Dios, Patria, Fueros, y Rey: The Story Of The Spanish Carlistas

In his article “Spain’s Crusade” of some years ago, Gary Potter briefly mentioned the Carlists “…without whose arms and sacrifices victory could well have eluded the Catholic, national side of the conflict. It would be desirable to speak of them not simply on account of their importance in the Crusade but because, except for the heroes of the Vendee in the 1790’s and the Cristeros in Mexico in the 1920’s and 30’s, no body of Catholics has struggled and fought against the Revolution, on the battlefield and off, more valiantly then they. Moreover, they still exist. The Carlists . . . remain a force in Spain and even among men in other lands.”

Just who are these “Carlists” (Carlistas in Spanish), what did they do and, more importantly, what are they doing today? To answer these questions in order, we must return the Spain of the early 1800’s. All of Europe had been caught up in Revolutionary fervor as a result of the debacle in France beginning in 1789. By the time Napoleon usurped the reigns of government in that country with the intent to dominate Europe as emperor, even isolated Spain came to be caught in the upheaval. By this time, Spain’s Golden Age was long past: she was beginning to lose her grip on her American possessions; her military power had been eclipsed; and the militant and cohesive Catholicism that had led to the expulsion of the last of the Muslims from the homeland in 1492 had weakened considerably. Moreover, her treasury was seriously depleted.


Ferdinand VII

The pivotal character in Spanish history of this time is King Ferdinand VII, son of the weak Charles IV and Maria Luisa of Parma. Unfortunately, Ferdinand was morose and sickly, ignored by his parents, tutored by a man who instilled in him a deep hatred for his mother’s lover, Godoy, who was de facto ruler of Spain. He seems to have been a very disturbed youth who took pleasure in all kinds of acts of cruelty. His own mother-in-law referred to him as “an absolute blockhead.” As one might surmise from this brief description of Ferdinand, when it came time for him to assume the throne, he was totally unprepared.

When Ferdinand’s father, Charles IV, was unseated by Napoleon’s invasion of Spain (the Peninsular War) in 1808, Ferdinand foolishly believed that it was the emperor’s intent to put him on the throne. He agreed to meet with Napoleon at Bayonne, where the French emperor demanded his abdication. Napoleon had already promised the Spanish throne to his brother Joseph. As disunited as the Spanish people were in their loyalties to various members of the royal family, they were not about to accept a French usurper, particularly one named Bonaparte. So, in order to keep the peace in Spain, Napoleon allowed Ferdinand to return to Madrid in 1814 as king. Instead of remaining neutral, as he had promised Napoleon, and adhering to the liberal Constitution of 1812, Ferdinand instituted absolute monarchy with a vengeance. Because of his limited intelligence and abilities, this meant rule by whim. For a time, things went back and forth, with Ferdinand sometimes appeasing the liberals, sometimes turning on them in cruelty.

The Spanish conservative element, always strong, always Catholic, grew weary of Ferdinand’s whimsical ways and began to look to his pious younger brother Don Carlos to assume the throne. Because none of Ferdinand’s four marriages had produced a son, and his only heir was a daughter, Isabella, by his fourth wife, Maria Christina of Naples, these conservatives claimed Carlos the legitimate heir. By Spanish law since 1713, no female could inherit the Spanish throne. Ferdinand’s clever wife convinced him to annul the Salic Law (the law forbidding the throne passing to a female), thus making Isabella the monarch at her father’s death. The absolute monarch Ferdinand began to turn to the liberals for support knowing that they feared and detested Don Carlos’ traditional (liberals would say “reactionary”) view of the Spanish monarchy. Those who followed Carlos became known as the Carlistas, and they have played a part in Spanish politics, culture, and society since 1833.


A Counterrevolutionary Movement

We must understand at the outset that Carlism was and always has been a counterrrevolutionary movement. During the height of its power, Spain’s monarchy and Catholicism were synonymous — were not Ferdinand and Isabella called “los Reyes Católicos(the Catholic Kings)? Since much of Spain’s elite and common folk alike remained attached to their ancient religion, the so-called Enlightenment and its tenets seriously “kicked against the goad” of their traditions. They were horrified at the aims of the liberal element, influenced by Freemasonry, who wanted to do away with the influence of the Church both in government and in everyday Spanish life. This went against the Ancien Régime that for so long held sway in the peninsula and made Spain always a staunch supporter of Church and Crown.

It all came down to this question: Is authority to govern the nation something derived from God, or something derived from man? The liberals answered this question one way, the Carlists, another.


The Carlist Wars

Unfortunately, the disagreements between the liberals and the traditionalists, who briefly united against France in the Peninsular War, surfaced violently in 1833, at the time of the First Carlist War, until 1876, which saw the end of the Third Carlist War. Brutality was common on both sides, especially during the First War. These conflicts were characterized, first, by guerrilla activity all across Spain, then, by the setting up of territorial bases and, finally, by state structures being established on both sides with conventional warfare ensuing.

The intent of the liberals was to bring the Revolution to Spain, thus ending the Catholic monarchy; the aim of the Carlistas was to return Spain to its traditional roots — God, fatherland, local rule (sometimes translated “charters”), and king. While the Carlists were never able to capture the throne, eventually they established themselves in certain strongholds all over Spain, a phenomenon that continues until today. Navarra, Rioja, areas of the Basque Provinces, parts of Catalonia, and Valencia became staunchly Carlist in outlook.


The Four Principles Explained

At the heart of the Carlismo platform from the beginning were the four basic underpinnings of Spanish political philosophy: Dios (God) in the person of Creator, Lord and Legislator under the Catholic conception of Christ the King, and the earthly power of the Roman Catholic Church, founded by Our Lord Himself. Patria (fatherland) is the historical and geographical entity of Spain — not a nationalist outlook, but one that takes into consideration its unity without uniformity. This outlook can be likened to a confederacy rather than a tightly ruled and uniform nation, admitting of the entity of Spain while emphasizing the important regional differences of the various parts of the country. Fueros (charters or home rule) employs the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. The individual is first; then the family; then the small community or town; then the region; and then the patria. Subsidiarity stresses the importance of local and social sovereignty as opposed to the modern idea of nationhood in which rule is imposed from the top down. Finally, the fourth principle, Rey — the King — not absolute, whimsical rule on the part of the monarch, but guidance with assistance from advisors on certain matters of national importance. In fact, the king’s power is very limited, as it was in medieval monarchies, whose authority was “checked” and “balanced” by the natural law, the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, the rights of the aristocracy, and the traditions of the nation. Thus, while the Carlists are certainly monarchists, the El Rey comes last in the hierarchy of principles.

It is clear that the four principles are thoroughly Catholic, and when properly applied, allow for a cohesive and well-functioning Catholic state.


The Liberals Make Inroads

Although the majority of Spaniards were not liberals, the Carlists were never decisive in any of the wars that bear their name. Liberal inroads continued apace, and, by the time Isabella II became of age to rule in 1843, the very presence of the Church in the life of Spain was drastically reduced. Religious orders had been banned; more than fifteen hundred monasteries had been closed and their properties sold to pay down the national debt; numbers of clergy were severely limited by law, and those few remaining became government employees, much as in France after the Revolution; there were violent outbursts of anticlericalism. The institutional Church would never again officially hold the lofty position of the past. However, it still remained a strong influence in the life and society of Spaniards, and would always retain its importance from an historical point of view.

To her credit, Isabella’s reign saw the Church make a modest recovery that continued until the 1930’s, although it assumed a more modest role than in the past. The Church and the Carlists themselves always remained an influential force in Spanish life.


Time Between the Wars

cerroangelesIsabella II managed to make all factions unhappy, and, in 1868, after twenty-five years on the throne, she was overthrown by a progressivist revolution, once again putting Spain under liberal forces. The outspoken support of Pope Pius IX for the Carlist cause after this event led many of the conservatives who had supported Isabella into the Carlist camp, and Carlismo, as an official political movement, reached its height at this time, garnering ninety members in the Parliament by 1871. Carlos VII was claimant to the throne in these years. It seems that the primary weakness of the Carlists during the long years leading up to World War I and after, until the beginning of the terrible Civil War in the 1930’s, was factionalism. The numbers of claimants to the throne through the various royal lines during those decades make one’s head spin. All had their followers, but, although they basically agreed on the four traditional principles, there never seemed to be agreement on who was the legitimate claimant.

Nevertheless, Carlismo continued to keep Spain’s Catholic foundation in the public eye. During the 1920’s Carlists helped to found the Sindicatos Libres (Catholic Labor Unions). In addition, the Carlists were always successful in electing representatives to the local and provincial ruling bodies — the Fueros. This is where their influence continued and flourished — at the local level in the more conservative parts of the country — never officially at the national level.

An interesting side note: Many Carlistas were exiled from Spain during the 1850’s and 1860’s, making their way into France where they found sympathy with the descendants of the Vendeeans. Some of these idealistic fighting men went to America to join the Confederate side during our own country’s tragic War Between the States. They fought bravely with several states’ units, notably the Louisiana Tigers, the Tennessee Army, and the Army of Northern Virginia. Confederate General Ambrose P. Hill called them “my rough, tattered and brave lions of Providence.” The Carlista principles of fueros and patria gave them common ground with the Southern cause. As Catholics, slavery (it should be needless to say) was repulsive to them. However, they had much more in common with the ideals of the Confederacy than with the industrial, Puritan North.


The Second Republic and the Civil War

In 1931, with the establishment of the Second Republic, liberalism seemed to be the future of Spain. After elections put the Republic in power, King Alfonso XIII fled the country. The new Constitution effectively disestablished the Church, allowed divorce and freedom of association, granted the vote to women and stripped the nobility of its status. In 1934, conservative groups won the elections, setting off protests by socialists and anarchists in Asturias Province. These uprisings became very violent and were just as violently put down by a young army general named Francisco Franco. Things heated up during the next two years between the left wing (Popular Front or Republicans, also called Loyalists) and the right wing (the National Front), with the Carlistas joining forces with Franco’s Falangist Party. Assassinations, bombings and battles escalated into full-blown civil war when Franco led his troops from Spanish Morocco into mainland Spain to make war on the liberal government in Madrid.

As Mr. Potter’s article on the Spanish Crusade clearly informs us, the Spanish Civil War was a tragic event that devastated all of Spain; it was largely considered by historians as a “dress rehearsal” for World War II. Liberals have depicted it as the legitimately elected “Republican” government resisting the “fascist” forces of Franco. In reality, it was the traditional, conservative and Catholic army under Franco fighting against the socialist, communist, and anarchist forces that had infected Spain since the early days of the European revolutions.

Franco was not a Carlist, although he certainly did agree with their thinking on Catholicism and its importance in Spain. The general gladly accepted their support during the War. In fact, the Carlist militia, the Requetés, in their jaunty red berets and with the badge of the Sacred Heart of Jesus sewn over their own hearts on their uniforms, fought alongside Falangist forces. Politically, Franco supported a stronger central government than the Carlist tradition allowed for.

At the end of the War, several Carlistas assumed positions inside Franco’s regime, but were promptly expelled from the party (by this time, referred to as the Traditionalist Carlist Communion). It is interesting that when Franco assumed power, he recognized officially the two claimants to the throne, probably because he needed the political support of their respective followers. Juan Carlos, the current reigning King of Spain, was Franco’s chosen successor, and he is, in fact, the legitimate heir. Sadly for Spain, he has capitulated to the Revolution, as witnessed, among other things, by his recently signing into law an abominable bill expanding access to abortion in Spain.


Today’s Carlists

In our time, the Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista (the CTC, Traditionalist Carlist Communion) is still a very active political party. In fact, it calls itself the oldest political party of Spain. Recently, on May 4 and 5, the Eleventh Congress was held in Cerro de los Ángeles. According to their website (www.carlistas.es/), their principal activities are formation of their members, formation of youth, propaganda, electoral action, and social and political action. They vigorously promote these areas of educating the Spanish populace: the evils of abortion, of unrestrained capitalism, of socialism. They also advocate keeping Spain free of foreign interests. They are against centralization (as their platform on Fueros indicates.) They have taken on a defensive character — “Defender para renovar” is their cry — “To defend in order to renew.” And, of course, above all else, they are unabashedly Catholic and monarchist.

Today, in addition to their political organization and activity, the Carlists observe four great festival days — January 6, the Feast of the Epiphany; March 10, the Martyrs to Tradition Day; November 4, Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo, the Legitimate Dynasty Day; and December 8, Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the feast day of Carlista youth.

If you know a bit of Spanish, you will find their website very interesting. Even if you do not, you can see their beautiful battle banner and the very colorful attire worn by Carlistas through the years and down to our own day. Why, you can even buy one of those spiffy red berets! There is also an English explanation of the four principles.

Carlistas are the remaining militant Catholic political party in Spain. Although small in numbers, they are very vocal and very active. One hopes and prays that their influence will be greater than their numbers. Viva Cristo Rey! Viva España Católica!


  • Bonifacius

    “Some of these idealistic fighting men went to America to join the Confederate side during our own country’s tragic War Between the States. They fought bravely with several states’ units, notably the Louisiana Tigers, the Tennessee Army, and the Army of Northern Virginia. Confederate General Ambrose P. Hill called them “my rough, tattered and brave lions of Providence.” The Carlista principles of fueros and patria gave them common ground with the Southern cause. As Catholics, slavery (it should be needless to say) was repulsive to them. However, they had much more in common with the ideals of the Confederacy than with the industrial, Puritan North.”

    Thank you for this informative article. What is the basis for the claim that Carlists fought in the American Civil War? I.e., what are the sources for this claim?

  • Hello, Bonifacius! When I did the research for this article, I stumbled upon an interesting website, http://www.confederado.net. Here you can see the Carlist flag, the uniform and even hear their battle song in Spanish, of course. It gives the information regarding the Carlistas in the Confederate Army.

    And, speaking of the Carlistas fighting on other than Spanish soil, many of them became part of the Papal Zouaves in during the wars to save the Papal States, something mentioned in my book review of Charles Coloumbe’s book, THE POPE’S LEGION.

    http://catholicism.org/the-popes-legion-the-multinational-fighting-force-that-defended-the-vatican-book-review.html

  • Bonifacius

    Dear Mrs. Villarrubia,

    Thank you for the link. I am quite skeptical about the claims in that website. Most of the claims are general. The specific claims are unsourced. The only sources cited are two articles from a Carlist newsletter. I have tried to hunt these articles down on the Internet, but what I find are other, similarly unsourced texts. For instance, if Carlists fought in the Louisiana Tigers, surely there is more evidence for this than some Carlist newsletter from the 2000s. Furthermore, both you and the website you cite make claims about why Carlists would favor the South. First, no one yet has brought forth actual evidence that Carlists served in the South, like the names or biographies of actual, flesh-and-blood Carlists whose records we can verify. Secondly, no one has brought forward any actual testimonies from any Carlist volunteers in the South, if they actually existed. If Ambrose P. Hill actually said the quotation attributed to him, then there should be independent testimony for this and specifically for the claim that he referred to Carlist volunteers. It looks as though conjecture has been built upon unsourced claims, in which the Internet is rife. I would really like to know if these claims are true, but right now the evidence is simply lacking. That is why I advise caution in trusting the website you cite; by any objective standard, it is not a sufficient source, and certainly not when it attempts to account for the purported Carlist participation without citing any contemporary evidence (primary sources, letters back home to the Basque country, etc.). I think it’s fair to chalk this up to “unverified Internet rumor” for the time being. Of course, this is not the primary point in your article, for which I thank you.

    Best,
    Bonifacius

  • Bonifacius

    What the “pro-Confederate Carlist” claim needs is the names of individual Carlists and evidence that Carlism influenced their choice to fight for the South. The claim needs the sort of evidence we have for the biography of papal-soldier-turned-Union-officer Myles Keogh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Keogh

    Keogh was an Irishman who served bravely for Bl. Pope Pius IX in the wars in Italy. He then emigrated to America where he served in the Union Army. He later died at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. His was the only white corpse the Indians left unmolested because they respected the “medicine” of the Agnus Dei that Keogh wore.

  • Hwan2

    There weren’t Carlists as such in the Confederate army. It’s a fake in 2003 by David Odalric de Caixal, a practical joker. Despite the popular belief to the contrary, in 1861-65 the cross of Burgundy was not the Carlist badge , and Carlist berets were blue and white as well. The typical Carlist beret was the white one.

  • I congratulate and thank you for this article, certainly one of the best overviews of Carlism in English that there are.

    There is little for me to add, other than perhaps also recommending the website http://www.carlismo.es, of the Traditionalist Communion (structurally separate from the Traditionalist Carlist Communion but entirely of the same heart: only different in that it recognizes that the line of succession to the legitimate Spanish monarchy has been uninterrupted to this day, presently falling to the House of Bourbon-Parma, versus the somewhat abstract interpretation (as seen in http://www.carlistas.es) of the “Rey” clause in our motto.)

    Also, I would like to point out that Juan Carlos never was, as you say, the legitimate heir, regardless of Franco’s backing. Legitimacy must be both “of origin” and “of exercise”. Juan Carlos’s capitulation to the Revolution, which you rightly mentioned, would have been sufficient for his exclusion from legitimacy if he had ever possessed it, but that is not the case: he never had legitimacy of origin. Despite being the descendant of the senior male-line Bourbon branch after the extinction of the original Carlist branch, his family has been excluded from the throne ever since Infante Francisco de Paula (younger brother of Ferdinand VII and Carlos V, and therefore senior by blood after the death of all male descendants of the first two) committed treason in 1833 by allying himself with the usurping Isabelline faction. By Spanish law in force at the time, treason against the king was punishable by exclusion from succession of the perpetrator and his descendants.

    There is, therefore, an implicit guarantee in legitimacy: never will the legitimate heir give in to Revolution; for if he does, he will cease to be legitimate. This is, you may see, hopeful news indeed.

    Again, congratulations on the article. My best regards from Spain,

    Firmus et Rusticus
    http://www.firmusenglish.blogspot.com/

  • Eleonore

    Hola, Firmus et Rusticus, Gracias for the very interesting added information regarding the present king of Spain and the correction. I did not come upon this information when I was researching the article. It is somehow comforting to know that Juan Carlos is not considered legitimate. He certainly has “capitulated to the Revolution,” hasn’t he, in his co-operation with a Socialist government. Thank you for the compliment on the article. Viva Cristo Rey!!!

  • Alan MacMathain

    Dear Mrs Villarrubia,
    Thank you for a very interesting article on Carlism, I am sure you must know of Jacobitism, that supports the claim of the Stuart Royhal Family to the British throne. The last Catholic British king was King James VII and II who was overthrown in 1688 by William of Orange who invaded England with his Dutch army. Jacobites have struggled for the return of the legitimate Stuart monarchs, to the British thrown and the end of the usurping protestant Hanoverians who currently use the family name of ‘Windsor’. I sure you have heard of Prince Charles Edward Stuart who attempted to restore his father, King James VIII and III, in the Jacobite Rising of 1745/46. So how do you stand on the claim of this royal and catholic family to the British thrown?
    Regards, Alan MacMathain

  • Eleonore Villarrubia

    Hello Alan,

    I am not an expert on the history of the British monarchy. As a Spanish major in college, my primary interest was, and still is, the history of Spain and her possessions in the New World. I did a bit of research on the Jacobites (so called after James, the Catholic claimant to the throne) after I read your message.

    Born to the reigning King of England and his Catholic wife, James claimed the throne, but was denied the right because it was against English law at that time (and still is) for a Catholic to be monarch. His mother fled to France while he was an infant, claiming that he was stillborn. The wars of religion were still fresh in the minds of the English and Mary, the baby’s mother, feared for his safety. James Francis Edward Stuart and those who followed him, called the Jacobites, not all of whom were Catholic, fought a number of battles in an attempt to have him elevated to the throne. Of his two sons, Charles Edward Stuart and Henry Benedict Stuart, Charles (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”) came closer to succeeding in the struggle than his father, but then they had a falling out, and James supported his other son, Henry Benedict Stuart as legitimate claimant. Henry was a Cardinal of the Church; so, as such, he would not have heirs.

    The matter was ended on July 14, 1688, when the Papacy officially recognized the Hanoverian monarch (German and Protestant, as you pointed out) as the legitimate king of England. While the Jacobites were unhappy about this, it had the long term beneficial effect of the lessening of the Penal Laws against Catholics in England. No further heirs of James have ever officially claimed the English throne.

    You ask what is my opinion of this situation. As a Catholic, my hope and prayer is that “Mary’s Dowry” – the British Isles – her monarch and her people, return to the Faith of her Fathers in Christendom, the Holy Catholic Faith under our Holy Father the Pope. This would indeed solve that problem!

    Thank you for the lesson in English history!

    Eleonore

  • Alan MacMathain

    Dear Mrs Villarrubia,

    Thank you for your reply; as someone who has been fortunate to spend some time in Navarra I have a strong interest in and sympathy for the Basque people and I have often thought there were similarities between Carlism and Jacobitism, both fundamentally reactionary movements supported by peasants who suffered greatly by their failure.
    Further to your exchange with Firmus et Rusticus and your reply to my enquiry, if the Pope’s recognition of the Hanoverian monarchs of Britain is sufficient to make them legitimate monarchs surely then the Pope’s recognition of Juan Carlos legitimises him and the Borbon Y Borbon-Dos Sicilias family. Certainly Queen Elizebeth has signed off on as many laws of which the Church would disapprove as King Juan Carlos.

    Regards, Alan MacMathain

  • Eleonore

    Alan, Of course, you are correct. However, the fact that the Holy Father of the time actually recognized the Protestant Monarch of England seemed to put an end to the question. It is possible that the Pope had the hope that his action would make the lives of Catholics in England a bit easier, something that actually happened over the years. Just because the Pope, as head of the Vatican city/state, recognizes a head of state does not mean that he approves of that person’s actions. Obviously, Pope Benedict recognizes President Obama as the head of the government of the United States. Surely, he disapproves of his support of abortion, gay marriage, and other immoral practices that the President supports.

    By the way, if you have not already read Jose-Maria Gironella’s trilogy of the Spanish Civil War, beginning with THE CYPRESSES BELIEVE IN GOD (a masterpiece), and the two follow-ups: ONE MILLION DEAD and PEACE AFTER WAR, I highly recommend them. They are fiction, but with the story of the Alvear family told in the time of that tragic war which enveloped Spain and left her in ruins for years.

    Eleonore

  • I was very excited recently to discover “Carlism’s Defense of the Church in Spain, 1833-1936” by Alexandra Wilhelmsen on EWTN’s web site, which I would have thought unlikely.

    Here is the article:

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR90403.TXT

    I assume that Alexandra Wilhelmsen is a near relative to the Catholic Philosopher (and Carlist friend), Frederick D. Wilhelmsen.

    The article is a very inspiring read. Example:

    “Above all other aspirations, I desire the reign of Jesus Christ over rulers and nations, in the individual and in society, because I am convinced that there is no salvation outside Him for either society or the individual.” — Jaime III, the fourth Carlist claimant to the throne of Spain.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime,_Duke_of_Madrid

  • John

    A wonderful article on the Carlist Movement, however it should be noted that the Falange was not “Franco’s Party” as the article claims. The head of the Falange wasJosé Antonio Primo de Rivera. The Falange also had only 10,000 members, while the Carlist requetes alone numbered over 50,000. Franco was not a Fascist, as the Falange was.

  • Rex

    Very good English summary of the Carlist. One may note though that Juan Carlos was never the legitimate heir to the Spanish throne. He received the legitimacy to reign from Franco, who was no royal, and he even betrayed that “legitimacy” by going against his sworn over the bible to protect and defend the laws of the national movement. His family comes from the liberal side and certainly the lives of his ascendants and descendants reflect a style of “getting rich fast and live the life” at the expense of the people. Diametrically opposed to the cuatrilema: God, Fatherland, local rights and King.

    It is also important to note that Franco was pressed by the Jew Kissinger to accept Juan Carlos as his successor. Franco thought that his second hand Carrero Blanco would be able to control JC and the Jewish American liberal influences over him, but as you probably know Carrero Blanco was assassinated by ETA the day after he met with Kissinger in Madrid by putting a bomb under the road his official car used when taking him to Holy Mass at the Jesuits. Note that this CIA covert operation to assassinated CB received the name of “Ogro”. Note also that during that meeting, Carrero Blanco told Kissinger That Spain will continue not recognizing the legitimacy of what is called today the (false) State of Israel and that for sure Spain won’t give any accommodations to the US army navies and war planes that funded with American tax dollars where going to help the Jews in the ’73 war.

    Franco made a huge mistake giving the succession to JC instead of to the legitimate Carlist heir Don Xavier. Many Carlist are of the thinking that actually Franco’s legacy was actually the bridge to consolidate a strong unquestionable liberal monarchy in Spain, so the claimant won’t have to run away again from Spain as Alphonso XIII and his mother did.
    I would like to finish this up by reminding the author that the actual flourishing of Spain as a first class world Catholic empire did not actually happen only after the expulsion of the mahomedans (external threat) but of the shrotly later on in time Jews (internal threat). More commonly called “marranos” for their ability to mask as catholics to escalate positions of power and influence within the civil and ecclesiastical ranks while maintaining the satanists ritual, like the ritual killing of christianized babies, sucking their blood, etc. it is important to remember that this is the reason why the Holy Catholic Church has almost 22 canonized martyrs and baby saints, including the holy child of Laguardia Toledo. Obviously, these saints were removed and surpressed by Jew sodomite montini when he got to the throne of Peter.

  • Rex

    I’m dissapointed you guys deleted my comment. Did it violate your code of conduct perhaps?

  • Dear Rex,

    Pax Christi. Your comment was not deleted. It was caught in comment moderation, apparently because of certain words that the comment system thought might make it “spam.” I know it’s not spam. I’ve approved it.
    God bless and Mary keep you.


    In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
    Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M.
    Saint Benedict Center
    Post Office Box 627
    Richmond, New Hampshire 03470

    http://reconquest.net/

    http://catholicism.org

    603-239-6485, Ext. 7

  • Rex

    Thank you Brother. I appreciate your clarification. May God Bless you too and St. Michael (Of Aralar) protect you. +Viva Cristo-Rey+