Thursday, September 28, 2006

Prospects for Restoration, etc.
As a monarchist, I look forward to the day when monarchy is the common form of government around the world, especially in the West. With that in mind, are there any prospects for the restoration of a non-reigning or exiled monarchy? Or for that matter, are there any prospects of currently reigning monarchies regaining strong royal powers? I would say that the prospects for restoration/regaining are not good. I cannot think of any royal European family that faces a good chance at being restored or regaining strong royal powers--with the exception of the Prince of Liechtenstein, who has already received increased royal powers due to a national referendum passed by the people in 2004 (with a margin of 64% in support of the increased executive powers of the prince).
What can monarchists look forward to then? I believe that in order for monarchy to retake its proper place in Western society, it must be done through our current political structures. That means it must be done democratically. Short of some terrible and devastating war or natural disaster which destroys our current political structures, I do not see any other way for monarchy to experience a resurrection. I believe what we need is a charismatic and influential politician to gain power and support and change the laws of his nation, thus declaring himself a monarch or returning strong royal powers to an existing royal family.
The idea of a "commoner" declaring himself monarch is anathema to many monarchists, but I must disagree with this point of view. The trap many monarchists fall into is a "cult of the blood." This "cult" is one in which supporters of a monarchy or royal family develop a pseudo-religious piety to those who are of "noble" or "royal" blood. Those within this "cult" consider any who are outside of "the blood" to be unfit for rule. The problem with this point of view is that it gives too much credence to fabricated notions of "good, better, best" in relation to one's ancestry. The blood of HM Queen Elizabeth II is of no more worth than an "untouchable" in the slums of Calcutta, India. In the eyes of God, from Whom all authority is derived, one man's blood is no better than another; He loves all without partiality (For there is no respect of persons with God--Romans, 2:11).
Being the Germanophile that I am, I would love nothing more than to see his successor, HIRM Georg Friedrich von Preußen take the throne as King of Prussia and German Kaiser. But if a charismatic politician were able to achieve the support of the German people and declare himself Kaiser, I would support him. To me, the ideal of monarchy is more important than loyalty to a royal family, which is nothing more than a political tool used by that family to ensure stability.


Anonymous said...

Very insightful.

True monarchy, in the European sense, is Catholic. Therefore, it would necessarily involved the Church, after it is restored to tradition.

That said, there is nothing wrong with a common family claiming the kingship of a people. Recall that the Carolingian royal family supplanted the Merovingian royal family -- with Papal approval -- because the Merovingians no longer ruled their realm.

Pax tecum.

A. M. said...

Greetings, Nick. This is a great post and demonstrates the kind of realism we need as monarchists.

Because the heresy of republicanism (the ideology, not the party) is so widepspread, we have to wait for the system to break down. We are already seeing this in overlegislation and overbureaurocratization that inevitably occurs as politicians cater to the arbitrary whims of the populace directed by media hype.

The "charismatic and influential" politician you are looking for must truly be a man of accomplishment, virtue and foresight, so that whatever order he establishes will not be immediately undone after his death. He will most likely have been elected to the executive branch.

I agree, the ideal of monarchy is more important than the claims of any royal family. The "cult of blood" has caused many problems in the past, and we need to learn from those mistakes.

God can raise up a new kingly line whenever and wherever he pleases. In addition to the basic equality that all men have, being created in the image of God, the original kingship of Adam has been restored in Christ. Kingship is a property of the new humanity (the Church), in which every Christian shares. So, a great Christian man that rises to prominence through the grace of God is spiritually qualified to establish a royal house.

Read Alexander Schmemann's Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism if you are interested in learning more about the royal priesthood of God's people.

A. M. said...

I have a question for anonymous:
Did you mean that the Catholic Church or government needs to be "restored to tradition"?

BTW, I agree that the Church needs to be involved in consecrating the king at his coronation & in keeping him accountable to the law of God.

Nick said...

Hi Andrew,

I agree with the points you have made. As to the Church being involved with the consecration and coronation of the king, I agree. I also agree that the Church should be involved with keeping the king accountable to the law of God. The idea that there should be a "wall of separation between church and state" is a laughable one. The state should have no power over the Church, but the Church should and must have control over the state.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Matthews:

Both. But the Church must be restored first.

Pax tecum.

A. M. said...

Okay, anonymous, how did the church fall & how will it be restored?

A. M. said...

Anonymous must be a Feenyite. I've got no time to waste down that dead-end.