Religion and International Monarchism
By Joseph Crisp II
         It has been an opinion of mine that a major cause for the decline of monarchy in recent decades is the propensity for well-intentioned monarchists to play politics according to the rule book of republicans. Rather than making the complete argument that monarchism and republicanism are totally and fundamentally seperate and that monarchism, by its very nature, is the superior of the two; far too many monarchists begin their argument by accepting the pretensions of republican standards and then desperately attempt to prove that a monarchy can, in effect, make an acceptable republic. In short, whether realized or not, too many monarchists begin by unwittingly accepting the principle of republican superiority, and try to judge and defend monarchy based on the standards and values of the republican system. Thus, it is only natural that monarchists are often found wanting.
         To come to an accurate and balanced view of our current situation, monarchists must look to the heart of what their system of government stands for, what it means and decide to accept and defend it, or walk away and join the republican majority. When the adherents of republicanism speak about such slogans as "democracy, rule of the majority, liberty, equality, fraternity" and the whole bit, they truly believe in what they are saying. It is, after all, a rather simplistic dogma, and they accept and believe in it whole-heartedly. Monarchists, on the other hand, have of late been all too eager to accept these slogans as the "ideal" for modern society, tried to explain how monarchy can accomplish them too and gone to great lengths to distance themselves from their own monarchist history. Instead of saying that monarchies are superior to republics, they say, "a monarchy can become just like a republic, so long as you ignore the monarch part". This also includes keeping some distance from old time core supporters.
         Since the dawn of human civilization the causes of monarchy and religion have been completely interwoven, in virtually every culture all over the world. In the West there were the god-kings of Egypt, the holy House of David, the divine caesars, and the priestly emperors of Central and South America. In the east there were the reincarnated Buddha-kings of Thailand, the Dalai Lamas of Tibet, the Sino-culture Sons of Heaven and the Japanese imperial ancestor, the "Heaven Shining Bright Deity". All over the world, in every culture, monarchy and organized religion have gone hand in hand. Certainly this has been the case in the history of Christian Europe.
         The Catholic Church has had a traditon of monarchist cooperation ever since the Pope and Emperor Constantine decided they were stronger with each other than without. When Pope St Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans on Christmas 800 AD, the Church firmly established that through their hands God placed the crown on the heads of the rulers of the world. Particularly during the era of religious conflict, ending ultimately in the French Revolution, it was taken for granted that a strong Church and a strong monarchy went together. The same can be said for Greek influenced areas where the Eastern Orthodox Church and the person of the Emperor were so tightly bound together that the new term "Caeseropapism" was invented to describe it.
         Although many Protestants ultimately came to be staunch republicans, the roots of the movement also have firm ties to monarchy. Had it not been for the intervention of the Elector of Saxony and other German princes, Martin Luther would almost certainly have been captured and burned as a heretic. In England it is was even more pronounced when the break with Rome and establishment of the Anglican Church came about, not by popular rebellion, but by royal decree and with the monarch taking on the role of "Supreme Head of the Church on Earth". In every nation across Europe, the devoutly religious have always been devoutly monarchist, from the Orthodox Tsars of Russia to the "Most Christian" Kings of France. Why then do we see such an effort recently to keep monarchies distant and aloof from any connection to religion, the very heart of what was once their firm hold on power?
         One reason is the dual crisis of weakness and compromise, though whether weakness is the effect of compromise or compromise is a sign of weakness becomes an argument similar to 'the chicken and the egg'. By and large, monarchs are inclined toward compromise since, as a plain matter of fact, one thoughtful individual is much more easy to reason with than a mob worked into a frenzy by political slogans. Today, most monarchs have accepted the basic premise of the republican mentality as well and confined themselves to being perfect pictures of political correctness so as not to draw undue attention to the fact that their position is inherently opposed to many of the values they now must not only tolerate, but champion.
        Other parts of the world have not had the same problems and so developed differently. In China for example, even after the success of the 1911 revolution it was taken for granted that the Emperor would stay the same, no one dreamed that he could ever be anything else and according to the "Articles of Favorable Treatment" the new republican government adopted a policy of simply ignoring their Emperor as much as possible, who continued to live in comfortable confinement inside the massive walls of the "Great Within". Later, after the Emperor finally was expelled, and planning a restoration in Manchuria, the monarch was horrified by the thought that he would first have to be "Chief Executive" rather than properly restored as Emperor. Finally he agreed to take it in two steps, and although his position was certainly never totally "independent" it is also clear that anything less than a complete restoration of the empire and Confucian government was seen as almost unthinkable under any circumstances.
         We also see from this period how close the ties were between the Qing Emperor and the Dalai Lama. The last Emperor of China, prior to his Communist "reeducation" become extremely religious, to the point where he described his estate in Manchuria as more of a temple than a palace. Likewise, in Vietnam, the most constant supporters of monarchist government were found among the devoutly religious. These included such Catholic monarchists as Nguyen Huu Bai, the Hoa Hao sect founder Huynh Phu So and the Cao Dai supporters of the pretender Cuong De. In neighboring Cambodia and Thailand, the king often served as a monk for a time and upon inheriting the crown was viewed as a reincarnation of the Buddha. One may also regard it as a strength or a weakness that in East Asia, the monarchy was so interwoven with religion and traditional views of society that there was no middle ground, it often came down to a totally traditional, semi-divine monarchy or a totally secular, equality as an ideal, republic.
          They key factor, I think, in understanding how Christian countries differ from those around them, is the idea of religious absolutism. In China, one could be a Daoist, Buddhist and Confucianist all at the same time with no conflict (all three of which have monarchist roots) whereas in Europe, the religion was entirely based on unity, of the fact believed by all that there can only be one true belief. The loss of pan-European religious unity, though not evident right away, may have been the first wound in the heart of the cause of Western monarchy. Naturally, kings had always fought against other kings, but there was never any danger of a king being lost in this way; at worst one king was simply replaced by another king. However, after the emergence of Protestantism, particularly after the original Protestants began to divide themselves further, monarchy itself became threatened and unprecedented events took place.
           In Britain, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I alone we see some things that did not look good for the cause of monarchy. We saw a reigning Queen giving aid and support to a republican state in revolt against another monarch. We also saw one reigning Queen sign the death warrant of another Queen. Of course, Queen Elizabeth had grave misgivings about both of these affairs, but the political situation was such at the time that it was prevailed upon her that these actions were absolutely necessary. The religious division of Europe, was of course at the heart of the matter. England was Protestant and therefore supported the Protestants in revolt against King Philip II of Spain in Holland and the Protestants in revolt against Queen Mary in Scotland.
         The problem grew even worse when, particularly in Britain, monarchs learned the hard way that religious unity, once lost, is almost impossible to regain. Once division from Rome had been justified, division from the King in London was not a hard matter. Protestant sects became more numerous, more radical, and -particularly as the King was head of the established church- more republican in their politics. In Britain this led to the outbreak of the Puritan revolution against the High Church Anglican King Charles I. These most radical Protestants firmly placed themselves on the side of republicanism against monarchism and later came across the pond to found the roots of modern, right-wing American "divine right" R(r)epublicans. We can speculate that, too late, the Kings of Britain saw the error of their forebears and so could explain the conversion of King Charles II and King James II to Catholicism.
           In any event, by 1688 Britain had firmly given up on the idea of Parliament being subject to the monarch. Successive royals learned that to maintain any position at all, Parliament had to have the final word. In other countries where monarchists and republicans clashed, the situation is even more clear. During the French Revolution, the monarchists of the Vendee went into battle with the badge of the Sacred Heart sewn to their chests. In Italy, Cardinal Ruffo led the counter-revolutionary forces against Napoleon, and in Spain the hard-core Carlist monarchists declared the Virgin Mary "Generalissima" of their armies. In the past, it is true that monarchs have toyed with and even favored more liberal, non-religious trends. This was particularly the case in the age of the philosophes and monarchs like Frederick the Great or Emperor Joseph II. However, the horrors of the French Revolution collectively cured the crowned heads of Europe of this nonsense and by the time Napoleon had been defeated, Europe was eager to get back to cross and crown partnership monarchies.
           Yet, where has that partnership gone today? It would be almost unheard of today for a reigning monarch to speak out openly in support of one religion or another. Even among the exiled community, the association of the French legitimists with Catholic traditionalists is often viewed as a negative. However, I would argue that, while the French legitimist movement may not be the strongest in the world, their adherents have a loyalty to their cause that so many of the nominal monarchists of England, Holland or Norway could possibly match. Too often optimists tend to label anyone tolerant of a monarchy as a monarchy supporter. However, there is quite a difference between someone who doesn't think it's worth the bother to abolish the monarchy and someone who truly believes that monarchy is a unique and superior system of government which would benefit any nation in the world.
           To put it bluntly, monarchies are building their future on less than solid ground. They are counting on people who, particularly in Europe, are predominately liberal and who tolerate the monarchy, perhaps even enjoy its pageantry, so long as the monarch is totally powerless, completely silenced and kept in constant fear of opinion polls changing. These people have no loyalty to monarchy itself, they still insist that ultimate power is their's and that if, in the future, the monarchy should displease them in anyway they can promptly abolish it. Contrarily, those whose devotion to monarchist government rests on the foundation of religion, are more apt to believe that a monarchy can almost never be legally abolished at all. It is also true that a secular monarchist will not tolerate certain things from a monarch (claiming they reign by divine right would probably be #1) and would be quick to turn on their king or queen if they crossed such a line. However, history has shown that a religious monarchist will put up with a great deal more royal behavior which disappoints them without ever losing their loyalty to the crown. These are the ones who truly, "keep the king's commandment in regard of the oath of God".
         In short, whether possible at this point in history or not, the Church and the Crown are two institutions which have always supported each other at the end of the day, and their current seperation can only do harm to them both. Monarchists should also focus their arguments on those ears which will be most inclined to seriously consider what they say and support monarchy, not because it can be a "prettier style of republic" but because they believe it to be a superior system, based on superior values and principles. These are the people who will remain committed, who will not be shaken and whose devotion can more than match any propaganda-filled republican. iViva Cristo Rey!
"I would prefer a religious and monarchist soldier to a Social Democrat, even if he is not as good a shot." -German minister of war Karl von Einem
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1