His Majesty King Abdullah II of Jordan

Before the European Parliament, Strasbourg, France, 18th April 2012



In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

Mr President,

Distinguished Members of the European Parliament,

Thank you, and thank you all, for your warm welcome. The ties between Jordan and Europe are anchored in rock. It is more than our mutual interest in the prosperity and security of our multi-region neighbourhood. It is our shared belief in the kind of neighbourhood it should be -- the kind of neighbourhood our people deserve: rich in human dignity and freedom ... powered by opportunity and progress ... and secured by peace.

It is to talk about our neighbourhood and future that I join you today.

My friends,

A long Spring is unfolding in the Arab World. It will not be over in a season; not even in a year. Our societies are facing the challenge of moving from protests to programs, from criticism to national strategies. Different countries will take different paths. In some countries, debate and consensus are in the air. Elsewhere, we are seeing the winds of division and reaction, bringing instability, violence and a region-wide cost. There are outside actors that seek to take advantage of discord. The risks and uncertainties are real.

But I speak for millions when I say: the Arab World is awake. And positive change is on the move.

The signs were already there for those who wanted to see them. For a decade or more, people across the region had been raising questions ... nurturing aspirations ... seeking meaningful reform ... and empowering civil society, especially women and our digitally-connected, globally-aware youth.

Events added to the urgency. Global crises in finance, food and energy seriously hurt our economies. Arab families who sacrificed to educate their children have seen their sons and daughters leave school, prepared for jobs that simply are not there. Today my region faces the highest youth unemployment of any region. Some have called it a 'generation in waiting. It is 100 million strong; the largest youth cohort in our history.

I know that youth concerns are important here in Europe as well. Our regions have different demographics, but in one statistic they are the same: today's young people are 100 percent of our future. We cannot afford to let a single young citizen wait in vain.

This reality drives Jordan's approach to the Arab Spring. We have embraced it as an opportunity to push past roadblocks that have slowed reform in the past. Last year, we took immediate steps to engage in a national dialogue to build consensus on concrete actions. An early focus has been the Constitution -- the foundation of our political system. Last September, after recommendations by a national committee, one-third of the entire document was amended. New Constitutional provisions widen representation, strengthen political parties, protect civil rights and freedoms, and enhance separation of powers. Other milestones include new laws on political parties and municipal and national elections; as well as legislation for the new Constitutional court and independent elections commission. Our next tests will be municipal and parliamentary elections. As guarantor of the political reform process, I have urged both government and parliament to keep to the agreed timeline, and finalise the remaining legislation as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the inclusive nature of our process.

Only we, all Jordanians, can build Jordan's future. And we must do so in such a way that our country remains a secure, safe haven -- in spite of a region getting more turbulent around us; in spite of economic threats; in spite of neighbouring crises. This path demands consensus-based reform, based on structural, comprehensive change -- political, legal, economic, and social -- respecting the rights and freedoms of all our citizens. In the process, Jordan can set a regional model of peaceful political evolution and democratisation.

I am confident that 2012 will be a year of key political reform in Jordan. Among the most important steps is building the robust political party life that parliamentary government requires. We know that it is not one election, but the next and the next and all those that follow, which show that a system is working.

We greatly value the EU's recognition of our reform path. Just two months ago, the new EU-Jordan Task Force met in Amman to discuss key programmes that will support our reform priorities -- democratic institutions, civil society, job creation, local economic development, humanitarian assistance, and more. Next month marks ten years since our Association Agreement went into force, opening markets and job opportunities on both sides. I hope these opportunities, now strengthened by our “advanced status” partnership, will further blossom in the years ahead.

Jordan has pursued its domestic goals despite regional conflict. But my friends -- peace must come if our region is to thrive and be secure. We cannot afford one more 'generation in waiting' for a Palestinian state.

Ten years ago, the Arab States spoke with a united voice on behalf of a just peace. We made the decision to look forward, not back; to seek agreement; and to offer acceptance. The Arab Peace Initiative has been recognised by every major friend of peace in the world, including the EU and other members of the Quartet. We need Israel to engage.

The Arab Peace Initiative is based on the only possible solution: two states, side by side, in dignity and self-determination -- a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine, on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital – collective peace and security guarantees for Israel -- and a final settlement, in accordance with U.N. resolutions, and the agreed resolution of all final status issues. This initiative went even beyond offering Israel peace and normal relations with all its Arab neighbours. The entire Muslim world endorsed it. What has been on the table for the past 10 years is a 57-state solution.

Some political elements point to the changes in the Arab World, and tell the Israeli people that negotiations can wait. There is no time to wait. The Arab Spring is rooted in a profound call for human respect. No affront is felt more deeply than the Israeli occupation. The longer Palestinian suffering endures, the longer settlement-building continues, the greater the frustrations, dangers, and unknowns. If we cross the line where the two-state solution is no longer possible, Israel will be further than ever from real security. It would take decades, even generations, for peace to regain the initiative.

Jordan sees an effective peace process as a moral duty and a strategic interest, and we continue to pursue results. This year, in Amman, we succeeded in getting negotiators back to the table several times. We would not have been able to do so, without the magnificent work of European diplomacy ... energising contacts, mobilising support, keeping up the pressure for peace … and, most important, keeping hope alive. Indeed, over the past two years, the European Union has been an invaluable friend to those, on both sides, working for peace in the Middle East.

The exploratory talks in Amman were baby steps, giving the parties an opportunity to resume bilateral contacts. Now the process needs a quantum leap forward -- and EU partnership is vital. The EU has taken a principled stand for a just, two-state solution, and against the illegal settlement building that is obstructing progress. You understand the global risks of continued conflict and the global benefits of peace. And you hold tremendous credibility for your experience in building democratic institutions, security, and trust. I hope you can bring all this to bear in the days ahead.

My friends,

Many peoples, one neighbourhood ... and one future. This is the challenge for Europe and the Middle East ... and it is our strength.

Together, we face immense issues -- economic, political, peace. The solutions are complex and the path forward difficult.

But together, we have the will and wisdom to reach the goals we seek. And together, we can succeed.

Thank you very much.

----------------------------------------------------------------

During His Majesty's European visit, HRH Crown Prince Hussein was sworn-in as regent of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Queen Margrethe II of Denmark 40 years on the Throne

This Friday festivities start to celebrate Queen Margrethe II's accession to the Danish throne on 14th January 1972. A timely present was the result of an opinion poll, published on 29th December 2011. The Megafon poll was published in the daily Politiken: "Almost eight out of ten Danes have a high opinion of their royal family and would rather live under a monarchy than a republic."

77 percent of all Danes declared they were in favour of the Monarchy, only 16 percent would prefer a republic. In the last couple of years, those in favour of a republic dropped from 25 to 15.8 percent.

Prime Minister Jens-Otto Krag proclaimed the new Queen from the balcony of Amalienborg Palace on 15th January 1972: "King Frederik IX is dead! Long live Queen Margrethe II!"

In her first address to the people, Queen Margrethe II said: "My beloved father, our King, is dead. The task that my father had carried for nearly 25 years is now resting on my shoulders. I pray to God to give me help and strength to carry the heavy heritage. May the trust that was given to my father also be granted to me."

Her Majesty was born on 16th April 1940, at Amalienborg Palace to then Crown Prince Frederik and Swedish-born Princess Ingrid. When Crown Princess Margrethe Alexandrine Porhildur Ingrid became Queen of Denmark on 14th January she choose the motto: "God's Help, the Love of the People, Denmark Strength."

As Danish Monarch, Queen Margrethe II has a seat on the State Council, a position she has occupied since 1958, when she turned 18. In addition, she is the supreme commander of the Danish Defense Forces, a position she has been prepared for, having performed voluntary service with the Women's Flying Corps in 1958-1970 when she received comprehensive training in the corps.

As Head of State, the Queen signs all Acts of Parliament, participates in the formation of a new government, receives regular reports from the Prime Minister. The Queen receives every Ambassador from foreign countries and also formally appoints and dismisses civil servants.

King Frederik IX's funeral in Roskilde: Queen Ingrid, Queen Margrethe II, Crown Prince Frederik, Prince Joachim.

King Frederik IX was laid to rest on the 24th January 1972. In the first row Queen Ingrid, the Queen Mother, Queen Margethe II and Prince Henrik. Behind them are King Constantine II of the Hellenes, his wife, Queen-Annemarie, Princess Benedikte of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and her husband, Prince Richard of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg.

Married to His Royal Highness, Prince Henrik, né Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, Queen Magrethe has two sons, Crown Prince Frederik Andre Henrik Christian and Prince Joachim Holger Waldemar Christian.

Beyond her official duties, Queen Margrethe II has been actively engaged in a number of artistic modes of expression: painting, church textiles, watercolors, prints, illustrations, sketches, decoupage works, scenography, and embroidery. She illustrated many books, including the 2002 reissue of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Her semi-abstract paintings have meanwhile become fixtures in museums and art galleries both in Denmark and abroad.

Queen by the people's vote
The Danish Act of Succession of 27th March 1953 was accepted in a referendum on 28th May 1953 and sets the line of succession to the Danish Throne. The 1953 referendum changed the act making it possible for a woman to inherit the throne in the event that she has no older or younger brothers, a system known as male preference primogeniture, similar to the existing British Succession Laws. As the then reigning King Frederick IX (11th March 1899 – 14th January 1972) had three daughters and no sons, this had the effect that Princess Margrethe became the Heiress Presumptive instead of her uncle Prince Knud.

As King Frederick IX's wife, Queen Ingrid (28th March 1910 – 7th November 2000), was not expected to have any more children, this effectively ensured that Princess Margrethe would become Queen of Denmark, which she did.

Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes, youngest daughter of King Frederik IX of Denmark and sister of then Crown Princess Margrethe of Denmark.

Another referendum was held on 7th June 2009 on changing the Act of Succession so that primogeniture no longer puts males over females. In other words, the first-born child would become heir to the throne regardless of gender. The actual line of succession was not changed, because Queen Margarethe's heir is her eldest son, Crown Prince Frederik then follows his first born child, Prince Christian.

Otto +
* 20th November 1912 - + 4th July 2011

His Imperial and Apostolic Majesty Otto, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, King of Bohemia, passed to his eternal reward this morning at his exile home, Villa Austria, in Pöcking, Germany, after a virtual reign of 89 years, three months and four days.


The mortal remains of the All Highest will rest for three days in the parish church of St. Ulrich in Pöcking. There will be requiem masses in Munich, Mariazell, and Budapest. His funeral mass will take place in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on July 16, after which his mortal remains and those of the Empress Regina will be laid to rest in the Capuchin Crypt in Vienna.

After a requiem in Budapest his heart will be buried on Sunday, 17th July in the Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma .

See the obituary in The Daily Telegraph.

Monarchie - Why?

The Exiled Belgian Royalist gives Americans are charming answer to their questions concerning his loyalty to the Kingdom of Belgium. The Belgian Monarchs can be proud of having such supporters.

Scandal-ridden republics

Canada has a proud royalist tradition, however, this does not exclude that the media try to create scandals were there aren't any. Patricia Treble of MACLEANS.CA looked at the Monarchies in Europe and came to the conclusion: Europe’s monarchies: scandal-ridden but such good fun.

When the term "scandal-ridden" comes up, republics outdo crowned democracies by miles. However, on one point Patricia Treble was fair to Monarchies. She admitted that in the end they do not come more expensive than an uncrowned head of state.

And presidents—the other alternative—aren’t any cheaper, as even the Swedish Republican Association acknowledges. (No country is nutty enough to adopt the U.S. model of combining ceremonial and political leaders into one person, so not having a monarch means having a president.) In June, Germany got a new head of state. Christian Wulff, a state politician in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party, was elected after three bitterly fought ballots. With the title comes the neoclassical behemoth of Bellevue Palace, the venue of all those state dinners, receptions and official tours. The budget: $40 million.

Of course Patricia Treble - and most other foreign media people - did not cover the latest scandal concerning president Wulff. His meddling in German politics had the daily newspaper Die Welt publish an article under the headline Christian Wulff, das Problem des bürgerlichen Lagers (Christian Wulff, the bourgeois camp's problem, 17th September 2010)

Presidents come with high costs

Remember the popular republican complaint, a Monarchy would cost the taxpayer tooooooo much money? Republicans give the impression, a president would be cheaper, certainly "more cost efficient".

Wait a minute, why not make a reality check?

The newly installed EU president, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, will start his new office on 1st January 2010. And he starts the job with a healthy budget. The Daily Telegraph has this to say about what the EU taxpayers have to shoulder:

"Herman Van Rompuy, the EU's new President, will be paid over £320,000 [$580,000] a year. The EU president will only pay a 24 per cent rate of tax and his personal annual travel budget will be £4 million [$7.22 million].

"He will have a staff of 60 people - a cabinet of 22, ten body guards and 28 support staff. His total office budget will be £22.3 million [$40.27 million]."

Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton

A new palace for the president
"A state of the art building is already under construction, at a cost to the taxpayer of £280 million [$505,6 million], to house the new president of Council.

"Named the Résidence Palace, after an existing Art Deco building, the new edifice has been designed to be the most impressive in Brussels and will be the venue for European Union summits after 2013. It has a floor space of 29,000 sq metres.

"The new figure is president of the European Council, the quarterly summits of heads of state and government that are the EU's highest political body.

"Under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council becomes a fully fledged European institution rather than a political meeting, with origins in informal fireside chats between EU's founding six countries.

"The new President is charged with "driving forward" European Council decisions, which will in future be both politically and legally binding on all EU member states."

The EU shows how to appoint a mate as president
Republicans must love the way the EU got its first president. 27 politicians sat together and agreed to appoint one man out of their midst to be the head boy. No parliament involved, no election, not even any kind of consultation with the peoples he is supposed to represent.

And to make things worse, the population of all but one of the 27 member states were not even asked if they wanted a president. Gosh, aren't republics so democratic?

Call to all Royalists - European Elections

Dear Madam, dear Sir,

Dear friends,
Alliance Royale is a political party created in 2001 to reintroduce the question of the monarchy into the political debates. Our sole objective is to use the election campaigns to make our fellow citizens understand that the royal principle is making a relevant and timely response to the difficulties our country has been facing for many years. We were therefore present in different local or national elections during the past few years.

As in 2004, Alliance Royale will present candidates in the forthcoming European elections. Wishing to stay out of conflicts that divide the French Royalist opinion, Alliance Royale has opted for neutrality in dynastic matters since its creation. It develops proposals that are primarily designed to meet the legitimate questions being asked by voters about the decision that a king and his councils could make in the current situation. We understand very well that other royalist movements can legitimately advocate an other political vision. These differences should not be a cause of division between us.

That is why we offer all of them to gather around the urgent and important issue : meeting the citizens of our respective countries to invite them to build their future by reviving the identity of European countries founded on christian monarchies.

We invite you to join our European campaign. This is not to set aside your own sensitivity or to give up your freedom of speech, but to align with us on what we share : the defense and promotion of the royal principle. You can do this in several ways :

- in providing institutional support to our lists, which would result in information to your members and supporters and in a mention that we would add to our campaign documents like "With the support of" followed by your logo,

- in calling your members and supporters to be on our list of candidates (especially women, to meet the requirements of parity), as did Italian and French Royalist movements.
There is no other engagement expected from movements or candidates beyond this temporary cooperation. This does not say that there is no disagreement on any particular issue that could be discussed, as long as we avoid unnecessary controversy that could weaken a loyal support to our common objective for the duration of the campaign.

Hoping that this offer will attract your attention and that you will be willing to respond positively, we remain at your disposal to answer your questions.

Cyrille Henrys
General Delegate of Alliance Royale

At Gallia Watch you the party's ten reasons why it is important to vote for the AR in English.
Poster, photos and lists of all candidates can be downloaded from the Alliance Royale's website.

King Simeon as EU-president?
This weekend Spanish news reported about the possibility of King Simeon II of the Bulgarians becoming the EU's first permanent president.(http://www.monarquiaconfidencial.com/pg_Articulo.aspx?IdObjeto=301). The King who in 1943 succeeded his father, Tsar Boris III, to the throne and who has also served his country as Prime Minister (2001/05) is a potential candidate like Luxembourg’s Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair or former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt.
Should the new treaty of Lisbon which was signed in December 2007 in the Portuguese capital be ratified this year by all 27 EU members by 1st January 2009 a permanent “EU president” will replace the rotating presidency. So far, every half a year one EU member state assumes the presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU).

The person holding the new office will be appointed by the European Council for a term of 30 months, with the possibility of a second term.

More than any politician King Simeon II of the Bulgarians would be qualified to hold this office. As a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg he is related to all European Royal Houses, he speaks seven languages fluently, is above party lines and had experienced the political bargaining business when he was Bulgarian Prime Minister.

Above all: The King’s candidacy could be the only way to prevent the EU going irreversibly the republican way.

The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a constitution for a "country" called Europe, although the EU Constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Despite these facts British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, insisted that the Treaty of Lisbon was shorn of all constitutional content and that it preserved key aspects of British sovereignty.

The Christian Science Monitor in its March 24, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0324/p09s01-coop.html said:
“With its flag, anthem, currency, institutions, regulations, and directives, the EU has long been indistinguishable from a nation-state-in-waiting. Now the Lisbon Treaty gives it those requisites of nationhood it's always lacked: a president, a foreign minister (and diplomatic corps), a powerful new interior department, a public prosecutor and full treaty-making powers. Add to those its common system of criminal justice, an embryonic federal police force, and the faintly sinister-sounding European Gendarmerie Force, and what this union becomes is a monolithic state with great power pretensions. Most alarmingly, though, is that the Lisbon Treaty can be extended indefinitely without recourse to further treaties or referendums.”

All hopes rest in the King – as so often.

Republic in Action
France has come a huge step closer to Bonapartism, this time in disguise of Sarkozysm. The new emperor’s son, Jean Sarkozy, staged a coup against the head of the ruling UMP in Neuilly-sur-Seine, David Martinon, just four weeks before the French local elections. David Martinon is not just anybody, but spokesman of the Elysée Palace, where Jean’s dad happens to be residing as president. And Neuilly is not any part of Paris, but the richest and considered the most “chic”, where Nicolas Sarkozy started his political career. Young Jean looks to be a little bit young to become Mayor of Neuilly, but 21 may be the right age for the Prince Impérial to stretch his wings.

David Martinon misjudged the court of l’empereur Sarkozy. Being considered close to the president’s ex-wife, Cécilia Sarkozy, Martinon fell out of grace at the palace and had to pay the price for bad opinion polls. Since an early honeymoon after he was elected in May 2007, when 68 percent approved of M. Sarkozy, the polls plummeted further and further. This month Sarkozy's approval rating had fallen to its lowest point since he was elected. Pollster IPSOS said it had fallen 10 points to 39 per cent, while rival CSA said it had dropped six points to 42 per cent. Even in the UMP’s stronghold Neuilly-sur-Seine opinion polls saw a rival list of candidates ahead of the president’s party.

Last Sunday evening Nicolas Sakozy tried to sound like a statesman and addressed the nation explaining why it was perfectly alright that the French people had no say in the Lisbon Treaty. The new EU treaty was signed on 13th December 2007 in the Portuguese capital and is the EU’s answer to the refusal of the French and Dutch voters to accept the EU Constitution. The new treaty was passed by the French Assembly and the Senate last week and will become effective on 14th February. Sarkozy put it plainly: He had promised the French people in his election manifesto that he would have a new treaty passed by parliament rather than holding a referendum with uncertain outcome. He kept this election promise. He did not promise more democracy, but “reforms”. Change is all that matters. The local elections on 9th March, which he styled a “national test”, may bring a result he will not like.

The French president shows all signs of a politician who overrates his ego. He might soon face the people whom he did not dare to ask about their approval to the new EU treaty on the streets to fight an unpopular policy – and an unpopular president. His presidency looks more like Napoléon’s court than the model republic all those advocates of this “modern” form of state proclaim. Sarkozy shows how old this republican model really looks like.

Monarchy “under the pressure of well-fanned fanaticism”
The original essay was recently published in a Jacobite Forum. The author was kind enough to give his permission to re-publish his thoughts and he “touch[ed] it up just a little bit”. I hope you will find his thoughts as inciting as I do.

Stelios Rigopoulos, born in London in 1948, is of mixed Greek (Constantinopolitan - Byzantine?) and English parentage. A lifelong Monarchist and Legitimist, he speaks of the European Vocation or Destiny of the Royal House of Stuart, and a Europe of Legitimate Monarchies, quite different from the Europe of Tyrannical Bureaucracy of the European Union of reluctantly acquiescent Unitary States.

What I suppose "N." is trying to say is that with the death of Cardinal KING HENRY IX and the extinction of the Royal House of Stuart in the direct male line, any pretence that the senior heirs of King James VI & I were the "native" legitimate Sovereigns and the very much junior usurping line issuing from Sofie Pfalzgräfin von Simmern, Herzogin von Braunschweig-Lüneburg in Hannover, were the foreign implants by the "grace", rather guile and iniquity, of an illegal assembly calling itself a "parliament", had come to an end and that after a hundred years or so of having been forced on the Three Realms, they had acquired the rights of domicile, so as to be considered "English", "Scottish" or "Irish", rather than German. To use a Greek proverb, "the comb had got to the nits in the hair" and stuck there! I'm very sorry but for a legitimist this sort of logic, or rather hyper-pragmatism of the most facile variety, is nothing more than a web, woven by a very poisonous spider.

Now, I have to confess, that I am truly astonished that a declared republican, like "N." could, in a moment of gullibility, repeat on this Jacobite forum, one of the most cynical ruses of Whig (NOT Hannoverian this time) chicanery. There are times, when the deceits of human invention surpass the temptations of the devil, who must be left with his mouth wide open and gaping at the sheer audacity of ... those who do his work for him! The question is not in fact if the Prince of Orange-Nassau or the four Electors Georg of Hannover could persuade the populace of the British Isles that - abracadabra! - the former were as "English", etc. as the latter (here the Anglican Princess Anne of Denmark made an immediate appeal to the patriotic emotions of the English), but that THEY WERE PROTESTANTS AND DEFENDERS OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. That, and that alone, is what mattered. All other criteria are superfluous to the argument.

It is very easy to understand the wrath of Prince Charles Edward Stuart upon learning that his brother Henry had, with the approval of their father, accepted a Cardinal's hat and Holy Orders from the Pope himself. "What would the English think?" (The problem was not the Scots - Presbyterians, Episcopalian Jurors and Non-Jurors and Catholics - nor the Irish, who were regarded by the Westminster regime as lesser mortals - and potential troublemakers -, like the "Colonials" would be later on). His temporary conversion to Anglicanism in September 1752 was motivated solely by the thought of overcoming the "impediment" of his Catholicism, and make himself acceptable to the snooty Protestant Whig establishment. Leading English Catholics, like the Dukes of Norfolk, had after 1715 rushed to conform to the new Hannoverian model and distanced themselves from the Stuarts, even if the latter then still enjoyed official Papal patronage and recognition as the Legitimate Sovereigns of Great Britain and Ireland (Pope Benedict XIV sent a large financial contribution to fund the Jacobite Rising of 1745). But Prince Charles Edward's Anglican conversion was too little, too late and nobody was impressed, least of all the doyen of Oxford Jacobites (and High Tories), Dr. William King. His return to the Church of Rome was motivated, above all, by the need to survive, on the pensions of the Pope and the Most Christian King of France. And yet, from the moment of his succession to the Thrones of his grandfather, KING JAMES II & VII, his staunchest ally was his brother, the Cardinal, who took care to place a crown on his coffin at least, and at last, at his funeral. The least sign of recognition...? So with the demise of the mythical "Bonnie Prince Charlie" and then the death on July 13, 1807 of the Cardinal King, the Stuarts come to an end and the last nail is put in to the history of the Jacobite Movement? This is the Whig version of things, but not the opinion of true Jacobites, whose attention is first and foremost on the person of the King - or Queen - in the legitimate line of succession. Thus, as long as there is a legitimate heir, according to the rules of primogeniture, to the successors of KING JAMES II and VII, deprived, as he was deprived, of his Thrones, in 1689, there is a Jacobite Movement and there are Jacobites.

The "post-Jacobite heresy", which posits an end to Jacobitism, with the end of the direct male line of Royal Stuarts, is not just post-Jacobite but anti-Jacobite. One of my friends in this Jacobite Yahoo! group, a distant cousin of the last two Stuart Kings, has the honesty to say that he is NOT a Jacobite, because he staunchly supports the de facto monarchy of the "House of Windsor". I infinitely prefer such sincerity to the line of argument, which subordinates Jacobitism to other political agendas, as a property of Scottish or Irish or Welsh Nationalism, or English ("Anglo-British") High Toryism. Jacobitism, say the "post-Jacobites", is a historical phenomenon, which no longer has any actual potential or dynamic or validity. It is as dead as the dodo, nor will it be revived like a Jurassic monster. The idea of a Jacobite restoration (and is an actual "restoration" really necessary?) in the person of a Stuart heir, who does not identify primarily with England, or Scotland or Ireland is so unrealistic, or surrealistic, - they say - as to be irrelevant. And so "post-Jacobitism", in order to avoid being overtly "anti-Jacobite", rejecting what it once embraced, falls into the trap of concluding that the inevitable alternatives are to recognise the Hannoverian fait accompli ... or to embrace republicanism.

For "post-Jacobites" of the Hannoverian (I am a "royalist") or semi-Hannoverian (I am a "monarchist") persuasion, the most important factor is that the Sovereign is the symbol of the people or the personification of the Nation, over and above all the volatility of party politics, but especially that the Sovereign is the Defender of the Faith (ah, but which "faith"?) and Supreme Head of the Church of England, as by law established. Thus Anglicanism is in England, what Catholicism is in Spain, Calvinism in the Netherlands, Lutheranism in the Scandinavian Monarchies and Eastern Orthodoxy in the erstwhile Kingdom of the Hellenes. Constitutionally, it is the religion of the majority to which their Constitutional Monarch naturally adheres and must adhere, an application of the doctrine "Cuius regio, eius religio", but in reverse. If the Sovereign or a member of the Royal Family in any of these countries wished to profess a different form of Christianity, immediately a "constitutional problem" arises, which may lead to the royal personage in question being excluded from (the succession to) the Throne, often under the pressure of well-fanned fanaticism, or quite simply the moral indignation of vocal parliamentarians. It is partly to obviate such crises, that marriages with commoners, subjects indeed of the Sovereign, have become increasingly common, and indeed judged by the media in the aforementioned countries, as being preferable, and more in accord with the "democratic" principles, to which "royalty" is now expected to subscribe, with the implicit, and even explicit, threat of the media, "Do what we want, or we'll get rid of you". Clearly, under such conditions, a Monarchy will find itself marginalised, or "virtualised", reduced to an impotent ornamental accessory of a state machine run on precisely the same lines as a republic. The Royal Family will enjoy the status of "celebrities", but nothing more, except for the exorbitant cost of providing them with round-the-clock security, while they dance the night away in the same clubs, that are patronised by the rich and famous of humbler origins, all under the vigilant gaze of the paparazzi.

For "post-Jacobites" who have opted for a republic, their ideal will be a "Social Democracy" of spartan frugality, where the presumed "have nots" will have more than the "haves", because the latter are deemed to have had their fill of privileges and must now learn to do without. The same standards are applied in the religious sphere, and if they are Catholics, then they will tick the little boxes by (their version of) the Schemata of the Second Vatican Council, to see whether the Pope is as infallible as they are, in all their liberal glory. How bothersome that, with the present Holy Father, whom they still call Ratzinger, the Papacy retains all the allure of an absolute monarchy, a Sacra Potestas, reverberating with the centuries of European Christian civilization, unimpeded by the changes of the times. Hopefully, all that will change in the next papacy... Republican "post-Jacobites" outside the sphere of Roman Catholicism are indeed free-wheelers, for whom anything is possible. Was not Prince Charles Edward Stuart the Grand Master of Scottish Masonry, the hereditary chief of the Knights Templar, the mystical Guardian of the Holy Graal, the new Defender of renaiscent Celtic Christianity, purified from Romish excrescences, the last Gaelic Tanist ...? How can any "legitimate heir" fill the void, where so many hopes are placed for the re-establishment of lost ancestral kingdoms?

Boring as it may seem, present-day Jacobites have no political agenda, no programme with which to entice the masses in electoral confrontations. Bearing in mind, that the Legitimate King today is the citizen of a Federal Republic, while tomorrow he may be the Head of State - again after nearly two centuries - of a Sovereign Principality, the political concurrences of the rightful claimant to the Thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland are not so pertinent to the question of his recognition. It is hardly surprising, that not only the present King de jure, but almost all those, male and female, in the entire line of succession to the Thrones, are members of the Catholic Church, discerned also for their fidelity (for example as Knights or Dames of the Sovereign Order of Malta), such exceptions being those born of a mixed Catholic-Orthodox marriage, like the Tsar Simeon II of the Bulgarians, who is Orthodox, though his wife and younger children are Catholics.

Do Jacobites then eschew all participation in politics, in the hope and expectation of a kind of eschatological "second coming"? By no means. Inasmuch as his or her Jacobite conscience permits, since some sort of partial recognition of a de facto situation is perforce implied, it is possible and indeed desirable that individual Jacobites take part in some kind of political involvement or activity within the existing party structures. It is no secret that members of the wider Royal Family in Bavaria are actively involved in the Christian Social Union, the largest party in the (German Republican) State of Bavaria. Members of this Jacobite Yahoo! group, who recognise HIS MAJESTY KING FRANCIS II as their Sovereign, have been candidates in Parliamentary Elections in the "United Kingdom", not, I believe, withholding from their personal profile, their Jacobite convictions. Historically, after 1688, there were Members of both "Houses of Parliament", Tories and anti-Walpole Whigs, who were, in varying degrees, supporters of the exile Stuart Kings.

So beware of the specious argument about the emerging "Englishness" of the Hannoverian usurpers and the diminished appeal of an Italian or German Prince, whose legitimate credentials could not possibly pass the barrier of "British" public opinion. Under the "constitutional" system of the post-1688 pro-mercantilist and anti-bourbonophile inglorious Revolution, the former were retained on the basis of their Protestant identity and the latter excluded, because, quite simply, they were members of a proscribed religion, supposed agents of Papal world domination. From the time of the Hannoverian - i.e. Protestant - imposition (1701) until the end of the Stuart dynasty (1807), approximately a hundred years passed. After a little more than the next hundred years, the Hannoverian usurpers, in whose name the sun was never supposed to set over the "British Empire", confronted a crisis of identity and in the thick of the 1914-1918 War, "self-windsorised" themselves (My God, that must have been painful!) in a doleful attempt to persuade their "subjects" of their pure and unadulterated Englishness, trembling lest their German accent betray their origins and spark off a revolution from which neither the mephistophelean Arthur Bigge (aka "Lord Stamfordham") nor the Archbishop of Canterbury - or the Black and Tans - would be able to save them.

We all know what happened, in 1936, when the brief reign of "Edward Windsor", hitherto the object of popular adulation, the ideal of a very modern prince, so close to the people, came to an abrupt end when he chose to marry an American divorcee (the former, in fact, being more objectionable than the latter). Following the known path into exile in France, he found himself in bonds of mutual admiration with Adolf Hitler. What a paradox then, that certain English and Scottish Monarchists suddenly remembered, when the de facto "British Monarchy" was going through a crisis of institutional morality, that there was still a Jacobite claimant, Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, KING ROBERT I & IV to Jacobites, who had first-hand experience of little Schicklgruber's tyrannical Aryanist theatricality, and was not in the least impressed. Emotions started to rise to English throats, as they recalled Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the quintessential dashing ENGLISH Cavalier and patron of the Hudson Bay Company. So perhaps the Wittelsbachs are not so very foreign after all ...

Stelios Rigopoulos