On a scale of one to ten, one being the least supportive (fanatically against) and ten being the most supportive (fanatically for), what following statement best summarizes your attitude and belief in the monarchy? (Note to readers that I have personally assigned myself a score of 8.7, somewhere between devout Anglophile and High Church Tory.)
1.0 Latent Anti-Monarchist: The British Crown is an intolerable relic and an embarrassing reminder of our colonial past. The institution offends me deeply because it is racist, undemocratic and historically oppressive, having subjugated or killed millions of people at the height of its imperial crime. I have an instinctive and reflexive hatred for the monarchy and would like nothing better than to send Mrs. Windsor packing. I need the monarchy like I need a hole in the head.
2.0 Carping Republican: The monarchy is a ludicrously outdated genetic lottery and a colossal waste of my taxes. It is a completely ridiculous, cringe-inducing soap opera about a family of rich dullards who look like horses. All arguments in support of this colonial hangover can be boiled down to sentimental traditionalism or self-justifying poppycock. When are we going to ditch the foreign Queen and finally grow up?!!
3.0 Levelling Modernist: I have a profound distaste for snobbery and all forms of hierarchy. The monarchy goes against equality and runs counter to modern values such as democracy, diversity and human rights. I feel sorry for the Queen and her family for the unnatural, fish bowl life that they are forced to endure to satisfy the parading appetite of pompous monarchists. The royals are victims. I want to free them from the hell of monarchy.
3.5 Radical Whig: Hereditary monarchy is anachronistic and the Queen is constitutionally and politically useless. I'm an enlightened republican who fervently believes we need an elected president who can legitimately check the legislative and executive power of the prime minister. I also believe we need a head of state who truly represents the citizens of our country and the nation abroad. The Queen is not above politics and cannot be the focus of national unity because the monarchy itself is a divisive political issue.
4.0 Chardonnay Republican: I am basically a morally superior elitist with ironic resentment and contempt towards the monarchy. Even though the whole institution runs contrary to my philosophical goals, Her Majesty is a lovely lady and I crave the spotlight of her company over a glass of Chablis. I make the common mistake of evaluating the monarchy against my own little world, but if I can portray my base instincts and republican agenda as moral superiority and be exalted as a commoner's demigod in the process, my social and intellectual needs are met.
4.5 Crypto-Republican: I am the eternal optimist who believes a republic is inevitable. I have to be coy about revealing my true intentions when attempting to provoke a public debate about the monarchy because I often work in the media. But you can usually spot my mischief as I like to wrap my bias in a cloak of fairminded evenhandenness by asking the neverending question: Is the monarchy still relevant?
4.9 Ignoramus: We have a Queen? If that is true, then I support getting rid of it.
5.0 Couch Potato: Who cares, the monarchy is irrelevant. Royal visits intoxicate me with boredom. I wouldn't lift a finger to defend it, nor would I agitate to replace it. When it comes right down to it, the monarchy just doesn't matter.
5.5 Milquetoast Monarchist: I know the monarchy is good for tourism, but I don't really follow it all that much. To me, the monarchy is just a symbol and essentially harmless. I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
6.0 Royal Watcher: I am not a monarchist per se, just fascinated by royalty. The Queen is the single-best argument for keeping the monarchy alive. I love the fabulous hats she wears, and I can't wait for the next royal wedding. I have a crush on Prince Harry.
6.5 Crypto-Monarchist: I am uncomfortable to admit as much, but I am a monarchist. I have serious misgivings about dumping the monarchy, but because there is something inherently silly in defending the fantasy of being ruled by kings and queens, I either remain quiet or meekly conform with republican assumptions. Sorry, but I have a day job and must maintain appearances.
7.0 Traditionalist: The monarchy is part of our tradition and I strongly support keeping it, much as I would an old vintage wine. If we were a republic, then I would probably support that, but we have never been a republic. Every nation and every people must subscribe to a history which collectively defines its substance. We stand at the end of a proud tradition, stretching back into the mists of time. You could no more remove the monarchy from Britain than you could remove winter from Canada. Blessed are those societies whose institutions endure long enough to become "anachronistic."
7.5 Constitutionalist: We are the proud legal heirs to centuries of peaceful constitutional evolution. I declare my allegiance to custom, convention and continuity, even in reform, and joyfully receive the rights of free Englishmen guaranteed us by Her Majesty our Queen, under Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement. I affirm that the civil and religious rights guaranteed by them lie at the heart of our national life. I uphold the role of the pillars of social order; that is, Her Majesty the Queen, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the other agents of the civil government in its proper, limited sphere. I further affirm that the great duty of a nation is to preserve its unique identity as defined by its culture, its traditions, and its heritage.
8.0 Fervent Loyalist: In an era of self-involved celebrities spewing mind-numbing moral relativism, the Queen is a true icon – one who hails from a time before radical individualism took over as the guiding principle of our age. Stoic, tactful, duty-bound and utterly self-contained, she is the human embodiment of an absolutist ideal. In a world without manners, the monarchy represents style, grace, virtue, honourable tradition and loyalty to noble values. God Save the Queen!
8.5 Devout Anglophile: I'm a Churchillian, a supporter of the British Commonwealth and a loyal subject of Her Majesty. I believe sincerely that the binding, defining and inspiring power of the monarchy is indissolubly linked with the pomp and ceremony of the institutions of Great Britain, its Crown, and their associated grandeur. If these British Royal associations are removed or alienated, our institutions will cease to have the same fundamental meaning, merit, prestige, gravitas and intrinsic power. The British Monarchy is the link between the Motherland and her many outposts, independent, yet always united, in culture, law, language, sport and love of our collective Queen.
9.0 High Church Tory: I am the archetypal aristocratic conservative with the manners and style of a true gentleman. As a classically-educated believer in high culture, I am suspicious and cool towards democracy and have an entrenched dislike of contemporary popular culture. My whole ethos can be summed up with the phrase God, King and Country. Although fiercely loyal to Her Majesty who is a Christian Prince, I strongly sympathize with Jacobitism and divine monarchist ideals. The monarchy is more than an ancient glory, it is a sacred trust.
9.5 Staunch Jacobite: The House of Windsor are German usurpers and not the rightful kings of Britain. The Revolution of 1688 was not glorious, it was a Whig heresy, an Orange conspiracy and a Dutch invasion of Britain with the consent of a treacherous, anti-Catholic Parliament. By deposing the legitimate hereditary sovereign through a coup d'etat and unlawfully circumscribing the monarch's power, Parliament has steadily increased its influence at the expense of the Crown and the natural equilibrium between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy has been irretrievably lost. Thanks to mass democracy, we now live in a collective dictatorship. Long live the memory of Bonnie Prince Charlie!
10. Royal Absolutist: I believe in divine right and the natural power of kings. The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad - based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will. They will be spoken of with becoming reverence, instead of being in public estimation fitting butts for all foul tongues. It becomes a sacrilege to violate their persons, and every indignity offered to them in word or act, becomes an indignity offered to God Himself.
If you will permit a Southern American to join the discussion, I would modify the Constitutionalist selection as follows:
ReplyDelete7.5 Constitutionalist: We are the proud legal heirs to centuries of peaceful constitutional evolution. I declare my allegiance to custom, convention and continuity, even in reform, and joyfully receive the rights of free men guaranteed us by the Founding Fathers, under Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I affirm that the civil and religious rights guaranteed by them lie at the heart of our national life. I uphold the role of the pillars of social order; that is, the Police, the Armed Forces, and the other agents of the civil government in its proper, limited sphere. I further affirm that the great duty of a nation is to preserve its unique identity as defined by its culture, its traditions, and its heritage.
I certainly do not know what the answer is, but the lack of a "monarchy role" here has lead to the near-total loss of national identity. A nation is defined by much more than borders and legal documents. It is defined by its people and their culture and their traditions. Without someone in a position to maintain the cultural identity, it is left in the hands of politicians who act on their own short-term political motivations.
Those of us who consider ourselves Southerners first - and then Americans - have watched as our culture and traditions are vilified and then crushed on the altar of "political correctness". From my point of view, the primary role of a monarch would be to defend and preserve the uniqueness of the culture and traditions of the land. There needs to be someone in a position of authority whose motivation is to be remembered as one who carried on the traditions of his ancestors and then passed them on to his descendants. That is a role that no elected or appointed official can fill.
Stephen Clay McGehee
Confederate Colonel
So I would be 7.0, 7.5, 8.5 with elements of 8.0 and 9.0.
ReplyDeleteIf I may, i'd suggest turn 9.5 to 10. They basically the same thing, I think.
ReplyDeleteI have a natural affinity with the Jacobites (i'm a portuguese catholic and monarchist) and i dislike the way Britain disrespected the Anglo-Portuguese alliance during the XIXth century by supporting liberal politicians against traditionalists and intervening in portuguese internal affairs.
Though i believe i am an anglophile, i'd put my score in 9.7
I don't mind Jacobites, as long as they are of the champagne variety. To be a full blooded 9.5 though, you would have to be literally dedicated to the removal of Her Majesty. To be a High Church Tory you would have to wear tweed on a daily basis and be a fastidious churchgoer of High Anglican or recusant Catholic tradition. I'm spiritually there, just not literally.
ReplyDeleteProbably a 7.75ish, admiring the Queen for practical value but steadfastly loyal and certainly wont to end things with an uplifting cry of "God Save the Queen!" where I can. Saying that, though I am of an Irish, rather than English recusant, Catholic origin, I do also have some sympathy for 9.0, since "God, King and Country" is quite dear to my heart, though I have no tweed
ReplyDeleteAnyone know where to buy tweed in Toronto? I mean on a budget...
ReplyDeleteMPR,
I'm guessing you're not a fan of Lord Palmerston then...
I don't think it was exactly disrespectful, it was what would today would be called nation building. The one moment of genuine disrespect was the "Rose Coloured Map" (Mapa cor-de-rosa) incident, which even for an anglophile like me grates like hell.
I wonder what The Globe and Mail's score is...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/the-queen-of-canadas-clear-leadership/article1635141/
I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that championing the "cause" of "King Francis II" in 2010 is somehow "more monarchist" than fiercely defending that of Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs, but with the scale as it is, I'm pretty close to 9.0 except perhaps without some of the "manners and style" envisioned. I am, at least, a weekly Anglican churchgoer.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post.
ReplyDeleteNot that anyone likely cares, but it does seem like I am another who is a bit of a mix. For example, I don't know if it would be proper to try and campaign for the US to become a monarchy (though Mr McGehee does have a point, however I am not convinced a monarchy itself would solve it considering how ravished British and Canadian culture has become.)
Mostly, however, 8.5 would seem to be the most appropriate, for myself, yet there was a couple elements of 9.0 that suit me as well (namely "an entrenched dislike of contemporary popular culture" and the bit about God, King and Country.)
What this really needs is one of those multiple choice questionnaires where once could answer the questions individually; nevertheless, it was most enjoyable reading through the different categories and trying to place oneself, and many thanks to the author for doing it up.
I'm a little bit mixed as well. I'd have to put myself politically at around 9.5 (though, as most Jacobites today would accept, changing the present dynasty isn't going to happen. The House of Windsor is so entrenched that the Jacobites have long ago renounced their claims to the British Crown), though I'll admit partiality to the best of modern culture (though much of it is indeed rubbish). While I dress as well as I can, being Australian, I can't exactly wear three-piece suits all the time (money is a minor factor in that as well /understatement).
ReplyDeleteStill, I'm practicing my wit and snark, and being Australian, I'm probably doing OK right now anyway.
So yes, 9.5, but prepared to compromise when it comes to the best.
Put me down for an 8., with elements of 7, 9 and even 10. To me many of these positions interlock--I am a constitutional loyalist, but also a Tory.
ReplyDeleteHm, say 8.5 leaning towards 9 when I can get the clothes.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to give myself an 8.25 - somewhere between 8 and 8.5.
ReplyDeleteI give myself an extra .25 as a bonus because in a weird way I identify with some of the flummery on a personal/family level - I'm a Debrett's collat. Class-wise I connect with the tradition of it all - my clubs, the relatives with gongs, the naval officer grandfathers etc. Nothing big but they do contribute to being favourably predisposed to it all (and motivated to defend it).
I'd never be 9 though - ultimately I am a monarchist because it is the best friend of modern democracy, which although flawed, I prefer to the alternatives. My severe political hackery and Irish-Australian Catholicism mitigate against an Anglican perspective too.
I would consider myself, as a Canadian, to be a 7.5, but this particular scale can just as easily be boiled down to five points:
ReplyDelete1. Classic Republican: I'm ashamed of my country's history merely because we were not brought into existence via a revolution of some kind. Election, whether it is direct or indirect is the only acceptable way in which human society can be organised. After all, the will of the people is always infallible. The monarchy is inherently contrary to these principles and therefore I believe we must become a republic.
2. Pure-Canada Republican: I'm proud to be Canadian, eh? I have an emotional attachment to the current Canadian flag and I consider anyone born offshore, like the Queen, to be a foreigner. Being Canadian is all about celebrating our own, homegrown symbols like ice hockey, the land, and the flag. Because it was pioneered overseas, the monarchy is not Canadian enough and I would rather see a beaver on the front of our coins, not the Queen.
3. Moderate: I'm indifferent about the matter and would probably not vote in a referendum should one be held about the monarchy. The Queen's nothing more than a figurehead and Canada has many other things to worry about.
4. Modern Monarchist: I support the Crown as an institution because I believe that human society is accurately reflected through heredity, meritocracy, and election. By virture of being a nonpartisan monarch, the Queen provides leadership in Canada beyond the often divisive politics inherent in a federated state. Ditto for her federal and provincial representatives. The people have the right to determine what sort of constitutional model they want, but change should come about only when it is absolutely necessary.
5. British Empire Monarchist: I stay up late because the sun never sets on the British Empire. The Union Jack should replace the Maple Leaf flag as our national emblem and Land of Hope & Glory should replace O Canada as our national anthem. Rideau Hall should be occupied exclusively by British Lords. I support the monarchy because our national identitdy is wholly dependent upon our disintigrating Britishness.
www.monarchist.org.uk
ReplyDeleteWonderful to read the comments and links.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that much of the media is at 4.5 (excepting Australia which has a large contingent at 2.0) and that much of the electorate is at 5.5 (including Australia). It is therefore a dead issue.
By the way, Lewis Holden of the NZ Republican Movement is at 3.5 Do you disagree, Lewis?
I think I'm somewhere between 7.5 and 8.5, with some aspects of 7.0 and a bit of 9.0.
ReplyDelete10.0. I have the French Absolutist in me.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire. The vast lot of you are crypto-monarchists who wish not to reveal your true identities. There is a lot of crypto in this blog.
ReplyDeleteVast lot of us? I only counted two people who chose to be Anonymous...
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point in revealing my true identity anyway? I'm afraid of being assassinated!
I am a 9.5/10 and an American monarchist; I am also a career military officer who knows what it means to serve, even (or especially) when one disagrees. (By the way, I concur with LAW Wells that a Jacobite need not advocate the overthrow of the Windsors; such nonsense as that would only enable those who wish to do away with what's left of monarchy entirely). I am most definitely not one of those "Monarchy is good...for those who still have it" types.
ReplyDeleteMr. McGehee brings up an excellent point: we traditionalists in America--the true conservatives, not the neo-con, Jacobin ideologues who would set the world afire to make it democratic--have no political allies of any substance in this country. The Supreme Court is determined to re-engineer our society; Congress is an auction-house for special interests; and the Presidency has all the power of a Bonaparte without his flair. A government constantly re-inventing itself, a country in a permanent election campaign cycle, two parties with a death-grip on discourse, each competing to be the party of "change" (whatever that means): little surprise that our traditional liberties are under permament assault. Traditionalists have no section of the government, much less a monarch, to put any kind of brake on this process or to remind us that history did not begin in 1787 (or 1789).
To those who wistfully bemoan the lack of prospects for monarchy in the U.S. (not to mention its atrophy in nominal monarchies): take heart. There is a noticeable convergence between a growing resistance to the encroaching powers of government and a desire to re-connect with our rightful heritage, rather than the infinitely tolerant, culturally hollow tapioca we've been served for so long. Eventually American traditionalists will wonder why our rights have been under attack almost since the founding of our country, and they will begin to suspect that the proper head for the limited government our Constitution actually provides for would be someone who isn't beholden to an interest group or enslaved to an ideology. The important thing for us, I believe, is that the monarchs of Europe hold on long enough, so that Americans have some choice other than mob democracy or Bonapartism. If a scion of a European house were invited to head our government, but with the sharply limited powers which our Constitution originally invested that office, our politicians would be denied the highest office in the land and have to content themselves with governorships, and we might address the challenges of the modern world with some kind of stability and deliberation, heirs of the past rather than legislators of the future. Such a development would surely have a salutary effect on the prospects of monarchy in Europe, even in those countries that injudiciously removed their monarchs.
To those who hear of monarchy in America and laugh: there is nothing I could say to convince you otherwise, but those who hold my position are the true optimists, unwilling to surrender to the ideologies of the day and embrace the steady decline of tradition and liberty in our country. Periods of darkness have come and gone in the history of Western civilization; let the naysayers prophesy doom; the rest of us will defend the precious threads connecting us to our past, diligently guarding in monastic seclusion the heritage that will once again explode upon the historical stage in intellectual and spiritual splendor.
I believe I'm somewhere around 9.0, gentlemen.
ReplyDelete10 Because people never treat borrowed stuff as well as their own stuff. What insanity took hold of people to think a president will take care of a country better than a monarch? It is like the idea that it is better to worship a flag instead of paying reverence and respect to your sovereign. The Monarch has a heart, not so with a flag.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem I am a 3.5. Monarchy is based on a belief that these rulers are somehow better than everyone else and that their offspring deserve the same. Anyone who believes this is a fool..
ReplyDeleteCertainly a staunch Jacobite should rate a higher value someone who is pro-Windsor. The belief that the Monarch can be decided from a junior branch of the Royal Family by Parliament runs contrary to the whole idea of Monarchy in the first place!
ReplyDeleteThe acceptance of the Monarchy is that the Head of the Senior legitimate branch is the Rightful Monarch, regardless of who or what He or She may be.
Stating that "I am pro-Monarchy, but..." is not to be a Monarchist at all. And to be a Monarchist, one must support the Rightful Monarch by Law of Birthright and Senior Inheritance, whether one follows said Majesty's Religion or Dress Sense or Eating Habits.
9.5 or Republican!
ReplyDeleteWe must either have an absolutist educated monarchy constrained by the Declaration of Arbroath or a set of Republics: however what we have to live with a sort of
milksop monarchy which is the logical end of Whiggism.
Richmond Mathewson
I'm mostly 3.5, but with perhaps some 2 and 5.5 thrown in. I'm an American, but if the Queen was still my queen, I'd have to investigate issues like how having/not having a monarchy would affect taxes before forming a definitive opinion. The monarchy seems largely harmless aside from a possible impact on taxes, the royals seem to be involved in a lot of charity work, and I like the idea of having a (ceremonial) head of state who isn't involved with politics. So if there isn't any issue with taxes, I don't see what the harm in having a monarchy is, as long as it is a democratic, constitutional monarchy.
ReplyDeleteI'm an American who has recently come to the realization that I am a 9.5 Staunch Jacobite. I consider the "Founding Fathers" to be liberals and "freedom of religion" a joke. The only thing they got right was the Second Amendment. But they failed to connect the dots are realize it was Catholics who had been disarmed...
ReplyDeletedo you want to study in abroad today or in the next intake.overseas education consultants in hyderabad we are the best and top rated study abroad consultancies in india with good visa assurance.we help you in filing the f1 visa for you in very less time. we are also help you with information needed to apply for the college university.
ReplyDeleteIt is a well-known fact that Illuminati consist of Multi Millionaires,
ReplyDeleteBillionaires who have major influence regarding most global affairs,
including the planning of a New World Order. Many world leaders,
Presidents, Prime Ministers, royalty and senior executives of major Fortune
500 companies are members of Illuminati. join a secret cabal of mysterious
forces and become rich with boundless measures of wealth in your company or
any given business, the great Illuminati can make everything possible just
contact : illuminati666official@gmail.com or WhatsApp +1(863)693-9739 EL
IAI LEXION Thaddeus Iam Vice-President of Citizen Outreach THE ILLUMINATI
ORGANIZATION
Do not hesitate to contact us by WhatsApp.
Whatsapp: +1(863)693-9739
Email : illuminati666official@gmail.com
BEWARE OF SCAMMERS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS REGISTRATION FEE AND YOU MUST
BE ABOVE THE AGE OF 18YRS.
THANKS