Tuesday 11 January, 2005

What If - Your Ideas and Replies...

I received some extremely interesting historical hypothetical from readers after last week’s “What if” column. Covering Italy, Monaco, Germany and England, the situations raise many provocative scenarios for how history might have been different. Below are a few of your hypotheticals (occasionally edited for clarity or space) and my responses. I’ve taken the liberty of providing some historical context for each hypothetical in order to explain things to readers who may not be fully versed in the details surrounding certain events or individuals.

***

Maria--
I'm part Italian, so I've wondered what would have happened if Victor Emmanuel had not given in to the fascists and Mussolini. Would there still have been a republic after the war ended? I think the referendum was pretty close so maybe the monarchy would have come back if he'd made a stand.

Pandora's Box [PB]--
I think you’ve come up with a very interesting hypothetical. For those who are a bit shaky on their Italian history, King Victor Emmanuel III was the last, real, full-time ruler of Italy. After World War I, Mussolini and his Black Shirts began their rise to power. The King had difficulty in handling the volatile political situation and failed to oppose the subsequent dictatorship.

In all fairness to the King, one can argue that he had little choice. In 1922, Mussolini declared that he would seize power. Most of the country seemed to be on his side. There was enormous economic and social unrest, a weak parliamentary system and the fear of a socialist revolution. Compounding problems was a seething bitterness that Italy had not received its fair share of spoils from the Allies. The King had little actual power and he feared civil war would break out. When Mussolini threatened to order 25,000 to 45,000 armed Black Shirts to march on Rome, the King gave in and “invited” Mussolini to be Prime Minister.

Late in World War II, the Italians surrendered to the Allies. German troops occupied Rome for a while and the King fled to the south. By this time, he was extremely unpopular due to his long collaboration with Mussolini, as well as some racial laws he had signed in the late 1930s. In 1943, he transferred his powers to his son, although he retained the title of King. In 1946, he abdicated completely. The new King, Umberto II, sat on the throne for less than a month.

On June 2, 1946, a referendum was held on the future of the monarchy. By a narrow margin, the people voted for a Republic. The results of the plebiscite have been questioned due to allegations of voter fraud, intimidation and other problems. The King could have fought the outcome but he didn’t want to plunge the country into civil war and further turmoil. He chose instead to go into exile. He never abdicated his title but the House of Savoy lost any real chance of re-establishing the monarchy.

We now come to the question which you raised. What if King Victor Emmanuel had not given in to the fascists? As I noted above, I’m not sure he had any other option. He was essentially a figurehead, except in times of crisis where he had a few more powers. After WWI, Italy was a chaotic mess, something which can be attributed to the weak parliamentary system as much as it can to the effects of war and Mussolini’s demagoguery.

On the other hand, there is evidence to support the argument that the monarchy could have done something. The infamous “March on Rome” was more a figment of political propaganda (and blustering by Mussolini) than it was reality. After all, Mussolini took a train to the capitol and most of the troops entered only after he’d been “invited” to become Premier. In fact, the military troops in Rome far out-numbered the fascists, most of who were poorly armed. Furthermore, the government led by Prime Minister Facta wanted to stand up to Mussolini. Unfortunately, the King refused. One of the major reasons was that he feared his cousin, the Duke of Aosta, a supporter of Mussolini, would replace him if he unsuccessfully stood up to Mussolini. Mussolini gambled on the King’s fear, and won.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think it’s only fair to emphasize that the King was not off his rocker in worrying about a civil war. Fear of communism was rife and there was a widespread perception that the fascists were the answer to much which plagued Italy. If the King had ordered the military to squash the Black Shirts – a group which had much popular support – the ensuing political turmoil might have threatened the monarchy as much as fascism eventually did.

In my opinion, the more intriguing questions are: what if Victor Emmanuel had fully abdicated back in 1943 or what if Umberto II had fought the results of the post-war referendum? By many accounts, the King and his Belgian wife, Marie-Jos�, were very popular. They were known for their opposition to fascism, especially Marie-Jos�. She had not only confronted Hitler during the war but had also tried to obtain the release of Belgian prisoners of war. Furthermore, Umberto had won widespread praise for his actions during the 3 years when he had his father’s provisional powers.

Then there is the problem of the referendum itself which

was and remains shrouded by questions as to its authenticity. Millions of voters, many of them pro-monarchist, were unable to vote because they had not yet been able to return to their own local areas to register. Nor had the issue of Italy's borders, and so the voting rights of those in disputed areas, been satisfactorily clarified. Other allegations too have been made about voter manipulation, while even the issue of how to interpret the votes became controversial, as it appeared that not just a majority of those validly voting but of those votes cast (including spoiled votes), was needed to reach an outcome in the event the monarchy lost by a tight margin.

“Umberto of Italy Guide”, at http://tinyurl.com/5wjgy

If the popular King had been fully on the throne for the last years of the war or if he had fought the narrow results of the tainted plebiscite, it’s quite likely he would have won.

***

Robert--
What if Kaiser Wilhelm II had not been born with a crippled arm? It’s said his condition shaped his personality, especially his hatred for his mother and by extension the British.

PB--
I think you have a definite point, although I’m not sure if the Kaiser’s arm is solely to blame. The famous historian, Robert Massie, seems to think otherwise and firmly blames Wilhelm’s handicap. He has stated that “the Kaiser's personality, the aggressive, bombastic, thrusting nature of his personality, had to do with the arm. He was compensating. You didn't laugh at a German emperor with a crippled arm who had the most powerful army in the world and who could remove you from the throne by snapping his fingers if he wanted to.” See, Robert K. Massie, “Kaiser Wilhelm II – A Crippled Bombast,” (PBS) at http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_massie_02_kaiser.html.

Other people believe that the Kaiser’s withered arm was the least of his problems. They argue that the Kaiser adjusted well to his handicap and, if there was a problem, it was mental. Specifically, they believe that the oxygen deprivation which he suffered during the complications of his birth might have led to some brain damage. See e.g., Hannah Pakula, An Uncommon Woman: The Empress Frederik (Simon & Schuster 1997).

Personally, I don’t believe any one factor is to blame. I think that the Kaiser’s difficult childhood, the numerous torturous “treatments” he was forced to undergo, the oxygen deprivation, his love-hate relationship with his mother, and some other elements all worked together to create his subsequent personality. In a similar vein, I don’t think Wilhelm’s relationship with his mother can be explained by any one element.

More importantly, I’m not sure if the Kaiser – let alone his personality and arm– were solely responsible for Germany’s path to war. There is a huge historiographical debate regarding the exact role of the Kaiser, the military and political decision-making structure, the problem of time-tables and troop movements, and the international system of alliances. In my opinion, all these things played a factor. Still, it’s hard to ignore that a more stable monarch – one who didn’t have a bellicose personality and was less driven to prove himself – might have been able to stop the headlong rush to war.

***

The Royal Scribe--
You touched on so many things I’ve often wondered about regarding royalty and it was great to see each situation so well presented. I know there are so many more you could write about and I’d like to offer just one of the others that I have pondered. Actually, it’s not really one, but a number of “what ifs?” surrounding one woman – Mary, Queen of Scots. She was such a remarkable and tragic figure and I can’t help but think that if just one of so many events in her life had not happened, how different her fate might have been.

To start with, what if her father, James V of Scotland, hadn’t died when Mary was just six days old? Would he have lived to avenge himself against his loss to the English at the Battle of Solway Moss, creating a stronger Scotland? Even more significantly, would he and Marie de Guise have produced a healthy son, thus excluding Mary from the throne?

Moving forward with her life, what if her first husband, King Francois II of France, hadn’t died prematurely? For one thing, the balance of power certainly would have changed in Europe, but they also might have had a male heir, which would have changed the history of not only Scotland and France, but of England as well. The reverberations of such a wrinkle in time would have changed the face of European history – in more ways than can possibly be imagined, in my opinion. To name a few possibilities… Elizabeth I of England might have been pigeonholed into finding a suitable husband and producing an heir to avoid the English crown falling into French hands. If that was the case and Elizabeth produced an heir who would one day inherit the English crown, it’s unlikely that there would ever have been a United Kingdom, nor would there have been a Charles I, and possibly not even an English Civil War. In France, the crown might never have fallen to the Bourbons… It just goes on and on.

But, getting back to her real life, what if Mary hadn’t married Lord Darnley or, even better, had married Elizabeth I’s suggested candidate, Robert Dudley, instead? If she hadn’t married Darnley, she wouldn’t have had her son and heir, James, and the controversial murder of Darnley, which was the inciting incident to Mary’s forced abdication and ultimate execution, would never have taken place. Mary might have lived as Queen of Scotland until her natural death. On the other hand, had she married Robert Dudley, Queen Elizabeth would have had not only her own personal spy in Mary’s court, but Dudley might also have tried to rule in Mary’s place and to Elizabeth’s specifications. Not only that, what if Mary and Dudley had a child? Obviously, that child would one day inherit the English throne, too. How would British history have been different then?

Finally, what if Darnley had simply died a natural death as Mary’s husband? Perhaps she and Bothwell would have married anyway, or perhaps she would have married someone else? Either way, Mary probably would have kept her throne and possibly also had another heir, allowing the possibility that James, as the elder son, might have inherited the Scottish crown, while any potential younger son inherited the English.

I’d love to hear your thoughts and opinions.

PB--
Several amazing hypotheticals, Tori. First, let me admit flat out that the scope of my knowledge on this period and on Queen Mary is but a tiny fraction of yours. Second, you’ve succeeded in addressing all the potential outcomes in a way that I never could. I think you’ve accurately (and thoroughly) factored in the complicated political landscape of the time.

I’m fascinated by the scenario of Elizabeth being forced into marriage if Francois had not died and Mary had given birth to a son. To think, the shape of the British and Western history turned on one man’s death from an ear infection! If Francois had not died, the Catholic-dominated union of France and Scotland might have led to an alliance with that other Catholic power, Spain. Would Elizabeth have been forced to accept Philip II of Spain to forestall such an eventuality? The Archbishop of Canterbury and most of Elizabeth’s subjects were opposed to the return of any Catholic influence. So perhaps a more likely suitor would have been King Eric of Sweden, a fellow Protestant? Would the more distant country have been much assistance in the face of a war against Scotland, France and Spain, countries with much greater geographic proximity and economic resources? Perhaps not, but the Swedish King was probably more palatable than some of Elizabeth’s other, more high-profile but Catholic, suitors.

There was always Lord Dudley, reported to be Elizabeth’s one true love. As you probably know, some scandal mongers claimed they had an affair, an assertion supported (in part) by their adjoining rooms at the palace later on in her reign. Frankly, I doubt she would have married Dudley, although I think she loved him passionately. Given his married status at the start of her reign, widespread fears about his influence over her, and his enormous ambitions, I don’t think he was considered as a serious candidate.

As for Mary’s marriage to Lord Darnley, I think you’re completely correct in perceiving it as an ill-advised move. For those who are a bit shaky on their Scottish history, let me give you a brief recap. Mary’s marriage pushed her half-brother, James Stewart, the Earl of Moray, into joining other Protestant lords in open rebellion. His support added greater legitimacy and weight to the movement. Up to the time of Mary’s remarriage, she had managed to diffuse much of the suspicion about her religious leanings by maintaining the Protestant ascendancy. Her marriage marked a shift in the other direction. It also provided enormous ammunition for those who were suspicious of her overall motives and plans. One of those was Elizabeth I whose childless status made Mary her heir and, thus, her rival.

Mary might have been an extremely intelligent woman but she had rotten judgment in men. In fact, I’ve never quite understood Mary’s decision to marry Lord Darnley. Putting aside his claim to the British throne, he was a dissolute wastrel, disease-ridden and a drunkard. What on earth did she initially see in him??? I realize that a “bad boy” image has incredibly attractive to some women but really… there was a throne involved! Whatever benefits might have accrued from Darnley’s attenuated royal claims, they were destroyed a thousand fold by his Catholicism. And I won’t even start on Bothwell, given that he was suspected of being Darnley’s murderer.

I think your last hypothetical regarding Darnley’s death is an interesting one. If he had died of natural causes, Mary could have married Bothwell without problem. However, the more interesting point for me is what would have ensued if Darnley had not been killed. He was extremely possessive and jealous, and he deeply resented Mary’s foreign advisors. On her part, Mary’s initial infatuation had worn off with Darnley’s affairs, drinking and gambling. When a jealous Darnley murdered Mary’s favorite advisor, Rizzio, in her presence, it seemed to be the last straw.

This is where Mary’s questionable judgment about men raises its head again. Even though Mary was horrified and deeply traumatized by Rizzio’s murder, for some strange reason, she reconciled with Darnley. What on earth was she thinking??? “Oh, yes, my husband is a debauched, philandering alcoholic with all sorts of sexually-transmitted diseases and, not only is he hugely unpopular with my already suspicious subjects, but he just stabbed to death my closest advisor. And in my presence to boot! Oh, yes, the perfect man! Let’s go back to him and have sex.”

Alright, so that is somewhat unfair. After all, she could hardly divorce him. Personally, I think she should have imprisoned him for his actions, something which would probably have found much favour in her subjects’ eyes. In fact, I think she should have had him executed on the grounds of treason, thereby permitting her to remarry and conceive an heir. She was still young, after all. Political resentment might have proven difficult but I think she could have overcome that obstacle given Darnley’s extreme unpopularity.

Whatever Mary’s rationale for going back to Darnley, one good thing came out of it. She subsequently became pregnant and gave birth to a son, the future James I of England. The reconciliation proved to be short-lived. Darnley’s dissolute character, temper and extreme jealousy caused Mary to distance herself from him.

I think Mary’s subsequent aloofness would have pushed Darnley, sooner or later, to greater heights of rage and possessiveness. Had he not been killed, who knows what the outcome may have been? I think it’s extremely unlikely that he would have sat quietly on the sidelines. Would he have been driven to open rebellion against his wife? Would he have tried to seize the throne in his own name? It’s possible but, as a Catholic, I doubt he would have gotten far. Still, the question remains of how much damage he could have inflicted on Mary’s reputation, power and reign if he had live until a natural death.

***

Vic S.--
I greatly enjoyed your latest column. The possibility of certain isolated, seemingly unrelated events later profoundly affecting world history in unexpected ways is indeed food for thought. Empires could have crumbled or flourished. World wars could have been started or prevented. I could have been wealthy...

I understand [if] … this cannot be discussed in your column … but what if Prince Albert simply came out of the closet? Aside from outrage from those who are outraged by everything anyway, what would be the harm?

PB--
Assuming that Prince Albert is gay – something which has not been proven and which he’s strenuously denied – I don’t think there would be any harm whatsoever, except, as you say, by those who have problems with homosexuality anyway.

The truth is, royalty and homosexuality have never been mutually exclusive. In the Middle Ages, there was Edward II of England, as well as Richard the Lionheart, to name just two. In more recent history, we have: Prince Eddy, the Duke of Clarence and grandson to Queen Victoria; the late Prince George, the Duke of Kent and uncle to the present Queen; the Romanov Grand Duke, Sergei, whose wife was Empress Alexandra’s sister; and Prince Johannes von Thurn und Taxis. In short, there have been numerous royals who reportedly had gay or bisexual tendencies.

In my opinion, the historical issue did not involve sexual orientation as much as it did succession. If someone sitting on the throne of a princely or royal house was openly gay, then that obviously raised some questions regarding any progeny which they might bear. Obviously, being gay is no bar to bearing children, especially where dynastic succession is concerned. To paraphrase the familiar saying, one can just close one’s eyes and think of England (or whatever the equivalent nation might be).

However, being openly gay – and the subsequent question of paternity – might provide rivals with dangerous ammunition. Until the mid 19th century, many royal families were not totally secure in their right to be on the throne. Over the centuries, competing factions or claimants had seized on the slenderest excuse to go to war; and the result could be a protracted, bloody civil conflict such as the War of the Roses. Questions over a child’s paternity could be the perfect excuse for an aspiring princeling to claim that he had a greater right to sit on the throne than the apparent “heir.” While bastardy was not always a bar to succession, it certainly made things more difficult.

There is also the religious aspect of things. Homosexuality was often seen as an abomination which violated the natural order and God’s will. Since God’s will was a big component of the theoretical, medieval justification for monarchy (e.g., the Divine Right of Kings), it wasn’t always the best idea for a monarch to be openly homosexual.

Many of these concerns have little practical validity in today’s world. Almost all monarchies are constitutional. With the possible exception of some African rulers, there are almost no absolute monarchs left. And the Divine Right of Kings is generally not considered to be a uniquely dispositive reason for the monarchial system. As a result, the religious implications of homosexuality exist only in the eyes of those who are, to put it politely, very conservative or of an extreme religious persuasion.

More to the point, succession is rarely a problem. We no longer face the situation of rival factions or claimants who will take up arms against the throne. Succession is usually codified or unquestionably clear. As a result, if a monarch or princely ruler is homosexual and has no children of his own, there is usually an obvious successor.

Monaco, however, faced a slightly different situation. Until recently, if the reigning prince did not have a direct or adoptive child of his own, the principality would revert back to France. In 2002, Monaco’s constitution was changed, in part to deal with Prince Albert’s bachelor status. If Prince Albert ascends the throne and does not have a child, then his sister, Princess Caroline, and her children will become his heirs. In short, there is no succession issue stopping Prince Albert from coming out of the closet, if he actually is gay. And, again, we don’t know that he is.

Nonetheless, you raise a very interesting point. What would be the impact of having an openly gay monarch? Would it help in easing or eradicating bigotry? Would a royal role model encourage people to come out of the closet if, up to then, they had feared the social consequences? I’d like to think so. Perhaps one day, we will see your scenario come to pass.

***

Cheryl B--
I was delighted that you included the “what if” about Princess Charlotte's death, as this is a favorite topic of mine. In fact, I'm writing a biography of Charlotte.

One thing that occurred to me as I was reading your column was that Prince Albert might still have had a role had Charlotte survived and given birth to a female heir after the death of her son. Her husband, Leopold, might still have wished his nephew, Albert to marry the heiress, further consolidating his own impact on England. It is interesting to speculate what impact Leopold himself might have had as Prince Consort in England. It might be an interesting project to examine his actions as later King of Belgium to hypothesize how he would have behaved in a similar role in England.

I also think it is worth noting that the survival of Charlotte and/or her baby would have prevented Leopold from accepting the Belgian crown and from fathering mad Empress Carlota and Leopold II, the terror of the Congo. What might that have meant for Mexico (not much) and Africa?

PB--
I love your ideas. Given Leopold’s interest in furthering his power vis-�-vis the British throne, you’re probably right in thinking that he’d have wanted Albert to marry the new heiress. The question in my mind, however, is whether that lady would have been so blind-sided by Albert as Victoria was. Had it not been for Victoria’s coup de foudre or instant infatuation, she probably would have married someone with a more prestigious or powerful background. After all, Victoria was heir to the mighty (and rich) English throne, while Albert was a minor princeling whose mother had brought the taint of scandal on the family name. Then again, would any of that have mattered in the case of a new heiress? Since Leopold would have been both her father and the Prince Consort, his active support for the marriage would probably have made it come to pass.

I think the possibility of Leopold himself as a powerful consort is an interesting one. As you obviously know, the Prince Regent approved the marriage only because he wanted to make his beloved daughter happy, not because he thought it was a marriage of equals. And in the post-Waterloo political construct, it wasn’t. Leopold wasn’t the heir or scion of a great power. He brought almost nothing in terms of wealth or property to the marriage. He was essentially dismissed as a pretty face who Prinny bought out of blind parental love. That perception may not be fair to Leopold but I think it was how he was initially perceived.

Nonetheless, Leopold seemed to prove himself a steady influence on Princess Charlotte and they were a popular couple. He started to be known for his diplomatic skills, judgment and intelligence, so perhaps he would have been given the chance to prove himself as Prince Consort.

I don’t think it would have been easy. If Albert had a difficult time, it might have been even harder for Leopold. Both men were intelligent, intellectual, astute, and diplomatic. However, Leopold seems to have had a more pragmatic, wily approach to things, as well as an ambition to be King. I don’t think he was as flexible or quiet as Prince Albert and, as a result, may not have been willing to sit on the sidelines when Charlotte became Queen. Quite simply, I think he would probably have ruffled a few feathers. I also don’t think he would have been accepted by the people or the political establishment in the way that Albert eventually was. Albert didn’t force or demand acceptance, and I think Leopold would have.

I may not completely agree with you on events regarding Leopold but I think you’re absolutely correct on events involving Leopold II. There is no doubt that, but for Princess Charlotte’s death, Leopold would never have been offered the crown of Belgium. He certainly would not have had a son, the future Leopold II, with the Bourbon Marie Louise d’Orleans. And, as you pointed out, without Leopold II, history might have been very different indeed.

Some of you may not know but Leopold II was a very controversial monarch. He was responsible for increasing Belgium’s power, not to mention its wealth. Although dissolute in his private life, the King spent quite a bit on improving the conditions in Belgium. A good portion of that money came from the “Congo Free State,” an area which was approximately 980,000 acres (if not more) of rich, fertile land. To put it into context, it was 80 times the size of Belgium and almost the size of Europe. And Leopold essentially controlled it as his own private, personal possession.

It was a land rich in natural resources. In fact, the term “rich” might not begin to encompass its wealth of treasures. The Congo had everything: from diamonds, copper, and gold, to ivory, timber and rubber. Two of Brussels' most elegant thoroughfares, Avenue Louise and Avenue Terveuren were laid out with money raised almost entirely from Belgium's adventures in the Congo basin. So too were many of the city's most grandiose buildings. Colin Blane, “Belgian wealth squeezed from Congo,” BBC, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/1123933.stm.

Thanks to the Congo, Leopold’s personal fortune had grown into the millions. Id. If one were to convert the figures into today’s currency, the numbers would be in the billions. Belgium (and Brussels in particular) benefited enormously. Leopold left his mark in stone and concrete structures. Most of them were monuments to Leopold himself: triumphal arches, palaces, seaside resorts, museums, parks, royal ch�teaux and even golf courses. Robert B. Edgerton, “Inside the Heart of Darkness: The History of the Congo,” p. 152, at http://www.writersreps.com/live/projects/pdf/edgerton_congo.pdf.

Not all of the King’s huge wealth was spent on architectural aggrandizement. Some of it went to support a personal life that has often been described as dissolute, to put it mildly.

With some of his immense profits from the rubber trade, Leopold had earlier purchased an expensive estate on the French Riviera where he used the luxurious, 1,500 ton, steam yacht, Alberta, as his residence and office. With him aboard the Alberta were dozens of servants and his private secretary. In a lavish villa on his nearby estate, he installed his French mistress, the beautiful young Caroline. They had met in 1900 when he was sixty-five and she was sixteen, then the mistress of a former French army officer named Durrieux who found it profitable to rent her to other men when he was in need of money, which was often given his predilection for betting on horse races. Hardly in need of money himself, Leopold II lavished her with every luxury including castles. In return, she gave him two sons—the first was named Duke of Tervuren—and four days before his death, he married her, naming her Baroness de Vaughan and willing her a fortune.

Id.

Mistresses or young wives are far from uncommon in royal history, but mass-scale genocide is. Leopold exploited the Congo so ruthless that it eventually triggered international protest. In 1908, “the Butcher of Congo” was forced by his own government to give up his rights to the region. But the damage had already been done. Millions lay dead, tortured or mutilated. See, Adam Hochschild, King Leopold’s Ghost (Mariner Books 1999).

In his much-acclaimed but exceedingly grim book, King Leopold’s Ghost, Hochschild claims that as many as 10 million Africans were murdered. Their deaths were often brutal beyond belief. Hochschild provides one example in the form of the eyewitness account of a missionary, the Rev. William Sheppard, who was traveling through the region at the time:

In 1899 the reluctant Sheppard was ordered by his superiors to travel into the bush, at some risk to himself, to investigate the source of the fighting. There he found bloodstained ground, destroyed villages, and many bodies; the air was thick with the stench of rotting flesh. On the day he reached the marauders' camp, his eye was caught by a large number of objects being smoked. The chief "conducted us to a framework of sticks, under which was burning a slow fire, and there they were, the right hands, I counted them, 81 in all." The chief told Sheppard, "Se! Here is our evidence. I always have to cut off the right hands of those we kill in order to show the State how many we have killed." He proudly showed Sheppard some of the bodies the hands had come from. The smoking preserved the hands in the hot, moist climate, for it might be days or weeks before the chief could display them to the proper official and receive credit for his kills.

Hands weren’t the only things in peril. All body parts, including genitalia, were subject to torture. And rape was a common method of intimidation and subjugation. Id. Belgian officers or land managers were given strict monthly quotas to fill. If the natives did not cooperate, some of them saw no problem in punishing the “dark savages” and they went to work with abandon. Sometimes, whole villages were wiped off the face of the earth by overenthusiastic or desensitized members of the Force Publique, Leopold’s police and army force. Id.

One might argue that Leopold’s policies were typical of the times and, in any other case, I might agree. As a general rule, I’m a firm believer in putting things in their historical, cultural context, because our predecessors were not subject to the same social standards as we are today. However, the situation in the Congo outraged even 19th century morality. Given the era’s slightly calloused sensibilities towards colonial subjects, that conclusion speaks volumes.

Leopold’s malign influence in Congo lasted long after he gave up his private rights and turned it over to the Belgian nation. As one commentator put it, “[t]he years of terror broke down traditional communities and created a long-lasting pattern of plunder.” See, Blane, supra. The reign of the dictator Mobutu and events of the past few decades lend credence to this theory.

In short, there is no doubt that Leopold II had a huge impact on history, particularly in Africa. There is also the indirect effect his life had upon Mexico, a country over which his troubled daughter briefly reigned as Empress. If Princess Charlotte had survived, neither Leopold nor Carlotta would have been born. William Shakespeare’s Richard III famously uttered, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse” but, in examining the fate of countries and continents, it might be more apt to claim “a child, a child, my kingdom for a child.” At the very least, one can quote Margaret Mitchell from Gone with the Wind: “Death and taxes and childbirth! There's never any convenient time for any of them.”

-