Blog Warning

I just wanted to let everyone know, now that I have the opportunity to for the moment, that the MM compound is in the middle of some pretty rough thunderstorms and internet access has been unreliable today. Sympathy is not required -we really need the rain. Right now (obviously) it's on again, but in case it goes out again and nothing can be posted for tomorrow, I just wanted to let everyone know why while I had the chance.

Stay mad my friends
MM

Read More

Mad Rant: Monarchy Value for Money

In this day and age of republican dominance there is a great deal to annoy the average monarchist. Clichés, all of them negative toward monarchy, seem to have the gift of immortality. At the same time, the drawbacks of republicanism are often commented on and agreed to but never seem to shift public opinion. Every serious historian, for instance, knows that Queen Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake” and yet it continues to be endlessly repeated over and over again. Everyone with any knowledge of the world around them knows that, with the exception of the little principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein, European monarchs have virtually no political power at all and yet the word “king” remains synonymous with someone wielding absolute power. A politician who oversteps the limits of his constitutional authority is always said to be behaving like a king or like royalty when, in fact, there are far more republican tyrants all around the world today than there are absolute monarchs, all of whom are confined to the Islamic world save for little Swaziland in Africa. It seems this is a double standard we will never be rid of. Yet, tiresome as it may be, falsehoods must be refuted with facts, as often as they arise, regardless of the circumstances. The world at large could really use a good education when it comes to the idea of monarchy.

Today, one of my biggest aggravations is the constant association of royalty with idleness, luxury and extravagance. Both sides of the political spectrum like to make use of accusations of “royal” behavior to condemn their opponents. In the past, the overreach of President George W. Bush in the United States, along with the fact that he is the first son of a President to become President himself since John Quincy Adams, led many Democrats to dub him “King George” -and they didn’t mean it as a compliment. Not to be outdone, when First Lady Michelle Obama took lavish vacations the Republicans compared her to Queen Marie Antoinette and when Obama holds lavish parties, goes golfing with celebrities or has his annual Christmas in Hawaii at taxpayer expense, his political enemies complain about Obama presiding over an “imperial presidency”. Do any of these people have any idea what they are talking about? No, of course they don’t. The odd misstatement here or there could be attributed to simply being unable to pass up a damaging analogy but at this point it really does begin to look like sheer ignorance. It is that ignorance combined with a gross misconception about monarchy that leads to this ridiculous analogies and that can be illustrated with a few examples and monarchists should point these out.

First, to be fair, we can certainly understand why the images of opulence exist in the popular imagination. One of the things most monarchists love about monarchy is the pomp and splendor that (traditionally anyway) goes along with the institution. Royals live in palaces, ride in gilded carriages attended by liveried footmen and wear magnificent jewels. It certainly looks pretty lavish, doesn’t it? Even the famously bicycling royals of The Netherlands don an ermine robe when it comes to swearing-in day. However, the fact remains that those magnificent jewels and robes are very old family heirlooms, bought and paid for many years ago (in some cases centuries ago) and their continued use costs the taxpayer nothing. In Great Britain, the Queen is known for being exceptionally frugal, using the same car until it practically falls apart. In fact, in a recent year, the travel expenses for the entire British Royal Family was considerably less than the travel expenses for President Obama and his small crew. The Queen would never dream of spending so much as the American president nor would any British government allow such a thing for ‘mere’ royals. Yet, when the average republican thinks of royalty, they think of big expenses for taxpayers. They do not think of the Prince of Liechtenstein whose subjects pay him nothing at all. In fact, he gives from his own private funds to help the government run smoothly.

The comparisons of Michelle Obama to Queen Marie Antoinette over lavish vacations seems particularly ridiculous considering that the ill-fated French Queen never went on even a single foreign vacation in her life. Bundled off to France as a very young lady she never left the country again and, indeed, seldom ventured far beyond the confines of Paris and Versailles. Royal travel has traditionally been extremely limited. In Britain, no monarch from King Charles II to King George IV ever even made it over the border to Scotland. Yet, when people think of Marie Antoinette, they think lavishness and frivolity, they do not think of a woman who gave large amounts to charity, who broke down social barriers at court and who invited poor children to eat with her own royal offspring at Versailles. When it comes to royal children for that matter, it may surprise some to know how much more luxuriously the children of a President of the United States live compared to royal or even imperial offspring.

All of those who talk of Obama having an “imperial presidency” should consider two of the great, old empires of Europe. The Romanov Archduchesses Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Anastasia, for example, had to sleep on camp beds and take cold baths. Their educational schedule was positively Spartan with dawn till dark studies and exercises. The White House may not be the Winter Palace but you can be sure the Obama daughters are taking hot baths at night. Similarly, when one thinks of an Emperor one doesn’t usually think of someone like Emperor Francis Joseph who slept on an army cot and wore clothes until they were worn out -and then patched them and wore them some more! One of his contemporaries, German Emperor Wilhelm I, was also notoriously frugal. He was known to sit down at a small table with his grandson (future Wilhelm II) for a glass of wine. After their glasses were poured, the emperor would mark the level of the wine with a pencil on the side of the bottle to make sure no one was pinching any when he wasn’t looking. In Russia, Emperor Alexander III preferred the simple meals of his servants to the delicacies of the banquets thrown by the upper class and his idea of recreation was a simple walk in the Russian wilderness with some sausage and a piece of bread for his lunch. These imperial leaders were hardly men of lavish, wasteful luxury and indulgence.

Of course, not every monarch was known for being frugal. Neither has such a trait always been considered positive. Indeed, even as far back as the Roman Empire, certain Caesars were criticized for being miserly. However, these examples should be pointed out, and there were plenty of others (such as King George VI putting the palace and Royal Family on the ration system in World War II). Even today, the spending habits of some monarchs are no doubt troublesome. The King of Swaziland, for instance, does himself no favors in that regard. However, the fact remains that monarchy remains a much better value for money than the average republic even if not every one is like the Emperor of Japan, growing his own rice. Monarchs, especially today, are much more thrifty than politicians if for no other reason than that they are scrutinized to such a vastly greater extent than any elected official. There is also the fact that much of what people see as the lavish and glamorous side of royalty comes at the private expense of the royals and not from the public trough which is, again, something rarely seen in a republic. Furthermore, most of the expense comparisons between monarchies and republics do not even usually take into consideration the immense costs of elections and election campaigns, held with great frequency even if they never seem to actually change anything.

It is a struggle to change such entrenched popular misconceptions and, naturally, the republican crowd will never allow for a fair and honest exchange if they possibly help it, but the effort should be made. It pains me to think of someone like Emperor Franz Joseph being thought of as extravagant simply for being of imperial status. Plenty of monarchs were quite thrifty and plenty of royals and royal children lived far less pampered lives than many of their republican opposites. However, even for those monarchs who were rather lavish, such as King Louis XIV of France, I would take that lavishness any day over the republican politicians in power today. At least the lavishness of someone like Louis XIV served a higher purpose (whether he intended it to or not is irrelevant) to raise the status of his country, the glory of his country and make it a land to be marveled at from people all over the world and for generations to come. Given how many people still go to visit Versailles, filled with awe and wonder at the magnificence, I would say it was worth every penny.

But, of course, I would; I am … The Mad Monarchist

Read More

Monarchist Quote

“Remember that life is made up of loyalty: loyalty to your friends; loyalty to things beautiful and good; loyalty to the country in which you live; loyalty to your King; and above all, for this holds all other loyalties together, loyalty to God.”

-Queen Mary, Buckingham Palace, March 23, 1923

Read More

MM Mini View: Kings of Prussia (Part I)

The House of Hohenzollern

King Friedrich I: If ambition in itself is to be admired, Friedrich I is certainly an admirable man and, tempting as it is, I cannot have too high an opinion of him overall. Born in East Prussia, he succeeded his father as the Elector of Brandenburg before, in 1701, crowning himself “King in Prussia” with the grumbling consent of the Holy Roman Emperor (the ruler of Austria in other words) since he had made it the price for Prussian support against France in the War of the Spanish Succession. His reign was greatly concerned with building up the independent power of Prussia apart from the rapidly diminishing power of the Emperor in Austria. He funded the arts and promoted education to show that Prussia was equal to the other major powers of Europe. However, he also presided over a government with a great deal of corruption and it was a heavily indebted state he left to his son. Known as a likeable fellow but not a terribly successful fellow, he seemed constantly to be reaching for a greatness that his abilities never allowed him to achieve. Still, his administrative work cannot be overlooked and he helped build the framework for when the Kingdom of Prussia was able to rise to the status of a major European power.

King Friedrich Wilhelm I: If Friedrich I laid the foundations for Prussian greatness on the civil side of things, Friedrich Wilhelm I certainly did as much or even more on the military front. Known as the “Soldier King” the Prussian army was his pride and joy -perhaps excessively so. Yet, there was more to him than that. He was a very meticulous, “hands-on” monarch who worked throughout his reign to centralize power, improve the infrastructure, expand farming and, of course, to strengthen his beloved army. He loved his soldiers so much it often seem he did not want to spoil them by actually risking them in battle. He is remembered for his love of tall soldiers in particular, hence the famous ‘Potsdam Giants’. An autocrat who firmly believed in royal absolutism, he did not get along well with his more “enlightened” son but he put Prussia back on a sound financial footing, gave it a highly trained and formidable army and laid the foundation for greater success in the future. A rather cautious man, his reign was essential in building on what his father had left behind as well as improving the areas he had neglected. For a small state like Prussia, she had to have an army that could punch above its weight to ever have a chance of becoming a major European power. Friedrich Wilhelm I gave Prussia that army.

King Friedrich II: It is not without reason that the second Friedrich is known to history as “Frederick the Great”. He took the magnificent army his father had built and used it to best advantage. When Frederick the Great came to the throne, Prussia came down with an acute case of “awesome”. He was a latter-day “renaissance man” who knew something about everything, from art to architecture and music to agriculture. His biggest drawback, for me at least, was his place as one of the “enlightened despots” of the time, being both liberal and autocratic. Religiously tolerant, he welcomed Protestant refugees while also harboring Jesuit priests after that order was suppressed and he increased government revenues by (I love this) indirect rather than direct taxation. However, he will probably always be best remembered as a warrior-king in the best Prussian tradition. He learned by both training and experience but once he mastered the art of war he proved to be a military genius the likes of which the world has seldom seen. He conquered Silesia in the War of Austrian Succession and through skill and a great deal of determination (as well as some plain good luck) he emerged victorious from the Seven Years War despite having almost every major power on the continent arrayed against him. Even his most devoted enemies had to admit his genius and long after his death his name was spoken with reverence and awe by both friends and foes of Prussia. Most importantly, by his victories, he made Prussia a major power and was the first to be titled “King of Prussia” rather than merely the “King in Prussia”.

Read More

Favorite Royal Images: An American Princess

HSH Princess Grace of Monaco

Read More

Consort Profile: Queen Anne Marie d'Orleans

The first Queen consort of the Savoy reign over Piedmont-Sardinia was Anne Marie d’Orleans, a woman of impeccable pedigree whose bloodlines brought some interesting history and potential into the House of Savoy. She was born on August 27, 1669 at Chateau de Saint-Cloud in France, the daughter of Duke Philippe I of Orleans (younger brother the great King Louis XIV) and his wife the controversial Princess Henrietta of England (daughter of the martyred King Charles I). Less than a year after Princess Anne Marie was born her mother died (last rites being administered by the great Bishop Bossuet) but a year later the Duke of Orleans married Princess Palatine Elizabeth Charlotte who proved to be a good stepmother and Princess Anne Marie was very close to her. Even as a young girl Princess Anne Marie stood out for her kind and friendly nature as well as her virtue and firm principles. Of course, in those days, royal girls had to grow up fast and marriage tended to come quickly. Anne Marie was only fourteen-years-old when King Louis XIV decided to help maintain French influence in northern Italy by marrying his niece to Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy. A marriage contract was negotiated and signed by the two governments and a marriage ceremony by proxy was performed at Versailles on April 10, 1684 with Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine standing in for Victor Amadeus II.

In one of those odd twists that history often presents, this marriage was arranged in part by a countess who had been the mistress of Victor Amadeus II for about four years and who had given him two illegitimate children. Whether Anne Marie knew about this or cared she had little say in the matter with such royal marriages being a matter of state policy rather than personal preference. The Princess said her goodbyes, her father escorted her to the frontier and she finally met her husband at Chambery on May 6, 1684. The two were married in person by the Archbishop of Grenoble and later made their grand entrance into the Savoy citadel of Turin. She seemed a lovely but delicate girl, her fragility no doubt emphasized when next to a veteran soldier like Victor Amadeus II. Nonetheless, despite having a couple of years pass before she did her part for the succession and became pregnant, her first childbirth was a traumatic ordeal. She was only sixteen-years-old when she gave birth to her first child, Princess Maria Adelaide (later Dauphine of France) but it was so difficult that for a time she seemed close to death and even received the last rites before finally recovering from the ordeal. Ever dutiful though, she would go on to have five more children, a future queen and king among them. She was a good mother and also a devoted wife, patiently nursing Victor Amadeus II when he came down with smallpox, attending to every detail of his care.

In 1688 Anne Marie gave birth to another daughter, Maria Luisa of Savoy, who was eventually married to the Duke of Anjou, the new King Philip V of Spain. This set off the War of the Spanish Succession in which the Duke of Savoy took the side of the Austrians against France and Spain. It must have been a painful ordeal for Anne Marie with relatives on both sides of the conflict. She was herself half French and half British with France on one side and Britain on the other. Her husband was on the side of Austria and Britain while her daughter and half-siblings were on the side of Spain and France. The war began in 1701 and in 1706 Anne Marie had to take her young sons and flee Turin as it was besieged by French and Spanish forces led by her half-brother the Duke of Orleans and her son-in-law King Philip V of Spain while her husband stayed on to defend the city. It seemed hopeless but Victor Amadeus II was able to hold out long enough for the Austrians (under Prince Eugene of Savoy) and the Prussians to come to the rescue and win the battle. When it was all over in 1713 the Treaty of Utrecht rewarded Victor Amadeus II with a royal crown; the Kingdom of Sicily. However, he was later forced to trade that for the Kingdom of Sardinia. This was seen as a lesser prize, nonetheless, it brought recognized royal status to the House of Savoy and made Anne Marie Queen consort of Sardinia.

Yet, this was not the only royal connection to come along for Queen Anne Marie. The following year she became the heiress presumptive of the Jacobite legacy of the British Isles through the Stuart blood of her mother. With the death of Queen Anne of Great Britain in that year, she was the next closest relative of the “Old Chevalier” Prince James Francis Edward Stuart (“King James VIII & III to Jacobites) until the birth of his son Prince Charles Edward Stuart in 1720. The Jacobite legacy would be carried on by Prince Charles (and come closest to effecting an actual Stuart restoration) and his brother the Cardinal Duke of York in turn. After that, however, the legacy would pass to the House of Savoy because of the marriage of Queen Anne Marie and King Victor Amadeus II. No one was happier than the Duchess of Orleans, the stepmother of Queen Anne Marie, that she had achieved such royal status. Despite their having been on opposite side of the Spanish war, the Duchess wrote that, “one thing I shall enjoy is to see our Duchess of Savoy become a queen, because I love her as though she were my own child” which is a testament to the good nature of both royal ladies.

Queen Anne Marie sadly died at her villa on August 26, 1728 of heart failure, one day before turning 59. She had already outlived all but two of her six children and was buried at the Basilica of Superga in Turin next to all but the two who had been married off to France and Spain.

Read More

MM Sunday Scripture

Then David said to the whole assembly, “Praise the Lord your God.” So they all praised the Lord, the God of their fathers; they bowed down, prostrating themselves before the Lord and the king.

-I Chronicles 29:20

Read More