• Donald Foreman
• Elizabeth Milanovich

For one day on July 17, 1945, suite 212 in London's Claridges hotel was declared by George VI and Winston Churchill to be sovereign Yugoslav territory so that HRH Crown Prince Alexander II, the son of exiled King Peter II, could be born in his own country. Only five months later, the 
Nazis defeated, the Communist Yugoslav assembly removed the Karadjordjevic dynasty from the throne and abolished the monarchy. Resident in London, Peter's heir arrives in Canada today on a private visit. 

Yet, if any country needs a king at the moment, it must be the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which has been ravaged by Slobodan Milosevic and his cronies for a decade. 

While resurrecting an unelected monarch may offend the democratic sensibilities of our age, kings have traditionally protected the democratic principle by virtue of their apolitical position as heads of state. The people, afflicted by high taxation or political repression, 
could appeal to him above the heads of the (corrupt) ruling elite. For instance, during the Middle Ages, the era when theories of kingship reached their highest intellectual plane before the 17th century's debates over divine right and democracy, a king was expected to shield his people from harm while sternly remaining aloof from political/economic special interests. 

At bottom, however, his first duty was to ensure the realm's stability: For instance, John of Paris (d.1306), in De Potestate Regia et Papali, pined for "some one ruler who has charge of the common good" to avoid national collapse and societal disintegration. Likewise, the poet Dante 
extolled kingly power in his 1314 treatise, Monarchia, a paean to the late Holy Roman Emperor Henry VII, who had vainly attempted to end Italy's fragmentation through factionalism and political infighting. 

Similar royalist sentiments resurfaced in the mid-17th century. In the decade following Charles I's execution by Puritan regicides in 1649, Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth and Protectorate lost parliamentary and popular support, but retained army backing thanks to several successful 
campaigns. Under the inept rule of Cromwell's son, however, England stumbled toward another civil war. It was saved from this trauma by the Restoration of the exiled Charles II, thereby repairing the republican rupture. With royalism sweeping England, small wonder Charles' 
contemporaries rhapsodized his refusal to play at politics -- perhaps because he preferred to play with his mistresses. 

An impulse toward kingly rule to avoid disorder again manifested itself preceding the accession of Juan Carlos I to the Spanish throne following Gen. Franco's death in 1975. It was imperative that the end of the Francoist regime lead not to disintegration and infighting or a revival of Communism, but to a peaceful transition to democracy. A neutral, constitutional head of state whose legitimate hereditary authority cut through the inevitable suspicions and paranoia of 
rival factions was crucial in this respect. 

Today, two former monarchies, Iraq and Yugoslavia, are ruled by aggressive tyrants, but serious consideration ought to be given to restoring their kings. 

Jordan's King Abdullah is of the Hashemite dynasty, the same family that provided Iraq with its last king, Faisal II, who was assassinated by revolutionaries in 1958. In the mid-'90s, Abdullah's father, the late King Hussein (Faisal's cousin), repeatedly emphasized that he 
considered Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime illegitimate. As he said, "our family was once a unifying factor in that country," pointedly observing that "since 1958, it has gone through a cycle of violence." In short, the king was mooting a loose confederation of Jordan and 
post-Saddam Iraq under a Hashemite umbrella. In light of the dynasty's descent from the Prophet Muhammad and its leadership in the Great Arab Revolt, the Hashemites are saluted by Iraq's mutually antagonistic Sunni and Shi'ite sects, but are also regarded by the beleaguered Kurds as saviours. 

In Yugoslavia, everyone is wondering what happens next. Should Mr. Milosevic stay, or should he go? In the wake of the ignominious Serb retreat from Kosovo and amid growing opposition to Mr. Milosevic's rule, it was taken for granted the president was finished. Unfortunately, because the political opposition is so fractious, and because bickering might spark a civil war, Mr. Milosevic stands a good chance of staying. But this is where Crown Prince Alexander could play a pivotal role in replacing Milosevic's autocratic aberration with historical continuity -- as did Juan Carlos (his cousin) and Charles II (and, perhaps in the future, Abdullah). 

Not only are the prince's anti-Milosevic credentials exemplary, but he is not tainted by association with any Serb opposition party and, as a proper king should, appears to desire only the common weal rather than power. Thus, in his own words, "we must proceed immediately with the 
creation of a national unity government, whose task will be to pave the way for eventual general elections after a serious designated period of meaningful democratic reforms." 

The Karadjordjevic dynasty extends back to the late-18th century, and its deeds are deeply embedded in the Serb psyche: who better to remind Mr. Milosevic that he is nothing more than a mere, venal politician? 
 

Letters to Editor: letters@nationalpost.com 

From: Donald Foreman
National Post

Re: Placing Trust in Kings and Princes, Sept. 9. Quite rightly, Alexander Rose makes it clear that Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia is uniquely qualified to act as the unifying figure for the democratic opposition to President Slobodan Milosevic.
It is wrong to think all Serbs support Milosevic. They don't, and the most
committed to removing him are, at the very least, sympathetic to a return to
constitutional monarchy, as was evidenced by the huge crowds that  athered to greet the Crown Prince during his visits to Yugoslavia .
Had the Allies stood by his father, King Peter, and the royal government-in-exile in the Second World War, his country would have been spared the traumatic consequences of communism and all the horrors of the Milosevic dictatorship. Let us hope Western governments learn from the past, and give their full support to the Crown Prince's efforts to return his country to peace and democracy.

Donald Foreman, secretary-general, International Monarchist League, London,
England

National Post

Mr. Rose's reference to Winston Churchill brings to mind that it was
Churchill's withdrawal of military assistance to the Yugoslav Royalist
forces, led by General Draza Mihajlovic, in the Second World War, that was instrumental in plunging Yugoslavia into communism under the ruthless dictator Josip Tito Broz. Therefore, there is no credit due to Winston Churchill for any favours to the Yugoslav Royal Family in the Second World War. If Churchill had not thrown his full support to Tito (militarily and otherwise), the Karadjordjevic dynasty would not have been removed from the throne and run out of Yugoslavia.

Elizabeth Milanovich, Edmonton, Canada