The Pope, the King and the Lateran Treaty

It was yesterday in 1929 that the Lateran Treaty was ratified between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy which finally ended the stand-off known as the “Roman Question” that existed since the forces of the Kingdom of Italy occupied and annexed the city of Rome in 1870 at which point the Pope withdrew inside the walls of Vatican City, refusing to recognize the united Italy in a self-imposed “exile” of sorts which lasted from that time until the Lateran Accords were signed. During that time the Popes refused to set foot outside the Vatican, banned (or attempted to ban) Catholic participation in Italian politics and refused to recognize the legal existence of the Kingdom of Italy. This split the Roman nobility into two rival camps; the “White Nobility” around the King and the “Black Nobility” around the Pope. Ordinary Italians, the vast majority of whom were solidly Catholic, mostly accepted the new political realities whether they welcomed them or not. Even Catholic clergy had to walk a thin line, remaining loyal to the Pope in keeping with their vow of obedience but also continuing to administer the sacraments even amidst the most difficult of circumstances. For example, since 1870 the Holy See had withdrawn Catholic chaplains from the Royal Italian Army yet in World War I many Catholic clerics volunteered to serve, many quite heroically, even accompanying troops as they charged into enemy machinegun fire to administer the last rites and attend to soldiers who were wounded.

Bl. Pius IX and King Victor Emmanuel II

The Vatican policy of officially ignoring the Kingdom of Italy for such a great period of time was ultimately harmful to both parties concerned. The Kingdom of Italy was deprived of the blessing of the Church and was harmed by the division of loyalties caused by the rift. Yet, the Church was also harmed as well. Most Catholics participated in politics by voting despite the papal ban but there was basically no one to officially argue the cause of the Church in the political arena. Those Italian politicians who did try to argue for the rights of the Church faced condemnation from both sides. The anti-clerical leftists naturally opposed them but the Vatican opposed them as well simply for being loyal to the King. It also prevented the Church from playing as great a role as it might have in the crucial peace process after World War I because the Italian government feared that the Vatican (which was seen to favor the Austrians) would use the proceedings to redress their own grievances and call for the dissolution of the Kingdom of Italy (a plan floated by Germany). Whether the Church would have actually done that we can never know but the standoff undoubtedly prevented the Church from doing as much good as she could have done during such a crisis. Critics were also quick to note that the Pope had excommunicated (several times) the Italian forces who invaded his lands but did not excommunicate German Catholics for invading France and Belgium. The whole situation was certainly not to the benefit of the Church in practical terms or in terms of public perception. This is not surprising as refusing to deal at all with an unfavorable situation usually allows the other side to win by default. As Catholic author Harry Crocker wrote in his book “Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church”, “The pope, in his own words, became a prisoner of the Vatican. He refused any formal acknowledgement that the princely realms of the Vicar of Christ had been reduced to a few -albeit magnificent- buildings, and demanded that Italian Catholics refrain from politics and voting, which was a self-defeating ordinance indeed”.

The Popes, of course, were standing on principle and protesting against the seizure of the Papal States over which they had long ruled as the local monarchs. However, the Italian occupation of Rome was not as detrimental to the Church as many feared and, indeed, ultimately proved beneficial in some ways. To be sure, the fear of a loss of independence on the part of the Pope was real and well founded. The Pope had to have freedom of action and not be under the control of or subject to any sort of pressure by any foreign power. Yet, in truth, the Papal States had never had that sort of independence which would have required the Pope to have sufficient land and people to match any of the major powers of Europe. Even when the Papal States existed the Popes were constantly shifting in political alliances between (usually) France and Germany/Austria to try to prevent any one power from dominating the Italian peninsula and thus threatening Rome. Pope Leo X, for example, joined in a league with the German Emperor and King of England against France when France and Venice looked to be dominating northern Italy. Later, when the Emperor (also King of Spain) looked to be too powerful, the Pope sided with France and his hesitancy in dealing with the outbreak of the Protestant movement is often attributed to his political fear of the German Emperor.

Papal Rome had, of course, been occupied many times by invading forces and probably none were so humane and respectful toward the Church as the Italian Royal Army. In 1083 the Holy Roman (German) Emperor Henry IV besieged Rome and the Pope called on the Normans for help. When they arrived the following year they cleared out the Germans but then sacked the city of Rome themselves. In 1527 German and Spanish troops of Emperor Charles V ransacked the city, butchered the Swiss Guard and besieged Pope Clement VII in Castel Sant Angelo. In 1798 French revolutionaries seized Rome, took Pope Pius VI prisoner and sent him to France, declaring the city a French allied-republic. After Napoleon came to power he annexed Rome and the Papal States as part of the French Empire and Pope Pius VII signed a concordat with him and presided at his coronation. The Congress of Vienna restored the Papal States but in 1849 republican revolutionaries took over, forced the Pope to flee the city and it took a French army sent by Napoleon III to restore the Pope to his proper throne. On the other hand, when the army of the Kingdom of Italy captured Rome, order was maintained, property was protected and the Pope was not hindered or harmed in any way. In fact, the initial offering the King of Italy made to the Pope was far more generous, in terms of the territory to be left under papal control, than in the Lateran Accords the Holy See ended up agreeing to many decades later.

King Victor Emmanuel III visits the Vatican

Originally, King Vittorio Emanuele II offered all of Rome within the Leonine wall to the Pope as his own domain (this included all of Vatican City as well). He was to be treated as a sovereign monarch, immune from criticism, above the law and his person legally sacrosanct and inviolable. He was also to have exclusive use to all papal properties on Italian soil ("use" not "ownership" you will notice). This was hardly 1527 or 1798. However, standing on principle, the Pope refused and so the “Roman Question” festered for decades until 1929 when Pope Pius XI and King Vittorio Emanuele III at long last made peace. It had taken three years of negotiation but finally was accomplished, as it should have been long before. According to the agreement, the Vatican City State was recognized by the King of Italy as a sovereign, independent, neutral state. The Pope recognized the Kingdom of Italy and renounced all claims to the former territories of the Papal States in exchange for which the Kingdom of Italy paid to the Pope 750,000,000 lire in compensation for the loss of these lands as well as an indemnity of 3,250,000 lire a year. The amount paid to the Pope as compensation for the loss of his territory was likewise less than what the King of Italy had originally offered in 1871. However, what was most significant was recognition of the Italian nation by the Church and the creation of the Vatican City State as an independent sovereign entity, protected by law as well as the sustained financial support of the state for the Church. The Roman Catholic Church also became the official state religion of the Kingdom of Italy, religious instruction became a part of all Italian schools (with a crucifix in every classroom) and religious marriages became government approved.

Pope Pius XII visits the Quirinale

It was a happy day without question. The only problem was that this agreement had come about during the Fascist era with considerable pushing on the part of Benito Mussolini himself who wanted absolutely no division of loyalties among the people and just as he had swallowed his ardent republicanism toward that end so too did he suppress his lifelong anti-clericalism, even going through a show of being baptized and declaring the Catholic Church a part of Italian life. He eagerly accepted the praise heaped on him as “the man who had given God back to Italy and Italy back to God”. Of course, he had ulterior motives and both Mussolini and the Pope wasted no time in basically breaking the agreement they had just signed. Mussolini had vowed to respect Catholic institutions but, of course, quickly determined to bring them all under state control. The Pope had promised to stay out of Italian politics but when Mussolini stepped over the line he wasted no time in condemning Fascist totalitarianism as the “pagan adoration of state authority”. Things could have been so much better if the two sides could have reconciled sooner to make the Kingdom of Italy a more perfectly Catholic country, if there had been a Catholic political voice from the start and a push-back against the influence of the socialists, Freemasons and others who monopolized the government for so long.

Mussolini at the Vatican

This should have been the effort from day one, once it was clear that the era of a ‘political papacy’ had gone. Indeed, it is hard to see what real good was accomplished by the long standoff. Of course, that is not to say things would have worked out entirely for the better if the Pope had accepted the original offer laid out in the Law of Guarantees. It rested on the power of the Italian Parliament and, as history shows, what Parliaments give other Parliaments can later take away. The spiritual prestige and popularity of the Pope grew significantly in the aftermath of his self-imposed home-exile but the Church and the Kingdom of Italy both suffered as a result of being deprived of a strong Catholic influence in the new government. The Church could have been of enormous help in combating the spread of radical leftist republican sentiments and this was realized in 1946 when the Church strongly favored the preservation of the monarchy but it all came too late. The republican government that succeeded the monarchy started out in friendly hands but soon came back to amend the Lateran Treaty again and again and again. The most significant change came in 1984 under the socialist Prime Minister Bettino Craxi who abolished Catholicism as the Italian state religion (and as an aside also ran up the national debt until it was greater than Italian GNP).

There was nothing more historically natural than for the Catholic Church and the Kingdom of Italy to be reconciled. A united Italy under one monarchy had been in peace and accord with the Catholic Church from the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great until the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. The House of Savoy had a long history of being staunch defenders of Christendom. The family ranks included the likes of crusaders and clerics; of Blessed Umberto III and Blessed Amedeo IX, the Savoy were the guardians of the Holy Shroud of Turin and the Kings of Piedmont-Sardinia had been ardent supporters of a strong Church and a strong monarchy and viscerally opposed the principles of the so-called “Enlightenment” and the subsequent French Revolution. Today, the loyal faithful should strive equally for the restoration of the Kingdom of Italy as a truly and officially Catholic monarchy and to strive to put back the Lateran Treaty to the original status it had when it was first signed 83 years ago today.

Still Explaining Joseph II

There are certain monarchs who I cannot help but having a great deal of mixed feelings about. More often than not, these involve monarchs from the “Enlightenment” era. In some cases, it is figures who I know I should like more for practical reasons yet I just cannot bring myself to do it. A perfect example of this is King Carlos III of Spain. He did a great deal of good for the Spanish empire, restoring it to some of its former glory, winning back some areas that had been lost, yet his “Enlightenment” policies of state centralization and restrictions on the Church put me off. Also, much of the gains he made for Spain was done by effectively allying with the American revolutionaries against Great Britain -understandable but a monarchist never enjoys seeing a monarchy side with republicans against another monarchy- and (faint-hearted hide your eyes) I will never be able to forgive the man for abolishing bullfighting. In somewhat the same way I have often described the great King Louis XIV of France as a monarch impossible to like but equally as impossible not to admire. Much of that, I will confess, simply comes down to style. The man exuded greatness and grandeur and glory. He was also a scheming, licentious libertine and part-time anti-clerical. But, at the same time, oh how glorious he was.

Another that comes up frequently, mostly because of his family name, is the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. I have noticed that, when compared to other royal houses, the Hapsburgs seem to have a larger number of extremely devoted adherents. Oftentimes these people are not even from any country over which the Hapsburgs ever held sway but they are always Catholic and usually devote much of their praise for the House of Hapsburg because of the (real, not simply perceived) devotion of that house to defending Catholicism. Yet, devotion to the Hapsburg monarchy often extends to such lengths that even on those occasions (not many but certainly numerous) that the Pope and the Hapsburg Emperor were at odds the defenders of the Hapsburgs will side with the Emperor rather than the Pope. As an example, there was the horrific sacking of Rome by the troops of Emperor Charles V in which Pope Clement VII was almost killed. The faithful will still defend the Emperor. It is true, he did not order the pillage, he was not present and he was horrified when he learned of it. However, it would be hard for me to imagine another monarch being extended the same benefit of these considerations rather than being castigated for having sent his armies against the Pope in the first place.

I point this out only because the reason often given for supporting the Emperor over the Pope (on the part of Catholics) is that, in these certain cases, they will argue that it was actually the Emperor who was looking out for the best interests of Christendom whereas the Pope had more narrow and self-serving interests. However, in spite of such attitudes, in my experience, the case of Emperor Joseph II is the one that is totally beyond the pale and even the most devoted admirers of the House of Hapsburg seldom have one good thing to say about the man. This is because, of course, of his rather anti-clerical policies and his “Enlightenment” effort to make religion more “reasonable”. Because of these attitudes I am often compelled to explain myself when it comes to my opinion of Emperor Joseph II because he is another one of those who manages to be on my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time. There are plenty of reasons for old fashioned Catholics (the best kind) to dislike the man, aside from the fact that he was not, personally, a very likeable fellow. All of these I would agree with and his religious policies are ones I cannot condone or overlook and would certainly never approve of. Yet, I also cannot help but think that some of the criticism of Joseph II goes a bit overboard and that there was also quite a bit to recommend him. As I said, I frequently feel the need to “explain” Joseph II.

When it comes to the things I like about Emperor Joseph II, near the top of the list must be (and I’m not ashamed to admit it) his ambition. He wanted the Hapsburg lands, what eventually became the Austrian Empire, to be the most powerful European state. Given that the subsequent Hapsburg emperors were all pretty good and given how history turned out (and admitting that I like the Hapsburgs and Austria) I tend to think this would have been a good thing and worked out to the benefit of Europe as a whole. In pursuit of this goal (and it often seems to me that his Catholic critics tend to gloss over it) Emperor Joseph II was energetic in his military campaigns against the Prussians to the north and the Ottoman Turks to the south. Like his mother, of course, Joseph II had the misfortune to be up against the great Frederick of Prussia who was one of the greatest military leaders Europe has ever produced. He also shared much of the Emperor’s “Enlightenment” sympathies and, after meeting him on the battlefield, came to have a degree of healthy respect for Joseph II. His wars against the Turks were frustrating affairs, carried out to a large extent because of his friendship and admiration for Imperial Russia. Little was gained, but at least the Turkish threat, which had once threatened Vienna, was kept at a safe distance. His real ambition was in Germany and the hope of gaining Bavaria. He brought in Transylvania and did begin crucial developments in the south to the benefit of the Croats and Serbs.

Had the Hapsburg empire become the strongest in Europe, I think things may well have worked out for the better (who can ever know for sure) and part of this involved, for Joseph II, German consolidation. His court was a very cosmopolitan one as was usual for Hapsburg Vienna, but Joseph II considered Germany the core of strength for his empire and one of his more controversial ideas was his effort to make German the common language of the Hapsburg domain. This is something some people have a problem with and I can certainly understand the fear of losing ethnic languages and the encroachment of dull uniformity. However, lest we forget, the nominal “state” of which Joseph II was Emperor was the “Holy Roman Empire of the German People”. The Roman part was historical, the legacy of Charlemagne and all of that but there was never any doubt that the core lands of this empire was Germany, not the Italian peninsula and the people who made up the bulk of the population were Germans and not Latins who mostly spoke a variety of German dialects rather than a variety of Italian ones and, of course, no longer Latin though it remained fairly widespread amongst the educated class. Given all of that, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that German be enforced as a common language. Of the multitude of languages spoken in the Hapsburg lands, there would be a greater justification for making German the official language rather than any of the others. This would also not mean (necessarily) that other minority languages would be abolished, only that in addition to your ethnic language everyone would be required to know (probably) High German. The diverse nature of the empire, ethnically and linguistically, is appealing but it was also a detriment in terms of administration, trade and the military, as was seen increasingly in the future, when everything had to be written in such a vast array of different languages. I cling to the archaic idea that a common language is not always necessary for a successful state but I do recognize that it usually helps.

Another fact I have often noticed, particularly in reading Catholic history books which most strongly criticize Emperor Joseph II, is the allocation of credit to later (and more Church-friendly) monarchs for policies which originated under Joseph II. One of the best examples I have seen of this is the oft-reported tolerance shown to the Jewish minority in late Austria-Hungary by Emperor Francis Joseph I. All of which is completely true. They had special provision made for them, even in the military, to be exempt from labor on the Sabbath and to have kosher meals. It is also usually mentioned (and truthfully so) that the Jews referred to the Emperor as the “King of Jerusalem” because of their affection for him. This was one of the many titles claimed by the Austrian Emperor, though also by the heir of the Two-Sicilies, the King of Spain and the King of Italy. I would certainly never object to Emperor Francis Joseph being praised for his kindness (I have a soft spot for him as well) but the fact remains that the same books which credit him for his broad-minded attitude toward the Jews neglect to mention that there was not religious freedom for the Jews, or any other group, until Emperor Joseph II made it so (which I cannot imagine the Holy See being very happy about at the time). For myself, I have observed that granting religious freedom does not always work out well but it seems unfair to credit later monarchs for upholding the policy while criticizing the one who enacted it in the first place. All credit where credit is due.

In similar fashion I have seen Francis Joseph I credited for his humility, displayed by sleeping on an army cot and preferring to wear a uniform as his usual attire. Yet, Emperor Joseph II also normally wore an army uniform rather than an elaborate civilian costume and, despite his often disagreeable personality, was known for opening up the parks to the entire public rather than just the aristocracy who complained somewhat over having to share their afternoon walks with peasants. The Emperor famously remarked that if he insisted on associating only with those of equal rank to himself, as Emperor, he would have to spend all his time in the imperial crypt. There are also numerous stories of Joseph II and his comical interactions with commoners who he would pick up in his carriage and give a ride to, revealing his lofty identity only well into the trip. On one such occasion he picked up a peasant who, after traveling for a little while, sought to pass the time by asking the Emperor to guess his occupation. They played that little game and then Joseph II asked the man to guess his occupation. The man looked him over and guessed he was a soldier. The Emperor said no, but that he did have a connection with the army. He asked if he was a government worker and the Emperor said no, but that he did have a connection with the government. After several wrong guesses the man asked in exasperation, “Well, who are you then, the Emperor?!” to which Joseph II responded in the affirmative. The man was horrified, dropped to his knees and begged to be let out of the carriage but the Emperor persuaded him to stay, saying that each then knew who the other was and they could continue on just as friendly as they had been when they first met.

The objectionable aspect of Joseph II was, of course, his religious policies and there is no denying the fact that they were disastrous. Some, today, might not find them so outrageous but many did at the time and I certainly consider them outrageous myself. This is an explanation and not a defense by any means. He expelled the Jesuits (a very fashionable thing to do at the time), closed down many convents and monasteries, reallocated Church lands, suppressed many popular devotions, processions and such things and determined to make the Church subservient to the state. This was rather standard procedure in Protestant countries but in Catholic countries it was an entirely different story as it invariably brought about a question of whether the loyalty of clerics belonged to the Pope in Rome or to their monarch. It was, perhaps, because of the very loyal image of the House of Hapsburg toward the Catholic Church that the actions of Joseph II stand out more than they might otherwise. His attitude toward the Church was certainly considerably different from his extremely pious and devout mother Empress Maria Theresa. In fact, it led to some tension between the two when Francis I died and Joseph II succeeded him as Holy Roman Emperor. For instance, when Joseph II expelled the Jesuits from all his lands, his mother was quick to give them refuge on her own properties. However, the actions of Joseph II should be kept in context and the reasons behind his atrocious religious policies should at least be understood.

Some have tried to compare Joseph II to one of the previous Holy Roman Emperors, the “Wonder of the World” Frederick II of the House of Hohenstaufen. This is, all in all, rather unfair. Whereas Frederick II truly seemed to be something of a skeptic, keeping his own harem, incurring excommunication and at times being openly at war with the Pope and once so arousing the Roman nobles against him that the Pope was driven out of Rome. He also tried to gather a council to depose the Pontiff. Joseph II, on the other hand, had no desire to conquer Italy, never went to war against the Pope or sought to have him removed and, despite his occasional skeptical comments, heard mass every morning of every day of his life. To say he was a better Catholic than Frederick II is, of course, not saying much but it at least shows that his problems with the Church certainly did not rise to the level of Frederick II or even a number of his other predecessors on the imperial throne. His own Hapsburg ancestor Charles V, known as a champion of Catholic Europe, fought against the Pope and his troops (quite without imperial knowledge or approval) devastated Rome itself on a level more gruesome than any of the barbarians of ancient times had ever done. Things were, of course, different in the times when Popes were political figures and engaged in wars and alliances with and against various powers, usually shifting between Catholic France and Catholic Austria for fear of either one becoming too powerful and thus threatening Papal Rome. The actions of Joseph II could more justly be compared to those of King Louis XIV of France who also was at odds with the Pope over his effort to bring the Catholic Church in France under royal control. Where Joseph II differed from the “Sun King” was in the conduct of his personal life. In that regard, Joseph II was as far from the amorous, philandering Bourbon king as the east is from the west.

It is also true, as was the case more often than one would think, that the Emperor got some of his first encouragement in asserting state control over the Church from a high-ranking cleric, the Auxiliary Bishop of Trier from whom the term “Febronianism” is derived, due to his pen-name. The intent of his work was to deny that the papacy is a monarchy (which most Catholics today seem to do anyway) in an effort to bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church by uniting around the secular monarch at the head of the state. As it happens, the actual Prince-Archbishop Elector of Trier (and the last) was a cousin of Joseph II. The Prince-Archbishop himself did not agree with everything the Emperor did but also himself suppressed certain traditional practices. The point behind everything he did, which justifies nothing but helps to understand why he did it, was “reason”. These religious policies, despicable as they were, and I think they were, did not, in my opinion, originate in any malice on the part of Joseph II. He wanted the Church to be practical and “reasonable” and he also wanted to centralize everything under his own control, in secular and spiritual matters. That was why he wanted all the bishops to take an oath of allegiance to him as Emperor. Today this is commonplace and expected but, at the time, it was very controversial for a bishop to swear allegiance to anyone other than the Pope. Even that was nothing new, but combined with government supervision of seminaries, the state deciding where tithe money would go and all the rest, it all served to infuriate the Catholic hierarchy against the Emperor.

Joseph II wanted things to be simple and practical. His closure of about a third of the monasteries and convents (not all of them) was because he saw no practical value in people living cloistered lives of contemplation. He closed churches but also built a great many of them (using the money from confiscated Church properties) so that parishes would be more evenly distributed throughout the empire rather than scattered about. So, we have the picture of a man who drastically cut down the number of holy days (since these reduced productivity by giving people so many days off work) but who also wanted all of his subjects to have to travel no more than about an hour to reach a church. This is why, as much as I oppose his religious policies, I cannot see him as having a malicious intent behind them in the way that the French Revolutionaries did later. Similarly, whereas they eventually invaded Rome and carried off the Pope as a prisoner, Pope Pius VI felt comfortable enough with Emperor Joseph II to leave Rome willingly to pay him a visit. The Emperor treated the Pontiff with all due respect and behaved in every way as a good Catholic should have toward him but, showing his famous single-mindedness and authoritarian nature, refused to change any of his policies after hearing the arguments of the Pope. An unfortunate thing to be sure, but two men meeting in a palace and stating their opposing cases is quite a far cry from troops besieging Castel Sant Angelo or someone standing barefoot in the snow for days on end. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, both before and after listing all the “problems” Joseph II had with the Church says that, “Joseph undertook his reforms with the best intentions”.

In the end, most of what he attempted ended up being more trouble than it was worth. As his contemporary and battlefield opponent Frederick the Great famously said, ‘he tries to take the second step before the first’. Despite the “Enlightenment” origins of many of his ideas, he was nonetheless and extremely ardent monarchial absolutist and was horrified by the growing French Revolution and determined to save his sister Marie Antoinette from their clutches, though he died too soon. His reforms created division and dissension rather than uniting the empire as he wished (or Austria at least) but many of his efforts would, I think, have been beneficial had they been fully carried out just as many others should never have been tried. People may have complained that his poor houses looked like army barracks but his court attracted some of the greatest artists and musicians in the world and he showed them sufficient favor to be known in artistic circles as the ‘musical Kaiser’. There was a great deal of cultural achievements alongside the drab government housing, there were some things he did that were entirely terrible and there were things he did or tried to do that would have been quite beneficial had they been carried out and continued. All of this is why I cannot give him unqualified praise but still cringe when he is harshly criticized and why he is one of those few monarchs who can appear on both my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time.

Mad Rant: Republican Media in Monarchy

The Commonwealth and, in particular, the United Kingdom, have been celebrating the historic milestone of the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, marking her 60 years on the British and Commonwealth thrones. A time for joy, celebrations, patriotism and national pride; right? Not for the liberal-biased media which has chosen to take time out of their coverage to give attention to the anti-monarchy republicans of the U.K. who, as devoted members of the “Cry Baby Brigade” have been pouting over all the happiness focused on Her Majesty and the monarchy. These treasonous scumbags are surely newsworthy considering that their republican pity parties have attracted hundreds of supporters -in a country of more than 62 million people. Oh they claim of course that there is a vast, silent majority that is sympathetic to their cause, but then one has to wonder why only a few hundred out of a population of tens of millions can bestir themselves to show up to voice their protest against this terrible injustice they claim to be suffering under. As we all know, the real reason is that it is all a bunch of bull cookies!

These people are scum. They are spoiled, stupid, treasonous scum. They live in a land of safety, stability and freedom, provided by the system of constitutional monarchy at the top of which is the Queen and then use the very freedom that system provides to spew their juvenile hatred against Her Majesty knowing full well that they don’t have to worry about being dragged off to the Tower for doing it. And they have the nerve, the temerity, the unmitigated gall to actually frame their silly little cry baby moaning in terms of the people “standing up for democracy all over the world”, meaning places like Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Places where people have had no voice whatsoever in their government, no freedom of speech or assembly and where governments have butchered people in the streets for opposing them. How dare they! How dare they compare themselves to people who have actually risked their lives and actually sacrificed their lives (whether you agree with them or not) for the cause they believe in. These members of the spoiled brat brigade in Britain risk nothing to moan and groan and complain about the very system that protects them and gives them the right to moan, groan and whine. And that INFURIATES me!

Everything these trashy whiners do infuriates me. They complain endlessly about how “offensive” they find the life of “privilege” that the Queen and the Royal Family enjoy. Well, exactly what “privileges” are these? I would really like to know. Is it the lavish residences, the horses, fancy cars? Because the royals would still have all of that too even if they were no longer recognized royalty. Unless they are to have all of their private property forcibly confiscated from them (in full communist style) then they would still just be wealthy private citizens. So, what are the “privileges” that they enjoy just by being royal? The Queen has no actual political power over anyone, no one can even be compelled to treat Her Majesty with respect. The royals cannot vote, they have no freedom of speech, no freedom of movement and no freedom of religion. They spend their entire lives carrying out services on behalf of their country, everything they do is scrutinized, they have little to no privacy, their every day is planned out weeks if not months in advance and when they are criticized they cannot even defend themselves. The Queen is also the only one in the country who is subject to double taxation. Exactly where are all these great “privileges” I keep hearing about? Is it the jewels and the crowns and that stuff? Can’t be, because those do not exactly belong to the Queen either. Technically they do but, of course, she could not decide to just take one of the crowns down to the local pawn shop, sell it and pocket the money can she? There are private citizens in the U.K. who are wealthier than the royals with none of the responsibility and a great deal more rights and freedom who do as they please, when they please with no one paying them the least bit of attention. Spare me the “life of privilege” argument!

Another one that really bugs me is the expense of the Diamond Jubilee celebrations at a time of “austerity” and economic crisis for Great Britain. Let me remind all of these “oppressed” republicans in the United Kingdom that right here in the good old republican United States of America, at our last Presidential inauguration, which was held at the height of the economic crisis, American taxpayers paid for a ceremony and celebrations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And these were hardly festivities that any person could enjoy considering that the tickets for standing room at the back of the mall (the cheap “seats”) were nearly $2,000 each and they went up drastically from there. Yet, any complaints that it was too expensive for a time of economic crisis were quickly hushed up because the inauguration of Barack Obama (peace be upon him) as the first Black President was an “historic moment” for the United States. Okay, well, a Diamond Jubilee is a pretty darn “historic moment” too I would say considering that in the hundreds of years the British monarchy has existed this is only the second time such a milestone has been achieved. I would, as an American citizen, willingly and cheerfully trade the cost of the British monarchy for the cost of our President, First Family and ex-Presidents any day of the week. Just let me know whiners.

And just why is the BBC wasting time talking to these losers who represent such a pitiful, spiteful minority of the population? Why can the Queen and the vast majority of loyal, patriotic people not have just this one occasion to enjoy without digging up the usual parade of republican traitors who use the freedom the Queen provides to demand her removal? The answer of course is that the BBC is a hopelessly biased liberal institution that cannot help but sympathize with these traitors. However, I may be wrong. The BBC can very easily prove me wrong. All they have to do is this: when covering the inauguration festivities of the new socialist President of France, spend an equal amount of time as in Britain talking to French royalists (representing all factions just to be fair) and allowing them to explain how the republic has ruined the glorious land of France and how much better it would be if there was again a King in Versailles instead of a President in the Élysée. When that happens, I will promptly issue a public apology to the BBC. Don’t worry, I’m not going to hold my breath or anything.

Someone, I am sure, will be saying, ‘yeah, well, what else is new’ or ‘doesn’t surprise you does it’ or ‘shouldn’t you be used to this sort of thing’ and all the rest. Well, no, I’m not surprised but I am no less infuriated just because I have come to expect it. I’m not used to it and I resent that I or anyone else should have to get used to it. Again, I challenge anyone to go to any republic in the world on some extremely historic, special, national celebration and find the media giving the same sort of coverage to monarchists. It doesn’t exist, it doesn’t happen and everyone knows it. These cretins have not a leg to stand on, in my book they are traitors pure and simple and so are their willing abettors at the BBC. I will never learn to accept it and as long as they continue doing it I will continue to be a very, very … Mad Monarchist.

Royal Images: The Queen of Diamonds

1952

1962

1972

1982

1992

2002

2012

Papal Profile: Pope Pius VIII

One of the lesser known pontiffs, Pope Pius VIII was born Francesco Saverio Castiglione on November 20, 1761 at Cingoli in the Marches, part of the Papal States. He came from an aristocratic family and joined the Church and was first ordained on December 17, 1785. This was during the reign of Pius VI when there were growing tensions between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire over the independence of the Church and not long before this was eclipsed by the even greater horror of the French Revolution. As an aristocratic cleric he had seen the very worst of the Revolutionary upheaval and had the strongest revulsion against it. In 1800 he became Bishop of Montalto but was removed to France after refusing to swear allegiance to Napoleon as Emperor. From that time on he would spend the rest of his life determined to defend the Christian world, or at least the Catholic Church, from this revolutionary threat that, despite the defeat of the Napoleonic armies, never really went away. While others optimistically thought that all the horrors of the French Revolution were safely packed away with Bonaparte on St Helena, Bishop Castiglione was having none of it.

As his career in the Church progressed Castiglione became a cardinal bishop, the Bishop of Frascati and a grand plenipotentiary. His career had been a fine one but seemed to be for the most part over when he was elected to the See of Peter on March 31, 1829. He was 67 years old and certainly not in robust health. In fact, he could barely get around and was in such constant pain throughout his short reign that he came off as rather cranky to most people. However, despite his infirmities he was dedicated to standing firm where it mattered most. Taking the name of Pope Pius VIII he called to mind his predecessors who had defied the forces of revolution even when it meant imprisonment and exile. As far as Pius VIII was concerned there was not a problem in the world that could not be traced to a few troublesome sources such as the Freemasons, the Italian Carbonari, Protestant missionaries (who were starting to make their presence felt in this period) and, most of all, religious indifferentism; the natural result of the skepticism that had emerged from the “Enlightenment” of the previous era.

If he could not personally destroy these threats to the Catholic Church, Pius VIII would at least do his very best to fend them off and minimize their effect. He was the Pontiff who (symbolically) stood on the battlements, flooded the moat and pulled up the drawbridge. He instituted reforms in the Papal States to try to keep revolutionaries out of his own patrimony and tried to protect Catholic youth from Protestantism by making it clear that the Church opposed “mixed marriages” and would reluctantly consent to them only if the children would be raised Catholic. Most controversially to modern ears he adamantly condemned the idea of freedom of religion. Today this sounds positively monstrous but, of course, we live in an age when most regard “truth” as something subjective and Pope Pius VIII regarded religious freedom as simply the broad and easy path to religious indifferentism. He also condemned the spreading influence of the secret societies which sought to undermine the Catholic Church and legitimate authority (monarchy).

However, Pope Pius VIII was also not a red reactionary who stuck his head in the sand. He opposed liberal tendencies in places like Ireland and Poland where Catholicism was still strong enough to withstand them, but came to the grudging accommodation on mixed marriages in Germany where it was clear that Protestantism was a fact of life that had to be dealt with and could no longer hope to be rolled back. When the July Revolution in France brought to the throne the “Citizen King” Louis Philippe who hoped to reconcile the monarchy with the fact that the French Revolution had happened and could not be undone, the Pope nonetheless allowed King Louis Philippe the traditional title of “His Most Christian Majesty” and signed a concordat between France and the Holy See. He was certainly not happy about the changes in France, but he accepted the realities that existed and tried to move forward from there. There were signs that this could work as only the year before he had been gratified to see the British government pass the Catholic Emancipation Act.

On November 30, 1830 the frail and suffering Pope Pius VIII passed away. Some suspected him of being poisoned but such a conspiracy seems difficult to believe given how long and severely ill the Pontiff had been long before his demise. There were not many great accomplishments during his reign, but for such a suffering Successor of St Peter it is remarkable enough that he was able to make such a determined defense of the Catholic Church. As one XIX Century papal biographer wrote, “Pius VIII died approved by all … because if he had done no good he had, at least, done no harm to anyone”. However, he had done good as much as he was able in standing firm on his principles and shielding his people from the dangers that surrounded on all sides.

MM Video: Emperador Maximiliano de Mexico

MM Video: Princes of Monaco in Art

Queen Elizabeth II: 60 Years on the Throne

It was on this day in 1953 that HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and her other realms and territories was formally crowned at Westminster Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Probably the most prominent royal figure in the world, the monarch who reigns over more diverse lands and peoples than any other, HM the Queen celebrates her diamond jubilee, an honor only previously achieved by Queen Victoria in the annals of British royal history, this year, succeeding her father to the throne in 1952. What can be said about HM the Queen that has not been said already? Even the most grandiose tribute would fail to truly convey what a remarkable sovereign she has been and continues to be. To be succinct, HM the Queen has, for the last 60 years, been an impeccable constitutional monarch for all of her people in every corner of the world without complaint, without wearying and with dignity, compassion, stoic strength, quiet faith and human warmth. She has simply been exemplary. No country in the world today could imagine, much less ask for, a more tirelessly devoted, sincerely committed, wise and experienced sovereign. Around the world, when it comes to true leadership and inspirational respect, the Queen has set the standard by which others are judged.

During her life, the Queen has seen the highest and lowest points in recent British history. She was born into the most dominant, beloved, envied and respected monarchy in the world. She saw her country bombed, faced with the threat of invasion and endure with calm, solid courage, doing her part along the way in what became known as the “finest hour” of British civilization. Born when the British Empire was at its peak in size and influence, in the decades after World War II she saw the British Empire exit the world stage and enter the history books, earning her first historic distinction as being the daughter of Britain’s last King-Emperor. During her reign the Britain of empire and naval supremacy was replaced by the Britain of the social welfare state. She saw her generation, the British people who ‘kept calm and carried on’ replaced by the generation of “swinging London”. The era of television, sexual revolution, the Cold War and the Common Market of decolonization, the Commonwealth, the internet and the “War on Terror” have all also been the era of Queen Elizabeth II. When one considers what a vastly different world exists today as compared to 1952 it becomes less a cliché and all the more real what a remarkable rock of stability the Queen has been in the past six decades.

Great Britain changed dramatically in her first few years on the throne and the world has changed a great deal since then. In 1952 Pakistan still recognized her as Queen, the Showa Emperor still reigned over Japan, the Vietnam conflict was a French problem (and the Prince Imperiale of Vietnam represented his country at her coronation), the British South Africa Company still held sway in what later became Rhodesia, Generalissimo Franco ruled Spain, The Netherlands still executed criminals, America and Japan were still “technically” at war, Egypt still had a king and Harry Truman was President of the United States. Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Great Britain. What a different world it was. The Queen would become the first reigning monarch to visit Australia and New Zealand and she saw the French actually consider joining the Commonwealth (what would Henry V or Edward III have thought of that?). The Queen was the first reigning monarch to personally open the Canadian Parliament in 1957 and in 1982 signed the Constitution Act making entirely independent of the United Kingdom. She also bid farewell to such African dominions as Rhodesia and South Africa over their refusal to embrace majority rule and end racial favoritism.

The Queen has been totally fearless in the fulfilling of her duty, shrugging off the possibility of assassination on visits from Ghana to Quebec. When a pathetic case fired six blanks at her while she was riding to the Trooping of the Colour in 1982, the Queen displayed her expertise as a horsewoman, bringing the animal quickly under control, keeping calm and carrying on with her duties. When everything was “swinging” in England in the 1960’s the Queen set an example of strong, traditional family values in true Victorian style. Yet, like Queen Victoria, her offspring did not always follow her upright and ’stiff upper lip’ example. In 1976, just to show there were no hard feelings, the Queen visited the United States to mark the bicentennial of the declaration of independence, even taking a spin on the dance floor with President Ford (I told you she was courageous). In the 1980’s she saw Argentina seize the Falkland Islands only to be quickly liberated by the British armed forces a short time later, her second son among them. Toward the end of the decade anything traditional was becoming unfashionable and the devoted, disciplined, dutiful Queen did not seem to have much in common with the growing “me” generation.

The next several years were not happy ones for the Queen or the Royal Family in general. 1992 was that infamous “horrible year” when the marriage of the Prince and Princess of Wales came apart in a strikingly undignified and all too public fashion and the Queen’s beloved Windsor Castle was devastated by fire. Still, the Queen never wavered in her own dignity, decorum and devotion to duty. In 1991 she became the first British monarch to address a joint session of the United States Congress but the bad news still outnumbered the good. The Duke and Duchess of York split up, the Princess Royal got a divorce, Germans threw eggs at the Queen while on a state visit and fickle public emotionalism forced the Queen into the ridiculous position of paying income tax. Ridiculous because, “officially”, she is paying it to herself. The monarchy was scrutinized and criticized like never before by a moody public that seemed impossible to please and which expected their royals to be both grand and common, glamorous and penny-pinching and to embody values they themselves largely dropped from their own lives. This over emotionalism boiled over at the end of the decade with the passing of the Lady Diana which resulted in Britons weeping in the streets, screaming for centuries of tradition to be tossed aside and, most selfishly, ridiculing the Queen for staying close to her grandsons who had just lost their mother rather than rushing to London to hold the hands of a mob weeping over a woman most of them knew only from tabloids.

Thankfully, to some extent at least, once the funeral of Diana was over, Britons tended to look back at their recent behavior and be rather ashamed of themselves. Most came to recognize that the Queen had done the right thing and had put the needs of her family before her own popularity. There was also a considerable time during this period when the U.K. (and much of the Commonwealth for that matter) went through a number of controversial prime ministers and extremely unpopular prime ministers. When the monarchy was at a rather low point, Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed to be the bright, young, golden boy of British politics. Yet, eventually the Blair idol was revealed to have clay feet. He was followed by the embarrassingly lackluster Gordon Brown and then a coalition government so little did any of the choices appeal to the majority of British people. After witnessing such a succession of corrupt, incompetent political leaders, more and more Britons were reminded of how fortunate they are to have the monarchy and how unspeakable horrible it would be to have someone like Blair, Brown, Cameron or Clegg as President.

In 1999 this issue was put to the people in a referendum in the Commonwealth of Australia. Naturally, the Queen would remain impartial, non-partisan and accede to the wishes of her Australian people even as they voted on whether or not she would remain Queen of Australia or be replaced by a presidential republic. Perhaps taking into account how many times politicians had disappointed them, compared to the Queen who has always remained spotless in her public image and devoted to her duty, Australians decided an unelected partisan hack would be no improvement over the constitutional monarchy and wisely voted to keep the Queen on the Australian throne. From their point of highest popularity (which was still not much) the republicans in Britain and the Commonwealth saw their support dwindle away as more and more people awoke to the fact that the Queen had never let them down whereas politicians almost invariably did. When it came to politicians, hopes would always be dashed, promises would doubtless be broken, statistics manipulated and so on but the Queen, for sixty years, has always been the one constant in the Anglo-sphere firmament. Through it all she has been reliable, ever present, ever serving, ever dutiful and truly impartial. The republican fringe has had to admit defeat, at least so long as the Queen reigns, because she has simply ‘never put a foot wrong’ and given them no weakness to exploit, no grounds on which they could possibly criticize her.

For sixty years Her Majesty the Queen has been rock of stability, a comforting light in stormy seas, a steady, guiding hand in tumultuous times and a spotless symbol of unchanging values in ever-changing times. The Queen personifies all that is best about the British and Commonwealth people and their shared history and heritage. Her story has been the story of her people just as the story of her ancestors have been the history of the English-speaking world. She has, for sixty years, perfectly fulfilled every requirement of a modern, constitutional monarch. The Queen is the brightest, most polished and most reliable aspect of the entire Westminster parliamentary legacy. The Queen is Great Britain. The Queen is Australia. The Queen is Canada. The Queen is New Zealand. The Queen is all her realms and territories. For sixty years she has given more of herself, with greater poise, nobility, graciousness, charity and selflessness than any other government figure of any country in the Anglo-sphere. And, she has kept an unblemished record while doing it. No amount of praise, no tribute could do her service justice. So, again, all that can really be said is that she has simply been exemplary. Congratulations to Her Majesty, congratulations to the House of Windsor and GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

MM Special Report: The Referendum in Italy

Today is the “birthday” of the Italian republic, marking the day in 1946 that the referendum was held which abolished the Savoy monarchy in favor of the current republic. It was such a grossly undemocratic charade of the order that only democratic republicans seem capable of producing. There remains a great deal of confusion and misinformation about this referendum which brought down the Kingdom of Italy and it deserves being closely examined. The first myth that should be exploded is the idea that the Allies, (of whom the ‘big three’ were Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union) were completely impartial in the question of whether the monarchy would be preserved or overthrown in favor of a republic. It goes without saying that the Soviets were opposed to the monarchy on principle and while they had no forces on the ground in Italy they were certainly supporting the communist partisans in the north of the country whose leaders took their marching orders from Moscow. U.S. General Maitland Wilson, who took over for Eisenhower in 1943, sided with the American political leaders who wanted an immediate abdication, however, President Roosevelt sided with British Prime Minister Churchill who favored keeping King Vittorio Emanuele III on the throne, so long as he made no trouble, for the time being in order to avoid political distractions when they still had to focus on defeating the Germans.

The Allies were certainly not impartial. British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden despised Crown Prince Umberto and Harold Macmillan, British Minister Resident in the Mediterranean, worked for two days to get the King to abdicate or retire and achieved, at the last minute, the ‘final and irrevocable’ surrender of royal authority. In that first action the Allies, despite their talk of neutrality, took the first step in tearing down the existing legal Italian government. From the very beginning the Allied Control Commission in Italy exhibited an anti-monarchy bias. When the King did abdicate, fuming over the large communist presence in the new government, the British Foreign Office even downplayed the danger of Italy becoming a communist dictatorship, believing it would still be closer to the west than to the Soviets! Most assumed that there would be some sort of vote after the war to determine the Italian form of government but there was no consensus over how this was to be done. King Umberto II favored a plebiscite of the whole people while the leftist enemies of the monarchy (the socialists and communists) wanted the leftist-dominated temporary government to vote on the issue. Clearly there would be some sort of vote but while the leftists were spreading every bit of anti-monarchy propaganda they could, even digging up stories fabricated by the Fascists and kept on file to use against the monarchy, the Allies “advised” King Umberto II not to engage in partisan politics any time he tried to encourage the case for keeping the monarchy.

In terms of who supported and who opposed the monarchy there remains some confusion to be cleared up. One misconception is that the Vatican was opposed to the monarchy and favored a Christian Democratic republic under Alcide De Gasperi who was a very popular man in the Vatican. However, this is simply not true. De Gasperi indeed had many friends in the Holy See but he kept mostly silent about the debate over the monarchy and most in the Vatican favored the monarchy. King Umberto II was very well regarded in the Holy See and the monarchy was seen as the only bulwark capable of keeping the revolutionary communists from gaining a foothold and taking over the country. Far from being in opposition, the Catholic Church actively encouraged people to support the monarchy and vote for the King. Another popular misconception is that the Crown and the Fascists were, and always had been, good friends. Quite the contrary, there was no place more opposed to the monarchy than those areas where support was strongest for the Italian Social Republic (Mussolini’s puppet state in the north) where the most diehard Fascists had migrated at the end of the war. The Fascists themselves launched a propaganda campaign against the monarchy, accusing it of betraying the nationalist movement from the time of unification to push a reactionary agenda on Italy.

So, when it came time for the referendum to be held, the communists, socialists and fascists had been spreading republican propaganda for some time while King Umberto II was largely prevented from making his own case. About all he could do was to travel around the country and meet as many people as possible in an effort to convince them that Italy would be better off under his guidance. Most of the mainstream politicians sat on the sidelines, fearful of being in the losing camp. No honest person could in any way call the referendum a fair expression of the wishes of the whole Italian people. The minister in charge of managing the elections was Giuseppe Romita, a socialist and an avowed republican! In addition to the referendum being held in the aftermath of a terrible war, with the country in ruins and still under Allied occupation, it was decided that this would also be a good time to let all women vote for the “first” time in Italian politics. Actually, Mussolini had given some women the vote in 1925 but based on past experience in other countries, most knew which way this new voting bloc would go. In addition to this, the South Tyrol and the Julian March were not allowed to vote at all as they were still under the rule of the United Nations as disputed territory. There were also still many thousands of Italian military personnel outside the country who were not allowed to vote and nowhere was support for the monarchy higher than amongst the armed forces. Similarly, there were still many Italians abroad in the former Italian colonies who were likewise denied the opportunity to vote (King Umberto II had hoped, in vain as it turned out, that the Allies would not confiscate Italian colonies gained prior to the Fascist era).

The vote was held from June 2-4 and the returns that came in were very telling. Most expected the more conservative south to be more pro-monarchy just as most expected the north, where the communists and fascists were concentrated, to be most republican, however, the resulting returns were extremely dubious. Starting in the south, the returns on June 2 favored the monarchy. By June 3 the returns were even more pro-monarchy and no doubt the republicans were beginning to get nervous. Even in the early hours of June 4 the returns favored the monarchy moving toward the north. However, all of a sudden, support for the monarchy seemed to stop completely and the returns became almost unanimously republican. Reports almost immediately surfaced from northern areas of monarchists being assaulted by communist gangs to prevent them from casting their votes for the King. Yet, immediately the government went to King Umberto II to report a victory for the republic, claiming that the votes from less than one day were more numerous than the monarchist majorities of the more than 2 days previous.

Obviously, King Umberto II had doubts about the process and refused to accept the results at first glance. There had been numerous disturbances after all, to such an extent that a special auxiliary security force had to be dispatched to maintain order at the polling stations. Sadly, not surprisingly, this force was organized and commanded by a republican. The very next day after the referendum, June 5, De Gasperi went to tell the King that the republic had won and to vacate the Quirinale to make room for the President who would soon take his place. Umberto II, however, refused to submit to this until all the votes had been properly counted. The republicans began to flaunt themselves almost immediately and in Naples a group of monarchists were shot down with machine guns when they tried to remove a defaced Italian tricolor from which the Savoy royal arms had been removed, killing 9 and injuring 150. On June 10 the Supreme Court ruled that the referendum had been a victory for the republicans. However, the actual final count was not to be completed until June 18 and King Umberto said he would await the results. The government refused to accept this, saying that the court ruling was sufficient even though the count was not final and ordered the King to immediately leave the country.

There were, of course, those who urged Umberto II to use any means necessary to oppose this obviously fraudulent referendum. With so much support for the monarchy in the south, it was proposed to send the King to Naples, raising his flag there and leading a separate regime, holding a last bastion of monarchy on the Italian peninsula with the ultimate goal of reuniting the country again. However, Umberto II, after witnessing the horrors of World War II, could not bring himself to take any action that would provoke a civil war. Already there had been monarchist demonstrations in Naples, Taranto and Rome that were bloodily suppressed by the republicans and quickly hushed up by the pro-republic press. King Umberto II stated his objections, refused to abdicate or recognize the clearly improper referendum and then peacefully left the country after which the republican authorities showed how shaky their hold on power was by their paranoid persecution of the Savoy Royal House. This was the shameful beginning of the Italian republic and the end of the Kingdom of Italy which had created the united nation in the first place. No honest observer could ever claim it was a free and fair exercise of the democratic process or a true reflection of the will of the Italian people. It was a blatant example of gross injustice from start to finish and the sooner it is repudiated and the lawful monarchy restored the better Italy will be.

Monarch Profile: The Taisho Emperor of Japan

His Imperial Highness Prince Yoshihito of Japan was born at the Aoyama Palace in Tokyo on August 31, 1879 to Their Majesties the Meiji Emperor and his consort Empress Shoken. He was not the firstborn son but, as his two older brothers died very young, Prince Yoshihito eventually became crown prince and heir-to-the-throne. Prince Yoshihito himself was often in frail health. As a newborn he came down with cerebral meningitis and, although he was able to recover, he was never extremely robust physically for the rest of his life. Until he was seven-years-old he was raised in the household of Prince Nakayama Tadayasu. In 1885 he was transferred to the Aoyama Detached Palace and started his formal education, studying the usual mixture of reading, writing and arithmetic but with added lessons on the Shinto religion, Japanese morality and the place of the Emperor and Imperial Family in society. In the afternoons he exercised by playing sports, however, his studies and activities were often interrupted by his recurring fevers. The following year he began to take his lessons with a select group of other students from a local school for the aristocracy to learn how to interact with others.

On August 31, 1887 Prince Yoshihito was formally declared heir-to-the-throne and Crown Prince of Japan with his formal investiture being held the following year on an auspicious date chosen by the court astrologers. He continued his education but was not a particularly remarkable student. Because of some of his later behavior some have exaggerated the disabilities of the Taisho Emperor to the point that he is portrayed as totally incompetent. This was definitely not the case for while he lagged behind in certain subjects he excelled at others. He had a remarkable gift for languages and was an adept horseman. Much of his difficulty doubtlessly originated in his poor health which did not allow him to devote the time to his studies that was necessary. He spent a great deal of time on the coast where the climate was deemed healthier for his fragile disposition. He was finally withdrawn from school and tutored privately after being placed in the care of Prince Takehito by the Emperor, with whom he would become close friends.

In 1898 the Crown Prince began attending sessions of the House of Peers in the National Diet to learn about politics and military and diplomatic affairs as part of his preparation for the throne. He hosted receptions for foreign diplomats and showed good conversational skills. French and Chinese officials were impressed that the Crown Prince could converse with them in their own languages. He became very interested in the western world and was fond of speaking French, sometimes speaking French and Japanese at the same time which the Emperor did not always find amusing. For a time he even sported a long, upturned moustache in the fashion of the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. Crown Prince Yoshihito also started undertaking official tours on behalf of the Emperor, visiting naval installations, factories, schools, temples and government offices; keeping an eye on how the rapid modernization of Japan was progressing on every level. Yet, there did seem to be something not quite “right” about the heir-to-the-throne and this worried the imperial court a great deal. So, when the time came for him to marry in 1900 care was taken to choose a bride of remarkable intelligence, bearing and speech.

A better choice would have hardly seemed possible and on May 10 the Crown Prince married the 15-year-old daughter of Prince Kujo Michitaka, Kujo Sadako (later known as Empress Teimei) of the illustrious Fujiwara clan. She proved to be the ideal imperial wife, ever supportive of her husband and compensating for his deficiencies in a most delicate way. The two were a devoted couple and within a year of their wedding the first of their four sons were born, Prince Hirohito, the future Showa Emperor. When war approached with the Russian Empire, Crown Prince Yoshihito was appointed to the rank of colonel in the army and captain in the navy though, of course, he was denied actual service. Nonetheless, he took his military duties and the war very seriously and was constantly visiting the troops, inspecting installations and encouraging the wounded. After the war he took it upon himself to learn Korean (though he never became fluent at it) after making a tour of Korea and meeting the Korean Royal Family; his visit marking the first time that a Crown Prince had ever left Japanese soil.

Not long after, in 1912, the Meiji Emperor passed away and Crown Prince Yoshihito became Emperor of Japan. However, it was not quite the glorious occasion one usually associates with a royal succession. The mental health afflictions of the new Emperor had been increasing and he was beginning to display a growing number of physical handicaps as well. Again, some of his odd behavior has been rather exaggerated but, nonetheless, the Imperial Household was extremely worried about protecting the public image of the Emperor as well as his own health. As a result, the Taisho Emperor rarely appeared in public and, indeed, seldom ventured beyond the walls of the Imperial Palace. Within ten years of his enthronement he had ceased all official duties and Crown Prince Hirohito was appointed to carry out his obligations for him, being named Prince Regent in late 1921. He remained secluded from the outside world, carefully attended by his devoted Empress, and kept informed of national events by his son via carrier pigeons. After coming down with pneumonia the Taisho Emperor suffered a heart attack and passed away on December 25, 1926 at the Imperial Villa in Hayama at the age of only 47.