Monarchist Quote

"We can reasonably affirm that a true Right without the monarchy ends up deprived of its natural centre of gravity and crystallisation, because in almost all traditional states the principal reference point for realizing the independent and stable principle of pure political authority has been the crown."

-Julius Evola

Celebrating Crime in Colonial America

Modern-day Americans, for completely understandable reasons, idealize their colonial forefathers as the founders of their ideals and federal union. They are portrayed as noble, upright, God-fearing patriots who were champions of liberty, democracy and all the usual, “truth, justice and the American way” stuff. Perfectly understandable but also very far from the truth. In many instances it was more like being the champions of assault, vandalism, theft and racial and religious bigotry. A case that illustrates this is that of HMS Gaspee. It may not be as well remembered today as the mob assault of the so-called “Boston Massacre” or the large-scale theft and vandalism of the “Boston Tea Party” but it was just as famous at the time and served to keep the revolutionary fervor up between those two more famous events. The background for this case is tied up in all the commercial regulations and taxes that the American colonials had a problem with. However, in reality, these were not often much of a problem since smuggling and the buying and selling of illegal goods was so widespread. One area that was a particular hotbed for smuggling was the many coves and inlets of Narragansett Bay just off Rhode Island. It became such lucrative location for smugglers that they were positively bumping into each other and the Royal Navy dispatched a warship, HMS Gaspee, to the bay to deal with the smuggling problem.

Governor Wanton

The schooner was under the command of Lieutenant William Dudingston who arrived in the spring of 1772 and he proved to be an officer dedicated to his duty and quite successful. Did the locals applaud this enforcer of law and order on the water? Of course not! They sympathized with the criminals and were extremely peeved with Lt. Dudingston for cutting such a swath through the illegal trade going on in the area. While the local colonials were more than happy to romanticize breaking the law, they demanded that the man upholding the law be treated like a criminal and the elected governor of Rhode Island, Joseph Wanton, was quick to heed their cries lest he be voted out of office. He was not a radical revolutionary by any means but he was also a man of rather little spine. So, he threatened to have Lt. Dudingston arrested! Yes, imagine that; the local governor wanted to arrest the man enforcing the law rather than the smugglers who were breaking it. In fact, he wanted to arrest a man for bringing actual criminals to justice. Obviously, the lieutenant was not impressed by this and reported the threat to his admiral who entered into a rather testy exchange of letters with Governor Wanton who was being pushed on by the wealthy merchants of his colony who profited immensely from the illegal trade.

Sheriff Whipple

Ultimately, more than words were exchanged as HMS Gaspee went about the business she was assigned to. On June 9 the ship was in hot pursuit of a smuggler sailing very close to the shore when she ran aground near Providence. Nearby was Sheriff Abraham Whipple but if one would expect a lawman to be on the side of upholding the law one would be quite mistaken. His support was firmly with the smugglers and he took advantage of the misfortune of the Gaspee and gathered a group of like-minded colonials who rowed out to the immobilized schooner than night. When the little flotilla was spotted, Lt. Dudingston called out, “Who comes there?” The sheriff shouted back, “I am the Sheriff of the County of Kent G** d**n you! I have a warrant to apprehend you, G** d**n you -so surrender, G** d**n you!” Then as now, Royal Navy officers are not in the habit of surrendering to foul-mouthed county sheriffs for upholding the King’s laws and he politely refused. So, the sheriff and his party forced their way onto the ship (the crew compliment of a schooner not being very large) and when the lieutenant pulled his sword to defend himself one of the colonials shot him in the groin. Ouch!

A surgeon was rushed in to tend to the wounded officer and then the lieutenant and his crew were hustled off the ship which Whipple then set fire to. It was not the first time that colonials had attacked ships in defense of smuggling but it was certainly the first time that a local official had ever burned one of His Majesty’s armed vessels and assaulted one of the King’s officers. Orders were dispatched from Great Britain for those involved to be charged with treason and (most importantly) brought to London to stand trial for it. However, the urge for swift justice fell afoul of a confused bureaucracy and widespread colonial outrage so that in the end no one was ever punished for the crime. This certainly gave courage to the rabble-rousers in America and the case became famous across the colonies with radicals somehow managing to portray the lieutenant as the villain and the defenders of smuggling and organized crime as the heroes. The incident, in fact, led to the formation of the “Committees of Correspondence” which were organized across the American colonies and which were little more than the older “Sons of Liberty” groups under a more mature-sounding name. In fact, they contained so many of the same people and advocated so much the same message and tactics that the two groups were effectively identical.

The consequences were more far reaching than most people realize. The Gaspee Affair (as it tends to be called) prompted the formation of the Committees of Correspondence which led to greater unity throughout the American colonies in fomenting revolution. The greater level of organization as well as the impression that British laws could not only be ignored but that a British warship could be attacked and still have a sizeable portion of the public sympathize with the attackers who went unpunished led ultimately to the events of the Boston Tea Party. With that bit of vandalism, undoubtedly to the surprise of many who remembered the Gaspee Affair, Britain finally decided that enough was enough and took repressive measures. They learned, perhaps a little too late, that when the public embraces criminal behavior and when elected civil officials start to pick and choose which laws they will uphold and which they will not (sound familiar) the country is on a fast track to disaster.

Favorite Royal Images: Through the Smoke a Tsar

HIM Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part IX)

The Coburgs

King Edward VII: It seems incredible that a woman of such incredible moral fortitude as Queen Victoria could have an eldest son like Edward VII and it can only call to mind the vast difference between the third and fourth Georges. However, the first British monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, while no paradigm of virtue, was certainly of better quality than George IV. He, at least, waited for the throne with better grace and dignity and he waited quite a long while. Still, while he was undoubtedly a bit of a rascal in his private life, he at least was a much more likeable fellow and proved himself a seasoned and capable monarch. Fashionable, jovial and a man who enjoyed good living, he personified a Britain that was ’large and in-charge’. My opinion of him is somewhat prejudiced by his peacemaking with republican France, to the detriment of Austria-Hungary and Germany. His rather warmer attitude toward Imperial Russia, on the other hand, was certainly a welcome change in my view from the hostility of his mother, if not very whole-hearted. His modernization of the army and navy was also a major positive, the move toward curtailing the power of the House of Lords was certainly not. He avoided war with France over colonial rivalries but set the stage for World War I. Given how that turned out, a little colonial conflict might have been preferable. Still, a steady and sober monarch, far removed from his reputation as heir apparent.

King George V: When I think of George V the image that comes to mind is of a hard working, stable, reliable, methodical monarch. He lacked the style and personality of his father but was a more meticulous monarch and a more upstanding man, even a bit on the authoritarian side. Those looking for a romantic figure would be disappointed but George V was a good, steady monarch for those interested in substance rather than style. He was perhaps more closely familiar with the far flung dominions of his empire than any British monarch before him and things would have gone better had his advice been heeded more often, particularly in the wake of the Easter Uprising in Ireland. World War I was a disaster, though he was not to blame for it and was a commendable wartime monarch. In the aftermath he seemed to have every radical, revolutionary movement plaguing him and that is nothing to be taken lightly. He was a good man and a good monarch but, understanding the unrest he faced in his own country, I will still always have some bitterness in regard to George V for his failure to rush to the aid of his cousin the Tsar and his family.

King Edward VIII: When Edward VIII came to the throne, albeit briefly, it must have seemed to some that history was repeating itself. Again a stern, upright and moral father had produced a rather libertine son and heir. I cannot have a very high opinion of Edward VIII (later Duke of Windsor) who led quite an immoral life in his youth and who put his own desires before his duty to the empire and the royal house he belonged to. Still, I certainly do not hate the man as many seem to. He had no use for the League of Nations, which I would agree with and he was opposed to war which, while considered outrageous today, might have saved the British Empire. I don’t think he would have been a terrible king but his beloved was never going to be queen and I doubt he would have settled for anything less. His abdication was a dereliction of duty, no question, but if that was his nature, surely it was best that he abdicate rather than inflict an unwilling monarch on his country and dominions. I have also never understood those who hold anger against the man, totally despise him and yet still condemn him for abdicating. Makes no sense to me.

King George VI: Back on the right track, with George VI Britain again had an ideal constitutional monarch. I have often said that when I picture “a king” in my mind, it is George VI that I usually see. He was a man of great dignity, high moral standards, a devoted family man and he was disciplined, dutiful and dedicated. His calm and majestic presence was just what Britain needed in World War II and, though he is often left out of the historical narrative, he was a very “hands-on” wartime monarch. More than enduring the blitz alongside his people, he kept up with the war economy, visited the front and was involved in all the major planning sessions for strategy. Even the American supreme Allied commander, General Eisenhower, had nothing but respect and the highest praise for King George VI. He also had the good sense (and persistence) to marry a fine Scottish lady who proved to be a tremendous asset for the Royal Family and the country. His reign is bitter-sweet though as he did see Britain through her “darkest hour” but was also the last King-Emperor and presided over the beginning of the disintegration of the British Empire, mostly due to the government poverty caused by the war.

Queen Elizabeth II: One of the greatest but simplest things one can say about HM the Queen is that she is and has always been worthy of her father. It must be said that her reign has covered the most drastic decline in British power and influence in centuries but none of that can be attributed to her. She follows the advice of her ministers without fail and has been a model constitutional monarch. Warm, friendly, even humorous but at the same time dignified and majestic, no matter what has gone on around her, the Queen has always conveyed continuity, stability and integrity. Few other monarchs have been faced with such rapid and drastic changes as Elizabeth II and she has shown both strength and an ability to adapt in navigating through such waters. Even on the rare occasion when she became rather unpopular, the public eventually realized she had been right all along and that they had behaved rather childishly. The Queen has been an anchor in the storm and has, seemingly effortlessly, upheld the monarchy as a popular institution by her spotless moral values and her matchless ability to never make a mistake. It has been said quite often by now that the Queen has “never put a foot wrong”. That is quite a remarkable thing to say when you think about it -and the most remarkable thing is that it is completely true.

MM Sunday Scripture

He that loveth pureness of heart, for the grace of his lips the king shall be his friend.

-Proverbs 22:11

Royal News Roundup

Concerning the Scandinavian royals, TM King Carl XVI Gustaf and Queen Silvia of Sweden were in the American state of Delaware last Saturday to celebrate the 375th anniversary of the Finno-Swedish colony of New Sweden in what is now Wilmington. They met with the Governor and traveled on a replica period ship to the old grounds of Fort Christina, named after the Swedish Queen Christina (daughter of King Gustavus Adolphus) who expanded Swedish influence into North America before abdicating to convert to Catholicism. Afterwards the royal couple traveled to New York to meet up with daughter Princess Madeleine and her British-American husband-to-be Chris O’Neill. I may have mentioned this before, but it does bother me that non-British royals get so little press when coming to the United States. I don’t want to discourage any attention toward visiting royals, and the U.S. does have more of an historical connection with the British monarchy than others but surely it is a little odd that Prince Harry causes such a media frenzy when coming to America but the King and Queen of Sweden get barely a mention. Meanwhile, in Norway, there has been a “dust up” over the fate of the gravel at the Royal Palace -which proves Norwegians will argue about absolutely anything. Since King Harald V visited the Brazilian rainforest the natives of Borneo have been putting forward their own claim to endangered status and called on the King to intervene to stop one of his subjects from building a dam in their area. However, the big news was the annual celebration of Constitution Day on May 17, the Norwegian national birthday party when almost the whole country turns out for patriotic displays and celebrations presided over by the Royal Family. We wish a happy birthday to the Kingdom of Norway and hope many, many more follow.

Elsewhere on the continent, a 44-year old man from Zwolle was arrested by Dutch police two days before the recent inauguration of King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands (it was recently announced) for making threats against the House of Orange. The threats were made via text message which prompted one recipient to alert the authorities. The man was released on Monday to await trial at his home. In neighboring Belgium TRH the Duke and Duchess of Brabant paid tribute to International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge at the IOC headquarters in Lausanne this week before visiting the Olympic Museum which is currently being housed on a boat on Lake Geneva while its building is renovated. And, down in Luxembourg Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume and Hereditary Grand Duchess Stephanie visited the historic town of Vianden, talking with the locals and soaking up some of the early history of the Grand Ducal Family’s ancestors. And, further south, more dead royals have returned to return to Serbia. This time it was Prince Andrej, third son of King Alexander I whose remains were taken from Illinois in the United States and arrived on Wednesday at the Royal Chapel in Dedinje. For the British and Commonwealth Royal Family most of the news this week was taken up with the minute details of Prince Harry’s recent visit to the United States. In other news this week, the Prince of Wales and HM the Queen attended the service for the Order of Merit at St James’s Palace. The Order of Merit is about the only royal honor which remains exclusively in the gift of the Queen rather than the government. And, in southern Europe, the King of Spain has had to give up his yacht (I’m rather surprised it has lasted this long) and gossipmongers have started to say nasty things about the Princess of Monaco -file that under “news” that is nothing new.

In the lands of Eternal Asia, in a colorful ceremony (sadly only symbolic these days held for the sake of tradition alone) the 9-year-old prince of Jaipur HH Rajkumar Lakshya Raj Singh was formally anointed as the Maharaja of Sirmaur, a former princely state of India in southern Himachal Pradesh. The ceremony was held at Nahan Palace on Wednesday, giving locals a chance to glimpse some of the old royal splendor of imperial India. Representatives of other princely states were on hand as were a few politicians and some Bollywood celebrities for the occasion. And there has been some very big monarchy-related news out of China recently, though, as usual, it is “too little, too late” to be very helpful. A former government official and historian, Jia Yinghua, has discovered records in the secret archives of the Chinese authorities at Zhongnanhai which explain why the imperial system came to such a sudden and unceremonious halt with the abdication of the last Emperor, acted for by the Empress Dowager Longyu. It seems she was not exactly acting freely but was offered 20,000 taels of silver (1,700 lb) and threatened with beheading by General Yuan Shikai. His efforts to threaten or bribe court officials was apparently extensive, including the Empress Dowager’s closest eunuch Xiao Dezheng and Prince Yikuang who accumulated 2 million dollars in silver in his Hong Kong bank account, mostly from efforts to buy his support for Yuan Shikai taking power and ending the rule of the Qing Dynasty. Evidence also suggests that he convinced friends in the Russian embassy to write threatening letters to the Empress Dowager warning her that the European powers were about to bring down the dynasty anyway. The entire affair was utterly disgraceful. It has also always been perfectly obvious that the agreement signed by the Qing court with the republican leaders for the abdication was never honored by the republican side and should, therefore, be considered invalid.

Consort Profile: Queen Maria Cristina of Savoy

Her Royal Highness Princess Maria Cristina Carlotta Giuseppina Gaetana Elisa of Savoy was born on November 14, 1812 to HM King Victor Emmanuel I of Piedmont-Sardinia and HM Queen Maria Teresa of Austria-Este in Cagliari on the island of Sardinia. The youngest of seven children, Princess Maria Cristina was born during a difficult period for the House of Savoy. The French Revolution, following by wars of expansion, had forced the family out of their ancestral homeland and the traditional citadel of Turin, which was occupied by French troops, to the island of Sardinia. As her very conservative and traditional parents refused to have anything to do with the revolutionaries or the Bonaparte regime, they had to wait until the final defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo before the Savoy family was able to return to Turin to fully restore the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia to what it had been before the invasion. A little girl by that time, Princess Maria Cristina was educated privately at court and from an early age she had it impressed upon her that there was no greater duty than to God. She had an extensive religious education (her father had restored education to the clergy after it had been secularized by the French) and she was also taught about the long and illustrious history of the House of Savoy and her responsibilities to her family as a princess.

Of course, during this time, part of the duty of any royal princess was to be the source of a marriage alliance advantageous to her own country and dynasty. King Victor Emmanuel I had aspirations to remove the Austrian presence in Lombardy and consolidate northern Italy under the House of Savoy. Ultimately this would be done but not by Victor Emmanuel I and the marriage of Maria Cristina would have nothing to do with it at all. Nonetheless, it was thought practical to arrange a marriage between the princess and the King of the Two-Sicilies in Naples in an effort to keep southern Italy on friendly terms. So, while his second-to-the-youngest daughter was married to the heir to the Hapsburg throne (she would one day become Empress of Austria), it was decided that Maria Cristina would be married to King Ferdinand II and become Queen of the Two-Sicilies. She was still a teenager when the engagement was agreed to in 1830 and the local aristocracy in Turin held a magnificent engagement party for her. Onlookers remarked on how lovely the young princess of Savoy looked with her large deep eyes, light complexion and thick dark hair, charmingly shy and reserved. The princess had to be a little nervous about the marriage, not only because she was leaving her family for the first time but also because there was not a great deal she had in common with her husband-to-be.

However, it was ever “duty first” in the House of Savoy and Princess Maria Cristina was married a couple of years later with the wedding being celebrated in Genoa on November 21, 1832. Maria Cristina became Queen of the Two-Sicilies and began her married life in Naples. Sometimes such arranged marriages resulted in devotion and true romance but, sadly, this was not the case for the new Queen Maria Cristina. King Ferdinand II was rather crude where his Queen was refined, abusive where she was gentle, outgoing and bombastic where she was modest and reserved. The Queen was disturbed by the morals of the court at Naples and rather shocked by the oppressive policies of her husband who, to be fair, certainly had a great deal of malice and treachery among his people but who is most known for dealing with it by means of violent retaliation. Queen Maria Cristina was quite lonely as the King had little patience for her shy nature. The only close companion she had was her younger sister-in-law Princess Maria Antoinette (named after the ill-fated Queen of France Marie Antoinette) but even that relationship was short-lived as not long after her arrival in Naples the princess left for Florence to be married to Grand Duke Leopold II of Tuscany.

Yet, though she had almost no one close to her for company, Queen Maria Cristina was greatly loved by the ordinary people of the Two-Sicilies who were charmed by her demure beauty, kindness and sympathized with her for the way she was treated by her seemingly cold and indifferent husband. In fact, at times he seemed to delight in offending her, whether by his vulgar language or having dancers perform in their underwear. Originally quite popular as a “man of the people” the public reputation of Ferdinand II suffered both by the perception of how he treated his wife as well as the violent suppression of any calls for constitutional government (hence his eventual nickname of ‘King Bomb’). But Queen Maria Cristina was always adored because of the care and compassion she showed toward her adopted country and because of how she endured her less than ideal life, with patience and pious devotion.

Maria Cristina had always been a devout Catholic and she came to rely on her faith ever more in times of trial. Her commitment to God and the Church, serene detachment and beautiful appearance caused many people to see her as an almost angelic figure and even then many began to refer to her as a saint. Tragically, her life was not to be a long one. She had not yet celebrated her twenty-fourth birthday when she gave birth to her one and only child, the future King Francesco II, and complications soon set in. Her condition deteriorated rapidly and only five days later she passed away on January 21, 1836. She was buried in the Basilica of Santa Chiara in Naples, the King married again in less than a year and his new wife would be the major influence on the life of little Francesco II. Nonetheless, as a boy he was always taught to honor the memory of his late mother, who had died bringing him into the world, as the ‘saintly queen’ or ‘holy queen’. He would be the last King of the Two-Sicilies and after he had lost his throne and was living in exile he began to push for the Church to take up the cause of his late mother. Her pious reputation was such that there was great support for it and in 1872 Pope Pius IX recognized her status as a Servant of God. The cause continued to progress and on May 6, 1937 Pope Pius XI recognized the Queen as a Venerable Servant of God and, most recently, on May 3, 2013 Pope Francis recognized a miracle attributed to her intercession, opening the way for her to be beatified, the last step on the road to canonization as a saint.

Ordinary for a Republic

U.S. President Barack Obama is currently serving his second term and, as most observers of American politics can attest, that is when the scandals usually come out. Of course, it is a little more difficult with the current occupant of the White House because the media industry (news and entertainment alike) so heavily favored him in his initial run and reelection that commenting on any missteps must be extremely uncomfortable for them. Like Bush and the lead-up to the Iraq War, they might admit their mistaken lack of scrutiny -but only after the fact when it is too late to actually do anything about it. There is the continuing fallout over the terrorist attack in Libya, the “Justice” Department violating the privacy of the Associated Press and the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service was targeting conservative groups opposed to the policies of the current President for extra scrutiny. No matter how one cuts it, things are not looking good for the big B.O. who has either been flagrantly dishonest or (if we are to believe he only ever learned about any of these things when they were finally reported on by the news media) grossly incompetent. Of course, these sorts of things happen in countries all over the world and scandal and politicians go together hand-in-hand. Again, especially in second terms, American presidents have a habit of getting into trouble. Ronald Reagan had the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton had the Monica Lewinsky scandal and George W. Bush had the case of the incredible disappearing weapons of mass destruction. It is nothing new.

The one I would like to draw special focus on for our purposes today is the IRS going after conservative groups. This too is not entirely original. President Richard Nixon was also accused of using the IRS to punish his political enemies (for those unaware, the IRS is the agency which collects federal income taxes and most Americans fear them about as much as your average German probably feared the Gestapo). This is no minor issue as the IRS has vast and far-reaching powers, hence being known by many as “the most powerful collection agency in the world”. They can violate your privacy, take your property and even clap you in chains and haul you off to prison if they think you have not paid your feudal federal overlord his required tribute. They can completely ruin your life and they have (not a few times) done so to people only to find out later it had all been a case of mistaken paperwork. The IRS is nothing to fool around with. Presidents being accused of using this most fearsome weapon to punish their political enemies is also nothing new though it can be extremely difficult to prove. This time, as usual, President Obama is claiming he had nothing to do with it and, again, only learned about what was going on in his own government from watching television. That last part is a little hard to believe but, even though the political nature of this scandal is undeniable, it is possible that the President had nothing to do with it. If it is proven that he did; that would be an impeachable offense -but I doubt it will come to that and, even if it did, no U.S. President has ever actually been removed from office following an impeachment.

It is perfectly understandable that many on the right in America would, in the absence of any concrete evidence, believe that the President had something to do with this. Many of these same sort of conservative groups have, in the past, been lumped together with violent radicals and terrorists by the Obama administration. It is perfectly clear he doesn’t like these people and the feeling is mutual. I make it a rule to have nothing to do with organizations or political parties but even on my own, I have no doubt that, were I known to him, the American president would have as low an opinion of me as I do of him. It doesn’t bother me, but it does strike me as rather disconcerting for those “conservative” republicans with fairly mainstream views who would fall into the same camp. More than those people though, I wonder what, if at all, the people in the monarchies of the world think about this state of affairs. Do they realize what this means? And do the republicans on those monarchies arguing against a hereditary head of state realize what it is they are arguing for?

In the great Commonwealth of Australia, for example, I wonder if they look at what is happening in the United States and appreciate their own good fortune? In the United States, if you are on (or anywhere near) the political “right” there can be little doubt in your mind that the President of your country, the head of state and government and the commander-in-chief does not like you at all and possibly even despises you. Moreover, he or at least many of his underlings are not averse to using the power of the state against you -and you pay the salary, benefits and pensions for these people (all of which are quite generous). How would that make you feel? Yet, this is the system that Australian republicans and their comrades in other monarchies wish to foist on their people. People living in constitutional monarchies should look at what is going on in the United States, which is nothing new, and cling all the more tightly to their system in which they have a non-partisan and non-political head of state who can (literally) do them no harm whatsoever as opposed to the republican system where absolutely everything is political, everything is partisan and there is no government department, agency or service that is not constantly locked in a struggle to advance their own agenda and suppress those who think differently than they do. Every elected government in the world has partisans, that goes without saying, but it must be nice for those living in monarchies to know that their head of state and commander-in-chief doesn’t actively hate them.

But even if we are to take President Obama at his word, that he knew absolutely nothing about the Benghazi talking points tampering, the IRS targeting his political enemies (how convenient) and the Justice Department spying on the Associated Press it certainly doesn’t speak well for the accountability of the U.S. government. After all, the advocates of a republic always tout accountability as one of their greatest arguments, yet, here we have an elected president who claims to know next to nothing about all of these major events going on in his own administration. Furthermore, even in this American republic which has a better record than most, is full of departments and agencies like the IRS which have extensive, sweeping powers, which can put you in jail, seize your property and totally ruin your life and they are all being run by people no one ever voted for, who cannot be voted out of office and who often keep their jobs regardless of who the occupant of the White House is. It seems to me that anyone living in a monarchy need only to look at the United States right now and thank God for their reigning sovereign.

The Knights of Malta

Next to the Knights Templar, probably the most well known group of Crusader knights is the Knights of Malta, also known as the Hospitallers and the Knights of St John. Alongside the Templars they were one of the preeminent defenders of the Christian presence in the Holy Land, mostly the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Their names come from the fact that St John the Baptist was their patron saint (hence, Knights of St John) and because they originally ran a hospital for Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem they became known as the Hospitallers. Later, after the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem they took the name of whatever their base of operations was, particularly Rhodes and finally Malta. The Knights of St John were one of the earliest military orders, founded around 1099 in the aftermath of the First Crusade and the capture of Jerusalem by the Christian forces. As their name suggests, they got their start simply running a hospital, founded by Blessed Gerard Thom, a native of southern Italy (exactly where is disputed) who became guardian of a hospital built in Jerusalem. Eventually, the need for military protection became more evident as his organization grew until it was granted official sanction by Pope Paschall II in 1113. This was because pilgrims became more and more in need of armed escorts to ensure their safety throughout the region but, it is important to note, even when they became a specifically military religious order, the Knights Hospitaller never lost their commitment to their humanitarian medical role.

Like other religious military orders, the Knights Hospitaller had religious as well as military discipline to keep but they always maintained both a fighting arm and a medical arm to look after the sick and injured pilgrims. Even the most illustrious and high born knights were still expected to spend time caring for the most poor and destitute of the hospital. In fact, the earliest records of the Knights Hospitaller deal exclusively with their medical role and it is not until much later that we can find documents dealing with the rules and regulations for their soldierly role. The “uniform” was a black robe with a white 8-pointed cross; another symbol being a white cross on a red field to distinguish them from the Templars who displayed a red cross on a white field. There were three types of Knights Hospitaller; the military brothers, the medical brothers and the religious brothers or chaplains who were the clergymen attached to the order and loyal to the grand master of the order. On the battlefield, the Knights Hospitaller were quick to distinguish themselves as one of the most elite groups of soldiers of the Christian powers and their reputation spread throughout both the territories of Christendom as well as the Islamic lands. As they grew with their success the Knights Hospitaller established hospitals and fortified bases throughout the Holy Land with seven major castles and over a hundred smaller outposts throughout the region.

Eventually, however, the Muslim forces were able to come together and drive out the Christian presence from the Holy Land, conquering (or re-conquering) Jerusalem in 1187. The Knights Hospitaller relocated their main base to the County of Tripoli until the last Christian foothold in the Holy Land, Acre, was captured by the Muslims in 1291. It was at that point that the Knights Hospitaller withdrew to the island of Rhodes, after a brief stay on the Kingdom of Cyprus where they found the political atmosphere not to their liking. So, at that point, many began to refer to the order as the Knights of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes. This took time though as Rhodes was then held by the Byzantine Empire (sometime ally and sometime enemy of the Latin Crusaders) and it took more than two years to conquer Rhodes and the surrounding islands which the Knights then held for some time thereafter. Once secure in their new base, the Knights won more battles and earned greater fame. They also got a considerable boost with the unfortunate dissolution of the Knights Templar, many of whom chose to continue their vocation by joining the Knights of St John.

The Hospitallers became such a large and significant military order that they reflected almost the entirety of European Christendom in their ranks. Because of that the order was divided into “tongues” which were Aragon, Castile, Italy, France, Auvergne, Provence, England and Germany based on language. Obviously, as with much of the Crusades in general, the French presence was usually the largest but the ranks included knights from all across Christendom. They also attracted an increasingly illustrious membership with many members of the most old and noble families joining the order. One example of this was a member of the House of Savoy, which eventually became the Royal Family of Italy, and the motto of the Savoy comes from the ancestor who defended Rhodes with the Knights of St John and the Savoy arms of a white cross on a red shield are obviously those of the Knights of St John (or at the time, the Knights of Rhodes). During this time the military duties of the knights became increasingly dominant as a matter of necessity. Besides harassment from Barbary pirates, the Knights had to defend Rhodes from a number of Muslim invasions, defeating forces vastly greater than their own. Because this was rather embarrassing, the Ottoman Sultan made the eradication of the Knights of Rhodes a top priority and after conquering Constantinople in 1453 the Turks came after the knights with a vengeance.

In 1522 Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent sent an invasion force of 400 ships and more than 100,000 troops to conquer Rhodes which was defended by a scant 7,000 knights and their auxiliaries. Obviously, the odds were hopeless for the knights, but they fought with immense tenacity and held out for some six months before finally accepting the Turkish terms for surrender which allowed the survivors to evacuate to Sicily. The Knights were then homeless for a time until the King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V granted the Knights the island of Malta in return for a rather unique annual rent payment which was a Maltese falcon to be paid to the Viceroy of Sicily every year on All Souls Day. Today, at least among film noir fans, “The Maltese Falcon” is quite famous even if few know exactly where it comes from. In any event, the move to Malta was of great benefit to the Knights, thereafter known as the Knights of Malta, who settled in and began to grow and strengthen again while still standing guard on the southern frontier of Europe to ward off the ever present Barbary pirates and the occasional Turkish offensive. The Ottoman Sultan was still determined to see the Knights of Malta eliminated and once they reappeared on Rhodes, Suleiman sent another invasion force against them.

This was the spearhead of what was planned as a major invasion of southern Europe. The idea was to conquer Malta, then Sicily and then to advance up the “boot” of Italy to capture Rome itself. Suleiman the Magnificent sent about 180 ships and 31,000 men against the Knights of Malta who numbered only 641 knights backed up by 8,000 auxiliaries. They were led by Grand Master Jean Parisot de la Valette who had himself spent a year as a slave in a Turkish galley. He had a religious process, led by the Blessed Sacrament, in La Valette (at least as it is now known) to invoke the help of God as the Turkish fleet approached. The attack began on May 18, 1565 and the Turks attacked with determined ferocity, at one point launching six attacks on the Christian walls in one day. However, despite taking terrible losses, the Knights and their companions just managed to hang on and repel each attack. They knew, again, the odds against them were hopeless, but they fought on while waiting for a Spanish fleet sent by King Philip II to come to their rescue. The battle was long, hard and desperate. Maltese civilians pelted the Turkish attackers with stones, taken from the rubble of the holes blasted in the walls by Turkish artillery. Women fought on the walls and children carried food and water to the fighting forces. Everything was in ruins, ammunition supplies were so exhausted that the Knights had to fire back the canon balls the Turks shot at them and eventually there were only 600 Christian defenders left alive. But, just as the Turks were preparing what would likely have been the final attack, the Spanish fleet arrived and the Turks, who had taken heavy losses themselves plus being weakened by sickness and the climate, withdrew.

This was undoubtedly the most famous battle and “finest hour” for the Knights of Malta but they carried on for quite a while afterwards. Because of their island location they became as much a naval power as they had been a cavalry force in the Holy Land. They sent ships to fight with the Christian fleet at the battle of Lepanto and their war galleys escorted Christian vessels in the Mediterranean to protect them from pirates and hostile powers. When money became scarce they began to hire out their ships to the navies of France and Spain. Money became an ever bigger problem, especially after the spread of Protestantism meant that many who had previously supported the Knights would no longer do so and many Catholics had other priorities closer to home to deal with and could no longer make their usual donations. So, the Knights of Malta adapted and despite being a Catholic order did their best to make friends with Protestant powers as well. The increase in mercenary work, usually for France, also meant that at times the Knights of Malta would be allied with their old enemies the Turks while fighting against the Catholic Spanish who had once been their saviors. Still, they did the best they could to survive and carry on. They remained secure on their island fortress of Malta until 1798 when the French forces of Napoleon Bonaparte conquered the island on their way to Egypt.

The Knights would never rule Malta again as, after the French occupation ended, the island would become part of the British Empire. Some of the Knights joined other orders, most simply waited for a new home to be provided for them as had happened in the past. One monarch who wanted to come to their rescue was Tsar Paul I of Russia who welcomed a large number of Knights to St Petersburg. He admired their traditions and sympathized with their plight. Catholic authorities were rather shocked when the knights in Russia elected the Tsar as their Grand Master and he founded a Russian establishment for the Knights of Malta that was open to all Christians rather than only Catholics (which was necessary for his new “job” as he, of course, was a devout Russian Orthodox). The Catholic Church did not and does not recognize the Grand Mastership of Tsar Paul as legitimate but the Russian establishment carried on for the rest of the life of the Russian Empire and even afterwards in the exile community. In Western Europe, the order was homeless and fatherless until 1879 when Pope Leo XIII appointed a new Grand Master and in 1834 it was more formally revised as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a purely humanitarian organization with nothing military about it aside from their traditional attire. This order was given a home in Rome and still exists today, including among its ranks a great many nobles, royals (mostly non-reigning royals unfortunately) and some of the most successful people in the world. However, they are really not the same as the knights of old and are purely a charitably organization which carries out and funds medical and social work.

Protestant countries founded several different orders inspired by the Knights of Malta and there are numerous groups which make use of the name, or some variant of it, with no real connection at all to the original order (much like the Knights Templar). The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is the only valid continuation but, again, it is for all intents and purposes something new. Among those royals who have been granted ranks in the Knights of Malta are King Juan Carlos I of Spain, Prince Albert II of Monaco, King Albert II of the Belgians, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg and Vittorio Emanuele Prince of Naples (former Crown Prince of Italy). There are over 10,000 members of the order around the world, membership is by invitation only and until recently was exclusive to the aristocracy. Today, however, the lower ranks are open to commoners while the higher still require an extensive pedigree.

Favorite Royal Images: Swedish Princess, Danish Queen

HRH Princess Ingrid of Sweden, later Queen of Denmark

MM Mini View: Kings of England (Part VIII)

The Hanoverians

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM Sunday Scripture

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

-Proverbs 3:3

The Thousand Lands in Sicily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royal News Roundup

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

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

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

A Savoy King of Britain?

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

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

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

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

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

A Self-Hating World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a bit of opinion from The Mad Monarchist