In Monarchy the answer?

Here's a pretty good article making the case for monarchy. Yeah, you might think the very idea is crazy but, read the article with an open mind and you just may come around to a very old way of thinking.

On Democracy and Kings

Politically, monarchism has a prestige just a tiny bit better than fascism, but not nearly as respectable as being Amish. Therefore, it behooves me to cut directly to the chase, and state very clearly why I am a monarchist: I am a monarchist because I am a democrat. That is, I believe that the will of the people, their traditions and customs, their concern for their families, their communities, and for the future should determine the shape of any political order. And monarchy is the highest form of this democracy.

Now, the first response to that is likely to be, “That is what our democracy does, and what a tyranny doesn’t do; democracy enthrones the will of the people, while monarchy enthrones the will of the tyrant.” But it is clear to me, especially in this late date of our democracy, that it enthrones the will of determined and well-financed minorities, that it dissolves the customs and traditions of the people, and that it has no concern for the future. And a king may indeed be a tyrant, but such is the exception rather than the rule.

Tyranny is a degeneration of proper monarchy and generally happens only in degenerate times, and even then, the king has to be speaking for some other and greater force, such as a strong army or a commercial oligarchy. A king, no less than a president, must consider the forces and interests in his kingdom. But a king is free to judge the justice of the arguments; a president is free only to count the votes. And while the president might attempt to engage in persuasion, in the end he himself can only be persuaded by power, that is, by whoever controls the votes, which is very likely to be the one who controls the money. A king may also be persuaded by power and money, but he is always free to be persuaded by justice. And even when a king is a tyrant, he is an identifiable tyrant; much worse is when a people live in a tyranny they may not name, a system where the forms of democracy serve as cover for the reality of tyranny. And that, I believe, is our situation today.

The Remnant


So, who would you rather owe your allegance to; a king who seeks justice for his nation or, a democracy which is really ruled from behind a curtain by powers we cannot see or identify?

A constitutional monarchy is probably the best form of government. Why? Because the monarch (who represents the nation and by extension, the people) keeps the prime minister (and the rest of the politicians) in check. In the US, nobody keeps an eye on the politicians and thus they do as they please. In other words, it's the ultimate form of checks and balances.

What a sophomoric suggestion. We had Kings before and didn't like them. We fought wars to get rid of them. We are a FREE people, We bow to no one. I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans are satisfied with the job "Burger King" is doing. I choose anarchy before monarchy (sic).

Greetings my friend,

I am my own King
My Kingdom is myself.
I see all Men and Women as Kings and Queens.
And, respect them as such.

Do you really need a Master telling you what to do?

If you do, does it matter if you voted for them or if they came by force?

These are the questions you must ask yourself.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM

Do you really need a Master telling you what to do?

No, I don't but, I wouldn't mind having somebody around to keep all those other crazy people out there under control.

Seriously though, man needs order to survive and order can only come about through some form of government to enforce the rules to make sure one group or person doesn't run roughshod over the rest through force and violence. In olden times, the rulers were the ones who went out to fight off the barbarians or whoever it was attacking the common man who only sought to live off the land in peace. It made sense that the people who benefited from this protection would pay for that protection from the yield of their crops and a portion of their meat. Professional soldiers can't spend the proper amount of time tending to fields and livestock and they needed some type of support.

Over time, the decendants of this warrior class became the kings and rulers of the people. They knew that the kingdom would be passed on to their heirs and this gave them a long range sense of responsibility for their kingdom. They did not just look out for quick-fix solutions that would cost the kingdom later on, they wanted what was best for their people for the long term and, as a result, what was best for their heirs in the future.

Todays democracy has been corrupted with politicians only looking as far as the next election cycle. They promise the people what they think they want in order to get past the next election cycle without ever thinking about what this will do to future generations of the poplace. Future generations can't vote in the here and now, so their welfare is irrelivant. This is what democracy ultimately results in and it sucks. There is no responsibility for the long term consequences of the political decisions made today, so long as the people currently in power can make it through the next election cycle by buying the people's votes today.

Democracy sucks. The so-called Constitutional Republic has proven to be a collosal failure because the people allowed themselves to be manipulated into the current corrupt system in which the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper to be ignored at will.

Monarchy worked for thousands of years. Democracy has only been around for about 250 years and has proven to be a more effective way to shackle the common man than the most tyrranical monarchy ever. No monarch ever was able to enslave the whole world the way democracy has.

I believe that a constitutional republic is the only answer. A system where free men govern themselves with a small, but necessary government in place to deal with certain issues. Monarchy is just a path to dictatorship.

The power must remain in the hands of the individual, not the state.

Todays democracy has been corrupted with politicians only looking as far as the next election cycle.

Agreed totally.

One must also realize that the US is a monarchy in all but name. The President of the United States is basically an elected monarch. The pomp and ceremony of a presidential inauguration rivals that of a monarch's coronation in the UK.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
A constitutional monarchy is probably the best form of government. Why? Because the monarch (who represents the nation and by extension, the people) keeps the prime minister (and the rest of the politicians) in check.

I think this is true, but it wouldn't be easy to transform a republic into one.
The British system was an accidental discovery- the result of gradually neutralising monarchical power, and then realising that political neutrality in a head of state was quite a handy thing to have.
There are republics, especially in Europe, that aim at having apolitical Presidencies.
But if you want your leader to be non-political, the hereditary system does it better. For one thing, it's very difficult to keep politics out of any kind of election. For another thing, having a family dedicated to this particular duty means that it can become part of their education. That's how the Queen got so good at it.
The real problem in applying this to the US would be choosing the family and getting it in place. Allowing a family to gain real power and then trying to take most of it away from them (the British approach) would be a very rocky road.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The funny part is that the lady who will probably be remembered as the greatest British monarch in history dident even want the job ...

I hate to toot my own horn (read: I love to toot my own horn), but I foresaw this change in sentiments regarding monarchies!

The USA is, of course, a monarchy. The monarch of the USA has been gradually gaining power since at least the days of Lincoln, and we can certainly see a desire for a powerful monarchy in the presidency of Adams I.

One must understand that monarchy means Rule by One. In the countries that we Westerners know as Monarchies (really Kingdoms, Principalities or Duchies) the One Ruler bears the sovereign power. In the countries that we know as Democracies or Republics, the 'people' bear the sovereign power. What is sovereign power? It is the right to govern. What is a right? Despite what State-worshipping American constitutionalists may say, it is not a God-given license. A right is a legal claim that is generally recognized as legitimate. So the distinction between a Royal Monarchy and a Presidential Monarchy is that a President has theoretically fewer legal claims to govern the nation than does a King.

Students of revisionist American and French histories think that Kings hated the revolutionaries because they hated freedom, or democracy, or else feared losing their power. This is not so. They feared the revolutionaries because democracy is an unstable system that totters to and fro based on the changing whims of an uneducated and historically-ignorant popular electorate. Democracy as Americans understand it is a grave threat to a society's traditions and the traditional sources of legal power.

Kings do not fear electoral systems. What American revisionist historians generally omit from their descriptions of monarchy is that most, if not all monarchs are elected. This is most obvious in the case of the Kings of Germany and Roman Emperors, but can also be seen in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and in the unpopular reign of John Plantagenet of England. Monarchs must always rule by the consent of their people and their electorate, which may or may not be overlapping legal entities.

The More You Know!

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
What American revisionist historians generally omit from their descriptions of monarchy is that most, if not all monarchs are elected. This is most obvious in the case of the Kings of Germany and Roman Emperors, but can also be seen in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and in the unpopular reign of John Plantagenet of England.

Yes, and I would argue that the English monarchy too was "elected" from the very earliest days.
The rule in Anglo-Saxon and Norman England was effectively- "the nobility, in case of doubt, will choose a king from amongst the members of the royal family". The point is obscured by the fact that there was normally an eligable eldest son available. But it was the nobility who accepted Canute, called Edward the Confessor back from exile, retrospectively elected William the Conqueror, elected Stephen in place of Matilda, accepted John in place of Arthur, and offered the throne to Prince Louis. It was the idea of "strict rules of succession" that was the novelty.

Back before the advent of democracy, wars were fought between the king's army and the army of another king. The common man was, for the most part, left out of the fighting unless his property happened to fall in the line of battle. Even then, non-combatants were not targeted by military forces for attack. Wars were relativily civilised affairs in which the armies of the two belligerant parties were the only ones involved in the fighting.

With the advent of democracy, the people became the sovereign and they then became fair game in any wars that took place. Suddenly, it became common tactics to target civilian population centers for attack because the armies involved in the fighting did not represent just some king, they represented all of the peoples of that country and any citizen of that country became the enemy, whether they were carrying a weapon or not. Democracy resulted in the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki, neither of which were military targets.

One also needs to remember that a monarch would be much more careful when it came to borrowing money to support state programs. The monarch would not be taking the loan out in the name of the people, it would be in his own name and he and his heirs would be the ones ultimately responsible for it. It is easy to borrow money in a democracy, knowing that the ones doing the borrowing will never be held personally responsible when the bill comes in. A monarch, knowing that the debts created by his policies will ultimately be drawn out in his own name, will be much more prudent in his borrowing practices.

One other thing to keep in mind; if a monarch is irresponsible in his borrowing and throws the country into unmanagable debt, the people still have the option to depose the irresponsible ruler and replace him with a new one. When the bills come in, they can forward them to their deposed monarch in exile and let him deal with the bill collectors pounding at his door while he attempts to plot his return to power.

Originally posted by debris765nju
What a sophomoric suggestion. We had Kings before and didn't like them. We fought wars to get rid of them. We are a FREE people, We bow to no one. I'm pretty sure that the majority of Americans are satisfied with the job "Burger King" is doing. I choose anarchy before monarchy (sic).

You think Americans are free? You're on the wrong website.

You are a free people who bow to no one? You've been brainwashed along with the rest of the sheeple.

Regardless of what form of Monarchy you are suggesting, I take it that you endorse Constitutional? Either way, Monarchy was the most common form of governance in not only the Western world but the whole world alongside Aristocracy, which many of us could argue is still alive and well inside 'so-called' Liberal Democracies.

Monarchy was strictly opposed on the grounds that it created a constant flow of corruption. They maintained their power and their interests above the nation they were supposed to defend, they hoarded the wealth and did dirty dealing behind closed doors with other powerful concentrations of wealth as in the case of England with the East India Company, with France and the Vatican or Russia with the Orthodox Church. You can see what I am getting at here.

As you read all of that you probably thought to yourself, "what the hell is the difference between then and now?". Nothing really, well besides having a head of state that is supposedly held accountable to the people and the laws of the nation.

Why does it truly matter what form of governance we have? Constitutional Monarchy, Republic, Despotism, Aristocracy, etc... I really don't see the difference because inevitably each system is slowly but surely corrupted in such a degusting manner. They are supposed to be Patriotic and owe their allegiance to the people they govern, yet I fail to see them owe allegiance to anything beyond their pocketbook.

I care not which political system you advocate for, we are supposed to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity by any government. But since power corrupts is it not the best choice to spread around the power? Give it to the ones that power is not allowed to corrupt, this can be performed in a system of Direct Democracy where the citizens make the decisions upon law. The more concentrated power is the easier it is to corrupt.

reply to post by Misoir


Very well said and thought out. I would like to comment on your final statement however:

The more concentrated power is the easier it is to corrupt.

It is true, it may be easier to corrupt a concentrated power but, it is is also easier to identify and hold accountable a concentrated power when it becomes corrupted. In the case of a monarchy, it is necessary to only depose ONE wicked ruler. In a democratic republic like the US, it is necessary to boot out over 500 elected officials in order to achieve reform or uproot corruption. Even then, it is likely that the powers that operate behind the curtains, the guys who really pull the strings will find a way to remain in power. That doesn't even take into account the entrenched bureauracracy.

Think of it this way; if every elected official was given the boot in the upcoming election, what do you think the chances are that they won't just be replaced with just another group of bums just as corrupt as the last group?

The election process may be more peaceful and orderly but, it is also much easier for TPTB to control.

This is a neat, but half baked idea. Before we think about a constitutional monarch, and George Washington turned down a crown, to become President, shouldn't we ask whether there is a hidden or black Prince, here already? I've posted before, here, that the recent DNA fingerprint of the Bourbon pickled heart in Paris, only proves that the real Lost Dauphin, was kidnapped out of his cell, to make room for his older brother, the surviving twin brother of Louis Joseph, who predeceased the Lost Dauphin. Ragamuffin or a hidden Bourbon twin, this means Louis Charles was titular Louis XVIII, not the Duke of Anjou, who signed off on Napoleon's Louisiana Purchase bribe, with Sect. of State, James Monroe, in 1815. If this little prince survived the year 1815, that sign off seems as phony as Napoleon's treaty with Thomas Jefferson, in 1803. But just think of the mayhem in all of your futures, for heavenly forces to bring this restoration about. I always felt this was the gist of the terrible war predicted in Washington's third prophecy, that consumes the U.S.A. and leaves most of what's left, under a Blue Ensign, which of course has always been French, as opposed to the Golden Spanish flag, or the Union Jack of Great Britain.

Originally posted by carpooler
I always felt this was the gist of the terrible war predicted in Washington's third prophecy, that consumes the U.S.A. and leaves most of what's left, under a Blue Ensign, which of course has always been French, as opposed to the Golden Spanish flag, or the Union Jack of Great Britain.

Wait, George Washington had prophecies?

This is the first I heard about that. Can you direct me to a source for these prophecies or a link? I would love to learn more.

Nevermind, I looked it up: George Washington's prophetic dream

Looks like it was a story made up during the civil war in order to inspire the soldiers.

reply to post by FortAnthem

I have no way of verifying this Third and future prophecy, but the masons still use it as a recruiting tool, for gawd knows what reason. A Bourbon restoration would come after them with fang and claw. Harry Truman was a high level mason, and he had to be involved in founding the U.N. in San Francisco, under a powder blue flag. Participant fulfillment anybody? I think this was just one more usurpation, following Jefferson's, and Madison-Monroe's, of the Blue Ensign. Funny, though, whether Jefferson, Madison, or Monroe, the three final Presidents of the Virginia Dynasty, would have been taken into Washington's confidence, before he died. He may only have confided with one or two men who were never in competition with him. I think this legend was supposed to have been published about 1859, on the eve of the War between the States. I belong to a loose knit group that does some forensic dowsing, and we postulated there really are descendants, living in present day Belgium, and maybe still on the East Coast of the U.S.A. It's only by understanding what that DNA fingerprint is really saying, and this has escaped the French Press, entirely, that one can understand why the revolutionary 'Jacques', (masons) would kidnap the heir to the French Throne out of his prison cell in Paris. It was simply that they couldn't have two princes in the same cell, and they were tasked by the Directory, to imprison the Dauphin, or crown prince. So the junior one had to disappear. Edgar Cayce touched on this, saying, that the tormentor of the little prince, would have a change of heart and end up protecting him for many years. There's only two candidates for this escape, Robespierre and Simon the cobbler. Both were guillotined, one wrapped up with his jaw shot off, and his hands tied behind his back, at dawn, and the other, who gave a speech, at noon, with his wife in the crowd. I guess you have to come to your own conclusions. But this sure ain't in any history book, that I ever read in school. If any of you can do your own forensic dowsing, ask; "how far away from the signing of the U.N. Charter, at San Francisco, in 1947 was the then, hidden, Black Prince"? If Heaven is protecting their family, then President Truman's affront, would not have gone unnoticed. And this means there are ripples in the pond, so to speak.

To me the argument for monarchy over democracy is a fairly simple one:

Under monarchy you might be ruled by a sociopath. Under democracy you are guaranteed to be ruled by a sociopath. Sociopathy is a prerequisite condition to rising to power in a democracy.

reply to post by FortAnthem


I too am a Monarchist .. A Monarchy's real wealth lies in the wealth of it's Nation, and in the end, it's people.. where as an elected official will always have his private stores of finances, he can run the nation into the ground while retaining power and prestige.. in fact, an elected official can use social economic degradation to boost the power and wealth of the entire Oligarchy (the US and most of the Western World is an Oligarchy). And it should be pointed out that all Democracies by their very nature are in fact Oligarchies.. the person with the most money has the most power, and because you don't need your own money to generate your own power, the power is suffused into the wills of those who credit money into your campaign. Your basically a prostitute .. your "client" pays for his services, you do the act, and both get the fix.. the only thing missing is the People .. who do not benefit.

As well, the larger problem with money buying power is that whenever something constructive could be done for society as a whole, if every single lawmaker is owned by numerous different creditors then each bill will be infused with the wills of each creditor by each law maker.. this is why when Congress passes a simple measure it ends up 900 pages long. In the end a good idea is so packed with special interest that it really only serves those purposes, often defeating the entire purpose of the bill in the first place.

A Monarchy can exist with out an Oligarchy.. it wasn't until Feudalism was invented that such class systems were truly ingrained, and such ideas came from not surprisingly the Democratic empires of Rome and Greece. Until then the vast majority of Europe was run in a Monarchy fashion and rarely in an Oligarchy as well.

You can have an Enlightened Monarch as well, someone who is spiritually or philosophically guided to better the lives of their people.. however, it is impossible to have an Enlightened Politician.. even the best of the best have to serve creditor first, people second, because it's money that pulls strings.. and when it comes to Presidents, assuming one were to be acting truly in the best interest of their people, they have to jump the hurdles of other politicians, and money being used to defeat his goals.. not to mention the time constraints in office.

That's not even getting into the discussion that people are completely incapable of deciding what's best for them as a society.. people, in general, are self absorbed and uninvolved in politics.. the system is set up to fail.. there is a reason why the vast majority of Human History has been under the rule of a Monarch.. regardless of race, region, time, etc.. it's always been that way, in some capacity or another.. Democracies have never lasted over 2-300 years.