MM Video: The Royal Family of the Netherlands

Royal News Roundup

Last weekend royals gathered in Rome for the beatification of HH Pope John Paul II. Among those on hand at the Vatican for the event (which attracted record crowds not seen since the funeral of the late, beloved pontiff) were representatives of most of the Catholic royal houses of Europe such as HSH Prince Hans-Adam II and Princess Marie of Liechtenstein, Their Royal Highnesses the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume of Luxembourg, Their Royal Highnesses Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia of Asturias, Their Majesties King Albert II and Queen Paola of the Belgians and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. A notable absentee was HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco (one of the few remaining officially Catholic monarchies in the world). Perhaps wedding preparations are taking up all of his spare time. Also on the Mediterranean front, America had an Italian royal visit. On Thursday, April 28, HRH Prince Emanuele Filiberto of Venice and Piedmont was in the United States, showing up in Hollywood, California at Graumanâs Chinese Theatre for the TCM Classic Film Festival opening night gala and the world premiere of the newly restored movie “An American in Paris”.

California is a hot place for royals this year it seems. HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden visited San Francisco, California recently in connection with her charity work. St James Palace announced that the newlywed Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be visiting the Golden State July 8-10. In June HM Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and HRH Prince Henrik will visit the United States, stopping at Washington DC and New York City. And, German royal fans can take cheer that the invitations to the August wedding of HIRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and HSH Princess Sophie of Isenberg have gone out which promises to be a very happy event. Some 1500 people have been invited.

April 30 was National Day in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and HM Queen Beatrix and the rest of the Royal Family turned out, as did much of the country, for all sorts of celebrations. The Dutch public was awash in Orange as the crowds celebrated the official birthday of their Queen. There were also events on May 5 to commemorate the liberation of the Netherlands by American and Canadian Allied troops from Nazi occupation at the end of World War II. The Dutch underground, inspired by Queen Wilhelmina, played a key role in the Allied offensive on the continent and Prince Bernhard (father of the current monarch) was also heavily involved in the conflict as a wing commander in the Royal Air Force and later as commander of the Dutch armed forces in the liberation campaign.

This week, new problems arose for the monarchy in the troubled Kingdom of Belgium when journalists from a Flemish and a Walloon newspaper put out a new book (“King Without a Country”) revealing confidential discussions between the King and high-ranking politicians. The most controversial issues have been the claim that HM King Albert II told party leaders he would not allow new elections and the King taking sides on certain issues. The Royal Palace quickly denounced the publication saying that the breach of confidentiality could have disastrous consequences. A statement said, “Some excerpts contain manifest untruths, in particular accounts of conversations on 16 June and 8 October 2010”. They also stated that such a breach of confidentiality undermined the capability of the King to be an effective, neutral, head of state. The authors said the King was refusing to call new elections out of fear that Flemish nationalists would gain even more support. Personally, I don’t see what is so outrageous about that; the King must swear to maintain the nation and so will obviously be opposed to those who wish to break it up. However, the issue was quickly taken up by those enemies of the monarchy who wish to see the King removed from any political role at all. If that happens, I think it is safe to say, the total loss of the Kingdom of Belgium would not be far behind.

Consort Profile: Empress Maria Theresa of Austria

One of my favorite royal figures, and a reigning monarch in all but name, was the Holy Roman Empress Maria Theresa of Austria. During a time when Europe seemed overrun with rulers so taken by the ideas of the “Enlightenment”, who delighted in attacking organized religion, lived lives of sin and debasement and who accepted eagerly every new liberal trend that came along, God provided at least one monarch who set an example for all people in the person of Archduchess Marie Theresia von Habsburg. Born on May 13, 1717, she was the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, who had hoped for a son but was never given one. Desperate to secure the succession for his daughter, he spent vast sums of money influencing the crowned heads of Europe to agree to the “Pragmatic Sanction” which they did, promising to recognize Maria Theresa as heiress to the Hapsburg empire and to respect her rights and territory. Sadly, this agreement did not have the effect that the Kaiser hoped and his fortune would probably have been better spent beefing up the Austrian army instead of trusting in the goodwill of his neighbors as Prince Eugene of Savoy had advised him.

In 1740 Emperor Charles VI died, leaving behind a daughter he had never really prepared for the role of Empress and a state that was almost bankrupt. Given the character of the new wave of liberal “enlightened despots”, it is perhaps not surprising that the Emperor was hardly cold in the ground before King Frederick the Great of Prussia broke his word and marched 30,000 men into Silesia. To oppose him, the greatest soldier in Europe, was the 23-year-old Empress Maria Theresa, pious and inexperienced, who could have hardly seemed like a very imposing figure to the famous old warrior. Furthermore, the British were pushing the new Empress to give in to Prussian demands for territory and the French were backing Karl Albrecht, Graf von Bayern (Bavaria) as a claimant to the Austrian throne.

Against all of these enemies, and with her own court lacking in faith in the young woman and urging her to submit to Frederick, Maria Theresa held her ground and turned for support to the Hungarians. In a show of chivalry that should inspire pride in every Magyar heart, the Hungarians defied the odds and rushed to her side with enthusiastic loyalty. Heartened by the support of the fierce and faithful Hungarians, the Empress wrote to the ambassador of Great Britain, “Not only for political reasons, but from conscience and honor, I will not consent to part with much in Silesia. No sooner is one enemy satisfied than another starts up; another, and then another must be appeased, and all at my expense.” If the nations of Europe were determined to take advantage of Maria Theresa, they would certainly have a fight on their hands. During the War of Austrian Succession the Empress gained the grudging respect and recognition of the rest of Europe. Austria became a great power and Maria Theresa’s husband, Franz Stefan von Lothringen (or Francis Stephen of Lorraine) was elected Holy Roman Emperor though Maria Theresa continued to rule as she was simply far more suited to the task than her husband, to whom, nonetheless, she was lovingly devoted.

As Empress consort, Maria Theresa certainly succeeded in securing the succession of the Hapsburg throne, having 16 children, 9 of whom lived to adulthood. She also set an example of moral and devout Catholic leadership when most of the rest of Europe had fallen prey to ideas of nationalistic tyranny, influenced by the “Enlightenment”. Maria Theresa also cared deeply for her people and would visit them in disguise to learn the true state of affairs in her realm and hear the honest opinion of her people. She greatly improved the lives of her people and the economy of Austria by cutting taxes for the poor and, for the first time in Austrian history, taxing the nobility. She built up a strong and efficient military so that Austria would not be caught at a disadvantage again, she improved the justice system, gave the poor the opportunity for an education and allowed peasants to own their own land rather than constantly being at the mercy of the landed aristocracy. She also provided a refuge for the Jesuits when her son, Emperor Joseph II, and even the Church turned against them.

In the Seven Years War (known as the French & Indian War in America) she took Austria in on the side of France and Russia against Portugal, Great Britain and Prussia. Silesia was retaken for a time but a change in leadership in Russia saved Frederick the Great from defeat. Empress Maria Theresa was greatly distressed by the huge losses for France, particularly their eclipse by Britain in North America but Austria at least broke even in the conflict. The military campaigns Maria Theresa undertook were not always unqualified successes but she certainly surprised everyone by her determination and under weaker leadership the Hapsburgs would have certainly lost a great deal more. So courageous and strong-willed was the Austrian empress that she once said, in all honesty, that had she not been constantly pregnant (16 children remember!) she would have taken to the battlefield herself and led her forces in person, which would certainly have been a sight to see. She was a formidable woman in every way.

Aside from going along with Prussia and Russia in the unfortunate partition of Poland, which she did against her better judgment, Empress Maria Theresa stands in sharp contrast to other rulers of her time for her courage, piety and true concern for the welfare of her people. While other “enlightened” government officials in foreign lands ruled with an iron fist, Maria Theresa earned the loyalty of her people through her benevolent policies and by improving their lives. Likewise, while others (we will mention no names) were living lifestyles marked by scandal, murder and debauchery, Maria Theresa set an example of Christian virtue and as a loyal daughter of the Church. All of these rulers, whether Frederick the Great or Catherine the Great, had their own personal talents which cannot be ignored, but Maria Theresa sets an example as one who was able to rule with wisdom and compassion, being both a clever monarch and an example of morality for her people, which is truly the mark of a great leader.

Cinco de Mayo

It is that time of year again and amidst all the celebrations (moreso in the US than in Mexico for some reason) it is important to remember a few facts about this holiday.

Monarchist Profile: General Mariano Osorio

One of the leading royalists in South America, particularly Chile, was General Mariano Osorio. He was born in the city of Seville, Spain in 1777 and, like many of his generation, joined the army and saw his first combat in the Peninsular War against the forces of Napoleonic France in 1808. He made something of a name for himself on the field of battle against the French occupying forces. In 1810 he was appointed head of armaments production in Catalonia before being posted to the colonial army in Peru, Peru being something of a royalist stronghold in South America where revolution was stirring. A brilliant mind, he served as professor of mathematics at the local Spanish military academy when he was not on the battlefield as general of artillery.

After moving to Peru, General Osorio settled down and gained a major personal and social victory when he married the daughter of the Viceroy of Peru, Joaquin de la Pezuela, Joaquina de la Pezuela. Soon, he was thrust into battle against the revolutionary forces determined to dismantle the Spanish empire in America. When republican forces attempted to seize control of Chile, General Osorio was sent in and led the royalists to victory at the Battle of Rancagua (known as the ‘Disaster of Rancagua’ in revolutionary circles) on October 2, 1814 against the Chilean rebel army under Bernardo O’Higgins and Jose Miguel Carrera. It was a great victory for the Spanish royalist forces and O’Higgins himself only narrowly escaped with his life. General Osorio had triumphed, despite having a rather reckless second-in-command, and a few days later the Spanish army marched unopposed into Santiago.

Chile was again under Crown control and this period is known in local history as “the recon quest”. General Mariano de Osorio was appointed Governor and Captain-General of Chile and he methodically set about restoring law and order, suppressing rebellion and meting out harsh justice to those who had committed treason against His Catholic Majesty. Courts of vindication, as they were called, were established and rebels were either hanged or exiled to the outlying islands. Those whose property had been seized or destroyed by the revolutionaries were given compensation. In 1815 formal royal courts were reestablished and, during his brief tenure, General Osorio also closed the National Institute and Library (where revolutionary sentiment was rife) and restricted trade as this too was often an avenue of subversion. These stern measures did restore peace, law and order but had a detrimental effect on the economy which impacted republican and royalist forces alike. However, Osorio had done his duty well, he had defeated the revolutionary army, restored Chile to the King of Spain and suppressed insurgent activity.

However, Don Mariano was not a harsh or cruel man and tried to be fair to all. He recommended a number of exiles to the King for clemency and always had as his goal the reestablishment of humane and moderate government. After two years of this political service, Mariano de Osorio returned to Lima, Peru and turned the governorship of Chile over to Francisco Marco del Pont. However, things did not go well in his absence. On February 12, 1817 the revolutionary Army of the Andes under the famed Jose de San Martin soundly defeated a Spanish royalist army under Rafael Maroto near Santiago (it helped that the rebels had about a 3-to-1 superiority in numbers) at the battle of Chacabuco. Once again, General Mariano de Osorio was looked to for leadership and he gathered a royalist army and marched back to Chile to restore the authority of the Crown once again.

On March 16, 1818 Osorio and his smaller royalist army launched a surprise attack on the combined rebel forces of Jose de San Martin and Bernardo O’Higgins at the Second Battle of Cancha Rayada. The battle was a stunning royalist victory. Having every advantage, the last thing the rebel forces expected was for Osorio to attack them and they were caught completely unprepared. O’Higgins was badly wounded and the Army of the Andes soon disintegrated into a panic-stricken flight from the field, O’Higgins and San Martin barely staying ahead of the pursuing royalists themselves, indeed rumors spread that they had been killed. The revolution had been knocked back again and morale was extremely low amongst the republican leadership of Chile and Argentina.

However, things were not ideal in the royalist camp either. General Osorio had suffered around 200 losses but more had been captured and even more had simply deserted so that, despite gaining a decisive victory, his already outnumbered force had been reduced by nearly half. San Martin had escaped and still held Santiago and was quickly rebuilding his army. This was done with such effectiveness that despite being routed at his last engagement he was able to field an army fully equal to that of the royalists at their next encounter. That meeting came at the Battle of Maipu on April 5, 1818 near Santiago. San Martin opened the battle with an attack and made good use of his cavalry knowing that the royalists were lacking in cavalry from their previous engagement. Despite hard fighting, the royalist flank was turned and the rebel horsemen overran their position. The battle was a complete victory for the revolutionaries and General Osorio was forced to abandon the field. Chile was lost to the Spanish Crown for good and with the decimation of the royalist army the way for Jose de San Martin was open to Peru.

Royalist control in Chile was reduced to Chiloe island and the city of Valdivia. General Osorio returned to Lima to report on how such a disaster had come about. After settling matters there and disheartened over the break-up of Spain’s empire in the Americas, he decided to return home. However, while sailing through the Caribbean the general became very ill and put in at Cuba. He was found to have malaria and died there in 1819. General Don Mariano de Osorio had won some great victories for his King and country in his career and should be remembered for that. He had restored Chile to the Spanish Crown once but had not been able to do it twice.

Madame Nhu Dies at 86

The always controversial Tran Le Xuan, better known as Madame Nhu, wife of Ngo Dinh Nhu, the un-official first lady of South Vietnam died on Easter Sunday in Rome at the age of 86. Having already posted on "The Dragon Lady", a great-granddaughter of Emperor Dong Khanh, I shall not re-tell her story. Although we would certainly be at odds on at least one topic, I always had rather a soft spot for Madame Nhu, a very tough lady who had a refreshingly blunt sort of honesty. It seems rather fitting that she died on Easter, given that she left Buddhism for Christianity and had all of the zeal of a convert, doing her best to uphold Catholic morality in the Republic of Vietnam. She was also an ardent anti-communist who wished that the Christian nations could show as much solidarity as the anti-Christian, atheistic ones did. Unfortunately, she will be mostly remembered, as she has been, in a very negative light, as the woman who said unkind things about monks burning themselves alive and the woman who managed to outlaw abortion, divorce and dance halls in Vietnam. She spent her long years of exile in France and Italy, mostly Italy, going out only to attend mass as she waited for the day she would be reunited with her husband. Like her or not, that day has come for Madame Nhu. I hope she rests in peace. MM

The Houses of Savoy and Grimaldi

On this anniversary year, few will probably remark on the history of when the Houses of Savoy and Grimaldi have crossed paths, but of course I will. They have been friends, they have been rivals, for a time Monaco was a Savoy protctorate but in the end, they happily ended up on good terms again. Of course, you can keep up with the Grimaldi goings-on at my more relaxed blog Mad for Monaco.

MM Movie Review: Elizabeth

There have been few films such as the celebrated 1998 bio-pic "Elizabeth" which are as brilliant as they are atrocious. As filmmaking goes, "Elizabeth" deserves every honor it was given and certainly Cate Blanchett was deserving of her Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in her role as the "Virgin Queen". However, "Elizabeth" also deserves to be known as yet one more contender for the position of the most horrific excuse for a historical film ever produced on the Tudor era of England. It is a very competitive field (even before television got into the act). How can I say this without sounding too hysterical? Well, put it this way: history is thrown out the window, run over by a truck and then stomped on. Get the idea?

The story is certainly an attractive one. It follows the young Elizabeth, starting in the final days of the reign of her sister Queen Mary I (who, as usual, is ugly and villainous less modern Brits fail to recognize her), following her through her own reign as she faces constant harassment from Scotland, France, Spain and even the dastardly Pope while dealing with a stressful romance with the Earl of Leicester. The problem is certainly not in the acting, which is superb. The cast contains some of the best in the business, masters of their craft and even a living legend or two. The characters are interesting, deep and well done in every way aside from the occasional cartoonish villain but these are pretty much restricted to Catholic clergy so everyone else, hero or villain, is in pretty good shape.

Catte Blanchett is Queen Elizabeth I, the young innocent who must overcome and find her inner strength; Geoffrey Rush is Sir Francis Walsingham, the unscrupulous, loyal, bisexual spymaster and secret police chief; Christopher Eccleston is the imperious, duplicitous and finally traitorous Duke of Norfolk; Joseph Fiennes is the tempestuous, lusty and frustrated Earl of Leicester, Sir John Gielgud appears as the murderous Pope (Pius V, I presume) and Lord Richard Attenborough is the faithful, fatherly and stressed Sir William Cecil. So, again, it is a superb cast and they have a truly epic period of history to work with, tailor-made for great filmmaking. As a film, it is lavish, dramatic, gripping, visually stunning and immensely entertaining. As anything even pretending to be history it is absolutely insulting to the name.

I knew I was in trouble as soon as I saw the opening scene: the wicked Catholic Bishop Gardiner having some saintly Protestants burned alive for heresy on order from "Bloody Mary", who is herself depicted as a vile, raving tyrant. In fact, the records show Mary I was the least of all her dynasty in having people executed. Moreover, Bishop Gardiner had no one in his own diocese executed, had opposed the Queen marrying Philip II of Spain and was generally considered a moderate. However, the historical lies in this movie are far too many to record every one. The Earl of Leicester is shown frolicking with Elizabeth at the start when he should have still been in the Tower for treason. The Duke of Norfolk is shown as one of Elizabeth's earliest enemies in a Catholic conspiracy, which he was not. His anti-Elizabeth actions came much later in the plot surrounding Queen Mary Stuart, and he was always vague about his religion but never declared himself to be anything other than an Anglican. In fact, he is shown urging Queen Mary to have her sister killed to keep her off the throne when, in truth, Mary was not thrilled with the thought of this herself and was persuaded to allow Elizabeth's succession only by her husband, King Philip II of Spain (who, again, is portrayed as a horrible villain so as not to confuse the Brits).

Keep up, there’s more. William Cecil is portrayed as an elderly and ready to retire statesman when in fact he was a robust, young man when Elizabeth came to the throne. Sir Francis Walsingham is depicted as a scheming, murderous homosexual whereas, while certainly scheming, he never killed anyone himself and was a happily married family man and a devout Protestant - certainly not a homosexual. The Duc d'Anjou is shown as a bizarre, cross-dressing pervert whom Elizabeth finds abhorrent, yet another fabrication. In fact, the Duc d'Anjou never came to England and the Queen was quite taken with him and considered him very seriously to be her husband or at least pretended so to annoy the Spanish. There is also at least a possibility that the romance with Lord Robert, Earl of Leicester was never sexual, and Elizabeth may well have been a 'real' "Virgin Queen". I tend to doubt it and in these day and age it seems positively unbelievable but, in fairness, I have to say that a case can be made for the Queen being as good as her title.

Leicester was also certainly not involved with any kind of plot against the Queen, nor was there a great falling out between the two, and contrary to the film, his marriage was a well known fact at court and Elizabeth met with him many, many times before her death. (let me catch my breath) It is also untrue that Leicester ever had affairs with the Queen's ladies-in-waiting, whom she kept a close eye on and no one ever sent the Queen a poisoned dress. The plot at the center of this film also never happened in anything like the way it was portrayed. It seems the filmmakers simply took all of the schemes against Elizabeth, invented some intrigue of their own, and put them all together, stuffed them in a blender and hit “mix”. Much of it seems to be connected to the historical trap set for Queen Mary Stuart, yet, she is never seen or mentioned in the film.

Who is mentioned is her regent, the Queen Mother of Scotland Marie d'Guise, played by the captivating Fanny Ardant. The part was, to me, one of the most interesting of the film and Ardant gives a spectacular performance of an intriguing character. Yet, fond as I am of devious, warrior-queens, there is no truth in any of this. Queen Marie d'Guise was no scheming zealout, never a threat to England (though Protestant England was certainly a threat to her) and it is a total fabrication that she was poisoned by Sir Francis Walsingham after a night of passion. Marie d'Guise died of natural causes while trying to reconcile the feuding Scots. At the time of her death, she bore no resemblance to the character on film. Instead of Fanny Ardant's attractive, mature woman look, imagine an older, heavier woman with swollen extremities and a case of dropsy. I'm a fan of Marie d'Guise, but as much as I would rather picture her as seen in the movie, it is simply not accurate. Not at all.

However, the film as a whole, as good as the look of it was, that look was totally inaccurate. Most of the sets look like they should be in a movie about the Middle Ages rather than Renaissance, Tudor England. The palaces all seem dark, dank, dreary (insert dungeon-like metaphor here). That may do for scenes in the Tower of London, but the court of Queen Elizabeth lived in much more splendid and cheerful mansions and palaces. The dingy, Gothic sets have about as much to do with Elizabethan England as the assassination attempt on the river barge (yet another fabrication).

Believe it or not, I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Still, I cannot overstate how much talent was shown in this movie, and how entertaining it was. Yet, as excellent as it was in the art of cinema it was absolutely horrific in the history department and paints a distorted view of the Tudor era and Queen Elizabeth. It opened with a lie and, fittingly enough, ended with one as well: although it is a powerful scene, Elizabeth did not start wearing white makeup and portraying herself as the statue-like "Virgin Queen" until well into the latter part of her reign. Oh, the humanity...

Monarch Profile: Shidebala Khan

Shidebala, Gegeen Khan, Emperor Yingzong of the Great Yuan, was the son and heir of Ayurbarwada Khan and his accession is the sole example of the throne of the Yuan passing peacefully from father to son throughout their reign. Ever since the Mongol conquest of China the throne had passed back and forth between those who favored adopting aspects of the Chinese civilization to solidify and maintain their empire and those who felt that success would only come by holding fast to their Mongol traditions which had brought them to power in the first place. As we have seen, Temur Khan was (slightly) more inclined to Chinese methods, Khaishan Khan ruled in nomadic Mongol style and Ayurbarwada had swung back the other way to heavily favor Chinese administrative policies. The reign of Shidebala was to see this division continue and tensions ran very high between the two factions, each convinced that their way was the only way that the Yuan Empire could be maintained. For Shidebala it would result in tragedy.

Shidebala was born on February 22, 1303 to Ayurbarwada Khan (Emperor Renzong to the Chinese) and his wife Radnashiri of the Khunggirad clan. His early life was dominated by his grandmother the empress-dowager Targi and her favorite minister Temudur, a rather villainous fellow who was appointed tutor to the young prince and his grandmother worked to assure his eventual accession to the Mongol throne. His father, however, had taken care that he be educated in Chinese style as well so as to continue his policies of reliance on Confucian doctrines and traditions, suitably Chinese, to rule China. In 1316 he was declared crown prince and heir to the throne and on April 19, 1320 he succeeded his father Great Khan of the Mongols and Emperor of the Yuan Dynasty. For the empress-dowager it seemed that all had gone according to plan and she could become the effective ruler of China and the vast Mongol dominions.

Convinced that they could dominate the young emperor, Empress Targi and in particular Temudur, were quick to enact their own policies and Temudur began exacting revenge against his own political enemies. Also targeted by him were the pro-Chinese supporters of the more Sino-oriented policy set down by Ayurbarwada. However, Shidebala was not the helpless babe many took him for. He was Chinese educated and tended to favor Confucian policies of administration (the Chinese did have a pretty long and successful record when it came to administering a large empire) but he was, like all of the Yuan emperors, still a Mongol. He was not weak, not pliant and would not allow others to flout his authority or work against the vision that he had for the Mongol Empire. Confucian scholars came to him for protection, which he extended, and he stood up against the persecution Temudur was bringing down on them.

Shidebala Khan showed great promise. He had strength of character, was very well educated (he could recite Tang dynasty poems from memory and was an accomplished calligrapher) and a devout Buddhist. When he stood up against Temudur and showed that he was his own man and would not be dominated by others, his exasperated grandmother, the Empress dowager Targi, lamented that, “We should never have reared this boy!” He replaced Temudur with a new chief minister named Baiju and though Temudur later tried to return to court and humble himself, the Great Khan would not have him back and he died embittered around 1322, in roughly the same period as his patron the dowager empress.

As emperor, Shidebala began enacting many reforms to try to bring under control the political and economic chaos that had been growing for a very long time, much of it due to the lack of a consistent policy on the part of the dynasty. He showed favor to the Confucian scholars and to the Buddhist lamas but took a rather dim view of Islam and there was some persecution of Muslims. This antagonism, however, should not be too surprising considering that there are probably no two religions that stand in starker contrast than Buddhism and Islam. The renewed emphasis on Confucianism also led to a somewhat more restrictive role for women than was traditionally the case in Mongol society.

However, what was most important was the efforts by Shidebala to bring about economic reform and stamp out corruption. Patronage had run rampant in the empire and efforts to stop this in particular had the effect of making Shidebala very unpopular with many Mongol princes. His dismissal of Temudur and his appointment of Chinese officials also caused bitter feelings among many who felt the new Khan was taking their empire in a non-Mongolian direction. Five princes colluded with the supporters of the late Temudur to launch the “Nanpo Coup” on September 4, 1323. The Emperor and Baiju had stopped at Nanpo on their way from Xanadu to Peking and it was there that the conspirators struck and assassinated them both. The next Khan would take a much more Mongol purist style as ruler though even he (Yesun Temur) was outraged by the murder.

Shidebala had shown great promise and one cannot help but speculate about what would have happened had he lived out his reign. Might the Yuan Empire have been put or a more solid setting that might have allowed it to endure longer? In any event, as it happened, the “tradition” continued as the pendulum swung back in the opposite direction. As a result of this, Shidebala has the unique position of being one of the few non-Chinese rulers of China that Chinese history tends to speak favorably of. Considering how they were treated by him and his father compared to their predecessor and successor it is no wonder that Shidebala Khan, or Emperor Yingzong as they would have called him, in one of the most highly regarded of the Mongol emperors by the Chinese even today.

Consort Profile: Empress Mathilde, Lady of the English

Most people remember Mary Tudor as the first Queen regnant of England, and officially this is so. However, long before there was a Tudor dynasty there was another woman who tried to be or who should have been the reigning Queen of England. Her story begins with that of her father King Henry I of the Norman line. Henry was not an oppressive king but he was certainly less than successful at the royal duty of securing the succession. He had eight or more mistresses by whom he fathered around twenty five illegitimate children but of legitimate offspring who could succeed him he only managed to produce one boy and one girl: Prince William and Princess Matilda. This left little room for tragedy and in 1120 tragedy occurred when Prince William drowned in the Channel. This left King Henry with only his daughter Matilda to succeed him.

Matilda, who had been married to the Holy Roman Emperor Henry V of Germany, was made heiress and the King ordered the powerful barons of England to swear before God their allegiance to her as his successor on four different occasions hoping to ensure a peaceful succession. However, the nobility of England did not take an oath before God, even four of them, as seriously as Henry hoped and once he died, in 1135, there was to be trouble indeed. The barons were also rather hypocritical. They claimed that a woman was not capable of ruling a country but the fact of the matter was that Matilda was only too capable of ruling her country and the barons as well and they knew she would have been more than a match for them.

Empress Matilda (or Maud as she was often called in England) was now Queen though she only ever styled herself Lady of the English. She was a strong woman, bright, well educated, very independent and perfectly familiar with the politics of her day. She had in fact ruled as regent in Germany during the absence of her husband the Emperor. The nobles knew that, like her father, she could never be dominated by them and so they decided to back as king someone they thought they could dominate: her cousin Stephen de Blois. Stephen, though, was no fool and he was not about to pass up the chance to be King of England. Going along with the crowd that disregarded the wishes of the late king and the oaths of allegiance, he set out for England at once and began securing the loyalty of the nobles, government officials and churchmen he needed to seize the throne. After only three weeks he had enough support, aided a great deal by his seizure of the Treasury, to crown himself King of England on December 22, 1135.

Matilda suffered the disadvantage of being in France as the battle for control of England was already breaking out but she spent her time wisely, gathering her military forces and the support of those barons in England who were loyal to the wishes of her father and accepted her as the legitimate Queen of England. In 1139 she left Normandy with her army to land in England and confront her cousin who had usurped her throne. When it came to blows both sides were about evenly matched. One castle would fall to one side and another castle to the other. Eventually a bloody stalemate ensued with neither side able to gain a clear advantage.

This situation was intolerable for both Stephen and Matilda as neither of them had the resources to prevail in what had become a war of attrition. The Church was deluged by refugees and some unscrupulous barons took advantage of the lack of a single government to pillage the countryside for their own benefit. Famine spread and disease, hunger and raids took a horrible toll on the public. Things began turn in the direction of the Lady of the English though in 1141. Her forces defeated Stephen in April and took the would be king prisoner. For a short time she was in control of the country and held power unopposed, but it was not to last given how much the state of the country had already deteriorated. The situation became so bad that when Matilda decided to have her own coronation in June the funds could scarcely be found. Stephen escaped from his captivity and a rebellious mob stormed her pre-coronation banquet at Westminster, forcing Matilda to flee London. By the end of the following year it was Matilda who was stuck; besieged at OxfordCastle by the forces of King Stephen. She had to escape with four of her knights draped in white robes to blend in with the surrounding snow. Such a harrowing event was not uncommon for the Empress as she had earlier escaped the clutches of her enemy disguised as a corpse!

Everything seemed to be going wrong for the Queen Empress and in 1148 she was finally forced to leave England and return to Normandy. The fight had begun to seem completely hopeless and she was devastated by the loss of Robert of Gloucester, her half brother and most ardent supporter. It seemed that Stephen had won, which he had, but Matilda would continue to be a force in English politics for some time to come. When Henry Plantagenet, the son of Matilda and her second husband Geoffrey V of Anjou, grew up he became quite a thorn in the side to King Stephen. Tragedy then struck the King of England when his wife died in 1152 and his son and heir died a year later. The grief stricken Stephen made a deal with Matilda that her son would succeed him on the English throne. Less than a year later Stephen died and the young Plantagenet became King Henry II of England, destined to rule over the greatest extent of English power in Western Europe. And, through it all, Matilda was there acting as Queen Mother and trying to keep the peace between her sons and later Henry II and St Thomas a Becket. She died in 1167, never recognized as Queen of England, but the first woman nonetheless to hold power over the country and prove that, popular or not, she had what it takes to rule a country.

We Are Revenged!

I’m sure everyone has heard the news by now. The arch-terrorist and most wanted criminal on earth, Osama bin Laden, is finally and certainly dead. On orders from President Obama U.S. Navy SEALS (I would like to think my cousin among them but who knows) stormed his compound in Pakistan and put a bullet in his head about a week ago. His remains were brought back to the U.S. where DNA testing confirmed beyond doubt that it was Osama himself. As everyone probably knows, I am not a fan of much of U.S. foreign policy nor am I a fan of the current administration, however, this was absolutely good news. The impact of it will be debated for some time but the psychological satisfaction is immense. This man had the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands, innocents from all over the world, from the United States of America to the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of Spain, to the Republic of India, the Republic of Indonesia and in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as many other places around the world. The current situation around the world is very complex (I think by design) but at the end of the day a very, very bad man has been removed from mankind and sent to face divine judgment. As he descends to the depths of Hell I do hope he has to pass through a gauntlet of all the souls he butchered on 9-11, in London, in Madrid and all the other places around the world. Congratulations to all the heroes of the armed forces who played a part in his downfall and good riddance to this villain who now, thankfully, no longer curses this earth with his foul presence.

Blog News

As regular readers may know, I am running behind due to the recent 3-part series, the royal wedding in Britain and my own absent-mindedness. Planned posts for last week will be posted this week in their turn. They will deal with royal figures from England, Mongolia, Spanish South America, Austria and a well known film from the 90's. Since things do pop up (news, anniversaries or the urge to rant) I will be a bit more guarded about promises as to exactly when things will be posted. However, on my list for the not-too-distant future will be the last King of Italy (I've been trying to cover more Italian topics in this year of the anniversary of the Kingdom of Italy), a swashbuckling Spanish-Austrian adventurer, a "great" Roman Pontiff, the controversial Queen Christina of Sweden and a more detailed look at the 'mascot' of The Mad Monarchist blog, the notorious Baron Ungern von Sternberg. There will be other items as well, still have some thinking to do on other topics but I hope everyone will find something to interest them. My thanks to you all for reading, stay strong, keep up the fight and keep spreading the 'madness'!

MM Video: The Princely Family of Monaco

MM Video: The Belgian Royal Family

MM Video: Royal Wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge

They're Married

Quite an eventful night it has been (and I'm very tired at the moment). What can I say, nobody does it quite like the Brits when it comes to royal pomp and ceremony (come to think of it, no one really makes an effort besides the Brits these days). I thought it was spectacular, my only complaint was with the media coverage which (I'm hoping this was just an American thing) contained waaaay too much talk about Diana. Everyone looked at ease, in good humor but dignified. Prince William was very smart in his Irish Guards uniform (can't beat a British soldier in a red coat) and the bride, this is just my taste, I think takes the prize as far as her style and appearance etc. I think she really pulled off the traditional-modern fusion perfectly, just the picture of loveliness. Their new titles were also announced, henceforth they are Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Certainly a day to remember, and I certainly will, but right now I'm running on empty. God bless them both, I hope they have a very long and happy life together and Long Live the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge!

Royal Viewing Party in Progress

The HQ compound is covered in Union Jacks and the viewing party for the royal wedding is already in full swing. We'll be making a nice long night of it and I will probably spend most of tomorrow in one long nap. I'm sure most readers here will be doing much the same. Have fun!
MM

Monarchist Profile: Anton Lehár

One of the most committed Hungarian monarchists of the tumultuous Twentieth Century was Baron Anton von Lehár. He was born in Sopron in the Kingdom of Hungary on February 21, 1876. His family was fairly well known but more for their musical abilities than anything else. His father was in the musical corps of the Royal Hungarian Army and his brother Franz was a talented composer who would later go on to considerable fame in that field. Anton, however, determined on a military career and attended infantry cadet school in Vienna after completing his preliminary education. He graduated in 1893, first in his class, and was posted as a lieutenant to Regiment No. 50 where his father served as band master. From 1897 to 1899 he attended the war college where he earned further promotion and in 1900 was posted to the Imperial & Royal General Staff. Lehár was promoted to captain, taught rifle tactics and earned the military cross along with other awards including honors from Romania and the Ottoman Empire.

By 1913 Lehár had attained field rank as a major and when World War I broke out he was given command of a battalion of Regiment 13 in Army Group Kummer. Lehár and his men were soon thrown into combat against the Russian 4th Army at the battle of Chodel south of Lublin. Lehár greatly distinguished himself in very hard fighting as the Russians tried to separate Army Group Kummer from Baron von Dankl’s First KuK Army. For his skill and courage he was decorated with the knights cross of the Maria Theresa Order and, for this action, was later ennobled with the title of baron in 1918. The next month, September, with brutal combat still raging in the Lublin area, Lehár was badly wounded and further decorated with the Order of the Iron Crown. Forced out of front line service while he recovered from his wounds he was posted to the general staff, specifically the Tyrol defense department. He distinguished himself in that position as well and was soon promoted to lieutenant colonel and decorated by the Germans with the Iron Cross in 1915.

However, Lehár was a man of action and pressed for a return to combat duty and was posted to the Italian front. However, in 1916, he was pulled out of the line to take command of the Infantry and Cavalry Weapons Department. While there he pushed for more machine guns on the company level but was never content with serving behind a desk and soon persuaded the high command to send him back into battle. In 1917 he was posted to command Landsturmbataillon 150 which he led in heavy fighting in the Bukovina region. In early 1918 he was sent to the Piave sector to command infantry regiment 106 where he earned promotion to colonel and the officers’ gold medal for bravery. His bravery and tactical skill inspired his troops and they were devotedly loyal to him and, at the end of the war, even as the empire was dissolving around them, he brought his regiment home without a single incidence of desertion. As a loyal Hapsburg monarchist and a zealous Hungarian patriot he was greatly disturbed by the fall of the Dual Empire and the Allied treaties which stripped the Kingdom of Hungary of most of its territory.

Many men in the position that Baron Lehár was in were leaving the country as the situation in Hungary descended into chaos with the fall of the monarchy and a wave of communist infiltration. However, Baron Lehár was made of sterner stuff and with the support of his brother Franz he determined to stay in Hungary and fight for his king and the preservation of the monarchy. Mobilizing loyal troops, he took command of a division to drive the Bolsheviks out of Lemberg before going on to Styria to fight the invading forces of Yugoslavia. In 1919 the regent, Admiral Horthy, promoted Lehár to major general and gave him command of the military district of western Hungary. Horthy and his forces had defeated an attempted communist takeover of Hungary by Bela Kun, however, Lehár and other loyal monarchists became discontented with the rule of Horthy as he maintained the monarchy but continually put off any suggestions of actually returning the King to the throne. The king, also Emperor Charles I of Austria, was in exile in Switzerland and anxious to return to Hungary to save what he could of the Hapsburg lands.

In 1921, Emperor Charles (Karoly IV in Hungary) returned to Hungary from Switzerland to resume his royal duties. Arriving on Holy Saturday, the “Easter Crisis”, as it became known, ended when Admiral Horthy persuaded the king to go back into exile, still protesting his loyalty to the monarchy, but arguing that the time was still not right for a full restoration. Charles did so but became convinced that, left on his own, Horthy would never think the time was right and meant to rule Hungary himself for the rest of his life. Therefore, in October, a new and more coordinated restoration attempt was made. Charles returned to Hungary, accompanied by his pregnant wife, to show that the King and Queen were determined to come home to stay. Upon landing, Baron Lehár was the first major figure they met with and he quickly began organizing loyal Hungarian soldiers for the return of the King to Budapest, with or without the support of the regent.

The King appointed the loyal baron Minister of Defense in the new administration he was drawing up. Baron Lehár was right beside his King as they made their way toward the capital, despite orders from Horthy to halt the advance, and Charles was hailed and cheered by crowds in every town they passed through. However, Horthy was organizing his own forces and gained a great deal of support when the British government stated their total opposition to a Hapsburg restoration in Hungary. Divisions appeared as the government officials, in the face of international opposition, began to hold aloof or drift back toward Horthy. Emperor Charles knew he could count on the support of Baron Lehár and Major Gyula Ostenberg but for the rest, there was doubt. Horthy warned of disaster if Charles was restored and used the British statement of opposition as “proof” that the world community would never accept a restoration in Hungary to sway top leaders and military officials to his side. Baron Lehár and Colonel Ostenberg wanted to fight it out, convinced that they could win, but Charles wanted no bloodshed and forbid any further struggle. He returned to exile and Admiral Horthy, still calling himself regent, remained safely in power in Budapest.

Lehár was heartbroken by this and in immediate danger as Horthy considered him a “traitor” to him personally for siding with the King. Labeled as a criminal by the government, Baron Lehár was forced to leave his beloved country, via Czechoslovakia, and go to Germany where friends of his brother took him in. He began to establish himself again, drawing upon his family ties with music, as the leader of a group of writers, artists and composers, however, when the Nazi Party came to power his position as a noted monarchist endangered him and Lehár had to leave Germany and move to Austria where the new regime was more friendly toward monarchists. In Vienna he started a music publishing company but gave it up to his brother and moved to the country when the Nazi tendrils began reaching into Austria as well. When the Nazis occupied and annexed Austria the Baron and his wife were forced to move back to Vienna where they were kept under house arrest by the Nazi secret police. He promoted the music of his brother, taking over his estate after his death, and continued until his own death in Vienna in 1962, never reconciled with the brutal communist occupation of his native country.

O'Reilly Update

For those of you who didn't watch, I am very pleased to say that a majority (53% to 47%) considered Bill O'Reilly a pinhead for bashing the British monarchy. I send my personal thanks to all of you who voted, bombastic Bill even promised to be more respectful toward the monarchy "if that's what you want". I am also very pleased that Texas was on the right side of the issue, voting 55% to 45% that O'Reilly's insults of the monarchy were pinheaded.

Refuting Republicanism in Christianity Part III

Finally, we have those people who try to frame the argument about “Christian republicanism” versus monarchy in such a way as to neutralize whatever scriptural evidence you can present. They will try to argue that all the verses concerning kings and monarchy do not matter because monarchy was the only game in town back then and the people in the Bible had no conception of what a republic was. They then assume that if they had, surely they would have all been ardent republicans. First of all, you know when this argument comes up that it is time to move in for the kill because they have run slap out of ideas. So, let us begin shall we…

In the first place, God knows everything and if God had desired a republic He would have commanded his prophets to establish one but, we know that didn’t happen, they established a monarchy. Secondly, certainly by the time of the New Testament, the people of Israel (with whom most of the Bible is primarily concerned) certainly would have at least heard of things like the democracies of Greece and the Roman Republic. In fact, by the time of the New Testament they would have been intimately familiar with the workings of the Roman Republic as they had by then become a client state of the Roman Republic and there was already a Jewish population in the city of Rome itself. However, it is true that the word “republic” never appears in the Bible. However, there are a number of passages which describe what republics or democracies are all about and none of them refer to these things in a favorable way.

Hosea 8:4, in a listing of transgressions, says, “They have set up kings but not by Me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off”. Think about what that means. Is it not at least somewhat descriptive of a republic? What is a president but a man “the people” (a majority or some powerful faction) has set up in the place of a king? I think it is also no coincidence that these condemnations of setting up rulers without considering God is put in the very same verse as a reference to idolatry. If a monarchy brings down the danger of pride upon one, a republic brings down the danger of pride on everyone. Rather than submit to God the people sometimes set up idols to worship and in the same way, rather than submit to the monarch God has provided (via the miracle of birth) people sometimes set up their own “king” (a president) to rule them according to their whims and fancies.

We also see it made clear throughout the Bible that democracy (which is the real or claimed basis of every republic -though they are not the same thing) is spoken of in a very negative way. Probably the best known passage of this kind is Matthew 7:13 which says, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat”. Again, pause for a moment and consider that passage. Read the rest of the chapter to get some context, politics is certainly not the subject here, but it makes a very critical point that is made numerous times throughout the Bible. The majority will usually do what is wicked, what is easy and wrong while only a few will choose the hard path of righteousness. Although this passage is not about politics, it nonetheless makes a critical point about the very nature of democracy and the idea that the majority is always right.

However, as always, the weapon of last resort is the personal attack and republicans will say that the “nice” things said in the Bible about kings were all about King David, who was a very virtuous and upright man, but every other king in the Bible was terrible. Surely, they will try to reason, the commands to obey the king apply only to the good kings that God favored (David being the only one they can usually name). In the first place, not all kings of Israel were bad, neither were the most celebrated (David included) completely perfect yet this never had an impact on their position or right to rule. God made a covenant with King David, the only unconditional covenant God ever made in fact, which stated that the “divine right”, if you like, of the House of David to rule would never be taken away. In II Samuel 7:12-17 God, by the prophet Nathan, told David that his line would endure forever and that if his descendants were wicked, God would punish them but that he would never remove his favor from them as He did from Saul for the sake of King David.

It is also clear from scripture that the personal morality of a monarch has no bearing on the duties a subject has to be loyal to them. Surely everyone knows the famous passage, Mark 12:17, when Jesus was asked about paying tribute to the Roman Caesar, “And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marveled at him”. The fact of the matter is, when Jesus said that, the only Caesar in the world was the Emperor Tiberius who, by that time, had gone rather off the deep end and was living in paranoid debauchery on the island of Capri. Even at his best, Tiberius was a pagan and Jesus surely would not have approved of that, yet still the command was to be loyal and obey the law. Further, I Peter 2:17 states, “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God and honor the Emperor”. This was, interestingly enough, written by St Peter during the reign of the Emperor Nero under whose persecution Peter himself was later martyred. Clearly, personal character has nothing to do with legal obligations so far as the Bible is concerned.

That is not to say, of course, that personal character did not matter but it is a clear indication of how far removed Christian principles are from endorsing republican revolution. Now, as we come to the end of this little series, consider the sheer amount of Biblical scripture we have covered (and I could list many, many more) dealing with the sacred nature of kingship and the commands to obedience of monarchs. When taken altogether we can see that many things today commonly held as fundamentally “Christian” actually have less Biblical support behind them than does the support for monarchy which also spans both the Old and the New Testaments. You can also read the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelations as many times as you wish and you will never find any endorsement of democracy, republicanism or indeed much of any good at all coming from the popular will of the majority. Whether it was the liberated Israelites howling for Moses to take them back to Egypt or the mob baying for the blood of Christ, when it comes to the Bible, the majority is usually wrong.

Perhaps the fundamental difference is that republics, even under the best of circumstances, are based on pride; the idea that “we” know what is best for us and that “we” will submit to no one higher than us or humble ourselves before anyone. Republican power is based on popularity at best or brute force at worst. Monarchial power, on the other hand, is based on the miracle of birth and the guiding hand of God. As God simply puts it in Proverbs 8:15, “By Me kings reign and princes decree justice”. Submission to the will of God or to selfish pride; those are, and always have been, the only two choices. Amen.