Dimanche 4 avril 2004 : LANCEMENT DE LA CAMPAGNE DES EUROPEENNES Horaire : de 14h à 18h Lieu : à Paris, au centre Chaillot Galiéra : 28 avenue George V (01 53 67 87 00) Contact : 01 45 72 66 31 Le président et les têtes de liste de l’ALLIANCE ROYALE aux élections européennes de 2004 vous recevront pour vous présenter leur discours politique et répondre à vos questions sur l'actualité. Yves-Marie Adeline commentera les ELECTIONS REGIONALES. Ordre du jour : > 14h00 : accueil, présentation > 14h30 : questions/réponses avec le président et les têtes de liste (plate-forme, position officielle, plan d’action, etc) > 16h00 : collation > 16h30 : débat/discussion sur l’actualité politique > 18h00 : clôture Entrée libre Venez avec tous ceux de vos amis qui s'intéressent de près ou de loin à notre projet politique. **********************

 

 

A Monarchist's Guide to the World

I. Monarchies

A. Hereditary, Resident Sovereign

Country	Date of Independence; History	Current Sovereign
Bahrain	1971	King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, born January 28, 1950, acceded March 6, 1999 (as Emir); title changed to King, February 14, 2002.
Belgium	1830	King Albert II, born June 6, 1934, acceded August 9, 1993.
Bhutan	1949	King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, born November 11, 1955, acceded July 21, 1972.
Brunei Darussalam	1984	Sultan Sir Muda Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzadin Waddaulah, born July 15, 1946, acceded October 5, 1967.
Denmark	Monarchy dates from ninth century, possibly earlier; only European country which has continously maintained both independence and monarchy since medieval times.	Queen Margrethe II, born April 16, 1940, acceded January 14, 1972.
Japan	The world’s oldest monarchy, officially founded in 660 B.C.	Emperor Akihito, born December 23, 1933, acceded January 7, 1989.
Jordan	1946	King Abdullah II, born January 30, 1962, acceded February 7, 1999. (Official sites are also maintained for Queen Rania, Crown Prince Hamzah, and for the previous royal couple, the late King Hussein and Queen Noor.)
Kuwait	1961	Emir Sheikh Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir as-Sabah, born June 29, 1928, acceded January 1, 1978.
Liechtenstein	1806	Prince Hans Adam II, born February 14, 1945, acceded November 13, 1989.
Luxembourg	1866; crown united with that of the Netherlands until 1890.	Grand Duke Henri, born April 16, 1955, acceded October 7, 2000.
Monaco	Semi-independent since medieval times; Grimaldi dynasty has ruled since 1297, interrupted by French Revolution.	Prince Rainier III, born May 31, 1923, acceded May 9, 1949. Longest serving European head of state.
Morocco	1956	King Mohammed VI, born August 21, 1963, acceded July 23, 1999.
Nepal	Unified 1769; constitutional monarchy since 1990.	King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev, born July 7, 1947, acceded June 4, 2001.
Netherlands	1581; French control 1795-1813, constitutional monarchy 1815.	Queen Beatrix, born January 31, 1938, acceded April 30, 1980.
Norway	Monarchy dates from ninth century; crown united with that of Denmark 1397-1814, Sweden 1814-1905.	King Harald V, born February 21, 1937, acceded January 17, 1991.
Qatar	1971	Emir Hamad bin Khalifa ath-Thani, born 1950, acceded June 27, 1995.
Saudi Arabia	1913	King Fahd ibn Abdul Aziz, born 1921, acceded June 13, 1982.
Spain	Unified 1492; Monarchy overthrown 1931, restored 1975.	King Juan Carlos I, born January 5, 1938, acceded November 22, 1975.
Sweden	Monarchy dates from ninth century; crown usually united with that of Denmark and Norway from 1397 until 1523.	King Carl XVI Gustaf, born April 30, 1946, acceded September 19, 1973.
Thailand	Unified 1350; known as Siam until 1939.	King Bhumibol Adulyadej, born December 5, 1927, acceded June 9, 1946; longest serving head of state in the world.
Tonga	1970	King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, born July 4, 1918, acceded December 16, 1965.
United Kingdom	England united 829; conquered Wales and Ireland in Middle Ages. English and Scottish crowns united 1603. Monarchy overthrown 1649; restored 1660. Act of Union 1707, United Kingdom established 1801.	Queen Elizabeth II, born April 21, 1926, acceded February 6, 1952.

B. Semi-Hereditary, Resident Sovereign

Country	Date of Independence; Description	Current sovereign
Cambodia	1953; monarchy overthrown 1970, restored 1993.	King Norodom Sihanouk, born October 31, 1922, previously reigned 1941-1955; 1960-1970, acceded September 24, 1993.
Lesotho	1966	King Letsie III, born July 17, 1963, reigned previously 1990-93, acceded February 7, 1996.
Malaysia	1963; monarch elected by council of hereditary rulers of the Malayan states (including Perak) every five years.	King Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin, born 1943, acceded December 13, 2001.
Oman	1744	Sultan Qabus bin Said, born November 18, 1942, acceded July 23, 1970.
Samoa	1962; formerly known as Western Samoa. After death of current ruler, head of state will be elected every five years.	King Malietoa Tanuamafili II, born January 4, 1913, acceded January 1, 1962.
Swaziland	1968	King Mswati III, born 1968, acceded April 25, 1986.
United Arab Emirates	1971; federation of emirates.	President Zaid ibn Sultan an-Nahayan, Emir of Abu Dhabi, born 1923, acceded December 2, 1971.

C. Hereditary, Associated with British Crown

Country	Date of independence	Comments
Antigua and Barbuda	1981
Australia	1901	Proposal to become a republic defeated in referendum, November 6, 1999
Bahamas	1973
Barbados	1966
Belize	1981
Canada	1867
Grenada	1974
Jamaica	1962
New Zealand	1907
Papua New Guinea	1975
Saint Kitts and Nevis	1983
Saint Lucia	1979
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	1979
Solomon Islands	1978
Tuvalu	1978

D. Non-Hereditary (status as monarchies debatable, but clearly not republics)

Country	History	Current sovereign(s)
Andorra	Co-principality since 1278. Parliamentary government adopted 1993 but nominal sovereignty is still held by President of France (as successor to the Counts of Foix) and the Bishop of Urgell.	Jacques Chirac, President of France and (Co) Prince of Andorra, born November 29, 1932, in office May 17, 1995; Joan Enric Vives Sicilia, Bishop of Urgell and (Co) Prince-Bishop of Andorra, born July 24, 1949, in office May 12, 2003.
Vatican City	Independent 1929, but papacy dates from 42 AD.	Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla), born May 18, 1920, in office October 16, 1978.

---

II. Republics

A. Former Monarchies with generally acknowledged claimants

Country	Date of Independence; History	Claimant(s) or Former Sovereign
Afghanistan	1919; monarchy overthrown 1973, followed by Communist and Islamic dictatorships. New republican government established 2002.	King Zahir Shah, born October 15, 1914, reigned 1933-1973.
Albania	1912; brief monarchy in 1914 under Prince Wilhelm of Wied; second monarchy proclaimed 1928. Italy invaded 1939; Vittorio Emanuele III proclaimed King of Albania. Communist regime 1944-89.	Leka, born April 5, 1939, son of King Zog I, inherited claim April 9, 1961, proclaimed King of the Albanians at Paris by the Albanian National Assembly in exile.
Austria	Austrian Empire proclaimed 1804; monarchy overthrown 1918.	Archduke Otto, Crown Prince of Austria and Hungary, born November 20, 1912, son of Emperor Karl I, inherited claim April 1, 1922; has served in European Parliament.
Brazil	1822; monarchy overthrown 1889. Succession disputed.	Dom Luiz Gastão, born June 6, 1938, great-great-grandson of Emperor Pedro II, inherited claim July 5, 1981. Dom Pedro Gastão, born February 19, 1913, great-grandson of Emperor Pedro II, inherited claim January 29, 1940.
Bulgaria	1879 (principality), 1908 (kingdom); monarchy overthrown 1946.	King (Tsar) Simeon II, born June 16, 1937, reigned August 28, 1943 to September 15, 1946; Prime Minister (as Simeon Saxe-Coburg) since July 2001.
Czech Republic	As monarchy (before 1918) was known as Bohemia. Crown inherited by Hapsburgs, 1526. Czechoslovakia was formed 1918; split into Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993.	(see Austria)
Egypt	1922/36; monarchy overthrown 1953.	King Ahmad Fuad II, born January 16, 1952, reigned July 26, 1952 to June 18, 1953.
Ethiopia	Monarchy, dating from c. 1000 B.C., overthrown 1975. Last Emperor: Haile Selassie (born 1891; acceded 1916/30, died 1975).	Prince Zere Yacob, born August 15, 1953, designated as Crown Prince and Heir Apparent by Haile Selassie on April 14, 1974; inherited claim 1975.
France	Revolution 1789, Monarchy abolished 1792, First Empire 1804, Bourbon restoration 1814/15, Orléans constitutional monarchy 1830-48, Second Empire 1852-70, Republic since 1871. Succession disputed.	Prince Henri of Orléans, Count of Paris, born June 14, 1933, inherited Orléanist claim June 19, 1999 Louis Alphonse de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, born April 23, 1974, inherited Legitimist claim January 30, 1989 Prince Charles Bonaparte, Prince Napoléon, born October 19, 1950, inherited Bonapartist claim May 3, 1997.
Georgia	Ancient monarchy annexed by Russia 1801; independent republic 1991.	Prince Giorgi, born February 22, 1944, inherited claim November 28, 1977.
Germany	Unified 1871; monarchy overthrown 1918.	Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia, born June 10, 1976, great-great-grandson of Kaiser Wilhelm II, inherited claim September 25, 1994. There are also claimants to the former kingdoms, grand duchies, duchies, and principalities of the German Empire.
Greece	1829; Oldenburg (Danish) dynasty began 1863. Republic 1924-35. King and royal family exiled 1967; republic declared 1973; monarchy abolished following referendum in 1974.	King Constantine II, born June 6, 1940, reigned March 6, 1964 to December 8, 1974.
Hungary	Crown inherited by Hapsburgs, 1526. From 1867 Emperors of Austria were also crowned Kings of Hungary. Dual monarchy abolished 1918; nominal (kingless) monarchy under "Regent" Nicholas Horthy 1920. Republic 1946; Communist regime 1947-89.	(see Austria)
Iran	549 B.C.; monarchy overthrown 1979.	Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, born October 31, 1960, son of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, inherited claim July 27, 1980.
Iraq	1932; monarchy overthrown 1958. Succession disputed.	Prince Ra'ad, born February 18, 1936, inherited claim October 18, 1970. Prince Sharif Ali bin AlHussein, born 1956.
Italy	Unified 1861; monarchy abolished 1946.	Crown Prince Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, born February 12, 1937, son of King Umberto II, inherited claim March 18, 1983.
Korea, North and Korea, South	Korea was ruled by the Ree dynasty, who became vassals of China in the 16th century, until 1910, when Korea was annexed by Japan. Since then the Korean royal family has been considered a part of the Japanese imperial family. The two independent Korean republics were established in 1948.	Prince Kyu Ree, born December 29, 1931, inherited claim May 1, 1970.
Laos	1949; monarchy overthrown 1975.	Prince Soulivong Savang, born May 8, 1963, grandson of King Savang Vathana, inherited claim c. March 1980.
Libya	1951; monarchy overthrown 1969.	Prince Muhammed al-Hasan ar-Rida al-Senussi, born October 20, 1962, nephew of King Idris I, inherited claim April 28, 1992.
Maldives	1965; monarchy abolished 1968.	Prince Muhammad Nur ud-din, son of Sultan al-Hasan Nur ud-din Iskander II, inherited claim May 1969.
Mexico	1821; monarchy under Emperor Augustín de Iturbide 1822-23. Second monarchy under Archduke Maximilian of Austria 1864-67.	(Count) Don Maximiliano de Götzen-Iturbide, born March 2, 1944, great-great-great-grandson of Emperor Augustín, inherited claim August 8, 1999.
Portugal	1139; crown united with that of Spain, 1580 to 1640; monarchy overthrown 1910.	Prince Duarte, Duke of Braganza, born May 15, 1945, inherited claim December 24, 1976.
Romania	1878; monarchy overthrown 1947.	King Michael I, born October 25, 1921, reigned 1927-30 and 1940 to December 30, 1947.
Russia	Various monarchies dated from ninth century. Unified 1547. Romanov dynasty began 1613. Empire 1721. Constitutional monarchy 1905. Monarchy overthrown 1917. Communist regime (as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) 1917-91.	Succession has been disputed by some members of the Romanov family, but most monarchists recognize Princess/Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, born December 23, 1953, great-great-granddaughter of Tsar Alexander II, inherited claim April 21, 1992.
Rwanda	Monarchy abolished 1961; independent republic 1962.	King Kigeri V, born 1935, reigned 1959 to October 2, 1961.
Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia)	Serbia independent 1878. Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes established 1918, including the former Kingdom of Montenegro (est. 1910); name changed to Yugoslavia 1929. Monarchy overthrown 1945. Four republics seceded 1991; Yugoslavia then comprised only Serbia and Montenegro. These two remaining republics signed an agreement in March 2002 which abolished the name "Yugoslavia" without completely severing ties.	Serbia: Crown Prince Alexander, born July 17, 1945, son of King Peter II, inherited claim November 3, 1970. Montenegro: Prince Nicholas, born July 24, 1944, son of titular King Michael I, inherited claim March 24, 1986.
Turkey	Ottoman Empire founded 1299; republic 1923.	Prince Ertugrul Osman, born August 18, 1912, inherited claim March 12, 1994.
Vietnam	Japan invaded 1940; created Annam, monarchy under Emperor Bao Dai which ended in 1945. State of Vietnam declared 1949 with Bao Dai as chief of state. Divided into North (Communist) and South Vietnam, 1954. Republic in South 1955. Reunited under Communist regime, 1976.	Prince Bao Long, son of Emperor Bao Dai, born January 4, 1936, inherited claim July 31, 1997.
Yemen	Formerly divided into North and South Yemen. North independent 1918; monarchy overthrown 1962. Civil war followed between royalists and republicans which republicans won. South independent 1967. United 1990.	Prince Saqr bin Muhammad al-Badr Hamidaddin, born 1974, inherited claim August 6, 1996.

B. Former Monarchies; no obvious claimant

Country	Date of Independence; History
Burundi	1962; monarchy overthrown 1966
China	1523 B.C.; monarchy overthrown 1911-12; restored in Manchuria (as Manchukuo) 1931-45 under Japanese rule. Last Emperor: Pu Yi (born 1906; acceded 1908; died 1967). Communist regime since 1949.
India	1947; republic 1950. Sikkim: British Protectorate 1816, Indian Protectorate 1950, annexed by India 1975. Claimant: Prince Namgyal, 13th Maharaja, born 1952.
Ireland	1922; republic 1948.
Israel	1948
Lithuania	1917-41; 1991
Macedonia	1991; independence has been disputed, especially by Greece, but is now generally recognized. (also see Yugoslavia under Former Monarchies)
Myanmar	1937; republic 1948. Known as Burma until 1989.
Mongolia	1911
Poland	Elective (but occasionally hereditary) monarchy divided among Prussia, Austria and Russia 1795. Semi-independent (as Grand Duchy of Warsaw) 1807-13. Independent republic 1918. No claimant since monarchy was elective.
Tunisia	1956; monarchy abolished 1957.

C. Former Associate Monarchies (were associated with the British crown unless otherwise indicated)

Country	Date of Independence	Date of Break with Crown	Comments
Fiji	1970	1987
Gambia	1965	1970
Ghana	1957	1960
Iceland	1918	1941	Formerly associated with the Danish crown.
Malawi	1964	1966
Malta	1964	1974
Mauritius	1968	1992
Nigeria	1960	1963
Pakistan	1947	1956
Sierra Leone	1961	1971
South Africa	1910	1961
Sri Lanka	1948	1972	Formerly known as Ceylon.
Trinidad and Tobago	1962	1976
Uganda	1962	1963	Traditional kingdoms (Buganda, Toro, Bunyoro, Busoga) abolished 1967; restored 1993 for ceremonial purposes.

D. Original Republics

Country	Date of independence; History and Comments
Algeria	1962
Angola	1975
Argentina	1816
Armenia	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Azerbaijan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Bangladesh	1971
Belarus	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Benin	1960; traditional kings continue to play an important role. King of Dahomey: Agbo Dedjalagni, acceded 1989.
Bolivia	1825
Bosnia and Herzegovina	1991 (also see Yugoslavia under Former Monarchies); capital, Sarajevo, was site of assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria which provoked World War I.
Botswana	1966
Burkina Faso	1960
Cameroon	1960
Cape Verde	1975
Central African Republic	1960; monarchy (as Central African Empire) under Jean-Bedel Bokassa ("Emperor Bokassa I"), 1976-79.
Chile	1818
Colombia	1819
Comoros	1975
Congo	1960; known as Zaire 1971-1997.
Congo Republic	1960
Costa Rica	1821
Côte d’Ivoire	1960
Croatia	1991; nominally independent kingdom under Prince Aimone of Savoy (Italy), Duke of Aosta ("King Tomislav II"), 1941-43. (also see Yugoslavia under Former Monarchies)
Cuba	1902
Cyprus	1960
Djibouti	1977
Dominica	1978
Dominican Republic	1924
East Timor	2002
Ecuador	1822/30
El Salvador	1821/39
Equatorial Guinea	1968
Eritrea	1993
Estonia	1991; monarchist movement in 1994 offered crown to Britain’s Prince Edward, who declined. (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Finland	1917; crown offered in 1918 to Landgrave Friedrich Karl of Hesse, who never set foot in the country and soon gave up the dubious position following the abdication of his brother-in-law Kaiser Wilhelm II. Republic 1919.
Gabon	1960
Guatemala	1821/39
Guinea	1958
Guinea-Bissau	1974
Guyana	1966
Haiti	1804; has experimented (not very successfully) with hereditary rule.
Honduras	1821/38
Indonesia	1949
Kazahkstan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Kenya	1963
Kiribati	1979
Kyrgyzstan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Latvia	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Lebanon	1946
Liberia	1847
Madagascar	1960
Mali	1960
Marshall Islands	1991
Mauritania	1960
Micronesia	1991
Moldova	1991 (also see Russia and Romania under Former Monarchies)
Mozambique	1975
Namibia	1990
Nauru	1968
Nicaragua	1821-38
Niger	1960
Palau	1994
Panama	1903
Paraguay	1811
Peru	1824
Philippines	1946
San Marino	331
São Tomé and Príncipe	1975
Senegal	1960
Seychelles	1976
Singapore	1965
Slovakia	1993 (also see Czech Republic under Former Monarchies)
Slovenia	1991 (also see Yugoslavia under Former Monarchies)
Somalia	1960
Sudan	1956
Suriname	1975
Switzerland	1648
Syria	1946
Taiwan	1949 (also see China under Former Monarchies)
Tajikistan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Tanzania	Unified 1964 Zanzibar: British protectorate 1890, independent 1963, monarchy overthrown 1964; union with Tanganyika (as Tanzania) later that year. Former sovereign: Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah, born September 16, 1929, reigned July 7, 1963 to January 17, 1964.
Togo	1960
Turkmenistan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Ukraine	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
United States of America	1776 Hawaii: unified 1810, monarchy overthrown 1893, republic 1894, annexed to United States 1898, statehood 1959. Claimant: Prince Edward J. Kawananakoa, inherited claim July 29, 1997.
Uruguay	1825
Uzbekistan	1991 (also see Russia under Former Monarchies)
Vanuatu	1980
Venezuela	1821/30
Zambia	1964
Zimbabwe	1965/80; formerly known as Rhodesia.

Sources:
Almanach de Gotha (1999)
The World Almanac and Book of Facts (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003)

 

L'inhumation solennelle du cœur de Louis XVII aura lieu en la Basilique de Saint-Denis, le 8 juin 2004.

Rendez-vous à Saint-Denis

L'inhumation solennelle du cœur de Louis XVII aura lieu en la Basilique de Saint-Denis, le 8 juin 2004.

Plus de deux cents ans se seront ainsi écoulés entre sa mort survenue au Temple le 8 juin 1795 et cette date. Des années d'efforts et de démarches ont été nécessaires pour obtenir du Ministre de la Culture et du Gouvernement français, l'autorisation d'organiser une cérémonie officielle en mémoire de cet enfant-roi et martyr.

Sur ce site - dont je vous invite à diffuser largement l'adresse auprès de vos amis - vous trouverez toutes les informations concernant ce prochain rendez-vous, au fil de ses mises à jour quasi quotidienne.

Vous pouvez d'ores et déjà prendre connaissance de la liste des membres du Comité d'honneur (dans sa version provisoire au 9 février 2004). D'autres noms prestigieux viendront la compléter dans les prochains jours.

Sachez par ailleurs, que la responsabilité financière de l'organisation - très lourde - de cet événement est intégralement à notre charge.
Ainsi, vos dons à titre privé ou les efforts de mécénat de vos entreprises au bénéfice du Mémorial de France à Saint-Denys, nous permettront de réaliser, dans la crypte royale, les travaux nécéssaires et d'organiser une cérémonie religieuse la plus digne possible.

Les donateurs seront associés très étroitement au déroulement de ces cérémonies.

Pour plus d'informations pratiques, consulter la page "Aider le Mémorial".

Comptant sur vous et sur votre concours, le Mémorial de France à Saint-Denys vous remercie de votre générosité.

http://www.memorialdefrance.org/

 

The collapse of European Monarchy in November 1918

By Arturo Beéche

By assassinating the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip never imagined his regicide would plunge Europe into war. Not only did Princip's daring act bring the most widespread war Europe had witnessed, but it also changed the map of the continent forever. The old continent was governed by a collecting of monarchs who either ruled vast empires, or pint sized principalities. By the end of the war in November 1918, most of those rulers had lost their thrones. In the Europe of 1914, only four countries were not ruled by a monarch. France still had a living sovereign in the person of the Empress Eugenie, widow of Napoleon III, but the republic had survived for almost five decades. In 1910 King Manuel II of Portugal was overthrown and the republic quickly declared. The other two republics were Switzerland and the lilliputian state of San Marino, neither had ever known a monarchical system of government. The hurricane caused by the Great War eroded the political weight of the German Empire. By the end of the war, with Germany's infrastructure stretched to its limits, the monarchy was ready to collapse. The disappearance of the German Empire also meant to fall to the twenty odd monarchs who ruled within the empire. The fall of the Romanovs in 1917 served as an introduction for the catastrophe that engulfed Germany one year later. On March 15, as a consequence of German efforts to destabilize his regime, Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate the throne. The luckless monarch was placed under house arrest with his family. After fruitless efforts to get Nicholas and his family out of Russia, the Romanovs were sent into the provinces under heavy guard. Within a year of their transfer out of St. Petersburg, Tsar Nicholas, his wife Alexandra and their five children, with several servants, were brutally massacred in the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg. Their bodies were dumped in a shallow ditch, its location forgotten for almost seventy years. By the time of the Tsar's murder, the Allied Armies were very close to final victory over Germany and Austria-Hungary. Old Emperor Franz-Joseph had died at the height of the war in November 1916. He was succeeded by his young great-nephew, Emperor Karl I. The new Habsburg monarch was not a friend of his country's German allies. Karl feared that Austria's future was doomed by its alliance with Kaiser Wilhelm II. Fearing the worst end for his country's military situation, Karl tried to reach a peace settlement with the Allies. Using his Bourbon-Parma brothers-in-law as emissaries, Karl sent peace offers to Georges Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister. His efforts could have brought peace to Europe not only in time to avoid the debacle in Russia, but also would have saved almost a million lives. Unfortunately for Karl, France rejected his secret peace overtures and Kaiser Wilhelm discovered the young Austrian emperor's plans. The embarrassment suffered by Karl was enormous, and from that day on his country's military was placed under close German surveillance. Austria-Hungary was doomed to suffer the same fate faced by Germany. After a disastrous final campaign, the German armies collapsed in the early fall of 1918. On November 11 German representatives signed the armistice. Three days prior to capitulation, revolutionary movements exploded throughout the country and the German empire quickly disintegrated. On November 8, King Ludwig III of Bavaria was ousted by a socialist revolution in Munich. That same day, the Kaiser's son-in-law, Ernst-August of Brunswick abandoned his crown. The next day Kaiser Wilhelm himself renounced his imperial dignity while retaining his title of King of Prussia. Wilhelm's abdication was followed by those of Grand Duke Ernst-Ludwig of Hesse and by Rhine and Grand Duke Wilhelm-Ernst of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach. On the 10th it was the turn of Duke Bernhard III of Saxe-Meiningen to vacate his throne. Emperor Karl of Austria-Hungary fell from power on November 11. The Grand Duke of Baden, a first cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm's father, also lost his throne. On that same day Grand Duke Friedrich-August of Oldenburg abandoned the throne he had occupied for the past eighteen years. The two royal cousins, Henry XXIV Reuss-Greiz and Henry XXVII Reuss-Schleiz also lost their thrones the same day. On November 12 it was the turn of Leopold IV of Lippe and Prince Regent Aribert of Anhalt, who abdicated in the name of his young nephew Duke Joachim-Ernst of Anhalt. This young prince had ascended to his throne two months prior, when he succeeded his father, who in turn had succeeded to the throne on April 21 of that same year. Death ran rampant and unchecked throughout Europe. On November 13, two days after loosing Austria, Karl of Habsburg was forced to vacate his Hungarian throne. That same day King Friedrich-August III of Saxony, Duke Ernst II of Saxe-Altenburg and the reigning prince of Waldeck-Pyrmont were ousted. Odd King Nicholas of Montenegro, although on the Allied side, was ousted by a Serbian-backed palace revolution. He was exiled to France and his mountain kingdom was annexed by Serbia. Nicholas of Montenegro died three years later still unable to accept the loss of his throne. The following day, November 14, saw the fall of Friedrich-Franz IV, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Friedrich-Franz was also the brother of Princess Cecilie, wife of the German Crown Prince. He also abdicated the throne of his cousins the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. In fact, at the time of the collapse of the German empire, Mecklenburg-Strelitz found itself monarch-less after the mysterious death of Grand Duke Adolph-Friedrich VI just a few months before the fall of the empire. It seems that Adolph-Friedrich committed suicide during a walk in the woods after his affair with an English-born German aristocrat, married to a friend of the Kaiser's, was discovered. His dynastic heir, Duke Karl-Michael was profoundly anti-German and lived in Russia. where he had served in the Tsar's army. That same day also witnessed the abdication of Carl-Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who always remained loyal to the Kaiser. Carl-Edward and Wilhelm II were first cousins, both being grandsons of Queen Victoria. Carl-Edward was born prince of Great Britain, Duke of Albany, and was the posthumous son of Victoria's youngest son, Leopold, Duke of Albany. His allegiance to Kaiser Wilhelm cost Carl-Edward his English titles. In fact his situation was even more complicated because his only sister, Princess Alice of Albany, was married to the Duke of Teck, Queen Mary's brother. Carl-Edward's wife was a niece of the Kaiser's wife. Nevertheless, the last one to abdicate on this fateful day was His Serene Highness Adolph II of Schaumburg-Lippe. Only three sovereigns remained in Germany, yet their days of anxiety were about to end. On November 22 Gunther, prince of Schwarzburg abdicated after thirty years on the throne. This princely house is extinct today, as it the House of Saxe-Altenburg. The former Kaiser intended to remain in Germany. His last Chancellor, prince Max of Baden, convinced Wilhelm that the best action he could take was to seek refuge in a friendly country. Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to leave Germany. On November 28 he abdicated his Prussian throne and sought refuge in neighboring Holland. Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands rejected the Allies' demands for the Kaiser, who remained safely settled in Holland until his own death in 1941. Efforts to pass the imperial crown to the Kaiser's eldest grandson failed to gain popular support. The revolution had succeeded in overthrowing the ancient monarchies of Central Europe. King Wilhelm II of Württemberg was the last reigning sovereign of the German empire. Like many of his royal colleagues, Wilhelm of Württemberg tried to keep his kingdom from the debacle engulfing the Hohenzollern empire. His efforts were unsuccessful and he had to renounce his throne on November 29. By dismantling the German empire, the Allies hoped to eliminate Germany as a future threat. The result was completely the opposite. By dismantling the Hohenzollern and Habsburg empires, the Allies opened Pandora's box in Central Europe. Nationalism was a double-edged sword. It consumed the Habsburg empire, and the effects of nationalism are still witnessed in the tragic events causing instability in the Balkans. The Treaty of Versailles shattered the image of the old Europe. A new continent was created, yet sadly enough it only lasted but two decades.

 

Now published in April 1-15, 2004 issue of Hawai'i Island Journal,
and eventually will be viewable online at
http://www.hawaiiislandjournal.com.

AMERICA'S TIBET
By David Ingham, Amy Marsh & Kukauakahi Ching

In 1959, as the Chinese massacred civilians in its violent
annexation of Tibet, another powerful country was putting the
finishing touches on its takeover of a peaceful former ally. That
ally was a constitutional monarchy which had declared its neutrality
as early as 1850, a country accepted and
recognized by over fifty other nations. That ally was the Kingdom of
Hawaii.

On January 17, 1893, Queen Lili`uokalani was forced from her
throne by American businessmen and business-minded missionary sons,
with the help of John L. Stevens, the American Minister to the
Hawaiian Kingdom, and the American navy. The overthrow was violent,
unjustified, insulting, and in complete violation of international
law. U.S. President Benjamin Harrison apparently gave unofficial
encouragement to the conspirators in 1892 and after the overthrow he
presented their annexation petition to the U.S. Senate. But incoming
President Grover Cleveland was appalled. He withdrew the petition
before the Senate could act, called for an investigation, and issued
a powerful statement to reinstate the queen and the rightful
government. But the treasonous provisional government refused to
comply. President Cleveland was also opposed
by powerful interests within the United States who were loathe to part
with their juicy prize.

In 1898, approximately 29,000 Hawaiians--more than half the adult
Hawaiian population--signed and presented a petition protesting
annexation to the United States. Congress ignored them. Despite the
petition evidence to the contrary, it was far more lucrative for
Congress to accept the assurances of missionary lobbyists who
claimed the Hawaiians were eager for annexation.

Our motives for acquiring Hawaii were similar to China's
motives for acquiring Tibet. We could, therefore we did. Like China,
we justified our aggression by the pretense of modernizing a
backwards people. To this end, the U.S. relied on policies of deceit
and decades of legal and social repression. Hawaiian children were
taught that they were lazy and no good. The beautiful Hawaiian
language, hula, and other sacred cultural practices were made
illegal. Like Tibetans, Hawaiians are second class citizens in their
own home. Native Hawaiians suffer from denial of human and national
rights that have resulted in the poorest health, employment,
education, incarceration, youth suicide, and economic statistics of
any group in Hawaii.

Due to the recent renaissance of Native Hawaiian culture and a
new emphasis on historical accuracy, Native Hawaiians (na kanaka
maoli)now know that the substantial theft of their nation and most of
its land and assets was unjus tified, illegal, and in violation of
treaties promising perpetual friendship between the United States and
the Kingdom of Hawaii. On the mainland we might say all in the past
but this matter is hardly a done deal for Native Hawaiians and
descendants of Hawaiian nationals. They want their country back.
Native Hawaiians are, and have always been, emotionally and
spiritually connected with their aina (the land). Now they reclaim
their rightful political connection. As far as theyre concerned, the
Kingdom still exists, though illegally occupied. They are its
subjects.

Experts who are familiar with legal aspects of the case for
Hawaiian independence agree with their assessment. For example, three
years ago a citizen of the occupied kingdom presented a Hawaii case
to the international Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague.
After consideration of the case, the court recognized the continuity
of the Kingdom of Hawaii and flew the Kingdom's flag among those of
other nations.

Experts say the overthrow and annexation are both in clear
violation of international law. Even the 1959 Statehood vote violated
United Nations rules under which the vote was supposedly conducted.
First, American citizens and the military occupation forces should
not have been allowed to cast ballots. Second, eligible voters should
have been given at least three choices, such as:
independence (including free association as an independent member of
a commonwealth); remaining an occupied territory; or incorporation
into the United States. But on the ballot, statehood was the only
option.

Few American citizens are aware of the true status of
our vacation paradise. We are oblivious to the consequences of our
colonization and economic and cultural rape of Hawaii. We are
ignorant of the devastating price Hawaiians continue to pay as
inhabitants under occupation.

After the overthrow, the United States quickly transformed its
once self sufficient, prosperous, and independent ally into a
floundering, unsuccessful commercial and military venture. Whereas the
Hawaiians had ingeniously managed and sustained their limited island
resources, fisheries, and agriculture for nearly two thousand years,
the Western usurpers quickly replaced these proven agricultural and
social systems with those better suited to American interests. Such
practices accelerated the depletion and degradation of Hawaii.
Residents became dependent on American imports, a burgeoning tourist
industry, and a growing dependence on the military economy. This in
turn increased commercial, military and residential development, which
caused still further degradation and depletion. This vicious cycle
continues unabated.

The United States finally admitted some of its culpability a
century after the overthrow. In 1993, Congress formally apologized to
Hawaiians (spurred by uncertainty over title to nearly half the land
in Hawaii). The Apology Resolution PL 103-150 included a commitment by
Congress to reconcile with Hawaiians. Congress also admitted the
illegal nature of the damagedone to the Kingdom of Hawaii. And, of
paramount importance, the Apology Resolution acknowledged
that Hawaiians have never given up their rights to sovereignty or
relinquished title to their land.

The Apology Resolution was a top story in Hawai’i, but
only a blip in the mainland press. Nevertheless, some policy makers
began to take note of the resolutions implications. Perhaps to
undermine growing international awareness of Hawaii's true status or
perhaps as a last ditcheffort to retain control of Hawaii's assets,
Congress and the Departments of the Interior and Justice
began a process in 1999 to implement a superficial semblance of the
reconciliation called for in the Apology Resolution. This process has
produced six versions of what are known as the Akaka bills and most
recently as the Akaka-Stevens bill. These bills propose a federally
recognized "domestic dependent" Hawaiian government that would
eventually negotiate Hawaiians's claims
with the Federal government through the Department of the Interior.

It's important to note that many Hawaiian organizations
and State agencies are dependent on federal benefits and have thus
undertaken an expensive lobbying and educational pro-Akaka-Stevens
campaign to gain Congressional, Hawaiian, and Native American support
for the bill. This well funded campaign, led by the Office of
Hawaiian affairs and the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement
(among others), gained extra momentum by (so far unsuccessful) attacks
on Hawaiian benefits in the courts. Unfortunately the ambitious
lobbying and educational campaigns conducted by these federally
dependent agencies is profoundly tainted by misinformation, half
truths, and outright lies.

Grass roots efforts by Hawaiian nationalists have exposed the
deceit embedded in the promotion of the Akaka bills. They have also
exposed unethical relationships between some of the officers of these
agencies and Alaska Native organizations seeking to secure oil deals
in congress. In addition to exposing this corruption, grass roots
legal efforts have also exposed ongoing malfeasance and misfeasance
within the Department of the Interior.

The Department of the Interior has been deemed an unfit trustee
by a federal judge. Secretaries of the Interior, under both Clinton
and Bush administrations, have been cited for contempt of court and
for perpetuating fraud on the court in the disappearance of as much as
$137 billion dollars in Indian assets and 40 million acres of Indian
land (in the ongoing Cobell vs. Norton case).

If the Akaka-Stevens bill is passed, Hawaiians will be
negotiating a claims settlement agreement in a process that has
historically resulted in grossly unfair settlements. For example, the
Alaska Native Claims settlement act resulted in Alaskans relinquishing
9/10ths of their homeland for less than three dollars an acre. Should
the Akaka bill turn the Hawaiian nation into a domestic
dependent government, Hawaiians can expect any portion of their
homeland they are allowed to use and occupy (as a result of
negotiations) to be held in federal trust, with the Department of the
Interior managing the account. This hardly seems desirable or
rational, given the Department's record.

Under Akaka-Stevens, the lands that will be given up by Hawaiians
to the United States through the Department of Interior will be
quiet titled by removing the present cloud (of Hawaiian claims) on
them. Conversely, those lands "held in trust" will forever be
susceptible to further seizure by the United States, at its whim, at
any time, and without compensation.

Hawaiians don't want to be cheated any more than they have
been already. They are now aware of the history of unfair outcomes
and permanence of claims settlements that have resulted from
negotiations similar to that offered in the later versions of the
Akaka bill. Given these facts, why should we expect Hawaiians to
trade their present status as full citizens for a secondary
citizenship (or wardship) that the bill would also accomplish?
Hawaiians are wise to reject the federal offer in favor of full
restoration of the national rights they have been denied.

The tragic plight of the Tibetan people and the spiritual
leadership of the Dalai Lama has inspired the creation of Free
Tibet chapters in many universities and communities in the U.S. But
the plight of Native Hawaiians is no less dire, and the cultural
traditions and practical and spiritual wisdom of Hawaii are no less
inspiring. Citizens of a sovereign Hawaiian nation will have much to
offer the world, as they reconstruct their society based on their
rich cultural heritage. For them, the spiritual legacy of Queen
Lili`uokalani is a guiding light.

Those of us who combine American citizenship with a commitment to
humanitarian and progressive activism are strangely blind to the
Tibet on our own doorstep. This must change. This is our opportunity
to oppose passage of the Akaka-Stevens bill and support the Hawaiian
Kingdom's just struggle for independence. Free Hawaii. Now.

------
Kukauakahi is a kanaka maoli cultural practitioner who resides in
Hawaii. David Ingham is a proponent of Hawaiian Independence and is
active in research and writing on the subject. He is former resident
of Hawaii. Amy Marsh is a writer and student of Hawaiian culture.
_______________________________________________________________


Update on workshop:
Hawaiian Cultural Practices and
The Struggle for Independence

Workshop with
Clarence Kukauakahi Ching,
kanaka maoli cultural practioner and activist from Hawaii, and
David Ingham researcher, writer, and independence supporter.

Friday, May 7, 7-9 PM
Part One: A Baited Trap: The Akaka-Stevens Bill and Federal
Recognition

Part Two: The Three R's: Restoration, Reconciliation, Recognition
Saturday, May 8, 10 AM-5 PM
Exploring Culture, Vision and Activism
.
Language Studies International
2015 Center Street, Berkeley, CA (near BART)
$20 for Friday night only. $75 for both days.

Class size limited. Advance registration required.
To register, or for more information, please contact Amy Marsh via
email: waihili@...

Malama the air. Please come fragrance-free to enable people with
asthma to breathe freely. Mahalo!

Bios of Workshop Panelists
Clarence Kukauakahi Ching:
Kukauakahi is active in numerous cultural projects and community
issues in Hawai'i, seeking always to preserve and strengthen Native
Hawaiian practices and values, and to foster appreciation and care of
the aina. In 2002 he co-founded Huaka'i I Na 'Aina Mauna -- group
hiking in the footsteps of "Ka Po'e Kahiko" on Hawai'i island. He is
an intervener in the contested Keck Observatories Outrigger Telescope
case since 2002. From 1992 to 1995 he was part of the Hawai'iLoa
construction crew and is gearing up to do a video documentary
about the construction. He was instrumental in placing Kaniakapupu
(Summer Palace of Kauikeaouli, King Kamehameha III) on the state and
federal registers of historic places in 1986 and has promoted
Uluhaimalama (The Queen's Garden in Pauoa) from the mid-1980s to
present. He was co-executive producer of the video
documentary "The 'Aina Remains" (1983). He served as a trustee of the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs(OHA) from 1986 to 1990. Kukauakahi is a
graduate of Kamehameha Schools (1954), a graduate of
Brigham Young University, (major chemistry, minor zoology-1963) and a
graduate of University of Idaho School of Law (1976).

David Philbrick Ingham:
David was born in Los Angeles but lived in Kauai during his early
teens through late twenties. David married in Kauai and his
children were born there. While living in Kauaa, he developed a deep,
abiding respect for Hawaiians. In the early 1980's, David began to
actively research Native Hawaiian history and documents as well as the
state of Native American affairs on the mainland. After reading the
1993 Apology Resolution issued by the Clinton administration, which
stated the Native Hawaiians never did relinquish their land or
sovereignty, he began to conduct extensive research and analysis of
the Akaka-Stevens bill. David is outspoken in his assertion that
federal recognition and passage of this bill will have dire
consequences for Native Hawaiians. David has been welcomed as a
speaker by the Living Nation at Iolani Palace (2002), by Hawaiian
Patriotic League (HPL) on Kauaa (2002), and has
traveled with Aloha Aina to meet with legislators about the
Akaka-Stevens bill in March 2003. Much of his work can be found on
http://www.stopakaka.com.

Pau.

 

Lush Nuuanu Valley cradles queen's palace Submitted by: MCB Hawaii HONOLULU, HAWAII(April 2, 2004) -- She walks down the path brought to life by the scent of a cool breeze, as spring showers fall among the dewy leaves and elegant flowers. She reaches the path's end and rests her gaze on her magnificent palace standing in the morning mist: Queen Emma's Summer Palace. Built in 1848 by John Lewis in Boston, and re-assembled in the Nuuanu Valley on Oahu, Queen Emma's Summer Palace is filled with both Victorian and Hawaiian treasures, rare artifacts and personal memorabilia of Hawaii's royalty. John Young II, one of King Kamehameha's trusted advisors, first purchased the 26-acre estate in 1850, and since he didn't have any children of his own, Young willed the house to his favorite niece, Emma Rooke, who later became Queen Emma. Emma wed King Kamehameha IV, and they had a child named Prince Albert Edward, after Queen Victoria's consort. Their marriage was happy, but short-lived, as their son died at the age of 4, and then shortly thereafter, so did King Kamehameha IV, of asthmatic causes. Queen Emma never remarried, but tended to her gardens, and set up hospitals and schools. Until her death in 1884, she devoted her life to charitable endeavors. Today, tucked away and nestled deep in the Nuuanu Valley in Honolulu, Queen Emma's Summer Palace has been established as a museum for everyone to enjoy. It sits on two acres and is run by the Daughters of Hawaii, a nonprofit organization founded in 1903 whose purpose is to preserve the language, culture and historic sites of Hawaii. Among Queen Emma's many treasured belongings are gifts from Queen Victoria and Napoleon III, which have been acquired over time and remain in the house. "What really makes this place unique is that it is open to the elements all the time," said Leinani K. Bortles, palace administrator. "Live flowers are always inside, and people are more then welcome to play the old piano." The open-air makes for a really high-maintenance job to keep the palace in top shape over time, Bortles added, but the gardens that flourished when Queen Emma tended to them still blossom with their beauty from the constant care of devoted staff. Tours are available every day at the palace. The cost for service members is $4; children, $1; and regular admission, $6. Tourists and kamaaina (Hawaii residents) who visit the palace on Fridays have the option to participate in luncheon tours ($25), from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. A morning or afternoon tea is also offered on Fridays (for $25) from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. or from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Bortles can provide more options at (808) 595-3167, or at (808) 595-3603. Queen Emma's Summer Palace hosts Hawaiian culture courses too. A 10-day historical journey of the Hawaiian monarchy begins April 5, and continues on Mondays through May 24. Participants can travel to and experience a myriad of historical sites and museums that capture and enliven the majestic history behind the Hawaiian monarchy.

Leider ein bißchen verspätet, nichtsdestotrotz aber herzlich, soll an dieser Stelle gratuliert werden. Peter Schamoni feierte am 27. März seinen 70. Geburtstag.

Peter Who? mögen einige fragen, aber ihnen sei als Erinnerung der Filmtitel „Majestät brauchen Sonne“ genannt. Ein abendfüllender Dokumentarfilm über den vorläufig letzten deutschen Kaiser, Wilhelm II. Ein nicht unkritisches Portrait, das den Anhängern des reinen Wilhelminismus vielleicht nicht gefällt, das aber eine gewisse Sympathie nicht verbergen kann. Mit diesem Film setzte Peter Schamoni der Dämonisierung Wilhelms II. ein freundlicheres Bild entgegen.

Als Nichtmonarchist konnte er ein authentischeres Zeitzeugnis abliefern, als es überzeugten Monarchisten gelungen wäre. Bei ihnen hätte es nur die Reinwaschung gegeben, wie auch Republikaner vermutlich nur zu einem Verdammungsurteil gelangt wären. Der Film „Majestät brauchen Sonne“ hält dagegen die Balance (das Wort Ausgewogenheit ist ebenso verlogen wie mißbraucht und soll hier nicht angewandt werden), die dem Menschen und Monarchen Wilhelm gerechter wird als die meisten Charakterstudien.

Wir wollen Peter Schamoni zum 70. Geburtstag noch viele weitere gute Einfälle wünschen. Und hoffen natürlich auf so spannende Dokumentationen wie die über die Majestät, die Sonne brauchte. Wir wollen sie und ihn nicht missen.

H.

 

Patriotentreffen in Bayern

Zu einem Sommerpatriotentreffen am 9. Mai 2004 laden die bayerischen Monarchisten nach Riedenburg ein. Angestrebt wird auf dem Treffen nach Angaben der Veranstalter „eine gemeinsame Erklärung aller Verbände“. Ziel ist die Sammlung von Unterschriften, um ein Volksbegehren zur Verfassungsänderung in Bayern zu initiieren.

Interessenten können sich wenden an:

Verband der Königstreuen in Bayern, Josef Obermeier, Gosserdorf 14, 94357 Konzell

bzw.

Martin Spannbrucker, Franz-Fuchs-Straße 2a, 83410 Laufen

 

The Monarch for the Month of April is:
H.I.M. Emperor Agustin I of Mexico

 Today, visitors to Mexico will find many monuments in honor of men like Padre Hidalgo, President Benito Juarez or President Venustiano Carranza, heroes of Mexican liberty and independence. However, you will almost certainly not notice any honors or attention paid to the man who actually gained political freedom for Mexico, Agustin de Iturbide. In spite of being the first leader of an independent Mexico, his role in history remains largely buried.
          Agustin de Iturbide was born in Morelia in 1783 to a highborn and well-respected Spanish family. He was raised in very traditional, conservative surroundings and made his career as an officer in the Spanish army in Mexico. There had been independence uprisings since the end of the Napoleonic wars, and in 1820 another revolt broke out against Spain. Iturbide fought with such skill against the rebels that he was eventually given command of the royalist northern army.
          However, Iturbide soon had a change of heart. He came to believe that independence was just and necessary for Mexico, though he refused to believe that this required the sacrifice of any of their traditional values. Finally, he declared himself on the side of those seeking independence and came up with a solution called the "Plan of Iguala". Under this plan, Mexico would become an independent kingdom within the worldwide Spanish empire, under the titular reign of the Spanish King Fernando VII, or failing that, another prince of the Borbon dynasty. In an effort to bring the liberal and conservative factions together under the independence banner, Iturbide also issued the "Three Guarantees" of his plan, which were 'unity, independence and religion'.
          Mexico soon gained independence as Iturbide overcame all remaining Spanish resistance, yet, the King of Spain, and no other prince, would consider becoming the constitutional monarch of an independent Mexico. So, in order to fill that role, the people turned to the only powerful man they trusted, their champion of independence Agustin de Iturbide. In what can only be described as a very democratic start for a monarchy, Iturbide was chosen for the role of monarch by the Mexican Congress. In May 1821 the President of Congress formally crowned him "Agustin I, by the grace of God and the will of the people, Emperor of Mexico". He stated from the very beginning that the people were his primary care, and should he ever lose their confidence, he would give up his position immediately.
          Problems in Mexico City arose quickly however. Although he was very popular with the common people, he had many rivals in the halls of power, mostly among liberal elites and disgruntled army officers who wanted Mexico to emulate the example of the United States. One of the most powerful of these enemies was the soon-to-be-famous officer Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who turned against Agustin when the Emperor failed to support him in a private quarrel with another soldier. As the opposition gained strength, Emperor Agustin went to the Congress and said he would abdicate immediately if his people so desired it. The Congress, controlled by his enemies, decided that it was, though they never bothered to put the issue to a popular vote.
          The first Emperor of Mexico abdicated in March of 1823, after only ten months on the throne. The politicians now in power hoped he would quietly fade away and granted him a large pension for his exile in Europe provided that he never again returns to his country. However, Iturbide had not been gone long before he began to hear of the turmoil and dissatisfaction growing in Mexico. The people were confused, why had he gone, why had they been left at the mercy of dishonest and ambitious politicians and generals? After a year in exile, Iturbide finally determined that he had been lied to and felt honor bound to return to Mexico and again save his people from tyranny. The sitting government was so afraid of the popular uprising that would result as soon as the people again saw their beloved emperor that troops were dispatched to Veracruz where Iturbide was executed by firing squad as soon as he landed, with no pretense of a trial whatsoever. He was the father of his country, and gave his life in an effort to help his people. It is for those reasons, as well as others, that Emperor Agustin I of Mexico is our Monarch of the Month for April.

 

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0590_leis_lies_why_hawaii_iraq_birds_feather.html


The Simon
April 5, 2004

Canon Fodder

Leis and Lies: Why Hawaii and Iraq are Birds of a Feather

  By Matt Hutaff

The notion that a group of wealthy industrialists
would topple a nation's government for their own
selfish interests is hardly surprising given the
"corporate sponsorship" of the current
presidential administration. Dick Cheney's ties
to Halliburton aside, companies such as Enron and
Clear Channel show that big business works best
when it calls the shots in the White House.

I'm not talking about Iraq and its vast
resources, though. I'm talking about Hawaii, our
50th state.

The story of how Hawaii was overthrown and passed
to the American government like a two-dollar
whore is one of the saddest ongoing acts in
modern history. In truth, Hawaiian independence
is something few Americans know little about. The
truth is disturbing, and many would prefer to
keep Hawaii's image one of tourism, of hula
dances and coconut milk.

However, the fact is, Hawaii is not legally a
state and never has been. It was conquered
clandestinely by a group of sugar peddlers
looking to eliminate their export tariff, and
passed into America's hands illegally. That
problem has never been rectified.

It's time to change that.

Hawaii's primary importance was twofold - its
climate allowed vast sugar plantations to corner
the market, and its location in the Pacific
allowed friendly nations to maintain a naval
advantage in the region. However, as Hawaii was a
recognized sovereign nation under its own right
(a sentiment echoed by the United States in
1826), American businessmen found themselves
paying to import their goods to North America. A
shadow organization called the Hawaiian League
was set up by lawyer Lorrin Thurston with the
goal of eliminating the tariffsŠ which meant
controlling the tiny kingdom.

Hawaiian king Kalakaua - an elected monarch, not
a hereditary ruler - was forced by these men into
signing what is known as the Bayonet
Constitution, which installed the League as
Cabinet members with all the power and forcing
the king into a figurehead position. This group
of 400 men then restricted the ability to vote to
all but the wealthiest people on the islands, a
limitation that coincidentally robbed practically
all natives of the right of self-government.

When Kalakaua died and his sister Lili`uokalani'
assumed the throne, Thurston formed an Annexation
Club with the express purpose of overthrowing the
queen and installing Americans in power. As if
the idea of a group of rich white guys taking
over a country wasn't disturbing enough,
Thurston's communiqués with Washington, D.C.
found a supportive ear in no less than President
Benjamin Harrison. "You will find an exceedingly
sympathetic administration here," he wrote.

Lili`uokalani' attempted to revoke the
restrictive constitution put in play by the
Hawaiian League Cabinet members, which, in a
bitterly ironic move, they condemned as fostering
"a revolutionary act." Thurston then called upon
American minister (and avowed annexationist) John
Stevens to unload American troops illegally from
the warship USS Boston, then in port, to quell
any dissent and prop up a new provisional
government. In doing so, Stevens approved the
American invasion of a foreign nation, an act of
war by any other name. To further the point of
the illegal nature of the operation, Stevens had
no authority to order the troops anywhere!

With the queen under the control of the provision
authority, Sanford Dole (of the Dole Pineapple
dynasty) took over the duties of ushering in
annexation legislation to the U.S. government.
Grover Cleveland's personal attempts to restore
Lili`uokalani' to her throne met with failure,
his eloquent speeches to Congress declaring
"military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu
was of itself an act of war" only staving off
annexation until his successor, William McKinley,
took office. Two attempts by the people of Hawaii
to restore their rightful government to power met
only with death and fines for the insurgents.

29,000 native Hawaiians signed petitions
denouncing annexation. They were never seen by
the Senate, the issue never put to a popular
vote. Even though Congress had no legal authority
to do so (having no legal standing in a foreign
country, which is what Hawaii was, even under the
provisional government), that's what it did in
1898. The will of the people had been overturned
in the interests of profit and strategic military
operations.

61 years later, Hawaiian was a non self-governing
territory under Article 73 of the United Nations
charter. Under the charter, such territories were
supposed to be given three options for governance
- remain a territory, become part of its trustee
nation (a state in the U.S.) or become
independent. Hawaii's vote was missing the third
option in 1959, denying the people the chance to
self-govern again.

The UN stated that Hawaii's statehood is in
violation of its charter. The United States
Justice Department has confirmed that Hawaii's
1898 annexation wasn't under the authority of
Congress and is therefore illegal. The United
States government even signed into law Public Law
103-150 acknowledging not only its illegal
overthrow of the Hawaiian government but that
Hawaiians never surrendered their sovereignty.

Hawaii is, by the United States' own admission,
an independent nation. So why aren't Hawaiians
given the chance to determine for themselves
whether they want to truly be a member state in
this nation? Is the status quo so important that
people be denied their right to choose their
government in the process?

Looking at the "provisional authority" in Iraq,
it's fairly obvious that the United States
doesn't want to take any chances. It certainly
won't with a state that brings in major tourism
revenues. How big of a black eye would it be on
the international scene to have a state leave the
union, after all?

Organizations like the Nation of Hawaii have been
promoting the idea of Hawaiian independence for
years. In the light of the overwhelming evidence
(and admission) that Hawaii is part of the U.S.
illegally, shouldn't they be given the
opportunity to choose for themselves?

Or will the United States grant more rights in
the end to war-torn Iraq than to a nation that
has literally spent two centuries bending over
backwards for American interests?

Let Hawaii decide its own fate.

Mahalo.

Canon Fodder is a biweekly analysis of politics and society.

  Copyright © 1998-2004 The Simon.com

 

'Cordiale' welcome greets Queen

Schoolchildren waving flags lined the station platform The Queen has arrived in Paris for a three-day state visit to celebrate 100 years of close relations with France. She was officially greeted by President Jacques Chirac at a pomp-filled ceremony on a Champs-Elysees draped with Union Jacks and Tricolores. After the ceremony the heads of state laid a wreath by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Arc de Triomphe. The visit is to commemorate Britain and France's signing of the Entente Cordiale treaty in 1904. The Entente Cordiale year is a great opportunity to share our experience...and to make the links between our countries even stronger Denis MacShane Europe Minister What is the Entente Cordiale? The monarch, who changed her outfit on the train, was met by Transport minister Gilles de Robien at the Gare du Nord and driven to the Champs-Elysees. After laying the wreath she met several World War II veterans - the last post was played and followed by a minute's silence. It is the Queen's fourth state visit to France after trips in 1957, 1972 and 1992. A banquet in her honour is to be held at the Elysee Palace on Monday night. She will also address the French parliament, visit a cavalry school in western France and view a room in the Louvre gallery in Paris that will be dedicated to British art. The Queen named a train Entente Cordiale The Eurostar train on which she travelled, accompanied by Prince Philip and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, broke the UK rail speed record in July when it reached 208mph in Kent. Before travelling she named the train - which had been specially painted with the Union Jack and the French Tricolore - the Entente Cordiale. Officials say they want her to meet members of the public as much as possible over the three days of engagements in Paris and Toulouse. British officials are anxious to avoid a repeat of a recent visit by the Chinese president which saw large sections of Paris cordoned off and people kept away. "The Entente Cordiale year is a great opportunity to share our experience, to understand each other better and to make the links between our countries even stronger," said Europe Minister Denis MacShane. BBC European affairs correspondent William Horsley says the anniversary comes at a time when the two neighbours are struggling to clarify their world roles. Differing views on the euro, as well as the Atlantic alliance, being two of the main points of confrontation. "But the entente, battered by a 100 years, is still testimony to the fact that France and Britain agree to disagree, and yet basically remain friends. This centenary will be marked in that same spirit," he said.

 

Reiche Deutsche gehen stiften

Was lauft schief im Staate Deutschland? Das Patentrezept lautet: Reformfähigkeit! Die Sozialsysteme sollen „reformiert“, sprich: reduziert werden. Es sei unbezahlbar, heißt es landauf, landab. Und was wir bei den Leistungskürzungen einsparen, wird über die sogenannte Steuerreform dem Bürger, der Bürgerin zurückgegeben. Vor allem die Reichen profitieren von der Senkung des Spitzensteuersatzes. Dennoch glauben sie sich nach wie vor ausgebeutet. Die vermeintlichen Melkkühe der Nation suchen ihr Heil in Steueroasen. Die Elite aus Wirtschaft und Showbusiness geht stiften.

Nun hat „stiften gehen“ zwei Bedeutungen. Auf die etwas edlere Variante geht die Beilage zur Wochenzeitung DAS PARLAMENT, „Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte“ in ihrer Ausgabe vom 29. März ein: „Stiftungen“ – in der Bürgergesellschaft - lautete der Zusatz zweier Aufsätze. Und es waren erstaunliche Erkenntnisse, die hier ausgebreitet wurden. Weil die Frage der Bürgergesellschaft auch einen monarchistischen Bezug hat, soll auf diese Beilage hier näher eingegangen werden.

Die liberale Stiftungskritik des 19. und die sozialdemokratische Stiftungsskepsis des 20. Jahrhunderts monierte: „Die Stifter gehören fast durchweg zu einer mehr oder weniger wohlhabenden Minderheit. Stiftungen können daher auch Mittel sein, um den Einfluß der Stifter und ihrer Nachkommen zu verstärken. Sie können insofern Mechanismen sein, die sozialökonomische Vorsprünge in politische oder kulturelle Macht übersetzen. Es ist nicht uninteressant, dass die Liberalen zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts Stiftungen mit Misstrauen gegenüberstanden, weil sie jene als ‚monarchisch’ begriffen und in ihnen ein Mittel zur dauerhaften Befestigung von Privilegien über das Ableben hinaus sahen. Sie zogen das bürgerschaftliche Engagement in Gestalt von Vereinen vor.“

„Das wilhelminische Reich war ein Eldorado der Stiftungen“

Jürgen Kocka, Direktor am Zentrum für Vergleichende Geschichte Europas in Berlin, von dem das o.g. Zitat stammt, fährt fort: „Wird es ... zu einer neuen Blüte der Stiftungen kommen? ... Das wilhelminische Reich war ein Eldorado der Stiftungen. Ohne starkes Engagement staatlicher Organe wäre es das vermutlich nicht gewesen. Man lese nach, wie geschickt [Kaiser] Wilhelm II. den Zugang zur Exklusivität des Hofes als Mittel einsetzte, um nach Anerkennung lechzende Bankiers, Industrielle und Kaufleute als Mäzene zu gewinnen; oder wie der preußische Wissensbeamte Althoff privates Kapital für die Gründung der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften gewann; oder wie geschickte Museumsdirektoren – Beispiel Tschudi – private Sammler für öffentliche Sammlungen einzuspannen wussten. Hoffentlich fällt heutigen Präsidenten, Ministern und Generaldirektoren ähnlich viel ein. ...

Stiftungen in christlichem Geist stellen eine mächtige Traditionslinie dar. Religiöses Engagement für die Nächsten und die Allgemeinheit hat an Kraft verloren, aber ist nicht verschwunden. Jüdische Bürger haben vor und nach 1900 als Mäzenaten und auch als Stifter eine herausragende Rolle gespielt. Traditionen der jüdischen Gemeinden trugen dazu ebenso bei wie der besondere Status des jüdischen Bürgertums zwischen Aufstieg und Zurückweisung. Mit der Vernichtung der Juden wurde diese Quelle des Mäzenatentums zerstört. Zweifellos trugen überdies der Patriotismus und der Nationalismus der Bourgeoisie im Kaiserreich zum mäzenatischen Engagement in einem von ihnen stark bejahten, aufsteigenden Nationalstaat bei; Staatsnähe nützte. Schon in der Weimarer Republik, von Besitz- und Bildungsbürgern oft skeptisch gesehen, befeindet und abgelehnt, schwächte sich dieser Wirkungsmechanismus ab. (Die Vernichtung großer Vermögen durch Weltkrieg und Inflation tat ein Übriges.) ...

Die Zahl der Stiftungen ist in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten kräftig angestiegen. Die Politik hat das ihre dazu beigetragen. Heute gibt es in Deutschland mit deutlich über 10 000 etwa dreimal so viele Stiftungen wie 1980, aber wohl immer noch deutlich weniger als um 1900. ...“

Deutschland ist also wieder auf dem Weg zum Stand des Jahres 1900 – wenigstens, was die Zahl der Stiftungen angeht. Das Engagement soll auch ausdrücklich begrüßt werden, wenn damit zusätzliche Leistungen getätigt werden. Stiftungen sollten jedoch nicht zu Ersatzinstitution für Aufgaben werden, die eigentlich der staatlichen Regie obliegen müßten. Und Augenwischerei sollten sie auch nicht betreiben.

Unter Augenwischerei verstehe ich eine Bürgerstiftung, wie sie vor zwei Jahren in Schwäbisch Hall ins Leben gerufen wurde. Hintergrund: Eine in der Stadt ansässige Bausparkasse konnte dank neuer Steuergesetze die Zahlung von Gewerbesteuer an die Stadtkasse einstellen. 90 Millionen DM im Jahr fehlten im Etat der Kommune. Jedes Jahr! Unmut in der Bevölkerung wegen zurückgefahrener Leistungen und erhöhter Gebühren und Kommunalsteuern begegnete die besagte Bausparkasse, deren Name nicht genannt sein soll, mit einer Stiftungsgründung. 500.000 Euro spendete die Bank. Aufgabe der Stiftungen: Bürgerengagement fördern. „Frage nicht, was die Stadt für dich tun kann, sondern frage, was du für die Stadt tun kannst“, könnte man Kennedys Motto als Aufgabenstellung der Bürgerstiftung abwandeln.

Dagegen wäre im Grunde auch nichts einzuwenden. Wenn die Schwäbisch Haller Bürgerstiftung nicht genau wie ein Trostpflästerchen aussähe. Zur Erinnerung: Die Bank zahlt pro Jahr rund 45 Mio. Euro Gewerbesteuer weniger und spendet einmalig 0,5 Mio. Euro. Macht allein im ersten Jahr einen positiven Saldo von 44,5 Mio. Euro auf Seiten der Banker. Einen ähnlichen Fall von Etikettenschwindel bei Stiftungsgründungen ist mir aus dem Kaiserreich, dem so arg ungerechten und unsozialen, nicht bekannt. Das hätte Willy Zwo wohl nicht goutiert. Also: Wir wollen unser’n alten Kaiser Wilhelm wiederham!

H.

 

 

---

Aussie week in leadup to wedding
From correspondents in London
14apr04

THERE'LL be no mistaking Mary Donalsdon's origins when a festive week of Australiana helps Copenhagen celebrate the Hobart commoner's wedding to Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik next month.

Donaldson's pre-wedding nerves should ease a little during a week-long festival before the May 14 royal wedding which includes an Australian sporting icon and the best of the country's music, food and wine.

The former Hobart lawyer and the heir to the 1000-year-old Danish throne will let their hair down on Friday May 6 at Copenhagen's Parken Stadium with 45,000 others at Rock and Royal, a concert headlined by the royal couple's favourite band Powderfinger and also featuring Aboriginal performers.

Two days later, Frederik, an accomplished sailor, will go head to head on Copenhagen Harbour in a yacht race against America's Cup winning Australia II skipper John Bertrand who will have the princess-in-waiting among his four-person crew.

During the week leading up to the wedding, Sydney chef Luke Mangan will cook at the Danish capital's michelin rated Restaurationen restaurant and prepare dishes for one of the official midweek palace dinners.

And Tasmania's Derwent Valley Concert Band will perform on the day of the wedding in the streets of Copenhagen, while Sydney string ensemble, the Tankstream Quartet will play for guests as they arrive at the reception at Fredensborg Palace.

The Tankstream Quartet will also put on a public concert and appear on Danish television and radio.

Thanks to the much-loved Donaldson, who met the prince at a Sydney pub during the 2000 Olympics, Denmark is being exposed to more of Australia than ever before.

"There is a significant increase in interest in Australia," said Australia's ambassador in Copenhagen Matthew Peek.

"I'd like to think it would translate into seriously increased trade and investment but I think that might be unduly optimistic.

"There's a few niche markets - some Tasmanian wines are doing particularly well in Denmark - the trick for them is to hold on after the initial enthusiasm passes, but I think there's a reasonable chance of that.

"Where we are going to benefit is the number of Danes going to Australia on holiday. The profile really has been raised."

Governor General Michael Jeffery and Tasmanian governor Richard Butler are expected to announce this week whether they will accept their invitations as Australia's representatives to Europe's biggest wedding of the year.

Invitations are jealously sought after, with 800 guests to squeeze into Copenhagen Cathedral but only 400 invited to the reception dinner at Fredensborg Palace, just north of the capital.

Every royal family in Europe has received an invitation, along with the crown prince of Japan, while Icelandic president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson and France's Jacques Chirac are rumoured to be the only political heads of state invited.

With so many leaders present, security has become paramount, especially in a city where hundreds of thousands of royal-loving Danes are expected to line the streets and fill Amalienborg Square in the heart of Copenhagen to greet the married couple.

"It's going to be a security challenge for them. You can't have a populace wedding without letting the populace get reasonably close," Peek said.

Danish police announced after the terrorist bombings in Madrid last month that security had been stepped up.

 

Our Utopian Republic             It is remarkable how the U.S. government seems to have so many problems when roughly 98% of the American public (supposedly) believes that we have the very best administrative system ever devised in the history of the world. Contradictions seem to abound in this great Utopian republic. So far, I have yet to find a single argument against monarchy that could not just as easily be made against our own federal republic. Perhaps, it would be different were it not for the extremely lofty vision we have of ourselves.             One example is the debate over gun control. The U.S. Constitution very clearly guarantees American citizens the right to own firearms, as well as providing a well-regulated militia, which would today be the National Guard. However, when the Constitution was written militias were under state or local control whereas today they are also under federal control. The point, which conservatives are quick to point out, of the Second Amendment was to give the American people the means to overthrow the government or change it in some way by force of arms if their rights are threatened as our Founding Fathers did against Great Britain.             However, I can easily argue in favor of gun control by pointing out that the underlying right championed by the revolutionaries, to change the government if it does not suit you, was proven to be irrelevant regarding the U.S. government by the Civil War. President Lincoln did not say, "well, these backward southerners are just exercising their right to set up a government more to their liking", but rather called up 75,000 troops to make war on American citizens and force them to submit to federal authority. The point behind the right to bear arms fades away when presented with this fact of history. My own political science professor a number of years ago admitted that the question of secession had never been legally settled, which was why no southern leader was ever charged with treason. The issue was settled, not by the democratic process, but by simple brute military force.             The recent debate over war protestors also brings up a few cracks in our perfect republican armor. Why is it so important to Americans to have a right to voice protest and disapproval? Since we live in a democracy, since the foundation of our republic is that sovereign power resides in the people, why would we ever need to protest anything? A constant argument I hear against monarchy is that, since it is a hereditary 'office' the king, queen or emperor is not accountable to the public. And yet, how accountable are leaders in a republic if their citizens find it necessary to lie down in front of traffic or put tape over their mouths and carry pictures of dead children just to make their point of view heard by those in the halls of power? When it comes to answering the call of the people, one of history's most overlooked monarchs made one of the most eloquent statements on the subject. It was 1945, Viet Nam, which was being engulfed by revolution, was the place and the man was Emperor Bao Dai, who issued a proclamation reaffirming his commitment to independence which read in part, "We put the happiness of the Vietnamese people upon our golden throne. We would rather be one of the people in an independent country than the king of an enslaved country."             Many years and many thousands of lives later not a few would wish that the mob, under the influence of so many propagandists and rabble-rousers, had forced their monarch into such a position. No one appreciated what they had until it was gone.             I also recall a fictitious conversation on the subject, thanks to Member of Honor Walter Moore who recommended to me the film "Juarez" in which takes place a mini political debate between the Emperor Maximilian and the captured general Porfirio Diaz (who despite his portrayal in the film later became a brutal dictator). Emperor Maximilian in this scene makes one of the most accurate statements regarding republican government as probably ever graced the silver screen. He agreed with the principle of democracy as an ideal, but stated that without such safeguards as a monarch could provide, democracy could deteriorate into mob rule in which the masses flock to whatever silver-tongued politician promises them the most (see the film for the correct words).             The truth is, any 'Great Society' based upon the rule of the people alone could never be ideal in my opinion. Personally, I regard truth and principles to be unchanging, and many of mine have gone 'out of style', but regardless of that, public opinion is a very erratic and unpredictable thing, which is easily manipulated and easily swayed. Some of you may recall the case of the New York waitress who was mugged and beaten to death in front of her apartment building while more than 30 of her fellow tenants watched without making the slightest effort to come to her aid or even call for help. This is the very essence of what psychologists call Deindividuation or 'mob mentality'. While among the masses, it is difficult to see the true nature of things, even when it is happening right in front of you. You suffer from pluralistic ignorance, many in that apartment said they assumed someone else had already called the police. You suffer from audience inhibition, it being a scientific fact that the larger the group, the less willing one is to stand out and act differently. Finally, there is diffusion of responsibility, as the crowd gets bigger you share responsibility with others and take less and less notice of your own actions or inactions.             Most monarchists are aware of the fact that Adolf Hitler failed to take power by revolution but succeeded using the democratic method. Once in power, even if free elections were held, the public was so easily manipulated and influenced, it is doubtful the Nazis would have been voted out of office even then. After the war was over the constant defense given by ordinary Germans and war criminals alike was that they could not stand out, they could not disregard the propaganda and decide for themselves. Hitler received the full support of the German public for an unprovoked invasion of Poland simply by having a few prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms and shot on the German border. Photographs were taken and evidence was produced of this 'Polish attack' and the German people dutifully rushed to the front to 'defend' their country from Poland.             Our Utopian Republic depends on a wide array of variables. Do people have the correct information to make important decisions on their own? Do they have the desire? An intelligent, well informed populace is widely considered to be the prerequisite for democracy, and yet, in America, the oldest 'modern' republic in the world, many people in government think it is necessary to penalize smokers for their habit. It seems that our own leaders do not think the American public is intelligent enough to know by now that smoking is harmful and so 'Uncle Sam' has to step in with legal action to keep you from hurting yourself. We say that an intelligent, well informed public is necessary for democracy, yet we all know what trouble resulted when laws were made that you could not vote if you could not read. Apparently not knowing the alphabet does not mean you cannot have a thoughtful opinion on economics and foreign policy. Then there's always the fact that we will trust an 18-year-old boy with a machine gun in the army but not allow him to have a glass of champagne on his own wedding day for lack of 'maturity'.             Can monarchs wave a magic wand and solve all of these problems? I seriously doubt it. In my more wicked moods I have even doubted if they should even try, well imagining the monarchs of the world saying, in the words of Kaiser Wilhelm II, 'You have cooked this broth and now you're going to drink it'. What monarchs can do is to provide a voice, even if theirs is the only one, of reason in the middle of the insanity. They can simply do things that others cannot, and would do more I think if given the opportunity. If one denies a royal any role at all in the affairs of their nation, what have they left to do but fall into frivolity and scandal?             The Prince of Wales is often the center of attention for his lack of a 'job' but, despite his personal failures, I do applaud him for championing many causes I think were worthy, outside of the usual starving and diseased peoples around the world. When the British farmer was in need, their Prince came to the rescue. When urban designers wanted to fill beloved London with so many modern Towers of Babel, Charles protested; and, when something as English as fox hunting came under fire, the environmentalist Prince lended his voice to the country minority. However, for me, and remember these views are only my own, few royal figures set such an example as when King Baudoin of Belgium 'abdicated for a day' rather than sign into law a bill that went against his moral beliefs. It was an action quite unheard of, but demonstrated the depth of his personal convictions that he would do whatever was necessary to avoid putting his signature to something that he believed to be morally wrong.             What would the United States be like with a royal figure, in the national spotlight as a part of the government, who could demonstrate to the public leadership rather than simple political maneuverings and endless debates decided ahead of time by polls and percentage figures? How would our dear politicians, bureaucrats and congressmen respond to having a monarch looking over their shoulder, competing with them for public esteem and working with enough charities to perhaps make even the apathetic American public aware of just how many millions congress drains from the average taxpayer? Perhaps when we can level the playing field and the continued rule of our own 'absolute republic' we can move closer to that dreamed of idyllic society. "How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." -Ann Frank

 

INFORMATIONS de l’ALLIANCE ROYALE
---------------------------------
STRASBOURG
Mercredi 5 mai

Yves-Marie Adeline, Président de l’Alliance Royale
présentera les candidats de la liste Alliance Royale
pour la circonscription Est
à l’occasion  de l’entrée en campagne pour les
élections européennes de juin 2004

Conférence de presse  à 18h30
Suivie d’un débat

HOLIDAY INN, place de Bordeaux
Sortie autoroute : « Wacken, Palais des Congrès »

Entrée libre-plateau

Dîner : réservation auprès de la délégation d’Alsace :
alsace@...

 

Understanding the Second Empire of Mexico and American Involvement in the War for Monarchy

Joseph A. Crisp II

 

            The “Second Empire” of Mexico is a government, which remains largely ignored or misunderstood. What lessons have been drawn from it have been largely backward and nonsensical. Even the term “second” empire may not be entirely correct. As the heirs of the Iturbide dynasty were adopted and restored to their rights of succession, the empire can be seen as simply the restoration of Mexico’s original independent government after a lengthy interregnum of about 43 years. It is also very much untrue that the throne of Emperor Maximilian lacked legitimacy. As a descendant of the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, he had perhaps more legitimacy than either the Bourbon kings of Spain or the Mexican Emperor Agustin. This ancestry was a major point in the selection of Archduke Maximilian as the ideal choice to become the Emperor of Mexico. In fact, if there was a more legitimate candidate than a Hapsburg for the throne of Mexico, one would have to look back to the “Montezuma dynasty” of the Aztecs.

            There has also been a great deal of obstruction, if not outright deceit, in the portrayal of the republican regime and the origins of French involvement in Mexico. The foundation of the government of President Benito Juarez was far from being above question, being in fact founded on military force rather than the democratic process. Power was hotly contested between the liberal and conservative elements until the end of the “Reform War” when Juarez drove into exile all conservative opposition. He then rewrote the Mexican constitution, which he himself later disposed of when it failed to be convenient.

            The idea that the struggle between Juarez and Napoleon III or later Maximilian was one of democracy versus tyranny is absurd in the extreme. Napoleon III was far from being a reactionary, his policies most often falling in the realm of a moderate or a liberal. It was only by the influence of his devoutly Catholic wife, Empress Eugenie that any conservatism managed to creep into his agenda. In fact, Napoleon III is more a representation of the dangers of republicanism rather than of monarchy as he was legally and democratically elected president, then president-for-life and finally his elevation to the rank of Emperor of the French was democratically approved by the public. Similarly, when Juarez was driven from Mexico City the Congress voted to sidestep his own democratic constitution and grant the President absolute power for an indefinite period. It could, therefore, be argued that even Emperor Maximilian sat at the head of a government more “democratic” than Juarez, whose power was certainly more limited than that of Juarez even if it was limited in the slightest.  

            The idea of Juarez’ contemporary popularity must also be taken with a grain of salt. Today, no one in Mexico would dare stand opposed to his image, but there are certain facts, which imply that he was far from being universally worshipped at the time. The popular reception given to Emperor Maximilian and Empress Carlota when they arrived in Mexico City is one indication of this, as is the fact that the French army, early on, so often outnumbered their Juarista enemies. With an entire population close at hand to draw from, Juarez should have been able to outnumber the French at every turn, yet, for some reason a great many Mexicans refused to fight for his presidency.

            In fact, through the attitudes of the world at large, modern political watchers may well have referred to the Juarez government as a “rogue nation”. Naturally France, Austria and Belgium were supportive of the Empire of Mexico. Pope Pius IX applauded the restoration of a traditional Catholic monarchy in Mexico, as Juarez had been well-known for his seizure of Church property, attempts to break Mexico from Rome, a number of anti-clerical policies as well as being a Mason. However, the British were also in favor of Maximilian taking the imperial crown. The Archduke was, after all, very much a constitutional monarchist, with many liberal opinions, and Britain was always in favor of any change, which would bring stability, which was always good for business.

            Stability was in dire need in Mexico, and the religious aspect, which so aroused the sympathy of Empress Eugenie, should not be underestimated. When the property of the Church was seized by the liberals in 1857 many clergymen who opposed the measure were exiled. However, the new constitution failed to even last out the year before the president fled and the liberals installed Juarez, who had been chief justice, as the new leader of Mexico. The conservatives put forward their own president, repealed liberal legislation while Juarez instigated rebellions among the populace. When it came to war, the conservatives were mostly victorious, but Juarez managed to remain at large long enough to bankrupt the treasury.

            Here, Juarez first attempted to sell out his country to the United States. He requested a loan from the U.S. in 1859 in return for extensive concessions against Mexican sovereignty. Britain and France opposed the move, as did a huge number of independent-minded Mexicans, and the loan failed to come through. The conservatives, under the leadership of General Felix Zuloaga obtained a $15 million loan from France and Britain, but Juarez obtained recognition from the United States as the legitimate President of Mexico, though why his claim was more valid, when neither was elected by popular vote, in the eyes of Washington we can only wonder. Perhaps his previous offer of extensive rights over the sovereignty of his country had something to do with it?

            It seemed that by 1859 Juarez was mostly in control, but his administration was not to be peaceful due to his incessant attacks against the Church. He denounced the Church as a royalist, anti-liberal and autocratic element; and nationalized all Church property, reduced priests to voluntary fees and dissolved all religious orders. This act threw even many moderate and liberal Mexicans into the ranks of Juarez’ enemies. For longer than either Juarez or Mexico had existed, the Church had been the only help, the only hope and the only refuge of the Mexican people and there were huge numbers who would not stand for anyone making war against it.

            The United States was hardly uninvolved in this ‘Mexican adventure’, in spite of the 1861-65 civil war going on north of the Rio Grande. This is hardly surprising given the traditional openness of the Mexican border, with both nations overlapping in the Nueces strip. It is also true that despite the traditional portrait of French invaders marching into a peaceful and benevolent republic, Mexico was in a constant state of civil war even in 1861, before the start of war north of the border. In Matamoros this began with two factions, those under Cipriano Guerrero and those under Jesus de la Serna battling for control of Tamaulipas in the most brutal combat in that state’s history.

            When one side took the city, the other simply retreated across the river to Brownsville, and likewise, when Union forces captured Brownsville, the Confederates regrouped in the safety of Matamoros. The confused situation in Matamoros is illustrative of Mexico as a whole. Command of the city shifted from Santiago Vidaurri (conservative) to General Manuel Ruíz (liberal) and then to General Jose Cobos of the army of Emperor Maximilian who, after only three days, was assassinated by his second-in-command Juan Nepomuceño Cortinas who then declared himself in support of Benito Juarez and released General Ruíz from jail (though perhaps not trusting the loyalty of his deliverer he immediately left town). Nevertheless, Cortinas was promptly named governor by Juarez, a post he held until 1864.

            Cortinas had been a U.S. resident before being driven into Mexico by the Texas Rangers under John S. “R.I.P.” Ford, future Confederate commander of the area. When French troops began to arrive, in typical fashion, Cortinas considered becoming a monarchist again, though his vehement racism made this a difficult choice to make. He was also known to help certain Confederate notables find safety in Matamoros due to his many friends in the Union army, playing both sides of the American Civil War as well as his own. Generally, the Confederates favored the cause of Emperor Maximilian, though due to their inherent bias against foreigners and the airs of royalist government this was a friendship of convenience in many cases. For the Union forces, Benito Juarez remained “their man” in Mexico, and the federal troops on the border always favored the Juaristas, except in cases where the soldiers in question were Irish Catholics, in which case, knowing full well of his attacks on the Church, Emperor Maximilian’s Catholic monarchy was cheered and Benito Juarez ridiculed.

            While General Cortinas ruled Matamoros, he collaborated fairly evenly with both Union and Confederate forces though he trusted neither, detesting all whites equally for his expulsion from Texas. American units frequently crossed the border during the series of battles and skirmishes over control of the supply lines running through Mexico. Things changed when a French naval squadron under Captain A. Véron arrived and captured Boca del Rio and a Mexican Imperial army under the illustrious General Tomás Mejía began moving north. When Colonel Ford sent officers to meet with Véron the French captain announced that he would do all in his power to protect “all persons and property” covered by the Confederate flag, a statement bordering on formal recognition of the rebel government. When Cortinas’ forces began attacking the French, Confederate officers found it impossible to prevent their men from firing upon the Mexican troops from the Texas side of the border, in defense of their new Gallic allies.

            Cortinas, however, was deeply involved in another intrigue, meant to involve him in the American war. The Matamoros U.S. Consul, Leonard Pierce, offered the Mexican officer the rank of brigadier general in the U.S. army if he would use his men to invade Texas and seize Brownsville from the Confederates. An artillery attack commenced, but bad weather prevented supporting federal forces from engaging and Cortinas never actually moved his troops into Brownsville, his own subordinate being vehemently opposed to the whole enterprise.

            On September 29, 1864 troops of the Mexican Imperial Army occupied Brownsville, at which point, true to character, Cortinas denounced Benito Juarez and the republican government. Nonetheless, General Tomás Mejía was given command and the situation began to stabilize. However, amid the reviving economy, operas and rumors of a visit by the Emperor and Empress of Mexico, there were still schemes underway on the part of the U.S. government to bring down the Mexican monarchy.

            President Lincoln sent General Lew Wallace to the border to arrange a truce with the Confederates. Wallace planned to talk the southerners into surrendering then use them to join forces with Juarez’ now faltering republican army and retake Mexico from France and Maximilian. As soon as the Confederate high command learned of the talks, which were actually going rather well, Colonel Ford was reprimanded and Wallace sent home empty handed. Quite unaware that Ford had nearly agreed to take part in an action against his countrymen, Captain Véron actually loaned his southern allies some French naval artillery which was used by Ford in winning the last battle of the American Civil War at Palmito Hill in 1865.

            The U.S. government had already dispatched 25,000 troops from Virginia to the Rio Grande in preparation for an attack against the Mexican Emperor. In south Texas, the Confederate sub-district commander, Brigadier General James E. Slaughter planned to take his forces to Mexico and enlist in the Emperor’s army, defeat Juarez and then move north again with French and Mexican support to restore the Confederacy. However, Ford refused to go along with the plan and even turned down an offer from General Mejía to send in imperialist lancers in civilian clothes to help the Confederates hold Brownsville. He did though agree to sell his artillery to Mejía for 20,000 silver pesos.

            With the American war over, Confederate officers flocked to Mexico City to offer their services to the Emperor. A colony for southern exiles was planned on the Mexican Gulf coast, however, as the French began fleeing Maximilian’s sinking ship, with U.S. forces gathering on the border and promises of parole and amnesty from Washington, most southerners returned home. Soon, all that remained was a devoted corps of Mexican loyalists, a few unites of Austrian and Belgian troops and Emperor Maximilian’s own noble ideals of honor and integrity which stood against the growing forces of Benito Juarez, armed, equipped and funded by the U.S. government.

            Empress Carlota went to Europe in the hope of obtaining foreign aid from Austria, Belgium and the Papal States as well as to persuade Napoleon III to honor the many grandiose promises he made to Maximilian when trying to convince the contented Archduke to accept the crown of a chaotic and indebted Latin American country. She was everywhere unsuccessful and soon began showing signs of a mental breakdown.

            Whatever opinion one has of the Second Mexican Empire, absolutely everyone must admire the personal courage of Emperor Maximilian, who refused to abandon his people even when given repeated opportunities for escape. By 1865 it was clear that the monarchy was doomed, opposed by rearmed Juaristas within and a massive American army without, the French in retreat and many of his own supporters deserting at the hint of danger in the air. The French offered him safe conduct back to Europe and even when given the opportunity of escape by the Juaristas after being captured at Queretaro he refused to forsake the cause to which he had lended his name and honor.

            He was also motivated by the certain death that awaited his most trusted and loyal officers such as Leonardo Marquez, Miguel Miramon and Tomás Mejía. He hoped to either negotiate to secure their safety or otherwise share their fate, conscious of the fact that they had fought on under hopeless circumstances primarily out of their personal loyalty to him. As it happened, Maximilian died professing his love for Mexico, and his generals were killed shouting, “Long live the Emperor” with their dying breaths. It was a tragic but defiant end to an episode that was itself both tragic and defiant.

            The tragedy came not just with the regicide of Emperor Maximilian, the maddening heartbreak of Empress Carlota, the deaths of noble men like Mejía and Miramon or the rough treatment and exile meted out to all of the Mexican monarchists. The greater tragedy was in the victory of Benito Juarez, the increased secularization of Mexico and the brutal dictatorship of his general Porfirio Diaz in the years to come. The heroic defiance was evident in the subtle spurning of the American claim to hold dominion over all of North America, in the attempt to assert that stable and benevolent government was possible south of the border and that the government of monarchy could make a new beginning even in the backyard of the Great Republic. Today, Maximilian has joined the ranks of other noble but futile causes, from the Jacobites of Britain to the Carlists of Spain, yet as long as the enthusiasts for Mexico’s monarchy remain, and as long as the House of Hapsburg-Iturbide continues across the water, the memory of that innovative enterprise will never cease but live on in the minds of those loyal at heart.

 

 

zur Info siehe: http://www.Preussen.de/de/heute/aktuell/Hohenzollernabend_in_der_Landesvertretung_Baden-Wuerttemberg.html

 

COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE de l’ALLIANCE ROYALE
---------------------------------

Paris, le 30 avril 2004.

Elargissement de l'Union européenne  :

L'Alliance Royale se réjouit de l'élargissement de
l'Union européenne ayant conduit l'heureuse évolution
historique à effacer la ligne de fracture
révolutionnaire qui partageait honteusement l'Europe
en deux blocs.

Dans la perspective d'une réévaluation de notre
solidarité européenne, la France doit être sûre
d'elle-même.

Et c'est seulement avec un souverain pour incarner sa
souveraineté qu'elle peut pleinement aborder l'avenir
sans craindre de perdre son identité.


Yves-Marie Adeline,
Président de l'Alliance Royale.

***************************************************
Secrétariat de l'Alliance Royale
BP 236 - Paris-Etoile, 75 770 Paris Cedex 16
Tel : 01 30 24 60 47 - www.alliance-royale.com

 

---

Great outdoors home from home for Mary
By CALLUM McEACHERN
02may04

TASMANIANS and Danes share a true love of the great outdoors.

Both the sea and the bush help Crown Prince Frederik and Mary Donaldson feel at home in each other's land.

Walking through the trees at Salamanca this summer, Mary and Frederik may have sensed a link to their new home in Denmark's North Sealand. After the May 14 wedding, the couple will live at Fredensborg Palace, surrounded by emerald forests and sparkling lakes.

Frederik grew up sharing the forests with his fellow Danes and now his walks will be with the Crown Princess from Taroona. Magically, in this small, peaceful and very egalitarian kingdom, any visiting Tasmanian can do the same.

As in Tassie, the Danish countryside is both very relaxing and very accessible. Being out in "nature", as the Danes say, adds to everyone's quality of life. Walking in the spacious forests of North Sealand gives an insight into Danish character and culture, and to the shared similarities with Tasmania. We may not be living poles apart after all.

Denmark, surprisingly, is nearly an island state. Sealand, where the capital Copenhagen rests, is the largest of more than 400 islands. Although Denmark's 43,000 sq km makes it smaller than Tassie, there's more than 7300 km of coastline. No wonder Danish maritime heritage runs from the Vikings to the former Antarctica supply ships, such as the Nella Dan. Remember the paintings in the old Spirit of Tasmania? They were mostly of the Danish coast.

But the 5.3 million Danes have more than strong sea legs. This is a land of walking, whether for pleasure or for quietly thinking over matters of family or state. The royal family shares the same passion for the "open air" as do Danes of all ages.

Launceston's and Hobart's pedestrian malls were inspired by Copenhagen's famous Stroget. The world's first major walking street removed vehicles more than 400 years ago and today is 2.5 km long. But the locals "keep on strolling" well beyond the city. In the nearby countryside, there are also green cooper roofs and spires to discover.

Because of good planning and efficient public transport, the 1.5 million residents of Copenhagen can be in forest within 30 minutes. A few more minutes and we're also in the royal "walking grounds" around Fredensborg.

Fredensborg, meaning "Palace of Peace", was built in the 1720s and Frederik and Mary will be living in the Chancellery House. In the grand tradition of Versailles, outside Paris, majestic tree-lined avenues stretch to the horizon. Lake Esrum, Denmark's second largest, laps these vast baroque gardens, which are always open to the public.

Although guided tours inside the palace are only offered each July, a visit to the nearby Frederiksborg palace at Hillerod gives a similar experience all year round.

"Turbo Prince" Frederik and his brother Joachim spent most weekends and school holidays around Fredensborg. From here, Queen Margrethe and the family would prepare themselves for outdoor ventures further afield, especially to the Norwegian wilderness.

In Danish forests, the equivalent to Tassie's gums and wattles are the deciduous beech, oak and sycamore. Pine and spruce also grow. Yet it is the leafy beechwood glades that add real Scandinavian character. Tall and slender like Great Danes, beech trees filter sunlight through a kaleidoscope of green, yellow and, in autumn, golden amber. In winter, their naked limbs sparkle with ice crystals in a black and white landscape. When there's enough snow, cross-country skiers, including the Royals, glide along the silent tracks.

Even in summer, the forests are quiet and soft underfoot with moss. Only the sounds of robins, woodpeckers and skylarks add to the echoes of happy children. In any season, groups of schoolchildren and adults are out listening to a nature guide. Learning about their heritage is a genuine past-time for Danes, and certainly builds their fascination for Tassie's wildlife.

Suddenly, a fork in the forest track adds to the adventure. One way leads to a mysterious mound of megalithic gravestones. Like prehistoric Lego blocks, massive slabs rest over boulders covering 5000-year-old ancestral remains. The other track goes towards the sound of lapping water. Across a small lake of floating lilies and white swans, sits an old farmhouse, straight out of Hans Christian Andersen. With tarred timber frames, whitewashed walls and thatched roof, it reflects another preserved picture of Danish history.

Interestingly, it is how the Danes see their landscape as "living culture" that marks a difference with us. While non-indigenous Tasmanians are only awakening to it, the Danes have long identified themselves intimately with their landscape. They see it as embodying both natural and cultural heritage and respect it as strongly as they do their monarchy.

Although Danes can also be sentimental, their view is not simply romantic. Humans have radically changed the environment. By 1805, only 4 per cent of Denmark remained as forest, prompting a Royal Decree to halt the loss and begin extensive replanting.

Today it is easy to forget that most trees in state forests are only 200 years old. These are working forests but selective logging ensures that heritage and recreational values are maintained.

Walking in Danish forests is varied and refreshing, especially because it is so flat. Denmark's highest point is the Sky Mountain (Himmelbjerget) on the Jutland peninsula -- all 170m of it. Unfortunately, a pylon on the new Oresund bridge to Sweden is now higher. No wonder Danes love our mountains.

Where there's flatness there's also wind.

Expect a four-season day and take good clothing as Denmark is in the cooler "roaring 50s". Although overnight camping is only allowed in specific campsites, extended walks in North Sealand are possible. Ask about what the locals call "primitive" campsites, where water and toilets are handy.

Apart from a day or so around Fredensborg, another walk is even closer to Copenhagen. The Jaegersborg Deer Park starts at the Klampenborg train station and contains 2000 grazing fallow and red deer. Sitting on the high steps of the 18th century royal hunting lodge Eremitage provides a memorable view.

Golfers and horse riders are nearby but the only real hazards are in autumn, the deer-rutting season.

Another five kilometres of road winds through royal gardens, forests and past small lakes to the Skodsborg station. A camping ground and a youth hostel is available here, too. But if another romantic palace is desired, grab the train north for another half hour and walk the stone ramparts of Prince Hamlet's castle at Helsingor. The 16th century Kronberg fortress overlooks some of North Sealand's best coastline for swimming and sailing.

To really experience Denmark, go outdoors. Walking is especially easy and takes you right into the heart of this beautiful cultural landscape.

Taking a stroll in the back yard of Frederik and Mary gives an insight into an entire nation. Peaceful, fun-loving and adventurous. And, as far as that couple hand-in-hand further along the track . . . you never know.

 

Monaco soll in den Europarat

Die Parlamentarische Versammlung des Europarats hat am 27. April in Straßburg die im Oktober 1998 vom Fürstentum Monaco beantragte Mitgliedschaft im Europarat grundsätzlich befürwortet. Bis die Annahme durch das Komitee der 45 Außenminister tatsächlich vollzogen werden kann, wird jedoch noch geraume Zeit vergehen. Zuvor muß das Land erst noch den Nachweis seiner staatlichen Souveränität erbringen, die bis heute zu einem nicht unerheblichen Teil von Frankreich ausgeübt wird. Bis dahin soll der Kleinstaat in der Versammlung mit zwei Abgeordneten den „besonderen Gaststatus“ erhalten.

Wie schwer sich die Europaratsversammlung mit der Aufforderung des Ministerkomitees von 1998 tat, eine Stellungnahme zum Beitrittsgesuch auszuarbeiten, zeigt, daß sie dazu mehr als fünf Jahre brauchte und zwei Verfassungsrechtler zu Rate ziehen mußte. Diese kamen zum Schluß, daß die Ausübung von Monacos Souveränität durch die mit Frankreich geschlossenen Verträge beträchtlich eingeschränkt gesehen werde. Ursache ist die französisch-monegassische Konvention von 1930, nach der höhere Stellen in der monegassischen Regierung, einschließlich des Ministerpräsidenten, und im Staatsdienst durch französische Beamte zu besetzen sind.

Als erste Bedingung, neben der üblichen Aufforderung, möglichst schnell und umfassend das Vertragswerk des Europarats von der Menschenrechtskonvention bis zur Sozialcharta in nationales Recht zu übernehmen, verlangt deshalb die Europaratsversammlung, daß die Befugnisse des Nationalrats (Parlament) innerhalb von fünf Jahren erheblich ausgeweitet werden. Das müßte bei der Überwachung der Regierungstätigkeit, der jährlichen Vorlage eines Regierungsprogramms, beim Recht auf Gesetzesinitiativen und in der Haushaltsdebatte geschehen. Danach müsse die Rechtsordnung im Sinne der Normen des Europarats reformiert werden, so bei den Gesetzen über die Staatsbürgerschaft, zur Presse- sowie zur Versammlungs- und Vereinsfreiheit als auch bei der Umsetzung des Grundsatzes der Gleichheit von Mann und Frau. Sobald zwischen Monaco und Frankreich die Verhandlungen über die Konvention von 1930 gediehen sind, könne Monaco Mitglied werden.

Das Parlament, Nr. 19/2004

 

Royalistes: une Colmarienne tête de liste du Grand Est

Sandrine Pico conduira la liste de l'Alliance Royale aux élections européennes pour le Grand Est de la France.(Photo DNA - J.-C. Dorn)

Des royalistes d'un nouveau genre ont lancé hier leur campagne pour les élections européennes à Strasbourg. Au programme : un roi pour garantir l'indépendance de la justice, affermir l'Etat et résoudre la crise institutionnelle.

 Fleur de lys et couleurs or-azur pour l'Alliance Royale, le nouveau parti des royalistes ne craint pas de reprendre les symboles de l'ancien régime. Ils lançaient hier à Strasbourg leur campagne pour les élections européennes en même temps que leur liste pour le Grand Est.
 La liste sera conduite par Sandrine Pico, 42 ans et colmarienne depuis 25 ans. Pour elle, le royalisme est une idée neuve : « j'en suis venue à la conclusion que la monarchie est le meilleur régime pour la France d'aujourd'hui. Je suis pour un royalisme sincère et avec les pieds sur terre. Notre ambition est de répondre aux besoins des Français, à leur soucis de justice et à leur volonté d'être mieux représentés ». Sandrine Pico a fondé en 1993 la « Compagnie royale, pour réunir les royalistes d'Alsace. Il y a un frémissement de l'opinion, nous sommes de plus en plus nombreux ».

« Crise institutionnelle »

 « Il y a une crise institutionnelle, nous sommes les seuls à le dire, précise Yves-Marie Adeline, président de l'Alliance Royale et présent hier à Strasbourg. Les gens votent contre leurs gouvernements depuis 1981, ils n'ont plus confiance dans leur justice et craignent un délitement de l'Etat dans l'Europe. En mettant un roi à la tête de l'Etat, nous le raffermissons. Nous garantissons l'indépendance de la justice en faisant nommer ses hauts-responsables par le roi. Enfin, le roi sera le garant de l'Etat français, qui pourra ainsi se lancer encore plus avant dans la construction européenne »
 L'Alliance Royale fait là son entrée en politique. Le parti a été fondé en 2001 avec l'objectif de profiter des élections européennes pour accroître sa notoriété. Les règles électorales ayant changé, faire élire des députés royalistes sera plus difficile. « Mais nous serons désormais de toutes les élections, prévient Yves-Marie Adeline. Il faudra compter avec nous ! ».

 

Just days before the royal wedding, the Danes are determined to keep their cool. Stephanie Bunbury reports.

With less than a week to go until Prince Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, marries his Australian princess, Copenhagen is showing few symptoms of royal wedding fever. The odd vodka advertisement refers obliquely to the delights of matrimony ("Absolut I do!") and the cathedral steps have been sandblasted to new heights of Scandinavian cleanliness, ready for the big day.

There was a pop song, When You Hold Me, apparently honouring the royal romance, by a Danish heart-throb called Erann DD. But pop songs about romance are two a krone, aren't they? Surely the point of royal weddings is to generate a tremendous number of souvenirs. This is where Denmark is simply not playing ball. There are no big posters of Frederik and Mary Donaldson up in the shop windows, no glossy booklets in the newsagents, no jigsaws of the engagement picture, not even any postcards of the new couple yet available. Where are the mugs and tea towels? Where are the beach blankets? I wonder, vainly trawling the city's plush department stores and beautifully appointed streets.

Copenhagen is Pleasantville incarnate. The smart cafes, all staffed by young people of such astonishing beauty they make you gasp - and that's before you even see how much a coffee costs - are drenched in the May sunshine. Innumerable interior design shops sell impeccably proportioned dining suites, marvellously modern glassware and silver cutlery of such intelligent design it looks as if it can read. Where the hell are those souvenir plates with the warning on the back never to put food on them because the printed photographs are poisonous? I love those plates!

Well, there you go: this is what happens when your home-grown Tasmanian marries into a royal family with universal approval, a democratic image and a dominion synonymous with tasteful modern design. It is impossible to imagine any of the Danish royals beaming from the bottom of an ashtray. Frederik and Mary have been vulgarised once, on a candle decorated with the couple's faces and a sentimental verse, but the offending item was quickly withdrawn from sale because the palace had not approved it. There's a spirit of co-operation here - and strict laws about privacy and profit-making from images - to make the likes of Charles and Camilla weep.

Indeed, the closest the Danish press comes to the scandal-ridden coverage the British royal family suffers is typified by this week's edition of Se og Hor, a gaudy popular weekly. Inside, an article worries that Mary is getting too thin. Stuck on the outside, a free commemorative chocolate bar has "Frederik & Mary" inscribed next to a discreet heart on the regally golden wrapper. OK, smell the inherent contradiction here, but you have to admire the restraint of that little heart.

The attention might be restrained, but it is constant. Donaldson has featured on the covers of these weeklies for months, her every change of hairstyle duly noted. Trine Larsen, a royal reporter with Ekstra Bladet, a nominally republican tabloid, says that when Donaldson arrived in Copenhagen three years ago she never opened her mouth to the press. For months she just smiled, waved and kept schtum. "We had no idea what she sounded like," she says. They were scratching for news.

Of course, they knew where she lived; in a smart new waterfront flat a mere stone's throw, assuming a strong arm, from Denmark's most famous landmark, the Little Mermaid. I go there with Larsen and she drives unerringly to the best viewing position in the car park opposite the flats. She then takes some binoculars out of her glovebox. "This is not nice," she warns: there are things about tabloid news we don't like to mention. She scans the windows. "She's still there. Interesting. She hasn't moved out yet." How does she know it's Donaldson's stuff? She shrugs. "I recognise the candlesticks. They are definitely hers."

See that glint of binoculars below: you're not in Tassie any more, Mary. The Danish press does not exactly dog the royals day and night, but they are quite excited by "the Australian commoner Mary Donaldson", to quote the local guides.

There is no public speculation about the royal sex lives in a country where hard-core porn is routinely broadcast on television. There are, in fact, no royal scandals. Denmark, says Larsen, is past all that. "But if they didn't have sex lives!" she laughs fruitily. "Now that is a story I would write!"

Still, learning to give interviews and wave to the public is not easy. Our Mary is famously unfazed by it. The Danish monarchy has, quite incredibly, an approval rating of 92 per cent. She has successfully curried her share of that favour with some well-chosen remarks about how much she likes to "hygge" in the cold weather - batten down the hatches in one's cosy home - which have endeared her to a nation that puts a big emphasis on having a nice house and eating at home as a family. Those fancy homewares shops are not just for the tourists.

The tourists are given the run of the many splendidly appointed and royally priced restaurants, where a couple of bottles of wine cost more than my mortgage: that's our territory. Danes like to stay in, wielding their own stylish cutlery.

In other ways, however, Denmark is not a huge hop from Australia: it's a lot colder, of course, but Danes also see themselves as egalitarian, are proud of their high standard of living and like the outdoors. Barbecues, combining the outdoors, convivial beers and home cooking, are huge. Even communication is a doddle for Australians, because while Danish is hard to learn ("You have to pretend you have a potato in your throat," one Icelander who had been obliged to learn Danish at school once told me), English is spoken everywhere.

That said, learning the language has been one of Donaldson's main tasks in her training to become a Danish royal.

Court protocol is another bit of arcane knowledge, although the "bicycle-riding royals", as the British like to call the low-key Scandinavians, are relatively relaxed about it: they put more emphasis on being personable and accessible. "In Denmark," said one royal fan over dinner, "it is not like England. We can touch the prince if we really want to."

She is startlingly right about that. Walking the route that the royal wedding party will take through the city after the event, I am struck by how narrow these streets are. Stroget, the top shopping drag, is only the width of a couple of carriages. An eager subject could, indeed, touch a prince or princess in passing. They assume they won't, though, any more than they would touch a pauper for the sake of it. Where the royals seem human, they are treated as humans.

I went to see Frederik and Mary out in public on Sunday at an equestrian show given in honour of the Queen's sister, Princess Benedikte, for her birthday. Most of the royals were there, but the crowd was definitely there for the horses. Only Queen Margrethe was driven on to the ground with Prince Henrik and was greeted with a polite clap; Frederik, Mary and the other royals walked to their seats like everyone else.

A brief collective intake of breath showed that the couple of the moment had arrived, but there was no clapping for them. I watched them chat and point things out to each other as the horses and carriages went through their paces. For a while, she put her hand in his. Their chief charm is the extent to which they resemble any other happy couple. City authorities expect that 250,000 people (out of a population of 5.3 million) will be lining the streets on Friday.

One of the department stores, I discover, is selling a kind of souvenir. It is admissible because it does not show photographs of Frederik and Mary; actually, it hardly rates in my book because it is really quite tasteful. Sv. Michelsen, a deluxe chocolate maker whose boxes carry the insignia of royal appointment, has a special edition assorted box showing a kangaroo in a bridal veil bowing gracefully to a rather stuffy penguin in dress uniform.

I know, it sounds quite temptingly tacky, but Denmark's sole royal wedding souvenir is actually no more than gently humorous. As all Danes would know, Crown Prince Frederik once served as a military frogman, a tough job in Danish waters. The frogmen all get nicknames: Frederik's was Pingo (penguin). The drawing, in a cartoon style recalling Punch between the wars, is printed in Sv. Michelsen's customary dark blue and white. It will probably match the tableware, while setting off those red-and-white flags nicely. I can't imagine anything more Danish.

 

 

Mary's million loyal subjects By ELLEN WHINNETT Chief Reporter May 8, 2004 A MILLION people are expected to cram into the Danish capital Copenhagen to watch the celebrations as Tasmania's Mary Donaldson marries Crown Prince Frederik in just one week's time. Denmark has gone Mary mad as the final countdown begins to next Friday's wedding in Copenhagen Cathedral. Residents of the Scandinavian country have donated an amazing $2.7 million to buy the traditional People's Gift -- a stunning china set which is thought to be the most expensive in the world. So great is the interest in the marriage between the Tasmanian commoner and the heir to the 1000-year-old Danish throne that the royal family has issued an edict banning people from profiting from souvenirs featuring photographs of the couple. Hobart-born Mary has captivated the world's media, appearing on front pages of newspapers from Europe to South America. Media outlets have described the beautiful Tasmanian as resembling the glamorous film star and style icon, the late Audrey Hepburn. Magazines have fretted about her weight loss and the fact she will arrive at the wedding in a borrowed limousine -- one of 80 sedans and limos on loan from the Volvo company. Officials estimate that 1000 international journalists will arrive in Denmark in the next few days, sending thousands of words and images of Tasmania's princess-to-be across the globe. A frantic week of social engagements is under way in the lead-up to the royal nuptials as Mary's family joins other guests in Copenhagen. Tasmanian Governor Richard Butler and his wife Jennifer will meet the couple tonight when they attend a dinner hosted by Australian Governor-General Michael Jeffery and his wife Marlena. The dinner will be held at the Fredensborg Storekro, a royal hotel and restaurant north of the capital. Fifty-two guests, including Mary's family and Frederik's parents Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik, will enjoy a five-course meal featuring Australian lamb, prawns in a coconut broth and Northern Territory barramundi. The Lord Mayor of Copenhagen is breaking out the city's official silverware to host a reception for Mary and Prince Frederik on Wednesday. Beautiful as the cutlery will be, it's no match for the stunning wedding gift provided by the people of Denmark. The flora danica china, named after a Danish botanical encyclopedia, was first crafted in Denmark in 1790 and used for the first time at a royal banquet in 1903. And while Mary is unlikely to use "the good china" at the dinner table too often, a more practical gift will be posted from Tasmania next week. A mohair knee-rug, crafted in colours to reflect the yellow of the sun and the blue of the Tasmanian sea, has been given to the royal couple by the Tasmanian Spinners, Weavers and Dyers Guild. An anonymous donor allowed the guild to send the rug -- worth $170 -- to Denmark as a wedding gift. Made by Hobart's Jo Payne, the rug is on display at the Bond Store until Tuesday when it will be packed into the post. The Mercury

 

Berliner Morgenpost: Haus Hohenzolleren will Generalverwaltung nach Potsdam verlegen

08.05.2004 - 17:58 Uhr, Berliner Morgenpost

 Berlin (ots) - Potsdam – Das Haus Hohenzollern erwägt, seine
Generalverwaltung von Bremen nach Potsdam zu verlegen. Das berichtet
die Berliner Morgenpost in ihrer Sonntagsausgabe. Die Zeitung beruft
sich auf den Chef des Hauses, Georg Friedrich Prinz von Preußen. „Ich
denke ernsthaft darüber nach. Es entspricht auch dem Willen meines
Großvaters Louis Ferdinand, der im Marmorpalais geboren wurde und
eine tiefe Verbundenheit gegenüber seiner Vaterstadt Potsdam hatte“,
sagte der 27-Jährige, der am Sonnabend an der Eröffnung einer
Ausstellung über seine Urgroßmutter Cecilie, die letzte deutsche
Kronprinzessin, im Potsdamer Marmorpalais teilnahm. Die derzeit noch
in Bremen ansässige Generalverwaltung betreut unter anderem das
Vermögen des ehemaligen Königshauses, wozu Teile der Burg
Hohenzollern in Hechingen (Baden-Württemberg), die Berliner Villa
Monbijou und weitere Immobilien und Kunstschätze gehören.

 

Korea:

A reminder of a royal past

The last crown prince of the Joseon Dynasty has lived in Japan most of his life, can't speak Korean and used English to conduct an interview with a Korean reporter.
But when asked whether he considers himself to be Korean, Lee Gu firmly nodded and said, "Yes," without hesitation. When he dies, he said, he wants to be buried here in Korea, next to his parents.
The reclusive crown prince, who is 73, does not open up to most Koreans and shuns contact with the Korean media. He finally agreed to an interview with the JoongAng Daily, after rejecting repeated requests for two years, while he was in Seoul last weekend for the royal shrine ritual, which is held every first Sunday in May, to pay his respects to his ancestors.
Lee Gu now resides in a small apartment in the Shibuya area of Tokyo, living off a subsidy from the Lee family organization in Korea.
"Whenever I think of Lee Gu and his fate, I get teary-eyed," says Lee Jung-jae, a secretary general of the Lee family organization, which also takes care of him when he's in Seoul. For his visits, the group provides Lee Gu a tiny yet decent house, supplied with eggs and fruit jam in a refrigerator, as well as a toaster and bread, so that he can fix himself a simple breakfast.
Last weekend, however, Lee Gu was accorded the honor due the crown prince's position. On a rainy Sunday, he woke up early to dress in the royal outfit for the parade, which started around noon from Gwanghwamun of Gyeongbok Palace, during which he would go through Jongno to Jongmyo, the royal shrine, on a palanquin.
His waiting room inside the palace was reserved for the Lee family only. A few members of the Lee family organization were present, and they were busy taking pictures with the last heir of the Joseon Dynasty crown.
He was carried on a palanquin by several young men in Joseon Dynasty costume down a street in central Seoul to stop in front of Jongmyo, the royal shrine, drawing curious looks from passers-by. Once they realized who he was, they said, "There he is, His Highness!" and started taking pictures.

Regal bearing
At the shrine, Mr. Lee honored his ancestors, the kings of the Joseon Dynasty, who began their rule in 1392. In the ceremonial dress and hat fit for a king, Mr. Lee moved with a certain grace and bore a look of solemnity as he followed the old customs handed down from the dynasty's court rules.
Once the palanquin arrived at Jongmyo shrine, Lee Gu found shelter inside, which was off-limits to the public. There, he granted a brief interview.
Asked whether he has any sense of loss when he sees other monarchies beloved by their people, such as in England or in Japan, Lee Gu says with a smile, "I have no regrets." But then he adds, "As a member of the family, I feel that I should inherit the culture. I'm doing this [the Jongmyo ceremony] for the benefit of Korea."
A longtime Tokyo resident, Mr. Lee visits Korea four times a year on special occasions for the Lee family. As the crown prince of the dynasty, Mr. Lee must carry out certain duties in family affairs, which includes the annual sacrificial rites for ancestors, which is registered as a World Cultural Property by Unesco.
The Jeonju Lee Royal Family Organization invites Mr. Lee every year for the ceremony, as he would be king if the royal court were reinstated. About five members of the royal family are reportedly still alive, residing in Korea, Japan and the United States, but among them, Mr. Lee is the only authentic heir to the crown.
Born of Lee Eun and Masako Nashimotomiya in 1931 in Japan, Mr. Lee spent the vast majority of his life outside Korea because of Japanese colonial rulers who sought to undermine the royal family by forcing his father to live in Japan.
When Lee Eun's brother, Korean Emperor Sunjong, died in 1926, Lee Eun became King Yeongchin, but he was king in name only. Then the Japanese colonial government arranged his marriage with Masako Nashimotomiya, a close relative of the Japanese emperor.
Rumor had it that Ms. Nashimotomiya was originally supposed to marry the Japanese crown prince, but the court medical doctors declared that she would be unable to bear children. Some Korean historians say that her marriage to King Yeongchin was a part of a Japanese plan to end the Lee family line.
However, Ms. Nashimotomiya, who changed her name to Lee Bang-ja, gave birth to two sons. Lee Jin, the first child, however, died the year he was born under suspicious circumstances. Some Korean historians believe the baby was poisoned. Lee Gu managed to avoid the fate of his brother and grew up speaking Japanese.
With the help of U.S. General Douglas MacArthur, Lee Gu moved to the United States at age 14 and later studied architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Then he worked in New York as an architect, where he fell in love with an American woman, Julia Mullock. The two tied the knot in 1958, but divorced in 1982.

Long wait to return home
Even after Korea achieved liberation from Japan in 1945, the Lees were not welcome to return. Then-President Syngman Rhee had no interest in handing any power back to the royal family, and Korea and Japan didn't reopen diplomatic ties until the 1960s.
Being neither Japanese nor Korean citizens, King Yeongchin's family lived in Japan in poverty. The king used to murmur, "I'm neither Korean nor Japanese by now. My life after all is nothing but floating somewhere in between the two."
They eventually returned to Seoul, in 1963. When then-President Park Chung Hee offered to let other members of the family live in Nakseonjae inside Changdeok Palace, Lee Gu went with them with his wife. But King Yeongchin developed cerebral thrombosis, which accompanied aphasia. He died in 1970, and soon after that, Lee Gu left Korea. His mother stayed behind and died in 1989, buried next to her husband in Korea.
Lee Gu, meanwhile, started a number of architecture-related businesses that ended up failing. Having endured the double talk of those who wanted only to take advantage of Lee Gu's title as the last heir to the royal throne, he became bitter.
According to a member of the Lee family organization, Lee Gu used to say "Everyone [in Korea] is a thief."
Lee Gu returned to Korea in 1996, and declared his intention to stay for good, but eventually, he left again for Japan, returning only since then to fulfill his duties as the Joseon Dynasty crown prince.
He tries to stay out of the political fray. Regarding the post-war turmoil of modern-day Korea, Lee Gu said, "I don't really care about politics," with a dignified smile. "But I think we should thank the U.S. for assisting Korea."
As for the future of the Korean Peninsula, he said he hopes for the reunification of North and South, but "in a peaceful way, not through a war."
His _expression brightened considerably when he was asked to share his memories of his parents, King Yeongchin and Queen Masako.
However, after pausing for a few seconds, the media-shy crown prince smiled and said, "I have so many memories, but I'd like to keep them inside my heart," putting his hand to his chest. The interview ended so he could attend the ceremony.
The drizzle stopped by the time the ceremony ended. After paying his respects at his parents' graves, Lee Gu went back home to Tokyo on Tuesday to live among the masses.

2004.05.05