The Case for Monarchy: Germany

The Federal Republic of Germany today is a far cry from the proud nation of the past. It is no exaggeration to say that no republic has ever done well in Germany. Even now, the scars remain from the division of West Germany and East Germany and ugly memories still linger from World War II and probably always will so long as those who have made an industry out of exploitation by guilt remain unopposed. That is not to say, of course, that the past should be forgotten. Far from it. However, after World War II and the division of Germany, even after reunification, a great many Germans turned their back on their past, on virtually their entire history prior to 1918 and, as a result, have inadvertently allowed the era of Nazi domination to define them. This has had disastrous consequences on Germany and on the German people themselves. It has led to a guilt-ridden consciousness in which successive German governments feel the need to compensate everyone for misdeeds they themselves played no part in. It has led to the German people being forced to foot the bill for the free-spending and easy lifestyles of other countries (with damaging consequences) and has effectively robbed many Germans of a proper, patriotic national pride. It has also allowed governments to make some pretty terrible decisions, disastrous for the future of the German nation, but which are always forgiven. When the public has been conditioned to think only of Nazi Germany and the current Federal Republic, nothing the republic does could seem that bad.

This denial of history has gone to such lengths that the former Kingdom of Prussia, not just a former state, not just a former country but the country which brought about the unification of Germany, was totally wiped from the map. Why was this done? Hitler and his Nazis did not spring from Prussia nor was Prussia any more or less involved in the actions of that era than any other state considering its size and importance. It was done because there was a conscious effort to erase German history prior to the Nazi era so that the people would only be given a choice that was really no choice at all: that terrible Nazi memory or this new federal republic that was under construction. If the people were to actually remember their history they might realize that it was the first united German republic which provided the vehicle by which Hitler and his Nazis came to power in the first place. Far from starting over fresh, the current republic was simply a resurrected, modified version of the inter-war republic that provided the framework for a truly evil minority to rise by intimidation, subterfuge and (yes) the democratic process to dominate Germany. By doing so they have locked the public imagination into a post-1945 mentality and encouraged the rest of the world to see only a negative image of Germany.

Germany today has no anchor and flounders culturally and politically while gaining very little respect in the world. By being frozen in time the rest of the world has been encouraged to see Germans the same way. Ask a foreigner to describe German culture or what comes to mind when they think of Germany and they will probably come up with beer, lederhosen and Nazis. In a political context, most view Germany as the nation that always pays the bills, that will be there to bail you out if you get too deeply in debt (thus eliminating any incentive to behave responsibly) and yet this has engendered no great love for Germany. Most people tend to have little affection for their banker. Germany has also become known as one of those nations that decries nationality. The country has become more and more multi-cultural in the sense that there are now huge African, Asian, Arab and Turkish populations in the country and yet it has become more mono-cultural as the rich distinctiveness of the states is lost. Some of the old states have been lost altogether and for those that remain their uniqueness has become less and less pronounced over time. It is quite sad and all the more so because it doesn’t have to be this way.

The history and the culture of the individual states was once alive in the persons of their royal families. Reigning at the top of this union was the German Kaiser, representing all Germans as well as the unique history of the Kingdom of Prussia. We are told, by those whose current claim to power rests on the overthrow of the old German royals, that to restore them in any form would be to return power to those guilty of fomenting the First World War. Like any good lie this has a grain of truth to it for Imperial Germany was certainly responsible for the horror that was World War One. However, they were no more responsible than any other great power on either side whether Austria-Hungary, Russia, France or Great Britain. None were innocent nor were any entirely guilty and it was an incontestable injustice that Germany alone was forced to shoulder the blame for a conflict almost every European power entered into with willingness, zeal and enthusiasm. What is more, the party most opposed to the monarchy and which would make up the new ruling class in the republic was just as enthusiastic as all the others in approving the decision to go to war. It is also an incontestable fact that Hitler could never have become dictator of Germany had the Kaiser and the subsidiary monarchs of Imperial Germany retained their positions.

Still, we are told over and over again that the monarchy represented the political culture which brought about the disastrous conflict, what is termed “Prussian militarism” which the enemies of the monarchy used to apply equal guilt to all the monarchies and later to justify the dissolution of Prussia altogether. However, a dispassionate look at the facts shows that the last German Kaiser was the least militaristic of almost all his contemporaries. From 1888 to 1914 Wilhelm II had never fought an actual war. To compare, in that same period of time, Great Britain had fought a war with Tibet over Sikkim, fought the shortest war in history against Zanzibar, fought a border war in northern India and the Second Boer War in South Africa. Consider also that during the reign of Wilhelm II the French Republic had a greater percentage of her population under arms than Germany did. Germany had the second largest navy in the world, second only to Great Britain, yet even then the British fleet was more than twice the size of that of Germany. The United States might have had an even more militaristic reputation. Again, from 1888 to 1914, the United States fought the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the Banana Wars, another rebellion in the Philippines and an armed intervention in Mexico. The German Empire was actually one of the most peaceful of world powers.

What the German Empire was known for was its unity, pride, progressive social welfare system, productive industries and great learning. The German language was the language of business and was learned in foreign countries more than any other language. The monarchy was a vital living link with the history of the German people that all Germans could look to with pride; a patriotic pride without guilt or shame. It was the royal houses that built the united Germany and it was their downfall that ushered in the darkest period in the entire history of the German people. The German nation which had thrown back invaders since the time of ancient Rome was reduced to utter ruin and humiliation. Only by the restoration of the German monarchies can the ugly ghosts of the last century be firmly put in their place. It is only in this way that, rather than constant efforts to reinvent Germany, that the true, natural and historic Germany can be fully restored to her people and the world. The ruins of Wiemar, Hitlerism and division are not and can never be proper foundations for a country. Germany has strong foundations, it only requires that the people rediscover them and restore them to their proper place.

The Case for Monarchy: Italy

Today, the Italian Republic is in a terrible state. No one can deny that, though the political class will spend their time pointing the finger of blame at each other in order to save themselves. Perhaps though, looking back on the now 150 years of a united Italy, the people will instead look at the political class as a whole and the system itself which has brought Italy to this point. Politics in Italy has always been a rough business, from ancient Rome to the Renaissance states to modern Italy. However, in recent decades the situation has really gotten out of control. The situation has become so dire, some have even contemplated the potential dissolution of Italy as a nation, breaking up the country into several petty-republic. Usually, this involves blaming all current problems on events that took place centuries ago and which are, therefore, impossible to solve so everyone should just give up and go home in defeat. That might be seen as an easier path for some, but human experience has shown that the easy way is invariably the wrong way and even more harmful in the end. Taking an honest look at the current state of affairs, instituting reforms and, perhaps, correcting some of those past mistakes might not be easy but it just might save and restore the Italian nation. Some have said that Italy needs a “new Risorgimento” but, perhaps, Italy would be better served by simply re-learning the lessons of the Risorgimento she has already had? That was the creation of the Kingdom of Italy, which stands in stark contrast to one of the greatest mistakes of Italian history; the destruction of the monarchy.

Italy was created as a monarchy. In 1861 it was not the Italian Republic that was declared, but the Kingdom of Italy. There were good reasons that this was the case. Italians from all walks of life and from vastly different political points of view came together to create the Kingdom of Italy because they agreed on certain points. Not many, it is true, but points that were vital; the unity, independence and great aspirations of the Italian people. They may have disagreed on absolutely every other detail but they did all agree that the people of Italy should be united, independent and strong and that the Kingdom of Italy, the monarchy, was the only viable framework to accomplish that. Republican politics invariably devolved into class warfare and divisive, partisan rancor that brought down the edifice that the revolutionaries were endeavoring to create. Even the revolutionary Francesco Crispi, old ally of Giuseppe Garibaldi, who led the Expedition of the Thousand alongside him and who had been an ardent republican, embraced the Kingdom of Italy and rejected the republican model because, as he told his former colleague Giuseppe Mazzini, “The monarchy unites us, the republic would divide us”. The Kingdom of Italy was the roof under which all Italians came together and it was the Kingdom of Italy that rose to be a regional power and a player on the world stage.

The late King Vittorio Emanuele III once said, in a time of political turmoil, “In Italy they are already speaking about a republic, but keep in mind that there is nothing less suited to Italians … The Italians are individualists and a republic will become the cause of confusion and disorder. Certainly of corruption. I have no doubt of it. When all this comes to pass who will profit from it?” Surely today the Italian people can appreciate what true and prophetic words these were. And, surely Italians today can give an answer to their late king as to “who will profit from it”; the answer is the politicians who make up the ruling class, who have turned the government of Italy into a scheme for their own enrichment rather than the administration of the country. They have made themselves an immense fortune at the expense of their people and their country, setting Italians against each other, engaging in bribery on a national scale and selling out the national interests and even the national sovereignty of Italy all in order to benefit themselves and the ruling politician-class to which they aspire to belong. They have no real connection to the Italian nation at all. They do not see individuals, as the late King did, but simply a mass of people to be manipulated, used and exploited.

This stands in stark contrast to the Kings of Italy who were, one after the other, devoted to the pursuit of Italian greatness above all. They did so for the honor of their country, which would be the glory of the dynasty as well. This is one of the great benefits of the monarchial system. Politicians gain fame by gaining victories for themselves whereas monarchs take a much broader view, considering the judgment of posterity and gain fame when the country succeeds, when the country becomes greater, more respected and more prosperous. Naturally, some projects worked out better than others but the simple fact is that the Kings of Italy were always looking for a way to advance the national cause, to make Italy a greater country whereas, in the era of the republic, the political leadership only seeks to advance the cause of their own party and to make themselves greater even if it means the ruination of the country in the long run. Italy is in a dire position today and at a pivotal crossroads in the history of the Italian nation. The country is mired in debt, overrun with corrupt politicians who have made the government in Rome a joke, ruled by a bunch of un-elected appointees of the European Union, social cohesion is breaking down, there are fewer and fewer Italians in Italy and those who remain squabble over what it means to be Italian.

What would the great figures from the history of the Italian peninsula, of the Latin race, say if they could see Italy today? How would they react to the offspring of the people who built Western Civilization, who ruled and advanced the prosperity of an empire stretching from the Pillars of Hercules to the Euphrates and Hadrian’s Wall in Britain to the cataracts in Egypt being reduced to a divided state indebted to others and ruled by an elite clique appointed from beyond her borders? The Italian Republic has proven itself a failure. It was, due to the republican plebiscite, built on fraud and injustice from the start and has failed in even its most basic duty to preserve and protect the sovereignty and independence of the Italian nation, to say nothing of allowing the Italian people to reach their greatest potential. Italians, 150 years ago, came together, united by the monarchy, to build a great nation. There is no reason they cannot do so again. It was the safeguard that the royal institution provided which prevented extremism from fracturing the country and brought the majority of both sides of the political spectrum together, on the path of moderation, to pursue the national aspirations of the Italian people.

The lesson of history could not be more clear. From 1861 until the monarchy was sidelined by political forces, Italy was growing in strength at home and prestige abroad. Since the republic came to power the country has known only renunciation and decline. The Kingdom of Italy inspired and encouraged Italians to think the best of themselves and to aspire to better themselves; to be worthy of the great civilizations that had gone before them. The republican governments encourage Italians to belittle their country, apologize for any success and generally feel ashamed of themselves. Is it any wonder that when a people are taught to think in such a way that the country falls into decline? If great deeds are to be mocked or apologized for, who would ever aspire to greatness? If the only representatives of the nation are partisan political figures, who can inspire all people of every section of society to put their country first and strive for success? Someone outside of politics is needed for that, a national figure who can represent the interests of the nation as a whole, the historic legacy of the nation and who can rally the people to live up to that legacy. For the modern, united Italy, there is simply no denying that no family can do that other than the Royal House of Savoy. They have been with modern Italy at every step of her history. Their story is the Italian story and until Italy restores the monarchy it will remain a nation in denial.

The Case for Monarchy: Portugal

In few other cases can the argument for monarchy be better made than in Portugal and the only argument needed is the historical argument. As a kingdom, Portugal was once the envy of Europe, the little country on the edge of the continent that was on the cutting edge of progress and innovation. As a republic, Portugal has known tumult, in-fighting and gained notice only for being one of the most poor European nations. Even when that trend started to be reversed, it was based on borrowed prosperity and has led to Portugal being known as a debtor country. The contrast could not be more stark. Of course, the history of the Kingdom of Portugal was not one of uninterrupted success. There were certainly low periods. However, under the monarchy the Portuguese showed what they were truly capable of and they achieved truly awesome heights of prestige and prosperity. Under the republic, the low periods have remained but the successes of the monarchy have never even come close to being matched to say nothing of being surpassed.

Portugal was born and came into being as a monarchy. The Portuguese kings led their people in the struggle against Islamic domination, creating their own independent country and then leading it to further success on the world stage. The Kingdom of Portugal was a center of science and learning, Portuguese explorers in the employ of the King blazed a trail that the other nations of western Europe would follow. They built the first global maritime empire, and one based on commerce and industry rather than conquering vast territories and subjugating populations. They carried the Portuguese language and the light of Christianity to the jungles of Brazil, the farthest, untouched corners of Africa, the subcontinent of India and the islands and great civilizations of the Far East. The Kingdom of Portugal introduced Europe to the world and established business contacts and trade routes that made Portugal the most prosperous country in Christendom and yet also maintained their reputation as one of the most faithful and devoutly religious.

Ask anyone to name the greatest figures of Portuguese history and they will most likely come up with names like King Manuel I, Henry the Navigator or any of the number of great explorers from the golden age of Portuguese history. In short, they will name people from the era of the Kingdom of Portugal. Ask them to name some great or even significant Portuguese figure from the era of the republics and you will be answered with deafening silence. It is not to say that no one from Portugal has done anything significant since then, but that is one of the things that comes with the loss of monarchy. Everything seems altogether more ordinary and mundane compared to countries that are part of the club of royalty. For instance, more people know about Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese Queen consort of Great Britain, wife of King Charles II, who brought part of India as her dowry and who introduced the custom of drinking tea to England than any of the “first ladies” of even any Portuguese republican official to say nothing of foreign leaders. Even when the Kingdom of Portugal had fallen on hard times in the years prior to the revolution, Portugal was still a country that mattered to the other great powers of Europe because it was a royal country, worthy of consideration for marriage alliances because of their lofty rank. Since the republic, Portugal has been largely ignored on the world stage until recently when her mountainous debts have threatened to cause economic hardship for others.

The kingdom may have had its problems at certain points but the leadership of the republic have set new depths to which the standards of corruption, dishonesty and graft have sunk to. In any debate about the Portuguese monarchy and its overthrow, mention will usually be made of the country going bankrupt (twice) during the reign of King Carlos I, the last Portuguese monarch but one. Yet, this was not necessarily an entirely bad thing as modern events should prove. The current government in Portugal should have gone bankrupt long ago, on multiple occasions, but because the politicians who have been breaking the country are able to hide behind the veil of democratic republicanism, their crimes went unnoticed. They artificially kept the country floating on borrowed money, turning Portugal into a debtor nation when a bankruptcy or two when it should have happened might have shocked the public back to their senses and encouraged them to throw out the current lot and install someone better, perhaps even an altogether better system such as a constitutional monarchy in which the King would be available to keep a reviewing eye on the political class who have been juggling the books.

It is truly heartbreaking to see the state of Portugal today. Heartbreaking because it was not necessary, it was avoidable and because a simple look at any history book in the world will show that Portugal is a better country than this and the Portuguese are better people than this. Alleviating the problems in Portugal today should be a very simple matter of checking the historical record. Portugal was once prosperous, vastly wealthy even, with a population known for their hard work, ingenuity and abundance of faith rather than their abundance of debts. All one need do is take a look at the historical record, see when Portugal was at her best and then simply do what they did back then (with some modifications to suit modern times of course). If reform is to start at the top, the first change that should be made is in the highest level of national leadership. If Portugal was greatest when she was a monarchy then she should be a monarchy again. It would not solve every problem instantly of course, but a restored King of Portugal could provide the sort of moral leadership Portugal needs so that the people can be inspired again, united and motivated to help each other and, as in the old days, find new ways to grow and prosper. Only a figure like a monarch could lead such a movement, lead Portugal in restoring her faith, her pride and her pursuit of excellence. And that is why the Portuguese monarchy should be restored in quick order.

The Case for Monarchy: France

The Kingdom of France holds a special place in the heart of most western monarchists because so much of the subsequent dominance of republicanism and the idealization of revolution stems from its downfall. Even today it would not be totally untrue to assert, as past republican figures have done, that France IS the Revolution. Because the French Revolution assumed such a place of worshipful devotion it has been necessary for subsequent republican leaders to glorify the leaders of that horrific event and to blacken the name of the old Kingdom of France and in this they have, sadly, been mostly successful. For most people, the colors of blue-white-red, the French national anthem and even the guillotine evoke things like patriotism, the struggle for liberty, equality and fraternity, the overthrow of oppression and so on. Likewise, for most people, the Kingdom of France is often viewed as a terrible period of absolutism, exploitation, impoverished peasants being preyed upon by corrupt, distance aristocrats clustered around a hedonistic court presided over by power-mad monarchs and hypocritical clerics. Like most pieces of propaganda this is the result of ignoring unpleasant facts, facts that do not fit the narrative, and greatly exaggerating real problems to the point of inventing falsehoods.

France can be seen as revolutionary in one way. For almost as long as it has existed as a recognizable nation it has known a series of rises and falls. There was the rise of the empire of Charlemagne (though it is still a matter of bitter dispute among some whether this was a French or German accomplishment) which dominated western Europe before dividing and going into decline. Then there was the rise of France as the great right-arm of Christendom with French knights subduing enemies and rivals across Europe, from Sicily to the Balkans and who made up the bulk of the crusader armies that held out against the powerful forces of Islam in the Middle East. Then there was division, the Hundred Years War with England and a long period of relative weakness. However, France rose up again, briefly, before being submerged for a time in religious turmoil only to rise again and become the single most dominant power in western Europe. French explorers reached Canada and the Mississippi, France was the center of art, science and philosophy. During the reign of King Louis XIV it is no exaggeration to say that everything revolved around France as almost everything done by any nation at that time was a reaction to some action by King Louis. Yet, not long after, came a number of setbacks and finally the Revolution.

It is important to note that the only subsequent major French accomplishments on the world stage were achieved by, on one or two occasions, when the Kingdom of France was briefly restored, or during the two periods of the French Empire. Napoleon I dominated Europe for a time (not necessarily a positive accomplishment but definitely an accomplishment nonetheless), King Charles X extended French influence into North Africa, Emperor Napoleon III briefly extended French influence in the Americas, established the first real presence in Indochina and made France at least a major player in events in the Middle East, the Balkans, Italy and Africa. The French republic, any of the five, have, by comparison, accomplished very little and what they have managed to achieve was done with significant help from other powers and was usually simply building on the foundations already established by their monarchial predecessors. However, the royal period in France had high and low points as well. In any given time there is no doubt that the French have proven themselves capable of great things when they set their mind to it. Government can only help or hinder in this regard. The monarchs usually helped, the republic has, without exception, always hindered.

For the French, the real question is; what sort of France do they want to be? During all of the ups and downs of French history, there is an ample selection to choose from. It would be unfair to present the choice as being between the finest examples of the Kingdom of France and the most horrid examples of revolutionary republicanism. There is not much of a comparison between St Louis and Robespierre after all. At least for humane and civilized people. The problem is that the adherents of the republic often romanticize and justify what most French monarchists would consider the most wicked and terrible pages of their history. Republicans would justify things like the Reign of Terror and the Paris Commune and those who scorn the history of Catholic France in favor of secularism (and there are plenty of them) do see the likes of Robespierre or even Marat as more admirable figures than St Louis or St Joan of Arc. And, just for further consideration, there are those like Napoleon I, King Louis Philippe or Napoleon III who tried to combine the two.

Revolutionary republicans also tend to take the “Whig” vision of history; that progress means moving ever forward and that there is no time better than the present. Given that, one could point to even the grandest heights of royal France and fairly compare it to today. Is the France of today truly representative of the best the French are capable of? A monarchist would certainly say “no”. One can also look at the French Revolutionaries and their own ideals to judge how well they have lived up to them. Originally, they were quite nationalistic, as was seen in the vilification of the once beloved Queen Marie Antoinette as the hated foreigner, the Austrian and so on. Yet, at no time in history has France been less ethnically French than it is today. There are large numbers of non-French Europeans in France, a huge and rapidly growing Arab and African Muslim population and even the most prominent couple in France, the President and First Lady, are an ethnic Hungarian and an Italian. So much for the republic being more “French”. Of course, the Kingdom of France (and even the French Empire to an extent) were cosmopolitan places with their own sort of diversity but it was never enforced in such a way as to water down the distinct native population. A Frenchman was a Frenchman, a German was a German and a Spaniard was a Spaniard. Able to get along, but certainly not the same thing and definitely not interchangeable. Fraternity has been a failure.

What about liberty? Surely the republic has improved in that area over the old days of the monarchy? An objective observer would have to say, again, say “no”. The King was unelected and (theoretically) unaccountable to the people and yet much of French life today is regulated by the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels who are, likewise, unelected and unaccountable. And, unlike the kings of old, they do not even have the welfare of France as their top priority. Assuming their first concern is not themselves, they are expected to act in the interests of the EU as a whole rather than in those of a single country. If the republic has been such a blessing to France, so democratic, so accountable and such a champion of liberty, one would be forced to ask why they have had to have so many of them. For about a thousand years the Kingdom of France operated, in good times and bad, with the occasional change in the Royal Family line, on the same basic principles of a Catholic monarchy. Yet, just since the Revolution (just a little over two centuries ago) France has gone through a directory, a couple restorations, two empires, one “State” and a grand total of five different republics. In fact, many of the low points in the recent history of France can be attributed simply to political instability. Furthermore, for those who uphold the present state of affairs as ideal, one could hardly credit the Revolution for this level of liberty since plenty of other countries have almost identical rights and freedoms that never went through a revolution at all.

As for the goal of equality, that can be easily dismissed since no society has ever achieved it, nor are any ever likely to. A simple look at France today will show that there is still an elite, still those who have power, positions and privileges which others do not and who are treated better, even put somewhat above the law, just because of who they are. In short, like most modern supposedly egalitarian societies, they still have all of the failings of a titled nobility but none of the benefits. It should be clear to anyone by now, simply by observing, that an upper class will always exist. You can either admit it and expect a level of responsibility and noblesse oblige from that upper class or you can hypocritically ignore it and have it exist as an unofficial elite based more often than not on the negative aspects of self-advancement.

So, again, France must make a choice. What sort of France do the French want to have; the Catholic French monarchy that was the “Eldest Daughter of the Church”, the vanguard of Christendom and the most respected source of culture and civilization for centuries (recalling a time when even English and German monarchs spoke French almost exclusively) or the France of the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, anti-clerical genocide, a guillotine in every town, constant turmoil and instability and a country being sold-out by professional politicians and bureaucrats with no connection to the land or people at all? In the past few centuries the French have seen every alternative firsthand, the kingdom, the republic or something in between. All that remains is to make the choice. Of course, if monarchy is chosen there will still, sadly, be another choice to be made afterwards, but nonetheless, we can take this one step at a time. For my part, I look at France today and see a nation that has proven it can be so much more, so much greater and yet clings to what is easy and familiar even if it is mediocre at best and harmful at worst. The French have every right to aspire to greatness, to be a noble, righteous and chivalrous example to the world as they have been before. That is the example that should be embraced and that is why the whole culture of the revolution should be looked at for the horror it is, totally and finally rejected and the monarchy restored.