Royal News Roundup

It was a busy week for royal news last week and it would be hard to say which story was the biggest of all. The most recent big news of last week was the commemorations for the seventieth anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of France on the beaches of Normandy in World War II. Everyone who is anyone was there including Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Margaret II of Denmark, King Harold V of Norway, Grand Duke Henry of Luxembourg, King William-Alexander of the Netherlands, King Philip of the Belgians, Prince Albert II of Monaco and others as well as an assortment of political potentates from various countries and the EU. For the British, the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall as well as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge all met with World War II veterans and the Queen included all of this in an official state visit to France. Earlier in the week the Queen officially opened Parliament, which was the usual grand affair though there was a moment of concern when a page-boy fainted during the Speech from the Throne. Belgian King Albert II turned 80-years-old, King Philip also had to entertain President Obama at the palace in Brussels (almost as bad as Queen Elizabeth having to be pecked at by Hollande) while the Dutch Royal Family played host to a visit from Prince Albert II of Monaco.

For those countries not involved in World War II, there was still plenty of news to be made. In the Kingdom of Sweden the Royal Family was out in force for National Day on Friday. On the occasion of this holiday, proud parents Princess Madeleine and Mr. Chris presented baby Princess Leonore to the public. Later, on Sunday, she had her christening and was cute as could be, even wearing a tiny Order of the Seraphim. However, the biggest and most surprising news of the week came from the Kingdom of Spain where HM King Juan Carlos I announced his intention to abdicate. The King who transitioned Spain from dictatorship to constitutional monarchy said that he felt the time had come to pass things on to a younger generation and that his son and heir, Prince Philip of Asturias, was capable and ready for the job. The Prince of Asturias called for national unity and Queen Sofia, who was in New York last week lobbying for a Spanish seat on the UN Security Council, said that nothing much would change for her and that she had full confidence in her son and his wife Princess Leticia to carry on. However, some were quick to take advantage of this surprising news. Protesters took to the streets calling for the abolition of the monarchy and the creation of a Third Spanish Republic (more on why that is the worst idea ever tomorrow). Some minor parties of the radical left even proposed a referendum on the monarchy.

However, the Spanish Prime Minister said any referendum would be out of the question and that it would be illegal without a constitutional amendment. Apparently, there was not even a constitutional provision for abdication as this was having to be voted on rather hastily to put the legal framework into place for the King to step down. Also, in response to all the idiotic republicans, waving their old Spanish republic flags, the Prime Minister asked loyal Spaniards to come out on June 6, wave the national flag and show their support for the Spanish monarchy and the Prince of Asturias. The crowds for the good guys did not seem as impressive as those for the bad guys, but we did our part here in the colonies -Spanish flags were on full display. And, finally, in a rather odd bit of news, Pope Francis held a special sort of prayer meeting at the Vatican hosting the President of Israel, the President of the Palestinian Authority and in what sounds like the set up to a bad joke, a priest, a rabbi and an imam to say prayers for peace. It was made clear that this was not an attempt at negotiations or anything of the sort, just a prayer meeting. Yet, neither the Israeli or Palestinian presidents are religious men so a non-practicing Jew, a non-practicing Muslim were brought together for a prayer meeting by the leader of the Catholic Church. Needless to say, some were rather outraged that non-Christian prayers would be said on the grounds of the Holy See under any circumstances but, at this point, when I first saw the headline “For First Time in History, Muslim Prayers Held at Vatican”, I neither doubted it nor was I the least bit surprised. That, in itself, rather says something about the Catholic Church these days.

Read More

Today in French Royal History

On this day in 1654 His Most Christian Majesty Louis XIV was crowned King of France. He would reign over the Kingdom of France for over 72 years and centralize power in his own hands, becoming known to history as the quintessential absolute monarchy. Most famous for saying, "I am the State", in fact King Louis XIV could have, with some justification, said, 'I am Europe' as virtually every major event in European history (and thus much of world history) happened because of an action he instigated or because of a reaction by others against some action of his. He was not always successful but for decades almost all of Europe revolved around the "Sun King".

Read More

The World War II World Order

As this is the seventieth anniversary of the invasion of France, cited by many as the beginning of the end of Nazi Germany, it seemed an appropriate time to talk a little about the new world order that was created by World War II, the world we all live in today. This is, of course, a bigger issue than that of monarchy alone but while it may be seldom talked about, monarchy in general was certainly impacted by the outcome of World War II and the new world order created in the aftermath of the conflict. This world order is something many take for granted or even fail to notice altogether because it is so commonplace. It is the world we grew up in (I doubt many are reading this who can recall much of the world prior to World War II) and since it is all we have ever known, many pay it no mind. It is simply accepted as the way things are. It is also something that is almost universally celebrated and that is not something to take lightly. It is very rare to have the vast majority of countries agree on anything and yet the vast majority of people and countries in the world today all agree that World War II was the most righteous of causes and the victory of the Allied nations over the Axis powers was the most ideal outcome and made for a better world. Every war since, it seems, has been the subject of debate, protest and controversy but not World War II; it stands above as sacred and inviolable.

Allied heroes: King George VI with US Generals Mark Clark
and George S. Patton Jr.

Part of that is because most of the major conflicts since that time involved, to one degree or another, the United States and the Soviet Union who were on the same side in World War II. As much as each of these countries hated the other, they could never take that back to the war because to condemn the other there would be to condemn themselves. That dynamic, of course, is one of the most obvious results of World War II. For the first time in human history the world was dominated by two super-powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Prior to the conflict the world had a number of major powers. There was still the Soviet Union and the United States (though a USA somewhat frustrated with being a major player in world affairs) but there was also the British Empire, the French Republic, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan that were all significant on either the global level or at least a regional level. The Kingdoms of Yugoslavia and Romania as well as others were also significant on a more localized scale. After the war, on the other hand, France was in ruins, Britain was bankrupt, Italy was defeated and Japan had been bombed to a burnt crisp and was under American occupation. The British, French, Dutch and other colonial empires were not to last much longer.

The main organizational structure of the new post-war world order was to be the United Nations and many seem to have forgotten that the UN was the creation of the Allies in the Second World War. In fact, even before the conflict had concluded, the Allies were already referring to themselves as the “United Nations”. In this regard, they were a little bit late to the game but, despite all the talk about freedom and liberty, what it all came down to was one of two possible outcomes; the world would either be dominated by the Axis or by the Allies. That does not mean, despite what many think, because it has been endlessly repeated, that the Axis powers had some grand scheme to conquer the world. That is ridiculous and people should really know better than to swallow something that absurd. However, it does mean that if the Axis powers had won, the world would be dominated to one degree or another by Germany, Italy and Japan in the same way that it is now dominated by America, Britain, France, Russia and China. Some, I am sure, may argue that these powers do not “dominate” the world but they do to an extent and some more than others certainly. However, it is no coincidence that the United Nations was established with the Allied nations serving as the five permanent members of the Security Council, each with veto power to stop the world community from taking any military action. The idea was that there would be no more wars unless America, Britain, France, Russia and China agreed on it and any one of them could stop any of the others from taking action against some other country. Therefore, the only people who are truly safe from the UN are, still today, the former Allies of World War II or those countries which are protected by them.

The United Nations is the League of Nations with more money, thus more corruption and with military forces. It was also set up in such a way as to have considerable staying power (and there is nothing more permanent than a huge bureaucracy) so that it survives even though the world and the governments which first established it have changed dramatically. Of the five members of the Security Council, it is worth remembering, only two have the same governments that they did at the time of World War II which are, of course, the United States and the United Kingdom. The French are now on their fifth republic, the Soviet Union collapsed and is now the Russian Federation and the Republic of China had its seat taken away and given to their communist rivals of the People’s Republic of China which had almost nothing to do with World War II at all. And yet, more than anyone else, it is Russia and China that one is most likely to hear talking about the post-World War II world order and defending this world order. Part of that involves the UN as well as it helps to maintain the status quo. As most know, Germany, Brazil, India and Japan have tried to obtain seats on the Security Council but so far without success, partly because of the opposition bordering on paranoia of the Chinese Communist Party toward Japan. Most other Security Council members have been supportive of enlarging the group but China has refused any cooperation that would give a seat to Japan. Later, China did speak favorably of India gaining a seat but only if India would drop its support for Japan joining.

It is also worth remembering that, before India and Pakistan went nuclear, the five Security Council members, who were the main Allies of World War II, were the only powers with nuclear weapons and that is the way they wanted to keep it. The significant thing about this grouping is not that they can tell the rest of the world what to do but that it is they and only they who can decide who the global community can take action against and it is only they who can stop the global community from taking action against a certain country. This was recently highlighted when the United Nations failed to take action against the Assad regime in Syria because any such proposal would have been vetoed by Russia and China. Oftentimes this is more important than being able to take action. Every member is practically untouchable and can decide who else can be untouchable by use of their veto power. The Korean War was possible only because, at the time, the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN and, despite the fact that North Korea has acted aggressively and broken numerous agreements, no one takes any action against them at the UN because it is a forgone conclusion that China would not allow it. For the same reason, the UN will never take any action against Iran because Russia or China would never allow it.

Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria

Now, speaking strictly in terms of the institution of monarchy, the results of World War II and the new world order that followed it have not been very good. It does depend on where one is in the world and saying that does not mean that a different outcome would have been better for monarchy, again, depending in part on what part of the world one is referring to. Monarchy fared the worst in Eastern and Southern Europe after World War II with the former Kingdoms of Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia being handed over to Soviet domination. Their monarchies were doomed the instant that agreement was made. Albania was likewise doomed. It had remained a kingdom in personal union with the Italian monarchy which ended when Italy dropped out of the Axis in 1943 but as it was within the Soviet post-war sphere of influence there was no question of the deposed self-proclaimed King Zog being allowed back in to resume his reign. The Italian monarchy did not long survive the end of the war and while the western Allies (particularly Britain) were supportive in making sure the Greek monarchy came back, it was still weakened from the civil war that raged in Greece and, as we know, was not to survive in the long-term.

The Norwegian monarchy was restored, which it certainly would not have been if the Allies had not been victorious and though the Danish monarchy had continued throughout the German occupation, it seems doubtful that it would have remained untouched in the aftermath of a Nazi victory. The Dutch monarchy was restored, as again it certainly would not have been without the Allied victory and though the Belgian monarchy survived it was a much more sad state of affairs. There was a regency and finally the abdication of King Leopold III but any observer can clearly see that the Belgian monarch never had the sort of influence after World War II that he had enjoyed before. In the Far East the Allied victory meant the end for the restored monarchy in Manchuria (particularly due to the Soviet intervention), the end for any monarchist aspirations in China or Mongolia and the end of the monarchy in Vietnam (where the United States aided the communist insurgency). The monarchy in Japan survived, barely but the Allied victory also meant that monarchy in Korea was a lost cause. Had the Axis prevailed, of course, Korea would have remained a part of the Empire of Japan and thus not an independent monarchy but while the Japanese allowed the Korean Royal Family to retain their status and titles, neither the Soviet Union or the United States were prepared to be so generous. Korea was occupied, divided and split into rival republics.

Doctor and Mrs Ba Maw

The Kingdom of Malaysia was never in any danger of being abolished. The local monarchies were retained by both the British and the Japanese. The reign of the Dutch crown over Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies at the time) was ended and would have remained so if the Axis had won the war whereas the Allied victory brought about a restoration of the Dutch monarchy in Indonesia though it proved only temporary. However, what the alternative to this might have been we cannot say. The Japanese never recognized Indonesian independence, partly because some considered it too valuable to relinquish and partly because the leader of the independence movement, Sukarno, was someone the Japanese had started to have second thoughts about (and rightly so). Had the war turned out differently, either Indonesia would have become an independent republic under Sukarno or been incorporated into the Japanese Empire so, no discernable difference. The reign of the British monarchy over Burma was ended when Japan sponsored the independent State of Burma but is it at least possible that Burma might have gone back to being a monarchy if Japan had won the war. Dr. Ba Maw, who ruled Burma after the British were driven out by Japan, had a monarchial style about his government and was the son of a staunch Burmese monarchist, so that is at least possible. With the Allied victory British rule was restored but, as we know, only briefly. One can only feel sorry for the British troops who fought so hard to regain Burma only to see it handed over again shortly after the war was over. And it was handed over to a man who had also collaborated with the Japanese and had served as Foreign Minister in the government of Ba Maw, so it really makes no sense. They might have just left Ba Maw in charge and been done with it.

Over the long-term, the fall of the Vietnamese monarchy was more damaging than many realize. It did come back, in an unofficial sort of way, during the First Indochina War but that did not survive the French defeat in 1954. What makes it more damaging is that the Vietnamese communists were instrumental in the downfall of the monarchies of Laos and Cambodia as well. Eventually, as we know, the monarchy in Cambodia was restored, though with even less power than it had under French colonial rule but in Laos such has not been the case and the victory of the communists in Vietnam has meant that Laos remains effectively a communist Vietnamese satellite state to this day. Also, on the global scale, the ruination experienced by Britain during the war meant that the British Empire was all but doomed after it was over. This was partly because socialists were voted into power and it was impossible to fund the empire and a welfare state at the same time, partly because it put Britain at the economic mercy of the United States and partly because America had surpassed Britain as the power that weaker countries looked to for support. Even in countries where the monarchy survived this was obvious such as in Australia. With Britain so heavily engaged in Europe, Australia had no one to turn to for protection but the United States.

and they claim to be the "good guys"

So, as a result of World War II some very important things happened that were not to the benefit of the monarchist cause. The world was largely divided into two camps, each of which was dominated by a power that did not look favorably on monarchy. The United States was, at best, indifferent while the Soviet Union was uniformly hostile to the institution. Europe was effectively divided between these two powers with all the monarchies in the east being destroyed and those in the west, while surviving, were nonetheless absorbed by the republican mentality that had been upheld as what the “western democracies” were fighting for. Africa became contested ground for pro-Soviet and pro-American forces each competing against the European colonialism that preceded them and in Asia the regional powerhouse ceased to be the very monarchist Empire of Japan and became, ultimately, the very anti-monarchist People’s Republic of China. There too, the continent became a battleground for two competing ideologies, neither of which were friendly to monarchy. Again, this does not mean things would have been better for monarchy in general if the Axis had won, particularly in Europe and Africa. Hitler barely tolerated monarchies under the best of circumstances and while it fared better in the Italian sphere of influence some have speculated that a Mussolini flushed with victory might have abolished the monarchy himself as he never enjoyed having to share the stage with the King and certainly was not favorable to the eventual succession of King Umberto II. We can never know for sure what would have happened in that event.

What we do know is that world affairs are never quite so simple as some would like to believe. Most everyone agrees that the “good guys” won in the Second World War but the fact is that many “bad guys” emerged victorious as well. This has been problematic and continues to be so because it gave extremely malicious powers a cloak of righteousness to cover themselves in. It is also why many of the worst players are the most protective of the post-World War II world order, it is why the Soviets loved to refer to all of their enemies as “fascists” (a habit Russia has still not entirely given up) and why Communist China never ceases to associate the modern State of Japan with the Empire of Japan of history, because doing so automatically casts themselves as the “good guys” and Japan as the villains. That is the situation and while most, obviously, would prefer to not even imagine what a world would be like in which the Axis powers had been victorious in World War II, that should not blind us to the shortcomings that exist today or stop us from trying to correct them. Just because one alternative would have been worse does not mean that the other must be entirely good. There was a great deal of injustice, misery and suffering that resulted from World War II and we should not be timid in addressing that. We must be grateful and pay respectful tribute to those who sacrificed in the cause and always honor their memory but we must also not be shackled by the past and allow old grudges to cloud our judgment in the here and now.

Read More

MM Mini View: The Kings of Saxony

King Friedrich August I: Born in 1750, son of Elector Friedrich Christian and he succeeded as Elector of Saxony in 1763 with his mother acting as regent for him. Early on he was made heir to the throne of Poland but refused to accept the crown for fear of incurring the wrath of Austria, Prussia and Russia. He held back from taking action against the French revolutionaries and was very conservative in terms of the place of Saxony in the Holy Roman Empire, however, the advance of the French under Napoleon pushed him into an alliance against them with Prussia. Napoleon defeated them handily and Friedrich August was forced to make peace with France. He lost territory but saw his country raised to the status of a kingdom and he became the first King of Saxony in 1806. The following year he became Duke of Warsaw after the French, Prussians and Russians agreed on the status of what was left of Poland. In 1812 he tried to restore the Kingdom of Poland but was met with opposition from every other major power. He angered Napoleon by reaching out to the allies and was forced to pay a heavy price for it but he remained on the side of France, despite this, he was able to retain his Saxon crown though Warsaw was annexed by Russia. He died in 1827 beloved by the Saxon people.

King Anton: Anton succeeded his brother as King of Saxony in 1827. In 1781 he married the unwilling Princess Caroline of Savoy (daughter of King Victor Amadeus III) but she died the following year and in 1787 he married Archduchess Maria Theresa, daughter of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. None of their children survived to adulthood. The ruin of the Napoleonic Wars in Saxony was left to King Anton to deal with and this caused some resentment against him, particularly since he had been given no training to rule as he was the third son and never expected to take the throne. He was 71 when he became King and tried to simply hold things together as he found them. In 1830 the revolution in France sparked uprisings in Saxony which King Anton had to deal with, making changes in the government and in 1831 enacting a new constitution which put limitations on the monarchy and replaced the estates of the feudal era with a bicameral representative legislature. After 1833 Saxony entered the Zollverein which caused an upsurge in trade and improved the economy. King Anton thus went out on a rather high note, reigning over a relatively happy and prosperous kingdom.

King Friedrich August II: Succeeding his uncle, Friedrich August II became King of Saxony in 1836. He came to the throne with a background of experience as co-regent and a reputation for reform, having earlier been at the front of granting local governments autonomy for the Saxon cities and abolishing hereditary servitude, effectively ending feudalism in Saxony. He preferred to reign rather than rule but would use his authority to intervene when necessary. Married twice, first to the daughter of Emperor Franz I of Austria and later to a Bavarian princess, he never had any children. His instincts were liberal but he was a man of common sense. He reformed the law and when the revolutions of 1848 began to spread, he appointed liberal officials and repealed laws which restricted press and speech freedoms as well as allowing for more democracy. This was very popular but proved to be a mistake and the King realized this and changed course. He closed down the parliament and prepared for a siege in the “Saxon Bastille”, Koenigstein Fortress near Dresden. His troops, aided by the Prussians, were quickly able to suppress the disorder and restore royal rule throughout Saxony. The King died in 1854 in Austria, the victim of a tragic accident.

King Johann: Succeeding his brother as monarch in 1854, King Johann proved to be a very practical and capable ruler. He also secured the succession, marrying the daughter of King Maximilian of Bavaria and fathering six children by her. Development and economic progress were greatly encouraged by King Johann through his introduction of free trade, commercial ties with France and Italy and a major expansion of railroads and other upgrades to the Saxon infrastructure. When German unification was gaining popularity, he remained attached to Austria and favored the “Greater Germany” model that would have included German-Austria. In 1866 King Johann took Saxony to war against Prussia alongside the Austrians but met with a crushing defeat. This was a bitter blow to him and in the aftermath the Kingdom of Saxony was obliged to join the Prussian-dominated North German Confederation. He sent Saxon troops to fight alongside the Prussians in the war against France and subsequently saw Saxony join in the restored (second) German Empire. King Johann died only a short time later.

King Albert: Eldest son of King Johann, King Albert succeeded to the Saxon throne on the death of his father in 1873. An accomplished soldier, Albert had led the Saxon army in the wars against Denmark, Prussia and France in the build-up to the unification of Germany. These were all victories save for the war against Prussia (alongside Austria) but even then, Prince Albert and his Saxon troops acquitted themselves bravely. He supported the alliance with Prussia and fought just as well alongside them against the French as he had previously fought against them in Bohemia. His leadership was often pivotal in achieving victory for the German forces. He became Inspector-General of the Army and a General Field Marshal. As King he was diligent in maintaining law and order, upholding the constitution and in so doing let his subjects get about their business. He stuck to what he knew best which was the army and he was very helpful in establishing the Imperial German Army after unification. Still, he reformed the tax system, enacted measures to care for the poor and presided over another modest expansion of democracy. In 1853 he had married the daughter of the Crown Prince of Sweden (who converted to Catholicism because of the marriage) but the couple never had any children.

King Georg: Succeeding his elder brother in 1902, King Georg had the shortest reign of any Saxon monarch. In 1859 he was married to the daughter of Queen Maria II of Portugal by whom he had eight children. He served under his brother in the Saxon army during the wars with Prussia and France, rising to the rank of Field Marshal. His most controversial act during his short time as monarch arose over clashes with his daughter-in-law Crown Princess Luise of Tuscany. She did not follow court protocol and her personality clashed with that of the King who imagined her being guilty of all sorts of offenses. In 1902 King Georg threatened to put her in an asylum and she fled Saxony, after which the King simply decreed her to be divorced from her son. Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria (her relative) did not recognize the divorce and it was quite an astounding thing in such a staunch Catholic Royal Family. King Georg died the following year in 1904 at the age of 72.

King Friedrich August III: The last King of Saxony had a reputation rather different from that of his father, being known as an affable and often humorous monarch. He did keep with family tradition in having a very respectable military career, rising to General of the Infantry and command of the Saxon Corps before he came to the throne in 1904. As King he was given the further ranks of Colonel General and finally Field Marshal. He was an avid hunter, promoted industry in Saxony and was known for his frank and friendly manner, whether dealing with fellow monarchs or common people. Because of this, he was extremely popular and was seen as a father figure by his subjects. In 1909 he enacted a plural voting system by which those who contribute the most to the country received additional votes as a way of guarding against an electorate voting themselves the property of others. When World War I broke out he transferred his authority over the Saxon army to the Minister of War and had hopes of making territorial gains in Courland on the Baltic, which, of course, did not happen. When revolution broke out in 1918 he refused to set the army on the people but agreed to abdicate, telling them in so many words that they were on their own now. He retired to private life and died in 1932 after suffering a stroke.

Read More

Monarchist Profile: Field Marshal Joseph Graf Radetzky von Radetz

One of the most celebrated Austrian soldiers and a staunch defender of the Hapsburg monarchy in the revolutions of 1848 was Graf Radetzky. John Joseph Wenceslaus Anthony Francis Charles, Count Radetzky of Radetz was born on November 2, 1766 in Trebnice, Bohemia to a noble family in what is now the Czech Republic. His parents died when he was young and he was raised by his grandfather before entering the Theresa Academy in Vienna at a young age. In 1786 he became an officer-cadet in the Imperial Army, received his commission the following year and in 1787 was promoted to first lieutenant and posted to a cuirassier (heavy cavalry) regiment. He first saw action as a staff officer to Graf von Lacy in the Turkish War and from 1792 to 1795 served in the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium). He first really distinguished himself in the wars against Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, gaining attention by his skill and conspicuous bravery. He led a successful infiltration of the enemy lines at the Battle of Fleurus in 1794, saw action along the Rhine in 1795 and in 1796 led a troop of hussars to rescue his commander, Johann Beaulieu, in northern Italy at Valeggio sul Mincio.

Archduke Charles of Austria

Radetzky served in the fighting around the siege of Mantua against Napoleon, by then promoted to major and as a lieutenant colonel further distinguished himself at the battles of Trebbia and Novi. As a staff colonel at the Battle of Marengo he was wounded five times but never lost his determination or any degree of his almost reckless courage. Even as a young officer he was also very observant of the shortcomings in Austrian tactics and never ceased to advocate changes, often to the frustration of his less talented superiors. In recognition of his outstanding service, in 1801 he received the Military Order of Maria Theresa, the most prestigious Austrian military decoration and one which had something of a reputation for being given to officers who disobeyed orders but who were vindicated by success. This was not exactly the case with Radetzky but his situation probably helped further that rumor. In 1805 he was promoted major general and assigned to Italy under the command of Archduke Charles of Austria, often regarded as the most formidable continental commander of those forces allied against Napoleon. However, for Radetzky and the rest of the Austrian army, defeat was the final result and a peace was concluded with France.

During this interlude, Radetzky studied and served as a military instructor while also spending time with his family. In 1798 he had married Countess Francisca von Strassoldo Grafenberg with whom he had eight children. The peace, however, was short-lived and soon Radetzky was back in the field leading a brigade at the Battle of Eckmuhl in 1809 and then a division at the Battle of Wagram following his promotion to lieutenant field marshal. In 1810, along with further decorations, he was given the position of colonel-in-chief of the Fifth Hussars, thereafter known as the Radetzky Hussars. Also during that time and until 1812 he was chief of the general staff and in that position should have finally been able to make the changes to the organization and tactics of the Austrian Imperial Army that he had so long pushed for. However, in what had been, was and would be in the future a major problem for the Austrian armed forces, the government refused to allocate the funds necessary to implement these changes. Eventually, Radetzky resigned in disgust and returned to the field. In 1813 he served as chief of staff to Field Marshal Karl Philipp, Prince of Schwarzenberg and proved so capable that he quickly became extremely influential, not only in the Austrian army but amongst the other Allied powers as well.

Graf Radetzky displayed his considerable talents to their fullest extent during this period and his superiors had nothing but praise for his abilities. He helped plan the operation that led to the allied victory at Leipzig and displayed his tactical brilliance in the battles of Brienne and Arcis sur Aube. He was among those who march in triumph through Paris in 1814 when Napoleon was defeated and he even played a part in the Congress of Vienna, helping smooth things over between Austria and Russia. Unfortunately, the ensuing peace only brought about a greater disinterest on the part of the Austrian government for his plans to overhaul the military. He continued to advocate for a more efficient organization, improved tactics and overall a stronger commitment to national defense for the Austrian Empire. Unfortunately, few were willing to listen and many became annoyed at his incessant warnings. They would have been wiser to heed his advice.

Because of his impressive record, he could not simply be dismissed but he was pushed out of the way; promoted to General of the Cavalry and placed in command of a fortress. Most were content to ignore him but when the specter of revolution rose up again, Graf Radetzky was called upon to save the monarchy. When rebellion broke out in the Papal States, he was part of the Austrian army that suppressed it and in 1834 he was placed in command of the Austrian Imperial troops in Italy. Two years later, at the age of 70, he was promoted to Field Marshal. He ensured that his troops were the best trained and most disciplined force in the Austrian Empire and, back in a position of prominence again, he resumed his call for improvements to the military. But, yet again, the government refused to spend the money necessary to implement the changes he wanted and to modernize the army. It was a dangerous mistake as was proven when the Revolutions of 1848 began to break out and Radetzky had a major problem on his hands in Italy with large-scale rebellions in the Austrian-ruled territories and a war being waged by King Carlo Alberto of Piedmont-Sardinia. Despite the fact that the Austrian Empire was by far the strongest power in the region, the failure to adopt Radetzky’s policies meant that the Piedmontese were actually the more modern force and posed a considerable threat.

Nonetheless, despite such difficulties, Radetzky had lost none of the fiery determination of his youth and he succeeded in holding off the Italian forces until reinforcements could arrive, culminating in his great victory at the Battle of Novara in March of 1849. During the early unrest in Italy he even had the soon-to-be Emperor Francis Joseph serving under him, gaining first-hand experience at warfare under the old master. Radetzky defeated the Piedmontese, crushed the Italian nationalists and reconquered Venice, bringing it firmly back under Austrian control. This was the height of his military career and he was awarded the Order of the Golden Fleece for his victories in crushing the enemies of the Hapsburg monarchy. Also in recognition of his success, he was then made Viceroy of the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, the only one to hold the position not from the ranks of the Imperial Family. Of course, any time there is rebellion there will necessarily be punishments meted out but even among the Italians Graf Radetzky was not unduly vilified. His rule was firm but fair and his own troops certainly adored him because he always tried to do his best for them, tried to get them better weapons and equipment and his victories meant that fewer lost their lives. As a sign of their affection, his men referred to him as ‘Father Radetzky’.

Still, while perfectly willing to tolerate those who opposed Austrian rule peacefully, when it came to those who took up arms against the crown he did not spare the whip. Oddly enough, some chose to take exception with the method of execution he employed, hanging ringleaders as criminals rather than having them shot by firing squad as soldiers. Hungarians who fought alongside the Italian rebels objected to this, somehow thinking that their treason should not count since they were in the Italian portion of the Austrian Empire rather than the Hungarian portion. In any event, even his enemies could not accuse him of being especially harsh. He applied justice evenly and was honest in all his dealings. When it came to politics he had earlier favored the “Greater Germany” school of thought somewhat but for Radetzky he was always a soldier and avoided the political arena. It was enough for him to be a stalwart defender of his Emperor and that he certainly was, from the start of his career until his death on January 5, 1858 in Milan at the age of 91.

Read More

The Abdication of King Juan Carlos

It came as quite a surprise yesterday morning to wake up to news that His Majesty King Juan Carlos I of Spain had announced his intention to abdicate. First seeing it in the Spanish-language media, I even got a second opinion to make sure I was not mistaken (not that the word “abdica” leaves much room for doubt). I had not picked up on any hints about this from the King and HM Queen Sofia had flat out said it would not happen. Obviously, after the absurdly idiotic and hysterical outbursts toward the King dating back to the now infamous hunting trip in Africa (which cost no Spanish taxpayer anything, everyone seems to forget) there were calls for abdication and even some treasonous crowds in the streets demanding an end to the monarchy altogether (and if history is anything to go by, we could count on the “Third Spanish Republic” being the worst one yet). However, it seemed that the King was prepared to shoulder the burden and carry on in spite of all of that, even with increasingly problematic medical problems to deal with. But them, of course, on top of all of that was the legal battles surrounding HRH Infanta Cristina. Perhaps, taken all together, it has become too much for the King to deal with.

Long-time readers will know that I do not generally regard abdications favorably. Of course, in some countries, it has become such a common practice for so long as to have practically become a tradition, however, I have always preferred the idea of ‘wearing the crown’ as a lifelong commitment, a sort of marriage if you like, in which, like Queen Elizabeth I of England, a monarch is “married” to his or her country, till death parts them. Sometimes it is necessary that a monarch ‘take one for the team’ as with King Edward VIII in Britain or King Leopold III in Belgium and some have pointed out that this may have been the case with King Juan Carlos; that he realized his presence was having a negative effect on the monarchy, that his reputation was not going to recover to the soaring heights it had previously enjoyed and that it would improve the prospects of the long-term survival of the monarchy for him to step aside in favor of the Prince of the Asturias, a young 45, still on the dashing side and untainted by scandal. If that is true, it is to the credit of the King for putting the monarchy before himself, though it would still pain me to see the opponents of the King effectively winning by default.

That is my biggest concern; that this will be taken as a victory for all those who made themselves the enemies of King Juan Carlos personally and who orchestrated the whole ridiculous uproar against a monarch to whom every Spaniard owes a debt of gratitude. The entire fashionable trend lately toward abdication is one which I do not look on favorably. I thought Spain was sheltered from it, but it seems such is not the case. Really though, if the Pope can abdicate no monarch handing in their resignation should come as much of a surprise these days. So far (someone will correct me if I am wrong), the last monarch to reign until his death was HSH Prince Rainier III of Monaco. It has a long tradition in the Netherlands, has not been uncommon in Luxembourg, King Albert II of the Belgians abdicated in spite of only one other monarch (his father) abdicating and that under very unique and unfortunate circumstances. Pope Benedict XVI abdicated (at least ‘sort of’) and there has been a good deal of chatter about it in Sweden and some even insist on bringing up the subject in the UK. It is worrisome that this may become such a trendy thing to do that monarchs not inclined to abdicate might feel pressure to do so.

As it concerns King Juan Carlos personally, I am sad to see him go and sad that it came at such a time. True, it may be for the better, but I had hoped he would get through the current unpleasantness and see his popularity restored after the public came to their senses. Rather like how everyone in Britain went hysterically off the deep-end when Diana died and, in time, came to feel rather embarrassed about it and realized that the Queen they had been so critical of was right all along. I was hoping for something like that to happen. Partly, I will admit, is because I like the King of Spain himself and I would hate for his reign to end on a low note. Looking back, I have probably banned or blocked more people for attacking King Juan Carlos than for any other reason. Just as the King would never tolerate anyone speaking ill of Generalissimo Franco in his presence, I would not tolerate anyone slandering King Juan Carlos in mine (or any place I hold sway) particularly questions of his right to the throne which is absurd and which idiocy I have become so disgusted by, I will not tolerate anything of the sort at all. He was a prince who was born and raised in exile but who was not content to stay that way but who actively worked to see the Spanish monarchy restored. I wish more non-reigning royals had the same attitude.

In his message, the King made mention of his past saying, “Loyal to the political wishes of my father, (Infante Juan Count of Barcelona) from whom I inherited the historical legacy of the Spanish monarchy, I have always wanted to be a king for all Spaniards. I identified with your aspirations, felt joy at your successes and suffered when pain or suffering overwhelmed you.” Stability and a freedom that allows for political change without resorting to violence are things Spain owes to King Juan Carlos and yet, he has also never been one to allow popularity to influence him. His refusal to join the crowd in bashing Generalissimo Franco is one is example of this, another (which I will always be grateful for) was his staunch defense of the national pastime of bullfighting which has come under ever increasing condemnation during his reign by animal rights activists. In a BBC interview the King was once pressed on this question and even Queen Sofia, who does not favor the national pastime, compared it to fox hunting in England. It should not escape notice that fox hunting has since been banned in England, despite its long history and place in the culture, yet the bulls continue to run in Spain. He has been known as a monarch who is approachable, down-to-earth but also not above speaking his mind such as when he famously asked the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, “Why don’t you shut up?”, something that became a pop-culture phenomenon.

According to the King himself, the abdication came as a result of a feeling that he was no longer equal to the task required of him. It may be that there was more to it but I do not doubt his sincerity in saying, “My sole ambition has always been, and always will be, to help attain progress and wellbeing for all Spaniards in a climate of freedom. I want the best for Spain, to which I have dedicated my entire life and at whose service I have placed all my ability, my enthusiasm and my work. My son Felipe, Prince of Asturias and heir to the Crown, embodies the stability that is a defining feature of our monarchy. When I turned 76 last January, I felt that the time had come to prepare the handover to make way for someone who is in the best possible condition to maintain that stability”. He went on to praise the Prince of Asturias, to express confidence in the support he will have from Princess Letizia and to thank his own consort saying, “My gratitude also goes out to Queen Sofia, whose cooperation and generous support have never failed me.” That is certainly true and Queen Sofia has always been, in my estimation, one of the most admirable and praiseworthy royal figures of my lifetime.

The King ended his remarks by saying, “Spain will always be in my heart” and I have no doubt that is true. I hope the King will always be in the heart of the Spanish people and that, perhaps, with this abdication, a little more sober reflection will be undertaken that will allow everyone to assess the reign of King Juan Carlos as a whole and come to a better appreciation of the man and monarch. I cannot help but to have preferred this change were not happening until God called the King to His mercy but, the decision having been taken, I hope it will be for the best in preserving the Spanish monarchy long-term. King Juan Carlos I has abdicated, long live King Felipe VI!

Read More

Royal News Roundup

The royal news in the English-speaking world last week that gained the most attention, undeservedly or not, was the German (and now Australian) media which published pictures of the Duchess of Cambridge snapped at an instant when the wind blew her skirt up, exposing a flash of the royal gluteus maximus. The British media have so far refused to publish such pictures and there is talk of a lawsuit on the part of the Cambridge couple. Many, in the more respectable media, have condemned the German paper for overall sleaziness in trying to profit by an accidental, embarrassing moment that could happen to anyone and which should just be ignored. Others, however, having been critical of the Duchess, pointing to the fact that this is not the first time this has happened and basically taking the line that she should take measures to prevent such “wardrobe malfunctions”. Much ado about nothing I say! Should the pictures have been published? Probably not but this sort of thing is really unavoidable -somebody would have published them no matter what. Should someone be sued over this? Again, probably not. Just laugh it off would be my advice and I would say everyone should stop making such a big deal about it. A little, accidental flash of a cheek is hardly scandalous and for those saying the Duchess should go to greater lengths to cover up or take measures to prevent this from happening again, sure, some weights in her skirt would probably be the smart thing to do but on the other hand, this is not Iran and the occasional exposure of a bit of the back porch doesn’t seem earth-shattering to me. I’m rather grateful to see a prominent woman wearing dresses at all as opposed to nothing but pantsuits. I also wonder how much of this is secretly being driven by derriere envy. As I said at the time, American Vice President Joe Biden is a legitimately embarrassing bum, the Duchess has nothing to be ashamed of. In other news, the Prince of Wales caused another slight stir in remarks he made at group meeting called “Inclusive Capitalism” in which he again warned of a looming environmental apocalypse and placed at least some of the blame for it on capitalism. The Prince, it seems, is not for changing and while I’m sure his remarks pleased socialists and environmentalists, I doubt they converted any of them to monarchism while they undoubtedly turned off people who could be won over.

On the continent, the King and Queen of The Netherlands paid a visit to their neighbors in Germany while in Luxembourg, Princess Stephanie threw her support behind a science lab for teenagers (I wonder if they will dissect any?) but some more interesting news came out of Belgium. In spite of his own preferences I am sure, King Philip has been obliged to have Bart De Wever over to the palace to talk about forming a government. De Wever is the leader of the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) which is a Flemish nationalist party that advocates for the secession of Flanders and thus the break-up of the Kingdom of Belgium (though their ardently professed Flemish nationalism does not stop them from being very pro-European Union). As the Belgian monarch is bound to keep Belgium together and the N-VA is committed to ending it, this has obviously meant that the King has been extremely reluctant to deal with them. However, their support in Flanders has steadily increased and while the Walloon population remains more politically divided than their Dutch-speaking neighbors, the electoral weight of the N-VA has become increasingly impossible to ignore, forcing King Philip into a rather uncomfortable position. In this anniversary year of the start of the Great War, Belgians would do well to remember how much their ancestors have sacrificed to preserve the Kingdom of Belgium and adamantly oppose those who wish to tear it apart.

Further south, HM King Juan Carlos met with journalists and HRH Infanta Elena cut a colorful figure at the Press Association bullfight at the Las Ventas Bullring in Madrid. Pope Francis made a splash with his visit to the Middle East where he met with the Jordanian Royal Family and later with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. It marked the fiftieth anniversary of the meeting of Pope Paul and Patriarch Athenagoras. In a joint statement the Pope and Patriarch spoke of being on a journey toward reunion and full communion as well as expressing concern for the Christian community in the Middle East. However, the biggest, happiest news from the royals of the Mediterranean area was the official announcement from the Princely Palace that HSH Princess Charlene of Monaco is with child and expected to be delivered by the end of the year. This is the first pregnancy by a Princess consort of Monaco since Princess Grace was carrying Princess Stephanie. The hope for the continuance of the Grimaldi-Polignac line shines anew and it will be very good to hear the guns of Fort Antoine firing again. Congratulations to the Sovereign Prince and expecting Princess.

In Asian royal news, HM King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great of Thailand officially gave his sanction to the military authorities who recently declared martial law and assumed responsibility for running the country. There is now no question as to who is in charge or who should  be. Recently, one of the military leaders said that it could take a year to bring the two feuding sides together and that there will be no elections until then. Many, mostly outside of Thailand, have expressed shock at this, but having one year without elections would not seem like the absolute worst thing that could have happened. There was sad news in neighboring Malaysia with the passing of the Sultan of Perak, Azlan Shah, at the age of 86 at the National Heart Institute in Kuala Lumpur. The following day, just before the funeral, his son, the Raja Muda Dr. Nazrin Shah (age 58) was proclaimed the new Sultan of Perak. And, in Japan, the Imperial Household Agency officially announced the engagement of HIH Princess Noriko of Takamado. The 25-year-old princess will be married to 40-year-old Kunimaro Senge, one of the chief priests of Izumo Taisha grand shrine in Shimane Prefecture where there future wedding ceremony will be held. That will take place sometime this fall according to the Imperial Household Agency. Of course, as per the rules, the Princess will lose her imperial status because of her marriage to a commoner. We wish Her Imperial Highness every happiness in her married life.

Read More