Tag Archives: Marie Antoinette

Prince Charles, Limited

Royals – and, for that matter, all aristocrats – are supposed to have money, not to make money. If they do, they inevitably embark on the slippery slope.

Doug Saunders reported in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail that Prince Charles was so unpopular that parliament may decide to skip him when the time comes and anoint his son, Prince William, instead. One of the reasons, Saunders implied, was that Charles was the owner of a $50 million business empire.

No doubt the proceeds of this empire are to be devoted to the many causes close to the prince’s heart – “green” causes, charitable causes and, presumably, architectural causes. No one expects him to take any normal capitalist delight in profits. However, money is money and, though it is proverbially “fungible,” royalty is not supposed to make any.

One’s heart goes out to the prince. What is he supposed to do with his time? His great grandfather Edward VII, while waiting for the throne, spent it womanizing. Let us not think of that subject in connection with Charles. Edward VII never made any money, for any cause, except at the races and playing cards. Perhaps that is why he became one of the most popular monarchs England has ever had. Nor did Charles’ great uncle, Edward VIII, make money while being the fashion model of the world and setting the scene for the Abdication. Making money is a sordid occupation reserved for commoners. It is incompatible with the mystery that is supposed to imbue the crown.

The job of being heir to the throne is a lose–lose proposition anyway. Think of Prince Hal, wasting his time with Falstaff until the great moment arrived when he became Henry V. Think of the last dauphin, the son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Who knows how he spent his time while waiting for the succession and/or the guillotine?

Charles may be well advised to yield the throne to his son, William, and to devote himself happily to making money, for any – even for the most sordid –capitalist cause.

Louis XVI and the “International Community”

In 1789, the king of France was in an enviable position when he had to deal with activists who had taken the Bastille. He was well connected, as the husband of Marie Antoinette, the daughter of the emperor of Austria who could, and did, mobilize the “international community” to stifle the dangerous activism. Unless stopped, it might actually have toppled every throne in Europe. England’s help to the crowned heads proved invaluable.

No word has, as yet, been coined to describe the current activism in North Africa and the Middle East. Whatever history will call it, it has elements of revolution. In dramatic contrast to 1789, this time the “international community” is on the side of the revolutionaries. It is no longer prepared to tolerate what until recently was a matter of course – that rulers would use force to suppress popular aspirations designed to curtail their powers. Loathsome dictators were tolerable, especially if it was profitable to deal with them, but today they are no longer tolerable if they massacre their own people. There would have been no coalition to enforce a no-fly zone if there was no general sympathy for the activists.

In 1917, the “international community” had no sympathy with activists in St. Petersburg who used force against their rulers. Their purpose was not only to take power at home but also eventually to encourage their fellow activists in other countries to do the same.

The “international community” took action. By the end of 1918 there were more than 180,000 foreign troops on Russian soil, and several White Russian armies were receiving allied money and allied guns; i.e., they intervened directly in a civil war. Churchill was strongly in favour. Canadians were heavily involved, supplying troops for the Siberian expedition and for Murmansk. There was talk of a crusade against Bolshevism.

The reason why so little of this is known today is that the intervention was as ineffectual in 1918–1920 as a similar one had been in 1789.

But this time the intervention is on the other side – on the side of the activists.

It is likely to be effective.

Source: Paris in 1919, by Margaret Macmillan