monarchyproblems



		The Problem with Monarchy



As people around the world, particularly in Europe and the Americas, become increasingly secular, people are growing more and more cynical, doubtful and focused only on what is practical instead of what could be better but might require more effort or non-traditional (which now means 'traditional') thinking. This mentality poses a variety of problems, particularly to the remaining monarchies of the world, and it ultimately stems to a deeper question concerning the collective culture of Western civilization.

�� There can be no doubt that, most increasingly so after the opening of the 20th Century, monarchy has been on the decline and republicanism has been growing by leaps and bounds. Consider how often you see polls within a monarchy asking how many favor a republic and how often you see polls within a republic asking how many would favor a monarchy. The most ancient monarchies in the world, such as Austria, Russia and China, have all fallen and been replaced by republics. This trend, especially after World Wars One and Two, has been hard to resist given the nature of those monarchies which still exist and thrive today.

�� The modern monarchies of Europe (and Japan) have simply failed to inspire any other countries to emulate them in the way republics like the U.S. and (sadly) the Soviet Union have been. The reason, or at least a reason as I see it, behind this is the lack of a monarchist "ideology" for lack of a better word. Monarchs have ceased to play any real role in government, have severed most ties with any particular religious creed and have even been sidelined in the area of cultural representation. Today, Europe does not want supreme autocrats, defenders of the Faith, national role models or even non-political balance in a mixed government as in days gone by. Today, the preference seems to be for monarchs more reminiscent of the lilies of the field who, "toil not, neither do they spin".

�� Because of this, there has ceased to be many obvious, practical benefits which monarchies can provide that republics cannot. It is not that there aren't subtle differences which some, if not all, would find preferable, but those who oppose monarchy on principle have created the very guidelines by which monarchies and republics are judged and most monarchies have, unfortunately, accepted this. They are trying to win against republics using republican rules.

�� After the opening of the horrific French Revolution a Catholic Church official announcing the death of the Pope, and commenting on the sad state of royal Europe, commented that the best thing to do would be to, "Restore the Church of God to her ancient splendor: then the enemies of the Crown will shake in terror." Today, such an idea would be the last thing any "reign but not rule" monarch would dare to do: attempt to play a significant role in, dare I say even advance the cause of a particular religion. Even in the United Kingdom, where the monarch remains "Supreme Head" of the church, it would be unthinkable for the monarch to support or advance the Church of England as monarchs in the past have done.

�� The role of cultural representative has been stripped from royalty specifically by the increasingly multicultural nature of modern Europe (and America in the case of Canada). This problem does not exist anywhere else, the closest equivalent being in Japan where the emperor was virtually forced at gunpoint to abandon his traditional, and extremely exalted, cultural role. The problem exists in Europe as nowhere else because, for every other people of the world, save those of Western Europe and North America, there is a cultural heartland which remains the abode of the native people alone. People from France or Belgium are not moving to North Africa and Germans are not moving to Turkey, but there are massive numbers of North Africans, Turks and various others in France, Belgium, Germany and the rest of Europe.

�� For instance, there are no countries in the Middle East, Africa or Asia which are currently debating how to deal with the increasing number of Danes, Italians or Netherlanders living in their countries, whether or not their culture is being preserved, their language protected or that they have a proper standard of living (in these parts of the world few people do). China, for example, is entirely Chinese, in fact almost entirely Han Chinese and there is no reason whatsoever for China to be concerned with large numbers of foreigners desperately trying to enter the "People's Republic". China is totally Chinese just as Kenya is totally Kenyan. Yet, in Europe there are people who are concerned that the Queen of Denmark does not have enough Africans at her court or that it might be offensive for Muslims to live in a country where the Head of State is the head of a Christian church as well. Monarchs can hardly represent their national culture when their nation has no culture, only an extremely varied collection of cultures in which, for the sake of fairness, all must be equally recognized.

�� It has been widely recognized that if the only role of modern royals is to keep the public entertained, American celebrities do a far better job. Astonishment of the behavior of royals only occurs because it is out of character with traditional ways, thus it can only cause a stir when done the first time. Is it really noteworthy anymore that a royal marries a commoner? The real radical thing would be for a royal not to marry one. After the many scandals of the Prince and Princess of Wales, or the Duke and Duchess of York, is a headline about Prince Harry the playboy going to turn many heads? And, at this point, is there really anything Princess Stephanie could do that she hasn't done already? Antics such as these, yet another product of a secular-hedonist society, may titillate the "soap opera royalists", but by the next week Britney Spears' latest affair will have snatched their attention away yet again.

�� In playing by republican rules, the monarchs of Europe have attempted to become "one of the people" and, quite sadly for monarchy itself, they have largely succeeded. The royals themselves have alienated many of their most devoted adherents in this way. If a monarch becomes secular to win over a secularist, the secularist may welcome the change, but he will still not become a monarchist. He may have gained the support of a secularist for a moment, but he has lost the support of a devoted monarchist forever. In time, the monarchy will surrender all of the very things which hold it aloft. For instance, if the Duke of Anjou became an atheist and openly denounced the Catholic Church he would lose his only supporters forever while the atheists would give, perhaps, only a mental "good for you" when reading the headline.

�� This is why monarchism is not a growing form of government. Republican propaganda has said, "we don't like kings" and so the royals of Europe tried to stop acting like kings. No republicans were won over, monarchists were discouraged and the republicans could gloat whenever a prince admitted how terrible the policies of his ancestors were who dared to believe that they had a place in government, or that a state should balance democracy with heredity or that (worst of all) the rights of kings came from God and that Church and State were inseparable. In short, monarchies have faded because republicans succeeded in making them ashamed of themselves.

�� "Restore the Church of God to her ancient splendor: then the enemies of the Crown will shake in terror," truer words were never spoken. As I have expressed from my opinions, religion is at the heart of this matter and cannot be ignored. Education is the key to the future for education is little more than a nicer way of saying "indoctrination of the next generation". We dress it up by stressing it as fact, yet the liberals themselves tell us "what is true to one person may not be true to another". Education used to be a religious affair exclusively. Today, it is a state affair; a matter of politics, ruled by politicians and thus inherently opposed to the idea of monarchy, the nightmare of every party politician. For there to be a substantial change in society, monarchists would have to stop letting republicans indoctrinate their children with their own value system. They would have to reject this way of thinking themselves and stop being ashamed of the very things that make them who they are.

�� Unfortunately, the Christian religion itself would need a good dose of this same medicine as well, but this is about the decline of monarchy, not Christianity (though, make no mistake, the two are inseparable). Monarchists need to stop accepting the "truth" of the benefits liberalism has brought to society and boldly point out the real facts. They could point to the tyranny and unspeakably horrific atrocities brought about by liberal revolutionary ideas of nationalism and mass politics. When speaking of racial segregation, it is now accepted that "separate but equal" is an absurd concept, so, we must ask, how can we view the separation of Church and State as a good thing? From revolutionary France to liberal Mexico we have seen that this leads to State control of the Church, and ultimately discrimination or even open oppression of the Church. How different could political control of the crown be? Monarchists could point to all of the tens of millions of people slaughtered in the confrontation between capitalism and communism and recall that during the Christian and monarchist Middle Ages there was the system of distributism which worked better than both of them. They could remind the world that checks and balances in government is another invention of the Christian and monarchist Middle Ages and that even their beloved word "republic" actually has monarchist origins in the days of Christendom.

�� All of this could be accomplished if that "Church of God" would be restored. Prior to becoming a Catholic and reading Catholic books, I had never heard of such things as sacramental kingship, distributism or corporatism. I assumed that before the American Revolution there was no freedom or balanced government anywhere in the world and that, while religion, or rather God, was good, you couldn't just let Him run your whole life. The monarchies of the world need to get back in touch with their roots, which for the west means Christianity. With the Church itself in so much similar distress as the monarchies of the world, it should be clear that these two must support each other. If there is anything history should have taught us it is that the Empire cannot survive without Christianity at its core, and that Christianity will soon become overrun by the modern day "barbarian hordes" without the sword of the Emperor to defend it.

Joseph A. Crisp, II

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws