|Your friendly Mad Monarchist "Brain Trust"|
For example, the Prince of Monaco can hardly open his mouth without talking about man-made global warming, which is still disputed in many corners. The Prince of Wales is also known as a leading environmentalist but, in fact, environmentalism is a very fashionable political platform these days and one would be hard pressed to find a modern royal who has not attended some meeting on it, given out or received an award relating to it or addressed it in some way. The Prince of Monaco is, of course, an absolute monarch in all but name and can say what he likes. However, I have never heard too many republican traitors in Great Britain raising dust about the Prince of Wales speaking on “climate change” as crossing the line into politics. When the Grand Duke of Luxembourg recently said that the integration of the huge number of immigrants to his country was his top priority and that the native Luxembourgish should not be “selfish” in this situation, no one thought he was being political. Likewise the Dutch Queen Beatrix has never been criticized for her well-known dislike of the anti-immigration party in the Netherlands. Royals and monarchs across Europe have more or less done the same under the name of promoting “diversity”.
Does anyone think this would be considered non-political speech if the monarch or royal in question spoke in favor of the reverse? A monarch speaking in favor of diversity, in race, religion, culture etc, is not considered to be involving themselves in politics. Yet, if a monarch said that their country was for their own people alone and that they should guard against foreign peoples outnumbering the natives in their country would this be considered non-political as well? I think I can safely say that the answer is no based on two examples from opposite ends of Europe. In Norway, when Crown Princess Mette-Marit has spoken out about the need for greater acceptance of homosexuals no one thought this was controversial or political. Yet, when Queen Sophia of Spain spoke, even privately, of her reservations about homosexuals she was immediately pilloried in the press. Now, I know someone will say that the two cases cannot be compared because Norway has long had a very liberal society and Spain has, traditionally at least, had a much more conservative society. That is true, though much less so today, and it is also why this is a defense of monarchy rather than an attack.
Royals, like any of us mortals are, invariably to at least some extent, products of their environment. In an age when European society is liberal, secular, permissive and things like diversity, tolerance and environmentalism are the new moral orthodoxy we cannot be too surprised that royals, the same as anyone else, who are brought up in this environment will reflect those values that modern society upholds as most sacred. This does not absolve them of all guilt or endow them with all credit for the various views they support but it does, to some extent at least, explain them. For good or ill royals have always been influenced by the fashions, trends and prevailing attitudes of their time. Today, I tend to think some things have made this more pronounced such as royals being educated outside of the palace (a great mistake in my view), the idea of royal children being treated ‘the same as everyone else’ being upheld as a good thing (not so in my view as royals are inherently NOT the same as everyone else) and also to some extent royals being allowed to marry the common born (not always a terrible thing but not always a good thing either).
All of this is why I tend to be rather forgiving when a royal says something I disagree with; because I know they are being genuine, sincere, well-meaning and in some cases they simply know no better. However, I also raise this issue which I do not relish dealing with because I think a word of warning is in order. This can be dangerous for monarchies because there comes a point when backing fashionable, politically correct liberal causes will turn away those who are most naturally inclined to support a monarchy. Aside from the loss of support for the monarchy this can also cause the disaffected to turn to more radical and often repulsive political alternatives. This is not to justify rebellion in any case but simply to point out the facts of reality. As I have mentioned before, while a royal adopting a liberal cause might gain them some momentary support, no matter how liberal they become they will never convert a revolutionary into a monarchist whereas they may risk alienating permanently a group of people who would otherwise be their most staunch supporters.
There were, for instance, aristocrats, clergy and royals who supported the French Revolution and yet, their endorsement did not make the movement any less republican. There were royals who endorsed the communist party in Laos but this did not turn this communists into monarchists. Nothing will ever turn a committed leftist into a royalist and it is only if a royal completely turns their back on their heritage and embraces republicanism that such an individual may win revolutionary favor but that applies only to the individual not royalty or monarchy as a whole. Today, in most cases certainly, royals and monarchs, I do not believe, see themselves as taking political positions. Again, they have been raised in a society where such liberal opinions are accepted as mainstream as the sort of thing all “decent” people are expected to support. Traditional views have been so marginalized that their opinions are rarely considered and if ever mentioned are generally ridiculed. Royals and monarchs should also consider something I have noticed regarding the attitudes of different political positions in monarchies. The right tends to assume that their monarch agrees with them whereas the left tends to assume that they do not. Think that over before considering where the best interests of the monarchy really reside.