Reaction to Politicizing Royals

Whilst I don't like Mussolini, MM uses a great quote in a spot on essay!

From The Mad Monarchist (10 October 2016)

I have mentioned here, at least a couple of times and many more times elsewhere and in personal conversations, that the liberals of today seem to be going out of their way to prove Mussolini right when he said that liberalism would die when people realized that the liberals are liars who believe in freedom only for themselves and not for everyone. So, for example, they preach democracy but you have the European Union being thoroughly undemocratic and saying that referendums should no longer be allowed. You have governments saying that they support freedom of religion but allowing some religions to be mocked and others, well, one in particular, to be protected from all ridicule. You have liberals claiming to be for free speech but suppressing speech they don’t like by calling it “hate speech”. You have the right to privacy when it comes to allowing abortion but not when it comes to keeping your phone or email records private. You have liberals saying they believe in equality but then saying that some people are morally inferior to others or that, while they support death taxes because you should not be able to benefit from the accomplishments of your ancestors, you should, on the other hand, be punished for the misdeeds of your ancestors. I could, rest assured, go on and on.

This is why Mussolini said, at the end of his life, that Fascism would come back some day because people would be confronted with evidence that he had been right about the liberals all along when he essentially said they were a bunch of phonies and liars who didn’t mean a word of what they were spouting. “The liberal state is a mask behind which there is no face, it is a scaffolding behind which there is no building,” was one of the late Duce’s more memorable lines. We are, alas, seeing something similar happening to the institution of monarchy, in the limited, constitutional, largely ceremonial form which prevails today in the First World countries and British Commonwealth Realms. It was the liberals, after all, who said that the monarchy should be totally removed from politics. Yet, today, they are only too happy to use the royals of their various countries to help push support for their own political agendas.

Originally, of course, one of the great advantages of a monarchy was that it was above political parties and factions and could be counted on to behave in a dispassionate and impartial way. That, however, first began to change when the monarchy itself became an institution that the revolutionary types wished to do away with and so, naturally, the monarch had no choice but to support the faction that favored his survival and oppose that which wished to see him killed or deposed and his children disinherited. That is where the left-right division in politics, certainly in the English-speaking world, first emerged. The Cavaliers or Tories were for the King and the Roundheads were against him. Later it was the Tories who were for the King and the Whigs who were against him, later still these became Tory and Labour though these days the pattern seems to be shifting as the Tories have drifted very far from where they historically have been. In the same way, the actual terms of “left” and “right” came from the French assembly at the time of the Revolution when those who favored retaining the monarchy sat on the right and those who favored a republic sat on the left.

It would be absurd and unnatural to expect any monarch to be impartial with divisions such as that. The only rational, healthy thing for any monarch to do would be to favor the right and oppose the left. Eventually, however, after a great deal of ‘storm and stress’ as the Germans would say, the monarchy of the English-speaking world adopted a policy of a non-politically involved monarchy. Other countries abolished their monarchies, people in the German-speaking countries retained monarchs with a large role in government and, of course, the Russians retained an absolute monarchy longer than any other major western power (though saying that, I realize there is still plenty of disagreement on whether Russia is part of western civilization or not). One will notice that these monarchies no longer exist but those which did, whether by coercion or by simply having the good sense to get out in front of a popular wave that would have otherwise crushed them, are the ones which still survive.

For a time, the lesson seemed to be well-learned even by people on the right that it would be best to have the monarchy separated from politics so that, with all of the chaos of multi-party political dabbling, if things went wrong, the politicians, rather than the monarch, would get the blame. That has, on the whole, proven to work rather well. More conservative liberals seemed to find a ‘sweet spot’ in which monarchs stayed out of politics and acted instead as moral, almost spiritual leaders of the nation as a whole. They did not make policy but they set a good example, drew attention to areas not covered by the government, championed charitable social causes and embodied the best attributes of a people. Again, it seemed to work quite well and others followed the example. In theory, that is supposed to be the state of affairs which prevails today and yet any honest observer can see that it is not. Royals are not allowed to be actively involved in politics of course, but any reasonable person should be able to see that they are not totally separated from politics and political divisions.

This is not, I cannot stress hard enough, because of the royals themselves. They, as with any decent person, want to have a purpose, they want to have something to do and will gladly do almost anything if the only alternative is to do nothing. They have also been trained to think and act the way they do, often by people and institutions which are certainly not pro-monarchy or pro-traditional authority of any kind at all. There is also the fact that their previous, non-political, work has been squeezed out. In our world today there is virtually nothing which the government does not consider its business, from how far from your home you are allowed to cook meat in your backyard, to who can style your hair to how curved your cucumbers can be. So, once upon a time, if the Prince of Wales wanted to champion the cause of environmentalism, that would have been seen as simply a well-meaning thing for a royal to do, encouraging people to be good stewards of the planet. Today, however, it is certainly political as governments all over the world have decided that their policies can stop the climate from changing.

Consider, for example, the case of the Norwegian Royal Family. The Crown Prince has long championed the cause of homosexuals, transvestites, transgender people and so on. He doesn’t push legislation or champion a particular political party but certainly any rational person would see that such work is cheered by leftists while being frowned upon by those on the traditional right. His values reflect his upbringing. He received his first higher education in the United States at the famously far-left University of California at Berkeley. The fact that his work has not been truly non-political can be seen by simply asking the question if the political establishment would have allowed him to do exactly as he is doing now but if he championed specifically heterosexual people or only traditional gender roles? I think we all know the answer. His father, not so long ago, gave a speech at a garden party calling for open borders, tolerance and “diversity” and was cheered by everyone on the political left. Would they have still cheered if he had called for stricter enforcement of Norway’s borders and saving Norway for the Norwegians or would they have immediately shouted him down with accusations of meddling in politics? Again, I think we all know the answer.

Recently, on their first royal visit to Canada as a family, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were taken, by liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, to meet with Syrian refugees recently arrived in Canada at the appropriately Stalinist named “Immigrant Services Society Welcome Centre” in Vancouver, British Columbia. To me, this seemed like a blatant display of the liberal PM Trudeau using the royals to boost his political position of taking in Syrian refugees, something which at least some conservative Canadians are not at all happy about. However, there were, of course, no complaints, certainly from the political left in Canada, about the royals being taken to such an event. Some conservatives, the few unconcerned with being vilified by the politically correct, did complain about it but few will have heard them and it would be downright impossible to imagine the royals ever being taken to an event that would be on the opposite side of the issue since any such event would be instantly considered racist and/or Islamophobic.

My advice, to conservative Canadians, would be to, of course, not hold anger on the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for such displays but rather to simply use the occasion to highlight the history and culture of Canada. There is a reason why this attractive English couple comes to Canada and matters to Canadians, because Canada, certainly English-speaking Canada, was founded by British colonists, was a major part of the British Empire and, God willing, the Duke of Cambridge and little Prince George in turn will one day be King of Canada. It is an occasion to highlight the important part Canada occupies in the history of the English-speaking world, where Canadian customs, traditions, culture and so on originally came from and grew from. However, that is something that any more traditional Canadian will have to do on their own because the government is certainly never going to do it nor would any royals ever be allowed to do such a thing themselves.

Even in the Far East, where the concept of monarchs being uninvolved in politics is not new but being allowed to say or do nothing political at all certainly is, we have also seen how the politicization of every aspect of life has made it harder for a monarch to be non-political. So, when the Emperor of Japan says something positive about protecting the environment, the left cheers and sees nothing objectionable about that at all. Yet, when the Emperor says he supports something as benign and uncontroversial as singing the Japanese national anthem or flying the Japanese national flag, the same people object that this is straying into partisan politics (and so such remarks have only ever been made privately). Of course, the only reason it is a partisan issue, which it should not be, is because the radical leftists have decided to make national symbols like the flag or the anthem a political issue!

Even to many in the west that might seem rather hard to imagine but it is not so far removed. Can one imagine the King of the Netherlands saying he prefers the ‘Prince’s Flag’ with its orange stripe in reference to his own royal house rather than the red-white-blue version? Can one imagine the Prince of Wales publicly encouraging people in England to fly the St George Cross? To bring it back to an earlier point, can anyone imagine a member of the British Royal Family, part of whose job it is to support Britain and British culture around the world, voicing support in Canada during their national flag debate for the Canadian Red Ensign since it symbolizes the British roots of modern Canada? Once again, I think we all know what sort of accusations would be hurled at the royals who made such statements and that they would never be allowed to make them in the first place.

Today, most bizarrely, even the concept of national survival has become a controversial and all too political subject. Only rarely has any royal figure dared to voice the least bit of skepticism of the influx of non-European peoples into European countries. The only exception that comes to mind is Queen Margrethe II of Denmark who spoke up, bravely but still guardedly, about the need to defend Danish values and not be afraid of being called “racist” or “intolerant” for doing so. Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein, a monarch who actually has the last word on what goes on in his tiny country, has openly and publicly taken positions that are opposed by most of western European society such as his advocacy of capitalism and Austrian economics and his staunch opposition to abortion in his country. However, most simply ignore him and because his country is so small, it is all the more vulnerable to outside pressure. The abortion issue raised a bit of a ruckus in Europe but, for the most part, those who would be most opposed to what is a very capitalist, officially Catholic and effectively absolute monarchy in the heart of Europe, overlook it because it is so tiny as to be considered inconsequential. And since his second son, Prince Maximilian, married an African-American, putting a biracial son in the line of succession of a European monarchy for the first time, no one could accuse him of being racist which is invariably the accusation of choice for liberals.

Aside from the amiable Prince of Liechtenstein, most of the royals who have taken openly conservative or traditional points of view are non-reigning royals. Archduke Imre Emanuel of Austria, along with his American bride, are known for their pro-life, anti-abortion campaigning (coming from an extremely large Imperial Family, the Archduke is quite far removed from the former Austro-Hungarian thrones). Prince Bertrand of Brazil is well known for his support for private property rights, free market economics and his opposition to socialism and radical environmentalists. Examples such as these, sadly, are thin on the ground as even many non-reigning royals either stay out of politics in the hope that republican governments will take nothing more from them or try their best to stay in the good graces of the political class in the hope that a restoration is possible by way of some friendly party or faction. In any event, it is unfortunate as I have seen it turn good conservative people, the kind most would expect to be loyal to Queen and country (or king as the case may be) into republicans. I hate to see this because they are playing right into the leftist, globalist, Marxist trap.

For years these disgraceful traitors have tried to destroy economies based on private property, destroy Christianity, destroy monarchy, destroy entire countries. In most of the places where it mattered, the most powerful and prosperous parts of the world, they failed. So, rather than giving up, they simply decided to infiltrate and degrade these institutions so that their stalwart defenders would no longer consider them worth fighting for. So, and you can look at the donor list of leftist political candidates to validate this, they undermine economies by making free markets into the plutocratic farce known as “crony capitalism”, they turn the oldest Christian churches into social justice soup kitchens devoid of real doctrine, they corrupt whole countries until people no longer respect their country or consider it worth fighting for. And, they use their royals wherever they can to push causes and make changes that undermine the very concept of monarchy itself even while offending the most loyal and winning over no one.

What is a monarchist to do? Resist. Do not simply abandon your traditions to those who have corrupted them but rather, take them back. Free your royals from their government captors, even the ones who show symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. Do not become so scrupulous that you lose sight of your ultimate goal. Do not destroy yourselves arguing over the bones of principle while the other side takes total control of your destiny. In Europe, there is scarcely a genuine, traditional conservative presence in politics at all. It has simply been wiped out. However, you can still support some who will move things in the right direction. This is something which, frankly, seems to be a weakness unique only to western, European, Euro-descended people from what I have seen. No one else seems to have this problem of demanding nothing less than perfection at the outset, before committing themselves.

Take, for example, voting patterns in the United States, where detailed records are kept about what sort of people vote for which political party. By very large margins Muslims vote for Democrats, most of whom are not Muslims and who support policies which are, according to traditional Islamic values, fundamentally immoral. Democrats support secularism, abortion, gay marriage and so on and yet Muslims vote for this party regardless of that because they are not going to abandon their religion, they are not going to have abortions or adopt lifestyles that preclude procreation and no one has yet made an issue about asking Muslim bakers to make any gay wedding cakes, so as far as they are concerned, all of that stuff is only to the detriment of non-Muslims and not themselves. Meanwhile, Democrats support other policies that do benefit them or move things in the direction they want them to go. It is not at all like the Christians saying, “I can’t vote for Trump because he doesn’t reflect my values”. No one else cares if someone ‘reflects their values’ or is exactly like them, they just care about their agenda and who is going to move things in a direction favorable to them.

If the people in the countries of the world where some vestige of traditional authority survives were to do this, adopt the ‘victory at any cost’ mentality, the royals who are currently being used by the political left, would have only two options: either oppose the will of the people and in so doing completely upset the very system they have been trained to uphold, the system that says if the parliament passed a bill calling for their execution they would have to sign it, or else they would have to do what they have done before and get out in front of it. Personally, I think they would do the latter and, perhaps, some might rejoice. We don’t know what they actually think because they are, frankly, not too dissimilar from hostages at this point, in most cases.

Consider, for example, the case of Queen Sofia of Spain. When word got out that she has spoken against gay marriage and abortion, there was a huge outcry in Spain and the republicans immediately cried that the royals were “interfering” in politics by the then Queen consort expressing an opinion on these subjects. Certainly her position should have come as no surprise, this is a woman who was raised Greek Orthodox and later converted and is a practicing Roman Catholic. Did anyone really think she would have approved of gay marriage or abortion? Of course not, but they didn’t care until she dared to actually say something about it, even if often only privately! She could have said that diversity is a strength, that fossil fuels are destroying the planet, or she could have just rattled off some of the totally meaningless words or phrases so popular these days like “sustainability” and that would have been fine, but if a royal dares to say anything supportive of traditional values that cannot be allowed. There may be more royals who think the same way but who know they have much to lose and nothing to gain in the current environment if they say so.

I have mentioned before but will mention again the case of the passing of His Majesty Baudouin, King of the Belgians. His death was a shock and he was a much beloved, highly respected and long-reigning monarch but he was also a monarch who took some very unpopular public positions and defied the prevailing political establishment. First, on the occasion of the granting of independence to the Belgian Congo, he made a speech which was complimentary of his relative and predecessor King Leopold II, praising his foresight and taking the first steps towards the development of central Africa. He also warned the new Congolese government that independence would bring with it greater responsibilities and neither of these were things the new government wanted to hear and there was an immediate backlash. Later, and probably most famously, the government had to declare him unfit and remove his as monarch temporarily when he steadfastly refused to sign a bill legalizing abortion in Belgium, despite fears that it would provoke a constitutional crisis. The politicians got their way but it made news all over the world that a supposedly ‘ceremonial’ monarch had defied his government and refused to rubber-stamp the will of the elected representatives.

Keeping all that in mind, when King Baudouin suddenly died, the level of royal attendance at his funeral was practically unprecedented for the post-World War I era. All the crowned heads of Europe came to mourn him, virtually every non-reigning royal heir to a throne, from Portugal to Russia came, the Emperor of Japan came, the Empress of Iran, the Crown Princes of Nepal, Morocco, Jordan and Thailand came and most surprising of all, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom came. The British monarch, as most royal watchers know, almost never attends such events on the continent. It is by now a well established tradition that the British monarch will send a representative but never go in person to a royal funeral or wedding or other such event. There had also, it must be said, been a bit of bad blood between the two families over British treatment of King Baudouin’s father, King Leopold III and King Baudouin had not attended the funeral of the Queen’s father King George VI. Yet, when it was time to mourn King Baudouin, Queen Elizabeth II broke with the usual procedure to be there. It is only my opinion, but I cannot help but think that this immense showing of monarchs at the funeral of King Baudouin was a sign of monarchs supporting one of their own for standing up to the political class, even, perhaps, if some disagreed with his reasons for doing so.

In short, if the political climate changes, I think we will see a change in royal attitudes as well. The important thing is not to concede to the revolutionaries and allow them to turn you away from your own country, your own people, your own hereditary chieftains. Do not despise them but rather charge to their rescue to liberate them from their captors. Be involved, be engaged, do not get lost in the weeds, do not make the perfect the enemy of the good but never be satisfied. The rot is currently extensive but things will never be restored if the rot is not first stopped. We must be stubborn, we must say, “no farther” and fight for what is left even if it is only the bare bones. We must be as farsighted and unrelenting as the enemy has been. Follow the example of St Joan of Arc who was loyal to a monarch who was not always perfectly loyal to her. In the end, she was vindicated, her cause prevailed and France was restored to the French. If we can all have at least as much courage and determination as that teenage girl, we can be triumphant as well.