There it is again, the shadow.
It appears every time Alexander Karadjordjevic, the crown prince of Yugoslavia, gets annoyed. He grinds his teeth and his jaw shifts, leaving a rather ample jowl to cast a shadow below.
It appears every time he`s asked why he considers monarchy and democracy to be synonymous. The prince is patient, but-grind, shift-it is, really, very trying.
”Don`t make that mistake,” warns the crown prince, legs crossed as he sits in a gold-upholstered armchair in his London office. ”One reporter asked me that question yesterday and I got . . .” He doesn`t finish. Anger wouldn`t be prince-like.
He goes on. ”I was lucky enough to be brought up in the West and to know democracy. Six of the 12 countries of the European Community are monarchies. Democracy always wins out in the end.”
Then he adds: ”Monarchy is synonymous with democracy because I`m talking to all the elements involved; I have contacts with all sides.”
Crown Prince Alexander, 47, is just back from a three-week visit to what is left of Yugoslavia. His trip-his second ever to his homeland-has convinced him even more that only a historical, unifying figure like him can stop the bloodshed, foster reason and muster consensus.
While England debates whether its monarchy has outlived its usefulness, Eastern Europe wonders whether the time is ripe to renew its own.
For if Alexander can reclaim his family`s palace in Belgrade, why can`t King Simeon of Bulgaria, King Michael of Romania, King Leka of Albania or, for that matter, Maria Romanov, would-be empress of all Russias, do the same?
They just might. With the fall of communism and the rise of chaos in the former Eastern bloc, these resurrected royals are eyeing the spots where their families` thrones used to stand and wondering if history won`t hand them a scepter and a crown.
Some are learning the languages of their homelands, have visited their country for the first time, and, like Alexander, are making open plays for the restoration of their titles and properties.
They look to the Spanish example of King Juan Carlos, who returned in 1975 and helped steer his country toward democracy after the death of dictator Francisco Franco died.
But among these resurrected royals, some are more likely bets than others. Leka is an arms dealer in South Africa. Montenegro`s Nicolas Njegosh is an architect in Paris.
Maria Romanov`s claim to the throne is disputed. Rivals say that a woman cannot succeed to the throne of the czar.
But King Michael, 70, who ruled Romania twice-between 1927 and 1930 and again from 1940 to 1947-has a loyal following, speaks the language and has always maintained some contact with his country.
In July, he rejected an offer to run for president of the National Liberal Party. His office in Versoix, Switzerland, released a state-
ment saying, ”Michael would only return . . . as a sovereign.”
”My re-establishment on the throne would signify the re-establishment of a historical continuity and would give the Romanian people its dignity in allowing it to reclaim its past,” Michael recently told a French magazine.
”I am certain that Romania can again be what it was in the past. . . . We have to establish a nationalism that is neither aggressive nor used as a political tool against minorities, but which will create national unity.”
Then there is Bulgaria`s King Simeon, who lives in Madrid and who, starting at age 6, ruled his country for three years.
Simeon has not visited his homeland since he fled with his mother in 1945 after much of his family was executed by communists. But he recently received a visit from Bulgarian President Jelgo Jelev.
Western media darling
By far the most promising push for restoration belongs to the media-conscious Alexander.
”Yes, of course, I can make that point to the crown prince,”
Alexander`s administrative secretary is saying into the phone. ”You don`t want him on any other morning show until Friday. No, no, I understand perfectly. Yes, of course. I`m sure that will be fine.
”Lovely,” the secretary says, hanging up. ”That`s all firmed up with NBC.” The walls in Alexander`s posh office are filled with framed magazine covers (mostly Yugoslav) featuring pictures of the prince, his wife and their three children. A stack of newspaper clippings on the coffee table chronicles the prince`s triumphant visit to his homeland.
The office guest book lists the procession of journalists who have dutifully noted the prince`s thoughts. If his visit was completely ignored by Yugoslav state-controlled television, Alexander has not suffered similarly in the West.
Below an oil painting of his father, King Peter II, and beside framed pictures of his sons, Peter, Philip and Alexander, Alexander argues for restoring a monarchy abolished when he was 2.
”The first answer is to create peace and stop the bloodshed,” he says, at times speaking in stream of consciousness. ”You see vivid, live pictures of horrors. All sides are to blame, because all have inspired hatred.
”The answer is to implement democratic reform, to make a concentrated effort in each capital-in Belgrade, in Zagreb . . . (and Sarajevo). Each entity has its own army. You take these three entities and you inspire democratic values.”
”What you do here is disarm all the militias,” he continues, breathing heavily. He is a bit tired. ”Look, we are a Lebanon situation 20-fold. This is the world we are talking about. This is an unstable situation. I`m very serious. I`m serious.”
His own role? ”I am the person who is above politics, who wants to get everyone together,” he says. ”I have a base which is a good one. I`m well rooted. I`ll defend everyone`s rights.”
The prince plans to move permanently to Belgrade by September and ask another former Yugoslav exile, Prime Minister Milan Panic, to ”prove his commitment to democracy” by restoring the royal family`s rights to the palace, now empty, and its grounds.
Born in a London hotel
Alexander isn`t new to the monarchy, he`s just new to Yugoslavia.
His father, Peter, a direct descendent of the British Queen Victoria, ruled a kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for only a few days in 1941, taking over when his uncle Prince Regent Paul was deposed in a coup. When Yugoslavia surrendered to the Nazis within a week, Peter fled to London. The communist leader Josef Broz, known as Marshal Tito, abolished the monarchy in 1945; Peter never abdicated.
Alexander was born in a hotel room in London`s Claridge`s Hotel, which the British government generously declared Yugoslav territory for the occasion. The young prince, who holds a British passport, attended schools in Switzerland, the United States and Great Britain, before serving in the British army.
He lived in the United States for 10 years, working in Chicago and then in Washington, D.C., and New York. He moved back to England in 1985 and then joined a friend`s oil and shipping company.
”I was brought up like any normal child. I didn`t kiss a frog and turn into a prince,” he says. ”In the United States I was Alexander
Karadjordjevic. I had a mortgage, I know what an electric bill is, what it is to pay for a child`s education.”
After the revolutions of 1989, the Yugoslavian press began to take an interest in him; Alexander, in turn, began to study Serbo-Croatian, a language he speaks with difficulty.
He visited Yugoslavia for the first time last October, a brief trip that convinced him that his future lay in this fractured country. During the three weeks he spent touring Serbia, thousands turned out to see him, to plead with him to come back and save what is left of Yugoslavia.
He has made up his mind to seriously push his claim to the throne and to demand the institution of democracy in the form of a constitutional monarchy. The prince and his entourage think the public support is there.
`A better past`
”On an emotional level, the monarchy is a link with a better past,”
said Serge Trifkovic, an adviser who traveled with the prince. ”At a pragmatic level there is a feeling that the monarchy could provide a smooth transition from the authoritarian regime of today to a democratic one.”
Arnauld Chaffonjon, a French journalist who has followed the East European royals for 30 years, puts it more simply: ”They`ve tried everything and everything failed. If there is a hope that remains, it is the monarchy.” Alexander and the other monarchs seem at times caught in a contradictory claim of past and future. Their argument for legitimacy is rooted in a history overtaken by events and political change, but this history often seems to interfere with their claim of being change-minded folk who can guarantee democracy.
The very suggestion of this contradiction brings yet another shadow to Alexander`s face.
”The most advanced form of democracy is constitutional monarchy,” he says. ”Why shouldn`t I make a concentrated effort to achieve that in my country and end this horror?”
