Monarch Profile: King Michael I of Romania

Amongst the most remarkable monarchs of the World War II and post-war eras is King Michael I of Romania. Even as a young man in the most difficult of circumstances, with all of the odds stacked against him, he proved just how valuable monarchy can be to a country and a people and for that reason alone his life story should be well known to monarchists everywhere. Circumstances beyond his control forced him to spend the greater part of his life in exile from his homeland and yet it is a testament to his character and leadership that when he returned to his beloved Romania in 1992 he was cheered by a crowd of 200,000 people. Moreover, monarchists especially would be buoyed by how he lived his life in exile. Even when the Communist regime in Romania collapsed and he was urged to run for president by the National Liberal Party he refused to do so and has always remained adamant that he would return to government only as the constitutional monarch and not in any other capacity. Romania had him for only a relatively short time, yet, in that time, he proved to be the best national leader modern Romania has ever had.

Michael was born on November 25, 1921 to Crown Prince Carol of Romania and his recent bride Princess Helena of Greece. He was named in honor of Saint Michael the Archangel and Prince Michael the Brave. The young boy was scarred from his earliest years onward by the absence of his father who abandoned his wife and son to be with his mistress. In 1925 he was forced to renounce his rights to the throne and the young Michael was declared heir apparent while plans were made for a council of regency to rule on his behalf when his turn came. With the death of King Ferdinand I on July 20, 1927 his six-year-old grandson succeeded him as King Michael I of Romania. The regency, mostly under the control of the prime minister, governed the country while only a year later the royal father, Crown Prince Carol, was implicated in an attempted coup against the government but it was stopped when he was arrested by British police on his way to the airfield. He would not have many years to wait, however, as the Peasant Party invited him back to Romania after taking power in 1930. Their only condition was that he break things off with his mistress and return to his legitimate wife and son. For the young King Michael the whole episode would be emotionally painful and a personal disaster.

His father did return to Romania, deposed his son, and was crowned King Carol II of Romania with the support of the national assembly in spite of the opposition of the liberals. After only 2 years, 10 months and 19 days the reign of King Michael I had come to an end. He probably would have been just as happy to leave the royal duties to his father and enjoy something like a normal childhood, but the wished for reconciliation of his family was not to be. Queen Helena, understandably so, did not want her husband back, refused to attend his coronation and neither did the new king seem the slightest bit interested in reuniting with her. He assumed full custody of the newly demoted Crown Prince Michael and before long, against the wishes of almost everyone else involved, his mistress was in Bucharest living like a queen in a place of her own.

Prince Michael was forced to watch at a young age as the woman who had come between his parents was treated better than his own mother, with her own little court of sycophants and men on the make. He saw his father encourage everyone to treat his mother as badly as possible in the hope that she would leave Romania. King Carol II generally made life miserable for his family and the only ones who prospered around him were the bankers, industrialists and assorted boot lickers who fed his vanity in return for royal favors. In no time at all the Romanian economy began to sharply decline, banks closed, soldiers and civil servants went unpaid and radical groups on the left and right began to emerge. Crown Prince Michael was often at the side of his father during public events in this period, showing support, whether he liked it or not, for the new programs and organizations Carol II instituted which seemed to many an effort to establish an absolute monarchy.

On the left were the ever-present communists, radical socialists and their like. On the right was the green shirted Iron Guard under Cornelius Codreanu, leader of the Christian fascist group the Legion of the Archangel Michael. They advocated Romanian nationalism, Christianity, corporatism and opposition to the Jews and minorities. In the middle was King Carol II and his royalist youth group the Straja Tsarei and his own royalist secret police trying to keep an eye on potential enemies and playing rivals off against each other. In 1938 father and son went to London for a state visit followed by a trip to Paris and finally a stop in the Bavarian Alps to meet Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgarten. Hitler let Prince Michael go on a ride up to the very peak of the mountain retreat in his Mercedes while he and his father talked business. Hitler offered to give the King his full support if he would finally get rid of his (Jewish) mistress and release the Iron Guard leader Codreanu from prison. Not only did the Romanian monarch refuse, but soon after returning to Bucharest Codreanu was shot; allegedly while attempting to escape. Few believed it and Hitler certainly did not and assumed it was meant as an act of defiance toward him by King Carol.

Ten months later the prime minister was assassinated and Carol II warned his son that he and his mistress would likely be next. However, the killers were caught by the secret police and quickly executed. His paranoia aroused, Carol II established the Front for the Rebirth of the Nation. The blue uniformed group with their Roman salutes and absolute loyalty to the king were meant as a royalist paramilitary, somewhat fascist organization to oppose the Iron Guard and cement in place the absolute rule of Carol II. However, the King lacked the temperament of an autocrat and although he wanted no one else running things, he lacked the dedication to direct the state himself and the strength of Romania continued to decline. The country was all but powerless when the Soviets retook Bessarabia which was followed by Hitler returning Transylvania to the Hungarians. Carol II belatedly sided with Germany as the Greater Romania that had emerged from the First World War was sliced up among his neighbors.

This was too much for most Romanians to take and opposition to the King centralized under the Iron Guard (though Codreanu had been an avowed monarchist) and the former secretary of war General Ion Antonescu. The military went over to this group and the fate of Carol II was sealed. He was forced to abdicate and Prince Michael was awakened in the night by a phone call summoning him to the palace to take his oath to the constitution as King of Romania once again. His father went into exile in nationalist Spain while the public rejoiced at the news that their young monarch had been restored to the throne in the hope that happier times were now before them. King Michael was 19-years-old and fully capable of assuming full royal duties but the real power in the country was General Antonescu and he did not intend for the youthful monarch to have any decision making role in his regime. Romania became a military dictatorship with the King spending most of his time in the country palace of Sinaia, spending more time talking to his people than to his government ministers. It was only via the BBC that he learned Romania had allied with Germany in the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. This brought about many changes in policy that King Michael was powerless to stop. One controversial area was the fate of minorities in Romania. When Antonescu, at the urging of the Nazis, tried to isolate and deport the Jews, Gypsies and others of Romania King Michael did his best to hinder such efforts, saving many lives in the process.

Like his mother, King Michael favored Britain and the western democracies over Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. In spite of the constant surveillance he was subjected to by what was nominally his government he essentially set up a secret court and managed to sneak emissaries out of the country to meet with the Allies and discuss peace between them and Romania. He even gave out information on German troop strength and placement to aid in an Allied airborne assault on Romania. If the government or the Germans had ever discovered any of this it would have almost certainly meant his death but to the dismay of the young monarch the Allies never responded to him. Little did he know that agreements had already been made by the Allies which would surrender Romania to the mercy of the Soviet Union. The British, in particular, must have been particularly unperceptive as they had essentially traded Romania for Greece with the Soviets. In hindsight, this was obviously a mistake even for the British given what was to happen to Greece after the war.

Nonetheless, this was an act of courage, leadership and skill on the part of the young King Michael that cannot be overstated. He was under constant scrutiny, in an Axis country, surrounded by enemies and yet, under their very noses, he carried out these clandestine diplomatic moves, ran his own intelligence and communication operations and a secret royal court to work towards taking Romania out of the Axis camp, restoring the constitutional monarchy and joining the Allies. Had the government, the Germans or any unreliable person gotten the slightest hint of what the King was doing he would have been ruined and the monarchy with him. Part of the reason he was able to carry this out was because General Antonescu completely underestimated him and when the more astute German Gestapo agents expressed concerns about the King, Antonescu dismissed their fears as unwarranted and shrugged off his monarch as a harmless youth who had not the ability or inclination to interfere in government matters. Obviously, he could not have been more wrong.

This was proven on August 23, 1944 when the careful plans of King Michael reached their climax and he launched a coup against Antonescu. In a carefully orchestrated series of events King Michael arranged a surprise meeting with Antonescu in which he asked the general to take Romania out of the German camp and make a separate peace with the Russians. As expected Antonescu refused and then the King gave the signal and loyal forces rushed in to arrest the dictator. King Michael quickly arrested the old ministers as well, appointed a new government and when the Germans came looking for their ally the King informed them that he had resigned and that more information would be forthcoming. That broadcast announced the end of hostilities with Russia and the restoration of the democratic constitution. Jubilant Romanians rushed to the palace to shout praises to the king and the Romanian national anthem was played on the BBC when they received the word of what had happened. Knowing that German retaliation would be swift and ruthless, the King and his party left Bucharest early the next morning and escaped under fire from their former allies. As predicted the Germans attacked the palace that same day, destroying the very house the King had been staying in.

In the ensuing days Romanian troops fanned out and captured the German troops in their country and prepared for their hoped for liberation by the Soviet Red Army. The King and Queen Mother soon returned to Bucharest once it was secure, however, they were to learn very quickly that their new Russian friends were anything but. As the Soviets rolled in from Hungary the Romanian troops who stood welcoming them were taken prisoner, Romanian civilians were harassed or killed and their cities and villages were pillaged by the Red Army. Communist Party officials traveled with the troops and immediately began setting up across the country with Romanian traitors and radical leftists under the protection of Soviet guns to establish a Communist Party organization in the country for Stalin was determined that he and his ideology were in Romania to stay. Events were happening so rapidly and amidst the confusion of war that King Michael was not aware of the full extent of Russian brutality toward his people. He was busy enough trying to reestablish a working government under the restored 1923 constitution.

Until elections for a new parliament could be held King Michael ruled by decree with the advice of his cabinet and he took frequent trips into the country surrounding Bucharest to assess the situation for himself and keep the pulse of the people. In September he traveled to Moscow to officially sign an armistice with the Allies. However, it seemed that the Romanians had liberated themselves only to be brutalized by the Russians who grabbed the territories of Bessarabia and Bukovina from them. King Michael was informed that the Soviets would keep an army of occupation in Romania and he was ordered to appoint a new prime minister. Naturally, the Russians meant for him to appoint a pro-Communist prime minister but King Michael defied them by appointing one of the most zealous anti-communists in Romania to that post as a sign that Romania was not willing to become a Soviet puppet state.

Outraged by the audacity of this King they viewed as a royal upstart the Soviets put their Communist network in Romania to work. Russian troops suppressed or intimidated all other political parties and spread subversion against the Romanian government and used their sympathizers in the government itself to make the threat they that they would allow nothing to be accomplished unless and until King Michael submitted to Moscow. They used the very chaos they had created as an excuse to pressure the King into appointing their nominee for prime minister. King Michael had no choice but to make the appointment. However, he was dealt another complication when President Harry Truman of the USA informed him that America would not sign an armistice with Romania until they had a democratic government; the very thing Russia (the ally of America) had prevented him from doing. In another bold and courageous move King Michael sent letters to Britain and America informing them that he would, therefore, have to dismiss the pro-Soviet prime minister. This done, he informed the Russian military commander in Romania himself, handing him a copy of the same letter he had sent to the western Allies.

The Russian was so stunned that he nearly fell over and warned that the Soviet Union would view this as an act of hostility. King Michael dismissed him and then left for the summer palace where he effectively went on strike; refusing to sign any bill which came to him from the Communist dominated government. As he was still recognized by all countries as the head of state, all bills required his signature to become law and the government effectively shut down and there was nothing the Russians could do about it. In December of 1945 the British, Russians and Americans made resolving the Romanian standoff a priority and King Michael was confronted by the Soviet foreign minister and the British and American ambassadors to the Kremlin who presented their idea of solution. As far as compromises go it has to be one of the worst in history. The plan called for the cabinet, which was entirely communist at this point, to include two new members, one from the National Peasant Party and one from the liberal party. Even though there would be only two of them, they would still not be allowed any voice. It was, in effect, window dressing for an ultimatum to force the King to go along with the Soviet imposed government of his country.

King Michael was shocked and outraged and his mood did not improve when he and the Queen Mother met with the British and Americans on their own. They essentially told them that so long as he agreed to this proposal and held elections sometime in the future they would be willing to wink at the situation, call Romania a democracy, sign the armistice and leave Romania on her own. All the royal couple could do was to plead for the elections to be held as soon as possible before the Soviet grip on Romania grew even tighter. Sadly, it did no good. It was nearly a year later when the elections were held, but probably long before then the Soviets had so dominated the country that no free elections would have been possible even had they been held the very next day. The result was an absurd vote of eighty percent for the Communist Party. With what seemed like the whole world against him (yet again) King Michael was sidelined while the Communists massacred thousands of Romanians who had opposed them and made sure that anyone in the government or army loyal to the King soon disappeared. Afterwards, in one of the greatest acts of hypocrisy in history the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin called King Michael to Moscow to award him the Soviet Order of Victory for his coup against the pro-Axis government. The King got a medal and Stalin got Romania.

Late in 1947 King Michael was permitted, by his Communist PM, to go to London to attend the wedding of Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain and Prince Philip of Greece. It was there, at a reception, that he met the love of his life; the Italian Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. The following year the couple were married. While in London though, King Michael had been offered asylum by the British government which the King refused. He was understandably bitter that the western democracies had not helped him before to save his country from communist oppression and he was not about to abandon his people for an offer of safety when they needed him the most. The Communist government in Romania probably would have been happier had he accepted as they wanted nothing more than to be rid of him as it went against everything in the Marxist playbook to have a King on the throne no matter how little power he had. They were further displeased when he announced his intention to marry Princess Anne. A royal wedding was the last thing they wanted for fear that it would arouse royalist sympathies among the populace. Yet, they had no legal grounds to refuse as the princess had a spotless pedigree being descended from King Christian IX of Denmark and King Charles X of France.

Nonetheless, no good communist ever let the law get in the way of their wishes and on December 29, 1947 they summoned the King to a meeting the following morning and presented him with an act of abdication and demanded that he sign it. King Michael refused on the grounds that such an act was unconstitutional but that was not about to stop them either. The communists threatened to execute one thousand students, who had already been singled out for the firing squads, unless he signed the act of abdication instantly. With no other option, the King signed the act the following day in order to save the lives of his people. The communists were satisfied and allowed him to leave the country with his entourage but able to take little else with him to sustain himself and his family in exile.

Determined to get on with his life, one of the first things King Michael (as he still rightly called himself since his abdication had been coerced and was invalid) did was propose to Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma. However, this set off a great deal of unpleasantness with the family of his bride-to-be and the Catholic Church, reaching all the way to Pope Pius XII who refused to give the Catholic princess a dispensation to marry the Orthodox former monarch because, still faithful to the Romanian constitution, he would not promise to raise the children Catholic. It was unfortunate but both sides were being faithful to their principles. When Princess Giovanna of Italy had married King Boris III of Bulgaria such a promise had been made and then swiftly broken as the children were immediately baptized into the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, so the Pope was inclined to be a little more hard-line on this issue. For his part, King Michael was being honest and upright, refusing to make things easier by simply making a promise he had no intention to keep. Still, it was unfortunate as the head of the Bourbon-Parma family refused to allow the bride’s parents to attend a wedding taking place without papal approval.

As a result, Princess Anne was ‘given away’ by an uncle but things were little better on the groom’s side as his father, former King Carol II, was not even invited to the wedding. The marriage took place in Athens, Greece on June 10, 1948 with HM King Paul of Greece in attendance. It was to be a very happy marriage with the first of five daughters being born the following year. The religious difficulties were, many years later, overcome at a time when the Catholic Church became a little less hard line on such issues and King Michael and Queen Anne were married again, in a Catholic ceremony, on November 9, 1966 in the historic St Charles Church in the Principality of Monaco. The couple first lived in Italy, then moved to Switzerland and after that moved to the United Kingdom before returning again to Switzerland. The communist government took away the King’s Romanian citizenship and he had hardly any fortune of his own, but he never gave up and went about training himself and joining the workforce. He obtained his commercial pilots license and later worked for an aircraft equipment company. He never gave up his rights to the Romanian throne and never ceased his condemnation of the communist dictatorship.

Finally, in 1992 King Michael was able to return to his beloved homeland after the communist regime had collapsed. However, when he did so, the hugely ecstatic welcome he received, with over a million people swarming Bucharest to see him, that the President and republican authorities were terrified. They had no idea that the bonds of loyalty between the Romanian people and their long-absent King would be so strong. As a result, the King was hurried on his way out of the country and not allowed back in for another five years. In 1997 his citizenship was restored and he was allowed to return after a new government had taken power and he was able to reclaim some property with the legislature voting him the status of a former head of state. Some urged him to get into politics, but he refused to do so in any other capacity besides a restoration as the constitutional monarch. However, he did agree to perform errands for the government as a sort of ambassador-at-large for Romania, usually in efforts to increase investment in the country.

The King has still managed to cause some controversy after his happy homecoming. At the outset, some monarchists were upset that he did not actively campaign for his restoration. He stated he would be happy to accept the throne but only if offered by the Romanian people in a democratic referendum and he has not actively supported any royalist party or movement trying to make that happen. In 2007 he named his daughter Princess Margarita as heiress to the late Romanian throne, openly going against the established rules of succession, and said to the Romanian parliament that if the monarchy is ever restored Salic Law should be the first thing to go. This upset some of the German cousins of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen who were cut out of the succession by this action and while Princess Margarita is popular enough, her husband, Prince Radu Duda, is a very controversial figure. Many more traditional monarchists object to his use of the title of “Prince” as well as some aspects of his background. When he announced his intention to run for President and with King Michael endorsing his son-in-law many objected to this as well and complained that the King was surrendering his claim of political neutrality by doing so.

Some of the actions of the King have been criticized but, there has never been any widespread lack of respect for King Michael himself. He is the last remaining living head-of-state from World War II and he will always be honored for his bold actions in overthrowing the pro-Nazi dictatorship and taking Romania out of the Axis and into the Allied camp. In 2011, in tribute to his 90th birthday, King Michael was invited to address the Romanian parliament. He remains quite active in spite of his advanced age though, naturally, his schedule has been reduced in recent years. Although not without his critics as of late, King Michael remains a greatly admired and highly regarded man both in Romania and around the world for his integrity, his devotion to his people and his courage in the face of daunting odds.

MM Video: The Great Yuan Empire

MM Video: Austria-Hungary at War

Mad Motivation

Royal News Roundup

HIH Crown Princess Masako of Japan celebrated her 48th birthday this week and spoke out about her struggles with stress, nerves and the resulting mental illness inflicted on her. HIH Crown Prince Naruhito was alongside, supporting his wife. The Crown Princess has been a bit more visible lately but admitted that while she has made progress she is still not fully recovered. Her medical team said, “We cannot expect a quick recovery as far as the situation is not improved” which says to me that as long as she is a public figure, with the accompanying attention and scrutiny that goes with it, her situation will not change. I also would not say that anyone is expecting “a quick recovery” considering that it has been nearly a decade since the Crown Princess more or less went into hiding. She is still undergoing a routine of medication and counseling sessions. The Crown Princess also spoke about the March earthquake and tsunami disaster saying, “I shall deeply bear in my mind feelings of people in the disaster-hit areas and continue to watch over the path to recovery,” and saying that the whole disaster was, “too shocking to put into words”. Of course we wish the Crown Princess a happy birthday and all the best on her continued treatment and, hopefully, recovery.

In Thailand, HM King Bhumbol Adulyadej turned 84-years old this week and despite his very fragile health as of late, showed that duty comes first when he made his annual birthday speech on Monday, surrounded by his supportive family, from the balcony of the Royal Palace in Bangkok. He took the occasion to call on Thais to unite in the face of the devastating floods that have hit the southeast nation kingdom. The venerable monarch said, “The most important thing is you should not be split or fighting each other. We need to inspire and give each other confidence so that the work we do will be fruitful for the well-being of the people and the stability and security of the country.” The King of Thailand has been one of the outstanding royal figures of my lifetime and an example of the immense great good that even a constitutionally limited monarch can do when he is properly supported and respected. We wish him all the best. Someone who may not have such warm feelings is the Thai-born American Joe Gordon who was recently sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for translating and posting on-line a defamatory biography of the King which accuses the revered monarch of effectively being a tyrant and hampering the “progress” of Thailand. In an extreme show of what unmitigated gall some people have, he pled guilty (so he admitted to committing a crime) in order to get a shorter sentence (still hypocritically portraying himself as a victim to the media) and then applied to the King for a royal pardon. So, in other words, this man who spread a book that attacks the King for having too much power has appealed to that same King to use his royal power to overrule the legal system to get this man out of the punishment incurred by the crime he admits to having committed. I mean…seriously…the nerve of some people.

In the Arab royal world, HM Queen Rania of Jordan handed out her annual Excellence in Education awards at the Applied Science Private University in Amman this week, something she has been doing since 2005. Perhaps hinting at recent events beyond education the Queen said, “Change for us is an opportunity. An opportunity to learn from the past, and set modern plans for our future”. A worthy endeavor to be sure. Meanwhile, all the way over in Morocco, HM King Mohammed VI put down a new foundation stone in the port/fishing city of M’diq for a new social center to be built, part of an overall project, on-going to renew and refurbish the city.

In southern Europe, TRH the Prince and Princess of the Asturias were in fine form as they presided over the changing of the guard at the Royal Palace in Madrid, the Prince cutting a fine figure in his uniform and the Princess wearing a dress of a G.I. inspired hue. However, tensions remain high in Spain due to the economic crisis and spiraling debt of the country with reports emerging that the government will cut down the number of those included amongst the paid members of the “Royal Family” with only the King, Queen, Prince and Princess of the Asturias and their children remaining included. No one is set to lose any titles of course but they will no longer receive an allowance from the government. It should also be noted that if such a thing happens, it is going to be self-imposed as the reports coming out about this all come from the royal court and not the government. That being said, Zarzuela Palace has said in a statement that this is a matter of long-term consideration and no immediate decision is on the horizon. Also on the Mediterranean front, the Prince and Princess of Monaco traveled to South Africa this week for a number of events related to the charitable causes and environmentalism dear to each of them. More on those events can be found at Mad for Monaco.

The Kingdom of Belgium has been busy this week. The ever troubled Prince Laurent was opening a new homeless shelter for people with beloved pets this week when reporters flooded him with questions over a recent scathing documentary on the Prince. His faithful wife Princess Claire leaped to his defense and brought the press conference to a sudden end. “Enough is enough, Laurent,” she told her husband. “The project did not interest them.” The Princess went on to tell the reporters how hurt she and her family were by the constant accusations made against the Prince. And that was the end of that. However, the big news of course was on Tuesday when HM King Albert II swore in a new government, ending 541 days of political deadlock due to the fall of the last government and the victory of Flemish nationalists in the last elections. The new prime minister, Elio Di Rupo, speaking in French, Dutch and German made his oath, “I swear fidelity to the King, obedience to the constitution and to the laws of the Belgian people”. The King has labored long and hard to see his country through this crisis and admitted that there is still a lot of work to do.

In the far north, HH Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway, second and youngest child of TRH Crown Prince Haakon and Mette-Marit of Norway, celebrated his 6th birthday last Saturday. Congratulations and happy birthday wishes to the promising young sprout.
Such good news has not been widespread, sadly, in the royal circles of Scandinavia. It has been a very bad week for the Swedish Royal Family with recordings coming to light purporting to show the King and a friend attempting to pay off a night club owner with mob ties to induce him to take back stories that the monarch attended “adult parties” (wink, wink) at his establishment. The King had previously denied any such behavior and the recordings have, frankly, made him seem more than a little dishonest and public confidence in the monarchy has fallen to a new low with over a third of the public saying they have lost faith in their monarch according to a new poll by Swedish television network TV4. Considering that King Carl XVI Gustaf has only a strictly ceremonial role in his country, it would be difficult to say he has not done his “job” well over the years but, nonetheless, it seems that Crown Princess Victoria will have her work cut out for her in improving the image of the monarchy in Sweden. Will this latest revelations mean she might get the job sooner than expected? The rest of the Royal Family is certainly not pleased. Rumor has it that Queen Silvia is furious (which would be natural) and that this is part of the reason why Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine have been staying abroad so much. It is a sad state of affairs and we can only hope that the reputation of the monarchy can be salvaged. It is bigger than one man after all.

MM Movie Review: The Leopard

As we have recently seen the passing of the 150th anniversary of Italian unification, it is fitting to take a look at a movie that covered this period on the island of Sicily. It is a uniquely Sicilian story and yet much of the drama could have unfolded in almost any part of Italy as the long established aristocracy came face to face with the wave of nationalism and the forces of the revolution. I have often recommended this movie to people trying to understand the many aspects of the Risorgimento. Yet, it is not a simplistic movie. There are few angels or demons but it reveals the complex nature of the situation Italy (and in this case Sicily) found itself in during the revolutionary period. Considering who was behind it, Luchino Visconti (a communist homosexual), I was surprised by what a downright reactionary flavor it had almost throughout. Yet, Visconti, or more properly Luchino Visconti di Modrone, Count of Lonate Pozzolo, was also an aristocrat and is said to have modeled the prince whom the film revolves around after his own grandfather.

“The Leopard” is an epic film in every way; very grand, very colorful, very intricate and very long (depending on the version you see, very, very long). Visconti disowned the shortened American version for cutting out scenes he considered vital, but having only ever seen the Italian version I cannot speak to that. Watching the film you get an idea of how the Risorgimento was viewed by almost every level of society and the sometimes differing views people within each strata had about it. It is, however, the story of one aging aristocrat, Prince Don Fabrizio Salina, throughout this tumultuous period and so the emphasis is naturally on him. Because the Prince (played by American actor Burt Lancaster) is such a compelling character, the viewer cannot help but identify and sympathize with him. As a result, many of Visconti’s fellow radical leftists denounced the film when it came out as being reactionary and putting the old ruling class of Sicily in far too favorable a light. That, of course, is far too simplistic a view. Almost every side is shown in this movie, good and bad aspects alike. Almost no one is entirely pure and yet even the less palatable characters are usually shown as at least having idealistic motivations.

The title comes from the leopard on the coat of arms of the Salina family and the film opens with Prince Fabrizio, the worldly but wise patriarch, leading his family in prayer. They live in palaces, a country estate in the summer months and another as their primary residence in a ramshackle Sicilian village. The nationalist revolution sweeping Italy finally comes to intrude on this family which traces its ancestry back to ancient Rome. Garibaldi and his red shirts are invading Sicily, rallying the discontented to overthrow the Bourbon kingdom. The Prince realizes that the way of life he has always known is about to change forever and there is nothing he can do to stop it. “If we want things to stay as they are, things have to change”. There is a great sense throughout of everyone, from the highest to the lowest, being swept along by the irresistible tide of history; like it or not, revolution is coming. The Prince loves his wife, though after a moment of weakness he admits to his friend and confessor Father Pirrone that it is more of a devoted alliance than a romance. She crosses herself before every embrace and, the frustrated Prince says, despite all their years of marriage and the children they’ve had together he’s never seen the naval of his very proper and pious wife. He is devoted to his children but realizes that the future of the family will not be in their hands.

That duty will fall to his well-born but rather immature nephew Tancredi. He is a young man looking for adventure with illustrious ancestry but little money as his own father squandered the family fortune. Because of that, he needs his uncle Fabrizio as much as his uncle needs him to carry on the family line into the new Italy that is being created. Tancredi, eager for glory and excitement, rushes off to join Garibaldi as he battles his way across Sicily. Bourbon troops execute people while trying to fend off the red shirts, yet some people still support them. Many embrace the revolutionary cause, others look to their traditional leaders for guidance. Prince Fabrizio decides that they will be ruined if they oppose the coming new order and that they must come to an accommodation with the revolutionaries. It also means he will have to stoop to ingratiate himself with the rising middle class, embodied by the comical social climber Don Calogero, mayor of the local town of Donnafugata. Because of the mayor’s astuteness in taking advantage of imposed land reforms he is one of the wealthiest men in the area and set to grow richer. The Prince recognizes that the fortune of this funny little man could sustain his own family in the future.

Tancredi returns, no longer a red shirted revolutionary but as an officer in the more respectable royal army of King Victor Emmanuel II. He is more than willing to marry the daughter of Don Calogero, a stunning but unpolished girl named Angelica (played by Claudia Cardinale) because she is positively gorgeous and in the interests of his family Prince Fabrizio agrees and arranges the match though it is extremely painful for him to do so. When the unification of Sicily with the rest of Italy is voted on, the Prince (after just a hint of hesitation) votes “yes” knowing that most will follow his example and do the same. The mayor later proclaims that the vote was unanimous, however, in one of my favorite scenes, the Prince’s huntsman admits that he had voted “no”. He understood the reasons Don Fabrizio had for voting “yes” but, Spaniards or not, the old Bourbon Royal Family had been good to him and he said to have voted “yes” would have made him feel like a traitor to their memory. Tensions rise but are soon smoothed over. The Prince, who one would expect to be the reactionary, bent with the wind out of self-preservation while his lesser, who had nothing to lose, could afford to be defiant. The Prince admires his loyalty but is nonetheless sure he is doing the right thing. He comforts himself that, at least this new state will be a monarchy (yes!).

The Prince goes ahead with arranging the wedding festivities for his nephew and his beautiful, bourgeois bride. He is aware of his own age, that his day is passing and the transition from the old to the new Italy is seen in what he goes through, his trials, his adjustments and his interactions with others. There is a huge amount that is “said” in this movie of which very little is actually spoken, but you see it all played out like a grand painting that conveys a deep message without saying a word. Don Fabrizio knows what he must do and he does it, conveying mostly with his eyes and body language how difficult it is for him. He was a man used to being in charge, being the final authority and has to come to grips with the rise of a new power system. He finds Don Calogero as ridiculous as anyone and yet he must tolerate him. He finds his daughter Angelica as desirable as his nephew (and every other male that lays eyes on her) and yet he knows he can do nothing about it. In his prime he certainly could have, and we are led to believe he still *could* but such a thing would be out of the question. It is only noticeable because, Angelica knows it too.

Another very interesting part of the movie was when a government official, looking very out of place in Sicily, arrives from Turin for rather flimsy reasons. The Prince keeps him at arms length until the purpose of his visit is revealed. King Victor Emmanuel II wishes all sections of the new Kingdom of Italy to be represented in his government and Don Fabrizio was recommended to be appointed Senator. The Prince is rather repelled by the idea of becoming a statesman. He would be happy to accept another title but not an actual job. The envoy is perplexed by his attitude, having in the course of his visit become very impressed with the strength, sincerity and wisdom of the Prince. However, although Don Fabrizio would not stand opposed to the tide of history and was willing to accept the new kingdom, he was not willing to participate in it and, as he said, would be unable to function in such an environment, never having learned the arts of self-deception and double-talk required of politicians. The envoy pleads with him to reconsider, pointing out how much he could help lift Sicily out of the backward and impoverished state he found her in. The Prince informs him that the Sicilians don’t want to be helped, seeing themselves as always perfect. The envoy begs him to reconsider, sincerely admiring the man, but the Prince can only laugh off his lack of understanding of the Sicilian people and their local culture. Some things will never change. The Prince then, surprisingly (yet not so surprisingly) recommends none other than the ridiculous Don Calogero for the position, saying he possesses just the right qualities for a politician.

The final big scene of the movie is a grand ball, with all of the very finest in traditional, Old World aristocratic opulence, which lasts an astounding 45 minutes. You have to see it to believe it. It is a visually stunning sequence and I’ve never seen any movie that stuck with one setting for so long, following several conservations as a way of wrapping up all of the loose ends of the film and (here is why you must pay close attention) doing it all in spite of the fact that no one is really talking about what they seem to be talking about. It is just brilliantly done and it is not buried, if you have been paying attention throughout the movie you will easily pick up on the unsaid messages being conveyed. What is difficult is believing that such a thing in one *very* long sequence could be pulled off successfully and yet it is. Again, I’ve never seen anything like it. The realism is also no piece of artistic mastery, actual Sicilian aristocratic families were brought in to play the part of the horde of grandly dressed and bejeweled guests who represent the old elite of the Bourbon kingdom that is no more. Yet, some things go on just as they always had.

I will stress again that this is not a movie for “casual viewing”. It is very long and while there are not a lot of complex plot points or anything like that, if you don’t pay attention you will miss out on the innumerable subtleties that make this a great movie rather than just a good one. In case anyone cannot tell, I love this movie. It is an artistic masterpiece. The settings are spectacular, the buildings, the landscape, the background of life in Sicily is done perfectly. The actors are pretty much all top notch (hard to go wrong with Burt Lancaster) and I say that because they all successfully convey so much of the “feeling” of this movie just in their eyes, their expressions and their body language. I think it is a great film, and I’m not alone in that as it won a pile of awards. When it comes to understanding the Risorgimento, I tell people to just watch “The Leopard” and you will come away with a pretty good idea of it. Just so there are no false expectations, it is not a history lesson, it is not hitting you over the head with, “Here’s what happened, these guys were good, these guys were bad,” and so on. The fact that so many radical leftists condemned it as reactionary or a right-wing love letter says something to recommend it. For what it was trying to do, the time, place and people it was trying to convey, I think it hit the mark perfectly. For those who complain that I only talk about movies I hate, here is one from the opposite end. “The Leopard” -I highly recommend it.

Consort Profile: Maria Anna of Savoy

Amongst the consorts of the era of Imperial Austria there have been admirable and colorful women who made their mark. There was the pious Zita of Bourbon-Parma, the glamorous Elisabeth of Bavaria and Emperor Francis I had four spouses so they tend to get lost in the shuffle. One that is often overlooked but who is one of my favorites is Princess Maria Anna of Savoy, consort to the unfortunate Emperor Ferdinand I. She and her twin sister Maria Teresa were born on September 19, 1803 at the Palazzo Colonna in Rome to HM King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia and his consort Archduchess Maria Teresa of Austria-Este. Her full name was Princess Maria Anna Ricarda Carlotta Margherita Pia of Savoy. The little pair had the honor of being baptized by His Holiness Pope Pius VII as this was during the period when the Savoy royals had been driven out of Turin by the French and spent much of their time in Sardinia or in those parts of Italy not under French control. She grew into a very pretty girl, with the conservative nature of her father and also aware, because of her earliest years, of the dangers brought by those who wish to spread revolution.

Given her many charming qualities, it is remarkable she escaped marriage until she was 27 years old when, in an agreement between families, she was pledged to marry the heir to the Hapsburg thrones. For the princess, it was far from being a happy occasion. King Ferdinand V of Hungary (the highest title he held at the time) was an epileptic, suffered from water on the brain and a number of ailments that caused him to be somewhat (I stress somewhat) mentally deficient. The two were married by proxy in Turin on February 12, 1831 and later met in person to be married on February 27 in Vienna at the chapel of the Cardinal Archbishop of Olmütz. When the Princess first met her husband-to-be she reportedly could not look at him without crying. It was a first impression of course, and she did not know him at all, but he was certainly not the strong, handsome prince young girls dream of marrying. He had to be helped just to shuffle along, have names and information constantly repeated to him and was already become somewhat infirm. For a vibrant, beautiful young girl it could hardly be considered a happy occasion at first sight. However, the princess had been raised with a strong sense of duty and she dried her eyes, kept a stiff upper lip and took seriously her marriage vows to her husband.

King Ferdinand V, of course, was unable to consummate the marriage (nor was he ever able to) and so the couple never had any children. He tried, but his frequently recurring epileptic fits would not permit it. Nonetheless, he loved his wife as best as he was able and Princess Maria Anna came to love him but from day one was totally devoted to her husband in every way. On March 2, 1835 Ferdinand succeeded to the throne as Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria and Maria Anna became Empress of Austria alongside him. On September 12 of the following year she also became Queen of Bohemia and was crowned in Prague. The Emperor needed constant assistance through all of his duties and his Empress was always right there beside him, sympathetic, devoted and faithful and the Emperor greatly appreciated her for that. Of course, it soon became clear that, even doing the best he could and with a great deal of support, the Austrian Empire was facing challenges which were beyond the abilities of someone so handicapped to cope with and that fact came home in a dramatic way with the Revolution of 1848.

Rebellions spread like wild fire across the Hapsburg domains and violence and rioting even broke out in Vienna itself. As the Imperial Family was forced to flee, the scene brought back memories and the stories of similar horrors told by her elders to Empress Maria Anna about the invasion of Piedmont by the French Revolutionaries that had forced her own family into exile before she was born. The Hapsburgs did not go into exile of course, but it was an extremely traumatic event for the Empress. The family came back to Vienna, with Maria Anna sitting beside the Emperor in their carriage, quietly weeping at the misfortune that had overtaken them. What was worse was that their return had been premature and they were soon forced to leave again in even greater haste with the younger Archdukes riding alongside the carriages, shielding those inside from the mobs screaming “death” with their own bodies. A great deal of history could have been quickly changed in the course of that frenzied flight. It was clear to all what had to be done, Emperor Ferdinand I must abdicate. He did so on December 2, 1848, reading out his act of abdication with some difficulty, passing the Crown to his nephew the new Emperor Francis Joseph. Empress Maria Anna, who retained her title, kissed her nephew and then accompanied her husband to mass after which they packed their bags and retired to private life.

Ferdinand and Maria Anna spent the rest of their lives together in quiet, calm and spiritual pursuits, both of them being devoutly religious people. Freed of his imperial duties he was able to spend his time in his two favorite pursuits; eating and praying. Of course, for most of the time, Empress Maria Anna took on the role of a nurse more than a conventional wife. This, she did dutifully and with touching sincerity and devotion. She was tireless in her care and concern for her infirm husband. Many viewed her situation with sympathy or even pity but those who knew the couple best looked upon her with the greatest admiration for the loving care she took of the former Emperor. During the winters they lived at Prague Castle and in the summer moved to Reichstadt or Ploskovice (in what is now the Czech republic). The former Emperor died in 1875, mourned by his devoted wife who had served him so lovingly and faithfully for their many years together despite the many difficulties caused by his infirmities. When Empress Maria Anna herself departed this life on May 4, 1884 in Prague, she was buried next to her husband, to whom she had been as devoted as he was to her, in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna. She was an example to all of the best qualities of devotion to royal duty. She was obliged to take on a rather difficult and unenviable task, yet she devoted herself to that task and came to see it, not as a sacrifice to be endured, but a labor of love.

Monarchist Profile: Colonel John Penruddock

John Penruddock was an English royalist, most known for his leadership in a royalist uprising in 1655. The courage and loyalty of the cavaliers of the civil wars is fairly well known, but less well remembered are those brave and bold few who carried on the struggle during the years of tyranny under Oliver Cromwell. John Penruddock was born in 1619 and hailed from Compton Chamberlayne, a small village in Wiltshire near Salisbury. A loyal man, greatly attached to King and Country, had events not overtaken him there would surely be no mention of him in history. After reaching adulthood he married Arundel Freke, the daughter of John Freke, Esq. of Shrewton, Dorset and settled down to domestic life having two sons (George and Thomas) and four daughters (Elizabeth, Joan, Mary and Anne). In 1648, with the passing of his father, Sir John Penruddock of Compton Chamberlayne, the younger John inherited the family estate. By that time, of course, the first civil war had passed and the second was raging. John was firmly on the side of his King but, alas, it was not the side destined to win. King Charles I was treacherously executed and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell was firmly set in place.

An ardent royalist, John Penruddock was a prominent member (though not one of the founders) of the monarchist secret society known as the Sealed Knot. The Sealed Knot worked clandestinely during the rule of Cromwell to bring about a restoration of the British monarchy. During the interregnum they made some eight attempts to bring down the Cromwellian regime and restore King Charles II to his rightful throne. Of these, the most famous was the Penruddock Uprising of 1655. Colonel John Penruddock was not the sole leader of the campaign, nor did he alone originate the plan for the rebellion but his part in the enterprise was the most comparatively successful and thus his name has gone down in history as that of the attempted rebellion as a whole.

The Sealed Knot planned to take key cities in England and instigate popular rebellions in other areas simultaneously after which, it was hoped, a general uprising would be sparked, Cromwell driven from power and the Stuart heir restored to the throne of his martyred father. The initial cities that were to be taken were Salisbury, Newcastle, York and Winchester with subsequent rebellions hopefully incited in Nottinghamshire and Cheshire. It was all supposed to happen in March of 1655. However, there was a snag before things had even gotten underway when more troops of the devastatingly effective “New Model Army” were sent to Winchester just before the uprising was to take place so efforts to secure that city had to be given up. Rattled by this setback, some people began to have second thoughts about their chances for success and when the call went out in Cheshire to rally for the Crown, no one came out. Those who did take to the field for the cause of their King were disheartened by how few they were. Even some of the leadership began to waver at what seemed to be a lost cause. One by one the groups disbanded and went home. Penruddock, and the group he was responsible for at Salisbury, however, did not.

Colonel Penruddock and Sir Joseph Wagstaffe gathered their fellow royalists, roughly three to four hundred men, and on March 11 marched in and occupied Salisbury, raising the Stuart Royal Standard. Despite a lack of success elsewhere, Penruddock was determined to go forward and on March 12 led his troops out of the city and marched west, passing through Blanford, Sherborne and Yeovil. He hoped to gather strength as he went but few volunteered. Even many who were sympathetic would not join a cause they judged doomed to defeat. On March 14 Penruddock and his little army arrived in South Molton in Devon where they were confronted by a horse troops of the New Model Army led by Captain Unton Crook. For three hours the royalists and roundheads fought in the streets before the superior training and professionalism of the New Model Army troops prevailed over the civilian volunteers of Penruddock. The royalist forces broke, many being killed, some managing to escape. Penruddock and the other leaders, however, were all taken by the parliamentary forces.

Immediately afterwards, Oliver Cromwell appointed Sir Hugh Wyndham as judge on a special commission to punish those responsible for the royalist uprising. As the primary leader of the effort, the fate of Colonel John Penruddock was never in doubt. He was executed, by beheading, at Exeter in May of 1655. The other leaders were beheaded as well with the remainder captured royalists being sold into slavery in the West Indies plantations. Still, his memory lived on as the leader of one of the few real domestic challenges to the rule of Cromwell and one of the more colorful episodes of the resistance during the interregnum. Control of the Penruddock family estates passed first to John’s eldest son George and upon his death in 1664 to his younger brother Thomas Penruddock who later served as a Member of Parliament for Wilton when the King enjoyed his own again.

Yes, Belgium Has a Government

Yes, it has finally happen. With the threat of the whole of the European Union going down in economic flames, the bitterly divided parties of Belgium have come together with at least a temporary agreement and formed a new government. After a record-breaking 541-days without an official government (breaking the records set by war-torn Iraq and Cambodia) the long-suffering King Albert II of the Belgians swore in Francophone socialist leader Elio Di Rupo as Prime Minister. For me, as I have said before, having a gay Italian socialist who doesn't believe in God as PM of the Kingdom of Belgium is not the sort of thing I would have ever wished for but, alas, there is not much room to be very discriminating anymore. He at least wants the country to continue and not break up to be absorbed by Holland and France so, that is a good thing. The monarchy will survive, Belgium will not be destroyed and there will be a government that can actually do something -even if I don't think it to be the right thing which I'm sure I won't. And, just think folks, in just a year or two more there will be new elections and we might get to go through all this fun all over again! Ain't democracy great? ...

Off Topic Tuesday: New Mexico Invaded

General Sibley

In 1861, at the start of the American Civil War a tough Confederate Texan named John R. Baylor had attacked and seized Mesilla, claiming all of the southern half of Arizona and New Mexico as the Confederate Territory of Arizona. Encouraged by this easy victory, Henry Hopkins Sibley, a West Point graduate, and army veteran familiar with the southwest went to Confederate President Jefferson Davis with a bold proposal. He planned to attack north into New Mexico, take control of the Santa Fe Trail, obtain the wealth of the Colorado gold mines for the Confederacy and eventually advance westward to California and open up a Pacific Ocean port for the southern nation. Davis commissioned Sibley a Brigadier General and dispatched him to San Antonio, Texas to begin forming a brigade of cavalry for the expedition.

General Sibley managed to recruit about 3,000 men to form three cavalry regiments and one battery of artillery; these were: the Fourth Texas Volunteer Cavalry under Colonel James Reily, the Fifth Texas Volunteer Cavalry led by Colonel Tom Green and the Seventh Texas Volunteer Cavalry commanded by Colonel William Steele. They were later joined by elements of Baylor's old command raising their total strength to around 3,700 men. The men were rough, tough and eager but poorly supplied. Some who had no weapons at all were armed with antiquated lances captured during the war with Mexico. Sibley hoped to take most of his supplies from the enemy and invaded New Mexico with the intention of moving against Santa Fe and Fort Union.

Colonel Canby

The first major action of the campaign was the battle of Val Verde in which Sibley hoped to lure out the garrison of Ft Craig where he could destroy them. Colonel Edward Canby, commander of the U.S. forces in New Mexico did come out to fight and the Texans gave the Union troops a warm reception. Sibley, who had a reputation as a drinker, was "indisposed" much of the time and command at Val Verde fell to Colonel Thomas Green who won a hard fought victory over the Yankees and forced their retreat back to Ft Craig. Lacking the strength or supplies to storm or besiege the fort General Sibley left it behind and marched on to capture Santa Fe on March 10, 1862. So far, the Confederate advance had been successful. They had beaten the enemy at Val Verde, captured Santa Fe and shortly later took Albuquerque. However, the Confederates were suffering from severe supply problems. The Yankees had destroyed all they could not carry off as they retreated, leaving Sibley without the vast stores he had hoped to use to sustain his men.

Nevertheless, this was still a time for high hopes. Confederate forces to the south and in Arizona were fighting Apache Indians and some were even planning to conquer the northernmost states of Mexico for induction into the Confederacy. The main goal for General Sibley though was still Ft Union, overlooking the Raton Pass. To advance on the fort though, he would first have to take and hold the Glorieta Pass on the Santa Fe Trail. He dispatched about 300 men to secure Glorieta Pass under the command of Major Charles Pyron and William R. Scurry. On March 26, 1862 Major Pyron was attacked at Glorieta by over 400 Union troops under Major John Chivington. The Confederates beat back the attack, but the Union forces regrouped and managed to push them back with two successive flanking movements. All was quiet on the 27th as both sides called for reinforcements. Lt. Colonel William R. Scurry arrived with additional Confederate troops and Colonel John P. Slough came with Union reinforcements. On the 28th both sides decided to attack.

Scurry at Glorieta

Once he observed the Federal forces coming up the pass, Colonel Scurry formed a defensive line and threw back repeated Union attacks. For a time the battle surged back and forth between attacks and counterattacks, but the Confederates would not break. Finally, Colonel Slough abandoned the field and Scurry pulled his men out to report their victory. The Confederates had certainly been victorious on the battlefield, but behind the lines a nasty surprise waited for them. At Johnson's Ranch Colonel Scurry discovered that during the battle Union forces under Major Chivington had destroyed his supply train and killed all of his livestock. The Confederates had no choice but to march back to Santa Fe and from there, without any food or supplies, abandon New Mexico and return to Texas. Despite winning every engagement the Confederates had lost the campaign due to a lack of supplies. In fact, far more Confederates died from cold and starvation on the march back to San Antonio than throughout any of the combat during the invasion. Some grandiose veterans compared their overland trek, often made over winding mountain paths in extreme cold so as to avoid Union forces, to Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow.

Some of the commanders of the New Mexico campaign went on to great fame. Colonel Green rose to the rank of Major General and fought in the victories at Galveston and the Red River Campaign. Colonel Steele became a brigadier general but was killed at the battle of Franklin, Tennessee. General Sibley was given minor commands, struggled with alcoholism and was court martialed in 1863, though he was censured rather than convicted of any crime. After the war he served as a military advisor to the Khedive of Egypt (where his fondness for alcohol was extremely unpopular) before eventually returning to the United States.

Sibley, the would-be conqueror

Probably in no other theatre of the War Between the States did such grand aspirations and the control of such a vast area depend on such relatively small armies. For most it was a frontier sideshow, for the Texans it was a matter of immediate concern and many harbored hopes of recovering the territory formerly part of the Republic of Texas which had been ceded to the United States in the Compromise of 1850. It was also an extremely wild and colorful affair. The battle of Val Verde saw one of the last lancer charges in American history (with devastating effects) and there was the effort of one Irish Yankee to destroy the Confederate supply train using exploding mules. Fortunately for the Confederates, once the fuses were lit the tragic beasts tried to follow their fleeing owners and they ended up exploding in the open, barely attracting notice from the rebels and with the only casualties being the poor mules. Ultimately, neither side gained much from the campaign. Union forces lost nothing but did prevent a Confederate takeover of the southwest and cleared the area of rebel forces, however, their drive east was stopped by a combination of rough terrain, Indian attacks and the string of forts that guarded the west Texas frontier. For the south it was yet another ‘might have been’. Film fans may also note that this campaign provided the backdrop for Sergio Leone’s famous western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” starring Clint Eastwood.

Soldier of Monarchy: Maximilian Ulysses Browne

One of the most prominent Irish soldiers never to fight for Ireland was Maximilian Ulysses Browne, an Irish refugee who became one of the highest ranking officers serving the Hapsburg Emperor. He was born in Basel, Switzerland to Ulysses Graf von Browne and his wife Annabella Fitzgerald. His father, Ulysses, was from Limerick and his mother was a daughter of the famous Desmond clan and their families were part of the “Flight of the Wild Geese” in the aftermath of Tyrone’s Rebellion in Ireland. Maximilian, born in Switzerland, grew up mostly in Austrian society as his family, since there exile, had served with distinction in the service of the Holy Roman Emperors. Through the influence of his father and some uncles he was able to obtain a commission in the Austrian army and by the time he was 29 Maximilian was serving as colonel of an Austrian infantry regiment. After the death of his father he inherited his title and throughout his life obtained others until he was Maximilian Ulysses Reichsgraf (Imperial Count) von Browne, Baron de Camus and Mountany.

Fairly early in his career, Count von Browne proved to be a very capable battlefield commander in Italy in 1734, the Tyrol the following year and in the off-and-on wars with the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans where he gained such fame that he was promoted to general grade. By the end of the decade he had been promoted to Lieutenant Field Marshal and was placed in command of the Austrian forces in Silesia. Fortunately for the Empress but unfortunately for von Browne, he was in command there in 1740 when the Prussian King and military genius Frederick the Great launched his conquest of the region as part of the War of Austrian Succession. Graf von Browne was a talented military man but, of course, he was no match for Frederick and his expert Prussian forces. However, Browne was able to rally his men and organize a sufficiently robust defense that he held off the Prussians long enough to at least give his Empress time to mobilize her army and give Austria a fighting chance in the region rather than being overrun immediately.

Browne served under Marshal von Neipperg at the Austrian defeat in the Battle of Mollwitz, where he was badly wounded but it in no way dampened his fighting spirit. In typical Irish fashion he was constantly advocating very aggressive measures and was openly critical of anything less than a total commitment of all available forces, viewing it as timidity. This caused numerous problems and bitterness in his relations with his superior officers but his zeal and energy were a major reason for the swift and aggressive actions of the Austrian forces in 1742 and 1743 which prevented a defeat from becoming a total disaster. In 1745 he served under the brilliant Field Marshal Otto Ferdinand von Abensberg und Traun in the Italian campaign and won further promotion. He participated in the battles of Piacenza and Rottofreddo before taking command of the Austrian advance guard, crossing the Apennines and capturing the city of Genoa. As always, he was a soldiers’ soldier who led from the front, slept rough in the field with his men and shared their hardships and privations. His performance was so adept that he was picked to command the planned invasion of France, which never came about and at the close of the conflict he was posted to Bohemia as supreme commander of the forces there and promoted to Field Marshal.

The new field marshal was doing his usually thorough job in Bohemia when the great Frederick and his Prussians again came knocking at the door of the Hapsburg domains. With the start of the Seven Years’ War (the French and Indian War to Americans) Frederick the Great invaded Saxony in 1756 and Marshal Browne and his army was sent marching to the rescue. His destination was Pirna where the Saxons were besieged by Frederick. The wily Prussian monarch took notice and intercepted Browne and his Austrians at the battle of Lobositz (now Lovosice in the Czech Republic). Browne took up a defensive position with his Austrian troops (though the force included various nationalities from the Hapsburg dominions) and the ever aggressive Frederick attacked. In previous conflicts this would not have been much of a contest at all as the Prussians, with their clockwork-like efficiency, were considered almost unstoppable. However, Graf von Browne had done a good job in making his army one of the best in Central Europe and to the shock of the Prussians, they were repulsed. Even a charge by the elite guard cavalry was thrown back, causing Frederick the Great to marvel at the ability of his enemy saying, “These are no longer the same Austrians”.

However, in the end it was not enough and a fierce Prussian bayonet charge broke the Austrian right flank, winning the battle and forcing the Austrians to retreat. Yet, it was not a route and Browne kept control of his men, executed an orderly withdrawal and even managed to dispatch forces around the Prussian army to Pirna though, unfortunately for the Saxons, they arrived too late. Frederick the Great had bested Browne again yet, he gave the Prussians a harder time than they expected and made the conquest of Saxony so difficult that no further progress could be made in the campaign before winter. The following year Browne volunteered to serve as a subordinate to Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine. Browne was the more illustrious military figure and more popular but Charles was the brother-in-law of Empress Maria Theresa so Browne agreed to accept the number two position. On May 6, 1757 the two armies met at the Battle of Prague. The Austrians were slightly outnumbered and were finally defeated but they took such a toll on the Prussians that Frederick had no strength to continue the campaign and the city of Prague was saved. Unfortunately, it was the last battle for the bold Irishman. As always, he was leading from the front, sword in hand, when he was shot down at the head of an Austrian bayonet charge against the Prussian lines.

Browne was carried from the field by his devoted troops and taken into Prague where he lingered for some time. Unfortunately, though the battle was a strategic victory for Austria, it had been a tactical defeat and Charles of Lorraine blamed Browne (quite unjustly) for the failure. He died on June 26, 1757 somewhat embittered by this injustice. However, history would redeem the name of Maximilian Ulysses Browne and he would be known as one of the greatest marshals in the service of Empress Maria Theresa. Even if his own comrades did not always appreciate him, he had, on more than one occasion, saved the Hapsburg empire from disaster and no less a figure in military history than his long-time enemy Frederick the Great held him in very high esteem. The Prussian monarch referred to Browne as his, “teacher in the art of war”. Not a bad legacy at that for the Irish son of refugees forced to find employment in foreign armies. It is also for that reason that, despite not being very well known in these historically ignorant times, you will occasionally find a proud son of Erin who will, with a twinkle in his eye, note that the great Frederick of Prussia learned his military lessons from an Irishman.

MM Video: The Great 13th

MM Video: Royal Finland and the Winter War

Royal News Roundup

It has been a busy week for the Imperial Family of Japan, with proper relief for the Emperor being released from hospital. On Tuesday, Prince Akishino, Princess Kiko and daughter Princess Mako joined in a traditional duck hunt in Chiba prefecture. Don’t worry animal lovers, this is not like western duck hunting -no dogs, no guns, you catch the duck with your bare hands and then let it go. Prince Akishino later, at celebrations for his 46th birthday, set off a minor uproar of speculation by suggesting that Japan should, perhaps, consider having a mandatory retirement age for emperors. And finally there was more happy news on Thursday as HIH Princess Aiko, only child of the Crown Prince and Princess, turned 10 years old. We wish the Princess a happy birthday with many, many more to come.

Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark, after a successful trip to Australia, was in Vietnam this week to mark the forty years of diplomatic relations between Vietnam and Denmark. He met with Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and Vice President Nguyen Thi Doan in Hanoi (an heir not being worthy of seeing the President) and the Crown Prince signed some new Danish-Vietnamese agreements on, what else, environmental cooperation and “green” technology. Back in the homeland, Prince Joachim and Princess Marie were on hand to light the town Christmas tree in Møgeltønder -along with Santa Claus of course. In Norway, Crown Princess Mette-Marit has given up the special courses she was taking on management, saying that the demands on her time due to royal duties made it impossible to continue with them. Half a world away the Crown Prince met with the President of Nepal and on Friday, Queen Sonja of Norway gave out the prestigious ‘Queen Sonja Award’ to Malakoff High School in Oslo for their “training and support” programs and multicultural diversity. The school was rather hard hit in the domestic terror rampage this summer, being near the government building that was bombed and losing one student killed and eleven wounded in the tragedy.

In Great Britain, on Thursday, HM the Queen and Prince Philip visited Liverpool. The big British news this week though was the ransacking of the British embassy and residence in Tehran, Iran by an anti-British mob. The whole scene brought back ugly memories of the Iranian Revolution and in response the British expelled all Iranian diplomats from the UK and recalled all British officials from Iran. Norway, the Netherlands and several other European countries have recalled their ambassadors in Iran in response to the attack, carried out undoubtedly with government approval in response to the international effort to stop the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons. Sweden summoned the Iranian ambassador for a scolding but has not closed their embassy. Russia, a staunch ally of Iran, condemned the incident but Red China, another staunch ally and major trading partner, would not. The Federal Republic of Germany has offered to act as the protecting power for British diplomatic efforts in Iran. The United States condemned the attack and has not had an embassy in Iran since the Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis of 1979.

In the Low Countries, HM Queen Beatrix and the Prince and Princess of Orange welcomed the President of the African nation of Mali to the Netherlands on Tuesday, the start of a 3-day visit. The President apologized for the kidnapping of a Dutch citizen in Mali only a few days before, for which the Queen was quite appreciative and both shared the hope that the person would be found and the matter resolved. Over in Belgium, Crown Prince Philippe presented a chemistry award while the public continues to wonder if they should become the first country in the world with no official government at all (okay, just kidding but you do have to wonder).

In southern Europe, HM King Juan Carlos of Spain attended the opening of a special exhibit on the Order of the Golden Fleece on Thursday in Madrid. The day before Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia of the Asturias presented awards to Spanish journalists on which occasion the Prince made a short speech addressing the importance of good journalism in a functioning democracy. On the same day HM Queen Sofia was in the Big Apple to hand out awards at the “Queen Sofia Spanish Institute 2011 Gold Medal Gala”. Gold medals were handed out to a number of individuals and the presented Mr. Oscar de la Renta, chairman of the Queen Sofia Spanish Institute with the Grand Cross of the Order of Civil Merit. The US Ambassador to Spain was also in attendance.

In Albania, on Wednesday, the former Crown Prince Leka passed away about a week after being hospitalized. The only son of Ahmet Zogu, an Albanian politician-turned-monarch who ruled for about 9 years, Leka was born only days before his parents fled the country due to the arrival of Italian occupation forces. The government declared King Zog I deposed and Crown Prince Leka grew up in exile. Family loyalists proclaimed him King after the death of his father but his efforts to regain the throne of Albania, both violent and democratic, were unsuccessful. He moved back to Albania in 2002 and his son works for the government. The Prime Minister of Albania, Sali Berisha, declared Saturday a national day of mourning and said that the Islamic funeral will have “royal attributes”. The President of Albania saluted the Crown Prince for his opposition to the communist government and his promotion of national values. The royalist party is currently allied to the ruling Democratic Party coalition. Prince Leka II (29) is set to marry Elia Zarahia, an actress and singer from Paris sometime in the near future.

Emperor Napoleon I, Some Thoughts

It was on this day in 1804 that Napoleon Bonaparte, formerly First Consul of France, was formally crowned Emperor of the French in a lavish ceremony at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, in the sight of Pope Pius VII. The coronation itself was a grand spectacle, meant to invoke memories of Imperial Rome as well as the Frankish Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. No expense was spared and the scene represented the height of glory for the new Emperor Napoleon I. Desiring the classical and medieval trappings, Napoleon was still egocentric enough to grab the imperial crown (which they named the Crown of Charlemagne, though of course it wasn’t) from the hands of the Pope and place it on his head himself. Some say this was a surprise, others maintain that the Pope had to have known this was the plan all along. In any event, even with the sumptuous paintings left to us, it would be hard to imagine what a magnificent sight this was. Napoleon intended the occasion to be the cornerstone of a new Napoleonic national mythology. That it certainly was as his nephew, Louis Napoleon III, later used the same date for his own adoption of the imperial title in 1852. One cannot help but wonder, if on that day in 1804, as Pope Pius VII solemnly called out in Latin, “May the Emperor live forever” (using the traditional Roman phrase) if Napoleon thought for a moment about how far he had come from his obscure, middle class origins on the island of Corsica.

Dealing with the legacy of Napoleon can be difficult even today and most people familiar with the subject, be they French or foreign, have very strong opinions on the subject of the “Little Corporal”. Was he a usurper or a deliverer? Yes. Was he a warmonger or a man of vision? Yes. Was he a cruel tyrant or a devoted patriot? Again, the answer is “yes”. Napoleon is one of those figures I have a hard time with because I am able to offend both his most ardent admirers and his most bitter enemies. However, I have found that I have been able to learn a lot about people by their reaction to the subject. For example, even though I am certainly not a Bonapartist, those who are Bonapartists are usually less upset with me than those who despise the man. This is just my own experience of course, but from what I have seen the difference is this: most supporters of Napoleon I have come across are willing to concede that the man had his faults whereas the enemies of Napoleon I have come across, more often than not, are unwilling to concede that he had any redeeming qualities at all. In other words, most of his enemies hate him far more than his supporters admire him. Supporters will admit that he made mistakes while detractors refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all to his rule of France.

That is all I can deduce from the fact that there is less anger between myself and Bonapartists even though I am a royalist than there is between myself and other royalists even though I count myself among them when you get right down to it. Perhaps I will be given some new feedback this time as I address the subject (a subject I plan to address further in the future; both empires) but so far I have only been confirmed in most of my observances of how predictable certain groups can be. There are certain subjects I can address, even in the most bland, vague and impartial way possible and yet will always elicit the predicted response. As a pan-monarchist, I consider it a pity that whether the subject is English monarchs post-1688, Spanish monarchs post-1833, Popes post-1958, any of the Italian monarchs or any of the French monarchist camps and so on and so forth, not only will there be opposition voiced but strident, adamant and unalterable opposition. Of course, the one big common denominator in all of these touchy subjects is the issue of Catholicism. [content edited out concerning squabbling Catholics as your humble blogger struggles to learn patience]

Catholicism is, of course, a major source of the opposition many have to Napoleon, so we might as well start there. For Catholics, the old Kingdom of France was a sacred thing, the “Eldest Daughter of the Church”, the cornerstone of Christendom and the Kings of France, fallibly human as all are bound to be, occupied an almost semi-divine office. Napoleon, and there is no getting around this fact, was a usurper. He denied the accusation himself of course; the Revolution had brought down the monarchy long before he appeared on the scene in the halls of power, yet he was occupying a position which he had no ancient, hereditary right to. Royalists looked at Napoleon and his relatively humble Corsican origins and saw simply an upstart, a poseur, an uncivilized provincial exalting himself well above his proper station in life. All of which, again, is perfectly true. And, because France is so special, his takeover of France was not just politically incorrect but downright blasphemous. Nor did Napoleon help his cause by taking the Pope prisoner at one point, invading Italy, annexing the Papal States and occupying Rome. Although not as vicious as the revolutionaries, he also suppressed Catholic royalists who rose up against him. All of this is true and all reasons why I could never be a Bonapartist. Outside of France he upset the balance of power, played havoc with the politics of Europe and instigated devastating wars that had far-reaching consequences long after they were over.

So, Napoleon=bad guy, simple enough; right? Not so fast devoted royalist! Napoleon may not have been the legitimate authority for France but he was a far better authority than what went before him. It was Napoleon who finally ended the French Revolution and all the horrors that went with that. He did, after so many years of nightmarish suffering, restore law and order, peace and stability and some sense of normalcy to the life of France. For me, the revolutionary republic was an absolute evil and it was Napoleon, with his elevation to the status of Emperor of the French, who finally did away with that monstrosity. His regime may not have been what I would consider ideal, but I certainly consider it preferable to the republic. Napoleon, for all his antagonism with the Papacy, also restored normalcy to the Church-State relationship in France so that the Church was once again able to carry out its duty which was not (sadly to some of us) promoting royalist government but administering the sacraments and preaching the gospel of Christ. Again, it was certainly not an ideal position from my point of view, but the Church was just as certainly better off under Emperor Napoleon than it had been under the republic. And, despite all the problems, even the Pope did finally make his peace with him.

Napoleon was a force to be reckoned with and he became a fact of life that all the powers had to either defeat or accept and defeating him was no small chore. His brother Louis was an admirable King of Holland, one of his marshals was elected King of Sweden (founding a dynasty that continues to this day) and even his greatest continental rival, the Empire of Austria, agreed to a marriage alliance with him. Tsar Paul I of Russia (who I have a bit of a soft spot for) who was as ardent a monarchist as anyone could be, and a stickler for legitimacy, ultimately went from being the most avowed enemy of Napoleonic France to being rather friendly toward them as Napoleon put the revolution behind him and began taking France in a more traditional, monarchist direction. I can never forgive Napoleon for his spreading of republicanism early in his career, yet it is also true that he became just as much an advocate of monarchy, albeit a new kind of monarchy. Today it is not much thought of but, across Europe and even into Latin America, the legacy of that Napoleonic style of monarchy was also to become quite popular for a time and that cannot be ignored.

None of this, to reiterate, is quite enough to make me a Bonapartist. Like many, my attachment to the ancien regime is too strong for that. Yet, it is still enough to anger many that I can understand why Napoleon was so popular in his time and why his memory evokes a sense of nostalgia for many in France even to this day. This is hard for some people (very much a minority I think) to understand who are so anti-nationalist that they have no sense at all of the tug on ones heart for their home and native land, regardless of the politics of the time. Those who feel no attachment at all to their native soil will never understand this argument, but I am certainly not one of them and even before I gave much thought to the political issues, religious issues or the issues of legitimacy I could understand why Napoleon would be an attractive figure to a great many people in France. The draw was, to put it in a single word, “gloire”.

Napoleon, for all else he did, made France great. From the horror and chaos of the French Revolution, he galvanized the public, built the Grande Armee and after an era which had known many French defeats, he crushed the armies of the enemies of France, expanded French rule and dominated Europe for a considerable period of time. He made France, for the first time since probably the long reign of King Louis XIV, the most powerful nation on the continent and, to a degree, perhaps the preeminent world power of the time. Naturally, for that very reason one could not expect the British, Spanish, Dutch or Austrians to have an impartial view of the man but also for that very reason I can understand how it would be rather difficult for a proud Frenchman, regardless of politics, not to look back on the Napoleonic era without just a little bit of pride at what France accomplished under his rule. In the end, his ambition and overreaching got the better of him, but for quite some time he changed the perception of France in the world. Even if that perception was not always one of admiration, he had at least changed it from one of horror and disgust to one of fear or even a little healthy respect.

As for myself, Napoleon occupies a position similar to a few other “strongmen” of history; not the ideal but an improvement and certainly better than the only other alternative at the time. I have a real problem with self-promoted “royalty” but, unlike many others, Napoleon managed to achieve a record of great success for a fair amount of time before being overwhelmed by the enemies surrounding him. In this, he was no mere victim; by his own actions he made it almost impossible for any of the great powers to ever trust him. However, he did end the revolution, he ended the republican era and he did, for a time, make things in France better. I oppose him for his efforts to destroy other nations near and dear to my heart but I also acknowledge that he brought to France an almost unprecedented level of greatness and I could not hold anger on any Frenchman for being rather proud of that fact. Although it can never be known for sure, I am also willing to entertain the possibility that his rule might have been necessary. Given the rather short life of the subsequent restorations of the Kingdom of France (and the short-lived Kingdom of the French as well) it may have been that the Revolution had simply produced an atmosphere in which the traditional monarchy simply could not function and only a regime like the Empire of Napoleon could have kept the country on an even keel after so many bridges had been burned. I would hate to think that was a certainty, but I must regard it as a possibility. And so, as it stands today, I look back on the good and the bad of Napoleonic France and while realizing I could never be a full blown Bonapartist, when looking at the fractured monarchist camp, legitimist, Orleanist and Bonapartist (although I have my own preference of course) my policy remains one of “ABR” - Anything But the Republic.

Papal Profile: Pope John Paul I

Albino Luciani was born on October 17, 1912 in Canale d'Agordo, Italy to Giovanni and Bortola Luciani. He was baptized by the midwife the same day as he was in danger of death, but the baptism was formalized by the Church two days later. Confirmed in the faith in 1919, he entered the minor seminary in Feltre in October of 1923. In 1935 he became, successively, a deacon and was ordained priest, starting his work at his home town of Canale d'Agordo before being given the rather unique job of teaching religious instruction to miners at the local Technical Institute for Miners. It may be difficult to imagine the smiling priest with the angelic voice teaching a bunch of rough, brawny miners, but he proved such a capable instructor that two years later he was teaching at the Gregorian Seminary in Belluno.

Over the next 10 years Father Luciani proved himself to be a highly intelligent and devout priest, earning a doctorate in Sacred Theology, the office of Secretary of the Diocesan Synod and the title of Monsignor. He was a renowned catechist and was praised by Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, who was later elected to the Holy See as Pope John XXIII. It was this pope who appointed Msgr. Luciani Bishop of Vittorio Veneto, Luciani was at first reluctant, but he finally agreed and was consecrated by Pope John on December 27, 1958 who advised him on the differences between being a teacher and being a shepherd, stressing the need for humility, which Luciani carried with him for the rest of his life.

Bishop Luciani lived simply, plainly and austerely. He dressed as an ordinary priest, ate small meals, kept nothing of great value around him and drove an old car. When he was finally persuaded to accept a new one, he sold the old car and donated the money to the poor. He was an active and zealous bishop, building up his small diocese by improving the retreat center, the seminary and opening new churches and Catholic schools. He gave retreats for his priests as well as the laity, emphasizing the need for Christian charity, brotherhood and overcoming sin. He also had a great interest in the missions and "adopted" a diocese in Burundi, Africa. His warmth and humility won him the great affection of his people, yet he never hesitated to strictly uphold Church teaching and could be quite severe with those who disobeyed Church teaching. He also had a great love for the Holy Mother and pointed out that, "Our Lady became a saint without visions, without ecstasies. She became a saint as a simple housewife". Given that outlook, naturally he also was greatly devoted to the rosary.

His reputation grew high enough that in 1969 he was appointed to the See of Venice. On his way, he picked up some hitch-hikers who were worried about their new shepherd, and after talking to Bishop Luciani, unaware of who he was or why he was going to Venice, said, "We wish a priest like you would be made patriarch!". Bishop Luciani took possession of the Patriarchate of Venice in 1970. During his time there, Cardinal Luciani became known as a great speaker and a great writer. He was especially known for the letters he wrote to historical persons or fictional characters as a way of presenting moral lessons. Among those Cardinal Luciani wrote to in these letters (later collected into a book) were King David of Israel, King Lempel (from the book of Proverbs), the Austrian Empress Maria Theresa, the Tyrolean patriot Andreas Hofer and Jesus Himself. Cardinal Luciani proved an effective and popular Patriarch of Venice. Only 8 years later, Pope Paul VI died and the cardinals assembled in the Vatican to elect a new successor of St Peter. Of those considered likely candidates, the Patriarch of Venice was on few, if any, lists. Cardinal Luciani was not widely known, and at the start of the conclave, no candidate seemed to stand out. However, as vote after vote was taken, the votes for Luciani increased each time until, on the fourth vote on the first day, he was elected, taking the innovative name "Ioannes Paulus Primus" to recognize both of his predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI.

With Pope Paul VI having given up his tiara, Pope John Paul I went one step further and refused to have a coronation, instead marking his enthronement with receiving the pallium. He was the last Pope to be carried on the portable throne, which he had wanted to do away with but which was necessary so that people could see him. The reign of John Paul I also marked the first time that a Pontiff spoke of himself as “I” instead of using the royal “we” which had been the tradition for popes and monarchs. Not surprisingly, his papal motto was “humility”. Because of his cheerful manner John Paul I was also known, from the very beginning as, “the Smiling Pope”. Still, his election was not without some gasps. The visiting, controversial, Metropolitan of Leningrad (as it was then) fell dead during the proceedings and the newly elected Pontiff prayed over him in his final moments. Pope John Paul I announced that his reign would focus on carrying out the correct purposes of the Second Vatican Council and to hold firmly and clearly to the teachings of the Church. However, the world was not to see how Pope John Paul I would have carried out this agenda. After reigning for only 33 days Pope John Paul I died of a heart attack at 11pm on September 28, 1978. Although his papacy is among the shortest in history, the impact of his teaching is still being felt today and thanks to his faithful flock in northern Italy, the cause of Pope John Paul I is currently under investigation by the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints.