The U.S. Civil War and Monarchy

I have been chastised for not mentioning the 150th anniversary of the start of the American Civil War/War Between the States/etc. It is certainly not because of a lack of interest in the period, in fact, that era was one of the first historical episodes I studied seriously for many years. However, it did not relate directly to what this web log is all about and I had other things on my list. However, having been prompted (and because I’m an absolutist blogger who will write about whatever I darn well please) I will address the War Between the States in terms of how it related, in secondary ways, to the ongoing struggle between monarchy and republicanism. Of course, it did not relate directly to it because what you had in the Civil War was a clash of two republican governments: a centralized federal union on one hand and a more decentralized confederacy on the other. However, though the people in both the northern and southern halves of America were staunchly republican, then as now, they were not entirely identical in their outlook toward monarchy.

As we have talked about before, the English Civil War was felt in North America with the northern colonies tending toward the Parliamentarians and the southern colonies tending to be more royalist. Much of this was due to religious differences as Puritan New England was more religiously liberal than southern colonies like Catholic Maryland and Anglican Virginia. Over the years the two regions became increasingly different and did not have, by any means, a consistent policy regarding what they thought of monarchy. Again, if asked, everyone in the north or south would have recoiled at the image of a king. During the War of 1812, for example, it was the south that was the most aggressive in supporting the war against Great Britain and the invasion of Canada -for imperialistic reasons, and it was the north that most opposed it -for economic reasons. Yet, as America grew older it was the south, for economic reasons, which became increasingly friendly with Great Britain and the newly revived Empire of the French.

The south loved the British because they bought southern cotton by the shipload and because they sold quality manufactured goods to southerners at a price below that for which northern merchants sold the same products. The south also had, because of slavery and the agricultural predominance in the region, a very aristocratic society whereas the north did not. The north was also home to most immigrants to the U.S. and, at the time of the American Civil War, most of these were Irish, German or Italian and most had fled the aftermath of the 1848 Revolutions and were very anti-monarchy. The south, on the other hand, attracted relatively few immigrants and much of the population was ethnically Scotch-Irish or English, in any case people who generally looked with favor on the British Empire. The result was that increasingly the north viewed Great Britain with hostility whereas the south viewed Britain with friendship or nostalgia. Southern gentlemen liked to consider themselves on a level with the landed aristocracy of Britain and took their trends as their own.

Then there is France. America had always had a love-hate relationship with France but there was, clearly, more pro-French sentiment in the south than in the north in 1861. Louisiana held a still considerable Francophone population and South Carolina was home to a very large French community made up of people who had fled the bloody slave revolt in Haiti. Southerners, being a martial sort of people, also tended to look with admiration on the legacy of Napoleon and his military genius. If some had a bit of hesitation about admiring Britain, the traditional enemy of 1776 and 1812, there was none concerning France. Wealthy planters taught their children French (it was *the* language of the fashionable upper class) and in both civilian and military life French fashions were widely copied. When the Confederacy was formed their army had a very pronounced French appearance to it, some units going farther than others. One of the most famous was the “Louisiana Tigers” who adopted the uniform of the French Zouaves after the successful campaigns of France in North Africa. In the south, the French Empire was to be admired and emulated.

When the war came, how then did the great monarchies of Europe view the situation? Of course, slavery was the sticking point as virtually no country in Europe wanted to be seen as supporting something like that. However, by and large, it was quickly obvious that the British Empire and the French Empire were friendlier toward the Confederacy than they were toward the Union. The only major power that openly sympathized with the Union was, ironically, the Russian Empire of Tsar Alexander II. However, even this was due mostly to the fact that Britain and France sympathized with the south and, as both parties were recently hostile to Russia, it was natural for the Russian Empire to side with the United States. With the north being home to so many Irish republicans and celebrating such revolutionaries as Garibaldi, Kossuth and others it is no wonder most monarchies in Europe tended to look on the United States, especially the north, with little sympathy. So, why did Britain and France favor the Confederates (keeping in mind neither ever recognized them or openly came to their aid)? Both had very practical reasons for doing so.

The British viewed the south as a good customer and a valuable source of raw materials. They also had, for very good reasons, developed a very wary attitude toward the United States. The north was an industrial competitor and also a rapidly expanding naval power. Largely because of her industry, trade and maritime presence, the north was a rival to Great Britain in a way that the south could never be. The north, as mentioned, also harbored many people that Britain worried about; namely large numbers of Irish immigrants who were adamantly anti-British. Fears about this population were not unfounded as the Fenian Raids on Canada after the war would prove. The south might have been imperialistic but the areas they longed for were areas where Great Britain had little or no interest and thus the south, a land with little industry and practically no navy, was nothing for Britain to fear. The British also thought the south would win. Like few other powers in the world the British have always been very good about learning from their own history and the lesson they took from 1776 was that an American population in rebellion was impossible to subdue. The south would win and who wouldn’t want to be on the good side of the winners?

Emperor Louis Napoleon III of the French had little particular interest in the United States itself but he had recently become very interested in Mexico. He had a grand vision of building the French empire denied his uncle in Europe in Central and South America. At various times he entertained ideas of expanding French influence into Mexico, Panama and even into South America via Ecuador with the creation of a ‘Kingdom of the Andes’. However, the United States had long ago stated her unalterable opposition to any European “meddling” in the Americas and were sure to oppose any such efforts to establish new monarchies in America on the part of France. In fact, before the French and Mexican monarchists had even placed the ill-fated Austrian Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico the United States sent a very strongly worded letter of warning to Paris that the U.S.A. would oppose any such effort and would never recognize the establishment of any monarchy on the shores of the New World. However, if the south were to win the war, the Confederacy would serve as a most valuable buffer-state between the United States and the French ‘mission of civilization’ in Mexico and points south. Like the British, the French also recognized that a divided America would be an America easier for them to deal with and less of a danger of becoming overpowering.

As for the lesser monarchies, attitudes were much the same. The Empire of Brazil, the only other major, western, slave-holding power, was mostly sympathetic to the south. Monarchies like Austria-Hungary and Belgium sympathized only insofar as a Confederate victory would help ensure the continued safety of their son and daughter in Mexico (Maximilian and Carlota) and Pope Pius IX was generally sympathetic to the south. Given how Garibaldi was celebrated in the north, this is perhaps not surprising, and the Pontiff was the only world leader to address Jefferson Davis as the President of the Confederate States of America in his correspondence. The north, with the Monroe Doctrine and other means, had become rather unpopular in the world at large for threatening war with any power that “meddled” in the Americas while feeling free to meddle themselves whenever it suited them.

And that, in a nutshell, is the attitude of the Americans toward monarchy and the great monarchies toward America at the time of the War Between the States. In general, the majority sympathized with the Confederates, despite their opposition to slavery which Britain and France had long abolished peacefully, but because they recognized that a Confederate victory would be more beneficial to their interests than a Union victory would. Some may not like the way that sounds but they were proven to be all too correct. No sooner had the dust settled in America with the northern states victorious the U.S. sent a massive army to the Mexican border with orders for the French to leave willingly or with a bayonet to encourage them and a number of ridiculously audacious raids were launched on Canada by Irish veterans of the Union ranks eager to strike a blow against the British Empire. Canada was saved though the victorious U.S. forced a handsome amount of ‘so sorry for cheering against you’ money from London. Mexico was not so lucky as the French pulled out just when they were on the cusp of total victory and Emperor Maximilian and his empire went down to noble but disastrous defeat with his enemies having the full moral and material support of the triumphant United States.

My Favorite Kings of England

(note that this includes only my favorites since the conquest and before England and Scotland shared a king)

I - King Henry II, the first to be titled “King of England” rather than “…of the English” and the founder of the so-called Angevin Empire. It was under his rule that England became the dominant power in Western Europe. Henry II ruled England, most of western France, Ireland and was overlord of Scotland. He was well acquainted with the law, studious in his duties and he made the legal system more efficient. His efforts to subdue the Church has left him with a rather bad reputation but, it must be remembered, this was far from unusual, he did not intend to have his friend Thomas Becket killed and he did do penance for it -something our supposedly humble political leaders of today would never dream of. His relationship with his family is probably what I consider the worst aspect of him but, taken altogether, I cannot but view him as a very great English monarch.

II - King Richard I, the ‘Lionhearted’, yes, I will admit, much of his fame is due to some past romanticism but I cannot resist it. Modern critics have harped on him not spending much time in England and speaking French and other such silly little details. The legendary image of him did not spring up for no reason. He was, in his own time, noted for his chivalry, his courage, military talent and abilities as a political leader as well. When setting off for the Third Crusade he vowed to reform his life to better reflect a true Christian warrior. He conquered Cyprus (which remained in Christian hands until the time of Lepanto) and even while quite sick he helped re-take Acre. He won the battle of Arsuf even after being abandoned by his allies and fought the formidable Saladin to a stalemate before returning home. Forgiving his disloyal brother John and naming him heir might not have been the best but it was prudent and he still did quite well in his war in France, showing his skill as a soldier and diplomat as well as displaying his famous chivalry. His death by a mortal wound in battle was a good enough end for such a warrior-king. He also adopted the motto still used by the Royal Family today.

III - King Edward I, another monarch who has suffered a great deal of criticism in recent years, is probably most thought of today as a villain. I, however, take the older point of view and consider him one of the greatest of English kings. True, he was no softy but he was a great statesman and another heroic warrior king. He too was a crusader but hurried home when his turn came to be King of England. He showed himself to be such an astute statesman he was known as the “English Justinian”. He conquered Wales and made his son Prince of Wales and though his war with France came to nothing it was the fault of his allies rather than Edward. His victories in Scotland won him fame in the past, not so today, but it must be remembered that his involvement in Scotland was by invitation. He was rather bad-tempered and intimidating but, in that day and age, a king often had to be.

IV - King Edward III, an awesome monarch if ever there was one. Under Edward III the Kingdom of England became the Prussia of its day, famous across Christendom for the quality and efficiency of its military. He could be harsh but also merciful. After giving the Scots a drubbing he mostly left them alone and concentrated on becoming King of France. He captured Caen, won the battle of Crécy and after a long siege captured the city of Calais as his crowning achievement. Were it not for the Black Death he might have accomplished much more and in any event his son won the great battle of Poitiers. His later years were less successful but those before more than compensate for that. If he had done absolutely nothing else Crécy and Calais would be sufficient to rank him among the greatest of English kings. He also created the Order of the Garter, one of the most prestigious orders of chivalry in the world even today. His own people revered him so much he was compared to King Arthur.

V - King Henry V, one of my absolute favorites. For myself, kings do not come much better than Henry V. He was zealous in every effort he undertook, as energetic at administration and religion as he was at war. No detail escaped his notice and on the battlefield he was as audacious as they come -and if there is one quality I admire in any leader it is audacity. He was just in upholding the law, firm in protecting the Church and astute in bringing about national unity. He is most famous, of course, for his brilliant military campaign in France where he captured Harfleur and won a stunning victory at the battle of Agincourt despite being grossly outnumbered. He showed himself a skilled diplomat, conquered Lower Normandy and captured Rouen. He died while still fighting in France after winning a number of other victories. In short, he excelled at every aspect of leadership that he set his mind to.

Honorable Mentions: King Richard II for suppressing the Peasants Revolt

King Antonio LXXXIX

In San Antonio, Texas "Fiesta" is well underway and the assortment of Fiesta "royalty" are out and about as usual. Probably the most preeminent of them all is the Texas Cavaliers' King Antonio LXXXIX. William Franklin Mitchell was chosen for the throne this year. He will spend Fiesta visiting military bases, schools, special events and handing out charitable donations. The Texas Cavaliers were formed in 1926 to preserve the ideals of the Alamo defenders and to encourage horsemanship in an era when automobiles were quickly taking over. Every year, during Fiesta, they name a new "King Antonio" chosen from among their membership of business and civic leaders (sort of the 'aristocracy' of San Antonio). You can read more and see more pictures about the Texas Cavaliers at their website.

Monarchist Profile: Tran Cao Van

Tran Cao Van provides one of the most inspirational and heroic examples for all Vietnamese who valued their ancient traditions and monarchial system as well as wanting total independence and opposition to colonial rule, of a true and loyal hero who struggled all his life for the freedom of his country and gave his life in loyalty to Viet Nam and the Nguyen Emperor. He desired freedom for his country in the true sense, with Vietnamese culture and traditions free of foreign influence as well.

Tran Cao Van was born in Tu Phu village, in what is now Da Hoang Commune, Dien Ban district of the Province of Quang Nam in 1866. This was the same period that France first began the effort to colonize and bring their "mission to civilize" Viet Nam and the rest of Indo-China. Tran Cao Van was known to be a man of intelligence, integrity and absolute devotion to his country. He was saddened by the subjugation of the people, the manipulation of the Emperor and exploitation of the country whenever and wherever it occurred.

In 1885 the old imperial capital of Hue City was taken by the French and Tran Cao Van went to the mountains near Quang Nam where he joined the religious life at Co Lam Pagoda. He spent several years at the Pagoda to cultivate his spiritual life, a preparation for events in the future. In 1892 he left the monks and went to Binh Dinh to begin a career of teaching. He also began to plan and discuss the patriotic movement to drive out the French and restore the independence of Viet Nam. He wrote about the need for freedom and the sort of changes that would be needed in Viet Nam to preserve their independence and modernize the country, while also keeping in tact their ancient culture.

In 1908 Tran Cao Van was one of the leaders of the Anti-Tax revolt in Annam. France had forced the people to pay more and this combined with crop failures and a famine in the area to cause a situation where many were starving to death. Tran Cao Van became convinced that drastic measures would have to be taken to free the country. Tran Cao Van returned to Hue and began to advise the young monarch, Emperor Duy Tan. The Emperor also favored an immediate end to French rule and total independence for Viet Nam. It was 1916, France was in the middle of fighting World War I, and it seemed that the time could not be better. Tran Cao Van developed a detailed plan for a massive concerted uprising across the country. It was endorsed by the Emperor and on May 4, Tran Cao Van, Emperor Duy Tan, and the other patriots, left Hue to begin the uprising.

However, before the plan could be fully put into effect, the rebel leadership was betrayed and the group was arrested by the French authorities. The rebellion was stopped before it had a chance to get off the ground. Even the Emperor himself was arrested and charged with "treason". Another man of lesser virtue might have tried to save his own life, but Tran Cao Van did not. He refused to betray Emperor Duy Tan and confessed to the French in order to save the life of his young king. Tran Cao Van was taken to the guillotine still wishing long life to the Emperor. Along with the other loyal patriots, he was executed by the pro-French forces at Cong Chem, that is An Hoa, near Hue City, and buried in a common grave. Later, his body was removed and buried on Tu Hieu Holl, near the tomb of Emperor Tu Duc.

His life is an inspiration, a model of perfect courage, loyalty and patriotism. As he wrote before his execution, "Who is loyal? Who is righteous? Who enjoys life decorated with luxurious turban and belt, hammock and parasol? Leave me alone to die! The sky is still there! So is the earth and the dynasty! We wish long life to the Emperor!".

Royals at Eternal Rest

Favorite Royal Images: Romanov Angels

Shameless Plug

Mad Rant: Limitations of Politicians

The United States recently came to the brink of a government shut-down over budget cutting. How much was the proposal to cut, astronomical enough to cause a near shut-down of the government? All in all, a few thousandths of a percent of the overall budget. Yes, they sure are tightening those belts aren’t they! The USA is 14 trillion dollars in debt and they are going down to the wire of a government shutdown over a few billion. Well, I am sorry, but when the Democrats protested the idea of cutting funding for “cowboy poetry week” and National Public Radio I think it was pretty clear that they were not serious about cutting back on the flagrant over-spending. Likewise, the GOP talked a good game but they soon backed down from $70 billion to $60 billion to finally settling for about $30 billion in cuts. Again, we are $14 trillion in debt -$30 billion is peanuts compared to that. So why was it so difficult if the amount in question was so small? Two words my friends: special interests. In this case the bottom line was abortion.

Am I over-simplifying things? Perhaps, just a bit, but that is what the final sticking point was. The pro-abortion lobby has a sensitive part of the Democrat Party anatomy in their pocket and they were putting the squeeze on Obama and Harry Reed in a big way. It basically came down to a lobbyist contest and the Democrats’ abortion lobbyists were scarier than the Republicans’ Tea Party lobbyists. Every time something like this comes up, everyone can agree on how much they hate lobbyists and yet virtually every major interest group has them. You cannot cut funding for abortion or the feminist lobby will be on you. You cannot cut back on farm subsidies or the agriculture lobby will be on you. Want to cut funding on foreign aid? Sorry, there is the Israel lobby. How about cutting funds allocated for immigrants? They’re not even citizens after all. Nope, won’t wash either because the Catholic lobby will be on your case. Perhaps we could cut education, we keep spending more and more and yet test scores keep getting lower and lower -something isn’t working. Wrong again, the teachers unions will make you wish you were dead! How about the “corporate fat cats”, everybody hates them right? Wall street probably has more lobbyists than anyone outside the unions. And if you think you can get away with cutting back on government itself take a look at the chaos in Wisconsin. Lives will be endangered.

Turns out, everyone has a lobbyist but you. Yes, you, sitting right there in front of your google machine. This is when a monarchy (a functioning monarchy with some semblance of permanence) can come in very handy. Lobbyists have power because they have money and people behind them -usually more money than people (it‘s a very lucrative business to be in if you can get in) and that translates to votes and thus politicians take them very seriously. Not only can lobbyists deliver you all sorts of really nice perks if you are a cooperative politician, the special interests they represent can get you kicked out of office if you do not dance to their tune. A monarch, however, does not have to stand for election and does not have to curry favor with special interest groups to maintain their position. You cannot offer them any perks because, well to be blunt about it, they desire nothing because they already have everything.

A monarch, not being ‘one of the people’ can put everyone on an equal footing. Because they are beholden to no party or interest they can see all of their subjects equally with no partiality or favoritism. They have a vested interest in the success of their country as they will one day pass it on to their own child and, unlike the politicians who have sunk the western world into a bottomless pit of debt, they can take a broader view as they are “in office” for life. The reason the debt crisis exists is because politicians (and this is under ideal democratic circumstances) are temporary figures. They vote more money for their constituents and friends while they are in office to keep everyone happy and themselves popular, confident in the knowledge that they will be long gone when it finally comes time to pay the piper. That is also why cutting back on the spending is so difficult. Such unpopular measures pay off later whereas irresponsible spending pays off immediately.

The problem, of course, even in the remaining monarchies of the western world, is that we have allowed politicians to change the rules. No reigning monarch (outside of perhaps Liechtenstein or Monaco) is under any illusion that their position is permanent nor do any (again, outside of Liechtenstein and Monaco) have any real role in the actual government of their country. I would say it is no coincidence that Liechtenstein and Monaco are among the most well-off of all countries and have been the most unscathed by the current economic crisis in Europe and North America. For most, monarchs can no longer live up to their full potential because they know they are always only one parliamentary vote away from being shuffled off the national stage

 entirely. The German Kaiser Wilhelm II once said that, as monarchs are responsible to God for the nations entrusted to their care, it was best to carefully study public opinion before allowing it to influence their decisions. If that was true in the time of the Kaiser, it is certainly no longer true today. Monarchs must pay ever closer attention to the whims and fancies of public opinion because their positions are no longer regarded as sacred by the vast majority. This has robbed them of the ability to be of the utmost benefit to their nations and, as we are seeing now, it is the nations that suffer as a result. And that makes me a very sad … Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: American Royalty

MM Video: Family of the Aga Khan

Royal News Roundup

The Scandinavian royals have been busy this week. Last Friday HM King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden was looking very “GI” in his army fatigues as he visited the Swedish Home Guard at Gothenburg. He could afford some “guy time” as HM Queen Silvia was far from home, in the United States, where she met up with HRH Princess Madeleine in Florida for a gala to benefit the World Childhood Foundation. Princess Madeleine was looking as gorgeous as usual and it is rumored that the Queen will accompany her back to New York to receive the Health and Human Rights Award and to meet her current boyfriend. However, what ended up grabbing attention was when Queen Silvia injured her leg while shopping in the Big Apple when she escaped out a back door while trying to avoid an annoying photographer. Meanwhile, in Norway on Tuesday HM King Harald V welcomed the President of Lithuania for a two-day visit to the Nordic kingdom. The King accompanied the President throughout her visit and some agreements between the two countries were signed by the President and the Norwegian Prime Minister.

On Monday, HRH the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall wrapped up their three nation tour with a visit to the north African Kingdom of Morocco. The royal couple met with the Prime Minister and later visited the Moroccan royal tombs, removing their shoes and the Duchess donning a headscarf in respect of Muslim customs. The Prince placed a wreath at the tomb of King Hassan II which some human-rights groups decided to make an issue of and this started a small wave of criticism that the Prince was sending “the wrong message” at a time of political change in North Africa to honor a past king regarded by many in the human-rights community as a tyrant (which is how I would have to imagine they view most any king or monarch). There were no major protests or security problems though as some feared and the trip ended on an elegant note with a formal dinner hosted by HM King Mohammad VI.

Belgian Crown Prince Philippe and Crown Princess Mathilde visited the Russian Federation this week, their third visit to the ‘Land of the Tsars’. Princess Mathilde was given a guided tour of the Kremlin by the Russian First Lady and Crown Prince Philippe met with Russian President Medvedev to discussing increasing economic ties between Russia and Belgium. However, while Crown Prince Philippe is putting a good face on Belgian business abroad, little brother Prince Laurent continues to cause controversy at home. It is now being put out that the Prince was involved in a bad business deal with one of the sons of Qadaffhi and, more recently, that he tried to arrange a meeting between Libyan diplomats that are opposed to the dictator. Caretaker Prime Minister of the non-government, Yves Leterme, launched a harsh condemnation of the Prince in the Belgian parliament and stated that he would effectively be adopting a ‘zero tolerance’ policy regarding Laurent. The Prince has denied any relationship with the Libyan rebels. King Albert II earlier released a statement that he is upset by the actions of his sons but threats that he could be cut-off by the government may be exaggerated as the state would then lose any influence over his actions at all. Does anyone think he would receive no attention at all just because he stopped being given a state allowance?

In the Middle East HM King Abdullah II of Jordan and HRH Crown Prince Hussein met with Al Hweitat tribal leaders. There had previously been some controversy about criticism of Queen Rania allegedly by Jordanian tribal leaders. These natives are now a minority in Jordan due to the large influx of Palestinians over the years. The King praised the leaders for their support of the monarchy in the current period of unrest and he has been working hard to put the monarchy on the side of those calling for reform and greater democracy. The tribal leaders voiced their concerns and their ideas for what they would like to see in Jordan but also reiterated their support for the King and Royal Family saying, “We all want a hereditary monarchy and no one is allowed to violate this.” Good to see.

In the Far East, HRH Princess Chulabhorn, youngest daughter of the King and Queen, visited parts of Thailand recently damaged by massive flooding on Tuesday. The Princess comforted the people affected and told them to look at the compassion and solidarity of the people of Japan in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami in that country. “Look at them,” the Princess said, “and we will have morale to fight and band together to solve the problem”. So far, 51 people have died as the result of the floods in southern Thailand, the worst in over two decades. And, in Japan, Their Imperial Highnesses Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako visited 130 evacuees of the disaster in northern Japan at a refugee center in western Tokyo. It was a rare dual public appearance for the couple as the Crown Princess rarely makes public appearances. The people were glad to see them and spoke of how grateful they are for the attention given to them by the Emperor and the efforts of the Imperial Family to cut back power consumption in order to help the victims of the recent natural disasters.

Papal Profile: Pope St Pius X

It is a mark of how well regarded Pope Pius X was that he was the first pontiff to be canonized by the Church since St Pius V in the XVI Century. Through his steadfast devotion to traditional, orthodox doctrine, his upstanding example of courage and personal holiness as well as his compassion and personal friendliness, St Pius X stands out to this day as the ideal picture of what any pontiff, bishop or priest should aspire to be in the eyes of Catholics around the world. He was fully committed and capable of carrying on the work of his predecessors Leo XIII and Blessed Pius IX, both in terms of Church teaching and in carrying on the struggle for the rights of the Church and the stand-off with the secular powers in Italy. His reign was a statement to the world that the Catholic Church would not cease to preach the true Faith and would not give in to the trends of society with which the world was enthralled. Because of this he has come to be remembered as perhaps the preeminent anti-modernist pope.

St Pius X was born Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto on June 2, 1835, the son of a humble postman in Riese, Italy. He was ordained priest and served as Patriarch of Venice before being elected to the See of Peter on August 4, 1903. The motto for his pontificate was to, "restore all things in Christ". He was known as a deeply religious man, even among the clergy, and was known as such a conservative, even reactionary, that many considered him un-electable. This was true even of himself. When someone said to him, before the conclave, that he would not be elected he replied, "thanks be to God, as I bought a round-trip ticket!" When the votes were being tallied in his favor, he pleaded with the cardinals, "For the love of God, forget about me; I do not have the qualities to be pope" and when the results were given he replied of his victory, "I accept, as one accepts a cross".

Taking the name of Pius X, purposely associating himself with the firm principles of Pius IX, he would go on to prove that it is often the most reluctant candidates who make the best pontiffs. Throughout his pontificate, from start to finish, he reigned as a 'country priest', with honesty, fairness and strict obedience to the doctrines and traditions of the Church. Although he demanded the highest obedience to the Petrine Throne, he was himself a humble man for example, abolishing the custom of applauding the Pope in St Peter's saying that it was not, "fair to applaud the servant in the home of the Master". He, the third "Prisoner of the Vatican" also made it clear that he would not back down in claiming the rights of the Catholic Church in both the spiritual and temporal spheres. He opposed the formation of "Christian Democrat" parties and called liberal Catholics, "wolves in sheep's clothing". He was quick to condemn the breaks between Church and state wherever they occurred, though he did urge Italian Catholics to make use of their vote to help avoid an electoral victory for the socialists. He condemned the rising trend of 'Modernism' and stressed the perfection of Sacred Scripture. When it came to the Bible, St Pius X did not go for a great deal of "interpretation". For him, what it said was what it meant.

However, it would be a mistake to think that St Pius X was all about stagnation. In fact he instituted many changes in the Curia, canon law and reformed the seminaries. He drove forward a revision of Church music based on Gregorian chant. He also heavily stressed the need for frequent communion, calling it the best way to get to Heaven. He was also a Pope for the laity, calling on them to become involved in the Church and in society to promote a Christian agenda of justice in society and compassionate welfare. He was able to accomplish his goals of a better educated clergy, a more involved laity and an end to any remnants of manipulation by the secular powers over the papacy. He also declared private property rights to be inviolable and set an example of loyalty to Truth, even when it is unpopular. When instructing a group of priests in Venice he told them, if they followed Church doctrine, "You will be called papists, clerics, retrogrades, intransigents. Be proud of it!"

When World War I began in 1914 the Pope was devastated. When asked to bless the troops about to march off to war he replied that he would "only bless peace". His great sorrow over this catastrophe hastened his death on August 20, 1914 after reigning for 11 years and 16 days. He was canonized by Pope Pius XII on May 29, 1954.

MM Movie Review: Queen Christina

For some reason, I feel the need to repeat in blatant fashion what most of you who have read my reviews probably already know. I am an admittedly biased reviewer. There are some topics and genres that I just *like* and thus I can enjoy watching a movie that is pretty bad even while noting the many things wrong with it. That is not to say that “Queen Christina” is a bad movie, in fact I think it is a pretty darn good movie, but there is also a great deal wrong with it in the historical department. However, I like royal-themed movies (especially about the lesser known figures) and finding a well made, well done royal bio-pic about someone other than the usual English monarchs like Henry VIII or Elizabeth I means that I am willing to overlook some glaring historical inaccuracies -though I cannot help but note them and get a little worked up about them when they (invariably) happen. But, on to the film:

“Queen Christina” is the story of the reign of the controversial Queen Christina of Sweden. The film was made in 1933 and stars Greta Garbo in the title role. The director was Rouben Mamoulian of “Dr Jekyll & Mr. Hyde” fame (I also liked “Blood & Sand” but I’m *very* biased on that one). To say that “Queen Christina” is based on the life of the famous Swedish queen would probably be going way too far. It might be more correct to say ‘vaguely inspired by’. I have a hard time with this one because the history is so terrible you almost have to just overlook that whole aspect. It is as if they really were not even trying. At all. It also helps that Greta Garbo is spectacular in this, absolutely at her best (and how fitting to have a Swedish actress play a Swedish queen -sometimes I’ve been tempted to think Hollywood had some sort of rule against that). She is stunning, she is totally convincing and shows herself to simply be a great actress. That goes a very long way as well.

We are first introduced to Christina as a little girl who, upon the death of her father; the Protestant champion of the Thirty Years War Gustavus Adolphus, is ushered in amongst the notables of Sweden to be crowned ‘king’. I don’t know who the child actress was there but she did a good job too. The film lets you know that this is when Sweden was at the top of her game, the dominant power in northern Europe but also stretched dangerously thin, getting by on sheer skill and determination. The coronation scene was one of my favorites -as such usually are, and the little actress was very winning as she delivered her speech, proudly and rather annoyed when she forgot a certain line. From there we flash forward to Queen Christina all grown up and racing through the Swedish countryside on horseback, wearing masculine attire -which is perfectly historically accurate. That, at least, the film does get right.

Sweden is still at war, the pressure for a royal wedding is growing and the strain on the public is evident, to the Queen if no one else. Again, this part the film does pretty much get right. The Queen was fond of riding horses, did dress like a man and was very interested in art, philosophy, the sciences and so on. She was reportedly not nearly so attractive as Greta Garbo, but we can forgive that. In the film, the Queen is distressed at how much the ongoing war is costing, both in lives and treasure, and she sees no end to it. She deplores wasting lives, talent and money on destruction rather than more artistic and intellectual pursuits and she becomes determined to make peace. This does not go over well, but the Queen is adamant and fears that if the war continues the Swedish peasantry will be wiped out and they will have to hire foreign mercenaries to fight their battles. The Queen is also in no hurry to marry. She is frustrated by the constant constraints her royal position places on her and fears that marriage will only take even more freedom from her. However, her ministers are adamant that she must marry and Prince Charles, her cousin and a hero in the war against the Catholics, is the preferred choice.

If you feel like you’ve seen this before, you probably have. The story of the overwrought royal longing for personal freedom is a story we have all heard before and, I must confess, it does wear on me. I always detected a hint of republicanism in such portrayals; the idea that royals need to be “rescued” from the monarchy. In any event, this is where the movie takes a dramatic u-turn away from historical reality. A suave, debonair ambassador arrives to convey a message from the King of Spain and unknowingly meets the Queen when his carriage becomes stuck in the snow. Thinking, by her attire, she is a local nobleman the two become fast friends at a local inn where she questions him about the great Spanish painters, life in a foreign country and all the rest. How anyone could ever mistake Greta Garbo for a boy is quite beyond the realm of possibility but we will invoke the suspension of disbelief on that one. Forced to share a room the ambassador finally learned the gender of his new buddy and the two spend several days at the inn completely infatuated with each other.

Nothing of the sort ever happened of course, Queen Christina never had any affairs that we know of, but now the film has an illicit romance to carry it through. The ambassador is rather shocked and displeased when he learns that his new best girl is actually the Queen of Sweden when he finally appears for an audience. To make matters worse there is an unscrupulous courtier who also had his hat set for the Queen and he makes the ambassador his inveterate enemy. He whips up an angry mob to howl for the blood of the Spaniard and in one of the most memorable scenes of the film the Queen confronts her unhappy subjects and through her courage and charm turns their angry protests into loyal cheers. However, her beau is captured by the courtier and threatens to kill him if the Queen does not send him away. Forced to do so, immediately thereafter the Queen announces her abdication, to the great sorrow of her people, and plans to run away with the ambassador to live happily ever after at his coastal hacienda in Spain.

Again, this is complete fiction. The actual reason that Queen Christina abdicated was in order to become a Catholic, something not even hinted at in the movie, and it was not a spur of the moment decision. In fact, the Queen prepared long in advance for her abdication in order for there to be a smooth transition and as little fuss as possible. She left her country out of conviction, not romantic infatuation. The ending of the movie, I will spare the details so as not to ruin it for those yet to see it, left me frankly shocked and a little bewildered. The acting is good, the story moves along nicely, there are a number of fantastic shots but it simply has very, very little to do with the actual Queen Christina who once ruled Sweden. The movie is also a little risqué in parts (a warning to the people of Kansas) as this was before the era of the MPAA Production Code and filmmakers could get a way with more. There is no nudity or bad language of course, but naughty behavior is implied that would not have been allowed in later years.

The filmmakers actually hired an expert to ensure that nothing in the film would offend the current Swedish Royal Family though they seem to have completely ignored his advice. However, the queen portrayed in the film is portrayed, I think, in a very positive way. She genuinely cares for her country and her people (at least until leaving them in the name of love) and come across as a very sympathetic character. This has, I think, more to do with Greta Garbo than anything else and the film is certainly better at showing off her skills as a great actress than it is in telling the real story of Queen Christina. The movie does get some aspects of her character right but, overall, pretty well misses the point of what Queen Christina was all about. That being said, I cannot help but like the movie. It is well cast, well shot, well directed and has some great dialogue in it and Greta Garbo gives a masterful performance. It has that air about it of being a “classic”. I simply think that the same cast and crew could have made an even better movie had they stuck to the true story of the most controversial Swedish Queen who once said, “I love the storm and fear the calm”. Indeed.

Mad Motivation

Favorite Royal Images: Swedish Queen of Belgium

Queen Astrid, consort of King Leopold III of the Belgians

Mad Rant: Modern Book Burnings

There are riots and killings going on in the Muslim world in response to a trashy preacher in Florida burning a copy of the Quran. As most of you know, and I have attracted some criticism for this position, but I was against this from the very beginning. I have never been for Quran burnings or Mohammed cartoons. I maintain that position. It is insulting, provocative and it accomplishes nothing. It is not something anyone *needs* to do in order to live their lives and pursue life, liberty and happiness. That being said, I have been disgusted by the reaction to this, playing right into the hands of the media-whore preacher, by both the Muslim radicals AND the Obama administration. I understand the whole argument that ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ (I really do) but come at it from the opposite direction. This fundamentalist Christian is doing no more to Islam than what many others have done to Christianity for many, many years.

What outraged me the most was the commanding general in Afganistan, echoed by the administration saying that the burning of the Quran was an act of “extreme intolerance and bigotry”. Now, that may be completely true, but where were the liberals condemning as intolerant and bigoted the producers of “The Last Temptation of Christ” or the “artist” who smeared dung on the Virgin Mary or that Irish lesbian who tore up a picture of the Pope? How blatant and hypocritical does the double-standard need to get before people wake up?! I know it shouldn’t, but it simply astounds me. I agree that burning the Quran is juvenile, hateful and needlessly provocative but why is it that the desecration of Christian symbols is not seen in the same way? Of course, the overreaction to the fundamentalist Bible-thumper in Florida does Muslims no favors either. And, yes, I would say murdering innocent people *is* an overreaction.

This only makes Muslims look violent and irrational because the people doing these things *are* behaving violently and irrationally. This makes all those trying to argue that Islam is a religion of peace simply look ridiculous. Again, urine-covered crucifixes, portrayals of Jesus as a sexual deviant or movies like the “Da Vinci Code” has not prompted murderous rage from Christians. Even the ardent atheist Bill Maher has admitted that while he thinks all religions are wrong, he does not consider all of them equal. Insults against Islam bring death threats, riots and even murders while, as Maher said, he can insult Christians without the Pope sending one of his Swiss Guards over to stick a pike in his guts. This foolishness does absolutely no one any favors. It enrages Muslims, lowers their reputation in the eyes of the world, costs innocent people their lives and brings down calls for censorship and limitations to freedom of speech in the United States.

However, let me also say, while on that subject, that this fundamentalist jerk in Florida is not the only villain here. The people who whipped up the crowds into a murderous frenzy are, let us be honest, not the most sophisticated people in the world. The media had to first give this nut what he wanted and plaster his plan all over the TV’s of the world, but even then, you cannot tell me that everyone in the remote corners of Pakistan and Afghanistan were watching U.S. cable news to hear about this. They were reacting to what their own leaders told them, and here is the key point, they could have told them the same thing and provoked the same reaction even if the fuzz-face in Florida never laid one finger on the Quran. That is why, ultimately, trying to make any law against this sort of thing would be futile. A Quran did not have to actually be burned for rabble rousers to tell people that one had been. There is simply no logical reason why one white trash preacher in Florida burning a book should ever have even been heard about in the mountains of Afghanistan. The people there were being set up and were simply too ignorant or hateful themselves to realize it. The fact that after all this time people are still so easy to manipulate make me a very … Mad Monarchist

Monarch Profile: Emperor Yongle of China

China reached one of the greatest peaks in her history during the reign of the formidable Ming emperor Yongle. Only the third emperor of the Ming dynasty, Yongle ruled during the time of traditional greatness in the cyclical history of Chinese dynasties. During his reign the Middle Kingdom would expand, explore and reach out as far as Africa, perhaps even the Americas if certain scholars are to be believed.

Born in 1360, Zhu Di, Prince of Yan, came to the Dragon Throne in 1403 when, as commander of the armies on the northern frontier, he marched on Nanjing, captured it and deposed his ineffective nephew Emperor Jianwen. He ascended the throne with the reigning name of Yongle or "Perpetual Happiness". He would prove to be one of the most effective rulers in Chinese history.

Having spent most of his life fighting the Mongols on the northern border, he was ruthless when dealing with his enemies. Upon coming to power all who opposed him were massacred along with all of their family, friends and associates. Yet, he was also a highly educated man, a skilled military commander and a clever statesman. One of his most significant acts was to move the capital of China north to Beijing.

Building on the successful reign of his father, Emperor Hongwu, Yongle established China as a prosperous agricultural empire. Plentiful crops allowed for a stronger and more active military and growing wealth allowed for the construction of a massive navy and diplomatic missions to countries all around China. As usual, the most constant threat to China was incursions by the Mongolians. Yongle proved his martial talent by personally commanding five victorious attacks against them. He then established a line of defensive outposts across Manchuria, Amur and Siberia. Korea agreed to become a tributary state of the Ming emperor and northern and central Vietnam was conquered by Chinese troops. He sent diplomats as far afield as Indonesia, Indochina, central Asia, the Middle East and even the court of Tamerlane.

Yongle also dispatched the largest and most famous naval expidition in Chinese history. The massive fleet was commanded by Admiral Zheng He, a Muslim eunuch from Yunnan, who journeyed across the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea, East Africa and according to some scholars, possibly even the Americas. Diplomatic ties were established, exotic animals were carried back as well as a number of kings to pay tribute to Emperor Yongle as their feudal lord. During this period of great learning and expansion, it was easy for the Chinese to believe that they were superior to all other nations. It also helped that Yongle encouraged scholarly studies along Confucian lines as well as Buddhist works. As is seen by the case of Zheng He, he also made extensive use of the eunuchs in high office as a way to counter the powerful mandarins.

Emperor Yongle died in 1424 after one of the most successful reigns in Chinese history. At the time of his death he was again marching against the Mongols. He was buried in Changling and had 16 concubines burned along with him. His is a name history can never forget, whether by holding off the Mongols, extending the Chinese borders, establishing the great city of Beijing or forging diplomatic ties with far-flung kingdoms all around the world. Although he was a hard man, ambitious, determined and ruthless at times, in every way a successful emperor is judged, Yongle more than fits the bill.

The Cause of Empress Zita

The cause for the canonization of HRIM Zita, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary, is well under way. As I'm sure everyone knows her husband has already been beatified as Blessed Charles of Austria. Below is the official prayer for the intercession of Empress Zita:

“God our Father, you redeemed the world by the self-abasement of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. He who was King became the Servant of all and gave his life as a ransom for many, therefore you have exalted him.

We ask you that your servant Zita, Empress and Queen, will be raised upon the altars of your Church. In her, you have given us a great example of faith and hope in the face of trials, and of unshakeable trust in your Divine Providence.

We beseech you that alongside her husband, the Blessed Emperor Charles, Zita will become for couples a model of married love and fidelity, and for families a guide in the ways of a truly Christian upbringing. May she who in all circumstances opened her heart to the needs of others, especially the poor and needy, be for us all an example of service and love of neighbour.

Through her intercession, grant our petition (mention here the graces you are asking for). Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

For more info check out the Association for the Beatification of Empress Zita

MM Video: Mad Monarchs

Shameless Plug