What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say [NewYorkTimes]

What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say

By Lesie Wayne | Jan. 6, 2018

Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip, at a parade in London in 2016 for the monarch’s 90th birthday. Richard Heathcote/Getty Images for The Patron’s Lunch

OXFORD, England — From the comfort of his country estate in Oxford, a distant relative of the Russian literary giant Tolstoy says he has the perfect solution for what ails the United States.

America, he declares, needs a monarchy.

In fact, Count Nikolai Tolstoy says, more kings, queens and all the frippery that royalty brings would be not just a salve for a superpower in political turmoil, but also a stabilizing force for the world at large.

“I love the monarchy,” Count Tolstoy, 82, said as he sat in his lush garden behind an expansive stone house. “Most people think the monarchy is just decorative and filled with splendor and personalities. They do not appreciate the important ideological reasons for a monarchy.”

The count is not the only voice advocating rule by royalty. An author and a conservative politician who holds dual British and Russian citizenship, he leads the International Monarchist League and is part of a loose confederation of monarchists scattered across the globe, including in the United States.

Their core arguments: Countries with monarchies are better off because royal families act as a unifying force and a powerful symbol; monarchies rise above politics; and nations with royalty are generally richer and more stable.

Critics say such views are antiquated and alarming in an era when democracies around the globe appear to be imperiled. The count and his band of fellow monarchists, however, are determined to make their case at conferences, in editorials and at fancy balls.

A recent study that examined the economic performance of monarchies versus republics bolsters their views. Led by Mauro F. Guillén, a management professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, the study found “robust and quantitatively meaningful evidence” that monarchies outperform other forms of government.

Far from being a dying system, the study said, “monarchies are surprisingly prevalent around the world.” They provide a “stability that often translates into economic gains”; they are better at protecting property rights and checking abuses of power by elected officials; and they have higher per-capita national incomes, the study said.

Mr. Guillén says he was “shocked” by the results, which have not yet been published. “Most people think monarchies are something anachronistic,” he said. “They think that modern forms of government are superior and have trouble accepting that monarchies have advantages.”


Click here for the rest of the article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/06/world/europe/monarchy-us-advantage.html

 

Yet many monarchists themselves regularly contend that the king reigns but does not rule in a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. For example,

First of all, I already answered objections and excuses of that nature in https://forums.anglican.net/threads...tical-supremacy-of-the-queen.4328/#post-45705, so I will not restate it again. But I have yet other and more detailed objections against the excuse that the queen reigns but does not rule. For the sake of brevity, I have summarized them in a file ON THE QUIBBLE THAT THE KING REIGNS BUT DOES NOT RULE Rev 1.pdf. In it, I give six highly detailed and meticulous reasons why such a plea that "the queen reigns but does not rule", even when viewed from the perspective of Divine Law, is not a sufficient excuse against those who seek to allow women to vote and holding public office in the State.

The Reason WHY My Refutation of the objection that the reigning queen reigns but does not rule must necessarily seem to be Complex is because the system of tenets/opinions/excuses/alibis in favor of such an objection – I am not talking that the system of government in place in the reigning queen's realm – I am talking about the system of tenets, opinions, “reasons” and “evidence” used to support the claim that her reign is not a violation of Divine Law is necessarily complex, and its complexity arises mainly from the sum total of all the real or possible or anticipated objections I had to refute one by one, and also the fact that each of these objections is based on facts or tenets which seem very plausible that it will take very strong proof to refute them. The more of the benefit of the doubt one must give to them - namely, the stronger the presumption in favor of them, the more evidence it will take to rebut them - the heavier will the burden of proof incumbent on those who DENY them, and therefore the greater will be the complexity required.

 

I cannot comprehend what point you're making in your second post, but I just figured I'd chime in and say I wholeheartedly agree with Tolstoy's argument. The United States would be significantly more stable with a monarch as their head of state, and the world would be a safer place too.

I also find it odd that a supposedly devout monarchist would falsely use the title 'Count'. I perfectly understand his rationale, but I think he should just accept he's not a Russian noble anymore and stop using the title.

 

Please read my file ON THE QUIBBLE THAT THE KING REIGNS BUT DOES NOT RULE Rev 1.pdf. The point is that the common remark that the reigning queen reigns but does not rule has been one of the reasons that antisuffragists have used against women voting and holding public office. I give 6 highly detailed reasons why the plausible pretext that "the reigning queen reigns but does not rule" cannot vindicate reigning queens from the charge of civil feminism and gynecocracy (petticoat government).

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Most of the world’s freest, most stable, and most prosperous countries are constitutional monarchies with parliamentary systems. The trouble is that such systems require a very specific set of preconditions to successfully develop, and those conditions simply don’t exist in the U.S.

 

No, I don't think I have any interest in reading that. The existence of queens-regnant predates feminism by, oh, let's say 3000 years. Gynarchy is a term invented in the 19th Century, often to describe fictional Amazonian societies. The existence of a queen does not imply female rule, nor a matriarchal society, it implies a female ruler.

The implication to me from your response, although I haven't read your attached file, seems to be that women voting and holding public office is a problem. I apologise if I've misread what you intended to say, but if you do mean to imply that women should be prohibited from voting, that is not really something I have any interest in debating. Happy to debate women's ordination because I can respect and understand how a good person could hold the opposing view for good reasons. I cannot respect or comprehend a Christian who supports the oppressive subjection of women, or presumes women are intrinsically inferior to men.

I thought this was going to be a thread about the merits/issues with constitutional monarchy. If it's about women's suffrage I probably won't be engaging with this thread further.

 

All we have to do is hit the Ignore button and I’d be delighted to discuss the merits of constitutional monarchies vs. republics.

 

If you had actually READ my attached file, you would see that I am not actually trying to argue against women voting and holding public office. All I am trying to do is expose the sanctimonious pharisaical rascally hypocrisy of those who, in their efforts to oppose women suffrage and continue to DENY women the right vote and hold public office, use the pretext that "the reigning queen reigns but does not rule" as the one excuse they think they can plead for permitting women to be reigning queens.

 

Here is the main point of my attached file. I produce a theorem showing that every act of reigning (either as king/queen, or any other supposed monarchical title of “sovereignty”) is either an act of having, holding, claiming, seeking, or practicing the right and liberty of ruling, or else a heinous violation of the Divine Law, and it is on the grounds of this fundamental theorem that it follows that it is sanctimonious hypocrisy to allow women to be reigning queens in the state and yet continue to hold it to be a heinous crime against divine law for women the right to vote in the state!

Another cardinal point is that it is a fundamental principle of even the English Common Law that every human law contrary to the Divine Law is repugnant to the order of society, and therefore null and void. And so accordingly, without risk of logical fallacy, we can consider, among all those cases in which H. R. M. the reigning or regent king/queen is content to reign under the pretext that “the king/queen reigns but does not rule”, the case C0, such that in the event E0, one or more politicians, ministers, or Members of Parliament, etc., proposes a law which the king/queen KNOWS is contrary to divine law and contrary to the coronation oaths, and they advise H. R. M. to give his/her royal assent to it! This is not merely a hypothetical possibility. Such laws of parliament against divine law have actually happened, and I give two cases in point of this.

And afterwards, I give more examples of the inconvenient, scandalous, absurd, and unchristian practical consequences of the pretext that "the queen reigns but does not rule", and from these I deduce what I set out to prove: it is not only absurd and irrational, but also sanctimoniously and Pharisaically hypocritical to allow women to be reigning queens in the state and yet continue to hold it to be a heinous crime against divine law for women the right to vote in the state!

 

Who is “H.R.M”? (The Queen is referred to in the third person as Her Majesty.)

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. You use 100 words where 10 will do, and between the poor grammar, and every other word being a pejorative, it’s hard to make out just what you’re trying to achieve. In any case, you seem to have overlooked the all-important principle that voting is an act of sovereignty. It is the exercise of legitimate authority, the right to rule. It was fundamentally unjust to deny that right to women. It is inconsistent to claim not to have a problem with women’s suffrage and then to turn around and say that women shouldn’t be constitutional monarchs. That’s all I have to say on the subject, and I have no interest in engaging this line of argument further.

 

I'm confused. What modern state permits female monarchs, but forbids women from voting or holding any other public office? I thought that Vatican City is the last nation on Earth where women do not have suffrage.

I think you've written an essay on something that is not in dispute.

 

Her Royal Majesty. Commonly used here in Canada.

 

Ah. In the UK it’s just “Her Majesty”.

 

We have to specify to remind ourselves there's better options than post-1876. *sigh*

 

King Donald..... ? Make the monarchy great again?

We should be careful what we wish for. The Israelites insisted that they wanted a king "like the other nations," so God finally gave them what they asked for. It was a royal mess.

The only monarch worth having is Jesus!

 

No one has suffrage in the Vatican City.

 

To get back the point of the thread, I personally do not see how a monarchy helps a country have better governance. That does not mean I want my own monarchy (UK) to end. I would rather have Elizabeth II as my Sovereign Lady than have a President Tony Blair or President Boris Johnson. However, unless we go to an absolute monarchy, which defeats the object, the monarch has few, if any real powers. The powers that be in the UK are the government and the current one is a disreputable bunch of self-serving liars who wish to preach to us plebs while they get on and do what they please.

I think there are problems in the American system, such as voting judges and district attorneys into office. I feel they're far too interested in re-election that doing what their office is for. What I do think is excellent about the American system is the existence of an independent legislature that holds the executive to account. We don't have there here in the UK nor do many other countries with the Westeminster Model of government.

 

I hear the 'other nations' criticism from Samuel all the time, especially from North Americans, but do recall that God had previously allowed for a king, and given guidelines for the king, in Deuteronomy 17.

 

I think that passage in Deut. 17 was partly prophecy. The Lord knew they would agitate for a king before they ever did so, and He let them know ahead of time that they would not be allowed to pick out a king for themselves. The fact that He so instructed them should not be interpreted as an indication that having a king was God's best for them; it was not in their best interest to have a mortal king. But God foreknew.

It was somewhat analogous to the way Moses allowed divorce. Divorce wasn't God's best for the people, but it was allowed because the people were so hard-hearted, Matt. 19:7-8. Similarly, the Israelites were hard-hearted toward God and His way of governance, so He allowed them to have kings.

 

I am glad you pointed out that "they would not be allowed to pick out a king for themselves." The very concept of elective monarchy is a contradiction in terms. The moment a monarchy becomes elective, it is for the moment, no longer a monarchy, but a democracy. True monarchy is hereditary.