Royal News Roundup

A rather routine week for the House of Windsor, my favorite story will come first because I’m the autocrat around here and I can: Prince William, Duke of Cambridge attended the rededication ceremony for HMS Alliance, the only surviving British submarine of the World War II era, at the Royal Navy Submarine Museum in Gosport. The Duke had a good look over the proud old Acheron-class boat, probably with some pride as he was the patron of the organization that restored it as it is today. The Duke is also the Commodore-in-Chief, Submarines which I am very upset that I didn’t know about until this story made the news. Though, for some reason, the media coverage seemed more concerned with the Duke taking the traditional tot of rum than with the magnificent old submarine on display. The Duke toured the boat, talked to some proud veterans of undersea service and received his Dolphins badge, the insignia of submariners (in both Britain and America actually). There was a humorous moment as well when the Duke said, “It’s great that younger generations can really see and feel what it is like to be a submariner. I wouldn’t let George in here. A nightmare George is - too many things for him to pull and hit”. My favorite story of the week, hands down. In other news, the Prince of Wales said he is set to attend the D-Day commemorations this summer, HM the Queen spent a day at the horse races (which I’m sure HM enjoyed thoroughly) and Princes William and Harry did battle on the polo field to benefit charity. And, last but not least, the grand, old Duke of Edinburgh appeared at the Royal Windsor Horse Show, even driving a carriage (he used to race them) and not appearing in the least to be 92 years old.

On the continent, King Harald V of Norway served up some herbs grown on his own farm, Princess Martha Louise said she will miss be able to live life anonymously after moving back home from London and Princess Ingrid Alexandra (age 10) made her debut at parliament as part of the constitutional celebrations on Thursday. The Swedish Royal Family had a busy week of presenting awards, making visits and so on. Crown Princess Victoria spoke at the 7th Global Forum on Migration and Development. As for the Danes, Crown Prince Frederick and Crown Princess Mary had a busy week, visiting Poland, celebrating their wedding anniversary (congratulations there) and posing for a new portrait as well as taking in the Eurovision awards (but the less I say about that the better). In the Low Countries, Queen Maxima of the Netherlands attended the opening of a national campaign to collect instruments for music classes and dazzled onlookers in a ruby-tiara at the Annual Diplomatic Corps Gala Dinner on Wednesday. The Belgian Royal Family attended a 20 kilometer race and in Luxembourg news Prince Guillaume landed in America, visiting California and Utah. However, it was not all good news as Prince Jean (brother of Grand Duke Henri) felt obliged to hold a press conference to refute rumors that he was involved in a string of bombings in Luxembourg in the 1980’s, describing such rumors as absurd and hurtful. Also this week the new film about Princess Grace of Monaco was first seen and the Princely Family is now not alone in denouncing it as the film critics have panned it as an atrocious movie, aside from the inaccuracy of it.

In non-Euro royal news, King Abdullah II of Jordan was in London for the 90th annual Combined Cavalry Old Comrades Association Parade in London on Sunday, in his role as Colonel-in-Chief of the Light Dragoons. He was not the only Middle East monarch in town last week. The King of Bahrain also came to the UK for a visit, sparking some controversy over relations between the two countries, not because of anything the King did but because the chattering classes have taken issue with his rule of his country and accusations of suppressing democracy. This mostly involves the activities of the so-called “Arab Spring” which King Hamad of Bahrain took zealous action to oppose, supported by Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent the US and UK. One wonders if these people would consider the case of Egypt something better? Charges have also been brought against the King and his son Prince Nasser in the UK by a Bahraini citizen based on allegations of torture. The legal immunity of Prince Nasser is currently under judicial review in the UK. Also, the Emir of Qatar is in preparations to transform the uninhabited Greek island of Oxia in the Ionian Sea into a massive luxury resort. Under current circumstances, it is hard to imagine any Greeks being able to afford to go there. However, they may perhaps have an African visitor as the controversial King Mswati III of Swaziland recently had his annual household budget increased by 10% to $61 million which is itself being criticized due to the poverty of most people in Swaziland and because such increases are not debated in parliament, Swaziland being an absolute monarchy where such debates would be seen as a challenge to the King.

In East Asia this week, Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his wife on Tuesday. The PM also met with the Foreign and Defense Ministers and made remarks highlighting the similar difficulties faced by Israel and Japan because of ‘rogue’ regimes, comparing the threat Japan faces from North Korea to the Iranian threat to Israel.

Today in French Royal History

On this day in 1804 Napoleon Bonaparte was declared "Emperor of the French" by the French Senate. Later, Pope Pius VII would preside at his formal coronation. This was not supposed to be seen as a restoration of monarchy in France but an imperial elevation for the French Republic, similar to the way the Roman Republic carried on after Augustus became Emperor. However, it certainly was a monarchy, just not the traditional monarchy of France. The fact is that Napoleon had monarchical aspirations for some time. It was offensive to him that anyone should dare to consider themselves more lofty than he and he considered the Austrian Hapsburgs the most offensive. It helped that the Archduke of Austria was also the Holy Roman Emperor and traditionally there had only been one Emperor in western Europe and Kaiser Franz II knew that Napoleon had his eye on the job. So, in order to deprive the 'Corsican upstart' of his prize, Franz II abdicated and dissolved the (by then nominal) Holy Roman Empire and became Emperor Franz I of Austria. So, there were two emperors in the west and one in the east (the Tsar of all the Russias, but Napoleon was coming to him as well) and Napoleon began to revive monarchy where French forces had once torn it down, farming out his relatives to create new royal houses. However, it did not work as republicans found it repugnant and monarchists believed in sticking with the legitimate dynasties. Napoleon was the first to try to combine the ideals of the French Revolution with the structure of a monarchy but he would not be the last to prove unsuccessful at it.

Today in Nordic Royal History

On this day in 1814 the Kingdom of Norway adopted a constitution and elected Danish Crown Prince Christian Frederick to be the King of Norway. This did not sit well with the neighboring Kingdom of Sweden which had lost Finland to Russia and was promised Norway in compensation, also something favored by the Allies who wanted to punish Denmark for a past alliance with Napoleonic France by separating Denmark and Norway. So, the Swedes attacked (led by a former Napoleonic marshal) and the Norwegians were defeated, securing the union with Sweden that lasted until the 20th Century. Prince Christian Frederick was not King of Norway for long but he was able to go on to become King Christian VIII of Denmark.

Royal Profile: Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh

Mahendra Pratap is a famous name in India and a man of very royal roots and connections. However, his path in life was not a royalist one. He devoted himself to the cause of Indian independence but at the same time, to create a very new sort of India, influenced by western political ideas (and often not the best of those) rather than a restoration of traditional Indian glory. He was born on December 1, 1886 in the Aligarh District of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, the third son of Raja Ghanshiam Singh Bahadur of Mursan in the Hathras District of Uttar Pradesh. The Mughal emperors had bestowed on the head of the family the title of Raja Bahadur and the ancestral state of Mahendra Pratap resisted fiercely when the British arrived and began expanding their influence in India. Eventually, they were defeated by the British and pro-British forces so that the family was left with a reduced number of villages and no political power. With such a background, it is little wonder that Mahendra Pratap would ultimately devote his life to ending British rule in India. When he was only three years old he was adopted by another princely family that had fought against the British, unsuccessfully, and had been dispossessed by 1818. This was the family of Raja Harnarain singh Sahib of Hathras.

The grandfather of Raja Harnairain, Raja Dayaram, had resisted the British and been forced to flee to central India but his son restored the family fortune by siding with the British during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 in return for which his title was restored to him and he was given control of a number of districts but died soon after. Hathras was not one of the areas restored to his control and so many locals attributed his death to a broken heart. Young Mahendra Pratap grew up with this family in the Vrindavan Palace and had a very happy childhood, living in splendor and surrounded by a loving family. He was given a good education but even in his youth displayed a distinct lack of interest in his royal status, a concern for the common people and a burning desire to drive the British out of India. While in college in 1902 he married the daughter of a Jat Sikh family from the Jind princely state of Haryana in what was then Punjab named Maharani Balbir Kaur. She died in 1925 but in his later career, Mahendra Pratap would make much of the religious diversity of his family connections, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and portray himself as a representative of the vast diversity of India. And that was something he knew very well as he, along with his brother, traveled extensively until he had visited practically every corner of the immense Empire of India.

It is worth noting that, in his travels, he seemed to interpret everything he saw according to the radical ideologies he had picked up in college and was becoming rather Marxist in his worldview. When he traveled around India, he seemed to only see the negative, the poor, the victimized and little else save for the variety of peoples and beliefs that might pose a problem in his dream of uniting all Indians in opposition to British rule and the whole of traditional Indian society as it had been. Still, he went home to his own palace and was not above using his princely connections to further his own cause. He was able to meet with other pro-independence notables, promote education and household industries to further the cause of economic independence. Eventually this led him to take the dramatic step of leading a campaign to burn all foreign-made clothes in his state. Frustrated by the relatively small impact he was having at home, in 1914 he decided to go abroad and to seek foreign assistance for removing the British from India. Obviously, it was an ideal time as August of 1914 saw the British Empire take on some powerful enemies.

Mahendra Pratap made it to Switzerland and it was there that his cause and that of the German Empire found each other, working through the man who would later be made famous by a telegram, Arthur Zimmermann in the German Foreign Office. Zimmermann, who would also promote the use of the communists to undermine the Russian Empire, was enthusiastic in supporting Indian revolutionaries to undermine the British Empire. Mahendra Pratap was just as eager but insisted on meeting Kaiser Wilhelm II himself, which he did. The Kaiser decorated him with the Prussian Order of the Red Eagle and discussed with Mahendra Pratap an idea the Germans had long pinned some hope on; an invasion of India through Afghanistan. Already allied with the Ottoman Empire of Turkey, it was hoped that Muslim solidarity with the Central Powers would be easy to achieve and that the appearance of even a modest force on the northern border would incite Indians of all backgrounds to rise up against the British Raj and few doubted that Great Britain would be crippled by the loss of India. It was not a new idea. Shortly before the war broke out, the Kaiser, in one of his troublesome marginal notes, wrote, “Our consuls in Turkey and India, agents, etc., must inflame the whole Mohammedan world to wild revolt against this hateful, lying, conscienceless people of hagglers; for if we are to be bled to death, at least England shall lose India.”

The prince was introduced to men in the German army and officials in Austria-Hungary. He met the Khedive of Egypt while in Vienna and later when on to the Ottoman Empire where he was also warmly received. A German-Turkish expedition set out across Persia to Afghanistan led by General Oskar Ritter von Niedermayer and the diplomat Werner Otto von Hentig. On December 1, 1915 Pratap set up a provisional government in Kabul, Afghanistan for “Free Hindustan” with himself serving as President and other prominent advocates of independence in lesser posts. The Muslims added their voice to that of the Ottoman Sultan by declaring a jihad against the British Empire of India but obtaining the support of the Emir of Afghanistan proved frustrating and ultimately impossible. He demanded much but refused to commit himself and, unaware that the British were already giving him more than the Germans ever would to stay on side, the effort was finally abandoned in disgust. There would be no Muslim army to attack northern India and there would be no mass Indian uprising against the British in World War I. The would-be president was left without a job but he still had enough Marxist credentials to be invited to Russia after the Bolsheviks seized power by Vladimir Lenin.

The provisional government in Kabul

Mahendra Pratap went to the emerging Soviet Union and Lenin rolled out the red carpet for him (so to speak). At that time, it was probably easy to be taken in by Lenin who had yet to actually do very much but was full of utopian promises about what the future of the Soviet Union would look like and what a Marxist vision of socialist paradise it would become. Pratap did not stay long enough to see the nightmare the USSR would grow into as things were far from stable and the British were beginning to make a serious effort to apprehend the troublesome prince. When World War I came to an end with the Allies victorious and the British Empire enlarged, he found himself effectively back where he had started with his former powerful friends in Berlin, Vienna and Constantinople all gone. Returning to India seemed out of the question so, in 1925, he traveled to the Empire of Japan which had long been a haven for Asians who dreamed of independence from European colonial rule. His vision for a free India, it must be remembered, was a totally alien and revolutionary one. Aside from his Central Powers backers, the only Allied countries to look with any favor on his “Free India” attempted government were the United States and Russia and despite his pedigree, it infuriated him that the monarchs of India had opposed his anti-British scheme for armed rebellion.

In fact, his tendency toward collectivism seemed to grow ever stronger and he even tried to set up his own brand of religion which was to be a sort of combination of all beliefs with the only dogmas being that all religions be accepted, all faiths, all races and all classes be united with no discrimination and all treated equally. He even dreamed of such collectivism on a global scale by doing away with the unequal institutions of the past and creating a sort of world federation where all humanity would be united and everyone would be the same. He set up a “World Federation Centre” to promote such ideas but had been largely sidelined by the time of World War II. Although still in Japan, it was another revolutionary, Subhas Chandra Bose, and another provisional government of Free India that would gain support from the Axis powers in another effort to provoke an Indian rebellion against Britain. Another socialist, though a more authoritarian one, Bose would be no more successful than his predecessor though he did at least manage to get some Indian rebel troops onto Indian soil for a clash with the British but it was swiftly turned back.

In 1946 Mahendra Pratap was finally allowed to return to India where the first thing he did was rush to meet the rising star of Mahatma Gandhi. The following year, Great Britain granted India independence and Mahendra Pratap spent the rest of his days continuing to push his political agenda, basically railing against the elites (of which he himself was a member, in both the old and new versions of India), being elected to office, presiding over Jat gatherings and advocating for greater power for local assemblies. It was not exactly the fate he had hoped for when he stood as provisional President of Free India but, despite his defeats in working with foreign powers in an attempt to overthrow British rule, there is no doubt that the India created after independence has more in common with his vision than that of the traditional India that existed before the arrival of the British (or any other Europeans) and which had endured throughout the Raj. Whether it is better or not would depend on the view one has of Indian history and the heights achieved in those days the current republic has separated itself from. Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh died on April 29, 1979.

Royal Friends of Texas: Spain

Of all the monarchies in the world, none has deeper ties with the state of Texas than the “Land of the Setting Sun”, the Kingdom of Spain. Texas was, at least nominally, under the Spanish Crown for about 302 years which, of course, is far longer than the roughly 159 years that Texas has been part of the United States of America. Given that, it is no surprise that the cultural impact of Spain on Texas has been immense and the relationship between Texas and Spain has been a long one. It all goes back to the reign of King Carlos I of Spain (Emperor Charles V to most people) in whose name Texas was first claimed by the Spanish explorer Alonso Alvarez de Pineda. In 1528 another Spanish explorer, Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca, became the first Christian to set foot in Texas when he was shipwrecked on the coast. The first major exploration of the interior of Texas was carried out in the reign of King Felipe II by Francisco Coronado who also described a group of natives from whom the area of Texas derived its name (which means “friend”, hence Texas being known as “the friendship state”). However, Spain made little effort to make much of Texas until the French started to take an interest in the region.

When the French explorer La Salle mistakenly landed at Matagorda Bay, he claimed the region for King Louis XIV and established a fort in the area named for St Louis. The French effort did not succeed in establishing a permanent foothold as there was a mutiny and La Salle was killed. A Spanish punitive expedition found that the French had all killed each other or been killed or enslaved by the natives. The natives of the Texas coast were quite a fierce bunch and were the first to ever enjoy French cuisine in Texas -that being the French sailors themselves. Disaster though it was, this made it clear to Spain that Texas was vulnerable to attack and so a campaign began, at the behest of King Carlos II, to establish a string of missions and forts across Texas to guard the frontier with the French territory running down the Mississippi. This led to the first real Spanish presence in Texas and it produced the oldest historic buildings and settlements in Texas that survive to this day. The difference between the missions and the presidios (forts) can sometimes be hard to see since the missions were sometimes built like forts and every fort, of course, had a chapel. It is a mark of the appreciation for history and tradition in Texas that these missions are still standing and mass is still said in them on a regular basis.

The unfortunate King Carlos II was the last Hapsburg to reign over Texas and when the Crown of Spain passed to the Bourbon dynasty there was a marked shift toward greater centralization in government. Texas received a Royal Governor who established himself in San Antonio, the largest settlement at the time, and whose palace is the most lasting remnant of the era of monarchy in the Lone Star State. However, not many people in Mexico were anxious to move to Texas and settle. The relatively few settlers often came from Spain or some Spanish possessions closer to the homeland (such as the Canary Islands) and most of the settlements consisted of those farming Indians who had converted to Catholicism under the instruction of the Franciscan friars and the Spanish soldiers posted at the forts and missions to guard against a French attack and to protect the peaceful Indians from the hostile ones who survived by raiding as well as hunting. Eventually, after being held by Spain for a time, the Louisiana Territory was sold by France to the United States and the threat of a foreign incursion became an American rather than a French one.

Such fears were based in reality as, early on, there were attempts by filibusters (land pirates) from the United States to seize Texas from Spain. None of them succeeded but as revolution began to spread in Mexico, the forces of the Spanish Crown in Texas were suddenly faced by two enemies. In 1812 a Mexican republican made common cause with an ex-Army officer from the United States and invaded Texas with an army of Mexican revolutionaries, Indians, escaped slaves and assorted American criminals called the Republican Army of the North. They seized much of the province but were weakened by in-fighting and finally defeated and wiped out by a Spanish royalist army in 1813 at the battle of Medina, the largest battle ever fought on Texas soil. The reign of King Fernando VII was restored but only for the time being. Events in Spain brought together the left and right, at least temporarily, in Mexico and in 1821 what had been New Spain, including Texas, broke away as the Empire of Mexico under the former General Agustin de Iturbide.

The short-lived reign of Iturbide would be the last time Texas was under a monarch. It was also during the brief rule of the first Mexican Emperor that the first Anglo colonists began to settle in Texas. In fact, negotiations for the settlement were interrupted by the overthrow of Iturbide and had to be concluded with his republican successors. So, 1821 was the last year of unity between Texas and Spain and the unity between Texas and Mexico would be much more short-lived. The Kingdom of Spain never recognized the independence of the Republic of Texas, which is not surprising considering that Texas declared independence on March 2, 1836 and at that time Spain did not even recognize the independence of Mexico (that came later in December of that year). Nor was there much improvement in relations in the decades that followed due to American aggression against the remaining Spanish colonies in the Caribbean, ultimately resulting in the Spanish-American War. However, be it the Alamo, Goliad or San Jacinto, all of the most famous landmarks in Texas, all the places with the greatest historical significance, were part of the Spanish cultural legacy. Given the frequency of civil war in Spain itself, there was little opportunity for much business with Texas and when *the* Spanish Civil War broke out, opinion was divided in the United States as it was in the rest of the world. Most, like Mexico for that matter, favored the Spanish republicans but not quite everyone did as there were bitter condemnations against the Texas Oil Company (modern-day Texaco) for diverting shipping bound for the republican government to the nationalists instead.

During the Franco era the Texans saw Spain as a partner in the struggle against communism and the Generalissimo even marked Spanish-Texan ties by sending a statue of a conquistador to San Antonio where it still stands in front of the old Royal Governor’s Palace. Closer ties were forged after the passing of Franco and the restoration of the Spanish monarchy. King Juan Carlos has always made it a priority to try to encourage amity with the lands of the former Spanish Empire and Texas was not excluded. In 1987 King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia became the first Spanish royals to visit Texas, receiving a warm welcome. “Spain is also very happy to have contributed in the passage to forge that identity as you today contribute to make this state one of the most prosperous, beautiful…in the United States,” the King said. Their Catholic Majesties received some cowboy hats, were greeted by crowds waving Spanish flags and musicians playing a combination of country-western and mariachi music. They visited the Alamo, took a floating tour of the San Antonio River and heard mass at the historic Spanish mission of San Jose (where the Cross of Burgundy still flies). In the years since, the King, Queen and other members of the Spanish Royal Family have visited the Lone Star State on numerous occasions.

Today Texas and Spain enjoy a close, friendly relationship, based more on culture and history than trade or commerce. Spanish people may not have a major presence in Texas, but the presence of the Spanish legacy is immense. The largest single religious denomination in Texas is the Roman Catholic Church, whose roots in Texas go all the way back to the original Spanish missionaries and the largest ethnic group in Texas is Hispanic with those of Spanish or at least partial Spanish ancestry recently becoming the majority of the population. By far, the most common language spoken in Texas, after English, is the Spanish language, even if it is more similar to that of colonial Mexico than pure, proper Castilian. Music, food and architecture across Texas have been heavily influenced by our Spanish roots and it is not enough to say that Texas and Spain are close, that they have been or will be but more than that, the fact is that Texas would not be Texas at all without the Kingdom of Spain.

Monarchist Profile: Louis Francois Perrin de Precy

Louis Francois Perrin, Count of Precy, was born in Anzy-le-Duc on January 14, 1742. He came from a family well connected with the French royal armed forces and it was no surprise when, as a young man, he decided on a military career. In 1755 he doubtless benefited by some family ties when he joined the Regiment of Picardy in which his uncle served as a battalion commander. He participated in the Seven Years War (French & Indian War in America) but did not have too much excitement, being mostly confined to garrison duty. In 1774 he was posted to the island of Corsica (which was still not exactly enthusiastic about French rule) and was promoted to captain. He had a distinguished military career, performing his duties well and in 1784 was awarded the Cross of St Louis and was later promoted to lieutenant colonel in the Regiment of Chasseurs (light infantry) des Vosges. Precy and his men were posted to Lyon from 1787 to 1789 and then to Collioure. For his continued meritorious service, in November of 1791, he was appointed to the King’s Foot Guards but that unit was disbanded the following year.

Siege of Lyon

The dissolution of the Guards was, of course, due to the rising tide of the French Revolution which was gaining strength after breaking out, more or less, with the storming of the Bastille on the fourteenth of July 1789. Precy, who was ever loyal to His Most Christian Majesty King Louis XVI, was not looked on kindly by the increasingly powerful revolutionary elite and on August 10, 1792 he retired from military service and withdrew to his estate of Marcigny. However, his service in Lyon was not forgotten in that important city, particularly by the loyal people there who were becoming increasingly alarmed by the radicalism of the French revolutionary government. Finally, the royalists of Lyon rose up in opposition to the convention (the revolutionary body ruling France) and sent emissaries to ask Precy to come and take command of the army defending Lyon. Willing to serve, Precy agreed and threw himself into the defense of Lyon with zeal, establishing fortified lines, strong points and organizing artillery support from Chenelette. He was not in an enviable position, with few resources and a population that was divided. The anti-revolutionary forces in Lyon included royalists as well as many Girondists who were republicans but who felt the revolution had gone too far (the massacre of the Girondists by the radical Jacobins marked the start of the Reign of Terror).

The army defending Lyon, however, was also largely moderate republicans but the officer corps was predominately royalist, including of course Precy and very aristocratic. They were united only by their common opposition to the radical regime in Paris. The convention took action, diverting the Army of the Alps from its invasion of Savoy and on August 9, 1793 the siege of Lyon began. The Count of Precy was outnumbered roughly three-to-one but he put up a stiff resistance in spite of the heavy bombardment from the revolutionary forces. However, the overwhelming strength of the enemy took its toll and despite repeated counter-attacks by the cavalry (until there were none left) every time they advanced, the situation seemed hopeless as the protecting forts fell one by one. Eventually, the political divisions inside the city began to take their toll and civic leaders proposed making a negotiated peace. Precy, certainly speaking for his fellow royalists, opposed this and wished to carry on the fight. Given what had already happened in France, no one could realistically hope to survive a capitulation to the revolutionaries. Nonetheless, the decision was made to surrender and a truce was declared on October 7 for negotiations to begin.

Knowing what the revolutionaries thought of honoring agreements and what they considered “justice”, Precy would have no part in the proceedings. He gathered together the like-minded survivors of his army, about 1,000 infantry and 200 cavalry and on the morning of October 9 managed to break out of Lyon and escape. However, they were attacked every step of the way by the revolutionary forces as they pushed through St-Cyr-au-Mont-d’Or, Poleymieux, les Cheres, Alix, Theize, Oingt and to St Romain de Popey. Sadly, by that point, almost the entire force had been wiped out but Precy survived, protected by his loyal men, the few that survived and he was hidden in Ste Agathe-en-Donzy for 15 months before escaping across the border to Switzerland disguised as a jockey.

In 1795 the count made his way to Turin in the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia and two years later married the widow of a cousin of his who had died at the guillotine in Lyon named Jeanne-Marie de Chavannes. From Turin he eventually moved to Vienna and lived there in Austria until 1811 when he was finally able to come home to his beloved France. Precy took up residence in Dijon and after the restoration of the monarchy, the devoted old royalist was able to have his moment of glory when, in August of 1814, he returned to Lyon as commander of the National Guard there. Of course, it was not quite over yet and when Napoleon returned during the “Hundred Days” the count was placed under house arrest. However, once that episode was passed, he returned to his duty, faithfully serving his King and France until his retirement. He died on August 25, 1820 and the following year his remains were moved to a special memorial in Lyon.

The Situation in Nigeria

Right now, despite terrible things happening all over the planet, the attention of much of the world is focused on Nigeria and the roughly 300 girls who have been kidnapped by a radical Islamic fundamentalist group opposed to “western education” (read: education). They have threatened to sell the girls into slavery (so the slave trade still seems to be going on) and have already claimed to have converted the girls to Islam (the kidnap victims being predominately Christian). Recently the Nigerian president asked President Obama of the United States for help and the governments of America, Britain, France and China have all said to be sending some form of assistance to help get these girls back. This experience has raised many questions though. How could Nigeria have allowed this to happen in the first place? How is it that a terrorist group could act with such impunity without the government and Nigerian military being able to stop them? The usual answer given is a combination of poverty, corruption and incompetence. Yet, how can this be? Nigeria has the largest population and the largest economy in the whole of Africa. In the old days of the British Empire it was considered the African country most prepared to assume full independence. Was ‘most prepared’ perhaps not sufficiently prepared?

From around 1800 the British began to take an interest in the region, particularly after the abolition of the slave trade and the stationing of a Royal Navy squadron in the area to interdict slave trafficking. In 1886 the Royal Niger Company was established, spreading its influence in the region and when the local kingdoms fought back there were a number of small colonial wars in which British troops were successful in suppressing opposition and establishing a northern and southern pair of protectorates over the region. With the establishment of a German colony in Cameroon there were increased concerns about security and the two halves were united in 1914 as the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. The coastal areas of the south, where the British presence was most concentrated, progressed rapidly, spreading education and higher standards of living while the more isolated north lagged behind. In fact, slavery was not wiped out in the north until 1936 but as the British presence expanded it was wiped out as it was something that would not be tolerated. Especially around the time of World War II, Nigeria grew increasingly prosperous and was considered one of the best success stories for the British Empire. Soon, Nigeria was on the fast-track to independence and in 1954 the Federation of Nigeria gained total autonomy as a Commonwealth Realm and adopted its current flag.

It might have been better if things had stopped right there but, in the wake of World War II, nationalist and anti-colonial sentiment was on the rise all across Africa and soon the demands for total independence and a complete break with Britain were growing. After a change in government, Britain also gave up on any idea of trying to retain colonies or former colonies to create the “Third British Empire” in Africa that Anthony Eden had envisioned. In 1960 Nigeria declared complete independence and became a republic. Unfortunately, things went ‘downhill’ from there. Election results were never widely accepted, accusations of corruption became commonplace and soon the standard method of changing the government was by one coup after another, starting with an attempt by radical leftists to seize power (the usual suspects). Left fought right, north fought south and from 1967 to 1970 civil war raged across Nigeria. The infrastructure built up in the colonial era was all but wiped out, disease returned, starvation set in and these, combined with the fighting and occasional atrocities resulted in millions of Nigerians being killed.

During all this time, and still today, the royals of the old native kingdoms carried on, as best they could, throughout the changing conditions. Some, like Sir Adetokunbo Ademola, who was Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court and son of King Ladapo Ademola II of the Alake and Egba clans, worked for the government. Some were themselves a focus for violence like Sir Olateru Olagbegi II, King of Owo, who was deposed and when the civil war broke out, his supporters took the opportunity to strike back at his enemies. King Akenzua II of Benin tried to promote peace and reconciliation but most traditional monarchs were pushed aside. Their status has only ever been recognized in an honorary sort of way and they have been forced to either take part in the political struggle or remove themselves completely and focus on religious and cultural affairs for their particular people. For Nigeria as a whole, even when the civil war ended, conditions did not drastically improve as the country came under the rule of a succession of military dictators. This situation persisted until 1999 when democracy was restored along with the previous complaints of fraud and corruption with every election.

It is true that Nigeria has seen immense wealth burst up from the country, not only because of the large market of the country but also with the discovery and exploitation of oil on the Nigerian coast and other valuable resources. However, rather than an orderly marketplace and increased prosperity for the country, this had led to a wealthier government but poorer people and increased violence as factions fight over the profits from oil revenues. Elections continue to be condemned, not only by the losing parties but by international observers as well as being corrupt and unfair. In short, as is seen in so many failed states around the world, Nigeria has all the ingredients to make for a very successful country but is squandering those resources thanks to corrupt and dishonest politicians who care more about themselves than the national wellbeing. Now we have reached the point where 300 young girls can be snatched from their schools, sold into what amounts to sexual slavery and the government is impotent to do anything about it. Moreover, the fact that political leaders put their own pride and public image before the general welfare is proven by the fact that immediately after this happened the United Kingdom offered help to the Nigerian government but was refused.

Why would British assistance be refused when only a short time later the President was practically begging for any help from a number of foreign countries? Who can say what is going on in his mind, but I would assume it would involve the appearance of having to accept help from the first country of the former British Empire. However, the fact remains that if one is obliged to call in foreign countries to assist in what amounts to maintaining law and order in your own country, then no matter what the law or international community says, you are not really independent at all. Why keep up the pretense? Naturally, I think restoring Nigeria as a monarchy would be of help but, as I have said before, monarchy is not a cure-all and it would all depend on how it was done. As far as placing a native monarch on the Nigerian throne, that would be a difficult proposition. No one monarch represents the whole of the people and it could lead to more civil strife rather than less. That being said, I will not hear any complaints about the map of Africa being drawn arbitrarily by European colonizers. The independent African countries of today could redraw the map if they wish but I don’t think anyone wants to see the break-up of their country, so that is simply a distraction. So, what about restoring the Queen to the throne as in becoming a Commonwealth Realm again?

Nigeria becoming a Commonwealth Realm with Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign would, of course, be controversial. It could be done but even I don’t think it would necessarily make things better. It certainly could but only if it was done in a much more ‘old fashioned’ way than most would find palatable. First of all, no country likes even the idea or image of being ruled by someone else, that is natural and understandable. My ideal for colonial empires is helping along less developed countries to fully developed status to become self-governing members of a wider family of nations with things in common. By going back to an older style of government, I do not mean that Britain should be put in charge of governing Nigeria. That would never be tolerated and it would not even be good for Nigeria. Things might be run better and it might stop hundreds of girls being kidnapped but it would not improve the quality of the Nigerian ruling class and, frankly, I have not been impressed lately by the ability of the British to govern themselves much less others. However, how I think a Commonwealth Realm for Nigeria could be beneficial is to have some viceroyal oversight for the country. That means a Governor-General who is not just appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister, that would be useless. It means having a Governor-General, possibly a royal (British or perhaps even Nigerian) who is impartial and can ensure that things are being run correctly. It does not mean a royal-appointee having power over everyone, but simply have someone there who is not elected, cannot be influenced, who can keep an eye on things to make sure that those who do hold power are following the rules and raise the alarm when they do not.

That, I think, would be the best solution possible that could happen, though of course the odds of such an idea gaining sufficient support would be infinitesimally small. Pride and past grudges should be set aside though. Things have obviously not worked out well for the government of Nigeria or things like these massive kidnappings would not be going on. With a large market, a willing population and natural resources there is no reason for Nigeria to still contain so much poverty or to be incapable of maintaining law and order and keeping its people safe. Something needs to change. Foreign assistance may enable these poor girls to be rescued, but the American Secret Service cannot be the answer to every problem and they cannot solve the fundamental problems that afflict Nigeria. It is time to learn from the past, be frank about past mistakes that have been made, set aside the personal pride of politicians and do what is in the best interests of the country.

Royal News Roundup

In the English-speaking world last week, the Prince of Wales spoke to a meeting of Holocaust survivors, the Queen and Prince Philip visited Essex and later gave a special thanks to the work of the Journalists’ Charity. The Duchess of Cornwall opened an armed forces medical training base and the Countess of Wessex paid a visit to her regiment, the 5th Rifles, before they deployed to Afghanistan. The Prince of Wales also became patron of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust so, all in all, a fairly routine week. In Scandinavia, little Prince Henrik posed for some new photos marking his 5th birthday last Sunday but the most news in northern Europe was made in Norway. It was announced that Princess Martha Louise and her family will be moving home from London sometime this summer. Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit helped clean up a beach but the most controversial news was when Progressive Party deputy Per Sandberg said that the Crown Prince and Princess are leftists and make people, like himself, become republicans. He was interviewed, along with republican Monica Maeland for a recently published book called “The Republic of Norway”. He pointed to the royal couple taking leftist political stances on issues such as the environment, climate change, immigration and others and said that they are acting like politicians and it strengthens his position as a republican, adding that, “It will lead to more and more people being republicans”.

The Palace would not comment on the subject, but of course I will: Certainly there are not many political issues in which I would agree with the Crown Princely couple but that does not effect my loyalty to the idea of monarchy at all and I would hope most Norwegians would feel the same, though I am just as sure that most Norwegians agree with their royals and disagree with me on such issues. However, it is worth noting that in this day and age when royals are supposed to be above parties, impartial and totally non-political that so many can embrace caused like those mentioned and not be accused of being partisan (until now anyway). It only seems to matter when it concerns taking a right-wing position. I suspect this will only become harder in the future as governments these days think it is their business to play a part in every aspect of our lives so that ultimately, there will be no issue that isn’t a political one. It should be known that the Progress Party is considered a right-of-center party in Norway which supports smaller government, lower taxes, restrictions on immigration and greater capitalism. None of which would any European government tolerate a royal voicing any support for whatever. It has often seemed to me that royals want to do something, anything and it is no surprise to me that they gravitate toward the causes that they do. Talk about lowering taxes and they will be accused of not wanting to pay “their fair share”, talk about immigration and they will be accused of being racists but feel free to talk about inclusion and climate change all you like -you’ll be “making a difference”. It does not make me feel like becoming a republican, it simply makes me feel sorry for the royal remnant in Europe these days.

Further down on the continent, King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands attended the National Remembrance ceremony in Amsterdam last Sunday to commemorate all the Dutch men and women, civilian and military, who have died in wars or peace-keeping missions since the Second World War. Later in the week the royal couple attended a “Freedom Concert” and the King attended a play about Anne Frank. Meanwhile, royal sister-in-law Princess Laurentien paid a ‘low key’ visit to Sidney, Australia to attend the Fauna & Flora International. In neighboring Belgium, King Philip held a working meeting with the president and board members of the European Central Bank on Wednesday. On the Spanish front, HRH the Prince of the Asturias was in the Costa Rica this week where he met with out-going President Laura Chinchilla and attended the inauguration of President Luis Guillermo Solis. And, in African royal news, Prince Seeiso of Lesotho teamed up with Britain’s Prince Harry for a summer party in London to benefit their mutual charity “Sentebale” which assists those suffering from AIDS in the small African country.

In Asia the biggest news this week was certainly the implementation of sharia law in the tiny Sultanate of Brunei. Why so many should consider it so outrageous that a country which is overwhelming Muslim and surrounded by other Muslim countries should adopt the Islamic legal code continues to baffle me. Celebrities and movie stars in Hollywood protested in front of an elite hotel owned by the Sultan of Brunei and demanded that he sell it. It was a firestorm of protest! Personally, I cannot muster up very strong feelings on the subject, not living in Brunei and not being a Muslim, I cannot bring myself to care a great deal. If you are a Muslim it would seem only natural to me that Islamic teaching would have some influence over how your justice system (what is deemed ‘right’ and ‘wrong’) works just as it does, oh -I’m sorry- I mean *did* in the Christian countries of the west, once upon a time. Ask an ancient Druid what he thinks about the law of Moses being enacted in ancient Jerusalem and his answer would probably be similar to my own. However, I do have to point out a few curiosities about this and ask why so many seem to be picking on the little Sultanate of Brunei in this case.

Where were all of these people when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who, you guessed it, implemented sharia law in his country? They were all supporting President Carter who abandoned the Shah and allowed the Ayatollah to take over. In Brunei, they are protesting against the cruelties of a legal code that was only just started, which had not had time to be cruel or unjust to anyone, yet they were not doing this about Iran which has been stoning women for adultery and hanging homosexuals for years. Where have the Hollywood elites been all this time? For one thing, they were supporting President Obama who wants to make nice with the mullahs in Tehran. Could it be that Brunei is a safer country to protest against, being a tiny, little oil state that could never be a threat to anyone -unlike Iran? Why do these same people call people in America or European countries racist when they object to sharia law being practiced in the west only to stage a protest when Islamic law is enacted in an Islamic country? It certainly seems strange to this observer.

And another thing [Underage readers and people in Kansas stop reading now], I have seen several articles, some of them regurgitated from years ago, by women detailing how they were used and abused by the sexually depraved Sultan and his family. The ones about one royal brother in particular are fairly common and his depravity is no big secret but as for the Sultan himself this seems to be convenient timing to hold him up as a hypocrite. And, that he may well be, I don’t know and I don’t want to know. However, go ahead and hate me if you like, I have no sympathy for these women and am not impressed by the tone they take in their articles, jumping on the current, fashionable bandwagon. One points out that in the sharia law code punishments are harsh for homosexuality, adultery, theft and abortion and says, “There’s also capital punishment for rape and sodomy. I am no expert in international human rights. My only qualification in commenting on this issue is that one drunken evening in the early 90’s, the sultan and I committed at least two of the aforementioned offenses…” Well, gee you modest woman, I wonder which two it was? This is what you call, “Talking About Something by *Not* Talking About Something”. In every case, they claim some trickery was used to get them where they are but I am not so sure I buy that, at least totally. Because, they also talk about living in palaces and penthouses, lavish parties, fabulously expensive gifts and so on. In my book, keeping in mind I have a rather Roman view of justice, once you accept some form of payment, you stop being a victim and start being a paid prostitute. Also keep in mind that these women with all these stories all date from before sharia went into effect in Brunei so, again, why now?

If anyone was actually kidnapped, held prisoner and raped, I have nothing but the greatest sympathy for them and would favor seeing the guilty party, no matter how high born, suffer the most slow and painful punishment possible. However, I have never heard any actually say that, though some have come close. Usually it is a case of, I was technically an adult but young and stupid and made a mistake. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s life and that is not a shocking turn of events when one is starting out looking to cash-in on your ‘physical attributes’ in one form or another in the first place. I cannot have much sympathy for people who are crying about having to pay the stupid tax. That being said, I don’t like hypocrisy either, no matter who does it. But that leads to another question about these salacious stories. They are so heavy on condemning the Sultan or his family for being hypocrites (and I’ve heard similar stories about Arab princes on holiday and how fast they run through the European prostitutes) but it makes me wonder (and I mean this sincerely) if they are upset that the prince or Sultan is doing this or that everyone else is not allowed to do it? I’m really confused on that one. They don’t seem to have a problem with other elites who use women up and throw them away on a daily basis in countries all over the world. Some even get to be President of the United States and are endorsed by the National Organization for Women. So, that’s all I really have to say about the outrage over sharia in Brunei. I’m not for it but I’m not a Muslim so that should rather go without saying and the law wouldn’t apply to me even if I lived in Brunei which I do not. I’d just like to know, as far as the outrage goes; why them and why now?

Restoring Monarchy - What It Takes

I have been asked many times by many different people in various parts of the world, what exactly a frustrated monarchist can do to advance the cause, to restore a fallen monarchy or defend an existing one. The persistence of these questions gives me the impression that many find my answers unsatisfying. That is understandable. We live in a world which has fallen so far from traditional values that there are few satisfying answers to be had. Of course, as I have mentioned before, there are little things anyone can and should do in their daily lives to support the monarchist cause. Display your loyalty proudly, refute revolutionary lies with royalist truth, do not let a distortion go unanswered, point out the hypocrisy of the republican activists, mark important occasions and never allow anyone to cause you to think of yourself as the one with strange views (particularly if you are a subject of a monarch), start with your family and friends and stand together with like-minded individuals. In many cases, religious institutions can be a good focal point as well. However, the wider “war” is a more difficult matter and it is on that front that I fear too many have given up or simply fail to give battle because of a desire for someone else to do the hard work for them or on their behalf. This is what I want to address today.

On numerous occasions I have said that what is required is a conversion of the modern culture. That is a difficult task and requires a different sort of commitment than that of someone fighting for king and country in a military struggle. It calls for dedication, patience and resilience. It is a long, tiresome competition that rewards endurance more than decisive action. Sadly, far too many prefer not to try even attempting so daunting a task with a final goal that is so far out of sight. This causes not a few monarchists to, almost subconsciously, switch priorities and demand that their monarch (if they have one) stand as their champion rather than acting as the champion of their monarch. They look at society and wonder why the monarch does not do something to make it all better. This often leads to disenchantment and frustration and then anger. They begin to actively blame their monarch for the ills of modern society and effectively become republicans by either abandoning their allegiance outright or backing some ideal era from the past or a rival royal line from history that is not involved in modern society, has never been involved and so cannot be blamed for anything but upheld as a pristine, imaginary alternative. Although they could never bring themselves to call themselves republicans, they become effectively that by joining the side of those who wish to see the remaining monarchies of the world pulled down.

I have personally seen this pattern of behavior more often than I would like and some fly through the stages faster than others. Some have even ended up becoming republicans outright after they realize that their idealistic, imaginary sort of monarchism gets them nowhere and often involves a falling out with their handful of on-line confederates who each tend to think that their way is the only way. The real problem though, is the one they fail to address and shirked from in the first place; the conversion of the culture. A monarch cannot change society when that society does not even take their monarch seriously. They can do scarcely little for a people who have forgotten what true loyalty really is. Too many today have no conception of real loyalty, too many have no conception of what a monarch really is, their place in a country or nation and, increasingly, many have forgotten what even a nation is or why it is important. They have allowed themselves to become small, focused only on their whims and appetites, relativistic in their thinking and while patting themselves on the back for being so broad-minded they feel a false pride while they themselves, their society, even their nation willingly allows itself to shuffle toward extinction.

It is important to keep priorities in order and not to stand on the sinking deck of the Titanic arguing over whether the captain was properly certified or not. As stated at the outset, that does not mean letting everything else slide and just trying to wage some sort of a moral campaign but it does mean that the problem of the republican mindset is not simply a political one. This sort of thinking is, in itself, a product of the post-revolutionary, ideological world. We have been taught to think in ideological ways and that everything will be perfect if we can just find and implement that perfect political formula that always seems so elusive. The problem is that there is no one, rigid, ideology that would well serve everyone in the world. Peoples and cultures are too different for that, even in these modern, globalist times when it sounds like everyone is repeating the same talking points peppered with popular phrases like “equality”, “sustainability” and “social justice”. Some countries have different priorities than others, some are much more regulated than others, some are much more monolithic than others and what works in one place might not work in another. So, the arguments and the tactics for trying to restore the monarchy in a country like Portugal is going to be vastly different from the arguments for restoring the monarchy in a country like Russia. What might be the best approach in Italy may not be the best approach in Nepal.

What is common to all is the fact that each republic represents a people who have (often violently) cut themselves off from their own history. It is a fact that, rightly or wrongly, many European monarchies (and Commonwealth Realms like Australia and Canada) have tried to deemphasize their own history in an effort to encourage and facilitate multiculturalism. Some monarchists in these countries do not see that as a bad thing and are proud of the ability of their monarchs to unite various people from various religious and cultural backgrounds. However, even if one regards that as a positive thing, the same circumstances do not apply to republics. Where monarchies remain, their monarchs have presided over the change in their countries toward multiculturalism and so everything was done under the “umbrella” of the existing monarchy. In republics, on the other hand, this attitude would not be possible as the new populations of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants really have no connection with the former monarchy, most of which have not existed in the lifetime of anyone still above ground. For countries like this, it would be extremely difficult for the public to ever even open their mind to the idea of restoring the monarchy without getting in touch again with their own history, the unique story of their people in which monarchs invariably played a large part.

Every revolutionary republic is like a country cutting off its own head and expecting a new one to grow in its place. It doesn’t happen, so they flail around trying to find a replacement, constantly trying to reinvent themselves until they reach the point that they don’t know who they are because they have forgotten who they were in the first place. That is why I cover a great many historical subjects and figures (I’m also just interested in the subject on my own) because people must be awakened to their own history -and the TRUTH of history so that they begin to feel a real connection with the past. Even the largely ceremonial monarchs that are most common today are still historical figures in that, even while not impacting policy and world events as in the past, they are a living link with the history of their country and their people. They embody history and the history of themselves and their family is the history of their countries and peoples as a whole. If, for example, one is a citizen of the Czech Republic, the history of your country as it is today only goes back as far as 1993. Prior to that, it was a part of Czechoslovakia and even then, the Czechoslovakia of the post communist era was a totally different thing than the Czechoslovakia of the communist era which was totally different from the original Czechoslovakia which was still a very young country. Yet, if you are a Czech aware of your history, you know a land and a people that stretched back to the Moravian Empire and which had been part of the Austrian Empire which was a successor state of the Holy Roman Empire which was a revival or an attempted revival of the classic Roman Empire that goes back to the beginnings of western and European civilization under a monarchy that was, indirectly, a continuation, in some way at least, of those original Roman Emperors.

Far too many people are ignorant of their own history, their own national story. Even those which seem to be obsessed with the subject are often only fixated on holding on to past grudges rather than having a full understanding of where they come from. Not long ago I had a verbal altercation with a Korean woman who was, as usual, accusing the Japanese of denying history. Yet, she was totally unaware that the last Crown Princess of Korea was Japanese and left Japan to spend the rest of her life in Korea, caring for the most vulnerable of the population. She said she had never been taught this in school and I have no doubt that is true. She could detail every real or imagined injustice Korea ever suffered during the rather brief period of Japanese colonial rule but that is not a true understanding of Korean history, just a determination to hold a grudge against Japan and claim victim status. A true understanding would not reduce Korea to being known simply as a battlefield of the Cold War and a Japanese colony but would cover vast centuries of trials, triumphs and accomplishments from King Munmu of Silla to the grandest heights of Sejong the Great. That is also another byproduct of the “small thinking” of modern times that so many people today seem to want to be pitied rather than admired or respected. It is sadly not at all uncommon, particularly in formerly colonial countries that have been less than a roaring success.

No matter if one is from China, Turkey or Ethiopia, although they have very few similarities, a proper understanding of history will awaken people to the fact that the end of the era of monarchy was a break with the natural history of their land and people that included some bad times certainly but also their proudest moments of national greatness and achievement. Sure, modern mainland China may have shot some junk into space and have nuclear weapons, but they have never built anything to rival the Ming architecture of the Forbidden City or produced any philosophers anywhere close to being on the same level as Confucius nor had any national leader as revered as the KangXi Emperor. Modern Iran has a history limited to the life of the Ayatollah Khomeini while Imperial Iran had a lineage that went back to the likes of Cyrus the Great, and, I might add, the last Shah made a point of trying to acquaint his people with the entirety of their cultural legacy, not just on the post-Islamic period, but back to ancient times when Persia was a world super-power.

My point is that for monarchy to be revived, attitudes and values must be changed. People must be convinced of the truth of ancient wisdom, which some would call common sense because it has to be in order to last long enough to become ancient. They must be brought to a more traditional way of thinking, with a proper respect for tradition itself, for religion and things like national myths and folklore. They must also be made aware of their history. These are not easy things to accomplish, which is probably why so many ignore them and simply damn their constitutional monarchs for not snapping their fingers and changing the world by magic. However, we can influence them in a million different ways, often by things that seem inconsequential. It may seem like a little thing, but it makes a difference which can be seen by how the communist Chinese government has reacted to the hanfu movement (mentioned here not long ago) which simply seeks to revive traditional Han Chinese dress and customs. You can do it by doing something like that, wear something that attracts attention, fly a flag, wear a ribbon on your lapel, put a royal portrait in your cubicle at work -anything that will encourage someone to ask you a question and thus give you an opportunity to explain to them, first that monarchy is important to you, and later, in time, why it should be important to them. Most of all, remember that in a struggle such as this, the thing that pays off the most is simple persistence.

Monarch Profile: King William IV of the United Kingdom

Fair or not, it is a fact that the life and reign of King William IV has been largely overshadowed in history by his successor Queen Victoria. It is not uncommon for King William IV to be given barely a mention simply as the predecessor to the Queen who gave her name to an age and became the longest-reigning monarch in British history. However, while he may not stand out much from the ranks of British monarchs, he was a solid overseer of his dominions and led a life of remarkable service that should not be forgotten. The future monarch Prince William Henry was born on August 21, 1765 at Buckingham Palace, the third son of Their Majesties King George III and Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. With two elder brothers ahead of him in the line of succession, no one ever thought he would one day wear the crown himself. He did not have much of a childhood, spending most of his early years at Richmond but, in those days, children were expected to grow up rather quickly. When he was only thirteen his private education ended and he was shipped off to the Royal Navy as a midshipman, learning the ropes (literally and figuratively) to become an officer.

To the modern reader this may seem somewhat shocking but 13-year old midshipmen were not uncommon in those days, some, in fact, were younger than that and boys working as “powder monkeys” onboard ship could be considerably younger still. The teenage prince was, of course, a special case but received very little special treatment. He took his lessons with the other young gentlemen, took his turn performing menial tasks, played pranks, had fights and got in trouble like all the rest. He also saw combat at the battle of Cape St Vincent in 1780 during the American War for Independence. He served ashore in New York and was even the focus of a kidnapping plot by the rebel forces of the Continental Army. However, British intelligence learned of the scheme and assigned a guard to the prince, so the plot was called off. Prince William was a dedicated officer who loved the navy and the navy life. In 1785 he earned his commission as a lieutenant and in 1786 was appointed captain of HMS Pegasus, serving in the West Indies under the famous Admiral Horatio Nelson. The legendary admiral had a high opinion of Prince William and the two became fast friends with the Prince giving the bride away at Nelson’s wedding to Frances Nisbet in 1787. Later, the Prince was promoted to command a frigate and in 1789 became a Rear Admiral. That same year King George III granted him the titles of Duke of Clarence and St Andrews and Earl of Munster.

This entitled him to a seat in the House of Lords and, like his brothers, tended to associate himself with the Whigs in opposition to his father the King. This ended up costing him more than he would have ever expected. Having resigned from active duty in the Royal Navy upon entering the political fray, he found it difficult to return to the service he loved. Probably just as a thoughtless show of rebellion, he opposed the British declaration of war on France. It was a stupid thing to do and when he was applied to return to the navy, eager to take part in the war at sea, he was denied. Even after publicly changing his position and speaking out in support of the war, the conflict with France would pass without the Prince being given any significant command or seeing any front-line service. This left him with nothing to do but argue politics in the House of Lords and he would have been much better suited to a career at sea as his political views tended to be scattered and inconsistent. He thought the laws related to marriage and family were too harsh and that the penalties against dissenting Christians were oppressive but saw nothing wrong with the continued legality of slavery in the British colonies. It might have caused some to remember the nickname Prince William was given by his family as a youth; “Silly Billy”.

Perhaps because of this, views on the Duke of Clarence tended to be divided. In many ways he quite liberal, being a staunch advocate of Catholic emancipation but he was also more supportive of his family and was never able to be as cruel toward his father as his older brother King George IV had been. Most liked him, whether viewing him as forward thinking or just a good natured, simple sailor. He lived, for a time, with his mistress, a London actress, but later married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Coburg-Meiningen. Not considered a great beauty, she was nonetheless an excellent wife, faithful, supportive and very religious. Unfortunately, the two never had any children who long survived so that the only offspring of the Duke of Clarence were the ten illegitimate children he fathered during his years with his mistress “Mrs. Jordan”. Still, he had a happy and genuinely good marriage with Princess Adelaide who, perhaps, helped reform him just a bit. The choice he made was also more important than it may have first appeared since his only surviving elder brother, King George IV, had only one legitimate child who predeceased him. So it was that, at a fairly advanced age for the time, the Duke of Clarence became heir to the throne. For most of his life he had given it very little thought, but once the Crown was within reach, he took great care to live to obtain it. He went to great lengths in an effort to remain in good health.

On June 26, 1830 at six in the morning, the Duke was awakened and told that his brother was dead and he was now King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Hannover. He said he had always wanted to sleep with a queen and went back to bed with his newly elevated wife Queen Adelaide. However, once he was later fully awake, few other monarchs displayed such unabashed joy as King William IV. He dashed off, alone, driving his own open carriage through the streets of London, shaking hands with his new subjects, offering a ride to those who desired one and even getting some kisses of congratulations from some prostitutes. Some were aghast at his behavior, particularly after all the preening and finery of George IV, but many others viewed it favorably. Many ordinary people were pleased that their new monarch seemed so “normal” and viewed him as a good man of common sense who would sort things out in the government. It seemed rather heart-warming to have the new monarch actually approach common people on the street and tell them how happy he was to be their new king. Needless to say, his coronation on September 8, 1831 was a much less extravagant affair than that of his brother, whose coronation had been the most lavish in all of British history. King William IV was a practical, unassuming and dedicated monarch who was all about the “business” and not about the “show”. Still, he was not without a sense of humor. When the Privy Council was first brought in to him and dropped to one knee, he mischievously asked, “Who is Silly Billy now?”

Despite the outrage of the more grand members of the court and aristocracy, the great majority of the people cheered King William IV for his simplicity and care to spend as little of their tax money as possible. King William looked to the future with the hope and optimism of the reformer, and perhaps with the naiveté of one as well but that would fade quickly. Queen Adelaide, on the other hand, remained the nervous one. Always preparing piously for the end of the world, as Queen she prepared for a possible revolution, admiring the late Queen Marie Antoinette and hoping she could behave with such stoic courage when the mob came for her. She need not have worried. When King William IV, not waiting for any preparations to be made or for guards to line the streets, dashed over to Westminster, hurriedly placed the crown on his head at an odd angle and declared Parliament dissolved (clearing the way for the passage of the Reform Bill) the public cheered him mightily for sending the politicians home. The Whigs adored him, thinking he was firmly on their side, which, of course, he was not. He was a dutiful monarch who was not about to support anything he thought detrimental to the welfare of his people.

King William IV was nothing if not a hard worker. His first prime minister, the Duke of Wellington, said that he accomplished more with William IV in ten minutes that he had been able to get done with George IV in ten days. He got along well with Earl Grey, the Whig Prime Minister who had replaced Wellington but he was not about to be the servant of the Whig party either. When King William became convinced that reforms were becoming too much and being done too quickly, he determined to apply the brakes. In 1834 he dismissed the Whigs from office and appointed Sir Robert Peel to the post of Prime Minister but Peel found it impossible to form a government and, in the end, the King had to invite the Whigs to come back again. King William IV would be the last British monarch to appoint a Prime Minister without the support of Parliament and while he supported many liberal ideas for reform and greater democracy, he did so in an effort to win support for the existing institutions and seemed rather shocked when this did not always prove to be the case. He had seen his father, King George III, dismiss ministers, call new elections and have the people vote in accordance with his wishes for the most part. However, with the reforms, King William saw himself lose popularity for doing the same and came to accept that the scales of power were tipping in favor of Parliament and the House of Commons during his reign.

On the world stage, King William IV was friendly with the United States, supported Belgian independence and the candidacy of Duke Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to be King of the Belgians. However, he opposed unnecessary intervention in foreign countries and never even visited his Kingdom of Hanover in Germany. Under the system that existed then, the Austrians actually had more influence in Hanover than the British did and when the brilliantly conservative Austrian Chancellor Prince Metternich took action to prevent the spread of liberalism in Germany, it was only with difficulty that King William IV saw this pushed back. He gave Hanover a new constitution that was friendlier to the middle class and gave much more power to the parliament but it was a flash in the pan, more suited to Britain than Germany and after his death, the next King of Hanover would see these changes done away with. In his domestic life, King William was mostly troubled by disputes and drama within the Royal Family. As he had no children of his own, the most intense of these involved the succession and his adamant opposition to his sister-in-law the Duchess of Kent, mother of Princess Victoria who would succeed William on the throne. The King took great offense at the Duchess disrespecting Queen Adelaide, disliked her tyrannical nature and was suspicious of the influence the controller of her household, John Conroy, seemed to have over her. King William was determined to live long enough to see Princess Victoria reach adulthood so that the Duchess of Kent would never be able to hold the power of regent for her daughter.

Determined to the end, King William IV managed to do exactly that. He died on June 20, 1837 at Windsor Castle, just one month after his niece turned eighteen. Today, his relatively short reign is often overlooked but it was a crucial period in British history. Despite his earlier opposition, King William IV signed the abolition of slavery in the British colonies, enacted laws to stop child labor and provide assistance for the poor. On the negative side, his reign marked the ascendancy of Parliament dominated by the House of Commons but it would be wrong to paint William IV as being a man of any particular political ideology. He opposed the extremes of both the left and the right and was a thoughtful, competent constitutional monarch. Like the sailor he started off as, King William IV provided a steady hand on the wheel of the great ship of state and steered it along a moderate course through political waters that would have upset things and caused great disasters in less capable hands.