The Greatness of King Louis XVI

Once again, on this day we remember the impious and treasonous regicide of the royal martyr His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI of France and Navarre, lastly “King of the French”. Much can and has been said about the spiritual greatness of this late sovereign. At a time when moral decay had taken its toll on France, and nowhere more so than the court it often seemed, King Louis XVI was a man of devout faith. He never took a mistress, never shirked his religious duties, genuinely preferred work to frivolous parties and truly saw his kingship as a sacred duty rather than an opportunity to have the best for himself. All of that is well established and should be well known. However, even those who praise King Louis XVI for his pious spirit often portray him as rather lacking in the more secular qualities most often required of kingship. At times he is contrasted with King Louis XIV who, while certainly far from being a pious man, was a more decisive leader who steered the ship of state with a firm hand, bringing glory to France and around whom almost all the affairs of Europe revolved. The exact opposite of Louis XVI we are to believe. Yet, while it is true that the two men were very different, it is certainly not true that King Louis XVI occupied himself only with other-worldly matters.

It is tragic any time a nation sets to destroying itself rather than accomplishing the great deeds possible if they worked together to channel all of that energy into the pursuit of some more lofty ambition. Although he had trepidations about some of it, there is ample reason to believe that had it not been for the outbreak of the Revolution, King Louis XVI might have gone down in history as one of the greatest Kings of France in secular as well as spiritual terms. In all the focus on the Revolution and his personal character, the great events and foreign policies of his reign are often overlooked. In the first place, he was no despot and from the very start favored giving the people a greater say in how their money was spent and how France was governed. However, even with all of the problems facing France, as a monarch, Louis XVI took a broader look at the past, present and future of France and wanted to see past losses made right and gains made for a greater future for his country. Of course, particularly after the drubbing France had taken in the recent conflicts with Great Britain, it was the British who would be the primary rival in his foreign policy. The King was not malicious or reckless by any means but he was determined to see British gains made at the expense of France reversed.

This was what ultimately led to the French intervention in the American Revolution (or more properly ‘War for Independence’). Louis XVI had deep reservations about helping any rebels in waging war against their sovereign yet he was persuaded to make an alliance with the fledgling United States by a combination of the urging of his advisors and his desire to see an end to the British domination of North America and, perhaps, a much greater French influence in the region. Although not often remembered, following the French and Indian War the French military had been reformed and greatly improved. The expeditionary force sent to North America fought extremely well and, along with the French navy, proved decisive in securing the independence of the United States by forcing Great Britain to give up on the war and come to terms with their former fellow subjects. The islands of Tobago and Grenada were taken from the British (Tobago being retained by France along with Senegal in the final settlement) but, to some extent, Louis XVI was undercut by his American allies who made a separate peace with Great Britain and effectively thwarted the greatest ambition King Louis had for the conflict which was the recovery of Canada. Had the war gone on there is every reason to believe that could have happened.

In the other great arena of colonial competition, Louis XVI also hoped to reverse previous losses and see the growing British dominance in India come to an end. He allied with the Maratha Empire and took the side of the Sultan of Mysore in the Second Anglo-Mysore War in the hope of breaking the dominance of the British East India Company, curtailing British influence in India and increasing French influence. France actually had a much larger sphere of influence in India, controlling large parts of the east coast and holding sway over the majority of the southern subcontinent. French troops and ships were active in the region but due to the distance involved the campaign was overtaken by events elsewhere and when the end of the American Revolution forced France to make a hasty peace with Britain the previous French support for the Indians was withdrawn. In the end Britain and the Indian forces made peace that restored the pre-war status quo in India. Again, had not the situation in American brought hostilities to an end, it is conceivable that France, working through local alliances, might have dethroned Britain from her place of prominence in India.

There was also the Far East to consider and, though not often remembered, it was under King Louis XVI that France first took a serious interest in Vietnam and, indirectly, helped bring about the victory of the last great imperial dynasty of Vietnamese history. Crown Prince Canh, heir of the future Emperor Gia Long, came to Versailles as a boy, converting to Christianity and symbolizing the alliance by which French support was promised to his father in exchange for favorable trade agreements and some minor territorial concessions. The previous regime in Vietnam had viciously persecuted Christians and King Louis was anxious to see a more humane dynasty put in place. A Catholic missionary had saved the life of Gia Long and he vowed that the rights of Christians would always be respected in his domain. However, by the time these great events were to take place in southeast Asia the forces of the Revolution were gaining strength and events rapidly approached a climax. King Louis was not able to play the decisive role he had wished to. Still, the Bishop of Adran acted on his own to help Emperor Gia Long take the throne and so things worked out. The only problems arose in the future when post-revolutionary French regimes tried to collect the payments promised to Louis XVI which the Vietnamese were reluctant to grant since it was the Bishop rather than the government in Paris which had actually helped them at the critical time.

King Louis also sponsored around-the-world voyages of exploration and the world (certainly North America) owes a great deal to Louis XIV for doing the same in his time. The point of all of this is that King Louis XVI was not, as he is so often portrayed, some sort of totally indecisive ditherer who fussed and prayed over one crisis after another. He had big plans for France, he had ambition, he wanted to see France recover her place of greatness in the world and had a few things gone differently there is no reason to believe that she could not have done so. There are those who will say that the Revolution proves that France was too weak to have accomplished anything in that period but this is clearly false. Look at what Napoleon was able to accomplish, once the Revolution was ended, only a few years later with the same country. Considering that the goals of Louis XVI were all about restoration and not conquering every nation in Europe, there is no reason to believe that he could not have been successful. King Louis XVI fully deserves his pious reputation as a martyr for the Kingdom of France but he should also be remembered as a potentially great King who could have done magnificent things for his country.

Papal Profile: Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XI has, unjustly or not, a rather mixed reputation among many monarchists. He was born Ambrogio Damiano Achille Ratti on May 31, 1857 in Desio, near Milan to a merchant family. He entered the priesthood in 1879 and during his time studying at the Gregorian University in Rome earned doctorates in theology, philosophy and canon law after which he taught at the seminary in Padua. His expertise was in historic Church documents and after his time at the seminary worked as a Church librarian from 1888 to 1911. He edited a new edition of the Ambrosian Missal, wrote a book about St Carlo Borromeo, restored numerous historic Church documents and eventually was appointed to the post of prefect of the Vatican Library by Pope Pius X in 1914. In a dramatic change in the course of his career, in 1918 Pope Benedict XV made Ratti the papal nuncio to the newly independent country of Poland and was promoted to archbishop the following year. When the Bolsheviks attacked Poland Archbishop Ratti, a robust man who was a mountaineer in his free time, impressed the Polish people by his courage, refusing to leave when Warsaw was targeted for attack.

Archbishop Ratti also angered some officials in the Church by stating his willingness to deal with the Soviets even if it meant his death. His willingness to talk to the Russians and his efforts to end the political involvement of Catholic clergy in Silesia angered the Poles and he was subsequently recalled from the country. Oddly enough, the Germans also protested on the grounds that Ratti was considered too biased toward the Poles. Nonetheless, he returned to Italy to further recognition when, in 1921, Pope Benedict XV presented him with the red hat, making him Cardinal-Archbishop of Milan. However, less than a year later Benedict XV died and the cardinals gathered in Rome to elect his successor. On the fourteenth ballot the choice fell on Cardinal Ratti who, calling to mind his admiration for the man who had given him his first major job at the Vatican, took the name Pius XI. After the election the new Pope revived the tradition of going out on to the balcony of St Peter’s Basilica to give his blessing “to the city and the world”, a custom which had been suspended since 1870 when Italy occupied Rome. It was the first sign that the new Pope was determined to see the long years of self-defeating deadlock known as “the Roman Question” finally ended.

The political issues that were at the forefront during the pontificate of Pius XI have caused some controversy and criticism from almost every quarter. Given that his reign coincided with the rise of fascism between the two World Wars, this was, perhaps, unavoidable. When all was said and done, Pius XI would be saddled (rather unjustly) with a reputation for favoring authoritarian regimes. Socialists condemned him for his constant opposition to their program and his defense of private property whereas those further to the right criticized him for pointing out the defects in capitalism and placing the “common good” above private property rights. Republicans criticized him for his support for those opposed to their regimes in some countries while monarchists (particularly in France) criticized him for saying that the Church was not tied to any one form of government and that he would work with anyone to ensure that the rights of the Church to carry out her spiritual mission were respected.

On religious matters he encouraged missionary activity, emphasized the global mission of the Church and he particularly stressed the point that Christ was to be the center of life in every way, absolute in every area and did this by instituting the Solemnity of Christ the King as a way of illustrating the universal nature of Christianity and that the authority of God was supreme over all. It seemed to most that ecumenism was toned down somewhat by Pius XI, which is not exactly true. The Pontiff was perfectly happy to encourage ecumenism in that he wanted to bring all people everywhere into the Catholic Church. He was simply not prepared to enter into any negotiations in that regard on the grounds that divine truths cannot be the subject of debate. He also reiterated traditional Catholic teachings on marriage and reproduction when the Church of England reversed its opposition to artificial contraception. He also condemned eugenics which were quite popular at the time. Yet, Pius XI was not so traditional as to ignore modern advances and he founded Vatican Radio to spread the message of the Church around the world (originally many broadcasts were in Latin!) independent of the secular media.

The most significant political event, for the Church, of his reign was signing the Lateran Treaty with the Kingdom of Italy in 1929. The nearly sixty years of Italy and the Church diplomatically ignoring each other came to an end as the Pope recognized the Kingdom of Italy and Italy recognized the independence of the State of Vatican City as well as giving the Church large payments as compensation for what had formerly been the Papal States. Catholic Christianity became the official state religion of the Kingdom of Italy, religious instruction returned to Italian schools and so on. Pope Pius XI became the first Pontiff since 1870 to leave the Vatican and enter St Peter’s square; a small distance but one of immense symbolism. The Church agreed to refrain from interfering in political matters and Mussolini (the dictator of Italy) agreed to let Catholic organizations stay Catholic. Of course, the ink had hardly dried when it became clear neither side would really stick to those promises but no major trouble ensued.

Like many world leaders at the time, Pius XI praised Mussolini for making peace with the Church and bringing stability to Italy. However, like most of those who initially praised him, the Pope would later condemn Mussolini and his regime for trying to replace God with the State in the lives of the people. However, for Christians, while Mussolini and his Fascists could be bullies, in countries around the world real persecutions were taking place and this concerned the Pope greatly. He harshly condemned the socialist regime in Mexico that was trying to stamp out religion (and which provoked a Catholic rebellion) and he did all he could to try to ease the immense suffering of the Christians in Russia where the Soviet Union was trying to crush almost all religion of any kind. Today, much of the criticism for Pius XI stems from his words and actions regarding Spain, his strident opposition to the anti-clerical and communist-dominated republic and his perceived support for the rebel nationalists led by General Francisco Franco. However, for many monarchists, the most controversial aspect of Pius XI was his relationship with France.

France and the Church had not been on very good terms for a long time. The clerical and anti-clerical factions struggled for power and, for the most part, the pro-Church party was monarchist and the anti-Church party was republican. The French Third Republic was notoriously anti-clerical and the situation had not been helped by the rather erratic “foreign policy” of the Church regarding France which only further entrenched the mentality of the anti-clericals and even many moderates in France that the Holy See should simply be ignored. For many years tensions were so high that any incident could set off a crisis. French pilgrims, for example, visited the Church in Rome where the first King of Italy was buried and spit on the tomb which caused a patriotic Italian to hit the man and a brawl broke out which almost became an international incident between the Kingdom of Italy and the French Republic. On the other hand, there was the papal anger, loudly proclaimed, when the President of France visited the King of Italy in Rome without first paying his respects to the Pope. This prompted an anti-clerical backlash in France among those who took offense at the notion of their President being scolded by anyone for a state visit. However, from the strident opposition represented in those incidents, Pope Leo XIII famously changed course and called on Catholics to embrace the republic even if only to use the democratic process to hopefully restore the monarchy some day.

One group which never quite submitted to that call was “French Action”, a right-wing monarchist movement led by Charles Maurras. They wanted to restore the monarchy, restore Catholicism as the state religion in France and have a new government based on integral nationalism. However, though Catholics dominated “French Action”, Maurras was an agnostic and Pope Pius XI feared he was only using the Church for his own purposes. This was not entirely untrue as Maurras was not a believer but did regard the Church as a vital part of social cohesion and French culture. The group also had an anti-Semitic side to it that the Pope found distasteful. Despite what many believe today, Pope Pius XI had opposed the growing anti-Semitism in Europe (Germany especially) and was outraged at how the rest of the international community avoided the issue. In any event, in 1926 Pius XI condemned “French Action” which he feared was teaching French youth in particular to regard the Church as the means to an end rather than an end in itself. The newspaper of the group even became the first to be placed on the Index of Forbidden Works. Because of this, many monarchists have never forgiven Pius XI since it effectively took the wind out of the sails of “French Action”. However, it would be unfair to place an inordinate amount of blame on the Pope for this, his concerns were well founded and in regard to French politics the Church had not been terribly consistent for a very long time and Pius XI was not responsible for that.

Despite what his many detractors say, Pope Pius XI was a greater advocate for human freedom than any other figure of his time. However, he was, like many, distrustful of the forces of liberal democracy to lead the way into the future. He had seen too many fall victim to the forces of international communism. He was also only too aware of the fact that it was these international communists who were carrying out the worst persecutions of Christians in Mexico, in Spain, in Russia and serious attempts in numerous other countries. He condemned Nazi policies before anyone else did and railed against the Fascist regime in Italy for what he termed the “pagan worship of the State”. His emphasis on Christ the King was a way of reminding Christians that there was a higher authority, above earthly governments, whose rulings could not be appealed and who could not be intimidated. He condemned modernism as his recent predecessors had done, tried to establish a Catholic alternative to the communist-dominated trade unions and called for a system of class cooperation as preferable to the antagonistic relationship in capitalism and communism. He maintained a heavy schedule, despite worsening health, right up until his death on February 10, 1939. He was succeeded by his Secretary of State and closest assistant Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who took the name Pius XII.

The Case for Monarchy: Germany

The Federal Republic of Germany today is a far cry from the proud nation of the past. It is no exaggeration to say that no republic has ever done well in Germany. Even now, the scars remain from the division of West Germany and East Germany and ugly memories still linger from World War II and probably always will so long as those who have made an industry out of exploitation by guilt remain unopposed. That is not to say, of course, that the past should be forgotten. Far from it. However, after World War II and the division of Germany, even after reunification, a great many Germans turned their back on their past, on virtually their entire history prior to 1918 and, as a result, have inadvertently allowed the era of Nazi domination to define them. This has had disastrous consequences on Germany and on the German people themselves. It has led to a guilt-ridden consciousness in which successive German governments feel the need to compensate everyone for misdeeds they themselves played no part in. It has led to the German people being forced to foot the bill for the free-spending and easy lifestyles of other countries (with damaging consequences) and has effectively robbed many Germans of a proper, patriotic national pride. It has also allowed governments to make some pretty terrible decisions, disastrous for the future of the German nation, but which are always forgiven. When the public has been conditioned to think only of Nazi Germany and the current Federal Republic, nothing the republic does could seem that bad.

This denial of history has gone to such lengths that the former Kingdom of Prussia, not just a former state, not just a former country but the country which brought about the unification of Germany, was totally wiped from the map. Why was this done? Hitler and his Nazis did not spring from Prussia nor was Prussia any more or less involved in the actions of that era than any other state considering its size and importance. It was done because there was a conscious effort to erase German history prior to the Nazi era so that the people would only be given a choice that was really no choice at all: that terrible Nazi memory or this new federal republic that was under construction. If the people were to actually remember their history they might realize that it was the first united German republic which provided the vehicle by which Hitler and his Nazis came to power in the first place. Far from starting over fresh, the current republic was simply a resurrected, modified version of the inter-war republic that provided the framework for a truly evil minority to rise by intimidation, subterfuge and (yes) the democratic process to dominate Germany. By doing so they have locked the public imagination into a post-1945 mentality and encouraged the rest of the world to see only a negative image of Germany.

Germany today has no anchor and flounders culturally and politically while gaining very little respect in the world. By being frozen in time the rest of the world has been encouraged to see Germans the same way. Ask a foreigner to describe German culture or what comes to mind when they think of Germany and they will probably come up with beer, lederhosen and Nazis. In a political context, most view Germany as the nation that always pays the bills, that will be there to bail you out if you get too deeply in debt (thus eliminating any incentive to behave responsibly) and yet this has engendered no great love for Germany. Most people tend to have little affection for their banker. Germany has also become known as one of those nations that decries nationality. The country has become more and more multi-cultural in the sense that there are now huge African, Asian, Arab and Turkish populations in the country and yet it has become more mono-cultural as the rich distinctiveness of the states is lost. Some of the old states have been lost altogether and for those that remain their uniqueness has become less and less pronounced over time. It is quite sad and all the more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.

The history and the culture of the individual states was once alive in the persons of their royal families. Reigning at the top of this union was the German Kaiser, representing all Germans as well as the unique history of the Kingdom of Prussia. We are told, by those whose current claim to power rests on the overthrow of the old German royals, that to restore them in any form would be to return power to those guilty of fomenting the First World War. Like any good lie this has a grain of truth to it for Imperial Germany was certainly responsible for the horror that was World War One. However, they were no more responsible than any other great power on either side whether Austria-Hungary, Russia, France or Great Britain. None were innocent nor were any entirely guilty and it was an incontestable injustice that Germany alone was forced to shoulder the blame for a conflict almost every European power entered into with willingness, zeal and enthusiasm. What is more, the party most opposed to the monarchy and which would make up the new ruling class in the republic was just as enthusiastic as all the others in approving the decision to go to war. It is also an incontestable fact that Hitler could never have become dictator of Germany had the Kaiser and the subsidiary monarchs of Imperial Germany retained their positions.

Still, we are told over and over again that the monarchy represented the political culture which brought about the disastrous conflict, what is termed “Prussian militarism” which the enemies of the monarchy used to apply equal guilt to all the monarchies and later to justify the dissolution of Prussia altogether. However, a dispassionate look at the facts shows that the last German Kaiser was the least militaristic of almost all his contemporaries. From 1888 to 1914 Wilhelm II had never fought an actual war. To compare, in that same period of time, Great Britain had fought a war with Tibet over Sikkim, fought the shortest war in history against Zanzibar, fought a border war in northern India and the Second Boer War in South Africa. Consider also that during the reign of Wilhelm II the French Republic had a greater percentage of her population under arms than Germany did. Germany had the second largest navy in the world, second only to Great Britain, yet even then the British fleet was more than twice the size of that of Germany. The United States might have had an even more militaristic reputation. Again, from 1888 to 1914, the United States fought the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Banana Wars, another rebellion in the Philippines and an armed intervention in Mexico. The German Empire was actually one of the most peaceful of world powers.

What the German Empire was known for was its unity, pride, progressive social welfare system, productive industries and great learning. The German language was the language of business and was learned in foreign countries more than any other language. The monarchy was a vital living link with the history of the German people that all Germans could look to with pride; a patriotic pride without guilt or shame. It was the royal houses that built the united Germany and it was their downfall that ushered in the darkest period in the entire history of the German people. The German nation which had thrown back invaders since the time of ancient Rome was reduced to utter ruin and humiliation. Only by the restoration of the German monarchies can the ugly ghosts of the last century be firmly put in their place. It is only in this way that, rather than constant efforts to reinvent Germany, that the true, natural and historic Germany can be fully restored to her people and the world. The ruins of Wiemar, Hitlerism and division are not and can never be proper foundations for a country. Germany has strong foundations, it only requires that the people rediscover them and restore them to their proper place.

Royal Regalia: The Iron Crown of Lombardy

It may not look like much compared to some others, but the Iron Crown of Lombardy is one of the most significant symbols of monarchy in western Christendom. It is called the “Iron Crown” because of a small, narrow strip of iron that circles the interior of the piece. What is significant about this is that, according to tradition, this circle of iron was beaten out from one of the nails used at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That is where the story of the Iron Crown begins. As with most of the relics association with Christ and the crucifixion the nail was said to have been found by St Helena and given to her son the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian) who, so the story goes, later sent it to the Queen of the Lombards who were converted to Christianity. At some point the nail was incorporated into a crown though no one is sure exactly when. Some say Emperor Charlemagne was crowned King of the Lombards using the Iron Crown while others maintained it was not made until after his time. Kept in the Cathedral of Monza, near Milan, it was the most sacred and well known symbol of the Kingdom of the Lombards which grew up following the fall of Rome.

When the Holy Roman Empire was created the Kings of Germany would go to Rome to be crowned “Emperor of the Romans” by the Pope. On the way they would usually stop in Monza to be crowned “King of Italy” with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. Such famous historical monarchs as Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and Emperor Charles V were crowned with the Iron Crown of Lombardy. In 1805 Napoleon Bonaparte had himself crowned “King of Italy” with the Iron Crown of Lombardy, a title he placed second in importance only to that of “Emperor of the French”. Later he also founded the Order of the Iron Crown as the premier chivalric order of his new Italian realm. That order would be maintained even by the enemies of Napoleon. In the course of the Napoleonic Wars the area of Lombardy was annexed by the Empire of Austria and Emperor Francis I revived Napoleon’s Order of the Iron Crown as his own. The Emperor also took possession of the actual Iron Crown itself though he made no use of it. The last time it was to be used for a coronation would be in 1838.

Ferdinand I became Emperor of Austria in 1835. Prior to that time he had already been crowned King of Hungary in 1830. In 1838 he had his coronation, using the Iron Crown of Lombardy as King of Lombardy-Venetia, at that time a part of the Austrian Empire. Incidentally, he was also married to Maria Anna of Savoy, daughter of King Vittorio Emanuele I of Piedmont-Sardinia, giving him a further Italian connection. Ferdinand would also be the last monarch to be crowned King of Bohemia though his successors on the Hapsburg throne continued to use the title. When Ferdinand abdicated as Emperor of Austria the throne of Lombardy-Venetia along with the rest passed to his nephew Francis Joseph I. There was never another coronation with the Iron Crown and Francis Joseph appointed his brother, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia. He would be the last to hold that position.

The Iron Crown was featured on the Savoy arms

In the Second War of Italian Independence control of Lombardy passed to King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia who, in 1861, became the first King of Italy. Before surrendering Lombardy the Austrians removed the Iron Crown from Milan and took it to Vienna, however, no one was to forget this ancient and sacred symbol of Italian kingship. In 1866 Austria was defeated in the Third Italian War of Independence (a parallel of the Austro-Prussian or Seven Weeks War) in which Venetia was ceded to the Kingdom of Italy. Also included in the peace stipulations was the return of the Iron Crown of Lombardy which was duly handed over to the House of Savoy and returned to its traditional resting place in Milan. The Savoy monarchs never had a coronation but the Iron Crown was used as a symbol, being carried in the funeral cortege of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy, probably to highlight his role in evicting the Austrians from northern Italy and uniting the country. The Iron Crown of Lombardy still rests in the Duomo of Monza in the outskirts of Milan (also known as the Basilica of St John the Baptist) along with a collection of historic Christian art and artifacts. The Crown, however, is by far the most famous of the pieces on display there.

Shameless Plug

Favorite Royal Images: Imperial Moustache

HIRH Archduke Rainer of Austria

Happy Birthday Rome!

A look back at:

Augustus Caesar

The Centrality of Rome

Canada and the War of 1812

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, that conflict so often overlooked in the United States, seen as rather unimportant in Great Britain but which remains a pretty big deal in Canada. In each case, these attitudes are entirely understandable. The United States would not, understandably, enjoy recalling the War of 1812 since it saw some pretty embarrassing American defeats and the only time Washington DC was ever occupied by an invader (which was followed by the White House being burned down). For Great Britain, again, understandably, it was simply not that big a deal. It coincided with the much more significant war against Napoleonic France, Britain had not wanted the war, gained nothing and lost nothing by it and was one of many, relatively minor, colonial conflicts in the larger history of the British Empire. For Canada, however, it certainly was significant and it was a period that Canadians can take a great deal of pride in because their very existence as a different and finally independent country was determined by the War of 1812. That is why monarchists should celebrate this anniversary of the War of 1812 because, had America won the war, the Canadian monarchy would not exist and the proud Dominion of Canada today would simply be a frosty, under populated collection of states and territories within the American Union.

This can be taken to absurd extremes, given that “Canada” as we know it today did not exist in 1812, it was simply British North America and it was British troops (not Canadians) who defeated the U.S. army in Maryland and captured Washington DC. The great commanders of the Crown forces were almost exclusively British such Admiral Sir George Cockburn Bt, General Robert Ross and of course General Sir Isaac Brock, later known as the “Hero of Upper Canada”. The most significant figure who was born in Canada to play a part in the war was General Gordon Drummond, though many of his own soldiers preferred British commanders since General Drummond tended to be rather strict. It is hard to transplant modern ideas of nationality on to the people of two centuries ago. Much of the English-speaking population of Canada was, at that time, “American” in the sense that they had been born in what became the United States or were the children of colonists from what became the United States who had been loyalists and fled to Canada when Britain lost the U.S. War for Independence. Most of these people, like most people even at the start of the American Revolution, did not regard themselves as “Americans” or “Canadians” but English, Scottish, Irish and so on. In 1812 if one spoke of the “Canadians” most would assume you referred only to the French-speaking population.

Yet, at the end of the day, it was the fate of Canada that was decided by the War of 1812. Had the U.S. been victorious there would be no Canada today as that was the primary American goal of the war (the issues dealing with the frontier and the impressment of sailors were resolved before the war actually began). Canadians should remember the war, should be properly proud of the Canadian troops and First Nations who contributed to the defeat of the U.S. invasion and, significantly, they should remember what it was their forefathers were fighting for and what they were fighting against. Remember, this was not so simple as a foreign invasion as we would see it today since, for most of those involved, it was the same sort of people on each side. The biggest difference between the opposing forces was their form of government, monarchy versus republic, and the different values the two represented. This was something not lost on the participants at the time. Americans, for example, so believed that republicanism meant liberty and monarchy meant tyranny that their whole invasion of Canada was based on the belief that the oppressed, downtrodden Canadians would welcome them with open arms and rejoice at being delivered by the benevolent republic to the south. On the other side, Major General Sir Isaac Brock, who gave his life defeating the U.S. attack told his relatively small army that, “We may teach the enemy this lesson: A country defended by free men devoted to the cause of their king and constitution can never be conquered…” Make no mistake about it, the people of Canada at the time knew they were in a fight of monarchy against republicanism and had no doubt that their constitutional monarchy was greatly preferable to the republicanism of the States.

Canadian monarchists should take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 to drive this point home because the struggle of those two centuries ago continues to rage, albeit in slow, subtle, peaceful ways. Canada has already effectively become a protectorate of the United States. Since the British Empire dissolved, although no one likes to dwell on the subject, Canada has become dependent on U.S. protection for security and on U.S. trade for their economic well-being. Canadians watch American TV shows and movies, listen to American music, wear American clothes and even closely follow American politics. In many ways one could hardly tell the two countries apart. They speak the same language (outside Quebec anyway), celebrate most of the same holidays (with a few diplomatic date changes), have the same religions and lack of religion and enjoy the same pastimes though Canadians do insist on slightly different rules for football. It may seem a tired line at times but it is only because it is so obviously true. Amongst all these similarities, the biggest fundamental difference between the two countries is that the United States is a constitutional republic while Canada is a constitutional monarchy. Americans have their First Family, President and Vice President while Canadians have their Royal Family, the Queen’s Governor-General and the Queen’s Prime Minister.

In many ways, the situation is not much different now than in 1812 as concerns Canada and the United States. The same people, today the same variety of peoples, occupy both countries, Canada remains a monarchy and the United States remains convinced that it represents the greatest form of government which all people in the world aspire to have. This matters. If it didn’t, no one would bother about trying to change it. What the Canadians fought for (successfully) in the War of 1812 remains still for modern Canadians to defend. Of course, Canadians will do so with the utmost restraint and politeness, but American bombast is not the side to be confronted. It is, rather, the treasonous Canadian republicans who speak as though they wish the United States had actually conquered their country 200 years ago. They would never say so of course, but is that not the logical interpretation of their argument; that the U.S. is an independent country and Canada is not? It seems they are still waiting for their American cousins to “liberate” them but loyal Canadian monarchists must set the record straight. If the Canadian monarchy is so unimportant, which is the same as saying there is really no important difference at all between the U.S. and Canada, they might consider the following question: Why did so many American loyalists, American Indians (First Nations), escaped slaves and others risk life and limb to flee the “Land of the Free” for the soil of Canada where the Crown held sway?

It matters. It mattered then and it matters just as much now. Hopefully, this year, there will be much more to come concerning the War of 1812 and the monarchy in Canada. I hope you will enjoy it.

God Save the Queen of Canada!

MM Video: Baron von Ungern "Mahakala"

MM Video: Princes of Orange

Favorite Pics of Daisy

In honor of one of my favorite monarch's 40th anniversary as Queen today, here are some of my favorite photos of Queen "Daisy". Congratulation to Her Majesty and Long live the Queen!

Young and majestic

with her consort -and a priceless expression on her face

a warm and winning smile

The Queen, in her fatigues, visiting her troops in Afganistan

there's nothing better than a monarch 'in the field'

Two smokers in love -it touches my heart

And finally, my absolute, all time, undisputed FAVORITE picture the Queen:

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what "kewl" looks like!

awesome-ness...

Royal News Roundup

There have been republican rumblings in the Caribbean nation of Jamaica lately with the new Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller announcing that she would like to cap the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence this summer with the abolition of the monarchy. Former PM Bruce Golding had made the same sort of treasonous statement and, as usual had tried to play the nationalism card saying, “I have long believed that if I am to have a queen, it must be a Jamaican queen.” Which is disingenuous to say the least considering that, legally, the current Queen of Jamaica is just as Jamaican as he is. PM Portia Simpson Miller was nice enough at least to say, “I love the Queen. She’s a beautiful lady,” and then added, “But I think time come.” Recently a bone of contention has been the issue of capital punishment. With one of the highest murder rates in the world Jamaica has tried to make use of the death penalty only to blocked by the privy council in London where, like the rest of the EU, executing criminals is considered terribly unthinkable. Unfortunately, political observers believe that the popular leftist PM has the political support to make good on these threats. Goodness knows there are more pressing issues for the government to deal with but the issues involving the privy council as the final court of appeal (and having simply more “European” view of crime and punishment) has allowed republicans to get their foot in the door. Hopefully, Jamaican affection for the Queen will override other issues and not allow traitorous politicians to divorce them from their monarchist history.

In the Netherlands, HM Queen Beatrix has come under a degree of criticism from one of her increasingly persistent politicians concerning a visit this week to the Arabian peninsula. On Sunday, the Queen, Crown Prince and Princess visited the United Arab Emirates where the ladies of the House of Orange, out of respect for the traditions of their host, donned headscarves when visiting a mosque. Not exactly a huge deal one would think but Freedom Party agitator-in-chief Geert Wilders decided to make an issue of this saying it was tantamount to displaying approval of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. This is so frustrating. I can, to some extent, sympathize with Wilders about the volume of Muslim immigration into the Netherlands and his opposition to the multi-cultural soup western Europe has become these days -but give me a break! The Queen was a guest in an Islamic country and observing local customs on such an occasion is hardly a legitimate cause for controversy. Unless Mr. Wilders wants the Netherlands to attack the UAE, conquer them and forcibly convert them to his brand of atheism he needs to shut his mouth, focus on his own country and let the Arabs handle theirs. Recently, Wilders has also called for an end to the role of the Queen in the Dutch government and I am not ashamed to say that has influenced my view of the man. Any enemy of the monarchy is an enemy of mine.

Meanwhile, over in Denmark there has been a much more celebratory mood about the oldest kingdom in Europe as HM Queen Margrethe II prepares to celebrate her forty years on the throne. Danish Parliament leaders saluted the Queen for her responsibility, devotion to duty and leadership of the monarchy as an asset to the nation. Only a few left-wing radicals failed to join in the celebration but they are, thankfully, very much in the minority. In a press conference the Queen displayed her linguistic talents (speaking in four languages), reflecting on her forty years as Queen and expressing her faith that the Kingdom of Denmark will be in good hands when her son Crown Prince Frederick someday succeeds her. Sunday was also an occasion for happiness for the Danish Royal Family as Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine celebrated their first birthday. Special photographs were released of the adorable duo with their siblings and proud parents Crown Prince Frederick and Crown Princess Mary. Of course, we wish a happy birthday to them both.

The year has been off to a busy start for the Spanish Royal Family. There were the holidays, a new government taking office and the start of the new political year. Last Friday there was the annual military parade in Madrid which saw the Bourbon royals out in force, led by the King in his army uniform and Prince Felipe in his navy blues. After the march-past and a review of the Royal Guard there was a reception at the palace for the military officials, representatives of the defense department, military organizations, veterans organizations and so on. HM King Juan Carlos paid tribute to the Spanish soldiers who had given their lives in missions around the world as well as their families who carried the burden of national service with them. He spoke of the role of the armed forces to, “uphold the principles of discipline, hierarchy and unity” which was music to my ears. This week, Prince Felipe of the Asturias has been on a tour of the Central American republics. On Thursday he was in Honduras where he met with government officials as well as attending to some cultural duties. On Friday he was off to Guatemala to attend the inauguration of the new President-elect of that country as part of the on-going effort of the Spanish monarchy to maintain close ties and foster unity between the countries of the Spanish-speaking world.

Monarchist Quote

"A republican form of government is not suited to the Italian people. They are not prepared for it either tempermentally or historically. In a republic every Italian would insist upon being President, and the result would be chaos. The only people who would profit would be the Communists".

-HM King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy

Monarch Profile: Emperor Kien Phuc of Viet Nam

Prince Nguyen Cian Tong, Nguyen-Phuc U’ng Dang, was born on February 12, 1869 to Prince Nguyen-Phuc Hong Cai, Duke of Kien and the 26th child of Emperor Thieu Tri. At a young age he was adopted by his uncle Emperor Tu Duc (who was sterile and concerned about the succession) along with two other nephews, the future Emperors Nguyen Duc Duc and Dong Khanh. It was toward the end of the reign of Tu Duc that France was ceded control of Cochinchina (very southern Vietnam) and in the subsequent reign of Emperor Hiep Hoa a protectorate treaty was imposed on Annam (central Vietnam) of which the Emperor was supposed to remain in control of. The three powerful regents, Tran Tien Thanh, Nguyen Van Tuong and Ton That Thuyet, who had dominated the government since the death of Tu Duc, greatly opposed this (whether out of nationalistic fervor or worry over their own power remains debated) and, suffice it to say, Hiep Hoa soon turned up dead, followed not long after by the regent Tran Tien Thanh who thought his two companions had gone too far. All of this was timed so that the French Resident Superior in the Imperial City of Hue, Louis Eugene Palasne de Champeaux, was not present at the time.

Worried what would happen when the French learned that Hiep Hoa was dead, the regents hurriedly acted to choose a successor and the choice fell on the fifteen-year-old Prince-Phuc U’ng Dang. At a hastily organized ceremony on December 1, 1883 at five o’clock in the morning the teenager was enthroned as Emperor Kien Phuc of the Great South. Of course, when Resident Superior Champeaux returned to the capital he was outraged at what had happened and demanded an explanation for why a new monarch had been placed on the throne without France being consulted. He claimed that the Harmond Treaty that Hiep Hoa had signed required that new monarchs meet with French approval. He probably suspected what the real story was and was looking for any legal means to object because the Harmond Treaty was a pretty flimsy excuse since it granted France no rights or role at all in matters of the imperial succession. However, the regents responded with an even flimsier defense by claiming that since it was Hiep Hoa who had signed the treaty, and since he was now dead, the treaty was no longer valid.

Entrance to the tomb of Kien Phuc

Emperor Kien Phuc was in a precarious situation because of all of this as the French were not about to discount every agreement just because the last monarch had been murdered. Champeaux put French troops on the alert and sabers began to rattle, which seemed to have the intended effect. The same regents who had turned on the previous emperor for coming to an agreement with the French suddenly and quickly backed down from the threat of trouble and tried to smooth things over. They formally submitted a request to the French government that they recognize and approve of Emperor Kien Phuc, which they did. In general, as far as France was concerned, the new Emperor was a nonentity, too young and soon too ill to assert himself. It was Ton That Thuyet and Nguyen Van Tuong who, with their own circle of supporters, were really in control and they were rapidly becoming objects of distrust by the Imperial Family as much as the French.

During his short reign, Emperor Kien Phuc showed a great deal of potential and many Vietnamese historians have looked back at him as one of the great “might-have-been” cases in Nguyen Dynasty history. The scholars at court remarked on his great potential to be an effective and moral emperor, praising his upstanding character and later generations would surmise that he could have been a great, even legendary emperor were it not for the disadvantages of poor health and his domination by the corrupt regents Tuong and Thuyet. They remained in control even though, once Kien Phuc became emperor, the regent was supposed to be Prince Gia-Hung. During his time, Emperor Kien Phuc put his seal to a new treaty with the French (who were trying to remove all ambiguity after the earlier scare) which recognized Annam (central Vietnam) and Tonkin (north Vietnam) as protectorates of France.

What brought about his downfall remains somewhat disputed but the usual story involves Emperor Kien Phuc becoming a liability to the ruling clique represented by his adopted mother, Hoc Phi, who was the third wife of Emperor Tu Duc and who was having an illicit affair with the regent Nguyen Van Tuong. Later, some would even suspect that the queen and the regents were somehow intentionally keeping the young monarch weak and ill and there seems little doubt that he was chosen specifically as a figure who could be easily dominated. The matter came to a head when the morally upright monarch walked in on his adopted mother and Tuong in flagrante delicto in the palace one night. Outraged, he imprudently shouted at the two, “When I get well, I will chop off your heads down to the third generation”. Obviously, the regents were not going to allow the Emperor a chance to make good on his threat. So, as the story goes, Queen Hoc Phi put poison in the Emperor’s medicine soon afterward and after becoming violently ill the unfortunate Emperor Kien Phuc died on August 1, 1884.

This provoked outrage, both among the French and the Nguyen Dynasty. The head of the imperial family council, Prince Gia-Hung, began a secret investigation into the death of the emperor the following year but when Ton That Thuyet found out about this the prince was promptly exiled and thereafter mysteriously disappeared. All of these events convinced the French authorities that Tuong and Thuyet had to go and took action to remove them from power. They ensured, of course, that their authorities passed to the colonial authorities rather than to the next emperor but at least the era of royal assassinations was over. The ensuing struggle saw the outbreak of the Mandarins Revolt, the elevation of a more Franco-friendly monarch. The infamous “Year of the Three Kings” had passed but it would still be some time before Vietnam would again enjoy peace and tranquility.

Consort Profile: Queen Mary of Teck

Princess Mary of Teck was born on May 26, 1867 in London at Kensington Palace to Duke Francis of Teck and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge. Even though her title derived from a small corner of the German Kingdom of Württemberg, Mary of Teck was British born and raised. She was the oldest of four children and the only girl so she grew up tough, disciplined and used to acting as a peacemaker when her little brothers fought. She also helped her mother with her charitable projects. Soon, she began to catch the attention of Queen Victoria and it was hoped that the attractive, straight-laced princess would make a suitable wife for Prince Eddy, eldest son of the Prince of Wales and second-in-line for the throne. The Queen had hoped that marriage would tame her son (a hope that was not entirely fulfilled) and now hoped that Princess Mary of Teck would do the same for Prince Eddy -who had everyone a little worried. His private life was and is the stuff of some pretty outrageous gossip, although when it comes to producing any hard evidence to back up the scandalous rumors things become a bit murky. In any event, whether or not the Princess of Teck would have made a suitable bride for the heir to the heir to the throne did not finally matter as Prince Eddy died of influenza in 1892.

As the Royal Family was in mourning, Princess Mary comforted the survivors and in so doing caught the eye of the new next-in-line Prince George. Queen Victoria, who had a very high opinion of Mary, still thought she would make an excellent consort and approved the match. So, the next year, in 1893 the two were engaged. This time it was not the result of an arrangement but a genuine connection and the two were to have a very successful and lifelong marriage. On July 6, 1893 the two were married at St James’s Palace and Princess Mary became the Duchess of York. Unlike his father (or most of the male members of his family excluding King George III) Prince George was very devoted to his wife, never took a mistress, and after their wedding, in quick order, six children were born to the happy couple. First was Prince Edward (later King Edward VIII) born in 1894, followed by Prince Albert (later King George VI) in 1895, then the Princess Royal Mary in 1897, Prince Henry in 1900, Prince George in 1902 and finally the unfortunate Prince John in 1905. Prince John was afflicted with epilepsy and only lived to the age of 13 but, despite what many today seem to believe, was much loved and closely taken care of by his mother.

It was customary to have nannies to take care of the royal children, but Princess Mary was not a distant mother, spending a great deal of time with her children, teaching them many things herself and when obliged to make overseas trips around the British Empire would break down in tears at having to leave her children. She was a very good mother, assumptions to the contrary probably being a result of her very strict, prim and proper appearance in public. In private, however, she was quite affectionate, caring and even playful. In 1901 Queen Victoria passed away and her son became King Edward VII. So, later that year, George and Mary became the Prince and Princess of Wales. With these new positions came even more demands on the time of the couple and Princess Mary traveled with her husband to Austria, Germany, Egypt, Greece, India, Spain and to Norway for the coronation of King Haakon VII and his wife Queen Maud (Mary’s sister-in-law). In 1910 King Edward VII died and the former Prince and Princess of Wales were crowned King George V and Queen Mary on June 22, 1911. It had always been the intention of King George V to change (and improve) the public reputation of the monarchy which had gone through a rough patch with the escapades of his father and older brother and this he certainly did and Queen Mary was a vital part of that.

King George and Queen Mary were the image of the model family; a happy couple, devoted and faithful to each other with many children who focused on doing good deeds and setting a proper example. They were the first sovereigns to celebrate their accession as Emperor and Empress of India on the subcontinent and when World War I erupted she set a magnificent example at the palace for the Royal Family being in solidarity with the British public. She saw to it that everything was rationed (as it was for the people) and even though it caused her great emotional distress she frequently visited the badly wounded troops of the BEF evacuated from the front in France and Belgium. Just before the war ended Queen Mary was devastated by the death of her ailing son Prince John; few at the time knew just how devastated. Yet, through it all, she was seen as a tower of strength at every public appearance, proper, determined and devoted to duty. She certainly was a great help to King George V who relied on her advice, emotional support and calming influence.

Eventually, the King began to fall victim to respiratory problems (he was a heavy smoker as his father had been and his son would be) and Queen Mary was his constant support. Even the doctors who were brought in credited the King’s survival with Queen Mary’s constant care and attention. At his silver jubilee, King George V lauded Queen Mary in a public speech which he placed at the end of his remarks for fear that he would be overcome by emotion saying, “I cannot trust myself to speak of the Queen when I think of all I owe her”. She was deeply saddened when George V died in 1936 and then had to deal with the potential crisis involving her son, King Edward VIII, and Mrs. Wallis Simpson. Queen Mary, although she appeared aloof and detached in public, cared deeply for her son and tried to support him in the midst of this scandal. However, she never viewed Mrs. Simpson as an acceptable consort for a King-Emperor. The Queen also never recognized the validity of divorce as a dutiful and sincere member of the Church of England. When King Edward decided to abdicate it was something incomprehensible to Queen Mary whose entire life had been defined by her devotion to duty. However, accepting that there was no other alternative she did her best to help her second son, King George VI, in taking leadership of the British monarchy at such a critical time.

During World War II, as she had in the last conflict, Queen Mary visited factories serving the war effort, met with soldiers on British bases and was even known to stop and giving walking soldiers arrive when spotted on the roadside. She also helped in the nation-wide campaign to gather scrap metal and other supplies to support the war effort. Queen Mary also took an active interest in the lives of her granddaughters Elizabeth and Margaret, passing on to them her appreciation for art and culture. She out-lived her son King George VI in 1952 and saw her granddaughter succeed to the throne as Queen Elizabeth II. After that moment, for a time, Great Britain had three queens; Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II. She did not live to see the coronation though as she died on March 24, 1953 of lung cancer at the age of 85. She was buried next to her beloved husband, King George V, at Windsor Castle.

Today in Royal History

Today in 347 AD the future Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great was born. He would go on to be the last Roman Emperor to rule both the east and the west as well as making Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and banning pagan rituals.

The Case for Monarchy: Italy

Today, the Italian Republic is in a terrible state. No one can deny that, though the political class will spend their time pointing the finger of blame at each other in order to save themselves. Perhaps though, looking back on the now 150 years of a united Italy, the people will instead look at the political class as a whole and the system itself which has brought Italy to this point. Politics in Italy has always been a rough business, from ancient Rome to the Renaissance states to modern Italy. However, in recent decades the situation has really gotten out of control. The situation has become so dire, some have even contemplated the potential dissolution of Italy as a nation, breaking up the country into several petty-republic. Usually, this involves blaming all current problems on events that took place centuries ago and which are, therefore, impossible to solve so everyone should just give up and go home in defeat. That might be seen as an easier path for some, but human experience has shown that the easy way is invariably the wrong way and even more harmful in the end. Taking an honest look at the current state of affairs, instituting reforms and, perhaps, correcting some of those past mistakes might not be easy but it just might save and restore the Italian nation. Some have said that Italy needs a “new Risorgimento” but, perhaps, Italy would be better served by simply re-learning the lessons of the Risorgimento she has already had? That was the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, which stands in stark contrast to one of the greatest mistakes of Italian history; the destruction of the monarchy.

Italy was created as a monarchy. In 1861 it was not the Italian Republic that was declared, but the Kingdom of Italy. There were good reasons that this was the case. Italians from all walks of life and from vastly different political points of view came together to create the Kingdom of Italy because they agreed on certain points. Not many, it is true, but points that were vital; the unity, independence and great aspirations of the Italian people. They may have disagreed on absolutely every other detail but they did all agree that the people of Italy should be united, independent and strong and that the Kingdom of Italy, the monarchy, was the only viable framework to accomplish that. Republican politics invariably devolved into class warfare and divisive, partisan rancor that brought down the edifice that the revolutionaries were endeavoring to create. Even the revolutionary Francesco Crispi, old ally of Giuseppe Garibaldi, who led the Expedition of the Thousand alongside him and who had been an ardent republican, embraced the Kingdom of Italy and rejected the republican model because, as he told his former colleague Giuseppe Mazzini, “The monarchy unites us, the republic would divide us”. The Kingdom of Italy was the roof under which all Italians came together and it was the Kingdom of Italy that rose to be a regional power and a player on the world stage.

The late King Vittorio Emanuele III once said, in a time of political turmoil, “In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians … The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?” Surely today the Italian people can appreciate what true and prophetic words these were. And, surely Italians today can give an answer to their late king as to “who will profit from it”; the answer is the politicians who make up the ruling class, who have turned the government of Italy into a scheme for their own enrichment rather than the administration of the country. They have made themselves an immense fortune at the expense of their people and their country, setting Italians against each other, engaging in bribery on a national scale and selling out the national interests and even the national sovereignty of Italy all in order to benefit themselves and the ruling politician-class to which they aspire to belong. They have no real connection to the Italian nation at all. They do not see individuals, as the late King did, but simply a mass of people to be manipulated, used and exploited.

This stands in stark contrast to the Kings of Italy who were, one after the other, devoted to the pursuit of Italian greatness above all. They did so for the honor of their country, which would be the glory of the dynasty as well. This is one of the great benefits of the monarchial system. Politicians gain fame by gaining victories for themselves whereas monarchs take a much broader view, considering the judgment of posterity and gain fame when the country succeeds, when the country becomes greater, more respected and more prosperous. Naturally, some projects worked out better than others but the simple fact is that the Kings of Italy were always looking for a way to advance the national cause, to make Italy a greater country whereas, in the era of the republic, the political leadership only seeks to advance the cause of their own party and to make themselves greater even if it means the ruination of the country in the long run. Italy is in a dire position today and at a pivotal crossroads in the history of the Italian nation. The country is mired in debt, overrun with corrupt politicians who have made the government in Rome a joke, ruled by a bunch of un-elected appointees of the European Union, social cohesion is breaking down, there are fewer and fewer Italians in Italy and those who remain squabble over what it means to be Italian.

What would the great figures from the history of the Italian peninsula, of the Latin race, say if they could see Italy today? How would they react to the offspring of the people who built Western Civilization, who ruled and advanced the prosperity of an empire stretching from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates and Hadrian’s Wall in Britain to the cataracts in Egypt being reduced to a divided state indebted to others and ruled by an elite clique appointed from beyond her borders? The Italian Republic has proven itself a failure. It was, due to the republican plebiscite, built on fraud and injustice from the start and has failed in even its most basic duty to preserve and protect the sovereignty and independence of the Italian nation, to say nothing of allowing the Italian people to reach their greatest potential. Italians, 150 years ago, came together, united by the monarchy, to build a great nation. There is no reason they cannot do so again. It was the safeguard that the royal institution provided which prevented extremism from fracturing the country and brought the majority of both sides of the political spectrum together, on the path of moderation, to pursue the national aspirations of the Italian people.

The lesson of history could not be more clear. From 1861 until the monarchy was sidelined by political forces, Italy was growing in strength at home and prestige abroad. Since the republic came to power the country has known only renunciation and decline. The Kingdom of Italy inspired and encouraged Italians to think the best of themselves and to aspire to better themselves; to be worthy of the great civilizations that had gone before them. The republican governments encourage Italians to belittle their country, apologize for any success and generally feel ashamed of themselves. Is it any wonder that when a people are taught to think in such a way that the country falls into decline? If great deeds are to be mocked or apologized for, who would ever aspire to greatness? If the only representatives of the nation are partisan political figures, who can inspire all people of every section of society to put their country first and strive for success? Someone outside of politics is needed for that, a national figure who can represent the interests of the nation as a whole, the historic legacy of the nation and who can rally the people to live up to that legacy. For the modern, united Italy, there is simply no denying that no family can do that other than the Royal House of Savoy. They have been with modern Italy at every step of her history. Their story is the Italian story and until Italy restores the monarchy it will remain a nation in denial.