MM Video: Q & A, Answering Your Questions

Read More

Royal News Roundup

Starting in the British Isles, the biggest royal news this week was a new royal birth as it was announced that Zara Phillips (daughter of HRH the Princess Royal) was delivered of a healthy baby girl with husband Mike Tindall calling it “Definitely the best day of my life”. Prime Minister “Call Me Dave” Cameron said it was “wonderful news” and we send our heartfelt congratulations to the proud new parents as well. Also this week it was announced that Prince Harry will be ending his time as an Apache helicopter pilot and will take up a staff position in London which will entail planning for ceremonial events. We wish him the best in that new position. Princess Beatrice of York began an internship with Sony this week and the Countess of Wessex met with some Brownies. A knife-wielding man who tried to storm Buckingham Palace was sentenced to 16 months in jail on Wednesday. He said his goal was to complain to HM the Queen about his welfare payments. He got off lightly in my opinion. Also, it was announced this week that the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall will be making a visit to Canada in the future, so we look forward to that.

On the Scandinavian royal front, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden injured her leg while skiing in Italy over the New Year holiday but was not letting that hold her back, carrying on with her royal duties with her left leg in a brace. Meanwhile, the King and Queen met with county governors this week. In neighboring Norway, HM King Harald V celebrated the anniversary of his succession to the throne this week and HM Queen Sonja opened the “1814 -The Game of Denmark and Norway” exhibition at the Norwegian Folk Museum. And in Danish royal news, Crown Princess Mary was in Burma this week, comforting impoverished children on a visit to promote “sexual health” in that unfortunate country. Further south, King Philip of the Belgians opened the Brussels Motor Show this week and in Luxembourg it was announced this week that some months ago Archduke Istvan of Austria resigned from his post as secretary general of the administration of the Grand Duke. The Archduke is the son of the late Archduke Felix who was the son of Blessed Emperor Charles of Austria-Hungary.

And, speaking of the House of Hapsburg, in an interview with a group of European newspapers, Archduke Karl (current head of the family) said that his family should not be blamed for starting the First World War (and rightly so) saying that, “If you were to simplify it, you could say that the shooting in Sarajevo started the first world war. But if there hadn’t been the shooting in Sarajevo, it would have kicked off three weeks later somewhere else. He said his family nor Austria-Hungary had anything to feel sorry about as they were not guilty of anything, saying it would be wrong to single out one state when tensions were so high between all the major powers. And, moving on to southern Europe, in Rome the world media was shocked at the ‘State of the World’ address of Pope Francis in which he called abortion “horrific” in his most critical words yet about the practice. Reuters earned some derision for referring to the remark as a “nod to conservatives” in their headline. In the Principality of Monaco, Andrea Casiraghi and new wife Tatiana are busy preparing for their second wedding ceremony while the Sovereign Prince and Princess greeted circus performers. Finally, in Spain, the anticorruption prosecutor has now said he will not appeal the summons for HRH Infanta Cristina to testify but he also criticized the judge for believing in “conspiracy theories” in an effort to bring the Infanta before the court despite a lack of evidence that it is warranted. Good for him.

In Africa, archeologists from the United States believe they have uncovered the tomb of a previously unknown Egyptian pharaoh. As most know, the pharaohs of Egypt were held to be gods and someone else is being accused of making a similar case on the African continent. However, it is nowhere near as outrageous as most of the headlines make it sound. Yes, it is the Kingdom of Swaziland where the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs said that God operated “in a monarchical way” just as the King does. This is, of course, entirely true. He said, “It is God’s desire to see the people of Swaziland loving their monarchy” which I would also be inclined to agree with. However, he probably did go a bit too far considering the many problems that exist in that country saying, “The reason God’s eye is closer to the Kingdom of Swaziland is that we are a platform of showing the world how the Almighty God wants the world to be ruled”. Okay…

Moving on to Asia, readers may recall a previous news report here about a claimant to the Sultanate of Malacca in what is now Malaysia obtaining a document recognizing his claim from the International Court of Justice. Well, *fooled you*! Turns out it was a fake as the ICJ came out this week saying that it did no such thing and that the claimant in question is a big, fat, lying liar (or words to that effect). The pretender in question, who calls himself Raja Noor, has since been arrested under the sedition act on allegations that he has been involved in the buying and selling of titles (a significant problem in Malaysia). And, on Wednesday, in the “Land of the Rising Sun”, Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress participated in the annual New Year’s Poetry Reading Ceremony at the Imperial Palace. A poem, composed by HM the Emperor, was recited which recalled a recent imperial visit to a coastal area devastated by disease caused by severe mercury poisoning due to pollution. There were also poems by HM the Empress and HIH Crown Princess Masako among others.

Read More

One of the Worst: President Woodrow Wilson

In some areas, there is not much that needs to be said here about the misdeeds of President Woodrow Wilson as so many have detailed them already and from widely different political backgrounds and viewpoints. For monarchists, much of the criticism of Wilson has focused on his actions during and after the First World War. There is certainly much to criticize. However, my problem with the most extreme of that type of criticism is that, in exaggerating the influence of a man who was involved only at the very end of the war and whose views were often ignored when it was over, too many equally or more guilty parties escape unscathed. The First World War was a disaster of epic proportions but it was not a war that the United States or Wilson had anything to do with starting nor was the botched peace settlement entirely of his own making. Later, after the fact when it was too late to do any good, Wilson himself admitted he was totally out of his element and had no idea what he was talking about when he strutted over to Europe ready to lecture to all and sundry about how to solve the worlds problems. There is plenty, again, to criticize him for on that front but his counterparts in the other countries involved deserve by far the most criticism. Nonetheless, he was one of the worst presidents America has ever produced and it is Americans, rather than Europeans, who have the most grounds for which to condemn Woodrow Wilson.

First of all, some things to make all our friends on the liberal left very uncomfortable. Wilson was a Democrat and only the second Democrat to be elected President since the era of Republican domination during and after the Civil War. This happened because the Republican Party had split into conservative and progressive factions led by Taft and Teddy Roosevelt. His father was a Confederate-sympathizing Presbyterian preacher and, as President, Wilson segregated Washington DC and the federal government, demoting or firing many Blacks (whom he referred to as “Darkies”). He re-segregated the army and is often remembered for the praise he gave to the controversial Civil War film “Birth of a Nation” in which the heroes who ride to the rescue in the end are the Ku Klux Klan. Wilson’s endorsement was so positive, it was featured in the film itself. Wilson also adamantly opposed granting suffrage to women but, being a politician after all, changed this position when it became clear that his career would suffer for it. Afterwards, he favored giving women the vote. Impressed yet liberals? So, it is true, this hero of the Democrat Party and so many liberals still today was a complete racist who only grudgingly went along with giving women the right to vote and who had no qualms about invading countries that did not threaten the United States at all. What a guy.

His election came with a huge victory for the Democrats in Congress and with near absolute power President Wilson could have his way on just about everything. The American people were to see what an unfettered Democratic government looked like for the first time in the memory of most people. First he lowered or abolished tariffs and then set about putting the government in charge of the banking industry and establishing a new currency with the passage of an act creating the Federal Reserve which the government would have exclusive control over. In doing this, Wilson had said that he wanted to set business free, but not too free it seems as he next set about enacting a massive intrusion of government into the business sector with the creation of the Federal Trade Commission and the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act. He also helped out the farmers by making it easier for them to drown themselves in debt. Again, what a guy. And if that doesn’t make you love him, Americans also have President Wilson to thank for the federal income tax. I’m rather surprised his face isn’t on Mt Rushmore (which was carved by a member of the KKK so I really am surprised).

In the area of foreign relations, Wilson turned down a loan to China because he was against “dollar diplomacy” yet he didn’t seem to have a problem with violent “diplomacy”. He disapproved of the military dictatorship of President Victoriano Huerta in Mexico and tried to coerce him into retirement, declaring that there would be no peace in Mexico so long as Huerta remained in office. When Huerta refused to step down because of the disapproval of the American president, Wilson began selling weapons to his enemies (including Pancho Villa who would eventually ransack a town in the United States). Next, a group of U.S. sailors were arrested in the Mexican port of Tampico. They were eventually released and President Huerta apologized but this was not enough for President Wilson who demanded that Huerta salute the American flag in Tampico which, obviously, he was not about to do. When Huerta refused this ridiculous demand, Wilson responded by invading Mexico and occupying the port of Veracruz. This little battle cost 18 Americans their lives, four more than the number of sailors who had been arrested in Tampico -what a trade. Argentina, Brazil and Chile intervened to negotiate a peace, Huerta was forced to leave office and Wilson was happy. But, the man who replaced Huerta, Venustiano Carranza, was soon faced with rebellion as well, led by one of his former generals, the aforementioned Pancho Villa.

After Pancho Villa raided American territory, President Wilson ordered another invasion of Mexico where American troops clashed with rebel and government forces alike. The issue was never settled as American attention was soon diverted by the First World War. However, Mexico was certainly not alone in being invaded by American troops thanks to President Wilson. No, this preachy scholar who firmly believed he was the smartest man in any room, who condemned past territorial acquisitions by the United States and who would condemn, for example, the German invasion of Belgium in 1914, invaded a number of other countries himself. Aside from a totally unjustified invasion of Mexico at Veracruz, Wilson had American troops invade and occupy Nicaragua in 1914, Haiti in 1915 and Wilson put the Dominican Republic under U.S. military rule in 1916. Somehow, each of those was justified but, of course, Germany invading Belgium or Austria-Hungary invading Serbia was just plain wrong. It was after all of that, in 1917, that Woodrow Wilson took the United States into World War I after winning reelection on the slogan “he kept us out of war”.

But, before getting into that, we should also mention that a whopping three Constitutional amendments were passed during the Wilson administration. One was giving women the vote (and we know what Wilson thought about that), the other was the prohibition of alcohol which proved to be extremely lucrative for the organized crime business and finally one which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators who had previously been appointed by state governments. This is often overlooked but it was one of the worst of the many terrible things Wilson inflicted on the United States. The Senate had been established in the first place to provide a representative body for the states of the Union. The people were represented by the House of Representatives and the states were represented by the Senate. By making Senators be directly elected, the public suddenly got double-representation and the states suddenly had none. This made it much easier for the federal government to trample on the rights of the states in the future. It would also lead to a great deal of political fighting and deadlock as the Senate ceased to be a less partisan gathering based on region rather than party and became a more puffed up version of the lower house which became particularly problematic when the same public would elect one party to power in the House and another party to power in the Senate.

Wilson declaring war on Germany

Then, of course, there is the war. It is true, Wilson stayed out almost until the very end (he specifically did not want to join the Allies so long as the Russian Empire was a member of the club) when many others (like Teddy Roosevelt) wanted to get involved from the outset. It is also true that Germany committed a calculated risk with the reintroduction of unrestricted submarine warfare and an unbelievably colossal act of stupidity with the infamous Zimmermann Telegram, however, Wilson still could have dismissed that if he had really wanted to. Most governments would not have of course, but the fact is that Mexico was not about to be any sort of threat to the United States and Germany or any of the Central Powers posed no real threat to American security or interests at all. Germany gave Wilson a reason to go to war but it could never be said it was vital or necessary to do so. Then, during those brief months of war, the American public was treated to what a little strutting dictator Wilson could be. Newspapers that were critical of the war, Great Britain, the Wilson administration or which said anything positive about Germany were shut down. People who displayed opposition to the war were arrested. So much for freedom of speech. One man was arrested for playing music by Beethoven, another was arrested for reading the Constitution of the U.S. on the street. Wilson set up an official propaganda office, enlisted celebrities to help sell war bonds, deported immigrants who opposed the war and arrested thousands of people for being critical of the government even after the war was over. He was a tyrant of the first order who would never compromise with anyone. In fact, many attribute the failure of the Senate to ratify the Versailles Treaty, at least in part, with the fact that Wilson cut the Republicans completely out of the process.

In his arrogant, scholarly way, he came to Europe when it was over famous for his “Fourteen Points”, cheered wildly in every European capital he visited. The truth, of course, was that the Fourteen Points were irrelevant from day one. The Germans actually wanted to have a peace based on them, knowing it was a better deal than what they would otherwise get but, of course, Britain and France had no intention of letting Wilson dictate the peace. Most regarded Wilson with derision as an over-educated yet uniformed, idealistic incompetent who didn’t know what he was talking about. Eventually, Wilson himself all but admitted as much. He had lots of vague, pretty sounding slogans but no real solutions to European or world problems. He also sacrificed a great deal just to see the creation of his beloved League of Nations, a useless talking shop that the United States, thankfully, refused to have any part of. In fact, the U.S. refused to sign on to both the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which, in typical fashion, Wilson blamed on the influence of Germans and Irish in the United States. He left behind him a country full of unemployed veterans, striking workers and race riots but with a much bigger and more powerful federal government that future presidents would be only too willing to exploit.

Woodrow Wilson must easily rank as one of the worst presidents in American history. Arrogant, hypocritical, narrow and close-minded, he was convinced he had the answer to any and all problems which usually amounted to some grandiose turn of phrase followed by putting the government in charge and leaving someone else to deal with it. He actually emerged from the war claiming that the United States was the “savior of the world”. He blighted America with the Federal Reserve, the income tax and a level of totalitarian tyranny the likes of which had not been seen before (but would be seen increasingly in the future). He inflicted plenty of terrors on Europe, the only diminishment there being that his Allies happily ignored him most of the time and inflicted far worse. Yet, as bad as he was for America, probably the worst thing Wilson did was to clear a path for even worse things to come and politicians from both the Democrat as well as Republican Parties have built on his mistakes. He muzzled free speech and gutted freedom of the press, later presidents would put people in concentration camps, hold people without trial or take away any right to privacy. He got the government involved in banking and business practices, later presidents would take over entire industries. He started the income tax, other presidents would raise it higher and higher and expand it wider and wider. Wilson was terrible enough on his own but probably the most damaging thing he did in the long run was setting a new standard in what the President could get away with and, for the first time, setting the precedent that American military intervention could solve the world’s problems. Woodrow Wilson: Europeans hate him, Americans should hate him more.

Read More

Japan: Champion of Monarchy in Asia

If there is one thing that warms my mad monarchist heart, it is seeing existing monarchies supporting each other and, just as if not more importantly, giving aid to the monarchist cause in countries overrun by republicanism. In our own time we have seen countries pull together out of a shared devotion to their own republican political ideology (liberal democracy on one side, communism on the other) but in recent years there has been very little of this from monarchial countries. It has happened in the past, such as when Tsar Alexis of Russia cut off all trade with England after they cut off the head of their King, when the Prussians sent troops to aid the royalist Orange Party in the Netherlands under attack by republican forces  and when the crowned heads of Europe came together to declare war on republican France after the regicide of King Louis XVI, not excluding the British who had long been the traditional enemy of the Kingdom of France. We saw it when Tsar Nicholas I sent troops in to crush rebellion against the Austrian Empire in Hungary because it was recognized that revolution and republicanism are cancers that spread easily. There were other times, when such solidarity was called for but never achieved such as when the Queen mother of Spain (and the German Kaiser) called for monarchial solidarity against the United States in the Spanish-American War but such cooperation was not forthcoming.

Imperial Solidarity

Once the twentieth century really got going, however, things seemed to change. Suddenly, the common bonds of monarchy seemed to be set aside in favor of agreements and alliances that (it was thought) would be more beneficial to the countries in question, though this was invariably not the case. The Orthodox and autocratic Russian Empire, probably the most devotedly monarchist power in Europe, allied itself with the very liberal French Republic. During World War I, monarchies made war on each other as never before and (since so many fell as a result) as they never would again, dragging the United States into European affairs in the process. There was not a great deal of monarchial solidarity displayed by the Allies (two of the major participants being republican France and America) and while there was more on the side of the Central Powers, even there Germany made the terrible mistake of, albeit very reluctantly and temporarily, making use of the communists in taking the Russian Empire down to get Russia out of the war. The aftermath saw even more bad decisions being made, such as the British Empire putting sanctions on the Kingdom of Italy while signing a naval treaty with Nazi Germany or breaking off their alliance with the Empire of Japan in favor of one with the United States of America. Remember that by the terms of that treaty, Japan was pledged to help defend the British Empire in Asia whereas, even after Britain and America became war time allies in World War II, the U.S. government under Franklin D. Roosevelt made it clear that he wanted the British Empire to be dismantled.

HM the Meiji Emperor

In the midst of this unfortunate trend, although it can sometimes seem like few notice the facts sitting right in front of them, it was the Empire of Japan that was the rare exception, supporting the principle of monarchy and giving aid to monarchists of other nations -even former enemies. The Japanese were well aware of the dangers of revolutionary republicanism and had been for longer than most probably realize. During the period when Japan began to withdraw from isolation, the first to go overseas to Europe learned about the French Revolution and some began to advocate something similar once they returned home. Thankfully, the Japanese public was too staunchly faithful to the Emperor and the whole concept was too distastefully foreign for this to ever get very far but the imperial government recognized that this ideology was a danger that had to be resisted. Japan had looked on with alarm at the triumph of republicanism in China after the 1911 Revolution and the Empire of Japan had dealt with at least pseudo-republicans in the past such as on Taiwan in the First Sino-Japanese War and with some of the rebels who opposed the Meiji Restoration.

When the Empire of Japan first emerged onto the world stage, monarchy was still dominant in the world and the only close neighbors of Japan; Korea, China and Russia, were all monarchies as well. Some conflict was probably inevitable. As Japan modernized, the need for resources grew greater and one early source of vital food imports was Korea. However, Korea was a vassal of China and the Chinese were not too pleased with the increased Japanese involvement in Korea and had a long history of being rather contemptuous toward Japan, mostly for refusing to recognize Chinese supremacy. The first two external wars fought by the Empire of Japan after the Meiji Restoration were, if you reduce it to the most simplistic level, over Korea. First they drove the Chinese out but were robbed of much of their victory when Russia, France and Germany ganged up on the Japanese, forcing them to give back some of their winnings. Russian power was expanding in the region and Japan offered to accept Russian dominance in Manchuria (Chinese power being on the decline) if the Russians would stay out of Korea. Their offer was not accepted and the Russo-Japanese War basically determined whether or not Korea would be a part of the Empire of Japan or the Russian Empire. The Japanese were victorious and in 1910 the short-lived “Great Han Empire” (Korea) was annexed by Japan.

Japan-Korea Teamwork

There is still a great deal of bitterness over this whole period on the part of Korea, some of it completely understandable and some of it incredibly petty. However, restricting ourselves to just the situation of the monarchy, the Japanese were much more careful than other powers in ensuring that the monarchial principle was not damaged. The Korean monarch was reduced in rank to what most Korean monarchs had always been but retained that title, remained in his palace and along with the aristocracy, received generous payments from Japan to allow them to live the lifestyle they had become accustomed to. Keep in mind, according to the modern Korean republics (or at least the south anyway) these were the inveterate enemies of Japan and the Japanese annexation, yet, this is how they were treated. The Korean crown prince was educated in Japan and treated like a son by HM the Meiji Emperor (in fact, some felt he was treated better than the Emperor’s own son). Members of the Korean Royal Family continued to hold prominent positions throughout the remaining years of the Empire of Japan. It was a far cry from the British exiling the last Mughal Emperor to Burma, the French exiling the monarchs of Vietnam or Madagascar to far away countries or even the United States in Hawaii imposing republicanism and abolishing all royal titles.

Emperor "Henry" Puyi with the Japanese

The next major conflict for the Empire of Japan was the First World War, which Japan joined on the Allied side because of their treaty with Great Britain. The Japanese secured the capture of the biggest German base in the Far East and provided warships to escort troop ships from British possessions in Asia and Australia to the European battlefront. Toward the end of the conflict, republicanism and in particular communism became a more prominent concern for Japan. The two largest and most powerful neighbors of Japan, China and Russia, both fell into republican chaos and civil war. In both cases, the Empire of Japan responded by supporting the loyal monarchists wherever possible, even though these people represented the two empires that had previously been the enemies of Japan. In the face of the encroaching forces of communism in Russia and the republican chaos in China, however, that did not matter. Japan began to support and protect the last Emperor of China after his expulsion from the Forbidden City as well as Qing loyalists who hoped for his restoration. The Japanese sent the largest expeditionary force of any of the Allied nations that intervened in the Russian Civil War and the Empire of Japan was quick to support the White Russian forces in the field and even after they had been forced into exile, mostly in Manchuria.

Mongol Prince Demchugdongrub

Along with supplying White Russian exiles with a safe haven, money, guns and military supplies, the Empire of Japan also provided sanctuary, support and security for the last Emperor of China and Qing Dynasty loyalists. Ultimately, as we know, the Japanese also made possible his restoration to his ancestral throne in Manchuria with the establishment of the Empire of Manchukuo. The importance of this should not be shrugged off. How rare is it that an overthrown monarch is ever able to regain their throne, even if only a part of the realm they once ruled? And this was not just for a few years but for more than a decade. It was also from their base in Manchuria that Japanese forces gave aid and assistance to the monarchists of Inner Mongolia who wished to see the communist client-state in Outer Mongolia overthrown and all Mongols reunited under a restored monarchy. The Mongol prince at the head of this effort was Prince Demchugdongrub (aka Prince De Wang) and his family. The Prince was a distant relative and long-time friend and supporter of the last Manchu Emperor and, for years, the Japanese had tried to coordinate a monarchist alliance of the Japanese, Manchu and Mongol peoples across northeast Asia. This was the reason behind the (short-lived) arranged marriage of the Japanese-raised Manchu Princess Kawashima Yoshiko to the Mongol Prince Ganjuurjab whose father would be a general in the Inner Mongolian Army of Prince De Wang.

Prince Cuong De

Even during World War II, the Empire of Japan promoted monarchy wherever possible. The earliest ally of Japan in southeast Asia was the Kingdom of Thailand and in Indochina the Japanese supported Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam becoming independent monarchies again while always respecting the reigning monarchs whether they were friendly toward Japan or not. In Vietnam, for example, the Prince Cuong De had long-established and friendly ties with Japan whereas the reigning monarch, Emperor Bao Dai, had spent much of his life in France. Yet, the Japanese worked with the reigning monarch and supported those sects who were monarchist (the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai for example) while the United States (short-sightedly) supported the communist-led Viet Minh. In Laos, the King was pro-French and so the Japanese worked with a prince who favored independence yet made no effort to depose or harm the pro-French King. In the states of Malaysia, the Japanese restored two monarchs who had unjustly been deprived of their thrones but never removed any reigning monarch even those that supported Britain over Japan. After driving the British forces out of Burma, the first instinct of the Japanese was to restore the native monarchy under a grandson of the last King Thibaw and it was only when they found no support for such an initiative that they turned to Dr. Ba Maw. Even then, when he was installed as head of state he did so with much of the ceremony of the old Kingdom of Burma which some took as a sign that he might have restored the monarchy eventually with himself as king which there was nothing to prevent him from doing given that Burma had no royal succession law and traditionally the throne went to whoever could take it. To further tantalize, Dr. Ba Maw was the son of a royal official to the last of the Burmese kings, and a staunch monarchist who opposed the British out of his loyalty to the Royal Family of Burma.

Of course, I know there will be those who doubt the sincerity of the Japanese in these events as there are many anti-monarchy and/or anti-Japanese people who would decry anything Japan did for any reason. I am sure some would say that Japan only did this because it served Japanese interests. My only response to that is to ask, “So?” Do you really expect any country to act against their own interests? Do you expect a nation at war to give aid to those who oppose them and support their enemies? Would anyone expect that? Of course not. Thankfully, as a monarchy, it was in the interest of Japan to support monarchy and that just happened to be in the best interest of all those involved as well, in my view certainly. Others, monarchist opponents perhaps, might ask, ‘well, why didn’t Japan try to make the whole of China a monarchy again, or make The Philippines a monarchy?’ or, in other words, impose a monarchy on people who did not desire one. The obvious answer is that Japan was trying to solve problems, not create new ones by trying to impose a form of government on people who did not want it. However, to any who would downplay the pro-monarchy policies of the Empire of Japan, I have a simple question, “Who did more?” That is all. If what they did was not enough to be praiseworthy for proponents of monarchy, show me a country that did more. I would be glad to hear about it and give them all due praise as well. As for the Empire of Japan, the record speaks for itself. Some, I am sure, may be unable to get beyond old grudges but as a pan-monarchist if for no other reason, I for one will always have a heartfelt salute for the Empire of Japan, champion of monarchy from Russia to southeast Asia.

Read More

Monarch Profile: King Joao II of Portugal

Amongst the illustrious list of Portuguese monarchs, one name that always stands out is that of King Joao II. He was a man often unpopular with the elites of his own country yet who was widely admired in his own time by monarchs across Christendom and history remembers him as one of the most successful kings Portugal has had. He was born on March 3, 1455 in Lisbon, the son of King Afonso V and Isabella of Coimbra. A vigorous and upstanding youth, early on he earned a reputation for courage and independence. With the long-standing counteroffensive against the forces of Islam still raging, Prince Joao fought alongside his father in the campaigns in North Africa. After the conquest of Arzila (in what is now Morocco) in 1471 the King made him a knight and in 1473 he was married to his first cousin Infanta Leonor of Viseu. His aversion to court politics and his reputation for going his own way without being influenced by others caused some resentment amongst the Portuguese nobility who feared that, when he came to the throne, their own power would be diminished. Sometimes being an honest man is enough to make enemies. Ironically enough, given how Portuguese history would later unfold, one of his opponents was the Duke of Braganza.

Afonso V had tried to make himself King of Castile and Leon but was unsuccessful, defeated by Fernando II of Aragon (one half of the famous Isabella and Ferdinand royal duo) and after being deceived by the King of France he was frustrated and depressed, abdicating his throne and retiring to a monastery in 1477. Joao II succeeded him but did not formally inherit the title of King of Portugal until the death of his father in 1481. As many of the nobles had feared, immediately after coming to power, King Joao II worked to strengthen the monarchy at the expense of the aristocracy which, to his mind, had grown too large and manipulative. Not surprisingly, many nobles began to plot against him. One of the leaders was the Duke of Braganza who tried to enlist the help of Queen Isabella I of Castile in overthrowing the Portuguese monarch. Unfortunately for the Duke, his letters were intercepted by agents of the King who then banned the House of Braganza, executed the Duke and confiscated his property. For her part, though she could be considered a natural enemy given the actions of his father, Queen Isabella the Catholic was rather impressed by the strength of King Joao II, referring to him as “El Hombre” (The Man). Even his adversaries admired his ability.

Nobles were henceforth forbidden to administer justice on their lands with the Crown becoming the sole source of law and order. The Duke of Viseu had the distinction of being stabbed by the King personally for leading an aristocratic conspiracy against him. The Bishop of Evora was among those executed and who had their property confiscated for plots against the King. All of this seems quite harsh to people today but it must be seen in the context of history. The liberalism of Afonso V, building on extensive concessions to the aristocracy in the past, had really made the country rather top heavy and unstable. Previously, the King was usually not the most powerful man in Portugal and the government of the country was little more than a battlefield for the intrigues of the elites, scheming and feuding with each other to increase their own wealth and authority. The confiscated property of these nobles put the monarchy on a solid financial footing and the King made sure that there was one authority, one administrator of justice and one unifying force in the country and that was the monarchy. Overall, the Kingdom of Portugal was considerably better off because of it and the result was increased peace, stability and prosperity.

Another important accomplishment King Joao II can be credited with is restoring the Portuguese emphasis on exploration which had been increasingly sidelined since the death of the famous Prince Henry the Navigator. Although his primary aim was Portuguese expansion down the coast of Africa, his support for exploration in general had immense long-term benefits for the country, particularly the discovery of a route to India and Portuguese entry into the lucrative spice trade. During his reign Bartholomew Diaz rounded the Cape of Good Hope at the bottom of Africa in 1486 and in 1498 Vasco da Gama reached India. Portuguese explorers also discovered the Congo River and made expeditions into Ethiopia (and India) in search of the lands of “Prester John”, a Christian king believed to rule over a marvelous country somewhere to the east, surrounded by Muslims or other non-Christian peoples. That turned out to be a tall tale but the exploration, new outposts established and new trading routes gained proved to be a great benefit to the Kingdom of Portugal and, by extension, to Europe as a whole.

Also, unlike his father, King Joao II tried to keep peace with the neighboring Spanish Kingdom of Castile. However, this was difficult as tensions were inevitable due to competition in the fields of exploration and colonial expansion. A crisis seemed in the making following the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. Starting in 1485 the ambitious Italian explorer had tried to persuade King Joao II of Portugal to sponsor his voyage. However, the Portuguese experts (correctly as it turned out) believed that Columbus was completely wrong in his estimation that East Asia could be so close, just a short voyage westward across the Atlantic. After being turned down more than once, Columbus gave up on Portugal (which had found an eastern route to India by then) and made his famous agreement with King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile. When he returned with news of a vast new landmass, Columbus was probably rather eager to rub it in the face of the King who had turned him down. King Joao II was also just as upset at the opportunity he had missed. He warned the Spanish King and Queen that, according to the treaty negotiated by he and his father ending the Castilian War of Succession, much of this new found territory should belong to Portugal rather than Spain and he would use force to seize it if he had to.

King Fernando & Queen Isabella

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella had, of course just finished fighting the war that expelled the last of the Muslim invaders from Spain and they were not eager for another conflict. They also knew that King Joao II was a hard and determined man who was not to be taken on lightly. The future of their monarchies was also in question due to the succession resting on only one frail son. A negotiated settlement was obviously what was called for and so Pope Alexander VI stepped in to work out an agreement. The result was the Treaty of Tordesillas which divided the unclaimed lands of the world between Portugal and Spain with the Portuguese being given everything to the east of the line (Africa and Asia) and Spain being given everything to the west of the line (America). Because the coast of Brazil extended beyond the line, because of this agreement (which was modified) the Kingdom of Portugal received what would become the largest Portuguese colony of all and the ‘jewel in the crown’ of the colonial empire of Portugal. If King Joao II had not stood firm in pressing for the rights of his country, this might never have happened and the Brazil we know today might not exist at all.

One other area in which King Joao II greatly benefited his country was in putting it on a sound financial footing. This was no small task as he had inherited a country that was effectively broke. His response to this worked hand-in-hand with his breaking the power of the aristocracy. For one thing, confiscating the property of traitors brought income to the government but more importantly it meant that status was not the sole determining factor in achieving positions in government. The King assembled a special council to oversee the restoration of the economy and he selected its members from amongst the best and brightest in Portugal, choosing men whose talent could be seen by proven success. Their oversight, combined with the increasing income from the new trade routes and colonial outposts helped pay off the national debt and put Portugal back in the black. In time the Kingdom of Portugal would become one of the wealthiest countries in the world thanks to these changes.

A problem that King Joao II proved unable to surmount was that of the succession. King Joao II had only one son, Prince Afonso, to succeed him. However, the future seemed bright as the Spanish monarchs had only one son as well and he was not in good health. Prince Afonso was then married to Isabella of Aragon (eldest daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella) and it seemed likely that the future King of Portugal would become King of Castile and Aragon as well. Unfortunately, in 1491, Prince Afonso died in a fall from his horse, leaving King Joao II without a male heir of his own. At the time, many suspected a Castilian plot behind this but it was never proven and most likely never will be. King Joao II tried to have a natural son of his legitimized to succeed him but it was to no avail. He died at the age of 40 on October 25, 1495 in Alvor. He was succeeded by his first cousin who became King Manuel I (a devoutly religious man who would reign over a period of great success and prestige for Portugal). Still, aside from unavoidable misfortune with the succession, King Joao II had been a great monarch in every way. He left the country stronger, more secure and more prosperous than he had found it and he earned a great reputation across Europe. He could, at times, seem harsh but he was successful and improved his country by his leadership.

(Additional Note: Part of the reason why King Joao II sometimes is portrayed as having a worse reputation than he should is no doubt colored by those who said he most embodied the leadership portrayed in “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli. Whether this is accurate or not can be endlessly debated, however what cannot be debated is that the principles of the ‘Renaissance man’ Machiavelli were far more than simply “the ends justify the means”. Most have no real knowledge of the work or of Machiavelli himself who was a republican)

Read More

Got Questions?

Since some have asked, I am doing something of a 'test-run'. You will notice a new button on the upper right of the page, underneath the title image and to the right of the "Texas" button that says "Questions". That is the page to go to if you have anything you would like to ask yours truly, The Mad Monarchist. Having been accused of being somewhat reclusive, I want to remedy that impression if, in fact, it does exist. Based on what posts are popular and the comments that are left, I never thought there was much left for anyone to be curious about or that there was anything else any sizable group of people had any desire to know about, rest assured, it is not that I am trying to be exclusive. I am quite free with my opinions, my views on just about any given subject, be it monarchy related or not. If there is a number of you out there who have questions, post them in the comment section of the "Questions" page (I may also post this or something similar on my Facebook page) and I will answer whatever questions you have, either in a written post or in a Youtube video which will be posted here, provided of course there are enough questions posed to make it worthwhile. So, feel free to ask me anything, it could be about a monarchy past or present, some political event, the color of my office walls -it's up to you. If there isn't anything anyone cares to know, we will move on, if there is a great deal it might become a regular feature. That's up to you. So, send me your questions if you have them.

MM

Read More

Favorite Royal Images: A British Queen of Spain

HM Queen Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg

consort to His Catholic Majesty King Alfonso XIII of Spain,

godmother of HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco

Read More