Saturday, May 31, 2014

Height and Priorities

Speaking of architecture...

From 1311 (when Lincoln Cathedral in England surpassed the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt) until 1884, 573 years, the tallest building in the world was always a Christian church. But in 1884 Cologne Cathedral (pictured) was surpassed by the Washington Monument, celebrating the leader of the American Revolution, and five years later by the Eiffel Tower, celebrating the centennial of the French Revolution. The record would never be held by a church again. Food for thought.


Having recently resumed getting DVDs from Netflix after a hiatus of several months, last night I finally watched Disney's Frozen, the movie that created such a stir last year, particularly among young girls. Frozen has been widely praised as the best Disney film since the 1989-92 "Renaissance," and while I might still prefer The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996), as far as anything since then is concerned I would have to agree. What is striking for a monarchist is the way that even in the second decade of the 21st century, it is stories about royalty, in this case a princess/queen learning to accept her duties and trying to find a balance between repressing her abilities entirely and failing to control them at all, that remain the most appealing, and thankfully Disney (despite everything that's changed there since Walt's time) still understands that. And Frozen would not be as enchanting as it is without the intrinsic aesthetic beauty of monarchy and monarchical civilizations, including the ice palace that Queen Elsa builds with her magical powers, for even without magical powers, it is the architecture of Monarchy that along with that of religion surpasses all else in its glory. Fortunately, unlike most of the modern real world, the country on which the world of Frozen appears to have been substantially based, Norway, still has its monarchy today. As I wrote in 2010, children are natural monarchists; only adults who have lost any sense of childlike wonder could invent something as pedestrian as republicanism.

UKIP peer attacks Prince Charles

I often feel estranged from the entire existing political spectrum, because while the Left is committed to "Equality" in principle, most "right-wingers," even in Europe, don't particularly see it as a problem in itself that monarchies have been abolished, and many don't even find it obligatory to defend the few remaining ones. Whereas true traditionalists will never, ever, abandon the Crown(s), not in a hundred years, not in a thousand, no matter what. Republicanism must be crushed and destroyed and the traditional dynasties restored, with proper courts and hereditary succession and so forth, and that is more important than any other "right-wing" or "conservative" cause. Meanwhile some in the "right-wing" United Kingdom Independence Party think it acceptable to insult the heir to the throne (Warning: Treason) and praise the evil American Revolution, of all things. Whether one believes in man-made climate change or not, the views of the future King must be treated with respect, though sometimes we real right-wingers may be forgiven for wondering if an ecological apocalypse would be such a terrible thing, modern "civilization" is such a disaster anyway.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Grimaldi announcement

Finally, an heir for Monaco! (BBC) (Mail) Andrea Casiraghi can relax (or perhaps he's disappointed). In a century when Europe's remaining hereditary monarchies are grappling with the implications of unprecedented lifespans likely to yield increasingly elderly sovereigns, and even elderly heirs, unless abdication (as in the Low Countries) becomes the norm, it may be a refreshing contrast to have an heir 56 years younger than the monarch. Congratulations to Their Serene Highnesses Albert II and Charlene.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Why Prince Charles should not remain silent

While I do not agree with the very last line--speaking as a monarchist living in a republic, even a "silent dummy" monarchy would be preferable--otherwise this is a great article and a rousing defence of the heir to the throne.

Progressives for Monarchy

An unlikely source proposes Princess Martha Louise of Norway for Queen of the USA. From 2010.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Six Years Too Many

Six years of republican darkness in Nepal. How long must this madness last? It's bad enough that so many monarchies fell before today's young monarchists were born, but for one that had survived long enough to have a website to do so is intolerable. Hopefully the illegitimate republican regime will collapse of its own incompetence before too much longer and the world will once again have a Hindu kingdom, whether under King Gyanendra, his son Crown Prince Paras, or the latter's son Prince Hridayendra.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Habsburgs Revisited

I don't usually link to articles I don't like, but this one is too frustrating to ignore. It's like the writer feels guilty for regretting the collapse of the Habsburg Empire at all, so contradicts himself with baseless assertions, oversimplifications, and half-truths. The incoherent article might be summarized like this: "Yes, Europe was better off when the Habsburgs ruled, but the Habsburgs deserve absolutely no credit for that and what's happened since 1914 is all their fault anyway."

Since Prince Philip Kiril of Prussia asked the British people's forgiveness for his great-great-grandfather's role in the beginning of World War I a century ago, perhaps the British and other Allied governments should ask for _his_ forgiveness for their role in the republicanization of Europe--a monumental tragedy from which Europe has never recovered and for which Europeans, clinging to egalitarian and republican lies, have never repented. That the 20th century would have been better for everyone, including non-monarchists, if the Hohenzollerns, Habsburgs, and Romanovs had remained on their thrones is so blindingly obvious that it ought not to be controversial to say so. Republicanism is Death, basically, and Europeans should never be allowed to forget that.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Russians attack Prince Charles

Russia has not had a legitimate government since March 1917. The republican Russian Federation, like all post-monarchical republics, is an illegal gang of traitors and has no right to criticise HRH the Prince of Wales, whose own relatives were murdered there by Bolshevik scum in July 1918. Republics are insects compared to Monarchies and should approach them in abject humility, if allowed to exist at all. It is a gross crime crying out to Heaven for vengeance that the Monarchy was not restored following the fall of Communism. If Russians want to be treated with respect they can repudiate 1917-91 and restore the Monarchy. Until then, shut the Lenin up Vladimir Putin--you have no more right to call yourself the head of state of Russia than I do. Down with presidential republicanism, long live Empress Maria Vladimirovna and long live the Romanov dynasty!

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

American Monarchism in 1984

I just found this interesting article on American monarchists from 1984, published when I was five years old and for some reason not yet particularly active in monarchism. Most of it still applies today, thirty years later. We haven't gotten much less marginal since then, but at least now we have the internet.

Rereading Hoppe

Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed, which I've owned since I lived in Miami (2002-04) and have recently been revisiting since a friend I'd loaned it to returned it to me, is interesting and useful, but depressing.

"...the transition from monarchical to democratic rule must be explained as nothing but a change in public opinion. In fact, until the end of World War I, the overwhelming majority of the public in Europe accepted monarchical rule as legitimate. Today, hardly anyone would do so."

Well, Prof. Hoppe, there are a few of us!

"On the contrary, the idea of monarchical governments is considered laughable. Consequently, a return to the ancien r├ęgime must be regarded as impossible. The legitimacy of monarchical rule appears to have been irretrievably lost."

Perhaps, but if public opinion changed once, why can't it do so again?

Charles, Putin, and Hitler

It's kind of sad when the most sensible reaction quoted in an article is from Nick Clegg: "I have never been of this view that if you are a member of the royal family somehow you have to enter into some Trappist vow of silence. I think he is entitled to his views. But I don't know whether those were his views because I just don't think providing a running commentary on what were private conversations is useful to anybody. I don't know exactly what he did or didn't say in that conversation because he thought it was a private conversation."

Perhaps the Prince of Wales should not have said what he reportedly said. One can dislike Vladimir Putin without likening him to Hitler. But talk of an "international scandal" is absurd.

It's worth noting that Prince Charles is the great-grandnephew of Empress Alexandra (1872-1918), murdered with her family by the Bolsheviks in 1918. [Alexandra's sister Victoria (1863-1950), still alive when her great-grandson Charles was born, was the mother of Princess Alice (1885-1969), mother of the Duke of Edinburgh.] His beloved great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten (1900-1979), had a boyhood crush on his cousin Grand Duchess Maria (1899-1918) and kept a photograph of her on his desk for the rest of his life. The post-Soviet Russian state has never repudiated Communism as thoroughly as it needs to. And true repentance can be demonstrated only by the restoration of the great Russian monarchy.

Prince Charles at his christening in 1948, held by his mother Princess Elizabeth (b 1926) and flanked by his two great-grandmothers, Queen Mary (1867-1953) on the right and Victoria Marchioness of Milford Haven (1863-1950) on the left. Standing behind them (L-R) are Patricia Mountbatten Lady Brabourne, (b 1924), the Duke of Edinburgh (b 1921), King George VI (1895-1952), Queen Elizabeth's brother David Bowes-Lyon (1902-1961), Queen Mary's brother Alexander Earl of Athlone (1874-1957), and Princess Margaret (1930-2002).

Monday, May 19, 2014

Monarchy or Republic: Yes, it matters!

Having posted on Facebook via The Pahlavi Dynasty page about his daughter Princess Noor's graduation from Georgetown this weekend, I was looking at The Official Site of Reza Pahlavi and couldn't help finding it depressing to see in a 2011 Q&A that HIH had said that the important thing is for Iran to be democratic and secular and it doesn't matter if it's a republic or a constitutional monarchy because there isn't much difference between Germany and the Netherlands or between France and Spain. With all due respect, Your Imperial Highness, for some of us there is all the difference in the world! People fortunate enough to live in the Netherlands or Spain have a non-partisan head of state who connects them to their history; people in Germany or France have a divisive head of state who cuts them off from their history.

Every day of my life I resent living in a republic, and I would resent it even more if I lived in one that used to have a monarchy of its own like Germany or France...or Iran. For anyone with a deep sense of history and tradition, the illegitimate German and French republics are totally repulsive and cannot represent their monarchist inhabitants at all; neither would any Iranian republic, whether theocratic or secular. Perhaps the most discouraging thing about being a monarchist in the 21st century is the fact that too often it seems like even royalty don't really believe in monarchy. The world desperately needs royal restorations, but who will be our champions if not the would-be kings or shahs themselves?

Friday, May 16, 2014

Royalty and Envy

Christians these days often seem to be constantly arguing with each other, and with the secular world, about topics related to Lust. But wherever one stands on those issues, Lust has traditionally been regarded as the least heinous of the Seven Deadly Sins. Why isn't there more talk about Envy? Look at the comments on any article about wealthy people, including but not limited to royalty, and it's apparent that far too many people out there, at least some of whom probably would claim to be Christians, believe that it's perfectly acceptable to hate those who who have more money than you do, especially if in your opinion they didn't sufficiently "earn" it. Guess what? It's not! In fact it's a grievous sin. If modern "conservatism" (most of which does not actually conserve much of anything, but that's another topic) is prone to Greed, Leftism is essentially the Deadly Sin of Envy writ large. Whether royalty and other wealthy people are serving God or Mammon is between them and God--and may not always be as easy for others to determine as they think. It is not a sin in itself to be wealthy or to occupy a high social status--otherwise the Church never would have canonized the many royalty and nobility who have been canonized. It is, however, a sin to give in to hatred of those who you consider to be more fortunate than yourself.

The Anti-Democracy Activist

I just spent a good chunk of this morning perusing an interesting blog I hadn't come across before, The Anti-Democracy Activist. While I don't endorse every viewpoint this writer expresses, there's much to agree with and his work is certainly worth reading.

Going back to my 2003 article "Two Kinds of Monarchists," I've long thought that monarchism comprises at least two distinct elements, which as an alternative to "neo" and "paleo" might be called "cuddly" ("OMG Prince George is so adorable!") and "non-cuddly" ("Thank God Franco won the Spanish Civil War!"). It has always been my position that both are necessary, and that monarchists drawn more to one side should not scorn the other. Without the former, monarchism loses its potential appeal to ordinary people; without the latter, it is impotent. This anti-democracy blog, and the neo-reactionary movement generally, are useful additions to the "non-cuddly" side, but that doesn't mean we have to stop appreciating things like charming photos of the Danish royal family.

However, a less complementary way to express the dichotomy is that perhaps there are two kinds of monarchists: those who think that republican scum like Peter Tatchell are wrong when they argue that even a symbolic constitutional monarchy is incompatible with the [democratic and egalitarian] prevailing values of our time, and those of us who think that (painful as it is to admit it) Tatchell and his allies are logically correct but the problem is with the prevailing values of our time.

Militant Monarchist Thought of the Day

The British, Spanish, or Swedish parliaments can pass good laws or bad ones (mostly the latter). But the French, Austrian, or Portuguese parliaments can pass no laws at all. All their acts are utterly null and void. So there is no point in protesting against anything specific that Europe's illegitimate republics do. Their crime is their existence and Romans 13 does not apply to them. There is no such thing as the lawful abolition of a monarchy. Ever. Monarchists in Europe need to stop being nice (or quarreling among themselves) and demand to be heard, because we are right and the enemy is wrong. And Europe's "conservative" republicans and "Christian" Democrats are in a way worse than the Left, because they consolidate and legitimize the Revolution. No society could function for long without some sort of conservatism. Even the Soviet Union had its "conservatives." But we do not want the republics to continue to function. We want them destroyed. Once a country's monarchy has been abolished, conservatism becomes part of the problem and those who previously would have been conservatives must become counter-revolutionaries or reactionaries.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Denmark's Young Royalty

Official photo of TRH Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary of Denmark released to mark their tenth anniversary yesterday.

L-R: Prince Christian (b 2005), Prince Vincent (b 2011), Crown Prince Frederik (b 1968), Crown Princess Mary (b 1972), Princess Josephine (b 2011), Princess Isabella (b 2007)

The Exotica of Monarchy

No comment on the rest of this annoying article (definitely not endorsed!), but it's tiresome to see the way neoconservative critics of Catholic traditionalism frequently bring up "love of monarchy" as if that's a self-evidently bad thing, an example of what's wrong with the traditionalist movement, and one of its adherents' major themes (if only it were!). Actually, in the United States monarchists are (unfortunately) a minority even at traditionalist Catholic chapels. And in a society as messed up as ours, what on earth is wrong with a little "exotica"? Chris Ferrara's reply is apt: "I am glad to see that you have found peace and contentment in the sty of Republican Catholic conformism."

Coronations, Americans, and the Crown

Here are some reflections on Monarchy by John Beeler prompted by this thoughtful article by my friend Michael W. Davis, an American monarchist now living in Australia. Of course, as a Loyalist to the core I am far from "undecided" about the American Revolution, but welcome any deviation from the established "Patriot" narrative. Recently I've begun to watch (not entirely without reluctance) the new television series "TURN," about spies during the American Revolution. While viewers are clearly expected to side with the rebels, characters are well-rounded enough that is possible to side with the Tories if one really wishes.

Monday was the 77th anniversary of the Coronation of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, an event always worth reflecting on.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

V-E Day

I love England, but find today's anniversary difficult to celebrate. Let's not forget the falls of the Yugoslavian, Albanian, Italian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and (if Horthy's kingless kingdom counts) Hungarian monarchies, the loss of half of Europe to four decades of Communist tyranny, and the destruction of so much architectural beauty. As far as victories go, 1945 was not much of a victory for Traditional Britain, which in the aftermath quickly lost its Empire and endured conditions more commonly associated with defeated nations than victorious ones. Truly it was Americanism in the West and Stalinism in the East that really triumphed, giving us the ugly postwar world of the United Nations, the European Union, Vatican II, and since 1947 no more than ten hereditary monarchies in Europe which is completely unacceptable. Waterloo 1815, now that was a victory...