Princely Profile: Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, “Ipse Rex”

Known as the personification of the problems in the Catholic Church of his time, Cardinal Wolsey was worldly, wealthy and ambitious. Yet, like most figures of the Renaissance or any period in history Wolsey had his good points as well as his failings. He rose to prominence during the reign of King Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty and was a major figure at court as well as acting as an envoy to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian. When Henry VIII came to the throne Wolsey's star was to rise even higher, and the young king had complete trust in the clever churchman. One way this came about was mutual ambition. Henry VIII wanted power and glory and would abide no one who tried to discourage him. Wolsey realized this and was always eager to encourage the King's ambition as a way of realizing his own.

It was a policy that worked as in 1514 Wolsey was given the prestigious position of Archbishop of York. In September the following year he was elevated to the rank of Cardinal and only one month later Henry VIII made him Lord Chancellor of England. This was the apex of his career, holding the most powerful office in the kingdom and the red hat of a Prince of the Church. It was quite a rise from someone who had been born the son of a butcher. For some time their relationship was good. The King was obsessed with wars and jousts and pageantry and had no interest in the work of administration, which was therefore left in Cardinal Wolsey's capable hands. Even his worst enemy could not deny that Wolsey was committed, hard working and extremely good at his job.

Problems did not arise until that pivotal moment in English history when King Henry VIII fell for the seductions of Ann Boleyn and became determined to put away his lawful wife Queen Catherine of Aragon. Cardinal Wolsey, ever devoted to the King, did his best to solve the problem but knew that the Pope would refuse. He earned the wrath of Ann Boleyn who tried to turn Henry against him, and other than the King, Wolsey had few friends. His rise from humble origins disturbed the aristocracy, and many envied his extreme wealth, it often being said that he lived even more luxuriously than the King himself. Wolsey was also the perfect illustration of all the problems in the Church that devoted men like St Thomas More were demanding be corrected. He became very fat, extracted fees from those given posts in the Church, was absent from his see in York, had fathered illegitimate children and had done little to strop the spread of Lutheranism/Protestantism in England. When he failed to gain the annulment Henry wanted some accused him of purposely not trying hard enough because of an ambition to be elected Pope.

Because Queen Catherine was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and Cardinal Wolsey was pushing a foreign policy of closeness with France, he would have liked nothing better than to see the Queen put away. However, he did not approve of Henry marrying Ann Boleyn, who it seemed to many had cast a spell over the King and was driving him to make revolutionary changes in the kingdom simply to satisfy his lust. When the Cardinal could not get a swift judgment in Henry's favor, the king grew impatient and his enemies among the nobility and especially Ann Boleyn, closed in on Wolsey. He was dismissed as Lord Chancellor, stripped of his role as Papal legate, deprived of all offices save the archbishopric of York and was later forced to sign over all of his possessions to the King.

Later, when it was found that Wolsey had not been at fault for the king not obtaining his divorce, he was pardoned and returned to York to try to act as the shepherd he was supposed to have been. However, he had powerful enemies that would not relent and they produced forged documents claiming that the Cardinal had been in secret negotiations with the King of France and demanded that he be tried for high treason. When the King's officers came to arrest him he famously said, "Master Kingston, I see the matter against me now it is framed; but if I had served God as diligently as I have done the King He would not have given me over in my gray hairs". Cardinal Wolsey, however, was never tried or executed for the charges against him as he died before the matter could be concluded on November 29, 1530.

Royals at Eternal Rest

An Anglo-American Empire

It is true that, ultimately, considering what are known as alternate histories is a waste of time. We can never know for sure what would have happened, what might have been or how this or that would have worked out. However, if kept in its proper place, such speculation can be of at least some benefit. As well as providing some creative exercise that might generate valuable ideas, I also have found it a good tool for bringing people to an understanding of free will, that the way the world is today did not just happen inexorably but was the result of past decisions. If different decisions had been made, we would be living in a different sort of world. Actions have consequences and this is a point that can be brought home by considering alternate possibilities. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars. But in ourselves” as Shakespeare wrote and the life we have is what we have made it, to a large extent, because of the actions or inactions of ourselves or people like ourselves. As we recently saw the annual celebration of America’s Declaration of Independence, it may be worthwhile or at least entertaining to consider what might have happened if such a declaration had never been made. Likewise, if it had, what might have happened if Britain had won the war and the American colonies remained in the British Empire?

First of all, despite the way most people make it sound, America would not be some sort of oppressed, downtrodden land of miserable tyranny. Under the British Crown the American colonies already had a higher standard of living and more individual freedom than most people in the world. King George III was no tyrant, he did not get his way all the time and he never refused Royal Assent to any acts of Parliament. In many ways, life would not be all that different in America if the war had never happened or if the British had won. After all, standards of living are not terribly different in the modern United States compared to Australia or Canada. Given that calls for greater unity in the colonies already had a history by the time of independence, it seems likely that they would have come together under one government. The United States would also probably look much the same as it does today. It could be argued that the French Revolution might never have happened if the American Revolution had not been successful but that seems doubtful. If it did not happen, America would probably be smaller but the safer bet would be that it would have happened anyway. The “Enlightenment” mentality that helped inspire the American Revolution had been spreading in France far longer and there were major problems in France that were exacerbated by intervention in America but which were not caused by it or restricted to it. So, let us assume the French Revolution broke out as it occurred in history.

America would have then expanded just as it did, with Anglo-American forces seizing the Louisiana Territory during the war with France. During the time when Spain and France were allied it is also likely that Anglo-American forces would have seized Florida and possibly even more but that becomes increasingly less likely. With North America supporting the British war effort rather than hindering it, the allied victory over France might have been easier or come a bit sooner and the British Empire might have expanded even more but perhaps in different areas. Would India have been such a priority for Britain, for example, if all of North America was part of the empire, including the cotton states of the deep south, the coal fields of Pennsylvania and West Virginia? Suppose that British North America expanded southward in a way similar to the United States and, just like the United States, was drawn into a war with Mexico over border disputes. In actual history, Britain tried to prevent the war because it would disrupt their lucrative trade with Mexico, however, events on the ground could have provoked such a conflict in any event and there probably would have been less trade with Mexico if what became the United States had remained in the British Empire with the increased inter-imperial commerce that would provide.

The events after the conflict might have been different though. In reality, the USA annexed the northernmost reaches of Mexico but paid compensation for it and resisted the urge to take over the whole country -which would have been too blatantly imperialist for the United States even though there were a few in Mexico at the time who thought that would have been best. Over time, a number of Britons expressed amazement that the US did not just annex Mexico and be done with it, rather than having to return to intervene periodically. As Britain certainly had no problem with imperial expansion, perhaps British North America would have grown to include Mexico. From there, it would only be a short step to expand into Central America. Britain had interest in the region (British Honduras, the Mosquito Coast) and might have been compelled to go further once France started looking into the idea of building a canal across Panama. From Gibraltar to Singapore, control of strategic maritime “choke points” has long been a priority for Britain. Given that, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the British Empire would have expanded into Central America and, with all of this going on, Britain might have been too busy to have intervened and expanded into other areas or perhaps not to the same extent as happened in history.

In Africa, for example, the foothold in South Africa would have happened in any event as it was a result of the Napoleonic Wars. However, it might have stopped there with Britain content to let the Boers move into Botswana and perhaps the Portuguese might have been able to realize their dream of linking their east and west coast possessions, an aspiration thwarted by Britain in actual history which put some strain on the oldest alliance in Europe. The American Civil War would, of course, have been averted both because energy would be expended toward grander schemes and because the slave areas would have had much more opposition as well as a government that was not averse to giving compensation for slave owners. The war with Spain would likely have been avoided. A young Winston Churchill observed the rebellion in Cuba and came away convinced that the island would be much the worse off under their rule than that of Spain and hoped that the United States would not compel Spain to give up the “Pearl of the Antilles”. Many did not share his view and he later approved of the U.S. conquest of the island (being a lifelong admirer of America) but in the event, it is possible Britain would have stayed out of the conflict so long as Germany or some other colonial rival did not intervene.

King George V & General John J. Pershing

As it concerns Germany, the First World War might not have happened at all if America had remained in the British Empire or, at least, it might have been a much smaller conflict. Britain, like many countries, had no real reason to get involved but anti-German hysteria had been growing in Britain for some time due to the perception of Germany being a rival in the colonial, naval and economic spheres. More or less since the time of the industrial revolution, combined with the extensive trade routes controlled by the Royal Navy, Britain had been the largest economy in the world. However, in 1870 it was surpassed by the United States and has never regained the top spot ever since. If, however, America had remained in the British Empire, the economic powerhouse of America would have been a boost to Britain and might have allowed Britons to view the German economic rise more dispassionately. Even at its height, it would never have been a challenge to the economic supremacy of a British Empire that included North America. If, however, Great Britain still became embroiled in World War I, with the manpower, money and industry of America within the British Empire, it would likely have been a much shorter conflict, ending in a swift Allied victory.

Had such a thing occurred, the Russian Empire might not have collapsed, if the war had ended before the situation in Russia became too severe and thus the subsequent Cold War and all the proxy conflicts that entailed would never have happened. Similarly, a swift end to the war might have meant that the German and Austrian empires would have come to terms before being overthrown and so there might have been no World War II at all and we would all be living in a world with a balance of powers rather than one or two superpowers in constant standoff. And yet, if the Social Democrats in Germany managed to use the defeat to their advantage and bring down the monarchy, giving room for the rise to power of Hitler and so on, World War II might have happened anyway. In that event, it would have certainly been a much shorter and more localized war. American strength would have been present at the outset rather than only from 1942 onwards and it would have been focused on Europe alone. This would mean that the war might have ended in a German defeat even before the invasion of the Soviet Union and thus there would have been no Eastern Bloc and Soviet domination of half of Europe. It would also mean a completely different picture of Asia.

King George VI & General Mark Clark

The British Empire and the Empire of Japan had been close allies after all and it was only when the United States demanded that Britain choose between friendship with America or friendship with Japan that Great Britain repudiated the Japanese alliance in favor of pleasing the United States. If there was no United States but a British North America, that would never have happened, the alliance would likely have been maintained and while Britain was focused on defeating Germany in Europe, few would have likely cared if China was being defeated by the Japanese. Japan would also have had no reason to go to war in 1941 as the primary source of vital resources, North America, would have been an ally. So, even if World War II had happened, it would have likely ended with Poland and Czechoslovakia independent, the Kingdoms of Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Albania intact (though possibly under the Italian Crown, depending on how things might have changed for Italy). With monarchy being so dominant, and the war ending without massive Soviet involvement, perhaps it would even have been that the Hapsburgs would have been restored to at least some portion of their former territories. In Asia there would still be an Empire of Japan, an Empire of Manchuria and a Kingdom of Tibet with a less expansive China. It would likely also mean that it would be the Republic of China rather than the communist state that exists today. With monarchy such a strong force in the world, and trends and fashions do matter immensely, whether they should or not, the Chinese might not have embraced republicanism at all.

Similarly, without the influence of the American Freemasons, Mexico might have remained a monarchy under the Iturbide family though the rest of Latin America (outside Brazil) is more doubtful given that Spain was reluctant to recognize the independence of rebel colonies whereas Britain supported this. Much of Africa would also be a very different picture. Without the United States and Soviet Union competing during the race for de-colonization, the African colonies might have gained independence at a more moderate pace and in cooperation with native elites as Britain tended to favor doing or more newly independent countries might have chosen to maintain ties with the Crown as Commonwealth Realms. And, even in the event that this did not happen, the British Empire such as it was would have remained a dominant force considering that the primary source of strength would be North America and Australia where the people had greater bonds of history, culture and nationality with Britain as opposed to India which did not. In actual history, the loss of India was a blow from which the British Empire never recovered as India was, as one German observer put it, “the strength and greatness of England”. If, however, North America had remained and grown up united with the British Crown, the strength and greatness of the empire would have been in a land more loyal and less likely to cut ties but remain in union with the Crown as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have done.

Of course, this is all inherently speculative. The point is to simply provide some ‘food for thought’ for those who tend toward the Wilsonian view of the United States as the “savior of the world” and who tremble at the thought of America losing her War for Independence. That is quite a negative view, but it might have been more positive such as in the scenarios laid out here. Rather than suffering under British rule (which had never happened in the first place), things might have worked out quite well if the American colonies had remained under the British Crown. With all of the strengths, resources and admirable qualities of both, I tend to take a more positive view that if America and Britain had remained together, it would have been beneficial for both. I have long thought and often said that the Americans suffered, consciously or not, from being cut off from the rest of the English-speaking world and from the lack of the shared loyalty to the monarchy and that, likewise, the British Empire suffered from its lack of Americans, American resources, energy and vitality. They would, I think, have been stronger together and a great many others may well have benefited as a side-effect as well.

Royal News Roundup

In northern royal news last week, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge returned to Wimbledon to take in the final match, the Duchess revealing that her own game is not what it used to be since motherhood allows for little spare time and the Prince of Wales returned to Somerset Levels to see how the flood relief has gone. He also called for more investment in fisheries and Princes William and Harry had a chat on Google+. Also reflecting on family life, Prince William revealed that bath time for little Prince George is a “painful” experience and in more somber news, Admiral Arthur Phillip, first Governor of New South Wales, Australia and the founder of what is now the city of Sidney was given a memorial in Westminster Abbey attended by HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke also joined the Queen in visiting Derbyshire Dales. And, in other northern news, three generations of Swedish royals posed for the camera at Skansen, an open-air museum founded in 1891. Prince Carl Philip also talked about his proposal to fiancé Sofia Hellqvist being a surprise. Call me old fashioned but when you’re living together it hardly seems like much of a surprise to me would be possible.

In the Low Countries, King Philip and Queen Mathilde held a special reception for the Belgian soccer team, the “red devils” and in France, on Saturday, Prince Felix and Princess Claire of Luxembourg held the christening of their new addition, Princess Amalia of Luxembourg, with aunt Princess Alexandra as godmother and Claire’s older brother Felix as godfather. In Spain, King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia visited their neighbor Portugal, meeting with the President and First Lady. After returning home, the King paid tribute to the Spanish soccer star Alfredo Di Stefano who passed away recently, the King saying that he “admired” the former player and coach.

The little Principality of Monaco made a number of headlines last week when New York businessman Adam Hock sailed into the Port of Hercules on the yacht of a billionaire Canadian friend of his, all set to attend the Monaco Formula 1 Grand Prix in late May as well as the celebrity birthday bash of Naomi Campbell at the Billionaire Club in Monte Carlo. However, the night after his arrival, the captain of the yacht informed him that he was ordered out of the country by Prince Albert II himself. Why? It probably has something to do with the fact that Hock assaulted princely nephew Pierre Casiraghi in New York in 2012, sending him to the hospital. Hock’s friends tried to intercede for him but the Sovereign Prince would have none of it, Hock had to go and was threatened with immediate arrest if he set foot in Monaco again. His lawyer complained of course but, thankfully, it did the sucker-punching rat no good as the Prince still has final say on what goes on in Monaco and he can expel anyone from the country as he pleases. In this case, well deserved I would say. In Paris last week, niece and new mom Charlotte Casiraghi fell from her horse in a jumping competition, still managing to look glamorous doing it (not many can pull that off). Save perhaps for a bruised bottom, no harm was done and Charlotte later appeared at Paris Fashion Week on Wednesday.

Outside Europe, the Emir of Qatar held talks with the Kuwaitis as part of the on-going efforts to decrease tensions between the two gulf states. Qatar has been on the ‘naughty list’ with many of the Arab monarchies for using their powerful news network, Al Jazeera, to generate sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood and rebel forces in the region. In the UAE, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi spoke out that the President of the country, his brother Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, is in good health despite rumors to the contrary. He also gently chastised social media for spreading such rumors. In related news, the Sultan of Oman announced plans to travel to Germany both for a vacation and for medical examinations. Princess Haya Bint Al Hussein, secondary wife of the Prime Minister of the UAE and daughter of the late King Hussein of Jordan, donated $500,000 to aid the South Sudanese refugees flooding the Gambella region of Ethiopia while in Jordan, Queen Rania and daughter Princess Iman held a feast for orphans at the Royal Palace, a special evening meal during Ramadan. Earlier in the week, the Princess also joined her mother in visiting a care center for the elderly.

Consort Profile: Empress Kojun of Japan

There are certain monarchs that have always impressed me as being ‘a monarchists’ monarch’. Putting aside their positive or negative abilities as national leaders, these were monarchs who really believed in monarchy, in traditional authority and who had a monarchist sort of mindset that guided them in their lives. One does not always think of ‘a monarchists’ consort’ but Her Majesty Empress Kojun of Japan was certainly such a consort. She was the longest-living Empress consort in Japanese history and she was the last living link with the old Japan that existed at the turn of the last century. She lived through both world wars, saw the Empire of Japan reached its zenith of power and prestige as well as seeing it utterly destroyed. Happily, she also lived to see the new State of Japan come roaring back as a successful and industrious country, the second biggest economic power house in the world. Yet, through it all, she was known as the most attached to traditional ways and customs even when almost everyone else had seemed to abandon them. This has caused some historians and commentators to view her negatively but only because they focus on one narrow aspect rather than taking into context the whole portrait of this grand and remarkable lady who lived a life of service and duty.

She was born Princess Nagako on March 6, 1903 in Tokyo, Azabu district, the daughter of Prince Kuniyoshi Kuni and Chikako Shimazu. Prince Kuni was the head of one of the cadet branches of the Imperial Family, being descended from a past emperor from the thirteenth century. Her mother was of aristocratic background, coming from the family of a prominent daimyo. For little Princess Nagako, her upbringing was typical of the old aristocracy of the time but her destiny was revealed to her earlier than most and so most of her childhood was quite unlike those of other girls. She attended Gakushuin, at that time the Peers’ School, Girls’ Department in Tokyo alongside Princess Masako Nashimoto who would go on to marry the Crown Prince of Korea. She was only eleven years old when the path for her life was chosen for her. On January 14, 1914 HM Empress Sadako invited a number of girls of suitable rank to tea at the Concubines’ Pavilion in the Imperial Palace. Watching through a hole in a screen was Crown Prince Hirohito, who was told to pick one to be his future bride. He chose Princess Nagako and the arrangements were all made that one day they would be married. Although she was his preference, it was certainly not a “love match” as the two were very young, had never met and knew nothing about each other at all. It was all a matter of duty. Happily, it would not remain so.

Even then, there were some grumblings about the Crown Prince making a troublesome choice. Princess Nagako had imperial and noble ancestry but it was not of the highest order most expected and she was not from the Fujiwara clan that most imperial consorts had been from. Several prominent and very powerful people objected to the match and demanded that the Imperial Household Agency call it off but Prince Kuni was just as adamant that no such thing happen, threatening to kill his daughter and then himself if this was done. Thankfully, no such drastic measures were necessary as when things became really heated HM the Taisho Emperor stepped in and endorsed Princess Nagako as his future daughter-in-law and that settled it. After that, to have questioned the match would be to question the divine will of the Emperor, which did not happen. Preparations then went ahead with the Princess spending her time until she was of a proper age to marry being given an intensive training course on how to be a Crown Princess and future Empress. The formal engagement was announced in 1921 and the wedding set for 1923. Everything was done to familiarize the princess with her duties, obligations and the ceremony and protocol of the imperial court. She was, for example, one of the last people alive in Japan who could understand the unique style of language used by the Emperor and inner court in the old days which disappeared after World War II.

However, there was to be no imperial wedding in 1923 as it was in that year that a horrific earthquake struck Tokyo that devastated the city and killed around 10,000 people. The marriage was postponed for a year while all the strength and energy of the nation was funneled into dealing with the natural disaster. For the Princess, her education continued and many forget what an intelligent, cultured and well-rounded lady she was, learning French, studying Chinese and Japanese literature and numerous other diverse subjects, being a talented artist and singer as well as adept at the piano, Japanese harp and violin. During all that time she only met her future husband nine times and the two were never alone but finally the grand occasion came on January 26, 1924 when the two were married. Before the end of the next year, the Crown Princess became Empress consort with the passing of HM Emperor Taisho and the elevation of Crown Prince Hirohito to the Chrysanthemum Throne. This was only shortly after the birth of their first child, HIH Shigeko, Princess Teru earlier in the month. Of course, there were rules to be followed for such an occasion but the Empress was still a more involved mother than most of her predecessors had been and she took the job of motherhood very seriously.

As the Emperor and Empress had been brought together almost as strangers, it was to be expected that, early on, their relationship seemed rather formal and distant. However, it was all a matter of getting to know each other and as they did, they became a very loving couple, greatly attached to each other. The Empress seemed to view her primary occupation as being to shelter and support her husband, to care for him and ensure that he was able to give his best in his own duties and obligations. This, she did very well and the Emperor had no more attentive guardian and caretaker than his Empress for as long as he lived. The devotion the Emperor had for her was displayed only a few years after the marriage. In 1927, 1929 and 1931 the Empress gave birth to three girls in succession and many began to worry if a son and heir would be forthcoming. In 1932 such talk only increased as the Empress suffered a miscarriage and many began to urge the Emperor to take a concubine to ensure the survival of the dynasty. The Meiji Emperor had had several concubines and it was quite common but the Emperor would not hear of it. He was a ’one woman man’ and the Empress was the only one for him and he would have no other. As if to prove the imperial decision correct, in 1933 the Empress gave birth to HIH Crown Prince Akihito, followed by another prince in 1935. In all, they would have seven children, five girls and two boys.

One can only imagine the strain this was on the Imperial Family, having to deal with such issues during such critical years as the early 1930’s which saw the occupation of Manchuria, the restoration of the Empire of Manchukuo and the outbreak of hostilities with China following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Through it all, the Empress was a strong source of comfort and support for her husband and did her part whenever she could, even after the outbreak of the wider war in 1941. She took part in the ceremonies celebrating the surrender of Singapore, the largest British bastion in the Far East and when the war came to Japan the Empress had the children sent to safety but remained by the Emperor’s side in Tokyo, enduring the intense bombing in solidarity with the people. The Empress would later describe this as the worst period of her life, not only because of the bombing and immense human suffering but also because of the pressures, weighing down from all sides on the Emperor and the real worry when the war finally came to an end that he might be taken away and executed. The immense, frenzied changes that took place after the war were also difficult for her to deal with but she never complained. As the monarchy was being re-invented for the new State of Japan, the Empress considered it her duty to support her husband in everything he did and every decision he made.

What finally seems to have been too much was when HIH Crown Prince Akihito decided to get married. The two older daughters had already married and lost their status because of the new post-war laws that downsized the Imperial Family but the Empress seems to have thought that, for the heir to the throne, the traditional way would still be followed. Many of the old aristocracy were upset when the choice of the Crown Prince fell on Michiko Shoda, a commoner with a Catholic education. No one knows what was said behind closed doors but the prevailing sentiment is that the Empress was against such a choice. When it went ahead anyway, all sorts of rumors were spread around of the Empress being cold, distrustful and even spiteful toward Crown Princess Michiko, much of that probably being exaggerated. What is true is that the Crown Princess had one or two nervous breakdowns in the years after her marriage and perhaps the Empress was showing more concern than most people think. Her motives should not be questioned and one could speculate more positively that she had the best of intentions in being reluctant about the Crown Prince marrying a commoner.

After all, consider her own life; she had come from the Imperial Family and aristocracy and yet there were still strenuous objections to her own marriage. She was given years of training for the high honor and privilege of being Empress consort and even then, she knew how difficult the adjustment was for her. Perhaps she had not realized how much attitudes had changed since the time of her marriage, perhaps she wanted to spare the young girl from a life she felt she was not suited for. Finally, there is also the simple fact that the Empress was someone who took tradition and history and the sacred nature of the Imperial Family very, very seriously. When that is the case, as we are seeing with a number of issues today, one can easily and often be accused of being unkind or even hateful simply for holding firm to the traditions and values that were once taken for granted by all. In any event, that was certainly the most controversial period of her life, for most people today anyway, but much of it has probably been over-blown. It is not as though daughters and mothers-in-law have always gotten along famously no matter how high or low born they might be. It is a common story all over the world. On the whole, the family remained happy and the Empress had the joy of becoming a grandmother. She visited Europe and the United States with HM the Emperor and became known as the “Smiling Empress” because of her friendly disposition, but while perfectly genuine, few foreigners knew that it was the sort of positive countenance and pleasant demeanor that was instilled by years of preparation.

To the very end, she was a dutiful and attentive wife and was heartbroken when, on January 7, 1989, His Majesty the Showa Emperor departed this life. Her Majesty was re-titled as Empress-Dowager but her own health had deteriorated so much while she focused all of herself on the Emperor that she was too frail even to attend his funeral and after his death she went into seclusion for the rest of her life. Her Majesty, Empress Dowager Kojun died on June 16, 2000 surrounded by her immediate family, at the age of 97 in the Fukiage Omiya Palace in Tokyo. She was buried near her husband at the Imperial Cemetery on July 25, 2000. Her passing marked the end of an era and a last, living, connection with the old Empire of Japan that had existed since the Meiji Era was lost with her. It was a great sadness but Japan was also fortunate to have had such a remarkable lady for so long. She was a shining example of the best virtues of old Japan and the traditional elite. She lived by an ancient code, was firm and unyielding in her principles and showing no favoritism, was devoted to maintaining what had been handed down. She was a devoted wife and mother, a supportive and dutiful Empress consort, a faithful, strong and tireless daughter of Great Japan.

Impact of the Great War & Loss of Monarchy

Many people know, at least vaguely, how pivotal the Great War was in world history. It is something that has been mentioned here often enough and monarchists are  probably more aware of it than most. In a sense we are one step removed from it but it is only one step and not a large one in that, we live in a world order created by the Allied victory in World War II and opinion is pretty much unanimous that there would have been no World War II if there had not been a World War I. However, it was not just the political changes and the shifts in world power that brought this about but also a reaction against the values, social norms and a myriad other things that existed before the First World War that has shaped our life as it is today. One of those things was the turn away from traditional monarchy toward various democratic and republican ideologies. There were also some things that existed before but became much more dominant in the aftermath.

For instance, nationalism certainly existed before World War I, indeed it was one of a number of subsidiary causes of the conflict. However, in many places nationalism was ratcheted up considerably afterwards, particularly in Central Europe. Socialism, similarly, certainly existed before World War I and the world prior to 1914 was certainly not one of pure, unadulterated capitalism, but after World War I there was a much more widespread rejection of capitalism in favor of socialism. It had existed previously but never before were entire regimes based on socialism and expanding socialism in various forms from the National Socialism of Germany to the international socialism of the Soviet Union. The United States was not untouched by this, going in a much more socialist direction under the FDR administration. Even in the regimes that denounced socialism, there was still an effort to create and advance some new sort of mixed economy that rejected capitalism as well. There was a backlash against both the aristocracy and the middle class as well as what was derisively called “middle class morality”. Traditional religious institutions were increasingly disregarded in favor of more “New Age” type spiritualism or neo-paganism.

As it concerns monarchy, those on the Allied side had survived but none were as secure as they were before World War I. In Britain, socialist agitation grew rapidly, particular in the trade unions and was one of the reasons, even before the war ended, of Britain refusing asylum to the Russian Imperial Family. The British Empire had expanded but it was far from secure economically. America had surpassed Britain as the largest economy around 1870 and Britain had gone heavily into debt to the United States in the Great War and would do so even further in World War II. The Kingdom of Belgium came out of the conflict in better shape than most but even there radical parties rose up that threatened national unity. In the Kingdom of Italy, communist subversion was rampant with strikes and riots breaking out at such regularity that the country seemed on the verge of revolution before Mussolini and his blackshirts suppressed them, taking power in the process. This, combined with the failure of the other Allies to make good on the extensive promises they had made to induce Italy to join the war all helped bring the Fascists to power. If that had not happened, that might have been enough to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany alone since Adolf Hitler made no secret of the fact that Mussolini has been his inspiration and the Fascist March on Rome convinced him that he could do the same in Germany.

That World War II, in Europe at least, was a direct result of World War I no one can deny. And it was specifically the loss of the monarchies of Germany and Austria-Hungary that was responsible. With the economic tumult that Germany went through, it is possible that Hitler could have still managed to have become a significant political figure (not as likely, but possible). However, there is simply no way that someone like him could have come to power and maintained himself in power if Kaiser Wilhelm II had still been on the German and Prussian thrones. Under the constitution of the German Empire, the Chancellor was not elected by anyone but appointed by the Kaiser. Before the First World War, only one chancellor was appointed who was not a prince or aristocrat and the idea that an Austrian commoner with no higher education and no record of any sort of success behind him at all could have been appointed by the Kaiser is simply beyond belief. And, of course, even if he had been, he could have been dismissed at any time. There is simply no way Hitler could have become dictator of Germany if the monarchy had been retained after the First World War.

World War II in Europe would have easily been averted had the German Kaiser retained his throne. Less clear cut is World War II in Asia but evidence points to the answer being the same. Much of the motivation for Japanese involvement on the Asian mainland was, after all, the result of the expansion of the Soviet Union with Soviet-backed communists taking control of Mongolia and supporting a growing subversive element in the Republic of China. Were it not for these communist threats, all of which came about as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, there may have been no need for Japanese intervention in China. Similarly, for the wider war, it all started because of the provocations of the Roosevelt administration aimed at forcing Japan to take aggressive action which would turn public opinion in favor of American intervention in World War II, specifically in Europe. If there had been no war in Europe, there likely would have been no application of American pressure against Japan leading to war. There would also have not been the antagonism between Japan and the Western Allies that grew as a result of the Japanese delegates to Versailles being ignored and the later naval arms reductions agreements which treated Japan as a second-class power to Britain and America. But, to stay on course, this about the results of monarchies falling, not the war itself.

One major but often overlooked example is the Indian subcontinent. There the world has seen horrific violence brought about by the partition of the Empire of India into the republics of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (originally East Pakistan) but also a continuous stand-off, with both sides now possessing nuclear weapons. There would have been a move for independence in any event and it would have been achieved in any event, both because it is only natural for people to resent being ruled by others and also because the British could have never maintained their rule by force. From the very beginning, British rule in India was based on voluntary cooperation; it is not as though British forces actually conquered the whole subcontinent and subdued an empire of 500 million against their will. However, the end of the monarchy when it happened and as it happened proved disastrous. In the best of times, the British monarch as Emperor of India had united people, inspiring them to work together and take pride in being part of something that was far greater than they could ever be on their own. India was not independent, but it was not as though it was thought of with contempt, rather, it was the crown jewel of the British Empire. If one is to be a possession, one would certainly prefer to be the greatest and most prized possession. In the worst of times, the imperial monarchy had provided a common enemy to unite Hindu and Muslim nationalists. Once it was gone, all they had was their own animosity.

Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, tried to bring both sides together but it was to no avail and one by one the parts of the former Empire of India abandoned the status of Commonwealth Realms to become republics. Independence was to be welcomed as it would benefit both sides but if the Empire of India could have been maintained, whether with a Viceroy in personal union with the British Crown or under a restored Indian monarch, so much terror and bloodshed might have been avoided, not only in the conflicts between India and Pakistan but as a result of the support from radical elements inside Pakistan to terrorist forces and rogue regimes around the world. If there had been no World War I and thus no World War II, this might have been possible.

For the United Nations, the first great test was the Korean War, something which came about only because of the blindness of the Allied leaders in World War II. Former Japanese prime minister, prior to his execution by the Allies, General Hideki Tojo correctly predicted that Korea would be the battleground between the communist and anti-communist forces of the world. Without the Great War there would have been no conflict in Korea as there would have been no Soviet Union to occupy the north after partition and no Communist China to save North Korea from total defeat. If there had been no World War II there would have been no partition of Korea at all as it would have remained a constituent kingdom within the Empire of Japan. Even if events would have transpired to make independence happen, it still might have made a difference to preventing the Korean War if there had not been such a rejection of monarchy. It could have been perfectly simple; restore the Kingdom of Korea (or Han Empire as you please) as it existed prior to 1910 with no other powers gaining a foothold. That would have prevented a war in Korea, certainly on the scale that it happened, but this was not done because of a prejudice against monarchy, the Soviet desire to grab territory at the end of World War II and because of bigotry against the last King/Imperial Crown Prince of Korea who had served as a very high ranking and respected officer in the Imperial Japanese Army. Still, at minimum, the basic fact remains that without the communist influences of the Soviets, whose state was a direct result of the Great War, there would have been no Korean War and no tense standoff on the Korean peninsula which continues today.

In similar vein, one can look at all the small anti-colonial wars that swept across Africa in the wake of World War II. All of these were the result of communist subversion supported by the Soviet Union which send in political officers, weapons and lots of propaganda. Again, it is hard to imagine European rule continuing but the process of independence would have been much more peaceful and less traumatic. There might also still be an Emperor in Ethiopia had it not been for Soviet-backed subversion on the African continent. Likewise, often overlooked (probably because it was so successful) was the British anti-communist campaign in Malaysia. This was farther removed from the Great War but were it not for the Soviet support for the communists in China there might have been no communist uprising in Malaysia. This started out as an almost purely Chinese communist movement and during World War II it was even supported by the British because the Chinese communists were so anti-Japanese (not too different from American support going to Vietnamese communists because they were anti-Japanese). For that matter, would there have been a war in Vietnam? It seems not or at least not nearly so disastrous a war (or series of wars as it was). Again, without the Great War there would have been no Soviet Union and the Soviets became the primary backers of North Vietnam, there would likely have been no communist China and possibly no World War II which was when Vietnam was first partitioned. Without World War I there also would have been no promises from the Allies which encouraged subject peoples in colonies around the world to think that independence was right around the corner only to then be all the more disappointed when this proved not to be the case.

Looking across a wider area, if there had been no Great War, there would have been no Soviet Union, thus no Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus no Taliban militia and possibly no 9-11 and “War on Terror”. If there had been no Great War there would have been no Soviet Union to bring down the monarchies of Romania, Bulgaria and Serbia (without the Great War there would have been no Yugoslavia as there would have still been an Austria-Hungary or perhaps the “United States of Greater Austria” as some federalists envisioned). There would have then been no crackdowns and massacres such as were seen in every country of the Eastern Bloc. There would have been no division of Germany and just imagine how much more prosperous Eastern Europe, including Russia, might be today if they had not spent so many decades in the shackles of Soviet communism. The possibilities are almost endless.

Looking at the Middle East, there is no case more simple to illustrate the effects of World War I since so little has changed since then, World War II not touching too much on the region. Prior to the Great War there was not so much a “middle east” at all as it was almost entirely the Ottoman Empire. If there had been no Great War, if the Ottoman Empire had not collapsed, there would have been no Six Day War, no Yom Kippur War, no Intafadas, no Iran-Iraq War (possibly no Iranian Revolution either) and with no Saddam Hussein there is no Gulf War, no Second Gulf War, no Baathist dictatorship in Syria, no Syrian civil war, no Lebanese Civil War and perhaps no rise of radical Islam. The ISIS terrorists causing so much trouble today would have no reason to exist as their caliphate would still be standing in the form of the Ottoman Empire. Of course, saying that, it must also be pointed out that, at the time of the Great War, the caliphate was not foremost on the minds of the Arab Muslims at that time. It is rather ironic to see these gangs and armies of Arab Muslims today fighting for an Islamic caliphate when, during the First World War, it was the Arab Muslims who fought alongside Christian powers like Britain and France to bring down the Ottoman Empire and thus, ultimately, the last Caliph of Islam who was the Ottoman Sultan.

For Europe, setting aside World War II, there is no doubt that the most ugly and horrific tragedies to befall the continent have been a direct result of World War I and in many cases the dissolution of the “Dual-Empire” of Austria-Hungary. There were tensions, of course, that would have existed in any case but changes were coming, whether when Archduke Franz Ferdinand came to the throne or when Charles I received the crown. Both favored some changes, whether to unite the Slavic peoples into a third constituent kingdom or to federalize the whole empire. In any event, much of the anger would have been dissipated and for what remained there was the combined strength of the others under the Imperial Crown to prevent it from becoming problematic. There may still have been some conflict between the Hapsburg Empire and Serbia but, perhaps, after shedding some other smaller minorities and their territory to win wider support, the Slavs would have become united as part of the Hapsburg empire. Who is to say? In any event, had Austria-Hungary not been dissolved there would have been no Croatian and Slovenian Wars, no Bosnian War and no ethnic cleansing such as was seen in the traumatic break-up of Yugoslavia.

Whether Europe, Asia or Africa there are few major, modern conflicts that have not been a direct or at least indirect result of the First World War. Australia was affected as was North America with South America probably having been the least impacted, though even there the case can be made that the economic consequences played a part in the revolutions that caused so much warfare and turmoil. If World War I had never happened the world would be a much better place and even if it had happened, at least to some extent, people all across the globe would have been spared considerable suffering if the monarchs of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Russia had not lost their thrones in the process.

Happy Birthday Australia!

It was on this day in 1900 that Her Majesty the Queen-Empress Victoria signed into law the act uniting all the former British colonies of Australia into one federal government, creating the Commonwealth of Australia as we know it today. Like all countries, Australia has its stereotypes but they have been ones that most in the 'Land Down Under' would probably take pride in rather than be offended by. In many ways, Australia has been invaluable to the cause of monarchy, particularly in the English-speaking world but also beyond. Traditionally known as a land with a frontier spirit, of rugged individualists, very independent, rough, tough as well as relaxed and fun-loving, Australia was living proof that a less flattering stereotype, of monarchists being a bunch of stern, dour, snobs was certainly not true. Of course, the cultural problems that have affected most of the rest of the world did not stop at Australia's shores and in recent years the country has been having something of an identity crisis with arguments over how or even whether to recognize and take pride in Australia's history within the British Empire, changes that took Australia dramatically away from the former "frontier" spirit that prevailed and even arguments over whether or not to scrap the Australian flag. As with most places, things are not much like they used to be.

However, that being said, the loyal people of Australia have so far managed to hold on to the fundamentals. The flag has not been changed, Australia Day has not been moved to another date, "God Save the Queen" is still the royal anthem and a referendum calling for a republic was soundly defeated in favor of the current constitutional monarchy. The monarchists in Australia have been tireless in their defense of the Australian constitution, flag and monarchy and deserve the respect and admiration of monarchists around the world for the fight they have carried on for many years now against a republican element that refuses to go away, no matter how many times the Australian public tells them, "no thanks mate". So, a happy birthday to the Commonwealth of Australia and a special Mad Monarchist salute to all the loyal sons and daughters of Australia who have held fast in their defense of their Queen and Country. God bless you, God bless Australia and God Save the Queen!

Queen-Empress Victoria

Queen Elizabeth II of Australia

The Little Things

In these days when limited, constitutional monarchies are the rule (outside of Swaziland and the Islamic world) some ardent monarchists are often frustrated by monarchs going along with social trends most of the traditional mindset view negatively. However, this is often due to wildly unrealistic expectations and a disconnect from the reality of how fragile the position of most constitutional monarchs is (outside of Monaco and Liechtenstein perhaps). Take, for example, the recent legalization of “gay marriage” in the United Kingdom. Many defenders of traditional marriage were extremely upset by this and some expressed anger that Queen Elizabeth II would sign it into law (though she doesn’t actually sign such things anymore, it being considered more of a formality that is taken for granted). However, this is to ignore the opinion of the vast majority of the British public and not just on the subject of the bill in question but on the position of the monarchy in general. If, hypothetically, the Queen had refused Royal Assent to the bill, there would have been an immediate backlash and no doubt calls in the House of Commons for the abolition of the monarchy and cries of “tyranny” from many quarters. The most likely outcome of this would be the total removal of the Crown from any part in government at all or the abolition of the monarchy immediately or almost certainly upon the death of the Queen. So, the end result would be that the bill becomes law anyway and the monarchy is lost as well all for a futile gesture.

Expecting such a thing to happen is simply unrealistic and not at all desirable if one cherishes tradition as the end result is the loss of a traditional institution (the monarchy) as well as the erosion of another (marriage). Even under the best of circumstances it would likely turn every homosexual in Britain and the Commonwealth Realms into an instant republican along with all those who sympathize with their agenda. When one is monarch over such an array of countries and peoples of vastly different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions, such dramatic gestures are simply not possible anymore. However, what many fail to notice is the little things. The life of a constitutional monarch is a highly regulated and constrained thing. Every action, every word is scrutinized, every speech written out by the government ahead of time and every day meticulously planned in advance down to the last minute. Modern constitutional monarchs have about as little personal freedom as the least free people in the world these days. This, again, is why we must look to the little things, the small gestures, for a glimpse of what is really going on in the exclusive world of reigning royalty. We should also take notice of the fact that when a monarch does step out on their own, one small phrase can mean much more than most realize.

A modern, constitutional monarch is not going to make any grand gestures or remarks that go contrary to public opinion when their very existence as royals depends on public support preventing the politicians from legislating them out of official existence; because there is not a politician in this world, be he a senator or a local town council member who does not see a president when they look in the mirror each morning. Instead of expecting them to do things they cannot do, it is important to look at what they can do. So, this makes the little things stand out all the more if we care to notice them. For example, although there were still plenty of cheering crowds when he was alive, after Spanish dictator Francisco Franco was safely in the ground, it became clear just how much the public had turned against him. In the first post-Franco elections, his supporters received just 9% of the vote with even the formerly banned communists gaining more public support. Streets and buildings named in his honor were re-named to what they had been called before, his statues have come down and legislation was even passed banning any public official from speaking about the Generalissimo or his regime. Yet, in spite of all that, in spite of how widely unpopular the memory of Franco is in today’s Spain and how being anti-Franco is all the rage and bashing him is a quick and easy way to gain popularity, it is widely known that HM King Juan Carlos I would never permit anyone to speak ill of the late Caudillo in his presence.

King Juan Carlos I & Generalissimo Franco

Certainly, this seems like a little thing but few consider the implications of it. The King could not get involved in public debates and certainly doing so would have meant the early death of the restored Spanish monarchy. However, certainly no one would have stopped the King from joining in with the Franco-bashing chorus which undoubtedly would have boosted his popularity in many quarters and which would have been helpful to him since so many held it against the monarch that he came to the throne in the first place because the dictator designated him as his heir. Yet, not only did King Juan Carlos refuse to do this, he would not tolerate anyone slandering or disrespecting Franco when he was present. It may not seem like much, but it was all he could do and for those who care to notice, gives an indication that the King did not see the Generalissimo as the horror so many do in Spain today. Another subtle hint at the sentiments of the former King of Spain was his recurring presence at the bullring. This was something encouraged during the Franco years as a national pastime and of Spanish tradition. Many separatists seized on it for that reason as something to detest and they had plenty of support from animal rights activists and those people who for some reason (God knows how) consider football more exciting than a fight to the death between man and beast. It would have gained the King a great deal of popularity to jump on the anti-bullfighting bandwagon but he refused (and Queen Sofia is not a fan either, though I don’t think she supports banning it). Instead, he has remained a familiar figure at the bullring and even threatened to take Spain out of the European Union if that body ever tried to ban it.

As far as remarks go, none were probably so famous as when King Juan Carlos asked Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, “Why don’t you shut up?” when he continuously interrupted the Spanish prime minister to insult his predecessor at the job. That got all the headlines but more significant was the subtle facts about where the King was. It was the Ibero-American Summit, a meeting of the heads of state and governments from basically what was once the Spanish and Portuguese empires. He also served (as does his son currently) as President of the Ibero-American States Organization and has basically done all that it is in his power to do to foster unity between the countries of the former Spanish empire, strengthen their ties with Spain and thus with their former monarchy. The OEI was founded before the Spanish monarchy was restored but the fact that the King of Spain has become hereditary president of the organization says something about what the King was able to accomplish, in small, subtle ways, in bringing the Spanish monarchy back into a position of prominence and leadership, even if only in a ceremonial way, in the Spanish-speaking world.

King Baudouin

Next, to talk about Great Britain, we must first talk about Belgium. For a man seen by so many as shy and reserved, King Baudouin of the Belgians had some moments of quite surprising public statements and dramatic gestures. Truth be told, he was not quite as he often appeared in public, as a shy, somewhat sad, quiet figure. In private he was quite firm and decisive and could even show a little temper on occasion. He did cause quite a stir, for example, when he praised his relative and predecessor King Leopold II at the ceremony granting independence to the Congo but he is most remembered for his refusal to grant Royal Assent to a bill legalizing abortion -something no Belgian monarch had ever done before. We all know what happened. There was a slight panic among the politicians, worries of a constitutional crisis and finally the King was declared unfit to rule, the bill was signed into law by the government without him and the next day he was declared fit to rule again. That was a pretty dramatic gesture to be sure, so why do I bring it up? To talk about his funeral (hang in there, I am going somewhere with this).

When King Baudouin passed away, everyone was shocked and his funeral was one of the major events in modern royal history. The crowned heads of Europe were out in full force, the head of almost every non-reigning royal house was present and even His Majesty the Emperor of Japan flew in to attend. That was rather remarkable by itself. Also remarkable was the presence of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. As anyone who knows anything about the British monarchy can tell you, the Queen (and other British monarchs before her) does not attend royal events on the continent. The Queen does not attend weddings, she does not attend funerals but sends other members of the Royal Family to represent her on these occasions. Also keep in mind that when her beloved father, the last King-Emperor George VI passed away, King Baudouin did not attend his funeral because of lingering bad feelings over how the British had treated his own father King Leopold III. Obviously, things had improved since then, but many were rather surprised that the Queen would attend a royal funeral in Europe when she never did such things and in particular for the funeral of a man who had refused to attend the funeral of her own father. Why did it happen? Who can say? This is purely my own opinion but I cannot help but think that this was all a very quiet, subtle gesture on the part of the crowned heads of Europe to show their solidarity with a fellow monarch who had defied his ministers and popular opinion. It did not really accomplish anything, but the King had done all that it was in his power to do. All he could do was to sign or not to sign and he refused to sign. I cannot help but think that the unprecedented attendance at his funeral was a way monarchs, like Queen Elizabeth II, had of showing their special support for a king who had done what many of them would like to be able to do but cannot.

Queen Elizabeth II

When it comes to Queen Elizabeth II there are many little things one could point to but my favorite was her interaction with a republican politician. There was a member of an incoming government who was an avowed republican and made it known publicly that he would not bow to the Queen. Everyone waited for the inevitable confrontation when all the new members would be introduced to the Queen. They were all gathered, the Queen entered the room and went down the line, each bowing his head as the Queen greeted him. All eyes were on the republican to see if he would make good on his promise. The Queen approached and he did not move but then Her Majesty mumbled something rather low and the man bent forward to put his ear a little closer to the royal person and said, “Pardon?” -at which point the Queen simply glided on to the next in line. Only then did the befuddled traitor realize what had just happened. His sovereign lady had just “tricked” him into bowing his head in spite of himself. How wonderfully, brilliantly devious! There have also been many subtle gestures from the Queen that, while her public acts may be dictated by the government, she has held firm to her power over her private life, whether that means refusing to wear a seatbelt, refusing to put up “No Smoking” signs in Buckingham Palace or the occasion when, in the wake of a hunting party, the Queen came across a wounded pheasant. The Queen asked for a gun and put the poor animal out of its misery which, of course, caused an uproar among the bleeding-heart types. The Queen refused to be intimidated and showed what she thought of this intrusion on her private life by showing up to church the following Sunday wearing pheasant feathers in her hat. God Save the Queen!

It could also be pointed out how, after the despicable overthrow of King Constantine II of Greece, the Queen continued to treat him with all of the privileges of rank normally accorded to a King during his exile in London. He had not abdicated, after all, and this was a subtle way for the Queen to express her own opinion without actually doing so. Similarly, one might consider the immense royal turnout for the funeral of the exiled King Umberto II of Italy. Again, this is my own interpretation and some may disagree, but I think the immense royal presence, including a great many monarchs, was a subtle, silent way of making a statement. Umberto II, after all, had been King of Italy only for a very short time and a great many of the mourners came from countries which the Kingdom of Italy had been in conflict with during World War II, all of which would make some think that the funeral of Umberto II should have been a more low-key affair. The fact that it was not and was so well-attended by the crowned heads of Europe makes me believe that they were all making a quiet, subtle gesture that King Umberto II was ‘one of the club’ who had been unjustly and illegally deprived of his throne and who, despite his long years of exile, they still viewed as the true King of Italy.

King Umberto II

On the subject of Italy, one might also mention the Roman Pontiffs. It can be very frustrating these days when Catholic bishops will speak up about foreign policy, welfare policy, immigration policy, environmental policy, healthcare policy and even agricultural policy but refrain from speaking up in favor of monarchy because that would be “political”. However, when the issue last touched Rome itself, there were a number of subtle gestures from Pope Pius XII which showed his own opinions on the subject. This is all the more significant when one considers that Pius XII was an aristocrat from the “Black Nobility” that had zealously shunned the monarchy until the Lateran Treaty was brokered between Pius XI and Mussolini. Nonetheless, the Vatican belatedly came to the view that the monarchy was an essential barricade against a communist takeover at the time of the republican referendum and King Umberto II warned (rightly as it turned out in the long-run) that an Italian republic would be anti-clerical. The Pope made no official statement on the issue but the British representative at the Vatican saw no ambiguity about the papal position favoring the monarchy saying, “all the pains of Hell are predicted for those who vote for democratic parties of the Left”. It is also telling that for the duration of his reign, after the downfall of the monarchy, he refused to receive any of the Presidents of Italy and was quite wary of Christian Democrat leader Alcide de Gasperi despite his having worked for more than a decade in the Vatican library. For those who paid attention, there was little doubt that papal sympathies were with the monarchy.

Another remark, not extreme but a simple one which raised quite a few eyebrows was spoken by Queen Margrethe II of Denmark. The Queen of Denmark is one monarch in Europe who has more freedom than most in the remarks she makes and it caused a bit of s stir when she spoke with moderate caution about the program of multiculturalism going on across Western Europe. This was in the wake of the uproar over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that sparked riots and numerous acts of violence in the Islamic world. The Queen made a simple remark about the need to stand firm and not compromise western values and not to shy away from taking appropriate measures for fear of being called racists. It was in no way an extreme thing that she said and yet it was something that, for someone in her position, took considerable courage. To understand, one need look no further than the criticism that heaped on Queen Sofia of Spain when it was reported in a book, quite unsurprisingly, that she opposed “gay marriage” and her remarks in opposition to abortion caused outrage in the usual quarters. Many, even of those in sympathy with such positions, will not be impressed by such words. For them, nothing short of unrealistic, impossible, autocratic measures will ever be enough. However, even mere remarks arouse great anger from those opposed to them and that should make it all the more remarkable when royals make them.

Prince Alois

Consider, for example, how much uproar there was across Europe when the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein announced he would use his veto if he had to in order to stop a bill legalizing abortion. For the pro-abortion crowd, what difference could this possibly make to them? Why should they care if abortion is banned in one tiny valley between Switzerland and Austria? It is not as though it has much of an impact but, nonetheless, it caused outrage across the continent because they want abortion legal in all places and in all times under any circumstances. One would think that the pro-life advocates would be just as zealous then in praising the Prince for his action. Yet, such is not often the case. Prince Rainier III of Monaco banned abortion for any reason in his tiny country, yet was never praised for it. There was, however, some criticism of his son when, under EU pressure, Monaco legalized abortion in cases of rape, severe fetal illness or when the life of the mother is imperiled. It still remains banned in most cases obviously and Prince Albert II has supported funding for adult stem-cell research that avoids the killing of human embryos yet, again, is seldom accorded any praise from the pro-life community for that. In fact, few seem to think of Monaco at all for what it is; one of the few officially Catholic monarchies remaining in the world.

The point of all these examples is that, in this day and age, when monarchs are so restricted in most of the world, one must look to the little things for hope and encouragement and to see where the true sentiments of the royals are. All too often these things go by with only minor, temporary notice or no notice at all. Especially for monarchists, it should be second-nature to give monarchs the benefit of the doubt and to be quicker to praise rather than to criticize, which so many seem to enjoy doing. In different times there would be different circumstances, but this is the world we live in and the royals, the same as the vast majority of their peoples, have grown up in an atmosphere not conducive to the types of values most traditional monarchists hold dear. No longer taught privately at home, they go to the same schools that teach the same anti-traditional drivel as everyone else. It is not surprising then that they do not hold the same opinions as their ancestors. Yet, that is all the more reason to stand firmly in support of them in such difficult times and give them all due credit when they risk the popularity their place and that of their family and all future generations depend on, to say something the public may not approve of.