[Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria]Dreary days are always good opportunities for looking into varied monarchist movements. Howe'er small and often depressing they are, it warms the heart to know that various folks are still out fighting the good fight.
After the usual stops around the Wikipedia article, browsing the international movements for the restoration of monarchs can be very fun. While many sites are low budget and rarely updated, some are abounding in regalia and Catholic things. Unfortunately, some of the best examples, like Koruna česká, Action Française, and Associação Causa Imperial (Brazil) are in their respective languages only... monarchist eye candy. There are some fine monarchist blogs, such as The Monarchist
for the United Kingdom, albeit it's an Anglican blog. Catholic American monarchists include The Altar and Throne Monarchy Site and Roman Christendom. One interesting if silly site I came across this evening is the blog of the Dominion of British West Florida, which desires to bring Commonwealth status to that geographical location. A true micronation, which can be read about in Wikipedia, it has struck coins and printed stamps- though I mostly have my eye on this adorable teddy bear.
posted by crusader @ 9:56 PM
9 Comments:
Monarchies are a joke. Nothing more than a page from ancient history. Those surviving today are just window-dressing.
No, monarchies are both more natural than republics (being closer to government's origin in tribe and the extended family), and they virtually always rule more virtuously than elected governments.
As I have written on recently, the few peeps we hear out of Europe's royals defy the mediocrity to be expected from democratic rulers. While much has been said against "arbitrary" rule, the liars and globalists who nearly always win office in our politically correct, liberal environment, are invariably worse than hereditary kings and queens; no matter the luck of the genetic and characteristic draw, the cultured, Christian educations rulers undergo, with knowledge of the eventuality that they will rule, or at least reign and be an example to their people, leaves an indelible mark.
Besides the example of Grand Duke Henri, we can just as easily recall that, while Spain hasn't suffered a more despicable Prime Minister since the Second Republic, the Queen has been outspoken in her opposition to abortion and support of the natural family, for which she has been heavily criticized. The common prejudice against monarchy does not stand up to critical thinking.
Why has there been so much upheaval of monarchies if they work so well? Leave Christian values out, because not all people share the same values, and even if there were to be a monarch, that does not mean that he/she would lead in such an ideal fashion as you believe.
I refuse your condition. What you speak of are not "values" but virtues that are the fulfillment of our nature.
The reasons there has been so much upheaval are 1. modern ideologies and political philosophy, and 2. the development of avaricious capitalism, which goes better with liberal democracy than monarchy, and weakens the nation-state and the unity of the people over which a monarch rules.
Again, you are ignoring the evidence I have resented. Monarchs are simply more inclined to respect the dignity of human life than elected politicians; remember that until the 1920s abortion was not legal in any Western nation. And of course there was no gay "marriage" at the time, and most present kings and queens, reigning or not, still oppose it. My standards are not idealistic- monarchs often justify their rule by claiming divine right or grace in one form or another, and hence Church and kingship were mutually reinforcing. It is then in a monarch's self-interet not to defy Church teachings in their rule; even if the ruler is immoral, it would be unwise to enact immoral laws.
Please tell me, for your part, the supposed benefits of liberal democracy, so that I may expose them as worthless, ideological fictions.
You say it is more natural for one person to rule over others? Is it natural for this person to claim that they have been divinely selected as monarch, or worse, to claim to be the deity themself? Further, your claim that monarchies always rule more virtuously than elected governments is just not supported by history. I'm not even going to bother going on with this argument.
Apparently, your views have become more and more worthless and ideological throughout the years. I agree with you on the abortion aspect. In my opinion, the type of government by which a country is run should be up to its citizens. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just disagree with you. If a majority of the people think this type of monarchy would be a good idea for our country, then by all means.
I do not see how I have gotten to be ideological. I am not saying that monarchs can do no wrong, or that they are the only legitimate form of government. Witness that the Republic of Malta is my favorite country, and that my prescription for America is a similar Catholic Republic.
While monarchy is the most natural form of government, I can hardly imagine it working in America in the present climate. If I were an ideologue for monarchy, I would insist on it anyway. I merely believe that, in societies which are fairly homogenous, given to a Burkean respect for aristocracy, and not overridden by the levelling impulse (or where an extant royal family ruled when these conditions were met), monarchy usually does the most to preserve and defend all that is good and healthy in society.
You are just out of your little noggin', cowboy.
No, he's in it... unlike the majority of this unfortunate world.
Rock on, Leslie!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home