Even when I was at the height of my Latin Mass phase (c. 2004-07), I could never really accept it that most Catholics, even traditionalists, were just not that into restoring Catholic Monarchies. Even those who are sympathetic to monarchism in theory tend (especially if American) to have other political priorities in practice, whereas I, being incorrigibly stubborn, was and am far less interested in conforming politically to "the real world." Most of history's major Catholic monarchies are long gone, meaning that Catholic Monarchism inevitably appears hopelessly bound to the increasingly distant (pre-1914 or even pre-1789) past. (This is arguably even more true of Orthodoxy, which sadly has lacked a single extant monarchy since 1974.) The Kingdom of Spain (albeit somewhat beleaguered nowadays), of whose restoration this past Sunday was the 45th anniversary, survives, as do four smaller European Catholic monarchies, but modern Spain presents its own problems for Catholics unhappy with the prevailing values of modern secular democratic society, to which the modern monarchy has largely acquiesced (and yet is still hated by the Left).
The situation with Anglicanism is somewhat different, since obviously the only Anglican monarchy ever to have existed is still very much in existence (and shared by 15 other countries), and is the most famous in the world. So are four continental Protestant kingdoms. This enables one who identifies as an Anglican or Protestant Monarchist, if he can accept contemporary developments such as female clergy, to be more reconciled to the present than a Catholic or Orthodox Monarchist can be, to a certain extent, though of course I also remain passionately committed to the restoration of Catholic, Orthodox, and even some non-Christian monarchies. But I don't want to know what would happen to my relationship with Anglicanism if...I don't think I want to finish this sentence...
|Coronation of King Louis VIII of France, 1223|
|Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, 1953|