Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Answering Republicans on the Jubilee

I’m sure readers here will be shocked to know that there are those disgruntled, unpleasant republicans in the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms who are still quite upset about the amount of attention given to the Diamond Jubilee celebrations this year. I have heard complaints about the amount of time spent talking about the Queen and the monarchy on television and the media, complaints about the republican opposition not being given “sufficient” or “equal” coverage in the news and I even heard a couple of huffy republican parents complaining about their children being expected to participate in Diamond Jubilee parties at school, saying that this amounted to monarchist indoctrination of their children. I can only assume that the republicans are victims of their own tactics on this count, especially in the Commonwealth, as they seem to have minimized and ignored and downplayed the monarchy to such an extent that some people seem to have forgotten that they actually live in a monarchy. Perhaps this is something monarchists should be a little more patient and understanding about (I know, it wasn’t my first instinctive reaction either) because one can hardly expect republicans to understand the immense historical significance of a Diamond Jubilee when the vast majority of republics are so recent and generally do not last long enough to celebrate many milestones of their own.

It is not much of an excuse, but it is something. The republican French went above and beyond in 1989 celebrating the bicentenary of the French Revolution even though (ignoring the horribly bloodthirsty nature of it) since that time the monarchy was restored more than once and the revolutionary regime has gone through one “State”, two empires and five different republics. The Spanish tried republicanism twice and each ended in disaster, the first republic in Germany lasted barely two decades before falling to dictatorship, the Italian republic has existed only since 1946 and most of the republics of Eastern Europe, in their current forms, date from only the fall of the Soviet Union. So, when it comes to republics, save perhaps for tiny San Marino, longevity is not their strong suit. In any event, it does not even seem to occur to them the Diamond Jubilee is a fairly rare and historic occasion, even when including the other monarchies of the world of which the British and Commonwealth monarchy is one of the oldest still in existence on earth. They also seem totally oblivious to the fact that their country IS a monarchy, whether they like it or not, and national celebrations in any country do not depend on the unanimous consent of every individual person within that country in order to be held.

I suppose I take this rather more personally than some being a monarchist living in the United States; truly one of the smallest minority groups in the world. Add to that, I live in a state where there is a sizable minority (though still very much a minority, I don’t pretend otherwise) which would like to see our state leave the Union and return to being the independent Republic of Texas. A referendum on that subject is not allowed and even if it were, the outcome would not be respected even if it returned with a result in favor of restoring the republic since (from the time of the Civil War at least) the Union is “one and indivisible”. American schools honor George Washington and the U.S. Constitution regardless of those who might oppose it. When the United States celebrated the anniversary of the declaration of independence in 1976 there was certainly no television coverage or “equal time” given to those of the loyalist persuasion or who think the United States should become a monarchy (assuming such people exist). I admit, that is a suggestion bordering on the absurd but, again, we have the example of France. Come Bastille Day will the French media give equal representation to those who oppose celebrating the Revolution? Will they even take care to give equal time to legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

Quite the contrary, in spite of republicans in countries like the U.K. and Commonwealth Realms wailing about being ill-treated, they have far more rights and freedoms than most monarchists in republican lands. They certainly get far more coverage in the media and opportunity for “free speech” as they like to moan on and on about. I challenge any who may doubt me to put my words to the test. Go on to any of the internet video websites and you will find numerous debates held in Canada, Great Britain and Australia on the subject of monarchy versus a republic, many on the major television networks. These people are not being ignored, they are not being silenced and they are certainly not be driven off in handcuffs for advocating treason. Having done that, try to find such interviews and debates on television news programs in any of the republics of the world in which monarchists are allowed to make their case. Go ahead, we’ll all wait here. (…) Okay, in the meantime, perhaps we should move on. The fact is that in many if not most republics, monarchy is officially outlawed, it is forbidden and not at all considered to be even a topic for discussion or serious debate. Republicans in modern monarchies demand for themselves precisely what their comrades in republics deny to others.

Monarchist groups exist in republics like Germany or France and yet republicans could always claim they are wasting their time because the constitutions of these republics make it technically against the law to ever change the form of government to anything other than a republic. In the United States, similarly, the constitution states that all member states must have a republican form of government (a major impediment to the restoration of the monarchy in Hawaii even if it was to remain a state in the Union). In most other parts of the world, the point does not often come up because so many republics do not allow any voice of opposition of any sort. There are those (ludicrous though they may be) in Japan who wish to see the monarchy abolished, yet across the waves in mainland China, any talk of doing away with the communist republic and restoring the imperial system will swiftly get you arrested and sent to a nice well-guarded camp where you can spend the rest of your life turning big rocks into little rocks. Republicans get the vapors whenever anyone is convicted in Thailand of slandering the King, yet in neighboring Laos or Vietnam voicing any sort of opposition or discontent at all with the ruling communist party will land you in much more trouble than a fine or short jail term. In neighboring Burma you’re just as likely to be shot.

So, we have republicans who claim to be the champions of “equality” getting quite fussy if they do not receive special treatment. This in spite of the fact that the monarchists in established republics receive far less consideration than they do. However, you seldom hear monarchists making many complaints about it. You seldom see angry monarchists holding public protests to spoil republican celebrations or national holidays. There are, I think, primarily two reasons for this. One is that monarchists will, in most cases, go along in honoring their country even if they heartily despise the government that is in charge of it. Whereas republicans tend to despise the entire history of their country before “their” side came to be in charge of things, monarchists (again, in most cases, not all) love their country and their people because they are their own, regardless of whether they think they have always done right or not. Secondly, in most cases, monarchists are realistic enough to accept facts as they are. They may not like the situation in which they find themselves, but they accept the reality of it and deal with it. They do not expect the whole world around them to bend to their own desires or for their enemies to treat them to any special favors. Republicans might give it a try.

5 comments:

  1. Democracy does not and cannot last.

    It is based on a system of theft from one segment of the population to the other.

    Once Democracy has sucked dry one segment of society it moves on to others.

    Which is why they would never willing let Texas leave (even though If they ever did I would get down there and join you all) the looters need an ever expanding pool of producers to take from.

    Monarchy (as we have said a hundred times) is based on the Divine, is small, and provides culture.

    Republicans know this which is why we Monarchists are censored more than foreign enemies of the nation.

    So in Democracy the Monarchists rights will be protected only so long as they don't threaten the Republican State.

    That sounds like Tyranny to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I truly cannot stand these republicans. Do they take us monarchists and everyone else for fools when they complained about bias and inequality with their ridiculous arguments which can be easily debunked with counterexamples? Seriously, they need to stop all of it since free media can cover whatever and how much ever they want to. Giving equal coverage to all sides would be a waste of time and that is why the media does not bother. It is just like how every governments (even Texas) put bias into the education of their countries through textbooks and curriculums.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wish the argument that many republics forbid changes in government type worked a bit better. Most republicans I know are not true liberals, and will simply bite the bullet and claim that republics are inherently superior and should be forced on unwilling people

    ReplyDelete
  4. So I am new to monarchy, and whether it is your historic arguments, common sense arguments (see above), or simple romanticism, I am becoming convinced of its merits. Again, being new to this, I was wondering if you had suggestions on readings for a defense of monarchy from a philosophical standpoint or just from political theory. Although your practical arguments are very convincing, it's hard for students who have been indoctrinated to some degree by Jefferson, Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, and various other Jacobins, to get beyond certain concepts we have been taught to be "fact" (read "liberalism"). I'm sure you've addressed some of this elsewhere in your blog, but some books that can go in great detail would be appreciated.

    Your work wins converts!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had a professor that would have said everything is philosophy and every argument a philosophical one. Guess what subject he taught? A good place to at least start looking would be to on the right-hand side of your screen, on the link list called "Select Blog Posts" and underneath there click on the link "Monarchist Thinkers". I think all those covered so far have written numerous books, if any strike you as worthwhile, take down their name and head for the library.

      Delete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...