Can a Socialist Revolutionary Leader and a Queen really have something in common?


When Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was born (April 21st 1926) she was 3rd in line to the throne. No one could have predicted then that she would become Queen. Both fate and a scandal or two played their part in launching "Princess Lilibet" to the front of the line...

Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was born on August 13th , 1926 and prima facie, was a most unlikely socialist revolutionary. Castro was born into a wealthy family, and despite his father having arrived in Cuba as an illiterate Spaniard from Galicia, the family owned a 23,000 acre plantation in Birán. Without a shadow of a doubt, Elizabeth and Castro are the two most important octogenarians of 2006.

Queen Elizabeth was born to be a leader, Fidel Castro was not. It is this fact which partly makes the Castro profile the most interesting - If I was to receive an invitation to the octogenarians respective birthday bashes, I would be heading for Cuba, giving Buckingham Palace the widest of berths.

Not only because I prefer good cigars, Daiquiri and Mojitos over cucumber and asparagus sandwiches, but life after Castro will have a greater significance and future impact on the World , than life after Queen Elizabeth.

Unless the United Kingdom experiences a constitutional disaster, the transition of heir apparent ought to be a smooth, painless affair. The most significant potential facing the House of Windsor is the Australians piling on the pressure to become a Republic, no big shake, they are all but this , save the formality.

On the other hand, the Castro succession is a difficult one to predict, notwithstanding, it is fraught with immense ramifications not only for the Americas, but for the World at large.

I will examine the possibilities, with an emphasis on the Americas - I will also touch on Castro’s influence in Brazil.



Castro first hit the international political arena as a student of law at the University of Havana. It was there that he joined the UIR, the Insurrectional Revolutionary Union. He later joined, the Party of the Cuban People, whose agenda included exposing government corruption as well as pushing for reform.

Castro used this platform to polemic, Fulgencio Batista (the de facto military leader who orchestrated a successful coup d etat in 1952) and vehemently opposed , US corporate and political influence in Cuba.

It was in 1947 when Castro’s revolutionary leanings were practically exposed, when as a member of a failed group, who attempted to overthrow the government of the Dominican Republic. This however, was only a minor setback – a practice run - as it were. Because the following year he traveled to Bogota , Colombia, for a Pan – American Student Union Conference.

Now, I do not intend to be the exponent of conspiracy theories, but it is entirely possible that whilst there, Castro (with others) was involved in the assassination of the Colombian Liberal Party Leader, Jorge Eliecer Gaitan.

There appears to be little evidence linking Castro to the assassination, however, his links with the Colombian Communist Party, notwithstanding his certain participation in the insurgency and violence which followed – puts him squarely in the frame.

Events forced Castro to flee the country, and he returned to Cuba.

The stage was now set, splashes of paint already on the canvass, whether you believe the painting is a pretty one, depends very much upon your point of political departure. I will however, attempt objectivity , but do please allow me the occasional polemic.

For the past fifty or so years, there has been and remains a ¨Cold War¨ in the Americas. With Castro’s left-hand perpetually jabbing at the U.S., who have frequently counter-punched with a right - hook.

This ideological sparring will come to a head upon the death of Castro, who has ensured a certain legacy in Latin America, notwithstanding in Cuba itself. I will explore this legacy next time!

Till then!