Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Mad Monarchist Brain Trust
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Two Past Kings Met in Africa
A short video of King Baudouin of the Belgians and King Mutara III of Rwanda meeting in his African kingdom courtesy of blog member BelgieRoyalist.
Monarchist Profile: Bishop Jacques Bossuet
One of the most known religious defenders of monarchy, certainly in the Catholic Church, was the French bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet. Although he has to a large extent fallen out of favor today, mostly because of his staunch defense of absolute monarchy, he is still known for that which he was best known in his own time; as one of the greatest Christian orators of his era. He was born in Dijon on September 27, 1627 to a family of lawyers and judges. Given a proper Jesuit education he soon became fluent in Latin and Greek and developed a great love for Homer and Virgil as well as becoming a noted Biblical scholar. He entered the Church at a fairly early age and was guided toward the priesthood by none other than St Vincent de Paul and was ordained on March 18, 1652.
While living seven years in Metz he became known for his powerful sermons, his extensive study of the Bible and Church Fathers as well as holding fiery debates with Protestants. St Vincent de Paul finally prevailed upon him to move to Paris and devote himself to preaching as his oratory was considered his greatest gift. He was first consecrated as a bishop in 1670 but resigned from the post within a year and was elected to the French Academy and appointed preceptor to the Dauphin. Unlike other clerics at court he did not neglect his diocese or his numerous other duties while still tutoring the Dauphin, writing a number of works to prepare him to be a proper Christian monarch. He wrote the textbooks the Dauphin would on everything from kingship to philosophy to handwriting and held lessons three times a day.
Upon completion of this assignment he was appointed Bishop of Meaux in 1681. He took great care of his diocese and the people and religious communities there while never failing to give his usual powerful sermons, write and cross swords with the Jansenists and others. After 1700 his health began to fail but even as he lay on his deathbed he continued to teach, preach and argue by dictation until he finally passed away on April 12, 1704 in Paris. As Saint-Simon said, “he died fighting”. HM King Louis XIV had not originally favored bringing Bossuet to court but the oration he gave at the funeral of the Duchess of Orleans (as he had at the funeral of her mother Henrietta of France) the King summoned him without question.
Today he is often criticized as a Gallican (that is one who supported the King as the primary authority over the Church in France rather than the Pope). However, Bossuet was never a true Gallican, though he could at times sound like one. At the end of the day he was always adamant that the Catholic Church was universal, not divided along national lines, and under the ultimate earthly authority of the Pope alone. Though he is best known for stressing the divinely ordained nature of monarchy and the absolute power of kings, he was at times out of favor with Louis XIV as he did not hesitate to criticize the moral failings of the monarch. In the end the King would always have Bossuet back, typical of his overall relationship with the Church, pushing the limits as far as possible but never going so far as to break with Rome as King Henry VIII did in England.
Today Bishop Bossuet is still often regarded as one of, if not the, greatest preachers of all time. Yet, his stressing of the sacred nature of monarchy has caused him to be regarded as an embarrassment by many these days, particularly by that segment of the Catholic community which holds that the “Divine Right of Kings” was a totally Protestant innovation. However, as we have discussed here before, Bossuet stressed the difference between “absolute” and “arbitrary” power; it was all about the rule of law with Bossuet and his writings on this subject were all geared toward preparing the Dauphin to be the best Christian monarch he could be. Both the Church and society in general would be better off if they would take a second look at men like Bishop Bossuet and the things he taught.
While living seven years in Metz he became known for his powerful sermons, his extensive study of the Bible and Church Fathers as well as holding fiery debates with Protestants. St Vincent de Paul finally prevailed upon him to move to Paris and devote himself to preaching as his oratory was considered his greatest gift. He was first consecrated as a bishop in 1670 but resigned from the post within a year and was elected to the French Academy and appointed preceptor to the Dauphin. Unlike other clerics at court he did not neglect his diocese or his numerous other duties while still tutoring the Dauphin, writing a number of works to prepare him to be a proper Christian monarch. He wrote the textbooks the Dauphin would on everything from kingship to philosophy to handwriting and held lessons three times a day.
Upon completion of this assignment he was appointed Bishop of Meaux in 1681. He took great care of his diocese and the people and religious communities there while never failing to give his usual powerful sermons, write and cross swords with the Jansenists and others. After 1700 his health began to fail but even as he lay on his deathbed he continued to teach, preach and argue by dictation until he finally passed away on April 12, 1704 in Paris. As Saint-Simon said, “he died fighting”. HM King Louis XIV had not originally favored bringing Bossuet to court but the oration he gave at the funeral of the Duchess of Orleans (as he had at the funeral of her mother Henrietta of France) the King summoned him without question.
Today he is often criticized as a Gallican (that is one who supported the King as the primary authority over the Church in France rather than the Pope). However, Bossuet was never a true Gallican, though he could at times sound like one. At the end of the day he was always adamant that the Catholic Church was universal, not divided along national lines, and under the ultimate earthly authority of the Pope alone. Though he is best known for stressing the divinely ordained nature of monarchy and the absolute power of kings, he was at times out of favor with Louis XIV as he did not hesitate to criticize the moral failings of the monarch. In the end the King would always have Bossuet back, typical of his overall relationship with the Church, pushing the limits as far as possible but never going so far as to break with Rome as King Henry VIII did in England.
Today Bishop Bossuet is still often regarded as one of, if not the, greatest preachers of all time. Yet, his stressing of the sacred nature of monarchy has caused him to be regarded as an embarrassment by many these days, particularly by that segment of the Catholic community which holds that the “Divine Right of Kings” was a totally Protestant innovation. However, as we have discussed here before, Bossuet stressed the difference between “absolute” and “arbitrary” power; it was all about the rule of law with Bossuet and his writings on this subject were all geared toward preparing the Dauphin to be the best Christian monarch he could be. Both the Church and society in general would be better off if they would take a second look at men like Bishop Bossuet and the things he taught.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Complaining to the King of Spain
Although not the sort of thing I would do, I would like to draw attention to this open letter from Matthew Palardy of the blog Et Lux in Tenebris Lucet addressed to His Catholic Majesty King Juan Carlos I of Spain. I certainly share most of his sentiments and on certain issues I would assume His Catholic Majesty does as well; he certainly does on the subject of bullfighting (a sport the King and your humble blogger are avid fans of) but it was always assumed the EU would be a greater threat on that front than the Spanish government itself. However, beyond the issues being addressed I wanted to draw attention to this letter because it is one of the finest examples I have seen of how to gripe correctly. This is how a sincere and loyal monarchist states complaints. Have a look.
Mad Rant: Losing Our Religion
As many of you probably already know, many of the peoples of Asia took a rather cosmic view of their monarchies. Be it the god-kings of Thailand, the sons of Heaven in China, the living Buddhas of Tibet or Mongolia or the children of the sun goddess in Japan, the people believed that their was a great religious significance attached to their monarchs. They represented their people on the spiritual as well as political front. Things were different of course in the west, but probably not as completely different as many might think. Going back to the roots of Judeo-Christian religion I Samuel, chapter 10, quotes the prophet as saying to Saul, “Has not God anointed you prince over His people Israel? You are the man who must rule God’s people and who must save them from the power of the enemies surrounding them”. The monarch was to be a public servant in a more practical sense, but responsible to God for those entrusted to his rule.
When God anointed the kings of ancient Israel He made the monarchy a sacred institution, one in which the monarch, regardless of character, was sacred and inviolable. This was an integral part of the overall “plan” as is made clear by the ‘Davidic Covenant’ in which God promised King David that He would preserve his offspring to rule. If they were wicked, God said, “I will punish him with the rod such as men use, with strokes such as mankind gives. Yet I will not withdraw my favor from him, as I withdrew it from your predecessor. Your house and your sovereignty will always stand secure before me and your throne be established forever (II Samuel 7:14-16)”. Later, in the Christian era, the Emperors of Rome were still upheld by the Christians who said to their fellow Romans that, quite apart from being traitors, they honored the Emperor more than the pagans did, confident in their faith that it was by their God that the Emperors ruled.
In the Middle Ages the coronation of a monarch was often referred to as the “eighth sacrament” because of the religious significance associated with the Christian monarch. This was certainly greatly emphasized in the Eastern Orthodox countries, it was shown in the Latin West through the numerous unique titles the Popes conferred on monarchs and in Protestant countries, most especially early on, it was noted that divine commands to obedience to kings was Biblical and could be scripturally proven. Yet, despite this wealth of history to draw upon, society has forgotten it all. The decline in reverence, spiritual awareness, the rise in depravity, atheism and the downfall of monarchies and declining Church attendance all goes hand in hand and cannot be separated from each other.
Whether godlessness causes revolution or revolution causes godlessness is not finally the point. The point is that they go hand-in-hand. Today republicanism is dominant and most monarchies that remain, certainly in the western world, are held hostage by the political elite and reduced to symbolic status. As the author C.S. Lewis said, “These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut…” and they seek something, anything, which might fill the void left by the way revolution has chained their souls. In the end they are never satisfied in their search for the political formula that brings about a utopian society. For revolutionaries are actually the most naïve politicians whereas traditional monarchists are, surprisingly enough, the most practical and realistic. To prove this one needs only look at the contrast between the Congress of Vienna and the Versailles Conference. Traditional conservatives took into account existing realities, respect for legitimate authority and established a peace that endured. The liberal republicans at Versailles discounted reality, clung only to their own emotions and ideological prejudices and the result was a strained peace that lasted barely twenty years.
Revolution is the fruit of godlessness and secular republics are their temples. It all relates back to trusting divine judgment rather than our own. Amy legitimate ruler must be chosen or at least endorsed by a higher power than mere popular whim. The word “republic” is never mentioned in the Bible, nor is the word “democracy” but in Hosea 8:4 the people are reprimanded by God who says, “They have set up kings, but not with my consent, and appointed princes, but without my knowledge”. That certainly sounds like republicanism to me and the terrible results predicted by that ancient prophet are seen commonly around the world today. Later in that same chapter, relating to how Israel brought down the wrath of God whenever they tried to replace the legitimate king with a more ‘popular’ choice, the warning is given that, “I am going to disperse them this minute; that will soon put a stop to their anointing kings and leaders”.
We have done exactly this, setting up our own rulers, without God, though rather than call them kings we call them “presidents”, “prime ministers” or “secretary generals”. To return to the east, where we began, the teacher Confucius also spoke of how, in his time, usurpers were strutting in the halls of power, and surely this has happened as well where even the teachings of Confucius are corrupted from an advocacy of filial piety to simple subservience to the ruling communist party. In the same way in the west the teachings of Christ are corrupted to encourage acceptance of the political status quo and every novel perversity that comes along. Call it balance, call it wholeness, call it righteousness but the fact is that it will never be fulfilled until mankind ceases to seek after his own desires and instead begins to model his own society on the example of Heaven.
As James Bryce wrote in his summary of Dante’s ‘De Monarchia’, “Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of government. Men’s objects are best attained during universal peace: this is possible only under a monarch. And as he is the image of the divine unity, so man is through him made one, and brought most near to God. There must, in every system of forces, be a ‘primum mobile’; to be perfect, every organization must have a centre, into which all is gathered, by which all is controlled. Justice is best secured by a supreme arbiter of disputes, himself untempted by ambition, since his dominion is already bounded only by ocean. Man is best and happiest when he is most free; to be free is to exist for one’s own sake. To this noblest end does the monarch and he alone guide us; other forms of government are perverted, and exist for the benefit of some class; he seeks the good of all alike, being to that very end appointed.” Until that basic understanding is restored we will only continue to suffer and I will continue to be … The Mad Monarchist.
When God anointed the kings of ancient Israel He made the monarchy a sacred institution, one in which the monarch, regardless of character, was sacred and inviolable. This was an integral part of the overall “plan” as is made clear by the ‘Davidic Covenant’ in which God promised King David that He would preserve his offspring to rule. If they were wicked, God said, “I will punish him with the rod such as men use, with strokes such as mankind gives. Yet I will not withdraw my favor from him, as I withdrew it from your predecessor. Your house and your sovereignty will always stand secure before me and your throne be established forever (II Samuel 7:14-16)”. Later, in the Christian era, the Emperors of Rome were still upheld by the Christians who said to their fellow Romans that, quite apart from being traitors, they honored the Emperor more than the pagans did, confident in their faith that it was by their God that the Emperors ruled.
In the Middle Ages the coronation of a monarch was often referred to as the “eighth sacrament” because of the religious significance associated with the Christian monarch. This was certainly greatly emphasized in the Eastern Orthodox countries, it was shown in the Latin West through the numerous unique titles the Popes conferred on monarchs and in Protestant countries, most especially early on, it was noted that divine commands to obedience to kings was Biblical and could be scripturally proven. Yet, despite this wealth of history to draw upon, society has forgotten it all. The decline in reverence, spiritual awareness, the rise in depravity, atheism and the downfall of monarchies and declining Church attendance all goes hand in hand and cannot be separated from each other.
Whether godlessness causes revolution or revolution causes godlessness is not finally the point. The point is that they go hand-in-hand. Today republicanism is dominant and most monarchies that remain, certainly in the western world, are held hostage by the political elite and reduced to symbolic status. As the author C.S. Lewis said, “These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut…” and they seek something, anything, which might fill the void left by the way revolution has chained their souls. In the end they are never satisfied in their search for the political formula that brings about a utopian society. For revolutionaries are actually the most naïve politicians whereas traditional monarchists are, surprisingly enough, the most practical and realistic. To prove this one needs only look at the contrast between the Congress of Vienna and the Versailles Conference. Traditional conservatives took into account existing realities, respect for legitimate authority and established a peace that endured. The liberal republicans at Versailles discounted reality, clung only to their own emotions and ideological prejudices and the result was a strained peace that lasted barely twenty years.
Revolution is the fruit of godlessness and secular republics are their temples. It all relates back to trusting divine judgment rather than our own. Amy legitimate ruler must be chosen or at least endorsed by a higher power than mere popular whim. The word “republic” is never mentioned in the Bible, nor is the word “democracy” but in Hosea 8:4 the people are reprimanded by God who says, “They have set up kings, but not with my consent, and appointed princes, but without my knowledge”. That certainly sounds like republicanism to me and the terrible results predicted by that ancient prophet are seen commonly around the world today. Later in that same chapter, relating to how Israel brought down the wrath of God whenever they tried to replace the legitimate king with a more ‘popular’ choice, the warning is given that, “I am going to disperse them this minute; that will soon put a stop to their anointing kings and leaders”.
We have done exactly this, setting up our own rulers, without God, though rather than call them kings we call them “presidents”, “prime ministers” or “secretary generals”. To return to the east, where we began, the teacher Confucius also spoke of how, in his time, usurpers were strutting in the halls of power, and surely this has happened as well where even the teachings of Confucius are corrupted from an advocacy of filial piety to simple subservience to the ruling communist party. In the same way in the west the teachings of Christ are corrupted to encourage acceptance of the political status quo and every novel perversity that comes along. Call it balance, call it wholeness, call it righteousness but the fact is that it will never be fulfilled until mankind ceases to seek after his own desires and instead begins to model his own society on the example of Heaven.
As James Bryce wrote in his summary of Dante’s ‘De Monarchia’, “Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of government. Men’s objects are best attained during universal peace: this is possible only under a monarch. And as he is the image of the divine unity, so man is through him made one, and brought most near to God. There must, in every system of forces, be a ‘primum mobile’; to be perfect, every organization must have a centre, into which all is gathered, by which all is controlled. Justice is best secured by a supreme arbiter of disputes, himself untempted by ambition, since his dominion is already bounded only by ocean. Man is best and happiest when he is most free; to be free is to exist for one’s own sake. To this noblest end does the monarch and he alone guide us; other forms of government are perverted, and exist for the benefit of some class; he seeks the good of all alike, being to that very end appointed.” Until that basic understanding is restored we will only continue to suffer and I will continue to be … The Mad Monarchist.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Pretender Profile: Prince Quentin of Hawaii
The United States of America is home to a number of leaders of the traditional variety, but none ever achieved the status of an independent, internationally recognized kingdom like the state of Hawaii did. Hawaii is unique in that regard, being the only state in the union that was an independent monarchy prior to admission and thus it is the only state that is home to an official royal palace that once housed a royal family. It is not then surprising that the (generally recognized) heir to the Hawaiian throne is unique among royal pretenders. The native Hawaiian community (actually a tiny minority on the islands these days) recognize him as royalty but, rest assured unionists, he makes no claim to his rightful throne nor does he push for the secession of Hawaii and restoration of the monarchy.
The would-be King of Hawaii was born Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa on September 28, 1961 in San Francisco, California to Prince Edward A. Kawananakoa and Carolyn Willison Kawananakoa. His great-grandfather was the successor of the last Queen of Hawaii as head of the royal family, though the status of Prince Quentin is contested by his ninth cousin twice removed, Prince Kalokuokamaile III from a much older branch of the family. Prince Quentin grew up with his parents in Honolulu where he was educated before attending the University of Southern California. After graduation he returned to Hawaii to go to the William S. Richardson School of Law from which he graduated and worked with a local law firm in O’ahu until 2000.
In 1994 he entered the political arena in Hawaii running as a member of the Republican Party for the office of state representative. His platform was pretty standard for the GOP, capitalism, free enterprise, low taxes and the like. He won the election and served in the Hawaii State House of Representatives until 1998, becoming a leading figure in the Republican Party of Hawaii. A year after taking office he married Elizabeth Broun of Barbados and in the years that followed the couple have had two children, both sons, Kincaid and Riley.
On July 29, 1997 Prince Quentin became head of the Hawaiian royal family, despite having two older brothers. The firstborn, Prince Edward, was extremely handicapped and so was excluded from the succession by his father and the second son, Prince David, renounced his rights in favor of his younger brother Quentin who took his place upon the death of their father. His political star continued to rise and he decided to run for Congress but retired from politics for a time after a health scare. For the next eight years he recovered and kept a low profile before announcing his return to politics by challenging Congressman Ed Case for his seat in the U.S. Congress in April of 2006. However, during the Republican Party primary Prince Quentin was defeated by State Senator Robert Hogue by a slim margin. Hogue himself went on to be defeated by the Democrat Party candidate Mazie Hirono (Hawaii being generally a very liberal state).
In 2008 Prince Quentin tried to get his old job back and ran for the State House of Representatives again but lost to the Democrat Chris Kalani Lee. Prince Quentin attends numerous native Hawaiian festivities during the year, sits on a number of significant boards and committees and the like. He also oversees the extensive properties of the late James Campbell (an American industrialist who married into the native Hawaiian nobility).
The would-be King of Hawaii was born Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa on September 28, 1961 in San Francisco, California to Prince Edward A. Kawananakoa and Carolyn Willison Kawananakoa. His great-grandfather was the successor of the last Queen of Hawaii as head of the royal family, though the status of Prince Quentin is contested by his ninth cousin twice removed, Prince Kalokuokamaile III from a much older branch of the family. Prince Quentin grew up with his parents in Honolulu where he was educated before attending the University of Southern California. After graduation he returned to Hawaii to go to the William S. Richardson School of Law from which he graduated and worked with a local law firm in O’ahu until 2000.
In 1994 he entered the political arena in Hawaii running as a member of the Republican Party for the office of state representative. His platform was pretty standard for the GOP, capitalism, free enterprise, low taxes and the like. He won the election and served in the Hawaii State House of Representatives until 1998, becoming a leading figure in the Republican Party of Hawaii. A year after taking office he married Elizabeth Broun of Barbados and in the years that followed the couple have had two children, both sons, Kincaid and Riley.
On July 29, 1997 Prince Quentin became head of the Hawaiian royal family, despite having two older brothers. The firstborn, Prince Edward, was extremely handicapped and so was excluded from the succession by his father and the second son, Prince David, renounced his rights in favor of his younger brother Quentin who took his place upon the death of their father. His political star continued to rise and he decided to run for Congress but retired from politics for a time after a health scare. For the next eight years he recovered and kept a low profile before announcing his return to politics by challenging Congressman Ed Case for his seat in the U.S. Congress in April of 2006. However, during the Republican Party primary Prince Quentin was defeated by State Senator Robert Hogue by a slim margin. Hogue himself went on to be defeated by the Democrat Party candidate Mazie Hirono (Hawaii being generally a very liberal state).
In 2008 Prince Quentin tried to get his old job back and ran for the State House of Representatives again but lost to the Democrat Chris Kalani Lee. Prince Quentin attends numerous native Hawaiian festivities during the year, sits on a number of significant boards and committees and the like. He also oversees the extensive properties of the late James Campbell (an American industrialist who married into the native Hawaiian nobility).
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Royal News Roundup
On the royal House of Windsor front, the Harper administration has named its candidate for the next Governor-General of Canada; a constitutional law professor named David Johnston. Yes, in a move totally breaking with tradition, the next representative of the Queen in Canada will be a white man who is not best known as a “television personality” but for actually being an expert on the inner workings of the Canadian government. Shocking isn’t it. There is also some very happy news on the family front as HM Queen Elizabeth II is set to become a great-grandmother for the first time (and about time, my grandmother is the same age and is about to be a great-great grandmother). Her oldest grandchild, Peter Philips, son of the Princess Royal Anne, has just announced that he and his wife Autumn Philips are expecting their first child. Royal watchers might remember a slight uproar at the time of their marriage as Autumn, a nominal Catholic, was required to change her religion to the CofE so that the Queen’s oldest grandson would not lose his place in the succession. The Mad Monarchist sends the couple heartfelt congratulations and we hope the pregnancy goes smoothly.
In the Low Countries the Crown Princes of the Netherlands and Belgium were out recently to show off their good looking families. Prince Willem-Alexander of Orange, Princess Maxima and their three daughters (Catharina-Amalia, Alexia and Ariane) posed for the cameras at the Eikenhorst at Horsten gardens in Wassenaar. The three princesses were pretty in pink and evidently still coming off the ‘high’ of all the fun at the World Cup as Princess Catharina-Amalia was playing with one of those annoying vuvuzela horns (yuck!) but at least it appeared to be an appropriate orange color. Mom and Dad posed as well but the girls stole the show, making all sorts of adorable faces and waving at the cameras. They better watch those girls; they’re adorable and they know it!
Not to be left out Prince Philippe Duke of Brabant and Princess Mathilde of Belgium took their little ones for some summer fun at an educational farm in Loppem where the children; Princess Elisabeth, Prince Gabriel, Princess Emmanuel and little Princess Eleonore saw what some farm chores are all about, fed and played with the animals and learned to make bread.
Looks like a good day at the market -if you buy the whole set they knock some off the price!
Princess Eleonore does not seem very impressed.
In the Low Countries the Crown Princes of the Netherlands and Belgium were out recently to show off their good looking families. Prince Willem-Alexander of Orange, Princess Maxima and their three daughters (Catharina-Amalia, Alexia and Ariane) posed for the cameras at the Eikenhorst at Horsten gardens in Wassenaar. The three princesses were pretty in pink and evidently still coming off the ‘high’ of all the fun at the World Cup as Princess Catharina-Amalia was playing with one of those annoying vuvuzela horns (yuck!) but at least it appeared to be an appropriate orange color. Mom and Dad posed as well but the girls stole the show, making all sorts of adorable faces and waving at the cameras. They better watch those girls; they’re adorable and they know it!
Not to be left out Prince Philippe Duke of Brabant and Princess Mathilde of Belgium took their little ones for some summer fun at an educational farm in Loppem where the children; Princess Elisabeth, Prince Gabriel, Princess Emmanuel and little Princess Eleonore saw what some farm chores are all about, fed and played with the animals and learned to make bread.
Looks like a good day at the market -if you buy the whole set they knock some off the price!
Princess Eleonore does not seem very impressed.Friday, July 9, 2010
The Queen of Canada Visits New York
HM Queen Elizabeth II has ended her tour of the Dominion of Canada and visit to the UN in New York City. Whether reviewing the fleet, meeting with PM Stephen Harper or attending the various other social functions she was invited to, the Queen reminds everyone why she has such an unassailable position and a reputation for never putting ‘a foot wrong’. She does the right things, she says the right things and she does it all with a regal style and class that no political figure could ever hope to match. A number of things about this visit impressed me immensely. I, of course, loved the Queen referring to Canada as “home”; that was a remark sure to go over well and, here is the part many seemed not to understand (at least in US media) -it is true! As the sovereign Canada is as much her home as Australia, New Zealand or the UK.
I was also pleased with Stephen Harper’s remarks (probably since I have been a little disappointed with some seeming lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy on his part in the past). I also cannot help but mention the Queen, ever the picture of civility, doing part of her Canada Day speech in French. Her Majesty, of course, did not visit Quebec due to the shameful reception she has been given there in the past. I cannot help but wonder how long the antics of Quebec will be tolerated by the rest of Canada when so much is done to distance themselves in spite of constant efforts to include them in the Canadian family. The Queen made many of the remarks one expects when talking about Canada but was something more special coming from her. Because it was the Queen of Canada saying these things it reiterated the importance and centrality of the monarchy to Canada.
The republicans mostly took the week off; they prefer to attack someone behind their back than to their face, but when pressed on the issue they had to admit, yet again (and I’m sure they hate this) that the Queen is sacrosanct and they will have to wait until the accession of the Prince of Wales to make their treasonous move. When the Queen left Canada for her brief visit to the United States it was also amusing to watch the reaction of the American media. Fox News Channel (owned by Rupert Murdoch) said almost nothing about it while CNN and MSNBC gave short, glowing but patronizing reports. You really get the impression watching the American media deal with the Queen that they *so* want to impress Her Majesty but *so* don’t want to admit it.
They were mostly complimentary but continuously (and I DO mean continuously) mentioned how “historic” it was when the Queen addressed the UN, how it was like being in a time machine, how it was a ‘blast from the past’. I don’t know if this was a subconscious obsession with the Queen being a fairly elderly woman or if it was part of the correlation in the minds of all liberals that anything relating to monarchy is archaic and out-of-date, very “old fashioned”. Again, they mostly said the Queen looked good, gave a good speech etc but you got the feeling that it was all said with a condescending attitude. Almost without exception you could hear it in their voices that they think the Queen doesn’t really matter and no one should make a fuss over her but that they would be thrilled to pieces if she were to give them any attention. One, I believe on CNN, even asked why the Queen stayed in Canada for so long but made only a brief, whirlwind visit of New York. I guess it is a widespread problem; the number of people who fail to realize that she is the Queen of Canada. God Save Her!
I was also pleased with Stephen Harper’s remarks (probably since I have been a little disappointed with some seeming lack of enthusiasm for the monarchy on his part in the past). I also cannot help but mention the Queen, ever the picture of civility, doing part of her Canada Day speech in French. Her Majesty, of course, did not visit Quebec due to the shameful reception she has been given there in the past. I cannot help but wonder how long the antics of Quebec will be tolerated by the rest of Canada when so much is done to distance themselves in spite of constant efforts to include them in the Canadian family. The Queen made many of the remarks one expects when talking about Canada but was something more special coming from her. Because it was the Queen of Canada saying these things it reiterated the importance and centrality of the monarchy to Canada.
The republicans mostly took the week off; they prefer to attack someone behind their back than to their face, but when pressed on the issue they had to admit, yet again (and I’m sure they hate this) that the Queen is sacrosanct and they will have to wait until the accession of the Prince of Wales to make their treasonous move. When the Queen left Canada for her brief visit to the United States it was also amusing to watch the reaction of the American media. Fox News Channel (owned by Rupert Murdoch) said almost nothing about it while CNN and MSNBC gave short, glowing but patronizing reports. You really get the impression watching the American media deal with the Queen that they *so* want to impress Her Majesty but *so* don’t want to admit it.
They were mostly complimentary but continuously (and I DO mean continuously) mentioned how “historic” it was when the Queen addressed the UN, how it was like being in a time machine, how it was a ‘blast from the past’. I don’t know if this was a subconscious obsession with the Queen being a fairly elderly woman or if it was part of the correlation in the minds of all liberals that anything relating to monarchy is archaic and out-of-date, very “old fashioned”. Again, they mostly said the Queen looked good, gave a good speech etc but you got the feeling that it was all said with a condescending attitude. Almost without exception you could hear it in their voices that they think the Queen doesn’t really matter and no one should make a fuss over her but that they would be thrilled to pieces if she were to give them any attention. One, I believe on CNN, even asked why the Queen stayed in Canada for so long but made only a brief, whirlwind visit of New York. I guess it is a widespread problem; the number of people who fail to realize that she is the Queen of Canada. God Save Her!
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monarch Profile: Emperor Maximilian of Mexico
The man who would be the last Emperor of Mexico was born Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg-Lorraine on July 6, 1832 to Archduke Francis Charles of Austria (son of Emperor Francis II) and his wife Princess Sophie of Bavaria in Vienna, Austria at the Schoenbrunn Palace. His older brother, Francis Joseph, would go on to be the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary but unlike his very disciplined and conservative brother, Archduke Max, from the very beginning, was known for being warm, friendly, romantic and keeping his head ever in the clouds. He loved the arts, botany, cataloging plants and flowers and catching butterflies. However, duty demanded military service and he joined the Austrian Imperial Navy.
The Archduke was only 22 when he took command with the rank of Grand Admiral but he took his position seriously, sincerely wanting to do his best in all endeavors. His leadership saw the creation of the port at Trieste, greatly reformed, modernized and improved the fleet, undertook a number of scientific expeditions, and a circumnavigation of the globe. The fleet he built would later be led to victory by Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff but the Archduke would not be around to see it. In 1857 he married Princess Charlotte of Belgium, daughter of Belgian King Leopold I, and although different in many ways the two seemed to complement each other and were utterly devoted to one another. With their, rather liberal for the time and place, ideas it was thought they might be a good match for Austria’s troublesome Italian possessions and the Archduke was made viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia.
The Archduke was only 22 when he took command with the rank of Grand Admiral but he took his position seriously, sincerely wanting to do his best in all endeavors. His leadership saw the creation of the port at Trieste, greatly reformed, modernized and improved the fleet, undertook a number of scientific expeditions, and a circumnavigation of the globe. The fleet he built would later be led to victory by Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff but the Archduke would not be around to see it. In 1857 he married Princess Charlotte of Belgium, daughter of Belgian King Leopold I, and although different in many ways the two seemed to complement each other and were utterly devoted to one another. With their, rather liberal for the time and place, ideas it was thought they might be a good match for Austria’s troublesome Italian possessions and the Archduke was made viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia.
However, though Maximilian loved the area and lavished his attention on it, his hands were often tied from Vienna and he could not rule his corner of the Hapsburg empire as he saw fit. This made him more susceptible to the offer of the throne of Mexico where the French troops of Napoleon III had recently taken Mexico City and allowed the return of a conservative government. A delegation arrived under leading Mexican traditionalists to offer the throne to the young Hapsburg, a descendant of Emperor Charles V. Emperor Francis Joseph did everything he could to stop his brother from accepting while his wife urged him to do so. The Archduke wavered for a time but was much more in-line with the thinking of his wife than his brother. He accepted and boarded ship for Mexico.
His doubts and worries melted away as he learned Spanish, adopted Mexican dress and customs and did everything he could to make himself thoroughly Mexican. This would be his great chance to prove himself and his ideas. With his supportive wife and the stabilizing presence of the French he would be the savior of Mexico and open a new era of enlightened monarchy in the New World. He would be grand without being remote, dignified without being snobby, he would stand apart and unite the feuding factions; bring unity out of division, order out of chaos, advancement from stagnation, prosperity from penury; his dreams for Mexican greatness were boundless. He would establish peaceful relations with the United States and the Empire of Brazil (which he had visited and much admired). Imperial Mexico would expand into Central America in his vision and he would build a powerful navy that would rule the Gulf of Mexico. As the USA dominated North America and the Brazilian Empire dominated South America his Mexican Empire would balance the two by dominating the middle. He would make Mexico City the most magnificent city in the world. Even his arrival on the Mexican coast and viewing the sad state of affairs did not interfere with his magnificent dream for the future.
Emperor Maximilian was welcomed by many but his impartial attitude and fair-mindedness often resulted in making enemies of both sides. Liberals dismissed him outright, even though they could be charmed by him and greatly admire him personally his status and his nationality made them oppose him. A number of conservatives also turned against him after he did not give in to all their demands and restore all of their favored status. The US never recognized his government and ignored all of his efforts to establish friendly relations. Thus, as soon as the War Between the States ended in a Union victory, the US was able to apply pressure to the French to get out of Mexico and start sending massive amounts of money, supplies, weapons, uniforms and even (unofficially) thousands of volunteers to Maximilian’s republican enemies. The Emperor tried to make peace with his leading antagonist, Benito Juarez, but his overtures were spurned.
After 1865 pressure from the US, financial problems and approaching difficulties at home caused Emperor Napoleon III to abandon Mexico and withdraw the French army. It was a betrayal of the agreement signed with Maximilian before he accepted the throne but nothing could be done about it. Napoleon advised Maximilian to leave with the French forces for his own safety as they was a vast segment of the population that shifted allegiance to whichever side seemed to be winning. Maximilian, however, refused. He may not have ever grasped the monotony of administration, the art of political intrigue, he certainly never understood finances and he may have been happier designing new avenues and monuments than dealing with government corruption, but, he was a Hapsburg and a man of honor. He had sworn an oath to God at his coronation and he refused to abandon his country and his people no matter the odds. He sent his wife to Europe in an effort to rally support and then marched north with his small army of Mexican loyalists for a climactic battle with the republicans that would settle the issue.
Between March and May of 1867 Emperor Maximilian and his army were besieged at Queretaro by a massive republican force. The Emperor displayed his generosity and courage on this occasion, many times exposing himself to danger and often sleeping wrapped in a blanket alongside the frontline soldiers. Finally, he was betrayed by Colonel Miguel Lopez who allowed a republican column to enter the city and the imperial defenses fell apart. Maximilian was given the opportunity to escape but would not abandon his faithful generals who would be killed because of their loyalty to him. After a short military show trial he was sentenced to death with his generals Tomas Mejia and Miguel Miramon. The three men were taken to the ‘Hill of Bells’ and executed by firing squad on June 19, 1867. Maximilian, who was only 34 years old, died shouting “Viva Mexico!” while his generals died shouting, “Viva el Emperador!”
People mourned across the world. For some it reiterated their prejudice that Mexico was simply a backward and barbaric country that Maximilian should have avoided. For others, even those who opposed the empire and supported republicanism and the revolution against Maximilian, it was a stain on their cause. In France it was a black mark on the record of Napoleon III who was held by many to have had the blood of Maximilian on his own hands just as much as Benito Juarez. However, the pain did not end there. The republican government in Mexico refused to return the body of the fallen emperor until the next year when an Austrian frigate carried his ruined remains back to Vienna to bury in the Hapsburg crypt. The Mexico he envisioned would never come to be and immediately after his downfall the country fell back again into the cycle of presidential tyrants, military coups, civil wars and revolutions.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Happy Birthday Emperor Max
It was today in 1832 that HIRH Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg-Lorraine was born in Vienna, Austria who would of course go on to be Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico. There has never been another leader like him since and I will leave it to the honest observers to look at the current state of Mexico and determine whether or not such has been to their ultimate benefit or not. Viva el Gran Emperador!
Consort Profile: Maud of Wales
Queen Maud of Wales, the first Queen consort of the modern Kingdom of Norway, was born in London on November 26, 1869 to the Prince and Princess of Wales, later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra of Great Britain. Through her mother, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, she already had connections with Scandinavia and in time should would play a central part in the affairs of that region of Europe. It was while she was attending engagements with her mother’s family in Denmark that she first met her cousin Prince Carl of Denmark, son of King Frederick VIII. A romance developed and on July 22, 1896 the two were married at Buckingham Palace before moving to Copenhagen though their only child, Prince Alexander (future King Olav V), was also born in Britain, in Norfolk, England, on July 2, 1903.
When Norway decided to end the personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden, which had existed since the Napoleonic era when Norway was given to Sweden as compensation for ceding of Finland to Russia, it was decided that the country would be a constitutional monarchy and the search began for a suitable candidate for the Norwegian throne. Of course, Prince Carl was ultimately chosen and part of why the Norwegian government thought him ideally suited for the role was Princess Maud. The connections with Denmark were very ancient but Princess Maud also brought the added bonus of ties with the powerful British Empire which could only benefit Norway. With the choice made and the separation from Sweden finalized Prince Carl became King Haakon VII of Norway and Princess Maud became the first Queen consort.
The couple arrived in their new country on November 25, 1905 and were crowned in Nidaros Cathedral the following summer. Queen Maud quickly became a popular favorite with the Norwegian people for her regal bearing, friendly smile and being ever dressed to perfection. Although today some might remember her more for her high style and fashion, she was actually much more but had a reserved and rather bashful nature that ensured much of her work was done out of the public eye. Behind closed doors she was a very warm and energetic person who was patron of a number of charitable causes such as establishing her own fund to help the victims of the First World War. Children and animals also received much of her attention.
Although her British connections had recommended her, Queen Maud made a determined effort after becoming Queen to be thoroughly Norwegian. She made an effort to learn the language, though it was very difficult for her and she never became fluent, learned to ski and saw to it that her son, now named Crown Prince Olav, was absolutely Norwegian and nothing else. Still, as is only natural, she tried to maintain some reminders of her English home in her new country as well. In her spare time she loved the outdoors and could often be found riding horses, walking her dogs and skiing. Her last public visit to England was to attend the coronation of her nephew King George VI in 1937.
The following year Queen Maud died while in London on November 20, 1938. She was taken back to Norway and buried in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Castle. The first monarchs of an imported royal family always have a difficult task and many are not ultimately successful but Queen Maud is a case of it working out very well. The monarchy is still going strong there and she set the standard for other royal consorts in Norway to follow. He ties to Great Britain were a comfort as Norway was entering the world stage as a newly independent country and the bonds survived her to be especially important during World War II when Norway faced its greatest crisis but could count on a close and cooperative partnership with Great Britain.
When Norway decided to end the personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden, which had existed since the Napoleonic era when Norway was given to Sweden as compensation for ceding of Finland to Russia, it was decided that the country would be a constitutional monarchy and the search began for a suitable candidate for the Norwegian throne. Of course, Prince Carl was ultimately chosen and part of why the Norwegian government thought him ideally suited for the role was Princess Maud. The connections with Denmark were very ancient but Princess Maud also brought the added bonus of ties with the powerful British Empire which could only benefit Norway. With the choice made and the separation from Sweden finalized Prince Carl became King Haakon VII of Norway and Princess Maud became the first Queen consort.
The couple arrived in their new country on November 25, 1905 and were crowned in Nidaros Cathedral the following summer. Queen Maud quickly became a popular favorite with the Norwegian people for her regal bearing, friendly smile and being ever dressed to perfection. Although today some might remember her more for her high style and fashion, she was actually much more but had a reserved and rather bashful nature that ensured much of her work was done out of the public eye. Behind closed doors she was a very warm and energetic person who was patron of a number of charitable causes such as establishing her own fund to help the victims of the First World War. Children and animals also received much of her attention.
Although her British connections had recommended her, Queen Maud made a determined effort after becoming Queen to be thoroughly Norwegian. She made an effort to learn the language, though it was very difficult for her and she never became fluent, learned to ski and saw to it that her son, now named Crown Prince Olav, was absolutely Norwegian and nothing else. Still, as is only natural, she tried to maintain some reminders of her English home in her new country as well. In her spare time she loved the outdoors and could often be found riding horses, walking her dogs and skiing. Her last public visit to England was to attend the coronation of her nephew King George VI in 1937.
The following year Queen Maud died while in London on November 20, 1938. She was taken back to Norway and buried in the Royal Mausoleum at Akershus Castle. The first monarchs of an imported royal family always have a difficult task and many are not ultimately successful but Queen Maud is a case of it working out very well. The monarchy is still going strong there and she set the standard for other royal consorts in Norway to follow. He ties to Great Britain were a comfort as Norway was entering the world stage as a newly independent country and the bonds survived her to be especially important during World War II when Norway faced its greatest crisis but could count on a close and cooperative partnership with Great Britain.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Viet Nam De Quoc: Opportunity Lost
During World War II, French Indochina was occupied by Japan with the permission of the Vichy-based government of the "State of France". So it was that the Japanese entered Viet Nam without opposition and with virtually no trouble with the French colonial forces already present. In fact, the French in Indochina were the only foreigners not placed in internment by the Japanese throughout the war. Japan allowed their administration to remain intact while they made use of bases in Vietnam for their further conquest of Southeast Asia and extracted resources, which were already stretched to the limit by decades of French exploitation.
This, in itself, was a lost opportunity for both Japan and Vietnam. For some time, the Vietnamese, like most all other Asians, had admired Japan for her stunning victory over the Russians, her wealth and prosperity as well as her determination to beat the Western powers at their own game and prove that the Europeans could not only be rivaled by Asians, but defeated by them. The Meiji Restoration had kept the basic forms of Japanese society in place while also allowing massive innovation that put them on an equal footing with Western powers. There were many in Vietnam who wished that the Nguyen Emperor would have taken the same course of action for their country.
Throughout the colonial period, Japan had been seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a friend of the Asian people living under European rule. They were a particular source of haven if not outright support for the anti-French nationalists Pham Boi Chau and Marquis Cuong De. For some time there was considerable support for Phan Boi Chau's movement to overthrow the French administration, depose the Nguyen emperors who collaborated with them and enthrone Cuong De as Emperor of a modernized Vietnam, but still one based on the traditional principles Phan Boi Chau and the other mandarins were familiar with. Even after Phan Boi Chau began to follow the example of Sun Yat-Sen's Chinese republican movement, Prince Cuong De, working mostly from Japan, still had considerable support among nationalist-monarchist groups such as the Dai Viet party, the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai sects as well as the future President of Viet Nam, the mandarin Ngo Dinh Diem.
Many Vietnamese were then extremely disillusioned when Japan marched into Vietnam and chose to work alongside their French occupiers rather than liberating their "brother Asians" from foreign domination. Although some, hoping for the best, collaborated with the Japanese, many became disgusted by Japanese actions and joined the ranks of the American-backed Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi, a Communist-ruled nationalist group under the leadership of "Nguyen Ai Quoc", later best known as President Ho Chi Minh. However, when the war began to turn against Japan, they were motivated to take action toward creating a client state in Indochina, as they had done in Manchuria and parts of China and Mongolia as well as Burma.
In March, 1945, when the Japanese launched a coup against the French administration, the reigning Emperor, Bao Dai, who had been totally sidelined by the French, had no idea what had happened until his car was stopped by Japanese soldiers on his way back to the capital. Prior to this, the Japanese had had little to do with him, Cuong De was seen as "their man" and Bao Dai had been allowed only a nominal role in national affairs by the French. Japan now presented Emperor Bao Dai with the opportunity to be rid of the French, declare independence, and join Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", an eloquent term for those nations under Japanese control.
Actually, Bao Dai had little choice in the matter. The Japanese were obviously in control of the country, and Cuong De, who had at least some following as a nationalist leader, was standing by to assume the throne if he refused. Despite what some have written, Bao Dai was under no illusions as to what this offer of independence meant. However, it was easy enough to see that Japan was on the brink of defeat and the Emperor decided that even the word "independence" was too good to pass up. He agreed and on March 11, 1945 issued a royal ordinance declaring their complete independence from France, the abolition of all treaties signed with them, and the formation of the "Viet Nam De Quoc" or the Empire of Vietnam. This came before Ho Chi Minh's declaration of independence and provided the basic symbolism later adopted by the republican regime in South Vietnam.
Although Ngo Dinh Diem was first suggested, it was the scholar Tran Trong Kim who became the first Prime Minister of the Vietnamese Empire. Japan approved of him, he was a nationalist and had written extensively on the principles of Confucius and his books on the subject were standard reading in Vietnamese schools. For a time there was a flurry of activity: a national flag and national anthem were adopted. Streets were renamed for Vietnamese heroes and Nguyen Emperors while French names were dropped. Vietnamese became the official language of government again and efforts were made to gain foreign recognition and encourage public support for the new government. Vietnam finally had a native regime that was independent, in name even if not yet in fact, if only the people would rally to it.
Unfortunately for everyone, the colonial history and the presence of the Japanese, proved too much for people to look past. The VietMinh, rather than acknowledge the declaration of independence by the Emperor and joining with the new government, chose instead to ignore and finally subvert it. The public was swayed by the fact that Japanese exploitation, combined with a famine, brought a horrible starvation crisis to north Vietnam, which the Tran Trong Kim administration was powerless to act against. Instead, it was the VietMinh who came in with hunger relief and so won over a huge number of people in the north, the core supporters for the Communist revolution. There was also the problem of the continued separation of the south, the lack of an effective infrastructure and disunity within the ranks of Bao Dai's government. The presence of a few Japanese officials, and the lack of a ministry of defense in the new government, gave the Communists ample propaganda ammunition to label the Kim government as collaborators and to encourage people to continue to resist the new empire and back the VietMinh.
In fact, some of Bao Dai's own officials resigned from office to join the VietMinh, especially when it became so obvious that the Japanese were on their way out and the Communists had the only major force on the ground since the French surrender. At a rally for support of the Empire of Vietnam in Hanoi, the VietMinh launched a pre-arranged take-over of the event, hauled down the imperial flag and replaced it with the red and began singing the Communist anthem. In short order, the major cities rose up with the VietMinh and ultimately Emperor Bao Dai was obliged to abdicate. Tran Trong Kim had resigned earlier and went to the Japanese for protection. The era of the Nguyen Dynasty was declared to be at an end and a second declaration of independence was issued, this time by Ho Chi Minh, for the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam".
It is important to understand what a great opportunity for Vietnam was lost when groups such as the VietMinh, who could not see past the Japanese, failed to unite in solidarity around the Viet Nam De Quoc. Japan was clearly defeated and the time clearly at hand to seize the day and secure independence if only all nationalist parties could have overcome their differences and worked together. Bao Dai called for international recognition, but none was forthcoming. Invitations were made for unity with all independence parties, but few chose to cooperate. The ruling clique within the VietMinh had made it clear that they wanted absolute power, not shared with anyone, and they would settle for nothing less. If cooler, more moderate heads within the VietMinh could have prevailed, and all sides come together to support the new government and work for the future, what immense pain, suffering and death could have been avoided in the future.
This, in itself, was a lost opportunity for both Japan and Vietnam. For some time, the Vietnamese, like most all other Asians, had admired Japan for her stunning victory over the Russians, her wealth and prosperity as well as her determination to beat the Western powers at their own game and prove that the Europeans could not only be rivaled by Asians, but defeated by them. The Meiji Restoration had kept the basic forms of Japanese society in place while also allowing massive innovation that put them on an equal footing with Western powers. There were many in Vietnam who wished that the Nguyen Emperor would have taken the same course of action for their country.
Throughout the colonial period, Japan had been seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a friend of the Asian people living under European rule. They were a particular source of haven if not outright support for the anti-French nationalists Pham Boi Chau and Marquis Cuong De. For some time there was considerable support for Phan Boi Chau's movement to overthrow the French administration, depose the Nguyen emperors who collaborated with them and enthrone Cuong De as Emperor of a modernized Vietnam, but still one based on the traditional principles Phan Boi Chau and the other mandarins were familiar with. Even after Phan Boi Chau began to follow the example of Sun Yat-Sen's Chinese republican movement, Prince Cuong De, working mostly from Japan, still had considerable support among nationalist-monarchist groups such as the Dai Viet party, the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai sects as well as the future President of Viet Nam, the mandarin Ngo Dinh Diem.
Many Vietnamese were then extremely disillusioned when Japan marched into Vietnam and chose to work alongside their French occupiers rather than liberating their "brother Asians" from foreign domination. Although some, hoping for the best, collaborated with the Japanese, many became disgusted by Japanese actions and joined the ranks of the American-backed Viet Nam Doc Lap Dong Minh Hoi, a Communist-ruled nationalist group under the leadership of "Nguyen Ai Quoc", later best known as President Ho Chi Minh. However, when the war began to turn against Japan, they were motivated to take action toward creating a client state in Indochina, as they had done in Manchuria and parts of China and Mongolia as well as Burma.
In March, 1945, when the Japanese launched a coup against the French administration, the reigning Emperor, Bao Dai, who had been totally sidelined by the French, had no idea what had happened until his car was stopped by Japanese soldiers on his way back to the capital. Prior to this, the Japanese had had little to do with him, Cuong De was seen as "their man" and Bao Dai had been allowed only a nominal role in national affairs by the French. Japan now presented Emperor Bao Dai with the opportunity to be rid of the French, declare independence, and join Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", an eloquent term for those nations under Japanese control.
Actually, Bao Dai had little choice in the matter. The Japanese were obviously in control of the country, and Cuong De, who had at least some following as a nationalist leader, was standing by to assume the throne if he refused. Despite what some have written, Bao Dai was under no illusions as to what this offer of independence meant. However, it was easy enough to see that Japan was on the brink of defeat and the Emperor decided that even the word "independence" was too good to pass up. He agreed and on March 11, 1945 issued a royal ordinance declaring their complete independence from France, the abolition of all treaties signed with them, and the formation of the "Viet Nam De Quoc" or the Empire of Vietnam. This came before Ho Chi Minh's declaration of independence and provided the basic symbolism later adopted by the republican regime in South Vietnam.
Although Ngo Dinh Diem was first suggested, it was the scholar Tran Trong Kim who became the first Prime Minister of the Vietnamese Empire. Japan approved of him, he was a nationalist and had written extensively on the principles of Confucius and his books on the subject were standard reading in Vietnamese schools. For a time there was a flurry of activity: a national flag and national anthem were adopted. Streets were renamed for Vietnamese heroes and Nguyen Emperors while French names were dropped. Vietnamese became the official language of government again and efforts were made to gain foreign recognition and encourage public support for the new government. Vietnam finally had a native regime that was independent, in name even if not yet in fact, if only the people would rally to it.
Unfortunately for everyone, the colonial history and the presence of the Japanese, proved too much for people to look past. The VietMinh, rather than acknowledge the declaration of independence by the Emperor and joining with the new government, chose instead to ignore and finally subvert it. The public was swayed by the fact that Japanese exploitation, combined with a famine, brought a horrible starvation crisis to north Vietnam, which the Tran Trong Kim administration was powerless to act against. Instead, it was the VietMinh who came in with hunger relief and so won over a huge number of people in the north, the core supporters for the Communist revolution. There was also the problem of the continued separation of the south, the lack of an effective infrastructure and disunity within the ranks of Bao Dai's government. The presence of a few Japanese officials, and the lack of a ministry of defense in the new government, gave the Communists ample propaganda ammunition to label the Kim government as collaborators and to encourage people to continue to resist the new empire and back the VietMinh.
In fact, some of Bao Dai's own officials resigned from office to join the VietMinh, especially when it became so obvious that the Japanese were on their way out and the Communists had the only major force on the ground since the French surrender. At a rally for support of the Empire of Vietnam in Hanoi, the VietMinh launched a pre-arranged take-over of the event, hauled down the imperial flag and replaced it with the red and began singing the Communist anthem. In short order, the major cities rose up with the VietMinh and ultimately Emperor Bao Dai was obliged to abdicate. Tran Trong Kim had resigned earlier and went to the Japanese for protection. The era of the Nguyen Dynasty was declared to be at an end and a second declaration of independence was issued, this time by Ho Chi Minh, for the "Democratic Republic of Vietnam".
It is important to understand what a great opportunity for Vietnam was lost when groups such as the VietMinh, who could not see past the Japanese, failed to unite in solidarity around the Viet Nam De Quoc. Japan was clearly defeated and the time clearly at hand to seize the day and secure independence if only all nationalist parties could have overcome their differences and worked together. Bao Dai called for international recognition, but none was forthcoming. Invitations were made for unity with all independence parties, but few chose to cooperate. The ruling clique within the VietMinh had made it clear that they wanted absolute power, not shared with anyone, and they would settle for nothing less. If cooler, more moderate heads within the VietMinh could have prevailed, and all sides come together to support the new government and work for the future, what immense pain, suffering and death could have been avoided in the future.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
A Queen's Soldier at Gettysburg
It was on this day in 1863 that the epic battle of Gettysburg, the largest battle ever fought in the western hemisphere and the bloodiest battle in American history, ended in victory for the northern United States and defeat for the southern Confederacy after the gallantly tragic “Picket’s Charge”. There were a number of foreign military officers present to observe that battle but, thanks to Hollywood, probably none are as famous as Lt. Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle of the elite Coldstream Guards regiment of the British army. Like many of his background Fremantle was disposed to sympathize with the southern states, which retained a more “old world” atmosphere and he wanted to witness the historic events of the war first-hand.
Traveling in an unofficial capacity he avoided the Union blockade by landing in Matamoros, Mexico and traveling through Texas. While there he met General “Prince John” Magruder who would go on to serve in the army of Emperor Maximilian of Mexico after the war. Colonel Fremantle was surprised by how widespread the support for his homeland was in the Confederacy. Many times as he dined with Confederate officers and officials his hosts would offer toasts to Queen Victoria and the British Empire. Upon meeting with General Joseph E. Johnston (second most senior general in the southern army) the Virginian informed him that the Confederates would be much happier under Queen Victoria than U.S. President Lincoln. Fremantle records Johnston’s exact words, "I can assure you, Colonel, that nine out of ten in the South would sooner become subjects of Queen Victoria than return to the Union."
Of course, the Confederate States had always been anxious to win recognition from Europe and the British particularly as the Royal Navy could have been of immense benefit in lifting the blockade of the southern coast. Despite being an unofficial observer, certainly no diplomat or government official, Confederate civilian and military leaders constantly tried to impress on Fremantle the benefits of an Anglo-Confederate alliance. Fremantle himself smiled at the prospect but his honesty forced him to admit that it was unlikely. Slavery was seen as distasteful in Britain by even some of the most ardent southern sympathizers and would prevent British recognition of the south until it was already an accomplished fact. While visiting Charleston, South Carolina, and meeting the ‘hero of Ft Sumter’ General Pierre G. T. Beauregard, Colonel Fremantle also made the point that Britain feared the U.S. would invade and conquer Canada if they recognized the south. The dapper Louisiana general assured Fremantle that with the blockade lifted southern armies could march swiftly into the northern states to threaten major cities that this would so occupy the northern armies as to make an invasion of Canada impossible.
When Fremantle reached the Confederate capital of Richmond the Secretary of State insisted that if Britain would only recognize their Confederacy the war would be ended immediately and peacefully. This was probably not entirely realistic nor could the security of Canada be absolutely guaranteed. Nonetheless, Fremantle was impressed by the friendly welcome he received and he was greatly impressed by what he saw of the Confederate forces in action. Like most he was very impressed with General Robert E. Lee and could not help but note that he was a descendant of the English nation and a member of the Church of England. His southern sympathies were only encouraged when he left the south and traveled through the northern states to New York where he witnessed the infamous “Draft Riots” with soldiers shooting down crowds of civilians in the streets and Black Americans being lynched by angry mobs.
The British colonel was thus very happy to board a ship back to Great Britain where he went on to a long and illustrious military career. His tour of the south made him admire the skill and determination of the Confederates, civil and military, and he predicted that the Confederacy must emerge victorious from the war. However, he was an honest observer and did not hesitate to mention spectacles which he found very disagreeable such as the sight of a slave auction in progress. Although sympathetic toward the Confederacy he was a fair-minded and impartial observer in a conflict that was to have immense repercussions. The general cause of monarchy was effected by the outcome, directly and indirectly. The defeat of the Confederacy spelled certain doom for the struggling Empire of Mexico and the rise of a re-United States as a major world power, inclined toward republicanism and often prejudiced against monarchy would mean many changes in the future as the New World came to play an ever larger role in the Old.
Traveling in an unofficial capacity he avoided the Union blockade by landing in Matamoros, Mexico and traveling through Texas. While there he met General “Prince John” Magruder who would go on to serve in the army of Emperor Maximilian of Mexico after the war. Colonel Fremantle was surprised by how widespread the support for his homeland was in the Confederacy. Many times as he dined with Confederate officers and officials his hosts would offer toasts to Queen Victoria and the British Empire. Upon meeting with General Joseph E. Johnston (second most senior general in the southern army) the Virginian informed him that the Confederates would be much happier under Queen Victoria than U.S. President Lincoln. Fremantle records Johnston’s exact words, "I can assure you, Colonel, that nine out of ten in the South would sooner become subjects of Queen Victoria than return to the Union."
Of course, the Confederate States had always been anxious to win recognition from Europe and the British particularly as the Royal Navy could have been of immense benefit in lifting the blockade of the southern coast. Despite being an unofficial observer, certainly no diplomat or government official, Confederate civilian and military leaders constantly tried to impress on Fremantle the benefits of an Anglo-Confederate alliance. Fremantle himself smiled at the prospect but his honesty forced him to admit that it was unlikely. Slavery was seen as distasteful in Britain by even some of the most ardent southern sympathizers and would prevent British recognition of the south until it was already an accomplished fact. While visiting Charleston, South Carolina, and meeting the ‘hero of Ft Sumter’ General Pierre G. T. Beauregard, Colonel Fremantle also made the point that Britain feared the U.S. would invade and conquer Canada if they recognized the south. The dapper Louisiana general assured Fremantle that with the blockade lifted southern armies could march swiftly into the northern states to threaten major cities that this would so occupy the northern armies as to make an invasion of Canada impossible.
When Fremantle reached the Confederate capital of Richmond the Secretary of State insisted that if Britain would only recognize their Confederacy the war would be ended immediately and peacefully. This was probably not entirely realistic nor could the security of Canada be absolutely guaranteed. Nonetheless, Fremantle was impressed by the friendly welcome he received and he was greatly impressed by what he saw of the Confederate forces in action. Like most he was very impressed with General Robert E. Lee and could not help but note that he was a descendant of the English nation and a member of the Church of England. His southern sympathies were only encouraged when he left the south and traveled through the northern states to New York where he witnessed the infamous “Draft Riots” with soldiers shooting down crowds of civilians in the streets and Black Americans being lynched by angry mobs.
The British colonel was thus very happy to board a ship back to Great Britain where he went on to a long and illustrious military career. His tour of the south made him admire the skill and determination of the Confederates, civil and military, and he predicted that the Confederacy must emerge victorious from the war. However, he was an honest observer and did not hesitate to mention spectacles which he found very disagreeable such as the sight of a slave auction in progress. Although sympathetic toward the Confederacy he was a fair-minded and impartial observer in a conflict that was to have immense repercussions. The general cause of monarchy was effected by the outcome, directly and indirectly. The defeat of the Confederacy spelled certain doom for the struggling Empire of Mexico and the rise of a re-United States as a major world power, inclined toward republicanism and often prejudiced against monarchy would mean many changes in the future as the New World came to play an ever larger role in the Old.
Friday, July 2, 2010
French Adventure in Texas
Rene Robert Cavelier was well known to fame in New France (Canada) as a fur trader when His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XIV granted him a monopoly on the fur trade in North America, authorized his further exploration of the colony and gave him the title of Sieur de LaSalle. In one of the most significant expeditions for the Kingdom of France La Salle explored the Mississippi River in 1682, reached its mouth and claimed the entire basin for the King of France, which he named Louisiana in honor of his King and Queen. Then, on August 1, 1684, La Salle set sail with four ships and a group of colonists to return to Louisiana -at least that was their plan.
On route the St Francois was sent to the bottom by Spanish pirates and foul weather caused the remaining vessels, La Belle, Amiable, and Joli to miss Louisiana. On New Year’s Day, 1685, they reached the coast of Texas near Sabine Pass. They were still trying to find the mouth of the Mississippi when the Amiable, carrying the bulk of their supplies, ran aground at Pass Caballo in Matagorda Bay on the Texas coast. That was the last straw for the commander of the flotilla, Captain Beaujeu, who took the Joli and set sail for France leaving La Salle abandoned with only La Belle still afloat.
So it was that Sieur de La Salle was stranded in Texas in 1685 on the shores of Lavaca Bay. Yet, he was not a man to easily admit defeat and he put his men to work tearing apart the grounded ship and using the timber to build a fort. Named Fort St Louis, La Salle hoisted the French flag and claimed the territory; the first time the lilies of France flew over Texas soil. At the same time he continued to sail his remaining ship along the coast, still searching for the great river. However, in May of the following year La Belle ran aground as well and sank. La Salle and the survivors were able to make their way by rafts and canoes back to their comrades at Ft St Louis.
Once back, with no transportation at all, La Salle decided that they would have to try to hike overland all the way to Canada. It was a controversial decision, fraught with danger, but in January of 1687 La Salle and his men set out in 2 teams of 17 men led by La Salle and his nephew Moranget. The second group soon ran into trouble. On March 19 two buffalo were killed but Moranget would not allow his men the best meat and that night three men; Liotot, Duhaut and Hiens killed Moranget and their Indian guide as they slept. Once the deed was done they knew that to save themselves they would have to kill La Salle as well.
Once back, with no transportation at all, La Salle decided that they would have to try to hike overland all the way to Canada. It was a controversial decision, fraught with danger, but in January of 1687 La Salle and his men set out in 2 teams of 17 men led by La Salle and his nephew Moranget. The second group soon ran into trouble. On March 19 two buffalo were killed but Moranget would not allow his men the best meat and that night three men; Liotot, Duhaut and Hiens killed Moranget and their Indian guide as they slept. Once the deed was done they knew that to save themselves they would have to kill La Salle as well.
On March 20, when his nephew did not report in, La Salle left Henri Joutel in command of the first column and went looking for Moranget accompanied by the priest Father Anastasius Douay. The three murderers and the rest of the group of mutineers concealed themselves in tall grass by a river and when La Salle passed Duhaut fired his musket, hitting La Salle in the head and killing him instantly. No one really knows where the murder happened but a statue of La Salle stands in Navasota in Grimes County, Texas to mark the death of the intrepid explorer. The mutineers left the body in the bushes “for the beasts to devour”.
Father Douay expected to be killed as well but the mutineers promised not to harm him. The ragged group rejoined the first column and promised death to anyone who tried to report them to the French authorities. Joutel and Abbe Jean (La Salle’s brother) promised silence and the murderer Duhaut took over and the party returned to Fort St Louis. However, things went from bad to worse when two of the mutineers were killed fighting over tools. Seven men loyal to La Salle decided to try again to reach Canada but the remaining mutineers stayed behind, fearing French justice more than the wilds of Texas.
That rough group managed the seemingly impossible, trudging into Montreal, Canada in August of 1688 after a trek lasting 20 years from Texas to Quebec. Meanwhile, back in Texas, the remaining mutineers in Fort St Louis were overrun in an Indian attack. The survivors were made slaves but, hearing of the French incursion, the Kingdom of Spain sent an expedition to deal with any potential threat on their northern frontier. General De Leon reached the ruined remains of Fort St Louis in 1689. The Indians handed their French slaves over to the Spanish who were given the choice of jail or service in the Spanish navy.
Such was the end of the third and last expedition of the explorer La Salle to America. The establishment of a French fort in Texas, though not long-lasting, had an impact on history by stirring the Spanish to take more seriously the colonization of the area as well as pushing them to construct a line of missions and presidios across Texas to guard against any future threat from the French. None were to come but the name of La Salle is still an honored one with numerous landmarks, streets and a distant county bearing his name. It was also thanks mostly to him that the flag of the lilies of France still flies proudly in the Lone Star State to this day.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Monarchist Profile: Chief Tecumseh
Chief Tecumseh was one of the great American Indian leaders of the 19th Century and an unsung hero for the Crown forces during the War of 1812. His life dispels many of the myths often associated with the Indian nations of this period. He was a shrewd political operator, a realistic leader of great foresight who could see what many could not, he had his own ideals and goals and made diplomatic decisions based on how best to accomplish them and he was a skilled military leader. His exact date of birth is unknown but a common one given is March 9, 1768 when he was born probably near what is now Columbus, Ohio into the Shawnee nation, Kispoko tribe, in which his father was a deputy war chief. His parents have moved to the area after being driven out of Alabama by tribal warfare there. In that hotly contested region his father, like many others, was pulled into the French and Indian War and Lord Dunmore’s War just prior to the American War of Independence. It was during Lord Dunmore’s War that Tecumseh’s father was killed at the battle of Point Pleasant in 1774.
The death of his father trying to halt expansion of the English colonies in America naturally had a significant impact on Tecumseh and he determined then to devote himself to becoming a warrior and fighting against the foreign presence encroaching on Indian lands; at that time British but soon to be American. He set out on his own, recruiting his own band of Native American warriors and waged a guerilla war against the flow of settlers moving west. He was quite successful at this but not without cost as his own village was burned a number of times in retaliatory offensives by American militia. Because King George III banned settling west of the Appalachians to save it for the Native Americans and because the colonial “patriots” were already violating the ban and claiming vast tracts of land for themselves most Indians, the Shawnee included, allied with the British Crown during the American War for Independence. The family of young Tecumseh was thus caught up in the conflict and displaced during the frontier campaign of George Rogers Clark.
After the United States won its independence and control of all formerly British lands up to the French Louisiana Territory. This led to more conflicts between the Americans and the Indians with the British naturally doing what they could to support the Indians short of outright intervention and provoking hostilities with the United States. Tecumseh became an accomplished warrior during this period and, along with his brother, fought in the battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 when U.S. forces decisively defeated the Indians. However, as the Indians were pushed back and more American settlers poured in a religious revival spread across the Native tribes led by Tenskwatawa, a prophet and the younger brother of Tecumseh. He preached a message of reactionary defiance calling upon all Native Americans to oppose further encroachment by the United States, to reject all things foreign (like alcohol -a wise decision and firearms -probably not so wise) and restore their traditional customs, styles and way of life.
While his brother focused on the spiritual revival, Tecumseh began planning to forge a large tribal confederacy of as many Indian nations as possible to band together to stop American expansion once and for all. Through the preaching of his brother and the diplomatic efforts of Tecumseh such an alliance began to take shape with the role of chief naturally falling on Tecumseh. His forces were soon drawn into conflict with the US after William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, bribed, intimidated and cajoled a group of Indian leaders into signing over 3 million acres of land to the United States. Tecumseh urged the other Native American leaders to reject the treaty and even confronted Harrison on the issue, threatening to ally with Great Britain against the US if he refused. Harrison, obviously, did refuse but the prestige of Tecumseh continued to grow, thanks to his masterful oratory and the actions of the American government which convinced many that they could not be trusted.
Tecumseh traveled extensively, advocating unity among the Indian nations and resistance to the US government. In the south, the Red Sticks answered and the result was the Creek War. While he was gone Governor Harrison moved against his brother ‘the Prophet’ who launched a surprise attack on the American camp at the famous battle of Tippecanoe. The result was a terrible defeat for the Indians and a victory Harrison would later capitalize on to catapult him into politics. Yet, there were good signs. In 1812 the United States brashly declared war on Great Britain and launched an invasion of Canada. Remembering the earlier alliance between many of his people and the British, Tecumseh hoped they could achieve together a victory over US expansionism. When British General Sir Isaac Brock besieged Fort Detroit Chief Tecumseh joined him, displaying considerable tactical skill. The Americans finally surrendered Detroit without firing a shot despite having the British, Canadians and Indians outnumbered.
In ensuing battles between the British and Americans Tecumseh was on hand, using his forces expertly as scouts, raiders and flank troops. The death of General Brock was a great setback though as the new top commander in Canada, General Henry Proctor, favored a conservative defensive strategy whereas Tecumseh (and many British and Canadian officers as well) urged an offensive strategy. Tecumseh was eager to fight a decisive action but when the next major battle came it was the last for the great Indian leader. On October 5, 1813 a British-Canadian-Indian force met an American army 3 times their size at the battle of the Thames near what is now Chatham-Kent, Ontario. In command of the American forces was Tecumseh’s old nemesis William Henry Harrison. The plan Proctor had for the battle never got off the ground and early on the bulk of the British troops were forced to retreat or surrender. Tecumseh and his men fought on, putting up a remarkably determined and heroic resistance when Tecumseh was killed. With the rest of the army gone and their chief killed the remaining Indian forces quickly folded.
As we know, the War of 1812 ended in stalemate. The Americans were defeated in their efforts to conquer Canada but they lost no territory of their own. General Proctor was court-martialed for his performance at the Thames and Harrison eventually became President of the United States. Tecumseh joined the ranks of the great heroes of the Native American people and one of the great villains of the early American republic. However, his legacy lingered in the form of a legend which said that Tecumseh (or more often his brother the ‘Prophet’) put a curse on the leaders of the United States which said that no president elected during a year ending in zero would survive the office. The legend gained some credence over the years as Harrison (elected in 1840) died of pneumonia in office, Abraham Lincoln (elected in 1860) was assassinated in office, James Garfield (elected in 1880) was assassinated in office, William McKinley (elected in 1900) was assassinated in office, Warren Harding (elected in 1920) died of a heart attack in office, Franklin D. Roosevelt (elected in 1940) died of a cerebral hemorrhage in office and John F. Kennedy (elected in 1960) was assassinated in office. However, the “curse” seems to have been broken as the next two president elected in a year ending in zero (Reagan and George W. Bush) both survived their terms though both had attempts made on their life.
Ironically enough, Tecumseh has, after a considerable passing of time, become almost as honored in the United States as he is in Canada where he is regarded as a hero in the war that saved Canadian independence from the US with numerous, towns, landmarks, ships etc named in his honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
