The Curse of The Romanoffs

1895

Baron von Humboldt's Prophecy Regarding Nicholas of Russia.

James Russell Lowell used to tell this story to intimate friends. It was told him by John Lothrop Motley:

"In 1853, just before the Crimean war commenced, the venerable Baron von Humboldt came to London on a very important confidential mission. He called upon Lord Palmerston and said: 'I know a war is imminent between England at her allies on the one hand and Russia. If you will temporize, make diplomatic delays, do anything to gain time for a year or two, there will not need to be a war.'

" 'Why?' Palmerston asked.

"'Because Nicholas of Russia will die within two years. The fatal curse of the Romanoffs is on him. Do you not know that a great seeress told Peter the Great that no male member of the Romanoffs would ever live to see his sixty-fifth year?

" 'But Nicholas is not yet 50,' Palmerston announced.

" 'I wish to save an immense flow of human blood,' said old Humboldt solemnly. 'I know that the czar will die within two years.'

"Lord Palmerston was greatly impressed with Baron Humboldt's statements. But he could not hold his own hand then. France, in view of Louis Napoleon's ready recognition by Palmerston, and all Europe followed his lead, was then ready to take the field. So the Crimean war had to go on. But Nicholas of Russia died within four months of the two years' limit given him by Von Humboldt."

Leaving the prophecy out of the question, it is a fancy of history that the Russian czars have all died before 65. Alexander III's grandfather, the half insane Czar Paul, and the four heads of the Romanoffs before Nicholas all died before 50, and of the same disease that has been so deadly to Alexander III. Alexander I, at one time Napoleon's great ally, then his enemy, who so aided in the downfall of the French empire, died when he was 48 of "monomania bordering on insanity," says history. Metternich, the great Austrian premier of that date, bluntly declares he was insane.

The Grand Duke Constantine, who was really entitled to the Russian throne, waived his right in favor of Alexander I. He had sense enough to be aware that he was not mentally fit to rule such an empire as Russia. He died in his fifty-second year of what would now be called cerebrospinal meningitis.

The Grand Duke Michael was killed in his forty-eighth year by a fall from his horse while in a fit. He had shown signs of madness so often that it was a question whether it was safe for him to be at large. So goes the long but never ending record of the Romanoffs for two centuries.

Alexander III was personally a most kindly man and remarkably free from the grosser vices. He drank a little red wine sometimes, but no strong liquors, and he abhorred drunkenness, as did his father before him. — Washington Post.

Iron Jewelry No Novelty

1916

Many months ago, almost from the beginning of the war, we were told that German women, following the example of their great-grandmothers, voluntarily gave up their gold rings, necklets, earrings, bracelets and ornaments of every description, to be made or coined into money for the national need.

Whatever truth there may be in this story, there is no doubt that many German women have been presented by the government with iron rings to replace the gold ones they have parted with.

But that happened a century ago. Then Prussia, crushed by Napoleon, and bankrupt, was in dire need of money, and the Prussian women gave up all their jewels and ornaments to help cope with the prevailing poverty. And out of this sacrifice a new industry arose.

This was nothing less than the manufacture of cast-iron jewelry to replace the gold and silver ornaments which the great ladies of the kingdom had given up. At first sight no material would seem less promising as a substitute for the precious metals than iron. It was entirely owing to the wonderful craftsmanship of the ironworkers that the results were so extraordinary.

Strength, of course, would be a distinguishing mark of such jewelry, and a complete set of these iron ornaments, now in the possession of a Toronto (Canada) jeweler, is as rigid and firm as on the day it was made. This particular set, comprising a pair of earrings, necklet, locket and bracelets, has not been looked after until lately.

The ornaments have a wonderfully fragile appearance, due entirely to the exquisite workmanship. Their weight, too, is astonishingly small, the lightness of every article being quite a feature of the set.

Two Brothers Die Together

1916

One Soldier Killed Giving Dying Kin a Drink.

LONDON, England. — The death of two brothers in each other's arms at the front is related in private dispatches. They were Corporal Tom and Private Henry Hardwidge of Ferndale, Rhondda Valley, both members of a Welsh regiment.

An officer writes: "The eldest, Tom, was hit by a sniper's bullet and lay in the open under a scorching sun, when Henry, at the risk of his life, hastened to him with a pail of water. Just as he reached him and as he was offering the water, a sniper shot him. He clasped his brother as the latter rose to take the water, and they died in each other's arms." A third brother remains in action in France.

—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, Sept. 16, 1916, p. 2.

Pals of Four Wars Come Back to U. S.

1919

Wyoming Cattlemen Say They Are Ready at Country's Call Again.

NEW YORK, N. Y. — Two seasoned American warriors from Wyoming, ranchmen and veterans of four wars who never got a scratch in a battle, altho they fought in many, arrived here from Havre on the French liner La Lorraine.

They had been friends for 22 years, and whenever there was a real war under way they turned their ranches over to foremen and took chances on the firing line.

The last fight that brought them together was the great war. Their unit was the 148th field artillery, made up of the Third Wyoming infantry.

These two soldier-rangers are Capt. W. E. Jackson of Wheatland and Capt. W. P. O. Grote of Jackson. Capt. Grote's ranch lies up in the northwestern part of the State, just below the Yellowstone, and that of Capt. Jackson stretches along the Platte River in the southeast corner of the State.

They saw service together in the Philippines, in the Boxer uprising and in the Boer war in South Africa.

Wireless bulletins of the strained relations between the United States and Mexico aroused their interest at sea, and they announced they would go over the border if Uncle Sam needed them.

—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 5.

Old Men in Wars

1920

The World War has been called a young man's war because young men filled the ranks, but it was also an old man's war because old men were in command, hardly one of the distinguished military leaders having been under [45] while most of them were over 50. Foch, Joffre, Pershing, Haig and Hindenburg are all in the neighborhood of 60.

Among the government war leaders, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Wilson and Orlando are all of mature or advanced age, Hoover alone among the great managers being as young as 45. The same was true of the Boer war, all of the distinguished Englishman in command at the front (with the exception of Kitchener), as well as in charge of the government at home, ranging in age from 60 to 70. On the Boer side Kruger was 70, the same age as Von Moltke when he won the Franco-Prussian war. The poet-warrior d'Annunzio is 56.

Going farther back, however, we find a different story, says the St. Joseph (Mo.) Gazette. Grant was most successful at 40, Sheridan at 33, Stonewall Jackson at 37, "Jeb" Stuart at 28, Lee being the chief exception, with 54 years to his credit when he took command. Nelson was 39 at the victory of the Nile, Wellington 34 at Assaye and the Duke of Cumberland only 25 when he became commander-in-chief.

Napoleon was a renowned military figure while yet in the 20's, as were Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great and other warriors of ancient times. Although the present is supposed to be preeminently the age of young men, the more recent wars have witnessed a majority of men of advanced age in supreme command both at home and in the field.

—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 6. Note: The "45" in brackets was supplied by me, since a number is missing in the original article. It's just a guess.

Hannibal In Italy

1910

Hannibal entered northern Italy in the year 218 B. C., and gained during that year the two victories of Ticinus and Trebia, both in Cisalpine Gaul. The next year he advanced farther south and defeated the Romans at Trasymenus, and the year following, having proceeded farther south, he inflicted upon them the terrible defeat of Cannae, at which time his ascendancy attained its maximum. He remained for 13 years longer, but gained no more decisive victories. He was finally recalled by the authorities at Carthage, which had never given him anything like a decent support.

Long Wars Due to Whiskers

1910

Trivial Incident Led to Three Hundred Years of Fighting

For ages beards were the delight of ancient beauties. The sight of a shaved chin excited sentiments of horror and aversion.

To obey the injunctions of his bishops, Louis VII of France cropped his hair a la pompadour and shaved off his luxuriant whiskers. Eleanor of Aquitane, his consort, found him with this uncommon appearance very ridiculous and very contemptible. She revenged herself by becoming something more than a coquette. The king obtained a divorce.

She then married the count of Anjou, who shortly afterward ascended the French throne, and gave him as her marriage dower the rich provinces of Poiton and Guienne; and this was the origin of those wars which for 300 years ravaged France and which cost the French nation 3,000,000 men.

All of which, probably, would have never taken place if Louis VII had not been so rash as to shave off his whiskers, by which he made himself so disgusting to the fair Eleanor.


Love Affairs of the Sexes

It is only her first love affair that a woman cherishes and remembers. Man is so lacking in originality that all the others are merely duplicates.

How to Deal With the Turks

1920

The Allied military demonstrations in Constantinople will be watched with keen attention, says the St. Louis Star, as it is a test, under extreme circumstances, of the theory that the Turks can best be controlled by leaving their capital in Europe. If the influence of the Allies in Constantinople restrains Turkish outrages in Asia Minor, the principal argument for leaving the Turks in their present capital will be justified. This, however, does not cover the situation.

Renewed outrages against the Armenians, coupled with defiance of the Allied police forces in Asia Minor, call for drastic restriction of Turkish power. The Turks should have no army and no armament. The covenant of the League of Nations provides for supervision by the league of sales of arms and munitions in "countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest." Surely, Turkey, judged by its long record of massacres and unjustified wars, is such a country.

The one thought of the Allied powers, in settling with Turkey, should be to put an end, once for all, to the terrible conditions which have prevailed in the Near East since the Ottoman Turks broke out of their own Turnanian home nearly a thousand years ago. The Turks must be made impotent to carry on their policy of slavery and slaughter. The United States, while this problem is being settled, cannot legitimately stand aside and treat it as an affair of Europe. It is a world problem, and our concern.

—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, March 20, 1920, p. 6.

Memorial Day — A Widening Memorial

1904

Like everything else, holidays undergo a gradual change in spirit and observance. When Decoration day was first set apart many persons predicted that its observance would last only so long as the generations which knew the participants of the Civil War. It was supposed that there would be little present-day enthusiasm for decorating graves of Revolutionary veterans, no matter how great the popular admiration for their valor and sacrifices.

The change of name was wise. Memorial day is a broader term than the old one, and the significance of dedicating one day in the year to the memory of those who gave their lives for their country has been more broadly and fittingly recognized. Memorial day is coming to represent a solemn, serious aspect of our national life, just as the Fourth of July stands for the joyful and the exuberant aspect; and for a nation, as for the individual, "It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting."

As other wars come in the long line of history, the graves of their heroes also will be decorated. There is already a tendency to hold on this day memorial services for firemen and others who fall in public service. Gradually, too, and perhaps unconsciously, the occasion has assumed something of the character of All Souls' day in Paris. Not only do we place flowers on those hallowed spots which are marked by flags, but we leave a wreath upon the graves of our own dear ones who have gone before; and this is well.

One day in the year we can appropriately give to the memory of that great army of the dead whose banners are the lily and the rose, and of which the armies of the Blue and of the Gray are but divisions. — Youth's Companion.