Self-Advertisement

9 out of 10 spooky Asian aunts prefer The Mad Monarchist

The Death of Hamilton

It was on this day in 1804 that U.S. Vice President Aaron Burr shot first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Oddly enough both men have some of the most monarchist connections of all the prominent Americans in the early history of the United States. This blog has remarked on the strange life of Aaron Burr who dreamed of making himself "King of Texas" or some such notion in this post. Alexander Hamilton was accused of being a closet-monarchist almost from the very begining. He earned few friends for defending the persecuted Tories (American loyalists) of the Revolutionary War and he often spoke admiringly of the British system of government. Some of his monarchism can be attributed to the efforts of his enemies to smear his reputation as he called for a more elitist republic, greater centralization of power and often condemned the radical revolutionary elements as being little better than anarchists. He also earned the wrath of some quarters by supporting renewed friendship with Britain and for his strident opposition to revolutionary France to the point of even becoming the defacto military leader of U.S. forces during the "Quasi-War" between the USA and the French revolutionary government. Hamilton himself, reportedly, did say that he considered some form of limited monarchy, with power shared among those worthy in his eyes to rule wisely, to be the ideal form of government. He was also unimpressed by the likes of Bacon, Newton and Locke who Thomas Jefferson adored and told Jefferson plainly that he considered Julius Caesar to be the greatest man who ever lived. Jefferson respected his abilities (once calling him a host unto himself) but was nonetheless Hamilton's greatest ideological enemy. He viewed Hamilton as the most prominent anti-republican among the Founding Fathers. However, keeping in mind that the Constitution that was finally produced and adopted was a compromise by all parties, it has often been said that while most U.S. citizens admire Jefferson's America we live in Hamilton's America; whether that is a good thing or not is still a matter of debate.

MM Video: Queen Mary I of England

President Obama Meets the Pope

President Obama, the guy the fawning U.S. media has said is "like God", has met with the Vicar of Christ, H.H. Pope Benedict XVI (last Christian absolute monarch in the world). In order to satisfy Obama the audience was held in the afternoon rather than in the morning as is traditional so that Obama could continue on quickly to Africa. Of course, no one knows exactly what was said between the President and the Pontiff but we have been told that the economic crisis, global warming, abortion and embryonic stem-cell research are on the agenda. I can't see the economic crisis causing much of a dust up, I'm sure there will be agreement on environmentalism (sigh, I guess you have to have something to agree on and the Prince of Wales has been beating the Al Gore drum again) but when it comes to the life issues the Pontifex Maximus might have done a little finger-wagging at the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of the Apostolic Palace for that exchange. I'm sure Obama assured the Pope he's in favor of making abortions less common (and that's what we all want to do with things like theft, rape, murder etc, just make them less common rather than stopping them -and that's sarcasm if you couldn't tell). The one good thing is the gift-giving formality of this meeting. Evidently Obama went to the experts this time and presented to Benedict XVI a 2nd class relic, the stole of St John Neumann donated from St Peter's Church at the saint's shrine. Say what you will, it is at least an improvement over DVD's, an Ipod of his speeches or junk from the White House gift shop. The Pope also reportedly gave Obama a letter to deliver to Catholic Senator Ted Kennedy, perhaps a warning from the Pontiff that the Senator needs to repent and confess -for the Kingdom of God may be soon at hand for Teddy.

Consort Profile: The Pearl Concubine

One of the most tragic (and sadly there are many) stories out of late Qing Imperial China is the story of the Imperial Consort Zhen, better known as the "Pearl Concubine". Born in 1876 to the Tatala clan, Zhen was the younger sister of Jin who was already a consort to Emperor GuangXu when Zhen herself was taken into the Forbidden City as a concubine. During this time the most powerful person in China was the Grand Empress Dowager Tsu-hsi or Cixi who at first welcomed the Pearl Concubine, impressed with her attitude and her many talents. She saw to it that the Pearl Concubine was indulged in her interests and brought in the best artists and musicians in the Chinese Empire to teach her. However, she quickly came to detest the young consort when she began to urge Emperor GuangXu to more or less be his own man and act independently of the powerful Dowager. Zhen also encouraged traditional anger against her by her interest in photography to the extent of even allowing foreign photographers inside the walls of the "Great Within" to take pictures.

The Pearl Concubine soon became known for her independence and non-traditional habits such as dressing in men's clothes and adopting certain western habits. All of this greatly angered Cixi as did her influence over Emperor GuangXu who seemed to be truly in love with her. When she supported the Emperor in attempting a military coup against the Empress-Dowager with reformist elements in the Qing army Cixi had the Pearl Concubine imprisoned. It was also during this time that the Boxer Rebellion broke out in China and the Empress-Dowager finally decided to support the Boxers in an effort to drive out the foreign elements in China in the hopes of solidifying Qing rule. However, this resulted in the "8 Nation Alliance" of 1900 and the invasion of China by a multi-national army. The troops marched to the relief of Peking where the foreign legation had been besieged by Boxer and Imperial Chinese forces for 55 days.

The Boxers were defeated and the Imperial Court was forced to flee the Forbidden City. Legend has it that Cixi took this opportunity to get rid of the troublesome Pearl Concubine and ordered her to kill herself. However, when she refused and even had the audacity to call for the Emperor to stay in Peking and deal with the foreign army himself the Empress-Dowager had her loyal eunuchs murder the Pearl Concubine by throwing her into a well behind the Ningxia Palace. Some have disputed the veracity of this story, but however it happened, the Pearl Concubine was killed and Cixi seemed to be the obvious guilty party. She was only 24 years old. Her older sister, whom the Emperor had never really favored, survived them all and even took the Empress-Dowager as her role model and remained a force to be reckoned with after the Qing abdication when the last Emperor of China still lived in the Forbidden City.

MM Video: Imperial Japan

Benevolent Despots Pay the Price

If the government of monarchy were ever to be totally annihilated from the world, its epitaph could quite honestly read, 'Killed by their own kindness'. History has shown, and modern politics continues to illustrate, that monarchs are most in danger when they attempt to bargain and come to an understanding with their enemies.

The reason for this is simple. Despite their many arguments to the contrary, any time republicans and monarchists have bargained, only the royal side is reasonable, only the monarchists concede items to move forward. Every time there is discussion, it is the monarchists who give and the republicans who take. It is not hard to realize that one cannot have a fair settlement with a group that is devoted to nothing less than your complete and total destruction.

In the case of America, consider the question: why did the American colonies revolt against King George III, rather than his predecessors? It is largely agreed I think that George III was the best of all of the Hanoverian kings. He was generous, upstanding, highly moral, devoutly religious, devoted to his country, interested in the actions of his government, and a totally "British" monarch. Especially when compared to the two previous Georges, the third seems positively saintly.

Add to this certain other facts: in years past, America had a very conservative and loyal reputation. During the English Civil War the colonies largely favored the side of King Charles, the man who restored their local governments. Additionally, America was home to many exiled Jacobites, fervent monarchists but people who had every reason to hate the House of Hanover, yet who remained almost universally loyal to King George III. Then, there is the fact that the American colonists of the time were blessed with more freedom and more prosperity than any other colonies and even the vast majority of people in Europe from France to Russia.

Considering all of this, it can only be reasoned that a major cause for the American Revolution was not the tyranny of the British monarch, but rather a lack of appreciation for his leniency. Americans were free to read, argue and discuss all varieties of subversive literature from the continent. They could openly spread revolutionary propaganda and argue their proposed revolution on the floors of the very colonial assemblies the past kings had been so good as to let them form. Had King George III truly been the tyrant they claimed he could have squashed the revolt in its infancy.

In France it is clear that the revolution broke out against a monarch who was the least of all his dynasty in deserving it. Had similar tactics been used against Louis XIV he would have crushed them without mercy and felt totally justified in doing so. Yet, Louis XVI was the first king in centuries to call the Estates-Generale and certainly the first to willingly agree to give up any of the absolute authority he had inherited. He agreed to work with the revolutionary leaders, make concessions to give up his own absolute power and build a limited monarchy, and ultimately he lost his head for all of his trouble.

Some monarchs were able to have a second chance. Prior to Italian unification the Roman Pontiff was also a temporal monarch, ruling the Papal States, which comprised a large part of central Italy. When Bl. Pope Pius IX ascended the throne of St. Peter none were as happy as the radical liberals. He freed prisoners held for revolutionary activity, established new liberties and gave the Papal States a constitution. However, none of this stopped the liberal elements from attacking the Pope and treating him as a common criminal when his little state stood between them and the total conquest of Italy.

Many people believed that after more than a thousand years the Catholic Church was finally at its end. However, intervention by the French and Austrian emperors restored Bl. Pius IX to his See, and henceforth the Pope would be in no mood to make accommodations with the Roman Republicans. From then on he became known as one of the most conservative and traditional popes in Church history, condemning modern trends and supporting the restoration of the monarchy in Mexico.

Progressing east we see the same pattern in Russia, though it is perhaps best illustrated by the Tsar Alexander II rather than by the tragic and pious Nicholas. More than any other Romanov, Alexander II was a true progressive and liberal in the best sense of the word, giving freedom while retaining tradition.

Known by his admirers as the 'Tsar Liberator' Alexander II was a zealous reformer who relaxed or abolished repressive laws, permitted various civil liberties that had been forbidden and, in spite of the financial ruin he knew it would cause, freed the serfs of Russia years before slavery was abolished in our own benevolent republic. Yet, what was the republican response to these innovations? Attempt, after attempt to assassinate him, ending ultimately in his gruesome regicide by a gang of bombers. Upon his death, Tsar Alexander III took this as a lesson that Russians did not deserve or could not handle personal freedom. After watching his father be blown to pieces by liberal elements, Alexander III believed that his father had been foolish in making concessions to these groups. During his reign the Romanov autocracy was fully restored, republican groups smashed and all desires for his own overthrow were firmly thwarted.

At the end of World War I, monarchs in Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany all agreed to most, if not all, of the demands of the revolutionary groups and yet in every case it was not enough to stop them from being overthrown, and in the case of the Romanovs, brutally murdered. We could compare the character of all of these monarchs but I think you can see the common trend. Suffice it to say that, of the three countries mentioned, one emperor has been canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church and another beatified by the Pope. Clearly, these men were not exactly ruthless tyrants.

The same facts remain true today. Most continental monarchies cannot make so strong an argument since their role in government has been so reduced as to be in many cases virtually non-existent. However, the United Kingdom stands out as an ideal example. Other than probably the monarchies of Monaco and Liechtenstein, the British monarchy has more authority and a larger role in government than any other. H.M. Queen Elizabeth II is not, or need not be simply a figure of historical or traditional significance, according to British law she is a necessary and important part of government. However, out of a sincere desire to reflect the wishes of her people she chooses not to exercise most of her constitutional power. Royal assent is still required for a bill to become law, but it is unthinkable that the Queen would ever refuse to sign something that the Commons had voted on. And yet, given this, how does the radical liberal faction repay Her Majesty? By using the very freedom and toleration the Queen has upheld and defended to advocate her removal and the dynastic rights of all of her descendants. Certainly, everyone agrees that the monarchy under Queen Elizabeth is safe, but as for the future King Charles III (or rather George VII) few are totally confident.

Even our own President John F. Kennedy (I believe) once said that, for most people, a kind king would be the ideal government. Yet, what encouragement have the (so-called) liberals given to the monarchs of the world to encourage them to be benevolent despots? Few leaders of Mexico cared for the people as much as did Emperor Maximilian, and he cared for them right up to the moment that they stood him before a firing squad. When Tsar Alexander II was killed it was because he had stepped out of his bulletproof coach to give aid to his driver, wounded in a previous bomb blast moments before. Given his fate, who can be too surprised at the attitude of his son and heir? For the monarchist cause to be successful, we must make a firm decision: to either demand fair and equal treatment with our republican opponents or simply cease trying to come to an agreement altogether if they cannot tolerate competition and give credit where credit is due for where they are today.

MM Video: The Mongols

Monarchist Profile: Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm

One of the last great royal soldiers of fortune was Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm.
It would be hard to imagine many other soldiers in the service of the Mexican Emperor having a more colorful career that Prince Felix zu Salm-Salm. Throughout his career he was to fight for the King of Prussia, the Emperor of Austria, the President of the United States and the Emperor of Mexico. He was born Felix Constantin Alexander Johann Nepomuk Prinz zu Salm-Salm at Schloss Anholt in Westphalia on December 25, 1828; the youngest son of Prince Florentin zu Salm-Salm. His first military service commenced on April 2, 1846 when he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Prussian cavalry, first with a Guards Kurassier regiment and then with the 11th Hussar regiment. He saw action for the first time during the Prussian-Danish War at the battle of Aarhuus on May 18, 1849. Although only an ordinance officer, Prince Felix took a handful of hussars and attacked a powerful troop of Danish dragoons on his own authority. This wild act of bravado left him wounded, a prisoner of the Danes and on the bad side of his superiors.

In 1854 Prince Felix left the Prussian army for the Austrian Imperial Army and fought in the Franco-Austrian War in 1859 in Italy. Afterwards, he made the mistake of running up huge gambling debts, a fault which the conservative Emperor Francis Joseph found particularly aggravating and he was dismissed from the army for conduct unbecoming an officer. While his father dealt with his debts Prince Felix decided to see what opportunities lay open in the New World and he sailed to the United States, arriving just in time for the outbreak of the Civil War. During the course of the war Prince Felix was to gain two very valuable things; a better reputation and a devoted wife. He met the German General Louis Blenker who gave him the rank of colonel and made him his chief of staff. He also fell in love with a beautiful and spirited redhead named Agnes LeClerq, the daughter of a Canadian colonel. The two married in secret on August 30, 1862 because her Puritan family did not approve of a Catholic wedding, but the new Princess Agnes was totally devoted to her husband and hated being apart from him.

The following month Prince Felix was given command of the 8th New York Infantry regiment, which he led into combat at the brutal battle of Anteitam, the bloodiest day in American history. Princess Agnes could not bear the situation and rode across the northern Virginia battlefields to join her husband, teaching herself to be a nurse to care for the wounded soldiers. Throughout the rest of the war she hardly left her husband's side and her zeal, courage and ingenuity eventually led to her being given the honorary rank of Captain in the Union army. Prince Felix, for his part, had more than enough opportunity to make up for his less than honorable reputation in Europe and by the end of the war he had been promoted to the rank of brevet brigadier general. When the war ended in 1865 he was briefly the commander of the North Georgia military district, but he had no taste for peacetime army life. He and his wife both dreamed of bigger things and Mexico seemed to be a place of great opportunity. With the war against the republicans under Benito Juarez there was a need for experienced military men, and with his princely German background they would have almost been assured a prominent place in the glamorous society around the Mexican Imperial Couple. Princess Agnes was at first against such a sudden move, but they set out for Mexico in the summer of 1866.

Prince Felix met Emperor Maximilian while on his way to Mexico City and the Emperor was impressed enough to give him the rank of colonel in the Imperial Mexican Army and make him his personal adjutant. By this time, most of the foreign units had gone back to Europe and it was comforting to Maximilian to have a German at his side to talk to. Prince Felix accompanied Emperor Maximilian to Queretaro where ensued the climactic siege which decided the fate of the Mexican Empire. Prince Felix proved his bravery on numerous occasions, leading forays against the republican lines that did considerable damage to the enemy considering the handful of men who took part. Nonetheless, Queretaro was ultimately doomed and Prince Felix was taken prisoner, held with the Emperor and his generals in the convent of Santa Brigida. Other than the Minister of War and Jose Luis Blasio, the Emperor's secretary, Prince Felix was the only non-general held in the convent. Later on, some would mistakenly think he had been a general in the Mexican army since he used a borrowed generals uniform to pose for a photograph.

When President Benito Juarez had Emperor Maximilian executed along with his top generals Miramon and Mejia, there was an international outcry against the Mexican republicans. Juarez defended his inhuman killing of the Emperor, but the backlash was enough to save the lives of other men, like Prince Felix, who had also been sentenced to death. The ruling was commuted to seven years in a Mexican military prison for the dashing German officer. Fortunately for Prince Felix, he had a wife like Agnes on his side. She braved Mexican bandits and Juaristas to go to the aid of her husband, pleaded with Juarez on his behalf and shook down almost every foreign ambassador in Mexico for money to bribe Mexican officials. Finally, the determination of Princess Agnes paid off and wishing to be rid of both of them the Mexican government changed his sentence to permanent exile from Mexico, which was happily accepted.

The couple headed for Europe where Prince Felix tried to rejoin the Austro-Hungarian Army but his unsavory reputation had not gone away during his adventures in the U.S. and Mexico. Instead, he once again joined the Prussian army in 1868 though with less rank than he held in America. He fought valiantly in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and died from wounds received at the battle of Gravelotte-St.Privat on August 18. Princess Agnes had continued her humanitarian work with the army alongside her husband as she had in America and was honored with the Prussian Medal of Honor. She died in 1912 in Germany. Prince Felix of Salm-Salm had served in four armies; Prussian, Austrian, American and Mexican; and had fought in five wars and was twice a prisoner of war. His story, as well as the equally colorful life of his wife, is proof that real life stories can sometimes be far more dramatic than any work of fiction.

Royal Guardians Profile: The Prince's Company of Carabiniers

As a protectorate of France Monaco does not have to maintain a large military force (though the police force is extremely large and professional) but the Monegasque military does exist. Of that force, roughly half consists of the "Compagnie des Carabiniers du Prince" or the Prince's Company of Carabiniers. It is this company of foot guards who are charged with the protection of the Sovereign Prince and the Princely Palace. It was formed in 1817 by HSH Prince Honore IV for the defense of the principality and today numbers about a hundred men. The enlisted men and non-commissioned officers are all native Monegasque though, for obvious reasons, the officers are almost always all French and usually veterans of considerable experience with the French army.

Over the years the Prince's Carabiniers have been less expected to actually defend their country but have had to expand their duties into other areas as necessities have arisen. They operate a small naval force to patrol the coasts of Monaco and are trained to respond to disaster situations and even for extreme emergencies in which the country would have to be evacuated. Of course, their primary duty is always the protection of the Sovereign Prince and 2 officers and 8 carabiniers are on guard around the Princely Palace at all times. They also have a rather diverse and expert military band for a small palace guard as they have been called on to perform at a variety of functions, military, social and religious. During the late 19th Century the Carabiniers also had a distinctly religious style about them. When the Papal States of the Church were conquered by the Italian nationalists former members of the Papal army were given shelter in Monaco and the Prince took them on as an additional military force with the Carabiniers. They were known as the "Papalins" and visitors to Fontvieille today can see a road named in their honor.

The Prince's Company of Carabiniers perform valuable service to the Prince and Principality of Monaco, serving in numerous ways and, it is worth pointing out, since the creation of the unit no Prince of Monaco has ever come to harm. They also provide a typically Monegasque color and style to official events and the changing of the guard every day at noon is always a subject of interest for tourists to the Principality. The Sovereign Prince is the commander-in-chief and over the years the Carabiniers have come to play an important ceremonial role in the enthronement of new princes and special occasions are usually marked with service medals being given by the Prince to his soldiers.

MM Video: Spanish Kings

New Blog: Mad for Monaco

For those interested in the history, monarchy and personalities of the Principality of Monaco I have (a couple days ago) started a new blog on the subject called "Mad for Monaco". It is a specialty blog dealing solely with Monaco and my primary blogging will remain right here. I just wanted some place to post my Monaco-related scribblings as the place I had done so in the past has been overrun with spammers lately and I don't know if there is much future in it. Added to that, my Geocities site on Monaco will soon be saying "Adieu" when Yahoo! shuts down the Geocities program so I wanted a place to save materials from that site and post new items as they come. So, if you are interested in or curious about the tiny Mediterranean monarchy go have a look at Mad for Monaco.

Royal Anthem Series XXVI: Austria-Hungary

The Empire of Austria came into being in 1804 as the primary successor state of the dissolved Holy Roman Empire. In 1867 the Kingdom of Hungary was given full autonomy and partner status with Austria under the Hapsburg Crown and the realm became known as the "Dual-Monarchy" of Austria-Hungary. It existed until 1918 when the defeat of Austria-Hungary in World War I brought about the break up of the Hapsburg dominions. The national anthem was written in 1797 in celebration of the birthday of the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II who later became Kaiser Franz I of Austria.

National Anthem of Austria-Hungary: Gott Erhalte Unser Kaiser

Monarch Profile: King George III

What better monarch to feature for a July 4th post than His Majesty King George III? He may be the only monarch in the history of the world to be vilified in the founding documents of another country. What is sadly, even criminally unjust, is that King George III was as far from being a cruel, despotic tyrant as any man could be. He was, in fact, an upright, generous man of simple tastes, extremely devoted to his family and could, with relatively little opposition I think, be considered the most able and admirable monarch of the Hanoverian dynasty of Britain. This monarch who came to be so hated in America was very popular in Britain, even beloved. He was the first king of the House of Hannover not to speak with a German accent, who considered himself truly "British" rather than a German who simply tolerated Britain for the brief periods he had to stay on the island. It can honestly be said that George III was the first truly British monarch to reign since the death of Queen Anne. What is more ironic, is that he was quite popular in the American colonies as well, the attachment to the Crown being the only thing which really prevented independence from being declared much sooner.

George William Frederick was born on June 4, 1738 in the same building coincidentally that was used by British and American leaders working together to form the first Allied Force Headquarters by General Dwight D. Eisenhower and where the invasions of North Africa and Western Europe were planned out by the two great English-speaking countries of the world in cooperation against Germany. George was the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and succeeded his grandfather King George II in 1760. One year later he married Princess Sophie Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a marriage which was happy and produced 15 children. Unlike those before him, George III was never unfaithful to his wife and had principles too strong to ever consider taking a mistress.

Once on the throne, King George III broke alot of new ground, but also in many ways returned Britain to a more traditional monarchy rather than the Parliamentary tyranny it had been since the fall of the House of Stuart. King George III was the first monarch to turn over the profits of the crown lands to the government in exchange for an allowance and started the tradition of royal patronage for charity, giving generously from his private finances to a number of causes. These were innovations, but George III also worked to make the British monarchy more traditional. Under previous rulers, the Crown had become mostly symbolic and totally dominated by Parliament; which itself was dominated by the Whigs since the Tories had been so associated with the House of Stuart. George III was determined to make Britain a truly constitutional monarchy again, with power held by commons, lords and the crown.

This trend, and the way George III was determined to choose his own ministers, was used by the American revolutionaries to portray the King as a tyrant, which is extremely unfair. Had it not been for the docile nature of previous monarchs, his actions would not have seemed unusual at all. He never over-stepped his powers, but simply chose to exercise them in the traditional way. This caused the Tories to again become a major political force for the first time since the overthrow of the House of Stuarts. George III was, if nothing, a man of principle and a man who took his responsibilities seriously. However, doing so did not always win him admiration. When the King granted religious tolerance to the Catholics of Canada, many Americans shouted that George III was becoming a "Papist" and would soon restore Catholicism and royal absolutism in the British Empire. Later, when the King refused to grant tolerance to the Catholics in Britain (not because of any prejudice but in obedience to his coronation oath) he was then ridiculed once again for being so harsh. While American revolutionaries attacked him for being a "tyrant" and refusing to respect their rights, they also condemned him for respecting the rights of the Indians in the mid-west whose lands he declared off-limits, but which the colonists were eager to claim for themselves.

The American Revolution was certainly the major event in the reign of King George III, and few others had such a firm grasp on the actual situation, before during and after the conflict as the king did. When an offer to the colonists which granted them full autonomy under the British Crown was spurned, George III was the most determined to fight on until victory was won, threatening to abdicate before he would ever accept the legitimacy of the United States. He was confident that if Britain allowed these 13 colonies to win in such a way would be to instantly invite rebellion in every other colony around the world and the British Empire would collapse. This is often pointed to in an effort to mock George III as being unjustly paranoid about an independent America. However, were it not for the horrific French Revolution and the resulting "rally effect" across the British community and the conservative backlash after the wars, things might have turned out as King George had predicted, though fortunately they did not.

However, considering how steadfastly George III had opposed American independence and the peace treaty which recognized the new nation, once it had happened he showed considerable grace in extending the hand of friendship toward his rebellious former subjects and saw to it that the United States remained a major trading partner of the British Empire. In spite of the fact that the fall of North's government which coincided with the victory of the United States brought about a new trend of reducing the role of the Crown in politics and going back to the tradition of the previous Hanoverians of being little more than figureheads, King George III displayed his brilliant statesmanship by again restoring to a more normal situation the rights and powers of the Crown in British government. The 1780's saw William Pitt the Younger attain and keep the post of Prime Minister mostly through the support of the King. Britain began to rebuild its pride after the American humiliation and an era of unprecedented power and prosperity opened for the British Empire.

King George III became a more relaxed man. His marriage to Queen Charlotte was very happy for both of them, with 15 children the succession was in no danger, and the King had time to do the things he enjoyed most such as dabbling in agriculture and spending time in the country. With the onset of the French Revolution, the King commented that he believed this upheaval was God's punishment on King Louis XVI for supporting the American revolutionaries. He also had typically Hanoverian problems with his son and heir, Prince Frederick, but the worst incident came in 1788 when George III suffered his first attack of the illness which was to eventually take away his sanity, and some time later, his life. He was given brutal treatment by doctors of the day, but was still able to pull out of his insanity for brief periods of relative normalcy, it being on one of these occasions that he stopped the passage of a regency bill.

The French Revolution though, brought on more trouble as it was only a matter of time before at least some traces of the republican disease crept into Britain, and there were several attempts made to assassinate George III. One attempt was made in 1800 while the King was at the theatre. After narrowly avoiding death, the King showed great courage by remaining calm and ordering the show to continue, at which point the crowd broke out singing "God Save the King". Eventually of course, his illness became too severe and with no signs of improvement and in 1812 he was declared unfit to rule and his son was made regent in his place. King George III lived out the rest of his life locked away from public view in Windsor Castle, with the Star of the Order of the Garter pinned to his robe as his only badge of rank. However, the British people honored their king for the care and leadership he had shown in the past. He had seen Great Britain through her most difficult trials as a 'United Kingdom' and always acted as an honest, upright and highly moral man, providing leadership through example as well as state policy.

It is criminal (there can be no other word to describe it) that the United States had to slander and defame King George III in order to justify their own rebellion. He was, in every respect, the picture of an ideal British monarch. His compassion and generosity are well known, his steadfast principles and upright moral character are second to none in the Hanoverian dynasty and his wise political leadership restored to Great Britain, for a time at least, her ancient and marvelous constitutional monarchy where power was actually shared by the lords, commons and crown rather than being held completely by an elite few on the commons' behalf. He certainly deserves a place of honor among the list of the truly great monarchs of the British isles.

Since Britain first at Heaven's command
Arose from out the Azure Main,
Did ever o'er this jarring Land
A monarch with more firmness reign?
Then to the Natal Day we sing,
Of George our sacred friend and King
-from a song by American loyalist in honor of George III's birthday in 1777

Consort Profile: Czarina Maria Feodorovna

The mother of the last Czar of Russia, Maria Feodorovna was born HRH Princess Dagmar of Denmark, daughter of King Christian IX and Louise of Hesse-Cassel in 1847. Among her royal relations was her brother King Frederick VIII of Denmark, her brother King George I of Greece and her nephew King George V of Great Britain. Her marriage into the Romanov dynasty was somewhat unprecedented as the Russians traditionally married German brides but the Teutonic ladies were less attractive in her time due to the rise of pan-Slavic nationalism which tended to view the Germans as their natural enemies. So it was that Czar Alexander II went north in search of a bride for his son and heir the Czarevich Nicholas. The choice he made was the petite Danish princess with deep eyes Dagmar. Betrothed in 1864 disaster struck the following year when Nicholas died of consumption, however, on his deathbed he urged his fiance to marry his brother Alexander and placed her hand in his. The next year, in Copenhagen, while looking at a picture album Alexander asked Dagmar to be his wife. She accepted and the couple were married that same year after Dagmar had converted to the Russian Orthodox faith and became Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna.

The two were a somewhat odd but perfect couple. Alexander was a large, strong, bear of a man while Maria (or Marie or Minnie as her family called her) was extremely small and delicate. However, she was extremely popular among the Russian people for her dedication in learning Russian and understanding the people. Whereas her husband was very blunt, casual and detested glittering social events and the like it was Marie who played the part of the perfect hostess, graceful, charming and refined. In 1881 Alexander II was killed in a bomb attack by revolutionaries and his son became Czar Alexander III and Marie his Czarina. Between the two of the them they made a close to perfect couple and they were quite devoted to each other. Unlike previous Czars, Alexander III never took a mistress and remained faithful to Marie as long as he lived. For her part, she stayed out of politics and focused on her husband and children.

The one exception to Marie's "no-meddling" policy was when it came to Germany which was a country she detested. Following the Prussian victory over Denmark in 1864 this was rather common among Danish consorts and the fact that Danish consorts were so widespread around the monarchies of Europe played no small part in explaining why the Germans came to complain so often of being surrounded by enemies. When Alexander and Marie's oldest son, the future Nicholas II, determined to marry a German princess, Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt, Marie was firmly opposed to it. For once Nicholas would not be dissuaded and sadly mother and daughter-in-law were never able to get along. Aside from Marie's dislike of Germans in general the two were simply very different personalities. Where Alix was shy and aloof, Marie was outgoing, warm and friendly. Whereas the ultra-religious Alix tried to avoid immoral people at court (quite a job) Marie knew how to go along to get along with everyone.

When Alexander III died and Nicholas II became Czar Marie was extremely supportive of her son, though the friction with Alexandra continued. She was absolutely heartbroken by the death of Alexander but had faith in her son and the future of Russia. It is worth noting that the Empress-Dowager was so popular that even the most rabid revolutionaries ruled out any attack on her. When the revolution finally broke out Marie went to the Crimea and was there when word first came that her son and his family had been massacred. For a woman who had already been through so much, it was too much to take and she refused to believe it. As long as she lived she remained convinced (perhaps as a mental-self defense) that her son and his family were alive and that they had escaped from Russia and were living secretly in some remote region.

Marie spent the rest of her life living in Copenhagen where she was very supportive of the Russian exile community. She died in 1928 and in 2005 an agreement was reached between Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Russian President Vladimir Putin for the remains of the famous Empress-Dowager to be moved to Russia and buried next to her beloved husband in the Peter and Paul Cathedral.

*Romanov fun fact: Alexander III liked to show off his strength by picking up Marie with one hand, her sister with the other, and lift them up to eye level, holding them at arm's length!

The Elizabeth Cross Instituted

The Times Online has a story about the recent institution by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, font of honours, of the Elizabeth Cross, named for the reigning monarch, to recognize those who have given their lives for Queen and Country on the battlefield. This decoration follows in the tradition of Queen Victoria who instituted the Victoria Cross during the Crimean War to recognize battlefield bravery regardless of rank and in the tradition of King George VI who instituted the George Cross to recognize civilian bravery during World War II. Famously, the original Victoria Crosses were made from the melted down bronze canon of the Russians captured in the Crimean War. Probably the most famous award of the George Cross was when the medal was bestowed on the entire population of the island fortress of Malta for their courage in the face of a continuous bombardment from Axis forces. The George Cross is still featured on the flag of Malta to this day. According to the story Queen Elizabeth II was very much involved in the institution of the medal that bears her name and most agree that it is entirely timely and fitting to have an award to recognize those who have given their lives in the service of their monarch around the world. God Save the Queen!

Happy Anniversary!

As The Cross of Laeken reports it is the Golden Wedding Anniversary of Their Majesties King Albert II and Queen Paola of the Belgians. Their 50 years of marriage have made them the most long-lasting married couple in Belgian royal history; though it certainly has not been without its rough patches. Nonetheless, they have been of great service to their country no doubt will continue to do so in the years to come. They have managed to maintain the tradition of the monarchy being the glue that binds all Belgians together just as they seem to have overcome their own problems and remained together as a comfortable and happy couple. The Mad Monarchist extends heartfelt congratulations to their Majesties on their 50th Anniversary.

Monarchist Profile: Bay Vien

One of the major figures in the State of Vietnam (the anti-communist, French-backed regime led by the former Emperor Bao Dai as Chief of State) was General Le Van Vien, better known as Bay Vien, the leader of the Binh Xuyen organization. The son of a Chinese father and Vietnamese mother, Bay Vien joined the Binh Xuyen gang when he was young and was hunted by the French for his opposition to colonial rule. When the Japanese occupied Vietnam during World War II and finally determined to overthrow the French and support independence for a unified "Empire of Viet Nam" they cooperated with a number of clandestine organizations, including the Binh Xuyen. In the turmoil that followed the Japanese surrender in 1945 Bay Vien and his forces clashed with the French again as the British Indian forces (who had arrived to disarm the Japanese in the south) began to restore the colonial regime to power. After forging some local alliances of his own Bay Vien became the most powerful figure in post-war Saigon.

The Communists, however, had declared their own government in the north and from the outset began to work to infiltrate and dominate the south where they had been kept out of power after the Japanese collapse thanks to the British. Bay Vien recognized the communists as the greater threat and when the State of Vietnam was formed under former Emperor Bao Dai, Bay Vien pledged his support for the regime in return for police power in Saigon and a monopoly over the major businesses in Cholon, the Chinese district. Bay Vien became a general in the National Army of Vietnam and pledged that if given the proper weapons he would "take care" of the communists. The French gave him the hardware and he did as he was promised, virtually eliminating the communist threat in Saigon.

In years since this arrangement has been portrayed as the picture of corruption between the French, Emperor Bao Dai and the Binh Xuyen which was seen as a Vietnamese-style mafia organization. Giving Bay Vien police power was described by not a few as a case of the fox guarding the hen house. However, even if the Binh Xuyen was comparable to the mafia the government agreement with them would have been little different from that carried out by the Roosevelt administration in the U.S. during World War II in New York. However, in reality, this was part of a larger policy by the former Emperor's government to maintain unity against the communist threat in a very fractured society by dealing with local groups, giving them official sanction and control over local affairs in return for their loyalty, usually some tribute to the Emperor, and assistance in fighting the communist threat. Similar agreements were made with the private armies of religious groups such as the Cao Dai, the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect and the central and south Catholics. Say what you will about Bay Vien, he did suppress the communists in his area and he was loyal to the Emperor to the very end.

This set-up changed following the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu and the appointment of the U.S.-backed former mandarin Ngo Dinh Diem as Premier. Diem was, with the best intentions, determined to more firmly unite the country by destroying the private militias and stamping out local autonomy. His first target was the closest at hand; the Binh Xuyen under Bay Vien and he moved against them in what became known as the "battle of Saigon". Bay Vien declared that Diem was trying to grab power and was betraying the Emperor and he vowed to resist and if possible depose Diem in the name of Bao Dai (the Emperor had summoned Diem to France when the trouble began but was ignored). Backing up Diem was American CIA Colonel Edward Lansdale who urged him to take his battle to the Binh Xuyen and the sizeable Corsican community in Saigon. In time Lansdale would also push Diem to deposing the Emperor as Chief of State. As fighting raged street to street the pro-US elements would cheer Diem's forces while the French elements cheered Bay Vien. However, with his primary support having left or leaving the country the odds were clearly stacked against Bay Vien and his forces were defeated.

Bay Vien was forced to flee the country and the victorious troops of Diem returned to the Gia Long Palace shouting their opposition to Emperor Bao Dai who was clearly next on the "hit list" though Diem himself had been a lifelong monarchist. The Binh Xuyen was smashed and retreated back to their jungle stronghold to continue the struggle secretly. Like many Diem made war against a sizeable number ended up making alliances of convenience with the Viet Cong -which they would not survive. Bay Vien flew to France where he lived in exile until his death in 1970.

Happy Canada Day!

Today is Canada Day, formerly Dominion Day (why do I, an unaffected foreigner far from that frosty land find it so hard to make the change?) which is the national Canadian holiday celebrating the day in 1867 that the British North America Act was passed creating the single, united Dominion of Canada that we all know today. From what I have heard and seen for myself in Canada one July 1, one of the important aspects of Dominion Day (oh, I mean Canada Day of course) which is forgotten amongst all the feasting, frivolity and fireworks; that is, of course (ta da!) the Monarchy! Much like other countries I suppose the whole history of the founding seems to be glossed over and in the case of Canada, perhaps it is not surprising, that the obsession with the United States was there from the start. Canadians had just watched the War Between the States, the bloodiest war in American history, and in fact Canada was almost embroiled in the conflict as well. Canadians wanted to come together as a single country within the British Empire to ensure that such a thing did not happen to them. It was also the recent horrors south of the border that made the Canadian Founding Fathers emphasize in their documents the importance of the Monarchy. They had also planned to name the country the Kingdom of Canada but changed it to Dominion of Canada for fear that the word "kingdom" would anger the staunchly republican United States still basking in the hyper-nationalist glow of their victory over the Confederacy. However, the Canadian founders were very clear that one important lesson the war in the States taught them was that an elected politician, a President, is a poor substitute for the unity and national solidarity that a monarch provides. In that, they have been proven correct by time. So, to all the loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada The Mad Monarchist extends a hearty Happy Canada Day/Fête du Canada!

Money and the Monarchy

Coming to you from the Mad Monarchist 'eastern compound' the news of the day, even on the far side of the Atlantic, is the report on the cost of the British monarchy to the taxpayers of the U.K. I wonder if this tired little ritual will ever get old? Not finding much to complain about with the fact that the average cost of the monarchy is about 69p a year the talking heads have instead focused on the royal travel expenses. I'm sure this can sound outrageous to British taxpayers in these tough economic times, but let me assure the loyal Brits that life under a republic would be no free ride either. In fact, they could expect prices to go up dramatically. Here in the land of the free and the home of the heavily taxed not only do we pay far more for our president and ex-presidents that the British do for their monarchy but we have travel expenses to cover at every level of government from county to state to national. As an example, city taxpayers in San Antonio recently had to foot the bill for some city officials to go to DC to witness the coronation -I'm sorry, the "inauguration" of President Barack Hussein Obama. Keep in mind that this was not an official function, they had no part to play in it, they were simply spectators like the hordes of other people who had to pay their own way, buy a place and sit for hours in the freezing cold mashed together like so many sardines to witness the historic occasion. The only difference was these city councilmen & women had someone else to pass the bill to. We also have to pay for state reps, senators and governors to go on "fact finding missions" (aka usually vacations) and for congressmen and senators and now we also have to pay for First Lady Michelle Obama to fly to Chicago for dinner or for the President & First Lady to fly to New York City for a "date night" of dinner and a broadway show. Now, given that, and keeping in mind that the Queen actually surrenders more money from her estates than she gets from the civil list, that the government must sign off on all travel and that the Queen actually gets taxed twice over; is there really that much for subjects of the monarchy to complain about? I think not. On average, all around the world, the statistics show that those living with a monarchy get a far better value and certainly more 'bang for their buck' than citizens of a republic. In fact, I would say that if the Queen were totally in charge of the economy herself, Britain would probably be in far better financial shape than it is now.