Steve of sjjsrienstra@gmail.com says

One of the greatest difficulties inherent in monarchy is the fact that a good and beneficent ruler is by no means guaranteed to have a good and beneficent heir. Indeed, the demise of monarchy in a given country is often associated with the rule of one unworthy of the throne.

My personal opinion is that a properly regulated republic, such as the US was when it held the Constitution in high regard, is the best form of government. (Unless one is fortunate enough to be in ancient Israel) Providing equality of opportunity is far removed from regarding all men as equal. (Note that the Declaration of Independence states "created equal") Providing checks and balances of power prevents abuse of power that are unfortunately rampant in most forms of government.

In any case your site provides an interesting read, though I was unable to do so until I ran it through a spellcheck utility.

mark q says

Monarchy is not nesesarily hereditary; it may also be electiv. With hereditary monarchy trust is plased not so much in the individual as in the family, wich has proved itself over time. A jenuin and authentic monarchy rests upon the suporting institushons of law. It is the absolute monarchy, wich merits neither lov nor onor, that is the foreruner of democrasy. As in the American experiens, the colonists rebeld not against monarchy but the monarchy's lawlessnes.

Of equality we won't say so much. For our eyes ar focust upon the graeter.

J says

Thanks for your clarion call. The diction itself was readable, arresting if a bit distracting, but making your point in syntax as well as logic. I've often thought that the standardization of English as an administrative language and lingua franca of trade, a trade of commerce that complemented the academicized French of official international diplomacy, was a useful contribution to world culture when sifting through the ruins of our own civilization. It could be updated and more user-friendly, our mother tongue that is, but here it she is anyway in old-fashioned glamour:

One of the finest prophets of our generation has declared Africa the 3rd Millennium's re-birthplace of humanity, since their cultures have already survived and selected to resist the war, famine, pestilence and death that threatens the whole planet. Both French and English have served as useful mind-communication tools from among the many tribal languages that ordinary educated Africans speak by the time they've traveled their own continent a bit. Surely we would be doing everybody a favor, posterity and distant human cousins of our Atlantis, whose brothers and sisters paid for our southern agricultural empire with their lives and laid the foundations for our greatest artistic achievements of rhythm, blues, soul, jazz, funk, rock and roll... if we might become like Latin and Greek to the next dark ages, a medium of storage and exchange of ideas religious, scientific, and cultural? Isn't our modern heritage already set to an African-American soundtrack with heavy influence from folk to classical? America has deeply felt love for Africa and vice-versa, every time a powerful philosopher-king like Fela Kuti studies a master like James Brown, and we in turn dance to his sons' and students raptures, the love is passed down through generations like a royal gift to the newborn. Is it not an honor to serve one's neighbor in war and peace?

A consequence of my studies in "environmental management" is an abiding dread of likely failure scenarios, in which drastic ecological shifts casually swipe civilizations from the stage, leaving nothing but sand and dusty bricks standing, whole kingdoms reduced to scattered hill tribes, precarious international allegiances shattered. Even if humanity survives, will our civilization? What does it mean to pass on our knowledge, ideas, spirit,... generosity? Is it possible to leave a trace that might be appreciated by a non-human successor species on the planet, or perhaps an alien archaeologist exploring our remains Earth as a dead planet under a redder sun, a billion years from now? Will we only build temples under an unsmiling sky that gapes above like the mouth of Father Time swallowing all his godly children? I look around at pyramids and stone circles and see that countless kings before had left astronomy, navigation, mathematics and hieroglyphic history among other treasures encased in the foundations of their architecture even as their civilizations collapsed around them to seal the tomb. "Look upon my works, ye mighty and despair."

Climate change is a dreary apocalypse of the secular humanist hand-wringing left, while the fundamentalist Christians feel under siege on the right by a super-technological Armageddon with Radical Islam over a Zionist colony and the dried-up teats of oil wells that suckle our nascent machine creation. The river Jordan borders on being a mud-bath for men and animals, yet the Galilean Lake of Life still flows into the Dead Sea. Many look the House of Hashem's Kingdom that an heir of Muhammad would be anointed and Christened and revered by all Israel and Palestine as if descended directly from David. The Royal Family of Jordan are fair and excellent people, but can they really rear a truly Monotheist Monarch for the Age?

I hope to be surprised by a genetic singularity, like Herbert's "kwisatz haderach" from the Ethiopian stock perhaps, one of Haile Selassie's distantly descended cousins, maybe an odd European from some hidden Habsburger, even one of the British boys William or Harry knows someone special...? It could be any child, Japanese or Thai, who exemplifies the new consciousness of the noosphere, a global mind, the Son of Man, in whose glory all of us may revel. So let's keep our mind open to perceive exactly how Royalty actually manifests in the excellent deeds of another and seek to emulate, serve humankind, and leave a legacy of intelligence and consciousness for whomever may enjoy it and appreciate its love. Who knows it may all work out and we have another hundred or a thousand years left to go? These could just be growing pains, the Restoration of Monarchy/Oligarchy, Patriarchy/Matriarchy, Timarchy/Hierarchy just stages of adulthood into which we must now progress before we outgrow and reach beyond our birthplace planet.

mark q says

Thank you an eloquens that I can never hope to atain.

The story of sivilizashons tels us that there is a limit to the idea of humanity, beyond wich it canot pas. The need to create our world thus presents the posibility of infinit variety and the potenshal of perpetual renewal. Such is my basic faith in the human condishon. The advocats of power, on the other hand, asert that the constraints of the past hav bin or wil be transended, even to the extent of personal mortality. The question, worthy of Greek trajedy, then arises: is it presisely this humanity that is deserving of perpetuity? The power we seek, being entirely external, is an obvius compensashon for a spiritual impotens and inadequasy. Our power wil not save us, yet the fool's gold now gliters in the eyes of men around the world.

There is no dout that in its curent complexion, our Western culture is the most presumptuus the world has seen. If our presumpshon finds its limit in the capasity of the environment, so be it. The nay of nature wil be mor benine and ultimatly salutary than the nuclear threat we fased haf a sentury ago.

With the Royalist Party, the heathen truth is there is no divide between man and nature. Nor ar we consernd with where humanity ends and nature begins. As we peruse the world we find, in varius plases, resident inteligens. Whenever the graeter is encounterd, it is onord.

Strictly speaking there is not a world culture but a cultural hegemony that is eclipsing indijenus forms. But just as in Roman Britain, after the ocupashon ends, in their time military, in ours economic, they wil throw off the alien culture and resume their own. The implyd unity of the noosfere is then suspect. For jenuin developments we shoud look elswhere.

David Weinstock of david.weinstock@gmail.com says

I found your website today. I have no particular opinion about royalism, but I am curious to know how simplified English spelling connects to your cause.

In fact, I wonder if it might not be directly opposed to your cause, since modernization and efficiency are what doomed royalism in the first place. Surely your natural supporters, people who long for an imagined or remembered golden age when kings were kings, are broadly nostalgic for all the old ways. Simplified spelling might strike them as (at best) newfangled and (at worst) disrespectful of history and the past.

mark q says

The speling is a personal expresion, yet it may sufise to persuade the persons you menshon that this is not the plase. The Royalist Party is not a product of nostaljia but a radical inquiry into the human condishon. The serch for where life is. As such, it may arive at a complexion very diferent from the royalist remnants of the European tradishon. Won thing we may definitly selebrate: the Royalist Party is the end to the vulgarity and nihilism wich has by degrees, engulft the West.

Drew Mecham of drew.mecham@gmail.com says

I read your pensee of Royalism and found it wonderfully intriguing. If you have not already, you may enjoy the
work of Thomas Carlyle, particularly "On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History."

I do have some questions that I hope you will indulge:
You say that Royalism is the cult of the excellent. To this I agree, but hereditary rule (monarchies usually operate on the primogeniture model) allows the unexcellent to ascend while the truly excellent are overlooked. How does your theory of rule deal with the problem of primogeniture? You say that atheism is the religion of democracy but are unclear on whether Christianity is the religion of Royalism. If it is, I have further questions.

mark q says

We ar indeted to Mr. Carlyle. He gave an insisiv critique of modern life, but the proferd remedy, that of a personal and intuitiv Christianity, was not taken up.

At this point it is obvius that Christianity proper is ded as a soshal fors, at least in the West. Yet the enduring legasy of Christianity, in apropriat materialist guise, remains the Left. The Kingdom of God as the Soshalist State. This is the relijus fors, such as it is, that operates in the world today. As regards the Royalist Party, the truths of Christianity do not speak to us; rather, the unseen is acsest thru older tradishons.

Monarchy is able to thrive under kings of varying ability by the rule of law and a diffused political structure. Monarchy is thus a misnomer, there being varius substructures, al in alejens, yet retaining their privilejes. These institushons absorb a mediocre king, yet raly to the inspired leader, whenever such is fated to apear.

The cult of the exelent, while sufused thruout sosiety, makes its graetest demands upon that familial culture wich furnishes royalty. It is the strength of that culture over individual diferenses that renders primojeniture sufishent. That culture is in turn the model for the other domestic cultures in the kingdom.

Valerie Leige of echotech@gmail.com says

It seems to me that your essential viewpoint wants for (and indeed, would require) a Philosopher King from Plato's Republic. Such a system of government would be ideal, but the central figure is wholly idealized. Even Plato realized the minimal prospect of finding such an individual, and Nietzsche points out that even one so excellent will eventually fall prey to the corruption of power. Throughout history there have been a mere handful of rulers who could be considered as such and were just, fair, and concerned primarily with the good and will of the people - and even so, the histories of many of them have been proven semi-mythologized. A true monarchy (as opposed to a nominal one with a parliament to rule and crown kept as traditional figurehead) leaves far too much room for fascist dictatorship at the whim of a harsh (or simply self-absorbed and power-hungry) monarch. Just as socialism and communism look beautiful on paper, but fail to take into account the sins and flaws of bureaucracy, and modern democracy (at least so far as is known in the West) is not truly democratic, but rather, a representative republic structure that is fast becoming a plutocracy of powerful corporate interests, so does royalism stand a fair chance of devolving into chaos but for the tenuous talent and intent of a king on whose shoulders you hang all your hope and trust. Since you are a royalist, and not a monarchist, I will assume you have a particular individual in mind whom you feel to be the rightful and appropriate leader of your nation. One would hope he or she would not only be an intelligent and well-intentioned sovereign, but also capable of passing their attitude on to their offspring, who will be inheriting the throne in a matter of a generation or so. No system of government is without its weaknesses and drawbacks, all come down to the balance of power and the intentions of those who hold it.

On another note, you seem to be well-worded and cultivated in your subject. I would suggest learning to spell correctly in English in order that your atrocious treatment of the language not detract from the impact of your message in the future. Best wishes in your endeavors.

mark q says

Your coments, as an expresion of the modern spirit, corectly despair of a workabl politic. Our treatment does not begin with an ideal, but simply sumarizes the historical experiens. Why is monarchy, broadly conseevd, the default politic of humanity? And why is monarchy now unthinkabl?

The term monarchy is an external descripshon, while kingship is a consept of graeter depth. Strictly speaking, Hitler was a monarch. The German spirit after the First World War coud produse a Hitler; it coud not produse a king. Monarchy devoid of a royalist culture is despotism. It is the recognishon and development of that culture that is the task at hand. In our discusion we atribute the tradishonal ideas of kingship to monarchy, so that they'r esenshaly equivalent.

We Americans seek an Atorney King, after our own style, that we can neither lov, trust, or comit ourselvs to. Becaus the political is the spiritual, we no what is posibl and what is not posibl. Royalism is not posibl; it is a posibility of the future, along with other unthinkabl posibilitys. So let the speling expres that unthinkabl wich is nevertheles thout anyway.