Mad Monarchist Q&A

Royal News Roundup

Starting with the House of Windsor, Prince Andrew is NOT engaged to a supermodel, Prince Harry IS an item with Cressida Bonas (not exactly “news”) and Prince Edward celebrated his fiftieth birthday last week. HM the Queen presided over Commonwealth Day celebrations, we learned that the IRA threatened to assassinate Prince Philip and the Queen met with King Philip and Queen Mathilde of the Belgians who made an official one day visit to London. There was also news that the private correspondence of the Prince of Wales may be made public and the usual suspects were clamoring for this and shouting that the public must know in exactly what way the future King will not be politically neutral. Needless to say, I think being royal should not mean the complete forfeiture of all privacy but I would also like to know why none of these people were shouting when the Prince of Wales took up the global warming/climate change/whatever we are calling it this year campaign? After all, as soon as governments began passing legislation on the issue (because of course politicians can control the weather why not) it certainly became “political” and yet no royals have ever been scolded for speaking their mind and having an opinion on that subject. I find that rather revealing.

More distressing news, unfortunately, is added to that from last week concerning New Zealand where the government recently announced that it will be holding a referendum to scrap the national flag in favor of some new model that does not include the Union Jack. For former colonies worried about being considered “real” countries, I can only say once again that “real” countries do NOT just change their national flags to keep up with the times. When a country changes its national flag it is usually because there has been a violent and ugly revolution (China, Russia, France) or because there was something horribly shameful about their previous flag that they have broken all ties with (Germany) and none of these apply to New Zealand. The whole issue is absurd. Thankfully, the Foreign Minister of Australia has said that they will be having none of it saying, “its not an issue that draws much attention in Australia”. Unfortunately, she didn’t say it was because of immense pride and the national history of Australia and later said there were no plans to change it “for the time being”, which is not exactly as strident a statement as I would like.

On the Scandinavian front, the family of the Crown Prince of Norway along with the King and Queen had some family time on the ski slopes last Sunday. Later in the week the Crown Prince and his son Prince Sverre Magnus visited the Children’s Art Museum in Oslo. The Swedish Royal Court unveiled their official YouTube channel and Crown Princess Victoria celebrated her name day but it was little Princess Estelle who was the real center of attention. Further south on the continent, the Belgian royal couple, as mentioned, visited London and in Luxembourg the Grand Duke and Duchess along with Prince Guillaume and Princess Stephanie hosted a special dinner for members of the government. In Spanish royal news, HRH the Prince of the Asturias was in Santiago for the inauguration of the new President of Chile while at home the King, Queen and other royals attended special services remembering the victims of the Madrid bombings which occurred ten years ago (and that makes me feel old). Also getting older was HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco who turned 56 on Friday. In Rome, there were reflective moments looking back on one year since HH Pope Francis assumed the Throne of St Peter.

In the Middle East, it was women troubles in Saudi Arabia that dominated the news. The ex-wife of King Abdullah, Princess Alamoud Al Fayez, has come forward with allegations of abuse against her four daughters by the King. After they were divorced the mother moved to London but the girls remained in Saudi Arabia and their mother says they are being held prisoner, have no freedom and are “hanging to life”. How they are any more like prisoners than any other women in Saudi Arabia I do not know -let us be honest, there is no gender equality or feminism in Saudi Arabia, and the daughters are not so secluded that they have not been able to communicate with the media, in this case the British media, via cell-phone and email. I have to say about this, as someone not of that country, culture or religion, I find the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia appalling, particularly given what licentious lives their male counterparts are allowed to lead. Yet, at the same time, I cannot help but note that the international protestations against this flies in the face of so-called liberal, western “values” of tolerance and diversity, at least as we are told they are today. So many of the same people who love to talk about respect for other cultures and multicultural diversity and respect for non-Christian religions always also seem to be telling people in other countries that they should stop doing things the way they have always been done and be more like the rest of the world.

And finally, in East Asia, Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress led the country in marking the third anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami disaster. Their Majesties led a moment of silence and HM the Emperor gave a special address on the occasion, expressing sympathy for the victims, concern for the survivors and pride in all those who have come together in support of each other during such a difficult time. His Majesty conveyed his hope that the disaster would never be forgotten, that Japan would learn from it to become a safer country and his hope that peace and quiet will return to the afflicted regions.

France: Republican By Default

The era of modern French republicanism and the end of the original, legitimate French monarchy can be traced back to the reign of the “Citizen-King” Louis Philippe. Although disliked by many monarchists to this day, King Charles X was not ill-disposed to Louis Philippe and left him in charge upon his abdication to basically rule France during the minority of his grandson who he had wished to succeed him. As we know, this did not happen and the government declared Louis Philippe king instead. He tried, during his less than 18 years on the throne, to steer a middle course and reconcile the old Kingdom of France with the legacy of the French Revolution. The moderates and upper-middle class were pleased enough but traditional monarchists and republicans were united in their opposition to this compromise-kingdom. Yet, in spite of the best efforts of the revolutionary republicans, France never really had a hard break with basic monarchist sentiment. When the Revolution of 1848 took Louis Philippe from his throne it was his hope that the monarchy would continue in the person of his young grandson the Count of Paris and the government was originally willing to go along with this but the republican argument was shouted more loudly than the rest at the instigation of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte.

Count of Chambord

So, the short-lived second republic was established but, as we know, Louis was not a convinced republican and after getting himself elected President successively made himself President-for-life and finally monarch as Emperor Napoleon III. His regime was popular enough so long as it kept order, allowed for prosperity and won glory abroad. Even at the very end when the war with Prussia broke out there were demonstrations in favor of fighting and no major, discernable opposition to the Second Empire. All of that, however, changed in a heartbeat after French forces were defeated by Prussia and her German allies. There followed the sad saga of the Paris Commune (and others) which certainly did nothing to make the republican cause of the radicals look better in the eyes of the public. When the dust had settled the sentiment in France was still in favor of a monarchy. So, the French government (with a strong majority of monarchists elected to office) offered the throne to the Count of Chambord, the grandson of King Charles X. He, however, refused on the grounds that the government would not change the national flag though really it was about his desire for a clean break from the legacy of the French Revolution and an unwillingness to compromise on that point.

Further complicating matters was the fact that the man in charge in France, with the army behind him, was Marshal Patrice de MacMahon, Duke of Magenta. He had fought with distinction for Napoleon III but came from a royalist family and was a legitimist, thus the idea of simply bypassing the uncooperative Count of Chambord was inconceivable for him, yet it also meant that so long as the National Assembly refused his demand on the flag the monarchy would not be restored. This brought about the birth of the third republic but, again, there was no popular demand for it and it was done by a mostly monarchist assembly. They intended for this third republic to be only a temporary measure, awaiting the death of the Count of Chambord at which point the Count of Paris could be raised to the throne as King of France. The trouble was not with the public at large but with the monarchists themselves. The Count of Chambord ended up living much longer than expected, people became accepting of the republic so long as it worked passably well and the in-fighting among the two monarchist factions put off more pragmatic types. Hence the third republic came to be accepted, in the words of Adolphe Thiers as the government which “divides us least” -a dreadful indictment for French monarchists.

"Philippe VII" in the US Army

When the Count of Chambord did die the French monarchists were split between those who supported the Count of Paris and those who supported the Spanish Count of Montizon (who also claimed the throne of Spain). However, the Count of Paris (Philippe VII) spent much of his life very far from France and the Count of Montizon (Jean III), while asserting his claim, never pressed it. The Orleanist claim of the Count of Paris became more prominent under the next pretender, Prince Philippe Duke of Orleans (Philippe VIII) who was quite active in supporting a restoration of the monarchy. The next legitimist pretender, Carlos Duke of Madrid, was also quite active but in Spain rather than France, launching another Carlist uprising and actually doing quite well for a time in gaining control of large parts of Spain. For most of this period there was little doubt that the Orleanists held the upper hand and eventually they had a dynamic political movement behind them.

In 1899 “Action Francaise” was founded by a journalist and a politician but the most prominent member and advocate of the group was Charles Maurras. He made it a decidedly monarchist group as well as a conservative and French nationalist one. Their membership supported the Orleanist line of pretenders. Railing against liberal democracy and taking second place to none in their hostility toward the Germans “Action Francaise” rose in popularity, particularly during and immediately after the First World War. More and more people came to support the movement, electing about thirty members to the National Assembly, however, as it became more successful it also became increasingly less monarchist in an effort to appeal to a greater section of the populace that had become comfortable with the republic. However, because Maurras was a non-believer who saw Catholicism as simply a tool of social order and because of clerical distrust of him and the influence of the movement, in 1926 Pope Pius XI condemned “Action Francaise”, effectively breaking it as a major force given how heavily Catholic the membership was. In 1939 Pope Pius XII withdrew the condemnation but by that time the monarchism of the movement had deteriorated even further due to royalist divisions and the rising popularity of fascist type groups that were firmly republican.

Charles Maurras

French politics was in a terrible state in general at this time. The 1936 elections saw France taken over by leftist radical republicans, some of whom were taking their orders from Stalin in the Soviet Union. The result of their rule was a massive downturn in the economy, productivity fell drastically, French goods became fewer and more expensive and the public became divided, depressed and defeatist; in other words, ripe for defeat at the hands of Germany under Adolf Hitler. In 1940 the Germans invaded, doing just about everything right in military terms, France was swiftly defeated and the Third Republic died a mostly unlamented death. A new government for unoccupied France was established in Vichy led by the venerable war hero Marshal Philippe Petain, a man who thought little of liberalism, democracy or the republic. His regime was authoritarian and, most infamously, collaborated with the Germans while keeping France officially neutral. Some monarchists joined the Free French underground loyal to General Charles DeGaulle but others hoped the Vichy government would prove the more fertile ground to bring about a restoration of the monarchy since so many of its leaders were hostile to the republic and republican principles (oftentimes blaming them for the fall of France).

Sadly, French royalists were, by this time, even more divided than before. The legitimist camp broke into three factions, one favoring the deposed King of Spain Alfonso XIII, another supporting Prince Xavier of Bourbon-Parma and a third supported Archduke Karl Pius of Austria Prince of Tuscany. Prince Xavier had served in the Belgian army and then joined the French resistance and, as a result, was arrested by the Gestapo in 1944. After the war he gained quite a large following amongst the Spanish Carlist faction but not so much in France. Archduke Karl (then in Andorra) never made much of an effort at all and, needless to say, the King of Spain and his heir were concerned with the Spanish throne and not the French one. The Orleanist claimant, Henri Count of Paris (Henri VI), who is best known for disinheriting his sons, had a more realistic chance of gaining the throne. It seemed possible as the republic had become decidedly unpopular and most at least recognized the Vichy regime as the legitimate government of France which contained many elements hostile to the republic.

Marshal Petain

However, hostile to the republic did not necessarily mean supportive of monarchy. There were divisions between those who wanted a restored monarchy, a fascist-style state or simply a more nationalist and authoritarian republic. It naturally did not help that there was a war on and most viewed the current political situation as being only temporary. Some monarchists opposed it, others supported it but were content with the “State of France” as it was, thinking that Petain would be the French General Franco; establishing an authoritarian state that would see France through the current crisis and then, after his passing, perhaps the monarchy could be restored then. As we know, that did not happen. The Allies invaded France, Germany was defeated and General Charles de Gaulle more or less assumed power. Some hoped that De Gaulle, who had rather flirted with monarchism in the past, might restore the monarchy with the Count of Paris as King. However, that was probably a slim hope at best. De Gaulle saw no one fit to rule but himself and, being a patriotic Frenchman, decided that, for the good of France and the self-esteem of the French people, a lie would have to be embraced.

To wipe away the shame and divisions of the occupation, what was basically a noble myth was invented which was that France and the French people had always been devoted to the republic and its ideals and that everyone had, throughout the war, been either supporting the underground resistance or at least cheering for the Free French forces from afar with De Gaulle universally recognized as the true leader and savior of France. In the aftermath of the war the Fourth Republic was founded, consisting basically of the supporters of De Gaulle and the communists as everyone else had been deemed part of that “tiny” collaborationist minority. It was hardly different from the Third Republic and did not last long being replaced in 1958 by the Fifth French Republic (the current model) after the disaster of the Algerian crisis caused France to put all its faith in Charles De Gaulle under a new regime that gave the President far greater power. In some ways, it was more like a monarchy than previous regimes had been but by that time a majority of the French had become comfortable embracing the trappings of republicanism. It has the distinction of being one of the few (perhaps really the only one) French republics that was willingly accepted by the people of France.

As we have seen, monarchist loyalty died hard in France and it lingered long after most histories cease to mention it. Although never perhaps as firmly as devoted, traditional legitimists would like, the French public remained attached to the idea of monarchy and time and time again the republican form of government simply succeeded by default. Time after time, for one reason or another, restoration of the monarchy was put off and the republic taken up again only as a supposedly “temporary” measure. Yet, that situation turned out to be not so temporary due to monarchist divisions and circumstances beyond the control of any one group. Eventually, the temporary republic became permanent as the French people became comfortable with the mediocrity and corruption (physical and spiritual) of the republican system. Today, unfortunately, the situation remains much the same and while the divisions may not be as significant as in the past, for those who are divided, their differences are as bitter as ever. Thus, by default, the republic remains.

The Colonial Empire of Japan

It seems strange that the Empire of Japan, despite being only a minor colonial power and that only for a few decades, is often more controversial and generates more bitterness than European colonial empires that spanned the globe and lasted for hundreds of years. Japan only ever had two major holdings that could be regarded as colonies; Formosa (Taiwan) and Korea. Relations today between Taiwan and Japan are not terrible but a great deal of animosity certainly remains on the part of Korea. In fact, setting aside North Korea which is more like a vast slave labor camp than a country, the Republic of Korea has displayed a level of antagonism toward Japan after only a few decades of colonial rule that makes the Republic of Ireland, after centuries of English and British rule, seem positively mature and forgiving. As with all colonial empires or any time a more advanced civilization comes into close contact with a less developed civilization, there will be unfortunate events, sometimes intentional and sometimes not but regrettable in any event. However, a dispassionate look at the rather brief history of Japanese colonialism will show that, for reasons of simple efficiency, being a colony of Japan was quite beneficial when viewed in the long-term. Even today when so much has changed since the fall of the Empire of Japan in 1945, former Japanese colonies tend to be better off than other former colonies in Asia.

Japan-Korea Teamwork

Throughout most of Japanese history there was never any desire for colonial expansion. However, when Japan was last unified, in the campaign started by Oda Nobunaga, the famous warrior did envision Japan conquering on the Asian mainland once his mission of unification was complete. He did not live to see that unification but his work was completed by Toyotomi Hideyoshi and consolidated by Tokugawa Ieyasu. It was Toyotomi Hideyoshi who attempted to make good on the aspirations of his late lord and conquer the Ming Empire (and perhaps more while in the neighborhood) and seize control of the lucrative silk road trade route. The Kingdom of Korea refused to let Japan march through to get at China so there was a Japanese invasion of Korea and war between Japan on one side and Korea and Ming China on the other. The Japanese managed to conquer most of Korea, occupying Seoul and Pyongyang but attrition began to take a heavy toll and after the death of Toyotomi Hideyoshi and some considerable military setbacks the Japanese called off the war and returned home. Not long after Tokugawa Ieyasu formalized the last unification of Japan, became Shogun, establishing the Tokugawa dynasty as the holders of power in the name of the Emperor and in time Japan became isolated.

As most know, that isolation lasted until 1854 when a U.S. fleet under Commodore Matthew Perry sailed to Japan, pointed guns at them and forced them to join the rest of the international community. After some internal turmoil the Emperor was restored to power and Japan began to modernize, industrializing rapidly and learning from the countries of Europe and America. The Japanese method was to identify which country was the best in a particular field, study them and then adapt their methods to Japan, always endeavoring to do things better and more efficiently. So, in naval matters Great Britain was looked to, in army matters Prussia was looked to, for high fashion France was the example and for business it was the United States. Naturally, colonialism was not ignored either. In looking at the rest of the world, Japan saw that there were two kinds of countries; those which had colonies and those which were colonies and, naturally, Japan was determined to be one of the former. There was never any decision to “become” a colonial empire but it grew out of the rapid industrialization of Japan. This brought about a greatly increased need for resources Japan had never needed before and the prosperity that came with modernization also meant a rapidly growing population that had to be fed. One of the primary sources for raw materials and food stuffs for Japan was the Kingdom of Korea, at the time, a vassal of Imperial China.

Japan became increasingly concerned about securing this lifeline (think of the situation between Egypt and Rome in the old days) and so, to make a long story short, Japan fought a war with China to secure the independence of Korea and then, when Russia started stepping into the peninsula, fought the Russo-Japanese War to keep Korea firmly within the Japanese sphere of influence. After the victory over China; France, Germany and Russia stepped in to force Japan to give up some of the concessions won from China (which Japan naturally did not appreciate, especially when Russia subsequently took the territory rather than returning it to China) but one concession Japan did keep was the island of Formosa. That, was not as easy as a simple territorial hand-over though. The Chinese on Taiwan decided that the Qing Emperor could not give up territory he did not possess so they declared themselves an independent republic (the Republic of Formosa) and vowed to maintain Chinese rule over Taiwan in this new way. However, it did not work and Japanese forces soon arrived and conquered Taiwan, annexing it to the Empire of Japan in 1895. Some Chinese and native forces continued to resist and the campaign to suppress them was no different than similar campaigns by other colonial powers, often quite brutal. However, Taiwan also saw immense benefits in the period of Japanese rule.

The Japanese authorities cleaned up Taiwan and modernized it; quite literally. There was a massive sanitation campaign and a rapid development of infrastructure which had previously not existed. Roads and railways were built, ports were constructed, modern farming techniques were introduced and a health system based on widespread rural clinics was established that was so successful it remains in effect even today. Barbaric native practices were suppressed, mandatory universal education was introduced and agricultural production increased dramatically. The island became extremely prosperous and, in time, Taiwan became the seventh largest sugar producer in the world. Some animosity did arise, however, as time went on and Japan took steps to enforce a greater cultural uniformity on Taiwan as part of the effort to maintain the utmost in national social unity across the Empire of Japan. This meant a greater emphasis on the Japanese language and customs as well as a greater promotion of the Shinto religion. In this regard, as it concerns modern-day observers, Japan was in a no-win situation. Colonial powers which excluded subject peoples from their own customs and institutions, which endeavored to keep them strictly separate are condemned for being exclusionists, segregationists and holding themselves aloof from other people not deemed “worthy”. On the other hand, as is seen with Japan, colonial powers which do the opposite are condemned as well for forcing their ways and customs on others, destroying the uniqueness of the natives.

Japanese enter Taipei

That was the situation in Taiwan but, of course, Korea remained an area of concern after removing it from the control of China and preventing it from coming under the control of Russia. Talk turned to uniting the laws and economies of Korea and Japan. Some in Korea wanted to unite with Japan, others wanted no part of it and much the same division existed in Japan itself. Some wanted to annex Korea while others feared Korea would be too big a burden on the still growing Japanese economy. This changed when anti-Japanese forces in Korea started to make trouble and so those opposed to uniting the two countries in Tokyo were sidelined and in 1910 Korea was incorporated into the Empire of Japan. The local monarchy was retained and, along with the aristocracy, granted sufficient funds to maintain the standard of living they had become accustomed to. There was a massive Japanese investment in Korea and, of course, the influx of Japanese nationals and Japanese influence caused a backlash in Korea that was responded to with military force. There were many regrettable episodes but, also as in Taiwan, a massive change in the standard of living for Korea as well. Cities were modernized, hospitals were established, schools were built and illiteracy, which had previously been widespread in the lower classes, was virtually eradicated.

One of the reasons Japanese colonies have tended to do better even after gaining their independence can be traced back to a simple exercise in efficiency on the part of the Empire of Japan. Again, the Japanese saw how other countries ran their colonial empires and sought to improve on their methods. They saw European countries using their colonies as sources of raw materials, shipping those raw materials to the homeland for refinement and then transformation into manufactured goods (providing employment at home) and then shipped back for sale to the colonial populations (providing profit). Japan could also see that transportation costs for raw materials was enormous so Japan decided it would be smarter to establish at least low levels of industry in the colonies themselves so that raw materials could be refined before being shipped to Japan to be finished up and turned into manufactured goods. This step was taken in order to cut down on the cost of shipping but it had the result of giving former Japanese colonies a considerable advantage with a “head start” in industrialization when compared to the colonies of other empires.

A brief mention should be made of Manchuria which was never actually a Japanese colony but which is often classified as one (when not called a “puppet state” rather like the Mexican Empire). Regardless of how or why it came about the simple fact is that the Republic of China had no right whatsoever to Manchuria and the support provided by Japan in Manchuria declaring independence in 1932 and restoring the last Manchu Emperor to the throne was an action which corrected a gross historical injustice. Manchuria too benefited immensely from its restoration aided by Japan. There was rapid industrial growth so that, prior to the outbreak of World War II, the Empire of Manchuria was one of the most advanced and productive regions of Asia, eventually surpassing Japan in steel production. Coal mining, oil drilling and agriculture were major industries, ports and cities were modernized, trade and business boomed but, unfortunately, all of this infrastructure which was built up from 1932 to 1945 was stripped clean by the invading communist forces at the time of Japan’s defeat.

Like most colonial empires (and sometimes to an even greater extent) it is hard to find many today who would speak up in defense of or say anything at all positive about the former Empire of Japan. This is not helped by those in Japan who take a racial view in criticizing the colonial empires of others, accusing European powers of misdeeds while holding themselves blameless. This, combined with bitterness from World War II has made it difficult for many outside Japan to give a fair assessment (at least since the war, prior to which, and when Japan was supportive of other empires, most were positive). However, setting personal feelings aside, the success of former Japanese colonies should speak for itself. Manchuria was absorbed by Red China, Taiwan became the last bastion of the Kuomintang and Korea was split into two diametrically opposed republics, sparking another major war. However, for years both Taiwan and Korea (and more so South Korea naturally) have had far greater economic success than other former colonies because of the huge investments Japan made toward education, infrastructure and building up at least the foundations of industrial development. It may not be popular to point out such positive aspects but, nonetheless, they should not be forgotten.

Threats to Monarchy Around the World

Thankfully, in most monarchies in which a monarch is resident (we will call them ‘monarchies in the first degree’) there is relatively little threat to them at the moment. Certainly some are more popular than others and certainly very few are completely free from worry. Aside from the micro-monarchies like Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, virtually every European monarchy has at least some group, no matter how small, that wants to see their country become a republic. However, monarchy is not only threatened by unpopularity. Popularity can change in the blink of an eye. In the United Kingdom, generally one of the most popular and secure monarchies in the world, witness how fast public opinion toward the Queen changed (and then changed back again) following the hysteria surrounding the death of Diana. More recently, witness how quickly public opinion toward the King of Spain shifted after one (privately funded) hunting trip. This was the man that Spaniards across the political spectrum praised and revered for having given them freedom and democracy yet one hunting trip was enough to erase all of that -or at least a great deal of it. However, Spain has also been in the grip of a severe financial crisis. So have other countries, but Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland were singled out as being in particular trouble and, of course, Spain is the only monarchy among those. Whenever there is a financial problem those responsible for making bad decisions can always be counted on to look for a scapegoat. In republics this is often “big business”, the banks or simply the wealthy. In monarchies it is often the monarchy.

The monarchies of the world are threatened by a number of things and it varies from place to place. One group that has much in common is what we will call ‘monarchies in the second degree’ the vast majority of which are the Commonwealth Realms. Whether it is Canada in the western hemisphere or Australia in the eastern, the primary, default tactic that is employed to attack the monarchy is anti-British bigotry. They try not to be too blatant about it but it is always there. The monarchy is British, it is “foreign” they claim and they try to hush up the singing of “God Save the Queen” and try (successfully in some places) to redesign their national flags to remove any reminders of their British colonial past. This is a tactic which may seem silly to many people today but, unfortunately, it has worked in the past and revolutionaries emphasizing the ties between traditional royals and colonial governments in order to bring down monarchy have been successful in former colonial countries all around the world. Fortunately, these people are often proponents of “multiculturalism” which causes them to come off as very hypocritical when they start making what is basically a xenophobic argument for abolishing the monarchy. Some have tried to combat this by trying to emphasize the separateness of their monarchy from the British monarchy, while others try to tackle the root of the argument itself by defending the legacy of the British Empire in their particular country. However it is done, there must be push-back because in this age when anti-colonialism is even more fashionable than colonialism was in its own time, the advocates of republicanism will not cease to try to use the negative portrayal of the British Empire to their own advantage.

Moving on to monarchies in the first degree, we will look at the largest concentration of them in Europe, specifically western Europe. Here, again, most would think there is not too much cause for alarm. Even in countries where monarchs have undergone recent downturns in popularity (Sweden or Spain for example) most of the people still seem to prefer a new monarch rather than no monarch at all. However, while there are no countries posing a threat to the monarchies of Europe, there is a more subtle enemy at work in their very midst. It is a socialistic, egalitarian, fundamentally republican mindset that can, perhaps, be best summed up with two words: European Union. Admittedly, the EU cannot be blamed for every threat to monarchy in Europe but it embodies so much of it. For one, there is the economic policies that push for unsustainable social welfare states that invariably drive countries into debt and risk economic collapse. When those hard times come, anger frequently turns to the monarchy which is portrayed as an unproductive drain on the national purse (ludicrous though that argument is). There is also the egalitarian attitude which we have seen pushed on monarchies further and further with changes to succession laws, embracing ‘alternative lifestyles’ and any number of things that all push the same message; that everyone is equal and everyone is the same. It should be obvious that this is a mentality which is contradictory to monarchy and if it continues to strengthen, monarchy will become impossible to defend.

Finally there is that aspect most connected to the EU itself and that is the diminishment of national independence and national uniqueness. Some time ago I was asked why I seemed to follow news and events in places like Russia or East Asia more than Europe (when there are so many monarchies concentrated there) and my simple answer was that other places still have actual countries. Other places have countries that have differences and have disagreements and even the occasional unpleasantness whereas the EU has brought a dull uniformity to Europe. They rarely take any action on their own and any disputes are hushed up or handled “in house” by the EU government. Countries have fewer and fewer of their own national policies and this matters to monarchy because each monarchy is bound up with the history and national experience of their own country and not that of any other. The EU, by claiming to be the “answer” to the problems of the past, inherently condemns the way things were formerly done and that would necessarily include the role of monarchy in shaping the history of European countries. EU regulations on equality and anti-discrimination have already been used by some as a means of attacking the institution of monarchy. True, it may not seem relevant to many and there are some royals that appear to be all for it but this is simply my opinion. In the long-run it will be a danger because the values of the EU and the loss of national sovereignty (and “sovereign” is the key root-word there) are fundamentally at odds with monarchy.

In Africa there is not too much to talk about. There are only three independent monarchies remaining, one of them is in no danger and another (Swaziland) is mostly in danger from international busy-bodies and their own poor decisions. The Kingdom of Morocco fits in with monarchy across the Islamic world and can be viewed in that context. Islamic monarchies face threats and challenges that are roughly similar from Morocco to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and even to a lesser extent to Malaysia. Most monarchs face condemnation from one of two sides; they are either condemned by the western democracies for being fundamentalist and tyrannical or they are condemned by some of their own people for being too modern, “westernized” and not sufficiently Muslim (whatever that means). Many are also under constant criticism by the international busy-bodies who consider lèse majesté laws to be just as terrible as shooting people for their religious beliefs or killing a woman with a rock because she was accused of adultery. Malaysia would seem the most secure but for the Islamic monarchies of the Middle East there is little doubt that the biggest threat is Iran. At this point, most seem to have dealt with the problems of the Arab Spring well enough but ever since the 1979 Revolution the Iranian regime has been actively working to thwart monarchy in the Islamic world and is today building a network of alliances across Iraq, Syria and Lebanon that pose a direct threat to the monarchies of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Even without direct action by Iran, one of their clients or simply a spark caused by the arms race that will be set off if Iran obtains nuclear weapons could cause a conflagration that would be devastating to the cause of monarchy in the region. All in all, to summarize as much as possible, the biggest threat to monarchy in the Islamic world remains extremism and how swiftly its advocates resort to violence.

When it comes to Asia, outside the Muslim countries, the situation is unique from country to country and it is a fact that should be taken very seriously by monarchists that very few monarchies remain, particularly in a region so large, with so many different peoples and with civilizations that are so ancient and in which monarchy had been previously so engrained. Aside from the Muslim countries the only monarchies that remain in Asia are little Bhutan, the Kingdom of Thailand, struggling Cambodia and the State of Japan. Bhutan occupies the happiest position with no apparent threats to deal with at all. The recent trend toward embracing democracy and political parties is worrisome but that is an internal, long-term concern. Still, even for Bhutan, the threat always remains of being caught between any potential trouble including India and China. Communist China has made incursions into Bhutanese territory in the past and has territorial disputes with Bhutan (as it does with virtually every neighboring country) and while there are certainly very close and friendly relations with India, there is still the concern that what happened to Sikkim could happen to Bhutan as well. It is a victim of geography, caught between two giant republican neighbors and any trouble between them could mean a crisis for Bhutan.

The Kingdom of Thailand also enjoys a mostly happy position with the current King being widely revered and the monarchy highly respected and viewed as the cornerstone of the entire national structure of the country. However, the current King is old and ailing and cannot live forever. The Crown Prince does not enjoy the same popularity and prestige (though it has increased somewhat) but more concerning is the internal politics of Thailand. This came to world attention mostly with the rise of the red shirts and yellow shirts. The yellow shirts are those most supportive of the monarchy and traditional Thai values but the red shirts, while claiming to support the monarchy, want less of a role for royals and nobles whereas the yellow shirts want more. They have an agenda that is much more class-driven and egalitarian and thus, at heart, fundamentally hostile to the basic values of monarchy. They have also held more support in the heavily populated urban areas and their increasing hold on power combined with the deteriorating health of the King is undoubtedly the biggest cause for concern the Thai monarchy faces. Cambodia is in a relatively worse position, certainly since the death of the controversial but undoubtedly powerful figure of King Norodom Sihanouk. King Norodom Sihamoni does not have the same power his father had and is more or less at the mercy of Prime Minister Hun Sen, dictator of Cambodia in all but name, who was placed in power first by the Vietnamese when they invaded Cambodia and overthrew the regime of Pol Pot. So long as the status quo remains, the monarchy is secure but if Hun Sen or perhaps even the government in Hanoi, Vietnam feels it would benefit them to get rid of the monarchy the situation could change in an instant.

In Japan the monarchy is, happily, widely accepted and respected at home however it is under considerable, indirect, threat due to widespread anti-Japanese bigotry on the part of neighboring republics. The tool most often used in this regard is, of course, World War II because doing so generates immediate sympathy among many other people who are anxious to uphold and defend the world order established by the victorious Allies (subsequently the United Nations) after the war was finished. The most prominent hostile powers are Communist China and the two Koreas. North Korea poses the most straightforward threat by constantly threatening to attack Japan but theirs is perhaps the least effective since they make similar threats against other countries so that Japan is certainly not being singled out in that regard. More worrisome is Communist China and South Korea. South Korea has lately adopted the position that their entire national identity is to be that of the poor, perpetual victim and they have worked overtime to spread anti-Japanese sentiment not just in their own country but around the world by colluding with Communist China to celebrate the Korean who assassinated the first Prime Minister of Japan, by erecting statues of the so-called “comfort women” in foreign countries (which had nothing to do with the issue) such as the United States and Australia or using a festival about comic books in France to highlight Korean victimization by Japan. Communist China, similarly, has lately been feeding their population a steady diet of anti-Japanese propaganda through literally hundreds of films and television shows that portray the Japanese committing atrocities in World War II. This has caused such a level of bigotry that one Chinese citizen was recently beaten to death for driving a Japanese car.

Anything that existed in Japan prior to the surrender in 1945 is singled out as “proof” that Japan has not sufficiently cut ties with its imperial past and that, of course, includes the monarchy as well as it is certainly not lost on any of these people that the Emperor of Japan was the only Axis head-of-state to retain his position after the war. Japan has apologized on numerous occasions, paid tens of billions of dollars in reparations yet it is never enough and the campaign to vilify, isolate and weaken Japan continues. That is a threat to the monarchy but so also is the response this generates inside Japan. On the left it encourages those who want to go to any lengths to win popularity, whether that is getting rid of the national flag or the national anthem and that leads to getting rid of the monarchy as well. On the right it encourages those who say that any reconciliation is impossible, playing nice has not worked, so the answer is to rearm and become more strident which itself would mean running the risk of a confrontation that could prove disastrous. It is also true that many on the right in Japan do not appreciate the threat to the monarchy and close their eyes to the ideological struggle going on against traditional authority in the world in favor of viewing everything through the lens of race. They do themselves no favors by criticizing other monarchies while denying any wrong-doing on their own part. To link back with the beginning of this look at threats to monarchy, similar to the situation in some other countries, this also involves foreign powers, whether countries or international organizations, defining an existing monarchy, its national legacy and dictating what is or is not acceptable in what is supposed to be an independent, sovereign country.

From all of this we can see that monarchies remain under threat today from within and without to varying degrees. Some are subject to threats totally outside of their control while others have put themselves in a position of weakness by either surrendering their independence by degree or by adopting policies that have made them dependent on others. It is also a lesson which history has taught us again and again that even trouble which does not seem to effect the monarchy of a country directly can quickly change to do so. Monarchy in France and Russia was taken for granted as being permanent but persistent enemies are always quick to seize on any economic downturn or even the sacrifices of war to turn a loyal public into an angry mob with the monarchy as the scapegoat. Monarchists should be ever vigilant and on guard for these threats and should also work to encourage pan-monarchist solidarity. Countries, like people, tend to follow trends and every time a monarchy falls, even in a place as relatively remote as Nepal, this adds to the burden on those that remain and strengthens the republican cause which tends to portray itself as always representing the “inevitable” outcome. If you live in a monarchy, you should do what you can to encourage support for other monarchies and if you live in a republic you can also do what you can to at least encourage your government to do monarchy no harm.

Mad Monarchist Q&A

Royal News Roundup

This week, we will start for a change in Asia. In Japan, Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress welcomed the President and First Lady of the Baltic nation of Estonia at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, a return for the 2007 imperial visit to Estonia. The President also met with Prime Minister Abe, naturally discussing the situation in Ukraine. PM Abe offered financial support for human rights observers but earlier refused to go along with U.S. President Obama on sanctions against Russia for fear that this would harm Abe’s efforts to negotiate the return of the North Territories, just off the north coast of Hokkaido, which the Soviet Union illegally occupied after World War II. Which would make more sense if Russia had ever shown the slightest possibility of doing the right thing on that front. In southeast Asia, the bodyguard of the ex-wife of the Sultan of Brunei was found ‘not guilty’ by a jury in England of stealing £12 million in diamonds. Back at home, the Sultan of Brunei is urging people to embrace the implementation of Islamic law in the country which goes into effect next month. Ever since the move was announced, international human rights organizations have been in an uproar about it though the laws will only apply to the 66% of Brunei subjects who are Muslims and not the non-Muslim minority. Religion has also become a sensitive subject lately in the normally tranquil Kingdom of Malaysia. In Kelantan Sultan Muhammad V said last week that he is disappointed in how the ‘new media’ is being used to hurl slander, hatred and offend religious sensibilities, warning everyone that if “the prevailing peace and security is destroyed, nobody will benefit from it, instead everyone will suffer”.

In the Middle East, the monarchy at the center of all the news last week was the Emirate of Qatar. At particular issue is the Qatari network Al-Jazeera which is widely viewed as a propaganda tool of the Muslim Brotherhood which remains widely banned in the region as a threat to stability. The reach of Al-Jazeera and funds from Qatar have also begun to rival the influence of Saudi Arabia with many seeing the two monarchies as being in competition. Qatar, for example, supported the Morsi government in Egypt while Saudi Arabia cheered the military coup that ousted him. Last week the situation became worse, however, as more countries seem to be taking exception to the support for the Brotherhood coming from Qatar to the extent that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the influential United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain have all recalled their ambassadors from Qatar, citing Qatari interference in their internal affairs. The Brotherhood is believed to have been behind outbreaks of protest and political unrest in several gulf states. Qatar began a more activist foreign policy under the former Sheikh Hamad and it seems that policy has not changed with the succession of his son Sheikh Tamim. Those breaking off formal diplomatic relations have said they tried to persuade Qatar to stop using Al-Jazeera to support the Brotherhood and encourage dissent but were unsuccessful. Most also believe that the change in policy in Qatar is being supported by the Republic of Turkey and is ultimately aimed at weakening or eliminating the monarchies of the Middle East to allow the Turkish republic to fill the void.

Europe has been rather preoccupied with the situation in Ukraine to the extent that not much royal-related news made the papers (so to speak). However, members of the Greek and Spanish Royal Families got together to commemorate the late King Paul of Greece (who reigned from 1947 to 1964). Prince Albert II of Monaco visited the Kingdom of Morocco for a couple of days (Princess Charlene took in a fashion show in Paris) and in Sweden everyone is still fussing over the birth of Princess Leonore (did a little black bird give them that name?) and the proud parents Princess Madeleine and Mr. Chris O’Neill couldn’t be happier. A message from the couple said, “She is a little angel and like her name, she brings sunshine even on cloudy days. From the bottom of our hearts, we would like to thank each and every one of you for your lovely best wishes for our daughter. She feels very loved.” In Great Britain, Prince Harry won just kudos for his continued work to help disabled military veterans which included, last week, launching the “Invictus Games” for disabled vets. However, the chattering class still found something to moan about when the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge flew off to a holiday in the Maldives, leaving Prince George behind -as if there is absolutely no one around to take care of the little prince. Most disturbing though was the news from New Zealand where headlines have been trumpeting a possible rise in republicanism. It started when a Maori native threatened to destroy a monument at the historic Waitangi site after hearing that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would not be stopping there on their visit to New Zealand next month. Next, Maori King Tuheitia said he will not meet with the royals after being told that he would not be allowed more than the 90 minutes allotted to everyone else wishing to have some one-on-one time with the Cambridge couple. Hopefully, the papers are blowing this out of proportion. Some have pointed to poll numbers showing support for the monarchy slipping while adding that this may be a sign of declining monarchist sympathy in the Maori community which is 15% of the population and influential because of their native status. Hopefully, the people of New Zealand will remain steadfast in their loyalty to the Crown and the historical ties that have brought them to the place they are today.

Story of Monarchy: The Ulus of Jochi

It seems to me that one of the most significant former powers that is all but forgotten today, at least in the western world, is the Ulus of Jochi. Presumably it is more well known in Eastern Europe and Central Asia where it was most dominant but it was a state that everyone should at least be aware of. The Ulus of Jochi (also later known in the west as the Golden Horde) was the dominant power of central Asia for quite some time and it had a significant impact on the course of history in Russia, Europe and the Middle East as well as Central Asia as various people banded together in opposition to the common threat of the dreaded Golden Horde. As the name implies, it has its origins in the career of Jochi Khan, eldest son of the great Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan (Ulus of Jochi simply means the ‘lands/state/realm/territory of Jochi’) who, during the reign of his father, had played a leading part in the Mongol conquest of Siberia, Central Asia and Persia. He was to inherit the westernmost portion of the Mongol Empire when Genghis Khan died but as Jochi predeceased his father the Ulus of Jochi went to his son Batu Khan who is generally regarded as the true founder of this khanate which was part of the wider Mongol Empire.

Batu Khan

Ogedei Khan succeeded his father as Great Khan (or Emperor) of the Mongols while the Ulus of Jochi were divided between Batu Khan (who received the Blue Horde) and his brother Orda (who received the White Horde). Before he could concentrate on “nation building”, however, Batu assisted Ogedei Khan in his conquest of the Jin Dynasty of Manchuria while his brother fought Bulgars, Cumens and other peoples in the west. After Manchuria was conquered (it would be left to Kublai Khan to conquer southern China), Batu Khan turned west and took on the formidable task of conquering the Russians. It was a brutal and bitter struggle but, in the end, Batu Khan was successful and the Russian states and all those in the area of modern Russia were devastated from Moscow to the Crimea. He conquered Ruthenia and drove the Cumens into the Kingdom of Hungary but when he demanded that these refugees be expelled, King Bela IV of Hungary not only refused but had the Mongol messengers killed (the Hungarians had a history of dealing with the Cumens, as we have covered previously, having earlier employed the Teutonic Knights against them). Batu Khan was outraged at this defiance and vowed to conquer Hungary and all the land to the Atlantic Ocean. Given that the man had just conquered Russia one can perhaps forgive him for being a bit arrogant.

The Mongols swept westward, conquering Poland, Hungary and Bohemia, besting the forces of the Holy Roman Empire, alarming all of Europe and prompting the Pope to call for a crusade against them. Fortunately for Europe, the Mongols were not to stay long. The death of Odegei Khan prompted a power struggle and Batu Khan, reluctantly, returned home to press his claim to become the next Mongol Emperor. However, that came to nothing with the throne going to Guyuk Khan and so Batu returned to the west to focus on expanding his own central Asian kingdom. He further consolidated his rule and established his capital at Sarai in what is now southern Russia (near what is now Selitrennoye). Batu became so powerful that some believed Guyuk Khan considered him a threat and was preparing to move against him when he died in what is now the western Chinese province of Xinjiang. Batu Khan had reached such a position of influence that he was in large part responsible for placing the next Mongol Emperor, Mongke Khan, on the throne. Batu Khan set up the Princes of Vladimir and St Alexander Nevsky was one of his tributaries. Batu Khan died in 1256 as the master of central Asia and none of his successors would ever be able to outshine him.

Eventually, leadership of the Ulus of Jochi fell to Batu’s younger brother Berke Khan. His reign lacked the smashing conquests of prior years but he still attacked with great ferocity against Lithuania, Poland, the Teutonic Knights and Hungary, even declaring war on the King of France. He is also most remembered for converting to Islam and allying with the Mamluks of Egypt against the Persian-centered Ilkhanate (another successor state of the empire of Genghis Khan). He died fighting his fellow Mongols for power while the overall state of the Golden Horde declined, though he did manage to force the Byzantine Emperor to pay him tribute. He also, just before his death, backed a winner in the person of Kublai Khan who would become Emperor of the Mongols, founder of the Yuan Dynasty in China and rule the largest land empire in history. However, after his death, the Ulus of Jochi was again paralyzed by infighting for power, eventually drawing in Kublai Khan himself. And, of course, in the meantime there were devastating raids into tributaries such as Lithuania and Bulgaria. There was even another invasion of Hungary which proved ruinous but which was a failure. During this time it was the Hungarians who most often proved to be the sentinels of Europe against Mongol invasion (or “Mongol” invasion as the vast majority of the troops were not Mongolians at all). There were also struggles between the Muslim and Buddhist members of the ruling family but eventually it was Islam that would dominate.

In 1313 Uzbeg came to the throne and made Islam the official, mandatory religion of the Ulus of Jochi, banning Buddhism and the traditional shamanism of the Mongols. Still maintaining the alliance with the Mamluks and even marrying into the Egyptian Royal Family, the Jochi were becoming further and further removed, in both blood and custom, from their Mongol roots. Uzbeg held Russia by setting the local princes against each other and kept his state running by periodic raids into Europe as far as Serbia and Greece. He involved himself in power disputes within the Muslim world and met with setbacks at the hands of the Poles and Hungarians before the spread of the Black Death brought ruin and an end to any dream of the Golden Horde expanding into central and western Europe. As the years past and the Golden Horde descended more and more into civil wars territory began to be steadily lost. The Lithuanians began to rebel and push back, the Russians began to rise in rebellion and it was only by an alliance with the emerging Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that the Golden Horde was able to hold Russia and reassert control over it.

Eventually, however, the Golden Horde was brought down by various powers chipping away at the periphery. The Russians began to unify and rise against them, the Moldavians fought back, the Turks were expanding from the south and by that time the last ties with China and the Mongolian homeland had long been cut. A last, desperate invasion of the Kingdom of Poland was mounted in 1491 but it was defeated and very soon what had once been the Golden Horde was reduced to being the Crimean Khanate, a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. The last Khan of the Ulus of Jochi was forced to flee to Lithuania and died in prison. Eventually, the Russians would unite and the last remnant of the Golden Horde would be annexed to the Russian Empire by Empress Catherine the Great.

Although not always given a high profile, the Ulus of Jochi had a profound impact on world history and the development of many countries we know today. It was the western frontier of the great Mongol Empire founded by Genghis Khan. Russia united and became the strong country we all know, famous for immense endurance, after being ruled for quite a long time by the Tartars. The effect this had on the history of Russia and the Russian national character cannot be dismissed. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was formed, in part, because of the shared threat they faced from the Golden Horde. The Hungarians proved themselves matchless warriors and gained the support of western Europe for standing on the frontline against Tartar expansion and much of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire came about because of the weakening of the Ulus of Jochi. As a monarchy, it was not terribly stable or effectively managed, but its life, though long past, left a legacy that is still felt even today by the peoples of central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Royal Friends of Texas: Norway

Texas and the Kingdom of Norway have had a relationship that began more recently than some others but which is also quite strong and has grown significantly stronger lately. Norway had little to do with Texas during the colonial period or independence but that changed after Texas joined the United States. Almost immediately at that point, in 1845, the first Norwegian colony in Texas was established when Ole Reiersen bought 1,476 acres of land in Henderson County. Along with his son Johan he recruited fifty families from Norway to come and settle on his land in Texas. At the time, the Kingdom of Norway was in personal union with the Kingdom of Sweden and the colony the Norwegians established was originally known as Normandy, just like the coastal area of France many are familiar with and for the same reason. Normandy (the one in France) was so named because it was settled by Vikings or Northmen, hence the name Normans and their land being known as Normandy. What is less clear is why, after some time, the Norwegian colony in Texas stopped being called Normandy and became known as Brownsboro.

Unfortunately, this original Norwegian colony did not thrive as the Norwegians had a harm time adapting to the harsh Texas climate. They were used to the harsh climate of Norway with its extreme cold but were not prepared for the extreme heat of Texas. Reiersen also claimed to have warned the Norwegian pioneers about where they should and should not settle but that they did not take his advice and settled “in very unhealthy places…in the bottom lands”. Whether this was true or just an effort by Reiersen to explain away the failure of his colonial venture without attaching blame to himself we will never know but the fact is that things were fine until the full force of the Texas summertime heat began to be felt and suddenly everyone got sick. Everyone. The most common ailment was malaria though the Reiersen family was unaffected, living on a hill that put them high above the malarial lowlands. Still, those Norwegians fortunate enough to survive were heartier for it and moved further west, settling in the Four Mile Prairie near Dallas in 1848.

One of the most famous Norwegian-Texans to settle there was Elise Amalie Tvede. She was already a well known journalist and advocate for women in the Kingdom of Norway when, at the age of 32, she came to Texas in 1847. At the Four Mile Prairie Norwegian colony in Van Zandt County she settled down and married Wilhelm Waerenskjold. She became a prolific writer, first simply as a way to help people deal with the loneliness of her fellow Norwegian-Texans. She wrote letters to everyone telling them about the latest news in the community and, being a natural talent, she also began to write articles about life in Texas for publications back in Norway. She would often visit her neighbors who, it was said, treated her “like a bishop” because of her refined, dignified manner as well as her fame because of her literary ability. Long after her death in 1895 her name has lived on for the colorful accounts she left behind about her first-hand experience as one of the early Norwegian pioneers in Texas. Despite the rough start, the Norwegian presence in the Lone Star State was set to grow and expand in the years to come.

There were 105 Norwegian Texans according to the census of 1850 and their presence was expanding. Cleng Peerson came to Texas after exchanging letters with the first known Norwegian settler to Texas, Johannes Nordboe (who settled near Dallas in 1841) and he brought two other men with him named Ole Canuteson and Carl Engebretson Quaestad. They scouted the area around the Bosque River and when Bosque County was established in 1854 they were among the first settlers. More Norwegians came and soon a thriving settlement called Norse was established there. Immigrants from Norway continued to come to Norse until 1872 and Norwegian customs remained the rule rather than the exception into the early years of the Twentieth Century.

In 1909 a land developer in Chicago named Anders L. Mordt sold land in the northernmost reaches of the Texas panhandle in Hansford County to a group of Norwegian immigrants living in the Midwest. That was where most Norwegians had settled in the United States but not all were that impressed with it and were inclined to move to the more wide, open spaces of northern Texas. A new settlement was started that became known as “Oslo on the Plains”. Anders Mordt went to considerable expense to get this new settlement going; building a school to attract families with children and donating land for a church. He also started publishing a local newspaper in the Norwegian language. It became quite a busy, little community for a few years but, unfortunately, did not last long as the settlement was wiped out in a drought in 1912 which caused most families to move away. Still, the Oslo on the Prairie has never been completely forgotten.

Crown Prince Haakon & Governor Rick Perry

By 1900 there were over a thousand Norwegian-Texans but by 1940 the number shrank slightly and, by that time, Norwegian had ceased to be spoken by most people. However, traces of Norwegian architecture and Norwegian names can still be found in the old settlements and an annual smorgasbord is still held at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church near the old town of Norse. In 1975 the Norwegian Society of Texas was established to preserve the cultural heritage of Texans of Norwegian ancestry and by 1990 94,096 Texans described themselves as of Norwegian descent. One of the strongest ties that still bind Texas and the Kingdom of Norway is the Norwegian Church Abroad or the Norwegian Seamen’s Church which was founded in 1864 and has spread all over the world, including, of course, to Texas. These are social and cultural centers as well as religious ones and provide a little taste of ‘home away from home’ for Norwegians with Norwegian food, drink, newspapers and television.

King Harald & Queen Sonja in Houston

A Seamen’s Church was established in Pasadena, near Houston, Texas as well as The Seamen’s Church Institute. HM King Harald V of Norway first visited Texas in 1984 and planted a magnolia tree at the church. In March of 2005 Texas was treated to a follow-up royal visit when Their Majesties King Harald V of Norway and Queen Sonja visited the Seamen’s Church. They were greeted by children in bunads and cowboy outfits and a special recital by the church children’s choir. Hundreds crowded outside to catch a glimpse of the royal couple and the King watered the same magnolia tree he had planted on his earlier visit. Describing the reception, the King said, “Our impression is that it is good to be Norwegian in Texas. Thank you for the warm and impressive welcome”. In 2013 Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Prince Mette-Marit also visited Texas and again, Houston was on the itinerary as well as Fort Worth. The main purpose of the visit was for the Crown Prince to attend a conference on offshore oil drilling, something which is a major industry in Texas and Norway. The Crown Prince said he could learn a lot from the many years of experience Texas has in the oil business. The visit to Fort Worth was to inspect the facilities of Lockheed Martin from whom Norway had purchased 52 new F35 fighter jets. So, in terms of settlement, royal visits, shared business enterprises and trade, the bonds of friendship between Texas and the Kingdom of Norway go back quite far and have only grown stronger and closer over the years.

Monarch Profile: High Chief Mgolombane Sandile of the Rharhabe

Although he is little known today outside of South Africa, Mgolombane Sandile, Chief of the Gaikas and High Chief of the Rharhabe tribe, was a major figure in Nineteenth Century South Africa and one of the most dynamic and successful leaders in the native resistance to European colonization. He was born at Burns Hill sometime in 1820 into the Gaikas or Ngqika clan of the Rharhabe tribe of the Xhosa nation of southern Africa. Not long after, his father died in 1829 and Mgolombane Sandile succeeded to the throne of the Rharhabe, the western Xhosa, with his brother acting as regent until 1872. Nonetheless, as king, he was soon presiding over a people at war. This was not at all uncommon as the Xhosa had been in conflict, intermittently, with European settlers in South Africa since around 1779. The first three wars were fought against the Dutch or the increasingly distinct Boers, and then against the British after Great Britain seized control of the Dutch colonies in South Africa during the Napoleonic Wars. Usually the reason for these wars was disputes over farmland, pasturage and so on.

Mgolombane Sandile (left) meeting officials

In 1846 the seventh war broke out. A drought had driven many Xhosa to launch raids across the border to steal cattle. Tensions increased because of this and a relatively minor dispute over the return of a suspected murder prompted hostilities to resume. Sandile refused to turn the man over and soon came under attack by British troops, colonial forces and Boer commandos. Sandile proved a naturally talented commander, stalling the British advance by a quick strike at their vulnerable wagon train, capturing many British supplies and forcing them to retreat. He brought overwhelming numbers to bear and forced the British to fall back to Ft Peddie where they successfully held off his attacks. However, the British were hard pressed and the worsening drought was being felt by both sides. Boer commandos were summoned to come to the rescue and with their greater mobility and knowledge of the country they were able to win a number of victories, eventually fighting into the heart of Xhosa territory, threatening the village of King Sarhili, the top Xhosa ruler and persuading him to sign a peace treaty.

However, even in those days, relations between the British and the Boers were not always ideal and soon the two sides fell out with the Boers abandoning the British to their fate. By that time, starvation and fever were taking a dreadful toll on both sides. Sandile was in a desperate position but still gained great fame as he evaded all the British patrols sent to capture him as both sides, sick and exhausted, launched small but brutal raids against each other. Finally, a peace was negotiated and Sandile was taken prisoner but only for a short time. Hostilities ceased and more Xhosa territory was annexed by the British. Chief Sandile had lost his first war but had gained great fame nonetheless for his daring attacks and dogged determination. His people were determined that there would be yet another war in which they would make good their loss and take revenge on the British. This idea was fostered when a new prophet appeared, full of prophecies of a Xhosa victory and promises that his magic would protect them from British bullets. In 1850 the local British governor, alarmed at this turn of events, called several chiefs together at Ft Cox with the aim of silencing the prophet. However, Chief Sandile did not answer the summons and so the British governor declared him deposed and sent troops to arrest him. They were ambushed by Sandile’s warriors and forced to make a hasty retreat back to the fort.

Sandile and his warriors resting on a Krans

As Chief Sandile and his men advanced into British territory they were joined by many other natives of various groups who rose up in rebellion, capturing several villages and destroying a British outpost. However, when they came up against British troops in protected forts, it was a different matter and at Forts White, Hare and Beaufort the Africans were repulsed with heavy losses. Once again, the British called in the Boer commandos from Cape Colony and together they relieved the besieged forts and drove Sandile and his warriors back to the mountains. By 1853 the war was over but some Xhosa warriors remained, led by Sandile’s brother Maqoma, who carried out a guerilla war in the area. Raids and retaliation went on for some time. Driven to desperation, some of the Xhosa were taken in by a religious charlatan promising that if they killed their own cattle the spirits would save them and bring them greater prosperity. That didn’t happen of course and it merely strained the already modest forces of Chief Sandile by the waves of starving refugees that came pouring into his territory.

Increasing hardship caused the outbreak of the ninth war in 1877. It started out as an all-African inter-tribal brawl but soon came to involved the British as some of the tribes were allied to them. Frustrated with these continuous conflicts, the British governor was also anxious to get involved and settle matters once and for all by the total conquest and annexation of all Xhosa territory. Chief Sandile seems almost to have sensed that there was more to this situation that most realized and he was very reluctant to join the conflict which, by that time, had come to include a declaration of war against the Cape Colony itself. His older advisors were against it but his young an impetuous warriors wanted to fight. Perhaps seeing that they would be drawn into the conflict regardless of his wishes, Sandile finally agreed to go to war. Unfortunately for him, it was his last conflict as his forces were defeated by the British and their Fingo (or Mfengu) allies with Chief Sandile himself falling in battle against the Fingo on May 29, 1878. He died a few days later in the hands of his enemies and was buried alongside British soldiers. In the aftermath, the Xhosa were defeated and their territory annexed by Great Britain. Still, the name of Chief Mgolombane Sandile is still remembered in South Africa today. Although not always victorious, he is held up as an example of a determined leader who fought fiercely, again and again in defense of his land and people.

Mad Monarchist Q&A

(Note: Not many questions this time but I would ask tolerance for my rather lengthy answer regarding Ukraine [sure to please no one] as the situation seemed to be constantly changing every time I would "finish" my answer. Questions are in white, my answers in yellow, once again, I have had to summarize some of them for the sake of space, let me know if they are satisfactory.)

Sarah asks (after many kind compliments -thank you very much): Could you recommend some of the best biographies or autobiographies you have encountered? Written or film, heroes or villains or something else?
I should probably ‘just say no’. As someone with very strongly-held opinions, I am very critical of books and bios on royal figures and rarely, if ever, find one that I agree with totally and which I think the subject was treated entirely correctly. Some are better than others but I will invariably find some way in which the subject was treated unfairly. There are plenty I could point out but none I would give an unqualified endorsement to, and the number of those I could point out would be too lengthy to include here. I have read a ton of royal biographies, more in the past when I had access to a university library. However, so as not to seem completely useless (I am but I don’t like to seem that way) I can glance over at my shelf and list “George III” By Christopher Hibbert, “The Children of Henry VIII” By Alison Weir, “Kaiser Wilhelm II” By Christopher Clark, “The Six Wives of Henry VIII” By Alison Weir, “Maximilian and Carlota” By Gene Smith, “The First Queen of England” By Linda Porter, “The Life of Elizabeth I” By Alison Weir, “The Last Kaiser” By Giles MacDonogh, “Pio Nono” By E.E.Y. Hales and “Life of Victor Emmanuel II: First King of Italy” By Georgina Sarah Godkin, listing any more would require effort on my part so I will stop there. As for films, most of the biopics I have seen I have reviewed here already and there is one more on my ‘to do’ list that should be along in a few weeks.

James asks: What is your take on the recent catastrophe in Ukraine?
My ‘take’ doesn’t involve very strong feelings I should say at the outset, though some are sure to be upset by that alone. This issue does not involve a monarchy and I have been far more concerned with events in Thailand than in Ukraine. As it does not involve monarchy, I have a hard time seeing it in as stark terms as many people do. Neither regime involved is to my liking and whichever way things turn out, I do not see how it could have a major impact on my country or my life so I just cannot bring myself to care as much as some might want. It seems to me, given that, there are two ways of viewing the situation; on the ideal, theoretic front and on the practical “real world” front. Many seem to prefer viewing it in an abstract sort of way while I find myself giving up on that and being drawn into the more practical way. To perhaps explain it more simply, it is rather like the many times I am asked about having a monarchy in the United States. It is not going to happen, not any time in the anywhere near foreseeable future, so I just don’t see much point in dwelling on the subject.

For Ukraine, I have nothing but sympathy for the people there nor do I have any objection to Ukraine being independent. They broke away from the Soviet Union which was an illegitimate regime in the first place so I have no problem with that or with Ukraine as a country. On the ideal, theoretic front I think Ukraine should be able to do as it pleases. They are a sovereign state and should be able to make any agreements or choose their own associations as they please. They suffered horribly under Soviet rule and it is only natural that they should have some bitter feelings about those memories, my only surprise is that it has taken this long to start pulling down the Lenin statues. It is also only natural that they should resent outside interference (from Moscow) in their own affairs, however, there is only so far I can go with this because practical reality keeps jumping in front of my eyes and the practical reality is not very pleasant for the Ukraine.

The fact of the matter is, they embraced republicanism and democracy as the source of law and legitimacy for their country and they have just turned out their democratically elected president. They resent Russian influence in their country but they have taken subsidy from Russia and the one always follows the other. Already the EU has said that if the Ukraine takes their loans it will mean that Ukraine will have to restructure their economic policy to please the EU. That is just how it works, the borrower makes himself the slave of the lender. There are no free rides, no free lunch, if you drink the King’s wine you have to sing the King’s song. Now, given that, one could say that Ukraine was pressured into taking Russian subsidy and making agreements with Russia in the past but that would only underline the lack of viability for Ukraine being an independent country even before it was so divided as it seems to be now.

In practical terms, I just don’t see how Ukraine becomes completely “free” of Russia. Russia has pipelines all over Ukraine, it has naval bases in Ukraine and unless those are all closed down and the pipelines dug up (which itself would be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy) Russia is going to have some interest and some influence in the country. I see no way around that. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire for centuries and I don’t see how anyone could have expected Russia to simply shrug their shoulders, give up and leave. Ukraine has been the corridor through which Russia has been invaded on numerous occasions, it is a major source of food for Russia and the primary access to the Black Sea. Given all of that, it just seems ridiculous to me for anyone to think that Russia would stand by and do nothing while Ukraine draws closer to the EU or NATO. To be blunt about it, Ukraine doesn’t really matter to the European Union but it does matter very much to Russia and (as I said before the current military intervention) if it comes down to it, Russia will fight for Ukraine while I doubt anyone else will.

There is also the fact that, in my view, any country getting closer to or joining the EU is making a terrible, terrible mistake. I am sure, from all I have heard, that the Ukrainian rebels are sincere nationalists but they do want EU money (and need it if they will not take Russian money) and that is how it all starts. How another deeply indebted poor country will help the EU, I do not know, and I don’t think the EU has been as keen on this as many have liked to pretend but if it is a choice between Russia and the EU, I say ‘pick your poison’. On one side you have a former KGB officer who called the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest disaster of the last century and on the other side you have a ruling class made up of elites who, in many cases, were formerly members of various communist parties. I look at the situation like that of a couple with children seeking a divorce. Because of the children, each spouse will always have to deal with the other, so you just have to try to make the best of it. Russia is too big, too close at hand and too heavily invested in Ukraine and they share too much common history for Ukraine to ever have absolutely nothing to do with Russia or to join NATO without bloodshed. No matter what, they are going to have to find a way to get along with Russia, like it or not. They are not strong enough to resist on their own and I cannot see anyone actually going to war with Russia on behalf of Ukraine. So, they just have to make the best of it but I honestly cannot see much in the way of a happy ending for Ukraine. Even if  the country splits in two, the east will likely join with Russia and the west will be in an even weaker position than they are now.

*Addition due to events occurring since the above was written* - Now Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is an invasion, call it what you like or try to justify it any way you like. It was also done in a rather tawdry fashion by men in unmarked vehicles and wearing uniforms stripped of insignia. The rest of Eastern Europe is increasingly nervous (save perhaps Belarus) and they have every reason to be. Of course, the Baltic states or Poland are not Ukraine, they do not have near the level of long association and history with Russia as Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have. But the practical situation remains. These little countries are not strong enough to resist a major power on their own and that has been true all throughout history as they have swayed between being ruled by Germans, Poles, Swedes or Russians. 

It is also worth keeping in mind that the western democracies were partners in the Soviet Russian takeover of Eastern Europe. They did nothing when Finland was invaded or the Baltic states and during World War II were content to hand Eastern Europe over to Stalin so they helped Russia get into that position and since then Russia has watched their power and influence be pushed back again and again, out of East Germany, out of Poland, out of the Baltic states and so on. Is it really that surprising that Russia looks at Ukraine and says, ‘this far and no farther’? Again, the practical situation is impossible for me to ignore regardless of whether the theoretical situation is right or wrong. Russia will fight for Ukraine, I doubt anyone else will. No one fought for Georgia, no one fought for Syria, no one wants to fight over Iran (though again, there are plenty of areas where Russia could have shown goodwill at no expense to themselves and been in a better position regarding a situation like Ukraine which does matter to Russia very much, but Putin chose not to). Russia seems prepared to do whatever it takes, I do not see that anyone else is and if Putin thinks there will be no major repercussions over this, one can certainly understand why. Britain and Germany have already intimated they will not go along with major sanctions against Russia -they depend too heavily on Russian energy (thank you green parties who never want to drill for oil and natural gas) and the U.S. has no stomach for fighting Russia nor would they have much of an avenue to without EU support, which will not be given. About the most the U.S. could do at this point is to put the missile shield back in Poland and try to prevent Putin from going any further -but even that would require Obama admitting he made a mistake and that is not something he is inclined to do no matter how colossal his failure. 

Prince Bismarck said that “politics is the art of the possible” and as much sympathy as I have for Ukraine and all they suffered under the USSR, there is just not much that it is possible to do for them. Putin has the will, Europe does not. To me, this is all fruit of the poisoned post-monarchist world tree. Already people are talking about the lessons Red China will take from this (why this is a bigger lesson than when they grabbed territory off the Philippines to no reaction at all I don’t know) but again, as unfortunate as it is, the western democracies helped set up this situation, this post-World War II world order in which Russia and China can veto any action by Britain, France and America who themselves do not always like to cooperate with each other. I have a hard time seeing this as other than the inevitable result of the post-1945 world order which itself grew out of the mistakes of 1914-1918. Many mistakes were made and many people are still paying for them.

DeusVult asks: I was wondering if you’ve seen this (link to article concerning coronation plans for the Prince of Wales)?
No, I had not seen it as I make a point of never reading “The Guardian”, it’s a nasty, republican rag. As for the coronation of the Prince of Wales, I have been less than impressed with what I have heard so far. Way too politically correct for my taste, however, when it comes to things like this monarchists do not have much room to complain. The British coronation is the only coronation that is still performed in the whole of the western world so being picky about how it is performed seems rather like a starving man complaining about his menu.

Logan asks: Do you think it is proper for an American monarchist to be patriotic?
I don’t know whether it is proper or not but I see nothing wrong with it. French monarchists despised the republic but still loved France. Not all American monarchists would agree, and I certainly don’t think anyone should feel compelled to be patriotic, but in general monarchists around the world have been conservative and traditional people and such types tend to be greatly attached to their native soil, their people and their history. This is partly why traditional monarchists have historically been reluctant to migrate, they are less likely to wish to uproot and adopt a new country as their own. I am certainly not a Yankee-Doodle, Uncle Sam patriot, I think the American War for Independence was unjustified, I identify more with my state than with the federal union and I do not think the U.S. has always done the right thing. However, I do like the country if not the government, I accept the powers that be and I do not wish to see any harm befall the United States or the American people. It has done good things as well as making mistakes and being patriotic is usually taken to mean simply wanting the best for your country and I see nothing wrong with that for a monarchist. As I’ve said before, when it comes to the United States, I would just like to see a dropping of the prejudice against monarchy for a start and as for those who associate patriotism with the political right in America, I am not against them entirely either. The U.S. was most like the U.K. (or what the U.K. used to be) at the time of the founding of the republic, there was greater state sovereignty, less influence by special interests and the Senate was still unelected. Getting back to that would be an improvement in my book.