Monarchs & Royals During WWI & WWII?

[Durham]

Romania did enter the First World War on the side of the British and their allies on August 27, 1916. Queen Marie had an unquestioning faith in Britain. It had been unthinkable to King Ferdinand to fight for Britain against Germany and the Central Powers. Marie persuaded Ferdinand to side with Britain.

Marie is the most charismatic of all Victoria's grandchildren. She certainly had a dramatic life. Equally passionate in her love for both Britain & Romania.

 

[Prinsara]

I suppose that the monarchs who fled to England and continued the war from there with a government in exile, e.g. Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Haakon VII of Norway, were viewed mostly favorably by the populace of their respective countries. Christian X stayed in Denmark during the war , but is still viewed mostly favorably as someone who (at least pasively) opposed / defied the Nazi occupation; the extent to which that was actually true is debatable.

Leopold III of the Belgians, who also stayed in the country and was effectively held under house arrest by the Germans, is on the contrary viewed mostly negatively for two main reasons: first, he was at odds with the Belgian government in exile in London, who had advised him to leave with them for England and continue the war from there; second, it was inevitable that his decision to surrender to the Germans would be contrasted to his father's heroic stance during WWI when King Albert I never surrendered and took personal command of the Belgian army, holding on to a small piece of unoccupied Belgian territory throughout the war. The latter, however, was not an option for Leopold III as, unlike in WWI, there was no stalemate and years-long trench warfare in Belgium; the German blitzkrieg pretty much overran the country and the Allies were not in a position to strike back until 1944.

In hindsight, following Wilhelmina's and Haakion's examples and leaving for England rather than surrendering and staying in Belgium against the advice of his own ministers would have been better in the long run for Leopold III's image, but subsequent insinuations that he was a collaborationist, especially after meeting with Hitler personally in 1940, are again debatable.

It's not quite that simple.

-Wilhelmina wasn't trying to leave, but to head to a different part of the Netherlands. She was absolutely furious when the crew told her there was no choice but to return to the UK. Likewise, I think a lot of her subjects initially were very unhappy and dismayed that the Queen had left them - she was certainly not the symbol of the Resistance overnight.
-Haakon and Olav only got out by luck. The ship carrying the main occupation forces for Oslo was sunk by fifty-year-old guns at Oscarborg Fortress because the Germans weren't aware it was still operational. Otherwise he would have been in the same situation as his older brother in Denmark.
-Christian surrendered and stayed, and took a horseback equivalent of making a defiant gesture to the Nazis every day, because that was all he could do. No one blames him.

-Unlike the Netherlands/Norway/and Denmark, who had their neutrality respected in WWI, Belgium did not. So Leopold was the only one of the group with first-hand experience of both wars -- not only his parents' own heroics, but the fact that he was the youngest (we hope) private in the Belgium army, and had what must have been the very strange experience of coming back from Eton during holidays, putting on a different uniform, and going to dig ditches.

There was no chance of him ever leaving, and not only for fear of being seen as a coward, but as a deserter, given he was the head of the Army. Although he asked to be interned in a POW camp when the Germans arrived, it wasn't until after D-Day that he was deported to the east with his wife and four children. The Nazis actively and passively tried to murder them all, and both Leopold and his wife Lilian were fully expecting to become successors to the Romanovs.

Leopold III may have been prideful, high-handed, and dictatorial, but surely no more than Christian X ever was. He just had worse luck, worse geography, and worse enemies, like spite, politics, and himself (and possibly his younger brother...). If he was a collaborator, he was the worst one in history.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

King George VI of Great Britain led by example during the Second World War.

 

[MARG]

For all he was a King, he was also a patriot who strained at the leash of Winston Churchill who refused to allow him to do his duty (to his mind) the British government knew he was the ace, the one that the people would stand behind and to be honest they used him for propaganda.

The Queen, when asked why the Princesses were not evacuated to Canada merely replied that the children wouldn't go without her and she would never leave without the King and the King would never leave his country.

Trying to keep him from danger in a country at war was no small task. He felt he needed to be there to greet the survivors of Dunkirk and tried even harder to land in Normandy on D Day. It must have been hard for him not to be able to "do his bit" and reduced to ensuring the baths in the Palace did not exceed 5" per family, once a week. He even had the baths marked.

But the presence of the King, Queen and Princesses was worth its weight in gold as he managed to make he and his family a symbol of hope. Had the country fallen who knows what would have happened.

 

[AC21091968]

The Royal Mint is releasing a three-coin set which "contains a Sovereign, a 10-rouble piece and a 20-mark coin, with each denomination featuring a portrait of" King George V, Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II. These coins are "sourced and authenticated by experts at The Royal Mint and presented in a minimum of ‘Very Fine’ condition", hence the very expensive price.

Cousins in war
https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins...tent=&utm_campaign=2021-03-col-cousins-in-war

The Royal Mint has also released two related articles on King George V, Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Royal Cousins in War
https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/cousins-in-war/royal-cousins-in-war/

A House Divided
https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/cousins-in-war/a-house-divided/

 

[Mbruno]

That last one is remarkable as the current Italian state itself is the legal successor of the previous state in which Mussolini -as early as 1924- won a landslide qualified majority via democratic (!) elections. The snipe towards the Savoys sounds very much the blind leading the blind.

I moved this discussion from the Danish forum because I thought it would be more appropriate here.


Generally speaking, I think it is correct to say that the House of Savoy, or at least Vittorio Emanuele III (possibly also his son), colluded with Mussolini. The King could have cracked down on the fascists following the March on Rome by declaring a state of siege. Instead he chose to appoint Mussolini prime minister. Then he could have dismissed Mussolini following Matteotti's assassination in 1924, but he did not do it. Then, in 1925-26, the King signed without protest laws that eliminated freedom of speech and assembly, abolished freedom of the press, and declared the Fascist Party to be the only legal party in Italy. He also remained silent when Mussolini illegally evicted all opposition MPs by declaring that they had forfeited their seats in Parliament.

Furthermore, although the King was probably personally against Italy entering WWII and was prepared to dismiss Mussolini in 1939 over that issue, he showed weakness again and eventually gave in to Mussolini's demands following Germany's spectacular victory in the western front and the collapse of France in 1940. Following Italy's defeat in North Africa, once again the King resisted calls from the military to sack Mussolini and sided with the dictator. And, in December 1941, he agreed to Mussolini's demand that Italy declared war on the United States.


In fact, the King did not dismiss Mussolini and sign an armistice with the Allies until 1943, when the direction of the war was clearly turning and allied troops were already in Sicily. Even then, he still sought guarantees that the Italian colonial empire in the horn of Africa would be restored and that Italy would keep the territories that Mussolini had annexed in the Balkans, none of which of course the Allies ultimately agreed to.

My take is that Vittorio Emanuele III probably saw the Socialists and the Communists as the main threat to his family and to the country and felt that fascism was the "safest" alternative to preserve Italy's status quo, even if that meant abandoning parliamentary democracy as it had been de facto practiced by unwritten constitutional convention until the 1920s. The King was hardly alone in that opinion, which was probably once shared by a significant percentage of the Italian elite, but the fact that, of all people, he was the one who had the power to intervene and stop Mussolini, especially before 1930 or early during the war, makes him especially guilty in my humble opinion.



As those who knew best warned him at the time, the King would live to regret his decisions, which ultimately sealed his fate and the fate of his illustrious 1,000-year-old dynasty.Still, the way his family was treated by the Italian Republic was appalling.

 

[Prinsara]

The fact that his daughter was murdered because he didn't collaborate enough is just appalling.

 

[Mbruno]

The fact that his daughter was murdered because he didn't collaborate enough is just appalling.

As far as I know, she was arrested by the Germans after Italy's armistice with the Allies and died accidentally on an Allied bombing raid on the Buchenwald concentration camp where she was being held prisoner. Her husband was evidently a Nazi (even involved with the T4 euthanasia program), before falling out with Hitler and being arrrested himself also in 1943.


Her father's turning on Mussolini definitely put her in a delicate situation with the Nazis, who blamed the Savoys for Italy switching sides in the war, but I wouldn't quite say she was murdered because her father didn't "collaborate enough". Maybe I didn't fully understand what you meant.


I suppose there was an argument that Vittorio Emanuele was under duress in the Mussolini era and had no option but to cooperate with the fascists or, else, he and his family would have been deposed, or Italy would have descended into civil war. Although that may have been true at times, I don't buy it in general as there were specific moments when the King, as I argued, could have turned against Mussolini with ample support from the public and the military. The extent to which Vittorio Emanuele himself believed in fascism (beyond pragmatism or convenience) needs to be questioned.



As for Umberto II, I don't quite have a firm opinion on his role in this saga. Apparently, his father didn't appreciate him very much / found him stupid and, accordingly, didn't involve him in decision-making, but, if not guilty of collusion, he was at best passive and, therefore, guilty of negligence. Crown Princess Marie José, on the other hand, is nowadays often portrayed as decisively anti-fascist and being secretly in contact with the Allies throughout the war.

 

[Prinsara]

As far as I know, she was arrested by the Germans after Italy's armistice with the Allies and died accidentally on an Allied bombing raid on the Buchenwald concentration camp where she was being held prisoner. Her husband was evidently a Nazi (even involved with the T4 euthanasia program), before falling out with Hitler and being arrrested himself also in 1943.


Her father's turning on Mussolini definitely put her in a delicate situation with the Nazis, who blamed the Savoys for Italy switching sides in the war, but I wouldn't quite say she was murdered because her father didn't "collaborate enough". Maybe I didn't fully understand what you meant.

Mafalda became a victim because the Nazis were furious at her father and the rest of the Savoys were out of reach. It's reasonably safe to say if Italy had not switched sides (ie; if Victor Emmanuel had just kept collaborating) she wouldn't have ended up in a concentration camp and a victim of the Nazi murder regime.

So, yes. He collaborated, but not enough for the Germans, and then his daughter paid the price.

Collaborating with first Mussolini, then his German friends, then finally stopping — and sending your daughter to a gruesome death because of that — is sad.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Hereditary Prince Louis (Sovereign Prince Louis II) of Monaco began the First World War as a courier. In autumn 1914 he became an officer liason. He had a camera and took many photographs to keep a record of the war.
http://www.hellomonaco.com/sightseeing/history-pages/the-military-history-of-prince-louis-ii

 

[CyrilVladisla]

In Long to Reign? A. W. Purdue wrote:
George V had no wish to posture as anything but a titular head of his army and navy, but nevertheless felt it necessary to don uniform and pay visits to the front.

 

[Camsterlaird]

Great Britain gave shelter to a number of Royals during World War II.

Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands has already been mentioned, as has King Haakon VII of Norway.

I cannot see in the thread so far mention of Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg, King Zog I of Albania, King Peter II of Yugoslavia and Emperor Hailie Selassie of Ethiopia. Didn't King George II of Greece also seek sanctuary in Britain?

 

[CyrilVladisla]

When he was in exile, King George II of Greece stayed at Brown's Hotel in Mayfair in England.

 

[An Ard Ri]

When he was in exile, King George II of Greece stayed at Brown's Hotel in Mayfair in England.

Reading further about the hotel its other notable guests, included King Alphonso, Napoleon III and Empress Eugene ,Theodore Roosevelt ,Prince Henri de Bourbon and Emperor Haillie Sellasse!

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Did all the royal leaders in German kingdoms, grand duchies, duchies, and principalities sign abdication papers in 1918?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Kaiser Wilhelm II's Abdication Proclamation

https://www.firstworldwar.com/source/abdication.htm

His Majesty the Emperor and King has made the decision to renounce to the throne.

The Imperial Chancellor shall remain in office only until the matters related to the abdication of the Emperor, the renunciation of His Imperial and Royal Highness the Crown Prince to the thrones of the German Empire and of Prussia, and the establishment of the regency have been settled. He intends to propose to the Regent the appointment of Deputy Ebert as Imperial Chancellor and the introduction of a bill for the election by universal suffrage of a constituent German national assembly, on which it would fall to determine the future definitive form of government of the German people, inclusive of the populations who should wish to request their entry into the Reich.

Berlin, 9 November 1918.

The Imperial Chancellor, Prince Max von Baden.

 

[Marengo]

Although this was his official abdication it seems that Pirnce Max signed it on his behalf. The statement of abdication of Wilhelm II was written and signed a few weeks later. It happened in Amerongen Castle of his host the Count Aldenburg-Bentinck (formerly belonging to the Van Reede family/ counts of Athlone). I visited the place a few years ago and the table and chair are still there.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Emperor Charles of Austria in the European Theater during the First World War

 

[Denville]

The fact that his daughter was murdered because he didn't collaborate enough is just appalling.

She wasnt murdered, she was killed in a bombing raid

 

[JR76]

The fact that his daughter was murdered because he didn't collaborate enough is just appalling.

She wasnt murdered, she was killed in a bombing raid

Princess Mafalda was murdered. Her injuries went purposely untreated for four days after the bombing before gangrene gave the camp doctors the chance to amputate her arm. Once the operation happened it was consciously overcomplicated and slow which caused her to loose more blood than necessary. When it was over the unconscious princess was put without supervision in a room at the camp brothel where she bled to death.
The method of exaggeratedly long and/or delayed operations was a tactic that was used at Buchenwald on prominent prisoners that the Nazi regime wanted to get rid of.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Emperor Charles of Austria in the European Theater during the First World War

Sadly he was Emperor for less than 2 years only and then banished from his homeland in 1919 following the Dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy!

He was one of many dethroned Monarchs after WWI and more joined this list after WWII.

 

[Prinsara]

Did not know I needed this before today.

 

[Muhler]

Actually a very good historical summing up. Better, faster and more to the point than many documentaries.

 

[JR76]

Sadly he was Emperor for less than 2 years only and then banished from his homeland in 1919 following the Dissolution of the Hapsburg Monarchy!

He was one of many dethroned Monarchs after WWI and more joined this list after WWII.

When the train that took the lmperial family into exile crossed the Swiss border Karl turned to a courtier and said "700 years".
It had been a few decades less than 700 years since his ancestors had come across the same border from the west to Austria.

 

[Prinsara]

Actually a very good historical summing up. Better, faster and more to the point than many documentaries.

And it rhymes and there's dancing and pointed eye rolls!

 

[Toledo]

I just read the most scandalous article about Operation Willy, consisting of overthrowing George VI for King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson with help from Franco and Hitler.

If webpage defaults to Spanish language, just mouse over it, right click and select Translate on the article below:


How the Duke of Windsor (like Prince Andrew) avoided sitting in the dock (Court for Treason)

Excerpts:
"The dukes were plotting to wrest the throne from George VI, take it back for themselves and be a puppet in the hands of Germany...Ribbentrop, the very powerful Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich, with the support of Minister Serrano Súñer, strong man of the Franco regime, launched the so-called 'operation Willy', with the invaluable help of Miguel Primo de Rivera and Ángel Alcázar de Velasco...

Most historians agree that Hitler was prepared to reinstate the Duke of Windsor as king, yes, 'his' king, a monarch at the service of the Third Reich, a National Socialist monarch in his fight against communism...

...the(ir) long exile that was always marked by a marked by a deep disloyalty of the Duke towards his niece, Queen Elizabeth...

...everything that the Duke of Windsor did was not known until 1995, when the Portuguese police of the Salazar dictatorship, the PIDE, declassified documents that left no doubt about the claims of the former British king for less than a year. The Duke had died in 1972, so he could no longer be accused of high treason to the monarch, thus escaping a trial that perhaps would have sat him in the dock.

 

[Prinsara]

Even Churchill admitted the Duke was "pro-Nazi" (why he ever spoke to him again, I simply can't imagine). But there's no evidence that Edward was actively or even passively collaborating with them during the war (or more serious historians would have written the books by now, not gossip magazines) — which is how he avoided being charged with treason.

Even this article, which also says he should have gone to prison for writing to Hitler, apparently forgets that that was in 1937, when that wouldn't have been remotely treasonous or illegal. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-edward-viiis-secret-letter-29432123

 

[Toledo]

For all he was a King, he was also a patriot who strained at the leash of Winston Churchill who refused to allow him to do his duty (to his mind) the British government knew he was the ace, the one that the people would stand behind and to be honest they used him for propaganda.

The Queen, when asked why the Princesses were not evacuated to Canada merely replied that the children wouldn't go without her and she would never leave without the King and the King would never leave his country.

Trying to keep him from danger in a country at war was no small task. He felt he needed to be there to greet the survivors of Dunkirk and tried even harder to land in Normandy on D Day. It must have been hard for him not to be able to "do his bit" and reduced to ensuring the baths in the Palace did not exceed 5" per family, once a week. He even had the baths marked.

But the presence of the King, Queen and Princesses was worth its weight in gold as he managed to make he and his family a symbol of hope. Had the country fallen who knows what would have happened.

The Queen Mother's will was stronger than any other Queen that preceded her. She refused to run away, which is a reason why monarchies get deposed. Leaving the country is sending the message you are leaving your people behind. Instead, she stayed, and the family became part of the resistance too even knowing Hitler would have executed all of them, adults and children, had he landed in the UK.

 

[Stefan]

The Queen Mother's will was stronger than any other Queen that preceded her. She refused to run away, which is a reason why monarchies get deposed. Leaving the country is sending the message you are leaving your people behind. Instead, she stayed, and the family became part of the resistance too even knowing Hitler would have executed all of them, adults and children, had he landed in the UK.

But it certainly did not send that message in case of the dutch, norwegian and luxemburgian Royals.-

 

[Marengo]

In the end it did not, but in the beginning the flight of Q. Wilhelmina was rather controversial among large parts of the population. She left while the army was still fighting, many saw it as a betrayal. Portraits of the Queen were put in the garbage bin and royal orders were thrown away. It was a great gift to the German propaganda. In her own memoirs the Queen wrote that she realised the 'crushing impression' her flight had caused. She also found it necessary to defend her move - 14 years after the war ended.

As the war continued feelings changed and due to her radio speeches on the BBC Wilhelmina was able to turn herself into the voice of a free Netherlands and a war heroine. In hindsight it was the only sensible thing to do of course.

About the UK: on what basis can it be claimed that the Nazis planned to execute the RF? The Germans did not do so in Denmark and Belgium. I fail to see why they would do such a thing in the UK. In Western Europe every German occupation started with a velvet glove to keep order.

Had the Germans managed to occupy the UK I am sure the government and the RF would have been evacuated to 'free' areas and lacking those probably to Canada.