It was very weird for me to watch the coronations of Charles and Camilla on French TV. There was the distance caused by the language and commentary. Also, it seemed like something from the past, which it is. But it seemed even more anachronistic.

Toss in that it is way more ostentatious than any of the other European monarchies, there are 12 of them, six of which are members of the EU (Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden). Things have changed quite a bit since at the start of the 20th century only France, Switzerland and San Marino were the only European nations to have a republican form of government.

Unfortunately for the people who want to say the US is a republic, not a democracy, the only real difference between those two systems of government are that democracy has the ability to be a monarchy. Euronews has an interesting article: Politics and popularity: Why are there still so many monarchies in Europe? It’s not the only news source discussing European monarchies.

I’m not sure how I feel about monarchy these days. Although I do side with the comment that “There is no contradiction between a country being a monarchy and being an advanced democracy”. Also, “One of the roles for the royal family is to be a symbol for the nation as a whole and therefore the monarch as an institution has to strive to represent the whole of the nation.”

Monarchy unifies a nation as Clement Atlee said: “Far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle.” That’s an interesting thought to ponder in light of US politics.

Anyway, another interesting article from Euronews: The Kings who never were: the living heirs of Europe’s abolished monarchies

OK, I have to look at King Phillippe of Belgium in relation to the situation in Britain. Charles is 73 years old, King Albert of Belgium was 59 years old when he became King of Belgium and reigned until he was 69 (1993-2013). Phillippe is a hair younger than I am. Similar to Queen Elizabeth II, King Baudouin reigned for a significant period of time (17 July 1951 – 31 July 1993). King Baudouin’s brother succeded him since the King was “without issue”. King Albert abdicated for Phillippe in 2013 for health reasons.

While Charles, Phillippe, and I are all baby boomers, Charles is toward the start of that period (1948), which with the time shift places the timeline close to that of King Albert (born in 1934). There has been some speculation that Charles will abdicate soon, but I think the timeline will be closer to that of Albert and Phillippe. That is that Charles will be King for a while before handing the crown to his son.

As for my comment about the non-British monarchies being common: Just watch the changing of the guard at the Royal Palace In Brussels. And the civil wedding of Belgian Princess Maria-Laura

I rest my case.

Anyway, the Belgian Monarchy is a good case study for how a monarchy works in Modern Society. Much better than the British Monarchy. Although, both are very similar in the actual role of the monarch in running the country.

One good bit of news, the Belgian Monarchy has finally owned up that the “joke” about English being the fourth unofficial language of Belgium may not be that much of a joke: https://www.monarchie.be/en#home

It shouldn’t suprise anyone that I learned of her death reading Le Monde instead of a British, or even another English language source. I really have stopped caring about Great Britain post Brexit. Ireland, especially Northern Ireland, is another subject since peace on that Island is secured by the European Union. That causes much amusement for me since the nationalists on both sides had to admit they were WRONG!!!!

There remain, as of 2022, twelve sovereign monarchies in Europe. Seven are kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco are principalities, while Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy. Vatican City is a theocratic elective monarchy ruled by the Pope. Only Great Britain makes as big a thing about its monarchy, the rest are pretty “common”. But that’s another post.

Brexit was something that totally shook me and made me reassess my attitude toward Great Britain. British culture sort of influences most of the world in the same way that most Francophones are now found in Africa. But if my passport doesn’t give me residency in Europe, then it’s not worth the paper its printed on.

My real access is Europe, or at least as close as I can get to it. The seafood at the Rugbyman on Quai aux Briques comes from the St. Laurence, as do the moules. For that matter, a lot of seafood served in Europe has come from North American waters for Centuries. I can be happily European in St. Pierre et Miquelon which is part of the DOM-TOM, but not the Hexagon. Poutine is not my thing, but moules-frites are.

Tiens! On verra. Mais pas en Grande-Bretagne.

Canada, the US’s northern neighbour has begun to restore the Canadian head of state profile of Queen Elizabeth II, who is represented in Canada by a Governor-General, to full Canadian monarch status.

Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, particularly the monarchist Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, have been working to restore the Queen as the de jure Head of State of Canada. The government began the process last month by restoring “royal” to the names of the Canadian navy and air force. Baird has now issued an order for all 150 Canadian diplomatic missions abroad to place a portrait of Elizabeth II in the public lobbies of the embassies and missions, alongside those of the Governor-General and Harper.

Toronto’s Globe and Mail reported in its September 8 issue that some Canadian embassies balked at having a portrait of the Queen in their lobbies. The article did not specify which embassies were the hold-outs. The Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa has also removed modern art work by Quebec painter Alfred Pellan and replaced it with a portrait of the Queen.

Harper has gone beyond the amount of royalism of previous conservative governments and there are questions as to how far Canada could go toward returning to monarchism.  Many Canadian Tories were never happy that in 1965 the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson scrapped the old Union Flag, the red ensign with the British Union Jack in its canton, and replaced it with the current red and white Maple Leaf flag, without the Union Jack. Some Tories would like to see the Maple Leaf replaced by the old British standard. And other Tories would have no problem with replacing the national anthem, “O Canada” with “God Save the Queen.”

Fortunately, the US will never become a monarchy because of constitutional considerations, but there is a trend where the feudal system could be revived.  The question in the US is not whether it will return to a monarchy, but whether the feudal system will be revived. Will the US big business become feudal overlords?  Will US citizens become serfs of big business working for low pay?

Let’s here it for US reactionary politics!

I belong to the Constitutional Monarchist party even though I am registered as a Democrat. This is because being an independent in Philadelphia is like being an atheist in Northern Ireland: I.e. “Are you a Democrat Indpendent or a Republican Independent?” Anyway, being a Constitutional Monarchist is the best way to express my political philosophy, but unfortunately, I am probably the only Constitutional Monarchist in the United States.

Republicanism is the ideology of governing a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule of law, popular sovereignty and the civic virtue practiced by citizens. Republicanism always stands in opposition to aristocracy, oligarchy, and dictatorship. More broadly, it refers to a political system that protects liberty, especially by incorporating a rule of law that cannot be arbitrarily ignored by the government. Or as John Adams put it, “They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men.” Much of the literature deals with the issue of what sort of values and behavior by the citizens is necessary if the republic is to survive and flourish; the emphasis has been on widespread citizen participation, civic virtue, and opposition to corruption.

Now the “Republican” party has truly fallen away from this, especially in terms of its attitude toward rule of law and the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would make sense if there were still a strong institutional militia; however, most “republicans” aren’t willing to accept that institution. Moreover, they are willing to destroy the rule of law for popular opinion, which is the exact opposite of how Adams defined a republic.

People in a republic are expected to participate and give their efforts to running the democracy. In early American times, I would have had some government job where I could have contributed my skills and knowledge. Nowadays, I am marginally employed. People seem to get government jobs by knowing somebody, not by ability.

Worse, the “Republicans” have taken to talking about democracy, which is a contradiction. Not to mention it leads to my next point.

Democracy:

In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

Competitive elections! That doesn’t really apply in the United States as I think that it is a system where loads of money is required to get anywhere in the political process.

Absolute democracy is mobocracy where the majority rule. Of course, this isn’t really the case in the United States as the 2000 and 2004 elections have shown. Also, I have never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate I support (e.g., Wesley Clark in the 2004 election). We are seeing a wonderful thwarting of democracy regarding the Michigan and Florida primaries and apportioning of delegates.

I find it interesting that both a Democracy and Republic demand rule of law, as does a Constitutional monarchy. However, we may be seeing the thwarting of the rule of law by the Second Amendment/Right to Keep and Bear Arms crowd. The Heller case is a wonderful example of how the rule of law works and how it may be thwarted. the principle of rule of law means that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule.

I keep rattling on about stare decisis which is part of procedural rules. A court must follow precedent unless there is a valid reason to overrule that precedent. In other words, judges should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Even more salient, judges should not be swayed by popular opinion or the law will change willy-nilly. Justice Breyer recently summarized this Court’s approach, “[T]he rule of law demands that adhering to . . . prior case law be the norm [and] [d]eparture from precedent is exceptional and requires ‘special justifications’ . . . . especially [where] the principle has become settled through iteration and reiteration over a long period of time.” Randall v. Sorrell, 126 S. Ct. 2479 at 2489 (2006) (declining to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)). Additionally, if our “leaders” aren’t bold enough to show some backbone in time of crisis, then the courts should stand on precedent. I am not really going to go back into this since I have run on about how Heller could and should stick with precedent and just clarify the Miller decision in terms which even idiots can understand.

Anyway, with the exception of Constitutional Monarchy, these systems require some form of personal responsibility and civic mindedness. Constitutional Monarchy realises that the masses are peasants and do indeed need a nanny state. fortunately, Constitutional Monarchists practise noblesse oblige meaning we have a requirement for social responsibility. We can come up with elections, but there are institutions, such as the landed aristocracy which keeps some form of mob rule under wraps. Also, the landed aristocracy are able to keep land use issues under control, which is sort of sad given the interregnum we have had has led to urban sprawl.

Fortunately, we may have a individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and I can set up my private army and start my own duchy. I mean my Royal Pennsylvania militia will be very well trained if that is what “well regulated” means. And if Justice Scalia is correct that militias are outside of government control, then we are perfectly justified in setting up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I wonder if Prince Charles will accept our invitation to be King.