Time for Kings

This coming Sunday is the Feast of Christ the King for us Extraordinary-type Catholics. You know what that means, kids! Yes, it’s time to announce the winner of the annual “Why Monarchy Is Superior” essay contest. (Didn’t hear about it? Sorry, this is the first annual, and I just made it up. Moving right along…) This year’s winner is whoever wrote the description for the Monarchist Club on Facebook. (Humble fellow, no name.)

And here it is…

Monarchy, in both its absolute and constitutional varieties, is the oldest, and by far the most effective, system of government. Every civilization in the world had once been ruled by a king, queen, emperor, prince, grand duke, sultan or emir – all of whom are latter-day manifestations of ancient tribal chiefs. The forms of government that have supplanted monarchical regimes have consistently demonstrated their inability to live up to the system they purportedly set out to improve. In contrast, time continues to be a testament to the efficacy of kingdoms.

These are but a few of the virtues of the monarchical system:

  • Monarchs are an enduring symbol of continuity and statehood. Thus, they provide a sense of unity and while crystallizing a national identity.
  • A hereditary monarch is likely to be a more competent head-of-state than is an elected president, because the former has been prepared, from childhood, to serve as such.
  • Owing to their fortune and status, monarchs have less of an incentive for corruption and accepting bribes.
  • A monarchy is, in fact, less costly to maintain than a republic because it spares the state the expense of holding presidential elections, and because the royal family’s private fortune may be enough for its own support, as against the public expenditures, in a republic, for the accommodations, pensions and other maintenance of incumbent and former presidents.
  • Competition and criticism to which republican presidents typically are exposed, as elected officials and especially during the election campaigns themselves, damages the reputation and dignity of the head of state.
  • Because republican presidents are typically members of a political party, while monarchs typically stand outside of politics, a president is less well able to serve as a neutral representative of a country and its people.
  • Likewise, presidents are obliged to act in accord with the policies and ideas of their political parties, while monarchs can reign more independently of political considerations.
  • Intermarriage between royal families often establishes cooperation and peaceful relations between the nations involved.
  • In a republic the continual changes of head-of-state create political uncertainty, which contrasts with the symbolic continuity of having a monarch.
  • It can be argued that monarchy actually guarantees political stability. History is replete with examples where the abolition of monarchy has spawned civil wars and the rise of totalitarian systems, such as Jacobinism in France, Nazism in Germany, Communism in Russia and China, and Islamic Fundamentalism in Iran. In contrast, nations that chose to retain their monarchies, such as Thailand & the Arab Gulf states, have remained relatively immune to the constant volatility that has plagued their respective regions.
  • Historically, constitutional monarchies have made the smoothest transition to democratic rule (prime examples being the Nordic states). In fact, with the exception of post-war Italy and several former Commonwealth realms, no modern, democratic constitutional monarchy has voted to abolish itself. Instead constitutional monarchy has been overthrown against the will of the people.

With all this considered, it is not surprising that monarchy is the system of government preferred by God Himself. After all, His title is “King of the Universe” not “President of the Universe.”

Scripture that is pro monarchy:

Proverbs 8.15-16:
By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

Romans 13.1-2:
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

There it is. Tell me that doesn’t hack to bits most of what you learned in civics class.

  • Missy

    Yes, but who would want Obama as a king?

  • Jack

    I was an ardent republican before I converted, now I am a Royalist – Monarchy, you know it makes sense

  • That’s the point, Missy. He’s not eligible! This has nothing to do with being a “truther” or anything. He’s simply not royalty.

  • Samuel Ferraro

    The above defense of the monarchical system is great as long as the monarch is firmly rooted in and practices the Catholic faith, otherwise monarchy will likely lead to tyranny. I’m assuming that the writer of the essay assumes that the monarch would be a Catholic.

  • @ Mr. Ferraro: Utique! I’m a Catholic Monarchist. I also acknowledge, however, that in societies that are not Catholic, there were always monarchs, and these were not all tyrants. Irrespective of one’s profession of the true religion, monarchy does not, eo ipso, breed tyranny any more than democracy or republicanism do. To imbibe that is to believe the foundational error of the anti-monarchists. The requisite justice and equity being part of the Natural Law, it is not strictly and per se necessary to have a Catholic on the throne of a religiously pluralist nation (not so, a Catholic nation) — no more so than it would be necessary to have a Catholic as a constitutionally elected president or prime minister. Should the man be educated and formed in natural virtue, he would not be a tyrant.

    Regarding “absolutism,” may I recommend the following?


  • Mr. Harvey,

    Thank you for the information. I find it edifying that it was a high school student who did this. I agree with your assessment about monarchies being invariably better than anything likely to replace them. What a lot of people don’t realize about modern history is that, before Communism and Nazism had Europeans siding with one or the other just to survive, those evil systems devoured nations that had stable monarchies and/or vibrant monarchist movements that were the alternatives to tyranny. Those monarchists became the prime enemies of the revolutionaries.

  • Samuel Ferraro

    To The Philosopher,

    Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. While I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying, I would still not be comfortable with a monarch who does not believe in the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Holy Father, His vicar on earth. While our presidents do not accept the Kingship of Christ, they are elected presidents of a constitutional republic. My belief is that a monarch must understand that all of his or her authority on earth comes from Christ, and he or she must submit to Christ and His vicar. Isn’t it interesting that this exchange is taking place on the Feast of Christ the King? Thanks again for your response.

  • Mr. Ferraro,

    Pax! On this subject, we can “agree to disagree” — to use a phrase you probably detest just as much as I.

    I still think it speaks volumes to consider, for instance, that the supposedly “ungovernable” Afghanistan had a time of order and prosperity under a monarchy — cf., http://royaltymonarchy.blogspot.com/2009/10/afghanistans-golden-age.html. And no amount of democracy we attempt to inflict upon them will restore it.

    Let’s agree (to agree), though, that Saint Louis the King of France, Saint Edward the King of England, Saint Vladimir the King of Kievan Rus, Saint Olav, King of Norway, and Saint Stephen, King of Hungary have our modern presidents and prime ministers beat hands down. Long live Christ the King!

    Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat! Tempora bona veniant! Pax Christi Veniant! Feliciter!

  • Samuel Ferraro

    To The Philosopher,

    Thanks again for your response! I hope you did not misunderstand me. Our system of government is far from ideal, but it pretty much still is the best thing going in the world today. What I’m saying is that if we can’t have a benevolent, true Catholic monarch, I would rather have what we have. At least we have the opportunity to vote a bad president out every four years. If a monarch is bad or turns bad, the people are generally stuck. Peace to you, and a blessed feast day!

  • Were I on Face Book, I’d join the group in a second.