Favorite Royal Images: Swedish Princess, Danish Queen

HRH Princess Ingrid of Sweden, later Queen of Denmark

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part VIII)

The Hanoverians

King George I: If nothing else, one can at least say that Britain’s first German monarch was a colorful character. A distant relative thrust onto the British throne by the 1701 Act of Settlement, something which further cemented the notion that the King reigned ‘by the grace of Parliament’ rather than the grace of God. He had no burning desire to be King of Great Britain and had already proven himself a fairly competent Elector of Hanover. He is known for his mostly “hands-off” approach to governing, which gave rise to the first British Prime Minister as we would understand it today, for his mistresses, his contempt for his eldest son (a Hanoverian tradition) and his inability to speak English. Still, he understood English law and government better than most of his subjects realized, he kept a steady hand on the wheel and if his British subjects did not understand him, he likely understood them just as little. Hanover was always his home and his first concern, he hadn’t sought to be king and certainly launched no invasion to bring it about like the Prince of Orange but he nonetheless made the most of it. He was not a likeable character but was probably at least somewhat better than most think.

King George II: Like his father, there is not an overabundance with which to recommend George II. He hated his son just as his father had hated him, though he was more kind to his wife (not difficult) and the British Empire grew considerably under his reign. Still, he spent some lengthy periods in Hanover and was always more concerned with Germany than with, for instance, the British North American colonies. The 1745 Jacobite uprising gave him quite a scare but he was certainly no coward, being the last reigning British monarch to lead his troops on the battlefield. Overall, he was a fairly effective monarch, fulfilling the traditional requirements for a successful monarch; securing the succession, defending his throne, winning victories in war and enlarging his domain. Still, he tended to put Hanover before Britain, was not a very likeable person and his forces were positively brutal in Scotland in the aftermath of the ‘45. So, all in all a successful monarch but one I could never muster a great deal of enthusiasm for.

King George III: It is a shame that George III will probably always be remembered most for losing “the United States” and for going “mad”. He really deserves to be counted among the greatest of British monarchs. For the first time since Queen Anne the country had a monarch who didn’t speak with a German accent and who was as thoroughly “British” as he could be. Unlike his predecessors, he took an active role in the government of his kingdoms and far from being harsh or tyrannical was almost invariably a voice of fairness and consideration. Also unlike his predecessors, King George III was a man of upstanding moral integrity, a faithful husband, devoted father and a man of great generosity while still having enough of George II in him to appreciate a balanced budget and deplore extravagance. Still, tradition being tradition, he and his eldest son never got along very well, mostly because of the extent to which the King disapproved of the rather weak moral fiber in his son. It should not be forgotten though that while losing what became the USA, he won the wider war and although he would not forget he was able to put the past behind him without holding a grudge, establishing diplomatic relations with the United States and going to war with revolutionary France after his old enemy Louis XVI was murdered by the mob. He also certainly secured the succession (in a big way) and was, in every way, a monarch any of his subjects could be proud of.

King George IV: When it comes to character, George IV was everything his father was not; licentious, lazy and wasteful. Still, he was not a terrible monarch though certainly not a great one. He may have been extravagant but he had a tremendous sense of style and he left Britain a more grandiose country than he found it. Yes, he was a scoundrel, but also a patron of the arts, a driver of fashion and a great builder. Those are about his only redeeming qualities though, aside perhaps from reviving highland dress in Scotland. His reign (and regency) coincided with some of the greatest moments in British history, the passing of historic legislation and at least he did not manage to mess any of that up though, based on what his ministers wrote some may have suspected him of trying. He was not a monarch one could admire, though many found him likeable. He did have sense enough to realize at least to some extent when politicians were trying to take advantage of him and his political views shifted after inheriting the throne. So, not a great one, not very praiseworthy but neither can it be said that things went to ruin under his watch.

King William IV: The “Sailor King” William IV often seems to get lost in between his colorful and controversial brother and the historic reign of his niece. Overall, my impression of William IV is as a pretty good, solid monarch. In sharp contrast to his brother he was frugal, plain and blunt which was probably a good thing on the heels of the fuss and feathers of George IV. William IV could behave in ways rather lacking in “majesty” but he was a man of strong leadership, good instincts and common sense. Since the reign of his father the politicians had become more and more dominant, which mostly continued under William IV though he was the last monarch to appoint a prime minister of his own choosing. He provided steady leadership during his time on the throne and had the wisdom and fortitude to hold on to life long enough for his niece to succeed him without a regency -probably saving the country from a great deal of trouble.

Queen Victoria: In some ways, Queen Victoria can be seen as being more revered than she should be and yet, I at least cannot help but have the greatest admiration for her. She made her share of mistakes over the years but she had a presence few other English sovereigns could ever hope to match. Like Elizabeth I, she gave her name to an era and on the world stage it was the Victorian era that was far greater. The Queen deserves at least some of the credit for the great, powerful, dynamic force that the British Empire became during her reign and she was an admirable woman. A very devoted wife, a reluctant (but frequent) though dutiful mother and a woman of impeccable moral fortitude. Queen Victoria made the monarchy widely respected again as well as a force for good in society with the outreach to the poor, the working class and her strident opposition to racial bigotry. Like a few others, it is hard to separate the Queen herself from the image of the Queen but that image was so great and remains so brilliant that it seems a pity to even try. The first to made Empress of India, the British Empire may have grown larger after her time on the throne yet it is still the reign of Queen Victoria that stands out, in my mind at least, as the pinnacle of the British Empire. Plus, she really was the “Grandmother of Europe” and anyone who doesn’t love their grandmother must have something wrong with them.

MM Sunday Scripture

Never let loyalty and faithfulness leave you. Tie them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.

-Proverbs 3:3

The Thousand Lands in Sicily

It was on May 11, 1860 that Giuseppe Garibaldi and his “Thousand” red shirts landed at Marsala on the island of Sicily to instigate the uprising against the Bourbon rule of King Francesco II. Although an independent operation, Garibaldi was certainly not without outside support or sympathy. Elements within the government in Turin certainly supported him (as did pan-Italian nationalists in general but this was a stateless group) and beyond the Italian peninsula there were numerous sympathetic governments, one of the most prominent being that of Great Britain (and not just because they appreciated the fashion-sense of his army). It helps to explain how such a seemingly hopeless and even farcical operation turned out to be such a stunning success. After all, it seems incredible that an invasion force of a thousand men could end up bringing down the entire Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies; that long-time Spanish bastion in the south of Italy. Actually, “The Thousand” were probably not even that numerous and they consisted, for the most part, of volunteers drawn from across northern Italy, unfamiliar with Sicily and unaccustomed to the harsher climate of the south. Some were not even Italians at all such as the Hungarian Legion of Italia which fought enthusiastically for the famous Garibaldi after having their own nationalist movement thwarted. How could such a rag-tag group be victorious?

The Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies certainly has the reputation of being a place one would not expect to find much sympathy for a revolutionary like Garibaldi. It has long been known as a very conservative, Catholic, absolute monarchy in traditional Spanish style. However, that proved to be part of the downfall of the kingdom and part of the reason for the lack of international support for the status quo and a pro-Garibaldi attitude from the British in particular. Ever since the Congress of Vienna the “Great Powers” had been most concerned with peace and stability, keeping rebellion from ever breaking out anywhere for fear of it spreading as in the past. The British (and most other northern European monarchies such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and even Prussia to a degree) firmly believed that the best way to ensure stability as through a constitutional monarchy that provided for some level of popular representation. Effectively, to give the people enough of a voice that they would feel they had some control over the national destiny but never enough to actually determine policy. This, the accepted thinking went, would make the public less susceptible to the arguments of the revolutionaries who wanted the people to rise up and overthrow the monarchy. This is why, in Spain, for example, the French and the British supported the liberal monarchists of the Queen mother rather than the absolute monarchists of Don Carlos. Or at least it was one reason.

King Ferdinando II of the Two-Sicilies, part of the Spanish Royal Family, annoyed the British by siding with Don Carlos. They were also concerned by the growing discontent in the Two-Sicilies and the increasing support for a republican revolution. Why were the British or French concerned at all? What was Sicily to them? The answer, of course, was that Sicily was right next to the British naval bastion of Malta and straddled the main seaway to the Suez Canal which was just starting to be built the year before Garibaldi and his men landed at Marsala. The French and British were therefore greatly concerned about any unrest that might disturb this enterprise upon which so much of global commerce was to depend. The British even sent warships to encourage the Neapolitan navy to stay away while Garibaldi and his men were landing (once the troops had disembarked the Neapolitans destroyed one ship and captured the other).

When Garibaldi landed, his forces were not opposed at all. The Neapolitan army, while not exactly having the best reputation in the world, should have been able to swamp such a tiny group with their massive numerical superiority if nothing else. However, King Francesco II inexplicably failed to take decisive action such as leading the army himself. Compounding the problem was the fact that his forces often did more to turn the local population against the monarchy than stopping the invaders. On May 14 Garibaldi declared himself ‘Duce’ of Sicily in the name of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Piedmont-Sardinia and the following day met the Neapolitan army for their first battle. The result was the unimpressive battle of Calatafimi which amounted to a victory for Garibaldi despite being outnumbered 2-to-1. It helped that the Neapolitan commanders seemed to be equal parts incompetent and vindictive. Previously, the one, reliable hardcore of the Bourbon forces had been the Swiss mercenary guard. However, they had earlier gone on strike for better pay and King Francesco II responded by having them all massacred; which was probably not the best idea.

Garibaldi captured Palermo and his ranks slowly grew as locals volunteered to join him. The Neapolitan army also had a problem with desertion. A key element was the local aristocracy who responded in various ways to the crisis, none of them very helpful to Francesco II. Some fled the island immediately as soon as Garibaldi landed and these were those most supportive of the Bourbon monarchy. Obviously, they would be no help. Most, however, considered the cause of Francesco II lost and decided to make common cause with Garibaldi who promised to respect their rights and privileges. This would later cause a degree of rebellion and banditry by those peasants who felt Garibaldi had sold them out by not tearing down the aristocracy completely and redistributing their lands. King Ferdinando II had shown that he would do whatever was necessary to maintain his rule, be it promising a constitution only to revoke it later or shooting down rebels and shelling entire cities to rubble. If he had still been around things might have been different but few had confidence that Francesco II was made of such tough stuff. The pragmatic types looked at the situation and reasoned that the Bourbons were doomed and their only options for the future would be a united Italy ruled by Giuseppe Mazzini and his radical republicans or a constitutional monarchy ruled by King Vittorio Emanuele II. Mazzini was unthinkable so these invariably suppressed their distaste for Garibaldi and supported his red shirt army to maintain the existing social order.

Rebel forces soon besieged Palermo, with disastrous consequences for the Neapolitan side. Political prisoners were broken out of jail, causing panic in the rear and the commanding Neapolitan general seemingly lost his nerve and ordered a retreat only to then order his artillery to shell the city indiscriminately, killing hundreds of civilians, many of whom must have been loyal to the Bourbon monarchy. Naturally, this made the cause of the King in Naples all the more unpopular (though he, of course, had nothing to do with it). Still, more Neapolitan troops arrived and the city might have been retaken but the commanding general, whether due to befuddled panic or simply corruption, decided to surrender. The Neapolitan troops began withdrawing from the island, even where they held the upper hand, and in their absence several peasant rebellions broke out. These were then suppressed by Garibaldi’s red shirts which, again, bewildered many of the locals who had envisioned him as their liberator. These rebels, however, were typical of the types who would have seized power and set up a revolutionary republic if not for the presence of Garibaldi who was moderating his more radical inclinations to win the support of powers like Piedmont-Sardinia and Great Britain.

In a last, desperate effort to avoid disaster and win back popular support, King Francesco II issued a constitution in June but it was to no avail. After the “now you see it, now you don’t” constitutions of his father, very few people were prepared to believe that the King was serious about constitutional government and simply ignored him. More volunteers joined Garibaldi though the Neapolitan army still had some sizeable garrisons on the island. In July Garibaldi captured Milazzo with 5,000 men after the overall Neapolitan commander refused to reinforce the garrison there. His caution did him no good and a few days later he surrendered Messina to Garibaldi by which time it was the rebels who held a significant numerical advantage and the remaining garrisons surrendered quickly. Throwing caution to the wind (and alarming the government in Turin) Garibaldi wasted no time and transferred his forces over to the mainland at Calabria. After that, a string of victories ensued as many Neapolitan forces deserted, some even joining the red shirts and most of those who did offer resistance did so with little support or coordination. The army and navy seemed to melt away, King Francesco II fled Naples and made his last stand at Gaeta.

The Neapolitans were still able to slightly outnumber the forces of Garibaldi and might have defeated him, at least temporarily, were it not for the arrival of the Piedmontese army under King Vittorio Emanuele II who was alarmed at how fast and far the red shirts were advancing and just a little concerned about how genuine their newfound monarchist sympathy was. Between them, Gaeta was doomed (though it would hold out until early the following year) and at the bridge of Teano on October 26, 1860 General Garibaldi and King Vittorio Emanuele II met, bringing their forces together and joining, from that time ever since, the north and the south of Italy together for the first time since the days of the old Roman Empire. In March of 1861 the unified Kingdom of Italy was officially proclaimed. It was not something that either the new King of Italy or even his first minister Cavour had planned for in advance. Even his royal predecessor, King Carlo Alberto, had only ever had ambitions to unite northern Italy. However, just as in those days, the drive to end foreign rule and unite the Italian people was such that it became a race between the republicans of Mazzini and the monarchists of the King of Piedmont to see who would accomplish the act and establish the first real Italian government since Roman times. There was plenty of tragedy along the way, but between those two competing ideologies, it is fortunate that it was the King who reached the goal first.

Royal News Roundup

A faster and earlier roundup this week. Starting with the Scandinavian royals, King Harald V of Norway was in Brazil last week, visiting and even staying with a group of Yanomami natives in a remote region of the Amazon River basin. A beautiful area but not without danger. They don’t call it the “Green Inferno” for nothing. Meanwhile, the Norwegian Crown Princely couple were in Houston, Texas Sunday for the Offshore Technology Conference. Norway has been involved with the Conference for 40 years and the Crown Prince told local reporters that as the oil business is such a powerhouse in Texas, there is much he can learn here. The royal couple then moved on to San Francisco, California. On the British Isles, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall accompanied HM the Queen to the state opening of Parliament at Westminster Palace this week. There were no major trips announced in the Speech from the Throne and according to the Palace HRH the Prince of Wales will stand in for the Queen at the Commonwealth summit this year. On a related front the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall hosted a reception for the British-Caribbean communities this week. On Thursday Prince Harry arrived in the United States for a week-long visit of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado and Washington DC.

In southern Europe, HSH Princess Charlene of Monaco said in an interview that she is ready to be a mom, at least once the new Princess Charlene Foundation is up and running smoothly, which she figures will take a couple of months. I think it is safe to say that the public is ready as well. A little heir to the throne to carry on the Grimaldi-Polignac line would be good news indeed. I think Andrea Casiraghi would make a fine ‘Prince Albert III’ but the Casiraghi trio would probably be happiest to just carry on with their current lifestyle rather than having royal responsibilities to worry about and they and Princess Caroline are probably hoping for Albert to have a son more than anyone. Over in Spain there was some welcome news for a Royal Family that sorely needs some as the Spanish court announced it was suspending the charges against the Infanta Cristina, which were ridiculous to begin with. Also in Spain, HM Queen Sofia attended ’Red Cross World Day’ in Malaga. This event commemorates the founding of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in a different Spanish city every year. Last Saturday the Queen was on the Greek island of Spetses to celebrate Easter with her family, including the former King Constantine II.

And, up in the Low Countries, the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg presided over the opening of the Spring Fair at Luxexpo on Saturday and in The Netherlands the first official engagement for the new King and Queen went off without a hitch, though it was a solemn occasion. King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima attended a special ceremony to honor the Dutch forces who were lost in World War II. When the war came to the country the Dutch resisted for four days before capitulating to the Germans. Many Dutch served in the underground resistance, some fought in the Allied armies in special units and Dutch colonial forces fought against the Japanese in what is now Indonesia. In other news the local officials are now expressing regret over the arrest of two Dutch republican protestors during the recent inauguration ceremonies, saying it was a mistake caused by a shift-change. Personally, I don’t think they should be apologizing at all, arrest them all I say! The Duke and Duchess of Brabant also reportedly commented on the Dutch inauguration, being very impressed by the outpouring of public support for the new monarch and Princess Mathilde (again, reportedly) said she hopes Prince Philippe will be given a similar reception when he becomes King of the Belgians, but added that of course the Belgians are not the same as the Dutch.

A Savoy King of Britain?

It is my official policy that the legitimacy of any reigning monarch today is not to be questioned. In these modern times, any royal house that falls would be replaced by yet another cookie-cutter republic and not some rival royal house or royal bloodline. In the past, however, there were a number of heroic struggles to restore a legitimate royal line whose place on the throne had been usurped by another and one such example is the struggle of the Jacobites in Britain. This, as most know, was the effort to restore first King James II and later his heirs of the House of Stuart to the British throne after they were replaced by another royal line and later the House of Hanover. However, though the Jacobite uprisings of 1715 and 1745, carried forward mostly by the highland Scots, were not successful, a minority of Jacobites continued to recognize the Stuart line as the legitimate heirs to the British throne. Interestingly enough, had things gone differently in history, England, Scotland and Ireland might have had an Italian monarch of the House of Savoy if the Jacobites had been able to have their way.

The last direct heir of the deposed Stuart King James II was Prince Henry, Cardinal York, known to Jacobites as “King Henry IX”. He was the younger brother of the famous Prince Charles Edward Stuart or “Bonnie Prince Charlie”, grandson of King James II and, to Jacobites, “King Charles III”. Having no heirs of his own, when he died, his claim passed to his brother, Prince Henry, who had entered the Church and risen to the rank of cardinal. Obviously, he had no heirs either and so when he died in 1807 the claim then passed to his second cousin twice removed the former King Carlo Emanuele IV of Piedmont-Sardinia (he had abdicated in 1802) of the House of Savoy. So, if the Jacobites had their way, he would have been “King Charles IV” and he was, of course, a remarkable man, known for his devout faith and heroic opposition to the aggression of the French revolutionary forces. He had also been close friends with the Cardinal, his predecessor in the Jacobite succession. There is also no doubt that the Cardinal intended for King Carlo Emanuele IV to succeed to his rights according to the will he left behind. However, had he been in a position to accept the British throne it is unlikely he would have done so as, after the death of his beloved wife in 1802, he abdicated the throne he did have and devoted his life to religious work, taking vows in the Society of Jesus.

When King Carlo Emanuele IV died in 1819 his rights to the British throne passed to his brother, King Vittorio Emanuele I of Piedmont-Sardinia. A very traditional man, he is remembered for being the one to see the House of Savoy restored in Turin after the defeat of France and the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia expanded by the addition of the territories of the former Republic of Genoa. He put an end to all of the revolutionary laws enacted by the French but, despite being a military man by nature, would not shed the blood of his own subjects and abdicated the throne in 1821 rather than suppress an uprising or break his word to the Austrians who he had made peace with. However, after the death of his brother, the Jacobites regarded him as “King Victor” of England, Scotland, Ireland and France and his abdication of the Piedmontese throne did not affect his status among the Jacobites as the legitimate British monarch. To them, he remained “King Victor” until his death in 1824 when his rights to the British throne passed to his daughter.

That daughter was Princess Maria Beatrice Vittoria Giuseppina di Savoia, born in 1792 when her father was still Duke of Aosta. When her father died the Jacobites recognized her as their legitimate Queen, referring to her as “Queen Mary III” or “Queen Mary II” depending on who one asked. In 1812 she married her uncle Archduke Ferdinand Charles of Austria, Duke of Modena, making her the Duchess of Modena. She had an eventful life thanks to the impact of the Napoleonic Wars on Italy and far from aspiring to the idea of actually becoming “Queen Mary III (or II) it was only by Austrian military assistance that she and her husband were able to regain their place in the Duchy of Modena. She died in 1840 at the age of 47 in Castello del Catajo as the last Jacobite heir of the House of Savoy. Upon her death the Jacobite claim fell to her son, Duke Francesco V of Modena (House of Hapsburg-Lorraine) who the Jacobites recognized as “King Francis I”. So, after two kings and one queen of the House of Savoy the British throne would have been taken by the Hapsburgs, though a branch still, at that time, at least nominally Italian. He was eventually overthrown and Modena was later incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy, the Jacobite claim going to the Austria-Este line of the Hapsburgs after his death.

Interestingly enough, the daughter of the Duke of Modena married King Ludwig III of Bavaria and so, when she died, the Jacobite claim passed to her son Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria and the heir to the Bavarian throne (today Duke Franz of Bavaria) is still technically the heir to the legitimist Jacobite legacy. Of course, that is what it is all about: legitimate bloodlines, but still, one cannot help but appreciate the irony of all those Jacobites in 1715 and 1745 fighting for the Stuart heir against a German (Hanoverian) monarch who came to London to reign over them now having their ideological successors of today at least theoretically proposing that another German come to London to replace the native-born monarch to reign over the British Isles. These are the strange twists and turns of royal genealogy and it is these same twists and turns that, had things worked out just a little differently, might have made the House of Savoy the British Royal Family and given England, Scotland and Ireland an Italian monarch.

A Self-Hating World

I have commented before about the extent to which the European peoples have been depopulating and I have recently also ranted on about my anger over the push for certain peoples in the world to be made to feel ashamed of themselves, not for anything they have done, but for what their ancestors have done. This is just my own opinion of course but I feel that the two issues must be connected. It is a phenomenon that seems to be mostly restricted to “First World” countries (Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand) and while not exactly pertaining strictly to the issue of monarchy, the monarchies in all of these parts of the world do figure into the situation; particularly the British monarchy being as it is the most widely shared monarchy in the world. It seems to me that one of the great, often unspoken, problems faced by the peoples of the first world today is a ghastly shortage of healthy, patriotic pride and love of country. Some may not believe that, I believe it to be clearly and obviously true. I should probably state at the outset that, as these are (with one exception) countries which have all traditionally been Christian, that I know many will respond by saying that this can only be a good thing as pride is something bad. It is one of the “seven deadly sins” after all. True, but I at least think there is a considerable difference between a righteous pride and the sort of pride that extends to arrogance, xenophobia and general bigotry. In short, there is, I think, a pride that is healthy and a pride that is unhealthy; a pride that causes one to love your country and people as opposed to a pride that causes one to hate and belittle countries and peoples other than your own.

This can also be said about the term “nationalism” which tends to have negative connotations today. And, it is true, nationalism can be a very dangerous thing. Yet, it does not have to be and even in the days when nationalism was extremely weak in Europe (for example) because people identified themselves by their faith first and foremost, there was still clearly identifiable nationalities which were distinct from each other. A Belgian, a Bavarian and an Italian may have all been part of the empire but that certainly did not mean they were all the same. Today, however, people of first world countries at least seem to be pushed more and more to think that nationalities do not exist and they are getting away with it, in part I think, because of a lack of national pride. Again, some will probably dispute that but I am talking about a deep-seated, rationale, informed national pride and not some sort of cosmetic or emotional pride that is barely skin deep. I am not talking about people who paint their faces and wave flags at football games but those who understand and appreciate who they are, where they came from and what their people to survive and prosper forever and always. There is a big difference between the two. The one is prepared to toil on, even against hopeless odds, for the sake of his country while the other is what a certain despicable revolutionary once termed, “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot”.

A perfectly good example of this is Mexico. There is no shortage of superficial pride amongst the Mexican people. Travel anywhere in which there is a sizeable Mexican population and you will see Mexican flags everywhere, Our Lady of Guadalupe detailed on the backs of cars and a great deal of talk and show about Mexican pride. Yet, there are now more Mexicans living in the United States than in Mexico. That reveals a lack of the sort of pride I am talking about. Someone with the sort of pride I am talking about would not leave their country for greener pastures elsewhere, but would stay and work day in and day out, even enduring hardship, to make their country better, to make it the place that was so successful others would be looking longingly there as the greener pasture. The difference though, perhaps because Mexico is not a first world country, is that no one is trying to discourage real pride amongst the Mexican people. Read a history book in a school in Monclova or Saltillo and you will never find anything about Mexico fighting an unjust war (though the vast majority have been with themselves) nor will you find much about misdeeds done to other peoples. These things are not universally ignored, but they are certainly not emphasized or over dwelled upon.

This is certainly not the case when it comes to first world countries. At least not anymore. I can remember a time (and I’m not that old) when American schools tended to encourage the belief that the United States had always been right and, on the rare occasions when mistakes were made, these either worked out for the best anyway or were recognized and quickly corrected. It is not so anymore nor has it been so for quite a few years in most European countries. I recall how shocked I was when first told that in British schools children are actually taught that there country was in the wrong during the American War for Independence and that the Americans had been right. I expected American school books to teach that but had always assumed that in Britain they would teach that Britain was in the right and America in the wrong. Not so. The British seem to get the worst of it sometimes, probably because of the British Empire which was so much more successful than the competition. Yet, virtually every European country these days is being told that they should not be proud of their countries but, in fact, should be ashamed of them. There is always something to point to (truly, because peoples consist of men and women rather than angels -and even some of them were bad) and even when it can be hard to find there is always collective guilt to fall back on. I remember being quite bewildered seeing such a case made in Norway. As any student of history can recall, no Scandinavian country was ever a major colonial power, yet there are held collectively guilty for the “crimes” of others who were.

The list of specific examples, however, is endless and in most cases involves colonialism and/or imperialism. Presumably this is because of the dominance of Marxists in the education systems of the first world and Marxists tend to see everything in terms of a “land grab”. As usual, the most deadly poison is that which includes some non-lethal material to help the lethal bit go down easier. Again, every country and people has done something or some things that were wrong so those aspects are heavily emphasized. Yet, by that same token, every country and every people have done a great deal that was good and these things are seldom pointed out, at least in terms of the first world countries in question. So, to use the British example again, unsavory actions on the part of the British Empire, like the Opium War, are emphasized while positive actions, like the suppression of the Thugee in India, are downplayed or ignored. In the case of the Spanish Empire, brutality toward the Native Americans is emphasized while the eradication of human sacrifice is downplayed or ignored. There is a difference, despite how things seem today, in whitewashing history and expecting entire countries to continuously flog themselves for crimes decades and sometimes centuries in the past.

This has gone on, in places around the world, to reach farcical proportions. And, again, one cannot help but sense a Marxist worldview at work considering that in almost every case considerable amounts of wealth are being transferred; to help “make up” for past misdeeds of course. The government of the United Kingdom sends millions of pounds to Zimbabwe which is ruled by a socialist dictator with plenty of blood on his hands and who spends far more on his own recreation than on education in his country. A country, by the way, which was part of the old Rhodesia which Britain cut ties with because they refused to go along with the campaign to end racial discrimination, yet the dictator Mugabe never tires of blaming every misfortune in his country on the racist misdeeds of the old British Empire. So, a British government which did nothing wrong is paying money and being blamed for the racism of a past regime they cut ties with for being racist by a modern day dictator who actually carries out racist policies. It is simply incredible.

There are plenty of other examples, just as ridiculous. Not too long ago Italians were treated to the sight of Prime Minister Berlusconi apologizing for the colonial past of Italy to none other than the brutal dictator Muammar Gaddafi as well as paying the Libyan tyrant billions in “compensation” for the actions of the Fascist regime decades ago. Keep in mind, Gaddafi had barely been born when Italian rule in Libya ended and Berlusconi himself was a mere child at the time. Would anyone expect the new Libyan government to apologize for the actions of Gaddafi? I doubt it, and why should they when they were not responsible? Yet, an Italian prime minister is expected to apologize as though he or his government were in any way responsible for the actions of Mussolini. In 1972 Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka apologized for actions during and prior to World War II to the People’s Republic of China which has the blood of tens of millions of people on its hands. Keep in mind, this was the leader of a government that had already denounced the actions for which he was apologizing, in power in the country under a totally different national framework and totally different constitution than that which had done wrong. And yet he was apologizing to a government that was not in power at the time those things were done but which was the exact same government, dominated by the same political party, which had killed or caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. It is absurd to say the least of it.

Why is all of this being done? Perhaps because the educational system across the first world is dominated by revolutionary (usually Marxist) elites who make sure that the history everyone learns is one long litany of vicious misdeeds. Is it any wonder that these same countries are all depopulating? I’m sure there has been no study of it and I doubt there is any way such a thing could be proven but, personally, I cannot help but believe that there is something going on deep in the subconscious mind of the peoples of these countries. Having been told for decades that they are the worst peoples in the world, it seems that they have all decided (without making a conscious decision or even being aware of it) that the world would be better off without them and that they do not “deserve” to survive. It has gone beyond wallowing in self-pity to outright self-hatred and self-flagellation on a national and even semi-global scale. It is a mentality that has been pounded into the heads of whole populations over decades. It is also noteworthy that a tactic is used that the Marxists are very fond of which is the choice between two extremes; you either embrace Marxism or else you don’t care about the poor at all. You either believe that you and your people have been a plague on humanity for all time or else you are trying to whitewash history and think you’re better than everyone else and you’ve never made a mistake. That often shocks people into shameful agreement even though a mere moment of reflection would tell anyone that life is not so simple as that.

It should not be too difficult to grasp the concept of being able to resist the extremes of being a humorless, xenophobic jerk or wallowing in self-pity and negativity until your people literally no longer wish to survive. As it stands now, it does not surprise me at all that countries across the First World, from the United States to the United Kingdom to Japan have all had considerable numbers of people killed in terrorist attacks by their own people. When the educational system is dominated by a point of view that says "_____(your country) is evil and has always been evil and has been cruel to everyone in the world" it only surprises me that even more young people are not driven to hatred of their countries and a desire to see them wiped out. A simple look at the birth rates show that most no longer consider their nations worthy of survival so it's not that great a leap to think they should just be finished off more quickly. It doesn't have to be this way. A little healthy pride is not a bad thing and, while most may be beyond saving, a less extremist view should be worked toward. People should feel shame at doing wrong. People nor countries should be ashamed simply for being successful.

Just a bit of opinion from The Mad Monarchist

Remembering the Lusitania

It was on this day in 1915 that the RMS Lusitania was sunk by a single torpedo hit fired by U-Boat 20 (commanded by Kaptlt. Walther Schwieger) off the coast of Ireland with the loss of about 1,200 lives. A sad event, no doubt, which caused considerable outrage in the United States due to the presence of several hundred Americans on board. The loss of innocent lives, many women and children, is heartbreaking which everyone can agree on. More controversial though, is assigning blame for the tragedy and putting the event in context. It is a fact that peoples across central Europe (not just Germany) were being starved due to the British blockade (children and the elderly being the first to die) and this slow death does not elicit the same degree of sympathy as the losses caused by something so dramatic as a passenger liner being torpedoed by a German submarine. It is also a fact that the Lusitania had been built as a reserve heavy cruiser, it is a fact that it was carrying war materials (not many but they were there) which made the ship a legitimate target in German eyes and also meant that the passengers were, in a way, being used as "human shields". It is also a fact that the Germans warned people not to sail on the ship but the Allies encouraged it. It is a fact that the captain of the ship had been warned of a submarine in the area but took no precautions against a possible attack. It is also a fact that the British were desperate to get America into the war and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill said that Britain should do everything it could to encourage ships to run the blockade saying, "for our part, we need the shipping, the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still". That should be kept in mind before joining in any anti-German hysteria over the attack. And, just in case some still believe the old lies, the German Kaiser did not decorate Kaptlt. Schwieger for sinking the Lusitania. He was decorated some time later for sinking the requisite tonnage of Allied shipping and later died in action at sea (at the time some put it about that he had killed himself out of guilt). It was a tragic affair, no doubt about it, but the disregard for human life was not limited to those on the German side.

Favorite Royal Images: Cutest Postal Worker

HSH Princess Elisabeth Helene von Thurn und Taxis

(who later should have been Queen of Saxony)

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part VII)

The Stuarts

King James I: My opinion of the first Stuart to rule England is rather mixed but overall the needle does tip slightly in the positive direction. He did not always keep his word but in general he was a fairly tolerant man so long as no one made trouble. He was renowned for his intelligence yet mocked for his odd habits, hence being called “the wisest fool in Christendom”. A better epithet for James I was “Britain’s Solomon” and his writing about monarchy was excellent and some of my favorite material. I also love his imperial style in emphasizing the unity of England, Scotland and Ireland under one monarch. He was not perfect but much of the negative things said about him may not be true and while I cannot really cheer for him, his written works make it impossible for me not to be a little positive towards him, I think they’re that good.

King Charles I: One of my all-time favorites, I like King Charles I both for what he did and for enraging all the right people. The problems he faced were not of his own making (some of the economic mess went all the way back to Henry VIII) and he should be applauded rather than criticized for his firm principles. It may have been smarter for him to have backed down but I admire him all the more for standing up for what was right, regardless of the circumstances. I admire his piety, his great devotion to his family, his fidelity to his wife (a remarkable woman) and for his courage. He met his death in a truly heroic way and, as he point out at his trial, was fighting for the rights of everyone by fighting for his own rights as king. That being said, he was not as rigid as most think and tried to be reasonable, giving in to most of the demands of Parliament but not on the most important points and he should be saluted for that. He was a man of great integrity who make have made some missteps but who was always motivated by a desire to do the right thing.

King Charles II: I cannot admire Charles II as much as I do his father, but he was certainly more successful and a very good man deep down. That being said, he was a hopeless womanizer and serial adulterer which prevents him having my unabashed admiration. However, while his court was certainly on the licentious side, after the dour years of the Puritanical Cromwell, it was probably to be expected. While lacking the unbending principles of his father, he did see the monarchy restored and that would probably not have happened if he had not been willing to compromise on some things. Still, at the end of the day, he did reach his limit and stood firm in defense of the monarchy and the monarchial principle of hereditary succession in particular, for which he can be applauded. It is easier to see the good man underneath when considering how he defended his wife and begged her forgiveness on his deathbed. One can also see his principled belief in monarchy and the importance of family in his defense of his brother in spite of the fact that he predicted disaster for him.

King James II: I have a much higher opinion of James II than most, but that’s not hard. He’s one of the most unpopular and maligned monarchs in English history and unjustly so in my opinion. Like his brother, he fell prey to the temptations of the flesh, but to a vastly lesser extent. He was a brave and capable soldier (sailor) and was a man of principle and conviction. The opposition to him was mostly hysterical rather than reasoned and while he certainly wanted to do away with the anti-Catholic prejudice then rampant in Britain, most forget that he never actually did anything to reestablish Catholicism as the state religion. Everyone was just afraid that he would and his efforts to remove laws that discriminated against Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants would today be taken for granted as reasonable and laudable. He did, however, probably go too far too fast considering how much Catholic-phobia existed in the country. Despite what many say, he was a courageous man but the fate of his father no doubt loomed large in his mind and in England and later in Ireland one cannot help but wonder if he might have maintained his throne if he had stuck it out just a bit longer. However, that he was the legitimate, hereditary sovereign of the three kingdoms cannot be denied and, for this monarchist, that matters most.

King William III & Queen Mary II: Given my sympathy for James II, I cannot but have some mixed feelings when it comes to William and Mary. Yet, while turning against your father and legitimate monarch is something I could never condone, each were very talented and remarkable individuals. William III showed immense skill and determination in fending off the French and was quite a capable military leader. Queen Mary was a dutiful wife, a capable ruler in her own right, a devout woman intolerant of sin and vice and who at least had enough of a conscious to feel rather guilty about what she and her husband had done to her father. That inclines me to be a bit more favorable toward her than I would otherwise. For William III, he set up the system of constitutional monarchy the U.K. still has today, which seems less ideal than what had existed previously to me, yet, William III was never really focused on Britain but on The Netherlands and the broader strategic situation in Europe. The changes effected under his reign, if one is inclined to dislike them, should direct most of their criticism at the men who invited William to launch his invasion and then who welcomed it with open arms rather than at the King himself.

Queen Anne: I have much the same difficulties with Queen Anne as with Queen Mary II. Her betrayal of her father (and sovereign) and spreading doubts about the legitimacy of her half-brother are things I find it impossible to overlook. There were some great national achievements during her time but little had to do with her. The Act of Union was passed, but done in a less than ideal way. On the battlefield Marlborough (“Corporal John”) proved himself to be one of the great captains of his age and one of the greatest military geniuses Britain has ever produced but there too there were problems between his family and the Queen. She was a devout Anglican, took her royal duties seriously (and was famously the last monarch to veto an act of Parliament) but overall she leaves me with the impression of a gloomy and pathetic figure, plagued by illness and a succession of miscarriages. It would be hard not to feel sorry for the poor woman but, under the new royal system, the ship of state sailed on in any event and she must be given at least some measure of the credit for Britain emerging or reemerging as a great power during her reign.

MM Sunday Scripture

The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

-I Samuel 2:10

Royal News Roundup

The big royal news this week was, of course, the inauguration of HM King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands. It was a grand royal affair, in the perspective of the more low-key Dutch monarchy, with royals representing Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, the UAE, Thailand and Japan. The whole country turned orange as the Dutch people celebrated their new monarch and bid a happy retirement to their former queen. A meeting of Dutch republicans held at the same time attracted more reporters than members with only 9 attending the pathetic event. However, they were over-represented in the inauguration with 12 of the 142 MP’s present refusing to take the oath of allegiance and 4 declining the invitation to attend at all (why they are still allowed to hold office at all is beyond me). King Willem-Alexander has indicated his desire to be a less traditional sort of monarch, coming out against the laws protecting the Royal Family from insult, supporting the removal of the power of the monarch to appoint interim government leaders but, on the other hand, he has stated that he will, like his mother, continue to meet with the prime minister every week. He has also stated though that if the Dutch government voted to make the monarchy purely ceremonial he would support their decision. Happily, there seems little desire to do so.

In other royal news, Crown Prince Haakon of Norway has attracted some controversy over an upcoming visit to the United States by the Crown Prince and Princess, spending most of their time in Texas and California. They will attend an oil conference in Houston and then visit Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth before flying out to San Francisco. The “controversy” arises from the fact that Lockheed Martin produces the cluster bombs that have been condemned by the group “Norwegian People’s Aid” which the Crown Prince served as royal patron. Critics have said it is a violation of royal neutrality for the Crown Prince to visit such a company with one outspoken critic saying he was going to “lend legitimacy” to a business that sells “instruments of death”. The reason for the visit, of course, has nothing to do with cluster bombs but with the decision (long agonized over) by Norway to buy 52 new F35 fighter jets to replace their current fleet of F16’s. To this observer, the whole fuss over the cluster bombs make no sense; any weapon of war can be used to harm civilians and no manufacturer can be held responsible for how their products are used. It is also noteworthy that most of those criticizing the Norwegian crown prince are from the oh-so vocal republican minority. The foreign ministry has said the royal couple should not be blamed for government decisions and Lockheed Martin has denied ever making cluster bombs at all but only manufacturing a part of the ignition for such devices but that even that will be stopped within the next two years.

In Serbia, HRH Crown Prince Alexander oversaw the return to Serbian soil of his late grandmother Queen Maria of Romania. The transfer was arranged with the cooperation of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the UK, the Dean of Windsor, Anglican Church and the Serbian ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs. A special service was held for the late Queen at the Serbian Orthodox Church of St Sava in London with the Serbian Royal Family in attendance as well as the Serbian Ambassador to the UK and many others before being flown to Belgrade. The Royal Family met the casket there along with representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The remains of the Queen were returned to Dedinje and another memorial service was held, officiated by His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia. Queen Marie was a great patron of charitable causes, which was often commented upon in the tributes to her and she set a fine example in her life as the model of a Christian wife, mother and queen. May she continue to rest in peace.

Another past queen consort was also remembered in southern Europe on Friday. In Rome, HH Pope Francis approved a miracle attributed to the intercession of Queen Maria Cristina of Savoy, queen consort to King Ferdinand II of the Two-Sicilies, mother of King Francis II of the Two-Sicilies, daughter of King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia, sister of Duchess Maria Beatrice of Modena and Empress Maria Anna (consort to Ferdinand I of Austria). Queen Maria Cristina died when she was only 23-years old, a few days after giving birth to the last King of the Two Sicilies but who already had a reputation for great faith and piety. In 1859 her cause for canonization was opened and 13 years later she was declared venerable. With the recognition of this miracle by the Pope the late queen is on the way to being beatified, the final step before sainthood. Religious devotion is nothing new for the House of Savoy, especially among the female members, and Queen Maria Cristina is in good company with Princess Maria Clotilde of Savoy (daughter of King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy), wife of Napoleon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte, who has been declared a ‘Servant of God’ and also has a cause for canonization open. Princess Maria Felicita of Savoy (daughter of King Charles Emmanuel III) had such a reputation for faith that if she has no cause open she probably should have, Queen Elena of Montenegro (wife of King Victor Emmanuel III) has a cause being considered and among the male members of the family there have been cases such as Blessed Amadeus IX and Blessed Umberto III to point to and, I would say, the case of King Charles Emmanuel IV would be worth investigating.

Finally we also have some news of the romantic variety. There is to be another American princess in the world when last Thursday it was announced by HH Aga Khan IV that his eldest son Prince Rahim Aga Khan is set to marry American model Kendra Spears who is expected to convert to Islam prior to the wedding ceremony. This is something of a family tradition as the first wife of the current Aga Khan was a British model and his father Prince Aly Khan was at one time married to the American model and actress Rita Hayworth. The family does not, it seems to me, receive the attention that it used to but, for those unaware, the Aga Khan is the hereditary Imam of the Ismaili Islamic sect, recognized as princes and princesses by their descent from the Qajar dynasty of Persia (the family which ruled prior to the Pahlavi coming to power). We wish the prince and his bride to be all the best of happiness in their life together.

Monarchist Quote

“I am a true servant of my King and country, not only as a dutiful subject but because I am a convinced monarchist, politically and intellectually. I mean by that, quite apart from myself and my relationship to my Bavarian and German fatherland, I believe monarchy to be the most successful form of government that the history of mankind has known.”

-Adolf von Harnier, on trial for treason, Germany, 1938

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part VI)

The Tudors

King Henry VII: The Wars of the Roses that had stagnated and bled England for years finally came to an end with Henry VII, founder of the Tudor dynasty. My impression of Henry VII was that of a not terribly pleasant man, not someone very flashy or inspirational but a very cautious, shrewd and talented national leader. The stability he brought was welcome though he seems to have been a bit of a control freak which opened the door for some problems but he was basically a competent and successful monarch, keeping the country on an even keel, providing for the succession and securing a marriage alliance with the emerging super-power of Spain. He was rather cold and miserly but given his life it is not surprising that he was a rather hard-nosed, unemotional sort of man who kept his eye on the prize and the bottom line. Neither great nor terrible he was a pretty solid monarch.

King Henry VIII: Oh, what a waste! One of the worst things about all of the chaos caused by Henry VIII was how unnecessary it all was. He changed the religion of a country and cut a woman’s head off just to have a son and as it turned out his most famous offspring was his youngest daughter. Henry VIII was like the schoolboy captain of the football team, fawned over in his youth and then a fat disgrace in middle age. His religious tinkering set England on the path for many, many years of turmoil and it seems so useless as he was never really a Protestant. He had great qualities, being quite the dashing warrior-king in his youth, presiding over some great achievements and he was quite intelligent and took his duties seriously. But he was also vindictive, paranoid, cruel and possibly the most selfish man to ever sit on the English throne. I approve of some of his foreign policies but by the time it was over he had undone most of the good he ever did and was just not a good man. Not one of the good ones to be sure. Others were worse in their own time but Henry gets extra demerits for setting the stage for future disasters.

King Edward VI: The boy king, or “God’s Imp” as someone called him, there is not much I can say about Edward VI because he never had a chance to prove himself and the fanaticism he displayed was the result of the guardians who raised him. In his personal dealings with people he seems to have been a sweet boy. He was certainly very gifted, extremely intelligent and might have made an exceptional monarch were he given the chance. If the religious zealotry instilled in him had remained he might have turned out to be terribly harsh and done Protestantism more harm than good, which is odd given that his mother was nothing like that. So, it was definitely environmental rather than genetic.

Queen Mary I: No other English monarch has received more bad press than “Bloody Mary”. Protestants despise her and even most Catholics consider her to have done the Church of Rome more harm than good. Nonetheless, I will always defend Queen Mary, truth be told, she was nowhere near that bad. In fact, she was quite a kind woman, compassionate, generous to the poor and very fond of children. Despite what the xenophobes claim, her marriage alliance with Spain was a smart move and while she will always be known for having 300 Protestants burned alive, she didn’t turn nasty until people started turning against her. Initially, she was prepared to forgive and forget and she actually had fewer people executed than her father or more popular sister did. Many burned for heresy could have been executed for treason anyway. For me, the biggest point to remember is that she never inflicted anything on others that she would not have endured herself. She was not, like her father, executing people just for not going along with her but because she truly believed that Catholicism was the only true faith and anything else was dangerous and even under great pressure from her father and brother she never renounced her Catholicism for the sake of convenience. Her zeal was genuine.

Queen Elizabeth I: Not one of my favorites, I must admit. Still, I will give credit where credit is due. “Good Queen Bess” was a public relations genius and totally brilliant when it came to promoting the public image of herself and the monarchy. She presided over some great cultural and political achievements but, all that being said, though I was once a fervent admirer back in my frivolous college days, I cannot say many good things about her. She failed to marry and secure the succession (a dereliction of duty in my view), she supported republican rebels in Holland fighting against their lawful sovereign, supported rebels in France and most outrageously, signed the death warrant for a fellow monarch. Yes, she agonized over it, but she still did it (she wasn’t a very decisive leader at all) and in my book that is unforgivable. Her religious persecutions seem worse to me than those of her sister because, as a Protestant historian said of her, she was both “intolerant and indifferent”. She changed her religion depending on who was in power at the moment and yet, when her turn came, put people to death for having stronger principles than she did. I know many consider it an unpardonable sin not to love Queen Elizabeth I, but I cannot, though I will readily admit that her “image” was certainly glorious.

Inauguration of a King

Yesterday The Kingdom of the Netherlands inaugurated a new monarch and it was a day tailor-made for monarchists. Even an ocean away your humble mad man made it a point to display the Dutch flag and wear an orange shirt. The leftist elite media, of course, insisted on showing the odd crank in the crowd but they only served to make them look extremely isolated and pathetic in the midst of such throngs of patriotic well-wishers. The ceremony was very "Dutch" which is to say, uncomplicated, not ostentatious but still very dignified and quite regal. One could feel "history" in the air as the new "Princess Beatrix" (that will take some getting used to) came on to the balcony and introduced the new king. When HM King Willem-Alexander spoke, he took the occasion, quite appropriately, to pay tribute to his mother and to thank her for her years of dedicated service. It was a very touching scene, filled with what people on the other side of the world used to call 'filial piety' which is becoming all too rare these days. When the new royal family showed themselves to the people the roar was deafening but they also seemed perfectly comfortable with their new positions, even the new Princess of Orange, now the youngest royal heir to a throne in the world.

At the official inauguration ceremony, King Willem-Alexander, for all of his talk about not wanting to be addressed as "Your Majesty" and having a more informal monarchy, even managed to look quite majestic in his ermine robe. Queen Maxima looked 'every inch a queen' if I may misquote the Bard of Avon. As much as the royal happenings though, my interest was on the crowd outside. From the dignified to the tacky it seemed the whole country had turned out to cheer their new king and it was a heart-warming thing for monarchist eyes and the sort of thing I never get tired of seeing. Some people would no doubt by turned off by some of it, with some people seemingly going out of their way to look and behave with as little dignity as possible, yet I cannot get upset at anyone celebrating their monarchy. And, there were affectionate tears and some who watched in awed silence as history unfolded before their eyes, another new page in the history of the venerable House of Orange. Even those who admitted to the reporters that they were not "really royalists" could not resist getting into the spirit of the occasion and it was touching to see all the happy and eager children with their little projects or souvenirs or the groups that sang songs for the new king.

The occasion also struck me as very much putting the lie to the old republican mantra about monarchy being archaic, out of date and stuck in the past. Looking at both the crowd and the royal couple one cannot but be struck by how much things have changed in the monarchy and The Netherlands as a whole in just the last few years. Among the groups of children were many Asian and African faces, we have a new king who has said he intends to be more "hands-off" when it comes to government than has been the case in the past, which is quite a change from the days of King Willem I or King Willem II when the Dutch monarch was absolute in all but name. And considering what has happened to the Dutch Royal Family in just the previous generation, who would have ever thought that there would be a Queen consort of The Netherlands who is a Latin American Roman Catholic? If anything, the Dutch monarchy has displayed an almost matchless ability to change, whether one regards those changes as being for the better or the worse.

Yesterday was a great day to be Dutch. Just the fact that The Netherlands has a king rather than a queen again is itself almost historic but it is the great love and affection that the Dutch people have for their monarchy and their royal house that I have always found most endearing. Today the watchword may be "change" but one thing that has not changed is the presence of the House of Orange whose princes, kings and queens have watched over, guided and been intimately intertwined with the destiny of the Dutch people, through good times and bad, from the birth of the country to the present day and, hopefully, for an even greater span of time yet to come. Let the cranks wave their ugly cardboard signs around, if yesterday was any indication, the cause of monarchy is alive and well in the Kingdom of The Netherlands. Again, all our congratulations to the new sovereign and consort and Lang leve de Koning!

The New King and Queen

The Kingdom of The Netherlands has a new sovereign. The Mad Monarchist sends congratulations to the new royal couple; Their Majesties King Willem-Alexander I and Queen Maxima of The Netherlands as well as congratulations to a job well done and best wishes for a happy retirement to now Princess Beatrix and, of course, all our best to all the people of The Netherlands, the ABC islands and all loyal Dutch people around the world. Long live the King!

And while I admit, I think it's atrocious, if one is so inclined, join in singing the "King's Song". It wouldn't have been my choice but it's the choice that was made...

Favorite Royal Images: A German Princess

Princess Alexandra von Hohenlohe-Langenburg

A Shameless Plug

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part V)

The Yorkists

King Edward IV: It would be hard for anyone not to admire Edward IV. He was a tall, handsome man, a smart dresser, a veteran warrior, an able administrator and a good businessman. He was adept enough on the battlefield and at winning support that he won the crown for himself, then took it back once it was lost and he managed to win the support of Parliament. He was though a horrible womanizer and that would ultimately cause him some problems. His constant affairs with married women as often as single ones makes it hard to have a completely positive opinion of the man. He was certainly very good at his “job” but his private life left much to be desired. His secret marriage to the widow of a Lancastrian brought new intrigues and stopped a reconciliation effort with France. Still, as far as the House of York is concerned, Edward IV was nothing if not thorough, seeing the Lancastrians almost completely wiped out with the exception of Henry Tudor who was out of the country anyway. He collected a large library and was still trying to take to the field up to his death.

King Edward V: I cannot have much of an opinion on Edward V as the poor boy barely had a chance. He was only nominally the king for a few months and, I have noticed, many lists of English monarchs omit him entirely. A coronation was planned but was repeatedly put off until the boy was deposed and presumably murdered.

King Richard III: Many people have asked my opinion of Richard III and seemed surprised that I don’t have more to say. He certainly wasn’t successful, spending his reign fighting rebellions against him by both friend and foe alike. As for his guilt or innocence in the murder of Edward V, there may not be enough hard evidence to hold up in a modern court but the circumstantial evidence is fairly overwhelming. No matter how kind one tries to be, Richard III will usually come off looking pretty villainous no matter how you cut it. He certainly had some talent and early in his life was fairly well regarded but he was also undoubtedly vindictive yet it is also true that he had enemies ranging themselves against him before he ever came to power and that would tend to make one rather peevish. I give him credit for going down fighting but it just doesn’t seem that there is much to recommend the man.

MM Sunday Scripture

Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.

-Ezekiel 45:9