Mad Rant: Natural Monarchy

I was recently asked what I thought about the idea of Japan abolishing the monarchy. Now, obviously, this was a silly question to ask someone who would oppose any monarchy being abolished, but it struck a nerve. I should hasten to add that there is absolutely no talk in Japan of doing such a thing. Many people in Japan are absolutely loyal to their Emperor and even for those who might not be, the monarchy keeps a low enough profile for them not to bother about it. However, the case of Japan is one of the finest examples around of a “natural” monarchy; so to speak. Of course I said I opposed any tinkering whatever with the Chrysanthemum throne (unless of course it was to strengthen it and I don’t see that happening) because Japan would simply not be Japan without the Emperor. Moreover, as the oldest monarchy in the world, the longest lasting succession anywhere in the world, to destroy that would, in my opinion, be a crime not only against the Japanese but against the world in general. A living link with ancient history would be lost.

Japan is certainly not the only example, but it is a good one. I repeat, Japan without the Emperor would not be Japan. The family history of the Emperor is bound up with the entire history of the country and the people, they share the same founding legends and they have shared all of the triumphs and misfortunes of their ancient history together. The power or the centrality of the Emperors may have risen and fallen but the Emperor was always there, reigning above the clouds, as the one constant in a changing world. A Japan without the Emperor would be something not only different but something illegitimate, something unnatural; an abomination. They could, of course, call the country by the same name, they would still be the same people and would still speak the same language --but it would not be Japan. Monarchy is the natural state of Japan and anything else would be a mockery. The same has happened in other countries, always with dire results.

Russia, for example, was Russia under the Romanovs. However, after the Revolution and the Bolshevik seizure of power Russia was not Russia anymore. It was the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. A new, artificial regime was imposed on the body of Russia which even did its best to purge the Orthodox faith from the soul of Russia. There was, to put it a certain way, absolutely nothing “Russian” at all about the Soviet Union. The same could be said for the Communist bandit government in China. I don’t care how long they have held on to power, there is nothing Chinese about the regime that sits like a cancer in Peking. It is an artificial political system dreamed up by a self-hating Jew from the other side of the world. Some might protest this and say that the last imperial dynasty was not “Chinese” either -it was Manchurian. True, but the Manchurians did not impose anything foreign or unnatural on the Chinese, they adopted the traditional Chinese system of government themselves. It has long been said that the Manchus militarily conquered the Chinese but the Chinese culturally conquered the Manchus. You can take that or leave it but the fact is that the dynasty changed, the traditional political system did not.

Many others have made the case that they are for the ’status quo’ in so far as the countries that are monarchies should remain so and the countries that are republics should remain so as well. Not me, I am a reactionary and make no apologies for it. Germany is not really Germany anymore, in fact, these days it seems to be less and less German in any sense. France is another example. There are those who think that the republic and the whole “culture” of the revolution has been around so long that there is no separating France from it; they are one and the same. Not true. There was an older France, a more noble and sacred France that has virtually nothing, whatever, to do with the strutting poseurs who occupy Paris. I think about those (quite attractive) propaganda posters featuring the image of St Joan of Arc urging people to give to help the war effort. Very nice, very inspiring but the painful truth is that St Joan of Arc would not even recognize France today or even then. That was a different France. That was the France of Clovis, Charlemagne, St Louis and Versailles; not the France of guillotines, multiculturalism and moral relativism.

How about closer to home? How about the United States? In a way, the United States gets off on a technicality. It had no history, as a country, prior to 1776. It has no common ancestry and no common religion, everything had to be borrowed or built from scratch and it has become even more diverse since. So, is the republic the natural state of the United States of America? Perhaps so, perhaps not, but it is the default state of the United States. I can say that I have never met one American monarchist, even among those few who actively advocate for the United States to become a monarchy, who think that if such a thing ever happened it would be anything at all like the same country that we know today. Most admit that such a conversion would require so drastic a change in the American culture and worldview that it would be, for all intents and purposes, a totally different country. Or, as another alternative, that the change to monarchy could only happen if America completely broke down, dissolved or broke apart and became something different.

I am a history lover, I admire very old things often simply for being very old. I cannot grasp the mentality of those who throw history away, seemingly without even giving it a second thought. Such is one reason why I support very limited constitutional monarchies even if I do not consider them absolutely ideal. At least those people recognized that there was something about the monarchy that made it worth preserving. They might keep it pinned down and under glass behind a velvet rope -but they at least have not thrown it away. People who throw history away simultaneously disturb and depress me. I do not look at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle and see frivolous waste. I look at Versailles and say, “What a waste”. I see herds of tourists tramping through the Forbidden City and I could just cry. I look at the President of Italy living in the Quirinal Palace and think, “how dare you!?”

This could, of course, be just a peculiarity on my part and perhaps so. I think a little bit of England died when they banned foxhunting and any Spaniard who would support banning bullfighting is nothing short of treasonous in my eyes. But I also thought it was treasonous when Britain adopted the metric system (I mean, how odd is it that the ‘rebel’ Americans use English weights and measures but England does not?). I don’t want to get off on a side-rant here, but it seems a good analogy to me. English weights and measures are so complicated and difficult because they grew up naturally, over time, in the same way monarchies developed all over the world from clan patriarchs to tribal chieftains to national kings and cosmopolitan emperors. So, you can imagine, if I have a hard time accepting a Great Britain with the metric system, I will go into orbit if someone spouts off about abolishing the British monarchy. Imagine Bavaria without beer, Egypt without the pyramids or, to bring it back, Japan without the Emperor. It would be an aberration, a sacrilege, an evil and unnatural thing. And that is why opposition to the advocates of this, the carriers of this poison, should know no boundaries, and that is why I am … The Mad Monarchist.

A Libyan Wet Blanket

Alright, rebels are now strutting around Tripoli wearing the clothes and jewelry of their former dictator, there is rejoicing all around the world, even the Red Chinese are looking to belatedly ‘make nice’ with the rebel government and with all of this happiness around me, I just have to go and upset everybody. There is a reason why even if the current rebellion succeeds (which it seems to have done) there are few expecting very much out of the new Libyan government. There is also, I think, a reason why Libya fell prey to the rule of a treasonous dictator like Gaddafi in the first place. (here it comes, get ready for the outrage) I don’t think Libya was ever prepared to be an independent country in the first place and what is more (yes, I am doubling down) it is far from being alone in that amongst the modern nations of the world. Putting aside for the moment that I am a monarchist, a simple bit of honest observation would make one assume that had the Kingdom of Libya managed to survive long enough to take hold and accomplish something things might have been much better. However, as we know, that did not happen. Why was that?

One thing I have never heard anyone say in all of the constant news coverage about Libya is anyone calling it an “artificial state”. They say that about the Kingdom of Belgium all the time (wrongly) and one or two promptly chastised souls even said it about Iraq but no one has ever said it about Libya. Yet, the fact is that before 1951 there had never, in all of human history, been an independent Libya. In fact, prior to 1934 there had not been a spot on the map called Libya since the days of ancient Rome. All that existed was three isolated and neglected Ottoman provinces, won by the Kingdom of Italy from the Turks in 1912. Wishing to call to mind the ancient presence of the Roman Empire in the region, in 1934 the Italian government lumped the provinces together and named the colony “Libia”. After that unpleasant episode known as World War II, the United Nations ruled that Libya should become independent and the former Emir of one of the provinces (Cyrenaica) became King Idris I of Libya.

Enemies of the Libyan monarchy will say that the people were poor and things were miserable during their brief stint as a kingdom before Colonel Gaddafi came along and gave them their bread and circuses. That is a very slanted picture of course, but in truth things were not ideal in Libya. They had never been an independent country before, never really had to work together before and while the new King had much in common with his native province, the others were not instantly faithful to him. One of the ways Gaddafi was able to gain support was by playing up the discontent from those outside of Cyrenaica and encouraging them to feel as if the King was favoring his native province (which the King had first declared independent, again giving no thought to the colonial entity known as Libya). Gaddafi also used the old tactic of class warfare, accusing the King of hoarding the oil wealth of the nation to the detriment of the people -fittingly the exact same thing the rebels today accuse Gaddafi of doing. It worked because things were unsettled in the country, everything was new and the public which had been fed a steady diet of propaganda to encourage the desire for independence from Italy, retained those same thoughts as they looked at how many British and Americans were setting up shop.

Gaddafi saw a chance and he seized it, though like a coward he did it while the King was not in Libya to be dealt with. He was able to maintain himself because of the mineral wealth of the country even though no one would have ever seen a dime of that money were it not for foreign investment and the infrastructure set up by British mining companies and Italian oil companies before whose time the vast resources had never been exploited. In essence, the British and Italians had tapped the keg and then Gaddafi grabbed control of the spigot. Virtually every road, every major facility, every airport and so on in Libya was not something built by the independent Libyan government, but were simply taken over after being built by someone else, usually the Italians. The government never had to do much of anything for the Libyan people, being able to get by mostly on seizing control of foreign companies and then by extorting money from their best customer. If the people got restless, there was always terrorism to take their minds off of things; that is until recently.

This is not an effort to be harsh on Libya. However, almost every country in the Americas, Africa and Asia was at one point subject to one of the great colonial empires of history. I think history will show that those which have been the most successful as independent nations are those which gained independence slowly, one step and at a time, peacefully and naturally. Those which suddenly (and usually violently) broke away before they had any real experience in self-government have almost invariably failed. I am as glad as anyone to see Gaddafi gone, he was a traitor, a terrorist and a criminal of the worst order. However, I remain rather skeptical about how much of an improvement the government that succeeds him will be, partly because it looks less and less likely to be a traditional sort of monarchy but instead just more of the same sort of regimes that have led to other tyrants and the whole process starting all over again.

Let the outrage begin…

Favorite Royal Images: Devoted Consorts

HM Queen Fabiola of Belgium and HM Queen Sirikit of Thailand

Yugoslav Prince Honors Italian Queen

Recently, on the feast day of St Helena (Roman Empress and mother of Constantine the Great) HRH Prince Sergius of Yugoslavia (son of Princess Maria-Pia of Bourbon-Parma and Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia) was in Valdieri, Italy to remember Elena of Montenegro, Queen of Italy, consort of King Vittorio Emanuele III and the Prince’s great-grandmother. He was also there to express his support and appreciation for the Queen Elena Foundation which endeavors to carry on the charitable work that the late Queen was famous for. Queen Elena gained a great deal of popularity in her time for the many hospitals she founded, her relief work after the tragic earthquake in Messina numerous other activities to benefit the most vulnerable in society. HH Pope Pius XI recognized her good work by presenting her with the Golden Rose, the last to be given to a Queen and in Italy, where almost every royal had a nickname, she was known as the “Queen of Charity”.

The Queen Elena Foundation was established in 1985 to support humanitarian and spiritual causes and has helped many throughout Italy and in troubled spots around the world from Kosovo and central Africa to Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of the international projects were undertaken in cooperation with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The Foundation also helps fund the restoration of churches, monuments and scholarships. Prince Serge was very proud to talk about his Italian great-grandmother and her many good deeds, which have not been forgotten and indeed are even being continued. It does make me rather exasperated with those who dismiss all the good work royals do around the world, considering how many are helped even by those who have gone on to their reward. It was also noted that such love for the late Queen of Italy remains, because of all of those she helped in her life, that the preliminary steps have to taken toward opening a possible cause for her beatification. Another cause I would whole-heartedly support.

A special thanks to Monarchici in Rete for bringing this to my attention.

The Queenship of Mary

Yesterday was the Feast of the Queenship of Mary (in the Catholic Church) and having posted previously about the Kingship of Christ, I wanted to address this holiday as well, though to have time to I had to put it off for a day. Like many things in Christianity, the idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen is often regarded as modern but is actually quite ancient. Many mistakenly believe that the devotion dates only to 1954 with an encyclical by HH Pope Pius XII. However, it actually goes back to the earliest days of Christianity with the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) in which the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared “theotokos”, in Greek, or “Mater Dei” in Latin, the ‘Mother of God’. Because of this it was only natural to recognize her as a Queen (Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Angels etc, the titles are numerous) in keeping with the traditions that go back to the Old Testament when it was the mother of the King, not the wife of whom there were at times many, who was given the most respect and reverence of anyone after the King himself. So, as Jesus Christ is universal King, the Blessed Virgin Mary has long been recognized as Queen, in a way the “Queen Mother” of Christianity.

This is very significant in a cultural sense as well, in addition to religious, for western civilization. A Turkish ambassador, visiting Vienna for the first time to represent the Sultan at the court of the Emperor of Austria (still nominally the Holy Roman Emperor at that time) was most surprised by the deference that even the Emperor showed to ladies walking down the street; pausing to let them pass in front of him. This type of gallantry was unknown in Muslim countries and it was the ambassador himself who reasoned that this must have grown out of the level of devotion Christians attached to the Blessed Virgin. Because the Holy Mother was regarded as the Queen of Heaven, the most pure, the most perfect, living vessel of God on earth, this had the effect of making Christian men take a more chivalrous attitude toward all women which was remarked upon even centuries ago when most modern feminists think women lived absolutely horrible lives. Yet, contemporaries did not think so, compared to other cultures and, if anything, it seemed to the casual observer that, in Europe, there was a rather idealized and romanticized view of women and their place in society.

Around the world, numerous cities and countries have adopted the Holy Mother as their Queen. Examples include Siena, Massa Marittima, San Gimignano, Poland, Bavaria, Ireland and others. In Portugal King John IV declared Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception the “Real Queen of Portugal” and even in countries on the other side of the world, where Christianity has always been a minority, such as in China, images of the Virgin Mary can be found in which she is portrayed in the style of a Ming or Qing era Empress. Similarly, Our Lady of Lavang, the most significant Vietnamese Marian apparition is sometimes referred to as “Empress of Vietnam”. The Blessed Virgin, in various images, has been called upon, not always as a royalist symbol, but as a symbol for royalists, and of course mostly Catholic royalists. Before there was much fuss about republicanism this occurred in the religious wars that shook Europe after the birth and spread of Protestantism. One of the more famous examples was in England where Catholics were devoted to the Virgin Queen in Heaven (Our Lady of Walsingham or others) while Protestants were devoted to their own “Virgin Queen”, Elizabeth I, in London. Both sides were royalist but each supported a different “Virgin Queen”.

One of the more unusual cases, which involved Catholic royalists fighting Catholic republicans (and some Catholic royalists fighting other royalists) with competing Holy Virgins was in the War for Independence in Mexico. Since the time of Padre Hidalgo the rebel forces had adopted the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe as their symbol, their Queen and generalissima. On the other side Spanish royalists adopted the image of the Virgin de Los Remedios, a devotion dating back to the original Spanish conquest of Mexico, as their own special patron, divine intercessor and official protector of the Spanish army (even dressing the image in a military uniform). However, as we know, the forces of independence prevailed and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was honored by the monarchists of the Mexican Empire as it was by the revolutionaries who supported a republic. And, of course, the Virgin Mary was an important and ever-present symbol among the royalist counterrevolutionaries in the struggles in France, Spain and elsewhere. Even today, one would be hard pressed to find any element of Catholic monarchists who do not have a devotion to the Queen of Heaven.

UKIP Support for the Australian Monarchy

This may be a little behind the times but it was just brought to my attention and I wanted to share it. I'm glad that opposition to the EU is not the only thing I can agree on with Mr. Farage. God Save the Queen of Australia!

(And also a thank you to the one who brought this to my attention even though he really, *really* dislikes Nigel Farage ;-))

A Note to All Readers

It has been a while and I've let it slip my mind a couple of times already, so before I forget again I just wanted to take a moment to say "Thank You" to all members, regular readers and the occasional observers. We are now up to 300 members, 1,681 subscribers to the MM Channel and many more than just members are regular readers as there are now over a thousand people a day checking in and having a read. These may not be huge numbers but considering how often I seem to be telling people *not* to read my blog, almost anything would impress me. So, thank you to all readers, viewers etc, a special thanks to the members and even to all of you who just pop in every day to have a look at the latest lunacy. I appreciate you all taking the time, tolerating my odd views, occasional fits and regular mad rants. I know not everyone agrees with *everything* I say, and I know there are certain subjects I tend to harp on that are particularly unpopular, but I am grateful that those of you who do can look past those moments and still come along for the ride. I hope you like most of what you see or at least find it in some way interesting. Thank you for coming, thank you for keeping up, I do appreciate it and I want all of you to know that I do.

God Bless and ... Keep it Royal!
The Mad Monarchist

Rebels Take Tripoli

It has been all over the news tonight that Libyan rebels have taken Tripoli. The old flag of the Kingdom of Libya is flying in Green Square and there are crowds cheering in the streets of almost every major city in Libya. Rebel forces named the campaign, "Operation Mermaid Dawn" and although skirmishes are still going on, they seem to be in control. Colonel Gaddafi is nowhere to be seen but has been addressing the public by telephone, calling on all of his supporters in Tripoli to arm themselves and kill any rebels they can. There is already speculation that Gaddafi may not be in Libya at all but may have already slipped out of the city and fled to Algeria. Al Jazeera has reported that Gaddafi's son Al-Saadi Al-Gaddafi had been captured and Sky News has reported that the dictator's son Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi has also been captured. The situation is still up in the air, there is alot of confusion but it seems that Gaddafi is no longer in control of Libya, he's down, he may not be out, but many are now hopeful that his regime has come to an end with the rebel occupation of Tripoli. I remain rather skeptical about the chances for a royal restoration of the short-lived Senussi dynasty, though the downfall of the treasonous murderer Gaddafi is satisfying in any event. I did notice, in the video of the celebrations in Benghazi a very large French tricolor being waved amongst the sea of Libyan royal flags, probably as a mark of the early French recognition of the rebel government. That fact alone would make me less than optimistic about the chances for the Kingdom of Libya to return. We will have to see how the situation continues to develop. For now, it is enough that a very evil man is no longer in control.

MM Video: King Faisal II of Iraq

MM Video: Yuan Shikai

Royal News Roundup

It is a pleasure to have a royal news roundup this week that is almost totally dominated by *good* news for a change. The only possible downer comes from the Far East so we will get that out of the way first, even though I am sure most would regard it as a happy occasion as well. On Wednesday Their Imperial Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan attended a special ceremony in Tokyo to mark the 66th anniversary of the surrender of Japan and the end of World War II. It was on August 15, 1945 that the Showa Emperor (Hirohito) father of the current Emperor issued his unprecedented radio address to the people of Japan, the first time the public had ever heard his voice, saying that they would have to bear the unbearable and endure the unendurable and surrender. The announcement was made in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the ceremony, the Emperor gave a solemn speech in which he paid tribute to those who lost their lives in the war, all those who suffered by it and expressing his sincere wish that the horrors of war would never be felt again. As usual, he also called for world peace and the continued development of Japan.

In southern Europe it has been a week of protests and celebrations for HH Pope Benedict XVI. On Monday the Principality of Liechtenstein, one of the last few officially Catholic monarchies left in the world, celebrated their National Day. However, for the first time, the traditional mass was not part of the festivities. The Bishop of Vaduz refused to allow the mass to be said out of protest to the princely government recently legalizing gay “marriage” in Liechtenstein. Church and state relations were not improved when Hereditary Prince Alois (who has mostly taken over the actual governing duties of his father, Sovereign Prince Hans-Adam II) made a speech in which he announced that if the government council voted to allow some exceptions to the ban on abortion in Liechtenstein he would sign the bill into law. He did say his support would only extent to abortions done in the first trimester and that he opposed abortions done on children who would be born handicapped. Needless to say, the Church has not been impressed with this recent turn of events.

However, things were much brighter in Spain where the Pontiff arrived to open World Youth Day in Madrid. More than a million young people from around the world braved the sweltering Spanish summer heat to greet His Holiness and listen to his words of wisdom. Upon arrival in Spain, of course, the Pope met with Their Majesties King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia. After being greeted by the King and Queen the Pope later returned to Zarzuela Palace to meet the Prince and Princess of the Asturias and their children. Little Infanta Sofia (age 4) was less than impressed with the papal visit and was caught by the cameras yawning a few times. The Pope has been particularly concerned over Spain recently as the government legalized abortion and gay “marriage”, both of which would have been considered unthinkable not such a long time ago as the Kingdom of Spain has traditionally been a bastion of traditional, conservative Catholicism.

There is good news to report concerning Monaco. The cranky old blogger from southern California who has been harassing the Prince of Monaco and anyone associated with him for years (and who even took to e-stalking your resident mad man) has been slapped with judgment of tens of thousands of euros by a French court for spreading false and slanderous information. Further judgments against him are expected though making him actually pay-up is another story. The obsessive old man first made news after trying to extort the Prince for a million dollars and since then has devoted his every waking hour to accusing the Prince of Monaco of every sort of criminal activity short of being the second gunman on the grassy knoll. Although the facts remain unknown many believe him to have been responsible for the despicable rumors (now definitively proven false) which put a slight cloud over the recent princely wedding. You can read the details over at Mad for Monaco.

Moving northward, the biggest happy news came on Wednesday when it was announced that HRH Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and HRH Prince Daniel are expecting their first child in March of next year. The Crown Princess has long been known for her love of children and has expressed before her wish to be a mother and both she and Prince Daniel, before their wedding, said they were ready to start a family of their own right away. So far the Crown Princess has not made any changes in her schedule but there is no disguising the broad, beaming smile she has been sporting lately. Due to the last changes made in the royal succession in Sweden this child, whether male or female, can expect (God willing) to be the next King or Queen of Sweden. Crown Princess Victoria has always been a super gal and The Mad Monarchist sends the Swedish Royal Family heartfelt congratulations on this most happy occasion and wishes that everything proceeds smoothly with the new coming addition. Additionally, on that same topic, it was also recently announced that HRH the Duchess of Vendôme, wife of the Orleanist pretender to the throne of France, is also expecting a child sometime in January of next year. Hopefully more information on that will be forthcoming but until then, congratulations to the happy couple!

Finally, to end on another high note, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is giving the Canadian Navy and Air Force their “royal” title back. I was thrilled to pieces to hear about this and, upon doing so, was a little shocked to realize just how long this travesty has taken to correct. I had not realized it had been so long since the change was made. It was 1968 when the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged into that slimmed down and streamlined entity known as the Canadian Armed Forces. Since then the stirring title of the three elements of these forces have been known as the “Maritime Command”, the “Land Force Command” and the “Air Command”. Which many people have found rather dull and lifeless for a long time. At one point a politician suggested changing the name of the Maritime Command to something with the word “navy” in the title at least. All of this action was taken at a time when Canada was going through something of an anti-British fit, getting rid of anything that reminded them of their past place in the British Empire. The most noticeable change was in 1965 when the flag was changed, dropping the old Canadian Red Ensign in favor of the current (which, as I’ve said before, I like but still prefer the Red Ensign). Royal portraits started being the exception rather than the rule and so on. However, to the consternation of republicans, Harper (who is a politician and far from inspiring) has had an administration most regard as more monarchy-friendly; which is a good thing. So far, from all I have seen, giving the navy and air force their “royal” back has been met with overwhelming support and approval, certainly from the servicemen and women themselves. A most welcome change. God Save the Queen of Canada!

Consort Profile: Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria

Probably no Hapsburg consort has been so celebrated or so lastingly famous as Elisabeth of Bavaria, the legendary beauty best known to all as “Sissi”. Over time, the Empress has become iconic, mostly as a tragic figure. However, while tragedy is certainly far from unknown in royal history, and that of the House of Wittelsbach or Hapsburg particularly, in the case of Sissi, I think the “tragedy” of her life has been somewhat exaggerated and, to some extent, much of her sorrow appears self-inflicted. Yet, there is no denying that there was, and still is, just “something” about her that has fascinated people all over the world for over a century. Even as a historical figure she commands attention. Whether or not she deserves our sympathy is a more complicated, and probably controversial, question.

A Christmas Eve baby, Sissi was born Elisabeth Amalie Eugenie, Duchess in Bavaria, on December 24, 1837 in Munich to the music loving (and somewhat morbid) Duke Maximilian Joseph in Bavaria and Princess Ludovika of Bavaria. She grew up in Possenhofen Castle, the fourth of ten children, and a pretty normal upbringing, perhaps a bit on the liberal side, for a young girl of minor Bavarian royalty. Her father impressed upon her a love for the circus and a genuine concern for the common people. She liked taking long walks and loved horses but was not a particularly attentive student. Sissi was not considered extraordinarily gifted nor, interestingly enough for someone who became such a famous beauty, was she considered especially attractive as a child. She liked the zither, liked looking at things from alternate points of view and she was terribly shy around strangers; all qualities she would never completely lose.

Contrary to what some think it was actually Princess Ludovika (rather than Princess Sophie) who was most interested in pushing another Hapsburg-Wittelsbach marriage. In 1853 Princess Elisabeth and her older sister Helene were taken by their mother on a little vacation to Upper Austria where the Duchess Helene was to be aimed at the young Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph. Yet, it was the 15-year old Duchess Elisabeth, a luminescent beauty to be sure, who captivated the Emperor and he determined to marry her. His mother, Princess Sophie, advised against it, fearing that Elisabeth was too immature, but Francis Joseph would not be dissuaded and on April 24, 1854 he and Elisabeth were married in Vienna. From that point on she became Empress of Austria. The strict protocol of the Hapsburg court was quite a change from the relaxed, informal life she had lived in Bavaria and there was a clash, from the very beginning, with her new mother-in-law Princess Sophie (or Archduchess Sophie). She had not been overjoyed with Sissi as a wife for her son, thinking her too young and immature and, from the start, Sissi did not do much to prove her wrong.

As Archduchess Sophie set out to make Sissi her own special project, to train her for the “job” of Empress, Sissi snubbed her and did not take kindly to instruction. Whenever there was a problem Sissi would rush to Francis Joseph to take her side, which he tried not to do, and thus the man with the cares of an empire on his shoulders was often caught in the middle of squabbles between the two most important women in his life. Sissi became rather offended when the Emperor did not always take her side, however, Francis Joseph has always been brought up to be a loyal son and, in a very real way, he owed his throne to his mother who had persuaded her own husband to abdicate his rights to the throne so that the Hapsburg crown could be passed directly from the Emperor Ferdinand I to Francis Joseph. Many at court, and Archduchess Sophie certainly among them, were also alarmed that Sissi seemed to have more sympathy with the people they saw as the enemies of the monarchy than she did for the House of Hapsburg itself. One area which became something of a sore point was her fascination with Hungary.

Many in Vienna were still haunted by memories of the failed Hungarian Revolution of 1848 when rebel leaders declared a republic and nearly brought down the whole of the Hapsburg empire. Because of this, there were many who remained very nervous about any and all things Hungarian. Empress Sissi, however, was enthralled by Hungary, loved the people and at great effort learned the history of the nation and to speak Hungarian (which was not easy as it is a very unique language). There was, of course, nothing wrong with this, she was the Queen of Hungary and it was completely proper for her to take an interest in the country. In return the Hungarians adored her and Sissi came to be seen by the Hungarians as their highest advocate in Vienna, which she was. Yet, others in the German-speaking half of the empire were put off by her sudden fascination with all things Hungarian and tended to see it as a slight against the Austrians, as if Sissi was siding against them in being so sympathetic toward Hungary.

All of this made Archduchess Sophie even more worried that Sissi did not have the best interests of the House of Hapsburg at heart. She feared this interest came about for the wrong reasons and could be taken advantage of. On that count she may have been correct as there were some anti-Hapsburg republicans among the network of those affiliated to varying degrees with the Empress. In any event, family matters continued on and in 1855 Sissi gave birth to her first child, Sophie, who was named by her grandmother after herself without the Empress having anything to say about it. The following year Archduchess Gisela was born and Sophie largely took charge of them both, not really trusting her daughter-in-law to raise them properly. This was unfair but Sissi did herself no favors by constantly persisting in doing exactly the things that would make people uncomfortable about her. She was constantly at odds with Sophie over the children and became increasingly depressed about her life. Of course, she wanted for nothing, lived in lavish surrounding, had a devoted husband and so on, yet she seemed to have made up her mind to be unhappy and nothing could change it.

The first great tragedy of her life came when, to her delight, Emperor Francis Joseph decided to undertake a state visit to Hungary in 1857 in order to foster better relations and Austro-Hungarian goodwill. He of course would take his Empress along with him, regarding her as his most valuable asset on such a mission given how beloved she was in Hungary and counting on her ability to charm the Hungarian nobles. Sissi was thrilled with the idea but ran afoul of Sophie again when she insisted on taking the children along. The girls had been sick with diarrhea and their grandmother insisted that they stay behind with her so she could take care of them. The doctors agreed that it would be unwise to take them on such a trip but Sissi would not hear of it. If the children could not go, she would not go. Emperor Francis Joseph could hardly make the trip without her, she was the most beloved member of the Imperial-Royal Family in Hungary and most cared far more about seeing her than they did their king. So, for a change, Francis Joseph took the side of his wife and let her bring the children along. However, as the doctors had predicted, the girls became even more ill. Archduchess Gisela managed to recover but the little Archduchess Sophie did not.

There was immense sadness and some anger over the death of the little archduchess. Sophie took it as proof that Sissi was an unfit mother. The Empress was devastated of course and the situation was not helped by the attitude taken by many who has been against her all along that the tragedy confirmed their view that Sissi was headstrong and immature, more concerned with having her own way rather than what was best for the family. The fact that the court doctors had urged against the children making the trip only made things look worse and even Emperor Francis Joseph was never quite the same toward his wife as he had been. For Sissi, her depression deepened, not much relieved with the birth of an heir to the throne, the Crown Prince Rudolf, in 1858. Needless to say, Sophie took charge of the baby boy at the outset and Sissi never had much to say about his upbringing. Sissi made herself sick and finally had to leave Vienna for lengthy periods of time, only returning when she feared that the military training young Rudolf was going through would hurt him. Sissi went to the Emperor and threatened to leave him if she was not given complete control over the upbringing of their children and Francis Joseph had little choice but to agree. Yet, after this, she took very little interest in her son which caused many to think, again, that this was a matter of Sissi having her own way rather than a genuine interest in the upbringing of the Crown Prince.

In 1867, with restlessness still strong in Hungary, Empress Sissi was key in working out the compromise, agreed to by her husband, which put aside the Austrian Empire and created Austria-Hungary. This was the one political issue she was instrumental in, due to her love of Hungary and her great popularity amongst the Hungarians. From that time on the Hapsburg empire would be one monarchy reigning over two countries, separate but equal, each with their governments and each with their own legal systems. Franz Joseph and Sissi reunited to go to Budapest for their formal coronation as King and Queen of Hungary. In 1868, in Hungary, Sissi gave birth to her last child, Archduchess Marie Valerie, who she had all to herself from day one and who she always favored best.

By that time, Sissi had become famous all across Europe for her beauty and, may have been the first “royal celebrity”. People eagerly read anything about her, trying to follow her example in fashion, diet, exercise and anything else. Anything Sissi did instantly became fashionable. With all of this attention, though always a very shy person, Sissi became obsessively vain, determined to remain on the pedestal the public had placed her on. She went to extreme lengths to maintain her youthful, beautiful appearance such as bathing in olive oil or starving herself. This was of less interest to the Emperor than her increasingly vocal liberalism, witty criticism of the Hapsburg monarchy or the radicals, even republicans, she often associated with. She became increasingly pessimistic regarding the survival of the Dual-Monarchy. Still, there was little to be done as the Empress was often traveling abroad and only rarely visited her husband in Vienna. Nonetheless, she was deeply disturbed when she learned of the death of Crown Prince Rudolf, allegedly at his own hand, and it was she who was the first to know and who had the unfortunate duty of breaking the news to the Emperor and the mother of her son’s mistress who died with him.

Sissi did not take the loss well. First, in quite a cruel display, she blamed Rudolf’s wife Princess Stephanie of Belgium. Given the problems she had with her own mother-in-law, it may surprise some how cold Sissi had always been toward Stephanie, dismissing her as altogether too pious and unattractive (as a woman who was rather obsessed with her own attractiveness) and she accused Stephanie of driving her husband away by being unaffectionate and aloof. Likewise, for a woman who held such liberal views and who was generally disdainful of monarchy she had always considered the Belgian Royal Family too lowly to be tied by marriage to the venerable House of Hapsburg. All of this was quite unfair to Princess Stephanie who had given the Crown Prince a daughter and might have given him a son were it not for the fact that Rudolf gave her a venereal disease, picked up during his frequent carousing, that made her infertile. Later, however, Sissi began to blame herself or more particularly the history of insanity in the Bavarian Royal Family and she began to fear that her blood had caused Rudolf to take his own life.

The Empress withdrew even further and wore mourning for the rest of her life, though she remained the most famous royal figure of her time. Her behavior became increasingly erratic and self-destructive, traveling compulsively and dieting to the point of near starvation. She rarely saw her husband and was seldom even in Austria-Hungary. Her seemingly endless travels around the Mediterranean finally did come to an end, in another one of her favorite places to visit; Switzerland. She happened to be walking along the shores of Lake Geneva at the same time as an Italian anarchist named Luigi Lucheni. For no other reason than that she bore the title of “Empress” the anarchist attacked Sissi with a knife, stabbing her in the heart on September 10, 1898. It was a sudden and violent end for a woman who seemed to have been unhappy for most of her life, even if few could understand exactly why. In all the years since her fame and attraction have not diminished as she has been featured in countless books, plays, ballets, television shows and movies. Few other consorts have ever been or remain so famous, particularly considering how little time she actually spent at court or with her husband.

To this day, the Empress known to everyone as Sissi, continues to hold a special place in the hearts of many. Personally, I cannot count myself among her many admirers, yet she remains an undeniably attractive figure. Although I can understand the fascination with her life, I cannot have a great deal of sympathy for her. Being a royal, and a royal consort for certain, requires a certain selflessness and devotion to duty which, it seems to me, Sissi simply did not possess. Taking all I know of her story, the impression I am left with (forgive me Sissi fans) is that of a basically self-centered woman, concerned more with her own feelings and her own image than the welfare of her family, country or dynasty. Her marriage seems ill-fated indeed considering that duty and obligation were the constant principles for her husband. I regret that she was to such a large extent an unhappy woman, yet, it seems to me that she simply made up her mind to be unhappy and that was that, despite having what most people would consider more than enough to make a happy life. In any event, I hope she has found peace, where she is now.

Happy Medina Day!

Already it is that time of the year again when The Mad Monarchist fondly remembers the Battle of Medina, the bloodiest battle ever fought on Texas soil, a battle between royalists and republicans and best of all a decisive royalist victory. Viva el Rey! Arriba España!

Royal Commanders in World War I

The new blog Lost in the Myths of History recently posted on some of the common misconceptions regarding The Myths of the First World War. The myths and misconceptions involving that disastrous conflict could fill a volume. However, one of the often-repeated lies that has always bothered me the most is the idea that royals were often given high rank in the armies of the monarchial nations solely because of their blue blood and despite the fact that they were absolutely incompetent as military commanders. To some degree this is also often related to the idea that the top commanders in the Great War sat back in luxurious chateaus or safe in underground bunkers while the common soldiers were being massacred by machine gun and artillery fire. In fact, during World War I a greater number of generals were killed in the fighting than in most other conflicts. However, I want to stick to the tired lie that the royal commanders in the Great War were all a bunch of idiots who needlessly got men killed by their ineptitude but who owed their rank solely to being royal born. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have tried myself to highlight some of the cases that prove this premise false. Probably none has been cited more often than the Prussian Crown Prince Wilhelm III or “Prince Willy” as the Allies dubbed him. He was constantly portrayed as a dandified playboy who owed his rank solely to royal tradition and as an incompetent commander. That is simply not so. The Crown Prince was no military genius but he was no idiot either and was a capable and reliable commander. Much of the criticism of him involves the murderous offensive at Verdun which nearly bled both the French and German armies to death. However, the Crown Prince did not develop the strategy employed at Verdun and, in fact, he put forward his own plan that would have, in all likelihood, succeeded in capturing the city which he assumed was the goal. It was not, of course, and the plan was rejected. An honest look at his actions during his early victories at the start of the war and his plans and opinions during the conflict shows that he was a very competent commander with a clear grasp of the situation and even a more realistic view than held by many of his comrades.

Other, less well known examples include Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of the Kaiser, Grand Admiral of the German Baltic fleet. Despite having fewer resources at his disposal he successfully defended the German north coast from Russian attack and kept Russian naval forces on the defensive throughout the conflict. There was Duke Albrecht of Württemberg who won the battle of the Ardennes in 1914 and, again, while not a miracle-worker, he was known as a very competent and reliable general who won promotion to field marshal and command of his own army group. Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria was widely admired in his own time and even today he stands out as one royal commander about whom one does not find much criticism. Many historians consider him to have been the best of the German royals to hold major army commands. On the Eastern Front, Prince Leopold of Bavaria led German forces to some of their greatest victories such as the capture of Warsaw, Poland and the eventual defeat of Russia as command of all Central Powers forces in the eastern theatre of war.

In the Hapsburg dominions, Archduke Friedrich, commander-in-chief of the Austrian-Hungarian forces from 1914-16 was also a more talented man than he is often given credit for. He was overshadowed by his Chief-of-Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf but Archduke Friedrich did express misgivings about Conrad’s aggressive plan of simultaneous offensives on multiple fronts, misgivings which proved well founded. Archduke Eugen of Austria-Hungary was also a capable commander, popular with his troops and had undergone extensive military training just like the non-royal officer candidates did. He successful held off superior enemy forces as commander of the southwestern front against Italy. Archduke Josef Augustin was one of the most successful generals of the Imperial-Royal army, particularly popular with the Hungarians, with victories to his credit against the Italians and the Romanians. In fact, of all the royal commanders in the Austrian-Hungarian forces during the war, the only one to emerge with a poor reputation was Archduke Josef Ferdinand who had the misfortune to bear the brunt of the most successful Russian offensive of the war. Emperor Charles I (Kaiser Karl) did not have much of a chance to prove himself but he did perform quite capably on the Italian front before the death of his uncle placed him on the Hapsburg throne.

Amongst the Allies there is no more controversial figure than Tsar Nicholas II who took direct command of Russian forces in September of 1915. While it is true that the Tsar was not by training or simple nature a military man, the diminishing fortunes of the Russian war effort under his command have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, there is every reason to believe that had it not been for the Revolution the Imperial Russian Army might have managed to reverse the tide of war in their favor. Better field commanders were proving themselves, better weapons were being developed and arms production was actually increasing. One can debate what, if anything, this had to do with the Tsar being in command, but if he is to be blamed for the defeats he should also be credited with the successes. Prior to the Revolution more supplies were coming in from foreign nations, new tactics had been developed and Russian troops were re-taking territories previously lost to the Austro-Hungarians. It was not the totally hopeless situation everyone thinks. His predecessor and uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas, was also a competent commander but one who suffered from the poor state of readiness of the Russian forces at the start of the war. His forces did win some early victories against the Austro-Hungarians and later as commander of the Caucasian front his armies were quite successful in repelling the Turkish invasion of southern Russia.

The only other Allied sovereign to personally command his troops was King Albert I of the Belgians and he did an admirable job. He relied heavily on his military staff of course and did not presume to try to tell them their business, but had been well trained for his role and everyone was impressed by his calm and steady leadership under the stress of a struggle more lopsided than that faced by almost any other commander. He put up stiff resistance in Belgium, throwing off the German timetable, fought a delaying action at Antwerp where even the notoriously anti-Belgian Winston Churchill had to marvel at his example. The King rallied his forces at the Yser River, ensuring the Allies won the “race to the sea” and toward the end of the war was given command of his own army group which he led in a successful offensive in the closing days of the conflict. His son, the future King Leopold III, fought in the trenches as a regular soldier. The Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, wanted to do the same but was prevented by the government.

Among the British forces, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as First Sea Lord, ensured that the Royal Navy was not caught unawares when the conflict began, but concentrated in home waters and on the alert which prevented the Germans from gaining a quick victory at the outset. He had served quite successfully in various positions in the navy but was forced to resign due to the storm of criticism aimed at anyone with German ancestry. He had been a British subject since 1868 but had been born in Austria and was of German-Polish heritage which caused the press to wage a hateful campaign against the Prince, who later renounced his German titles and changed his name to Mountbatten, which finally forced him to resign. However, he had been of excellent service to the navy and played a crucial part in the early days of the war. Likewise, in the Italian military, Prince Amedeo Duke of the Abruzzi had a high reputation as a battle fleet commander when the war began and it was largely thanks to him that the battered little Serbian army was able to be evacuated to safety after a renewed Austro-German offensive. Likewise, on land, Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Aosta, was one of the most competent of all the Italian commanders. His forces had a higher reputation than any other Italian army and he won the only significant victory during what were the darkest days of the war for Italy.

Royals did not tend to hold many major commands in the Allied armies (probably a side-effect of democracy) but royals proved themselves in a number of capacities below the level of top command. As a gunnery officer on HMS Collingwood the future King George VI was noted for his skillful performance at the Battle of Jutland. Even in the French army the future Prince Louis II of Monaco earned high praise for his courage and determination, earning the Military Medal, the Legion of Honor and eventually promotion to major general. All of the Kaiser’s sons served in the army or navy, Prince Oskar was noted several times for his courage and daring attacks. He earned the Iron Cross and was wounded several times during the war, always leading his grenadier regiment from the front.

Obviously, some of these royal figures were more gifted than others in terms of martial talent. None of them rose to the level of Friedrich the Great, Marlborough or Napoleon but it is utterly absurd to think that every royal who served in the Great War was a spoiled incompetent. In fact, from all I have read, it seems that given how few royals there were compared to non-royal commanders, their record comes out quite above average in terms of overall talent. People scoffingly dismiss anyone with a royal title in a command position, assuming that they must be inferior and owe their position only to their ancestry. This is prejudice pure and simple and those who do so should be challenged to back up their condescending attitude with a few examples to prove their point. Hopefully, monarchists can now have a ready list of facts to throw back at them. The royals who led forces in the Great War were almost to a man capable and competent. Some were even exceptional but even for those who were not, they were certainly worthy of their rank and their medals.

Monarchist Profile: Juan Donoso Cortés

Amongst almost any listing of the giants of counterrevolutionary, monarchist thinking will be the name of Don Juan Donoso Cortés, marqués de Valdegamas, something of a convert to the movement and a descendant of the great Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés. He was born in Valle de la Serena, Extremadura, in the Kingdom of Spain on May 6, 1809. Something of a child prodigy he was more learned than most adults at the age of ten and was studying law at the University of Salamanca when he was only twelve. He graduated from the University of Seville at sixteen and was a professor of literature at the College of Carceres by the time he was eighteen. However, like many young men experiencing the world through university he became something of a political liberal, embracing the tenets of the so-called Enlightenment. The French had invaded Spain by this time and this may have been a factor in his embracing of certain ideas from beyond the Pyrenees. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the philosopher he admired most.

Eventually, he entered the world of politics under the wing of the noted liberal Manuel Jose Quintana. However, his faith in liberalism was somewhat shattered when real life began to intrude when a liberal uprising threatened the monarchy and even the very life of King Fernando VII at La Granja. If this was the fruit of the political beliefs he had held then he would hold them no more. Cortés became more and more counter-revolutionary and certainly a more ardent monarchist after being appointed private secretary to Queen Maria Cristina, regent of Spain for her daughter Queen Isabella II after the death of the King. He began to write extensively on both politics and religion (which were indelibly linked as he saw it) and was spurred on by Louis Veuillot to write probably his most famous book, Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism by the revulsion he felt for the 1848 Revolution in France. The book was published in 1851 and made Cortés famous as a religious as well as political conservative.

The book still holds up today as one of the great Catholic, monarchist denunciations of socialism. Cortés took a rather unique approach by condemning socialism, not as a political ideology that was flawed, but rather as a sort of religion, with a theology all its own, and an inherently Satanic and poisonous religion at that. He became quite famous in his time for his writings and his fiery speeches denouncing the creeping spread of socialism and revolutionary republicanism. In fact, he was often quite prophetic, correctly predicting that socialist revolution would bring down the Russian Empire first at a time when the Romanov dynasty seemed as powerful and permanent as the stars in the sky. In fact, he was rather pessimistic and even in his own time felt it was most likely too late to stop western civilization from rushing headlong to its own destruction. Absolute, legitimate authority was essential, in his view, and in his time, he complained that there were no monarchs left who dared to rule without the permission and approval of the masses.

It was a style of absolute monarchy that Cortés advocated, just as in the spiritual realm he was an early advocate of Papal infallibility. Without absolute authority, he warned, the monarch, the sovereign, would lose his sovereignty and the people, filled with the promise of the wealth of others by socialist agitators, would overwhelm the legitimate monarchs and set up popular tyrants who would be totally under the thumb of Satan himself. To stop this, no measures could be off-limits and if it took a Crown dictator to maintain order and keep the revolutionaries in check, so be it according to Donoso. He held out hope that at least one of the more authoritarian constitutional monarchies might save the situation if only the ruling monarch would dare to be so bold. However, after the Revolutions of 1848, most of the monarchs across Europe had adopted a firmly defensive posture and had no taste to take risks if immediate peace and security could be gained by compromise.

Donoso was a very gifted writer, aside from his political brilliance and foresight, and he was admired even by many of his political and philosophical enemies during his time. Yet, after his death his memory seems to have faded rather quickly and today is little known outside of monarchist and counter-revolutionary circles. His death came on May 3, 1853 in Paris where he was serving as ambassador, just short of his 44th birthday. He had previously served as ambassador to Berlin. He certainly deserves to be more well known than he is today. He was a deeply religious man, as staunch a Catholic as one could ever hope to find, an ardent defender of Papal supremacy and infallibility and a man of gifted foresight. He predicted that Prussia would be the power to unite Germany, that the morale decline in France after the fall of the monarchy would result in the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and that Imperial Russia would fall victim to Marxist revolutionaries. Few men have ever seen the world more clearly than he did or better understand the dangers of revolutionary liberalism which he called the, “sterile and disastrous ideas in which are comprehended all the errors of the past three centuries, intended to disturb and disrupt human society”. How very right he was.

Don't Ask Me About My Governor

But it's too late of course. As us natives of the Lone Star state expected long ago our very own Governor Ricky is running for President. A while back some might have thought that would be President of the Republic of Texas, but no, it's of the United States. As long time readers will remember I said all of Ricky's talk about state sovereignty and possible secession would thrill me to pieces --if I thought he was really being honest, which he wasn't and no one but the most hysterical leftists really thought he was in the first place. When he was recently reelected Governor of Texas, coasting to an easy victory over a generic liberal Democrat and a Tea Party candidate that totally shot herself in the foot as well as daring to blaspheme the Tea Party idol Glenn Beck -not exactly a hard won victory. He has been the longest serving Governor in Texas history, so he has had time to do alot right and alot wrong. Suffice it to say that, while we've certainly had far worse governors, I'm far from being a fan of his.

Truth be told, the Governor of Texas really doesn't have that much power. It is a pretty weak and ceremonial office. The Lieutenant Governor has more pull in government and we all know that the Railroad Commissioner is the one who really runs the state anyway. Once, as a form of protest, I voted for independent candidate Kinky Friedman for Governor. Some years later after denouncing both parties he started to run for Agriculture Commissioner as a Democrat (a campaign that went nowhere fast). People seemed shocked when I said I would never vote for a joke like Kinky Friedman for Ag commissioner. When asked why since I had previously voted to make him Governor, my honest response was that I really would have had no problem with Kinky being Governor, but I would never trust a man like that with the power of Agriculture Commissioner (and I'm not joking)! Besides which, when he ran for Governor he did have some good ideas, like his "10 Mexican Generals Plan" for illegal immigration and he had a great campaign slogan: "Let's Get Kinky in the Mansion!" But, anyway, keep in mind, I voted for that guy over Perry.

To be fair, I'm not totally down on Perry. The sad state of American politics means that there are many, many I consider far worse. It is true, Texas has done much better than most other states in the Union during the economic crisis and Perry did pretty good in forcing the reps to stay in Austin and forcing them to cut spending and he refused to dip into the rainy day fund just to save wasteful government programs. However, like many Texans, even Republicans, I have some serious issues with Rick Perry. Alot of people seem to think that just because he's Governor of Texas every Texan should be for him. Well, we already have a "Texan" in the race: Congressman Ron Paul (who's not a real Texan of course but neither is George Bush and I'd rather claim Ron Paul). However, as we all know, Ron Paul is a congressman and a libertarian and congressmen and libertarians don't get to be President. Those are the rules handed down from on high by the gods of democracy (and I'm sorry Bachman but that applies to congresswomen too). So, everyone is already assuming it is going to be Romney vs. Perry, even though we have yet to have a single primary! Let me say, if those are the choices, they STINK and the GOP has learned nothing from the pasting they took at the hands of B. Hussein Obama and Joe "we have to spend money to get out of debt" Biden.

Rick Perry is just, well, he's just SUCH a politician. I don't know if he honestly believes anything he has ever said to anyone. I would prefer Santorum, Ron Paul or "Rad Thad" over Perry any day and twice on Sunday because all of those men, though I may disagree with each on some things, have always been consistent. Especially Ron Paul, who I do have some problems with, but one thing he has been is consistent. Rick Perry, who we are told represents the conservative right-wing of the Republican Party -used to be a Democrat. He has been good at cutting spending, but when the cash was flowing he also spent money like crazy too and it may seem like I'm nitpicking there, but it should be common sense to cut back when you're broke but the smart people are the ones who save when times are good. He's supported benefits for the children of illegal aliens, which I oppose, he tried to pass a bill that would give school girls VD vaccinations without their parents knowledge or approval, which I didn't like and he opposed the border fence idea which I support. He said it couldn't work. Well we don't know if he we don't try and don't tell me we "can't". If the Italians could fence in Libya and the Chinese could fence in Mongolia we can certainly fence in Mexico.

He has also tried, continuously, to slip in toll roads on us. Now, I have nothing against toll roads -nothing at all, they are usually the best roads. However, in this case it would be turning roads that taxpayers already paid for into toll roads and to make things worse the contract would go to a foreign company. Not cool Rick. Not cool. My biggest problem with him, and to many this will seem the most silly, was his support for the Trans-Texas Corridor. I remember in the last GOP primary Ron Paul mentioned this project and that smug little Toobin jerk on CNN dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Well, trust me, it is not. We have talked about it down here alot, had meetings about it with the government and seen the plans for it and everything. No one in Texas liked it. There would be land seizures (not about to happen here) and it seemed tailor-made for the people (who do exist) who are pushing for a "North American Union". Now, that issue would not have been so bad were it not that, like the toll road issue, Perry would not take our "no" for an answer. Like a frustrating game of 'whack-a-mole' every time voters would shoot it down it would get stuck into some other bill until someone spotted it at the last minute, told the media, raised hell and got it voted down again. This happened several times and that alone was enough to make me never totally trust Rick Perry.

So, to re-cap, as someone who has spent a considerable portion of my life knowing Ricky as our Lt. Governor and Governor, I can say he seems to be right on alot of issues but he's wrong on some too and what he is wrong on worries me and I don't trust him. I don't buy his sudden surge of religious devotion either. Would he be better than Obama? Well, I think so but only because I don't think Rick Perry is on a crusade to purposely destroy his country. I hope he's not the nominee but I hope Romney isn't either. I don't trust either one of them. I'm sorry if that seems a little bleak but, what do you expect? I am, after all, ... The Mad Monarchist.

Favorite Royal Images: Queen Rania

Happy National Day Liechtenstein!

A happy National Day to the Principality of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, the Princely Family and all the people of Liechtenstein, an oasis of peace, prosperity and royal rule in the chaos of modern Europe. Hoech der Fuerst!