The Last Shangri-La

I just watched the documentary “The Last Shangri-La” about the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan and I can recommend it, though it is not all pleasant viewing and did, at the very end, confirm some of my suspicions that no modern film could be so completely “reactionary”. It is not a very long film at all (quite small, like the country) and I would say more about who was behind it but, alas, I can find no listing of it on the channel I watched it on nor have I been able to find anything on it on the internet -though it may be there, it is only that “The Last Shangri-La” is not a very original title; everyone refers to Bhutan that way, so tons of stuff comes back that has nothing to do with the documentary in question. Anyway, moving on to the content, the underlining theme of the movie is how the Kingdom of Bhutan has been dealing with opening itself up to the outside world, the effects of westernization and of course democracy.

Rather ironically, I thought, for a documentary airing on American TV, the first issue discussed was the introduction of television which everyone interviewed said was a very bad thing. Some, of course, highlighted the positive aspects but still were of the opinion that the negatives outweighed the positives. A great many of the new evils that have cropped up in Bhutan to spoil their isolated paradise were traced back to the all-powerful idiot box and the hypnotic effect it had on children especially. Work production has suffered because, in the middle of the day, people leave the fields to rush home and watch their favorite soap operas from India. Children in school began getting into fights mimicking the theatrical attacks of American WWF “wrestlers”. Suddenly, the Bhutanese began to know about high-tech toys, fashion trends, violent rap music and so on. Prior to modernization, as one Bhutanese youth said in the film, Bhutan was a poor country with rich people; “rich” because they were happy. However, television and the subsequent foreign products, clothes and devices have given them things to envy and spread dissension.

As I have said before, in the years before this modernization, the Kingdom of Bhutan was usually my answer when someone would press me to name my “favorite” existing monarchy (a silly question in any event). It was, therefore, particularly painful for me to see Bhutanese young people dressed like street hoodlums in Detroit, flashing “East” or “West” coast gang signs and smoking marijuana. That was blamed on television too. Since time immemorial marijuana has grown wild all over Bhutan but it never occurred to any of them to smoke the stuff. They collected it only to feed to their pigs as they noticed that pigs fed marijuana plants seemed to eat a great deal more than others and gain weight faster (go ahead and come up with your own jokes about Bhutanese pigs with the munchies). Television taught people that marijuana could be smoked and there was a huge upsurge in drug use which was so alarming it prompted Bhutan to become the first country in the world to ban all smoking of any kind (well, there goes paradise…) but of course that is impossible to really enforce.

Then, of course, there is democracy. The Bhutanese who spoke on camera, almost unanimously, seemed to wrinkle up their noses when they said the word. Nor was skepticism about democracy confined to the older people who had spent their entire lives under the old, absolute monarchy, but young people as well. Everyone expressed great love and admiration for the King, that was one constant that was comforting. They may disagree on democracy, westernization, this, that or the other thing, but the King remains sacrosanct. However, his decision to hand power over to the people, even by the time this documentary was done, left most utterly bewildered. They could not imagine why he would do such a thing. As one young woman said, she knew that in other places people cheered when democracy was introduced and were overjoyed, but in Bhutan the people reacted with tears and tears of utter sadness rather than joy. It is also not, as some would claim, that Bhutan was unfamiliar with democracy or simply indifferent to it. They were repelled by the very idea of it.

In the film, Bhutanese people relate what they knew of democracy from seeing its effects when introduced in their neighbor countries of Nepal and India. They saw democracy bring partisanship, hatred, turmoil, violence and an obsession with money and power -all of which had been blissfully absent from their little kingdom. Even some of the young Bhutanese did not like the changes. As one said, the one strength Bhutan always had was unity. The King had but to raise his hand and the whole country, every last man, woman and child would stand with him. Democracy was already bringing division and the young man worried that their policy of “Gross National Happiness” would be eventually destroyed by this. Other, older Bhutanese mourned the divisions already taking effect. As one said, a husband would belong to one political party and his wife to another and if democracy could divide a family it could surely divide a country and that was very worrisome. Under the King, there were only Bhutanese but now, under democracy, there were political parties which set the people against each other.

Of course, the film was not perfect. The first thing that put me off was that, obviously for no other reason than “shock” value, the filmmakers chose to start off with a brief highlight of the Bhutanese practice of painting large phalluses on homes and businesses. They do at least mention that this is a custom dating back to a certain religious figure, done to ward off misfortune and is not seen as anything sexual in Bhutan -but still, there was no reason to highlight this other than, again, to “shock” western audiences. And, at the very end of the film, they mentioned in the closing text that in the first elections there was 70% or better turnout and that democracy was being accepted and that it looked like everything is going to be okay. This, of course, in spite of everything the documentary had just spent the last half hour telling us about the growing problems in the country and how upset people were about it. Regardless of the facts though it seems that the western filmmakers could not resist the urge to leave on a high note that democracy and westernization would be good things in the end. Yes, feuding political parties, violent children, drug addicted teens, greed, envy, worry -Bhutan is indeed receiving all of the benefits of modern “progress”. May God have mercy on them.

MM Video: The Last Emperor

MM Video: The Imperial Family of Iran

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, revered “King-Father” Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia has returned to Communist China for medical care and testing. The former monarch is 88-years old and suffers from an array of health problems yet appeared well and cheerful at his formal sendoff at the Phnom Penh airport by his son King Norodom Sihamoni and Prime Minister Hun Sen. King Norodom Sihanouk has made many such visits in the past, sometimes for quite lengthy periods and no one knows how long this stay will last. The Royalist Party said that it was simply an effort by the “King-Father” to maintain his health so he can live longer amongst his people. The King, however, in the past, has said his longevity is becoming a burden to him and recently posted on his popular website that he can no longer conduct many audiences since he frequently falls asleep. Norodom Sihanouk became King of Cambodia in 1941, presided over its independence from France, was deposed in 1970 by his prime minister, joined the communists but was held captive by Pol Pot after his coming to power, eventually deposed again but restored as a constitutional monarch after a UN referendum in 1993. He abdicated in 2004.

In the Middle East, HM the King of Jordan will be funding a $1.5 billion amusement park in the Gulf of Aqaba with a theme of “Star Trek”, or something of the sort based on the 2009 remake movie. This will be part of a much larger project to develop the area into a major tourism and resort center, which is not without some controversy given the high unemployment and generally poor economy in Jordan at the moment. However, King Abdullah II has long been known as the highest ranking “Trekkie” in the world and famously had a cameo on one of the spin-off series (sorry folks, but if there’s no Kirk, Spock or Scotty it ain’t Star Trek to me). There will, however, be attractions for the non-nerd visitors. Rubicon Group Holdings is overseeing the development of the theme park which is to be called the Red Sea Astrarium. Jordan had some unrest in the spring, not nearly as much as other Arab countries, but I would be a little uneasy about spending the kind of money something like this is going to take. In any event, I hope everything works out for the King -may he live long and prosper.

And turning to Europe, the one royal story that has really bothered me is the continued media harping on the Nazi “connections” of Walter Sommerlath, the father of HM Queen Silvia of Sweden. In the first place, given that her father died in 1990, I consider it a thinly veiled effort to simply attack the Swedish monarchy to bring this story up at all. How is it relevant and who does it affect? What good is accomplished by talking about it no matter what sort of relationship the father of the Queen consort had with the Nazi Party? Anyway, the issue came to a head when a documentary hit Swedish TV which claimed that Mr. Sommerlath took over a Jewish-owned factory during a program called “Aryanization” which gave Jewish businesses to Nazi Party members. Well, with such rumors and accusations continuing to be spread around by the gutless wonders of the modern media, the Queen decided to do something about it and commissioned a special investigation into what exactly her father had to do with the Nazis in World War II.

The results are in and, it should come as no surprise, the answer is a big, fat *nothing*. In fact, far from being a loyal, ideology-driven National Socialist, Mr. Sommerlath was found to have saved a Jew named Efim Wechsler from the Holocaust by trading his factory for a coffee plantation in Brazil, allowing the man to escape from Germany. But, it should also come as no surprise, that those who chose to believe the ridiculous accusations about Mr. Sommerlath in the first place are not about to let the facts get in the way of their prejudices. Nope, they don’t believe a word of the report and said, “What Queen Silvia has produced only raises further troubling questions”. To listen to them one would think little old Mr. Sommerlath was right up there with Hitler, Goebbels and Goering. This, I think, is yet another sign of the times. “Facts” no longer exist. Everything is opinion, everything is relative and it is simply a waste of time and energy to try to deal with these people for whom no evidence will ever be good enough in their ongoing effort to smear a man more than a decade in his grave. It is, in a word, despicable.

Mad Rant: Riots in England

England is being trashed. London is being trashed -again. As the great Sheriff Buford T. Justice said, “What we’re dealing with here, is a complete lack of respect for the law”. The world is stewing in a juice of its own making. Of course, the talking heads on TV will try to look for someone to blame. Nameless, faceless “big business” bad guys, untrustworthy police officials, government ministers or “Call Me Dave” Cameron. However, the truth is that it is “we the people” (as Americans would say) who are ultimately to blame and yet it is “the people” who never are. It was, after all, “We the people” who voted politicians into office promising that it was, indeed, possible to get something for nothing. They said that the government could take care of everyone, nurse you when you sick, care for you when you are old, pay for your education and even pay you to sit on your tush and not work. Best of all, this could all be accomplished without the great majority paying exorbitant taxes. They wouldn’t tax you, they wouldn’t tax me, they’d just tax the guy behind the tree. They told us our grandmothers were wrong, that there IS such a thing as a free lunch and, despite every evidence of common sense and human history, “we” believed them.

Of course, governments that are inherently materialistic and, in the socialist way, view every problem as a problem of rich versus poor, think everything can always be solved by spending more money, taking more from those who have and giving to those who have not -without ever even considering WHY some have and others have not. They do this until the money runs out and then they borrow and then borrow and borrow some more. This has been going on for quite some time and both sides of the political mainstream do it to one extent or another. In the United States it has been President Obama who has set the record for spending more money than all of his predecessors combined. More taxes and more spending is the way of the Obama administration. Yet, President Bush before him, while he did cut taxes (which grew the economy and increased revenue to the government in the end) refused to cut spending as well and when there was no more to be spent he borrowed just the same as all the others to keep things momentarily afloat. Now the bank accounts are empty, the cupboards are bare and the collection agency is banging on the door.

Anyone with any sense at all can see what must be done. Yet, the governments go on singing their same old tune. In America certainly the party in power says we don’t have a spending problem, we have a “revenue problem”. The government is just not taking in enough money. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Last year the government took in over four trillion dollars in tax revenue, and yet, they claim that $4.2 trillion is just not enough to get by on. They need more. In fact, they need quite a bit more since they keep repeating the absurd statement that we need to spend even more money to get out of this debt crisis. The US is fourteen trillion dollars in debt and they are telling us we need to spend more to get out of debt. The only thing I find more frightening than that is the fact that so many people seem to believe them. However, not everyone really does but they fear the consequences of telling the truth and doing what is necessary. So do the Republicans as can be seen whenever you ask any of them to get specific about what government programs need to be cut to save money. Talking about spending cuts is popular with some of the people now, but actually taking away the “free stuff” of the public is a sure way to lose your political office.

Then, there is also the threat of violence in the streets such as England is enduring right now. The circumstances for such an outbreak could not be better. It is summer, the weather is warm, the police are barely armed and held in widespread contempt. The UK has also become a very dependent society -and this has happened in conjunction with the loss of power of the Crown and the hereditary peers- in which individuals depend on a government bureaucracy for everything, including protection which the government has shown it is incapable of doing. That is one reason why I will go out on a limb and say that violence like this has never and will never be seen in my home state of Texas. Why? Because people here are more independent (though we are far from perfect) which is seen in such things as our lack of a state income tax, our unfriendly attitude toward labor unions and the fact that nearly everyone in Texas owns a gun -and everyone knows it. Looters break into a store down here and they’ll get a bullet between their eyes. Hence it does not happen.

I have recently stated a number of times that everything that is happening today makes me think that the governments now in power are not serious about solving our problems. Sadly, I think things will have to get much worse before they can get better. People, it seems, have not learned that nothing in life is “free” and they will have to experience real misery before they understand that you cannot get something for nothing. I only hope our civilization can survive that learning experience. I hope the UK can get its priorities in order, the rising power of the mob has never boded well for any society, certainly never for a monarchy. I will say God Save the Queen and that I remain … The Mad Monarchist.

Soldier of Monarchy: Marshal Elie Frederic Forey

Elie Frederic Forey was born on January 10, 1804 in Paris and like so many French military heroes before him he attended St Cyr military academy and graduated as a lieutenant in 1824. Posted to the 2nd Light Infantry he served in an expedition in Algeria in 1830. He had a distinguished career and earned steady promotion from lieutenant to captain to finally command his own light infantry battalion. By 1852 he was in charge of his own brigade and in appreciation for his support of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte taking power in France he was promoted to General of Division. He saw action at Sebastopol in the Crimean War as well as throughout the war with Austria where he earned particular fame for breaking the final Austrian position at the bloody battle of Solferino. Undoubtedly he was one of the rising stars of the French army and was elected senator upon his return from Italy. Following the humiliating defeat of the French at the battle of Puebla on the famous 5th of May it was General Forey who was called on to take charge of the reinforced French Expeditionary Force in Mexico.

Determined not to repeat the mistakes of his failed predecessor General Lorencez, General Forey moved slowly and deliberately. Known as "the Bear" by his men, Forey was not going to underestimate his enemy and took measures to try to win whoever he could over to the French side as he moved carefully and in force with two divisions under Generals Bazaine and General Douay. He issued a proclamation which stressed the peaceful intentions of his master Emperor Napoleon III and of the "love he bore for Mexico and the gallant Mexicans". When he sent a copy of the proclamation to the republican commander of Puebla, General Jesus Ortega, the Juarista sent it back to him saying that such a proclamation could not be allowed to appear in the government archives. Forey moved against Puebla with great care and deliberation, placing his men and setting up his batteries. He sent word to Paris that he had commenced the bombardment on the birthday of the Prince Imperiale.

As Forey encircled the city with entrenchments some of his subordinates thought he was giving the republican forces credit they did not deserve but Forey was not going to take any chances in his drive to avenge the earlier French defeat there. He set his engineers to work digging tunnels under the Mexican fortifications to fill with gunpowder and explode them. With that done he sent his men charging forward, including the allied Mexican army of General Leonardo Marquez. Forey took a lesson from the first Napoleon and concentrated his attacking forces at a single point in the Mexican defenses. The defenders abandoned the walls and fell back into the narrow streets of the city for a house-to-house fight. Slowly but surely the French tightened the noose and finally General Ortega asked if his forces might be allowed to abandon the town under arms and disperse. Naturally, Forey refused, not wishing to fight the same troops twice and knowing that, as the only major obstacle on the road to Mexico City, it was vital that the Puebla garrison be crushed completely. Forey replied that the common soldiers could be paroled but that the officers would be the prisoners of France. Finally, on March 17, after blowing up their guns and ammunition the republican army surrendered and General Forey marched his troops in as the conqueror of Puebla.

General Forey marched on virtually unopposed to occupy Mexico City and was widely celebrated at home and was given full military and civil powers over his theatre of operations. When he took Mexico City it was a grand event with huge crowds turning out to cheer the conquerors. Forey thought it extremely telling but he did not know that General Juan Almonte had paid the crowd of people 30 cents each to come out and cheer the French army. Nonetheless, Forey was determined to enjoy his role as occupier and held a grand ball for the ladies of Mexico -at the expense of his officers. When he moved about the city he so won over the local children he met that whenever he was spotted out of doors crowds of children would come running shouting, "Don Forey! Don Forey!".

However, political difficulties proved more of a headache than the military victory had been and Forey was soon known to be against the whole idea of setting up a new monarchy in Mexico with French support. The Church was not cooperating as expected since the French had refused to return the vast estates that the republic had previously taken from them. When the clerics of Mexico threatened to shut their doors to the French troops Forey responded that they would blow them open with their artillery if they tried it and the priests backed down. He called together the Assembly of Notables that would eventually offer the crown to Archduke Maximilian but he was not overly impressed with them. His negativity was an annoyance to Napoleon III who could not simply sack so celebrated an officer. So, the Emperor used the age old tactic of kicking an unwanted general upstairs. He told Forey that his talents were too great to waste on administrative duties and so he promoted him to Marshal of France and called him back home to be replaced by his former subordinate General Bazaine. Forey went home to command the II Corps but was laid low by a blood clot that put him on the inactive list, keeping him out of action for the Franco-Prussian War. He died in Paris in 1872.

Monarch Profile: King Mutesa II of Buganda

The man known affectionately as “King Freddie” was born Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II on November 19, 1924 at the home of Sir Albert Cook in Makindye, Kampala in the British protectorate of Uganda, part of what was then generally known as British East Africa. He was the fifth son of Sir Daudi Chwa II, KCMG, KBE, Kabaka or King of Buganda, the largest of the kingdoms in Uganda. His mother was Lady Irene Drusilla Namaganda of the Nte clan. His grandfather had been deposed by the British and his father had inherited the throne when he was only one year old. Mutesa II, like his father, attended the highly regarded King’s College Budo as a boy and had a traditional as well as modern education. He was only fifteen when his father died and he inherited the throne of the Kingdom of Buganda on November 22, 1939. His reign as Kabaka was formally proclaimed at Mengo Palace just outside the Ugandan capital of Kampala. Due to his age he originally reigned in cooperation with a regency council.

On his eighteenth birthday in 1942 he was formally inaugurated as the thirty-fifth king of Buganda with full royal powers (such as they were) at Buddo Hill after which he went to England to finish his education at Magdalene College in Cambridge. While there he joined the University Officer Training Corps and was later given a commission as a captain in the elite Grenadier Guards. In the later half of the 1940’s Uganda went through a period of upheaval as the people protested against the idea of creating a federation of the three countries of British East Africa. Africans feared this would endanger the rights they enjoyed by coming under the rule of the predominately European government of Kenya, effectively making the federation an East African version of Rhodesia. Protests were mounted against the Royal Governor of Uganda, the local government and even the king as tribes which had been granted autonomy by the British felt this would be threatened by federation.

Despite being the target of some of these protests, King Mutesa II actually agreed with them and opposed the idea of a federation. Against the wishes of Sir Andrew Cohen, the British Governor of Uganda, King Mutesa II called for the secession of Buganda from the rest of the country if the federation idea went forward. Ironically enough, most of the people in Buganda felt safer being under the direction of the Foreign Office in London rather than the Kenyan government in Nairobi. Feeling they had no other option the traditional parliament formally called for independence from the rest of Uganda in 1953 with the full support of King Mutesa II. Sir Andrew Cohen responded by using his own forces to have the King deposed and swiftly removed from the country, sending him into exile in London, accusing him of being an obstacle to the plan for transition from a British protectorate to full independence.

This was not true of course, the King was not against independence, but was against the proposed federation. Cohen, a Jew who was certainly opposed to racism, had done a similar job with the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. His idea was that the version of “White” rule practiced in places like Rhodesia and Kenya was preferable to that of South Africa and he was trying to unite as many British African countries as possible against that method. However, removing the King was exactly the wrong thing to do as he was faced with the immediate opposition and even hostility of the entire population who demanded that “King Freddie” be given back to them. With no one even willing to work with him, Governor Cohen at last had to agree and negotiated the return of the King to Kampala on October 17, 1955 in a new constitutional monarchy for Buganda with an elected parliament but remaining within the country of Uganda.

In 1962 Uganda became fully independent from Great Britain and King Mutesa II played a key role in this as the leader of the largest semi-autonomous state within the federation of Uganda. The leading political figure was the radical nationalist Milton Obote of the Uganda People’s Congress. He formed a government in coalition with the Buganda monarchist party Kabaka Yekka (“The King Only”) and became the first prime minister. King Mutesa II was accorded the honor of being the first President of Uganda. The country was republican on the larger federal level but retained traditional tribal monarchies on the sub-national level. As king of the largest sub-national group it was only natural that “King Freddie” become the first Ugandan president. It was though a largely ceremonial position and political power was quickly concentrated in the hands of Prime Minister Obote. Nonetheless, the presidency of King Mutesa II was the most happy and peaceful period Uganda has known since independence. Yet, it was all too short as trouble began bubbling up quickly.

The coalition of the Uganda People’s Congress and the Kabaka Yekka soon began to come apart. The UPC accused the monarchist party of favoring only the interests of their own tribal nation and of stocking the government with their own people. There was some truth in this but it was only because Kampala was located in their territory and, as a result, more of their people were educated and qualified for government service. The real reason, of course, was that Milton Obote was envious of the position of the King and wanted the presidency for himself. As the parties grew apart so did the King-President and his Prime Minister who were frequently at odds. The coalition ended in 1964 and things quickly spiraled out of control. Obote was challenged in his own party and after brutally suppressing his opposition suspended the constitution and declared himself President of Uganda in February of 1966.

King Mutesa II stated, quite correctly, that this violated the agreement by which Buganda had remained a part of Uganda and thus, as King, reasserted the independence of his kingdom and ordered Obote to leave his capital city. Knowing this would probably be easier said than done he also appealed to the United Nations to intervene, but of course, there was no time for that. In one of the great acts of republican betrayal on the African continent, Obote rallied his military supporters and launched an armed coup against the President of Uganda, “King Freddie”. Declaring him a traitor, Obote sent an armed column led by his right-hand-man General Idi Amin to besiege Mengo Palace. Loyal monarchists rushed to the defense of their king and did their best to sabotage the advance of the army but it was to no avail. They killed hundreds of people storming the palace and King Mutesa II and a few surviving royal guards only barely managed to escape and flee into Burundi.

Major General Sir Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II, KBE, as he was formally known in England, was granted asylum in the United Kingdom and spent the rest of his life in exile there. Obote enacted a new constitution in 1967 that abolished the traditional monarchies and he set up a brutal, leftist dictatorship. The King wrote his autobiography and on November 21, 1969 died under mysterious circumstances. The official cause of death was given as suicide by alcohol poisoning though this remains highly questionable and many believe the King was assassinated by agents of Obote. Without his leadership, Uganda went downhill rapidly. Obote was eventually overthrown by a military coup led by Idi Amin who became dictator of Uganda. In 1971 he arranged for the body of King Mutesa II to be returned home and gave him a full state funeral. As we know, he went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Ugandans before being overthrown himself by Obote who was overthrown again by another military coup in due course. It was after that time, in 1988 that Ronald Mutebi II, the son of Mutesa II, returned to Uganda and was proclaimed Kabaka of Buganda in the traditional way in 1993 following the restoration of the sub-national monarchies.

Favorite Royal Images: The First Nicholas and Alexandra

Two of the very best: Emperor Nicholas I and Empress Alexandra of Russia, in a classical pose, truly looking like the Imperial couple of the "Third Rome".

Mad Motivation

Consort Profile: Empress Charlotte of Prussia

It is pleasing to note that one of my favorite monarchs had one of the most ideal consorts beside him and that woman was Charlotte of Prussia, also known as Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia. She was born HRH Princess Frederica Louise Charlotte Wilhelmina of Prussia on July 13, 1798 at Charlottenburg Palace in Berlin to King Friedrich Wilhelm III and Queen Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Her first experience with Russia came early in life thanks to the invasion of Prussia by the French under Napoleon Bonaparte when the Hohenzollern family fled Berlin for the relative safety of East Prussia and were graciously protected by HM Tsar Alexander I. She knew a great deal of hardship because of the war and had a special affection and admiration for her heroic mother who died when she was only twelve years old. As the eldest daughter she then became the “First Lady” of the Kingdom of Prussia, taking the place of her mother, and she never forgot the strength of her mother and her ardent Prussian patriotism.

In 1814 Grand Duke Nicholas Pavlovich of Russia first visited Berlin and the Romanov and Hohenzollern houses immediately began to arrange a marriage between the dashing Russian prince and the petite Prussian princess. When the Grand Duke returned in 1815 he happily fell in love with the beautiful seventeen year old princess and she with him. As the Princess said to her brother, “in our hearts we have a world of our own”. Throughout the tour the two were totally inseparable and by the end of the trip the Grand Duke had proposed and Princess Charlotte accepted though it would be a long engagement. She was nineteen when Charlotte and the Grand Duke Nicholas were married in 1817 at the chapel in the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. It was the start of a great romance as Princess Charlotte, renamed the Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna after her conversion to Russian Orthodoxy said, “With complete confidence and trust, I gave my life into the hands of my Nicholas, and he never once betrayed it”.

There were problems of course. Charlotte was a devout girl and changing her church was not easy and, although she won over many right away, some were also opposed to her from the very start and would remain so. The massive, sprawling, ramshackle Russian Empire was also quite a change in environment from the compact and clockwork efficient Kingdom of Prussia. However, Nicholas got along very well with her family, having nothing but the greatest respect for the Prussian kings and their famous army and he was a devoted husband. He loved the simple, quiet and affectionate home that Charlotte made for him and throughout his life Charlotte was always his closest advisor and confidant. Twenty years into their marriage Nicholas was still writing his wife, whom he affectionately nicknamed “Mouffy” that, “rest, happiness, joy, calm -- that is what I seek and find in my old Mouffy. I wished, as much as this was in my power, to make you a hundred times happier, if I could have divined how this end could have been obtained”.

Only a few weeks after the wedding Grand Duchess Alexandra was pregnant and gave birth to a son (the future Tsar Alexander II) in 1818. Six more children came in fairly quick succession in the ensuing years, though the petite Grand Duchess sometimes had trouble and did have a miscarriage in 1820. She was curious, graceful, musically inclined, an avid reader, rather soft-spoken but still authoritative and although frequently in frail health still maintained an always regal bearing. Whether in private or in public she was the ideal royal consort. She had her own interests but her family, her husband and children, always came first and she was happiest with them. Nicholas was happy and content as well, being utterly satisfied with his career in the Imperial Russian Army and with a loving wife at home he positively worshipped. However, they would not have as much time to themselves as they would have liked after the Grand Duke, rather unexpectedly, was propelled onto the Russian throne as Tsar Nicholas I. It was 1825, the Decembrist Revolt had just been suppressed and Nicholas set out on a reign that it was to make him known as the “Gendarme of Europe”, faithful protector of monarchial stability.

The now Empress Alexandra continued to devote herself to her husband and children as she always had. However, though Nicholas traveled extensively across his vast empire; so much so that at times he seemed on a quest to visit every Russian village no matter how insignificant, his Empress could seldom accompany him due to her fragile health. She became increasingly thin and suffered from a series of heart-attacks. Trips abroad to warmer climates were prescribed and Nicholas did consent to her staying for a time in Sicily but hated being apart from her. The doctors finally ruled that, due to her frail condition, she could no longer perform her marital duties. It was only then, in the 1840’s that the solid fidelity of Nicholas I slipped and he took a mistress. The Empress was, of course, very grieved by this, but eventually came to accept the situation and comforted herself with the knowledge that she was always beloved wife, Empress, advisor and confidant in a way that no mistress ever was or could be. During the Crimean War, after catching cold at a wedding reception for a courtier, Tsar Nicholas I died on March 2, 1855, passing from this life with his beloved wife and eldest son holding his hands.

Empress Alexandra remained devoted to her husband for the rest of her life, though she was greatly troubled by her fragile health which forced her to spend a great deal of time outside of Russia. This was hard as she had completely adopted Russia as her own (to her, the Tsar and Russia were one and the same) and she always referred to Russia, not Germany, as her country. When her health continued to deteriorate her doctors warned her that the Russian winter would be the death of her and she would have to move south permanently she decided instead to move to St Petersburg for fear that she might succumb while in a foreign country and she was determined to die on Russian soil. She spent her remaining time at the Alexander Palace and died there, in her sleep, on November 1, 1860. Just before she had closed her eyes for the last time attendants heard her say, “Niki, I am coming to you”.

MM Video: Eastern Jewel 川島芳子

MM Video: Oceans of Wisdom, the Dalai Lamas of Tibet

Royal News Roundup

In the Middle East, HM Queen Rania of Jordan was at the Naour Health Center in Amman on Tuesday to visit the staff and review a new program aimed at fighting diabetes which has been on the rise in Jordan in recent years with some 30% of Jordanians currently suffering from the disease. The Queen visited with the staff, listened to a lecture on the problem of diabetes and what they are doing in response and met with some of the patients. Meanwhile, HM King Abdullah II went on a working visit to Bahrain, being received at the Palace of Manama by HM King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, discussing the political situation in the region, still recovering from the period of turmoil and rebellion known as the “Arab Spring”. Queen Rania covered the lighter side, visiting the third city of Jordan, Irbid, to tour a multi-cultural community center.

On the other side of the Mediterranean, the Spanish Royal Family was at Palma de Mallorca for a little relaxation and to take in the 30th Copa del Rey Audi Mapfre Sailing Competition. The King was not able to attend (still recovering from his recent surgery and meeting with the Prime Minister on pressing national issues) but the Queen, the Prince and Princess of the Asturias, their little ones and the Infanta Cristina were all on hand and all smiles. Later the Prince and Princess of the Asturias, the Infantas Leonor and Sofia attended a concert by Jaume Anglada at the yacht club and will finish with a formal dinner with local officials of the Balearic Islands. Things have been increasingly tense in Spain these days due to the looming threat of a major economic crisis caused by the usual government over-spending, exhausted entitlement funds and so forth. The ruling socialist government is trying to work out a policy that will keep Spain from going under while not inciting riots by those who do not want their benefits cut off.

In Germany there has been some controversy over the upcoming wedding of HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia and Princess Sophie von Isenburg. The controversy arose after a local Berlin television station announced that they will be devoting three hours of coverage to the royal wedding which will include a horse-drawn carriage ride through Sanssouci park, following by a reception and of course the wedding ceremony itself at the Friedenkirche which will have a guest list including many German politicians, German nobility and German and foreign royal guests. So what is the problem? Well, it seems certain members of the political left in Germany do not like the way the Prince and Princess are being treaty as, well, “royalty”. The station, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, pointed to the huge ratings drawn by the royal weddings in London and Monaco and wanted to get in on the action. However, a spokesman for the Social Democrat Party protested that these were monarchies and Germany was not and two ‘citizens of the republic’ should not be treated in such a fashion. So far, the RBB is not backing down from their coverage but the Social Democrats are now demanding to know how much money will be spent to cover the event (isn’t that always the way). A spokeswoman for Prince Georg Friedrich said the head of the House of Hohenzollern cannot understand the controversy, the coverage will only be on one local channel and that it will be a huge advertisement for the Potsdam area. I couldn’t agree more.

Finally, last Friday saw another royal wedding, of sorts, with the marriage of Zara Phillips to ‘he of the crooked nose’ Mike Tindall, a noted rugby player in the UK. There was a pre-wedding cocktail party on board the yacht Britannia, followed by the actual wedding at Canongate church in Edinburgh followed by a reception at Holyrood Palace. On hand were the mother-of-the-bride HRH the Princess Royal Anne, son Mark Phillips, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, Prince Harry of Wales, the York sisters and most of the rest of the British Royal Family. There is no immediate honeymoon for the newly weds but the Cambridge couple and Prince Harry all made headlines (even on the far side of the pond) for flying back to England via the low budget airlines. The Duke and Duchess took Flybe (which doesn’t even have a “first class” section -gasp!) from Edinburgh to Manchester and Prince Harry flew by easyJet from Edinburgh to London for the estimated bargain-rate price of £21.99 plus a baggage fee. Despite all the republican grumblings about the cost of the monarchy, this is a pretty far cry from Michelle Obama taking Air Force One to Chicago for lunch. Contrary to public perception, the British Royal Family, more often than not, has been more frugal than otherwise.

Kings and Constitutions

I, and I imagine most monarchists, are often questioned about constitutional monarchies or challenged by those who confuse modern constitutional monarchies with the absolute monarchies of yesterday. This can become rather tiresome and is a particularly difficult issue for me to deal with because it requires a little explanation and does not easily water-down well to the size of the average modern sound bite. In the first place, as most know, I fully support the constitutional monarchies of today. That should go without saying. I am a monarchist, I support monarchies over republics, regardless of whether or not they have a constitution which allows the monarch some role in government or if he or she is reduced to cutting ribbons, handing out medals and waving to the crowd. However, as most know, that is not the sort of establishment that I would consider ideal. As I have mentioned before, for me the ideal would be a traditional, religiously based absolute (but not arbitrary) monarchy. For me, the High Middle Ages are tough to beat.

A formal, written constitution, I believe, is not essential to the efficient operation of a good monarchy. They do tend to be rather necessary for republics, on the other hand, for reasons which will be evident in a moment. Having said that, I certainly do not think constitutions are necessarily detrimental to a monarchy. Every monarchy in Europe today has a constitution and I support them and hope that they all continue. My “problem”, for lack of a better word, with constitutions for monarchies is the idea or the mentality behind them which I find utterly naïve and unrealistic. This stems from much the same reason why I do not think there is one perfect political ideology in the world. Constitutions seem perfectly rational and reasonable and logical but human beings are none of these things, neither those who write the constitutions nor those over whom they are supposed to apply. It is not that I dislike all constitutions, it is only that I disagree (strongly) with the idea that constitutions can solve every problem or the idea that every country that is to be acceptable has to have one, written down and on display for all to see.

This is an opinion I hold because I firmly believe that one can never totally codify justice. We are told that a constitution is necessary to act as a check against the misrule of a bad monarch. But what about the reverse? As US President Ford famously said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have”. I would apply this same reasoning to constitutions for monarchies. Any constitution strong enough to prevent a monarch from doing wrong is also strong enough to prevent a monarch from doing what is right. Human beings are fallible creatures, both the rulers and the ruled, those who are governed by constitutions and those who write those constitutions just the same. Nothing made by the hand of man nor any institution operated by mortal men is going to be infallible or immune from corruption and that applies to any constitution and any form of government that could possibly be imagined.

A constitution is a legal document, it is blind, impartial, unfeeling and heartless. At certain times and in certain circumstances those can all be positive things but they can also be negative. A monarch, on the other hand, is fallible like anyone else, but can also have humanity and compassion in a way that no legal document possibly could. No code can ever cover every eventuality and even under the best of circumstances a constitution will always come up lacking and have to be revised, amended or reinterpreted. In some cases, such as we are seeing today all around the world, they can be reinterpreted out of all recognition from what their original intent was. In a republic a constitution is necessary because, like constitutions themselves, a republic lacks humanity. It sees the people as numbers on a page, as economic units or as a herd to be controlled and managed toward a productive end (productive for someone at least). However, a monarch, without a written constitution has the freedom to use his or her own judgment, common sense and to adjust policy with humanity and compassion, seeing beyond the cold hard facts to the greater, evident, truth. A democratic constitution, for example, would say that the majority is right, no matter what the circumstance, and must be satiated. A monarch without a constitution can, contrarily, overrule the majority when what they want is clearly detrimental to themselves, society or the good of the country.

Again, I will repeat, that there have been constitutional monarchies that functioned extremely well and I am not absolutely opposed to them in any and all cases. However, I can easily become positively infuriated by the mentality of those who think some damn piece of paper will solve all of their problems. The world does not work that way. You can have law based on written documents but you cannot always have justice. Where I live there was once a commonly held sentiment that “the law” should never be allowed to get in the way of justice. Today we have rather gotten away from that I think, but I still agree with the sentiment. Law and order should always be upheld and maintained of course, but, again, true justice can be found in the human heart but it can never be found in a book or a piece of paper.

A monarch has a conscience, a constitution cannot. A monarch can treat people with dignity and as individuals according to their unique circumstances or situation. A constitution sees no individuals, only a nameless, faceless number on a census report. The most powerful or the most powerless can be crushed by the unfeeling legalism of a constitution and no constitution is fool-proof. We are seeing that today, in my opinion, reflected in republics like Greece, Portugal and Italy as well as constitutional monarchies like Spain or Belgium. Their constitutions did not keep them from losing -at least in some measure- sovereignty to the European Union nor did they check the power of the government from enacting socialist policies that have ruined their economies, destroying the productive and rewarding the unproductive to the point that they are now near collapse. The original British constitutional monarchy, which maintained a balance of power between the Crown, the lords and the commons, worked quite well but it has been changed to something, by this point, completely different from that system. Constitutions can be good and in some cases can be necessary but history and the present day situation of the world only reaffirms my belief that they are not absolutely essential and can even be, at times, a detriment.

Monarchist Profile: Eugenio Vegas Latapie

One of the most fiery and controversial monarchists produced by Spain was Eugenio Vegas Latapie, however, his life and career is one monarchists should look at and learn from. Vegas Latapie was born in 1907 and hailed from Irun. His father was a retired soldier who had fought in Cuba and a French teacher and Eugenio, after finishing school, joined the Spanish army as a lawyer. He was one of the founding members of the monarchist group Acción Español. This was an Alfonsist organization that advocated the overthrow of the Spanish republic and the restoration of a strong Catholic monarchy. Made up of tradition-minded Spanish nationalists and disaffected Carlists it supported a program of monarchism, integral nationalism and Catholic social teachings. As the name implies, it was inspired by the more well-known Action Française made famous by Charles Maurras. For a time the group was fairly prominent and enjoyed the foreign support of Action Française, Portuguese National Syndicalists and the National Fascist Party of Italy. Vegas Latapie was outspoken even for this group in his calls for very authoritarian Catholic monarchy and the glorification of Spanish history and the solidarity of the Iberian Peninsula.

In fact, Vegas Latapie became so extreme in his views that he eventually became critical of the former King Alfonso XIII and the Infante Juan Conde de Barcelona in their turn for being insufficiently monarchist for his way of thinking. Likewise, although an always outspoken advocate of Catholic triumphalism he began attacking the Church in his writings for accepting the French republic and embracing certain principles of democracy and civil rights. In fact, so radical had he become that he almost turned violent as he and his brother Jose hatched a plan to assassinate President Manuel Azaña in retaliation for the murder of Jose Calvo Sotelo (another of the co-founders of Acción Español) in 1936. However, they were dependent on help from radical elements in the Spanish army and this was not forthcoming as most enemies of the republic in the military establishment were already gearing up for the approaching civil war. Thwarted on that front, and showing his increasing frustration and imbalance, he instead planned to make a suicide attack on the Chamber of Deputies using mustard gas, killing himself and everyone inside. However, as his brother worked for the only supplier of the gas in Spain, he dropped the idea for fear that his brother would end up paying for his crime.

One might have thought that a conflict such as the last Spanish Civil War was made to order for a man like Vegas Latapie but it was not. In fact, if it is not already evident, he was always one of those types of person who is never happy or satisfied, no cause is ever good enough, no leader ever pure enough. Thinking himself right and everyone else wrong he was constantly disappointed by those around him. When the war broke out, Vegas Latapie naturally favored the nationalist side and had some friendly contacts with the Spanish Falange. However, he did not approve of the conduct of the war, thinking that the nationalists were entirely too soft! He urged them ever to be merciless, to take no prisoners and show no pity. He also did not get along well with Falangist leader Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, disapproving of his rather playboy lifestyle. Nonetheless, he was appointed to the leadership council of the nationalist movement until General Francisco Franco replaced him in 1938, having grown tired of his constant criticism and allegations of ideological or personal impurity directed at everyone around him. Acción Español, taking this as an insult to their pride, withdrew their support from Franco and his coalition. In the end, this probably did their cause more harm than good.

Now, of course, like the King, the Count of Barcelona, the Church and the Falange before him, General Franco also now joined the list of those “not good enough” for Eugenio Vegas Latapie. Not only did he not support the “National Movement” but he actively opposed General Franco, though there was nothing he could do to thwart the generalissimo, and even after Franco won the war and was in total control of Spain he did not relent in his criticism of the new leader or of the government. He still regarded the government as insufficiently Catholic (though he regarded the Catholic Church itself as insufficiently Catholic) and he protested that there was no King on the throne. Of course, that would have been problematic by his own standards as he regarded the Alfonsists (whom he had always tended to support) as unreliable and insufficiently authoritarian and he had never had time for the Carlists whom he regarded as insufficiently Spanish and a threat to national unity. So, he was a Catholic for whom the Pope was not ‘Catholic enough’ and a monarchist who could not bring himself to actually support a monarch. Vegas Latapie in a nutshell.

Things became so bad with his written attacks of the nationalist regime that in 1942 he was briefly exiled from the country by Franco and took refuge in neutral Switzerland. Perhaps this had some effect on him as in 1946 he did finally come back around to supporting the restoration of the Count of Barcelona and joined his little court-in-exile where he continued to argue in favor of an authoritarian monarchy and against any sort of democracy. Franco might have agreed with that and that was, ironically, his primary reason for failing to make the count King Juan III of Spain, for fear that he would end the National Movement and make Spain democratic. Whatever the reason, if Vegas Latapie and the Count of Barcelona agreed on nothing else they did agree in their opposition to Franco who both came to regard as a traitor and a usurper. However, after the death of Franco when King Juan Carlos came to the throne, Vegas Latapie was certainly not happy with such a royal restoration either as it came with the democratization he most loathed. By the end of his life he had become extremely bitter and disillusioned as is evidenced by his autobiography that came out in 1983 titled, “Political Memoirs, the Suicide of the Monarchy and the Second Republic”. He died, still opposed to virtually everyone and everything in 1985.

Epilogue
This may be the most gloomy monarchist profile I have done, but I chose to do it because, again, there are important lessons here to learn. Holding to your principles is one thing but being so unrealistic as to think that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong unless they think exactly like you is something else entirely. The self-righteous ‘holier than thou’ attitude never got anyone very far. Here was a man whose entire life was dominated by unhappiness; such is the fate of those who seek any sort of perfection on earth. Most of life is spent trying to make the best of bad situations, choosing the least objectionable from a collection of choices in which none are ideal. In the end, Vegas Latapie did not accomplish anything because he was seldom engaged in anything long enough to do so before denouncing everyone and going off in a huff. Those who accept life as it is can sometimes manage a slight shift in direction but those who deny reality, who expect any sort of perfection this side of the Kingdom of Heaven, will, like Vegas Latapie, find themselves eventually dashed to pieces on the rocks of that reality.

Battlefield Royal: Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Aosta

One of the all too often unsung heroes of the Kingdom of Italy in the First World War was HRH Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Aosta. He was born in Genoa on January 13, 1869 to the soon-to-be King Amadeus I of Spain and Princess Maria Vittoria. From 1870 to 1873 he had the honor of being Prince of the Asturias, however his father soon declared Spain “ungovernable” and returned to Italy. In 1890 Prince Emanuele Filiberto succeeded his father as Duke of Aosta, the second Savoy to hold the title, and in 1895 married Princess Helene of Orleans who had earlier hoped to marry the future King Vittorio Emanuele III. In fact, her parents were rather displeased that their daughter was marrying someone as comparatively low in the royal ranks as the Duke of Aosta but they comforted themselves with the possibility that some terrible disaster might befall the senior line. The Duke and Duchess of Aosta had a successful enough marriage, ensuring the continuity of the Aosta line with the birth of a son in 1898 and another in 1900, both of whom would succeed to the title one day.

In 1905 joined the Royal Italian Army in Naples and made his reputation after Italy entered World War I in 1915. Given command of the Italian Third Army by his cousin the King. The Italian front in World War I was considered one of the harshest in the world, even by veterans of the infamous western front, due to the rugged, frozen, mountainous terrain. Almost as soon as Italy entered the war another deadlock ensued. The Italians launched attack after attack on the Austrian lines across the Isonzo River, taking very heavy casualties and gaining very little. The Austrians would then counter-attack and likewise suffer heavy losses with little to show for it. In all, the Italians fought twelve battles on the Isonzo to little avail but the only offensive, the sixth, which produced real results was led by the Duke of Aosta and his Third Army. In August of 1916 the Italians, led by the Duke of Aosta, captured Gorizia and gave Italy a foothold on the opposite side of the river. The five previous fruitless assaults had left the nation greatly demoralized and this victory was key in restoring Italian morale.

At the time, however, the Duke of Aosta got little credit for the success, at least in some quarters, due to the way General Luigi Capello ingratiated himself to the civilian press. As a result, many credited him with the victory and none seemed to believe it more than he did which helped set the Italian forces up for a great disaster. In October of 1918 the Italians suffered a horrible disaster when the overconfidence of Capello and a lack of foresight by Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna led to an utter shattering of the line at Caporetto by a German-reinforced offensive. However, the Duke of Aosta was there to pick up the pieces and his Third Army set a good example by their orderly withdrawal behind the Tagliamento. The Duke also played an important role in the recovery of the Italian army which rebounded and was able to come back to win a final victory with the collapse of Austria-Hungary. Because of all this, under the Duke of Aosta, the Italian Third Army was nicknamed the “Undefeated Army”.

The Duke of Aosta became an Italian hero by his exploits at the front and in the chaotic period after the war and the collapse of the Orlando government in 1919 some nationalist and veterans organizations favored the Duke of Aosta launching a military coup and taking over the government but, of course, nothing ever came of such talk. In 1926 Benito Mussolini had the Duke promoted to the rank of Marshal of Italy in recognition of his long and meritorious service to his country. Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Aosta died in Turin on July 4, 1931 and was succeeded by his son Prince Amedeo. As per his wishes he was buried at the military cemetery at Redipuglia alongside the fallen soldiers of his Third Army.

Favorite Royal Images: Charles X

My favorite image of one of my favorite French kings, Charles X, who abdicated on this day in 1830.

Mad Motivation

Monarchist Profile: Zheng Xiaoxu

Few monarchists are probably less remembered or more unjustly vilified than the late statesman, artist and diplomat Zheng Xiaoxu. He was an upright and loyal servant of the last Emperor of China and a man who wanted a China that was strong, united, independent and modern while still holding to their ancient traditions and cultural heritage, at the heart of which was the Confucian imperial system. Zheng Xiaoxu was born on April 2, 1860 in Suzhou, Jiangsu province into a Han family which originated in Fujian province. Noticeably bright from his youth, he took the imperial examinations in 1882 and earned an intermediate degree and within a few years became a secretary to Li Hongzhang, a high Qing official and later a prominent commander in the First Sino-Japanese War and the Taiping Rebellion. His performed his duties satisfactorily and in 1891 was posted to the Chinese legation in Tokyo and later acted as a Chinese consul in Tsukiji, Osaka and Kobe.

While in Kobe, Zheng Xiaoxu played a crucial role in the organization of the Chinese guild and he made many important contacts in Japanese high society in both the political and cultural spheres. However, he was recalled in 1894 with the outbreak of the war with Japan and he worked in Nanjing with Zhang Zhidong, an advocate of reform and opponent of the Japanese annexation of Formosa. Zheng Xiaoxu accompanied his master to Peking and there obtained an appointment to the Foreign Office, a position for which he was well suited. However, his association with many of the prominent reformers gathered around Emperor Guangxu during the “100 Days Reform” in 1898 meant that, once the Empress-Dowager had suppressed the effort, Zheng Xiaoxu suddenly became rather unpopular in Peking and he left the city for the southern provinces where he served in various capacities.

When the Revolution of 1911 came and brought down the Qing Dynasty, replacing the traditional imperial system with a western-style republic, Zheng Xiaoxu was outraged and spurned all efforts to induce him to join the new government. He adamantly refused to serve the republic or to even acknowledge them as the new masters of China and he retired to Shanghai where he wrote poetry and practiced his calligraphy. In fact, it is for his art and poems that he is probably most remembered today, when he is fondly remembered at all. However, even in his retirement he did not cease to make his political views known and he wrote a number of brutally honest criticisms of the republican government. Viewing their entire establishment as illegitimate and un-Chinese he denounced the succession of governments as a collection of thieves, ineffective, self-centered and only looking to pocket as much as they could while they could before being pushed out by others. So, all in all, he had a very accurate view of the early days of the Republic of China.

Zheng Xiaoxu and the Emperor

This brought Zheng Xiaoxu to the attention of certain individuals inside the massive walls of the “Great Within”. Reginald F. Johnston, the British tutor and unofficial advisor to the last Emperor, recommended Zheng Xiaoxu to the young former Emperor for the post of lord chamberlain. He was duly appointed and tasked with leading a wave of reforms in the operating of the Forbidden City. However, he met opposition from the outset by everyone from corrupt officials worried that their usual way of doing business was being endangered, from Manchurians who were suspicious of a Han official being given such an important post and naturally extending to some republican officials who were always nervous about possible efforts to restore the imperial system by those in the Forbidden City. Zheng Xiaoxu persevered however and became known for his staunch loyalty to the Emperor as well as his willingness to change and adapt to modern circumstances. When the freedom and, at times, even the safety of the Emperor was threatened, Zheng Xiaoxu helped arrange his transfer to the Japanese legation in Tianjin.

It is not surprising, given the history Zheng Xiaoxu had with the Japanese and the contacts he had long had in Japan, that he would look to them for assistance at this critical time for the Qing Dynasty. However, he was not wedded to the Japanese alone and encouraged maintaining contacts with as many foreign powers as possible from White Russian exiles to British diplomats. He reasoned that if numerous powers became involved their own competition amongst themselves would prevent any one of them from dominating the Qing restoration movement. However, it was ultimately the Japanese who proved to be the only ones willing to take concrete measures to help the former Manchu Emperor and attention turned toward moving the young former monarch back to his ancestral homeland of Manchuria. Zheng Xiaoxu urged the Emperor to accept this course of action and came to be the dominant figure in the imperial court. When Japan said they would support the creation of an independent Manchuria under the leadership of the Emperor but not a full blown restoration of the “Great Qing Empire” Zheng Xiaoxu embraced the idea while his longtime rival, Lo Chen-yu, felt this was not sufficient and resigned.

So, first as a state and then as an imperial monarchy, Manchukuo was created and Zheng Xiaoxu became prime minister to the Emperor who adopted the reigning name of Kang-Te. All the years of effort seemed to have paid off with an actual restoration, even if only over Manchuria. Most still hoped that this would, in any event, be one step toward the eventual restoration of the Qing Empire of China and the prime minister was certainly among them. Zheng Xiaoxu had been a key player in the establishment of Manchukuo, starting with his contacts in the foreign service as well as friends in the Black Dragon Society (formerly the Black Ocean Society) who wanted Manchuria to act as a buffer zone between Japan and the Soviet Union. He wrote the lyrics to the national anthem, helped organize the administration, wrote about the Confucian monarchist political-moral philosophy of the monarchy and many of the efforts to encourage public support for the new state. However, it would be incorrect to portray him (as most do) as simply a puppet of the Kwantung Army. He shared the views of the more benevolent Japanese imperialists that Manchukuo required Japanese assistance and oversight in the early formative period but that this role should be lessened until it disappeared entirely, leaving Japan and Manchukuo as totally equal and independent allies.

Many often forget how long Manchukuo was an established country, from 1932 to 1945. As early as 1934, after Manchukuo officially became a monarchy, Zheng Xiaoxu viewed the role of the Japanese as being effectively over and resented their continued oversight of Manchu affairs. As was his nature, he was not hesitant to voice his opinions and openly clashed with the Kwantung Army high command on a number of occasions. As a result, many of the Japanese leaders came to view Zheng Xiaoxu as an enemy rather than an ally and suggested the Emperor replace him with someone else. After this attitude was clearly proven to him, Zheng Xiaoxu requested permission to retire in May of 1935 and this was granted. He was still kept under close watch until his mysterious death on March 28, 1938. The Emperor ordered that he be given a state funeral, a fittingly ceremonious end for a man who had been such a loyal servant of his monarch and perhaps merciful in that, disillusioned as he had already become, he did not live to see the final fall of the last Emperor of the “Middle Kingdom”.

Birthday of a Would-Be King

The Radical Royalist provides an informative article on the birthday today of HRH Prince Carl, Duke of Wurttemberg, a former kingdom in Germany near and dear to my heart. Of course we wish the Duke a very happy birthday and hope against hope that he may yet live to see the day that he is rightfully recognized as King Carl II of Wurttemburg.