Monarchy and Quality of Life

An interesting (if snide in parts) article from July brought to my attention today admits (unsurprisingly to experienced monarchists) that overall, monarchies outdo republics in statistics pertaining to quality of life. This is one reason why most people who live in constitutional monarchies are happy with them, even if they're not the sort of people who would write a monarchist blog. If only such facts could help persuade more residents of countries that once had monarchies of their own but sadly no longer do to restore them! In anticipation of a possible republican argument, it might be pointed out that some republics such as Switzerland, Finland, and Iceland also enjoy a superior quality of life. I would maintain that this does not actually strengthen abolitionist republicans' case, because these countries never had a monarchy of their own that had to be abolished in order to create their republic. If one makes the fairer comparison of European countries that have kept or restored their monarchies versus European countries that have abolished them (usually in violent revolutions), excluding republics that were founded as republics (a scenario obviously unavailable to current monarchies), the superiority of monarchies is even clearer. Even if it could be proved that the material advantages enjoyed by most residents of today's constitutional monarchies could be maintained without them (and of course I don't think so), it is quite clear from modern history that the inherently divisive and debilitating trauma of abolishing monarchies is detrimental to a nation's stability and contentment.

Speaking of differences between monarchies and republics, I think that someone able to cite more specifics than I am able to produce should write what could be a very interesting article on two quite distinct but oddly similar phenomena that as far as I know have never been compared to each other or discussed in the same piece.

It is occasionally observed in discussions about contemporary Christianity, particularly Protestantism, that while exceptions in both directions abound, generally churches that maintain a relatively traditional liturgical worship style with an emphasis on classical sacred music and caring for their historic buildings tend to be fairly liberal politically and theologically, while many theologically and politically conservative churches embrace a contemporary style with praise bands and austere modern architecture. (I believe this is somewhat less true in Catholicism, where advocates of Latin and Gregorian chant are likely to also vigorously uphold doctrinal orthodoxy, though the aesthetically modernist/theologically conservative combination certainly exists.) Various explanations for what might seem to an outsider like a curious state of affairs (why do comprehensive traditionalists and comprehensive modernists seem to be relatively rare?) exist, but if the generalization is valid it remains somewhat mysterious.

Could a similar pattern be observed when comparing European countries that have kept their monarchies to those that have not? Obviously, broadly speaking, keeping a monarchy is a conservative thing to do and getting rid of it a radical one. But when it comes to certain divisive issues (mostly related to sexuality) that have arisen relatively recently (issues this blog normally avoids with good reason!), as well as some older economic questions, it often seems like the Eastern European republics, almost all of which fell to Communism but shook it off near the end of the 20th century, are now more "right-wing" (see previous post) than the Western European constitutional monarchies, without (alas!) much if any momentum towards royal restoration (Serbia possibly excepted). Even in Western Europe, while this may be changing, the republics of Ireland, Portugal, and Malta have been generally more socially conservative than the constitutional monarchies. An openly homosexual person (even if republican in principle) would probably be much happier in the kingdoms of the Netherlands or Sweden than in the republics of Poland or Russia, and a socially conservative Catholic or Orthodox Christian (even if monarchist in principle) would probably be more comfortable in the East.

Are these two ironies, if indeed they are ironies, comparable? Do modern constitutional monarchies, by providing a veneer of tradition analogous to historic churches with organs & choirs, actually enable more radical social change than republics?  Especially republics that experienced a sort of cultural "freeze" during the Cold War and are now fertile ground for various forms of anti-leftist (but, apparently, rarely pro-monarchist) backlash? Does the same sort of principle apply to religion? As one who tries to be a more or less consistent traditionalist (but unlike some reactionaries is determined to support Europe's existing monarchies) I am not necessarily saying this dichotomy is a good thing, but it might at least be interesting to explore in more depth.

Left and Right

In Europe in the 19th century, everyone knew what politically "right-wing" meant: the defense of pre-Revolutionary royal, aristocratic, and ecclesiastical hierarchies. But somehow in the 20th century after the apocalypse of World War I it was apparently decided--ironically by both proponents and antagonists--that "right-wing" now meant practically anything anyone wanted it to mean...except for its original understanding. As an incorrigible monarchist who refuses to give up on those old hierarchies, I have wavered between attempting to recover that original definition and abandoning Right/Left nomenclature altogether. But whichever path we choose, we must stand firm in refusing to ever accept the abandonment of the old commitment to traditional monarchies, even if it means being dubbed "unrealistic" or "irrelevant." What was right in 1789 or 1848 or 1917 is right today, and what was wrong then is wrong today. (Right-wingers in Germany and Austria tried to "move on" after the fall of their monarchies. We all know what the result was.)

On a vaguely related note, I have not been enthusiastic about Pope Francis, whose liturgical and ceremonial sensibilities seem to be diametrically opposed to my own, but if he's making the sort of Conservative American Catholics (TM) who imagine Catholicism in the US to be virtually synonymous with Republicanism uncomfortable, good for him. (Not that Catholics should be Democrats either. They should, of course, be Altar & Throne monarchists!)

Romanov exhibit in Minnesota

This morning, on the last day of my Thanksgiving visit to the Twin Cities, I went with my family to the exhibit "The Romanovs: Legacy of an Empire Lost" at The Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, which was fantastic. I highly recommend that all readers able to do so go to Minneapolis before March 23, 2014 and see this exhibit. Highlights include a 1613 handwritten Gospel, Alexei I's legal code, 1896 coronation vestments, court china from various eras, paintings by Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, jewelry and clothing worn by the last Romanovs, video footage of the imperial family and life in Tsarist Russia, and much more; two hours was barely enough. 

Geeks for Monarchy

I don't endorse everything described herein, but it's interesting to see that monarchist ideas are being entertained even in the technology world, showing that one can coherently admire aspects of modernity like the internet (including Facebook) and antibiotics while still believing that politically, Western Civilisation took a horribly wrong turn in the late 18th century, and then another even worse one in the early 20th. It's odd that the progressive opponent quoted uses the relative stability of Britain over the past 300 years as his argument against reactionaries, when Britain is one of the few countries that (since 1660) has kept its Monarchy, and retained a largely hereditary upper house (politically powerful until 1911) of the legislature until 1999. Hardly proof that reactionaries are wrong to oppose the French Revolution!

JFK

I am not known for my enthusiasm for the American presidency, yet have long had a bit of a soft spot (more human than political) for the Kennedys, partly because they demonstrated that even the world's proudest republic cannot entirely resist the enduring appeal of dynastic politics. For musicians, John F. Kennedy is perhaps best remembered as the president who, with his wonderful wife Jacqueline, gave the arts a prestige they have not generally enjoyed in this country before or since. For monarchists, the US constitution is flawed in combining the functions of Head of State and Head of Government in one person. But whatever his shortcomings as Head of Government, surely JFK was as convincing a Head of State as a president can be. And his assassination fifty years ago today made the world an uglier place. May he rest in peace.

Here is a chart of the monarchs with whom President Kennedy had shared the world stage. Queen Frederika of Greece, King Baudouin of Belgium, and Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia led the international mourners at his funeral three days later. In many ways, except for those countries then languishing under Communism (of which he was a staunch foe), the world before the Kennedy assassination was a better place, especially for Greece, Libya, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Laos, Iran, and Nepal.

Coronation Concert

Every so often, being a monarchist in Dallas is not so bad. Tuesday night at Church of the Incarnation my choir performed a concert of music from the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. In between the musical selections, our Canadian Rector Bishop Anthony Burton read commentary I had written, which you can read here. It was a marvelous evening attended by many and enjoyed by all, probably the Dallas royalist event of the year.

 

Secularists challenge Coronation

I never had any problem with the British Monarchy being Christian when I was an agnostic, and neither should anyone else. This "legal challenge" is an abomination and must be defeated. The disgusting comments quoted in the article illustrate what a vast gulf exists between these evil secularist orcs and decent people. Yes, Britain is the only remaining European country with a religious coronation. For anyone with a heart this is something to be cherished, not abandoned. The ancient coronation liturgy devised by St Dunstan for the coronation of King Edgar in 973 and (despite the Reformation) substantially intact through the coronation of the present Queen in 1953 is integral to the very soul of the Monarchy. The heartless revolutionary says, "A non-religious ceremony allows everybody to feel equally valued." Well, no. Everybody except those of us who care about tradition and history. There is no "neutral" solution. Either they lose or we lose. I also think it's significant that they refer to the "next head of state" rather than the "next monarch," suggesting that the NSS are crypto-republicans as well, though there are many purely secular arguments in favour of monarchy and many non-religious monarchists (as well as, unfortunately, Christian republicans).