Consort Profile: Queen Elisabeth of Bavaria

The saying that, ‘behind every great man is a great woman’ was never more true in this case. King Albert I of the Belgians was a great man in every way and the great woman behind him was Elisabeth of Bavaria. She was the greatest support to her husband and the backbone of the Belgian Royal Family in what would be the darkest hour of their history up to that time. She was born Elisabeth Gabriele Valerie Marie, Duchess in Bavaria, at Possenhofen Castle in Bavaria and was named after her aunt, the famous Empress of Austria. She grew up in Bavaria as a very well rounded young lady; intelligent, curious, loving art and music (passions she would retain throughout her life) at home outdoors and utterly fearless. She was small, refined, very delicate looking, lacking, perhaps, the dazzling beauty of her famous aunt but graceful, with refined features and a rather statuesque appearance. Her appearance and her love of painting, sculpting and music (encouraged by her father who was also the artistic type) would make some consider her fragile, but she could climb the rugged hills and mountains of the Bavarian Alps with the best of them and she did not shy away from unpleasant sights while serving in the eye-clinic established by her father Duke Karl Theodor who was a noted ophthalmologist.

On October 2, 1900, in Munich, she married HRH Prince Albert of Belgium, then second in line to the throne after his father following the death of Prince Baudouin. The two would become one of the most perfectly wedded royal couples of their time. They were devoted to each other, anxious to be of service, devoutly religious and shared many interests. In 1905 Prince Albert’s father died and he was suddenly heir to the throne and Princess Elisabeth was set to become the next Queen of the Belgians. Her gracious manners, charm and petite figure were tailor-made to win over the public but the Bavarian princess was made of tough stuff. It would take some time for the world to realize that, but those around her learned right away. She carried herself in such a way as to command respect and even the formidable King Leopold II watched his language when in her presence. A disapproving glare was all Elisabeth required to make her feelings known and, in 1909 when her husband became King Albert I of the Belgians and she became Queen, she set a new moral tone for the Royal Family. No longer would the court be the focus of scandals, business deals and public relations battles. Queen Elisabeth made the court a center of charity, artistic appreciation and Catholic morality.

It was a happy period for the couple. Elisabeth loved Albert intensely and had from the very start. She was the most supportive, comforting and affectionate wife a King could ask for. Children had come quickly with the future King Leopold III born in 1901, Prince Charles Theodore born in 1903 and Princess Marie Jose born in 1906, destined to be the last Queen of Italy. She was a devoted and caring mother, doting especially on her eldest. This is seen, perhaps best, in the care she took for the education, secular and religious, for her children. They were a very close family and it was largely to the credit of the virtuous Queen Elisabeth that the reputation of the Belgian monarchy improved dramatically as people saw the little group as the ideal Royal Family. There is no such thing as perfection in this life, however, and soon their domestic bliss was shattered by the outbreak of World War I. The Imperial German Army, the most powerful military force in the world, was soon knocking at the door of “gallant little Belgium” and King Albert I famously refused their demand for passage through his kingdom. The Germans might conquer Belgium but they were going to have to fight for every last foot of ground of it. This was even more painful for the Queen as some of the men leading the Bavarian regiments of the German army were her own family. Yet, there was never the slightest question about where her loyalties rested.

As per the constitution, King Albert was thrust into the role of field commander of the Belgian army and it was a colossal strain. Outmatched in every way, after the Germans brought up specialized, Austrian heavy artillery, the main Belgian forts were knocked out and the King made his stand at Antwerp. When that city could no longer be defended they carried out a fighting retreat down the coast before finally stopping the Germans at the Yser River, just inside the Belgian border on a tiny patch of waterlogged Flemish farmland. Queen Elisabeth supported her husband every step of the way and who can say what would have happened had she not been there to do so. Everyone did their part. The King managed the war effort, the young Crown Prince Leopold joined the infantry and went to the front and Queen Elisabeth began working as a nurse, a job well suited to her. She established a hospital to care for the wounded Belgian soldiers, worked there herself and was responsible for a great deal of the relief effort in caring for civilians and soldiers alike. Despite her intense sorrow at the horrors surrounding her, she remained strong, confident and optimistic. Generals down to common soldiers praised her for her care in the titanic task she undertook. And, fearless as always, the Queen did not hesitate to join her husband in going up to the front lines.

In those hard, terrible days of World War I, in Flanders on the western front, the whole world saw what the Belgian Queen was made of; she was not so delicate as she appeared. The Queen set an example for everyone around her, enduring enemy shelling, trips to the trenches and all the hardships of war without flinching but always looking for what more she could do. Part of this included her establishment of an orphanage for the children suffering from the war. No one met her who was not impressed by her. When the nightmare finally passed, when Belgium was finally liberated, she rode alongside the King in their triumphant return to Brussels. The following year, in 1919, she accompanied her husband to the United States where the American people cheered them as the first heroes of a war they had been late to enter. In 1928 and again in 1932 the Queen accompanied her husband on tours of the Belgian Congo where the city of Elisabethville was named in her honor. She was just as close and supporting a wife as she had always been and shared with the King a desire to see the vast Belgian colony improved, reformed and modernized. However, only a few years later in 1934 King Albert I died in a mountain climbing accident. Queen Elisabeth was crushed by the loss and would never be quite the same again.

As Queen mother, Elisabeth continued to encourage the arts and sciences (befriending Albert Einstein among other prominent thinkers). During World War II she used what connections she still had in Germany to help save the lives of numerous Jewish children. She never changed. However, after 1934 it was as if she was only counting the days until she could be reunited with her beloved husband. Still, she remained devoted to her causes, her family and her country, going her own way even when it caused controversy until she finally went to join her beloved husband on November 23, 1965 in Brussels. Queen Elizabeth was, at times, unorthodox but she was also the ideal consort by every measure. She adored her husband and was his strongest support in his most difficult days, she was a devoted mother, provided well for the succession and she was fearless in her care for her adopted country. She was, in every way, a great Queen.

Monarchist Profile: “El Cid”

“El Cid” is one of the great heroes of Spanish history, an almost legendary figure in the epic struggle known as the “Re-conquest” of Spain from the Islamic Moors of Africa. He is also upheld as an example of Christian knighthood and the old values of chivalry. The Cid, in addition to all of this, was a devoted monarchist and, somewhat like St Joan of Arc, proved this by being loyal to a king who was not always loyal to him. This, in itself, displays a very Christian aspect of the Cid, obeying ‘not only the good and gentle, but also the harsh’. His Christian chivalry and gallantry were just as great, if not more so, than his abilities as a warrior and it is to the credit of the Spanish people of his time that, even when his fortunes were at their lowest ebb, people flocked to his banner because they knew him to be a just, honorable and upright man and appreciated those qualities more than wealth or worldly power. He was a great man in every sense of the word and remains a Spanish national hero and evocative symbol of the best of the “Re-conquest” to this day.

He was born Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar in 1043 (his birthplace also being known as Castillona de Bivar -hence his name is sometimes rendered as Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar) near Burgos, the capital of the Kingdom of Castile. His father was a veteran soldier, a court official and thus respected and of at least moderate importance. Although he had aristocratic blood in his veins, his humble origins later helped him become even more popular with the peasantry who liked to claim him. He grew up in and around the court of the great King Ferdinand I of Leon and Castile and was well acquainted with his children. He grew up to be a great soldier, fighting in numerous campaigns and became well known for his courage and tenacity as well as being fair and humane. His bravery and the mercy he often showed even his enemies earned him the name of “El Cid” among the Moors meaning “The Lord” (from Sayyid). Because of his numerous victories in single combat the Spanish gave him the title “Campeador” (roughly ‘conqueror’) and hence he became known to history as “El Cid, Campeador”.

When King Ferdinand died his realm was divided among his children with Sancho II becoming King of Castile, Alfonso VI becoming King of Leon and Garcia II becoming King of Galicia. Obviously, this was not a situation destined to ensure peace and tranquility and the brothers began fighting against each other almost immediately. Sancho and Alfonso first joined to defeat Garcia and conquer Galicia and then soon turned against each other. El Cid had been the champion soldier of King Sancho II and he fought for him in numerous battles against the Moors and Christian rivals but he was greatly disturbed by the conflict between the brothers. Hoping to head off a plot against him, King Sancho II sent El Cid to bring King Alfonso VI to him, allegedly in the hope of reasoning with him and ending the war between them. This, El Cid did but he was later horrified when King Sancho was found dead, most believe as the result of a plot by King Alfonso and their sister the Infanta Urraca. According to some sources, when Alfonso VI arrived in Burgos to become King of Leon and Castile, El Cid and other leading nobles forced him to swear on holy relics that he had no part in the death of his brother, which he did, though few believed him.

So, from the outset, relations were not good between El Cid and his new monarch and King Alfonso VI was looking for any opportunity to get rid of him. After a campaign in Granada against the Moors, which was victorious but unauthorized, the King exiled El Cid who became a man without a country and a man without a job. He first offered his services to Count Berenguer of Barcelona but was refused and so was instead employed by the Muslim Taifa of Zaragoza who remembered him for the fairness and humanity he had shown even to his Moorish enemies in the past. Nor was El Cid alone. His reputation for justice, humanity and courage caused many Christian Spanish knights to follow him into exile and fight alongside him no matter which flag he was serving under. El Cid, still professing his loyalty to the King of Castile and Leon, laid siege to Valencia, defeating Count Berenguer with his mixed Christian and Muslim army and effectively established his own independent state on the Mediterranean. He recognized Alfonso VI as his monarch, despite the way the King had treated him, but was also a faithful friend to the Moorish rulers who had sheltered him in his hour of need. El Cid fought with the same skill, using the same inventive tactics that he was famous for under the Muslim king but soon an even greater threat arose from the south.

A new, powerful Berber threat was preparing to engulf the Iberian Peninsula under the leadership of Yusuf ibn Tashfin and he proved to be more than a match for his enemies, Christian and Muslim alike. King Alfonso VI was hard pressed to deal with this invasion and finally he had no choice but to turn to the one man who had proven to be the greatest general in Spain; El Cid. Ever loyal, El Cid answered the call and prepared to defend Valencia from the Berber forces of Yusuf. In his Valencia, El Cid had turned mosques into churches but Christian and Muslim had lived side by side in peace with El Cid enforcing justice for all. If Yusuf captured the city, all of that was sure to change and all of Castile and Leon would be under immediate threat. The tide of the “Re-conquest” might have been turned. Despite having tremendous odds arrayed against him, El Cid rallied his forces and fought with great courage and reckless bravery. Leading from the front, he was struck down by an arrow and carried from the field. Soon, with his beloved wife beside him, he died on July 10, 1099. His entourage was despair. As long as El Cid was leading them, his men felt invincible and up to any challenge. Without his leadership, morale would surely plummet and Valencia would surely fall.

His wife Jimena then came up with an idea and so staged an illusion that would be one of the most fantastic events in history. She took the corpse of her husband, dressed him in his armor, propped up by his lance and tied him to his famous warhorse Bavieca and led the animal and the dead warrior out to stand before Valencia where all could see him. Thinking their hero was still alive, the Spanish knights fought with the zeal and heroism they had always shown for El Cid. The battle was won and the forces of Yusuf were driven away with the Spanish troops learning only afterward that their hero was dead. Jimena Diaz remained as governor of Valencia for two more years after the death of El Cid, ruling in her own right, before another Muslim onslaught forced the city to be abandoned. Of course, it was eventually recovered as the long “Re-conquest” rolled forward. Throughout that long struggle, few rose to such legendary status as El Cid, Campeador. He was famous for his brilliant tactics on the battlefield, his prowess in single combat and his many victories. However, he was also famous for his mercy, his honesty and his fidelity. He was faithful to his King even when his King turned against him, he was faithful to his friends and never forgot a kindness, no matter from whom it came. When one thinks of the best real-life example of a Spanish knight, of gallantry and chivalry in Medieval Spain the one name that first comes to mind is and probably always will be Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, “El Cid”, Campeador.

Off Topic Tuesday: Penn State and Joe Paterno

Everyone, reading in the States at least, is probably all too familiar with the child molestation case concerning Penn State University and assistant coach Jerry Sandusky. The details are appalling to say the very least of it. I don’t think there is any doubt that this man is guilty and given what he did and how he went about attracting victims (some eight boys over the last fifteen years) I don’t think there is a form of execution excruciating enough to fit his crime. He has been arrested and I have no doubt he will be found guilty and he will be punished (far too leniently in my view) so, what is the problem? For me, the problem is that I would bet more people associate the name of legendary coach Joe Paterno with this case than they do the actual guilty party Jerry Sandusky. I don’t know, and until the trial probably no one will, exactly what Joe Paterno knew and when he knew it but I do know that, in my opinion, the media has been very unfair in their treatment of Joe Paterno, focusing even more on him than the man who actually committed the crimes. Why is that? I have my theories.

Joe Paterno is, in a way, a victim of his own celebrity. Everyone knows him or has at least heard of him and so it is no surprise that his name would be splashed on all the headlines. Even more importantly though, I think is his reputation as being the upstanding, “good guy” of the college football world. This, I think, is partly why we always hear more about “family values” politicians or Christian ministers or priests who do something wrong than we do about others, because the liberal media loves nothing more than tearing down the champions or the symbols of strong, traditional values. Few people realize, for example, that children are far more likely to be molested by a public school employee than by their priest or pastor but (unless the teacher is ‘hot’) you don’t hear much about school employees because the all-powerful government and all of its little minions must be protected in the modern, big-government era we live in. I also think we should not deny that, again due to the media, be it TV, music or movies, we have a frankly sex-crazed culture, even including children (have you seen the “beauty pageants” for children on TV? Porn for pedophiles if you ask me).

Based on what has come out so far, I fail to see why so much blame is being heaped on Joe Paterno. The first person I would take issue with is the grad student who claims to have seen with his own eyes Sandusky raping a 10-year-old in the shower. He reported this to Paterno and that is being seized upon but my question would be why he (and he’s a big guy) didn’t right then go over and beat that nasty old pervert within an inch of his life? He says he told his father and then told Paterno but, realistically, what more was Paterno to do other than alert his own superiors which he did? What other action was he supposed to take? Many say he should have gone to the police, well, the same could be said about the witness, the witness’ father and even if Paterno had gone to the police right then, what was he to tell them? He had no evidence, Sandusky would have surely denied it and so all he had was the word of the grad student. Hardly enough to hang someone with I would think. Now, it must be said, that there has been talk (just talk) about numerous people knowing what Sandusky was up to for a long time and doing nothing about it. I can’t really speak to that because there are no specifics being given. The only specifics I have heard talked about on the news concern the disgusting shower incident.

My concern with all of this, and this is not to detract from the pedophilia crime but relates to how we deal with it in the future (everyone would agree it is reprehensible), is that we seem to be going down a road where people can be ruined by gossip. When you think about it, based only on what is known now, people called for the dismissal and the blackening of Joe Paterno because he didn’t take action based on any evidence produced or anything he himself witnessed but because he didn’t take action based on what someone said that they had seen. It seems in this case it was a fact, but how was Paterno to know that? What if it had not been? How easy would it be to ruin someone with a lie when the police are called in based on rumor rather than evidence or an actual eye witness (because, again, the eye witness didn’t go to police, he went to the coach)? It seems to me we could be going down a road where one rumor, maliciously planted by someone with ill-motives could be used to destroy a good person and it doesn’t even have to concern anything the good person in question did but rather how they responded to the rumor!

Ultimately, this would only work to the benefit of actual child molesters as it would be so easy to just say you heard someone else say that someone had done something to a child that the actual criminals would escape under the flood of false allegations or police burning up man hours chasing down rumors rather than actual evidence or eye witness reports. Are we to all become spies and police informants? I am not trying to downplay this by any means. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not just being dramatic when I say that child molesters and rapists should not just be arrested but should be put to death -and if I had my way, slowly and painfully. I mean that. Anyone who would do such a thing cannot be treated, cannot be cured and cannot be rehabilitated. Destroying them would be doing everyone a favor. What I do object to or what at least concerns me is that someone of good reputation, who did no harm to anyone, can have their name blackened and their reputation which years of good work built destroyed because they didn’t act based on something someone told them with no real evidence just an accusation. Jerry Sandusky is the bad guy here, not Joe Paterno (based on what we know so far it bears repeating) who, as far as I know, did not try to cover anything up but passed on what was told to him to his superiors. I ask again, what more was he supposed to do? Was he to lead the football team in a public lynching based on what a grad-student said that he saw but did nothing himself to stop? Who is more responsible to stop a horrible crime; the witness who saw it or the man who heard that someone else saw it? It just seems unfair to me, at this point, to single out Paterno when, even if the worst is true, he would be only one amongst a number of guilty parties. However, the important thing to remember is that the real villain here is Jerry Sandusky -that is the guy who did the crime, that is the name everyone should remember and that is the man who deserves the worst punishment possible for his heinous crimes.

I will leave with this quote from the leader, in the Italian city of Genoa, of the supposedly harsh Roman Catholic Holy Office of the Inquisition who said on the subject of dealing with the accused, “because the mere fact of incarceration for the crime of heresy brings notable infamy to the person, great prudence must be exercised in the jailing of suspects. Thus it will be necessary to study carefully the nature of the evidence, the quality of the witnesses, and the condition of the accused. Let not our reverence be hasty in proceeding to make an arrest because the mere capture, or even rumor of it, causes serious harm.” Now, considering that the Catholic Inquisitor was speaking of the one accused of heresy, to say nothing of the one who may have heard someone was a heretic but did not make an accusation, that so much emphasis was placed on protecting the good name of people who may have been wrongfully accused, I cannot help but ask; have we become more just since the days of the Inquisition or less so? The narrative of this tragedy at Penn State makes me fear that we have, as a society, become not better but worse than our forebears of the allegedly notorious Holy Inquisition.

Battlefield Royal: Prince Maurits van Nassau

Maurits Van Nassau, Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, was one of the great military geniuses of his time and one of the most influential military commanders in the history of war. He seemed to have been destined for martial greatness from the day he was born. That day was November 14, 1567, in what is now Germany, the son of Prince Willem the Silent (who would instigate the Dutch war of independence from Spain) and his wife Princess Anna of Saxony. He was named after his grandfather Maurice, Elector of Saxony, a noted general who greatly expanded the influence of his branch of the venerable Wettin dynasty. He grew up being trained for leadership as, although the emerging Netherlands was republican in style, they looked to the Princes of Orange for leadership. Maurits studied in that great center of German learning of Heidelberg before moving on to Leiden where he was schooled alongside his brother, Filips Willem, the eldest son and heir of Willem the Silent. The Dutch businessmen who were the leaders in their community paid for this education as Willem the Silent had sacrificed the family fortune carrying on the struggle against the Spanish.

As the second son, Maurits van Nassau was expected to be a military leader rather than a political one and he grew up to be what we might now call a rough character. He never married, being totally unsuited to the domestic setting, and preferred the occasional mistress while spending most of his time living rough in the field with his troops (though he did father a number of children by his mistresses). After the murder of their father in 1584 in Delft, Maurits van Nassau took up some positions of leadership right away even though his brother, Filips Willem, became Prince of Orange. There was some, mostly long-distance, trouble between the two and their opposing factions of supporters. Part of this was political and part was religious as Prince Filips Willem was a Catholic and Maurits was a Protestant. Eventually, however, his brother died and Maurits van Nassau succeeded as Prince of Orange and was promptly elected Stadtholder of the United Provinces. As he also held the position of Captain-General and Admiral-General of the Dutch forces, it would be largely left to him to win the war against Spain his father had started for an independent Netherlands.

The only way to do this was on the battlefield and there, Maurits van Nassau was a real ‘Dutch master’. He set about his task with methodical and comprehensive dedication the Dutch were known for. He studied the Roman history of warfare, learning from their methods of organization. Mathematically gifted, it was only natural that he would develop a new, more streamlined, method of marshaling troops for battle. Prior to this time, armies were little more than armed mobs, lacking cohesive units and set command structures. Prince Maurits changed this and divided his army up into smaller units (the birth of the modern battalion) which could be much more easily maneuvered on the field. He also developed a totally new method of deployment. The established military wisdom of the day was to arrange troops in very deep formations (military paintings of the period will show huge, solid squares of soldiers jammed together) so that continuous strength could be pushed forward with rear ranks immediately moving up to take the places of those killed. Prince Maurits recognized that this effectively wasted a large portion of the army as those in the rear ranks had to wait their turn at the front-line and, indeed, might go through a whole battle without seeing action at all. Maurits thinned out the ranks into longer lines, pikemen in the middle and musketeers on the flanks, so that as many guns as possible could give fire on the enemy from start to finish.

Some questioned how he would make up for losses and plug gaps in the line with this new tactical formation. That’s where his new battalions would come in. With the army organized into these smaller units they could be maneuvered even in the midst of battle to take up new positions where there was danger. Maurits van Nassau also placed a great deal of emphasis on training and drill in order to accomplish these battlefield maneuvers. He also took care to arm his men with the latest weapons; lighter muskets, muskets with greater range and he organized his artillery according to caliber so that the right weapons could be brought up for the right job. Since the fall of the Roman Empire, battles had more often than not consisted of mixed mobs of soldiers having at each other with commanders having little to do once the battle was joined but to inspire their men. Maurits van Nassau changed all that for good.

He poured over books on tactics, strategy, astronomy and every possible subject that could help him in his task. Intense study, combined with his own extensive battlefield experience made him one of the great military strategists in Europe. What had been a rather unorganized revolt against Spanish authority became a very organized and state of the art war effort under his leadership. As he lacked the well established authority of a monarch, he also knew that his continued leadership would depend on achieving quick and significant victories. The war in the Netherlands was one dominated by battles for cities and fortresses more than clashes in open fields and so siege warfare was paramount. It helped that Prince Maurits had taught himself to be a master of mathematics and when he set to work on taking Spanish positions his genius was evident. More than in any other field, the legacy of Maurits van Nassau would be most felt in his contributions to the development of siege warfare. He was the first to integrate artillery and engineer units into the infantry and engineering was something necessity had long made the Dutch experts at anyway, which gave them a considerable edge.

In 1590 he took Breda, in 1592 Steenwijk, and Geertruidenberg was captured by his forces in 1593. Prince Maurits also took great care that his soldiers were well trained, disciplined, well paid and that they had competent officers. He encouraged his officers to sit in on classes at local universities and finally established himself the first modern military academy for the specific training of army officers. Many future victorious Dutch commanders as well as future generals in the English Civil War learned their trade under Maurits van Nassau. After securing a string of victories in taking Spanish-held cities, he put his engineers to work building a defensive line that could be easily held while he used his highly expert and fast moving army to continue to harass the Spanish forces in the south. One of his greatest victories came on January 24, 1597 when he moved under cover of bad weather with 7,000 men to attack 6,000 Spaniards at Tournhout. His victory was so complete that Dutch losses numbered only 100 dead while the Spanish lost some 2,500 men. Three years later he invaded Flanders and won another crushing victory at Nieupoort but it was a costly one and this, combined with his long and vulnerable supply lines, convinced him to abandon Belgium and return north.

Back in the United Provinces he won a number of smaller battles while also having to deal with a challenge to his political power from Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. From almost the very beginning the Dutch republic was divided between those who favored a more ‘republican’ republic and those supporters of the House of Orange who favored something more monarchial. In the end, for the time being at least, Prince Maurits was successful in making himself the unquestioned leader of the Netherlands. However, the years and battles were catching up with him by that time. He had convinced his half brother, Prince Fredrik Hendrik, to marry and have children to continue the Orange dynasty and soon set back off to continue the fight with the Spanish. However, it would be his last campaign and accomplished no stunning successes for the first time in his career. Prince Maurits van Nassau, Prince of Orange, died of a liver problem on April 23, 1625, seeming much older than his 57 years. His life was over but his legacy would go on.

Unlike other great military leaders, Maurits van Nassau never held off hordes of foreign armies nor did he conquer vast tracts of enemy territory. However, his battles were brilliantly conducted and his sieges absolute masterpieces of strategic thinking. His establishment of the battalion as the primary unit of battlefield maneuver set the pattern for armies up until only very recently and his innovations in siege craft, organization of troops and the training of officers is still felt very much today. The great Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus borrowed from his book extensively and, with a few improvements of his own, became one of the influential captains of history. Almost every subsequent giant in the art of war owes something, whether they realize it or not, to the groundbreaking work done by Prince Maurits van Nassau. It would be some time longer before the war with Spain was finally and completely won but it almost certainly would not have happened were it not for the efforts of Prince Maurits and, therefore, the very existence of the modern Kingdom of Netherlands is owed, at least in part, to him and his achievements.

MM Video Special: The Kings of Italy

Royal News Roundup

Some worrying news to start off with as, just after Princess Aiko was released from the hospital, HM the Emperor of Japan was hospitalized this week for fever, bronchitis and fatigue -that is according to a statement released by the Imperial Household Agency. The Emperor is 77-years old and a combination of his age and over-exertion was reportedly causing him trouble in fighting off his illness. Of course we wish His Imperial Majesty a safe and speedy recovery. HIH Crown Prince Naruhito has been appointed to fulfill his father’s duties, bestowing decorations and making an upcoming visit, while the Emperor is ill.

Crown Princess Mary of Denmark christened a new frigate for the Royal Danish Navy, “The Niels Juel”. Later she opened a National Geographic photo exhibition in Copenhagen where Princess Benedikte also attended a fashion show on Tuesday.
In Sweden, Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel made a special visit to the northern part of the country, touring local facilities and meeting local officials. Across the pond in New York, little sister Madeleine visited a youth center in Harlem. The Norwegian Royals were also in Sweden this week for the opening of an art exhibition which features some works done by Queen Sonja of Norway herself. Also in Norwegian news, the Crown Prince and Princess will be releasing a special Christmas CD featuring young Norwegian singers with proceeds to benefit underprivileged Norwegian youth.

In the Low Countries, HRH Grand Duke of Henri of Luxembourg made a state visit to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, visiting Hanoi, Hue and Saigon. And, on Friday, Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume turned 30-years old. I hope he enjoyed it more than I did. Of course, The Mad Monarchist wishes the future Grand Duke a very happy birthday. So far, he’s been an upstanding prince. In Belgium, Crown Princess Mathilde visited the “House of Parenting” in Leuven; giving them some pointers perhaps? On Armistice Day Princess Mathilde attended commemorations in Flanders while Prince Philippe, on behalf of King Albert II, attended the wreath-laying ceremony in Brussels. And the Dutch Royal Family wrapped up a successful visit to the Caribbean where the Queen and Prince and Princess of Orange visited all the major Dutch islands, even those where there has been an up-swing in anti-Dutch rabble-rousing lately but which went off without incident. Princess Maxima attended opened a special week dedicated to teaching young people how to handle money. She later opened a new department in the Hague dedicated to ‘production chain sustainability’. The Princess was also in Utrecht this week, at the mint, to present the first coins produced for the aforementioned “Money Week”. On Friday, HM Queen Beatrix was at the Hall of Knights in The Hague to mark 200 years of judicial power. She was even given a couple of books on the subject -though I doubt she needs them. Recently Her Majesty also became the oldest Dutch monarch in the history of that kingdom, passing the record set by King Willem III.

The Prince and Princess of the Asturias were in London this week, promoting business links between Spain and the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, officials are investigating corruption allegations concerning a non-profit firm once led by the husband of HRH Infanta Cristina. So far, the palace has not commented on that. In Monaco, HSH Prince Albert II took in the new film “Oxygen”, meeting with the director and stars afterward. This week he also accepted the credentials of new ambassadors to Monaco from the nations of Ukraine, Switzerland and Lithuania as well as a new ambassador from the French Republic. Today also marks the anniversary of the birth of the late Princess Grace who would have been 82-years old today. Always one of a kind, I’m sure Her Serene Highness is looking down on her children, properly pleased that her dear Albie has finally settled down to married life.

The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall visited South Africa before going on to Tanzania where they even danced with the locals on Zanzibar. Of course, the Prince of Wales also had to take time out to explain the dangers of global warming to the natives. On Thursday, HRH the Duke of Edinburgh visited the Field of Remembrance at Westminster Abbey, placing a cross and meeting with a number of British war veterans. The same day HM the Queen was visiting Goodenough College to mark the 80th anniversary of that institution (gotta love the name). That evening the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attended a charity gala at St James Palace to benefit an arboretum for veterans (probably best I say nothing about that one). On Friday, the Queen and Prince Consort were in Margate where they visited a modern art gallery, a new café and a lifeboat station. It was also announced on Thursday that soon Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, will be deployed to the South Atlantic British possession of the Falkland Islands. Tensions over the islands have flared up again recently over speculation that there may be oil in the territorial waters. Argentine President Cristina Kirchner raised eyebrows recently by saying that the Argentine claim to the islands is “non-negotiable” and calling the United Kingdom a, “crude, colonial power in decline”.

The Late War in Viet Nam

As this is Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day) and having already discussed often my thoughts on World War I (a disaster all around) and being the glutton for punishment that I am, I thought I would take this opportunity to pass on a few words about a very controversial conflict: the Vietnam War. First of all, for the sake of honesty, let me say that I will probably have to plead guilty to the charge of being biased on this one. I had loved ones involved extensively in the Vietnam War, both American and Vietnamese. I know how bad it was, I know the toll it took on people and I know what Vietnam has been like since the American withdrawal and the Communist takeover. That last bit is the part I think is all too often ignored today. But, to stay on point, I am, to say the least, emotionally invested in the Vietnam War and it is impossible for me to look back at it as history without thinking about those I know and knew who were directly and dramatically affected by it. I have never picked up the habit of desiring popularity and therefore it troubles me not at all to say, even today, I support the late war in Vietnam. To be even more unpopular, I will say that I would have supported the French war in Vietnam and, personally, I think it would have been best if the United States had supported the French even more during their war in Indochina. As I see it, that was the really crucial time of the multi-decades long conflict between the communists and anti-communists in Southeast Asia.

To be sure, there were many unsavory aspects of the colonial rule of the French republic in Indochina. However, during that time, every region (Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) still had their traditional monarchs on the throne, at least in a ceremonial capacity -not ideal, but something to work with. I can also say that, based on what I have seen, Vietnam was much more “Vietnamese” before independence than after. I would have supported the French effort because they were fighting to win and, although the government of the State of Vietnam which they sponsored, was not ideal by any means, it was at least under the nominal rule of the last Emperor in the capacity of “Chief of State”. When the French threw in the towel (Eisenhower having refused to come to the rescue at Dien Bien Phu -big mistake) the communist regime in the north was effectively recognized as a legitimate government and that was a very, very big mistake. The deal that was made might have been the only thing the former Vietnamese Emperor and the United States ever totally agreed on -they were both opposed to it and refused to sign on. Both realized that it would be absurd to trust the fate of the country to a nation-wide plebiscite with more than half the population under communist control and not free to make their own choice at all. Additionally, even if they were not coerced, many would have likely voted for the communists anyway as the vast majority of their base of support were uneducated peasants who could not read, write or understand and had not the slightest conception of what communism was or would mean.

The United States, in my view, was doing the right thing in Vietnam even if they did it in the wrong way or, in some cases, for the wrong reasons. Getting rid of the ex-Emperor was a very bad move in my book, but the guy they replaced him with, Ngo Dinh Diem, was not all bad. Giving the ‘green light’ to get rid of Diem when he proved to be uncooperative was also a bad move in my book and it started a period of devastating political instability in Saigon that did not even start to be clamped down until the presidency of Nguyen Van Thieu, effectively the last President of South Vietnam. The U.S. did not fight the war properly in my view either. They were fighting, effectively, a defensive war with the only strategically offensive measures being reduced to the bombing campaign. I’m sorry, but you just cannot win a war that way. I believe it was the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte who said that, “The only logical end to defensive warfare is surrender”. Many people wonder how the war could have lasted so long when the U.S. won virtually every engagement. The simple answer is that because every time the communists were beaten they could retreat to their side of the border to re-arm, reorganize, re-equip and then come back to try again and again. That, under the best of circumstances, is not a recipe for victory but for a war without end.

It is a simple rule of mine that, putting aside all the other political junk, any time anyone fights communists they have my full support, regardless of the circumstances. I think of where the line was held, such as South Korea, and compare that to countries where it was not, like Vietnam. Of course, South Korea has its problems, but it is a veritable paradise compared to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I also know that the Vietnamese, regardless of allegiance, were terrified whenever Korean troops came to town (yes, the U.S. was not the only one with troops on the ground). They were not ‘nice guys’. That is because the Koreans had first-hand experience with confronting communism. They knew what it was all about, it wasn’t just something they had read about in a book like most American draftees. The Koreans knew that when it came to the communists there was no room for half-way measures, you have to go “Old Testament” on them. It is a sad fact of human nature that many people will never understand the heat until they get burned by the fire. The self-obsessed, spoiled hippies prancing around America had no idea what communism really meant; they had never been burned by it. The Koreans had and it showed.

The real point today though is to remember the veterans and that I certainly do. They were misled at the highest level but the troops fought as hard as any in any war before or since. All too often we also forget that they were *victorious* in spite of having one hand tied behind their backs. In the dastardly Tet Offensive of 68 the communists hit every major installation in South Vietnam with all the strength they could muster and the U.S. and ARVN forces completely wiped them out. The Viet Cong was all but annihilated in that campaign and were never a significant force afterward. It was tough, I had one cousin who lost a leg from wounds he suffered while battling the communists in Hue for control of the Forbidden City. But, in the end, they held the line and repelled every attack. Furthermore, no matter what one thinks of “Tricky Dick” Nixon, his policy of “Vietnamization” worked. The heroic South Vietnamese armed forces rarely get any credit these days but the fact is that after the U.S. withdrawal the communists launched their biggest offensive of the war and, with only some U.S. advisors and air support, the South Vietnamese kicked their commie butts. It is so maddeningly frustrating that, believe it or not, by the early to mid 70’s the war was won. With only a little fire support and supplies (much less than the north was receiving from the Soviets) the ARVN forces had the south completely secure and it was at that moment that the Democrat-controlled Congress cut off all aid and assistance to South Vietnam, robbing them of everything as well as robbing the American veterans of all they had fought for in the previous ten years. The soldiers, U.S. and South Vietnamese, won, they did not lose that war -Washington DC politicians did.

When the King Spoke Up

Today is the anniversary of one of my favorite monarchial moments in the 21st Century. It was on this day in 2007 that HM King Juan Carlos I of Spain pointedly asked Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, “Why don’t you shut up?” at the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago, Chile. I must savor that moment at every opportunity. To refresh; Spanish Prime Minister (socialist) Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was giving a speech (which I’m sure few remember) but was constantly being interrupted by the insult-spewing commie dictator Chavez. The portly pinko was raving about the former (conservative -or what passes for one in Spain these days) Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, calling him a “fascist” ‘sub-human snake’ etc and accusing him of complicity in the (sadly unsuccessful) 2002 attempt to remove Chavez from power. Zapatero was growing more and more frustrated by these interruptions, as was everyone else who values civility, and was actually driven to the point of defending his predecessor on the grounds that, unlike Chavez, Aznar was at least a democratically elected public servant rather than a dictator. For Americans, this would be like Barack Obama being driven to defend George W. Bush. Things were obviously getting hot! Finally, unable to stand any more of his rude, childish behavior, King Juan Carlos leaned forward at Chavez and said, “Why don’t you shut up?”

Oh, it was a glorious moment! And, just for the cherry on top, the King used the form of address normally reserved for children or inferiors. The room erupted in applause for King Juan Carlos, avenger in the cause of common courtesy and probably the only one in the room with the clout to put the dictatorial blowhard in his place. Later the King stormed out when the communist child molester Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua (a loyal lapdog of Chavez) began criticizing Spain for opening energy companies in his country (yeah, you’re welcome for the jobs pinko). All in all, it was an extremely memorable summit for the King of Spain. Once it was over, the cowardly Chavez reasserted and even expanded his tirade to the press, calling the King of Spain ‘illegitimate’ and comparing former Prime Minister Aznar with Adolf Hitler. However, the King’s verbal slap-down of the overblown tyrant became an instant hit around the world as the phrase, “Por qué no te callas?” began appearing everywhere from ringtones to t-shirts to sports broadcasts. In Venezuela, the long suffering opponents of the Chavez regime adopted the phrase as their slogan. It became a sensation all over the Spanish-speaking world.

There were, of course, detractors. Some said the King was simply having a bad day in a time when things had not been going well for the Spanish monarchy, that he shouldn’t have ‘lost his cool’ in such a public arena or, even more grandly, that this was an illustration of the bitterness of Latin American nations toward Spain and the arrogance of Spain toward her former colonies. Blah, blah, blah! As far as I am concerned, this was a great moment and I think, on this at least, the majority would agree with me. Sean Penn may love the guy, but most of the world can see Hugo Chavez for the brutal, petty dictator that he is and when the King of Spain told him to shut his mouth he was saying what multitudes of other people in and outside of Venezuela would have loved to have been able to say themselves. Everyone was living vicariously through him at that moment, when he angrily pointed at Chavez, warning him he needed to behave himself and, that failing, finally leaning over to tell him to shut his pie hole. Would, say, Queen Elizabeth II say such a thing to someone like Robert Mugabe (back when Zimbabwe was still in the Commonwealth)? No, of course she wouldn’t. Would she be perfectly justified in doing so? Absolutely and without doubt. Just as King Juan Carlos was. I also have to mention that, the year after this incident, King Juan Carlos I was voted the most popular leader of the Ibero-American nations. Viva el Rey!

Enemy of Monarchy: Adolf Hitler

The way Adolf Hitler is constantly portrayed as a figure of the political “right” is astounding. The idea that anyone could perceive the leader of a group called the National Socialist German Workers Party as anything close to being a “conservative” defies belief. And yet, many seem to do just that. Of course, Hitler was not a conservative, not a member of the political right and Hitler himself would have considered such a classification deeply insulting. He despised everything that the traditional, right-wing conservatives of Germany stood for. This included Christianity, the aristocracy and, of course, monarchy. Hitler was, and always considered himself, a revolutionary and a socialist; he was simply a national socialist whereas the communists were international socialists. By his own admission, Hitler was a “little revolutionary” from his very boyhood, growing up in the Dual-Empire of Austria-Hungary and, he makes it perfectly clear in his own autobiography that he had nothing but contempt for the Imperial House of Hapsburg.

Hitler accused the Hapsburgs of favoring the Slavic peoples over the German-Austrians and even said it was the “hand of the goddess of eternal justice” which caused the Archduke Franz Ferdinand to be shot as he had been prominent in advocating greater outreach to the Slavs. He even found room to criticize the Austrian alliance with Germany, saying, “The Hapsburg hypocrisy, which enabled the Austrian rulers to create the outward appearance that Austria was a German state, raised the hatred toward this house to flaming indignation and at the same time - contempt.” He went on to refer to Austro-German friendship as an “unholy alliance” and, as we all know, when World War I broke out the young Adolf Hitler would not fight for the Hapsburg empire but instead crossed over into Bavaria to volunteer to join the more “pure” army of the German Empire. Indeed, a great deal of the first part of his book Hitler devotes to pouring scorn on Austrian history and the House of Hapsburg in particular. In fact, one of his complaints about the Bavarian people, after arriving there, was that they continued to view the Austrian monarchy as German and a reliable friend. Hitler viewed such people, as he viewed most other than himself, as hopelessly stupid.

He did remark on the loyalty of the Bavarian people toward their royal family, the House of Wittelsbach, but his anger was turned on them fiercely after his failed coup on November 8-9, 1923. Hitler tried to enlist the support of the still widely respected Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, well known not only for his royal position but as a highly successful army group commander on the western front in World War I, but the Crown Prince would have nothing to do with him and denounced the Nazi Party from start to finish. Hitler had been trying to imitate the success of Mussolini’s black shirts and their “March on Rome” the year before. However, whereas Mussolini had widespread support and ended up leading the government, Hitler had relatively little support, bolted with his men after the first shots were fired against them and he ended up in prison. While there he poured out his hatred against the late monarchy and the old order on the pages of his book, dictated to Rudolf Hess. Taking the socialist line, he denounced the aristocracy for being too cozy with wealthy financiers (universally Jewish in his mind) and he opined that in his “New Germany” the only aristocracy would be the aristocracy of race and that all class distinctions would be abolished. He criticized Kaiser Wilhelm II for allowing parliamentary democracy at all and for giving “cover” to those who had stabbed Germany in the back. At the time, few took his mindless ravings seriously.

However, he eventually did become a powerful political force, as we know, and had to reach out to some of the same groups he had earlier condemned. However, there was no doubt on either side as to where he stood from the perspective of the old, conservative monarchists. The most prominent figure in this group was probably the President himself, the aging but revered Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg who scoffed at the suggestion of making Hitler chancellor. The old Prussian aristocrat quipped that he, “wouldn’t make that Bohemian corporal postmaster much less chancellor”. Hitler tried to reach out to the conservatives of course, to further his ambitions, and even sent his most likeable deputy, former air ace Herman Göring to try to woo the exiled Kaiser over to their side. At first, a number supported the idea, but the old Kaiser had enough experience to tell fairly quickly that Hitler was not what he pretended to be and he refused to endorse him and forbid the Crown Prince from getting involved as well. When Wilhelm II died during World War II a vindictive Hitler forbid high ranking Germans from attending his funeral and refused him any state honors (but the Kaiser didn’t want them anyway).

Hitler, in his own book, let his true feelings about monarchy be known. He said on the subject of monarchy that, “If the value of this institution lay in the momentary person of the monarch, it would be the worst institution that can be imagined; for monarchs only in the rarest cases are the cream of wisdom and reason or even of character, as some people like to claim. This is believed only by professional lickspittles and sneaks, but all straightforward men - and these remain the most valuable men in the state despite everything - will only feel repelled by the idea of arguing such nonsense”. Thus, Hitler allowed himself to admire a select few monarchs while at the same time dismissing monarchy since, in his view, such worthy individuals came along at such infrequent intervals as to make having a monarchy simply not worth the trouble. Later, he hinted to the Kaiser that he might effect a restoration but, when the Kaiser saw through him to be the dishonest, power-mad politician that he was, Hitler quickly reverted to denouncing the Kaiser as a “Jew-lover”. Not all Nazis were so stridently opposed to anyone with a noble or royal title, but Hitler certainly was and in such a state it was only Hitler that mattered.

There was no difference in this attitude concerning foreign monarchs either. Hitler had rather idolized Mussolini, but when he made his first state visit to Italy he was greatly annoyed that he had to deal with HM King Victor Emanuel III, the head of state, rather than only Mussolini, the head of government. It grated on every socialist fiber of his being to have to bow his head to the King and to try to be pleasant to the Savoy royals, who he viewed as being far too friendly with the British. Hitler also commented on their perceived lack of support for Fascism, noting that the King saluted and the royal ladies bowed deeply when the flags of the Royal Italian Army passed by in review, but pretended not to notice when the flags of the Fascist black shirt militia marched by. During the war, Hitler had attached a German officer to the prisoner-King of the Belgians Leopold III. However, this man, Colonel Kiewitz, became so close to the King that Hitler came to view him as a monarchist and from that time on refused to even sit next to him. It goes without saying that he took an equally dim view of monarchs like the Queen of the Netherlands and the King of Norway who continued to oppose German occupation from exile.

Despite his writings and obvious opinions, there were German royals who, at the start of World War II, ‘rushed to the colors’ not out of any love for the Nazis but simply to defend their beloved Germany. In the same way, after the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, many people who bitterly opposed Stalin and the communists joined the Red Army simply to defend Mother Russia and not out of any political affinity with the government in Moscow. Such patriotic displays did not change Hitler’s view of royals, aristocrats or monarchists however. One of those who volunteered to defend his country was Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, eldest son of Crown Prince Wilhelm III. He fought gallantly and was mortally wounded in France. When his funeral attracted a crowd of 50,000 people Hitler was shocked and alarmed at this display of monarchist sentiment. As a result he issued his famous ‘Prince’s Decree’ which forbid any members of the House of Hohenzollern from front-line military service so as to avoid any such repeat of sympathy for the old monarchy.

The Bavarian Royal Family went into exile in the Kingdom of Italy as soon as the Nazis came to power. In 1944 the Nazis occupied half of Italy and sent most of the family to concentration camps. Princess Mafalda of Italy, also despised by Hitler, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp where she later died. Her husband, Prince Philip of Hesse, who had even been a Nazi Party member, was also sent to a concentration camp though he survived the war. King Boris III of Bulgaria was a constant irritant to Hitler, both for his refusal to hand over Bulgarian Jews for extermination and for his refusal to join the war against Soviet Russia. The Nazi takeover of Austria had also been prompted by fears on the part of Hitler that the Austrofascist (but ardently anti-Nazi) party there intended to restore the Austrian monarchy and place the Archduke Otto on the throne. The Nazi invasion plan was even named “Operation Otto” in his “honor”. It should go without saying that Hitler was infuriated by the young King Michael of Romania who had taken his country out of the Axis camp and joined the Allies. Even before that though, Hitler had also opposed King Carol II because of his refusal to persecute minorities, his suppression of more pro-Nazi elements in the country and because he had a mistress who was Catholic by religion but Jewish by blood. There was simply no monarchy or royal house in Europe Hitler ever, in any way, viewed favorably. Everyone also remembers his famous phrase about the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother of Great Britain, calling her, “the most dangerous woman in Europe”.

It should also be remembered, though it is not much talked about, that monarchists and aristocrats were involved in numerous plots aimed at removing Hitler or assassinating him. Baron Adolf von Harnier, a devoted Bavarian monarchist, was a leader in the secret opposition and, as most know, it was an aristocrat, Claus Graf von Stauffenberg, who was executed for his failed effort to kill Hitler with a bomb. Had that plot succeeded, the man who was to have served as chancellor was the monarchist Carl Friedrich Goerdeler (a former member of the monarchist DNVP) who favored the post-Hitler Germany becoming a constitutional monarchy (similar to the British model) with Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia assuming the throne. He had also, from fairly early on, been involved in numerous plots against the Nazi dictator and in organizing right-wing dissidents, many monarchist, in this opposition. The list of monarchists persecuted by Hitler for their opposition to him is a long one. The Bavarian Catholic Rudolf Kanzler was jailed by the Nazis for “treason” for promoting the monarchist cause. The Christian monarchist Ewald von Kleist-Schmenzin was executed for his part in the Stauffenberg plot. Another Bavarian monarchist (a Protestant one) Gustav Ritter von Kahr helped thwart Hitler’s first effort to take power and was later killed by the Nazis in the “Night of the Long Knives”.

So, it can easily be seen that Hitler hated monarchy and most monarchists felt exactly the same towards him. There would be no room for monarchs, aristocrats or traditional religion in the future Nazi Germany envisioned by Hitler. Having come from the lower classes he never got over his class envy and the bitter jealousy he felt when, as a young man, he watched Hapsburg royals dancing while he shoveled snow outside. He resented anyone who had any status or privilege which they did not “earn” as he had to (and in his case, “earn” meant to lie, cheat and kill to obtain power). Not everyone in the Nazi hierarchy was so opposed to monarchy as Hitler was, but most were and it was the opinion of Hitler that mattered. It is unfortunate that, in this regard, Hitler was so successful. The war he started would ultimately lead to the loss of the Italian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian monarchies as well as stopping a near-restoration in Austria. The war would also so completely exhaust the British Empire that dominions began to fall away rapidly in the post-war years. Hitler was an enemy of everything that the “Old Europe” of Christian monarchies stood for and no one should ever forget it.

Off Topic Tuesday: Herman Cain (and Stuff)

Is Herman Cain in trouble? Someone explain it to me. We now have a fourth woman saying she was sexually harassed by Herman Cain (this time publicly) which, they’re starting to pile up, seems like trouble to me. However, this woman, the only one (so far) to come out publicly, seems to have *zero* credibility, so I’m not sure if he’s really in that much trouble or not. Before I knew anything at all about this woman, she had no credibility with me because Gloria Allred is her lawyer -and there is no more sure sign of being a guilty, money-hungry media whore than having Gloria Allred as your attorney. In addition to the Allred factor, there are a few other things that smell rotten in the state of Denmark. This woman did not just accuse Cain of sexual harassment, what she described was really a sexual assault. Sounds serious. The problem is, she was grinning from ear to ear the whole time she was telling the story. We also find out later that this happened 15 years ago and she only decides to “go public” now (how convenient) and that she’s been unemployed for the last thirteen years. Smells like a bottle-blonde loser looking to cash-in to me.

Whether Herman Cain is guilty of sexual harassment or not I don’t know (and neither does anyone else but him and the women involved). What I do know is that I have a real problem with men being accused of sexual harassment. Why is that you ask? Because I’ve seen it my whole life; attractive guy hits on a woman and it’s flirting. Unattractive guy hits on a woman and it’s “sexual harassment”. Too often it is the sort of accusation that can never be really proven but is used by disgruntled employees to get an easy cash settlement out of their boss who doesn’t want to go to court and be labeled a pervert for the rest of his life. What little I’ve heard about the actual accusations against Cain also don’t make me inclined to think this case was genuine. If calling someone “sugar” or “honey” is sexual harassment then I have sexually harassed a lot of women and I have been sexually harassed by a lot of women. Heck, I have a first cousin who has been called ‘Sugs’ (pronounced “Shugs”) for her entire life -short for ‘Sugar’- because our Grandpa couldn’t pronounce her real name! There was nothing “sexual” about that, my Grandpa gave almost everyone a nickname; some because he had trouble with their real names and others because, he was an old man, he a lot of grandkids, nieces and nephews (some of whom had the same name) and it was easier for him to remember.

Come to think of it, my Grandpa and his nicknames could probably get him into a lot of trouble if he were alive today. Ones like, “Captain Jack” or “China Doll” or any of the ones in Spanish -probably racist today. “Tweets” would probably get him sued by Twitter for copyright infringement or something. Gentlemen of a certain age could get in a lot of trouble these days just by trying to be nice. My Grandpa was the most honest, upright, Christian man you could ever find but he turned into a hopeless liar whenever he met an ugly woman. Because, it did not matter how ugly a woman was, he told her she was beautiful. He told every woman she was beautiful just because that’s the way he was raised. You complimented people and said something nice whether you really believed it or not. Boy, would he be in trouble today. So, all of that may skew my view of the Herman Cain scandal. If any of my grandparents would have heard of such a thing, good old fashioned souls that they were (are in one case) they would have said, I’m sure, that incidents like that are just another reason why women shouldn’t be in the workplace at all. Even my late grandmother who had to work never liked the idea of women in the workplace who didn’t have to be. Too much temptation and occasion for sin was what she said -and it never went farther than that.

Of course, the days of that sort of thinking are long gone. Women have won the right to have a job, go to work in a miniskirt and skin-tight blouse with no underwear and then sue any guy who stares at her for sexual harassment. We also have a media bias in this country that is so obvious at this point it is practically funny. Bill Clinton had allegations of sexual harassment, groping and even rape under his belt (so to speak) and was elected President. Then, once in power, he was caught turning the Oval Office into the “Oral Office” and still served two terms and left with a higher popularity rating than when he went in. Anonymous sources claim Herman Cain sexually harassed them more than a decade ago and it is all you hear about on the news for weeks. You might as well laugh about it.

As regular readers will know, I’ve never understood what all the fuss was about Herman Cain to begin with. I wasn’t sure he was even serious about running for President -and I’m still not. He may be a little shocked that he did so well all of a sudden and is afraid to back out and admit it was all a publicity stunt for his book. I did not think he had the experience necessary and I still don’t as his reaction to this scandal shows. He may be tops for fixing the economy but what about issues of law and order, foreign policy and national defense? I also tend to doubt that anyone will be able to “fix” the economy because every time I see the Wall Street protestors or any Democrats saying we need to ‘spend our way out of debt’ I think, “we” STILL just don’t get it. And that is depressing. I am not for Herman Cain but I don’t like to see anyone treated unfairly and I don’t like the way Romney is being rammed down the throats of the GOP voters as the designated candidate. The Democrats just don’t get it and then I look at guys like Romney and Perry and Newt and I think the Republicans don’t get it either. It’s more of the same and I’m afraid we’re going to have hit rock bottom -hard- I mean so hard that the Great Depression looks like the “good old days” before this thick-headed population finally gets the message that “stuff” isn’t free and you can’t get something for nothing.

MM Video Special: Queens of Italy

Monarch Profile: King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden

It is appropriate today to take a look at the late, great Swedish monarch Gustavus Adolphus (officially King Gustav II Adolf). In Sweden, he is a giant historical figure, a dynamic warrior king who presided over a Kingdom of Sweden that became the regional super-power of Scandinavia. In European terms he was a pivotal historical figure as the Protestant champion of the Thirty Years War without whom the Catholic Holy Roman Empire might have been resurgent as the dominant power on the continent. Even in world history Gustavus Adolphus is known across the globe by military historians as one of the great captains of all time. He built and led the most advanced and formidable army of his time and has since been dubbed by many the “Father of Modern Warfare” because of his innovative organization of military logistics and his revolutionary integration of infantry, cavalry and artillery as a mutually supportive combined force on the battlefield. All of the great military geniuses of modern times, particularly Marlborough and through him Napoleon, continuing down to the present owe a reverent salute to King Gustavus Adolphus.

Gustavus Adolphus was born in Stockholm on December 9, 1594, eldest son and heir of Duke Charles of the Swedish Royal House of Vasa and Christina of Holstein-Gottorp during the reign of his cousin King Sigismund III. Europe was in the grip of religious upheaval and King Sigismund III, a Catholic, was deposed in 1599 by Duke Charles who became regent and finally King Charles IX in 1604, making Prince Gustavus Adolphus heir to the Swedish throne. He was only seventeen when his father died in 1611 and Gustavus Adolphus was thrust upon the throne of Sweden with his cousin Sigismund III still trying to regain his crown (who was also King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). In 1626, in response to this and to recover Baltic territories Sigismund had transferred from Sweden to Poland, the young King Gustavus Adolphus launched a war against Poland for control of the Baltic. It was a long and frustrating conflict, but Gustavus Adolphus was victorious, his throne secure and while he did not quite make the Baltic a Swedish lake as he had hoped, he had certainly made Sweden the dominant power in the Baltic Sea.

King Charles IX had trained his son almost from birth to be the best king possible. Part of this was political training but a large part was also military training and Gustavus Adolphus excelled at it. Even as a teenager he led Swedish troops in repelling a Danish attack in East Gotland. As King of Sweden he proved to be a man of great courage, creative thinking, grand ambitions and disciplined determination. If he was better at war than government he at least had the self-awareness to realize it and, as any good King should do, appointed an eminently qualified statesman to oversee administration while he focused on the military. This man was Axel Oxenstierna who the King made his chancellor and together they proved a winning team in the political arena and on the battlefield. By the time the Thirty Years War broke out in Central Europe, Gustavus Adolphus was already known as the “Lion of the North” for his great victories in Latvia and around the Baltic. He was impressive enough to catch the attention of the French Cardinal Richelieu, the power-behind-the-throne in the Kingdom of France. Cardinal Richelieu considered the Swedish warrior king his great “find” and helped fund his entry into the Thirty Years War.

Although classified as a religious war (and one of the worst), the Thirty Years War was obviously not strictly so. The “Protestant side” included many Catholic soldiers and there were many Protestant forces fighting on the “Catholic side”. Although Cardinal Richelieu and the rest of France were devoutly Catholic, they supported the Protestant Kingdom of Sweden as a way to prevent their Catholic rival, the House of Hapsburg which ruled the Holy Roman Empire, from becoming too powerful. As far as Gustavus Adolphus was concerned, he had defeated the Danes, the Poles and even the Russians in battle so the mercenary armies of the Holy Roman Empire held no terror for him. He was a staunch Lutheran of course and he was also concerned for the safety of his country. So far, the Protestant forces had, frankly, been getting their clocks cleaned by some extremely capable Catholic Imperial commanders. If the Catholics continued to drive northward the Holy Roman Empire might decide to conquer Scandinavia as well. The decision to intervene was made.

With a formidable reputation and self-confidence born out of experience, King Gustavus Adolphus marched into Germany at the head of what was almost certainly, man for man, the best army of the early 17th Century. Although small, they were better organized than any other force in Europe. King Gustavus Adolphus was the first commander since practically Imperial Rome to organize his men into permanent military units and he established a permanent chain of command, with special officers in charge of special jobs. He also integrated his armed forces and no one else had done. Instead of leading a mob of hired men, the King of Sweden led an army based on teamwork. Infantry, cavalry and artillery would all work in conjunction in a way no one at the time had ever seen before. He also, very critically, established a modern and organized system of logistics with a chain of supply bases to keep his troops fed and equipped consistently while on campaign. Under his command the Swedish army was truly an elite force and King Gustavus Adolphus demanded discipline and good character from his men. They could not loot, fornicate, get drunk, utter blasphemy or swear under pain of severe punishment. Being morally upright was just as important to him as being brave and obedient and was part of his overall vision of building the best army possible and that he certainly did.

It all paid off. As soon as he landed his forces he won a quick victory on the edge of the Baltic before moving inland where he confronted and defeated the Imperial commander Johann Tserclaes Graf von Tilly, one of the two most capable and victorious Catholic generals of the war. Gustavus Adolphus used innovative tactics no one at the time was prepared for, spreading his men out rather than packing them together in tight formations, having smaller units that could deploy and maneuver faster than anyone else and highly mobile artillery that could be re-positioned as circumstances required. He was everywhere victorious and the tide of war turned in favor of the Protestants and the Swedish army pushed farther and farther south. They spent the winter in the Rhineland and the following spring, in 1632, met Graf von Tilly in battle again in Bavaria. Once again the “Lion of the North” was victorious and in that battle the great Graf von Tilly was killed, a terrible blow to the Imperial forces. Desperate to stop the Swedish juggernaut the Emperor called upon a man he did not entirely trust but the only military commander of such reputation as to be capable of defeating Gustavus Adolphus; Albrecht Wenzel von Wallenstein, the conqueror of Silesia and the man whose victories against the Danes had been partly responsible for bringing an alarmed Sweden into the war in the first place.

The result was the battle of Lützen on November 6, 1632 (by the Protestant calendar), an epic showdown between the best Catholic and Protestant commanders in Europe. At first it seemed that in Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus had met his match. He got the jump on the Swedes as they moved to attack him, yet, in the initial assault on his lines, the Swedish forces made serious headway before the timely arrival of reinforcements set them back a bit. Rallying his men, the ever bold Gustavus Adolphus led a cavalry charge himself against the imperial lines, in a thick fog, in which the courageous monarch was shot down, still fairly early in the course of battle. At almost any other time, with any other army, this would have been the end of the Swedes. Any other army would have been disheartened, demoralized and their final defeat a forgone conclusion. This was not, however, the case with the Swedish army and it was thanks to all of the care the late King had taken to ensure a disciplined, devoted and determined army. They were not demoralized by the death of their monarch, they were enraged. The redoubled their efforts, steeled themselves for the fight and threw themselves back into the battle with a fury to avenge their fallen sovereign. The tide turned again and the Imperial army was soundly defeated. The King was dead but the great Wallenstein had been beaten.

Wallenstein retreated from Saxony to Bohemia while the Swedes carried their King home, his death ending the hopes of a total Protestant conquest of Germany. In Sweden the date of the King’s death became a holiday, still commemorated to this day (even after the change in calendars). His young daughter was placed on the throne as Queen Christina (or King as she had been raised as a boy) and the widowed Queen, Maria Eleanor of Brandenburg who the King had married in 1620, went mad with grief after the death of her husband. His death was a tragedy and helped ensure the Thirty Years War would end in stalemate rather than outright victory for one side or the other. Yet, he left a larger and more powerful kingdom than he had inherited. He laid the foundation for the “Swedish Empire” and had made Sweden the dominant power of Northern Europe. Gustavus Adolphus had united his people, instilled in them a righteous national pride and he had revolutionized the art of war for all time since. He was, by every measure, one of the great men of history.