HM Queen Paola of the Belgians
Monday, 22 April 2013
Sunday, 21 April 2013
King Henry III: After the disastrous reign of King John, a recovery was called for but Henry III would not be the monarch to lead it. He was not as bad as his predecessor it is true, but he wasn’t much to write home about either. His efforts to centralize power alienated the nobles, the country was awash with mostly French exiles looking to make a quick buck and Henry III had little luck on the battlefield and ended up renouncing vast territories in France. Defeated at home by Simon de Montfort, Henry had the shame of seeing the first parliament called during his reign by the man who had bested him. Today that means Simon de Montfort is a celebrated forefather of representative government but it mostly makes me annoyed with Henry III for being unable to stop him and allowing things to get to that point. He did finally escape rebel clutches and led the royalist forces to victory, which I give him credit for, but he died not long after, not a terrible king but far from successful.
King Edward I: Now we are getting back on the right track. Scotland may still hate his guts (and they should) but Edward I was one of the greatest English kings ever. He was a brave man, a shrewd statesman, a clever military commander and just an overall inspiring figure. He improved the law code so much that he became known as the “English Justinian”, conquered Wales and subdued Scotland. When William Wallace led the Scots in revolt, Edward I crushed them and had the troublesome Scot executed. That will always make him controversial, as does his expulsion of the Jews from England (Oliver Cromwell let them back in) but from the point of view of England alone, Edward I was everything one could hope for in a monarch. Harshness in his direction regarding Scotland should be tempered by the fact that his initial involvement came at the request of the Scots themselves (again, always a bad idea) and when it came to the basic things that kings of his time were expected to do; be strong, provide decisive leadership, win victory on the battlefield, expand the kingdom and secure the succession, he did them all. He was awesome.
King Edward II: Perhaps the only thing England can fault Edward I with was fathering so lackluster a monarch as Edward II. Thankfully, his reign was merely an unfortunate interval between two of the best kings the Plantaganets had to offer. What can be said of Eddie the second? I’ll admit it is tempting to just say “colossal puff” and move on, but I tend to be suspicious of gossip be it contemporary or of Medieval vintage. He lacked all of the drive, ambition and strength of his father, seemed to care little for anything other than parties, sports and his friends. The Scots gave him a sound thrashing, undoing the victories of his father, then suffered the indignity of being defeated by his own rebellious nobles. In the end, he was brought down by his formidable wife, Queen Isabella of France, who was a much more fascinating character than her husband. Advised to abdicate, Edward II predictably cried and then did the best thing of his reign and handed the crown over to his son.
King Edward III: After the embarrassing reign of his father, Edward III was just what the doctor ordered and one of my favorite English monarchs of all time. King Edward III was like a force of nature, he started the Hundred Years War by laying claim to the French throne, led his knights into victory after victory, defeating French forces far larger than his own and even taking the French king, Jean II, prisoner. He may not have been the best administrator but his victories make up for it. His success on the battlefield was so total and so brilliant that the English army came to be seen as the premier military force of the time. He also made English the official language at court for the first time, created the Most Noble Order of the Garter and was the one who divided Parliament into the two houses of commons and peers. He had the misfortune to reign during the Black Death and were it not for that his achievements might have been greater still. Contemporaries hailed him as the greatest monarch since King Arthur and with good reason. Even if he had done nothing else, the battle of Crecy alone would warrant him being considered one of the greatest of English kings and that was one victory among many. In every way one could measure a great Medieval monarch, Edward III more than measures up.
King Richard II: Perhaps no other English king had a tougher act to follow than Richard II and it is inevitable that he fails to measure up to the lofty standard set by his father. He is blamed for being a bad ruler and even for setting the stage for the disastrous Wars of the Roses but I tend to be a little less harsh toward Richard II than most people. He won early credit with me for his courage in standing up to the Peasant’s Revolt even though he was practically a boy at the time but he dealt with those rebels solidly enough. Still, he was not very adept at keeping calm and unity in the kingdom and has been accused of tyranny then as now. However, my impression is that it is not so much what King Richard II did but how he did it that proved to be his downfall. He was not a “people person”, he bided his time, built a considerable private army (wearing a white heart as a badge, I remember that) and then struck back at his enemies after most had come to see him as a pleasure-loving weakling. Still, Richard II will probably always be remembered as a schemer rather than a leader and he was finally abandoned by most of his men and defeated.
Friday, 19 April 2013
Elsewhere on the continent, Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg celebrated his 58th birthday this week, though there was little actual time for it as the Grand Ducal couple have been on a busy state visit to the illegitimate Austrian republic, talking culture, encouraging business and economic ties and mentioning the long history between Luxembourg and Austria. The same Tuesday, the Grand Ducal couple's youngest, Prince Sebastien, also turned 21. We send our congratulations to them both. In the Netherlands, republican traitors have been calling for their soon-to-be King Willem-Alexander to take a pay cut. I can only wonder how anyone would take anything they say seriously. When your stated goal is to end the monarchy entirely, how can you have an objective opinion on anything royal-related? However, it seems the monarch to be is not entirely without taint by the republican mentality himself. In a recent interview the Prince of Orange said that when he is King he will not be addressed as "Your Majesty" and has promised a more informal monarchy and indicated that he will be a "hands-off" monarch who sticks to a ceremonial role and will not be as involved in government as HM Queen Beatrix. And if he thinks that will make a difference I'm not going to try to argue with him.
On the Scandinavian front, Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway have been enjoying a ski vacation with their little family. The King and Queen of Sweden had a busy week of receptions, visits and audiences. Prince Carl Philip opened a new Neonatal Couplet Care Unit and Prince Daniel visited the "belly of the beast" at the European Union in Brussels. And, in Denmark, our beloved Daisy celebrated her birthday this week. On Tuesday HM Queen Margrethe II turned 73-years old though most of the crowd below the palace balcony thought that the royal grandchildren stole the show, winning a great deal of cheers and applause from the public. The great affection Danes have for their Queen and the oldest monarchy in Europe is a testament to how HM Margrethe II and her family have handled themselves over the years, the great job they have done and the integrity they have always displayed. The presence of so many grandchildren also presents a hopeful future for the oldest European monarchy which seems as popular and secure as any on the continent. We wish the Queen a happy birthday, congratulations on a remarkable reign and a fervent hope that she may reign over Denmark for many more years to come.
In Great Britain, the Duke of Kent made his first public appearance on Sunday since suffering a stroke. As part of Regimental Remembrance Day the Duke paraded with the Scots Guards down London's Mall. The Duke of Kent, a 1955 graduate of Sandhurst with over two decades of military service, is colonel of the Scots Guards. Of course, a more solemn occasion was the funeral for the late former prime minister Margaret Thatcher. HM the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh attended the event, carried out with great dignity at St Paul's Cathedral. For some reason, someone also thought it would be okay to invite the Duchess of York and, of course, the cameras did not fail to catch her being embarrassing. It was also announced this week that Prince Edward will be in Nashville, Tennessee next month for the presentation of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. Prince Edward and Countess Sophie will also be attending the upcoming wedding of Princess Madeleine of Sweden, representing the British monarchy. In a new twist on an old story, it was announced this week that adventurous Prince Harry will be taking part in a race to the South Pole. As before, it will be in the company of wounded British servicemen and women and will benefit their cause. We wish them all the best in the enterprise (and hope they don't freeze to death).
Finally, in the Far East, some stunning news out of Japan. HIH Crown Princess Masako is set to make her first official overseas visit in almost eleven years in order to attend, along with HIH Crown Prince Naruhito of course, the inauguration of the new King of the Netherlands. The last overseas visit by the Imperial Crown Prince and Princess was in August of 2002 when TIH visited Australia and New Zealand. They are good friends with the Dutch Royal Family and HM Queen Beatrix invited the couple to The Netherlands on a private retreat in 2006, two years after HIH the Crown Princess was diagnosed with what has been termed an "adjustment disorder". In all subsequent overseas royal engagements HIH the Crown Prince has represented Japan and HM the Emperor on his own. This may indicate a sudden improvement in the Crown Princess' condition as, in 2009, the Crown Prince spoke of his wife's condition saying that, "It is necessary to make a cautious decision looking at travel distances, the period of stay and the events to attend". There was also a surprising but touching sight in Tokyo this week when TM the Emperor and Empress danced together in public for the first time in 20 years at a charitable gathering. TM remain as handsome a couple as ever.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Although he may not have been what the world would consider a “successful” monarch, I have always had a soft spot for the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I. He was, undoubtedly, handicapped but probably not so disabled as most people think and he was a very kind man, a devoutly religious man and a monarch who did the best he could for as long as he could. He was born on April 19, 1793, the first son of the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II and his consort Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily. Unfortunately, because the two were so closely related (being double first cousins), Ferdinand was born with some severe disabilities. The Emperor was overjoyed with the birth of his little boy, looking with his heart rather than his head, and hurriedly announced the arrival of a “healthy” baby which was certainly not the case. Medical staff had to work hard to keep him alive and it was evident from his unusually large head that he had severe problems. Among his ailments were water on the brain, soft bones and severe epilepsy, causing him to have as many as twenty seizures a day. There were also other neurological problems that became evident as he grew older. He was, for example, very slow in learning to talk and when he did, suffered from a considerable speech impediment.
His health was always fragile and, unlike most Hapsburg heirs, his formative years were spent only with feminine attendants, being six years old before he was given a male tutor. Because of his disabilities, learning was difficult but not impossible, though it often seemed his education was not appropriate to his position. Still, he enjoyed studying heraldry and was fascinated with new technologies and farming. His mother had always kept him rather hidden from public view but things changed following her death (when Ferdinand was only 14) when he was given a new stepmother in the person of Maria Ludovika of Modena. She dismissed his old tutors, considering their regimen unhealthy, and appointed a new staff that would push him toward a more “normal” life. He became more independent, was taught how to read and write, how to ride a horse, to dance, fence and was even given piano lessons. He enjoyed drawing and the Empress encouraged this but after a problem with his tutor, his education was declared sufficient and he was moved on to study military theory, science and the like. Despite being handicapped, he kept a regular diary and was capable of making good sense, even becoming known for his sharp eye and witty remarks. By the time he was 36-years old in 1829 he was sitting in on State Council meetings to prepare him for his future role as emperor.
The following year, in 1830, at the insistence of his father, the heir was formally crowned King Ferdinand V of Hungary on September 28 in Pressburg (modern-day Bratislava). The Hungarian elite presented him with a gift of 50,000 ducats which he donated to the poor of Hungary. As this marked Ferdinand coming more into his own, it was necessary for him to marry and, as usual for the time, the Imperial Family and government took up the matter with Ferdinand having little say. The choice they agreed on was Princess Maria Anna of Savoy, daughter of King Victor Emanuel I. Obviously, the disabled crown prince was not the sort of man a young girl dreams of marrying and the Italian princess reportedly burst into tears when told of her fate. However, with the selfless dedication of so many daughters of her house, she carried on and did her duty. The two were married and, happily, became a touchingly devoted couple. Despite his repeated best efforts, Ferdinand’s seizures made it impossible for him to ever consummate their marriage but he loved his wife and she took great care of her rather infirm husband throughout his life with never a word of complaint. She looked beyond his disabilities to see the sweet natured, good man underneath. Of course, not everyone displayed such a Christian attitude and not long after the crown prince narrowly survived an assassination attempt in 1832, an occupational hazard the House of Hapsburg was all too familiar with. The good nature of Ferdinand was displayed again at his wedding when he donated his wedding gifts to build a new waterworks for the city of Vienna.
On March 2, 1835 Emperor Francis passed away and his son succeeded him as Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, as well as, of course, King of Hungary and Croatia, King of Bohemia and King of Lombardy-Venetia among his long list of titles. Emperor Ferdinand was, in fact, the last to be crowned King of Bohemia and the last to be crowned with the sacred Iron Crown of Lombardy (he would be crowned King of Lombardy-Venetia in 1838 and crowned King of Bohemia with the Crown of St Wenceslas in 1836). Obviously, because of his disabilities, public appearances could be problematic and the new Emperor needed a great deal of assistance in governing the Austrian Empire. Because of that, the effective running of the multi-nation state was left to a three-man regency council led by the veteran statesman Prince Metternich. However, it must be remembered (though all too often it is not) that Emperor Ferdinand was never declared to be incapacitated, he was able to perform many physical activities from riding to fencing to shooting, was conversant in five languages and could play two musical instruments. The idea that he was some sort of mental vegetable is completely untrue and unfounded.
It was during the reign of Emperor Ferdinand that industrialization took off with great speed in the Austrian Empire and his time on the throne was particularly known for the boom in railroad construction. He also saw the establishment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Emperor took a great interest in all of these areas. It is also untrue that, despite the popular perception, Emperor Ferdinand I never had to deal with any major problems and folded at the first crisis to come along. There was, for example, a rebellion in Poland in 1846 which was put down by Austrian troops and paved the way for the annexation of Cracow to the Austrian Empire. However, undoubtedly, Emperor Ferdinand was a peaceful man who preferred compassion to military confrontation. Some felt he was often too kind such as when, in the aftermath of his coronation as King of Lombardy-Venetia, he granted a general amnesty that released many Italian nationalists and revolutionaries who would continue on with their goal to see the Austrians driven out of Italy. Still, his disabilities, while they should not be exaggerated, certainly cannot be ignored. It is, however, unfortunate that all many people seem to remember about Emperor Ferdinand is the story of his supposedly only coherent command being, “I am the Emperor and I want dumplings!”
Emperor Ferdinand was not helpless nor an imbecile as he is so often portrayed. In fact, he should be credited for having the intelligence to know his own limitations and those limitations were reached with the outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848. In seemed to take no time at all for nearly the whole of Europe to be thrown into rebellion and turmoil. It was a monumental crisis and Emperor Ferdinand realized as much as anyone that he was simply not up to the job. Even the formidable Prince Metternich fled the country as riots broke out in Vienna. When viewing the mob from a palace window, the benign and somewhat perplexed Emperor turned to an attendant to ask, “But, are they allowed to do that?” The Imperial court was forced to leave Vienna for the safety of Innsbruck and there began to plan the counter-revolution to take back the capital and restore order to the empire. To command this campaign, a younger, healthy monarch was needed and Archduchess Sophie, a formidable woman without question, was quick to point to her son Francis Joseph (her husband being both less capable and less willing to assume the throne). Emperor Ferdinand could easily see that this was the best course of action, he had the advice of the able statesman Prince Felix von Schwarzenberg, and abdicated in favor of his nephew, handing power over to him and pledging his own allegiance.
When the 18-year old new monarch thanked his former emperor, Ferdinand replied, “Don’t mention it, Franzl, it was a real pleasure”. During his reign (especially in Bohemia) he had been known as “Ferdinand the Good” but after his abdication the wittier members of the rebellious mob dubbed him “Goodinand the Finished”. No doubt they were less glib after a taste of the determination of the new monarch and the fire of marshals Radetzky and Windisch-Graetz. For his part, Emperor Ferdinand, who referred to his change in status as a ‘transfer of government’ rather than an abdication, retired with his beloved wife to Prague Castle. He and his wife devoted much time to the Church, both being devoutly religious people, and (to the surprise of the misinformed) he actually showed himself to be a quite competent businessman, dealing in local Bohemian goods, increasing the trade and profits of the region, in the process amassing a considerable fortune for himself which made up much of the wealth of Emperor Francis Joseph following the death of his uncle. Emperor Ferdinand I died in Prague on June 29, 1875 at the age of 82 and was buried in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna with his predecessors.
It is unfortunate that all too often Emperor Ferdinand I is remembered only for odd sayings and portrayed as someone who barely comprehended the world around him. He is the sort, rare though such cases are, upheld by revolutionaries as an example of the “danger” of monarchy and hereditary authority. The truth, of course, is that Emperor Ferdinand, while certainly disabled (through no fault of his own) was much more capable than he is usually given credit for. He was a good man, a devoted husband and a faithful and pious son of the Church. Slightly slow, perhaps, but still more intelligent than a great many perfectly healthy people and he was a man who knew his own limitations. His abdication (or “transfer of government”) was based on his sense of duty to the Austrian Empire and that sense of duty had guided his life. Despite his limitations, he worked hard to do the best job he could for his countries and all his peoples. Far from being an example of the “danger” of monarchy, the case of Emperor Ferdinand shows that just because a monarch is handicapped, things do not fall apart. The outbreak of revolution in Austria cannot be attributed to his disabilities as such unrest broke out in France and Germany with perfectly healthy rulers. When it was realized that he was not up to the challenge, Ferdinand I accepted that the best thing for his house and his empire was to step down in favor of another. It was all handled “in house”, quickly, smoothly and to the benefit of all. That is how Emperor Ferdinand should be remembered; as a good, faithful man and monarch who persisted in spite of adversity to do the best for his empire.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
-Yoshiko Sakurai
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
King Henry II: Today, especially among Church circles, Henry II has a pretty bad reputation because of the Becket affair and that is certainly legitimate. However, I cannot have a low opinion of Henry II. He made his mistakes, sure, with most pointing to the fate of poor Becket and his invasion of Ireland. However, his Irish invasion came at local request (bad move there) and as for Becket, he didn’t actually order the murder and he did some considerable penance afterwards, something which it is impossible to imagine any modern national leader lowering themselves to do. Taken as a whole though, he was an extremely successful monarch who forged an Angevin empire that made England the most powerful country in Western Europe at the time. During the height of his reign all of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and western France (if not more) were either directly or indirectly under his control. No small achievement that.
King Richard I: Richard the Lionhearted is one of those traditional heroes it is popular to downplay these days. Yes, he spoke French almost exclusively, yes he spent most of his reign outside of England, but the popular image of Richard I is just too good to pass up. I cling to that image because it is so compelling and have no time for the naysayers, even if they have some facts on their side (pesky, annoying things). As a crusader, he didn’t manage to retake Jerusalem but considering the odds against him, Richard did very well and the mutual respect he and Saladin had for each other may have become legendary but it is backed up by actual history. His main failing was in being too kind and indulgent with his brother John, but it is hard to fault him too much for that. Riding into the thick of the fight, swinging his Danish battle axe it is easy to see why he became such an iconic, chivalrous figure. He did regain some of the Holy Land for Christendom, undid much of the damage that was done in his absence and died in battle, again, a great way for such a famous warrior-king to go. I cannot dislike Richard I, I’m all for him.
King John: England has been fortunate in having mostly good to great monarchs but, every now and then, just to keep the English humble, a King John comes along. Despite my best efforts over the years to find a bright side, he really was pretty much as bad as his reputation attests. He betrayed his own family, conspired with the King of France, failed at doing wrong as much as doing right (if he ever tried), brought down excommunication on himself from Pope Innocent III (who was not the tolerant sort) and ended up turning the nobility of England against him. Failing again, as usual, he was forced to sign the Magna Carta so even for fans of the “Great Charter” King John cannot be given much credit for it since it was done basically under duress. He was not bad at administration but even there his tendency to micromanage won him few friends. By the time all was said and done no one respected him and worse no one could trust him. I have to go with the crowd on this one; King John was just not good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
