The Tale of An American Monarchist Part One
Monarchism did not come naturally to me or any other American Monarchist I suspect; the concept was there, and it wasn’t. It was King Arthur and his Knights; it was Shakespeare, it was something foreign, European in a way that didn’t make sense to our way of life. I was always some sort of conservative even as a youth, but I could never answer that philosophical question of what was conservatism? Was it to conserve something in society in policy? A way of life? Conservatism in 1950 obviously did not look the same as conservatism in 2010 so what then? Was I defending a temperament toward slow and incremental change in society or was I defending actual policy decisions, and if I believed the former the latter couldn’t possibly be true.
Let’s take something like same-sex marriage for example, now that it is the law of the land am I supposed to defend it from the perspective of the institutional conservative? If you look at polling among the younger Republicans a majority believe in Same-Sex marriage, I assume the same happened for issues like Women’s Suffrage or the introduction of the Income-tax where once the issue was won for the Liberals/Leftists the conservatives would drop their opposition to it and move on to the defense of another part of the status quo that was invariably attacked by the leftists, rinse, and repeat. The only possible exception to this would probably be Abortion rights because in the United States at least it was adopted by the Supreme Court before it could really take hold in the public consciousness leading to a 50-year prolonged backlash that may soon reverse Roe V. Wade, compared to say Britain or Canada where the abortion debate has been done and settled and any opposition to that is limited to fringe members of the right. When do the conservatives ever win, I wondered? When has there been a moment where they actually won the war and not just a battle?
That’s when I resigned myself to the inability of our current governmental system to actually make a dent against the onslaught of social decay. I searched and searched history for something real in the sense that it was unchanging, something like 1+1=2 in that it could be true in 1800 as much as it would be true in 2800. That line of thinking had brought me the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, I was skeptical at first, but troubling ideas came into my head, were the Kings of let’s say Spain or France were they not good Christian men who only acted as viceroys to God on Earth, were they wrong I thought? Why was I right and they wrong, isn’t that just arrogance? The Bible does quite clearly state “Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”” And that brought the question of who was truly sovereign on Earth, was it the people or God? And in a choice between the two, the choice was obvious in that the latter was supreme. And that Monarchy was the traditional way to express his rule over the people in a secular manner.
I realize this is not a popular position even among Monarchists but what had brought me toward Monarchy and the concept of the Divine Right was the search for truth, and that Monarchy represented a link toward the great hierarchy leading to God something eternally beautiful that “we the people” or “liberty, egalite, fraternite” simply did not possess. Perhaps it is a hopeless ideal, but a monarch that fights for his Kingdom on the battlefield like Charles I against the forces of Parliamentarianism is infinitely nobler than dying by compromise and by reform and by centuries of leftist infiltration of the public institutions. That is why I view Monarchy as the best hope as a form of government to not simply tolerate and be subsumed by the destructive leftist forces, but to actually meet it and their agents head-on with an aim of defeating and not simply holding them at bay like the cowardly Republicans against the Democrats.
Comments
Post a Comment