The Stuarts and the Shah

You wouldn't think at first glance that the Feast of King Charles the Martyr, executed 377 years ago today in London, would have much to do with current events in Iran.

But recently I've been reading both my old friend Gareth Russell's excellent new biography of King James I (1566-1625), which I finished last night and which at the end goes briefly into some of the related challenges and tragedies faced by his son and successor Charles I, and for the second time Andrew Scott Cooper's "The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis and the Final Days of Imperial Iran." And for all the vast differences between 17th-century Britain and 20th-century Iran, I was struck by at least one parallel.

Reading both books, I found myself often feeling a burning resentment against the kind of literally puritanical religiosity that undermined (and eventually toppled) both monarchies, whether Scottish Presbyterianism in James's early reign, English Puritanism in his later reign and his son's, or militant Shia Islam in the Shah's. In all three cases, a monarch who was genuinely personally religious himself (admittedly, Charles perhaps more so than his father) was nevertheless stridently and relentlessly opposed and criticised by dour clerics who found the Monarchy to be insufficiently "godly." (The Kirk didn't want James's wife Queen Anne to have a coronation, both because elements of the ceremony were thought "papist" and because they feared, correctly, that there might be drinking and dancing.)

An even more curious parallel is that in both countries, an unholy alliance was formed between this kind of strict religious zeal (which today we might call "Right-wing") and the more secular "democratic" kind of opposition (which might be called "Left-wing") to the monarch for being (allegedly) too authoritarian. Of course, in both cases, when the religious fanatics actually took power, they imposed a regime that was far more oppressive than the Monarchy had ever been, though fortunately the English version lasted only 11 years; Iran has now endured 47, almost my entire life.

Will Iran ever get its May 1660? One can live in hope.

Princess Irene of Greece (1942-2026)

Very sad royal news today, including for me personally. The first royal I ever had the honour to meet, HRH Princess Irene of Greece and Denmark (1942-2026), has died in Madrid at the age of 83. I am deeply saddened to learn of this loss.

HM Queen Sofía of Spain, 87, is now the only surviving child of King Paul and Queen Frederica of Greece.

Meeting and performing (Debussy Sonata with pianist Emile Naoumoff) for Princess Irene at Indiana University Jacobs School of Music on 13 May 1999 (two days after her 57th birthday) remains one of the highlights of my career. I had always hoped I might see HRH again one day, but it was not to be. I was so thrilled when she happily signed my copy of her mother Queen Frederica's (1917-1981) autobiography.

Born in Cape Town, South Africa (where the Greek Royal Family were for a time in exile during World War II) on 11 May 1942, with Premier Jan Smuts (1870-1950) as her godfather, Princess Irene after the war grew up in Greece during the reigns of her uncle George II (1890-1947), her father Paul I (1901-1964), and her brother Constantine II (1940-2023). A talented pianist, she studied with Gina Bachauer (1913-1976) and Nadia Boulanger (1887-1979), which is how she knew Emile who as a child prodigy was the legendary French pedagogue's last and youngest student. She once joined Bachauer (who knew that the novelty of a princess performing with her would gain the event much needed attention) in performing with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra, then in financial difficulties which that concert helped alleviate. The Princess never married. It was known that her condition had been deteriorating for some time.

May she rest in peace.

I stand with Canada

In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, even Americans who had been against getting involved in the war and didn't much care for FDR generally rallied to the war effort.

I hope everyone in the USA, whether Democrat or Republican or neither, realizes that that kind of national unity is gone forever and is never coming back. Probably its last gasp was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (even _I_ agreed to sing, for the only time in my life, the American words to "My Country 'Tis of Thee" once at the fire station near Juilliard), but Bush squandered that with the stupid Iraq war.

While as far as I know no conventional war is planned, it looks like the current US government, if it can be called that, is determined on economic "war" with Canada.

I don't know what I can actually do, but I am unapologetic in siding at least in my heart with Canada, even if that makes me objectively an "enemy" of the USA, though in this case I suspect many Americans whose politics are more conventional than mine will agree with me.

The United States of America is an abomination, conceived in treason and lies. It never should have come into existence. All of the modern world's other problems can be traced in a sense to the errors of 1776. This includes certain contemporary problems in Europe that smug Americanists make fun of, because after World War II, of which the only true victors were the USA and the USSR, essentially American ideas of what it means to be a citizen of a particular country were imported into much smaller and hitherto relatively homogenous European countries totally ill-suited for them where they did much more damage than they have done in the USA.

Trump is a crude buffoonish malignant egomaniac, but ultimately Americanism is the problem.

God Save the King.

Angelfire difficulties

In case I still have any readers here, who are also familiar with my www.royaltymonarchy.com website that I've maintained since September 2000, I wanted to let you know that for about a month it has been almost impossible to get into Angelfire to edit and at the moment the site does not seem to be accessible at all. This also affects Paul Theroff's Online Gotha, one of the royalty sites on which I am most reliant for genealogy, so it's not just me. I am not sure what to do as two help requests have gone unanswered and Lycos do not offer phone support. I hope a solution can be found.

Separate the Crown?

For a long time I resisted this idea, and at heart I still believe in the shared Commonwealth Crown (after all I live in Texas and have no problem considering myself loyal to King Charles III, but I'm weird), but recent events have forced me to consider whether a monarch descended from the previous sovereigns but who actually lived in Ottawa might be able to serve Canadian loyalism better (with the same idea applied to Canberra and Wellington). Perhaps Princess Charlotte could take Canada (the senior Dominion), Prince Louis Australia, and one of Prince Edward's children New Zealand? The UK would probably want to keep one or two "spares" around though until such time as Prince George marries and has children.

I hate to say this but the Caribbean is probably a lost cause. Not sure about Papua New Guinea.

The problem is that I doubt there's enough support for this idea to be feasible, and there's no guarantee the young royals would be interested. While this is painful to me to admit, to a certain extent the monarchies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have survived on the lazy principle of "if it ain't broke don't fix it," and the "fix" that ideological monarchists want may not be the "fix" that everyone else wants.

Frederick III and William II

My friend Christina Croft (author of The Innocence of Kaiser Wilhelm II) has written an excellent rebuttal to the frequently regurgitated myth (common in discussions of 19th-century royal history) that "if only Kaiser Friedrich III (1831-1888) had lived longer, World War I would have been prevented." I think many years ago I used to believe this myself, as it is the impression one can get from some superficial reading, until I learned better. Writers in English on royal history have tended to be myopically pro-"Fritz" and anti-Wilhelm, determined to paint the former as a dovish liberal and the latter as a hawkish reactionary, when the truth was more complex. Of course, no counterfactual proposition (and I think about counterfactual history a lot) can ever be either proved or disproved, but there are substantial reasons _not_ to believe in this particular one. None of this is to deny that Frederick III's death at 56 from throat cancer after a reign of only 90 days was a personal tragedy for his family, especially his wife Victoria, but it is unrealistic and unhelpful to blame the events of 26 years later on it or on his son. With Christina's permission I reproduce her comments here.

"This is a complete myth for so many reasons and it stems from the usual thing of making Fritz into a hero and Wilhelm into a villain. Neither man was a saint and neither was a villain - they were both just doing what they thought was right. Here are just a few reasons why Fritz would not have prevented war:

Firstly, it suggests that kings/emperors were responsible for the war - they were not. The politicians and the press brought about the war.

Secondly, the King of Prussia might have been an autocrat but the German Emperor was not and so it would be impossible for a German Emperor to cause (or prevent) a war single-handedly.

Thirdly - there is a misconception that Fritz was far more liberal than Wilhelm was. This is not the case - Wilhelm was praised by socialists across Europe (including the extremely radical George Bernard Shaw and the Germano-phobic French socialists) because of his genuine concern for workers and their rights. Fritz, on the other hand, had no direct contact with workers as Wilhelm did and he was out of touch with them. A contemporary German diarist wrote of Fritz: "He intended to rule with and for the bourgeoisie, and is thrown into perplexity by the more rapid emergence of the workers."

Fourthly, Fritz fought in 3 wars. Wilhelm (who is wrongly labelled a warmonger) maintained peace for 25 years. [Added by TRH: in 1913 on the 25th anniversary of his accession, the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of monarchism, effusively praised Kaiser Wilhelm II for his then-seemingly-successful efforts to preserve the peace in Europe.]

Fifthly - People say Fritz would have maintained good relations with Britain. In fact, when Queen Victoria asked him to treat the defeated states in the Austro-Prussian War more leniently, Fritz basically said it was not Britain's business and he would always put Prussia first. Wilhelm, on the other hand, repeatedly tried to form an alliance with Britain.

Sixthly, Fritz was so Russophobic that he was asked not to go to the coronation of Tsar Alexander III for fear that he would make trouble. Wilhelm wanted to befriend the Tsar.

Seventhly, Fritz was an authoritarian. When the German states were reluctant to join the unification, he said they must be FORCED to join and he deceived Ludwig II of Bavaria about it (in fact the Bavarians hated him for it).

Eighthly, apart from anything else, Fritz would have been 83 in 1914.

I could go on..."

 

A rant...

 ...that would probably cause too much trouble if I actually put it on Facebook so I'm putting it here since hardly anyone reads my blog anymore anyway.

Just so you know, no one on either side of the fake American political spectrum is ever going to get anywhere with me by appealing to Democracy. I hate Democracy. And I will not be voting for either of those two annoying old men and there is nothing you can say to change my mind.

Democracy means accepting that wicked parties like the Scottish National Party and Sinn Fein can hold office. I don't accept that. I hate them. I don't like it that I have to put up with whatever the majority of voters in any part of the United Kingdom decide and I never get a say. I know more and care more about British history than most people in Britain. I have British flags and decor all over my home including a portrait of HM The King over the fireplace. I should get my way, not stupid people who live there and think that Sadiq Khan's idiotic new London Overground names are acceptable.

I am mildly on the autistic spectrum (in case you haven't figured that out) and the British Monarchy is my Special Interest and I do not accept that anyone in the UK has the right to try to take it away from me, ever, just because they live there and I don't. I don't give a damn about republicans' "human rights." Anti-monarchists are garbage and I am not ashamed of how much I hate them because I know God hates them too. If that makes me selfish and evil so be it. At least I'm not a republican. There is nothing worse than being a small-r republican.