Consort Profile: Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria

Probably no Hapsburg consort has been so celebrated or so lastingly famous as Elisabeth of Bavaria, the legendary beauty best known to all as “Sissi”. Over time, the Empress has become iconic, mostly as a tragic figure. However, while tragedy is certainly far from unknown in royal history, and that of the House of Wittelsbach or Hapsburg particularly, in the case of Sissi, I think the “tragedy” of her life has been somewhat exaggerated and, to some extent, much of her sorrow appears self-inflicted. Yet, there is no denying that there was, and still is, just “something” about her that has fascinated people all over the world for over a century. Even as a historical figure she commands attention. Whether or not she deserves our sympathy is a more complicated, and probably controversial, question.

A Christmas Eve baby, Sissi was born Elisabeth Amalie Eugenie, Duchess in Bavaria, on December 24, 1837 in Munich to the music loving (and somewhat morbid) Duke Maximilian Joseph in Bavaria and Princess Ludovika of Bavaria. She grew up in Possenhofen Castle, the fourth of ten children, and a pretty normal upbringing, perhaps a bit on the liberal side, for a young girl of minor Bavarian royalty. Her father impressed upon her a love for the circus and a genuine concern for the common people. She liked taking long walks and loved horses but was not a particularly attentive student. Sissi was not considered extraordinarily gifted nor, interestingly enough for someone who became such a famous beauty, was she considered especially attractive as a child. She liked the zither, liked looking at things from alternate points of view and she was terribly shy around strangers; all qualities she would never completely lose.

Contrary to what some think it was actually Princess Ludovika (rather than Princess Sophie) who was most interested in pushing another Hapsburg-Wittelsbach marriage. In 1853 Princess Elisabeth and her older sister Helene were taken by their mother on a little vacation to Upper Austria where the Duchess Helene was to be aimed at the young Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph. Yet, it was the 15-year old Duchess Elisabeth, a luminescent beauty to be sure, who captivated the Emperor and he determined to marry her. His mother, Princess Sophie, advised against it, fearing that Elisabeth was too immature, but Francis Joseph would not be dissuaded and on April 24, 1854 he and Elisabeth were married in Vienna. From that point on she became Empress of Austria. The strict protocol of the Hapsburg court was quite a change from the relaxed, informal life she had lived in Bavaria and there was a clash, from the very beginning, with her new mother-in-law Princess Sophie (or Archduchess Sophie). She had not been overjoyed with Sissi as a wife for her son, thinking her too young and immature and, from the start, Sissi did not do much to prove her wrong.

As Archduchess Sophie set out to make Sissi her own special project, to train her for the “job” of Empress, Sissi snubbed her and did not take kindly to instruction. Whenever there was a problem Sissi would rush to Francis Joseph to take her side, which he tried not to do, and thus the man with the cares of an empire on his shoulders was often caught in the middle of squabbles between the two most important women in his life. Sissi became rather offended when the Emperor did not always take her side, however, Francis Joseph has always been brought up to be a loyal son and, in a very real way, he owed his throne to his mother who had persuaded her own husband to abdicate his rights to the throne so that the Hapsburg crown could be passed directly from the Emperor Ferdinand I to Francis Joseph. Many at court, and Archduchess Sophie certainly among them, were also alarmed that Sissi seemed to have more sympathy with the people they saw as the enemies of the monarchy than she did for the House of Hapsburg itself. One area which became something of a sore point was her fascination with Hungary.

Many in Vienna were still haunted by memories of the failed Hungarian Revolution of 1848 when rebel leaders declared a republic and nearly brought down the whole of the Hapsburg empire. Because of this, there were many who remained very nervous about any and all things Hungarian. Empress Sissi, however, was enthralled by Hungary, loved the people and at great effort learned the history of the nation and to speak Hungarian (which was not easy as it is a very unique language). There was, of course, nothing wrong with this, she was the Queen of Hungary and it was completely proper for her to take an interest in the country. In return the Hungarians adored her and Sissi came to be seen by the Hungarians as their highest advocate in Vienna, which she was. Yet, others in the German-speaking half of the empire were put off by her sudden fascination with all things Hungarian and tended to see it as a slight against the Austrians, as if Sissi was siding against them in being so sympathetic toward Hungary.

All of this made Archduchess Sophie even more worried that Sissi did not have the best interests of the House of Hapsburg at heart. She feared this interest came about for the wrong reasons and could be taken advantage of. On that count she may have been correct as there were some anti-Hapsburg republicans among the network of those affiliated to varying degrees with the Empress. In any event, family matters continued on and in 1855 Sissi gave birth to her first child, Sophie, who was named by her grandmother after herself without the Empress having anything to say about it. The following year Archduchess Gisela was born and Sophie largely took charge of them both, not really trusting her daughter-in-law to raise them properly. This was unfair but Sissi did herself no favors by constantly persisting in doing exactly the things that would make people uncomfortable about her. She was constantly at odds with Sophie over the children and became increasingly depressed about her life. Of course, she wanted for nothing, lived in lavish surrounding, had a devoted husband and so on, yet she seemed to have made up her mind to be unhappy and nothing could change it.

The first great tragedy of her life came when, to her delight, Emperor Francis Joseph decided to undertake a state visit to Hungary in 1857 in order to foster better relations and Austro-Hungarian goodwill. He of course would take his Empress along with him, regarding her as his most valuable asset on such a mission given how beloved she was in Hungary and counting on her ability to charm the Hungarian nobles. Sissi was thrilled with the idea but ran afoul of Sophie again when she insisted on taking the children along. The girls had been sick with diarrhea and their grandmother insisted that they stay behind with her so she could take care of them. The doctors agreed that it would be unwise to take them on such a trip but Sissi would not hear of it. If the children could not go, she would not go. Emperor Francis Joseph could hardly make the trip without her, she was the most beloved member of the Imperial-Royal Family in Hungary and most cared far more about seeing her than they did their king. So, for a change, Francis Joseph took the side of his wife and let her bring the children along. However, as the doctors had predicted, the girls became even more ill. Archduchess Gisela managed to recover but the little Archduchess Sophie did not.

There was immense sadness and some anger over the death of the little archduchess. Sophie took it as proof that Sissi was an unfit mother. The Empress was devastated of course and the situation was not helped by the attitude taken by many who has been against her all along that the tragedy confirmed their view that Sissi was headstrong and immature, more concerned with having her own way rather than what was best for the family. The fact that the court doctors had urged against the children making the trip only made things look worse and even Emperor Francis Joseph was never quite the same toward his wife as he had been. For Sissi, her depression deepened, not much relieved with the birth of an heir to the throne, the Crown Prince Rudolf, in 1858. Needless to say, Sophie took charge of the baby boy at the outset and Sissi never had much to say about his upbringing. Sissi made herself sick and finally had to leave Vienna for lengthy periods of time, only returning when she feared that the military training young Rudolf was going through would hurt him. Sissi went to the Emperor and threatened to leave him if she was not given complete control over the upbringing of their children and Francis Joseph had little choice but to agree. Yet, after this, she took very little interest in her son which caused many to think, again, that this was a matter of Sissi having her own way rather than a genuine interest in the upbringing of the Crown Prince.

In 1867, with restlessness still strong in Hungary, Empress Sissi was key in working out the compromise, agreed to by her husband, which put aside the Austrian Empire and created Austria-Hungary. This was the one political issue she was instrumental in, due to her love of Hungary and her great popularity amongst the Hungarians. From that time on the Hapsburg empire would be one monarchy reigning over two countries, separate but equal, each with their governments and each with their own legal systems. Franz Joseph and Sissi reunited to go to Budapest for their formal coronation as King and Queen of Hungary. In 1868, in Hungary, Sissi gave birth to her last child, Archduchess Marie Valerie, who she had all to herself from day one and who she always favored best.

By that time, Sissi had become famous all across Europe for her beauty and, may have been the first “royal celebrity”. People eagerly read anything about her, trying to follow her example in fashion, diet, exercise and anything else. Anything Sissi did instantly became fashionable. With all of this attention, though always a very shy person, Sissi became obsessively vain, determined to remain on the pedestal the public had placed her on. She went to extreme lengths to maintain her youthful, beautiful appearance such as bathing in olive oil or starving herself. This was of less interest to the Emperor than her increasingly vocal liberalism, witty criticism of the Hapsburg monarchy or the radicals, even republicans, she often associated with. She became increasingly pessimistic regarding the survival of the Dual-Monarchy. Still, there was little to be done as the Empress was often traveling abroad and only rarely visited her husband in Vienna. Nonetheless, she was deeply disturbed when she learned of the death of Crown Prince Rudolf, allegedly at his own hand, and it was she who was the first to know and who had the unfortunate duty of breaking the news to the Emperor and the mother of her son’s mistress who died with him.

Sissi did not take the loss well. First, in quite a cruel display, she blamed Rudolf’s wife Princess Stephanie of Belgium. Given the problems she had with her own mother-in-law, it may surprise some how cold Sissi had always been toward Stephanie, dismissing her as altogether too pious and unattractive (as a woman who was rather obsessed with her own attractiveness) and she accused Stephanie of driving her husband away by being unaffectionate and aloof. Likewise, for a woman who held such liberal views and who was generally disdainful of monarchy she had always considered the Belgian Royal Family too lowly to be tied by marriage to the venerable House of Hapsburg. All of this was quite unfair to Princess Stephanie who had given the Crown Prince a daughter and might have given him a son were it not for the fact that Rudolf gave her a venereal disease, picked up during his frequent carousing, that made her infertile. Later, however, Sissi began to blame herself or more particularly the history of insanity in the Bavarian Royal Family and she began to fear that her blood had caused Rudolf to take his own life.

The Empress withdrew even further and wore mourning for the rest of her life, though she remained the most famous royal figure of her time. Her behavior became increasingly erratic and self-destructive, traveling compulsively and dieting to the point of near starvation. She rarely saw her husband and was seldom even in Austria-Hungary. Her seemingly endless travels around the Mediterranean finally did come to an end, in another one of her favorite places to visit; Switzerland. She happened to be walking along the shores of Lake Geneva at the same time as an Italian anarchist named Luigi Lucheni. For no other reason than that she bore the title of “Empress” the anarchist attacked Sissi with a knife, stabbing her in the heart on September 10, 1898. It was a sudden and violent end for a woman who seemed to have been unhappy for most of her life, even if few could understand exactly why. In all the years since her fame and attraction have not diminished as she has been featured in countless books, plays, ballets, television shows and movies. Few other consorts have ever been or remain so famous, particularly considering how little time she actually spent at court or with her husband.

To this day, the Empress known to everyone as Sissi, continues to hold a special place in the hearts of many. Personally, I cannot count myself among her many admirers, yet she remains an undeniably attractive figure. Although I can understand the fascination with her life, I cannot have a great deal of sympathy for her. Being a royal, and a royal consort for certain, requires a certain selflessness and devotion to duty which, it seems to me, Sissi simply did not possess. Taking all I know of her story, the impression I am left with (forgive me Sissi fans) is that of a basically self-centered woman, concerned more with her own feelings and her own image than the welfare of her family, country or dynasty. Her marriage seems ill-fated indeed considering that duty and obligation were the constant principles for her husband. I regret that she was to such a large extent an unhappy woman, yet, it seems to me that she simply made up her mind to be unhappy and that was that, despite having what most people would consider more than enough to make a happy life. In any event, I hope she has found peace, where she is now.

Happy Medina Day!

Already it is that time of the year again when The Mad Monarchist fondly remembers the Battle of Medina, the bloodiest battle ever fought on Texas soil, a battle between royalists and republicans and best of all a decisive royalist victory. Viva el Rey! Arriba España!

Royal Commanders in World War I

The new blog Lost in the Myths of History recently posted on some of the common misconceptions regarding The Myths of the First World War. The myths and misconceptions involving that disastrous conflict could fill a volume. However, one of the often-repeated lies that has always bothered me the most is the idea that royals were often given high rank in the armies of the monarchial nations solely because of their blue blood and despite the fact that they were absolutely incompetent as military commanders. To some degree this is also often related to the idea that the top commanders in the Great War sat back in luxurious chateaus or safe in underground bunkers while the common soldiers were being massacred by machine gun and artillery fire. In fact, during World War I a greater number of generals were killed in the fighting than in most other conflicts. However, I want to stick to the tired lie that the royal commanders in the Great War were all a bunch of idiots who needlessly got men killed by their ineptitude but who owed their rank solely to being royal born. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I have tried myself to highlight some of the cases that prove this premise false. Probably none has been cited more often than the Prussian Crown Prince Wilhelm III or “Prince Willy” as the Allies dubbed him. He was constantly portrayed as a dandified playboy who owed his rank solely to royal tradition and as an incompetent commander. That is simply not so. The Crown Prince was no military genius but he was no idiot either and was a capable and reliable commander. Much of the criticism of him involves the murderous offensive at Verdun which nearly bled both the French and German armies to death. However, the Crown Prince did not develop the strategy employed at Verdun and, in fact, he put forward his own plan that would have, in all likelihood, succeeded in capturing the city which he assumed was the goal. It was not, of course, and the plan was rejected. An honest look at his actions during his early victories at the start of the war and his plans and opinions during the conflict shows that he was a very competent commander with a clear grasp of the situation and even a more realistic view than held by many of his comrades.

Other, less well known examples include Prince Henry of Prussia, younger brother of the Kaiser, Grand Admiral of the German Baltic fleet. Despite having fewer resources at his disposal he successfully defended the German north coast from Russian attack and kept Russian naval forces on the defensive throughout the conflict. There was Duke Albrecht of Württemberg who won the battle of the Ardennes in 1914 and, again, while not a miracle-worker, he was known as a very competent and reliable general who won promotion to field marshal and command of his own army group. Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria was widely admired in his own time and even today he stands out as one royal commander about whom one does not find much criticism. Many historians consider him to have been the best of the German royals to hold major army commands. On the Eastern Front, Prince Leopold of Bavaria led German forces to some of their greatest victories such as the capture of Warsaw, Poland and the eventual defeat of Russia as command of all Central Powers forces in the eastern theatre of war.

In the Hapsburg dominions, Archduke Friedrich, commander-in-chief of the Austrian-Hungarian forces from 1914-16 was also a more talented man than he is often given credit for. He was overshadowed by his Chief-of-Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf but Archduke Friedrich did express misgivings about Conrad’s aggressive plan of simultaneous offensives on multiple fronts, misgivings which proved well founded. Archduke Eugen of Austria-Hungary was also a capable commander, popular with his troops and had undergone extensive military training just like the non-royal officer candidates did. He successful held off superior enemy forces as commander of the southwestern front against Italy. Archduke Josef Augustin was one of the most successful generals of the Imperial-Royal army, particularly popular with the Hungarians, with victories to his credit against the Italians and the Romanians. In fact, of all the royal commanders in the Austrian-Hungarian forces during the war, the only one to emerge with a poor reputation was Archduke Josef Ferdinand who had the misfortune to bear the brunt of the most successful Russian offensive of the war. Emperor Charles I (Kaiser Karl) did not have much of a chance to prove himself but he did perform quite capably on the Italian front before the death of his uncle placed him on the Hapsburg throne.

Amongst the Allies there is no more controversial figure than Tsar Nicholas II who took direct command of Russian forces in September of 1915. While it is true that the Tsar was not by training or simple nature a military man, the diminishing fortunes of the Russian war effort under his command have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, there is every reason to believe that had it not been for the Revolution the Imperial Russian Army might have managed to reverse the tide of war in their favor. Better field commanders were proving themselves, better weapons were being developed and arms production was actually increasing. One can debate what, if anything, this had to do with the Tsar being in command, but if he is to be blamed for the defeats he should also be credited with the successes. Prior to the Revolution more supplies were coming in from foreign nations, new tactics had been developed and Russian troops were re-taking territories previously lost to the Austro-Hungarians. It was not the totally hopeless situation everyone thinks. His predecessor and uncle, Grand Duke Nicholas, was also a competent commander but one who suffered from the poor state of readiness of the Russian forces at the start of the war. His forces did win some early victories against the Austro-Hungarians and later as commander of the Caucasian front his armies were quite successful in repelling the Turkish invasion of southern Russia.

The only other Allied sovereign to personally command his troops was King Albert I of the Belgians and he did an admirable job. He relied heavily on his military staff of course and did not presume to try to tell them their business, but had been well trained for his role and everyone was impressed by his calm and steady leadership under the stress of a struggle more lopsided than that faced by almost any other commander. He put up stiff resistance in Belgium, throwing off the German timetable, fought a delaying action at Antwerp where even the notoriously anti-Belgian Winston Churchill had to marvel at his example. The King rallied his forces at the Yser River, ensuring the Allies won the “race to the sea” and toward the end of the war was given command of his own army group which he led in a successful offensive in the closing days of the conflict. His son, the future King Leopold III, fought in the trenches as a regular soldier. The Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VIII, wanted to do the same but was prevented by the government.

Among the British forces, Prince Louis of Battenberg, as First Sea Lord, ensured that the Royal Navy was not caught unawares when the conflict began, but concentrated in home waters and on the alert which prevented the Germans from gaining a quick victory at the outset. He had served quite successfully in various positions in the navy but was forced to resign due to the storm of criticism aimed at anyone with German ancestry. He had been a British subject since 1868 but had been born in Austria and was of German-Polish heritage which caused the press to wage a hateful campaign against the Prince, who later renounced his German titles and changed his name to Mountbatten, which finally forced him to resign. However, he had been of excellent service to the navy and played a crucial part in the early days of the war. Likewise, in the Italian military, Prince Amedeo Duke of the Abruzzi had a high reputation as a battle fleet commander when the war began and it was largely thanks to him that the battered little Serbian army was able to be evacuated to safety after a renewed Austro-German offensive. Likewise, on land, Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Aosta, was one of the most competent of all the Italian commanders. His forces had a higher reputation than any other Italian army and he won the only significant victory during what were the darkest days of the war for Italy.

Royals did not tend to hold many major commands in the Allied armies (probably a side-effect of democracy) but royals proved themselves in a number of capacities below the level of top command. As a gunnery officer on HMS Collingwood the future King George VI was noted for his skillful performance at the Battle of Jutland. Even in the French army the future Prince Louis II of Monaco earned high praise for his courage and determination, earning the Military Medal, the Legion of Honor and eventually promotion to major general. All of the Kaiser’s sons served in the army or navy, Prince Oskar was noted several times for his courage and daring attacks. He earned the Iron Cross and was wounded several times during the war, always leading his grenadier regiment from the front.

Obviously, some of these royal figures were more gifted than others in terms of martial talent. None of them rose to the level of Friedrich the Great, Marlborough or Napoleon but it is utterly absurd to think that every royal who served in the Great War was a spoiled incompetent. In fact, from all I have read, it seems that given how few royals there were compared to non-royal commanders, their record comes out quite above average in terms of overall talent. People scoffingly dismiss anyone with a royal title in a command position, assuming that they must be inferior and owe their position only to their ancestry. This is prejudice pure and simple and those who do so should be challenged to back up their condescending attitude with a few examples to prove their point. Hopefully, monarchists can now have a ready list of facts to throw back at them. The royals who led forces in the Great War were almost to a man capable and competent. Some were even exceptional but even for those who were not, they were certainly worthy of their rank and their medals.

Monarchist Profile: Juan Donoso Cortés

Amongst almost any listing of the giants of counterrevolutionary, monarchist thinking will be the name of Don Juan Donoso Cortés, marqués de Valdegamas, something of a convert to the movement and a descendant of the great Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés. He was born in Valle de la Serena, Extremadura, in the Kingdom of Spain on May 6, 1809. Something of a child prodigy he was more learned than most adults at the age of ten and was studying law at the University of Salamanca when he was only twelve. He graduated from the University of Seville at sixteen and was a professor of literature at the College of Carceres by the time he was eighteen. However, like many young men experiencing the world through university he became something of a political liberal, embracing the tenets of the so-called Enlightenment. The French had invaded Spain by this time and this may have been a factor in his embracing of certain ideas from beyond the Pyrenees. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the philosopher he admired most.

Eventually, he entered the world of politics under the wing of the noted liberal Manuel Jose Quintana. However, his faith in liberalism was somewhat shattered when real life began to intrude when a liberal uprising threatened the monarchy and even the very life of King Fernando VII at La Granja. If this was the fruit of the political beliefs he had held then he would hold them no more. Cortés became more and more counter-revolutionary and certainly a more ardent monarchist after being appointed private secretary to Queen Maria Cristina, regent of Spain for her daughter Queen Isabella II after the death of the King. He began to write extensively on both politics and religion (which were indelibly linked as he saw it) and was spurred on by Louis Veuillot to write probably his most famous book, Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism by the revulsion he felt for the 1848 Revolution in France. The book was published in 1851 and made Cortés famous as a religious as well as political conservative.

The book still holds up today as one of the great Catholic, monarchist denunciations of socialism. Cortés took a rather unique approach by condemning socialism, not as a political ideology that was flawed, but rather as a sort of religion, with a theology all its own, and an inherently Satanic and poisonous religion at that. He became quite famous in his time for his writings and his fiery speeches denouncing the creeping spread of socialism and revolutionary republicanism. In fact, he was often quite prophetic, correctly predicting that socialist revolution would bring down the Russian Empire first at a time when the Romanov dynasty seemed as powerful and permanent as the stars in the sky. In fact, he was rather pessimistic and even in his own time felt it was most likely too late to stop western civilization from rushing headlong to its own destruction. Absolute, legitimate authority was essential, in his view, and in his time, he complained that there were no monarchs left who dared to rule without the permission and approval of the masses.

It was a style of absolute monarchy that Cortés advocated, just as in the spiritual realm he was an early advocate of Papal infallibility. Without absolute authority, he warned, the monarch, the sovereign, would lose his sovereignty and the people, filled with the promise of the wealth of others by socialist agitators, would overwhelm the legitimate monarchs and set up popular tyrants who would be totally under the thumb of Satan himself. To stop this, no measures could be off-limits and if it took a Crown dictator to maintain order and keep the revolutionaries in check, so be it according to Donoso. He held out hope that at least one of the more authoritarian constitutional monarchies might save the situation if only the ruling monarch would dare to be so bold. However, after the Revolutions of 1848, most of the monarchs across Europe had adopted a firmly defensive posture and had no taste to take risks if immediate peace and security could be gained by compromise.

Donoso was a very gifted writer, aside from his political brilliance and foresight, and he was admired even by many of his political and philosophical enemies during his time. Yet, after his death his memory seems to have faded rather quickly and today is little known outside of monarchist and counter-revolutionary circles. His death came on May 3, 1853 in Paris where he was serving as ambassador, just short of his 44th birthday. He had previously served as ambassador to Berlin. He certainly deserves to be more well known than he is today. He was a deeply religious man, as staunch a Catholic as one could ever hope to find, an ardent defender of Papal supremacy and infallibility and a man of gifted foresight. He predicted that Prussia would be the power to unite Germany, that the morale decline in France after the fall of the monarchy would result in the loss of Alsace-Lorraine and that Imperial Russia would fall victim to Marxist revolutionaries. Few men have ever seen the world more clearly than he did or better understand the dangers of revolutionary liberalism which he called the, “sterile and disastrous ideas in which are comprehended all the errors of the past three centuries, intended to disturb and disrupt human society”. How very right he was.

Don't Ask Me About My Governor

But it's too late of course. As us natives of the Lone Star state expected long ago our very own Governor Ricky is running for President. A while back some might have thought that would be President of the Republic of Texas, but no, it's of the United States. As long time readers will remember I said all of Ricky's talk about state sovereignty and possible secession would thrill me to pieces --if I thought he was really being honest, which he wasn't and no one but the most hysterical leftists really thought he was in the first place. When he was recently reelected Governor of Texas, coasting to an easy victory over a generic liberal Democrat and a Tea Party candidate that totally shot herself in the foot as well as daring to blaspheme the Tea Party idol Glenn Beck -not exactly a hard won victory. He has been the longest serving Governor in Texas history, so he has had time to do alot right and alot wrong. Suffice it to say that, while we've certainly had far worse governors, I'm far from being a fan of his.

Truth be told, the Governor of Texas really doesn't have that much power. It is a pretty weak and ceremonial office. The Lieutenant Governor has more pull in government and we all know that the Railroad Commissioner is the one who really runs the state anyway. Once, as a form of protest, I voted for independent candidate Kinky Friedman for Governor. Some years later after denouncing both parties he started to run for Agriculture Commissioner as a Democrat (a campaign that went nowhere fast). People seemed shocked when I said I would never vote for a joke like Kinky Friedman for Ag commissioner. When asked why since I had previously voted to make him Governor, my honest response was that I really would have had no problem with Kinky being Governor, but I would never trust a man like that with the power of Agriculture Commissioner (and I'm not joking)! Besides which, when he ran for Governor he did have some good ideas, like his "10 Mexican Generals Plan" for illegal immigration and he had a great campaign slogan: "Let's Get Kinky in the Mansion!" But, anyway, keep in mind, I voted for that guy over Perry.

To be fair, I'm not totally down on Perry. The sad state of American politics means that there are many, many I consider far worse. It is true, Texas has done much better than most other states in the Union during the economic crisis and Perry did pretty good in forcing the reps to stay in Austin and forcing them to cut spending and he refused to dip into the rainy day fund just to save wasteful government programs. However, like many Texans, even Republicans, I have some serious issues with Rick Perry. Alot of people seem to think that just because he's Governor of Texas every Texan should be for him. Well, we already have a "Texan" in the race: Congressman Ron Paul (who's not a real Texan of course but neither is George Bush and I'd rather claim Ron Paul). However, as we all know, Ron Paul is a congressman and a libertarian and congressmen and libertarians don't get to be President. Those are the rules handed down from on high by the gods of democracy (and I'm sorry Bachman but that applies to congresswomen too). So, everyone is already assuming it is going to be Romney vs. Perry, even though we have yet to have a single primary! Let me say, if those are the choices, they STINK and the GOP has learned nothing from the pasting they took at the hands of B. Hussein Obama and Joe "we have to spend money to get out of debt" Biden.

Rick Perry is just, well, he's just SUCH a politician. I don't know if he honestly believes anything he has ever said to anyone. I would prefer Santorum, Ron Paul or "Rad Thad" over Perry any day and twice on Sunday because all of those men, though I may disagree with each on some things, have always been consistent. Especially Ron Paul, who I do have some problems with, but one thing he has been is consistent. Rick Perry, who we are told represents the conservative right-wing of the Republican Party -used to be a Democrat. He has been good at cutting spending, but when the cash was flowing he also spent money like crazy too and it may seem like I'm nitpicking there, but it should be common sense to cut back when you're broke but the smart people are the ones who save when times are good. He's supported benefits for the children of illegal aliens, which I oppose, he tried to pass a bill that would give school girls VD vaccinations without their parents knowledge or approval, which I didn't like and he opposed the border fence idea which I support. He said it couldn't work. Well we don't know if he we don't try and don't tell me we "can't". If the Italians could fence in Libya and the Chinese could fence in Mongolia we can certainly fence in Mexico.

He has also tried, continuously, to slip in toll roads on us. Now, I have nothing against toll roads -nothing at all, they are usually the best roads. However, in this case it would be turning roads that taxpayers already paid for into toll roads and to make things worse the contract would go to a foreign company. Not cool Rick. Not cool. My biggest problem with him, and to many this will seem the most silly, was his support for the Trans-Texas Corridor. I remember in the last GOP primary Ron Paul mentioned this project and that smug little Toobin jerk on CNN dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. Well, trust me, it is not. We have talked about it down here alot, had meetings about it with the government and seen the plans for it and everything. No one in Texas liked it. There would be land seizures (not about to happen here) and it seemed tailor-made for the people (who do exist) who are pushing for a "North American Union". Now, that issue would not have been so bad were it not that, like the toll road issue, Perry would not take our "no" for an answer. Like a frustrating game of 'whack-a-mole' every time voters would shoot it down it would get stuck into some other bill until someone spotted it at the last minute, told the media, raised hell and got it voted down again. This happened several times and that alone was enough to make me never totally trust Rick Perry.

So, to re-cap, as someone who has spent a considerable portion of my life knowing Ricky as our Lt. Governor and Governor, I can say he seems to be right on alot of issues but he's wrong on some too and what he is wrong on worries me and I don't trust him. I don't buy his sudden surge of religious devotion either. Would he be better than Obama? Well, I think so but only because I don't think Rick Perry is on a crusade to purposely destroy his country. I hope he's not the nominee but I hope Romney isn't either. I don't trust either one of them. I'm sorry if that seems a little bleak but, what do you expect? I am, after all, ... The Mad Monarchist.

Favorite Royal Images: Queen Rania

Happy National Day Liechtenstein!

A happy National Day to the Principality of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, the Princely Family and all the people of Liechtenstein, an oasis of peace, prosperity and royal rule in the chaos of modern Europe. Hoech der Fuerst!

The Last Shangri-La

I just watched the documentary “The Last Shangri-La” about the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan and I can recommend it, though it is not all pleasant viewing and did, at the very end, confirm some of my suspicions that no modern film could be so completely “reactionary”. It is not a very long film at all (quite small, like the country) and I would say more about who was behind it but, alas, I can find no listing of it on the channel I watched it on nor have I been able to find anything on it on the internet -though it may be there, it is only that “The Last Shangri-La” is not a very original title; everyone refers to Bhutan that way, so tons of stuff comes back that has nothing to do with the documentary in question. Anyway, moving on to the content, the underlining theme of the movie is how the Kingdom of Bhutan has been dealing with opening itself up to the outside world, the effects of westernization and of course democracy.

Rather ironically, I thought, for a documentary airing on American TV, the first issue discussed was the introduction of television which everyone interviewed said was a very bad thing. Some, of course, highlighted the positive aspects but still were of the opinion that the negatives outweighed the positives. A great many of the new evils that have cropped up in Bhutan to spoil their isolated paradise were traced back to the all-powerful idiot box and the hypnotic effect it had on children especially. Work production has suffered because, in the middle of the day, people leave the fields to rush home and watch their favorite soap operas from India. Children in school began getting into fights mimicking the theatrical attacks of American WWF “wrestlers”. Suddenly, the Bhutanese began to know about high-tech toys, fashion trends, violent rap music and so on. Prior to modernization, as one Bhutanese youth said in the film, Bhutan was a poor country with rich people; “rich” because they were happy. However, television and the subsequent foreign products, clothes and devices have given them things to envy and spread dissension.

As I have said before, in the years before this modernization, the Kingdom of Bhutan was usually my answer when someone would press me to name my “favorite” existing monarchy (a silly question in any event). It was, therefore, particularly painful for me to see Bhutanese young people dressed like street hoodlums in Detroit, flashing “East” or “West” coast gang signs and smoking marijuana. That was blamed on television too. Since time immemorial marijuana has grown wild all over Bhutan but it never occurred to any of them to smoke the stuff. They collected it only to feed to their pigs as they noticed that pigs fed marijuana plants seemed to eat a great deal more than others and gain weight faster (go ahead and come up with your own jokes about Bhutanese pigs with the munchies). Television taught people that marijuana could be smoked and there was a huge upsurge in drug use which was so alarming it prompted Bhutan to become the first country in the world to ban all smoking of any kind (well, there goes paradise…) but of course that is impossible to really enforce.

Then, of course, there is democracy. The Bhutanese who spoke on camera, almost unanimously, seemed to wrinkle up their noses when they said the word. Nor was skepticism about democracy confined to the older people who had spent their entire lives under the old, absolute monarchy, but young people as well. Everyone expressed great love and admiration for the King, that was one constant that was comforting. They may disagree on democracy, westernization, this, that or the other thing, but the King remains sacrosanct. However, his decision to hand power over to the people, even by the time this documentary was done, left most utterly bewildered. They could not imagine why he would do such a thing. As one young woman said, she knew that in other places people cheered when democracy was introduced and were overjoyed, but in Bhutan the people reacted with tears and tears of utter sadness rather than joy. It is also not, as some would claim, that Bhutan was unfamiliar with democracy or simply indifferent to it. They were repelled by the very idea of it.

In the film, Bhutanese people relate what they knew of democracy from seeing its effects when introduced in their neighbor countries of Nepal and India. They saw democracy bring partisanship, hatred, turmoil, violence and an obsession with money and power -all of which had been blissfully absent from their little kingdom. Even some of the young Bhutanese did not like the changes. As one said, the one strength Bhutan always had was unity. The King had but to raise his hand and the whole country, every last man, woman and child would stand with him. Democracy was already bringing division and the young man worried that their policy of “Gross National Happiness” would be eventually destroyed by this. Other, older Bhutanese mourned the divisions already taking effect. As one said, a husband would belong to one political party and his wife to another and if democracy could divide a family it could surely divide a country and that was very worrisome. Under the King, there were only Bhutanese but now, under democracy, there were political parties which set the people against each other.

Of course, the film was not perfect. The first thing that put me off was that, obviously for no other reason than “shock” value, the filmmakers chose to start off with a brief highlight of the Bhutanese practice of painting large phalluses on homes and businesses. They do at least mention that this is a custom dating back to a certain religious figure, done to ward off misfortune and is not seen as anything sexual in Bhutan -but still, there was no reason to highlight this other than, again, to “shock” western audiences. And, at the very end of the film, they mentioned in the closing text that in the first elections there was 70% or better turnout and that democracy was being accepted and that it looked like everything is going to be okay. This, of course, in spite of everything the documentary had just spent the last half hour telling us about the growing problems in the country and how upset people were about it. Regardless of the facts though it seems that the western filmmakers could not resist the urge to leave on a high note that democracy and westernization would be good things in the end. Yes, feuding political parties, violent children, drug addicted teens, greed, envy, worry -Bhutan is indeed receiving all of the benefits of modern “progress”. May God have mercy on them.

MM Video: The Last Emperor

MM Video: The Imperial Family of Iran

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the Far East, revered “King-Father” Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia has returned to Communist China for medical care and testing. The former monarch is 88-years old and suffers from an array of health problems yet appeared well and cheerful at his formal sendoff at the Phnom Penh airport by his son King Norodom Sihamoni and Prime Minister Hun Sen. King Norodom Sihanouk has made many such visits in the past, sometimes for quite lengthy periods and no one knows how long this stay will last. The Royalist Party said that it was simply an effort by the “King-Father” to maintain his health so he can live longer amongst his people. The King, however, in the past, has said his longevity is becoming a burden to him and recently posted on his popular website that he can no longer conduct many audiences since he frequently falls asleep. Norodom Sihanouk became King of Cambodia in 1941, presided over its independence from France, was deposed in 1970 by his prime minister, joined the communists but was held captive by Pol Pot after his coming to power, eventually deposed again but restored as a constitutional monarch after a UN referendum in 1993. He abdicated in 2004.

In the Middle East, HM the King of Jordan will be funding a $1.5 billion amusement park in the Gulf of Aqaba with a theme of “Star Trek”, or something of the sort based on the 2009 remake movie. This will be part of a much larger project to develop the area into a major tourism and resort center, which is not without some controversy given the high unemployment and generally poor economy in Jordan at the moment. However, King Abdullah II has long been known as the highest ranking “Trekkie” in the world and famously had a cameo on one of the spin-off series (sorry folks, but if there’s no Kirk, Spock or Scotty it ain’t Star Trek to me). There will, however, be attractions for the non-nerd visitors. Rubicon Group Holdings is overseeing the development of the theme park which is to be called the Red Sea Astrarium. Jordan had some unrest in the spring, not nearly as much as other Arab countries, but I would be a little uneasy about spending the kind of money something like this is going to take. In any event, I hope everything works out for the King -may he live long and prosper.

And turning to Europe, the one royal story that has really bothered me is the continued media harping on the Nazi “connections” of Walter Sommerlath, the father of HM Queen Silvia of Sweden. In the first place, given that her father died in 1990, I consider it a thinly veiled effort to simply attack the Swedish monarchy to bring this story up at all. How is it relevant and who does it affect? What good is accomplished by talking about it no matter what sort of relationship the father of the Queen consort had with the Nazi Party? Anyway, the issue came to a head when a documentary hit Swedish TV which claimed that Mr. Sommerlath took over a Jewish-owned factory during a program called “Aryanization” which gave Jewish businesses to Nazi Party members. Well, with such rumors and accusations continuing to be spread around by the gutless wonders of the modern media, the Queen decided to do something about it and commissioned a special investigation into what exactly her father had to do with the Nazis in World War II.

The results are in and, it should come as no surprise, the answer is a big, fat *nothing*. In fact, far from being a loyal, ideology-driven National Socialist, Mr. Sommerlath was found to have saved a Jew named Efim Wechsler from the Holocaust by trading his factory for a coffee plantation in Brazil, allowing the man to escape from Germany. But, it should also come as no surprise, that those who chose to believe the ridiculous accusations about Mr. Sommerlath in the first place are not about to let the facts get in the way of their prejudices. Nope, they don’t believe a word of the report and said, “What Queen Silvia has produced only raises further troubling questions”. To listen to them one would think little old Mr. Sommerlath was right up there with Hitler, Goebbels and Goering. This, I think, is yet another sign of the times. “Facts” no longer exist. Everything is opinion, everything is relative and it is simply a waste of time and energy to try to deal with these people for whom no evidence will ever be good enough in their ongoing effort to smear a man more than a decade in his grave. It is, in a word, despicable.

Mad Rant: Riots in England

England is being trashed. London is being trashed -again. As the great Sheriff Buford T. Justice said, “What we’re dealing with here, is a complete lack of respect for the law”. The world is stewing in a juice of its own making. Of course, the talking heads on TV will try to look for someone to blame. Nameless, faceless “big business” bad guys, untrustworthy police officials, government ministers or “Call Me Dave” Cameron. However, the truth is that it is “we the people” (as Americans would say) who are ultimately to blame and yet it is “the people” who never are. It was, after all, “We the people” who voted politicians into office promising that it was, indeed, possible to get something for nothing. They said that the government could take care of everyone, nurse you when you sick, care for you when you are old, pay for your education and even pay you to sit on your tush and not work. Best of all, this could all be accomplished without the great majority paying exorbitant taxes. They wouldn’t tax you, they wouldn’t tax me, they’d just tax the guy behind the tree. They told us our grandmothers were wrong, that there IS such a thing as a free lunch and, despite every evidence of common sense and human history, “we” believed them.

Of course, governments that are inherently materialistic and, in the socialist way, view every problem as a problem of rich versus poor, think everything can always be solved by spending more money, taking more from those who have and giving to those who have not -without ever even considering WHY some have and others have not. They do this until the money runs out and then they borrow and then borrow and borrow some more. This has been going on for quite some time and both sides of the political mainstream do it to one extent or another. In the United States it has been President Obama who has set the record for spending more money than all of his predecessors combined. More taxes and more spending is the way of the Obama administration. Yet, President Bush before him, while he did cut taxes (which grew the economy and increased revenue to the government in the end) refused to cut spending as well and when there was no more to be spent he borrowed just the same as all the others to keep things momentarily afloat. Now the bank accounts are empty, the cupboards are bare and the collection agency is banging on the door.

Anyone with any sense at all can see what must be done. Yet, the governments go on singing their same old tune. In America certainly the party in power says we don’t have a spending problem, we have a “revenue problem”. The government is just not taking in enough money. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Last year the government took in over four trillion dollars in tax revenue, and yet, they claim that $4.2 trillion is just not enough to get by on. They need more. In fact, they need quite a bit more since they keep repeating the absurd statement that we need to spend even more money to get out of this debt crisis. The US is fourteen trillion dollars in debt and they are telling us we need to spend more to get out of debt. The only thing I find more frightening than that is the fact that so many people seem to believe them. However, not everyone really does but they fear the consequences of telling the truth and doing what is necessary. So do the Republicans as can be seen whenever you ask any of them to get specific about what government programs need to be cut to save money. Talking about spending cuts is popular with some of the people now, but actually taking away the “free stuff” of the public is a sure way to lose your political office.

Then, there is also the threat of violence in the streets such as England is enduring right now. The circumstances for such an outbreak could not be better. It is summer, the weather is warm, the police are barely armed and held in widespread contempt. The UK has also become a very dependent society -and this has happened in conjunction with the loss of power of the Crown and the hereditary peers- in which individuals depend on a government bureaucracy for everything, including protection which the government has shown it is incapable of doing. That is one reason why I will go out on a limb and say that violence like this has never and will never be seen in my home state of Texas. Why? Because people here are more independent (though we are far from perfect) which is seen in such things as our lack of a state income tax, our unfriendly attitude toward labor unions and the fact that nearly everyone in Texas owns a gun -and everyone knows it. Looters break into a store down here and they’ll get a bullet between their eyes. Hence it does not happen.

I have recently stated a number of times that everything that is happening today makes me think that the governments now in power are not serious about solving our problems. Sadly, I think things will have to get much worse before they can get better. People, it seems, have not learned that nothing in life is “free” and they will have to experience real misery before they understand that you cannot get something for nothing. I only hope our civilization can survive that learning experience. I hope the UK can get its priorities in order, the rising power of the mob has never boded well for any society, certainly never for a monarchy. I will say God Save the Queen and that I remain … The Mad Monarchist.

Soldier of Monarchy: Marshal Elie Frederic Forey

Elie Frederic Forey was born on January 10, 1804 in Paris and like so many French military heroes before him he attended St Cyr military academy and graduated as a lieutenant in 1824. Posted to the 2nd Light Infantry he served in an expedition in Algeria in 1830. He had a distinguished career and earned steady promotion from lieutenant to captain to finally command his own light infantry battalion. By 1852 he was in charge of his own brigade and in appreciation for his support of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte taking power in France he was promoted to General of Division. He saw action at Sebastopol in the Crimean War as well as throughout the war with Austria where he earned particular fame for breaking the final Austrian position at the bloody battle of Solferino. Undoubtedly he was one of the rising stars of the French army and was elected senator upon his return from Italy. Following the humiliating defeat of the French at the battle of Puebla on the famous 5th of May it was General Forey who was called on to take charge of the reinforced French Expeditionary Force in Mexico.

Determined not to repeat the mistakes of his failed predecessor General Lorencez, General Forey moved slowly and deliberately. Known as "the Bear" by his men, Forey was not going to underestimate his enemy and took measures to try to win whoever he could over to the French side as he moved carefully and in force with two divisions under Generals Bazaine and General Douay. He issued a proclamation which stressed the peaceful intentions of his master Emperor Napoleon III and of the "love he bore for Mexico and the gallant Mexicans". When he sent a copy of the proclamation to the republican commander of Puebla, General Jesus Ortega, the Juarista sent it back to him saying that such a proclamation could not be allowed to appear in the government archives. Forey moved against Puebla with great care and deliberation, placing his men and setting up his batteries. He sent word to Paris that he had commenced the bombardment on the birthday of the Prince Imperiale.

As Forey encircled the city with entrenchments some of his subordinates thought he was giving the republican forces credit they did not deserve but Forey was not going to take any chances in his drive to avenge the earlier French defeat there. He set his engineers to work digging tunnels under the Mexican fortifications to fill with gunpowder and explode them. With that done he sent his men charging forward, including the allied Mexican army of General Leonardo Marquez. Forey took a lesson from the first Napoleon and concentrated his attacking forces at a single point in the Mexican defenses. The defenders abandoned the walls and fell back into the narrow streets of the city for a house-to-house fight. Slowly but surely the French tightened the noose and finally General Ortega asked if his forces might be allowed to abandon the town under arms and disperse. Naturally, Forey refused, not wishing to fight the same troops twice and knowing that, as the only major obstacle on the road to Mexico City, it was vital that the Puebla garrison be crushed completely. Forey replied that the common soldiers could be paroled but that the officers would be the prisoners of France. Finally, on March 17, after blowing up their guns and ammunition the republican army surrendered and General Forey marched his troops in as the conqueror of Puebla.

General Forey marched on virtually unopposed to occupy Mexico City and was widely celebrated at home and was given full military and civil powers over his theatre of operations. When he took Mexico City it was a grand event with huge crowds turning out to cheer the conquerors. Forey thought it extremely telling but he did not know that General Juan Almonte had paid the crowd of people 30 cents each to come out and cheer the French army. Nonetheless, Forey was determined to enjoy his role as occupier and held a grand ball for the ladies of Mexico -at the expense of his officers. When he moved about the city he so won over the local children he met that whenever he was spotted out of doors crowds of children would come running shouting, "Don Forey! Don Forey!".

However, political difficulties proved more of a headache than the military victory had been and Forey was soon known to be against the whole idea of setting up a new monarchy in Mexico with French support. The Church was not cooperating as expected since the French had refused to return the vast estates that the republic had previously taken from them. When the clerics of Mexico threatened to shut their doors to the French troops Forey responded that they would blow them open with their artillery if they tried it and the priests backed down. He called together the Assembly of Notables that would eventually offer the crown to Archduke Maximilian but he was not overly impressed with them. His negativity was an annoyance to Napoleon III who could not simply sack so celebrated an officer. So, the Emperor used the age old tactic of kicking an unwanted general upstairs. He told Forey that his talents were too great to waste on administrative duties and so he promoted him to Marshal of France and called him back home to be replaced by his former subordinate General Bazaine. Forey went home to command the II Corps but was laid low by a blood clot that put him on the inactive list, keeping him out of action for the Franco-Prussian War. He died in Paris in 1872.

Monarch Profile: King Mutesa II of Buganda

The man known affectionately as “King Freddie” was born Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II on November 19, 1924 at the home of Sir Albert Cook in Makindye, Kampala in the British protectorate of Uganda, part of what was then generally known as British East Africa. He was the fifth son of Sir Daudi Chwa II, KCMG, KBE, Kabaka or King of Buganda, the largest of the kingdoms in Uganda. His mother was Lady Irene Drusilla Namaganda of the Nte clan. His grandfather had been deposed by the British and his father had inherited the throne when he was only one year old. Mutesa II, like his father, attended the highly regarded King’s College Budo as a boy and had a traditional as well as modern education. He was only fifteen when his father died and he inherited the throne of the Kingdom of Buganda on November 22, 1939. His reign as Kabaka was formally proclaimed at Mengo Palace just outside the Ugandan capital of Kampala. Due to his age he originally reigned in cooperation with a regency council.

On his eighteenth birthday in 1942 he was formally inaugurated as the thirty-fifth king of Buganda with full royal powers (such as they were) at Buddo Hill after which he went to England to finish his education at Magdalene College in Cambridge. While there he joined the University Officer Training Corps and was later given a commission as a captain in the elite Grenadier Guards. In the later half of the 1940’s Uganda went through a period of upheaval as the people protested against the idea of creating a federation of the three countries of British East Africa. Africans feared this would endanger the rights they enjoyed by coming under the rule of the predominately European government of Kenya, effectively making the federation an East African version of Rhodesia. Protests were mounted against the Royal Governor of Uganda, the local government and even the king as tribes which had been granted autonomy by the British felt this would be threatened by federation.

Despite being the target of some of these protests, King Mutesa II actually agreed with them and opposed the idea of a federation. Against the wishes of Sir Andrew Cohen, the British Governor of Uganda, King Mutesa II called for the secession of Buganda from the rest of the country if the federation idea went forward. Ironically enough, most of the people in Buganda felt safer being under the direction of the Foreign Office in London rather than the Kenyan government in Nairobi. Feeling they had no other option the traditional parliament formally called for independence from the rest of Uganda in 1953 with the full support of King Mutesa II. Sir Andrew Cohen responded by using his own forces to have the King deposed and swiftly removed from the country, sending him into exile in London, accusing him of being an obstacle to the plan for transition from a British protectorate to full independence.

This was not true of course, the King was not against independence, but was against the proposed federation. Cohen, a Jew who was certainly opposed to racism, had done a similar job with the creation of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. His idea was that the version of “White” rule practiced in places like Rhodesia and Kenya was preferable to that of South Africa and he was trying to unite as many British African countries as possible against that method. However, removing the King was exactly the wrong thing to do as he was faced with the immediate opposition and even hostility of the entire population who demanded that “King Freddie” be given back to them. With no one even willing to work with him, Governor Cohen at last had to agree and negotiated the return of the King to Kampala on October 17, 1955 in a new constitutional monarchy for Buganda with an elected parliament but remaining within the country of Uganda.

In 1962 Uganda became fully independent from Great Britain and King Mutesa II played a key role in this as the leader of the largest semi-autonomous state within the federation of Uganda. The leading political figure was the radical nationalist Milton Obote of the Uganda People’s Congress. He formed a government in coalition with the Buganda monarchist party Kabaka Yekka (“The King Only”) and became the first prime minister. King Mutesa II was accorded the honor of being the first President of Uganda. The country was republican on the larger federal level but retained traditional tribal monarchies on the sub-national level. As king of the largest sub-national group it was only natural that “King Freddie” become the first Ugandan president. It was though a largely ceremonial position and political power was quickly concentrated in the hands of Prime Minister Obote. Nonetheless, the presidency of King Mutesa II was the most happy and peaceful period Uganda has known since independence. Yet, it was all too short as trouble began bubbling up quickly.

The coalition of the Uganda People’s Congress and the Kabaka Yekka soon began to come apart. The UPC accused the monarchist party of favoring only the interests of their own tribal nation and of stocking the government with their own people. There was some truth in this but it was only because Kampala was located in their territory and, as a result, more of their people were educated and qualified for government service. The real reason, of course, was that Milton Obote was envious of the position of the King and wanted the presidency for himself. As the parties grew apart so did the King-President and his Prime Minister who were frequently at odds. The coalition ended in 1964 and things quickly spiraled out of control. Obote was challenged in his own party and after brutally suppressing his opposition suspended the constitution and declared himself President of Uganda in February of 1966.

King Mutesa II stated, quite correctly, that this violated the agreement by which Buganda had remained a part of Uganda and thus, as King, reasserted the independence of his kingdom and ordered Obote to leave his capital city. Knowing this would probably be easier said than done he also appealed to the United Nations to intervene, but of course, there was no time for that. In one of the great acts of republican betrayal on the African continent, Obote rallied his military supporters and launched an armed coup against the President of Uganda, “King Freddie”. Declaring him a traitor, Obote sent an armed column led by his right-hand-man General Idi Amin to besiege Mengo Palace. Loyal monarchists rushed to the defense of their king and did their best to sabotage the advance of the army but it was to no avail. They killed hundreds of people storming the palace and King Mutesa II and a few surviving royal guards only barely managed to escape and flee into Burundi.

Major General Sir Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II, KBE, as he was formally known in England, was granted asylum in the United Kingdom and spent the rest of his life in exile there. Obote enacted a new constitution in 1967 that abolished the traditional monarchies and he set up a brutal, leftist dictatorship. The King wrote his autobiography and on November 21, 1969 died under mysterious circumstances. The official cause of death was given as suicide by alcohol poisoning though this remains highly questionable and many believe the King was assassinated by agents of Obote. Without his leadership, Uganda went downhill rapidly. Obote was eventually overthrown by a military coup led by Idi Amin who became dictator of Uganda. In 1971 he arranged for the body of King Mutesa II to be returned home and gave him a full state funeral. As we know, he went on to kill hundreds of thousands of Ugandans before being overthrown himself by Obote who was overthrown again by another military coup in due course. It was after that time, in 1988 that Ronald Mutebi II, the son of Mutesa II, returned to Uganda and was proclaimed Kabaka of Buganda in the traditional way in 1993 following the restoration of the sub-national monarchies.

Favorite Royal Images: The First Nicholas and Alexandra

Two of the very best: Emperor Nicholas I and Empress Alexandra of Russia, in a classical pose, truly looking like the Imperial couple of the "Third Rome".

Mad Motivation

Consort Profile: Empress Charlotte of Prussia

It is pleasing to note that one of my favorite monarchs had one of the most ideal consorts beside him and that woman was Charlotte of Prussia, also known as Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia. She was born HRH Princess Frederica Louise Charlotte Wilhelmina of Prussia on July 13, 1798 at Charlottenburg Palace in Berlin to King Friedrich Wilhelm III and Queen Louise of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Her first experience with Russia came early in life thanks to the invasion of Prussia by the French under Napoleon Bonaparte when the Hohenzollern family fled Berlin for the relative safety of East Prussia and were graciously protected by HM Tsar Alexander I. She knew a great deal of hardship because of the war and had a special affection and admiration for her heroic mother who died when she was only twelve years old. As the eldest daughter she then became the “First Lady” of the Kingdom of Prussia, taking the place of her mother, and she never forgot the strength of her mother and her ardent Prussian patriotism.

In 1814 Grand Duke Nicholas Pavlovich of Russia first visited Berlin and the Romanov and Hohenzollern houses immediately began to arrange a marriage between the dashing Russian prince and the petite Prussian princess. When the Grand Duke returned in 1815 he happily fell in love with the beautiful seventeen year old princess and she with him. As the Princess said to her brother, “in our hearts we have a world of our own”. Throughout the tour the two were totally inseparable and by the end of the trip the Grand Duke had proposed and Princess Charlotte accepted though it would be a long engagement. She was nineteen when Charlotte and the Grand Duke Nicholas were married in 1817 at the chapel in the Winter Palace in St Petersburg. It was the start of a great romance as Princess Charlotte, renamed the Grand Duchess Alexandra Feodorovna after her conversion to Russian Orthodoxy said, “With complete confidence and trust, I gave my life into the hands of my Nicholas, and he never once betrayed it”.

There were problems of course. Charlotte was a devout girl and changing her church was not easy and, although she won over many right away, some were also opposed to her from the very start and would remain so. The massive, sprawling, ramshackle Russian Empire was also quite a change in environment from the compact and clockwork efficient Kingdom of Prussia. However, Nicholas got along very well with her family, having nothing but the greatest respect for the Prussian kings and their famous army and he was a devoted husband. He loved the simple, quiet and affectionate home that Charlotte made for him and throughout his life Charlotte was always his closest advisor and confidant. Twenty years into their marriage Nicholas was still writing his wife, whom he affectionately nicknamed “Mouffy” that, “rest, happiness, joy, calm -- that is what I seek and find in my old Mouffy. I wished, as much as this was in my power, to make you a hundred times happier, if I could have divined how this end could have been obtained”.

Only a few weeks after the wedding Grand Duchess Alexandra was pregnant and gave birth to a son (the future Tsar Alexander II) in 1818. Six more children came in fairly quick succession in the ensuing years, though the petite Grand Duchess sometimes had trouble and did have a miscarriage in 1820. She was curious, graceful, musically inclined, an avid reader, rather soft-spoken but still authoritative and although frequently in frail health still maintained an always regal bearing. Whether in private or in public she was the ideal royal consort. She had her own interests but her family, her husband and children, always came first and she was happiest with them. Nicholas was happy and content as well, being utterly satisfied with his career in the Imperial Russian Army and with a loving wife at home he positively worshipped. However, they would not have as much time to themselves as they would have liked after the Grand Duke, rather unexpectedly, was propelled onto the Russian throne as Tsar Nicholas I. It was 1825, the Decembrist Revolt had just been suppressed and Nicholas set out on a reign that it was to make him known as the “Gendarme of Europe”, faithful protector of monarchial stability.

The now Empress Alexandra continued to devote herself to her husband and children as she always had. However, though Nicholas traveled extensively across his vast empire; so much so that at times he seemed on a quest to visit every Russian village no matter how insignificant, his Empress could seldom accompany him due to her fragile health. She became increasingly thin and suffered from a series of heart-attacks. Trips abroad to warmer climates were prescribed and Nicholas did consent to her staying for a time in Sicily but hated being apart from her. The doctors finally ruled that, due to her frail condition, she could no longer perform her marital duties. It was only then, in the 1840’s that the solid fidelity of Nicholas I slipped and he took a mistress. The Empress was, of course, very grieved by this, but eventually came to accept the situation and comforted herself with the knowledge that she was always beloved wife, Empress, advisor and confidant in a way that no mistress ever was or could be. During the Crimean War, after catching cold at a wedding reception for a courtier, Tsar Nicholas I died on March 2, 1855, passing from this life with his beloved wife and eldest son holding his hands.

Empress Alexandra remained devoted to her husband for the rest of her life, though she was greatly troubled by her fragile health which forced her to spend a great deal of time outside of Russia. This was hard as she had completely adopted Russia as her own (to her, the Tsar and Russia were one and the same) and she always referred to Russia, not Germany, as her country. When her health continued to deteriorate her doctors warned her that the Russian winter would be the death of her and she would have to move south permanently she decided instead to move to St Petersburg for fear that she might succumb while in a foreign country and she was determined to die on Russian soil. She spent her remaining time at the Alexander Palace and died there, in her sleep, on November 1, 1860. Just before she had closed her eyes for the last time attendants heard her say, “Niki, I am coming to you”.