Responses to Questions on Monarchism from Traditional Catholics, Part V

from Danish Queen Says Islam Poses Global Threat (FishEaters, February 9-11, 2006)

The monarch who has ascended the throne since 1972, wields no political power in the north European country but does occasionally give comments on political issues.

Sounds rather useless, eh?

Not at all. Even a symbolic constitutional monarchy, while inferior to the traditional Catholic monarchies I would like to see restored, provides a living link to the past and occasions for pageantry far superior to what a republic can offer. Symbols are worth fighting for. If the modern British and European monarchies were truly "useless," leftists wouldn't bother hating them so much. Read the republican rants in The Guardian over the past several years. Leftists despise even the modern watered-down version of monarchy because its very existence denies them total victory in their evil quest to eliminate all vestiges of tradition and hierarchy.

Kind of like the English royals, who are essentially full-time derelicts...

Uncharitable, unfair, and inaccurate. While I have my criticisms of the Windsors, they do a tremendous amount of valuable work for charity, the arts, and the promotion of British business. Few celebrities work so hard and receive so little credit for it.

...who occasionally spout off on some relevant issue or other, but in a totally irrelevant forum.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Prince Charles (unlike Queen Margrethe) may be utterly clueless about Islam, but his thoroughly traditionalist views on architecture, education, transportation, agriculture, conservation, and hunting are quite relevant, and superior to the blatherings of most politicians.

the utterly debauched state of most royals in the world?

"Most"? You've obviously been taking your view of royalty from the supermarket tabloids, which exaggerate and manufacture scandals at every opportunity while ignoring the many royals who lead exemplary lives.

Charles is, even now, living in a state of adultery

Not true. Charles was a widower, and Camilla's first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, a Catholic, was granted an annulment from the Catholic Church. You could argue that annulments are too easily bestowed today, but that's another issue...

Like whom? Exemplary?

Like the Duchess of Kent, a convert to Catholicism who has devoted her life to the rather unglamorous pursuit of teaching music to little children. But you'll never hear about her in the gossip magazines.

Like Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, a grandson of Bl. Emperor Karl (who at the time of the beatification appeared on EWTN interviewed by traditionalists James & Joanna Bogle) and Princess Astrid of Belgium, parents of five children; HMiS posted a beautiful picture of this Catholic family in the Belgium thread.

Like Astrid's brother Crown Prince Philippe, whose conservative values Belgian politicians apparently fear sufficiently to emasculate the monarchy totally before he ascends the throne.

Like Archduke Otto of Austria & Hungary, with whose brilliance and integrity any Catholic ought to be familiar.

As paleoconservative Paul Gottfried, no apologist for the Windsors, wrote in Chronicles, "[a]nd if one can point to the questionable intelligence of the present British royalty, one can also cite the sterling intellectual and moral qualities of today’s Habsburgs and those of at least several Balkan claimants to unoccupied thrones."

If there was a royal who led an exemplary life, as a functioning royal, there would be a country that is ordered in an exemplary fashion. Is there such a place? No, there is not one even close.

And why is that? Partly because the royals, like virtually everyone else today, have been indoctrinated since birth in the mythologies of "democracy," and sincerely believe that since they are not elected they have no right to overrule the "Will of the People" as expressed by their Democraticaly Elected governments. Modern European royalty are essentially prisoners in a gilded cage. It is the responsibility of their traditionalist subjects to rescue them, not abandon them.

how is Queen Elizabeth ... in any way preferable to George Bush?

Queen Elizabeth does not exercise political power, has been brought up and indoctrinated to believe that she has no right to exercise political power, and therefore cannot be blamed for the actions carried out in her name. Bush can.

Queen Elizabeth did not decide that it would be a good idea to invade a country which posed no threat to either the UK or the US in the name of "democracy" and nonexistant "weapons of mass destruction," wasting thousands of lives. Bush did.

Queen Elizabeth has served her country tirelessly since adolescence. Bush spent most of his life partying and failing in the oil business.

Queen Elizabeth is consistently the epitome of elegance, dignity, and grace. Bush is a buffoon.

And finally, Queen Elizabeth can speak English, and her voice is not nearly as annoying to listen to.

I do not encourage anyone to abandon their monarchs

To me, refusing to defend contemporary monarchs, against their republican enemies whose goal is not "real" Catholic monarchies but no monarchies at all, because they're not exactly St. Louis IX would constitute abandonment.

I just do not encourage the ridiculous assertion that they, at present, actually serve a vital and useful role, as functioning monarchs.

I've already explained what vital role they serve. They deny total victory to the leftists who are intent on eliminating all vestiges of tradition and hierarchy from civilization. They also perform ceremonial duties which I believe are important and which would also need to be carried out in a traditional monarchy.

The cage is gilded to the max, and I seriously doubt whether 99 out of 100 would leave it if offered the chance, especially if the rescue came from real (versus merely nominal) Catholics.

What I mean by a "rescue" is nothing less than the massive task of bringing about a change in the zeitgeist so that it is no longer considered unacceptable for hereditary monarchs to wield political power, and so that it is expected that this power be exercised in accordance with Christian morality. Should this miraculous feat be accomplished, I see no reason to believe that the royals would not go along with the new zeitgeist.

BTW, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, despite that little unpleasantness in Rome in 1527, is generally considered a great Catholic monarch, and he was an adulterer. If he had not been one, his bastard son Don Juan of Austria would not have been around to lead the Catholic forces to victory at Lepanto. (I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but it seemed worth mentioning.)

Many monarchs, Windsors included ('especially' might be better), are in bed with the leftist establishment that is trying to establish the New World Order. They are not fighting them at all, but maintain their position precisely because they are really the best of pals.

While I can't prove this, it has been reported that there is no love lost between the Windsors and the Blairs. And Princes William and Harry really are "best of pals" with the right-wing young men who broke into Parliament to protest against Blair's foxhunting ban. (See my article Prince Harry and His Critics.) See this thread for information on the tension between Belgian politicians and Prince Philippe. You might reasonably reply that this is hardly enough...but there is a difference between "not enough" and "not at all."

I would have a hard time leaving, if I were in their position.

Leaving? Who said anything about leaving? My point was precisely that the royals would not "leave," if it became possible for them to rule as well as reign. But that's not currently possible, even if they were inclined to do so (as the Crown Prince of Belgium reportedly is). And it's not their fault that it isn't.

Responses to Questions on Monarchism from Traditional Catholics