Happy Columbus Day

Today is Columbus Day and it seems that the more controversial and "politically incorrect" Columbus becomes the more I feel like supporting and defending the memory of the man. About the only zealous supporters of Columbus Day these days are the Italian-Americans who are none too happy when their most famous Genoese countryman is slandered. First, I should probably dismiss a few things right off. Yes, Columbus was not the first European to "discover" America. The Vikings were certainly in the New World long before and numerous other evidence suggests possible visits by others as well. However, Columbus' voyage was the one that mattered. It was his voyage that permanently put the Americas on the map, it was his voyage that started the exploration and colonization of the Americas. Others that preceded Columbus left hardly a trace but the voyage of Columbus changed the world.

Most outrageous, however, is the effort by many today to portray Columbus as some sort of genocidal villain who is responsible for the deaths of multitudes of Native American Indians. To say that is absurd is putting it lightly. It would be like blaming the first merchant to travel the Silk Road for the Black Death. It is also a slam against Spain's great Queen Isabella I who was very specific in her instructions that though she considered converting the Indians a major reason for the voyage she also said that they should be "treated as free people, for such they are". This also relates to another reason why Columbus is so hated by those on the radical, leftist fringe; he was a very religious man who was dispatched on his voyage by very religious monarchs. Spreading Christianity was part of his mission and there are those today who consider this a greater plague than the diseases brought along with them. Those people I really do not understand as, Christianity had and has its problems but no one is performing human sacrifices on top of pyramids anymore and one would think that would be considered a good thing.

Columbus should be given credit for his remarkable accomplishment and he should not be blamed for every ill that followed in his wake. No one intends to spread disease and although the Indians were at times treated bad, they were not treated as an "untouchable" class or we would not have the modern Latin American people, tha majority of which are descendants of Spanish and Indian ancestors. I also think it does people good, especially as they grow more powerful in the world, to look back at those Spaniards, Italians, English, French etc and say, because of these intrepid few, our countries exist today.

MM Video: Iturbide

A look at the first Mexican emperor

Belgian Royals at Papal Ceremony

Their Majesties King Albert II and Queen Paola of the Belgians met with HH Pope Benedict XVI in Rome on the occasion of the canonization of five new saints, one of which was St Damien of Molokai, a Belgian priest who served the afflicted people of the leper colony of Molokai island in the Kingdom of Hawaii, eventually contracting the disease himself, as expected, and passing away in 1889. For a country as relatively young (at least in its current form) as the Kingdom of Belgium the ties between the Belgian monarchy and the Holy See are very strong. During the Risorgimento in Italy many Belgians went to fight in defense of the Papal States with the Papal Zouaves. It was a Belgian, Msgr Xavier de Merode, whom Bl. Pope Pius IX appointed Minister of War to deal with that crisis. After the war the Belgian royal court sent the "prisoner of the Vatican" a very magnificent papal tiara (one of my favorites) to show that his authority remained untouched in the hearts of the faithful. King Albert I and King Leopold III were well known for their devout faith and the late King Baudouin was the last living knight of the Papal Supreme Order of Christ; then the highest papal honor possible given only to Catholic heads of state for certain actions or occasions by the Pope himself. King Albert II and Queen Paola previously attended a special mass in honor of St Damien before going to Rome for the formal canonization in St Peter's Basilica.

Consort Profile: Maria Theresa of Spain

One of the most well known yet over-shadowed consorts of royal history must be Maria Theresa of Spain, wife of the simultaneously marvelous and immoral King Louis XIV of France. She was born Infanta Maria Teresa of Spain at El Escorial to King Felipe IV in 1638 with the blood of many famous Spanish, Austrian, Italian and French royals in her veins. Her mother, Elizabeth of France, died when she was only 6 and though her father adored her she was often neglected by her stepmother. In 1660, after a long series of negotiations, she left Spain and her beloved father in tears to be married to King Louis XIV of France.

At first all was happiness and splendor between Maria Theresa and Louis. The public adored them both; the handsome glorious monarch and his beautiful, devoutly religious wife. However, Maria Theresa’s sweet tooth soon caused her to put on weight and though the king continued to do his marital duty every night he soon began enjoying a long succession of mistresses which greatly distressed the queen and she became more and more withdrawn, comforted by her faith and her collection of dwarves (her ladies in waiting being potential distractions for Louis). However, Maria Theresa was never vindictive and would easily forgive husband and mistresses alike when they sought it of her.

At court, Maria Theresa became very close to her aunt and mother-in-law Queen Anne who had largely been behind the match as a way to bring peace to her two countries of France and Spain. In November of 1661 she gave birth to a son and Spanish musicians played below her chamber to remind her of home though it did nothing to relieve her distress. Nonetheless, within a few months she was pregnant again. In time she would give Louis XIV six children though the King’s infidelities only increased over time. She finally seemed to accept this as a fact of life and stopped complaining, at least so openly about it. It also helped that Louis was always very kind to her, insisted that all treat her with the greatest respect and it was, unfortunately, hardly an unheard of thing. She tolerated Madame de Montespan and even became rather friendly with Madame de Maintenon who actually pushed Louis to give Maria Theresa more attention and for which the Queen was grateful.

Maria Theresa did act as regent on one occasion while Louis was at the front but most viewed her as rather unintelligent. This, however, was more probably due to her reserved and pious nature rather than any real lacking on her part. In 1683 a tumor was discovered under her arm and it quickly became problematic and extremely painful. Her health failed quickly and she finally found relief from her agony when she died on July 30, 1683. Louis XIV said of her death, “This is the first trouble which she has given me”. She was given a lavish funeral, fitting for a woman who had been such a faithful, dutiful and tolerant queen consort.

It should also be noted that Maria Theresa is (possibly) the Queen who actually said, “Let them eat cake” which is often attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. However, the actual quote was an innocent remark, taken out of context and referred to a simple sweet bread that the peasants usually had plenty of and it was that; not an elaborate frosted cake which would have been eaten by the nobility, to which the Queen referred.

Launch of French Restoration Effort

A TimesOnline article dated today states that the Duc d'Vendome, Jean d'Orleans, is launching a formal bid to restore the Kingdom of France. Aside from the murky issue of the succession, something about this prevents me from being as encouraged as I might be. This is largely because the launching of this restoration effort is tied to the release of a new book by the prince which is, essentially, a long interview on the subject of the French monarchy. I hope this is not simply some sort of publicity stunt designed to sell books and bring about momentary gain without a real care for the long-term success of a royalist movement and the restoration of the matchless Kingdom of France. That being said, putting that issue and the contested succession aside, it all sounds very good to me. According to the article the Prince states that the French Revolution was a mistake (I know, far too soft a word but...baby steps) and has called for a return to the traditional values and national culture of the era of the Bourbon monarchy. How exactly he plans to unite the deeply fractured French monarchists, to say nothing of bringing the republicans to their senses. Nonetheless, I am thrilled that the effort is being made, regardless of the reason, I am thrilled it is gaining at least some attention and any movement, however slight, toward a return to the ancien regime, is a move in the right direction.

Mad Rant: The Deification of Obama

Sorry to subject everyone to another rant so quickly but I could not let this pass. When first I heard I thought it must have been some sort of joke, but no, our secular American messiah, "The One" Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. What exactly has he done to earn this supposed honor no one can really say. He's been president for less than a year, the decision was made some time ago, he has not negotiated any treaties, he has not ended any wars nor has he brought any opposing factions together. This is the man who, when running for office threatened to invade Pakistan! He also promised to get the US out of Iraq (not done), win the war in Afghanistan (not done) close the prison at Guantanamo Bay (not done) but, perhaps they are going solely by his abandonment of eastern Europe to Russia, his kid-gloves approach to Iran, kissing up to brutal dictators in China, Venezuela and Central America and his shunning of the Dalai Lama.

It is, however, his lack of any accomplishments rather than simply stupid decisions which most confounds me about this. It is certainly not because I consider it unheard of that the Nobel Prize could be awarded to someone unjustly. For instance, when it comes to US Presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize I'm sure Obama would consider himself in good company. President Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) won it for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. For those who don't remember Teddy Roosevelt is the guy who came to fame as a leader in the Spanish-American War in which the US picked a fight with Spain and grabbed Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. He's the guy who built the "Great White Fleet", invented "big stick" diplomacy and was probably the leading war hawk in 1914 pushing for US intervention in World War I. The next presidential winner was Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) in 1919 for his leadership in bringing peace at the end of World War I. Just to refresh, Wilson was the guy who, before getting involved in WW1 to "make the world safe for democracy" invaded numerous Caribbean and Latin American countries and then helped engineer the post-war world which led only a couple decades later to World War II. The next US President to win the prize was Jimmy Carter (Democrat) who was the guy who sold the Shah of Iran down the river, allowed terrorists to gain control of an established country and sat back and did nothing while US citizens were held hostage in Tehran. Then there was Vice-President and Presidential pretender Al Gore who won the prize for a slide show which said the environment was going to kill us all if we did not all buy carbon credits and wind mills which he just happened to be heavily invested in and set to make millions from. Now we have President Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat, mmm, mmm, mmm) who has won for -what? Promising to be nicer to Muslims? Making friends with communist dictators? Again though, nothing should surprise anyone considering that the Nobel Peace Prize was once given to the open and avowed terrorist Yasser Arafat. Looking back on that list at least, the prize committee does seem to be remaining consistent. Nonetheless, I remain the digusted, the disgruntled and ... The Mad Monarchist.

Monarchist Profile: Jean-Nicolas Stofflet

Another hero of the counterrevolution in France, but also one whose career reveals some of the weaknesses of the movement, was Jean-Nicolas Stofflet. He was born in 1751 to the family of a simple miller and first entered the service of the King of France as a private in the Swiss Guard. Later he worked as a simple gamekeeper for the Comte de Colbert-Maulevrier. He was another of those simple, common men of great loyalty and spiritual strength who were the backbone of the counterrevolution.

When the uprising broke out in the Vendee Stofflet was quick to join and with his prior military experience quickly proved his worth serving under d'Elbee at Fontenay-le-Comte, Cholet and Saumur and emerged as a natural leader in the battles of Beaupreau, Laval and Antrain. His success in the field won him promotion to the rank of major general in the Catholic-Royalist Grand Army. Eventually, he became the deputy commander of the royalist forces and in 1794, with the death of Henri de la Rochjaquelein he became commander-in-chief of the Catholic and Royal Army.

However, the counterrevolutionary forces frequently suffered from a lack of unified command and this became a problem with growing disagreements between Stofflet at another famous general; Francois de Charette. After suffering a string of defeats at the hands of the revolutionary republican forces Stofflet was forced to surrender and signed the La Jaunaie treaty with the National Convention on May 2, 1795. However, as republican crimes continued Stofflet could not remain on the sidelines and by the end of the year he had taken up arms again as marechal-de-camp for the Count of Provence. Unfortunately, his forces were defeated and Stofflet was taken prisoner. A republican military show trial quickly sentenced him to death and he was executed by firing squad at Angers on February 23, 1796. His career had been at times glorious and at times troubled but he fought bravely on the side of right and fell bravely for his deeply held beliefs.

Prince of Bourbon-Parma to Marry

Like father like son, HRH Prince Carlos of Bourbon-Parma is set to wed the Dutch journalist Annemarie Cecilia Gaultherie van Weezel. The Prince is the son of the Duke of Parma and his ex-wife Princess Irene of the Netherlands. The family has said that the wedding will be held next year according to the Bourbon-Parma family. Hopefully this marriage by the Bourbon-Parma to a common Dutch lady will be more successful than the previous marriage between the Bourbon-Parma house and the Dutch Royal Family.

Spanish Royals in New Mexico

Prince Felipe and Princess Letizia of the Asturias were in Santa Fe, New Mexico on the 6th for the celebration of the 400th anniversary of the city of Santa Fe. The day before the royal couple were in Albuquerque at the Governor's mansion meeting with Bill Richardson and Margarita Zavala. The same day they also visited the new home of the National Hispanic Cultural Center at the Cervantes Institute. It is often forgotten by those in the rest of the country that when the first pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock the Spanish conquistadors and Franciscan missionaries had already been exploring, preaching and settling in the southwest for more than a hundred years. The area of modern New Mexico was last under Spanish rule during the reign of King Fernando VII in 1821. It was in that year that New Spain became the independent Empire of Mexico under the former Spanish royalist general Agustin de Iturbide.

Monarchist Destinations: Winter Palace of the Bogd Khan

Continuing north from our last destination, any trip to the remote Republic of Mongolia will be incomplete for the modern monarchist without a visit to the Winter Palace of the Bogd Khan, Mongolia's last monarch. Head to Ulanbator and go south toward Zaisan and you will find the palace complex. Built in very traditionally east Asian style, the ornate gates and walls surround a number of temples as well as the Bogd Khan's actual residence, a two-story house built in a combination of eastern and western styles. The Holy Emperor actually had four palaces back in his time but the Winter Palace is the only one to survive the communist regime that followed him. It was a much more mysterious and haunting place in the past when it remained largely forgotten by the world, with everything left largely untouched from when the Bogd Khan had resided there. Today, sadly, it is more regulated, operates as a museum and is marketed as a tourist attraction.

The palace contains many relics of the last monarchial era in Mongolia, which speaks to the sacred nature of the sight to the Mongols of old since it was only in recent years that there was any security at all for the sight. In the Khan's day the rooms of the palace were filled with his many collections. Silk banners hung on the wall and one room would be filled with clocks, another with pianos, others with other assorted mechanisms, music boxes, magazines and such as well as an extensive collection of stuffed animals including a Russian bear, penguins and even a large crocodile hanging from the rafters. Most of these items are still on hand as is the Khan's ceremonial throne, his elaborate (but largely ceremonial) yurt, a pair of boots given to him by Czar Nicholas II of Russia. Probably the best thing about it (as with many of the places covered here) is the mysterious atmosphere of the place, being off the beaten path, not quite tourist-saturated and the feeling that you are exploring an old abandoned house out in the country. The *feeling* of the visit is as great if not greater than the things you will see when visiting.

Mad Rant: The UESR

The EU crowd, that is the Union of European Socialist Republics, is still crowing over the triumph over the public in Ireland with the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, taking the continent one long step closer to becoming the centralized, socialist Euro-super state they have for so long been craving. Europe's unseen and unaccountable masters are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought of having a European president, a European defense force and a European foreign and domestic policy. In one way, this is good, because it reveals the hypocrisy of the pro-EU crowd via their actions in Ireland. All along these pro-EU socialists have been assuring everyone that the EU is just a bunch of harmless puppy dogs because everything must be approved unanimously. Of course, the whole Lisbon Treaty process has revealed the truth since Ireland is the only country that actually allowed the people to vote and when they voted "no" they were quick to have them vote again to get the "right" answer. So, yes, all decisions must be unanimously approved but that is hardly a block against power when only hand-picked statist elites are allowed to vote and on the rare occasion that the public of a given country are allowed to vote they are only allowed to vote one way.

I can certainly understand the desire by the EU for this increasing power-grabs; that is what they are all about. They want to build the UESR, doing their best to destroy European civilization in the process. What I cannot understand, even in light of the economic strong-arm tactics, is why a country like Ireland would go along with it or why a country like Croatia is working so hard to get into the EU. Both of these cases are countries that had to fight long and hard for their independence, both of them have been howling for ages about their desire for national sovereignty and yet, just a handful of years after winning their long-sought after independence they eagerly sign over their sovereignty to the ruling elites of the EU. How is the situation better for Ireland being ruled from Brussels rather than being ruled from London? Why is it preferable for Croats to be ruled by 'Europeans' rather than Serbs or Magyars? Don't misunderstand me, I cannot imagine why any country would want to sign away their independence to the collection of political stuff-shirts at the EU but it particularly boggles my mind that countries would do so that only in recent times won their independence after centuries of foreign rule. You would think that they, of all people, would be wary of this!

I am not totally opposed to any/all European unity. In fact, I think that the modern EU monstrosity is nowhere near what men like DeGaulle, DeGasperi, Adenauer and Schumann ever intended or imagined. I think their vision was for a confederation of European countries all pulling in the same direction, not a centralized European super-state ruled by socialists who put the people, history, culture (and that all included the monarchies and the religion) and traditions of Europe second, or not only put them second but wish to flat out destroy them. It is a march down the same old radical revolutionary path; stamping out monarchial authority, stamping out religious authority, centralizing power and making everyone a member of a monotone, uniform engineered society. These people will be the death of western civilization as we know it. That anyone other than the radical revolutionaries would go along with this bewilders me. Yes, I am bewildered and I am ... The Mad Monarchist.

Papal Profile: Pope Hadrian IV

Given the many centuries in which England was a cornerstone of Catholicism in Europe, we can, perhaps, be a bit surprised that there has been, to date, only one English Pope in Church history, which was Pope Hadrian IV. I have often thought of him in comparison to the only Dutch Pope, his successor Hadrian VI. Aside from both being the only son of their native lands to ascend the Petrine Throne, both had almost insurmountable problems to deal with as Pontiff.

Hadrian IV was born Nicholas Breakspear and spent his early life around St Albans, Hertfordshire. He was devoted to the Church from an early age, but was thwarted by the twofold disadvantage of education and ethnicity. The two problems were joined since, young Nicholas was a Saxon, which was a serious block to advancement in an England dominated by the Normans. However, Nicholas did not let the situation discourage him. Rather, he traveled to Arles, France and made an even more determined effort to better himself.

Eventually, Nicholas moved closer to the Papal city of Avignon where, after only coming for a visit, he was eventually made abbot of the monastery of St Rufus. While on business in Rome, the English abbot managed to impress Pope Eugenius III enough to keep him in the Eternal City and bestow the red hat on him. One of the assignments for which Cardinal Breakspear became famous was the establishment of the archbishopric in the Kingdom of Norway. Despite his early experiences in England, Nicholas was to rely heavily on the Norsemen after receiving the tiara.

Not long after coming back to Rome, Nicholas Cardinal Breakspear was elected Pope on December 4, 1154, taking the name Hadrian. At one point during his reign, Hadrian IV was reported to have said that he came to wish he would have stayed in England. Certainly no one could blame him. Troubles surrounded the English Pope from the start. The first of his troubles came from Arnold of Brescia who at one point occupied Rome and assassinated Cardinal Gerardus. In response, setting yet another precedent, Hadrian IV placed the Eternal City under the interdict until order was restored.

Another thorn in the side was the Holy Roman Emperor Friedrich Barbarossa. He wanted the Pope to formally crown him, which Hadrian was willing to do provided that the Emperor hold his stirrup while he mounted his horse in a traditional show of respect. The Emperor refused until learning that Kaiser Lothair had done the same, after which he consented. However, when the time came he performed the function in a mocking manner. Nonetheless, the Pope felt obliged to crown the Emperor, for which he was attacked by the proud Romans. Friedrich put down the revolt then rushed back to Germany before his record could be tarnished.

Following this episode, Hadrian IV was attacked by King William of Sicily, whose victorious army forced a number of concessions from the Pope. This gave Kaiser Friedrich an opportunity to invade Italy, but this time the Pope united the Lombards in a Holy League to stop the Germans. Yet, one last controversy remained. This was a bull by Hadrian IV which granted King Henry II of England the right to claim Ireland as his own. Some have doubted the authenticity of the document, but even assuming, as seems to be the case, that Hadrian IV did issue it, it clearly reads as an act done in the best interests of the Church and the Irish people, as odd as that sounds in hindsight but which should be understandable given the condition of Ireland at the time.

Pope Hadrian IV died in 1159, ending a reign filled with fights against the Roman Republic and Commune, the Emperor, the Sicilians and bitterness from Ireland, but the reign of a man who stood up against the most powerful men of the day, upholding the supremacy of the Church and the Papacy, without blinking.

Obama Shuns Exiled Monarch

His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama will soon be visiting the United States, but for the first time since the 1990's the exiled sovereign of Tibet and leader of Gelugpa Buddhism will not be meeting with the President. Lately the Communist Chinese regime has been increasing efforts to isolate the Dalai Lama and Barack Obama seems to be caving in to red pressure. US officials say that Obama is open to meeting with the Dalai Lama but only at an appropriate time after his upcoming visit to China. Seems he wants no uncomfortable moments when he goes to Bejing to meet with one of America's largest debt holders, however, some have grumbled that such an "appropriate time" may never come given the Red Chinese determination to threaten and bully the leaders of all/any countries from meeting with the deposed Tibetan monarch. There are also fears that this could damage the on-going stand-off between China and India over the Arunachal Pradesh territory as India looks for any sign of the US cooling toward or warming up to Beijing. Obama's position is a reversal of that of the previous administration as George W. Bush met with, was photographed with and even decorated the Dalai Lama despite Red Chinese protests (though if it's any comfort to the commies Bush was not as forceful as he should have been either). It may also be a sop to Iran as the regime there has not been happy with the Dalai Lama since he was photographed holding a sign calling for "freedom for Iran". The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that after 9 months in office, Obama has met with the likes of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Vladimir Putin, but will not meet the Dalai Lama who is best known around the world for championing peace, freedom and human rights. Go figure...

Battlefield Royal: Prince Rupert of the Rhine

Prince Rupert, Count Palatine of the Rhine, had a very diverse and colorful career though he is most known for commanding the royalist cavalry during the English Civil War. However, he was also an inventor, an artist, a businessman and even something of a pirate. Prince Rupert was born in Prague during the 30 Year War but grew up in the Netherlands after the conflict forced his family out of Bohemia. He was a grandson of the Stuart King James VI & I and a nephew of King Charles I. Prince Rupert took to soldiering early on, first fighting with the Dutch against the Spanish. He later fought for the Protestant alliance in the 30 Years War.

In 1642, at the age of only 23, he went to England to fight for his uncle Charles and was given command of the royalist cavalry. He cut a dashing, though somewhat bizarre figure with his flamboyant clothes, long hair and his pet poodle trotting alongside him. The roundheads of Parliament called him the “Mad Cavalier” and believed his dog was bewitched, though their fears were relieved when the poodle was killed at the battle of Marston Moor. As a cavalry commander Prince Rupert was definitely bold, brave and daring but like many with those qualities he often seemed to lack sober common sense and foresight.

At the battle of Edgehill Prince Rupert rode off half-cocked and left the royalist forces vulnerable and they were defeated. The Mad Cavalier was blamed for this but he also urged an immediate follow-up attack on the Earl of Essex which might have all but won them the war but his advice was not followed. Prince Rupert also showed his ability in taking Bristol, relieving Newark and York and led the attack on Liverpool. However, the defeat at Marston Moor hurt his image and many thought it a mistake when King Charles made him his top general. The Mad Cavalier’s victory at Leicester helped but was followed by the terrible defeat at Naseby.

With that, Prince Rupert gave up all hope of victory and advised the King to sue for peace. Charles refused and when Prince Rupert surrendered Bristol to Parliament he was dismissed and left the country. After that he fought with English exiles in the French army, raided Cromwellian English ships in the Caribbean. His exploits as a pirate must have served him well for after the restoration he was made an admiral and won some great victories for England in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. However, again, he did not fare so well in a third war against the Dutch. In 1670 he was made the first Governor of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He continued to dabble in art and inventing and held several high offices before his death in 1682.

MM Video: Prussian Royals

Self-Advertisement

Princess Madeleine to Stay in USA

HRH Princess Madeleine of Sweden is in the United States for a month-long stay to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the World Childhood Foundation on whose behalf she has come. HM Queen Silvia is set to visit later as well, coming to Washington and staying October 22 and 23 and will also attend the WCF gala dinner in New York City where Princess Madeleine will also be attending. Princess Madeleine will be in America until October 28. The World Childhood Foundation has a special significance with the Swedish royals having been founded in 1999 by Queen Silvia to help the most unfortunate and neglected of children.

The End of the Portuguese Monarchy

It was on this day in 1910 that the Kingdom of Portugal came to an end with a military coup, supported by republican agitators that forced King Manuel II into exile in Great Britain. Having barely survived the murder plot which took the lives of his father and brother in 1908 the young Manuel II tried desperately to save the Portuguese monarchy despite being unprepared for the throne. He dismissed the previous government and tried to make a fresh start but the tide of treason had grown too strong and ultimately the Kingdom of Portugal was washed away by it. The glorious era of Portuguese history had ended; the era which had seen the country win its independence, blaze trails in the fields of cartography and exploration, build up the first global overseas empire and for a time become one of the wealthiest nations in Europe. The period that was to follow would be one of a quick succession of ineffective and failed republican governments and the continued decline of Portugal in Europe. Some did try to restore national greatness, but no government long survived. However, the monarchist cause remains alive in Portugal, bent but not broken, and with a prominent and active heir to the throne there is at least some cause for hope that the horrendous error of October 4, 1910 may someday be corrected and the Royal House of Braganza restored to its proper place on the throne of Portugal.

Monarch Profile: Emperor KangXi

With the recent news about China it will be theraputic to look back on a more glorious era in the history of the "Middle Kingdom" to the reign of Emperor KangXi, usually considered one of the top two or three greatest emperors of the Manchu dynasty. The longest reigning monarch in the history of imperial China he took the "Great Qing Empire" to its peak of size and power, eventually ruling over all of modern day China, Outer Mongolia, parts of what is now Russia and having Korea as a tributary protectorate. Being only eight years old when he became emperor he had a regency to rule on his behalf for the first six years but showed much early promise and took the reins of government at age 14. By the age of 18 he was already leading military expeditions to crush uprisings of Ming loyalists. To consolidate his rule he softened the Manchu treatment of the Han Chinese, lowered taxes and stopped land confiscation, encouraged agriculture and curtailed corruption by increasing salaries.

He also impressed the Chinese scholars by his sincere study of Chinese literature, even commissioning a history of the Ming dynasty. Something of a renaissance man he was interested in a variety of subjects and made extensive use of the talents of the Jesuit mission. He also loved to travel and increased his knowledge of the country as well as his popularity by going on numerous tours of the country to show himself to the people. He also stressed upright behavior and the Confucian moral code and made it mandatory that the "16 Moral Principles" of Confucius were read in all provinces twice a month. He strengthened Qing rule over Tibet and Central Asia and after his forces were defeated by the Mongols of Galdan Khan he led an expedition himself which subdued the Mongols and brought Outer Mongolia into the Qing Empire. He also fought two wars with Russia, winning the first and ending the second by negotiation.

Emperor KangXi had a great sense of duty and by all accounts was quite a humane man who rarely made use of the death penalty. He rose early, worked hard, was not over-indulgent and was quite a devout Buddhist. His few hours of relaxation were usually spent reading, painting or hunting before returning to his administrative work long into the night. He was less successful with his family life, most considering his son and heir spoiled and dissolute. KangXi was heartbroken by his behavior and finally demoted him and did not name his fourth son as his heir until he was on his death bed. He died on November 13, 1722 after reigning 61 years, 310 days.

The Battle of Gonzales, Texas

Today is the anniversary of the "Lexington of the West", the battle of Gonzales in 1835, the first formal exchange of hostilities of the War for Texas Independence. Tensions had been growing for some time and things became particularly heated when the dictator of Mexico, Generalissimo Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (the turncoat who had betrayed and deposed the Mexican Emperor) garrisoned Texas with an army of convict-soldiers led by his brother-in-law General Martin Perfecto de Cos. Hostilities were set when Colonel Domingo de Ugartechea dispatched 100 dragoons under Francisco de Castaneda to confiscate the canon at Gonzales which had been given to the settlers to fend off Indian attacks. The small canon suddenly gained great symbolic significance and the Texans decided to draw the line at Gonzales and refuse to allow the government to disarm them. Colonel John H. Moore led about 140 militiamen with their canon to confront the Mexican dragoons and flew a defiant flag bearing a lone star, an image of the canon and the phrase, "Come and Take It".

A barking dog startled the Mexican soldiers who opened fire on the Texans but the Mexicans were confused by a thick fog which prevented them from knowing where or how numerous their enemies were. Moore had earlier tried to negotiate with the Mexican captain, informing him that they no longer recognized the authority of the regime of Santa Anna but remained loyal to the Mexican constitution of 1824 which Santa Anna had tore up when he assumed dictatorial power. After a short, sharp skirmish the Mexicans withdrew back to San Antonio. Only one Mexican was killed and one Texan wounded but it was the start of a war that would change the face of North America and determine the future of the entire American southwest.