Friday, April 27, 2007

My Ideal Monarchy

, I know that some of my readers have remarked on the fact that I have not updated in a while, and others are patiently awaiting the next. After a hiatus of over a year I returned to school earlier this month, so anyone who has been to college knows that sometimes we college students just don't have a lot of free time (in my case it's a mix of lack of free time and procrastination). So, here we go.

I have been asked both directly and indirectly what type of monarchy I would like to see, so I thought that I would write on my ideal type of monarchy. My ideal monarchy is a hypothetical one, never before having existed exactly like my ideal but borrowing aspects from pre-existing monarchies. Note: as I am still quite a young monarchist and my views are still evolving, some of the particulars of my views are subject to change based on wisdom and/or age.

My ideal monarchy would mix a constitutional monarchy and an absolutist monarchy. The kingdom would have a constitution declaring the form of government, the rules for succession, standards for holding the office of king, and some general laws that cannot be changed.

Let's start with the form of government. The government would consist of the king and a high council, along with a system of courts made up of judges appointed by the king. The king would have nearly absolute legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The only limits on his power would be the power to declare war (he would need the approval of the high council--some sort of majority would suffice, such as a 2/3 majority approval--as well as approval from the Church as to the war's morality under the Catholic Just War doctrine) and the inability to change or violate a law set forth in the constitution. He would also have the power to override any ruling made by one of his judges (think of the king as the Supreme Court). The judges would be in place to see the king's justice served, and the king would be the ultimate arbiter of justice within his realm.

The government would also have a high council. This council would be made up of a small number of Catholic men only (some symbolic number such as seven or twelve comes to mind--I personally think seven better for the smaller number). This council would primarily act as an advisory council to the king, giving him advice on all maters pertaining to the government. The men on this council would be appointed for life by the king. Each member of the council would be given the noble title of Lord (so as to distinguish them from inherited titles such as duke and count). Each lord would serve for life or until he wishes to retire. The king would "inherit" the lords of his predecessor; he would not have the power to dismiss any lord on the council but would have the power to appoint new lords once an opening becomes available. The council would have the power to approve a declaration of war (as stated above with something like a 2/3 majority). The council would also have the power to veto any law made by the king which was declared by competent Church authorities to be immoral, or violating the rights and freedoms of the Church.

Now let's move on to the rules for succession. The monarchy would be an hereditary monarchy along the male line only. This would be within the tradition of the continental European monarchies which were male-only. Although St. Thomas Aquinas thought that women, while being unfit for spiritual rule are fit for temporal rule, I prefer a male-only reigning monarchy. Because a monarchy mirrors the "government" of heaven as well as the human family, I deem it most prudent to exclude women from ascending the throne. Since men are the head of their households just as Christ is head of the Church, I think it makes the most sense for the reigning monarch to be a man. If the king does not have any legitimate male heirs, the crown would pass on his death to his closest male kin (brother, male cousin, nephew). If he had a grandson at the time of his death, the crown would pass to the grandson. If the king has no close male kin, the high council would rule until one of the king's daughters produced a male heir. The council would also rule in regency in the case of a successor being under the age of majority (based on Catholic Canon Law of marriage, currently at 16 for men). Any child of the king (male or female) who leaves the Catholic faith would be stripped of all royal titles and any issue from such a child married outside the Catholic Church would be declared unfit for either royal title or succession.

The constitution would also have standards for the office of king. The throne, as stated above, can only be succeeded by a man. This man must also necessarily be a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Indeed, an heir can be declared unfit for succession if he is not a good Catholic, and any king who becomes an obstinate heretic or unrepentant public sinner can and must be removed from office. Similarly the king can and must be removed from office upon any excommunication from competent Church authorities, unless the king were to repent and be fully accepted back into the Church. The king must also work very closely with the Church in regards to issues of morality. He must have a religious advisor (a priest or bishop), appointed by the pope or the local bishop. This last rule would be to ensure the Church's influence over the monarchy.

Lastly, the constitution would set forth certain laws which would be unchangeable. Some laws would pertain to the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death. These laws would make abortion, contraception, euthanasia, human cloning, etc. illegal in perpetuity, as well as any other medical procedure or technology that violates the sanctity of human life. Other laws would be set forth to protect the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church, overriding any law that infringed upon the rights thereof. There would also be constitutional laws requiring the king to enforce censorship of the media, making pornography illegal, as well as slander, libel, detraction, and anything else deemed to be harmful to society. The constitution would also declare Catholicism to be the official state religion, but participation in and union with the Church would not be mandatory for citizens within the kingdom. The king would, however, have the duty to suppress any religion deemed harmful to society (e.g. Satanism, Wicca, paganism, Islam, etc.).

Thus is my ideal monarchy. Will my views change in the future? Perhaps they will; I may change a detail here and there, but I think the foundation within this vision will essentially remain constant.


Andrew Matthews said...

What do you think about the adoption of an heir if the king has no sons who are worthy to rule? Perhaps there could be constitutional requirements for religious devotion, prudence, and accomplishment.

Nick said...

I have thrown around the idea of adoption in the past. It is not without precedent (i.e. ancient Rome). I do, however, think the heir should be the blood relative of the king, but as I do not like the quasi-religious cult of blood oftentimes associated with royal families I don't rule out the possibility of adoptions altogether. In short, I haven't made up my mind on this matter yet.

As to the requirments for religious devotion, prudence and accomplishment, I think these can be included within the requirements for the king to be a Catholic "in good standing with the Church."

Godfrey said...

This is an ideal monarchy indeed.

The model for King to emulate would be Christ himself.

Dylan said...

I've never read the works of modern American monarchists, so this is fascinating. I'm a democratic republican anti-clerical atheist, so I find your system abhorrent, but it's interesting nonetheless. :-)

Anonymous said...

No disrespect to your faith because I'm a Christian myself (Anglican) and I am in favour of a state church in Britain - my country (my Church is the established Church of England and I think that it should remain established). However isn't your ideal monarchy a little undemocratic and dictated to a little too much by religion and the king. One of the reasons monarchies are popular is because they have little, if no impact on politics. Also aren't your ideas a little discriminatory against minority churches and religions? What would be this country's view on issues such as capital punishment, abortion of severly disabled children or pregnant rape victims. Also i'm intrigued to know this Catholic Monarchy's stance on homosexuality.

They are nice ideas though and very well thought out.

(P.S. I'm a staunch monarchist and fully support the British Monarchy)

ULG Grand Chancellor said...

This is very interesting indeed. I agree very much with a great majority of your ideas.

Anonymous said...

This is the first time I've visited your site. It looks fairly easy to navigate and the material is interesting. Thank you.

"The king would, however, have the duty to suppress any religion deemed harmful to society (e.g. Satanism, Wicca, paganism, Islam, etc.)."

I would point out that this particular idea, as good as it is, needs to be more precise. For starters: Have you considered Satanism is nothing other than the Kabbalah for Gentiles? You have also overlooked the revolutionary ideas inherent in Protestantism. I recommend reading a book or two on the revolutionary nature of Judaism and the various battering rams they have used to pummel both Altar and Throne ie. Protestantism, Freemasonry, Theosophy, Communism, etc.

I recommend "The Plot Against the Church" by Maurice Pinay in regards to the Altar and "Libido Dominandi" by E. Michael Jones as a modern example of an attacks to both Throne and Altar.

My point in short is this: If you want to eradicate poison from the patient (the state) make sure you get it all and make sure you know from whence it came.

Nick said...

I agree that Protestantism is harmful, but unless I want a "Catholics only" kingdom, I couldn't suppress all religions, just the most harmful.

Anonymous said...

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make discipels of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you...Matt 28


your position

Surely you are aware that many Catholic Kings enforced the Catholic Faith within their realms.
The Spanish Inquisition was really a rooting out of those who professed to be Christians, yet were being subversive to both Altar and Throne.

Furthermore, How do you define "most harmful?" This seems to be the rub as far as I can see. Catholicity is an all or nothing kind of thing. Does this mean conversion would be required by law? No, but attending Mass was enforced. Did you have to believe the Apostle's Creed? No, but you could not work to undermine the Zeitgeist of the culture. Censorship of blasphemous works would be a good example here.

Anonymous said...

Hello, I wonder why you did not post my comment of yesterday? I like a blog that is willing to entertain a serious discussion. Please don't construe my comments as insulting to yourself, rather I hope to modify what I consider to be a noble position you hold. I'm posting as "Anonymous" for the simple reason I can't figure out how to post any other way.

Nick said...

Frist let me respond to your second post. I work part-time, am a full-time student, and am coming up on finals week--I don't always have time to immediately moderate my comments. But please, don't worry. Unless you insult or are innapropriate, your comments will be posted!

In my ideal monarchy, adherence to the Catholic Faith would not be mandatory, despite the fact that it would be the official state religion. Forced adherence by the state to the Catholic Faith isn't true faith--God gave us free will so that our love and obiedence would be from our hearts. He wants our love, but doesn't force it. Neither would I.

I would censor blashpemy (I don't believe in unconditional free speech).

The kingdom's Catholic identity could be protected through immigration (only allow Catholic immigrants), but if a citizen chose to leave the Catholic Faith and he was still a productive member of society, why should I expell him or force his acceptance of the one true Faith? Doing so too often just might undermine the kingdom's chances of succeeding (i.e. losing skilled workers).

In the end, I believe one can have a country with a strong Catholic identity but with some non-Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the clarification. I've not given it much thought, but another aspect of control over subversive groups of people, would be eliminate them from any type of governmental or clerical role. If this rule could be enforced perpetually I think we might have a good system. However, from what I do know, in the past one generations intolerance was soon forgotten, and subversion quickly followed. Examples are numerous, but you might consider Cromwell's idea of "religious freedom" which circumvented laws prohibiting Jews from offices of authority. Never again would there be a King with the authority of Charles I.

Nick said...

Yes, I believe it is a good idea to bar subversive groups from holding public office or posts of influence.

Dirty Euro said...

How can you believe that kings are divine and then only one them a bit in power.

Nick said...

Dirty Euro,

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Anonymous said...

The Principality of Durstonia would be right up your alley:

Anonymous said...

Check out the Kingdom of Edan: