What Kind of Monarchist Are You?

Monarchists need to ask themselves a serious question: what are they all about? There are two possible answers, neither of which is “wrong” but certainly distinct. Are they people with an historical interest in monarchy, history, royal genealogies and traditionalist philosophies who wish to study these areas and discuss them with like-minded individuals or do they wish to have an actual impact on the political layout of the world by defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones? In the past, I have referred to these types as “theoretic monarchists” and “active monarchists”. Again, there is nothing wrong with being either one and many are both. Certainly I have never known of an active monarchist who did not have much or all of the attributes of a theoretic monarchist. However, not all theoretic monarchists are active monarchists and this is important because those who are not often, consciously or not, hinder and oppose those who are. As anyone can tell, your resident mad man is one of those who is both. Any look at this weblog with its combination of royal history and monarchism can see that. I have also, fairly regularly, crossed swords with theoretical monarchists who stand opposed to active monarchists, some of whom (some) really cannot see what they are doing.

In many such cases these are people who oppose, to one degree or another, many or most existing monarchies because they are not “monarchist” enough or because they are of a different religion or because they support an alternative royal line or family. I am often quite annoyed by such individuals for the following reasons: if a monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, it is because republican attitudes have become too widespread and mainstream in society so if the existing monarchy falls it will without question be replaced by a republic rather than a more traditional sort of monarchy. Given that, opposing an existing monarchy for being “too republican” only to have it be replaced by an actual, outright republic strikes me very much as cutting off your nose to spite your face. If your monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, my radical reaction would be to work on making it more monarchist rather than giving up on it and letting the republicans win. For those who withhold support from monarchies because they have a different cultural or religious affiliation than yourself, my simple reaction is to say that these people need to realize the power of fashionable trends. Every monarchy that falls and is replaced by a republic only increases the momentum of the “trend” of republicanism.

There was a time when monarchies were the rule rather than the exception. New countries that emerged usually became monarchies as well in this environment. Even after the birth of modern, revolutionary republicanism, when monarchy was still the standard across the world, monarchist factions remained an ever-present force. Brazil gained independence as a monarchy, in Mexico it was the monarchist faction that won out in securing independence and acting as the first national government and even in the United States, at the very beginning, there were those who wanted to establish a monarchy and make General George Washington the king. However, as republics became the more dominant form of government and as more monarchies around the world fell, be they in Europe, the Americas, Africa or Asia, it became expected that emerging or newly independent countries would automatically be republics. Monarchy ceased to even be considered as a serious option. Nepal is a nation as culturally far removed from my own as possible. The dominant religion is Hinduism and of all the major faiths of the world, Hinduism is probably the one I know the least about. Yet, when the Kingdom of Nepal fell it disturbed me greatly, both because a truly unique country (the last remaining Hindu monarchy) was lost to the world but also because it made monarchy in general an even more “endangered species”. Already a tiny minority in the world, the number of existing monarchies was depleted further. What is only one country, some might ask? When monarchies are as few as they are today, every single one must be viewed as precious by every monarchist in the world.

Finally, for those who oppose existing monarchies because they support a rival claimant to the throne, my reaction is closely related to those who oppose existing monarchies for being insufficiently “monarchist”. In many cases, I greatly sympathize with these people because, more often than not, their philosophy, values and attitudes are ones I totally share. The problem is that they have divorced themselves from the reality that surrounds them and, in many cases, are seeking the impossible. Not the difficult or the unlikely but truly the impossible. They are, in a way, simply angry that it is 2012 and not 1912 or even 1712 or 1612. Unfortunately, tear down every monarchy (or republic for that matter) in the world if you like but it will never be 1612 again. As stated, I often sympathize with these people because I personally see little point in being a monarchist if legitimacy means nothing to you and because, in the course of history, I look at each event in the context of its own time and sympathize with whichever side was, as I see it, the most “monarchist”. For example, in 1688 in the British Isles I would certainly have been a Jacobite. Most at the time likely saw things through the lens of religion rather than politics but from a purely monarchist perspective one could look at it like this: the Jacobites were those fighting for their legitimate, recognized King to whom they had all sworn allegiance. Regardless of the circumstances, I would have felt compelled to remain loyal to the King I had given my oath to. Further, looking at history, the monarchy was clearly stronger, at least in the authority it wielded, prior to 1688 as opposed to after.

For the sake of keeping peace, I don’t like to be too forceful about taking sides in monarchist vs. monarchist quarrels like this but, there it is: I think the Jacobites were right and their staunch loyalty admirable. But, alas, they didn’t win and eventually the direct line died out and the royal line that replaced them on the throne was recognized by all other powers and even by the Pope in Rome. Such things happen, the world keeps turning and life goes on. Even today, the Jacobites remain for me an honored memory. However, I have a problem with those die-hards who exist today who would withhold their active support and allegiance from the current British monarch because of their devotion to the Jacobite cause. The days of the old Stuarts are gone forever and are not coming back. It is the uselessness of it that I find more frustrating than anything. After all, these people who are so defiant and rebellious on paper or in the world of internet forums and chat rooms are not so bold as to actually do anything that would require some bravery or sacrifice on their part. They might slander and belittle HM the Queen but they are not about to stop paying their taxes and go to jail for it.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the current heir to the Jacobite claim, Duke Francis of Bavaria, has no desire whatsoever to press that claim or to be the “King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France”. That alone would, I think, cause most people to ask, “What’s the point then?” when it comes to modern-day Jacobites. There is also the fact that there was more to the Jacobite cause than legitimacy alone. They also believed in a different sort of government and overall organization of society. Their other political beliefs all sound good and preferable to me I might add, but even if modern Britons wanted Duke Francis to come be their king and even if he himself was willing to accept the invitation, that would still change nothing about the way the United Kingdom of today is governed other than whose profile is on the stamps. For things to truly be the way they were in Stuart Britain, laws would have to change, which means Parliament would have to change which means the hearts and minds and values of the entire public would have to change. That is something that would be harder to do than changing the monarch and something which could be done without changing the monarch and, I would say, something that should be done in any event.

I come to this same point in dealing with another such group of theoretic monarchists; the Carlists of Spain. The Carlists are a different kettle of fish from the Jacobites in that they have no common ideology nor even a common alternative for monarch but they do share some similar roots. Also, in the same way, I cannot help but sympathize with the original Carlists or history. They were the more monarchist in my view, the more traditional, the more religious and, as I see it, they had the law on their side. However, like the Jacobites, they too were not ultimately successful. Unlike the Jacobites, they remained a cause others could attach themselves to in order to further other rebellions and movements which dragged on for a very long time. They also eventually splintered into very, very different groups. The way I see it, the history of Spain worked this problem out with the accession of HM King Juan Carlos I, the senior male heir of King Felipe V, the previous line giving way to King Alfonso XIII in 1936. By the very rules the Carlists based their original claim to the throne on, King Juan Carlos I is the only possible legitimate monarch for Spain. Obviously, royal blood lines are not the determining factor for these individuals, rather it is the overall nature, and particularly faith, of modern Spain.

Of course, as I think any good monarchist should, I lament the fact that Spain has fallen so far from the great bastion of Christian monarchy that it once was and that it has been reduced to such a state (being a child of the former Spanish empire myself). However, once again, the fact remains that the only alternative to the current monarchy would be a republic and even if that were not so, simply having a different monarch at the top of the political pyramid would not change the morals and values of Spanish society. Given that, I really don’t see how their anonymous name-calling against the King does anyone any good but the republicans who most espouse everything they most condemn. If these people have any clear path to the “victory” they seek, I have not seen it nor have I seen them actually do anything that does not simply make them look ridiculous, dangerous or simply irrelevant. In a way, with their attacks on the existing monarchy, they are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. They fail to grasp the simple truth that the sort of traditional Catholic monarchy of the past which they so admire cannot simply be imposed on a population that is no longer traditionally Catholic. This points to a fact about monarchy most of the mainstream ignores; the reflective nature of it.

Perhaps more than some would like to admit, monarchies reflect the values and mindset of their people, to one degree or another. Regardless of things like democracy or monarchy, at a certain level every government that exists and has existed in the world does so because of popular support. They exist because a majority of the people support them or at least submit to them. Hence the saying that we all get the government we deserve. When monarchs were so devoted to things like religion, to the extent that they were willing to go to war over matters of faith, it was during a time when the people also considered religion the most important thing in the world. In this way, in a broader sense, royals are the same as anyone else in following along with the prevailing trends of society. They, like any of us, are products of the world around them. No monarch, certainly not one strictly limited in their powers, can single-handedly change the entire perspective and values (or lack thereof) of their people. I would love for societies and their monarchies to be more traditional, but that cannot happen until the public at large see the error of their modernistic ways and return to timeless truths long established.

If we are to be active monarchists, we must be realistic in judging the topography of the battlefield, the strength and tactics of our enemies and then take back the field one hill at a time. In this day and age, our only weapons are our voices and the odds are tremendously stacked against us. It would be a waste of time to fight amongst ourselves over how we came to be in this state just as it would be a waste of time to argue over which flag we raise in victory when we have yet to take one step in storming the walls. This doesn’t mean we all agree on everything but we should at least try to avoid doing each other harm. I have also noticed that many of the most uncompromising theoretic monarchists who like to say they are active monarchists do not usually last long. They think one argument which convinced them will instantly convince all who hear it. When this does not happen they become discouraged and give up, either dropping the issue entirely or confining themselves to simply denigrating everyone of every side. Again, this is not a recipe for long-term success.

This is not to say that analyzing and debating events of the past is a total waste, it is important to evaluate what happened, what worked, what did not and adjust our present-day arguments accordingly. This is also not to say that we must reject the values of the past simply to be more popular today. I would personally see little point in being a monarchist were that the case. It does mean that we must carefully tailor our tactics to the audience we wish to convince that these values of the past do have meaning and worth. For example, arguing the merits of one royal bloodline over another to a modern person who thinks public opinion is the sole source of authority would be a total waste of time. That person would have to first be convinced of the value of monarchy, the stabilizing benefits of royal legitimacy and perhaps even the sacred nature of the Crown before he or she would even understand why bloodlines are worth any consideration at all. Similarly, you are not going to convince someone that they should embrace, for example, the ideal of a Christian monarchy if they are not even convinced of the truth of Christianity itself.

In my own arguments with republicans I have long tried to tailor the message to the individual and then follow a given set of steps in trying to show them that, first, monarchy is not evil, inherently tyrannical or something to be feared, then that it has real benefits and advantages and finally that much of modern accepted republicanism is hypocritical and based on total falsehoods. However, that is something monarchists can never get to if they are not sure themselves of what kind of monarchist they are. The important thing, I would say, is for monarchists to at least make an effort to do no harm to each other -there are plenty of republicans willing to do it for you. If you are a theoretical monarchist, there is nothing wrong with that and there are plenty of avenues available for you to pursue your interest, whether it is intellectual debates about history or talking about fashion and jewelry. If you are an active monarchist, you must be realistic if you wish to have an impact. Rome was not built in a day and we cannot change the world over night, we must take things as they are and work step by step to improve society around us. Nothing will ever be exactly as it was but if we make good arguments, build on the remnants we still have and work methodically, one step at a time, we can make a difference. The first question to ask before getting started is, again, what kind of monarchist are you?

Favorite Royal Images: A Future King

Today, he's the King of Sweden

Mad Motivation

Consort Profile: Queen Esther of Israel

One of the most famous women, and perhaps the most famous queen, in Jewish history is Queen Esther, consort to a King of Persia and a great heroine to her people. Her story is, or at least should be, well known to all Jews and Christians (if they read their Old Testament). As with almost anyone from Biblical times, there are a great many details about Queen Esther than remain a mystery, however, the important points are clearly recorded. She was born with the name Hadassah, we know not when or where. Her story begins with that of the man who would be her husband, there being some debate as to his identity. The Bible identifies him as Assuerus, “who reigned from India to Ethiopia over a hundred twenty-seven provinces” with the city of Susan as his capital. So, a big shot in Persian history without question. Traditionally it was thought this referred to King Xerxes I of the Achaemenid empire but more recent scholars have theorized it to have been a king of the later Sassanid empire.

In an effort to show off his greatness, King Assuerus held the party to top all parties, inviting all his regional governors and all the great men of Persia to party hardy for nearly 200 days. Of course, no such display could be complete without showing off your smoking hot trophy wife so King Assuerus, after getting gloriously drunk, called for his queen, Vasthi, but she refused to come. Somewhat astounded, the King was warned by his advisors that such defiance might provoke a wave of feminism which would leave all the great men of Persia frustrated and sleeping on their sofas. So, Queen Vasthi is given the boot and King Assuerus starts the hunt for a new royal consort. Every province was to send their most beautiful virgins for his inspection, with each undergoing a full year of preparation to make them suitable choices for the ruler of most of the known world at the time. After making his inspection, King Assuerus chose a famously beautiful Jewish girl named Esther, previously known as Hadassah. It is said that she was an orphan who had been raised by her cousin, a man named Mordecai. Hailing from the tribe of Benjamin she had stayed with her cousin, who was more like her father for all intents and purposes, even after Cyrus had allowed the Jews to return home to Jerusalem.

Queen Esther was presumably chosen for her loveliness but quickly proved her loyalty as well thanks to Mordecai who overheard two guards plotting to assassinate the King. He told Esther who told the King who had the men put to death. However, it was also Mordecai who would be the inadvertent instigator of the troubles to come. When he refused to bow down before a favorite prince of King Assuerus the prince, Aman, decided to take his revenge on all the Jews in the Persian Empire. He charged the Jews with spreading sedition against the King and obtained his approval on an order for their total annihilation. Mordecai went into mourning over this plan of genocide and tried to get Queen Esther to intervene with the King, pointing out that she would likely be killed too if the order was carried out. However, the Queen had to stay in the harem with the lesser concubines and could only go to the King if he called for her to attend to him. To do otherwise would see her killed instantly.

To add to her worry, the King had not called for her attention in about a month so she had no expectation that a summons would come in time. She had everyone in her own household and all her fellow Jews in Persia pray and fast for three days before Esther finally determined she could wait no longer and bravely decided to go on her own to see the King -summons or no summons. Thankfully, King Assuerus was not unhappy with her at all and when she appeared before him was exceedingly glad to see her. Once again enthralled by her, the King promised to grant her any request, even should she ask for half his empire, he would hand it over instantly. Showing she had brains to match her beauty and bravery, Queen Esther instantly formulated a plan and asked for a banquet to be attended by herself, the King and Prince Aman. It was done and during the banquet, when the king was compliant and feeling no pain, she asked him to hold another the next day. The King did so even while the gallows were being prepared to hang poor Mordecai.

Esther and the King in Italian Renaissance style

Such high living caused King Assuerus to have some trouble sleeping and he ordered someone to read to him some of the recent headlines from ‘The Persian Chronicle’ in the course of which he was reminded of how Mordecai had saved his life. He asked his servants how he had rewarded the man for this good deed only to be told he had not rewarded him at all. Well, the King couldn’t have that; it just made him look plain rude and ungrateful. So, he began to wonder what he could do to reward so valuable a subject. The next morning when Prince Aman arrived to get the go-ahead to hang Mordecai the King asked him, “What ought to be done to the man whom the king is desirous to honor?” Being a very self-centered sort to say the least, Prince Aman assumed the King was referring to him, quickly said that such a man should be dressed in kingly robes, put on the King’s own horse, have a crown put on his head and have all the princes and nobles hold his horse and sing his praises. One can imagine the shock when the King said, ‘Great idea! Go do that to Mordecai the Jew who sits outside the palace gate!’

Prince Aman was positively mortified and ran home to his wife, crying and wailing only to have her tell him he better suck it up and make nice with the Jew before the King gets angry. Just then the king’s eunuchs arrived to summon the prince to Queen Esther’s second banquet. He attended and the King asked Queen Esther again what he could do to show her his appreciation. Finally Esther said that Prince Aman was planning to massacre all of her people at which point the King stormed out in a fury and Prince Aman started doing some really fast talking to make nice with Queen Esther so that she might persuade the King to not tear him into little pieces when he came back. Yeah, probably not a good idea considering that Queen Esther was laying on her bed at the time and when the King came back he found Prince Aman all flushed and in a nervous sweat on the bed with his wife. “Fury” probably doesn’t begin to describe it. Immediately he had Prince Aman taken out and hanged on the same rope the prince had planned for Mordecai to set off his little genocide.

Esther portrayed in the film "One Night With the King"

The disaster was averted and to show his gratitude King Assuerus gave Aman’s palace to Queen Esther. She told the King that Mordecai was her “uncle” and the King gave him the prince’s ring. Queen Esther also put Mordecai in charge of her new palace, which beats sitting outside the gates all day. Queen Esther then fell before the King and begged him to call off the genocide against the Jews. Until that banquet Assuerus had not known his queen was a Jew at all. Naturally, he called off the genocide, discounting the late Aman’s claims of sedition and even went a step further by sending out orders throughout his empire that all the Jews were to be given permission to take their revenge on those who had planned to do them harm, to basically wipe them out and take their stuff. They snuffed out those who had been prepared to kill them but didn’t go on quite the rampage the King had authorized and didn’t take any loot from them. Nonetheless, the Jews in the Persian empire declared the occasion a new holiday for their people when they were saved from death thanks to the intervention of good Queen Esther, the orphan who became a queen who risked death to save her people from genocide. Certainly, queens do not come any better than that.

MM Video: The Romanov Martyrs

MM Video: Catherine of Braganza

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, in Japan HM the Emperor was released from the University of Tokyo Hospital on Sunday after going through heart surgery to repair some hardening arteries and subsequently going through a period of rehabilitation. As he left the hospital the staff bowed low and presented the Emperor with a farewell bouquet of flowers. The Emperor, along with a noticeably relieved Empress Michiko, thanked the staff for all their care and kindness. A crowd of about a hundred patients and visitors gathered in the lobby to cheer the 78-year-old Emperor as he departed who effusively waved his thanks to the crowd of well-wishing subjects. Upon returning to the Imperial Palace Their Majesties were greeted by TIH Prince Akishino, Princess Kiko and little Prince Hisahito. The Emperor spent the rest of the week resting up for the anniversary services of the earthquake and tsunami disaster to be held tomorrow. The head doctor of the Imperial Household, Ichiro Kanazawa, said that the Emperor will likely spend the rest of the month taking it easy after the anniversary services are concluded. Of course, we wish His Imperial Majesty a speedy recovery.

In communist-occupied Tibet police-state tactics have been beefed up to combat and suppress news of a recent wave of protests, including dozens of suicides including the self-immolation of a young mother and several students over continued communist tyranny in Tibet. Recently, another group of Tibetans launched a hunger-strike at the UN calling for them to intervene by sending a fact-finding mission to Tibet, allowing foreign journalists into the region to report on the situation and so on. Their stated long-term goal is “meaningful autonomy” for Tibet and the return of HH the Dalai Lama. The strikers say they too are willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary. The UN says they have received their letter and are “looking into” the matter. The exiled Dalai Lama has tried to encourage Tibetans that the number of Chinese sympathetic to their plight is growing and that they must respond to any brutality with patience and compassion. While addressing a group of Chinese disciples at a recent audience the Dalai Lama said that China had the ability to do great service to all humanity if they would embracing the teachings of the Buddha. Communist authorities have described the unrest as being orchestrated by the Dalai Lama and have claimed that all those who have killed themselves have been separatists, enemies of state unity and long-time criminals. You buy that? Didn’t think so…

In the Middle East, HM King Abdullah II of Jordan remains greatly concerned over the violence in nearby Syria which has been causing growing alarm in the international community. The Arab League has joined the U.S. and E.U. in putting sanctions on the regime in Syria and Saudi Arabia and Qatar have voiced support for an intervention to force the al-Assad regime to relinquish power. Russia and Communist China recently vetoed a UN resolution calling on the Syrian dictator to step down. China is now sending its own emissary and ‘plan for peace’ to Syria. King Abdullah II said as early as November of last year that it would be in the best interests of Syria for al-Assad to step down. On a much lighter subject, HRH Prince Ali bin al-Hussein of Jordan was in Britain this week for an IFA Board meeting (the Prince is vice-president of FIFA) in which he proposed that the ban on hijabs be lifted for Muslim women playing football (soccer to Americans). FIFA has banned the hijab since 2007 as a possible safety hazard but Prince Ali has pointed to new designs which would pose no danger of strangulation, which was the fear when the ban was put in place. Some female teams from Muslim countries have passed up the opportunity to advance because they would not be allowed to wear the hijab.

Royal events in Europe this week had a military tone to them. In Belgium, HRH Prince Joachim, son of HRH Princess Astrid and HIRH Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, was formally sworn-in as a guard officer in the Belgian royal navy. At the Belgian naval base at Zeebrugge the Prince held one hand on the flag and held two fingers aloft as he swore to serve his country as a navy guard officer. The 20-year-old had an illustrious audience with his parents and HM Queen Paola in attendance aboard the ship Godetia. The Minister of Defense and Chief of Defense General Charles-Henri Delcour were also on hand. Following the ceremony there was a special reception for the guests. Meanwhile, across the border in The Netherlands, HM Queen Beatrix attended her first official public function since the terrible accident involving her son Prince Friso last month. The Queen opened a new Explosives Ordinance Barracks in Soesterberg with the help of some explosives and a state-of-the-art robot to unveil the plaque. The commander of the installation, Colonel Mark Kathmann, expressed his condolences to the Queen and his support for what she and the rest of the Dutch Royal Family are enduring at this difficult time. The new barracks will instruct students in the dismantling and proper disposal of mines and explosive devises using remote-operated robots.

For the British Royal Family this week it was HRH Prince Harry who grabbed all the headlines with his smashingly successful Caribbean tour in honor of the Queen’s Jubilee Year. The fun-loving prince seemed the perfect choice to represent the Crown amongst the more laid-back realms of the region. The Prince started with a visited to the country formerly known as British Honduras where he checked out a Mayan temple and danced with the locals and then went on The Bahamas where he cut a fine figure in his summer whites at Christ Church Cathedral in Nassau. Amidst all the attention, quite a share went to the brash beauty queen, Miss Bahamas, Anastagia Pierre who said she would happily marry Prince Harry in a heartbeat. From all the headlines one would think that was something outrageous or humorous though I can’t imagine why. She’s no more ‘common’ than the Duchess of Cambridge was before her marriage, and as far as I know she’s not Catholic so, why not? Beauty queens aside, large crowds cheered him every step of the way. He visited a large number of the myriad islands in the Bahamas chain before going on to the island-nation of Jamaica which is currently plagued by a republican prime minister. However, her disloyal antics aside, crowds of Jamaicans happily turned out to greet their prince who met with the widow of the late Bob Marley and again took a turn dancing with the locals. The tour has been a resounding success by all accounts with Prince Harry hitting all the right notes and HRH is next off to visit beautiful Brazil.

Monarchist Profile: General Ramon Cabrera y Griñó

Of all the Carlist generals of the civil wars in Spain, probably none was so controversial as General Ramon Cabrera y Griñó. The ruling government and their supporters viewed him as the embodiment of all of their worst fears about the Carlist movement; a vicious, bloodthirsty reactionary. The Carlists themselves originally viewed him as a hard but powerful leader, someone who was willing to do whatever was necessary for the cause. Ultimately, however, he was a man who would come to be seen as a traitor by both sides in the conflict he fought in. The man who would later be known as the “Tiger of Maestrazgo” was born in Tortosa on December 27, 1806 to the owner of a merchant sloop who died when he was only 5-years-old. As a boy he was sent to study at a seminary where he was known for his lackluster grades and rowdy behavior. He entered minor orders but when the time came for his ordination to the priesthood the Bishop refused, observing that his vocation was not with the Church but that he would probably make a good soldier. He joined the Spanish army and was soon involved with the Carlist faction following the death of His Catholic Majesty King Fernando VII. Exiled from Barcelona because of this he later escaped to Morella and in 1833 joined the gathering army of Don Carlos who claimed the throne in opposition to the infant Queen Isabella II and her domineering mother Maria Christina.

He soon became prominent amongst the Carlists and in 1834 was promoted to colonel in the forces of General Manuel Carnicer, commander of Carlist forces in Aragon and Valencia until his execution by the government. Cabrera then took the place of his late commander and lead numerous and successful raids against the forces of Queen Isabella II, defeating numerous efforts sent against him and gaining a reputation as a daring commander. His courage was never in question as he was wounded several times leading his men from the front. Probably no other Carlist general was so feared by the Cristinos (named for the regent-queen mother) as Cabrera was. Not only was he usually victorious but he was merciless against his enemies and soon became known for having prisoners executed and showing no reservation about killing non-combatants and destroying private property. This made him greatly feared and reviled by the forces of the Queen but it also gave some of the adherents of Don Carlos pause who felt he was sullying the reputation of their noble cause. No doubt his actions were publicized by the Cristinos as examples of Carlist cruelty to win public support in putting down the rebellion.

There was also some context to this to keep in mind. When the government forces proved unable to defeat him, in a fit of rage General Agustin Nogueras has Cabrera’s mother arrested and later shot in 1836. It was this act which encouraged Cabrera to show no mercy at all and his troops became known for taking no prisoners and killing the wives of government generals in retaliation for his own loss. In the First Carlist War his troops reached the outskirts of Madrid and waited for Don Carlos to come and occupy the capital but his forces never arrived. He continued to be victorious and in 1838 Don Carlos granted him the title of Count of Morella in recognition of his service. Divisions among the Carlist high-command led to much of their support falling away (some Carlist generals executing each other) until General Cabrera was the only Carlist commander left in the field, still carrying on the fight. It was only when he fell ill that the Cristinos were able to encroach on his area of operations and he was forced to retreat across the border to France. He was arrested, imprisoned, later paroled but finally came to live in Lyon for several years on a French pension.

King Louis Philippe had, at one point, allowed Cabrera to leave France for England where he met with Don Carlos who had himself been forced to go into exile. While there he clashed with the pretender over his abdication in favor of his son Carlos Luis in 1845. Still, he did not deviate from the course he had long ago taken. When the Second Carlist War broke out in 1847 it was an ill-organized affair and Cabrera thought it had no chance of victory. Nonetheless, when the new claimant, Carlos VI, called on him for support Cabrera returned to Spain and organized a guerilla army in Catalonia, Aragon and Valencia. Nonetheless, as expected, after several years of raids and skirmishes the Carlists are again defeated and in 1849 Cabrera returned to France. In 1850 he moved on to England where he married the heiress of a wealthy merchant and set up house in Wentworth. He was aware of subsequent Carlist uprisings but was not personally involved.

General Cabrera, by that time a wealthy man in England, gave financial support to the Carlist claimant but being removed from the mountains of Spain to Great Britain gave him a different perspective on the world. He began to view the Carlist cause as hopeless, that the days of dynastic struggles deciding the course of history were over and when plans were brought to his attention for the Third Carlist War he refused to endorse them. He was also offended by the number of new men the latest Carlist pretender (Carlos VII) gathered around him rather than old fighters like himself. Finally he determined that the way to help Spain was to accept the existing monarchy and work to move it in a more traditional and conservative direction. Needless to say, most Carlists did not follow his line of thinking. Nonetheless, in 1875 he announced his support for the restored monarchy of King Alfonso XII and called upon other Carlists to do the same (very few did). King Alfonso XII recognized his rank and noble status in return for this show of support while Don Carlos naturally denounced him as a traitor to the cause and his legitimate monarch and revoked his rank and titles. After that many Carlists wanted to see Cabrera dead and he never returned to Spain again, dying in London on May 24, 1877.

In the end, his change of coat helped no one. His position did not change at all, he swayed no Carlists into giving up their rebellion nor did the Alfonsists gain much satisfaction in having the most vilified of all the Carlist leaders join their ranks. After his death, King Alfonso XII granted his widow a pension but in 1899 after the loss of the remnant of the Spanish empire to the United States she renounced it, donating the money to the Spanish treasury. The reputation of General Cabrera will always be a mixed one. The one side would never forgive his atrocities while the other would never forgive his betrayal of their cause (no matter that he was ultimately proven correct about the futility of it). However, few would deny his reputation purely as a military leader. His enemies, who often despised him, were forced to admit that he was an extremely able and clever general, a natural tactician and master of guerilla warfare. A lack of competent leadership was always one of the major weaknesses of the Carlist forces but, at least on the battlefield, General Cabrera is an example of an exception to that trend. His record of success speaks for itself.

International Women's Day

It is today, and though I don't go in much for these sorts of things, if you're going to highlight the role of women in the world, it seems to me the most obvious examples are often the most ignored:

Soldier of Monarchy: General Giovanni Durando

General Giovanni Durando was one of the most prominent and controversial figures in the first war of Italian unification. During his career he has been called a patriot by some and a traitor to others. He was born in Mondovi on June 23, 1804 Giacomo Durando, a future leading Italian nationalist, and Blessed Marcantonio Durando were his brothers. Early on he set his sights on a military career and eventually gained a place in the Royal Guard of King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia in 1822. In a short span of time he became very caught up in the liberal movement that was sweeping Europe, first as a revolutionary and later as a committed monarchist of the moderate-liberal variety. With his brother he was forced to flee his homeland for a time for implication in a plot to force the very conservative King Charles Felix to accept a constitution and during his exile he gained ever more extensive military experience. He was a firm believer in liberal monarchy and saw it as the only way to preserve basic liberties without the chaos that would come with a revolutionary republic.

Between 1822 and 1842 Giovanni Durando served as a lieutenant in the Belgian Foreign Legion as a lieutenant, then as a captain in the Portuguese army fighting for Don Pedro and finally he moved to Spain where he rose to the rank of general fighting for the liberal monarchy there against the Carlists. Piedmont was never far from his thoughts though and he was happy to be repatriated home in 1842. Like most liberals he welcomed the election of Pope Pius IX who had been known for his liberal sympathies and his embrace of the idea of an Italian nationality. Indeed, for a time the unofficial anthem of the Italian nationalists was a hymn of praise to Pope Pius IX. For a time it was a widely held belief that for the long sought after goal of Italian unification to be achieved it would require the cooperation and partnership of the two dominant cities on the peninsula; Turin and Rome. While Piedmont-Sardinia worked to consolidate control over northern Italy, Giovanni Durando was among the Piedmontese party in Rome urging the Pope to embrace the cause of Italian unity under the moderating leadership of the House of Savoy.

For a time this seemed a real possibility as the Pope reprimanded an overzealous Austrian commander for an incursion on Papal territory and organized forces to show them the temporal power of the Papacy would not be violated by anyone. The Austrians backed down and it seemed that the Pope was on the side of the nationalists who went to war with Austria in 1848 when the outbreak of revolution in Vienna seemed to offer a golden opportunity. Pope Pius IX excited many more liberal hearts when he ordered Papal forces to march to the frontier of Romagna when hostilities broke out to ensure that the Austrians did not violate his territory. He chose two men to command that gave the liberals even more encouragement; General Giovanni Durando to command the majority (a Piedmontese monarchist known to favor unification) and Colonel Andrea Ferrari to command the Roman volunteers who was a liberal republican. Most took this as a sign that the Pope might have been, if anything, even more to the left than Durando.

Papal troops

However, this expedition led to a great controversy when General Durando actually engaged the Austrian army in cooperation with the forces of Piedmont-Sardinia (whose army also included many deserters from the Papal service). The Pope angrily denounced the affair saying that he had never ordered his army to cross the Po and fight the Austrians; he had only intended them to stand watch and rebuff any incursion of Papal territory. Neither the Pope nor his general emerged well from the affair. General Durando was defeated by the Austrians and his actions were later blamed for allowing the Austrians to concentrate their forces to overwhelm the main Piedmontese army under King Charles Albert. The Pope, likewise, came off looking either foolish or duplicitous for sending an army to a battlefront under the command of men ardently in favor of fighting the Austrians only to order them not to do so. Some in the army even believed the order was meant to be ignored and had been issued only to provide cover for the Pope if his troops were defeated by the Austrians. Obviously the Pope would never have acted so dishonestly, however his image was still sullied by those who believed him. Given his attitude it seemed incredible to have appointed a Piedmontese general known for his nationalist sympathies and support for Italian unity to organize, train and then command the Papal Army.

Italian troops in the Crimea

General Durando quit the Papal service when the Pope publicly condemned the war against Austria, which also saw a major shift in public opinion away from the Pope as many Italians took this as the Pope taking the side of Austria against his own people. Holding the rank of lieutenant general in the royal army of Piedmont-Sardinia, Durando continued to serve in the war against Austria, winning great fame for his defense of Vincenzo, and suppressed rebellions against royal authority in Sardinia where republican revolutionaries wished to seize leadership of the nationalist movement away from the royal court in Turin or simply to break away on their own. In 1855 he was sent with the Italian expedition to the Crimean War where the forces of King Victor Emmanuel II earned high praise at the battle of Chernaya and the siege of Sevastopol. In the Third Italian War of Independence General Durando was wounded at the disastrous battle of Custoza in 1866 where he commanded the I Corps. In 1860 he was appointed to the rank of Senator and after the formal proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy the following year was sent to command royal forces in the former Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies to wipe out the widespread banditry that had taken hold in the absence of a stable government. Serving his king to the last, he died in Florence on May 27, 1869.

Monarch Profile: Tsar Alexander III of Russia

One of my favorite Russian monarchs, Tsar Alexander III was a great man; both in size and in character. In many ways he was the stereotypical Russian tsar, but in a positive way. His massive, bearded appearance exuded strength and power but underneath that imposing exterior was a man of simple tastes, a devoted family man and music-lover. Today, most historians are critical of his reign, seeing nothing more than a reactionary monarch who suppressed any sort of progress or innovation with little concern for the future. In truth, Alexander III was precisely the sort of leader Russia needed at that time. He had seen the terrible consequences of social change being advanced too rapidly and Alexander III was the right man to carefully apply the brakes, when needed, to maintain stability and an orderly march into industrialization and modernity. He was, in many ways, more of a reactionary than his father but he also undertook new initiatives that no Romanov emperor before him would have ever dreamed of doing. He was also simply a good man, a man of character, conviction and possessing a real devotion to his people and country.

The future Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias was born Alexander Alexandrovich Romanov in St Petersburg to Tsar Alexander II and Maria von Hesse-Darmstadt. As he was not the eldest son there was initially little expectation that he would ever accede to the throne and so his education was primarily a military one, based on the assumption that, in keeping with tradition, like other younger brothers before him, the army would be his career. However, in 1865 his elder brother Nicholas died and young Alexander suddenly became heir to the Russian throne. The following year he married Princess Dagmar of Denmark, a petite princess with soulful eyes who stood in stark contrast to her muscular 6ft 3in husband. The two were as unalike as two people could be, in personality as well as appearance. She was beautiful and delicate, he was towering and powerful; she was polite, charming and comfortable in high society circles, Alexander was reserved, blunt and detested the snobbery and shallowness of the elite class. Yet, the two had the happiest of marriages. Whereas his father was known for his marital infidelities, Alexander III never took a mistress and would have recoiled at the very thought. The two were extremely devoted and attached to each other and would remain so throughout their lives.

As he prepared to one day assume the throne, Alexander gained extensive first-hand experience in both military affairs and civil administration. He saw service in the Russo-Turkish War, sat in on meetings of the Council of Ministers and participated in the activities of the Supreme Administrative Commission. He was already very familiar with the workings of the Russian state and the demands of power as well as having secured the succession with the birth of his first son (Nicholas II) by the time the life of Tsar Alexander II came to a disturbingly violent end when he was assassinated by bomb-wielding revolutionaries on March 1, 1881. On that day his son became Emperor Alexander III and a month later he issued a manifesto, penned with the help of noted monarchist Konstantin Pobedonostsev, in which he reiterated his commitment to maintaining the autocracy. He made it clear that the Russian Empire was an absolute monarchy based on the sacred tenets of the Orthodox Church and that this core of their nation would be defended, no challenge to it would go unanswered and no attack on it would go unpunished. God bless him.

This will always be the most controversial aspect of the reign of Alexander III. He increased the powers of local authorities to deal with subversives, strengthened censorship to block the spread of revolutionary writings and encouraged the development of the Okhrana, usually labeled as the Tsarist "secret police". All of that is true but it is also true that those who emphasize those actions intentionally belittle the other side of the story. Alexander III had watched his father issue numerous liberal reforms and he ended up being blown to pieces for it. One might accuse him of acting out of fear if Alexander II had been assassinated by conservatives or reactionaries but no, he was killed revolutionaries who felt he had not gone far enough fast enough. This was the lesson Alexander III took from the reign of his father. He realized the incontestable truth about liberal revolutionaries/radical leftists; that when people are seeking to create a paradise on earth they will never achieve it and so will never stop demanding more changes in their futile effort to make the impossible possible. Give them one thing and they demand something else, give them that and they demand still more and so on. It will never be enough because their ultimate goal can never be reached. Alexander III realized this and simply decided he would not play their game.

This did not mean that the Tsar was opposed to any and all change; he broke with the majority of conservative opinion for example when he established the office of Land Captain in 1889 in order to ensure that justice was fairly administered to the rural peasantry. What he opposed was revolution and subversion and like any good Russian tsar, his reign hearkened back to the slogan of Nicholas I, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality”. This has led many to criticize him for an increase in discrimination against Catholics (mostly in Poland) and pogroms against Jews. What many fail to grasp though is that a pogrom is, by definition, a spontaneous rather than a directed or coordinated event. Alexander III was perfectly willing to tolerate minority peoples and religions in the Russian Empire but he was also adamant that his was a Russian Empire and non-Orthodox faiths were forbidden to proselytize. It must be pointed out that this was once common in virtually every other country, Catholic or Protestant. It only seemed outrageous when Russia did it because so many western nations had ceased taking their religion very seriously. “Live and let live” is easier than converting people, particularly if you are not exactly certain that “your truth” is the true one, and as the 20th Century approached many were not.

In secular affairs, the idea that Russia under Alexander III was some sort of stagnant, reactionary backwater is totally untrue. Again, he was not averse to any change, he was only averse to changes which threatened the “soul” of Russia. As part of a number of reforms to improve the economy and recover from the war with Turkey he abolished the “soul tax” in 1887, cut taxes for the peasants and enacted child labor laws, forbidding children under 12 from working and reducing the number of hours children under 15 could work. In the burgeoning factories of Russia strikes were illegal but an official inspector of factories was set up to ensure that proper working conditions were maintained. As is always the case, not all of the new regulations were obeyed and no bureaucracy can prevent every problem but it shows that the Tsar was not determined to keep everything exactly as it had always been. If a good case could be made for changes that would benefit the Russian people, he willingly accepted them. Domestic industry was protected from foreign competition, railroads were built and a trade deficit became a trade surplus. Russia may not have been modernizing as fast as some wished but it undoubtedly was modernizing.

When it came to his private life, the stern, imposing autocrat was the quintessential “gentle giant”. Usually reserved in public, around his family Alexander was a fun and playful family man. He preferred to eat simple food with the servants in the kitchen to grand banquets and would often entertain guests by his displays of great strength such as twisting fireplace pokers into bizarre shapes or lifting his wife with one hand and sister-in-law with the other, at arms length, up to shoulder level. He loved the outdoors and was fond of simply throwing a hunk of bread and a sausage into a sack and walking out in the vast Russian wilderness. Alexander was at his most jovial around small children. He would often take them skating but would go out to the pond to “test” the ice first. Walking out onto the frozen water, he would look back to make sure his tiny audience was watching then jump and stomp down as hard as he could, usually breaking through to the icy water immediately at which point Tsar and children alike would howl with laughter -his real intention all along. Of his children the Grand Duke Mikhail was his obvious favorite and the Tsar, sadly, always considered his heir Nicholas something of a disappointment. He worried that he lacked the strength to rule but, rather than increasing efforts to prepare him for the throne, this caused him to exclude Nicholas from state affairs which only increased his inexperience when his time to rule came.

In the area of foreign policy, Alexander III took a very active role and decisive leadership was called for as Russia stood diplomatically isolated at the beginning of his reign after a crisis in the Balkans had upset everyone. In June of 1881 he signed on to the “Three Emperors’ Alliance” which was a 3-year agreement that bound the German, Austrian and Russian emperors to remain neutral if any other member went to war and to maintain the status quo in the Balkans. In 1884 the Tsar renewed the alliance, despite his dislike of the Germans but in 1887 he refused to do so again. This was largely due to events in Bulgaria which revealed that Austria and Russia had conflicting interests in the Balkans and that, when it came down to it, Germany would side with Austria rather than Russia. Germany did not wish to choose between her two allies but when a pro-Austrian Coburg was chosen for the throne of re-emerging Bulgaria the Tsar was perturbed and demanded that Germany choose; Austria or Russia. Not surprisingly, Germany chose Austria. Some efforts were made to maintain some agreement between the two countries but Kaiser Wilhelm II finally dispensed with that as well and Russia was alone again on the international stage.

The result was the negotiation and finally the signing of one of the most shocking alliances of the time. In 1894 Russia formally became an ally of the French Third Republic. Some had advocated this for some time since France had long been a major source of investment in Russia but by the new treaty Russia agreed to support France if she were ever attacked by Germany and in return France agreed to support Russia were she to be attacked by Germany or by Austria. Today most histories make little mention of what a stunning move this was. Russia, the most autocratic, devoutly religious absolute monarchy in Europe and France, the most liberal, anti-clerical and proudly revolutionary republic in Europe had pledged to go to war on behalf of each other. True, given the tensions that already existed with Britain, France was the only available option among the major world powers but still, this was a shocking turn of events. France was such an avowedly revolutionary and republican society that even the liberal Kingdom of Italy considered her a threatening source of subversive behavior. Another illustration is that, in Russia, singing the French national anthem, the revolutionary song “La Marseillaise”, was illegal due to its celebration of violent rebellion. Whether this treaty was ultimately to the benefit of Russia remains a debatable point. It was not fully invoked until the outbreak of World War I and while Russia certainly benefited from Germany having to fight on two fronts, it was not enough to save the Russian Empire and the French Republic was, shall we say, less than mournful to see Imperial Russia collapse.

However, all of that was still many years in the future. There was no hint of anything collapsing during the reign of Tsar Alexander III. Despite some setbacks that were beyond the control of the Tsar (such as a terrible famine) the reign of Alexander III was one of expansion for Russia. Influence in the Balkans had been somewhat halted but Russian influence in east and central Asia continued to move forward. This was the cause of the tension with Great Britain since, as Russian power approached ever closer to Afghanistan, the British became increasingly worried about the security of their Empire of India. In 1885 fighting broke out between the Russians and Afghans and many feared Britain would become militarily involved as well but, thankfully, a diplomatic solution was found. Alexander III was as supportive as anyone of increasing Russian influence but he was no warmonger and knew that Russia need to focus her strength on the growing pains of industrialization and modernity rather than foreign military adventures. A treaty with China secured a foothold in Turkestan for Russia and construction began on the Trans-Siberian railway that would prove so vital to the further development of the country.

In 1888, near Borki, the train Alexander III and his family were riding in derailed in a horrendous crash. The Tsar, like Hercules taking the place of Atlas, actually held up the entire collapsed roof of the imperial saloon car until help arrived, saving the lives of his wife and children. It was his most tremendous display of strength ever but he was never quite the same afterwards, his heroic actions to save his family permanently weakening him. Afterwards he suffered more and more frequently from terrible back pain and increasing illness. By the time his malady was diagnosed it was too late to save him. He died at Livadia on the Crimea, surrounded by his devoted wife and children like the beloved patriarch he was, on October 20, 1894. Tsar Alexander III was not a perfect man and never claimed to be. Arguably his greatest fault was underestimating his eldest son and not fully preparing him for the throne. His relationship with Mikhail was much more close, the little Grand Duke even being able to dump a bucket of water on his unsuspecting father and be met simply with laughter. However, he kept a firm hand on the wheel of the ship of state and, despite what detractors may say, carefully guided Russia toward beneficial progress while avoided the dangers of violent revolution. He was a man of simple tastes but was not unsophisticated, being a great patron of music and an amateur musician himself (he would often sit in with the other musicians called to play at imperial parties). He was a devoted husband, an upright man, stern when necessary but not harsh or unkind. Overall, Alexander III was a great Tsar.

Alamo Day

Royals at Eternal Rest

The Belgian Royal Family in Captivity

As we have mentioned before, HM King Leopold III of the Belgians suffered a great deal of atrociously unfair slander after World War II. He was accused of breaking diplomatic agreements, of showing insufficient zeal in resisting the Nazi invasion and, worst of all, of collaborating with the Nazi occupying forces in Belgium. It should go without saying that all of that is complete and utter nonsense of the most despicable kind. The King, naturally, was desperate to keep his country out of World War II (and neutrality had been the established policy of Belgium since the birth of the modern kingdom in 1830) yet when war came he took command of the army and resisted with all the strength in his power. Obviously, little, solitary Belgium could not possibly defeat the crushing armies of Germany but any who think that the King and the Belgian army were not fully committed to defending their country should look at some simple statistics. Denmark and Luxembourg were each occupied in a single day. The Netherlands was forced to capitulate after only four days. Belgium, on the other hand, held out for 18 days before being forced to surrender or be totally massacred. In fact, the British might not have successfully escaped from Dunkirk if the Belgians had not bought them time with their lives.

King Leopold III felt it to be his duty, as commander-in-chief, to preside over the surrender of his army and share the fate of his brave men as a prisoner of war; and that is exactly what he was. It is an outright lie to attempt to portray him as any sort of a collaborator; the truth cannot possibly be stretched that far and survive. He tried to do what he could to ease the suffering of his people but let there be no ambiguity about this: he was a prisoner, not a reigning monarch. The Nazi occupation forces kept him under tight surveillance, his movements were restricted and his every activity was scrutinized. Toward the end the King and his family were imprisoned and there was even an attempt to massacre them. The occupation and the time spent by the Belgian Royal Family in Nazi captivity was a frightful and terrible event yet, probably in part because of all the misinformation, is not very well known. Thankfully, that issue has been addressed at the excellent weblog The Cross of Laeken where a series of highly informative articles have been posted dealing with this sad period in the history of the Belgian monarchy. I highly recommend having a look at The Royal Family in Captivity, Parts I, II, III and IV.

The IX Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa Passes Away

It was just brought to my attention that on Thursday, March 1, His Eminence the Ninth Khalkha Jetsun Dhampa Dorjee Chang Jampel Namdrol Choekyi Gyaltsen, spiritual head of the Janang tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and the spiritual Buddhist head of Mongolia, spiritual successor of the last Holy Khan of the Mongols, passed away at the age of 80 at 5.58am (IST) in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. A special prayer service was held by HH the XIV Dalai Lama in his memory. You can read his obituary here. Although his passing is a sad occasion, it is perhaps fortunate that it came at such a time when the Dalai Lama will be able to preside over the search for his reincarnation. Had this sad event happened later, I could imagine a great deal of division and discord over the selection of his successor.

Readers interested in learning more about this remarkable man and his situation can look back at posts on How the Revolution Came to Mongolia and The IX Bogd Gegeen and Monarchism in Mongolia. It is unfortunate that a full restoration was not possible in his lifetime, though some progress was made with some political and military officials favoring at least some sort of official, ceremonial role for the "Holy Shining One". Although little remembered, Mongolia suffered horribly at the hands of the communists (it was the first Soviet satellite state) and a cultural, spiritual, national and political revival is badly needed in that still suffering country which was once the center of the largest empire in history. We remember the man who should have been Bogd Khan and renew ourselves in the effort to see his successor recognized as such.
-MM

HH the Dalai Lama presiding at a prayer service
on Saturday for the late Bogd Gegeen

MM Video: 9th Jetsun Dhampa

Royal News Roundup

Prince Friso of Orange-Nassau remains comatose but has been transferred to London to Wellington Hospital, chosen by medical experts as the place he can receive the best specialized care. The Prince, Princess Mabel and their daughters have lived in London for some time so it is something of a homecoming, albeit an unhappy one. HM Queen Beatrix remains by the side of her son and is also in London keeping watch over him. Princess Mabel expressed her thanks for all the messages of support the family have received since this terrible accident occurred. Prince Friso, it seems, is out of the most immediate danger with doctors saying that the focus should now shift to rehabilitation, keeping in mind though that he has yet to regain consciousness. The media was also asked to respect the privacy of the family during so difficult a time. Of course, our thoughts and prayers remain with the Prince and the Dutch Royal Family during this very troubling period.

In Sweden, on Monday, the Royal Court released the first photos of the new Princess Estelle, whose features seem to resemble her mother. Princess Madeleine also returned to Sweden to visit her new niece on Tuesday. The royal birth has been an occasional to lift the public spirit in Sweden and a great boost to the monarchy at a time when it was sorely needed. People have waited in long lines to sign books of congratulations to the royal couple on the birth of their new princess and future queen. It was also recently announced that Their Majesties King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia will be traveling to the United States this fall to visit the American Swedish Institute in Minneapolis, Minnesota and the Gustavus Adolphus College. Crown Princess Mary of Denmark was in Washington DC this week for the second conference on women’s shelters. The Crown Princess was the keynote speaker at the event. Crown Prince Frederick, meanwhile, was at home meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar.

In Great Britain, HRH the Prince of Wales was in Hounslow on Thursday, marking the feast of St David, patron saint of Wales, with the First Battalion Welsh Guards. The Prince decorated a wounded veteran of the war in Afghanistan and later played paint-ball with the troops. Also on Thursday, the women of the House of Windsor had a day out as HM the Queen, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Cambridge visited the newly renamed “Diamond Jubilee Tea Station” in honor of the Queen’s sixty year reign. The restaurant is in Fortnum & Mason department store which presented each of the royal ladies with special goodies as well as some high-end treats for their dogs, knowing how much all of the Windsor women love their canine companions. All appeared to enjoy themselves, the Duchess of Cornwall promised to come back for some of her favorites and the Duchess of Cambridge said she would sent her brother who is quite the tea enthusiast. She confessed her own efforts to make the perfect cup of tea have not gone well.

March 1st was, apparently, Rare Diseases Day (who decides this stuff?) and HRH Princess Letizia of Asturias was in her usual fine form in Madrid for events associated with that occasion. The Princess has a history with the project and along with other Spanish officials she met with numerous Spaniards afflicted with rare diseases yet who have managed to live productive lives. Princess Letizia thanked them all and promised she would be the “voice” of the weakest of the weak. The Princess also distributed awards to a number of organizations which specialize in caring for those with rare diseases. HM King Juan Carlos I made history that same day during an inspection and flight of a new military Airbus aircraft, taking the controls during the flight and performing a few maneuvers, making him the first reigning King to ever fly such a massive aircraft. The legal troubles for the Duke of Palma also continue with the Duke now admitting that he “defied” his King and father-in-law who had ordered him to stop his business dealings. We always think we know better don’t we…

Everyone is aware, I’m sure, of the on-going violence and turmoil in the hereditary Republic of Syria. So far, international efforts to deal with the situation have been ineffective. Western countries tried to work through the UN to apply pressure on the ruling dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to relinquish power but were blocked by Russia and Communist China. Criticism from the Arab League have also had no effect. However, perhaps the women can succeed where the men have failed in finding a peaceful solution. A London-based Arab newspaper has reported that HM Queen Rania of Jordan has spoken with Syrian First Lady, Asma Assad, expressing her concerns about the increasing violence. Mrs. Assad reportedly told the Queen everything was just fine, excellent in fact, and then (bizarrely) asked Queen Rania if she was safe and sound as they had heard that Jordan was experiencing a great deal of trouble. Okay. This is not though the first time that the Hashemite Royal Family has tried to help their struggling Syrian neighbors. Prince El Hassan, the uncle of HM King Abdullah II, also reportedly spoke with President Assad some time ago in an effort to persuade him to enact reforms but, alas, to no avail. It remains quite informative to contrast the overall peace and stability of the monarchies in the Middle East to the chaotic and bloody records of the republics in the region. People in the region and leaders on the international stage would do well to consider that.

Independence Day

Taking the day off

The Tea Party in Italy

So, not long ago it was brought to my attention that there is a (small but fervent) “Tea Party” in, of all places, the Republic of Italy. This caught my interest immediately, both because Italy would be one of the last places I would have expected such a group to exist and because I have a (many would say unhealthy) fascination with the libertarian crowd who are probably, I would say, the real backbone of any coherent message the Tea Party might have. I know, many people are scared of libertarianism (many readers here are I know) but, as I have talked about before, libertarianism always seemed to me to have something rather medieval about it and, all in all, I find the high middle ages pretty tough to beat. Anyway, who would have expected to see a Tea Party in modern Italy of all places? I had heard, of course, of some likeminded groups in the United Kingdom which would seem to make more sense than in non-English-speaking countries. Well, that is to say, as much sense as one could expect from British people supporting a group of conservatives and libertarians who took the name of their movement from an attack on a British company but, there’s no need to go into that.

Pointed toward the face book page for the Italian Tea Party, I must admit I was surprised to see so many American flags on display. I was downright stunned to see a Confederate flag on display (causing me to question whether Italians are aware of the connotations it has on this side of the pond) but in all honesty I could not help but feel a slight surge of pride to see the Texas flag displayed as well. Okay, admittedly, when it comes to Texas and Texans our pride surges fairly easily but they didn’t choose the Massachusetts flag, the South Carolina flag or the Idaho flag did they? Nope, it was the Lone Star of Texas and so that may have made me a bit partial even at first glance. In all seriousness though, I was in fact a bit troubled by how lonely the Italian tricolor looked amongst this rather American-dominated vexillogical display. I was also struck by how plain and empty the solitary Italian tricolor looked without the Savoy royal crest in the center. Surely an Italian Tea Party would be supporters of the old Kingdom of Italy and their former Royal Family?

I know many people at this point will be wondering how I could ask such a question. Libertarians, by and large, are not known for their monarchist sympathies. In America of course they have led the way in the revival of bashing poor old King George III and cheering American Revolutionary republicanism. “The Founders” are sacrosanct to most of them. However, when I was first told that there was a Tea Party in Italy, or as it was put to me, that there were actually libertarians in Italy, the first thought that occurred to me was that these people must surely be ardent admirers of the House of Savoy. After all, more often than not, the one thing more than any other that the Savoy monarchy is often attacked for is exactly what most hard-core libertarians uphold as the greatest virtue: self-interest. Since this is something the House of Savoy has long been accused of, I naturally assumed libertarians would salute them on the same basis. Now, perhaps I have more of a libertarian streak than I would like to admit but I never really understood the outrage directed at the Italian monarchy on the basis of acting in their own self-interest.

Usually, in my experience, this often involves the Italian participation in World War I which was around the time that Italian political leaders first began to toss around the phrase “sacred egotism” or ‘sacred self-interest’. The self-righteous attitude adopted by many toward the Kingdom of Italy in this regard, frankly always stunk of rank hypocrisy to me. After all, how many nations involved in World War I were not motivated by self-interest? Belgium was not certainly but who else? Perhaps Russia, certainly as concerns the Russian Empire it did not turn out to be in the interests of Russia to charge into war on behalf of Serbia. But Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Great Britain, Ottoman Turkey, Japan etc all had self-interested reasons for getting involved. And, again, I am not criticizing them for that in and of itself. Do we not expect governments to act in the best interests of their people? Perhaps the Italians were simply a little more honest about it. I never understood why the Kingdom of Italy was so often criticized for her territorial demands by countries who gained far, far more vast territorial concessions out of the conflict. It does not seem dastardly to me for a country that makes the supreme sacrifice of war to expect to have something to show for it when it is over. Great Britain and France added greatly to their colonial empires by the war and the Royal Houses of Serbia and Romania each gained far more territory from the conflict than Italy did despite the fact that each were conquered by the Central Powers during the course of it.

Whenever someone ridicules the House of Savoy for always acting only in their own best interests, surely Italian libertarians should join the monarchists in leaping to their defense. Of course, when this attack is usually made, it is divorced from the nation at large; that is to say, the Savoy kings are usually accused of acting in the interests of the monarchy and their dynasty rather than the nation as a whole. I would say that is untrue simply as it stands, however, a case could be made that many countries would have been better off if their monarchs had followed their own self-interest rather than listening to what was advocated as the “greater good”. After all, King Louis XVI of France had great reservations about intervening in the American War for Independence because he feared that it would encourage revolution against his own monarchy by aiding the enemies of another. However, his advisors convinced him that it would be in the best interests of France to see Great Britain humbled in North America. That ultimately didn’t work out well for the Bourbon monarchy or France as a whole which got the Revolution, the Reign of Terror and all the rest. German Kaiser Wilhelm II had similar reservations about helping Lenin get back to Russia, fearing that communist revolution could spread to Germany and threaten the House of Hohenzollern if it gained a foothold in Russia. For similar reasons he was prevailed upon that it would be better for Germany to get Russia out of the war no matter the method. Well, Germany lost the war anyway and the Kaiser lost his throne in the process.

There was also a time when the Savoy monarchy was criticized in the same way for being champions of free trade, something else prized by most libertarians, doing business with countries others thought should be off-limits. The first minister of the first King of Italy was well known for his acceptance of the profit motive and his pragmatic saying that, “Free institutions tend to make people richer” and that his efforts were not about destroying the old order at all. Cavour tried to reassure the class that had, over great periods of time, risen to the top by saying, “You will see gentlemen, how reforms carried out in time, instead of weakening authority, reinforce it; instead of precipitating revolution, they prevent it.” Indeed, one could look back all the way to Renaissance Italy and see in the incredible success of the city-states such as Genoa and Venice a clear example of the profit motive at work. How else could one perpetually flooded city founded by refugees rise to become the dominant economic and naval power of the eastern Mediterranean? What else made Genoa the economic center of western Europe? Italian Tea Party members of all people should recognize that profit is not a dirty word nor is acting in your own self-interest inherently wicked. They probably already do but they should apply those principles to the republic vs. monarchy debate as well.

Tea Party supporters and libertarians tend to be zealous individualists and this was precisely the argument used by HM King Victor Emmanuel III in denouncing the idea of republicanism. The Italians, he said, were too individualistic for republicanism to ever be successful in Italy. Yet, many libertarians and certainly most Tea Party people seem to think that republicanism is the only way. This, as we have pointed out before here, is quite absurd when one gives it more than a second of thought. Why should the benefits of private ownership over public ownership apply to everything except the highest office in the land? If the individual always does better than the collective, why do so many still insist on collectivism rather than individualism when it comes to the sovereign? If a parcel of land becomes worthless under public ownership but becomes profitable under private ownership, the same rule should apply for the country as a whole.

When a King does what is in his own best interests the country naturally tends to do better. When a collection of politicians, all claiming to represent the interests of the people, naturally do what is in their own best interest instead, all of their interests conflicting with each other, you get disaster. Or, you get the state of the Italian republic as it is today. Given the state Italy (and many others) is in today, I think some libertarianism, in any amount, would probably do them some good as far as their economy goes. For basically at least the last 90 years Italy has had a socialistic, state-run economy. Today we are witnessing the result of that so a little competition and respect for private property might be something they would want to at least consider.

These people are, obviously, republicans but it is just as obvious that they shouldn’t be. Keeping in mind that the first republican government in Italy since unification was the Italian Social(ist) Republic of Mussolini, what has the republic given to Italy? Looking today we see a Communist Party member as President, a Prime Minister who has totally sold-out Italian sovereignty and independence to the European Union and who is simply their tool in Rome, we have a system that squashes creativity, innovation and industry of any kind and which has delivered corruption, economic collapse, a divided populace and a state enslaved by the bonds of debt to foreign agents. I would also remind the people of the Tea Party, Italian libertarians and all Italian republicans that this, aside from the anti-democratic aspects, is exactly what their hero Giuseppe Mazzini wanted. He wanted a “United States of Europe” in which the Italian republic was simply one minor member among many. It is no exaggeration to say that the Kingdom of Italy represented the only system which proudly and strongly stood for independence, not dependence on some foreign power or international organization. Even anti-monarchy historians have considered it praiseworthy that the era of the republic has made Italy content with mediocrity and second or third-rate power status. All those who desire true freedom, real independence and the pursuit of success should embrace the monarchist alternative.