There's No Such Thing as a Monarchist

Edmund Burke made very similiar arguments. The bonds of civil society should be derived from the necessities of humanity’s organic development in community, beginning with the associations of family and tribe and extending later into the wider polis. Then, political obligation follows the purposes of civil society, which is the protection and advancement of the aforementioned associations. And so I think any intentionally established “monarchy” (what an invitation to hubristic tyranny!) is a violation of “rights of men”, rooted for Burke ultimately in the nature of man in dignity and inherent worth following from the creative acts of God.

The reason he could support the monarchy of Britain was because of its long (and he thought properly) developed concepts of natural right and associational protection.

As there are many ways to be intending for the creation of a monarchy, and many kinds of monarchies, what you have only shown is that 19th century France didn’t do a good job after the Revolution.

It was the French example that reminded me of it, but I think it’s a more general principle than that. Which is not to say that you couldn’t get to a monarchy over time, obviously, monarchies developed. But I think one could make a good case (while recognizing that here I made only a brief assertion) that in the modern era it is essentially impossible to have a chosen monarchy. One would need to have a total breakdown of all governing institutions followed by a gradual build up from more regional rulers.

It should be an interesting point of fact that monarchies produce saintly rulers — democratic forms of government, well… maybe a couple, but far less conducive of it, because of what it takes to get in charge.

I think I would contest that that’s a fact. There have been a few saintly monarchs, but I’m not clear that they’re any more common among monarchs than figures like George Washington are among leaders of democratic republics.

King Saul was an intentionally established monarchy.

“George Washington is now a saint on the level of St Vladimir, Equal to the Apostles?!”

George Washington was a much better ruler than any crowned saint I can think of. I also have little doubt that if the 13 colonies had been Catholic that there may have been a push to have had the Church declare him a saint after his death. Certainly his example of refusing a crown, and retiring from power was rare enough up to his time to be considered a minor miracle!

Concerning George Washington, it would be good for those here to recall how, in spite of the colonies having been predominantly anti-Catholic, Washington was the one who forbade the celebration of such anti-Catholic festivities like Guy Fawkes Day:

Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775:

As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada.

I think Charles of Austria was beatified and he was a Hapsburg… and there is Saint Stephen of Hungary who was a monarch and a saint. And there is Elizabeth of Hungary too.

I should add: It’s not that I particularly dislike monarchy. If I lived in one, I would not necessarily be agitating to end it. But It’s just that I’m not sure one can get there from here — I think the transition from true monarchy to some form of constitutional government (even a constitutional monarchy) is a one way transition, and it’s probably only possible to get back to a real monarchy in the same region after a total civic break down of some duration and then a gradual building back up through local feudalism.

Well, and yes, I’m skeptical of the idea that monarchy makes monarchs virtuous while representative government makes representatives wicked — but that’s not so much a claim that monarchy is bad and should be avoided as that there’s nothing magical about it which makes people more proof against the temptations of great power than other forms of government.

I’d be alright with a constitutional monarchy.

There is a difference, after all, between that and absolutist tyranny.

I like the idea of a ruler who is raised from birth for only one purpose – to rule.

But I do believe that an educated and virtuous citizenry deserves democracy in some form. That is more or less what the American founders believed as well. It is hard for me to imagine them as defenders of this modern abstract, absolute right to vote and to representation given what I have read. I may well be wrong.

I’m not sure I follow Darwin’s line of argument here. The idea seems to be that what is established via the will of the people can always be disestablished by the will of the people. So if the people tried to set up a monarchy it wouldn’t work because the people would still be ultimately in charge, and that’s not monarchy. But the premise here is incorrect. From the fact that the people establish a certain form of government, it doesn’t follow that they are able to abolish it. There are numerous cases, for example, of dictatorships that have started via democratic means. If it could happen with a dictatorship, I see no reason why it couldn’t happen with a monarchy.

I see your point about the people not necessarily being able to dis-establish a government simply because it established it.

I guess what I’m trying to hash out, though, is that it seems to me that “monarchy” in the sense that some people find it attractive (and in the sense that distinguishes it from an enlightened despot or just plain dictator) involves among other things a belief that it is some sort of necessity that one man wield power, and do so in a way constrained by well understood but often unwritten ties of mutual obligation between ruler and ruled. And while I see how that’s something you can admire from our modern point in time, I’m not sure it’s something you could establish in a post enlightenment society without a fairly complete social/political breakdown to allow political memories to reset.

Maybe I’m wrong. I think right now I’ve got more an aesthetic sense about it an a fleshed out argument.

That’s certainly true.

Though there’s a great weight to tradition so long as it remains unbroken, which is hard to ever put back together again after it’s been broken off for a significant period of time.

Maybe it’s that I’m strongly associating monarchy with the sense of tradition (rather than constitution or unfettered autocracy) which seems to me to go with it — and obviously tradition is something which can’t really be created so much as developed.

I’ll have to think on it some more if I’m to come up with something fully coherent it seems.

I believe that with a Monarchy, all other things being equal, you have a basic 50% chance of the Monarch doing well and/or being saintly. Whereas, in a Republic, such as the US, with so many 100s involved in every decision, no good can come of it unless a majority can resist the lures of greed and power. While agreeing that it would be hard to get back to, or create from whole cloth, a Monarchy, I’m inclined to believe that you have a better chance of enlightened rulership under the Monarchy.