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!

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 régime 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).

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?

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.