between the Austrians, Russians and others the rebellion in Hungary was finally crushed. The situation was restored to the way things had been before 1848 but the House of Hapsburg would never be able to sleep quite so peacefully again. They had come dangerously close to the brink and had only narrowly avoided disaster. Dealing with the competing demands of the numerous ethnic groups of the empire would come to dominate almost every national discussion. The situation became even more acute following the Crimean War which resulted in Austria being further isolated on the European stage. After the help Tsar Nicholas I had given Francis Joseph I in Hungary, he expected the Austrians to come to his aid in that conflict and when he did not it helped ensure a lasting enmity between Austria and Russia. The Austrian Empire was thus almost surrounded by hostile or at least unfriendly powers on almost every side save their border with the German states and even there a rivalry was already growing between the Austrians and the most powerful of the German states, the Kingdom of Prussia. While minority groups remained problematic and Hungarian loyalty (because of how close to success the rebellion there had been) became more and more a matter of negotiation, Imperial Austria was also threatened by an alliance between the Second French Empire and the emerging Kingdom of Italy.

In 1859 an ill-advised ultimatum to Piedmont-Sardinia sparked the Second Italian War for Independence between Austria on one side and France and Piedmont-Sardinia on the other. Emperor Francis Joseph I took the field himself and met Emperor Napoleon III in battle but it was a bloody disaster, fairly ruinous for both sides but resulting in Austria losing Lombardy. Frustrated in the south, the Austrian Empire looked north and fought in the coalition against Denmark with Prussia and the rest of the German Confederation but Prussia was soon determined to supplant Austria as the preeminent German-speaking power. In 1866 Prussia (and Italy) went to war against Austria which was totally isolated. Again, due to penny-pinching with the military, Austria was swiftly and decisively defeated, losing her place in the community of German states to Prussia and losing Venice to Italy. However, as long as actual German unification did not take place, there was still hope that Austria might regain her place and it was toward that end that Emperor Francis Joseph finally gave in to the demands for Hungarian autonomy as to be able to focus on the Prussian rival without worrying about another rebellion in Hungary. So it was that the Compromise of 1867 came about, creating the “Dual Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary which saw separate but equal parliaments and prime ministers for both halves of the Hapsburg realm; one in Vienna for the Empire of Austria and one in Budapest for the Kingdom of Hungary.

This put an end, at least for the moment, to Hungarian demands for separation that had arisen during the crisis with Prussia but in later years it had the detrimental side-effect of encouraging other ethnicities (in both Austria and Hungary) to demand the same concessions. However, if the goal was to stop the Prussian ascendancy, it would prove a futile gesture, though not because of any action on the part of Austria-Hungary. An alliance against Prussia was proposed between French Emperor Napoleon III, King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy and Emperor Francis Joseph I of Austria-Hungary. Had this come about, European history might have unfolded quite differently. However, the proposed alliance fell apart over the presence of French troops in Rome which Bonaparte refused to withdraw for fear of losing Catholic support at home. The Italians would not agree to any alliance with France while French troops remained on the Italian peninsula and Austria-Hungary would not agree to an alliance that did not include Italy (for fear that in any conflict, Italy would come in on the other side against them). In the end, nothing was done, France remained alone, just as Austria had been and in 1870 was defeated by Prussia and her allies which resulted in the creation of the German Empire under Prussian leadership. In the aftermath, with the united Germany an established fact, Austria-Hungary could only look to the east and south for her future and would need allies against Russia which she was sure to collide with in such a move.

To be concluded in Part II...

Monarchy and Political Impartiality

I know many readers will have heard about the Facebook page out of the U.K. called “Conservatives for a republic”. It is disgusting, bald-faced treason no doubt about it but is all the more annoying because this is the same Conservative Party that is commonly referred to as the “Tories” which was the name used by the royalists of the English civil wars and those loyalist Americans who supported their King during the Revolutionary War. How far the faithful have fallen. Of course, it is no great secret that the Conservative Party in Great Britain has been becoming increasingly less and less conservative all the time, leading many to entertain the notion that the once derided UK Independence Party might become a major force in British politics as more people on the right abandon the “Tories” for UKIP. So, this should, perhaps, not be so surprising but it is disheartening considering that so many avowed traitors have already made themselves at home in the Labour Party and even more so in the Liberal Democrat Party. Who then will be the major party that can be counted on to stand firm on loyalty to the Queen and monarchy? It may be more disheartening yet. The British Conservatives may not be that conservative anymore, but, I wondered; what about other notorious “right-wingers” in the English-speaking world?

Not wanting to wander far, I checked in on the Dominion of Canada and looked around at the most beleaguered and put-upon media outlet usually condemned as being simply a refuge for right-wing conservatives. I looked for stories or posted photos dealing with the monarchy and checked the feedback from the Canadian public on these issues; people who, as they are watching this hard-to-find network, I would assume to be ardent conservatives. It was not all bad, thankfully, but I was still very distressed by the level of ignorance and outright treason on display there as well by members of the Canadian public. Ideally, of course, all political parties would be absolutely loyal to their sovereign and the institutional foundations of their country, proud of their national history and their form of government but, of course, that is seldom the case. However, I cannot be alone in considering it more odd coming from self-proclaimed “conservatives” who one usually associates with having a greater respect for tradition and patriotic love of country. Why then can so many (and even a “few” is far too many) be so openly treasonous when it comes to the one institution that is the backbone of the UK, Canada and every other Commonwealth Realm?

Some may think, in the case of Canada at least, that the right in the “Great White North” may simply be infected by the republicanism of conservatives in the United States. It is worth considering as it is simply a matter of fact that, like so many others, with the dissolution of the British Empire and the trend in Canada to distance itself from its British roots that the country has drawn closer to the United States. The United States has a tremendous impact on almost every aspect of Canadian life. No country is as economically important to Canada as the United States and in terms of culture Canadians watch American television programs, American movies, listen to American music, shop in American stores, eat at American restaurants, wear American clothes and even keep a close eye on American politics. However, because all of that is true, many Canadians make a conscious effort to define themselves by how they are different from Americans and certainly there is no greater difference than the Canadian monarchy. That IS the great difference as both countries were originally in exactly the same boat as colonies of British North America prior to the Revolutionary War at which time the United States chose the path of rebellion and republicanism and Canada chose the path of loyalty and constitutional monarchy. Just as Americans revere their Founding Fathers, any patriotic Canadian should be expected to equally revere the loyalists who were the founders of their country.

I think there must be more to it than that. After all, the desire to be unlike the Americans does not override the republicanism of many on the left who still oppose the monarchy for being undemocratic, unfair and all the usual meaningless jargon like that. Could it be, perhaps, that many on the right have come to view the monarchy as being politically opposed to them? I would submit that it is at least possible, but it is a shame considering that the royals themselves have made no conscious effort to do so. After all, the monarchy and members of the Royal Family are demanded to be totally impartial and completely outside the rough and tumble world of politics. The problem is, however, that royals feel that they have to do something and of course many in the public demand that they do. So, they tend to adopt causes to champion and many of these are often seen as being in line with the political left rather than the right. In many cases, this is still not the fault of the royals in question but rather is a result of the fact that government these days, all over the world, keep getting bigger and bigger. There is a law or a regulation or a set of government guidelines on practically everything so that nowadays there seems to be very little that is not political.

Take an issue like global warming/climate change/whatever they are calling it this year and you will see what I am driving at. Personally, I think most of it is a bunch of nonsense, yet that does not change my opinion of those royal figures who have made it one of their major causes as so many have, from the Prince of Wales to the Prince of Monaco. Once upon a time, this would not have been a political issue at all. I am not an old man but even I remember when it was not, when it was simply an effort to make people more environmentally conscious and to persuade people to stop littering, to recycle and to strive to do whatever they can in their own lives to reduce pollution and promote cleaner air and water. However, at some point politicians got involved and governments began regulating the issue. Suddenly individual choices were in the balance, public money was being spent and so environmentalism became a political movement. I would disagree, but I would suppose there are those on the right who view environmentalism as a left-wing agenda and would resent someone like the Prince of Wales taking a political position they strongly oppose. I suppose that could motivate some to no longer be supportive of the monarchy.

Perhaps one of the most far-reaching issues has been what we can perhaps label under the umbrella term of “tolerance”. It is a little bit hard to pin down with one name because it basically involves a shift in western values and the very idea of nationhood. Like it or not (and for me, it is definitely “not”) there are a great many people in Europe today who oppose the very idea of a nation-state. Others do support distinct nations but based on a set of political principles rather than on nationality and there are still small minorities that think a country should be reserved to the native nationality alone. Obviously, a monarch could not possibly make all of these groups happy given their wildly divergent points of view. Similarly, values have changed and, whether people like to admit it or not, are subject to government regulation. If a monarch stood up for traditional values they would be accused of intolerance, one of the worst of the modern secular “sins”. Instead, most royals act in accordance with the wishes of their elected governments to promote tolerance and diversity and other such ideals (most of which, personally, make my skin crawl). Traditionalists bristle at this and it may cause conservatives to forget the loyalty they owe to their sovereign and drop support for the monarchy. However, for all too many of these types, it simply reveals a loyalty that was never sincere in the first place. They seem to have boundless energy when it comes to judging and blaming their royals, but show very little in working to convert their neighbors or elect representatives that reflect their own values -in other words changing the culture. Of course, if more people devoted themselves to that mission the current state of affairs would never have come about would it?

I have said it a hundred times, but I will say it a hundred more; playing the blame game never solved anything. Once confined to the left, it seems the right (or “conservatives”) are catching on to the idea as well. Yet, it is so much easier than actually making an effort to DO something, no matter how small, to get involved, to participate and to start with the people around you. The world did not get the way it is overnight and it will take more than one night or one monarch to set things right again, or at least as near as possible (things have never been perfect and I for one do not believe they ever will be in this existence). What will certainly never make things better is allowing the last edifices of traditional authority to crumble or for conservatives to pile on with the republicans in denigrating their monarchs. Snotty remarks on the internet will change nothing, everyone has to take action, do what they can in their own life with those around them to start moving the needle back in the right direction. It is not easy but it is possible. I live in what is probably the most staunchly republican country in the world and yet even here there is no one that I know personally, who I interact with on a regular basis who is any longer anti-monarchy. Before being critical of monarchs, everyone should ask if we are truly doing all we can. If the culture changes, I have little doubt the politics of monarchs will change as well but, let me stress, even if they do not, conservatives especially should always be loyal even if opposed to certain policies. Personal loyalty to your sovereign is something that should be absolutely non-negotiable.