What Kind of Monarchist Are You?

I am a true constitutional monarchist. I believe in a Rex sub lege who rules with the Estates of the Realm. No 'crowned republic' for me!

From The Mad Monarchist (14 March 2012)

Monarchists need to ask themselves a serious question: what are they all about? There are two possible answers, neither of which is “wrong” but certainly distinct. Are they people with an historical interest in monarchy, history, royal genealogies and traditionalist philosophies who wish to study these areas and discuss them with like-minded individuals or do they wish to have an actual impact on the political layout of the world by defending existing monarchies and restoring fallen ones? In the past, I have referred to these types as “theoretic monarchists” and “active monarchists”. Again, there is nothing wrong with being either one and many are both. Certainly I have never known of an active monarchist who did not have much or all of the attributes of a theoretic monarchist. However, not all theoretic monarchists are active monarchists and this is important because those who are not often, consciously or not, hinder and oppose those who are. As anyone can tell, your resident mad man is one of those who is both. Any look at this weblog with its combination of royal history and monarchism can see that. I have also, fairly regularly, crossed swords with theoretical monarchists who stand opposed to active monarchists, some of whom (some) really cannot see what they are doing.

In many such cases these are people who oppose, to one degree or another, many or most existing monarchies because they are not “monarchist” enough or because they are of a different religion or because they support an alternative royal line or family. I am often quite annoyed by such individuals for the following reasons: if a monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, it is because republican attitudes have become too widespread and mainstream in society so if the existing monarchy falls it will without question be replaced by a republic rather than a more traditional sort of monarchy. Given that, opposing an existing monarchy for being “too republican” only to have it be replaced by an actual, outright republic strikes me very much as cutting off your nose to spite your face. If your monarchy is not “monarchist” enough, my radical reaction would be to work on making it more monarchist rather than giving up on it and letting the republicans win. For those who withhold support from monarchies because they have a different cultural or religious affiliation than yourself, my simple reaction is to say that these people need to realize the power of fashionable trends. Every monarchy that falls and is replaced by a republic only increases the momentum of the “trend” of republicanism.

There was a time when monarchies were the rule rather than the exception. New countries that emerged usually became monarchies as well in this environment. Even after the birth of modern, revolutionary republicanism, when monarchy was still the standard across the world, monarchist factions remained an ever-present force. Brazil gained independence as a monarchy, in Mexico it was the monarchist faction that won out in securing independence and acting as the first national government and even in the United States, at the very beginning, there were those who wanted to establish a monarchy and make General George Washington the king. However, as republics became the more dominant form of government and as more monarchies around the world fell, be they in Europe, the Americas, Africa or Asia, it became expected that emerging or newly independent countries would automatically be republics. Monarchy ceased to even be considered as a serious option. Nepal is a nation as culturally far removed from my own as possible. The dominant religion is Hinduism and of all the major faiths of the world, Hinduism is probably the one I know the least about. Yet, when the Kingdom of Nepal fell it disturbed me greatly, both because a truly unique country (the last remaining Hindu monarchy) was lost to the world but also because it made monarchy in general an even more “endangered species”. Already a tiny minority in the world, the number of existing monarchies was depleted further. What is only one country, some might ask? When monarchies are as few as they are today, every single one must be viewed as precious by every monarchist in the world.

Finally, for those who oppose existing monarchies because they support a rival claimant to the throne, my reaction is closely related to those who oppose existing monarchies for being insufficiently “monarchist”. In many cases, I greatly sympathize with these people because, more often than not, their philosophy, values and attitudes are ones I totally share. The problem is that they have divorced themselves from the reality that surrounds them and, in many cases, are seeking the impossible. Not the difficult or the unlikely but truly the impossible. They are, in a way, simply angry that it is 2012 and not 1912 or even 1712 or 1612. Unfortunately, tear down every monarchy (or republic for that matter) in the world if you like but it will never be 1612 again. As stated, I often sympathize with these people because I personally see little point in being a monarchist if legitimacy means nothing to you and because, in the course of history, I look at each event in the context of its own time and sympathize with whichever side was, as I see it, the most “monarchist”. For example, in 1688 in the British Isles I would certainly have been a Jacobite. Most at the time likely saw things through the lens of religion rather than politics but from a purely monarchist perspective one could look at it like this: the Jacobites were those fighting for their legitimate, recognized King to whom they had all sworn allegiance. Regardless of the circumstances, I would have felt compelled to remain loyal to the King I had given my oath to. Further, looking at history, the monarchy was clearly stronger, at least in the authority it wielded, prior to 1688 as opposed to after.

For the sake of keeping peace, I don’t like to be too forceful about taking sides in monarchist vs. monarchist quarrels like this but, there it is: I think the Jacobites were right and their staunch loyalty admirable. But, alas, they didn’t win and eventually the direct line died out and the royal line that replaced them on the throne was recognized by all other powers and even by the Pope in Rome. Such things happen, the world keeps turning and life goes on. Even today, the Jacobites remain for me an honored memory. However, I have a problem with those die-hards who exist today who would withhold their active support and allegiance from the current British monarch because of their devotion to the Jacobite cause. The days of the old Stuarts are gone forever and are not coming back. It is the uselessness of it that I find more frustrating than anything. After all, these people who are so defiant and rebellious on paper or in the world of internet forums and chat rooms are not so bold as to actually do anything that would require some bravery or sacrifice on their part. They might slander and belittle HM the Queen but they are not about to stop paying their taxes and go to jail for it.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the current heir to the Jacobite claim, Duke Francis of Bavaria, has no desire whatsoever to press that claim or to be the “King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France”. That alone would, I think, cause most people to ask, “What’s the point then?” when it comes to modern-day Jacobites. There is also the fact that there was more to the Jacobite cause than legitimacy alone. They also believed in a different sort of government and overall organization of society. Their other political beliefs all sound good and preferable to me I might add, but even if modern Britons wanted Duke Francis to come be their king and even if he himself was willing to accept the invitation, that would still change nothing about the way the United Kingdom of today is governed other than whose profile is on the stamps. For things to truly be the way they were in Stuart Britain, laws would have to change, which means Parliament would have to change which means the hearts and minds and values of the entire public would have to change. That is something that would be harder to do than changing the monarch and something which could be done without changing the monarch and, I would say, something that should be done in any event.

I come to this same point in dealing with another such group of theoretic monarchists; the Carlists of Spain. The Carlists are a different kettle of fish from the Jacobites in that they have no common ideology nor even a common alternative for monarch but they do share some similar roots. Also, in the same way, I cannot help but sympathize with the original Carlists or history. They were the more monarchist in my view, the more traditional, the more religious and, as I see it, they had the law on their side. However, like the Jacobites, they too were not ultimately successful. Unlike the Jacobites, they remained a cause others could attach themselves to in order to further other rebellions and movements which dragged on for a very long time. They also eventually splintered into very, very different groups. The way I see it, the history of Spain worked this problem out with the accession of HM King Juan Carlos I, the senior male heir of King Felipe V, the previous line giving way to King Alfonso XIII in 1936. By the very rules the Carlists based their original claim to the throne on, King Juan Carlos I is the only possible legitimate monarch for Spain. Obviously, royal blood lines are not the determining factor for these individuals, rather it is the overall nature, and particularly faith, of modern Spain.

Of course, as I think any good monarchist should, I lament the fact that Spain has fallen so far from the great bastion of Christian monarchy that it once was and that it has been reduced to such a state (being a child of the former Spanish empire myself). However, once again, the fact remains that the only alternative to the current monarchy would be a republic and even if that were not so, simply having a different monarch at the top of the political pyramid would not change the morals and values of Spanish society. Given that, I really don’t see how their anonymous name-calling against the King does anyone any good but the republicans who most espouse everything they most condemn. If these people have any clear path to the “victory” they seek, I have not seen it nor have I seen them actually do anything that does not simply make them look ridiculous, dangerous or simply irrelevant. In a way, with their attacks on the existing monarchy, they are trying to put the cart in front of the horse. They fail to grasp the simple truth that the sort of traditional Catholic monarchy of the past which they so admire cannot simply be imposed on a population that is no longer traditionally Catholic. This points to a fact about monarchy most of the mainstream ignores; the reflective nature of it.

Perhaps more than some would like to admit, monarchies reflect the values and mindset of their people, to one degree or another. Regardless of things like democracy or monarchy, at a certain level every government that exists and has existed in the world does so because of popular support. They exist because a majority of the people support them or at least submit to them. Hence the saying that we all get the government we deserve. When monarchs were so devoted to things like religion, to the extent that they were willing to go to war over matters of faith, it was during a time when the people also considered religion the most important thing in the world. In this way, in a broader sense, royals are the same as anyone else in following along with the prevailing trends of society. They, like any of us, are products of the world around them. No monarch, certainly not one strictly limited in their powers, can single-handedly change the entire perspective and values (or lack thereof) of their people. I would love for societies and their monarchies to be more traditional, but that cannot happen until the public at large see the error of their modernistic ways and return to timeless truths long established.

If we are to be active monarchists, we must be realistic in judging the topography of the battlefield, the strength and tactics of our enemies and then take back the field one hill at a time. In this day and age, our only weapons are our voices and the odds are tremendously stacked against us. It would be a waste of time to fight amongst ourselves over how we came to be in this state just as it would be a waste of time to argue over which flag we raise in victory when we have yet to take one step in storming the walls. This doesn’t mean we all agree on everything but we should at least try to avoid doing each other harm. I have also noticed that many of the most uncompromising theoretic monarchists who like to say they are active monarchists do not usually last long. They think one argument which convinced them will instantly convince all who hear it. When this does not happen they become discouraged and give up, either dropping the issue entirely or confining themselves to simply denigrating everyone of every side. Again, this is not a recipe for long-term success.

This is not to say that analyzing and debating events of the past is a total waste, it is important to evaluate what happened, what worked, what did not and adjust our present-day arguments accordingly. This is also not to say that we must reject the values of the past simply to be more popular today. I would personally see little point in being a monarchist were that the case. It does mean that we must carefully tailor our tactics to the audience we wish to convince that these values of the past do have meaning and worth. For example, arguing the merits of one royal bloodline over another to a modern person who thinks public opinion is the sole source of authority would be a total waste of time. That person would have to first be convinced of the value of monarchy, the stabilizing benefits of royal legitimacy and perhaps even the sacred nature of the Crown before he or she would even understand why bloodlines are worth any consideration at all. Similarly, you are not going to convince someone that they should embrace, for example, the ideal of a Christian monarchy if they are not even convinced of the truth of Christianity itself.

In my own arguments with republicans I have long tried to tailor the message to the individual and then follow a given set of steps in trying to show them that, first, monarchy is not evil, inherently tyrannical or something to be feared, then that it has real benefits and advantages and finally that much of modern accepted republicanism is hypocritical and based on total falsehoods. However, that is something monarchists can never get to if they are not sure themselves of what kind of monarchist they are. The important thing, I would say, is for monarchists to at least make an effort to do no harm to each other -there are plenty of republicans willing to do it for you. If you are a theoretical monarchist, there is nothing wrong with that and there are plenty of avenues available for you to pursue your interest, whether it is intellectual debates about history or talking about fashion and jewelry. If you are an active monarchist, you must be realistic if you wish to have an impact. Rome was not built in a day and we cannot change the world over night, we must take things as they are and work step by step to improve society around us. Nothing will ever be exactly as it was but if we make good arguments, build on the remnants we still have and work methodically, one step at a time, we can make a difference. The first question to ask before getting started is, again, what kind of monarchist are you?