Wednesday, March 14, 2012

What Kind of Monarchist Are You?



Monarchists need to ask themselves a serious question: what are they all about? There are two possible answers, neither of which is “wrong” but certainly distinct. Are they people with an historical interest in monarchy, history, royal genealogies and traditionalist philosophies who wish to study these areas and discuss them with like-minded individuals or do they wish to have an actual impact on the political layout of the world by defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones? In the past, I have referred to these types as “theoretic monarchists” and “active monarchists”. Again, there is nothing wrong with being either one and many are both. Certainly I have never known of an active monarchist who did not have much or all of the attributes of a theoretic monarchist. However, not all theoretic monarchists are active monarchists and this is important because those who are not often, consciously or not, hinder and oppose those who are. As anyone can tell, your resident mad man is one of those who is both. Any look at this weblog with its combination of royal history and monarchism can see that. I have also, fairly regularly, crossed swords with theoretical monarchists who stand opposed to active monarchists, some of whom (some) really cannot see what they are doing.

In many such cases these are people who oppose, to one degree or another, many or most existing monarchies because they are not “monarchist” enough or because they are of a different religion or because they support an alternative royal line or family. I am often quite annoyed by such individuals for the following reasons: if a monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, it is because republican attitudes have become too widespread and mainstream in society so if the existing monarchy falls it will without question be replaced by a republic rather than a more traditional sort of monarchy. Given that, opposing an existing monarchy for being “too republican” only to have it be replaced by an actual, outright republic strikes me very much as cutting off your nose to spite your face. If your monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, my radical reaction would be to work on making it more monarchist rather than giving up on it and letting the republicans win. For those who withhold support from monarchies because they have a different cultural or religious affiliation than yourself, my simple reaction is to say that these people need to realize the power of fashionable trends. Every monarchy that falls and is replaced by a republic only increases the momentum of the “trend” of republicanism.

There was a time when monarchies were the rule rather than the exception. New countries that emerged usually became monarchies as well in this environment. Even after the birth of modern, revolutionary republicanism, when monarchy was still the standard across the world, monarchist factions remained an ever-present force. Brazil gained independence as a monarchy, in Mexico it was the monarchist faction that won out in securing independence and acting as the first national government and even in the United States, at the very beginning, there were those who wanted to establish a monarchy and make General George Washington the king. However, as republics became the more dominant form of government and as more monarchies around the world fell, be they in Europe, the Americas, Africa or Asia, it became expected that emerging or newly independent countries would automatically be republics. Monarchy ceased to even be considered as a serious option. Nepal is a nation as culturally far removed from my own as possible. The dominant religion is Hinduism and of all the major faiths of the world, Hinduism is probably the one I know the least about. Yet, when the Kingdom of Nepal fell it disturbed me greatly, both because a truly unique country (the last remaining Hindu monarchy) was lost to the world but also because it made monarchy in general an even more “endangered species”. Already a tiny minority in the world, the number of existing monarchies was depleted further. What is only one country, some might ask? When monarchies are as few as they are today, every single one must be viewed as precious by every monarchist in the world.

Finally, for those who oppose existing monarchies because they support a rival claimant to the throne, my reaction is closely related to those who oppose existing monarchies for being insufficiently “monarchist”. In many cases, I greatly sympathize with these people because, more often than not, their philosophy, values and attitudes are ones I totally share. The problem is that they have divorced themselves from the reality that surrounds them and, in many cases, are seeking the impossible. Not the difficult or the unlikely but truly the impossible. They are, in a way, simply angry that it is 2012 and not 1912 or even 1712 or 1612. Unfortunately, tear down every monarchy (or republic for that matter) in the world if you like but it will never be 1612 again. As stated, I often sympathize with these people because I personally see little point in being a monarchist if legitimacy means nothing to you and because, in the course of history, I look at each event in the context of its own time and sympathize with whichever side was, as I see it, the most “monarchist”. For example, in 1688 in the British Isles I would certainly have been a Jacobite. Most at the time likely saw things through the lens of religion rather than politics but from a purely monarchist perspective one could look at it like this: the Jacobites were those fighting for their legitimate, recognized King to whom they had all sworn allegiance. Regardless of the circumstances, I would have felt compelled to remain loyal to the King I had given my oath to. Further, looking at history, the monarchy was clearly stronger, at least in the authority it wielded, prior to 1688 as opposed to after.

For the sake of keeping peace, I don’t like to be too forceful about taking sides in monarchist vs. monarchist quarrels like this but, there it is: I think the Jacobites were right and their staunch loyalty admirable. But, alas, they didn’t win and eventually the direct line died out and the royal line that replaced them on the throne was recognized by all other powers and even by the Pope in Rome. Such things happen, the world keeps turning and life goes on. Even today, the Jacobites remain for me an honored memory. However, I have a problem with those die-hards who exist today who would withhold their active support and allegiance from the current British monarch because of their devotion to the Jacobite cause. The days of the old Stuarts are gone forever and are not coming back. It is the uselessness of it that I find more frustrating than anything. After all, these people who are so defiant and rebellious on paper or in the world of internet forums and chat rooms are not so bold as to actually do anything that would require some bravery or sacrifice on their part. They might slander and belittle HM the Queen but they are not about to stop paying their taxes and go to jail for it.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the current heir to the Jacobite claim, Duke Francis of Bavaria, has no desire whatsoever to press that claim or to be the “King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France”. That alone would, I think, cause most people to ask, “What’s the point then?” when it comes to modern-day Jacobites. There is also the fact that there was more to the Jacobite cause than legitimacy alone. They also believed in a different sort of government and overall organization of society. Their other political beliefs all sound good and preferable to me I might add, but even if modern Britons wanted Duke Francis to come be their king and even if he himself was willing to accept the invitation, that would still change nothing about the way the United Kingdom of today is governed other than whose profile is on the stamps. For things to truly be the way they were in Stuart Britain, laws would have to change, which means Parliament would have to change which means the hearts and minds and values of the entire public would have to change. That is something that would be harder to do than changing the monarch and something which could be done without changing the monarch and, I would say, something that should be done in any event.

I come to this same point in dealing with another such group of theoretic monarchists; the Carlists of Spain. The Carlists are a different kettle of fish from the Jacobites in that they have no common ideology nor even a common alternative for monarch but they do share some similar roots. Also, in the same way, I cannot help but sympathize with the original Carlists or history. They were the more monarchist in my view, the more traditional, the more religious and, as I see it, they had the law on their side. However, like the Jacobites, they too were not ultimately successful. Unlike the Jacobites, they remained a cause others could attach themselves to in order to further other rebellions and movements which dragged on for a very long time. They also eventually splintered into very, very different groups. The way I see it, the history of Spain worked this problem out with the accession of HM King Juan Carlos I, the senior male heir of King Felipe V, the previous line giving way to King Alfonso XIII in 1936. By the very rules the Carlists based their original claim to the throne on, King Juan Carlos I is the only possible legitimate monarch for Spain. Obviously, royal blood lines are not the determining factor for these individuals, rather it is the overall nature, and particularly faith, of modern Spain.

Of course, as I think any good monarchist should, I lament the fact that Spain has fallen so far from the great bastion of Christian monarchy that it once was and that it has been reduced to such a state (being a child of the former Spanish empire myself). However, once again, the fact remains that the only alternative to the current monarchy would be a republic and even if that were not so, simply having a different monarch at the top of the political pyramid would not change the morals and values of Spanish society. Given that, I really don’t see how their anonymous name-calling against the King does anyone any good but the republicans who most espouse everything they most condemn. If these people have any clear path to the “victory” they seek, I have not seen it nor have I seen them actually do anything that does not simply make them look ridiculous, dangerous or simply irrelevant. In a way, with their attacks on the existing monarchy, they are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. They fail to grasp the simple truth that the sort of traditional Catholic monarchy of the past which they so admire cannot simply be imposed on a population that is no longer traditionally Catholic. This points to a fact about monarchy most of the mainstream ignores; the reflective nature of it.

Perhaps more than some would like to admit, monarchies reflect the values and mindset of their people, to one degree or another. Regardless of things like democracy or monarchy, at a certain level every government that exists and has existed in the world does so because of popular support. They exist because a majority of the people support them or at least submit to them. Hence the saying that we all get the government we deserve. When monarchs were so devoted to things like religion, to the extent that they were willing to go to war over matters of faith, it was during a time when the people also considered religion the most important thing in the world. In this way, in a broader sense, royals are the same as anyone else in following along with the prevailing trends of society. They, like any of us, are products of the world around them. No monarch, certainly not one strictly limited in their powers, can single-handedly change the entire perspective and values (or lack thereof) of their people. I would love for societies and their monarchies to be more traditional, but that cannot happen until the public at large see the error of their modernistic ways and return to timeless truths long established.

If we are to be active monarchists, we must be realistic in judging the topography of the battlefield, the strength and tactics of our enemies and then take back the field one hill at a time. In this day and age, our only weapons are our voices and the odds are tremendously stacked against us. It would be a waste of time to fight amongst ourselves over how we came to be in this state just as it would be a waste of time to argue over which flag we raise in victory when we have yet to take one step in storming the walls. This doesn’t mean we all agree on everything but we should at least try to avoid doing each other harm. I have also noticed that many of the most uncompromising theoretic monarchists who like to say they are active monarchists do not usually last long. They think one argument which convinced them will instantly convince all who hear it. When this does not happen they become discouraged and give up, either dropping the issue entirely or confining themselves to simply denigrating everyone of every side. Again, this is not a recipe for long-term success.

This is not to say that analyzing and debating events of the past is a total waste, it is important to evaluate what happened, what worked, what did not and adjust our present-day arguments accordingly. This is also not to say that we must reject the values of the past simply to be more popular today. I would personally see little point in being a monarchist were that the case. It does mean that we must carefully tailor our tactics to the audience we wish to convince that these values of the past do have meaning and worth. For example, arguing the merits of one royal bloodline over another to a modern person who thinks public opinion is the sole source of authority would be a total waste of time. That person would have to first be convinced of the value of monarchy, the stabilizing benefits of royal legitimacy and perhaps even the sacred nature of the Crown before he or she would even understand why bloodlines are worth any consideration at all. Similarly, you are not going to convince someone that they should embrace, for example, the ideal of a Christian monarchy if they are not even convinced of the truth of Christianity itself.

In my own arguments with republicans I have long tried to tailor the message to the individual and then follow a given set of steps in trying to show them that, first, monarchy is not evil, inherently tyrannical or something to be feared, then that it has real benefits and advantages and finally that much of modern accepted republicanism is hypocritical and based on total falsehoods. However, that is something monarchists can never get to if they are not sure themselves of what kind of monarchist they are. The important thing, I would say, is for monarchists to at least make an effort to do no harm to each other -there are plenty of republicans willing to do it for you. If you are a theoretical monarchist, there is nothing wrong with that and there are plenty of avenues available for you to pursue your interest, whether it is intellectual debates about history or talking about fashion and jewelry. If you are an active monarchist, you must be realistic if you wish to have an impact. Rome was not built in a day and we cannot change the world over night, we must take things as they are and work step by step to improve society around us. Nothing will ever be exactly as it was but if we make good arguments, build on the remnants we still have and work methodically, one step at a time, we can make a difference. The first question to ask before getting started is, again, what kind of monarchist are you?

51 comments:

  1. I am an old school monarchist. I like the style of old-school rulers like Charlemagne, William the Conqueror, Ghenghis Khan, Attila, the like.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent article, Sir! I like you, am both and I get static from both Jacobites and Carlists!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As do I of course, though I agree with both of them. You would know better than I but in the old days in your part of the world there were thankfully a number of organizations (the United Empire Loyalists and the Orangemen probably being the most prevalent) who could be counted on to support the monarchy.

      Delete
  3. In my heart i am with the absolutists, but my head tells me that constitutional Monarchy is now the only system that can exist. But i take comfort in the knowledge that many constitutional Monarchs do still have reserve powers which, in theory, can still be used in the defence of both crown and people, and to check the ambitions of over-reaching Government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same here, I reason that it would be easier to give a constitutional monarch more power than it would be to have a republic and replace that with a traditional absolute monarchy.

      Delete
  4. I am most definitely both. And this is a great article, I'm thinking of translating it to Hungarian for our Monarchist portal, Regnum!

    Would that be okay with you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fine with me, just give a link back, which I'm sure you would anyway.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I was quite clear: an active monarchists defends existing monarchies and supports the restoration of ones that have fallen. It is unfortunate that there are so few monarchists in The Philippines, a country that was named after a King.

      Delete
    2. "...but I do like one that is a combination of monarchy and republican..."

      I think the current Westminster system serves as the best example for your "ideal system". This reality prompts some old school monarchists to call this system, "crowned republic".

      Delete
    3. as a fellow monarchist, i do find it unfortunate that we filipinos have so few monarchists in our fold, except the ones who grew up in the midst of the pre-colonial royals in the south.

      it is also unfortunate that if ever the topic of monarchy comes up, the very first thing that would come into mind of some filipinos (for most, they would just think of queen elizabeth ii, etc.) are the marcoses, who obviously aspired to make themselves royals.

      Delete
  6. Very well, written MM. Interesting theories and well thought out ideas. Like you said, Rome was not built in a day and the US will not re-join the British Monarchy in the next century, nor will Russia be embracing Prince Nicholas Romanov as Tsar Nicholas III soon.

    There are good and bad theories with both monarchists and republicans. We are human, there will never be a perfect monarchy, democracy, or dictatorship. Somehow we have to - and I think we have done well in the 20th century - combine all those to make the best country & world that we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am a reactionary, restoration, Pan-Monarchist, I support Monarchy where ever it exists, and try to restore it where ever I can.

    I support The Kingdom of Jordan just as much as the Empire of Japan, even though both cultures are radically different, they are monarchies that is enough for me.

    I also look forward to the day when people have shaken off the Republican assumptions and we can go on the offensive and start to Restore Monarchies, not just keep the ones we have.

    I guess my beliefs on monarchy could be boiled down into three words, Authority, Autocracy, and Aristocracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I FULLY AND ENTIRELY APPROVE THE THINKING OF RESTORING THE MONARCHY WHEREVER POSSIBLE. THEY POSSESS AN OLD CELL AND THEY ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS FIND A SOLUTION IN EVERY TIME DIFFICULTIES THEY MEET IN THEIR REIGN. THIS IS WHY THEY GO HAND TO HAND WITH RELIGION. NEVER TO FORGET THAT WHETHER IN CRISTIANITY OR IN ANY OTHER MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION MONARCHIES ARE ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED. CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IS THE BEST AMALGAMATION IN A NATION.I HAD THE GREAT CHANCE TO LIVE UNDER A MONARCHY IN LIBYA AND GREECE AND THEREAFTER IN LIBYA UNDER GHEDAFFI'S DICTATORSHIOP AND THEREAFTER UNDER THE SO CALLED DEMOCRACY IN GREECE AND ITALY, NOTHING IS LIKE A MONARCHY, THE RESPECT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL, THE MANNERS AND THE OBEDIENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION ONLY UNDER MONARCHY YOU FIND IT. BY FAMILY TRADITION AND BELIEVE I/WE ARE TRADITIONAL MONARCHIESTS AND STRICT BELIEVERS, THE REST CIRCULATING IN THE MARKETS ARE FOR US INEXISTENT, FOOD FOR THE UNKNOWLEDGEABLE MASSES. SORRY BUT THIS IS MY END CONCLUSION. GOD BLESS MONARCHIES WHEREVER THEY ARE.ANNA GERAKIS(TRIPOLI/LIBYA/ATHENS/ROME)

      Delete
  8. Brilliant! I pray a Rosary everyday for Spain, and Monarchy across the board! I toifor am both.
    God bless you M.M.!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent article, as always! I will say this, I am a Jacobite, and by those beliefs I stand. But I am, as I like to call it, a "Practical Jacobite." I see myself as being the ideological heir of those Jacobites who, during the American Revolution, sided with the Crown against the rebels. In their hearts, many were still loyal to the de jure Charles III, and not to the de facto George III. But the break up of George's empire would have been disastrous to the entire cause of monarchy, Jacobitism included. And so siding with George was the right thing to do: to preserve the realm as best as possible in the hopes of a later restoration. Now, in our time, I share a similar sentiment. In my heart, I am still loyal to the de jure Francis II. His desire or lack thereof to claim his right does not alter his right. Until he, and all of his heirs, surrender their rights, I will be loyal to them. But at the same time, I recognize the futility of die-hard loyalism to the point of opposing the de facto monarch in all things. If the monarchy falls, something far worse will replace it. I would rather see the current line remain on the throne, preserving it until such time as a restoration is feasible (which I admit may or may not ever come). But the time to argue amongst each other over which claimant to which throne has the greater right is not now. Monarchy must first be restored to the level of power it held centuries ago. Only when the cause of monarchy itself is secured again can we afford to be so legalistic about who must sit on the throne (and indeed, at that time, I believe we *must* be so insistent). But even in the best of circumstances, that day may be generations away. In our time, I agree that it is better for all monarchists to unite and defend the very cause of monarchy itself. We must protect what few kingdoms remain, and help to restore those which have been lost. As monarchists, we must show the world what it truly means to be a devoted subject, and break their delusions about what a subject is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree and thank you for raising the point about the Jacobites in the American Revolution, I should have included that point. Likewise, if one wants to get "technical" about it, I would have to say, 'yes, I think Duke Franz is the legitimate heir etc' but, technicalities aside, QE2 *is* the Queen today and if the monarchy as it is now is overthrown I fear the whole concept of monarchy in Britain will be gone forever.

      Delete
  10. Thank you for this. I agree with every word and strive to be both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I put this down I expected you at least would be in agreement. I've always known you to keep your eye on the 'prize'.

      Delete
  11. You approach the issue of theoretical monarchists in several other posts, and like the others here, I do not think it would be reasonable to disagree.
    I would say I'm an "active" monarchist, but of course the degree of "activity" is largely confined due to my youth, current location, and the state of politics in my home country. But we'll see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can do as much as anyone -you can make the case, make the argument. France has definite obstacles to a royal restoration (well known to all, and sadly not totally unique) but you can look at it as starting with a clean slate.

      Delete
    2. That is pretty much how I see it - France's monarchist movement has dropped to nearly infantile levels in terms of sophistication, a huge discrepancy from the 19th Century, so there is much to work with, from scratch as you say. I'm pretty sure with enough historical argumentation the Republican Bonapartists could be brought round and the royalists of various stripes could be convinced intellectually. To my position, that is.

      Delete
  12. I would say that I am both, but the "active" part is restricted to YouTube arguments. Arguments in reality, I do not do to avoid being "tarred and feathered", so to speak. My youth, current location, and the state of politics in my home country makes that an actual possibility, and not just an analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is something I actually found difficult reconciling, because truth and ideals seem to fight against each other. In practicality, it is true that fighting against any monarchy is just as good as advocating a republican cause. I remember you posted an article a long time ago about it; if a nation is a monarchy, it is wise not to oppose it even if it is not your preferred one because any monarchy is better than a republic, which any nations nowadays inevitably transform into should their monarchy fall. I do agree, but sometimes because monarchy is no longer the traditional kind and modern times demand different standards (I hate that)... it is hard to be satisfied with the status quo. But I do not wish to prioritise with the ideals but instead fight against any form of republicanism that lingers in the shadows; that way I get my mind off "preferred monarchy" and stick with the fact that "republics are bad; we must fight them".

    In terms of which monarchy lines I support, it goes back and forth. I read history a lot and I try to objectively evaluate each rulers... and I have found myself quite unsure that in the end all I care for is that any monarch would do over a president or prime minister or something. For example, I've recently felt more sympathetic towards the Jacobites because even though I'm one of those people who is not exactly friendly towards Catholicism (James II was promoting ecumenism and ultimately, tolerance to Rome), William of Orange did something even worse by creating a bank in London, and thus shifting powers to the money-hungry Kabbalist Jewish bankers (the same people who funded Cromwell!). To me it is just the "lesser of the two evils" kind of thing. Besides, James was unrightfully dethroned anyhow... so to me I become more and more unsure, but all I know is there is nothing we can do to change what happened but we can change our current situation, if we all tried.

    As for France, three factions just makes it more complicated, but I already know I don't like the Orleanists because they seem to be the "opportunists" people who were so quick to side with the republicans during the Third French Republic, while the Legitimists would never yield to the force of republicanism. Bonapartism... well, it is not exactly my first choice but even so, whatever benefits the French the most is where I stand, and France has been rotting since its republicanism days. I am a Legitimist at heart and would love to see the ancien regime restored one day.

    I guess I am a theoretical monarchist and an absolute one. I did actively tell people about the benefits of a monarchy. Fortunately, Koreans are creative people and should know what works and what should not; it seems a slight majority of young Koreans do want a monarchy restored in Korea! I don't think many of us appreciate the current presidency either. I am a bible study teacher at my church and I did once tell my children about how a king is better than a president; they'd all ask me why in such a shocked state, and I would have to give them a Biblical explanation. But you know, planting seeds in little children would probably be the best way to prevent the evil forces of republicanism spreading propaganda on children. Now if only I knew where I stood in this mess... it is heartbreaking because this world stood still as the elites messed it up so we can live in this living hell of atrocious uniformity, standardisation, revolutions, desexing of the sexes, and worst of all, forgetting God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with you. A monarchical dynasty is much more better than a presidency. And "Republicanism" is a philosophical thought from the Ancient Grecian Times from the Greek Philosopher Aristotle. And the rest of the world has a monarchy. Therefore the origins of this "Republicanism" that we have in modern-day societies are of rather Ancient Grecian Origins, and it's a philosophical thought, not practical in those times. Such "philosophical thoughts" are dangerous to the modern-monarchies we have. In the 20th Century was the most harshest and terrible times of Monarchies. And it's rather due to "Republicans" and so-called "Democratic" Ideologies from the venomous western education which overthrow their monarchies. And the 20th century is where a ridiculous majority of the countries that had monarchies were overthrown from the pre-World War 1 Era till the 1980's. I would love to see countries that have historical ties with the monarchy be restored.

      Delete
  14. I would consider myself a pragmatist monarchist, who turns to the best ideas and strategies to preserve monarchies as they exist today, or what would give them greater security for the long-term. So that's probably "activist" as you define it. As you rightly point out, a desire to have a particular kind of monarchy that fits a "theoretical" position, needs first to change the culture: it will be won through ideas, not force.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I also believe in the idea of the warrior-king. I've always admired HM King Juan Carlos of Spain ever since I read somewhere that he spent several months in the field with his army. Find me a president who has the backbone to do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Juan Carlos was also instrumental in ending the attempted Coup D Etat in Spain, in 1981, using his position as Commander in Cheif to order officers and men back to their barracks....and they obeyed !!!

      Delete
  16. Great article, I completely agree with it!
    I was theoretical monarchist for some time, but now I am definitely active monarchist, either as a member of the Czech monarchist party (Koruna Česká) or in my own initiative by running my own monarchist website (www.promonarchii.cz). I'm trying to bring monarchist news from the world to my fellow Czech monarchists, highlight various interesting events that have some monarchist flavour, as well as advocate monarchist idea in my own articles and essays (your blog being a valued inspiration for me).

    Here in the Czech Republic... I mean in the Lands of Bohemian Crown, the situation is somehow difficult because the house of Habsburg-Lothringen which is our rightful Royal house, has been immensely denigrated by the various republican goverments and most of all by the communist regime - not only as evil feudal oppressors, but also as "German" and thus foreign overlords. Now the situation is much better, there are many publications viewing Habsburgs in more positive and accurate light. Many historians, and many well educated people in general are beginning to appreciate the old monarchy, but as for the general population, I fear it will need decades to overcome the communist stereotypes.

    But why I am writing this: Most people who identify themselves as monarchists here, are definitely legitimists and acknowledge HIRH Archduke Karl von Habsburg-Lothringen as the rightful heir. But there are many people who (after some discussion and possibly a beer or two) say monarchy is not such a bad idea after all - but when it comes to who would be the king, they are still staunchly opposed to Habsburgs. Therefore some say that by supporting the Habsburg claim, one is actually harming the monarchist idea in the Czech lands.

    However, in my opinion, as there is no real other claimant, there is no discussion. To support the monarchy in the Czech lands, the only reasonable way is to support the heirs of the last czech king, otherwise it is pointless. Doesn't matter if it is to be Archduke Karl or any other of the descendants of blessed Charles of Austria, who will finally be crowned by the Crown of St Wenceslas. As I have said, there are positive changes, and though they are slow as the mills of God, I believe future will be ours.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have enjoyed reading your blog for a few months now and finally am coming out of the cyber shadows. Being an American one could say that I was practically born a republican(conservatism and the Republican party certainly must not be synonymous;). I was of the belief that the American presidential republic is far superior to everything else. But there have been a few factors that moved me toward monarchism. The first is that I have always had a love of history. What has gone before is very fascinating, and in studying history one does not go far before running into monarchs. For instance I found myself sympathetic the the Empire of Austria-Hungary at the start of the first world war. (the mustaches were certainly a plus) Breaking it up at the end of the war did not make sense to me. The glaring faults of the peace agreement set the stage for the second world war while the "wonderful" promises of the peace treaty were an illusion. Another factor in making me sympathetic towards monarchy is that I spent ten of my growing up years in Fiji. It had become a republic before I was there but there is still a great respect and fascination for the Queen and Royal family. (They still celebrate her birthday) In 2004 Prince Charles visited so practically the whole town went to the airport to welcome him. What finally brought me to your site is this: I have a long standing interest in Ethiopia and her ancient monarchy so as I searched for information about that I came across a picture of Haile Selasse in his coronation regalia. From there I went to the site it was from and landed here. What a discovery. It was almost like finding hidden treasure. In a way I would say I was somewhat of a monarchist before finding the Mad Monarchist but it is here that such views were cemented. It could be said that the soil was right for monarchist seed. As far as the type of monarchist goes I am at this point definitely a theoretical one at this point but with a view to application. I have searched the news at times hoping to hear some word of a restoration but in these days it is obviously very slow. I must add that something that has impressed and kept me coming is the regularity of new posting. It is highly commendable that you have kept up such a regularity of posting even when at times I am sure it is discouraging. Keep it up. Your "activity" as a monarchist is certainly paying off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope such is the case. Most ardent monarchists (*most* not all) I have encountered have a special place in their heart for the late Dual-Empire of Austria-Hungary. Ethiopia is also a very unique case -never a dull moment in that part of the world. If more people in Ethiopia had just a fraction of the zelous devotion to Haile Selassie that the Ethiopian expats have the monarchy would be restored tomorrow. They are an extremely devoted bunch.

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. constitutional monarchist i hate living in the republic of Ireland , bring on a Irish monarchy already

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need an Ard Rí and absolute monarchy :)

      Delete
  20. I am an old school monarchists also but have been thinking that if USA had become a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a republic then we would be much better off. Republics and democracy are easily corrupted.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I totally agree with this post. I get so frustrated with internet monarchists who are ideological dreamers, with no active interest or involvement in politics in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I am currently loyal to the British Monarchy, although I favour absolute monarchies. That is the the way Monarchy should be.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am an active Micronational Monarchist, I find pieces of land the government has clearly abandoned and declair them as part of my Empire of Aotearoa.

    I am even more practical then your way is because I realize that all current monarchies must be supported even if they are just a guy who found some rocks off the coast and called himself king.
    As you have continually asserted: ALL Monarchies must be treated as valid. I simply extend that to Micronations. I would suggest that everyone here makes a micronational monarchy right now, to finally make some progress.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Byzantine Monarchist, (I say this rather then going into a jumbled mess of technical terms) first, a pan monarchist second.

    My interest in monarchies began, well, in blood. My family came over with William the Conqueror and married into the now obviously defunct Welsh monarchy. However, when I found out that I could not lay claim to Wales, (Hey, I was only 5,) this interest deteriorated. And it was only rekindled years later by my interest in the Byzantine Empire.

    Why am I a monarchist? Well, I like to, cite an certain event in Byzantine history when Simeon the Bulgarian met with Emperor Romanus outside Constantinople, (Note that I am citing this as symbolism, not as a Republic versus Monarchy event.) Simeon arrived dressed in his finest armor, attended by warriors bearing silver and golden shields, proclaiming him Emperor loud enough so the people inside the city could hear them. Romanus by contrast wore a simple robe and clutched a relic, every inch of him seeming to say that the glory of the Roman Empire was splendid enough to put his opponents garish display to shame.

    Connecting then and now together for my point might seem difficult, but it isn't.

    On one side, we have Republics, the garish display. Leaders of Republics wear popular opinion as if it gives them legitimacy. They have the people declare them president or prime minister and kid themselves that this gives them some semblance of legitimacy.

    And on the other, we have Monarchies. They don't need people to tout them as the person for job because they're to busy doing the job itself. They don't ask for their authority, they earn it. They do not "wear" the public as armor, as if to say, "They want me, I give them what they want, this is my authority!" they simply stand there, plain for the world to see holding a relic, as if to say, "I don't need all that, He wanted me to do this, He chose me, it is His authority that work to further."

    Why am I a monarchist? Because when I look at the days of yore I do not see tyranny as this world would have me believe. I see an Emperor, throwing off his imperial regalia and casting himself into the fray. I see an Emperor that disguised himself as one of the common-folk in order to root out injustice. I see a blind king who's last wish was to at least strike one blow of his sword against his enemies, who was found dead, amongst his Knights, who tied their bridles to his so his last command would be carried out. I see a teenage Tsarevich lying dead in the blood of his family, killed because the communists FEARED them.

    I am a monarchist simply monarchs EARN their titles.

    ...Sorry about the rant, happens when you listening to Requiem for a Dream.

    A question if I may ask; My, nephew is coming over next weekend and I'm trying to, well, convert him to monarchism. Got any tips for me?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It all depends on how old your nephew is, of course - why not read him some fairytales (or even write one yourself and tell that to him - perhaps the story of how the scheming government decides to raise the taxes on milk and bread unfairly and how the King realises he must step in to protect his people from the government as allowed by the constitution)?

      Why not have a coronation portrait or two of your favourite monarchs somewhere in your home?

      Or perhaps you could show your nephew some clips of recent royal weddings that have taken place, or highlights of Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee? You could discuss with him how many royals serve in their nation's military, air and naval forces; how HM the Queen of Denmark paints book illustrations.

      You could start off by showing him the more glamorous and fun aspects to gain his interest, such as the above, and then highlight the amount of hard work that goes with the job; such as the long royal tours and the charity patronage. You could emphasise how much the royals do to stick up for the underdogs, the unappreciated - how royalty is like a shining lantern, illuminating those who work as hard as the royals themselves do, but who receive very little praise.

      There are so many wonderful little things about monarchy (which I think are very cool - before Tony Blair came along and ruined the House of Lords, I used to think that having an aristocracy in modern times was pretty cool) such as the beautiful symbolism that comes with it. Things like the State Opening of Parliament, the Knights of the Garter - even the magisterial coronations.

      A coronation is almost like a wedding ceremony between the land and the human being. In my mind, the coronation is when the monarch stops being an ordinary person and becomes truly a divine being - as much an anthropomorphic personification of their kingdom as Santa Claus is of Christmastime, or the Easter Bunny is of Easter (although depending on his age, you may have to remind your nephew that monarchs don't stop by with presents every December the 24th, too!).

      I found a very interesting vid that highlights some of the things a monarch does for their country which you might enjoy watching with your nephew, too:

      http://www.calgarysun.com/videos/sports/stampeders/10018454001/does-canada-need-the-monarchy/924426831001

      Delete
  25. I would be like Napoleon Bonaparte, absolute in power, but never, ever infringing on the God given rights of the people, only using military force when absolutely necessary, and in fact I'd have some sort of checks and balances system enacted, not just for me, to prevent my power from being abused and overstepped, but on the Judicial, and Legislative branches of the country as well with a proper system of enforcement. On the body subject of criticism to the monarch, I have this to say, and I quote His Royal Majesty King Rama IX, he said: Actually, I must also be criticised. I am not afraid if the criticism concerns what I do wrong, because then I know. Because if you say the king cannot be criticised, it means that the king is not human", he claimed. "If the king can do no wrong, it is akin to looking down upon him because the king is not being treated as a human being. But the king can do wrong. That is what monarch I would be.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A practical yet theoretical monarchist.

    For Sweden, restoring royal powers to the reigning monarchs seems not vert bright and they are legitimate. The Bernadottes became so by non-protest of Gustav Prince of Wasa at accession of Oscar II (a much better guy who had some real power too).

    For France, I am theoretically in favour of royalty but uncertain as to which one.

    Louis XX has (or hasn't he?) a better claim than Orléanism, but unless the Nauendorff claim is sham a less good one than the Nauendorff heir. And Bonapartism might at least make a transition while settling those questions.

    For Austria, I would really like to see a Habsburg in power.

    ReplyDelete
  27. trust me yall dont want an absolute monarchy

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't know what you mean by "absolute monarchy".

    I do not want Pharaonic monarchy, but neither do I want a Republic with Pharaonic pretentions.

    If absolute just means "not subject to formalised consent in the name of the people by parliaments whose members were voted on", I am not against it.

    The problem I have is with a régime, whoever and however many or few are formally constituting it in some dfirect or indirect way, starting to behave as if they thought they were God.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am an "absolute" monarchist and support only Catholic monarchy, I'll leave it to others to restore their non-Catholic monarchies. I am very anti constitutionalist and anti liberal. So I guess I'm a "RADICAL" Catholic Monarchist/absolutist/anti-liberal/anti-constitutionalist, a minority within a minority.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well, for me I'm more of a "flexible" type of a constitutional monarchy. And no I'm not talking about a "ceremonial constitutional monarchy" where the monarch is a "just-symbol" or a "figurehead" while the real executive power rest withing the Prime Minister of the Country/Nation. I'm talking about a hybrid system of an "constitutional-federal monarchy". It's where the monarch have powers that are above the constitution, and a portion (30%) of the monarch's powers in the Parliament be either approved by the monarch as the final approval, or by a majority of the Parliament in the Upper House of Peers(Aristocratic Nobles), even the Lower House of Representatives (The People of the Country), or both houses from the Parliament Legislate. The monarch is the sole head of state/government, and the executive branch, so the monarch may exercise his/her's power to enforce the laws being made. Such as a monarchy modelling the both the "executive constitutional monarchy" and the "federal monarchy" is the monarchist I am. I'm "constitutional-federal" monarchist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S I'm also making it quite clear that in a modern-day monarchy, there must have a 'nobility' or 'aristocratic' system within the government. Such as the famous British 'House of Lords' which survived till this day, and the famous historical Imperial Japanese 'House of Peers' which was abolished in 1947. So basically I'm not only for the hybrid "constitutional-federal" monarchy system, but I'm also for a more "feudal-esque regime type". The "feudal-esque regime type" is an extension to the "constitutional-federal" monarchist ideal on which I stand for. Do pardon if I didn't clarify it earlier.

      Delete
  31. aint i am a royalist which is for military and and the old regime

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not against military, and I am very much more FOR old régime than new one.

      Delete
  32. Im a historian i like monarchist history but i like its traditions and its form of goverment is much more better than republics republics are a beautifull ideal that doesnt work in pratical

    ReplyDelete
  33. @MadMonarchist I am for a constitutional hindu monarchy under the leadership of the Wodeyar Dynasty of the Princely State of Mysore successors of the Vijayanagara Empire.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadiyar_dynasty

    I'd like to know about your opinion of Ludwig von Mises's thoughts on the Hohenzollerns and on pre-1917 monarchist Prussia if you please.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...