Tuesday, July 29, 2014

A Helpful Illustration

If anyone is inclined to wonder why a pan-monarchist, such as myself, tends to get rather irate on the issue of defending the existing monarchies of the world, even those that might be (gasp) less than entirely perfect, I present the following illustration to explain: (no, not every last speck may be correct -this was done by myself and not a professional cartographer but I think it gets the point across)
Monarchies of the world in 1900

Monarchies of the world in 1914

Monarchies of the world in 1921

Monarchies of the world in 1939

Monarchies of the world today.

Get the picture?


  1. I see your point. But I for my part will always prioritize Catholic monarchies and those who are or have a history of being friends of Christendom and the Catholic Church. Not denying monarchy is the best form of government, and more of them would bring global stability. But I'm less than pleased to see most of our royalty still in disarray, but Islam somehow has a new Caliph. Supposedly. Apparently. Whatever. Seems to have begun with the same legitimacy as most of the Islamic monarchs.

    I think it's also important to remember that many of these monarchies, during their reigning ages, wouldn't even spit in the direction of most of these other countries. They fought and squabbled all the time.

    Which brings me to a question I wanted to bring up to you, and this seems a good venue to do so. Some Royal Houses have outright renounced their claims to their thrones, or are extinct. It would seem one of the only hopes for the restoration of Monarchies is the founding of new dynasties and new monarchs. This brings me to my actual question: all ruling families have to start somewhere. Beyond that, of course, their legitimacy is evident. But what about from the very start and at the beginning? How could a new monarchy be started today, and how could it be considered legitimate, and what would distinguish it from a military dictatorship in terms of formation and enforcing its claims? I just want your thoughts.

  2. Great post. It would also be interesting to see the constitutional monarchies is a different colour from the absolutist ones.

  3. The Altar and the Throne are so intertwined, hence as God’s influence over mankind wanes, unfortunately so does the Throne’s influence.

  4. A monarch rules either by divine right, by right of birth or by right of conquest. I would argue that a new dynasty rules by right of conquest either militarily or by the fact that he's able to pull off getting enough power to claim and hold the throne.

  5. I have an unrelated question for you what do you feel about "prometing" someone in a republic like America to King, even though clearly it would not be ideal, historically speaking there doesn't appear to be a legitimate monarch for America if you take into account article 1 of the Treaty of Paris. So imagine that a charismatic monarchist steps up and some how manages to convince Congress to unanimously declare him absolute monarch of America, what kind of legitimacy (if any) would he have? Especially from a biblical prospective (taking into account King David and the lack of hereditary legitimacy of some Roman emperors such as Tiberius mentioned a few articles ago). By the way the article above was great really puts things into prospective!

  6. Oh, I got the picture. I mean, I got it, I just don't want it!

  7. The 2 World wars were about nothing but destroying the world's monarchies and replacing it with corporate democracies or republics where are worse. WWII destroyed Japan monarchy whether in part or whole but democracies fear what Monarchies can do for their people such as in the case of Japan and Germany.

  8. And how many of those former monarchies were European colonies? I'm reminded of one of the old British imperialists:

    "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

    Liberalism is our custom. It is the one thing unique to us. It was Empire that destroyed the indigenous, organic social order of Africa and Asia, and the Marxists (and Marx was a German Jew every bit as Western as Rhodes or Spencer) who corrupted the blowback into "post-colonialism." All roads lead back home. As you say, we must be prepared to tolerate - nay, cherish - their more unpleasant customs. They are the heart and soul of any authentic social order.

    Of course, that point can be overstated. The West is flawed, but we are irreversibly of the West and so must be at peace with our mindset and customs (otherwise we become naive relativists - there is one Law above human law, and it is fitting that we should attempt to emulate it in a spirit of humility). Might I propose this, then? We hold off until they are strong enough to defend their way of life by their own philosophical lights - and then we "act according to national custom."


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...