Talking Politics: To Bomb or Not to Bomb in Syria

Last night U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama made his case for an American missile strike on Syria, sometime, at some undetermined point in the future which will be limited in scale, limited in scope but still terrible enough to strike fear into the hearts of tyrants all over the world who might think of using chemical weapons. Frankly, I found the speech baffling, with more twists than a pretzel factory. His attempt to explain how it was in the vital, national security interests of the United States to attack Syria failed to impress me. It was entirely speculative; this could cause something that could cause someone else to possibly do something that would be a threat to the United States. Not good enough Mr. President. Not good enough. I was less than thrilled with the last war in Iraq but at least then it was against a man who was actually shooting at American aircraft on an almost daily basis. It also does not help that the only thing Obama has been consistent on throughout all of this is his inconsistency. He was against taking down a Ba’athist dictator in Iraq who gassed his own people but finds it vitally necessary to take down a Ba’athist dictator in Syria who gassed his own people. He was just about to strike, but then decided to wait a while. He didn’t need to go to Congress, then he did go to Congress. Syrian dictator Assad “had to go” but then it wasn’t about “regime change”. He wants an attack that will send a message but will also be extremely small. It is positively bewildering.

As most know, though I do not recall saying it here, I am very much opposed to the United States getting involved in the Syrian civil war. I have heard nothing about how any of this has anything to do with American interests or American security and I am not at all confident that American involvement would make things better rather than worse. In saying so, I have, of course, upset some who think the U.S. is the policeman of the world and it is up to the President of the United States to decide who lives and who dies around the world. Assad is a bad guy it is the duty of America, as the exceptional nation, to take him down! No, no, no. I will agree that Assad is a bad guy but I do not think there is anything he is, has or can do that would in any way affect American prestige, power or anything of the sort. There are actually far worse characters holding power around the world and others I would like to take down first. However, I do want Assad to be taken down. I do want his regime to be dismantled, I do want to see the whole Ba’athist Party and its revolutionary, socialistic ideology swept from the world forever. Read up on them if you care to; they embody just about every political idea which I totally despise. I would love to see Assad taken down but I want to be equally clear in saying that the United States of America should not be the one to do it. I would also be worried that, as much as I would like to see Assad go the way of Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi, that what succeeds him might be far worse.

The argument in the American halls of power has focused a great deal on the moderate rebels, which are all saintly, secular, progressive-minded people committed to democracy, versus the extremist rebels who are all a bunch of bloodthirsty, religious fanatics and terrorists. Well, frankly, I don’t much care for either of them. Some people have said we have to support the pro-democracy rebels so that the terrorist rebels do not come out ahead. Sorry, but the pro-democracy rebels scare me just as much as the terrorist rebels do. Whether it was President Woodrow Wilson or President George W. Bush, efforts by America to bring democracy to people around the world, in my opinion, has not worked out to the benefit of America or the peoples in question. Suppose the pro-democracy rebels overthrow Assad and then the terrorist rebels win the first election and Syria becomes another Egypt. Would there be another civil war then to oust the democratically elected religious tyrant? Perhaps a military coup to replace him with a secular, tyrant from the army? None of this will improve the situation in Syria. Not of it, I will add again, has anything to do with the United States of America.

When I say that if something should be done, it should not be America that does it, I am not, I assure you, speaking from a knee-jerk reaction as some sort of isolationist. I am certainly not an isolationist. I am speaking from the position of someone who has studied history for many years and who has seen the historical record that should be obvious to everyone: when it comes to these types of situations, the United States really has a terrible record at picking “winners”. America has been stabbed in the back by people or movements originally under American sponsorship more than probably any other country in the world. Saddam Hussein himself, as most know, was once supported by the United States because both opposed Iran. He turned out not to be the most faithful ally in the world obviously. Osama bin Laden, the arch-terrorist of them all, first learned his trade in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets when the U.S. was giving money, arms and training to the Taliban militia fighting the Russians. How did that work out for America? Not to skip over Iran either. The Shah had been a stalwart ally of the United States but President Jimmy Carter decided he would not support such an autocratic monarch and he was overthrown, by moderate rebels of course. Those moderates were then promptly replaced by the ghastly regime of the Ayatollah.

In Vietnam, the Viet-Cong that so bedeviled the American and ARVN military was actually an American invention. Before that, they had been the Vietminh bedeviling the French colonial forces and the Vietminh had been organized, armed and trained by the United States during World War II because they promised to fight the Japanese. Obviously, that was a stupid move. It happened every time the U.S. tried to win rebel support by throwing over a European colonial ally, thinking that the grateful rebels would side with America instead of the Soviet Union. It happened from Indonesia to Egypt and every time the people who gained power either joined the Soviet side anyway or, at best, remained somewhat neutral. This has never been a winning system for the United States, nor for the countries involved. Call it a quirk of human nature, the natural desire to bite the hand that feeds you, or simply call it astoundingly bad judgment on the part of the United States in deciding which faction to support in someone else’s war. Whatever you call it, the record says the U.S. needs to just stop trying to play this game.

I also do not think it helps the United States to keep antagonizing Russia. This does not mean America should always agree with Russia on everything. I will not be able to give my wholehearted support to any Russian government that does not have a Romanov reigning over it. However, I think America should focus on the Americas and stop trying to meddle in every other part of the world. Right now the Iranians are establishing networks of terrorists in South and Central America, in the very backyard of the United States, while Washington DC is focused on fanatical goatherds in central Asia. Right now, Red China owns controlling interest in the Panama Canal and is growing in influence, buying up resources all over South America. The U.S. should be more concerned with Central and South America than with the Caucasus, Syria or Turkmenistan. If, as was seen in the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. will not tolerate any other country interfering in the Americas, we have to ask what right the U.S. has to interfere in Europe, Africa or Asia? Most importantly to my mind though, every time the U.S. does something to annoy Russia, it pushes the Russians ever closer into the arms of their former enemies the Red Chinese. Now, I hasten to add that I think it is monumentally stupid for Russia to do this, they will come out the loser in such an embrace, but it is nonetheless happening and yet I have seen Presidents Bush and Obama act as though they want to make these two formidable powers which do not care that much for America, become better and better friends instead of enemies.

Finally, I am against America getting involved in Syria because I am a monarchist. History also teaches us that where American intervention goes, monarchy does NOT tend to follow; and the results have been disastrous. The U.S. held off intervening in World War I until the Tsar was overthrown -the Bolsheviks took over and a Russia that had been a friend of the United States became an enemy. The U.S. intervened in World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary all became republics and the result was another world war twenty years later. In World War II the United States, by intervening, enabled some monarchies in Western Europe to be restored, but it also meant that monarchies in Italy and Eastern Europe were lost. It meant the fall of monarchies in Korea, Manchuria and Vietnam all in 1945. When the U.S. intervened in Korea it did not result in a restored monarchy. When the U.S. intervened in Vietnam, American agents helped bring down the former monarch a second time. In Afghanistan, where there was every good reason to hope for a restoration of the monarchy after the defeat of the Taliban, it did not happen. There was less hope for Iraq and it did not happen there either. I would like to see the governments in Syria and Iraq replaced by Hashemite monarchies like Jordan, as both were originally intended to be, but that is not likely to happen. If the U.S. is involved, it would not only be unlikely but impossible.

Favorite Royal Images: No, It is Her Mom

HRH Princess Caroline of Hanover

Soldier of Monarchy: John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough

Undoubtedly one of the greatest military minds England has ever produced, fully deserving to be ranked among the great captains of history from any nation, the life of the first Duke of Marlborough, also known by his nickname “Corporal John” is marred only by the fact that, while a soldier of monarchy all his life, he did betray the King he had sworn allegiance to and who had been his patron. Because of this, Marlborough will always have the taint of a Brutus about him and yet, no one can deny his military brilliance or discount the great victories he won for Great Britain on the field of battle. His skill was wide-ranging as he displayed a mastery of battlefield tactics, overall strategy, logistics and the political competence to coordinate an allied war effort made up of diverse forces. After a long period of internal conflict had left the British Isles in a weakened state on the European stage, the victories of Marlborough brought Britain roaring back as a major world power and for that he deserves all due credit. The fact that he was ambitious, untrustworthy and a shameless opportunist can also not be denied and, apart from his accomplishments, as a man, he left much to be desired. However, those accomplishments were immense and even his many enemies and rivals had to admire his military ability.

John Churchill was born in Devon on May 26, 1650 into a family of good royalist standing but very poor finances. Nonetheless, his connections were good enough to secure him a place as a page to the Duke of York (future King James II) when he was seventeen. It certainly helped that his sister was then the mistress of the Duke. This put Churchill in a position to meet the right people and as he grew older he managed to befriend the right men and romance the right ladies to advance himself. In 1667 the relationships he had made were good enough to secure him a commission as a junior officer in the Foot Guards and he saw his first action fighting the Moors in North Africa (mostly around Tangier), an area gained from Portugal through the marriage of King Charles II to Catherine of Braganza. He gained valuable experience there but gained even more when he returned home and began an affair with the veteran mistress of the King (and many others) the Duchess of Cleveland. In 1672 he was fighting the Dutch at sea on the flagship of the Duke of York where his heroism won him promotion over other, more senior, officers. At this time, Britain was allied with France against the Netherlands and many of the French officers he fought beside he would one day fight against.

After returning to England in 1677 he married a lady-in-waiting to Princess Anne (daughter of the Duke of York and the future Queen), Sarah Jennings. He undertook some diplomatic tasks and continued to advance himself in the army, rising to the rank of brigadier general. Because of his background at court, his marriage and his military service alongside him, Churchill was seen very much as one of men most attached to the Duke of York and when he succeeded his brother on the throne as King James II, Churchill solidified this image by helping put down a revolt against the new, and openly Catholic, British monarch. The religion of the King was soon seized upon as the pretext for the Protestants at court to plot the overthrow of James II and his replacement by his son-in-law, the Prince of Orange, who was mounting a Dutch invasion of Great Britain. Churchill, as most expected, was initially staunchly loyal to his sovereign and longtime patron King James II. However, by this time certainly, Churchill knew a losing cause when he saw one and when Prince William of Orange landed in England with his Dutch army in 1688, Churchill promptly turned his coat to join the invaders. For most, this was a religious issue, Catholic versus Protestant, and there were later attempts to make Churchill a sort of Protestant champion, however, he had been loyal to James II long enough knowing full well that he was a Catholic and intended to reign as a Catholic king so there seems little explanation for his betrayal other than simple opportunism. Fortunately for him, he had picked the winning side.

When the Prince of Orange became King William III, alongside his wife Queen Mary II, he promoted Churchill to lieutenant general and raised him to the nobility as the Earl of Marlborough. A nice prize but many viewed it as his thirty pieces of silver and despite giving good service in minor conflicts from Ireland to the Flemish coast, Marlborough was not trusted with great responsibility. Some were still wary of him given his background. He had betrayed his King, the man who set him up in life, so who was to say if he might not do the same again under the right circumstances? This was simply the price Marlborough had to pay for the decisions he had made. Of all those who had turned against James II, the betrayal of Marlborough probably hurt the most (outside his own offspring of course) and some credit it with breaking the will of King James to resist and prompting his flight into exile. Given how shocking this was, it is no wonder that King William III never entirely trusted Marlborough, nor did Queen Mary II and Marlborough came to dislike them both as well. Eventually neither tried very hard to hide their true feelings. Doubts about the loyalty of the Earl of Marlborough came to a boil when it was discovered that he had been writing to the exiled King James II, asking the deposed monarch to pardon him for his betrayal. It is unlikely that Marlborough was truly sorrowful and more likely that he wished to regain the good graces of his former patron in the event that the male-line of the House of Stuart was restored to the British thrones. Whatever the reason, it was enough for Marlborough to be arrested and locked in the Tower of London where he remained until Queen Mary II died.

Although he never trusted him, King William III finally gave Marlborough his rank back. Not long after King Billy died and was succeeded by Queen Anne. Just as importantly for Marlborough, the unfortunate King Carlos II of Spain, the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs, died and so brought about the War of the Spanish Succession. Anxious to keep France and Spain apart, England allied with the Netherlands and Austria and declared war. The Dutch would not be major participants but Marlborough would find himself fighting alongside the Austrians under the command of another of the great captains of history; Prince Eugene of Savoy. For the next nine years this pairing of two of the greatest military leaders in history never lost a battle and set a new standard for military excellence. Warfare, at that time, had become rather stagnant again thanks to the brilliant designs of the influential French military engineer Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban and his impregnable fortifications. Marlborough insisted that no one could win a war fighting defensively and built his new method of warfare on the twin pillars of “attack” and “planning”. He would often employ diversions to draw away the strength of an enemy from a certain point and then launch a surprise attack, often leading from the front in person and like so many of the greatest captains in history, he seemed to be able to read the mind of his enemy and knew just when to throw in his reserves for the knock-out blow.

Along with this though, as much if not most of the credit for the victories of Marlborough grew from his grasp of the importance of logistics (which allowed for the mobility his armies were famous for) and morale. He moved his men at odd hours to foil enemy spies and scouts, he took great pains to establish supply trains, set up camps at predetermined positions so that his troops could carry less and so march faster and always be well fed and well equipped. He saw that his men were paid promptly and regularly and that they had new boots before going into battle. His careful planning of attacks also cut down the casualty rate at the troops felt that their commander cared for their welfare and so would fight all the harder, confident that he would not waste their lives needlessly. Because of the respect he inspired among his men, they adoringly nicknamed him “Corporal John”. Marlborough showed what confident, well cared for British troops were capable of. In 1702 he cleared enemy forces from Belgium with relative ease and two years later teamed up with Prince Eugene of Savoy for his greatest victory at the battle of Blenheim in Bavaria on August 13. For a loss of only 13,000 men he had inflicted casualties of 34,000 on his enemies, knocked Bavaria out of the war and showed in a dramatic way that the French, previously considered unstoppable, could be beaten.

By this time his victories had earned him promotion to first Duke of Marlborough and the Queen lavished the genuine war hero with money and land. It did not take long for the Duke of Marlborough to become the wealthiest man in all of the British Isles. And, still his victories continued. Back in Belgium, he defeated the French again at the battle of Ramillies on May 23, 1706 and two years later won, perhaps, and even more shocking success. At the battle of Oudenaarde it seemed that, at last, the Duke of Marlborough had been bested. The fight on July 11, 1708 saw the French take Marlborough by surprise for a change but, in a dramatic turnaround, “Corporal John” again displayed his masterful ability to maneuver the army, worked his troops around to advantageous position, stopped defending and started attacking. The French were beaten and their morale suffered heavily from the loss. The following year, on September 11, 1709, Marlborough gained what would be his final victory at the battle of Mons. It was a brutal, hard fought battle that took a terrible toll on both sides. Again, for a time, it seemed he might be beaten but Marlborough knew just when to commit his reserves and did so at just the right time to win the day. Still, casualties had been immense; some 21,000 losses.

The large death toll was seized upon by the Tories who wanted Britain to focus on naval power rather than committing large armies to the continent. They were also none too fond of the Duke whose wife was an outspoken Whig who was rapidly falling out of favor with her former friend, Queen Anne and generally making herself (and so her husband) thoroughly disliked by those coming into power. Marlborough’s lavish estate and high living also attracted envy and accusations of misuse of government funds. He was relieved of his command and recalled to England. With the death of Queen Anne and the arrival of the new King George I, the Duke of Marlborough had his position restored but, by that time, his health was too poor for him to return to active duty. He died after a series of strokes on June 16, 1722 at the age of 72. Even to the last his character had been in doubt and yet, at the same time, no one could deny that the man who had just passed away had been one of the greatest military minds Britain had ever produced. Perhaps not until the rise to fame of the Duke of Wellington was it no longer the Duke of Marlborough that any successful British general was measured against.

Throughout his life, the private life and the military career of the Duke of Marlborough were always in contrast. His betrayal of King James II was shocking and distasteful even to those whose side he joined. His efforts to keep one foot in each camp, as it were, also lowered his reputation. Later on, when his self-seeking pride and disloyalty might have been somewhat forgotten, his arrogance and outlandish opulence won him many more critics. His wife and her gossip, intrigues and haughty behavior certainly did not help his reputation either. All of that, of course, was off the battlefield. When it came to warfare, Marlborough was a soldier almost without equal and, indeed, his reputation would probably be still higher were it not a number of other exceptionally gifted captains he shared the stage with. In his entire career he had never lost a battle. He had won four major victories on the field and succeeded in twenty-six sieges. Marlborough and his army were masters of the continent for ten years and he would probably be easily titled as the greatest captain of his time were it not for the presence of his ally, the brilliant and daring Prince of Savoy. Nonetheless, his achievements were astounding and he fully deserves both the contempt many have for him as a man but also his standing as one of the great captains of world history and one of the greatest figures in the hall of heroes of the British army.

MM Sunday Scripture

But the Lord is the true God, He is the Everlasting King: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to endure His fury. -Jeremiah 10:10

Royal News Roundup

Starting, again, in the British Isles, HRH the Prince of Wales attended the installation of Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis as the new chief rabbi of the United Kingdom. Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor introduced the public to their new baby Maud and it was announced that Buckingham Palace will stage its first football match (that means soccer for American readers) in October. Also, on the anniversary of the death of the late Princess of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge took baby Prince George to visit his relatives on Diana’s side of the family. Prince Harry continues to train for his polar trek and scientists continue to study the newly found remains of King Richard III of England, who it seems had roundworms (how newsworthy). However, it seems the remains of the unpopular Yorkist king are also at the center of a legal dispute -who knew that centuries later King Richard would still be causing trouble as a corpse.  The dispute involves where the late King will be buried, where he was found or in York. Finally, Prince Michael of Kent attended a car show and critics were unimpressed with the new “Diana” movie. I doubt I would be either.

On the continent, babies have been in the news a lot this week. The good news first, this week the royal court announced that Princess Madeleine of Sweden and her husband Chris O’Neill are expecting their first child; congratulations to them and in Belgium the artist Delphine Boel has dropped her existing court case against King Philip, Princess Astrid and King Albert II but will be starting a new court action next week in her ongoing effort to prove that the former King of the Belgians is her natural father. The lawyer of King Albert II has said that he refuses to be considered her father and has said that no evidence has been brought forward to prove the case other than photographs. In other news, the King of Spain met with the President of Bolivia (poor man) and the Infanta Cristina has put her home in Barcelona up for sale. Princess Martha Louise of Norway said she had therapy as a teenager to deal with feelings of guilt and sadness, Crown Princess Mary of Denmark was the toast of the town on a recent visit to Morocco and King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands made his first budget day speech this week with Queen Maxima beside him. Hereditary Grand Duke and Duchess Guillaume and Stephanie of Luxembourg visited Nassau castle and Princess Charlene of Monaco was a great success in Saint Geours de Maremne teaching children to swim at a charity event organized by the club Inshore Rescue Capbreton called “Live to Swim” day.

In Africa, a spokesman for King Mswati III of Swaziland said that his country has a new system of government that is called “monarchial democracy”. The King was inspired to make the change after having a vision from God during a freak thunderstorm last weekend. Of course, the pro-democracy critics of the King were quick to denounce this new change, calling it “simply crazy” and insisting that there is nothing at all democratic about the Kingdom of Swaziland. They seem unwilling to cooperate at all so long as the monarchy remains, which is a problem for them since most Swazis are greatly attached to it. This new government style might also have something to do with the fact that earlier this year the ANC government of South Africa called for Swaziland to be democratized and the little kingdom is highly dependent on South Africa economically. In the Middle East, of course, the Syrian civil war and threat of U.S. intervention have dominated all the news this week but nothing has really changed. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and most of the gulf monarchies oppose the Ba’athist dictatorship in Syria but do not wish to see the conflict escalated or spill over into neighboring countries. Word did spread that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had offered to fund U.S. missile strikes but no one wanted to make that statement officially. In Rome, Pope Francis called for a peaceful end to the conflict and asked for a day of fasting and prayer for the people in Syria.

In other Asian royal news, last Friday Prince Muhammad Ali of Egypt and Princess Noal Zaher of Afghanistan were married at the Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, Turkey. Congratulations to the happy couple. The Prince is a son of King Fuad II of Egypt and the Princess is the granddaughter of the last King of Afghanistan. In other matrimonial news, this week Prince Rahim Aga Khan, eldest son of HH Aga Khan IV, married 25-year-old model Kendra Spears in a small, private ceremony in Switzerland. Having recently converted to Islam, the Seattle native will now be known as Princess Salwa. The Aga Khan is the hereditary Imam of the Ismaili sect of Islam whose princely status was recognized by the Persian emperor and the British monarch. In southeast Asia, TM the King and Queen of Malaysia arrived for a state visit to the Kingdom of Thailand this week, met upon their arrival by TRH Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn and Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. This is the Malaysian royal couple’s second visit to Thailand. In neighboring Cambodia, the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party is calling on HM King Norodom Sihamoni to intervene in politics to solve and on-going dispute with the ruling crypto-communist Cambodian People’s Party led by Prime Minister Hun Sen, former Khmer Rouge official, who was originally put in power by the Vietnamese occupation forces and has remained in power ever since. Naturally, a great deal of vote-rigging is suspected. It would be highly unlikely for the King to get involved in this, even though there is every reason that he should if things were as they should be in Cambodia. However, the constitutional monarchy has largely been cosmetic only, certainly since the death of King Norodom Sihanouk who did have the prestige and political connections with China to have some influence. Hun Sen is effectively the dictator of Cambodia and he is backed up by the red regime in Vietnam and is likely not going anywhere any time soon.

In Japan there has been some concern over the announcement that HIH Princess Hisako, widow of HIH Prince Takamado (a cousin of HM the Emperor) will be attending a general meeting of the International Olympic Committee in Buenos Aires today. The Princess is going to the IOC at the request of the government to formally thank the IOC for their support in reconstruction efforts after the Great East Japan Earthquake. This will be at the start of presentation that hopes to win the prize of hosting the Olympic Games for Tokyo and there is some worry in the Imperial Household Agency and elsewhere that this may be too close to a member of the Imperial Family doing something “political” which is constitutionally forbidden and which the IHA wishes to shelter the Imperial Family from in any event. In any event, the cabinet authorized HIH Princess Hisako and HIH Princess Akiko to make the trip but the IHA says that the two will have nothing to do with any of the efforts to win the games for Tokyo and will not be taking part in the IOC general meeting.

Later Addition: Whatever happened, it seems to have worked; Tokyo will be hosting the 2020 Olympics. Maybe the Princesses won people over, intentionally or not? Sorry President of Turker, HM the Emperor will be opening the 2020 Games. Congratulations to Nihon-koku!

St Pio and the Queen

Throughout most of her life, Queen Marie Jose of Italy could probably best be described as a dutiful Catholic rather than a devout one. She was sincere, she was faithful and she was raised with a great respect for the Catholic Church. It certainly helped shape her morality and her sense of compassion for the less fortunate. However, by her own admission, she was never zealous about her Christianity, not of a disposition to believe mystical or miraculous  things. She was the very open, tolerant, non-judgmental type of person and not the kind who dwelled excessively on sin, dogmas, angels or demons. Queen Marie Jose tended to view religion in an earth-bound way; be good and do good and you should be okay. Yet, she had a very significant spiritual encounter with a saint, famous in his own time, who embodied almost everything about Catholicism that the Queen did not. That man was Padre Pio, known today as St Pio of Pietrelcina. This was a man who was famously short-tempered, not one to suffer fools gladly, a man who could see into the souls of others, who bore the stigmata, the very wounds of Christ, and who had many miracles attributed to him even in his own lifetime. It was also not unknown for him to make the occasional prophecy.

Many, many people all over the world are familiar with St Pio of Pietrelcina. Even a great many who are not Catholics have at least heard of the man named Padre Pio. In all the discussions of his saintliness, however, his words of wisdom, his patience and obedience, even when treated harshly by disbelieving superiors in the Church, what is seldom mentioned is the fact that St Pio was a staunch Italian royalist and that he made some predictions concerning the Italian monarchy and the House of Savoy, each to Queen Marie Jose. The first occasion came when Princess Marie Jose of Piedmont visited Padre Pio in 1938, just out of curiosity. She had most likely heard of the future saint through her mother-in-law Queen Elena (a devoutly Catholic lady whose cause for canonization is also being considered). When Princess Marie Jose arrived, she was struck by the aroma of violets in the air even though there were no flowers around. In typical fashion, when Padre Pio was told that the Princess of Piedmont had arrived, he said he would see her but only after he finished hearing those who had come to confession. With Padre Pio, the Lord’s work came first and other visitors, princess or no princess, would have to wait.

When they two finally met, the future saint and the future Queen of Italy had a very long talk. Among other things, Padre Pio reassured the princess about her father, King Albert I of the Belgians, who had died not long before. The Princess confessed the fears she had about Mussolini and his Fascist government but what was most significant was what Padre Pio told her about what was to come. He predicted that there would soon be a terrible war (and as we know, World War II broke out in Europe only a short time later) and that “everything will end soon”. Later, Queen Marie Jose realized that what St Pio had been referring to was the end of the Italian monarchy and the end of the reign of the House of Savoy after a thousand years in power. Looking back, it seemed an obvious reference and yet, in 1938, it was quite a prediction to make. The Italian monarchy was one of a relative few to have survived the First World War and, indeed, after that conflict, on paper at least, the King of Italy was arguably the most powerful monarch in Europe. By 1938 the Kingdom of Italy had pacified rebels in Libya, conquered an old enemy in Ethiopia and helped the nationalists win the Spanish Civil War. Everything seemed to be going great and no one, at that time, would have predicted such a gloomy future.

That story and that famous meeting has aroused relatively little controversy. Another, however, involving the last Queen of Italy and a prophecy of St Pio is a little bit more divisive. I must stress that some people will undoubtedly dispute this, but here is the story: Queen Marie Jose began a correspondence with St Pio during her time in exile in Switzerland. In their exchange of letters, St Pio wrote that “the monarchy will return to Italy” and that one of her relatives would be King. Nothing controversial there, though certainly hopeful and encouraging. The controversy came next, with St Pio saying that the next King would not be of the senior Savoy-Carignano line that the Queen’s own son was from but that this line of the Royal Family would be “dried up like dry leaves on a tree”. Rather, he predicted, it would be a different branch of the House of Savoy that would see the Italian monarchy restored. This story, immediately upon being made known, was taken to mean that the Savoy family line of the Duke of Aosta would be the one to preside over the restoration of the Kingdom of Italy. And there was just one more, perhaps miraculous, event that Savoy-Aosta royalists could point to.

During the celebrations for the canonization of St Pio, the friars of his monastery invited Prince Aimone of Savoy-Aosta, rather than any officials of the Italian republican government, to attend. Down in the crypt they reveal for all to see a bas-relief showing St Pio preaching with a crowd of people facing him. More than a few people noticed immediately that one of the figures looked exactly like Prince Aimone at the age of about fifteen, wearing the Collar of the Annunciation and carrying the cross symbol of the House of Savoy. What is seemingly miraculous about this is that, at the time the bas-relief was made, when St Pio died, Prince Aimone was barely a year old. Yet, the resemblance of the image to the Prince that stood there was uncanny. Observers could only speculate that St Pio had influenced the artists at their work. Was this perhaps a sign from the saint, pointing out the man who would restore the Italian kingdom? We can only hope, and work and pray. Perhaps a pray for the intercession of St Pio of Pietrelcina would not go amiss?

See also The Perfume of Violets at The Cross of Laeken

Glamorous Monaco

Recently there was another wedding in Monaco. Andrea Casiraghi married his longtime girlfriend, and mother of his son, Tatiana Santo Domingo. It was a relatively small affair, about four hundred guests, strictly private, no photographs allowed and followed by a reception in the gardens behind the palace walls. Of course, no one would expect this to be anything near to as grand a ceremony as the wedding of the Sovereign Prince in 2011. However, there was but a single picture released of the couple and there was no waving from the balcony or anything of the sort. True, it was only a civil wedding and neither of these two young people hold any hereditary titles. As far as the law is concerned, both are simply very well connected commoners. That, however, is part of what I find odd about all this, especially as the magnificent 2011 wedding shows that, when they so desire, the Principality of Monaco still knows how to do things up right. It just seems that Monaco does not care to make such an effort very much these days and in some cases it strikes me as just a bit odd. A case in point being the lack of any hereditary titles for, so far, any of the offspring of the current Princesses of Monaco (save for little Princess Alexandra whose title is derived from her German father rather than her Monegasque mother).

I am not trying to make too much of this because I realize that the entire picture could change in an instant if the Princely Palace were to announce one of these days that HSH Princess Charlene is with child. However, so far that has not been the case and I think people should consider a few facts. Until that day comes, Andrea Casiraghi is second-in-line to the Monegasque throne, behind only his mother HRH Princess Caroline of Hanover. He is second-in-line for the throne and yet has no title. Also, as soon as Andrea and Tatiana were legally married, their baby boy Sasha became legitimized and thus earned a place in the Grimaldi line of succession as well. Now consider that the Princely Palace has never even issued a formal announcement of the birth of this little boy who is just as far from a throne as the much celebrated bouncing baby boy in Britain; HRH Prince George of Cambridge. Both are three steps away from being a reigning monarch and yet little Sasha Casiraghi has no title and was given not so much as a birth announcement. Again, this may because their line of succession will be moved back if and when Prince Albert II does his duty by Princess Charlene. When that happens we may see all of the traditional ceremony; the court announcement, the canon firing at Fort Antoine and all the rest that we saw when Princess Caroline, Prince Albert and Princess Stephanie were born. But, it has not happened yet and we will have to wait and see.

More than that though, I cannot help but have the feeling that little Monaco was just a bit more grand and bit more monarchist in those happy days when Prince Rainier III and Princess Grace were still with us. I have yet to see, for example, an official portrait of the Sovereign Prince in his uniform, standing alongside Princess Charlene in her medals and ribbons (which she was given in 2012) as was the case before. I have also yet to see Princess Charlene appear, even if only for a portrait or formal photograph, in the full splendor of the Grimaldi family jewels. At the Swedish royal wedding in June, for example, Princess Charlene, unlike most of the princesses present, was wearing neither a ribbon nor a tiara nor even a necklace (and if she had on earrings they were too small for me to see). I do not want to come as the ‘fashion police’ here but these things matter, I think, to the overall ‘tone’ that is set in a monarchy. Princess Grace and Prince Rainier certainly did not walk around everyday in all their jewels and medals but they did when the occasion called for it and they had formal portraits taken at fairly regular intervals of themselves in all of their princely finery. I do not think it is totally unrelated that Monaco seemed a bit more glamorous back in those days, at least to me (others will surely disagree).

There was also a considerably higher percentage of the family population with hereditary titles in those days. Today, again excepting Princess Alexandra, none of the children of Princess Caroline or Princess Stephanie have any titles. I am sure some will say that such things do not matter at all but, in a monarchy, they certainly do. Surely it must be considered at least slightly peculiar that someone like princely cousin Baroness Elisabeth-Anne de Massy has a title but the third-in-line for the throne does not (and, yes, I realize that not everyone considers the title of Baroness de Massy to be strictly legal but she is called such on the Princely Palace official website in reference to her being godmother to Princess Stephanie so..). Call it a more business-like style, call it more modern but, for myself, I preferred the old days of the medals and ribbons at opera night, the days of liveried footmen and tiaras that we had when Prince Rainier and Princess Grace were still around. It is not a major complaint and in any other monarchy I would probably not make it at all but this is Monaco, where the Princely Family is as secure and beloved as any could possibly be, and I would just prefer to see the Principality ramp up the pomp and splendor just a little bit. That’s my opinion, feel free to state your own.

Royal Profile: Prince August Wilhelm of Prussia

Of all the children of the last German Kaiser, probably none is more controversial than his fourth son Prince August Wilhelm. Today, the few who remember him at all, usually dismiss him as ‘the Nazi’ one among the sons of the Kaiser. As with any person, Prince August Wilhelm was a more complicated individual than such a simplistic dismissal would have one believe. Nonetheless, the decisions he made in the course of his life ended up seeing him alienated from his father and finally from his country as a whole when the political cause he embraced became rather extremely unpopular after 1945. He was born in Potsdam on January 29, 1887, the fourth of what would eventually be the seven children of Kaiser Wilhelm II; six boys and one girl. He grew up at the New Palace in Potsdam, one among many of his siblings. For his education he attended university at Bonn, Berlin and Strasbourg but was not a very exceptional student. Nonetheless, he passed and obtained a doctorate in political science in 1907. In October of the following year he married his cousin Princess Alexandra Victoria of Schleswig-Holsetein-Sonderburg-Gluecksburg in Berlin. Like much of his life, Prince August Wilhelm’s marriage was not a happy one and it was not until 1912 that the Princess gave birth to his one and only son; Prince Alexander Ferdinand of Prussia.

Ironically enough, given his later political image, Prince August Wilhelm was definitely not a part of the right-wing, militaristic faction of German politics. He was not terribly comfortable in the military atmosphere and preferred more peaceful pursuits. His home, Villa Liegnitz, was a place where artists, musicians, intellectuals and the like tended to gather. It was a far cry from, for example, the circle that his eldest brother the Crown Prince moved in, surrounded by cavalry officers and athletic enthusiasts. Whereas most of his brothers found employment in the military, Prince August Wilhelm remained very much in the civilian sphere. When the First World War broke out the Crown Prince took command of the Fifth Army, Prince Eitel Fritz marched to the front as colonel of the First Prussian Foot Guards, Prince Adalbert went to sea with the navy, Prince Oskar commanded a grenadier regiment and Prince Joachim served as a junior officer in another grenadier regiment. Prince August Wilhelm, on the other hand, was the only brother not to serve at the front, having rank only as staff officer in minor roles, but rather was given the post of a district administrator.

During this time rumors began to swirl of an improper relationship between Prince August Wilhelm and his adjutant Hans Georg von Mackensen. According to the gossipmongers this was what drove the marriage of Prince August Wilhelm to ruin. How much of it is true; who can say? The two had been friends since childhood and it would not be the first time that a close friendship was blown out of proportion. On the other hand, accusations of homosexual relationships were not uncommon for that time and place. Similar accusations were made about Prince Joachim and even the Kaiser himself during his youth, which were ridiculous indeed, at least so far as Wilhelm II and his conduct were concerned. As for the failure of the marriage of Prince August Wilhelm, others at the time attributed it simply to being incompatible compounded with the loss of status for the House of Hohenzollern following the German defeat in 1918. Whatever the cause, the timing certainly raises suspicions as Prince August Wilhelm and Princess Alexandra separated as soon as the war was over and, to the disappointment of the Kaiser, divorced in 1920. It is also noteworthy that the Princess remarried within three years but later divorced that husband as well.

After the war, Prince August Wilhelm (or “Auwi” as he was known by his family) at first lived a rather solitary existence in Potsdam. Having been given custody of his son, Prince Alexander Ferdinand, he had few other close friends or regular visitors and employed himself as an artist. The war, or perhaps more the defeat, does seemed to have brought about a new sort of motivation to the life of Prince August Wilhelm. After a time of relatively melancholy isolation he began to get involved in politics and veterans affairs and to associate himself with more militaristic elements who (like most) wished to see the Versailles Treaty drastically readjusted or shaken off entirely and for Germany to rise again as a major power. Toward that end he joined the League of Frontline Soldiers, better known as “Stahlhelm” which was a paramilitary organization that was closely associated with the conservative National People’s Party (which originally had a very strong monarchist element).

As with many members of “Stahlhelm” however, it did not end there and soon many were looking with hope for the future at the rising power of the National Socialist German Workers Party, the NSDAP or Nazis. Eventually, as the Nazis came to dominate the political scene, “Stahlhelm” was absorbed into the SA, the brown-shirted storm troops of the Nazi Party. Although it thoroughly outraged his father, Prince August Wilhelm joined the Nazi Party on April 1, 1930 and because of his status was rewarded with the prestigiously low membership number of 24. At the time, a low membership number was considered impressive as it implied that someone was a “true believer”, a Nazi from the beginning and not someone who joined the party later only to benefit themselves or make life easier. Obviously, this was not the case with Prince August Wilhelm but Nazi leader Adolf Hitler did it because he intended to make use of the Prince as a symbol to win support from the monarchists and more traditional conservatives who might be reassured about the Nazi Party if they were to see one of the sons of their beloved Kaiser wearing the brown shirt. Similar efforts had been made to win the support of the Crown Prince and the Kaiser himself but it was to no avail.

Former flying ace Herman Goering had taken the lead in trying to win over the exiled Kaiser, giving the impression that the Nazis would restore the old German Empire when the time was right. For just a time it seemed as though the tactic might have been working but the Kaiser, a veteran of many political deceptions and intrigues, was not so easily fooled. He held back long enough to determine that the Nazis were not being genuine, were not to be trusted and he firmly showed them the door. As such, he was quite outraged when Prince August Wilhelm defied his wishes and joined the Nazi Party. It alienated the prince from his father and, indeed, from that time on the old Kaiser had practically nothing to do with his fourth son. The Kaiser was thoroughly offended by not only Prince Auwi’s membership in the Nazi Party but his prominent position and willingness to even campaign for them and play the dutiful devotee of the former corporal Adolf Hitler. To have simply been a member of the NSDAP as a private citizen was one thing, to openly campaign for the Nazis, accept rank from them and all the while being addressed as a Prussian prince was something else entirely.

In 1931 Prince Auwi joined the brown shirts, becoming a colonel in the SA and in due course being promoted up to the equivalent of a major general in the organization. He traveled around Germany making speeches, oftentimes alongside Hitler, sometimes introducing him. This was all part of the effort of the Nazis to win the support of traditional conservatives or to at least convince them not to oppose the Nazis in their rise to power. In 1932 he stood as a Nazi Party candidate in elections for the Prussian Landtag and later in 1933 he was given a place in the Prussian government and a seat in the Reichstag. Not everyone in the Nazi hierarchy was happy about the presence of the Prince though. Joseph Goebbels, who came from the very left end of the party, was certainly the least friendly toward royals of any kind and Hitler himself tolerated them only so long as it served his interests to do so. Any hope that Prince Auwi maintained that he or his son might have been elevated to the throne by a victorious Nazi Party were soon dashed. Once Hitler decided he no longer needed the Prince, August Wilhelm was quickly sidelined. By 1934 he was being kept away from Hitler and after the purge of the SA and their being eclipsed by the SS, there was no doubt that Prince August Wilhelm was no longer in favor with the Nazi elites.

How could this have happened, especially given how opposed the Kaiser was to any non-monarchist politics in Germany and given how anti-royalist most of the top Nazis tended to be? The situation is further confused by the fact that Prince Auwi’s sister, Princess Viktoria Luise, maintained that her brother had always opposed the racial policies of the Nazi Party and Prince Auwi himself said that several of his best friends were Jews. If that were true it must be seen as being totally at odds with any hope he might have had of Hitler elevating him to the throne of a restored German Empire. It may, perhaps, have been the result of the fact that Prince August Wilhelm, even before joining the party, already felt somewhat alienated from his family whereas many of his friends had Nazi Party connections. His lifelong friend Hans Georg von Mackensen, for example, was married to the daughter of leading Nazi Konstantin von Neurath. His ex-sister-in-law, Princess Helena (who married into the Danish Royal Family) was a Nazi and the King exiled her and her husband for that after the war. Another sister-in-law, Princess Viktoria Adelaide, was married to the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha who was also a Nazi Party member. Whatever the case, it would be hard to argue that the Prince had simply been duped or misled as even after Hitler began to snub him, the Prince never left the party and even as late as 1939 was given a promotion to the equivalent of a lieutenant general, the second highest rank, in the by-then largely ceremonial SA.

He carried on as before with the outbreak of World War II but his former political friends soon turned on him. When it became known in 1942 that he had spoken out privately against Dr. Goebbels, Prince Auwi was officially denounced and forbidden to speak publicly again. He fled the approaching Red Army in 1944 with his sister-in-law Crown Princess Cecilie and was later arrested by the United States Army. He was judged to be an ‘unredeemed’ Nazi, was sentenced to time served and released. Another arrest warrant was issued for him from the authorities in East Germany but before anything could be done about it Prince August Wilhelm died in Stuttgart in 1949 at the age of 62. His decisions had caused a great deal of bitter feelings amongst his family, caused his father to practically disown him and finally he was blacklisted even by his former Nazi friends only to have the war end in their defeat and with the ruination of Germany that caused his own people to view him with nothing but contempt. It is certainly not fair that he should be singled out before others that did exactly the same, and there were oh-so many in those days, but the fact remains that no good came from his foray into politics.

Favorite Royal Images: A British Duchess

HRH the Duchess of Kent

The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

Today, with all of the controversy over Syria, it is worth remembering that Syria, as we know it today, was originally a monarchy even if only a short-lived legal formality. Why is this worth remembering? The answer should be self-evident. When one looks at all of the confusion, disorder and violence that has accompanied the so-called “Arab Spring” all of the worst bloodshed and all of the governments that have actually been overthrown have been republics. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (all republics) have had upheavals and now Syria though it remains to be seen, at this point, if the government will survive or not. Monarchies have known turmoil during this time but none have fallen and none of the unrest has occurred on the same level as that seen in republics. The Kingdoms of Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and, to a lesser extent, the Gulf micro-monarchies have all been shaken but none have fallen nor have they degenerated into civil war. It should be obvious to any impartial observer that monarchy has been good for the Middle East and North Africa whereas republics have only caused confusion and disorder. Even when the republics have been stable it has only been because of the rule of barbaric tyrants who enforced such stability through the butchery of their own people. So, what about the original, Syrian monarchy? To understand the situation, as is not uncommon, one must go back to the First World War.

King Hussein

For centuries prior to that conflict Syria, like most of the rest of the region, was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. As soon as the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, the Allies, primarily Great Britain, began to make diplomatic overtures to the Arab population. This campaign proved to be a resounding success with the Arabs, armed and equipped by the British, rising up against the Turks and fighting alongside the Allies, primarily Britain and France. The Arabs were led by Hussein bin Ali, Emir and Sharif of Mecca since 1908. Although not a nationalist by nature, Sharif Hussein had grown alienated from the Ottoman Empire since the takeover of the “Young Turks” in Constantinople and the subsequent effort to restructure and modernize the empire. When the British reached out to him, he first demanded their support in the creation of what amounted to an Arab empire that would include all the territory between Egypt, Turkey and Persia and with himself supplanting the Ottoman Sultan as the new Caliph of Islam. The British would not agree to all of this but nonetheless Sharif Hussein led the Arabs in revolt against the Turks in 1916 on the understanding that there would be an independent Arab state when the war was over and the Ottoman Empire was carved up. However, his aims ran contrary to the Sykes-Picot Agreement made by Britain, France and Russia to partition the territory of the Ottoman Empire between them.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was secret, at least until the Bolsheviks took over Russia and made it public, to the embarrassment of all concerned. It ran rather contrary to what the western Allies at least had been saying about national self-determination as one of their justifications for war. Contrary to what some may think, that idea was not invented by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, though he certainly made it worse by emphasizing it even more than Britain and France did (Wilson himself later admitting that he had spoken in ignorance when he did so. Oops. Yeah, thanks for that Woody). What is today southern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and points south were claimed by Britain (with promises of a Jewish state in Palestine coming as early as 1914) with northern Iraq, Lebanon and Syria being claimed by France (Russian gains were to have been in northern Turkey and around Constantinople). The British, with the Balfour Declaration, tried to invalidate the agreement but also renounced any promises made to the Arabs. In any event, under a different name, most of the territorial claims made in the Sykes-Picot Agreement became a reality after the war was over with Palestine, Jordan and Iraq becoming British mandates and Lebanon and Syria becoming French mandates. At the time, of course, there were no such countries and pretty much everything between what is now Saudi Arabia and Turkey was referred to at the time as Syria. The Arabs also had considerable forces on the ground and were determined to claim the territory they wanted regardless of what the Allies in Paris thought.

King Faisal

The problem was that the Arabs were not very united, nationalism still not having replaced the more prevalent tribalism of the region. In Mecca, Sharif Hussein was declared “King of All the Arabs” by the clerics there but it was an empty title. In Damascus a congress was convened but the feuding Arabs were crippled by internal divisions and the situation stagnated. Finally, the idea of an outright Arab empire was dropped but what was hoped for next almost amounted to the same thing. The region was to be divided up between Sharif Hussein and his sons. This is when the Kingdom of Syria came into being, the first independent state of Syria as we know it today though, at the time, it was much larger than modern Syria. Sharif Hussein reigned as King of the Hejaz though he was in a constant struggle against the House of Saud and their Wahhabi supporters (a struggle, obviously, he would eventually lose -ironically the fight had predated World War One but, in those days, the Ottoman Turks had helped keep the Saudis and the Wahhabis in check). What is today Syria, Palestine and northern Iraq were declared the Arab Kingdom of Syria under King Faisal I (son of King Hussein) with Prince Zeid (another son of King Hussein) declared regent of Iraq. Another son, Abdullah, became King of Transjordan.

This was not exactly the Arab empire some had originally envisioned but it was not far removed with Hashemite monarchs reigning over the entire region, though Palestine was never going to remain as the British were intent on keeping the promises they had made to the Zionist movement in 1914. There was simply no way to reconcile the agreements made by Britain and France with the promises for a “Greater Syria” made to the Arabs. Because of this, neither Britain or France recognized Faisal as King of Syria and this would prove problematic since France insisted on exclusive influence and certain controls over Syria. Having been on the throne for only a few months and with chaos still reigning throughout much of the region, King Faisal felt he had little choice but to agree to the conditions of the French republic. This, however, proved unacceptable to the fiery, pro-independence faction which demanded defiance to any limitations on Syrian independence. It was an embarrassing situation for King Faisal who, under intense pressure from his people, was obliged to denounce the agreement he had just made and assert complete independence for the Kingdom of Syria. The French republic responded by announcing their intention to rule directly and dispatched troops to enforce French authority.

French troops in Syria

On July 14, 1920 French General Henri Gouraud sent an ultimatum to King Faisal, demanding that he surrender. With no foreign powers recognizing his government and with his own military lacking heavy weapons, King Faisal felt he had no choice but to surrender rather than see his people butchered in a fight they had no realistic chance of winning. In spite of this, his minister of war decided to defy the King and confront the French army. The result was the disastrous battle of Maysalun in which the Syrian forces were easily crushed. Damascus fell a few days later and the remnants of the Syrian army fled the country or surrendered to the French. King Faisal was officially deposed and forced out of the country, going into exile in Great Britain. There were rebellions later on, none of which were successful, and under one name or another direct or indirect French rule was maintained in Syria until 1946, a Republic of Syria having been created along the way. The exiled King of Syria was not out of the picture however. When the British effort at direct rule over Iraq proved rather problematic, King Faisal I of Syria was brought back to the Middle East and enthroned as King Faisal I of Iraq. Hashemite rule and the Kingdom of Iraq lasted until 1958 when King Faisal II was murdered in a military coup. As an aside, only one of the Hashemite monarchs was able to persevere. The Kingdom of Syria was brought down by the French, the Kingdom of Iraq was brought down by nationalist radicals and the Kingdom of the Hejaz was overthrown and replaced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Only the Emir of Transjordan, later the Kingdom of Jordan, under King Abdullah remained and the Hashemite dynasty still reigns in Jordan to this day.

As most know, the subsequent history of Syria (and Iraq for that matter) stands in stark contrast to the relative peace and stability of the Kingdom of Jordan. After the departure of the French the Syrian Republic was rocked by numerous coups, rebellions and disastrous wars. In 1958 Syria was merged with Egypt to form the United Arab Republic but another military coup in 1961 took Syria out of that union. It was one coup after another for a short time until a dictatorship was established by the Arab Socialists of the Ba’ath Party (which had branches in Syria and Iraq). There were still coups and factional feuds within the Ba’ath Party that ruled Syria which, of course, further ruined the country. This was a dictatorship where the trains did not run on time, so to speak. Stability, but certainly not peace and calm, came for a time with the coming to power of Hafez al-Assad in 1970. He held power until his death in 2000 when he was succeeded as President by his son, the currently embattled Bashar al-Assad. Again, the contrast could not be more stark between the republics of Syria and Iraq, both of which ultimately fell to brutal Ba’athist dictatorships, compared to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which has maintained order and stability, with friendly relations with countries all over the world and which is a respected country by almost everyone in the region.

Saintly Royals Sunday

Blessed Charles I, Count of Flanders

A man known for his love of peace, kindness and great generosity, demonstrated throughout his life such as in giving bread to the poor. He was murdered in 1127 in the church of St Donatian in Bruges. He was beatified in 1882 by Pope Leo XIII.

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the British Isles, it seems complaints about minimum wage standards are costing jobs on both sides of the pond this week. Advertisements had previously gone out for a maid to be employed at the Queen’s residence in Scotland only to have the offer withdrawn after “social justice” types complained that the position only paid minimum wage (the perk of getting to live in a palace must not have impressed them). Buckingham Palace officials have said that the initial advertisement was a mistake. Meanwhile, rumors were swirling this week that the Duke and Duchess of York may be becoming an item again (MM rolling his eyes). HRH the Duchess of Cambridge was spotted for the first time in public since the birth of Prince George, doing a little grocery shopping. The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry will be joining forces next month for a charity party in London’s Canary Wharf to mark the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. And, in reference to the special report last week, Britain’s elite SAS is launching an investigation into who said what concerning the accusations that they were involved in the death of the late Princess of Wales. British army commander General Sir Peter Wall is reportedly furious that the elite special forces unit has had its reputation attacked in this way.

As to royals from the continent, HRH Princess Caroline of Hanover and family have been relaxing on St Tropez, perhaps resting up for the approaching wedding of Andrea Casiraghi and Tatiana Santo Domingo. Daughter Charlotte Casiraghi was also on hand and, from the photos taken, the rumors of her pregnancy have definitely been confirmed. In Luxembourg, Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume and Hereditary Grand Duchess Stephanie have departed for a visit to Germany to mark the anniversary of the Weilburg Militia which was founded in 1813 to mark the wedding of two ancestors of the Luxembourg Royal Family. In the Kingdom of Sweden TM the King and Queen visited Norrbotten County this week and Prince Carl Philip presented the racing cup that has his name on it to the winners of the Lidkoeping Open karting competition. And, in Bulgaria, the former monarch is drawing criticism from the political right over accusations that he “sold out” to the leftist government in return for their giving him back confiscated royal properties. The criticism came from the minor “Order, Law and Justice party” after King Simeon took to his website to condemn the protests against the government. The party accused the King of supporting the government (a coalition of the leftist Bulgarian Socialist Party and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, a party of ethnic Turks) in exchange for a promise to restore royal property. A party spokesman referred to King Simeon as the “Red Tsar” and called him an advocate for former communists.

In the Middle East the threat of U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war got most of the headlines this week. Just to re-cap, the Arab monarchies are all pretty unanimous in wanting the Assad regime to go but are not prepared to go beyond funding the rebels or at least the rebel faction of their choice. Assad is not and never has been to their taste, though they are almost all concerned with any civil unrest as it has proven a rather contagious problem. In the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan protestors took to the street to voice their opposition to the American intervention President Obama is still thinking about. The top royals were not in Jordan at the time though as TM King Abdullah II and Queen Rania visited Rome this week where they met with HH Pope Francis. Meanwhile, unnamed members of the Saudi Royal Family have, we are told, been holding somewhat secretive meetings with the Russians in an effort to gain some assurance that Russia will not decide to take any action if the United States intervenes against their Syrian allies for the significant reason that if American intervention goes forward and Vladimir Putin so much as snorts in the direction of an American ship or plane then Obama would soil himself. And this week the Emir of Qatar signed a new border accord with Saudi Arabia but, with everything going on in Syria, I doubt many people noticed.

Finally, in the lands of Eternal Asia, TM the King and Queen of Bhutan attended the graduation ceremonies at the Royal Institute of Management this week. The King told the graduating class that they had a responsibility to use the knowledge and experience they have gained to serve the country and that by strengthening the rule of law they could contribute to maintaining the security and sovereignty of Bhutan. Great. The King also said they all had to work on strengthening democracy. Yawn. Meanwhile, in the Land of the Rising Sun, a new generation have suddenly became aware of the fact (long known to many of us) that HM the Empress is pretty cool man, she’s pretty with-it and all that. While on a visit to the Mori Art Museum in Tokyo HM the Empress saw an exhibit on the virtual pop star sensation Hatsune Miku and pointed her out saying, “Ah, I suppose this is Miku-chan, isn’t it?” At which point young people all over Japan dropped their jaws in amazement that HM the Empress actually recognized a pop culture figure and seems to be up on what is ‘hip and cool’ with the kids these days. Personally, ever since I found out what a big sumo fan HM the Empress is, nothing surprises me. So, yes, young people, congratulations on finding out what we all already knew: the Empress is awesome. In other news, TM the Emperor and Empress visited another museum in Nagano prefecture this week before taking a little time off for a friendly game of tennis.

Denmark in the Napoleonic Wars

The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars occurred during the reign of King Christian VII of Denmark (and Norway) who, unfortunately, seems to have been stark, raving mad. Because of his incapacity, the Crown Prince (later King Frederick VI) had more influence as did Andreas Bernstorff who managed foreign affairs from 1773-1778 and 1784-1797. Earlier, the King’s physician, Johann Friedrich Struensee, held considerable influence and set Denmark on a very liberal, progressive course. This moved Denmark so far to the left of the political spectrum that when the French Revolution broke out, other European powers worried that the disease of Jacobinism might have already taken hold of Denmark. However, Russia still had a great deal of influence in Scandinavia at that time and Tsar Paul I helped to push Denmark a little more to the right in 1799. Yet, it was the close relationship with the Tsar of Russia that ultimately brought down an Allied attack on Denmark. It was at Russian insistence that the Kingdom of Denmark joined the second “Armed Neutrality” groups that endeavored to stop all trade with Great Britain. Sweden and Prussia also joined as this was after the Tsar had fallen out with Britain over their conduct of the war against France. The British were not prepared to tolerate this and soon took military action against Denmark with a raid against the powerful Danish fleet at Copenhagen.

Admiral Fischer

In April 1801 a British fleet commanded by the great Admiral Horatio Nelson sailed to Copenhagen and devastated the Danish fleet led by Admiral Olfert Fischer. It was a victory for Britain that ultimately took Denmark out of the league of Armed Neutrality, however, while a Danish defeat, it was a glorious one nonetheless. The Danes had offered heroic and determined resistance against incredible odds and Lord Nelson himself later admitted that the battle against the Danes had been the most fiercely fought battle of his entire naval career. The Kingdom of Denmark could still hold its head high. With the death of Tsar Paul the international situation changed and though the peace enforced by Britain was not a very beneficial one for Denmark, things were set to get worse. The Kingdom of Denmark was obliged to remain neutral until 1807 when, again, Britain moved against Denmark. The British were determined to take over the Danish fleet for fear that Napoleon might conquer Denmark and grab the valuable warships himself. British and German troops came in and besieged Copenhagen, led by General Arthur Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) after brushing aside a small force of Danish militia.

General Ernst Peymann commanded the defending Danish troops while at sea a British fleet under Admiral James Gambier pressed in to close the ring. The Danes refused the British summons to surrender and Gambier began to bombard Copenhagen. Some 2,000 civilians were killed before General Peymann agreed to surrender. The British demanded that all Danish naval forces be turned over to them, which was agreed to, though Crown Prince Frederick secretly ordered Paymann to have all the ships burned. This, however, was not done and the Danish fleet passed into the hands of the British. One can certainly understand the concern of Great Britain over the possibility of the French being able to turn the powerful Danish navy against them but the whole episode was an unfortunate affair. The Danes really had no great love for Napoleon and had intended to resist the French like most everyone else in Europe. However, the British attack on Copenhagen and the seizure of their proud fleet soured all feelings against Britain. The Kingdom of Denmark, therefore, entered into an alliance with Imperial France under King Frederick VI who came to the Danish throne in 1808.

King Frederick VI

Danish forces saw rather limited action in the ensuing period of warfare, restricted mostly to supporting the French and French-aligned forces in northern Germany. For a time though, with the many brilliant victories of Napoleon, it seemed that King Frederick VI might have backed the right horse and Danish power and influence would be on the rise. Very early in his reign it seemed that the Kingdom of Sweden would soon be in need of a monarch and, as a descendent of the Swedish King Gustav I, Frederick VI thought he might have a chance of being elected King of Sweden as well as being King of Denmark and Norway. Were this to have happened, all of Scandinavia would have (once again) been united in the person of the King of Denmark. However, as we know, it did not come to pass as the Swedes chose another, actually King Frederick’s brother-in-law, before ultimately giving the throne to Marshal of France Bernadotte.

The battle of Copenhagen

Coincidentally, it was Marshal Bernadotte who was to command the French invasion force against Denmark if the Danes had not gone to war against Britain. Effectively, both Britain and France had forced Denmark to choose one side over the other and the Danish government felt it had no choice but to choose France. As we know, they had picked the side that would ultimately lose. In retribution, when the war was over, Denmark was forced to hand Norway over to Sweden which had come in on the Allied side when Marshal Bernadotte turned on his former French master. That being said, it should be kept in mind that Norway had always been a distinct, separate kingdom in its own right. It only happened that, prior to the war, the King of Denmark had also been the King of Norway while after the war the King of Sweden would also be the King of Norway which remained a separate, legal entity. Although Denmark would eventually recover, the loss of the Danish fleet and the loss of Norway had a fairly devastating impact on Danish strength and the Danish economy. The status of Denmark would never quite be the same afterwards. Still, despite not being on the same level as France, Britain or Austria at the start of the war, the Kingdom of Denmark could not be discounted. The Danish army was small but determined and efficient with many highly professional officers. There was also the Norwegian contingent which, even in those days, had units of ski-born troops. Most significant though was the Danish navy which was quite formidable with 38 ships-of-the-line and a tenacity that was proven at Copenhagen.