Consort Profile: Maria Christina of Austria

The last Queen mother of Spain to date was born Maria Christina Henrietta Desideria Felicitas Raineria of the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine on July 21, 1858 in Moravia to Archduke Karl Ferdinand and Archduchess Elizabeth Franziska of Austria. Her paternal grandfather was the famous Archduke Charles of Austria, Duke of Teschen, who gained fame for his brilliant victories over the forces of Napoleonic France. Amongst her many illustrious relatives were two cousins who attained the rank of emperor; Francis Joseph I of Austria and his brother Ferdinand Maximilian who was the ill-fated Emperor of Mexico. Her childhood was relatively uneventful and she grew into fine royal lady, fairly tall, very well educated with strong principles and good common sense. When she became old enough to consider marriage attention soon fell upon His Catholic Majesty King Alfonso XII of Spain whose first wife had recently died and who was looking to marry again. Only five years earlier Alfonso XII had become King of Spain after the failure of the first Spanish Republic, formed after the abdication of the Italian King Amadeus I. His mother, Queen Isabella II, was still alive but the problems associated with her had not changed. She was too conservative for the liberals and belonged to the wrong branch of the family for the conservative Carlists. Alfonso XII, however, was an acceptable candidate for the liberals and moderates and he succeeded in defeating the Carlists to become King of Spain in 1874.

All the proper arrangements were made on Maria Christina was married to King Alfonso XII on November 29, 1879 at the Basilica of Atocha in Madrid. Because of all of the civil war and the bitter political divisions in Spain, it was not an attractive country for most royals but the new Queen Maria Christina showed considerable strength in dealing with a less than ideal situation. The proof of what a dangerous position she had come into was revealed almost immediately when a pastry chef tried to shoot the royal couple on their honeymoon. Nonetheless, with typical Hapsburg determination, she pressed on and did her duty both publicly and privately. In 1882 she gave birth to her first child, Princess Maria de las Mercedes of Asturias, followed by Princess Maria Teresa in 1882 and King Alfonso XIII in 1886. One will note that the last child was born a king as his father Alfonso XII, whose health had been deteriorating due to tuberculosis, died in 1885 at the age of only 27. This left Queen Maria Christina essentially in charge of a country that was torn by internal conflict and political divisions with many factions openly hostile to the monarchy. When King Alfonso XIII was born Queen Maria Christina immediately became regent of the Kingdom of Spain on his behalf. It was an unenviable position and one she had not been prepared for, however, she was intelligent enough to handle the situation as well as being intelligent enough to know her own limitations. When it came to business and economics, for example, she had little familiarity with such things and took the advice of those who did.

Subsequent Spanish historians have praised Queen Maria Christina for her impeccable commitment to upholding the law and observing all of the proper rules and customs for the government. Spain entered a relatively stable period, at least when compared to the earlier chaos and civil war, with power alternating between the moderate conservative and liberal factions. Universal suffrage and the Law of Associations were both passed during the regency and signed into effect by Queen Maria Christina on behalf of her young son. However, there was at least one very major foreign policy crisis that arose during the regency and that was the Spanish-American War. It was a crisis the Queen met with admirable courage and determination. The war with the United States came about mostly due to American sympathy for the rebels in Cuba who had been waging a long and irritating war against the local Spanish authorities. There were also those in America who had been pressing for (and even attempting) the conquest and annexation of Cuba to the United States all the way back to the earliest days of the republic. Dealing with the local rebels had not been particularly difficult for Spain, even after many years of steady decline starting with the conquest by Napoleonic France and followed soon after by the Carlist civil wars. Cuba still generated income for the Spanish economy and the insurrection provided a place for Spanish army officers to gain combat experience. However, what had been a Spanish problem suddenly became a potential international crisis when the United States and especially the American media began to seize upon Cuba as a major object of interest.

Queen Maria Christina was the one who had to deal with this problem and, like most people in Spain, was rather perplexed by why the U.S. would suddenly be inserting itself into the situation in Cuba as well as by the public outcry aroused by the American media. Part of the problem was economic. When the Carlist civil wars and the government instability in Spain caused the economy to collapse, Cuban planters looked to America for loans and this resulted in many Americans having a financial interest in Cuba. The U.S. began to champion the cause of Cuban independence, which Spain could not abide as Cuba was considered, not a colony, but a part of Spain itself. A plan was devised to end the rebellion in Cuba by granting the island autonomy, similar to what had already been given to Puerto Rico by the Spanish government. However, the United States still persisted in demanding the Spain make concessions to the rebels though most authorities in Spain had no idea what more concessions they could offer. Queen Maria Christina decided to ignore the saber rattling from Washington DC and pinned her hopes on the plan for autonomy to calm the situation. Unfortunately for her, America would not give Spain time for the plan to take effect. With the media having worked the American public into an anti-Spanish frenzy the declaration of war was swift after the destruction of the battleship USS Maine in Havana Harbor in 1898. The U.S. blamed a Spanish mine while Spain protested that the ship had exploded on its own, a fact later proven by a U.S. investigation in 1974.

There was no doubt from the very beginning that Spain was hopelessly outmatched in the war against the United States. Nonetheless, the U.S. sent an ultimatum to Madrid demanding that the Spanish withdraw from Cuba and when Spain broke off diplomatic relations with the United States an American declaration of war soon followed. Queen Maria Christina was horrified by this turn of events but had no choice but to take Spain to war as she could no more order the abandonment of Cuba than the President of the United States could abandon New York or Massachusetts just because a foreign power demanded it. Queen Maria Christina did appeal to the other crowned heads of Europe (which was all of Europe at that time save for France, Switzerland and tiny San Marino) to come to the aid of Spain. She protested, with considerable foresight, that if the monarchies of Europe did not come together to oppose this blatant aggression on the part of the American republic on behalf of Spain, the United States would only grow stronger and stronger and soon other countries would suffer the fate of Spain until America was completely dominant and not a monarchy remained in Europe. There was some sympathy for Spain in some quarters but, as we know, no other countries decided to get involved. The Spanish fleet was decimated by the American navy, Cuba was conquered and the few remnants of the once mighty Spanish empire fell to the United States. When Spain finally had no choice but to sue for peace the United States gained Cuba (temporarily), Puerto Rico, Guam and The Philippines. Manila had fallen after only symbolic resistance with the Spanish garrison effectively tossing America the keys on their way out and, while gaining the islands, America also gained her first colonial rebellion as U.S. forces had to be rushed over to suppress the Filipino independence movement that Spain had already been dealing with.

It seemed as though disaster was breaking out everywhere. In Spanish Morocco there was rebellion in the air and in Spain itself political divisions and potential civil war began to threaten yet again. Queen Maria Christina dealt with it all with admirable dedication and persistence but wanted nothing more than to be able to hand power over to her son. This finally happened in 1902 when King Alfonso XIII reached his majority and was able to exercise his full constitutional powers as reigning monarch. With immense gratitude Queen Maria Christina withdrew from the halls of power and devoted her time to charity work. She remained a familiar and respected figure in Spanish society for the rest of her life. On the night of February 5, 1929 she retired to her bedroom and after midnight felt a sharp pain in her chest. A maid asked if she should call for the King but the Queen mother said no, not wishing to disturb anyone. A short time later she had another pain in her chest and passed away. She was buried in the royal monastery at El Escorial having guided Spain through what was, in some ways, her most difficult and traumatic period since the end of the civil wars. She was a lady of great character, strength and insight and one of the most dedicated rulers Spain has ever had. She was also eerily prescient in predicting the coming dominance of the United States and republicanism in the Twentieth Century.

Read More

Saintly Royals Sunday

St Abgar V of Edessa

King of Osroene, one of the earliest royal converts to Christianity

Read More

Royal News Special Report: Belgian Abdication

The big royal news this week definitely came out of Brussels. This week His Majesty Albert II, King of the Belgians announced that he will be abdicating on July 21, the Belgian national holiday, handing leadership over to his son Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant. This move surprised some people while others had been predicting it for some time. King Albert II has reigned over Belgium for almost twenty years since his accession in 1993 following the death of his elder brother King Baudouin. In his address to the nation the King cited his age and health as reasons for the abdication, saying, in effect, that he was no longer up to the job and that the time had come to pass the torch to a new generation, adding that Prince Philippe was well prepared to be monarch. Those predicting an abdication pointed to the great strain the King has been under due to the feuding language communities in Belgium and the recent trouble, worse than ever, in forming a government. Belgium actually broke the record (previously held by war-torn Iraq) for going the longest without a government in power. More recently, some have pointed to the tiresome legal problems raised by Delphine Boel as prompting the King to step down. That may have been the last straw but it is a private matter and no one outside the Royal Family can know for sure. What is common knowledge is that the King has been pushed to the limit by the political situation in Belgium and has had to deal with a considerable amount of slander and personal attacks against himself and his family in the media -usually by those who want to see the Kingdom of Belgium erased from the map.

Even with all of that though, the news still took some people by surprise. When others predicted such a move, they could point to established tradition. Unlike The Netherlands, there has been no tradition of royals giving it up and going into retirement when they reach a certain age. Some media outlets have erroneously reported that this is the first abdication in Belgian history which, I am sure, most monarchists at least know is not true. King Leopold III abdicated in 1950 but he was, until now, the only Belgian monarch to abdicate and that was under some rather unique (and unfair) circumstances. King Leopold I did offer to abdicate once but his people did not wish it. He, as well as King Leopold II, King Albert I and King Baudouin all reigned until their deaths. Traditionally, the situation in Belgium is rather like that in the United Kingdom; abdications have happened but only rarely and under difficult circumstances. So, in that regard, the abdication of King Albert II is something surprising and out of the ordinary. Although, it does seem that 2013 will go down in recent royal history as the year of abdications with Pope Benedict XVI, the Queen of The Netherlands, the Emir of Qatar and now the King of the Belgians all stepping down before being called to their just reward. There has also been considerable chatter about other monarchs abdicating, including ones no one would have ever imagined doing such a thing before, from the King of Spain to the Emperor of Japan. It is increasingly beginning to look like monarchy is no longer a lifetime commitment these days.

As it stands now, the last European monarch to succeed to the throne the ‘old fashioned way’ is Prince Albert II of Monaco who became Sovereign Prince upon the death of his father, Rainier III, in 2005. Most regular readers will know that I find this trend rather distressing and it is certainly not because of any lack of enthusiasm on my part for the royal heirs of the world. On the contrary, the Duke of Brabant is the one I have always named as my favorite royal heir and in some cases the heir to the throne has a better reputation than the reigning monarch. However, I prefer the old idea of the position of monarch being a lifetime commitment and I fear (perhaps unreasonably) that with abdications becoming more common, people might be inclined to start viewing the position of monarch as being just another job. Of course, I am all too aware that with great age comes increasing infirmity and physical problems, however, none of the monarchs who have abdicated this year seemed to be in noticeably bad shape to me. Pope Benedict certainly had the most grounds but even he was in pretty good shape when compared to his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, who reigned to the very end. I have certainly seen no indications myself that King Albert II is unduly limited by the deterioration of aging.

In any event, Prince Philippe will soon be the new King of the Belgians and I would be hard pressed to name a modern royal figure for whom I have greater respect for than the Duke of Brabant. I do hope he takes the name ‘King Leopold IV’ rather than ‘King Philippe I’ but, alas, I doubt it. I am sure he will be told that the name “Leopold” has negative connotations these days but that is unfair and unfortunate. Particularly the last one, King Leopold III, has been the victim of some of the most gross injustices and slander of any royal figure in recent history. He was a fine, upstanding, God-fearing man who does not deserve to be spoken of with anything less than pride and admiration. Similarly, whatever he shall be called, it remains to be seen if Prince Philippe will be given a fair chance. As we have talked about before, the Duke of Brabant has also been subject to many unfair efforts to lower his standing in the eyes of the public with all sorts of slander and cruel jokes being made about him despite the fact that he has done nothing at all to deserve it. In fact, he has often been ridiculed specifically for being such an upstanding man. I pray he will be given a fair chance and that the public will rally to support him. If he is given that support I have no doubt he will be one of the great monarchs of Belgian history. He certainly has the character for it.

The “job” of being King of the Belgians is not an easy one but, for the sake of the kingdom and the cause of monarchy in general, I hope all goes smoothly during this transition. King Albert II has given many years of good service, has had to deal with problems more frustrating than almost any other national leader in the world, and I doubt anyone else could have done better. May he have a happy retirement and of course we wish all the best to Prince Philippe, soon to be King of the Belgians, I hope his reign will be a long and happy one.

L’union fait la force!

Read More

Behind a Declaration

Another fourth of July having passed, it is an occasion again to ponder the dramatic events of the American War for Independence, popularly known as the American Revolution (or Revolutionary War). The most important thing about the conflict is that it gave birth to the United States of America which has had no small impact on the subsequent history of the entire world, particularly after assuming global super-power status in the aftermath of World War II. That created some problems for the idea of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence that is still celebrated every fourth of July. As someone once said (I want to say it was Mussolini but I could be wrong), ‘the problem with revolutions is that the revolutionaries survive them’ or words to that effect. With the Declaration of Independence, the American revolutionaries claimed extraordinary powers. They claimed the “right” that any people dissatisfied with their government were justified in using violent means to overthrow that government and replace it with one more to their liking. The document, of course, is silent on how “the people” come to such a decision. After all, no democratic vote was taken across the colonies in favor of independence or even for rising up against the British. Even the most ardent Patriots had to admit that their cause was a minority one and that most colonists either opposed the revolution or were unwilling to support it.

Even at the time those stirring words were penned, exactly who “the people” included was a debatable point. Loyal Americans were even then being killed, tortured, robbed and driven into exile because they did not support the revolution. And, of course, as we still see clearly today, the United States, having achieved independence (and ultimately great power status) has never been willing to apply those same rights to other people or even their own. When the southern states voted to secede from the Union they were met with crushing military force and the utter devastation of their country to force them back into the Union. When the United States won The Philippines from Spain, the Union inherited a guerilla war for independence and American troops had to be sent in to crush the Filipino rebels. Americans are expected to change governments by means of the democratic process rather than armed rebellion, within the structure of the federal republic set up by the constitution with must remain always sacrosanct. Revolutionaries all around the world, oftentimes the most monstrous of characters, have not hesitated to point out to the United States the hypocrisy of American opposition to their own acts of terror and rebellion given how they revere their own founders who did the same.

In that respect, the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence have sometimes been problematic for the United States but because it created the country these things can never be denounced but must be clung to with religious fervor. Some of the very same men who fought the Revolutionary War and helped write the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were some of the same men who had rebels shot for defying government regulations and passed the Alien and Sedition Act which put people in jail for daring to voice opposition to the government. Most historians, if they have any honesty at all, will admit this. However, they will usually fall back on the tired line that, while the American Patriots may not have been perfect, they were at least better than the British alternative. This is most often seen when modern, liberal American scholars must deal with groups they have ordained as perpetual victims; African-Americans and Native Americans. They must admit that men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had slaves but paint them as being kindly masters who were never really comfortable with the institution. To hear some talk, one would think slaves had been forced on these men and that they were incapable of emancipating them even though they really, really wanted to.

They will also have to admit that, during the Revolutionary War, most Blacks took the side of the British Crown. Some will try to appear even-handed and understanding, pointing out (quite correctly) that it only made sense for slaves to side with the British since the British offered freedom in return for service to the Crown. However, most will hasten to add that this was no more than a British ruse and that the British never had any intention of actually keeping that promise. Here, despite their best efforts, their liberal condescension can usually be detected. They paint a picture of unfortunate, ignorant slaves being duped by those dastardly Brits. The truth, of course, is that most African-Americans sided with the British because it was in their own rational self-interest to do so and they were absolutely right. Just as attitudes on race were different in the northern colonies where there were no slaves, so too in Britain itself was slavery regarded as rather unsavory even at that time. Regardless of what happened during the war, slavery would have been abolished in America much earlier had the British won. At the time, the British attitude toward Blacks was not that different from any other people. The only difference was that in Britain the idea of equality, racial or otherwise, was still regarded as absurd. They saw slavery for what it was and that probably helped in getting rid of the institution. In America, on the other hand, slave holders could shout for liberty and be praised for it. Slavery was not really slavery, it was the “peculiar institution”. Because the Founding Fathers had already declared that “all men are created equal” yet still owned slaves, it could only be reasoned that slaves were not just men deprived of their freedom but not men at all, simply property. With such an attitude it is no wonder that slavery lingered in America so long and was so hard to eradicate.

On the subject of the Native Americans, their suffering and the horrors inflicted on them are one of the least known aspects of the Revolutionary War. Many books tell of their attacks on colonial settlers, and there were such attacks and they were quite brutal affairs -such was local custom. However, few American history books relate how the Continental Army went on a punitive campaign against the American Indians, endeavoring to wipe them out completely, destroying everything they had, killing men, women and children alike and leaving nothing behind so that the survivors would starve or freeze to death. How many people know that the idealized George Washington, because of this campaign, was given a name by the Iroquois that meant, “Burner of Villages”? After Washington became the first President of the United States, for a long time many American Indians still used the term “Burner of Villages” as the title of every American President. Again, most American history does not talk too much about the part played by Native Americans at all, however, those that do try to play up the minority who allied with the Patriots or they, again, blame Indian atrocities on the British and paint the American Indians as being duped by more clever British officials into supporting their side. In fact, most Native Americans displayed a clear grasp of the political situation at the time and had for many years. They acted in their own rational self-interest which, unfortunately, meant choosing the side that was to lose. Just as in the French and Indian War they looked at the British who were sending over colonists and the French who mostly sent over Jesuits and fur traders and most decided it was in their best interest to side with France. In the Revolutionary War, even more looked at the colonies continuously reaching westward and the British Crown trying to keep them confined to the coastal region so as to avoid costly conflicts and quite logically sided with the British.

Unlike some monarchists, although my sympathies would unquestionably have been with the loyalists on July 4, 1776, I do not have the animus some do against the United States. It was a “revolution” in an academic sense only. Technically it was simply a war of secession. The “revolutionaries” won and yet the British government went on as before and King George III remained safely on his throne. I do, however, object to the way facts are glossed over (usually unpleasant ones) and the way the Revolutionary War and its main players have been so deified in the popular imagination. Many remark about how successful the United States was, growing and expanding and yet they fail to mention how this came about. There were certainly bitterly antagonistic political factions in the early republic (and still are) but the United States benefited immensely from what were rather cruel policies. The divisions that existed were differences of opinion between two varieties of liberals. The traditional conservatives, the loyalists, had all been driven from the country and that certainly makes government a great deal easier. Perhaps most significant though is the refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of the ideas and the fanaticism encouraged by the Revolution.

Many monarchists are quick to blame the French Revolution on the American Revolution. The ideas inspired it and the expense of French intervention caused it to this way of thinking. I, however, have never subscribed to that mentality. To me, this lets off far too easy those who actually rioted in the streets, who actually stormed the palaces, who actually voted for the revolution and who actually carried it all out. However, there is no question that the success of the American rebels helped to make revolution thinkable in France and the French Revolution had far more disastrous and long-term consequences than simply the division of the English-speaking world into two camps. There again though, to this very day, we see a refusal of people to face up to the responsibilities of the revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence that Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July could certainly be used by the revolutionaries in France to justify their grotesque behavior. Modern historians, however, praise the French Revolution for bringing food to the hungry and democracy to the disenfranchised (neither of which is true) while also acknowledging that this came at a terrible price in terms of human suffering, as though this were an entirely unavoidable consequence. Not true!

The Reign of Terror did not just happen, it was ordered. It did not have to happen, the King and Queen did not have to die and those who preached the principles of revolution and even those who embraced the Declaration of Independence in America should be made to accept responsibility for what their ideas caused. No revolution ever filled the stomach of a starving child. Killing the King and Queen of France put no bread on anyone’s table. Even if you believe that some of the ideals of the revolution were laudable, the revolution was not necessary to bring those about. There is every indication that King Louis was moving toward a more representative government anyway. Similarly, King George III did ultimately offer the American colonies autonomy within the British Empire, effectively dominion status as it would later be known, but was rejected. These people all could have remained loyal and worked within the system to achieve those goals that were just and reasonable. They chose not to, it was their decision and they are responsible for the consequences of  that, most of which have been very, very negative.

Read More

Unpopular Democracy in Egypt

Your humble blogger is somewhat perplexed today. All day long all the news has been talking about is the military coup in Egypt. I’m confused; isn’t a military coup the norm in Egypt? President Morsi (lately declared deposed) was the first Egyptian president chosen by the democratic process, other than that, every change in government has been brought about by a military coup. I fail to see what is newsworthy about another in the long list of military coups in Egypt. However, the current situation does provide the world with a “teachable moment” as they say. Of course, few to no one will bother to see the obvious but no one can say we didn’t try. Like so much of the rest of the world, Egypt is in a deplorable condition and no matter who is holding power at the moment, it is no time to be celebrating. Religious fanatics are disturbing the peace, the economy is a shambles, tourism has dried up and is not likely to return so long as riots are the preferred method for changing the national leadership and tanks and soldiers on the streets are a common sight. Egypt has a lot going for it but, looking at the country today, it is hard to believe that at one time (granted, several thousand years ago) Egypt was fabulously wealthy and the Egyptians had but to lift their hand and the whole world would tremble.

If anything, what is going on today should be a lesson to everyone that democracy is not the cure-all for every problem in the world. Remember, the people protesting in the streets now are the same one who were protesting in the past for Mubarak to be ousted and for there to be democracy so they could have a leader of their own choosing. Now these same people are in the streets again because they are unhappy with the leader they chose. International observers said everything was handled fairly, the people of Egypt voted and Morsi was the winner with his Muslim Brotherhood gaining a majority in parliament. It wasn’t a huge majority of course, but a majority and that is all that matters. Now, I have heard that a petition went out calling for the removal of Morsi that had more signatures (by far) than the total number of people who voted for him. So, where were all these people on election day? It is hard for me to have sympathy for people who vote in a bad politician, mostly because I think politicians are almost inherently bad as a whole (with very, very few exceptions) and I think people should know better. I also think people tend to get the government they deserve and even the government they want regardless of democracy. This military coup was certainly not democratic, yet, the people wanted it and they got it. Communist China may not be democratic but if the people were really unhappy with the Communist Party and really wanted change they would have it. When a billion people make up their mind to have something, you can rest assured that they are going to get it.

King Farouk

Speaking only for myself of course, I am glad to see Morsi go. I was also glad to see Mubarak go. That one made me a little nervous but I certainly shed no tears over his fall from power. And, just in case anyone is curious, I can assure you that whoever replaces Morsi will be someone I will be glad to see go in his turn as well. I do not like any of them, I have not liked any Egyptian government since 1953 and I will not approve of any Egyptian government until the monarchy is restored. There was even a reminder of the old Kingdom of Egypt yesterday as it was reported that Princess Fawzia (probably best known as the first wife of the last Shah of Iran) passed away at the age of 92. Egypt had a perfectly good monarchy, there was no reason to abolish it whatsoever and because of that, everything that has happened since fails to move me much. It is all a case of reaping what has been sown. King Farouk may not have been a perfect man in every way but he was certainly no tyrant, no over-zealous fanatic nor did he ever make war on his own people. Even in a limited capacity, the exiled King Fuad II could make life in Egypt better as it is, without holding government power himself, but simply by appointing or removing from office the one who is chosen to hold government power without the need for one military coup after another.

Monarchists are rightly frustrated though as King Farouk of Egypt was unpopular mostly because of a mistake. Much of the opposition to him and to the monarchy in general, came from the idea that he was closely associated with the British occupation of Egypt. In fact, the British were not overly fond of King Farouk either because they knew he really would have preferred they left his country. During World War II he was very friendly with the Italian Royal Family and the British believed he was hoping for the Italo-German forces to drive them out of Egypt. At one point during the war Britain actually deployed military force to compel the King to accede to their wishes and he had to be browbeaten into joining the war alongside Britain and even that was after the conflict had moved far away from Egypt. Furthermore, King Farouk was not the only one of his dynasty to be displeased with the British presence. At the start of World War I the British deposed Khedive Abbas II because he supported the Central Powers rather than the Allies. It was also then that the nominal ties between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire were officially broken. Now, in all fairness, I have to add that, in my view, where the British Empire has been things usually get better rather than worse for their presence, but that is not the issue. Revolutionaries turned the people against the King by portraying him and the Muhammad Ali dynasty as a whole as the willing accomplices of the British when in fact the exact opposite was true.

Finally, of course, the monarchy was abolished under the nominal reign of King Fuad II, a mere child, before he ever had the chance to prove himself as a monarch. Instead, Egypt got a succession of military dictators and now one would-be religious dictator, all coming and going with a great deal of storm and stress. The people demanded an end to military control of the government and democratic elections. They got what they wanted and now they are cheering because the military took control and tossed out the democratically elected president. Oh how fickle the mob can be.

Read More

Monarch Profile: Shah Reza I of Iran

The penultimate Iranian monarch, Reza Shah Pahlavi, was born Reza Khan on March 15, 1878 in the village of Alasht in northern Iran (known internationally as Persia at the time). His father, Abbas Ali Khan, was an officer in the Persian army and served in the 1856 war against British India and Afghanistan. Later the same year his father died and his mother, Noushafarin Ayromlou, moved in with her brother in Tehran, eventually remarrying and leaving Reza with his uncle who, in turn, left him to be raised by another army officer. Given how he spent his formative years it is not surprising that the military emerged as his early calling in life. At only sixteen he joined the Persian Cossack Brigade, an elite unit in the latter days of the Qajar dynasty that had ruled Persia since 1785. Most members of this unit, one of the few reliable forces for the Qajar dynasty, were obviously not Iranian but young Reza proved himself an extremely capable soldier and served from the ranks on up there and in other regular units of the Persian army. Eventually his talent earned him a commission and he eventually rose to be the one and only Iranian commander of the Persian Cossack Brigade, attaining the rank of brigadier general.

Persia had deteriorated considerably in recent years and Reza Khan was as disturbed by this as any proud officer could be. During World War I British and Russian forces clashed with the Ottoman Turks inside the Persian borders and eventually the British occupied Persia as part of their intervention in the Russian Civil War. When that cause was abandoned the newly formed Soviet Union invaded from the north, establishing their own communist puppet-state in the region. The government broke down and eventually the authority of the state under the nominal leadership of the last Qajar emperor Ahmad Shah. Political parties feuded with each other, religious strife was rampant and most of the country was under the control or influence of either the British or Soviet forces. The Soviets controlled much of the rural areas while the British, through financial loans, held control over the nominal government. When a Soviet-controlled army prepared to march on Tehran, General Reza Khan decided to take action and marched on the capitol himself with his Persian Cossack Brigade. Reports suggest that the British helped to arm the general, viewing the Qajar government as impossibly weak and this new military commander as the most effective hope for stopping a communist takeover and restoring stability (allowing the British to withdraw without risking confrontation).

So it was that in 1921 Reza Shah Pahlavi launched the military coup that brought down the existing government. As the strongest leader in the country, he took control and swept out through the countryside eliminating opposition groups and the Soviet-backed invaders. Once peace and quiet had been restored he returned to Tehran where Ahmad Shah made him prime minister and then promptly left the country for an extended vacation in Europe in 1923. By 1925 the governing assembly declared Ahmad Shah deposed, the Qajar dynasty ended and proclaimed Reza Pahlavi the new Shahanshah (“King of kings” or ‘Emperor’) of Persia. Long married by this time to Nimtaj Ayromlou, later known as Tadj ol-Molouk of Iran, she was made queen consort and the eldest son of his many children, Mohammad Reza Shah, was named crown prince and heir to the throne. It was a new dynasty for what was to be a new Persia and one that was meant to represent a new national agenda and period of rebirth and rejuvenation for the once might empire.

This meant that the new Shah embarked on an ambitious modernization campaign, building highways, railroads, factories and schools such as the University of Tehran. The Shah looked at the western countries that had dominated Persia and wanted to emulate their technological progress while pushing out western political influence. This also meant there would be some difficulties with religious leaders, however, such moves as adopting western clothes, showing greater tolerance to religious minorities and granting more rights to women were not done simply to offend religious sensibilities. The new Shah had seen firsthand how Persia had been weakened by internal divisions that allowed them to fall prey to foreign aggression. He wanted a population totally united in its loyalty rather than one which would follow any local cleric with his own agenda. Officially, the country remained a constitutional monarchy (as it had been established under the Qajar dynasty) and elections were still held but they increasingly became more a formality as the Shah concentrated more power in his own hands. He and he alone would guide the destiny of the country at the end of the day. Along with this new direction also came a new name for the country, at least as far as the outside world was concerned. In 1935 the Shah informed the League of Nations that Persia should henceforth be known as Iran (as had actually long been known within the country) which roughly translates to “Land of the Aryans”. In abolishing the use of the name “Persia” the Shah was attempting to show that Iran would no longer allow foreign powers to define his country but would grow in strength to be their equal.

Of course, to modern ears (especially in the west), whenever one hears the word “Aryan” and talk about the 1930’s someone is going to bring up Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. There has been a great deal of misinformation put out regarding the relationship between Nazi Germany and the first Pahlavi Shah of Iran. Much of this comes from later efforts to justify Allied aggression against Iran. However, the truth is that there were no close ties between Iran and Germany. During the reign of Shah Reza the amount of investment by Germany in Iran did increase quite a bit but this was due simply to the fact that Iran felt safer dealing with Germany as opposed to other European countries because Germany was not a colonial power and could be trusted not to have designs on the country such as Britain and Russia had displayed in the past. There is also nothing sinister about the use of the term “Aryan” and it only goes to show how odd it was for Hitler to describe blue-eyed blondes in northern Europe using the name of an actual historic people from the northern India, central Asia region. Iran was nothing like Nazi Germany, was not racist or anti-Semitic. In fact, one of the reasons certain religious fanatics in Iran opposed the new Shah was because he did not persecute the Jewish population and granted greater equality to religious minorities than had ever existed before. In fact, over a thousand European Jews were saved from the Holocaust by being granted Iranian citizenship during World War II.

If the Shah was guilty of repression it was only by repressing the forces of repression themselves. His most determined foes were the religious fundamentalists who opposed such things as the Shah allowing men and women to appear in public together, allowing women to be educated and uncover their faces. “Monstrous” things like that. There were also those influenced by communism, mostly spread from the Soviet Union next door and which was infiltrating the higher education system, most of which only existed thanks to the Shah. That’s gratitude for you. He also came to have staunch enemies outside the country in both the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom which had earlier supported him. Each tried to increase their influence in Iran and finally the Shah cut ties with both of them, which was part of the reason why trade with Germany increased so much. However, so long as Britain and the USSR both wanted to dominate Iran, they tended to cancel each other out. The British had supported the Shah coming to power in the first place as a way to stop the Soviets from dominating the country. However, that all changed in 1941 when the Axis countries in Europe invaded the Soviet Union. The British Empire and the USSR, once inveterate enemies, suddenly became wartime allies and the Shah was effectively doomed from that moment on.

As soon as World War II broke out the Shah had declared Iranian neutrality, wishing to focus on the continued modernization of his own country and his hope of building a coalition of countries across the Middle East to support their own interests. Nonetheless, for the Allies, there was no such thing as neutrality really. If you were not with them you were considered to be on the side of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. After the UK and USSR joined forces a short ultimatum was sent to Iran ordering the Shah to expel all nationals from Axis countries or face immediate invasion. This was a flimsy excuse for aggression of course as there were Axis nationals in most every other neutral country in the world but they were not threatened with invasion. He refused and the British and Soviets launched a massive air, land and sea attack on Iran. As the tanks were rolling across the border, the Shah summoned the Soviet and British ambassadors and demanded to know why they had attacked his country without a declaration of war. He was told it was because of the presence of “German nationals” but when he asked if the Allies would withdraw if he turned out every German in the country the Shah was met only with silence. Apparently, as far as the Allies were concerned, attacking a country before declaring war only became outrageous later in the year…sometime around early December it seems.

The Iranians were taken by surprise and the modernization of the armed forces started by the Shah had not yet been completed. So, resistance was crushed fairly rapidly between the Soviets, who occupied the northern half of Iran, and the British who occupied the southern half of the country. Faced with a hopeless situation, after four days the Shah ordered his forces to cease resistance. The British advised him to abdicate the throne in favor of his son if he wished his regime and dynasty to survive so, on September 16, 1941 he did just that, handing over power to the young Shah Mohammad Reza, who would go on to be the last monarch to reign over Iran. For the Allies, the invasion worked out very well. Iranian roads and railroads were used to send supplies to the Soviet Union with Winston Churchill calling the country the “Bridge to Victory”. The British had originally thought to restore the Qajar dynasty to power (as they had a history of being friendly to British interests) but feared the Qajar heir would not be acceptable to Iranians as he could not even speak their language. So, the Pahlavi dynasty would go on while the British arrested the former Shah and took him into custody. The British moved him around a bit before settling him in South Africa where they announced that he died of heart problems on July 26, 1944 at the age of 66. His remains were taken to Egypt and buried before later being taken back to Iran for reburial. Shortly before the 1979 revolution his remains were moved back to Egypt. After the revolution the Ayatollahs ordered his mausoleum destroyed. He is currently buried in the Al Rifai Mosque in Cairo alongside his son and a number of members of the Egyptian Royal Family.

Read More

Favorite Royal Images: Little Romanov

HIH Grand Duchess Maria of Russia

(1899-1918)

Read More