America and Japan, Who Wanted War?

It was last Saturday, December 8, 1941 that the United States and the Republic of China (or at least the leading faction claiming power) declared war on the Empire of Japan in reaction to the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The first questionable thing that should jump out to the public about that is that China, which had been engaged in hostilities with Japan for most of the last decade, was not at war with Japan already. Why do you suppose that was? We’ll get back to that in a moment, but the first, preliminary fact which must be addressed is whether or not this was a just action on the part of the United States. To even pose such a question will outrage not a few. The United States had just been attacked and had most of her Pacific fleet bombed to bits. However, I have often been challenged, as a monarchist, on the subject of World War II, specifically as it relates to the Empire of Japan as that was the last time that the United States went to war against a monarchy (and actually more than one of course, but few realize it).

The Showa Emperor

Two of the three main Axis powers in World War II were monarchies but since Mussolini so obviously dominated Italy, the King there is usually ignored, but in the case of Japan, U.S. propagandists early on singled out the Showa Emperor as the great villain, not because he was actually managing all policies in Japan, but mostly because the U.S. propagandists wished to highlight the Japanese monarchy as something backward, foreign and creepy. Since Japan was not a dictatorship like Germany, but was a constitutional monarchy with several changes in government leadership and prime ministers throughout this period, the Emperor was the only consistent figure that the U.S. could label as the “bad guy” comparable to Hitler and Mussolini (though later Prime Minister Tojo would be used to fit the bill). So the war with Japan has often been brought up to me as the challenge against monarchy that cannot be refuted because World War II was the “good war” and President Roosevelt was one of the greatest American presidents and so on and so forth.

In my book, FDR was one of the worst presidents in American history, partly because of the actions listed here. As for World War II being the “good war” I have no sweeping statement on the subject. Some people think no wars are ever “good” but I am not one of them. However, even World War II was not as clear-cut as some people think. The fight against Hitler meant an alliance with Joseph Stalin (who actually killed more people than Hitler did) and ended with half of Europe being consigned to slavery behind the Soviet “Iron Curtain”. Likewise, in the Far East, it meant the expansion of communism and gave rise to many brutal dictators and many bloody civil wars as well as ending with a nuclear attack that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Roosevelt could have made an argument for U.S. intervention in the war in Europe against Hitler. There were circumstances of course, but Hitler had conquered Poland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia and Greece so a case could be made that he was a menace to world peace and needed to be stopped. However, Japan was a completely different story.

President Roosevelt -his own cabinet didn't trust him

By that same point, the Empire of Japan had made no hostile moves against any neutral or Allied powers. Japanese forces were occupied in fighting the Chinese, as they had been for years, and even the fact that America, Britain and others were funneling money, weapons and even personnel to help the Chinese had not prompted Japan to take any action. Even China had not admitted that their “trouble” with Japan was an actual war, mostly because no one faction wanted to take the risk. The nationalists and the communists both hated each other as much if not more than the Japanese and when Japanese forces occupied Manchuria the republican government, so bitterly divided among itself, made no official effort to defend the region. In any event, from a legal standpoint, according to China as well as Japan, there was no “war” in the Far East at all. Japan had made no aggressive moves against anyone and even the “occupation” of French Indochina (actually only a few bases in Vietnam) was done with the permission of the French government in Vichy which the United States itself still recognized as the legal government of France. Hitler was attacking countries left, right and center but Japan certainly was not.

Roosevelt, however, did first involve himself in World War II in Europe but only around the spring and summer of 1941. The summer of 41 was of course when Hitler launched his invasion of the Soviet Union. President Roosevelt had been the first U.S. President to recognize the Soviet Union as a legitimate government by the way. FDR took such measures against Germany that he told the American Ambassador to France that conflict with Germany was “certain” and only waited for Hitler to cause some incident that FDR could point to in order to gain public support for the war. However, Hitler refused to bite and there was not much the President could do to “get at” Hitler directly. However, unlike Germany, Japan was an island nation that depended on resources and raw materials imported from abroad to survive. He could wage an economic war against Japan that would back them into a corner and force them to strike the first blow, allowing FDR to be “forced” to take the U.S. into the war against Germany as well as Japan.

What it was all about

In the summer of 1941 FDR enacted a number of anti-Japanese policies which he knew would force Japan to respond. It was a conflict he wanted and not the Japanese who knew full well that any war with the United States would be disastrous at best and most probably end in their defeat. The last thing Japan wanted to do was to fight the United States. Most historians have long agreed that the Japanese were increasingly desperate to negotiate some sort of settlement with the United States but we now know that Roosevelt and Secretary Hull refused to negotiate at all. Japan would offer compromises and concessions which the Roosevelt administration would counter with even more demands. When Japan decided that, after a certain point, war would be their only option, Roosevelt broke off the negotiations, hoping for that very calamity. His own Attorney General said that FDR told him he was hoping for some “incident” in the Pacific that would unite the American people in support of his administration and for going to war (a war he had promised to keep the U.S. out of when running for reelection, but, hey, Wilson had done the same thing in WW1).

There really should be nothing “new” or “controversial” about any of this. Admirers of FDR even praise him for doing this. There is really no room for debate on the point any more that the embargo FDR put on Japan, and he persuaded the British government and the Dutch government-in-exile to do the same, were intended to force Japan to either surrender their national sovereignty and control over their own affairs or to launch an attack on the United States or one of the Allied powers. All of this was undertaken against a country that had made no aggressive move against any foreign power aside from China who they were already fighting and had been for some time. FDR’s soon-to-be ally Joseph Stalin had invaded more foreign countries than Japan had, having occupied Mongolia, attacked Finland, conquered Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and who had joined Hitler in the partition of Poland. None of these facts are in dispute. FDR and members of his cabinet had long advocated the use of sanctions against Japan to thwart their progress and, it must be said, their economic competition with the United States for control of the vast markets of China.

There is no doubt at all that FDR intended to use economic measures to force Japan into an impossible position. There is no doubt that the administration knew that Japan was going to launch an attack and, since they had already broken the Japanese naval codes, there is no doubt that they knew Pearl Harbor would be a target. There is no doubt that Washington DC knew but failed to warn the commanders at Pearl Harbor that an attack was eminent on the morning of December 7, 1941 just as there is no doubt that the Japanese government, including the Emperor, intended for a declaration of war to be given at least half an hour before the attack was to take place. It was only due to a poor typist at the Japanese embassy that this did not happen, yet it was portrayed as a sneaky, underhanded, “surprise” attack by the FDR administration. I cannot stress enough that there is no disputing these facts. Even the BBC did a special documentary recounting how the “surprise attack” on Pearl Harbor was no surprise at all.

Unfortunately, very few people choose to point these facts out. Today it is largely the libertarians who are isolationist and against any intervention under any circumstances, that will even talk about these facts. Some also make the mistake of attributing it to FDR being an Anglophile. If only that were true! On the contrary, FDR made it perfectly clear that he considered the dismantling of the British Empire a top priority, second only to the defeat of the Axis. It seems to me that if FDR admired anyone that was fighting against Hitler at that time it was Joseph Stalin. FDR was always suspicious of British motives but never of Stalin, famously saying that Stalin was at least “not an imperialist”. By the time the war ended the British Empire was on the road to collapse while the Soviet Union was bigger and more powerful than ever, having been handed all of Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia. It should also be remembered that the entire foreign policy of Japan on the Asian mainland was motivated by anti-communism and their desire to protect themselves from communist expansion. I cannot say that I know for certain what the motivations of Roosevelt were in his intentionally provoking Japan into war. What is certain is that he did it. He wanted war, Japan did not. He could have made a compelling case for intervention in Europe against Germany but he could not have made such a case against Japan. Roosevelt is not an admirable figure, he was certainly not honest with the Japanese, nor was he honest with the British and he was not honest with the American people either.

The American troops who went to war on December 8, 1941 did so with courage, valor and righteous ideals. They sacrificed for their country, committed great deeds of heroism and won a hard fought victory. No one can ever, ever take that away from them. The same can be said for all of the British, Canadian, Australian, South African, Indian and other imperial and commonwealth troops who fought for their King and country. None of that is in dispute. Neither, however, is the unfortunate fact that their courage and heroism was matched by the callousness and duplicity of the Roosevelt administration, particularly in regards to the war against Japan which had not wanted war with America, which had enough trouble on hand already and refused to join the German invasion of Russia, which had not wanted to stop being allies with Britain for that matter but which was forced into a terrible conflict that ended with things being worse rather than better for the region as a whole as with Japan standing as the only country in the world (so far) to be subject to a nuclear attack. These things should be considered before holding on to grudges or making sweeping generalizations about the nations involved in World War II. Pleasant or not, facts are facts.

Favorite Royal Images: A Future Queen

HRH Princess Elizabeth of York,

who would one day be the most far-reigning Queen in the world

Monarchist Quote

"When life seems hard, the courageous do not lie down and accept defeat; instead, they are all the more determined to struggle for a better future."

-HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom & Commonwealth

Consort Profile: Queen Carlota Joaquina of Spain

Although a queen consort of Portugal, Carlota Joaquina of Spain is just as, if not more, well known in Latin America than in Portugal. That, interestingly enough, is not due so much to what she did but what she might have done. She was born Carlota Joaquina Teresa Caetana on April 25, 1775 in Aranjuez to the future King Carlos IV (younger brother of King Carlos III) and Maria Luisa of Parma (a granddaughter of King Louis XV of France). Raised in the typical fashion for her time and place, though no one ever thought much of her appearance, it was decided very early on that she would be married to the future King John VI of Portugal as part of an all-out marriage campaign to strengthen Hispano-Portuguese ties. How early an age was it? Well, she was born in 1775 and married in 1785 (May 8, so just after her tenth birthday). Lest anyone jump to horrid conclusions, rest assured the marriage was not consummated until January 9, 1790. Still, the little girl faced considerable opposition in Portugal where many feared that, by the marriage, Spain was setting up to dominate the country again and force them into a political union. Portuguese officials spent four days subjecting the ten-year-old girl to a battery of tests but she was very bright as well as energetic and passed them all.

Eventually the couple would have nine children but, at the time, it was not expected that John would ever succeed to the throne as he was the second son of Queen Maria I of Portugal and her husband (by then deceased) King Pedro III. However, when Prince Joseph, his older brother, died in 1788, John moved up in the ranks and was given the titles of Duke of Braganza and Prince of Brazil. Still, there were problems. The future King and Queen still did not attract a great deal of “celebrity” fanfare. Despite their many children, neither was extremely fond of the other. Few regarded John or Carlota as attractive people as each found the other deficient in about every way. John considered his wife to be lacking in intelligence and decorum and Carlota viewed her husband as boring, pious and overall dull. She was outspoken from the very beginning and not the sort to sit quietly in the background. At times, Queen Maria herself had to intervene to try to bring her exuberant daughter-in-law into line. John himself also faced considerable opposition at court from the “Enlightened” faction who had put their hopes in his elder brother but finally had to contend with John who was more traditional; more religious and committed to absolute monarchy as it was established.

The difficulties between John and Carlota were so widely whispered about, and their physical appearance held up to such ridicule, that when some of their last children were born people judged them too beautiful to have been fathered by John and assumed Carlota had found someone else for the job. It was nonsense of course though their marital relations were pretty much a matter of simple duty and after the birth of their ninth child they decided they had done enough to secure the succession for Portugal and lived apart thereafter. Ugly rumors were spread about her shockingly immoral behavior, which are not worth recounting, that she was plotting to take over the government, that she was an insatiable nymphomaniac and so on. Certainly she was no saint but the worst of such stories have not a shred of evidence to support them and were almost totally due to the fact that she was unpopular for simply being Spanish in most cases. There was no end to the rumors that Carlota was always scheming to do something terrible to the Portuguese Royal Family to enable Spain to take over the country. She certainly spoke up for the interests of Spain, which is hardly shocking, but most of the rumors were simply that and nothing more. In the end, of course, it was not Spain that proved to be the real threat but France. Under the dynamic leadership of Napoleon Bonaparte, French troops conquered Spain and soon Portugal as well, forcing the Royal Family to relocate to Brazil in 1807.

The change in location did nothing to change the ambition of Princess Carlota, who became Queen of Portugal in 1816. With Spain under French control, the vast Spanish empire in the Americas was left in an uncertain position, most still holding to their allegiance to the King Fernando VII rather than Jose Bonaparte but the King was rather missing in action most of the time. Some, of course, also sought to take advantage of the chaos in Spain to promote their own ideas for independence. Carlota thought she could play a part in this and so “Carlotism” became a new part of the political lexicon. Since the King was basically under house arrest in France, Carlota decided that she was the natural representative of “Free Spain” as we might say and tried to gain control of the Spanish colonies in America. Ultimately, this turned into an effort to make Carlota Queen of the Rio de la Plata (the viceroyalty which included what is now Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Argentina).

Portuguese-Brazilian forces did annex some territory in this region and Carlota had the support of some prominent local leaders such as the Argentine national hero General Manuel Belgrano, however, the powerful viceroys opposed such a change and the British were against the idea as well. It is understandable but also inviting to imagine what might have happened if so large an area of South America had become an independent monarchy still tied by blood to the Spanish Royal Family. There were plans, or at least rumors of plans, for Carlota to assemble an army and march on Buenos Aires and declare herself “Queen of La Plata” but, as we know, nothing finally came of the grand scheme due to a lack of support from the local elites and the opposition of foreign powers. As the Napoleonic Wars ended Carlota would have to content herself with being Queen consort of Portugal. When she returned with the King and the rest of the family in 1821 things in Portugal had changed dramatically and not for the better. Revolutionary ideas had taken root and were spreading unrest throughout the country. A liberal uprising resulted in the proclamation of the first Portuguese constitution which King John VI promised to support.

Queen Carlota was outraged by this and wanted a return to the traditional absolute monarchy. The King was not too fond of the changes himself but felt honor-bound to go through with it. All of the rumors about plots by the Queen to take power were finally realized when she joined with her son, Prince Miguel who was commander of the Portuguese army, to put her husband under house arrest. They hoped he would abdicate in favor of Miguel who would then return Portugal to the traditional sort of government. However, it was not to be as King John VI was aided by the British in regaining power and forcing his wife and son into exile, though the Queen was soon back. The two lived apart and more family divisions were to follow as their son Dom Pedro, who had remained in South America, was proclaimed Emperor of Brazil the next year in 1822.

The King was not pleased though the British finally persuaded him to accept the independence of Brazil in 1825. He died the following year, unattended by his wife as Queen Carlota was becoming increasingly paranoid and was convinced that the Freemasons had poisoned the King as part of the effort by the liberal revolutionaries to take power. When the King died Dom Pedro became King of Portugal but abdicated in favor of his daughter so as to remain in Brazil as Emperor. Queen Carlota might have been expected to act as regent for Queen Maria but was not, probably for fear that she would work to displace her. If that was the thinking, it did no good for her uncle and intended husband, Prince Miguel, was declared King of Portugal by the conservative faction before she arrived back in Europe, setting the stage for a civil war. But there would be no more political intrigues for Queen Carlota who died at Queluz Palace on January 7, 1830 at the age of 54 after a very controversial and colorful life.

MM Sunday Scripture

Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.

-Ecclesiastes 10:20

(Is it just me or does it sound like the Bible predicted "Twitter"?)

Royal News Roundup

The big news this week, as I am sure everyone has heard by now, is that HRH the Duchess of Cambridge is with child. Happy news to be sure and we send our sincere congratulations to the Duke and Duchess. Unfortunately, the Duchess has been suffering from especially severe morning sickness as a result and has had to have a stay in the hospital. We hope she feels better soon (and that this does not put her off having more children in the future). However, there was a disgraceful invasion of privacy that came in the form of a prank call to the hospital by some Australian radio personalities doing a very poor impersonation of HM the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales. The only time I heard tape of the call I kept picturing those atrocious puppets from “Spitting Image” in my mind -that bad. Yet, the hospital staff was taken in enough to give a full report on the Duchess to the chuckleheads in question. This, needless to say, greatly annoyed me and made me wonder how anyone could find this “funny” or think it an appropriate joke. This is the same Duchess of Cambridge who, not long ago, had topless photos of herself splashed all over the tabloids thanks to the invasive lenses of a particularly sleazy photographer. After that, one would think that people would try to be a bit more wary and respectful when it comes to the privacy of the Duchess. Evidently not.

But, as most know, the bad news did not end there. The nurse who answered the phone and transferred the call just turned up dead, apparently a suicide. Still find this funny chuckleheads? Surprisingly, the radio duo in question have not, as yet, been fired but they have taken a sort of leave of absence. Now, I am not saying they should be fired. I do think they should be sufficiently ashamed of themselves to quit. I don’t know how things work in Australia, but in America this would disqualify them for unemployment benefits (unless that has changed here too). It all displays a disgraceful lack of overall character on the part of our civilization. It reminds me in some ways of the recent anti-bullying campaigns. What a shame that traditionally disgraceful behavior is tolerated and even rewarded to the point that people have to take their own lives before society even notices there may be a problem. Perhaps something else was going on in the life of this nurse that had her close to the edge in the first place, but the tragedy serves to illustrate the “collateral damage” that the instigators of these pranks seldom take into account. Everyone thinks the royals are fair game (God knows why) but they don’t consider how their attacks on the royals might harm other innocent bystanders.

Perhaps this will result in greater respect for the privacy of others, perhaps not. However, just like the media distancing that followed the death of Lady Diana, it should shame society as a whole that a person has to lose their life just to get people to act like decent human beings toward one another. Now, of course, some have shown considerable anger toward the radio personalities and some are starting to say that a tragic situation should not be compounded by unpleasantness directed at them because of the suicide of this nurse, a married mother of two. Spare me. These two are not the victims in this story -not even close. Any consequences they suffer will only be because of events put into motion by their choices and their actions. The fact that they did not think it through perhaps does not take away their responsibility for their own behavior. Their privacy was not violated as “a joke”, their humiliation was not splattered all over the world and they have lost no loved ones. Obviously (it should be anyway) whatever consequences they do suffer should be in proportion to their behavior but they are in no way anywhere even close to being among the victims of this story. They will certainly get no sympathy from me. They deserve what they get. I hope the laughs were worth it.

Also, with the announcement of the pregnancy, there has been another round of chatter about the changes to the succession, specifically doing away with the ban on Roman Catholics (rarely mentioned) and the end of male preference (always mentioned). It is not surprising, it is not unexpected but it is alarming for a couple of reasons. First, I am rather saddened that there seems to be no organized voice anywhere (UK or commonwealths) making the case against such a change. I really have no problem with doing away with the ban on Catholics, as the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England it seems unnecessary to me and, let us be honest, it is not as though England is being overrun by Catholics these days or that most take religion very seriously. I am though very much against doing away with male preference, because it goes against the traditional view of marriage (that a woman joins the family of her husband and not the reverse) and because of the leveling mentality behind it. Where will it end? Such a change will not affect my support for the monarchy of course, but it is a little depressing that no one seems to support the traditional view anymore. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am rather alarmed at how such a dramatic change to centuries of tradition and the established constitutions of numerous countries around the world seems to be taking place with such ease. Is it really that easy or is it that the politicians carrying this out were betting all along that no one would care enough to make a fuss about the letter of the law being honored? From where I sit, it does not bode well…

Our Prayers for Japan

Early this morning (local time at least) an earthquake of magnitude 7.4 struck about 303 miles northeast of Tokyo. A tsunami warning was issued and a tsunami of one yard height was reported in the area of Miyagi (though buildings were swaying in Tokyo as well). Evacuations have been ordered. Hopefully this will not be as terrible as the last earthquake-tsunami that Japan has still not yet recovered from. Of course, our thoughts and prayers go out to the Japanese people at this sad occasion.
God bless Japan.
Long live the Emperor.

Story of Monarchy: Latin Jerusalem, Part III

...continued from Part II

Guy de Lusignan finally agreed that if he could retain the crown of Jerusalem during his lifetime he would pass it on to Isabella and Conrad after his death. King Richard, however, wanted no loose ends left behind before he returned to England and demanded a final decision. In 1192 the nobility elected Conrad as the one, true King of Jerusalem; however, he died only a few days later. Guy de Lusignan purchased the island of Cyprus from the Knights Templars and ended his days as master of that land which his descendants carrying on the line for some time. As for the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem he had once claimed, without the Holy City upon which it was founded, it slowly withered on the vine though the titled continued to be passed on for some time. King Henry I was elected in 1194 and following him was King Amalric II of Lusignan, brother of Guy, former constable of Jerusalem and fourth husband of Queen Isabella. When the Fourth Crusade, called by the mighty Pope Innocent III, diverted from the Holy Land to Constantinople, he was forced to make peace with the Muslims for five years, possible mostly because Saladin was having family problems to deal with.

Rather than his daughter the Jerusalem nobility elected the daughter of Isabella and Conrad of Montferrat as Queen Mary I of Jerusalem. King Philip Augustus of France was asked to provide a husband for her and his choice was John of Brienne, who was also regent of the Latin Empire in Constantinople and rather reluctant to take the job but finally did so after receiving considerable support from the pope in the hope of initiating another crusade. The resulting Fifth Crusade was launched against Egypt, as Innocent III had intended the fourth to be, but met with defeat and John was forced to return to Europe in the hope of obtaining more foreign assistance. He met Pope Honorius III, the kings of France and England but most significantly the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II of the powerful Hohenstaufen family. Frederick II was probably an atheist and no great friend of the Church, but he was a force to be reckoned with and was known as Stupor Mundi; the Amazement of the World. The Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights arranged a marriage with John between his daughter Yolanda and Emperor Frederick II.

After the two were married in 1225, Frederick demanded that John give up his kingly title and his new wife assumed the status of Yolanda or Queen Isabella II and he began calling himself King Frederick of Jerusalem as well. However, Frederick did not impress his devout Catholic subjects with his lifestyle nor did he seem to care much for the kingdom other than adding the glory of the title to his long list. It was not until he came under extreme pressure, after being excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX, and after the death of Isabella II, that he declared he was off to fulfill his duties and lead a crusade to retake Jerusalem. He landed in the Holy Land in 1228 but achieved no military glory. Claiming illness he decided to negotiate rather than fight and after making a deal with the Sultan of Egypt he entered the Holy City of Jerusalem and took the crown in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher though, significantly, without a religious, sacramental coronation. He then promptly named Balian of Ibelin regent and returned to Europe.

To most people in Christendom the whole expedition frankly stunk. Frederick had embarked on a crusade while being an excommunicate, to claim a crown that; following the death of his wife the Queen, he no longer had right to, made a deal with the Muslims and crowned himself without the Patriarch even being present. Later, Frederick sent Field Marshal Richard Filangieri to take over the regency of Jerusalem, but he met with little success and in 1243 the nobles finally declared they had had enough of the regency of the hated Emperor Frederick and declared that Conrad, his young son by Isabella II, should assume the throne. However, King Conrad II proved to be no great improvement. Queen Alix of Cyprus assumed the regency as the nearest relative of Isabella II and Conrad died an excommunicate after invading southern Italy only to be defeated by the Pope who then offered Sicily to the son of the King of England.

King St Louis IX of France

His son succeeded as Latin King Conrad III of Jerusalem, but by this time the kings of Jerusalem had ceased to play any role whatsoever in the Holy Land. After the death Alix in 1244 her son, Henry of Lusignan, the King of Cyprus, claimed the regency but it did not matter much as Muslim forces took the Holy City in September of the same year. The magnificent King St Louis IX of France attempted another crusade in 1250 through Egypt but met with defeat and although hopes held out for some time, Jerusalem was never to be regained by the forces of Catholic Christendom. By 1291 the last remaining Christian cities along the coast were captured by the Mamelukes and the last vestiges of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem were destroyed. The title continued to be fought over and passed around for some time, and at least as late as the reign of Pope St Pius V Rome held out hope of retaking the country but no Christian army was to set foot in the Holy City until World War I when British troops seized it from the Ottoman Turks. Today a number of royal families still claim the title of King of Jerusalem, though the King of Spain is the only reigning monarch to still maintain it on his list of titles.

Today, the Kingdom of Jerusalem is not very commonly remembered. The Crusades which gave it life tend to be portrayed, nowadays, as a shameful act of aggression on the part of Christians against a peaceful, Muslim population. There were undeniably atrocities on the part of both sides but it should not be forgotten that the Crusades were defensive wars meant to take back lands that were originally Christian and had been conquered by the Muslims coming up from the south out of Arabia. It was a remarkable feat of skill and endurance that during the Middle Ages the armies of Europe were able to travel such distances, sustain armies in inhospitable areas and survive despite being constantly surrounded and outnumbered by massive Muslim forces. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was also extremely tolerant for the time, officially Roman Catholic, but allowing various rites, Eastern Orthodox, Jew and Muslim to all live and practice their religion peacefully. The Crusader states were, in a way, the first effort of European colonization and the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem has often been called the purest example of feudalism in action. Its history also dispels a number of myths about the Christendom of the Middle Ages. There was religious tolerance, a very cosmopolitan atmosphere and it was not an aribtrary monarchy but a kingdom where the rule of law was supreme and where what power the king did have was balanced by the High Court as well as the Latin Patriarch who was the second most powerful figure in the country. Orders such as the Knights of St John, the Teutonic Knights and the Knights Templar also provided a greater decentralization of power as these were all independent organizations. It is also noteworthy that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was able to have a larger budget than most European governments of the time and this was possible almost exclusively because of customs duties (managed by Arabic bookkeepers) and caravan tolls rather than on heavy taxation of the populace.

Following the end of the British mandate in Palestine, the area which had once been the Kingdom of Jerusalem was restored to the Jewish nation and the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed in 1948. This was immediately followed by the Arab-Israeli War in which virtually every neighboring Muslim country joined forces to crush the new State of Israel. In a stunning victory the tiny Israeli Defense Force soundly defeated the combined might of the Arab nations and secured her independence. However, lasting peace has proven rare, even after Israel returned conquered lands and agreed to the land for peace program with the Muslim Palestinians of the country. Although Israel has ceded land they have received precious little peace in return and Muslim-Jew violence continues with many seeing no hope for an end. Over the years, because of this, there has been an exodus of Christians from the Holy Land, despite the heroic efforts of the Christian remnant there.

In light of the sad recent history of the Holy Land, it is particularly timely to give the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem a second look. During the era of the kingdom the world saw, however briefly, perhaps the only occasion in which Christian, Jew and Muslim lived together peacefully. We should also remember, and defend against those who would spread disinformation, that the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not an aggressive action but rather a defensive action taken in response to Muslim aggression. The Christians did not initiate the Crusades but rather they were an effort to defend Christian lands and to take the battle to the enemy. Although the Christians did not hold Jerusalem and its surroundings indefinitely; it is remarkable that they did for so long considered the distances involved from their bases of support in Europe as well as the vast Muslim forces arrayed against them. Many modern minds, a great deal of them propagandists, focus on the real or invented negative aspects of the Crusades and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. However, their arguments should be countered with the truth: that the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was founded in self defense, not aggression; that it was cosmopolitan and not xenophobic and that it was a kingdom of decentralized power, not one of royal absolutism. For all of these reasons the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem illustrates a great many things we would do well to emulate today.

　

Story of Monarchy: Latin Jerusalem, Part II

...continued from Part I

King Baldwin the Leper

In 1174 Amalric died and the throne passed to his son King Baldwin IV. He was a brave and upright young man of great intelligence but had been afflicted from childhood with leprosy, which led to his nickname of Baldwin the Leper or the Leper King. He was only 13 years old and brought his mother back to the court in Jerusalem previously denied her. The first year of his reign the fearsome Saladin threatened Aleppo but the young warrior king attacked Damascus to draw the Muslims away. Despite his physical condition, Baldwin IV led from the front with great courage and exceptional skill for one so young. In 1177, with his troops carrying the True Cross before them, Baldwin IV won a brilliant victory over a massive Muslim army under Saladin near the city of Ramleh. In fact, only the self sacrifice of his body guard prevented Saladin himself from being captured.

During the first year of his reign, Baldwin IV was acted for by Raymond the Younger of Tripoli who was regent. He made William of Tyre, who had tutored Baldwin IV as a boy and discovered his leprosy, regent and arranged the marriage of Princess Sibylla to William Longsword who died in 1177 but not before fathering a future heir to the throne. In 1180 Raymond attempted a coup in response to marriage negotiations concerning Sibylla and Hugh of Burgundy. He would have preferred a marriage to the family of Balian of Ibelin to whom he was closely allied. Neither the marriage nor the coup came to fruition but it prompted Baldwin IV to marry Sibylla to Guy of Lusignan who had powerful foreign connections. Nor was palace intrigue all the diseased young monarch had to worry about. In 1181 Sultan Saladin attacked again but again he was defeated near the Sea of Galilee at Belvoir castle. He then marched on Beirut but Baldwin IV was waiting for him and stopped the Muslim advance. Peace ensued for a time until it was broken by the troublesome Raynald of Chatillon. In 1183 Saladin besieged Kerak, the castle of Raynald of Chatillon. By this time the Leper King was so infirm he had to be carried with his army on a litter but still he forced Saladin to retreat. So long as Baldwin IV, who was a pious young man and an undeniably brilliant commander, lived it seemed Jerusalem was safe from the Muslim hordes but his leprosy only grew worse. Toward the end he was totally disabled, blind and tormented by the eating away of his flesh. The young monarch who had defeated the best general in the Islamic army as a diseased teenage boy finally died on March 16, 1185 not long after his beloved mother.

As per the wishes of the late monarch the throne passed to his nephew, the son of Princess Sibylla by her first husband as King Baldwin V. However, the child did not live to remain long on the throne. He was dead the very next year, officially due to lifelong poor health but amid persistent rumors of poisoning. Against the opposition of many nobles of the country the throne then passed to Sibylla who became Queen of Jerusalem. The problem, though, was not so much with her as with her rather dimwitted husband Guy of Lusignan. He had earlier been regent in the infirmity of the Leper King but lost the job due to his incompetence and indeed Baldwin IV had recognized his mistake in arranging the marriage and tried to undo it. By then it was too late though and in spite of the wishes of the court, the very first act of Queen Sibylla was to crown her husband Guy of Lusignan King of Jerusalem alongside her. She was nothing if not a loyal wife though the support of the infamous Raynald of Chatillon was probably most instrumental in Guy coming to power. Unfortunately, for the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, wearing the crown brought with it no greater ability and Guy of Lusignan was soundly defeated by Saladin in a Muslim invasion provoked by Chatillon. On July 4, 1187 at the Horns of Hattin the army of Jerusalem met with a devastating defeat at the hands of Saladin with Guy himself being taken prisoner.

The relic of the True Cross which the army of Jerusalem carried before it was also captured, causing many to believe the fight had been doomed and God had not approved of it as it had previously been believed that, much like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, no army could be defeated which bore the True Cross. In any event, the battle was a disaster for the Christians with most of the survivors being massacred by the victorious Muslim forces and it left Jerusalem vulnerable to Saladin and his massive army. He quickly laid siege to the Holy City which was defended by Queen Sibylla, the Patriarch Heraclius and Balian of Ibelin with a relative handful of soldiers. After a hopeless but heroic fight Jerusalem finally surrendered on October 2, 1187. Saladin released all those who could pay a ransom for their freedom, and there were desperate efforts by the Christians to raise money, but those who could not were sold into slavery. After such a disaster, many Christians attributed the stunning defeat to the hedonism that had become rather prevalent in the social life of the city in recent years and reasoned that God denied His protection to those who denied Him.

European Christendom was stunned and horrified by the news of these disasters and France and England both started the so-called Saladin tithe to raise money for a counter-attack and Pope Gregory VIII immediately called for the Third Crusade to retake the Holy City of Jerusalem for the Christian faith. The call was answered with probably greater fanfare than any other crusade as the three preeminent monarchs of Christendom, namely Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, King Philip Augustus of France and King Richard the Lionheart of England all took up the cross and marched their forces east. In what was left of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Queen Sibylla relocated to Tripoli and was rejoined by her husband who had been held prisoner in Damascus. Saladin, however, was not simply trying to be merciful. He knew that the succession had been in dispute and he knew that of all his enemies Guy of Lusignan was not the sharpest tack in the box and would be easier to defeat if he could maintain his role as king consort. He also received the city of Ascalon as ransom for the hapless king consort of Jerusalem. It would prove to be successful tactic.

Queen Sibylla and Guy of Lusignan reunited on the march to Tyre in 1189, by this time the only major city in the kingdom the Muslims did not control. However, the crusader in command of that city, Conrad of Montferrat, former brother-in-law of Queen Sybilla, was determined to uphold the last will and testament of King Baldwin the Leper who had ordered that, should anything befall Baldwin V, the throne was to remain vacant until the crowned heads of Christendom could choose a successor. This may seem like a recipe for disaster but given the lack of ability displayed by Guy of Lusignan and the fact that Sibylla was totally devoted to him, Baldwin the Leper likely felt he had few other options. The last thing he ever wanted was for the Kingdom of Jerusalem to fall into the hands of Guy of Lusignan. Waiting for the arrival of the knights from Europe though would not provide a quick fix.

Counting on ultimate victory, Guy de Lusignan took his remaining forces and besieged the city of Acre, during which campaign the bold Queen Sybilla died in an epidemic that swept the camp, along with her daughters. In addition to the personal tragedy it was also a political blow for Guy who lost his only legitimate claim to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem with the death of Sybilla. The throne then passed to Queen Isabella who was the daughter of King Amalric I and his second wife. Since the death of Baldwin IV there had been strong support for Queen Isabella, including Raymond of Tripoli and Balian of Ibelin, to succeed to the throne but it was only after the death of Sybilla that she was able to assume her place. However, Queen Isabella also had problems due to her marriage. Her husband was a man with no ambition, no warrior spirit and worst of all a supporter of Guy of Lusignan. In what seemed the best course of action to everyone the Papal Legate annulled the marriage and Queen Isabella married the more worthy Conrad of Montferrat, the closest living male relative of the late King Baldwin IV. Conrad thus became king consort of Jerusalem.


However, the troublesome Guy de Lusignan was still on the scene and still clinging to his title of King of Jerusalem. Having never been popular this would not have been much of a problem were it not for the fact that he was supported by his former overlord King Richard I of England who had just arrived with his crusader army. However, the French and the Austrians supported Conrad though it would take a great deal of argument and battlefield action before the status of the Jerusalem throne was settled; a throne, incidentally, none of them actually held at this point. The Third Crusade had lost a great deal of its steam before the first troops even arrived in the Holy Land. Emperor Frederick had drowned in a river in Turkey and the King of France gave up on the enterprise not long after. King Richard I alone pressed ahead with the hope of retaking Jerusalem, but despite many fierce battles fought against tremendous odds, he was unable to do so and had to settle for a stalemate with Saladin which would allow Christian pilgrims to visit the Holy City though it remained in Muslim hands. By this time, virtually all that remained of the once mighty Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem which had stretched from southern Turkey to Egypt was a narrow strip of land with a few coastal cities and those were saved only by the audacity of the King of England.

To be concluded in Part III ...

Story of Monarchy: Latin Jerusalem

The Kingdom of Jerusalem was the dream, prize and crown jewel of the Crusades. It existed from 1099 until 1291 though the Holy City of Jerusalem fell to the Muslims earlier in 1187. There were roughly 23 monarchs over Jerusalem in that time and the claims to the kingdom and the dream it represented continued for much longer. In fact, the claim nominally continues to this day as King Juan Carlos of Spain still includes among his long list of titles that of King of Jerusalem. Today it has become rather fashionable to emphasize the failures and shortcomings of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Crusades as a whole, but it should not be forgotten that there were many great, heroic and upright figures associated with that long lost kingdom and the vision of those who founded it still shines in the mind all these centuries later. For a time the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was a beacon of light; a cosmopolitan kingdom, a crossroads of the world, a hub of trade and a place where Christian, Jew and Muslim lived and worked side by side in peace.

Godfrey and Crusader leaders

The founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the crowning achievement of the Christian victory in the First Crusade, summoned by Pope Urban II when Muslim forces invaded and threatened to overrun the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. The retaking of the Holy City by Christian forces was an event which gave no indication of the tolerance to follow. After miraculously snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, the Crusaders stormed into the city and in their pent up rage carried out a massacre horrific by all accounts. However, not all the crusaders took part in this shameful act, one being Godfrey of Bouillon, a great knight, who was offered the throne of the newly proclaimed Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Godfrey, however, was a humble man and refused to, as he put it, wear a crown of gold where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. Rather than the title of king he was called the Advocate of the Holy Sepulcher and was installed into that office in a solemn ceremony in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Arnulf of Chocques was elected first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, thus fulfilling the balance in leadership between the lay and the clerical that existed in the Middle Ages throughout Christendom.

There was some doubt, at the outset, as to whether or not the Kingdom of Jerusalem would ever have a monarch at all; some wanted to see the establishment of a Christian theocracy under the guidance of the Pope, and whether or not the new country would be able to maintain its independence. That matter was settled when Godfrey of Bouillon marched out with the True Cross before him and defeated a Muslim army at Ascalon in August, securing the immediate independence of Jerusalem. The matter of government was firmly secured following the succession of Baldwin I, the brother of Godfrey, who took the title and was formally crowned Latin King of Jerusalem in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on Christmas day in 1100 by the Patriarch. Although he was not the man his brother was, and was far from perfect (many compared him to King Saul of Israel) King Baldwin I did expand the Kingdom of Jerusalem and won many battles against the Muslims. He also secured the support of the Italian city states, with their powerful navies, in controlling the coast in exchange for trade rights there. The County of Tripoli and the Principality of Edessa also became vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem under his reign.

King Baldwin I

King Baldwin I died while leading an attack on Egypt, which would be long sought as a possession, in 1118 and was succeeded by his cousin King Baldwin II who staved off a massive Muslim invasion and drove the Muslims out of Antioch after they had briefly conquered that principality. He also conquered Tyre, adding it to his possessions and his reign saw the creation of the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitallers. He also enacted laws to more plainly codify the government of the new kingdom. His fellows considered him a good Christian and an exceptional general, an opinion driven home by the fact that even his Muslim enemies had some respect for him.

The same could not be said, unfortunately, for his successors, at least in Muslim eyes, given their view of the status of women for the next monarch to reign over the Kingdom of Jerusalem was a woman; namely Queen Melisende, daughter of Baldwin II. She was very popular with the Church and the High Court (rather like a parliament) but she was challenged for power by her wealthy and militarily strong husband Fulk V of Anjou. Fulk, incidentally, was the father of Geoffrey Plantagenet from whom descended a long line of English kings. Given the nature of this old crusader it is not surprising that there was initially a power struggle between Fulk and his Queen, however, Jerusalem was not an arbitrary monarchy but rather was a nation of laws. The High Court had considerable power and if the monarch failed to obey the laws or fulfill their obligations he or she could legally be removed from power. Queen Melisende had right on her side, the law, as well as the bulk of the local nobility and the support of the Church while the authority of her husband rested on his own knights and newly arrived French forces. She finally managed to retake the reigns of power from her husband who died in a hunting accident in 1143.

Queen Melisende

One of the marks Queen Melisende left on the kingdom was her charitable support for the arts and the Church, which she richly embellished. Despite the official name of the country being the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, this referred mostly to religion as culturally the kingdom was very cosmopolitan. The court would have appeared more eastern than western and Byzantine etiquette and styles were the norm. Jewish and Muslim influences remained and even among the Christians there was great diversity between the Catholic and Orthodox as well as eastern rites within the Catholic Church alongside the Latin rite. However, as was always the case with the Kingdom of Jerusalem, trouble was on the horizon. Edessa was attacked by Muslim forces and appealed to the Queen for help. She sent what forces she could but it was to no avail and Edessa fell in 1144. This prompted Queen Melisende to appeal to the Pope, Eugene III, for help. The result was the calling of the Second Crusade to be led by King Louis VII of France (accompanied by his formidable wife Eleanor of Aquitaine) and Emperor Conrad III of Germany.

Unfortunately, the second crusade was not as glorious as the first and the crusader armies suffered considerably before reaching Jerusalem. Once there the focus soon fell on the city of Damascus. King Baldwin III, the son of Queen Melisende, favored attacking the city and the crusaders were easily persuaded. The siege ended in disaster and disunity and represented the failed last gasp of the Second Crusade. Baldwin III captured Ascalon in 1153 and his reign saw the greatest expansion of the territory of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Even the city of Cairo, Egypt was occupied for a time. However, there was also civil strife between Baldwin III and his mother the Queen. The High Court tried to avoid disaster by splitting the kingdom between the two of them, but Baldwin III wanted to rule before his time and rule all. He launched an invasion of the southern half of the kingdom held by his brother Amalric, loyal to their mother, and Manassas who the Queen had appointed Marshal of Jerusalem. In the end, Baldwin was successful in taking power, though the Church was able to arrange a peace in the family and Queen Melisende and Baldwin III were eventually reconciled.

King Amalric I

An alliance, of sorts, was secured in 1158 when the 28 year old King Baldwin III married the 13 year old niece of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel; Princess Theodora. However, the two never had any children and King Baldwin III died only a few years later in 1162. Queen Melisende died the previous year, living long enough at least to see her playboy son become a faithful husband and respected king, even earning the praise of his Muslim enemies. He was succeeded on the throne by his brother King Amalric I. It seemed that with his ascent of the throne the succession was better secured as Amalric had married Agnes of Courtenay in 1157 and the couple had three children, two of which survived childhood, Prince Baldwin and Princess Sibylla. Yet, the marriage also proved a stumbling block. The former Patriarch of Jerusalem had objected to the match on the grounds that they shared a great-great-grandfather and though they later married anyway the High Court objected to the succession of Amalric unless his marriage was annulled. He at last did so, the marriage was annulled, though the children remained legitimate and Amalric ascended the throne without Agnes as his Queen of Jerusalem.

Saladin, the formidable foe

In spite of these problems though, Amalric became one of the most accomplished kings of Jerusalem. He took advantage of the disorder in Egypt and managed to take Cairo on two occasions, once in 1167 and again in 1168, captured Alexandria for a time and made Egypt a protectorate of the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the rise to power of the formidable Sultan Saladin. Amalric had to rush back north to deal with a Muslim attack in Syria but later arranged an alliance with the Byzantines to take the fight back to Egypt. One of the most problematic figures in the Syrian campaign was a French knight named Raynald of Chatillon who had made an enemy of Emperor Manuel. Raynald was a rather unsavory character, once torturing the Latin Patriarch of Antioch to force him to finance one of his revenge expeditions and he would prove continuously troublesome for Jerusalem in the years to come.

To be continued in Part II...

Favorite Royal Images: A Future Emperor

HIH Prince Hisahito, future Emperor of Japan

and just a cute little guy too

Thanks and Updates

Just wanted to take a moment to thank all you regular readers, members, subscribers and occasional browsers. I do appreciate it and I hope you are finding something worthwhile around here. We're at over 500 members, over a million hits and recently the monthly visits have gone pretty steadily up from 70 to 80 to 90,000+ most recently. I appreciate everyone taking the time, though since I don't run ads on here it's not as though I am making any money whether a few people visit or a lot do, but I am glad to see the numbers keep growing. Thank you all. Additionally, if anyone is interested, the "walls" page has been updated recently (and will be again in the future) and, for those who have not noticed, I have turned the "flags" page to one devoted to my own very (very) amateur photography on the subject. Also, a little word of warning (some may like it, some may not) but tomorrow will be the first post in a three-part mini-series, as part of the Story of Monarchy series, dealing with the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. I hope all will find it interesting and thanks again for reading.

The Mad Monarchist

Mad Analysis: Mosley and the "Far-Right"

It was on this day in 1980 that the washed up would-be dictator of Britain, Sir Oswald Mosley, Bt. died at his home in northern France. I doubt many in the United Kingdom today think of Mosley, but it is significant that, when they do, they will describe Mosley as the leader of the British Union of Fascists (which he was) usually with the preface of “the far-right” which is about as untrue as one could possibly be. However, he was, and is still remembered today, as a “bad guy” and the bad guys are always of the “far-right” in the modern media. However, if one were to take an honest look at the background of Oswald Mosley and the things he advocated for throughout his life, one would see that, rather than “far-right”, there was very little right-wing about him at all, in any degree. Just consider some of his positions and ask yourself if a politician holding these same positions today would be more at home on the political right or the left. You be the judge. Here are some of the political positions of Oswald Mosley:

• Opposed the use of military force in Ireland (the Black and Tans).
• Was a member of the British socialist Fabian Society.
• Supported the nationalization of British industries.
• Opposed free trade and supported protectionism; high tariffs on imported goods.
• Supported more power for government, a government controlled economy in accordance with Keynesian economics (and those extra powers would not go to Parliament which he favored having less control over policy).
• Supported the creation of a unitary European super-state.
• Opposed large scale immigration to Great Britain from the Commonwealth.
• Quit the Conservative Party in favor of the Labour Party and was finally forced out of the Labour Party because his proposals were too radically socialist.
• Opposed pretty much every war that came along in his lifetime.
• Called the House of Lords an unworkable anachronism and wanted it abolished.

Now, I will freely admit that I would have opposed the actions of the Black and Tans in Ireland as well but it was a policy more popular with the right than the left at that time. Opposition to large-scale immigration is also something that, these days, neither the Tories or Labour really seem to oppose. So, on the whole, I do not see how anyone could look at the entirety of the career of Oswald Mosley and conclude that he was a “far-right” political figure. Oh, but wait! He was anti-Semitic! That means he was a racist and the racists are all on the right. Right? Well, today, in mainstream politics anyway, no one wants to say anything that is clearly anti-anyone but I can say that, from what I have seen, hostility to Israel seems to be much more prevalent on the left than on the right. Take from that what you will though, there may not be very strong opinions even among Jews on the subject of Israel since, in my country anyway, the right is the most vocal in their support of Israel but most Jews vote consistently in favor of the left. Yet, broadly speaking, everywhere I look today, it is the left that wants to determine things based on race and the right which wants to treat everyone the same regardless of race with no special penalties or benefits for anyone.

I am sure, because it has happened any time I say that people like Hitler or Mussolini (who may or not have been one thing or the other on the political spectrum) were at least products of the political left, that someone will say that I am being terribly unfair, I am completely wrong and being utterly offensive. Well, I am afraid I may not be offensive enough so let me throw in another firebomb; there are plenty of people in British political life today that I would consider far worse than Oswald Mosley and I would even prefer someone like Mosley over a number of people on the political scene today in Great Britain and some other Commonwealth countries. Why do I say that? Because, frankly, Mosley does not scare me as much as some other people do. Part of that is because of something I would fundamentally disagree with Mosley on.

A fundamental difference I would have with Mosley is that he believed in ideology (as described by Pat Buchanan) as a “political religion” and that his brand of fascism would solve all of the problems of British society. I do not believe that to be the case by any means. A country built simply on ideology will have very shallow roots and, in my opinion, would not last long. For myself, certainly in the case of the United Kingdom, the key, the foundation, the most important thing (outside religion -though they are, of course, linked) is the monarchy and the fact of the matter is that Mosley was not against the monarchy. If that position changed later in life for him, I don’t know for certain but I have never heard that it did. On the subject of “Loyalty to the Crown” Mosley wrote that, “Whatever is good in the past we both respect and venerate. This is why, throughout the policy of the movement, we respect and venerate the Crown. Here, at least, is an institution, worn smooth with the frictions of long ago; which in difficult experience has been proven effective and has averted from this Empire many a calamity. We believe that, under the same impartial dispensation, the greatest constitutional change in British history may yet be peacefully achieved”. He meant, by that, of course the conversion of Great Britain from a parliamentary democracy to a fascist state.

Because of the last line of that statement alone, I could never be an enthusiastic supporter of Mosley (in addition to opposing just about every economic policy he ever came up with or his infatuation with European unity) because, it seems to me at least, that his support for the monarchy was somewhat conditional. I think his way of looking at the monarchy was vastly different from my own. However, he was not opposed to it and even gave it some praise whereas there are some in the British government and on the political scene today that totally oppose it and make no secret of the fact that they would like to see it destroyed and in my view those people are far more dangerous than someone like Mosley ever could have been. After all, as was proven in Italy, no matter how bad things might become, as long as the monarch remains, there is always the ability, with the proper support, to get rid of someone like Mosley and reverse any disastrous policies he might implement. A country, any country, has to have something at its core that all else is built upon; one thing, no matter how seemingly nominal it might be, that everyone must be united in upholding. Ideologies will come and go, can cause varying degrees of harm or benefit, but as long as the monarchy remains there is always hope, there is always a chance, there is always another alternative.

Mosley may have had some frightening ideas but he never held any real political power. There are plenty in Great Britain and other Commonwealth realms today with ideas just as frightening and even more so who actually do. And if you are going to call Mosley and his comrades people of the “far-right” just consider that Mosley himself, in an interview with the American conservative William F. Buckley Jr. said, “…it’s all nonsense to believe that fascism was ever a conservative movement or a movement of the right…” His words, not mine.

MM Sunday Scripture

Shall even he that hateth right govern? And wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? And to princes, ye are ungodly?

-Job 34:17-18

(A great many people seem to think it "fit" today and, alas, a great many that "hateth right" do now govern all around the world)

Monarchist Music: Kimigayo

You can tell alot about a country from its national anthem and, for a monarchist, there are none better than those that are songs of tribute to the monarch. As such, one of my favorites is the national anthem of Japan (the oldest in the world, in terms of the lyrics at least) called Kimigayo or 'The Reign of the Emperor'. Like traditional Japan itself, it is simple, elegant, respectful and beautiful. Here is a video from a ball game featuring a Japanese high school girl singing the anthem with such talent that it gave me chills. I thought it was just gorgeous and had to share it. This girl has some serious talent. It is a million times more moving to me (a foreign devil) than any pop star screeching "The Star Spangled Banner". Watch, listen, and see if you agree:

Royal News Roundup

Starting, for a change, in the far north, Chris O’Neill, husband-to-be to HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden, has come under fire from Swedish papers over his business background. Why in the Swedish papers? Because American papers or anyone familiar with the New York City society circles O’Neill has been part of would consider this “news”. The company he works for maintains some false “fronts” in Delaware and the Cayman Islands to (sit down for this) avoid paying taxes. Shocking I know. They have also cleaned up quite well during the recent financial downturn by “selling short” and cashing in on bank failures. Again, to anyone familiar with O’Neill and his crowd, this is pretty much business as usual but in Sweden it is causing a minor fuss, sufficient to prompt a response from O’Neill’s lawyers and for him to drop his planned appearance with the Royal Family at the Nobel Prize ceremony. The response was basically that O’Neill nor his company has broken any laws, which of course is not the point for those egalitarians who think there should be a law against being wealthy in the first place. Meanwhile, HM King Carl XVI Gustaf attended the Scouts’ “Democracy Jamboree” (yawn) and the Queen visited a special exhibition on the christening of little Princess Estelle. And, across the border, the Crown Prince and Princess of Norway left Europe behind for a visit this week to Indonesia.

In Great Britain, HM the Queen met members of the Household Cavalry Regiment, all dressed for combat and armed to the teeth. In other news, HRH the Prince of Wales met with celebrity chef Jamie Oliver to show support for his school dinners campaign. Oliver called the heir to the throne a “hippy” for suggesting that every family should keep a pet pig which the Prince took with his usual good humor. Also this week, the Queen, Prince consort and Prince of Wales hosted a state visit by HH the Emir of Kuwait (whose country is still undergoing some unrest over election law changes). And, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visited, appropriately enough, Cambridge. With World AIDS Day coming up, Princes William and Harry have been working to continue the campaign of their late mother in removing the stigma of those afflicted with the disease and, down in sunny Monaco, HSH Princess Stephanie had been going non-stop throughout the week on a number of projects to raise awareness, spread prevention and raise money for charities that treat those with the disease. And, down in Spain, HM King Juan Carlos is recovering from hip-replacement surgery and on Sunday was given moral support from the rest of the Royal Family as HM Queen Sofia, TRH Prince Felipe, Princess Letizia, Princess Leonor and Princess Sofia all came to visit him. The Duke and Duchess of Palma also stopped by, despite the Duke’s continued legal troubles and bad press.

Over in the Middle East, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is extremely unhappy and calling for legal action about a very popular Turkish soap opera set in the Ottoman Empire during the time of the famous Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, the longest-reigning sultan in Turkish history. The show, called, “Magnificent Century” does not stop at the doors to the harem and leaves little to the imagination. The PM has basically complained that the show portrays Sultan Suleiman as an indulgent party animal rather than as a conqueror who spent most of his reign on the march and camping on the field of battle. The show attracts about 150 million viewers from across Turkey, the Balkans and the Middle East but conservative elements are calling for it to be banned because of scenes set in the harem (and we all know what went on there) but fans of the show are accusing the PM of “artistic tyranny”. Some also view it as a reaction to criticism and worry over the increasing role Turkey has been taking in the region lately. There has also been worry (mostly on the oil markets) over the King of Saudi Arabia who underwent surgery on his back ten days ago. However, Saudi Crown Prince Salman issued a statement Tuesday saying that the King was “well and in good health” and the following day the King himself appeared on television just to reassure everyone that he is okay.

In the Far East, HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand visited his royal project and a museum at the Chitralada Palace on Monday. The wheelchair-bound monarch inspected the dairy farm project at the palace, helping feed some of the cows, and then inspected the Royal Elephant Museum inside the compound. In the neighboring Kingdom of Malaysia, HM the Sultan of Johor, Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar, celebrated his fifty-fourth birthday last Thursday with a special tea party while over in Brunei, the Sultan hosted an official visit by President Truong Tan Sang of Vietnam and first lady Mai Thi Hanh on Tuesday. The visit featured the signing of a new agreement between the Monetary Authority of Brunei Darussalam and the State Bank of Vietnam over oil and gas ventures by Petroleum Brunei and Petrovietnam.