Monarchy FAQ

by Charles A. Coulombe
1. Is monarchy evil?
Certainly not! Was St. Louis evil? Charlemagne? All the many saints who occupied thrones? How
about King avid! or his descendant! "esus Christ? Why do you suppose that the #ible tells us in
the $irst %pistle o$ St. &eter '(! )*+! to honour the King? ,r that the Church composed ceremonies
$or the anointing and coronation o$ Kings! and declared that they ruled -by the .race o$ .od?- /he
Catholic concept o$ 0onarchy was well de$ined by Archbishop "ohn Healy o$ /uam! 1reland! who
wrote be$ore his death in )2)23
/he character o$ Kings is sacred4 their persons are inviolable4 they are the anointed o$
the Lord! i$ not with sacred oil! at least by virtue o$ their o$$ice. /heir power is broad555
based upon the Will o$ .od! and not on the shi$ting sands o$ the people6s will.../hey
will be spo7en o$ with becoming reverence! instead o$ being in public estimation $itting
butts $or all $oul tongues. 1t becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons! and every
indignity o$$ered to them in word or act! becomes an indignity o$$ered to .od Himsel$.
1t is this view o$ Kingly rule that alone can 7eep alive in a sco$$ing and licentious age
the spirit o$ ancient loyalty! that spirit begotten o$ $aith! combining in itsel$ obedience!
reverence! and love $or the ma8esty o$ 7ings which was at once a bond o$ social union!
an incentive to noble daring! and a salt to puri$y the heart $rom its grosser tendencies!
preserving it $rom all that is mean! sel$ish! and contemptible. '&.". "oyce! "ohn Healy!
pp. 9:592+.
C.S. Lewis put the problem very well3
0onarchy can easily be debun7ed! but watch the $aces! mar7 well the debun7ers. /hese
are the men whose taproot in %den has been cut3 whom no rumour o$ the polyphony! the
dance! can reach555men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beauti$ul than an arch.
;et even i$ they desire mere e<uality they cannot reach it. Where men are $orbidden to
honour a 7ing they honour millionaires! athletes or $ilm stars instead3 even $amous
prostitutes or gangsters. =or spiritual nature! li7e bodily nature! will be served4 deny it
$ood and it will gobble poison.
1ndeed! indeed!
2. But what about all the corrupt monarchs who ruled in the Middle Ages?
#ut what about all the saints who also ruled? As Catherine .oddard Clar7e put it in her Our
Glorious Popes 'p.>2+3
We have been slowly and deliberately taught that monarchies and 7ings are bad things!
and papal supervision o$ any 7ind in government! even over its morals! is a very bad
thing? ?
Scarcely anyone is ever told any more that =rance! Spain and &ortugal! &oland and
Hungary! %ngland and Sweden! all had 7ings and <ueens who ruled their lands
gloriously and brought untold happiness and well5being to their sub8ects.
1ndeed! the pages o$ both om .ueranger and Alban #utler! whose respective Liturgical ;ear and
Lives o$ the Saints are true classics! are $illed with accounts o$ @oyal Sanctity.
/here were! to be sure! corrupt Kings! 8ust as there were and are corrupt clerics. #ut that does not
change the $act that the institutions these $allible humans represent are capable o$ producing
greatness in a way their alternatives cannot.
%Aamine the history o$ any republic you li7e4 with the eAceptions o$ such men as .arcia 0oreno in
%cuador! Lucas Alaman in 0eAico! %ngelbert oll$uss in Austria! and Heinrich #ruening in
.ermany 'all o$ whom! coincidentally! were 0onarchists who thought the time o$ restoration as yet
unripe $or their particular countries+! it is a record o$ mediocrities at best! and monsters at worst.
Hitler was elected! a$ter all. .iven its trac7 record! perhaps the adherents o$ republics should stic7
to theory! and leave history be.
. Isn!t a "ing simply a dictator with a crown?
Certainly not. %very dictator is a sel$5made man. Having clawed his way to the top! he considers
himsel$ beholden neither to .od nor man. His talent $or ac<uiring power is generally
unaccompanied by learning or s7ill in state5cra$t555hence the o$ten crude and clownish impression
made by such $ol7. Bnbound by tradition! he may rule according to his own whim.
A 0onarch! on the other hand! is bound by tradition and ceremonial to reign in a certain way. He
has been trained $or his role since in$ancy! and 7nows he owes his position to no talent o$ his own.
1n a word! a 0onarch may 8ust have a little room $or humility4 no dictator ever can.
#. Is the American $epublic inherently evil?
1n the sense that it was $ounded upon a bloody revolution! and in accordance with anti5Christian
principles! yes. #ut .od can bring good out o$ evil555the =all o$ 0an was redeemed by the
1ncarnation and eath o$ ,ur Lord. As Samuel "ohnson observed! -Satan was the $irst Whig.- 1n a
sense! every revolution against a 0onarchy! motivated by greed and envy is another =all. #ut who
can say what 7ind o$ redemption may not occur here? Certainly Americans have been capable o$
great good.
%. Are republics in general inherently evil?
/hose which have been installed in accordance with the anti5Christian principles o$ )CC9 and )C:2
are. /he $ew which eAisted prior to that in Christendom were almost all city5states owing ultimate
allegiance to a 0onarch. #ut our current set are all imbued with the evil principles mentioned3 -A
state without a King! and a Church without a &ope.-
&. Is it better to have a 'atholic republic or a (rotestant Monarchy?
/his is! in a sense! a $alse <uestion. 1n 1reland! &ortugal! &oland! and throughout Latin America
there have been attempts at a -Catholic republic!- by which is meant a republican state run
according to Catholic principles. #ut what is involved here is really an anti5Catholic $orm o$
government! sta$$ed by Catholics. Should the latter be replaced by a di$$erent sort o$ $ol7555as has
happened in most o$ the places mentioned! the state and the local society rapidly become
secularised. /his is simply a case o$ the chic7ens coming home to roost! so to spea7.
1n the case o$ a &rotestant 0onarchy! the ones now eAtant '.reat #ritain and the ominions555
Canada! Australia! etc.! Sweden! Dorway! enmar7! and the Detherlands+! as well as those
overthrown '&russia and the other &rotestant .erman states+! a basically Catholic institution was
overlaid with a &rotestant veneer. #ut the nature o$ the 1nstitution is such that even in such a caseit
can bring to the $ore individuals reminiscent o$ their Catholic $orebears3 .eorge 111 and %dward E11
o$ .reat #ritain! .ustavus 111 o$ Sweden! and =rederic7 William 1E o$ &russia come to mind. /he
great stability these countries possess! even in the midst o$ social change and -<uiet- revolution!
may be laid to what remains o$ value in their 0onarchies. 1n the case o$ a $ew countries! such as
SaAony! where in the ):th century the %lector 'later King+ returned to Catholicism! the bene$its to
the people were swi$tly made mani$est.
/a7ing all o$ this into consideration! 1 would maintain that a truly Catholic republic is not possible4
what we call by that name is not pre$erable to a &rotestant 0onarchy.
). *hat i+ our ,ing is a tyrant?
1n a modern constitutional 0onarchy! the tyrants are generally the politicians elected by the people!
and the bureaucratic class who actually run the nation4 these are o$ course unimpeachable! and must
simply be obeyed. /he King serves primarily to remind $ol7 that it was not always so! and may not
be again. 1$ the politicians really muc7 things up! he might be able to get them out o$ the mess.
1n the 0iddle Ages! i$ a King bro7e the law! the great men o$ the realm would oppose him $or his
own sa7e! ala 0agna Carta. id he go too $ar! the Church would eAcommunicate him.
-. .he notion that people can simply inherit power over me bothers me. Isn!t voting an
e++ective tool +or chec"s and balances? /oesn!t it ensure competence?
1 am sorry that you are bothered! A$ter all! you have no control over the selection o$ your 1@S
auditor! and innumerable other $ol7 who have more power over you than any 0edieval King could
have hoped to. #ut there are two answers to this $irst <uestion.
/he primary one is that! well! not to sound odd! but .od gives the Kings a people deserve. /he
hereditary principle leaves the choice o$ paramount power to the Almighty4 it has been claimed that
an attempt to elect him is a denial o$ providence.
,n a more mundane level! the truth is! it wor7s better! and $or longer periods. 1n the words o$ the
saintly Spanish priest! =r. "aime #almes! in his %uropean Civilisation 'p. )F*+3
@egarding things in the abstract! there is nothing more stri7ingly absurd than hereditary
monarchy! the succession secured to a $amily which may at any time place on the throne
a $ool! a child! or a wretch3 and yet in practise there is nothing more wise! prudent! and
provident. /his has been taught by the long eAperience o$ ages! it has been shown by
reason! and proved by the sad warnings o$ those nations who have tried elective
monarchy. Dow what is the cause o$ this? 1t is what we are endeavouring to eAplain.
Hereditary 0onarchy precludes all hopes o$ irregular ambition4 without that! society
always contains a germ o$ trouble! a principle o$ revolt! which is nourished by those
who conceive a hope o$ one day obtaining the command. 1n <uiet times! and under an
hereditary 0onarchy! a sub8ect! however rich! however distinguished he may be $or his
talent or his valour! cannot! without madness! hope to be King4 and such a thought never
enters his head. #ut change the circumstances555admit! 1 will not say the probability! but
the possibility o$ such an event! and you will see that there will immediately be ardent
candidates.
,$ course! the stri$e that con$licting parties cause is endemic to the modern state4 the wel$are o$ the
people is always the $irst thing to be sacri$iced in preparation $or the neAt coup! election! or
however the particular republic customarily changes its head o$ state. 1t is almost a maAim that
those who strive $or high o$$ice are the least worthy o$ it.
%lections! long eAperience shows! do not really provide chec7s and balances555re$lect on the
abortion <uestion! as an eAample. Such a 7ey issue! which goes to the very heart o$ the power o$ the
State and the meaning o$ humanity! has never! in the Bnited States! been re$erred to the ballot boA.
And even i$ it were! is the de$inition o$ human li$e something one wants decided by vote? Could it
not be altered 8ust as easily? 1n any case! important <uestions are rarely decided by the people.
0 . *asn!t ser+dom in the Middle Ages a terrible thing?
As compared to what? /he ser$! li7e labourers everywhere and at all times! had a hard li$e. He also
could not be $orced o$$ the land! wor7ed about *G days a year $or his lord 'as opposed to the average
AmericanHs )9C $or the 1@S+! and could D,/ wor7 on Sundays and the *G5odd Holy ays o$
obligation and certain other stated times. ,ne may compare that to any current 8ob description one
wants to.
11. 2asn!t the monarchy in 3ngland turned out to be a 4o"e?
1n comparison to the Clinton White House? While it has not been nearly as e$$ective in some ways
as one would hope! what government has? 0oreover! Iueen %liJabeth 11! in her role as private
adviser to the government! prevented such blunders as Harold WilsonHs contemplated invasion o$
@hodesia in )29>. Her .overnor5.eneral in Australia! Sir "ohn Kerr! in )2C> dismissed the
government o$ .ough Whitlam! who was threatening to $und his regime illegally a$ter the Senate
denied him supply. Her .overnor5.eneral o$ .renada! Sir &aul Scoon! called in American troops
a$ter the government there collapsed in revolution and Cuban intervention seemed imminent. 1n all
three cases! a republican government would have spelled disaster.
0uch is made o$ the marital woes o$ the @oyal =amily! particularly o$ the &rince o$ Wales. #ut
given the 7id5glove treatment our own president has received in this area! can it not be asserted that
the &rinceHs annoyance o$ many in$luential groups by his stand in such areas as architecture! the
environment! and education has been at least a partial source o$ his woes? /his appears $rom a
revealing () "anuary )22* letter he wrote to /om Shebbeare! director o$ the &rince6s /rust 'and
<uoted on pp. F2*5F2F o$ imbleby6s biography+3
=or the past )> years 1 have been entirely motivated by a desperate desire to put the
-.reat- bac7 into .reat #ritain. %verything 1 have tried to do555all the pro8ects!
speeches! schemes! etc.555have been with this end in mind. And none o$ it has wor7ed!
as you can see too obviously! 1n order to put the -.reat- bac7 1 have always $elt it was
vital to bring people together! and 1 began to realise that the one advantage my position
has over anyone else6s is that 1 can act as a catalyst to help produce a better and more
balanced response to various problems. 1 have no -political- agenda555only a desire to
see people achieve their potential4 to be decently housed in a decent! civilised
environment that respects the cultural and vernacular character o$ the nation4 to see this
country6s real talents 'especially inventiveness and engineering s7ills+ put to best use in
the best interests o$ the country and the world 'at present they are being disgrace$ully
wasted through lac7 o$ co5ordination and strategic thin7ing+4 to retain and value the
in$rastructure and cultural integrity o$ rural communities 'where they still eAist+ because
o$ the vital role they play in the very $ramewor7 o$ the nation and the care and
management o$ the countryside4 to value and nurture the highest standards o$ military
integrity and pro$essionalism! as displayed by our armed $orces! because o$ the role they
play as an insurance scheme in case o$ disaster4 and to value and retain our uni<uely
special broadcasting standards which are renowned throughout the world. /he $inal
point is that 1 want to role bac7 some o$ the more ludicrous $rontiers o$ the 9Gs in terms
o$ education! architecture! art! music! and literature! not to mention agriculture! Having
read this through! no wonder they want to destroy me! or get rid o$ me...!
Li7e his Stuart ancestors! he would attempt to play the role o$ steward o$ the land4 his interest in
hunting $or eAample! is very reminiscent o$ his predecessors63 -espite protests by anti5hunting
groups! the &rince o$ Wales ta7es a close interest in the sport at all levels and has de$ended it as an
e$$ective $orm o$ sporting conservation o$ wildli$e and its habitat in the #ritish countryside!- as we
read in the @oyal %ncyclopaedia. So too with what the same source tells us about the &rince6s $arm
at Highgrove3
A particular concern on the Home =arm is environmental conservation3 straw is never
burned4 chemical $ertilisers are being reduced as much as possible4 and in 7eeping with
the Cotswolds landscape! >F: metres o$ dry5stone walls have been rebuilt around the
land. 1n )2:> the decision was ta7en to go organic on three bloc7s o$ land as part o$ a
general move to what has been called biologically sustainable $arming lin7ed to
conservation. /he step to $ull organic status on the whole estate is said to be on line $or
)229.
/he &rinceHs re$usal to 8oin the 0asonic ,rder! and his denunciation o$ Henry E111Hs split $rom
@ome augur well $or him as King Charles 111555i$ he is allowed to reign by the powers5that5be.
11. 2ow would our rights be guaranteed under a monarchy?
How are they guaranteed in any case? As "oe Sobran observed! -i$ voting actually changed
anything! it would be illegal.- /he King is taught to thin7 o$ himsel$ as $ather o$ his people4 the
result o$ this has been that in modern times! Karl o$ Austria5Hungary4 Dicholas 11 o$ @ussia4
Bmberto 11 o$ 1taly4 Henri! Count o$ &aris! a claimant to the throne o$ =rance40ichael o$ @omania!
and Constantine 11 o$ .reece4 all chose abdication andKor eAile rather than plunge their nations into
bloody civil war. Compare this anAiety $or the lives o$ their children to that o$ republican leaders
$rom Lincoln to the present.
1n the 0iddle Ages! the notion prevailed that even Kings were sub8ect to the law4 the interplay o$
King! Church! Dobility! .uilds! and landowners provided a great deal o$ personal $reedom.
Bltimately! the rights o$ a sub8ect are bound up with his being a child o$ the .od by Whose .race
the King reigns. 1n a -$ree- republic! o$ course! the citiJenHs rights are granted at the whim o$ the
political class555or ta7en away 'Cali$ornia smo7ers! ta7e note!+.
12. *ho cares what you thin"? *hat is the 'hurch!s position on Monarchy?
.ood <uestion! 1 donHt care mysel$! As $or the Church! though! her position is clear. 1n her liturgy!
as in her #ible! as in the actions o$ her &opes and #ishops! she endorses the institution. 1n his
allocution on the death o$ Louis LE1! &our<uoi Dotre EoiA! &ope &ius E1 declared that 0onarchy is
-the best o$ all governments.- /he @oyal observances o$ the Church Calendar! @oyal rituals such as
the Coronation! and @oyal patronage o$ the Church all re$lect this. 0onarchists in Catholic
countries have always demanded a Catholic as well as a @oyal State.
1. *hat is the 'hurch!s position on $epublics?
/he Church tolerates them! as she does all $orms o$ government which allow her to operate. Leo
L111 called upon Catholics to -rally to the '=rench third+ republic.- /his was done $or prudential
reasons555namely! 7eeping the republic $rom voiding the concordat which paid clerical salaries.
Apart $rom splitting the =rench Church! this had little e$$ect! because the republicans bro7e it
anyway.
1#. I don!t thin" its the +orm o+ government that matters. I thin" that what matters is what!s
in people!s hearts. Are our problems going to go away i+ our +orm o+ government becomes a
monarchy?
Do. Without a $irm religious base! the 0onarchy cannot do much more than ameliorate problems to
a degree. And even a $ull5blown Catholic 0onarchy must deal with the $allen nature o$ King and
Sub8ects.
1%. 2ow would we decide who our monarch should be?
Here! 1 have absolutely no idea. Without a $irm moral and spiritual $oundation in the hearts o$ our
people! we already have the government we deserve.
1&. *ould it be a good idea +or America to accept Queen 3li5abeth as its 6overeign?
1 suppose we could do worse. .iven the answer to <uestion )>! 1 donHt suppose it would do much
good! but it would perhaps be better than nothing. %ven such a step on the part o$ the Bnited States
would re<uire a spiritual re$orm o$ incalculable di$$iculty.
1). *hat!s so holy about the 2oly $oman 3mperor?
What was holy about the o$$ice! apart $rom various o$ its occupants li7e #l. Charlemagne and St.
Henry! was its role. .ary &otter sums it up admirably in modern terms3
Words eApress ideas! and some o$ them now being <uoted signi$y notions li7ely to be
totally $oreign to anyone un$amiliar with history prior to a $ew decades ago3 -world
emperor!- -imperial o$$ice!-? /his is not the place to lay out all the history needed to
be 7nown $or thoroughly grasping the notions. However! the principal one was
adumbrated by ,ur Lord Himsel$ in the last command his $ollowers received $rom Him3
to ma7e disciples o$ all the nations. 1n a word! the idea o$ a universal Christian
commonwealth is what we are tal7ing about.
/o date it has never eAisted. /o5day there is not even a Christian government anywhere.
However! $rom the conversion o$ Constantine until August! ):G9 M with an interruption
'in the West+ $rom @omulus Augustulus in FC9 to Charlemagne in :GG M there was the
%mpire. 1t was the heart o$ what was once 7now as Christendom. Bnder its aegis serious
%uropean settlement o$ the Western Hemisphere began and the AmericasN native
inhabitants were $irst baptised! which is why the $eather cloa7 o$ 0onteJuma is to be
seen to5day in a museum in Eienna. A$ter ):G9 a 7ind o$ shadow o$ the %mpire! the
Austro5Hungarian one! endured until the end o$ World War 1! when its abolition was
imposed as a condition o$ peace by B.S. &resident Woodrow Wilson. Since )F*:! when
Albert E?was crowned @oman %mperor! all the %mperors were Habsburgs. /he last
was Archdu7e ,ttoNs $ather! Karl.
,$ what interest could this ancient history be to us to5day? Well! as the -@ussian Dewman!-
Eladimir Soloviev put it! -=or lac7 o$ an imperial power genuinely Christian and Catholic! the
Church has not succeeded in establishing social and political 8ustice in %urope.- Dor anywhere else!
one might add. /hrough such e$$orts as the Bnited Dations and the %uropean and other regional
unions! secular man attempts! unconsciously! to rebuild some sort o$ unity among people. 0any
writers have attempted to sum up the importance o$ the 1mperial o$$ice! and it too is re$lected in the
ChurchHs liturgy.
1-. But wasn7t 8od angry at the people o+ Israel +or wanting a ,ing? *eren7t 9udges better?
/he "udges o$ 1srael were directly called by .od! with neither acclamation by the people nor
constitutional restraint. /he $allen nature o$ the 1sraelites made such a government un$easible $or
long555did not ,ur Lord complain that "erusalem murdered the prophets? Having been chosen $rom
all the %arth! the 1sraelites ought to been grati$ied that they had been given such a uni<ue555and to
our way o$ thin7ing! undemocratic555system o$ government. 1nstead! they demanded the natural
manner o$ rule en8oyed by all other peoples555hence .odHs anger. #ut He nevertheless showed His
approval o$ the institution both by having Samuel anoint Saul! and by establishing the dynasty o$
King avid! whose last right$ul heir according to the $lesh! "esus Christ! continues to rule by right
over us all! whether we wish Him or not. 1t is by Him! and as a re$lection o$ Him! that! as &ope &ius
L1Hs hymn to Christ the King puts it! -Kings the Crown and Sceptre hold!- as pledge o$ His
supremacy.
1n any case! the "udgeship is completely irrelevant to us to5day. ,ur republic is certainly nothing
li7e it! and one cannot imagine whom .od might choose to rule a heathen people li7e the
Americans. '1t is interesting that no such thing has ever happened in Catholic countries+. id we
attempt such a thing! we would doubtless have a regime li7e the 0ormons did in pre5/erritorial
Btah! or the colonists in Dew Haven! where the ministers would run things. ,ne can imagine what
the result would be. Such non5Catholic clerics would have the power o$ li$e and death over all
citiJens! Catholic or not 555 and no constitutional or legal restraints on them. %ven a non5Christian
0onarchy! restrained by local traditions! would be $ar pre$erable.
10. But isn7t Monarchy undemocratic?
1n the sense o$ everyone not having a vote $or King or %mperor? Certainly. #ut 1 am going to reveal
a deep secret o$ reality 555 no regime is! can be! or ever has been democratic! Some have been
representative! in the sense that a ma8ority o$ the population has some voice in the selection o$ their
leaders 'though virtually none in the policies those leaders carry out+. #ut the larger the area to be
governed! the less those votes matter. 1n reality! power is inevitably in the hands o$ those individuals
andKor institutions in the given society whose money or land give them preponderant in$luence! as
well as those who actually administer the State $rom day5to5day.
With our system! $or instance! no one can be elected to national o$$ice who does not en8oy the
support o$ one or more special interests 5555 how could it be otherwise? 1t ta7es a great deal o$
money to be elected! and unless one is a millionaire onesel$! how else to ac<uire it.
What ma7es such a system un$ortunate is that! while maintaining the illusion o$ popular control! the
real powers in the State are unaccountable $or their actions. /hus! i$ a congressman votes $or a bill
disastrous to the interests o$ his constituents! he will be the ob8ect o$ their ire! rather than the
employer o$ the lobbyist who suborned the legislatorHs vote. Correspondingly! said constituents will
appeal to their representative $or help! rather than to the company or interest behind him. /hus the
real powers5that5be may eAercise their power without any responsibility to the populace. 1t is ironic
that this -un5democratic- way o$ doing business should be the stoc75in5trade o$ all -democracies!-
but there it is. &erhaps replacing the House o$ @epresentatives with a House o$ Lobbyists would
help ma7e government more accountable.
/hat having been said! what is necessary in government is not -democracy!- whatever that may be!
but accountability and responsibility. As noticed earlier! modern 0onarchs have $elt so responsible
they have o$ten given up their thrones rather than shed their sub8ectsH blood.