Favorite Royal Images: New Princess

Princess Salwa Aga Khan (formerly Kendra Spears)

Note: This was not originally on my 'favorite images' list but after some recent comments I decided to post this one (which I do think is a lovely photo) just as a sort of test. We shall await the results.

Read More

Monarch Profile: Emperor Napoleon I

The man who would become Emperor of the French and one of the most renowned military commanders in history was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on August 15, 1769 in Ajaccio on the island of Corsica. His parents were Carlo Maria di Buonaparte and Maria Letezia Ramolino. The year before he was born the island of Corsica had been ceded to France from the Republic of Genoa and Carlo di Buonaparte, a lawyer, was chosen to represent Corsica at the court of King Louis XVI in 1777. Because of the connections of his family, he was able to go to school in France where he learned to speak French and was later enrolled at a military academy. At first he was made fun of by his classmates because of his “provincial” manners and Italian accent but this only motivated him to succeed all the more nor did it turn him off of his admiration for France, at least in the long term. The historiography of Napoleon has often been divided into two camps with those hostile to Napoleon emphasizing his Italian-Corsican background and those enamored with Napoleon who portrayed him as purely French and, indeed, the very embodiment of French greatness. The truth, of course, cares nothing for agenda. In fact, Napoleon was not French in his background or ethnicity. In terms of the blood in his veins he was as Italian as one could be. However, he was French, not just by adoption, but by choice.

In the time of the young Napoleon, a Corsican could either hold on to regional pride and maintain resentment at French rule or embrace France as the most powerful country they had encountered. This was the way for Napoleon though it took him some time to get there and it came about fully when he realized that France was the only vehicle large enough for his ambition. When that became clear, he determined that the advancement of France would be his goal and in so doing he would advance himself to the most extreme heights possible. He learned French, later adopted the French spelling of his name and devoted his entire life to France. As ambitious and egotistical as he could be, he always held France, if not first in his heart, at least second to himself and even that is somewhat debatable. France was sacred to him and even in his darkest hours he never entertained the same bitterness toward his country that other fallen despots often do. France was the most wonderful thing this young man from Corsica had ever seen and if it had any faults it was only that it lacked his leadership to lead it to the glorious destiny that France deserved. It did not happen overnight of course. His first inclination had been to become a Corsican nationalist and during the French Revolution he was part of the most radical, revolutionary faction in Corsica but when he broke with the would-be leader of Corsican independence, Pasquale Paoli, he returned to France and became as ardent a Frenchman as one could be.

Joining the ranks of the radical Jacobins, Napoleon cut all ties with his homeland when Corsica declared independence from France in 1793. At that point, his choice was made; he chose to no longer be Corsican but to be French. Young Napoleon embraced the revolutionary cause and became an officer in the republican artillery, distinguishing himself at the siege of Toulon fighting the British, Spanish, Piedmontese and those French who had turned traitor. His plan won the city back for the revolutionaries and he was made a brigadier general. His star was on the rise having taken command in a difficult situation, devised a plan that led to victory and having been wounded in the process, he had all the makings of a revolutionary hero. His status rose even higher when, on October 5, 1795, he suppressed a royalist uprising in Paris with a “whiff of grapeshot” and, as a reward, he was put in charge of the Army of Italy. In this post he proved himself a natural and gifted military leader. In 1796 and 1797 he defeated the Austrians at Lodi, Castiglione, Arcola and Rivoli until, in the end, Austria and Italy were at his mercy. He also gained the high esteem of his soldiers by leading from the front, at Lodi even personally leading a bayonet charge across a bridge against the Austrian rear guard. It was because of this that his troops dubbed him “the Little Corporal”.

With these exploits, Napoleon had become a celebrity in France and he took full advantage of it in both the military and political spheres. Already he identified the British as his greatest enemy but a cross-channel invasion was not possible at that stage so he took 40,000 men and invaded Egypt, menacing British trade routes and threatening India. He won several victories over the Turks and their subject peoples who were fierce but outdated in their tactics. In the end, however, the British thwarted him by a victory at sea in the battle of the Nile thanks to the skillful leadership of the British admiral Horatio Nelson. Napoleon, seeing the situation was doomed, left his army and returned to France. Some, recognizing his ambition, skill and popularity, had thought that sending him to the Middle East would put him out of the way. As it happens, they were right to be wary for when he returned Napoleon involved himself in a plot against the Directory and, in the end, he managed to make himself First Consul; effectively the dictator of France. He enacted a new, expansive system of conscription (we have the French Revolution to thank for the “nation in arms”) and in 1800 invaded Austria which resulted in a negotiated peace that established the Rhine as the eastern border of France. On the home-front Napoleon reworked the civil laws and formalized the changes of the revolution into the Napoleonic Code. In 1802 he revised the constitution to be “Consul for Life”.

Great Britain, however, was the one enemy he could not touch and the following year renewed their war against France, later joined by Austria and Russia. However, even with the gains he had already made, his ambition was still not fulfilled and in 1804 he crowned himself Emperor, having Pope Pius VII brought up from Rome to preside over the ceremony and his give papal blessing to the new French Emperor. Yet, still, the British remained his greatest irritant. In 1805 the British fleet, again led by Horatio Nelson, destroyed the French and Spanish navies at the battle of Trafalgar. On land, however, Napoleon proved unstoppable and he set out on what was arguably his most brilliant military campaign. He moved quickly, maneuvered adeptly and struck with vicious force. On October 17, 1805 he defeated the Austrians at Ulm and on December 2 won a stunning victory over the Austro-Russian forces at the battle of Austerlitz. That victory alone would have earned him a page in military history but Napoleon was still not finished. In 1806 he defeated the Prussians at Jena and in 1807 defeated the Russians at Friedland, forcing them to make peace. With the Treaty of Tilsit, Europe was effectively divided between France and Russia with the French Empire in the commanding position. Napoleon had made himself Emperor in 1804 and within three years had effectively made himself master of Europe.

This was an astounding event and it shows just how rapidly life was changing for Napoleon and how rapidly he was being changed himself. In little more than ten years he had gone from being an obscure junior artillery officer to crowning himself “Emperor of the French”. He had married the aristocratic Josephine de Beauharnais, the great love of his life, he had gone from fighting French troops in Corsica to leading French troops to some of their greatest victories, he had gone from being a Jacobin revolutionary to proclaiming himself a monarch -and of imperial status no less. And along with a helping of plain good fortune (which he would be the first to recognize) he had done it all by his own skill. He was brilliant on the battlefield, and away from it he allowed no opportunity to slip through his fingers, advancing himself by being a revolutionary when the revolutionaries were in power, fighting for the Directory then going along with the coup against it and finally, when standing on the world stage, sought to make himself the equal of the Emperors of Austria and Russia. It was nothing short of astounding. Later in life, Napoleon never liked to portray himself as a traitor or a revolutionary when, in fact, he was both. However, the more he advanced, the more conservative he became and eventually he tried to force republicanism and monarchy together, to create a revolutionary kind of monarchy, not eliminating monarchy as the French revolutionaries had originally sought to do, but simply replacing them with his own version. And he was succeeding.

For the devout, traditional royalists of France Napoleon would not and could not be anything but an upstart usurper, however, many people who would have been royalists were converted to his side because of the order and return to normalcy that Napoleon brought to France. He ended the chaos, bloodshed and instability of the French Revolution and while he emancipated Jews and Protestants he also signed a concordat with the Pope that recognized Catholicism as the religion of the majority in France and restored to the Catholic Church most (but not all) of the privileges that the First Republic had taken from them. Napoleon had also portrayed his French Empire as a restoration of the empire of Charlemagne and the style he adopted was a very noticeably Roman one; wearing a laurel crown at his coronation, topping the standards of his regiments with eagles and in countless other ways. As the Pope had come to terms with him, as the position of the Church had been settled in France, it became possible, in the minds of many at least, to be a good Catholic and a loyal supporter of the new Emperor Napoleon I. The most unanswerable argument Napoleon could always make to his critics was that he simply got it done. The republican purists might have condemned him for his monarchial aspirations and the royalists might denounce him as a usurper but the fact was, they had not succeeded and Napoleon had. They did not restore calm and order to France, he did. They did not resolve the problems with the Church, he did and the government and legal system he established proved successful enough to endure, in part, even to our own time. He got it done and no one, then or now, could deny it, regardless of their own opinions of the man.

If Napoleon had stopped there, if he had let the peace in Europe continue and simply endured the hardships imposed by his sullen enemies it is entirely possible that there might still be a Bonaparte on the throne of France today. However, as with many of those who advance themselves so far, Napoleon thought he could advance farther still. He was overreaching to be sure, but it was not necessarily overconfidence as so many assume. Napoleon had a high opinion of his own abilities certainly but to the great frustration of his enemies it was mostly justified. As his British adversary the Duke of Wellington said, his mere presence on a battlefield was as good as 40,000 extra soldiers. The problem was that Napoleon could not be everywhere at once and while he had many adept commanders amongst the Marshals of France, most were better subordinates than they were independent commanders. Likewise, Napoleon had re-drawn the map of Europe, tearing down old countries and establishing new kingdoms. He farmed out his siblings to become monarchs in Germany, Italy and Holland but only his brother Louis, who was made king over the Dutch, proved both capable and popular (so much so that Napoleon eventually removed him and annexed the Netherlands to France). Critically, one such country was also Spain. Having meddled in Spanish affairs previously, Napoleon finally took over the country outright and placed his brother Giuseppe (Joseph) on the throne as King Jose I.

The Kingdom of Spain proved easy to conquer but impossible to pacify. The word “guerilla” entered the lexicon as Spanish irregular forces harassed the French occupiers at every turn. Spain, generally dismissed as a sideshow by Napoleon, would be a drain on French resources that would ultimately prove critical. It was also worsened by the fact that Napoleon didn’t stop at Spain but decided, while he was in the neighborhood and all, to conquer Portugal in 1807. The Royal Family went into exile in Brazil but this proved a pivotal moment as it got Great Britain (longtime allies of Portugal) involved in the Peninsular War. The British would support the Spanish resistance, revamp the Portuguese army into a very effective fighting force and would send troops to Spain to bedevil the French led by the man who would ultimately bring Napoleon down; Arthur Wellesley, later made Duke of Wellington. France would lose 300,000 men in Spain and have nothing to show for it.

The Spanish quagmire, however, was not enough of a distraction to deter Napoleon from even grander ambitions. Russia was still smarting from the loss of Poland and was unhappy with French influences in Russia and the impact on the Russian economy of Napoleon’s effort to force everyone to stop trading with Britain. By 1812 French spies informed Napoleon that Tsar Alexander I had about decided he had had enough of this and would be taking action. In response, Napoleon launched the most ambitious offensive of his career. Gathering all of his allies (and those allied by force) into a massive army of 600,000 men, Napoleon invaded Russia in the summer of 1812. Most know the basic story of how the invasion unfolded. The French won battles, advanced and advanced but never achieved a decisive victory. Many of the Russian generals seemed hopelessly inept but the stalwart Russian soldiers, on the other hand, seemed inhumanly unflappable. Despite all losses they never gave up and while the French kept advancing, the Russians kept falling back, destroying everything as they went. Napoleon even captured Moscow but it was far from a prize or a decisive victory. The burnt out ruins of the city he marched into summed up the entire Russian campaign; cold, hunger and hardship that gained France nothing. And, all the while, with the Russian armies remaining intact as a threat, bands of fierce Cossacks harassed the French flanks and supply lines. The invasion turned into a disaster and had to be abandoned. The famous retreat from Moscow was nothing short of a nightmare for the French and their allies. Of the 600,000 men Napoleon had led into the steppes of Russia, only about 40,000 survived the ordeal.

By the spring of 1813, Napoleon had recovered somewhat but was faced with the combined forces of Great Britain, Russia, Sweden and Prussia arrayed against him. Napoleon scraped together another army and went out to meet them, confident that, having defeated multiple enemies before, he could do so again. For a time, it seemed that might be the case as he fought as brilliantly as he had in the past but this time it was to no avail. The French were defeated at Leipzig in October of 1813 and forced to retreat to France. With a population tired of his wars and the horrendous casualties they caused, along with the Allied powers closing in on them, Napoleon’s marshals urged him to admit defeat. Feeling disgusted and betrayed Napoleon abdicated on April 11, 1814 and was exiled to the island of Elba on the Italian coast. King Louis XVIII was restored to the throne of France and Europe breathed a sigh of relief. By this time Napoleon had divorced Empress Josephine and in 1810 had married Archduchess Marie Louise of Austria, the eldest child of Emperor Francis I. He did this to obtain an heir and make the Bonaparte succession secure as well as to, hopefully, gain recognition as a legitimate member of the crowned heads of Europe by marrying into the House of Hapsburg. In 1811 she gave birth to his only son, Napoleon II. With his downfall in 1814, Napoleon would never see them again and that too weighed heavily upon him.

So, Napoleon did not stay exiled very long. He had little trouble escaping from Elba, won over the army sent to arrest him to his side and triumphantly restored himself to power. However, the other European powers had had enough and, at the Congress of Vienna, declared Napoleon an enemy of world peace basically and joined forces to crush him immediately. He probably knew this was bound to happen and it calls into question the point of his restoration and all those who would die as a result but, Napoleon believed that if he could move quickly and defeat the British and the Prussians before all the Allies could unite against him there would be time to make some arrangement or at least hope for a miracle that would enable his empire and dynasty to survive. And, it must be said, at the outset, he displayed his usual skill. He divided the Prussians from the British (a coalition force that included a large number of Germans and the Dutch-Belgian army) and was able to bring superior forces to bear against the British under Wellington at the small Belgian town of Waterloo.

However, when it came time for battle on June 18, 1815, Napoleon was ill and displayed none of his usual foresight and aggressiveness. He attacked the British lines again and again but the British always managed to hold on. Just when it seemed the enemy would crack under sheer weight of numbers, the Prussians arrived on the scene. Desperate to end the battle, Napoleon threw in his “Old Guard” but the British repulsed them as well. Wellington counter-attacked, the Prussians closed in and the French were totally defeated. Napoleon was finally and permanently beaten. Once again he was exiled but this time to the remote island of St Helena in the middle of the South Atlantic where he lived out the rest of his life. Napoleon Bonaparte, the man who made himself “Emperor of the French” and who conquered most of Europe died on May 5, 1821 at the age of 51. Meanwhile, the Congress of Vienna had worked to put Europe back together after Napoleon had spread war and devastation from Lisbon to Moscow. Most damaging though was that his success had spread the ideas of the French Revolution across the whole continent and by both raising up some peoples and inspiring others to resist him, he made nationalism a much more potent force in the future. The impact of “the Little Corporal” would be felt from the Iberian Peninsula to the steppes of Russia, from Scandinavia to Sicily for a very long time to come.

For other thoughts on Napoleon and his place in history, see this post.

Read More

Royal News Roundup

Starting up north, HRH Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark paid a visit to the Danish troops serving in Afghanistan while Princess Marie of Denmark is making plans to visit Ethiopia. In neighboring Norway it was announced that the King and Queen will be spending Christmas with Princess Martha Louise and her family while the Crown Prince and family will be in Uvdal. The Crown Princess is easing back into her royal duties after some health problems that required neck surgery but she is reportedly on the mend and in good humor. The King & Queen also attended the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony this week, the award going to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The King and Queen of Sweden were also, of course in attendance with the King presenting the award.

Concerning the British & Commonwealth royals, Prince Harry had his race to the south pole canceled because of safety concerns but he and the veterans still continued their trek to the southernmost extreme of the globe at a more leisurely and non-competitive pace. They arrived on Friday making Prince Harry the first British royal to ever visit the South Pole. Back at home, Prince William showed his support for HM’s Armed Forces at a special military tournament in London. Having ended his career in the RAF, the Duke of Cambridge is expected to be rejoining the Blues & Royals shortly. Also on the military front, the Duchess of Cambridge welcomed home her Fourth Rifles Battalion this week of which she is honorary colonel. The Prince of Wales gave out an art award and along with the Duchess of Cornwall attended the Sun Military Awards.

Princess Catherina-Amalia of The Netherlands celebrated her tenth birthday (congratulations there) this week and Queen Maxima was on a tour of Africa, visiting Ethiopia and Tanzania, bringing quit a bit of happiness to the locals based on the images from the trip. In Belgium, King Philip met with trash collectors and got started celebrating Christmas at the Royal Palace along with Queen Mathilde, Princess Astrid and Prince Laurent.

In southern Europe, in the sunny Principality of Monaco, Charlotte Casiraghi is all set to give birth to her first child and has a room reserved at the Princess Grace Hospital where she and her brothers were born. Her actor/comedian boyfriend will be wrapping up his latest tour in Monaco to be on-hand for the big event. In nearby Italy, HH Pope Francis made headlines again this week for being given the distinction of TIME magazine “Person of the Year”, continuing the unabashed love affair the mainstream media has been having with Pope Francis, something that stands in stark contrast to the treatment of his predecessors. However, in another interview with an Italian periodical, seemingly in response to the controversy caused by his papal “mission statement” Pope Francis had to assert that he is “not a Marxist”. That is, of course, good to hear but it is also not exactly the sort of thing one expects a Pope to have to clarify. Once upon a time, the very idea would have been too absurd to even occur to anyone. Unfortunately, though he clarified that he was not one, the Pope did not seem bothered by being called one saying, “I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.” That may be an even worse thing to say. Marxists are atheists after all, so one would wonder by what definition a Christian could consider an atheist a “good” person. Did anyone ever say that National Socialism was wrong as an ideology but many Nazis were good people? Has anyone ever said that -because Marxism has killed more people than Nazism did (even if for no other reason than that it is more widespread and has been around longer). Somehow I doubt it. How things change. And, over in Spain, HRH Infanta Cristina was sued this week by the far-right group “Manos Limpias”, I would suspect mostly likely in an effort to gain publicity. On a lighter note, HM Queen Sofia was in London doing some Christmas shopping.

On the subcontinent of India, HH Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar passed away on Tuesday at the age of 60 from a heart attack. Wodeyar was the last descendant of the dynasty which ruled Mysore until the abolition of the princely states following independence from Britain and the dissolution of the Empire of India. Today the area is part of the state of Karnataka. Described as a progressive and a reformer he was also a known cricket enthusiast. He had no children. In happier news, though not without a hint of controversy for the royal world of India, star athlete S. Sreesanth was married to Princess (?) Bhuveneshwari Kumari of the royal family of Jaipur at the Guruvayoor Sree Krishna temple in Kerala. The famous cricket bowler has had some trouble with the law in the past. Of course, we wish them all the best.

In still more news of people saying things that shouldn’t have to be said, former PM and convicted criminal on the run from the law, Thaksin Shinawatra, has said he is loyal to the King and complained that nothing his enemies in Thailand are saying is true (that he is not loyal to the monarchy and aspires to being the first “President of Thailand”). Of course, the fact that he has to say such a thing only goes to show what good reasons have for people to doubt it. After all, if one cannot take the word of a politician convicted of massive deceit and corruption, who can you believe?

In Japan, HIH Crown Princess Masako released a 2-page statement on the occasion of her fiftieth birthday saying that she is making good progress in her recovery and has hopes for better times ahead. Less pleasantly, in a recent article by the ever left-leaning Japan Times, Philip Brasor editorialized on how the “liberal leanings” of HM the Emperor are at odds with the “far-right” LDP currently in power. It bemoaned how “emperor worship” is still engrained in people, much to His Majesty’s discomfort and embarrassment, pointing to the recent uproar over a breach in protocol when an activist politician handed HM a letter. This is the sort of simplistic and frankly racist idiocy that can only come from a western leftist. His are the very same people who howl the loudest about the Emperor being a purely symbolic figure, completely outside of politics, upset that any might still respect or (dare I say) even revere HM while in the very same breath insisting that, despite being totally nonpolitical, when it comes to politics, deep down HM really agrees with them and not the “far-right” that places more trust and more seriousness to the monarchy. Everyone should also be aware that the *actual* far-right has never held an ounce of political power in Japan (at least since World War II) and that what these people call “far-right”, such as the Liberal Democratic Party means a party that believes in the freedom for people to worship where they choose, to insist on past agreements being honored and which is determined to defend the country in case of attack. That is what they call “far-right”. It would be funny if so many people didn’t believe it. As for HM the Emperor holding “liberal” views, if “liberal” is defined as caring about the health of the people and country and preferring to have peaceful relations with all, then, yes, that would make HM the Emperor a liberal but the same would also apply to the vast majority of the entire population.

Read More

Royal Friends of Texas: The Netherlands

Dutch immigration to the New World has been extensive over the centuries but has mostly been concentrated in areas far removed from Texas. However, Dutch influence in Texas history goes back to the colonial period with the very first Dutchman in Texas being a very prominent figure in Texas history. That man was Felipe Enrique Neri, Baron de Bastrop. He was born Philip Hendrik Nering Bögel in the colony of Dutch Guiana (modern-day Surinam) in South America. He promoted himself to Baron de Bastrop when he moved to New Orleans, Louisiana and adopted the Spanish version of his name after coming to San Antonio, Texas. He had served in the Dutch army (cavalry of course) before marrying, having five children and then working as a tax collector. When he was accused of having sticky fingers he packed up his family and moved to Louisiana (at that time under the Crown of Spain). He made a fortune, lost it and started to make another when he moved to Texas after France received Louisiana and sold it to the United States. Baron de Bastrop moved to San Antonio in 1806 and received a grant from the Spanish government to establish a colony between Bexar and the Trinity River.

Baron de Bastrop

Baron de Bastrop was an extremely important figure in the development of Texas. He was elected mayor, established good relations and trade with both the Mexicans and the local Caddo Indians as well as helping Moses Austin gain permission to establish the first Anglo colony in Texas which was later carried out by his son Stephen F. Austin, the “Father of Texas”. Baron de Bastrop was trusted and respected by the Spanish and later Mexican governments and his influence brought about the passage of numerous laws that greatly benefited Texas such as the establishment of a port at Galveston island. He was commissioner of colonization for the Austin colony and was later elected to the state legislature of Coahuila y Tejas. He served there up until his death in 1827. A city and a County in Texas are named Bastrop in his honor though it was not until some time after his death that it was learned that his title of Baron de Bastrop had been a fabrication. Nonetheless, because of his great contribution, no one thought that mattered and in Texas he has forever remained Baron de Bastrop. Not long after, came the War for Independence and the establishment of the Republic of Texas.

The Kingdom of The Netherlands was fairly quick to recognize the Republic of Texas and establish full diplomatic relations. When the Kingdom of Belgium did so, the Dutch did not want to be left out and so did the same, opening a Dutch embassy in Austin and welcoming a Texan ambassador to Amsterdam. The Kingdoms of France, Belgium and The Netherlands were the only European countries to fully recognize the Republic of Texas as a sovereign state. Dutch settlers, however, were slow to come to Texas, though there was some trade between Texas and the Netherlands and Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and South America. Dutch settlement in Texas would never be extensive but it did pick up after the end of the American Civil War. One early group was led by Pieter Nieveen and a man named Mr. Roelofs who brought Dutch settlers to establish a farming colony in Denton County. Unfortunately, the enterprise was not a success. Another Dutch colony was attempted at Gothland but met a similar fate. However, in 1895 a group of Dutch businessmen started the Port Arthur Land Company and bought 66,000 acres of prairie land in southeast Texas for resale at $8 per acre. The first Dutch immigrant to buy some of the land was George Rienstra in 1897 and a few months later about fifty Dutch families followed him to start a new life in Texas. To house them while their new homes were built they constructed the Orange Hotel named in honor of the Dutch Royal Family. This little settlement became what is now the town of Nederland east of Houston.

At first the Dutch stuck to what they knew best, making cheese, raising dairy cattle and growing rice. However, not long after oil came bursting out of the ground at nearby Spindletop and an oil processing plant was soon built a mile south of Nederland. This proved beneficial when the local rice industry was wiped out in the 1907 depression, the local Dutch families were able to find work with the oil companies and the town of Nederland prospered. The town of Nederland remains a unique little corner of Texas and eventually the locals built a large, Dutch-style windmill in the center of town to honor the Dutch settlers who founded it. Another little town, less noticeably, has Dutch roots in Texas. That is thanks to Willem Henrik Snyder, later known as “Pete” (for some reason) who was the first settler in Robber’s Roost where he set up a trading post on Deep Creek. He primarily did business with West Texas buffalo hunters who traded hides for supplies, hence the area became known as Hide Town but which was later renamed Snyder, Texas in honor of the Dutch frontiersman who founded the place.

Over the years the Dutch-Texans became known for their religious faith, family ties and uniquely Dutch habits. Unlike other Texans, they saved their horses for plowing and walked everywhere. They saved their money and never bought on credit and whereas most Texans love eating tomatoes raw with a little salt, the Dutch figured that, being a fruit, tomatoes should be eaten stewed with sugar and cornstarch. There were also a number of Dutch natives who became notable throughout Texas history such as David Levi Kokernot who was born in Amsterdam but later moved to New Orleans were he became a pilot and eventually bought his own ship. While hunting smugglers on the Texas coast, he shipwrecked at Anahuac and ended up joining the local Texas forces in the War for Independence. He became good friends with General Sam Houston who, after becoming the first President of the Republic of Texas, gave Kokernot a number of special jobs and he was even the captain of a company of Texas Rangers for eleven years. His sons later grew up to be major cattle ranchers in West Texas. Descendants of his are still working in the cattle business in the area west of Fort Davis. Another Dutch family who came to Texas was that of Maarten and Antje Koelemay who settled with their eight children in Nederland. After having no luck at the cheese business the sons became railroad workers while living at the Orange Hotel which their father managed until 1915 when a storm forced the historic hotel to close.

The Dutch influence on Texas has been considerable for their relatively small numbers. They were pioneers in the hotel business, dairy farms and in the oil business. Dutch settlers were known for maintaining strong ties with their homeland, including the regular marking of ‘Queen’s Day’. John Brands was a noted priest from the Netherlands who was instrumental in the strengthening of the Catholic Church in Galveston in the 1840’s and they introduced things to Texas as varied as coleslaw and doughnuts. Dutch people have played a part in Texas history ever since the days of the famous Baron de Bastrop and the Kingdom of the Netherlands has enjoyed friendly diplomatic relations with Texas ever since the early days of the republic. For a little while, in a very nominal way, Texas and The Netherlands were even under the same monarchy in the days of Emperor Charles V and King Philip II of Spain before Dutch independence was won. Hopefully the close ties and friendship between Texas and the Kingdom of The Netherlands will always continue.

Read More

Story of Monarchy: The End of Afghanistan

As most readers of this weblog at least will probably know, Mohammed Zahir Shah was the last King of Afghanistan. He was a member of the Barakzai dynasty which had held power in Afghanistan since 1826 after the fall of the Durrani Empire. Chaos had ensued after the fall of the Durrani and Afghanistan fragmented into warring tribal factions, something which will sound familiar to people today. Out of that chaos arose Dost Mohammad Khan who made himself the Emir of Afghanistan. Later, he lost power as a result of the First Anglo-Afghan War but was later restored and his family would rule Afghanistan until the monarchy came to an end. The Emirate of Afghanistan became a kingdom under Amanullah Khan who took Afghanistan out of the British sphere of influence and tried to modernize the country only to be met with a civil war and be forced to flee the country, finding refuge, ironically enough in the British Empire of India. His son was likewise chased from the country though his successor was soon deposed as well, allowing for a return to some normalcy with the reign of King Mohammed Nadir Shah who came to power in 1929. He had British support but still faced opposition from radical tribal leaders, pressure from the Soviet Union and periodic rebellions. In 1933 he was assassinated which left the throne to his son, King Mohammed Zahir Shah.

King Zahir Shah

A highly educated man and forward thinking, his reign saw Afghanistan become a more well established country rather than just a war-torn backwater. Afghanistan joined the League of Nations, established diplomatic relations with the United States, had trade agreements with countries from Europe to the Empire of Japan and he gave assistance to the Muslim rebels attempting to establish an independent East Turkestan. However, these forces were defeated by the Republic of China whose forces massacred all the Afghan volunteers. Still, particularly after World War II ended, Afghanistan under the King continued to improve itself. The first university was established, a new constitution was enacted, genuine elections were held and the country became a functioning constitutional monarchy. Innovations included things like universal suffrage and even rights for women. Unfortunately, rival factions continued to be a problem and not just in the countryside but in the palace as well. Mohammed Daoud Khan, a cousin of the King, had served as Prime Minister in the 1950’s but his administration was a disaster and the King had dismissed him. Given what happened later, it is important to understand why.

Daoud Khan was an egotistical and extremely ambitious man who ended up being the ruination of his own country. Despite the fact that there was still a great deal of work to be done in his own country, he looked beyond Afghanistan and put progress there to the side while he pursued his dream of uniting all the Pashtun people into a larger Pashtun nation-state (the Pashtun being the dominant ethnic group of Afghanistan. However, there were a great many Pashtuns living in the still fairly young country of Pakistan and the Pashtun nationalism of Daoud Khan provided no small amount of antagonism to Pakistan. Never a wealthy country, Daoud Khan poured money into Pashtun militias on the Pakistani border and quarreled with Pakistan over where the border was. Pakistan cut off trade with Afghanistan as a result, leaving the Soviet Union as the sole source of economic support for the kingdom. The Soviets were, of course, more than happy to provide all sorts of support to Daoud Khan but at a heavy price of course with the result being the Afghanistan became more and more dependent on the Soviets and the Soviets became more demanding about having greater influence.

Daoud Khan

Fighting broke out between Afghanistan and Pakistan during this time and things did not go well for the Afghans. In addition, the economy was suffering and the non-Pashtun minorities were growing resentful and rebellious of the regime of Daoud Khan which was entirely Pashtun dominated. The King finally dismissed him in 1963 and tried to win back the support of the minorities by removing members of the Royal Family from the Council of Ministers with his new constitution. He also tried to reestablish good relations with Pakistan and, indeed, the border was reopened. However, Daoud Khan held a grudge and was determined to seize power again but next time he intended to do away with the monarchy completely so there would be no King who could remove him from office. It is also worth remembering that, even though they were never a majority, Daoud Khan had been supported durin his time in office by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, the communist party which was, of course, favored by the Soviets. They wanted to make Afghanistan a socialist state like the Soviet Union and were quite pleased to see the failed policies of Daoud Khan draw their country closer into the Soviet orbit.

The communist poison was sitting there in Afghanistan, almost unnoticed but certainly deadly and Daoud Khan would be their path to power even if he was too ignorant to realize it. As has almost invariably been the case in countries around the world, from Russia to China to Cambodia, it is not the communists who overthrow monarchies and seize power (they are usually not strong enough to) but rather some other, more moderate, regime that does so first. The communists then come in, sweep away this younger, weaker regime and take absolute power for themselves. Such was the case in Afghanistan. In truly cowardly fashion, Daoud Khan plotted his revenge against his cousin but did not take action against him in person. Rather, he waited until the King was far away in Italy having eye surgery in 1973 when he launched a palace coup. Daoud Khan seized power and for the first time in Afghan history, declared himself President rather than king and the country became the Republic of Afghanistan. He thought he had won and immediately consolidated his power, killing off potential rivals and establishing a single-party state ruled by the party he established of course, the National Revolutionary Party. All political opposition was persecuted and that included his former communist “friends” of the PDPA. Relations also cooled with the Soviet Union as Daoud Khan, anxious to be his own boss, sought economic ties with India and Iran and the Middle East rather than Soviet Russia. Needless to say, the communists were soon plotting his downfall.

PDPA flag

Old enemies also rose again such as Islamic fundamentalists who were given aid by Pakistan which had not forgotten how Daoud Khan had tormented them in the past. Also, despite his attempts to change direction from his more socialist past, nepotism and corruption were as widespread as before. The Soviets helped unite the communist subversives in Afghanistan around the PDPA (other than the Maoists) and in 1978 Daoud was assassinated in a communist coup that brought the PDPA to power. However, there were still deep divisions among the communists and chaos ensued with one faction overthrowing another. However, a socialist state was established, land reforms (as they were called) were enacted and state atheism was imposed on what was still a zealously Muslim country. Almost immediately there was an anti-communist resistance movement and the rulers called on the Soviet Union for help. Despite some initial reluctance, by the end of 1979 the USSR invaded Afghanistan to prop up the communist government. Most probably know what happened next. Soviet military power was able to hold the cities but the countryside remained dominated by anti-communist, mostly Islamist, guerilla forces support by funds and war materials from the United States. This soon brought about a stalemate and increasing frustration for the Soviets in a situation that resulted in many referring to Afghanistan as “Russia’s Vietnam”.

The exiled King Zahir Shah had been barred from the country by the PDPA and an Afghan civil war was the last thing he wanted to see. Nonetheless, during the Reagan administration he was sought out as an opposition leader and cautiously and tentatively agreed to become the leader of a government-in-exile for Afghanistan. However, this was something the most powerful rebel factions would not agree to as they were determined to have a theocratic republic rather than a monarchy and so the concept fell apart. By 1989 the last of the Soviet military forces left Afghanistan (in utter disgust and frustration) while in Afghanistan the fighting continued between the Afghans themselves. The King had little to nothing to do with Afghan politics during this time, though he was still a sufficiently contentious figure that he was nearly assassinated in 1991. Another government emerged but the country was still almost completely lawless and it was opposed by the Taliban militia that was supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In 1996 the Taliban secured control of most of the country though areas remained contested by the United Front opposition.

"Father of the Nation"

In 2001, after refusing to turn over Osama bin Laden, U.S. and allied forces invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the Taliban regime. Almost immediately there were calls for the restoration of the monarchy under former King Zahir Shah as the only man who could unite all Afghan people and who was not tainted by the long series of civil wars. However, the U.S. government opposed this, preferring the (supposedly) more pro-American Hamid Karzai to be President of Afghanistan. Yet, it seems the former monarch did not want the position in exactly that way anyway saying, “I will accept the responsibility of head of state if that is what the Loya Jirga demands of me, but I have no intention to restore the monarchy. I do not care about the title of king. The people call me Baba (a term for a respected elderly man) and I prefer this title”. So, when the new post-Taliban government was formed Hamid Karzai became President and he granted the former king the title “Father of the Nation” which was abolished after the King died in 2007. There are currently no major political parties or factions in Afghanistan calling for the restoration of the monarchy, some favor the current republican regime, most advocate for a more Islamist government and there is still the (Maoist) Communist Party ever ready to cause trouble. However, recently, Prince Nadir Naim has emerged as a possible contender for power, a former aid and grandson of the last King (the son of a daughter of his) who is attracting some attention and positive press. He is the first royal to official enter the political race since the downfall of the monarchy, is dismissed by some as an outsider but supported by others who see the end of the monarchy as the point when things started going wrong for Afghanistan. Unfortunately, he has, as yet, not said that his goal is to restore the monarchy. He is running for President in the elections next year on a more general theme of national “restoration” as leader of the “Voice of the People” movement. He is also the nephew of Afghanistan’s first president, the one who overthrew his grandfather and ended the monarchy. Only time will tell how he fares in the chaotic world of Afghan politics.

Read More

Favorite Royal Images: Turkish-Indian Princess

Princess Niloufer Farhat Begum Sahiba

a relative (on her mother's side) of the Ottoman Imperial Family, she was the first wife of 

Prince Moazzam Jah, younger son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad in India

Read More

What the Pope Said

These days, whenever a Pope says anything not concerning God, Jesus or the Virgin Mary, I habitually begin to worry. In his recent papal ‘mission statement’ entitled “The Joy of the Gospel” Pope Francis has caused a number of people around the world to worry and opened a great deal of argument over what he was “really” saying. American right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh said the Pope was sounding like a Marxist, left-wing pundits have hailed him as the “OccuPope”. Some have worried that the Pope is calling for a world government by saying, “If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation, ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just a few.” Others are positively ecstatic that major changes are on the way with the Pope saying, “Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed.” Along the same lines he wrote, “I do not want a church concerned with being at the center and then ends up by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures.” On the left, many still frowned at his insistence that abortion is wrong and that women cannot be priests, though some did still see some hope in his calling for a greater role for women which, given what changes have already taken place, would be hard to define as anything but ordination since that is really all that is still denied them. Calls for a greater decentralization of the church was met with a more positive reaction all around (even the Protestants and Orthodox liked that part) as well as the Pope saying that the papacy itself might need to be reevaluated.

This is not the first time I have addressed this document, short and limited though that might have been, but I do have a problem with it and it is a problem that is quite common in papal documents of recent decades. First, however, I feel that I must defend, to some extent, some of the backlash over this which has upset some people. Mostly this has involved Catholics becoming upset with people on the political “right” for calling the Pope a Marxist or a socialist. I will defend them only in as much as anytime any Pope decides to address economics and economic policies it should be expected that there will be some controversy. A simple perusal of the internet will show left-wing outlets generally cheering the Pope for this document while right-wing outlets are critical of it or arguing that the Pope didn’t mean what everyone on the left thinks he meant. That gets to the root of my most basic problem with the document and much of what has come out of the Vatican in modern times. That is that, even while Pope Francis is often quite precise in his criticisms, on the whole it is so frustratingly vague as to be open to a wide variety of “interpretation”. For example, in decrying “inequality in society” the Pope writes, “This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root.” Well, pray tell Holy Father, what exactly do you mean by “socioeconomic system”? He speaks of “unjust social structures” without specifying what these social structures are or what should replace them. What is the “more efficient way” of the world interacting that is needed or being called for here?

He calls for the rich to help the poor but more than just calling for generosity he insists that governments must be involved in this. For myself, I found this rather at odds with his views on the Catholic Church itself. He seemed to be calling for a decentralization of the church but for greater centralization in government. In general, decentralization came about in governments because of a distrust of politicians whereas, in the Catholic Church, greater centralization was deemed only natural since the Pope was the Successor of St Peter and the one granted the gift of infallibility. This has been a bit difficult for your humble correspondent to wrap his damaged mind around. For example, in the United States, certainly since the Johnson administration, the government has taxed the rich and “given to the poor” in social programs more than ever before and yet poverty levels have only gone up. The Pope also calls on governments to provide all people with education and healthcare. Well, the U.S. is working on the healthcare bit right now (and being sued by the Catholic bishops over it) and as for education, again, the U.S. is spending more on education than ever before but with no improvement.

It is at times like these that I really miss the Papal States. After all, if the Pope still had an actual country to rule, with subjects to tax and an economy to regulate, we could see papal pronouncements put into effect. The Pope could actually lead by example. As it is now, with only Vatican City under his personal rule, I am told that comparisons to other (“real”) countries do not count. I was most vociferously told this when I pointed out that while Catholic bishops across Europe and North America decry border enforcement and efforts to control immigration, slipping into the Vatican without a ticket will lead to an altercation with a very large Swiss fellow holding a boarding pike. One cannot compare Vatican City to a “real” country. For example, the Pope condemns “unbridled consumerism”. Many news reports have translated that as “unbridled capitalism” and that could (or should) cause some confusion since I know of no place on earth where “unbridled capitalism” exists just as I have never known of a country on earth that ever practiced pure, total communism (though Pol Pot gave it a darn good try). However, again, that raises some questions which are left unanswered. How is consumerism to be bridled? How is a government to control what or how much people consume without infringing on their individual freedom which, lately anyway, the Catholic Church has upheld as something to be defended? We are given no explanation, no alternative model.

Historically, the Catholic Church has been a bit more specific as to the ideal “socioeconomic” system (if I can use that word even though I’m not sure what it means exactly and am unsure anyone else does either) but there is no consensus as to what exactly that was or if it was ever even really put into effect anywhere to be tried. Most agree that it involved some sort of revival of something like the guild system of the Middle Ages but, call it what you will, it became rather unpopular in the second half of the last century because so many who adopted it (or claimed to because, again, there is no consensus) were what most people today would label as “fascists” (Dollfuss, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar etc). Right or wrong that is the perception and so, especially since perception is reality more and more these days, it is mostly not talked about. You can put out statistics about what actually happened in those countries (unemployment levels dropping and trains running on time) but it won’t do much good because once the “f-word” is mentioned, all rational discussion grinds to an immediate halt. It seems quite a dilemma. If a pope is going to roll up his sleeves and get involved in critiquing economic policies, surely he should have a clearly defined alternative to offer or at least more specifics as to what exactly is good and what exactly is bad so that people are not just left arguing over what he “really” meant? After all, it would not be the first time that a papal foray into politics ended up not turning out so well. For example, when Pope Leo XIII called on French Catholics to embrace the republic, he did so while claiming to be a monarchist and insisting that French royalists could restore the monarchy democratically by playing ball with the republic. In hindsight, however, most took it as a papal blessing on republicanism and the effective end of the royalists as a political force in France.

Of course, gone are the days when popes defended Christian monarchy. The last time the Church actually defended an officially Catholic monarchy was in the final days of the Kingdom of Italy and that was a case of ‘too little, too late’ after decades of demonizing it at worst and ignoring it at best up until 1929. A republic took over and the Lateran Treaty started to be amended very quickly. Popes stopped having coronations, democracy is what Pope Francis speaks for (as did his immediate predecessors) and along with it multiculturalism and inter-religious dialogue are the new watchwords. In the few officially Catholic monarchies that remain, one would be led to believe that the Pope would not find much to admire about them. The Prince of Liechtenstein is rather well known around the world for his advocacy of less government and fewer regulations and the Prince of Monaco rules over a country with the greatest concentration of those terrible rich people in the whole world. Something else I noticed was the number of people rushing to point out, because of all the coverage of this in the American media, that this was not directed at the United States and Americans should stop thinking it is ‘all about them’. Which is true, though as best as I can recall, the United States was the only country mentioned by name in the document. So, there’s that.

I also could not help but noticing, in my perusal of the internet and what people were saying about this in the major publications and news sources in preparation for this was that everyone on the political left seemed overjoyed by it with just a few negative types mentioning that the Pope should practice what he preaches and have the Church start paying taxes and selling off the contents of the Vatican Museum (which I rather hate to mention for fear that he just might do it) while those on the political right were either opposed to what the Pope said, confused by it or were trying to defend it by basically saying he didn’t mean what everything thinks he meant. As I have said before, that alone should cause reasonable people to think a little harder. I have never known any religious leader who has had to have so many people rush out to interpret for everyone else what he “really” meant every time a statement or quote comes out. It is, however, quite difficult these days, especially when dealing with modern Christianity, to determine what is a “moral issue” and what is not, because, so many on both sides claim that every issue is related to every other issue and, in the end, it is all about morality any way you look at it. Border enforcement is a moral issue, healthcare is a moral issue, the debt is a moral issue, national security is a moral issue, foreign aid is a moral issue and so on. I will not try to categorize what the Pope said (I’ve made enough enemies already) but I will point out just a few statistics. In this papal mission statement the word “inequality” is mentioned ten times. The word “Heaven” is also mentioned ten times though eight of those were in quoting someone else. The Pope used the word “economy” twelve times and the word “economic” nineteen times. He used the word consumer or consumerism a total of eleven times while mentioning “marriage” three times and “abortion” only once.

Of course, I have not read every papal document from every pope in history and I know of no one who has, however, this struck me overall as being a very worldly document from a man who in this same document said, “God save us from a worldly Church with superficial spiritual and pastoral trappings!” And it is not as though this was a document intended to address some specific worldly problem (such as those of Pope Leo XIII on trade unions) but was released as a mission statement for the papacy of Francis yet it dwells (not entirely by any means) so much with the affairs of this world and not simply with spiritual matters but with economic ones. People who do not give to the poor are stealing from the poor, wealthy countries of the northern hemisphere are not doing enough to help the poorer countries of the southern hemisphere and so on. Which seems odd, to me at least, coming from the Pope but which, no matter how laudable, is rendered rather useless, again, by the total lack of specifics on what exactly to do about it. Is this really what the modern papacy has been reduced to, telling countries how to spend their money?

True, he mentioned a “more efficient way of interacting” for the countries of the world, but gave no clue as to what this way was or what vehicle could bring it about. Is it the United Nations? Is it some new international organization or global forum? We are not told. If I am seen as dwelling too excessively on this point it is only because of what I have witnessed firsthand. In the United States of America, for example, it is the Democrats, currently President Obama, who speak the most about inequality and social injustice and the need for the rich to “pay their fair share” and for the need for government to provide healthcare to all people. It is the Republicans who would say that less government regulation is the answer to these problems, that social welfare is being taken advantage of by fraudsters and that over taxing and regulating businesses (and the rich) only create more unemployment and thus more poor people for the Pope to embrace. In the last election, President Obama campaigned on providing “universal healthcare” and the U.S. Catholic bishops came out also in favor of “universal healthcare”. If you were to read the fine print you would see that the bishops did not officially endorse the plan of the President but they did call for universal healthcare and he was the only candidate promising to deliver it. Related or not, most American Catholics voted for Obama and the healthcare plan that was then passed directly attacked the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church such as in funding for abortion-inducing drugs and artificial birth control. So, vague calls for nice sounding things can have disastrous consequences when one ignores the details.

The specifically spiritual aspects of this document are ones that I cannot imagine anyone having a problem with, the political and economic aspects some people do have a problem with and they have not been bashful in voicing them or at least expressing confusion. My main point here is that this is to be expected. What stands out though is the reaction to this and I have been rather amazed at how hyper-sensitive many people have been to any disagreement with or even questions concerning Pope Francis. These people are told they are putting self interest before God (or as the Pope says, making an idol of money), that they have to choose between obedience to God (as represented by the Pope) or their own judgment on political or economic matters. It seems rather odd when it all springs from a document in which the Pope calls for, “Social dialogue as a contribution to peace, Dialogue between faith, reason and science, Ecumenical dialogue, Relations with Judaism, Interreligious dialogue and Social dialogue in a context of religious freedom”. That is an awful lot of “dialogue” going on in a document people react to challenges or questions over with ‘you worship your money, have turned your back on God and you’re going to Hell’ -or more subtle words to that effect. It seems a stretch to hold personal obedience to the Pope who talks about doing away with outdated customs, going out into the world and interacting and “dialoguing” with everyone to then react so harshly to those who disagree with the Pope on certain points. The Pope himself wrote, “Since I am called to put into practice what I ask of others, I too must think about a conversion of the papacy.” and that, “The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion.” He goes on to speak about Episcopal gatherings and the like but what exactly the papal conversion entails I cannot say as it is not expressed.

Given all of that, I am not the least bit surprised by the reaction this document has produced. It is critical of a great deal, inside the Catholic Church and outside of it yet rather vague when it comes to details, solutions or specific changes and that, it seems to me, is a sound recipe for controversy and confusion. This is something to be taken seriously because, for anyone who is a Catholic certainly, obedience to the Pope is not supposed to be an optional extra (assuming that is not included in the aspects of the papacy that need “conversion”). Traditionally, the teaching of the Catholic Church has been that obedience to the Pope is a necessary requirement for salvation and whether what he says falls under the (again, at this point rather vague) guidelines of what constitutes an infallible statement or not, what he says is supposed to carry immense weight and be taken very seriously. Given that, and given that what constitutes a “moral issue” is expanding into areas such as international relations and income inequality, the Church needs to take care to be just as specific about its pronouncements on those issues as it is on things like the sacraments, sin and salvation. Critics should calm down and read the document and ponder it before leaping to conclusions (the Pope also criticizes debt and dependency -which is usually left out) and at the same time, supporters of the Pope should not immediately jump on those who disagree with or question it. The Pope said he wanted a church that was “bruised, hurting and dirty”. Don’t be afraid of the “dirt” that comes from a little bit of debate.

Additional Note: One of the “danger” signs Catholics should have been alerted to about the Second Vatican Council was how it was so highly praised in the liberal, leftist, secularist elite media. Ever since then, people have been trying to explain away the guitars, altar girls and “clown masses” as being the result of “misinterpretation”. In all the research I did before writing this, I could not help but notice that the more leftist and the more traditionally anti-Catholic and anti-Christian in general the news source was, the more in love they were with Pope Francis. If Church documents and papal statements being misinterpreted is a problem, let me give this warning that what I heard, over and over again, based on this as well as the papal record so far is that politicians shouldn’t be denied communion for voting for abortion, that homosexuality is okay, free markets are terrible things and socialism is the answer because the rich are doomed to hell anyway because Jesus said so. That has been much of the take away from this and anytime there is a papal document that someone like former Obama White House Senior Advisor David Plouffe, Democrat Representative Keith Ellison (a Muslim) or Catholics like Ed Schultz and Michael Moore praise with such gusto -you might want to rethink your position.

Read More