The Kingdom of France: Government

The trouble with describing, in a short and easy to understand way, the government of the Kingdom of France comes with the fact that the Kingdom of France lasted for almost a thousand years and, obviously, there were a great many changes in government during all of that time. That, in itself, puts the lie to the republican misconception that France under the monarchy (or any country under any monarchy) knew nothing but stagnation. On the contrary, the government of the Kingdom of France grew up in an organic way and changed according to the circumstances of the time, all under the unchanging supervision of the monarchy. When France as we know it today was originally formed there was very little government at all other than the monarchy, growing out of the barbarian customs of warrior kings and loyalty to your family chieftain. These were superseded by the Franco-German empire of Charlemagne and after the division of that body by the Kingdom of France most today would be familiar with. Because of its roots in the Dark and Middle Ages, the Kingdom of France was originally governed in a very diverse and decentralized way, not at all how most picture the Kingdom of France. However, those beginnings are significant and, really, never entirely went away.

While the King and his court focused on issues such as national defense and foreign relations, the provinces were mostly left to their own devices. They had their own governors, parliaments and their own laws which varied from place to place according to local custom and individual circumstances. The legal system was not uniform itself, being based more on tradition in the north (like English common law) while being much more similar to Roman law in the southern parts of the country. In theory the power of the monarch was absolute but, in fact, the vast majority of local issues were considered outside of the purview of the King and were left in the hands of local nobles, clerics and officials. Eventually there would be over thirty parliaments in France, spread throughout the country. Certain regions such as Brittany and Burgundy also had their own “Estates Provincial” which had local powers of legislation and taxation and consisted of representatives of the common people, nobility and clergy in that particular region. It was a system that could be quite confusing and difficult to manage with government bodies frequently overlapping in their jurisdictions. However, this also served as a check against overreaching by those in authority even if it was not particularly efficient.

The problem with this system was that, under the right circumstances, it could be a major danger to national unity and internal peace and order. This basically came about with the spread of Protestantism in France. Unlike the earlier Albigensians, the Protestants persisted in parts of France and local governors, nobles and finally members of the Royal Family embraced Protestantism and made it a powerful force in France. Naturally the Wars of Religion ultimately broke out between the Catholic and Protestant factions and this had a devastating impact on the country. In the end, it would also bring about major changes in how France was governed. It was the Wars of Religion that really ended the old de-centralized form of government France had known for centuries with most power being retained to the lower levels. This horrible series of brutal civil wars was something no one wanted to see return and the man in charge, who determined to prevent such a thing from ever happening again, was Cardinal Richelieu. In the name of King Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu set about demolishing the castles of the nobility and centralizing power in France into the hands of the King (with the Cardinal of course being the ‘power behind the throne’) while during the same period Gallicanism became a powerful trend by which the Church became more subordinate to the Crown rather than the Pope in Rome.

The peak of this centralization of power in France, both political and spiritual, is usually illustrated by the reign of King Louis XIV of France; the quintessential absolute monarch. Because France had been so traumatized by the religious and other civil wars that preceded him, most people were quite happy to see King Louis XIV take charge of everything himself. He dismissed the man who was effectively his prime minister, placing everything in the hands of government officials chosen by himself. Louis XIV also brought about greater legal uniformity with his “Code Louis”, streamlined taxation (which brought in more revenue) and encouraged manufacturing as well as the arts. On the religious front, he clashed with the Church often in both the private and public spheres but he was a staunch enough Catholic to never think of doing something dramatic as the King of England and founding his own church. Nobles came and lived in Versailles where all real power was concentrated in the country. For a time, it seemed to work and after the War of Spanish Succession when the Bourbon dynasty was successfully transplanted to Spain, it is no wonder that the new Spanish monarchs followed the example of King Louis XIV and began to centralize power in that country as well.

King Louis XIV, however, was a very talented and energetic man, a larger-than-life figure, and, obviously, not every monarch could be expected to be just like him and the period when centralization in France was most successful was during his reign. Even when Louis XIV made mistakes, he did not persist in them but was quick to change course and try something new so that, it did not matter so much that he was no brilliant statesmen but that he had the drive to always take action. Power was centralized in France under Cardinal Richelieu and that worked fairly well given that the Cardinal was a clever (if sometimes unscrupulous) man. It worked under King Louis XIV for reasons just discussed, however, there would come a time when there would be no Cardinal Richelieu and no “Sun King” and that is when the flaws in this massive centralization of power became evident. Under “the beloved” King Louis XV, French power began to stagnate, corruption became problematic and the nobles and clerics often neglected their local people. After the death of Louis XIV, the French nobility saw their power rise again but too many did not use this to benefit those under their care. The classes in France or the three estates of the nobility, clergy and commons became increasingly alien to one another. The Estates-General itself, the national assemblies of the three classes, was not called into session throughout most of the long reign of Louis XIV and throughout the entirety of the reign of Louis XV.

What is tragic and all too often overlooked is that this decline, and the reasons for it, were things that the monarchy was not blind to. King Louis XVI did his best to put things back on the right track, trying to roll back some of the centralization of power that existed under his grandfather and great-great grandfather. He ordered the reinstatement of the local parliaments that had mostly been abolished after successfully opposing an effort by Louis XV to have the nobility pay taxes, he believed in listening to the voice of the people and he undid the work of Louis XIV by granting religious tolerance to Protestants and Jews in France. He called an Assembly of Notables to address the economic crisis and when that fell through took the more drastic step of recalling the Estates-General. As we know from history, things quickly got out of hand from that point on thanks to unscrupulous officials and a class of professional agitators who made the destruction of the Kingdom of France their primary goal in life. It was the ruination of a great and historic opportunity to see the Kingdom of France put on a more balanced framework after swinging between the extremes of centralization and de-centralization. In the person of King Louis XVI the French had a monarch who genuinely cared for his people and wanted to know their opinions while also appreciating the safeguards and sacred foundations of his own absolute power. He was, perhaps, the ideal figure to achieve the perfect balance in French government. Unfortunately, traitors saw that opportunity squandered.

This is all the more tragic in that, because the kingdom fell with the Revolution, most have assumed that there is nothing to be learned from it when, on the contrary, there is a great deal about the Kingdom of France that could be of benefit to people and governments today. In fact, one could reasonably predict that even under the very old, de-centralized version of the French government, with the passage of time and advances in modern technology, it could have worked extremely well. The possibility there basically being the argument of federalism; with so many parts of France doing this differently, people would naturally migrate (assuming they were no longer bound to the land of course) to those areas that had lower taxes, better jobs and so on, making them more successful and giving other regions the incentive to follow their example and adopt what methods work the best. However, the one institution which is, perhaps, worthy of the most consideration was the Estates-General and the Estates-Provincial. Obviously there were problems with these institutions which most people familiar with French history will have heard many times, the basic problem being that the vast majority of the people of France, the commons, were underrepresented and could always be outvoted by the clergy and nobility. That, however, is a reason to reform and not a reason to abolish.

The three estates

The only real problem with the structure of the Estates-General, as I see it, was that it was insufficiently sophisticated and was, obviously, unbalanced. However, the basic, fundamental principle of the Estates-General was perfectly sound; giving a voice to the nation based on social background rather than party, ideology or the geography of arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The basic idea of the Estates-General was very monarchist and very practical as it took into account the natural human condition of people to act in their own best interests. Therefore, rather than mixing people of various backgrounds, occupations and ideologies altogether with all of their conflicting interests, this system acknowledged those interests and tried, again in a rather too simplistic a way, to give them voice. It seems possible that it all could have worked much better with just a few changes to the system such as granting everyone an equal vote while at the same time dividing the third estate into more specific groups based on status or occupation, in whatever form necessary to gather together into groups with similar self-interests. In this way, all could conceivably be represented, all based on practical reality and the acknowledgment of various self-interests and by doing that, eliminating the need for and hopefully preventing the formation of dangerous political parties that lead to tribalism in politics and destructive social divisions. The government of the Kingdom of France was diverse, then more uniform but always very complex and subject to change, which it did considerably over time. However, no government can persevere in the face of outright disloyalty, treason and sabotage and although it fell, there are still lessons to be learned from the government of the Kingdom of France.

Guest Article: ABM's Manifesto For A Reactionary Canadian Government

The following was contributed by the Alberta Monarchist

The current problem with the Canadian government is that it is afflicted with too much democracy, which has been described so well as mob rule. Just like in any other Westminster system of government, the prime minister of this country has far too much power, having usurped the Crown's authority to appoint and dismiss the Governor General, the provincial Lieutenant Governor's, federal judges and senators in addition to his total dominance of the House of Commons. Likewise the premiers too have usurped the Crowns powers at the provincial level, all of which serves to create in effect, a democratic dictatorship.

Therefore the solution to this problem as I see it is to abandon the failed unworkable theories of popular sovereignty, total separation of powers, and above all the delusion of universal human equality, and revert to the tried and tested methods of traditional, reactionary and monarchical government which history shows has worked time and again throughout the centuries.

Consequently as a matter of urgency our current monarch Queen Elizabeth II must be able to resume the Crown's traditional powers. Therefore Her Majesty should be able to appoint and dismiss government ministers including the prime minister; summon, prorogue, and dismiss parliament; and introduce legislation to, and amend, and veto legislation from that body. Since we are in personal union with Great Britain and the other Dominions, we cannot expect our sovereign to reside here on a regular basis, anymore than we can expect religious leaders like the pope, to always reside in countries where Catholicism is at least nominally, the majority religion. As the personal representative of our Sovereign, it is only logical that the Governor General should, unlike today, be appointed at the personal discretion of the monarch, to represent her in Canada, and exercise her powers; without any regard to the prime minister.

Likewise to ensure that our Queen and her representatives enjoy a degree of independence from the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures, the Crown should have the ability to collect, retain and vary up to certain level, the revenue from the various federal and provincial sales taxes, corporation tax, and the income from federal, and provincial crown lands, without parliament's consent; while additional taxation would still need the consent of parliament and the respective legislatures. This ensures the sovereign can remain financially independent of parliament, which by extension, also means the preservation of her own independence; thereby helping to avoid a repeat of parliamentary usurpation's of royal authority, while also serving as a check on any potential financial excesses by the Crown.

Furthermore to enjoy a certain degree of autonomy it seems reasonable to me that the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors should continue to be appointed for five year terms, but removable by the monarch or the Governor General respectively, following a three-fifths majority impeachment in the House of Lords. This ensures these royal representatives have a large degree of autonomy, to carry out their duties of directing the government within their respective sphere's of Her Majesty's Dominion, while the regular term limits help prevent such officials from serving for life; thereby preventing them from securing an independent power base from which to potentially challenge the authority of the crown they are supposed to serve.

Furthermore the Governor General should be able to exercise another traditional power of the Crown on behalf of Her Majesty, namely the right to appoint and dismiss the judges of the Supreme Court and any other federal court; although they too should enjoy a degree of independence by also being appointed for a five year term, with the Governor General empowered to remove them only by the method of impeachment. This would serve to avoid the error in the United States, where liberal Supreme Court Justices usurp power from the Constitution, to change and strike down laws at will, thereby wrecking havoc upon the federal and state governments; and serve in effect as unelected, unaccountable, and collective tinpot dictators for life. Likewise the Lieutenant Governors should also be able to exercise similar powers at the provincial level.

Similarly the Federal Parliament should be brought into alignment with the traditional model of the British Parliament, by comprising both a House of Commons and a House of Lords with each House having the ability to table, amend and veto a bill arising from the other House or from the monarch. This ensures that Bills are carefully vetted before becoming law, with the added benefit of keeping the number of laws on statute down to an absolute minimum. However the customary differences in powers between the two Houses should be preserved with finance bills needing either to originate in or be submitted by the Crown to the Commons first, while the Lords should enjoy the exclusive power to impeach members of either House, ministers of the Crown, the Governor-General, federal judges and senior members of the armed forces.

Unlike today, the House of Commons would resemble the current Senate, by comprising members appointed by, and representing the various provincial and territorial governments for seven year terms; thereby denying the prime minister the chance to control the House with his appointed lackeys. Likewise the size of each provincial or territorial representation in the House would be determined by its share of the general population, according to the once in a decade federal census. This would ensure that the Commons better achieves what the Senate fails miserably to do namely, ensure that the provinces and territories have a voice, and active participation in the federal legislative process; while a periodical distribution of seats to reflect trends like the growing population in Western Canada, ensures the provinces a much fairer distribution of seats, which is in complete contrast to the Senate where the number of provincial and territorial seats are fixed, ensuring that Western Canada is under-represented while Eastern Canada is grossly over-represented.

Likewise I believe in the necessity of a Canadian House of Lords as, by virtue of their autonomous nature, peers would play a vital role in the legislative process by being a more effective "second House of sober thought" then the Senate. This new House of Lords would comprise a fixed number of Lords, which avoids a repeat of the the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. These Lords would in turn be divided into two kinds namely: the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal. Of these the Lords Temporal would be the most dominant and be modeled on the traditional British representative peers, with each province and territory unlike the Commons; represented by an equal number of Lords Temporal, who would be elected for life from among the peerage of each respective province and territory. The minority Lords Spiritual on the other hand, would comprise an equal number of the senior clerics from Canada's largest churches, who would ensure their churches have a voice in the legislative process.

At the provincial level the government would be controlled by the Lieutenant-Governor, appointed at the discretion of the Governor-General, to weld the traditional prerogatives of the Crown in the province or territory where they reside, and to whom the premier and other provincial ministers would be accountable. However to maintain a degree of autonomy it only makes sense to me, that the Lieutenant-Governor's be allowed to retain the bulk of the exclusive provincial crown taxes for government expenses, before handing over the remainder to the Governor-General.

However the current democratic dictatorship in each province would end, with the single chambered provincial legislative assemblies replaced by two chambered legislatures, modeled after the Federal Parliament; comprised of a Chamber of Delegates and a Chamber of Peers, possessing equal legislative powers. Likewise the right to scrutinize finance bills first, would belong to the Chamber of Delegates, and the right of impeachment would belong to the Chamber of Peers.

Unlike the federal House of Commons and provincial legislatures of toady, the provincial Chamber of Delegates would comprise members elected by a three-class suffrage system, with constituencies represented by three MCD's (Member of the Chamber of Delegates) representing the working, middle and upper classes respectively, who would each have an equal proportion of seats in the chamber.

This is due to my observations to date, where I become convinced of the principle that urban dwellers in the towns and cities can always be counted on, to make crass liberal, pinko, commie decisions at voting time; while those who dwell in countryside can usually be counted on to cast much smarter choices at the ballot. Additionally while the working class are the most numerous of the three classes, it is the middle and upper classes who by virtue of their greater wealth, are more important to the country, as it is they who have the ability to create the jobs that are needed to help make the country prosper. It thus for these reasons that the urban middle and working classes, should not be allowed to bully the rural middle and upper classes, and hijack the national interest for their own selfish and irresponsible ends; but rather forced into cooperating with the other classes for greater good of the country, which is why I believe they should have an equal number of seats.

The Chamber of Peers in contrast would comprise a fixed number of Peers, divided again like the federal House of Lords into two groups, namely: the Spiritual Peers and the Temporal Peers; with the Temporal Peers being the most numerous. Unlike the House of Lords however, the Temporal Peers would comprise a fixed number of hereditary peers, whose descendants would inherit their seats according to the principle of male salic succession, except where a different mode of hereditary succession is provided for with the special exemption of the legislature. Like their counterparts in the House of Lords however, the minority Spiritual Peers would comprise the senior clerics from the largest denominations in the province. Periodically the peers of each province would assemble to elect from among their number, a Lord who would represent them and their province at the federal level.

In my opinion hereditary peers should have a role in the legislative process, because by virtue of their hereditary nature they have an independent power base, which frees them from the machinations of partisan politics and the party whip, allowing them to vote according to their conscience; and just like their sovereign peers undergo a lifetime of training in preparation for taking their seat in House, thereby making them far more qualified for their position, compared to a senate lackey of the prime minister who like him, usually have little or no prior government job experience. Again like their federal counterparts, spiritual peers should also be able to participate in the legislative affairs of their province, serving as a moral voice and influence on the proceedings on behalf of their respective denominations. However it is also because of role they provide that spiritual peers cease being such upon the end of their tenure as clergy, thereby making room for their successors.

Thus only in this manner I believe can the tyrannical democratic flaws in the current system be addressed, freeing the representatives of the Crown at the federal and provincial level to run the government, according to the best interests of the country and the provinces, without being subject to the fickle whim of public opinion; while their extensive powers would be kept in check by the required consent of both the federal parliament and the provincial legislatures for new laws and additional taxation, beyond those I have outlined that I believe, should lie within the exclusive domain of the Crown. Naturally many, including readers of this blog, would think this scheme crazy, but such is that lot of an ardent reactionary and is also why I am a member of the Mad Monarchist brain trust.

Mad Rant: Freedom in the Far East

Recently, the eyes of the world have again been drawn to the Far East thanks to the antics of the Orwellian real-life nightmare that is North Korea. Such incidents make me think and that is usually not a good thing, at least not for any poor soul who happens to come see me in the aftermath and is subject to a long, manic lecture on my obsession of the moment. Well, you happened into this corner of the inter-webs so you get it too. When I look at Korea, I am reminded of a few things. For one, I am reminded of why I could never condemn all American intervention overseas. True, I look back on American military history and see no vital reason for most of the wars America has fought, but when I look at South Korea as compared to North Korea, I say, “well done America, Great Britain and all the other allies”. Too bad the whole peninsula could not be as prosperous as the south. It also makes me angry again at the U.S. government (or the Democratic Congress anyway) for the abandonment of South Vietnam, which could be just as successful today. However, after such a pat on the back, I also think about what an obvious nightmare it is that countries like Korea, China and the Indochinese lands broke from their own long established traditions to embrace the political feuds of the western world.

I think of the fallen dynasties and the whole populations nearly brought to ruin in wars driven by competing allegiances to totally alien ideologies, being used as proxies usually for the United States or Soviet Union. Not that those two were in any way comparable, as the contrast between North and South Korea clearly shows, but it is a crying shame it ever came to that in the first place. Now, usually, when I go on this tirade, someone will mention that it was from the west in general or the United States in particular that people learned about things like freedom, liberty or the great “gift” of democracy. Please, spare me the sanctimony. There were certainly things the east needed to learn from the west but there were also plenty of things the west could have benefited from learning from the east. On a moral level, each seem fairly well matched to me. The most basic traditional values of right and wrong were much the same in both parts of the world, and both have abandoned many or most of these in our time anyway. However, it positively infuriates me that so many people seem to think that before the era of republicanism all the peoples of the east were living in grinding poverty and near slavery. That, in a word, is idiotic.

You could say the same thing about the west. How everyone seems to think that before the era of the so-called “Enlightenment” and especially before the revolutionary era, everyone lived in oppression and ignorance. They forget all about the great universities established in the Middle Ages, the tremendous scientific, literary and artistic discoveries of the Renaissance or how, even in feudal times, most Europeans had more holidays from work and paid less to their governments than they do today. But in the east this same ignorant attitude has often also been combined with a disgusting dose of condescension and thinly veiled racism. I will never forget finding an old school book, written sometime in the 1910’s, that spoke with such arrogant, ignorant pride about the 1911 Revolution in China. This was from a contemporary American perspective of course, and the book spoke so smugly about how the Chinese had finally “grown up” and were embracing the idea of the republic which, of course, Americans were “smart” enough to have figures out two centuries earlier. One would think the very concept of “freedom” had only been invented in Philadelphia in 1776!

This is obviously garbage for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the facts. Under the Confucian monarchy, for example, Korea actually had a more meritocratic system hundreds of years ago than the United States has even today where your popularity can get you a high position even if your ability is nil. The imperial system in China certainly could not have survived for thousands of years and maintained a vast country with the largest population in the world without doing something right and the masses would not have just submitted for so many centuries if they were all living like slaves. The Mongol Empire, for example, had freedom of religion, vibrant commerce and laws protecting property and all without a written constitution or elected national assembly. Tell that to a republican today and blow their mind.

Human beings the world over had plenty of time to learn what worked and what did not and, unlike today without our collective safety nets, if something didn’t work the consequences could not be ignored. People learned from it, adapted and moved on. When a system was found that worked, they stuck with it until it became sacred tradition. Many attributed foreign influences with the establishment of the Japanese constitutional monarchy in the Meiji Constitution. However, it embodied the same values held by the Japanese going back at least to the Seventeen-Article Constitution released in 604 by Prince Shotoku. This document included such points as being tolerant of disagreement, not to be envious, not to conscript people at times that would prevent them from providing for themselves and that important decisions should be left to one ruler but taken after discussion. Those who believe that government which governs best is that which governs the least might also be surprised to learn that many Chinese came to the same conclusion a thousand years ago. In Imperial China there was the famous saying, implying considerable freedom through benign neglect that, “Heaven is high, and the Emperor is far away”.

Today we smart, modern people in our republican world think that we have to have a small army of politicians at every level of government and all of these people always think they have to be “doing something”. Are these hordes of compulsive regulators really creating more freedom as compared to the traditional systems of the past where the Emperor of Japan just prayed for his people or where the Emperor of China was “far away” in Peking? In Imperial Vietnam there was a very old traditional saying that the authority of the Emperor stopped at the village gate. This was, obviously, not absolutely the case but it arose because of the considerable autonomy that existed from village to village. The Emperor in Hue or (prior to that) Thanh Long focused on the big issues while for the most part the people were governed on the local level by their own village elders with an occasional visit from an itinerate mandarin. They also had sense enough to appreciate the importance of saving for a rainy day whereas today we seem to have made a “virtue” out of not saving anything and even spending money we don’t have. Remind me again; who are the ignorant ones? Those people ruled by kings and emperors who actually produced things or the populations of today who have every minute detail of their lives regulated and have based whole economies on betting on the profit or loss of products that no one has even made yet? They had a government with one emperor and an economy based on real money and real goods. We have governments made up of thousands of parasites and economies based on moving around “potential” (imaginary) money no one has even earned yet.

People in the past, as I am so fond of saying, were not stupid and the Vietnamese who used to watch tigers and elephants fight in an arena were a hundred times more civilized than the people who watch “The Jersey Shore”. People in the East, as well as the West, were not living a nightmarish existence before the revolutionary republic was introduced and I have no doubt that all would be better off to return to tried and tested traditional ways, adapted for the modern world and technological improvements, while throwing away modernistic concepts that have so clearly and painfully failed. I think such a thing would be beautiful, but then I am, as any will say, just … The Mad Monarchist.

Reminder: Spain IS a Constitutional Monarchy

The blog Royal World explains some of the facts of life about King Juan Carlos I, abortion and the constitutional monarchy in Spain. Why oh why do so many monarchists seem to show so much zeal tearing down monarchs and other monarchists rather than focusing on the real enemy?

Mad Rant: Government Is Not the Answer

One of the things that often annoys me in dealing with republicans is the repeated raising of the question of what exactly monarchy can practically do to serve the public or how monarchies can work better than republics or what practical things they can provide that republics cannot. There are, of course, arguments that can be made for monarchy on all of those scores but I get extremely frustrated at the repetition of that line of questioning. Why you ask? Because, when emphasized so much, it seems to me to be a symptom of the disease of revolutionary republicanism that has gripped the world and I get extremely frustrated when monarchists continually try to battle republicans on the enemy’s terms and using republican standards of judging success or failure. To some extent this cannot be avoided but I think monarchists should struggle against it and not surrender the terms of the debate to the revolutionaries.

Despite what can be said for monarchy in this regard it can also be a hard subject to deal with, particularly now, because most monarchies have been reduced to the status of glorified window dressing. On paper the monarchy may be the foundation of the governments in many countries but they have reduced their royals to the point of resembling the lilies of the field who toil not neither do they spin. Given that, it can be difficult at times to list in a practical way what monarchies can provide that republics cannot when most monarchies are effectively republics in all but name already. The problem with this, in even ‘going there’ is that it accepts the model of the revolutionaries who made a sort of god or a secular religion out of government and politics.

Like anyone else, I of course have my own opinions about what political, economic and governmental systems work the best, though never losing my abhorrence for all politics in general and looking back most nostalgically on the era when there was no government as we would know it today but simply a sovereign, his lords and his people who each handle their own affairs within their own sphere of society. It was only with the emergence of mass politics, roughly emerging at the time of the French Revolution if one must take aim at a certain event, when government began to be looked to as the source of the answers to all problems in life and when people started to be fed the lie that if we could just come up with this or that sort of government or adapt this or that political ideology everything would work perfectly and the world would be a utopian paradise.

Retch! It is a lie of course and the most absurd lie which may be why it is so readily believed. In the old days the only institution which would come close to matching this would be religion and even then, in virtually all religions, that paradise was something that could never be achieved in this life with our human foibles and physical limitations. Mass politics emerged as a means for the revolutionary elite to overthrow monarchs and seize power for themselves and the idea of the government as the answer to all life’s problems emerged as a way to allow these revolutionary elites to continually increase the scope and reach of government and thus vastly enlarge their own power continuously as time goes on and we see that very clearly today.

Monarchy, of course, can be of great practical benefit; if it could not it would not have been the dominant form of government for the vast majority of human history, because it takes into account all aspects of humanity; the need for spiritual nourishment, the need for pageantry, the centrality of family as well as seeing to the nuts and bolts of ordering society. However, at times I would like to shout at skeptics that monarchy is not based on trying to give everyone exactly what they want and providing absolutely everything for every single person but rather is based, in my view at least, on the principle of legitimate authority; regardless of how it works because it is legitimate.

If society is well ordered and based on the proper principles true freedom and prosperity will flow naturally. Revolutionaries associate monarchy with oppression to divert from the fact that it is oppression that they themselves truly stand for. They use socialism to keep people in the slavery of perpetual existence without any advancement. They preach freedom while delivering only licentiousness and expanding the scope of government to control every aspect of human life from how much money you make, to what you eat, what you drink, how you travel, how to think correctly, what is passed on through propaganda -er, education, even trying to heal the sick and control the weather. Even Louis XIV at the height of his glory never imagined having such far reaching powers over his people nor would he have cared to have it. I maintain that monarchy is a superior form of government, that in general republicanism is disastrous but government is also not finally the point -it is not the be all and end all of human existence and no government or political system or administrative formula is the answer to all human suffering. I am tired of that line of questioning, I am tired of that mentality and I am … The Mad Monarchist.