From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Monarch)
Jump to: navigation, search
It doesn't stop
at the water's edge


Icon politics.svg
As usual
Country sections
Flag of the United States.svg
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg
...nothing is as dangerous as leaving for a long time the power on [one] citizen's hands. The nation becomes used to obeying him and he becomes used to ordering them; from there arises usurpation and tyranny.
—Simón Bolívar

Monarchy is the vestment of state power in one person. Monarchs are usually known as kings or queens. This is distinguished from a dictatorship, however, in that there are limits on the ruler's powers, whether this be due to tradition,[1] a body of nobles who have some claims on the monarchy (as in much of feudal Europe), or a parliament to which the monarch is actually subservient (as in modern European constitutional monarchies). Usually, monarchies are hereditary; the descendants of the monarchs are born to rule. This hereditary factor can lead to problems, since the ruling family (or families) tend to interbreed a bit too closely for genetic comfort.

Monarchy was considered the greatest form of government by the philosopher Aristotle, though he considered its corruption (tyranny) to be the worst. However, Aristotle's model for thinking about states was a Greek city-state, very different from the modern-day nation-state.

It should be noted that, despite the (quite justified) general revulsion towards most forms of strong monarchy in the modern world, it managed to be successful for most of history, while at the same time, the working class struggled for survival. In periods before and after Middle Ages, many of those successes were achieved thanks to blood, toil, tears and sweat of common people who risked their lives and did all hard work. In the century before the First World War, many European and several Asian monarchies survived by accepting constitutional limits. During the interbellum period several of these states reverted to royal dictatorships, including Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria and Thailand, which is one reason for the association of monarchism with the authoritarian right.

With that said, monarchy is not necessarily backward or ultra-conservative any more than republicanism is necessarily more left-wing or progressive; there are quite a number of democratic constitutional monarchies just as there are repressive ones. At its best (or at least when done right), a monarchy can help instill a sense of continuity and community to its realm, with the monarch him/herself serving as a mediator between different democratic bodies; ideals like Noblesse Oblige,[2] not to mention the notion that royals live in "gilded cages" also provide additional checks and balances to power. There have been plenty of liberal if not impressively democratic monarchs. One example is Juan Carlos I of Spain, who spearheaded the dismantling of Francisco Franco's fascist polity.

Outside the Arabian peninsula, monarchs these days tend to leave the governing to the competent and get on with their real job, public relations.[3] A notable exception was Nepal, where the King was both autocratic and incompetent, and was removed by a coalition of political parties and Maoist insurgents.


[edit] List of monarchies

  • United Kingdom, under Queen Elizabeth II of the House of Windsor.
  • Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Tuvalu, and nine others are in personal union with the UK
  • Andorra, co-ruled by the Bishop of Urgell (in Spain) and the President of France. This is the world's only ruling Co-Principality, although the Bishop does most of the work.
  • Bahrain, under King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of the House of Khalifa.
  • Belgium, under King Philippe of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
  • Bhutan, under King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of House of Wangchuck. He is the second youngest reining monarch; only Emir Tamim bin Hamad is younger, and only by one year. Similar to Juan Carlos II, Jigme Khesar presided over increasing democratization of the country under the Kidu, a tradition where the King's duty is to protect his people.
  • Brunei, under Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of the House of Bolkiah.
  • Cambodia, under King Norodom Sihamoni of the House of Norodom.
  • Denmark, under Queen Margrethe II of the House of Glücksburg.
  • Japan, under Emperor Akihito of the Yamato Dynasty; the only country left to have an Emperor.
  • Jordan, under King Abdullah II of the House of Hashim.
  • Kuwait, under Emir Sabah al-Ahmad of the House of Al-Sabah.
  • Lesotho, under Letsie III of the House Moshesh.
  • Liechtenstein, under Prince Hans-Adam II of the House of Lichtenstein.
  • Luxembourg, under Grand Duke Henri of the House of Bourbon-Parma.
  • Malaysia, under King Abdul Halim of Kedah; he is also the Sultan of the state of Kedah. Uniquely, each of the nine Malay states has a hereditary ruler; five of those are Sultanates. The Kin is elected by and among the other hereditary state rulers.
  • Monaco, under Prince Albert II of the House of Grimaldi.
  • Morocco, under King Mohammed VI of the House of Alaouite.
  • The Netherlands, under King Willem-Alexander of the House of Orange-Nassau.
  • North Korea in all but name under Kim Jong-un.
  • Norway, under King Harald V of the House of Glücksburg.
  • Oman, under Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Al Said; he lacks an heir due to being childless. He gained power by overthrowing his father, Said bin Taimur, in a palace coup in 1970. He is the absolute ruler of Oman (there isn't even a separation of powers), the only Sultan since Oman's independence, and the founder of the Al Said dynasty.
  • Qatar, under Emir Tamim bin Hamad of the House of Thani; another absolute ruler, and the youngest ruling monarch at 34. Like his father, he is a pragmatic Islamist, who would rather use Islam for political points rather than policy.
  • Saudi Arabia, under King Salman of the House of Saud. An absolute ruler, but one that combines elective with hereditary.
  • Spain, under King Felipe VI of the House of Bourbon.
  • Swaziland, under King Mswati III, another absolute monarchy.
  • Sweden, under King Carl XVI Gustaf of the House of Bernadotte.
  • Thailand, under King Bhumibol Adulyadej of the Chakri Dynasty.
  • Tonga, under King Tupou VI of the House of Tupou.
  • United Arab Emirates, an "elective" absolute monarchy. Each of the seven city-states has its own hereditary emir. The UAE President is elected by his fellow rulers for a five-year term, but there are no term limits and the office has always been held by the emir of Abu Dhabi. The office of UAE Prime Minister has always been held by the emir of Dubai or his heir.
  • The Vatican under Pope Francis, or Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He is both Pope of the Catholic Church and the absolute monarch of Vatican City (modern popes typically delegate responsibility for the day-to-day running of the city to others, but retain the authority to rescind such delegations of power and more generally run things however they see fit); as Pope, he's elected by the Cardinals, and once elected, he holds absolute power, even if the ruling oligarchy bitches about his reforms (there is no such thing as a recall election). Also qualifies as a theocracy.

[edit] Restoration of monarchies

The 20th century saw a large number of monarchies dismantled. Notable examples are Imperial China (1911, became the Republic of China and later the People's Republic of China); the Russian Empire (1917, became the Soviet Union and then after the Cold War the Russian Federation); German Empire (1918, became a democratic republic, then something else entirely for a short time, then divided into a dictatorship + a democratic republic, and finally united as a democratic republic); Austria-Hungary (1919), and the Ottoman Empire (fell apart as consequence of defeat in World War I, 1923). After the end of World War II several more joined the club: Bulgaria (1946); Yugoslavia (1943); Italy (1946); and Romania (1947). Greece and a few African and Asian states (Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam) became republics (dictatorships, to be exact) during the second half of the century.

There have not been serious proposals to restore the monarchies in any of those countries, except Cambodia (where Hun SenWikipedia's W.svg has been ruling as an autocrat since the end of the Khmer Rouge reign of terror and the royal family has been one of the two entities vying to wrest power from him). However, the former Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria was elected Prime Minister of that country in 2001 as the head of a liberal party, the Simeon II National Movement.Wikipedia's W.svg He won some awards for his efforts, but was voted out at the next election, and the election after that his party was voted right out of parliament. Following the breakup of Austria-Hungary, emperor Karl abdicated the throne of Austria but refused to step down as King of Hungary, since the monarchy was popular among Hungarians. He was exiled but made two attempts to reestablish himself on the throne before his death in 1922. In the lead-up to World War II, the former Allies started to come around to the idea of putting his son on the throne as a counterweight to the rising tide of fascism, but by then it was too little, too late.

Pretenders to abolished thrones have support among fringe minority groups of "monarchists" and "royalists"[4] who believe that restoring their country's monarchy will also restore some fabled former glory. While it can perhaps restore "might" in eyes of their counterparts in another countries, a question arises: at what price? British taxpayers give Queen Elizabeth a budget approximately equivalent to $56 million USs,[5] roughly one dollar per person per year. It is not a great burden for taxpayers, but illustrates the point that royal family/families do live(s) decadent lifestyles by using (some kind of) charity. It is certainly true that that money could be spent for health care, education, etc. However, it should be noted that the amount of tourism dollars the Royal family generates, at about 767 million dollars, far outweighs the cost of supporting them by 15 times [1]. Furthermore, the same could be said for the support of executive households in republics which also reaches expensive amounts.

A major proponent of returning to monarchies was the Austrian, aristocratic, reactionary, socio-political theorist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.[6] Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that most democracies would eventually lead to totalitarianism by the majority, to the point where he claimed that Nazism was actually a democratic left-wing movement primarily inspired by the French Revolution.[7] He also claimed that monarchies would be better able to fight other radical movements such as fascism, which is kind of hilarious when one considers Fascist Italy and Francisco Franco's Spain and the nature of the countries that largely blew fascism to bits. (Kuehnelt-Leddihn promoted these ideas at the freedom-loving National Review for roughly 35 years, and is one of the reasons why the magazine is no longer taken seriously.)

Another case for monarchies was made by would-be Archduke Otto von Habsburg, who later became a Bavarian MEP in the European Parliament.[8] In contrast to Kuehnelt-Leddihn, he had a healthy respect for democracies and republics, while also condemning the sort of royal decadence that made the French Revolution nigh inevitable. While the actual defense of monarchism incorporates some conservative ideas,[9] at least the would-be monarch also attempted to reconcile it with socialism. Compared to Kuehnelt-Leddihn, this comes across as more palatable, although the man himself for all his support for human rights and the European Union had a soft spot for Franco over accepting refugees.[10]

[edit] Monarchy in the United States

Despite their claims to be a Bibul-luvin' people, the Americans are causing baby Jesus to cry. They not only refuse to adopt a monarchic system of government, but rejected the divinely-appointed monarchy of George III. This is in direct conflict with Deuteronomy 17:15, in which God tells His people, "Be sure to appoint a King over you."

Thus, any American Republican, Teabagger, libertarian, or otherwise who claims to be a Christian is a liar, depending on the extent of Biblical literalism they adhere to. If they are true believers, they should be campaigning for a divine intervention to appoint a King an emperor of the United States. Anything else is a foul, anti-Christian heresy.

And don't think it hasn't been tried. 19th Century San Francisco resident Joshua NortonWikipedia's W.svg believed the US should have a monarch, and so selflessly crowned himself Emperor Norton I of America and Protector of Mexico. He became a celebrity, although his proclamations were ignored. Many regarded him as mad, but harmlessly so, because "he had shed no blood; robbed no one; and despoiled no country; which is more than can be said of his fellows in that line." His finest moment consisted of protecting Chinese immigrants from an angry mob.[11]

It didn't stop there. In the 21st century, a small political faction centered on Silicon Valley, the Neoreactionaries, has been calling for a US monarchy.[12][13] In this new-fangled tech-friendly monarchy, the King will be an autocratic leader on the lines of Steve Jobs, because being good at running a tech company, where almost every problem can be solved by reading the friendly manual (RTFM), is a skill transferable to running a country, where almost no problem can be. Neoreactionaries expound their theories in massive online screeds, composed during their copious free time, which shows how good they are at getting dates. However, once installed, His Majesty will give them all horses and fancy titles, which will make them much more attractive. The King will also expell all undesirables, as defined by traditionally reactionary attitudes to race, gender and sexual orientation. What a contrast to Emperor Norton!

[edit] Monarchy in Britain

The monarchy of the UK has evolved into the perfect genotype for modern royals, they being neither intelligent enough to think they can run the country, nor stupid enough to think they can run the country — i.e., against the Dunning-Kruger effect, they're not bright enough to rule and they can see they're not up to it.

Prince Charles is a possible exception as he often expresses his views on all matters, being a supporter of environmentalist causes and renewable energy,[14] and… also a great supporter of homeopathy.[15] Stay alive, Liz.

[edit] Notable British monarchs

King Arthur was possibly fictional and, if not, was nothing like the character in the legends.

John has gone down in history as a Bad King. He was the enemy of legendary outlaw Robin Hood.[16]

Richard I was a dashing military leader played by Sean Connery, notable for spending much of his reign at the Crusades.

Henry VIII — I'm going off the rails on a crazy train. Founded the Church of England and is perhaps the most portrayed British king in film and TV.[17]

James I (and James VI of Scotland) was a man of learning and a power-mad dictator who believed in the Divine Right of Kings, i.e. the notion that the monarch is appointed by God. He ruled both England and Scotland after 1603 but is best known for the King James Version, the bible translation he commissioned which is praised by some for its poetic qualities and by others as the actual literal word of God.

Willliam III was the very Protestant king who took over from James II in 1689. His victory over the Catholic King James in what's now Northern Ireland remains a point of contention there, with "King Billy" still a folk hero to Ulster Unionism.[18][19]

George III, whilst considered at the time to have been mad, is now thought to have suffered from a skin disease called porphyria which caused him extreme discomfort. This however fails to explain why, in the course of a country walk, he addressed a tree in the mistaken belief that it was the King of Prussia — a nation also renowned for the mental instability of its ruling classes.

George IV was a genius at spending money, accruing millions in debt. He favoured extravagant building projects, fine clothes, eating and drinking. The last two somewhat undermined his sartorial ambitions, as he ended up with a 50-inch waist. He rarely appeared in public because of the derision caused by his spherical shape. he married in secret but later had the marriage annulled and married a second time to pay his debts. He loathed his second wife and may have poisoned her.[20][21]

Victoria is one of the most iconic of British monarchs for her refusal to be amused and her love of her German husband Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Edward VII mostly spent his time fornicating, drinking, and smoking. (Win!)

George V apparently spent all his time stamp collecting, shooting at birds and shouting at passersby, whom he took for Bolshevik revolutionaries, from the windows of Buckingham Palace.

Edward VIII, aka. the Duke of Windsor, is now well known for his affair with Mrs. Simpson and for being a Nazi sympathizer, although it was largely kept from the British public at the time.[22] Thank goodness he stepped down...

...paving the way for George VI, the shy stutterer who didn't want or expect the job, but had to do it anyway, since monarchy is the last remaining form of indentured servitude (as Logue says in The King's Speech).

And finally Elizabeth II, who shows no sign of packing it in.

[edit] Royal etiquette

According to the most influential commentary on the modern British Constitution, Monty Python's Brand New Papperbok (sic), it is advised never to say to the Queen:

"You don't look like you do on the stamps!"

Even if it's true.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. The Chinese "Mandate of Heaven," for instance, provided both a justification for the Emperor's duties and a convenient excuse to depose said ruler if he's not doing a good job at it.
  2. The idea that those in the nobility actually try to do something deserving of their position.
  3. Hepburn, A. Roman Holiday. J. Paramount Pictures, 1953.
  4. Such groups tend to be all over the political spectrum, from far-right reactionaries to even socialists.
  5. Amid tight budget, queen is pinching pennies along with rest of Britain, Washington Post
  6. Yup, a nobleman supporting monarchy - I bet you never saw that coming... More to the point, he was yet another product of the venerable Austro-Hungarian Empire that also gave us Friedrich August von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises of Austrian school fame/infamy [delete whatever is inappropriate], as well as some guy with a mustache.
  7. Because "men are born and remain free and equal in rightsWikipedia's W.svg" is fascist, everyone!
  8. "Monarchy vs. Republic"
  9. The essay actually tries to justify the phrase "by the grace of God" stopping short "Divine Right of Kings."
  10. Granted, he called Franco "a dictator of the South American type."
  11. Encyclopedia of San Francisco: Emperor Norton
  12. Finley, Klint (22 November 2013). "Geeks for Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries". TechCrunch.
  13. Traditional Monarchy is Neoreactionary
  14. Environmental and Social Responsibility,
  15. Prince Charles branded a 'snake oil salesman' by scientist, The Guardian
  16. See the Wikipedia article on John, King of England.
  17. TV and film's top eight portrayals of King Henry VIII, The Independent
  18. William III, BBC History
  19. The Battle of the Boyne, BBC History
  20. George IV: The Royal Joke?, BBC History
  21. King George IV on Britroyals
  22. New clues to Edward VIII's 'Nazi links', BBC
Personal tools