the-monarchist-muse - Tumblr blog

[the-monarchist-muse]

Will be restarting soon

Sorry about the extended leave. I am looking to restart the blog shortly, so keep a look out.

[the-monarchist-muse]

The passing of H.M. King Michael of Romania is a reminder that Romania is not just a corrupt caricature of a nation-state but has another path. The dignity of the late King during his long exile and upon his return has served as an inspiration for his people as they struggle to progress under what is considered to be the most corrupt regime in the European Union. President Iohannis may have the best of intentions but is fatally wounded by the electoral process which is used to select him.

Crown Princess Margareta has dedicated her life public health and peaceful development. She has also demonstrated her concern for her people through her Foundation which helps to develop a strong civil society in Romania - which will one day provide a foundation for a better future for the entire nation. Romania would be far better off with the Princess as Head of State, creating a stronger separation between state and government which would increase the accountability of the government. 

In such a situation how likely is it that the politicians would agree to a referendum on the future of Romania? And even if they did agree how likely is it that the referendum process would be fair and equitable? The answer to both questions is low.

How then to effect a change? This is the key question that Monarchists world wide must answer and one which we I will consider over the next few months.

[the-monarchist-muse]

The on-going sex scandals

Here in the United States, and elsewhere for that matter, it is now impossible to pick-up a paper, listen to the radio, or check an internet news site without a new revelation regarding someone in power sexually harassing someone. What then does this have to do with Monarchy, actually a fair amount.

If you read history it is very likely that you are familiar with the continual presence of royal mistresses. It would be foolish to pretend that all of these women were willing. It is further proof that, regardless of the political system humans remain humans. That does not mean however that one system is just like the other.

Republican celebrate “the people” even if that amorphous concept is not particularly well defined once one leaves the ballot box. Monarchy, and the social and cultural structures it supports, encourages people to try and emulate the behavior of the Royal family. Do Monarchs always behave their best? No, no human does. However, they are aware that this is part of the role and so they strive to improve, and the people who live in the nation strive with them.

Republics try and sell the idea that being a social “better” is somehow a relic of past times whilst being financially “better” is the reward for merit. This is just propaganda and as Monarchists we should point out that striving to live a morally upright life is perhaps the most important contributor to civilization, even if the full definition of what a moral life is cannot be agreed upon. There is reward in the effort and Monarchy encourages this far more than Republics do.

[the-monarchist-muse]

Remembrance Day

100,000,000

That seems like a big number and it is. It also represents the number of civilian deaths that can be directly attributed to a century of communist rule. I suspect that this number is, if anything, low.

It is unfortunate that so many are no longer studying history as there are a growing number of people living in the representative democracies in the west who would consider voting for communist or fascist inspired parties. Others are willing to compromise our principles in pursuit of cheap manufacturing and profits. This is not why great sacrifices were made by those who came before us.

Not surprisingly, both communists and fascists were and are, “republicans.”  They fear Monarchy because it is a force for unity and moderation. They fear Monarchy because it helps to preserves traditions that give meaning to our existence.

As Remembrance Day comes to an end we should not forget all those who died so that our democratic privileges, which are bolstered by modern Monarchies, might be preserved. 

[the-monarchist-muse]

So, Jeremy Corbyn would like the Queen to apologize because her fund managers have placed about 10% of her cash in “offshore” accounts and others are forced to fund the portion of what otherwise should have been taxable.

Let’s examine this further. First, the idea of Jeremy Corbyn giving the Queen a lesson in public service is laughable. Then, the Queen is also Queen of these Territories - so in her case the funds are not truly off-shore. Also, these investments are not illegal and both the Labour party and the Conservative Party have permitted these tax loopholes to continue. Finally, with a 20 billion GBP deficit the funds that the Queen might have had to pay in taxes on these funds would have been a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Let’s take a moment to look at a case of tax evasion that might substantively impact on the deficit. Apple has shifted its European tax home to the Isle of Jersey. Does Apple manufacture on Jersey? Do they have a large number services staff working there? No and No. All they have is a tax shelter, one with Labour and Conservative governments have permitted to continue undisturbed. Has Mr. Corbyn asked for the Apple board to apologize for shielding billions of dollars in taxes? Not yet and I would not hold my breath waiting for either the request or an apology. The leader of the opposition has chosen to attack the Queen, knowing that Her Majesty will not strike back. He has chosen to attack the Queen because he knows that for his small hard core of socialist supporters it is an easy win. 

I am not surprised the Mr. Corbyn has behaved in such a cowardly fashion. I am only surprised that so many voters have toyed with the idea of putting this unqualified and unrequited communist into #10.

[the-monarchist-muse]

Yes, you read that right. 300 million US dollars spent on a gubernatorial contest.

Constitutional Monarchy cannot fix all of the problems inherent in the modern political system. Nor can Constitutional Monarchy directly improve the quality of candidates. What it can do, if permitted, is to shift the focus of electoral processes to the local community. This reduces the cost of the political process and thereby lowers the bar for candidates. 

[the-monarchist-muse]

Electoral violence in Kenya

I am sure that many of you are  following the sad, but not unexpected, breakout of violence in Kenya. After all, it is  Presidential election season.

The Kenyan constitution states that the President is both “Head of State and Government” as well as “a symbol of national unity.” As all adults know, just because you say something does not make it so. 

In a multi-ethnic or tribal nation any national electoral process will inevitably break down into violence. This is not just true in Kenya. The disintegration of the nation states of Europe into  supposedly self-determined states based upon ethnic and/or religious divisions is just another symptom of this. The message is, everyone should work together except when it really matters.

Constitutional Monarchy is a flexible political system that acts to reduce tensions between religious and ethnic groupings. Is it perfect? No, human institutions have their limits. But it is better than the alternative and that should be good enough.

[the-monarchist-muse]

The United States constitution prevents Congress from abridging free speech but that does not appear to extend to Georgetown University. That a Jesuit school has taken such an action against a Catholic group only compounds what I see as an error on the part of the University administration.

This does not mean that I do not believe that in a University, workplace, or other voluntary association there should be no limits on speech. To perform their functions they must set some ground rules. But that does not mean that groups that advocate their positions in a positive fashion - with verbal arguments and not negative attacks- should have what is a fundamental right to free expression curtailed.

Nor do I believe that divining when speech has crossed the line is that difficult for administrators to decide. A Catholic group that argues that marriage is an institution divinely established between a man and woman through the use of scripture is well within its rights. A Catholic group that argues that  argues against other marriage combinations by attacking those that participate in it by religiously based threats, stereotypes, or other methods has crossed the line. People have a far greater right to advocate for their views than they do to attack the views of others.

The rules of lese Majesty are based upon similar principles. The right to make personal attacks against the Monarch and the Royal Family needs to be limited because they are not able to argue back. It is true that others could take the argument for them but that is not the same thing. That does not mean I advocate preventing people from arguing for a Republican form of government, people are entitled to their mistakes after all. But there is a line that should not be crossed and society has the right to enforce that line thought the just and consistent application of the law.

[the-monarchist-muse]

Critics of Monarchy will often complain that Royal families feel a God given right to rule. However, one does not have to go as far as Korea to find evidence of family political “dynasties“ in republics. 

Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Biden, Cuomo are just some of the recent political families whose behavior might support the supposition that their families also have a sense of political entitlement. And this situation is not restricted to the USA, similar situations may be found in republics in Europe, Asia, South America, and Asia. 

As a Monarchist I am not inclined to argue against the importance of family. This is the most fundamental of human institutions and one of the strengths of Monarchy is how it interweaves the family into the heart of a political system. I also believe that there is a significant difference between the lifelong obligations of national service associated with hereditary Monarchy and the opportunism driven by name recognition and wealth in the republican version.

Viva la Difference! 

[the-monarchist-muse]

The appointment of a new chaplain is a visible reminder that the connection between the Church of England and the British Monarchy is still very important for both church and state, but not in the way it was when it was first established.

Every church has political challenges as well as physical assets that need managing. For the Anglican Church the role of the Queen as the Supreme Governor enables the Church’ spiritual leaders to clearly understand that whilst they cannot ignore other matters their priority must be their spiritual mission and that they should act at all times accordingly. The Queen’s role as Supreme Governor also means that the Church is separate from the British Government as the Church has a direct relationship with the Monarch.

The Anglican Church is therefore a vital part of the national fabric without structurally being directly under the supervision of the government. This model has not been adopted universally and perhaps is not suited for all circumstances. Another example of the structural flexibility that Monarchy can provide to a nation.

My congratulations to Reverend James Hawkey, the Queen’s new Chaplain. Long may She reign and long may he serve!

[the-monarchist-muse]

These stills capture the dignity of Imperial Russia’s transition to Constitutional Monarchy. 

Dignity is in short supply in today’s Russia.

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia wearing Russian court dress at the first State Duma of the Russian Empire

[the-monarchist-muse]

Julian Assange colluded with Russia to help Donald Trump win US election

Hillary Clinton

The on-going series of Hillary Clinton interviews and speeches is a sad spectacle. It is however just the latest symptom of a failing democratic system.

The Presidential system enshrined in the U.S. Constitution combines the two roles of Head of State and Head of Government in just one person. Previous U.S. elections had been controversial in the past and conflicts between the popular vote and the electoral college have a precedent. What is new is that, with the help of modern technology, the legitimacy of the process and by extension the constitution itself has been under on-going attack by the losing candidate. 

For the good of the state it is quite clear that the roles of Head of State and Head of Government should be separated. This is the case in the more common Parliamentary form of democracy. Once we agree to this the question then becomes how best to fill these roles. Is it better that the legitimacy and authority of the Head of State depend upon, either directory or indirectly, the same processes as the Head of Government or should the Head of State obtain their authority and legitimacy from a different source? I believe that history (both ancient and current) clearly demonstrates that constitutional Monarchy is the right answer.

p.s. Clinton said that Assange colluded with Putin to ensure that the release of information on the Clinton campaign and the Democratic party’s efforts to undermine the Sanders campaign was damaging. I find it more disturbing that in the interview there was no admission that perhaps what was most damaging was that the information released by WikiLeaks was accurate.

[the-monarchist-muse]

How much money has been spent by American Lobbyists since 1998? According to Open Secrets in excess of 32 billion dollars. All of this money to buy influence with little regard for the voices of those without access to such funds.

Over time modern Monarchs meet regularly with a wider range of the populace than any lobbyists, or for the matter politicians, ever do. They are also in position to quietly meet with politicians on all sides of the chamber. Such silent influence makes a significant positive contribution to the political process. And what is the cost of this? To put in perspective, since 1998 American Lobbyists have spent the equivalent of more than 70,000 years for the annual cost of the British Monarchy. And how many tourists visit London or Washington D.C. to watch lobbyists in action?

And yet there are still some who say that Monarchy is expensive. 

[the-monarchist-muse]

When discussing Monarchies many critics complain about how “out of touch” older Monarchs are. What then about older Politicians?

The average age of a U.S. Senator is 62 years of age. The average age of House Members is 57. The leader of the Democratic party in the house is 77 and a Senator from California has just announced that she is standing for office next year. She will be 92 when that term will expire. President Trump is expecting to run for another term. If he is reelected he will still be President when he is 79.

Is this a problem? No! Experience is a great thing and no political system brings to the equation more experience than Monarchy. 

Monarchy - a lifetime of experience in service to the nation and people

[the-monarchist-muse]

105 years ago an unelected group of unrepresentative revolutionaries formally rejected millennia of  Chinese history and sent their country on a trip into hell. Since the fall of the Qing more than 150 million Chinese have died due to war, famine, and disease and countless more have suffered under various Republican regimes. 

Hard to imagine that anyone thinks that this event and the history it represents is worth celebrating.

[the-monarchist-muse]

It is almost certain that the vast majority of the American people would support banning devices that turn rifles into automatic weapons. Will such legislation pass? The odds are not that good.

The easy answer is to blame the NRA and its supporters. There is, as with all easy answers, some truth to this but the story is more complex. NRA members vote and as long as voter turnout remains low special interests wield an influence that may not be proportionate to their total support but is proportionate to their impact on the vote. And the NRA is not the only special interest group that benefits from the on-going deficit in democratic participation.

How do you address this? Easy, by requiring all citizens to appear at the polling station. How does Monarchy enable this? By effectively pushing the political process into the local arena in a way that a Republic cannot. That is why there are no localities in the United States that have passed legislation mandating voting, even in those localities with representatives that supposedly support voter rights. They too have positioned themselves to gain money and power through special interests and will not take any practical steps to put an end to the existing process.

[the-monarchist-muse]

There are many surveys taken that seek to measure the desire for the restoration of the Monarchy is ____ (you may fill in the blank.)

The problem with these surveys is that they ask the wrong question. Very few, if any, committed Monarchists are seeking to restore the status quo from 1870, 1917, 1918, 1946 etc. etc. What they are seeking to do is to bring to their nation a balanced constitutional system that has stood the test of time and has integrated the best of more than 2,000 years of political thought.

Instead of asking “Do you support restoring the Monarchy (which-by the way- often attracts more than 35% of those being surveyed) they should ask questions such as “Would you support having someone in government committed to the law and the constitution? Do you support having someone in government who is not beholden to a political party and will hold politicians accountable?

Unlike politicians, Monarchy has moved with the times.