RIP Infanta Alicia (1917-2017)

RIP Infanta Alicia, Duchess of Calabria (1917-2017). I had hoped she would make her 100th birthday on 13 November but it was not to be. Extremely significant genealogically, she was the heiress of the Kings of Navarre as well as of Edward the Confessor and David I of Scotland, a distinction now born by her grandson Pedro Duke of Noto (b 1968) as her son Carlos (1938-2015) predeceased her. Daughter of Elias Duke of Parma (1880-1959) and Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria (1882-1940), she married Infante Alfonso Duke of Calabria (1901-1964), nephew and onetime heir presumptive (1904-07) of King Alfonso XIII who after 1960 was one of the two claimants to the throne of the Two Sicilies. In addition to the late Carlos they had two daughters, who survive her.

Born in Austria-Hungary when her similarly long-lived aunt Zita (1892-1989) was still its Empress, Infanta Alicia had been the oldest living member of any European royal family (possibly any). With her death there are no more royals born before the end of World War I; I believe the comparatively obscure Duchess Woizlawa of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Princess Reuss (b 17 December 1918) is now the oldest.

May she rest in peace. Condolences to the Bourbon family.

The Europe of 1517

Inspired by Carlos, Rey Emperador, here is the earliest pictorial chart I've made: European Monarchies exactly 500 years ago, 1517, which happens to be when the show starts. No one had heard of a German monk named Martin Luther, though that would soon change. (Thanks to Jonathan Bennett for help with some details.) It's interesting to notice that if I were alive 500 years ago at my present age (38), I would already be older than most of Europe's leading sovereigns.

Unsurprisingly, appropriate pictures of the youngest children named were unavailable. In some cases I could not determine who the heir to the throne would have been at that time. The Papacy, the Empire, and Bohemia & Hungary were elective monarchies so there was no automatic heir as such (though as we see in the show, young King Carlos was assumed by many to be the rightful heir to his paternal grandfather Maximilian I). France and Scotland were hereditary, but while François I and James V both fathered heirs eventually, they hadn't been born yet in 1517, and neither king had younger brothers.

The Swedish throne was vacant, with the kingdom ruled by Regent Sten Sture the Younger (1493-1520); I elected not to include him since I did not include other rulers whose rank was lower than King. Gustaf I Vasa would fully reestablish the Swedish monarchy, never again to be joined with Denmark's, in 1523.

Needless to say, despite (as an Anglican and Bach fan) not having an entirely negative view of the Reformation (though I think I'm more critical of it than the Vatican is these days), I much prefer this European political, religious, and cultural order to the present one. One can't miss modern conveniences, even Blogger, if one has never known them. "I" hopefully would have been some sort of court musician (though the cello hadn't been invented yet) or perhaps a priest, even a bishop (the arts-patronising kind, of course).

One of the interesting things I learned looking up 16th century royalty: the present Princess Isabella of Denmark (b 2007) was named after her distant ancestor Queen Isabella (1501-1526), teenage bride of King Christian II (1481-1559) and sister of none other than our friend Emperor Charles V. Oddly, since Christian II was deposed in 1523 and succeeded by his uncle Frederik I, no descendant of theirs occupied the Danish throne until 1912, but all Danish monarchs since then have been their descendants.

A Century Without A Tsar

 

I once dared to hope this day would never come, yet now it has. With the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II (whose brother Michael's purported ephemeral "reign" thereafter had no legal foundation), Russia has now gone a full century without its Monarchy. No republican regime can ever fill the void that was opened that dark day. For those of us for whom the fall of Communism in 1989-91 rekindled hopes of royal restoration in Russia and Eastern Europe, this lamentable anniversary is a bitter pill to swallow indeed. As Nicholas wrote in his diary at the end of the day, "All around me I see treason, cowardice, and deceit." Holy Romanov Passion Bearers, pray for us!

With a heavy heart, I have removed Russia from my chart of European monarchies as they were a hundred years ago. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Montenegro didn't have much longer, and many of the borders shown on the 1914 map no longer meant much. 

Alas, the present "Time of Troubles," now a whole century, has lasted far longer than the original (1605-13). 🇷🇺 May the throne one day again be filled!

One thing I get tired of hearing these days is that politics globally have suddenly become "crazy," as if everything were sort of OK until about a couple years go. By my standards politics have now been crazy for a hundred years. Every day that Russia, Germany, and Austria exist without their traditional hereditary monarchies is an outrage. If more people on both sides of the Atlantic are waking up to the fact that something is terribly wrong with modern liberalism, that could be a good thing, but there is no real solution other than Altar and Throne. I categorically reject what Mussolini said about how the Right cannot attempt to turn back the clock. Nothing else is acceptable. I want the 20th century repealed. If that condemns me to political irrelevance, so be it. I know I'm right, and if the entire world disagrees, the entire world is wrong.

Monarchical Republics?

A pet peeve of mine is when people say that the United States, France, or Russia (three very different republics but all with a strong presidency) are still in some way "monarchical," because the President, the head of state, has a lot of power. No. No no no no no. Monarchy is not about one man having a lot of power. Monarchy is about so many other things: Tradition, Inheritance (the existence of non-hereditary monarchies does not mean that inheritance should be dismissed as irrelevant: most elective monarchies have had some sort of hereditary component to the process), Sovereignty being nominally vested in a person (whether or not that person actually wields power) who did not normally seek the office and is separate from the political process, Titles and Terminology, Aesthetics and Philosophy. 

How much power the head of state holds in practice is completely irrelevant to the question of whether a government is monarchical or republican. A Monarch can be "absolute," serving as both head of state and head of government, or "constitutional," with a stronger (but formally subordinate) elected head of government; both kinds of monarchies are real monarchies. A Republic can have a strong president (like the three examples mentioned) with either a relatively weak (France, Russia) or no (USA) prime minister, or a ceremonial president (which I personally think is pretty much the stupidest thing ever) and a strong prime minister (or chancellor), like Germany or Italy; both kinds of republics are real republics. I wish everyone who writes about these topics could at least agree on terminology.