Thronum Dei

Daniel Radcliffe, the Harry Potter star, has recently made insulting comments against the royal family to the Daily Beastie online. He was quoted in saying, "I am not a royalist. Not at all... I just don’t see the use of the monarchy - though I’m (a) fierce patriot. I’m proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolises a lot of what was wrong with the country. Not that they’re doing anything wrong - but that symbol of class division is not something I particularly like - and I am a very upper-middle-class kid."

With over $50 Million coming in from his Harry Potter career alone, one wonders exactly where Radcliffe draws the line between upper middle class and upper class, because if I were asked, I was draw the line probably before $1 million. According to World Entertainment News, "he recognises he is above working class, he is adamant the royals should not be put on a pedestal."

It would seem to me that Radcliffe seems to only be after attention for himself. Perhaps he sees the royal family as a threat to his own arrogance. For me, this is the last of it. I have lost all respect for Radcliffe. He has developed into a disgusting, arrogant attention-seeking celebrity, just like most all celebrities do. Looking back and watching the innocent-looking child-star of twelve years in the first Harry Potter movie develope into what he has today is depressing. I pity his parents.

Besides performing naked on Broadway it seems that Radcliffe has made political commentary one of his personal hobbies. While I was researching for this article, I found three articles on Radcliffe in Yahoo news. One was, of course, the article I was searching for, about Radcliffe's anti-monarchist sentiments, but earlier articles included title "Harry Potter's Presidential Offer" and "Daniel Radcliffe's Audience Moan". Both articles involved Radcliffe either complaining or seeking attention in his little political hobby. I will include links to all these articles below.

I for one am disgusted that Radcliffe has the presumption that anyone cares about his political viewpoints simply because of his celebrity, but I am even further disgusted that people actually do. Celebrities should stick to their own department: entertainment. If people want political commentary, watch C-SPAN or read a newspaper. Listen to someone who knows what they are talking about, not some uneducated actor with a big-mouth and an appetite for attention. I am reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis:

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers.
These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the
polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more
beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach
it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes
or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual
nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble
poison.

Radcliffe Blasts Royal Family
Harry Potter's Presidential Offer
Daniel Radcliffe's Audience Moan

Below is an interesting peice of monarchist literature which I have acquired from its author. I myself regret that I can not take credit for the masterfully written manifesto and thus I must give create to its true author, a staunch monarchist, Caleb T. Thomas.

THE MONARCHIST MANIFESTO

MMVIII

by Caleb T. Thomas

Preamble
Aristotle said over three hundred years before Christ, "Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all." Why then have monarchies been abolished? Why are monarchies still being abolished today? The answer is not one that is clear, but it can be broken down into basic concepts:

I. The common man has tasted power for himself and will take it and withhold it from those fit to rule and keep it for himself in order to attain his own means at the cost of society.

II. The world has fallen victim to the evil forces of rebellion, communism, anarchism, and liberalism.

III. The educated have been taught by democratic governments that monarchy is a poor philosophy and that monarchies ought to be abolished.

It is in this time of desperation that the philosophy of monarchy and the political beliefs of monarchists should be compiled into a single manifesto to guide monarchist philosophy and unify monarchists.

Definition
Monarchy is not a black-and-white philosophy, nor is it easy to define. The dictionary definition of a monarchy is "government by a monarch." A 1914 edition of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines monarchy as "the government which is ruled (really or theoretically) by one man, who is wholly set apart from all other members of the state (called his subjects)."

Most monarchists will disagree on exact aspects of the ideal or perfect monarchy because monarchism can be such a vague school of thought. However, monarchists can usually be divided into two categories: Absolutists and Constitutionalists. One might say that absolutists are the only true monarchists, as constitutionalists advocate only a monarch with very little or no political power while absolutists are in favour of a monarch with real political power who actually rules over his people. This manifesto will focus primarily on true, or absolute monarchy, mentioning constitutionalism only briefly.

Constitutionalism
A constitutional monarch is subject to a constitution, which limits his power often to the point of reducing him to a mere figurehead. The constitutional monarch serves as a symbol of the nation, while political decisions are made by elected officials in his name. Supporters of constitutional monarchy support the tradition of monarchy, but retain political interest in democracy.

Absolutism
Absolute monarchs wield true political power. He is the autocrat; the sole ruler of his people. While there may be some laws in place to prevent tyranny and to guide the monarch, there is no constitution and no legal document or law that is above his will or word. Historic examples of this form of government include France under Louis XIV and Tsarist Russia.

Benefits of Monarchy
Monarchy has stood the test of time. It is one of the oldest and longest lasting forms of government in existence. It has worked for thousands of years all over the world. Why then has monarchy begun to decline in modern times? Many liberal "modernisers" claim that monarchy is outdated, corrupt, expensive, and undemocratic. These things can all be easily disproved if we only look at the whole picture.

To start with, monarchy is certainly not outdated. Many perfectly modern countries such as Denmark, Great Britain, Spain, and Canada have all embraced monarchy. The monarchy has changed and adapted to the times over the years and still serves an important role to this day.
In 2007, the Kingdom of Denmark, according to Transparency International, was the least corrupt government in the world with a corruption index of 9.4. Compare that to the United States, considered the ‘pargon’ of democracy, which was only the twentieth least corrupt government with an index of 7.2. In fact, of the top ten least corrupt governments in the world, 60% were monarchies while the most corrupt government, Somalia, is a republic.

Many will declare that monarchy is an unnecessary expense. However in 2003 Queen Elizabeth II’s funds totalled only £36.2 million, a 59% reduction since 1991-1992. It is estimated that the British monarchy costs taxpayers only 61 pence per person. However in 2000, the Queen gave the entire private profit of the Crown Estate, £132.9 million, to the Exchequer for the benefit of tax payers. This far exceeds the total cost of monarchy.

Monarchy is considered an excellent complement to democracy and in some cases can be far more democratic than a republic. A monarch works for the benefit of all the people, having no political alliances, partisan, or loyalty to a certain sect. A monarch is completely impartial and can focus on the benefit of the nation, rather than being reelected.

A monarch is a constant, lasting symbol of a nation that patriotism and unity can rally behind. A monarch is not only a symbol of a nation within it’s own boarders, but is a recognisable personification of the nation around the world.

A monarch is an impartial arbiter. Having no allegiance to political factions and divides, a monarch can act on behalf of his people as a whole, not on behalf of politicians, self-gain, or parties or interest groups. People of all ends of the political spectrum can unite behind a monarch while an elected head of state would only divide them.

Monarchy is a very stable government while republic is not. John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Quincy Adams said "Of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short lived." A monarch reigns sometimes for decades. An elected head of state serves only a short term. The constant change of leaders in republican governments leaves too much instability; too many vulnerabilities. In a monarchy, heads of state change far less often, providing far more stability than ever possible in republican governments.

A monarch makes a good role-model. When one’s leader is well-mannered, well-educated, and well-bred, as a monarch is, one is presented with someone to mimic and look up to. C.S. Lewis once said, "Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."

Divine Right of Kings
One important pillar of monarchism is the doctrine of the divine right of kings. In brief, it states that Kings are appointed by God and thus derive their power from him. Because of the divine nature of their appointment, they owe loyalty to none but God, and they must rule by His word.
Ancient Catholic philosophy regards a monarch as God’s viceregent on earth and subject to no inferior power. In the New Testament of the Bible, St. Peter commanded all Christians to honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17). Jesus Christ himself proclaims in the gospel of Matthew that one should "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s," or in other words, to offer obedience to God’s divinely appointed rulers on earth (Matthew 22:21).

In Eastern religions, the divine right of kings is represented by the traditional Chinese doctrine called the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven states that heaven would bless the authority of a noble ruler. The Mandate was first used to legitimize the rule of kings during the Zhou Dynasty and later Chinese dynasties.

In the coronation ceremony of British monarchs, the monarch is anointed with holy oils and ordained as God-given monarch. This is further evidence of the divine appointment of kings.
In 1793, the Association Papers in London wrote, "They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?"
Neomartyr Vladimir, the Metropolitan Bishop of Kiev in 1918, who was tortured and killed by the Bolsheviks, once said, "A priest who is not a monarchist is not worthy to stand at the altar table. The priest who is a republican is always a man of poor faith. God himself anoints the monarch to be head of the kingdom, while the president is elected by the pride of the people. The king stays in power by implementing God’s commandments, while the president does so by pleasing those who rule. The king brings his faithful subjects to God, while the president takes them away from God."

Rebuttal of Republicanism
Winston Churchill, arguably one of the greatest Prime Ministers Britain has ever seen, once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
In 2007, according to Transparency International, 80% of the top ten most corrupt governments in the world were republics.
Doctor Samuel Johnson wrote, "In republics there is not a respect for authority, but a fear of power."

In a republic, the leader is elected only by those who vote for him, thus he owes his loyalty only to those who vote for him. He is partisan and supports only a portion of the population. He is corrupt, accepting money from businesses, interest groups, politicians, etc. to fund his campaign and becomes bound to their will by debt.

The cost of a republic is no less than that of a monarchy. It is quite likely, in fact, that republics cost more. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy estimate that the total cost of abolishing their monarchy and establishing a republic would be around $2.5 billion. In a republic, politicians must have their salaries paid, and previous presidents and their families would continue to receive payment from the state.

Republics are unstable. The constant change in leaders leaves far too many opportunities for revolt, corruption, or usurpation. During the periods in which the president is being changed the nation is left without a leader. This happens far more often in a republic where leaders hold such short terms.

In a republic, leaders often have little experience. In a monarchy, the leader is raised to rule from birth and has been bred for the purpose. Many will say that monarchy supports an unfair class system, but republic does the same, though more discreetly. It would be nearly impossible for a common man to be elected to head a nation. He would not have the funds to run a good campaign. Look at the Democratic Republic of the United States. It can easily be noted that most presidents come from families with means and very few come from humble origins. Republic is not always based on merit. If it was, then the republics of the world would not be in the trouble they are in today. A republic is a system of government in which the people are lied to by their fellow nationals for the sake of power.

Look to history as an example of the horrors of republicanism. For example, the French revolution. Never was there a more violent period in the history of France than the usurpation of the French monarchy and the establishment of a republic. Hundreds were murders and religion was declared an enemy of the state. Another example is the Russian revolution. Though Communism is not considered a republican government, it is still a government by the people. In the Russian revolution, thousands of innocents were violently murdered. Take the children of the Tsar for example. They were shot, though the daughters did not die straight away because their gem-encrusted corsets hindered the impact of the bullets. The executioners stabbed them to death with bayonets to hurry the process along. Their bodies were burned with acid and thrown down a mine shaft. All this to innocent children. The church in revolutionary Russia, as in revolutionary France, was persecuted as were its innocent adherents. In a letter to The Independent in 1998, Oleg Gordievsky wrote:

Russia under Nicholas II, with all the survivals of feudalism, had opposition political parties, independent trade unions and newspapers, a rather radical parliament and a modern legal system. Its agriculture was on the level of the USA, with industry rapidly approaching the West European level. In the USSR there was total tyranny, no political liberties and practically no human rights. Its economy was not viable; agriculture was destroyed. The terror against the population reached a scope unprecedented in history. No wonder many Russians look back at Tsarist Russia as a paradise lost.

Winston Churchill was of the opinion that World War II may have never come about if the monarchies of Europe had remained intact. He said in 1946, "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler. A democratic basis of society might have been preserved by a crowned Weimar in contact with the victorious Allies."
In 1945 he wrote:

This war would never have come unless, under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on to the vacant thrones. No doubt these views are very unfashionable....

Imperial Rights
A King, in accordance with the divine right of kings, is inferior to no one but God and must obey and heed no one but God. A king has the birth right to rule and the responsibility to upkeep the nation based on the needs of the people and the word of God and morality. There are certain powers, rights, and abilities that, in an ideal situation, a monarch should undoubtedly possess.
With the exception of theocratic monarchies, such as the papacy, in which celibacy is a requirement, a monarch should have the right to produce legitimate offspring and pass on his crown to his heir upon his death or abdication.

The sovereign should have the right to abdicate from the throne and pass his crown to his heir. He should have the right to abdicate in the name of his heir also, but only if the heir is not of legal age to choose himself.

The king should also have amongst his arsenal of royal prerogatives the right to appoint and dismiss ministers, including his Prime Minister if such a position must exist. He should have the right to dissolve parliament and call elections if elections are to be permitted at all. He should have the right to grant Clemency, to award honours, to declare war, and to mint coinage. He should have the right to declare a state of emergency, grant charters of incorporation, issue and revoke passports, expel foreign nationals, create common law courts, and found new universities. He should have the right to publish statutes, legislative instruments, and Orders-in-Council. He should have the right to exercise jurisdiction over Royal foundations of any kind and to appoint a number of Royal Commissions and Officers for various purposes.

The King must be permitted Sovereign Immunity and all legal cases of public importance must be tried in his name. It must also be the right of the king to negotiate treaties and accredit diplomats. He may also order a subject not to leave the realm.

Most importantly, a king must have, without question, the right to approve all legislature with his own signature. He must have the right to veto any legislature by withholding his signature. He must also have the right to overturn any decision made by one of his own courts.

Imperial Duties
A monarch’s duties as set down by King James I of England and VI of Scotland in the Trew Law of Free Monarchies is as such:

And therefore in the Coronation of our owne Kings, as well as of euery Christian Monarche, they giue their Oath, first to maintaine the Religion presently professed within their countrie, according to their lawes, whereby it is established, and to punish all those that should presse to alter, or disturbe the profession thereof; And next to maintaine all the lowable and good Lawes made by their predecessours: to see them put in execution, and the breakers and violaters thereof, to be punished, according to the tenour of the same: And lastly, to maintaine the whole countrey, and euery state therein, in all their ancient Priuiledges and Liberties, as well against all forreine enemies, as among themselues: And shortly to procure the weale and flourishing of his people, not onely in maintaining and putting to execution the olde lowable lawes of the countrey, and by establishing of new (as necessitie and euill maners will require) but by all other meanes possible to fore-see and preuent all dangers, that are likely to fall vpon them, and to maintaine concord, wealth, and ciuilitie among them, as a louing Father, and careful watchman, caring for them more then for himselfe, knowing himselfe to be ordained for them, and they not for him; and therefore countable to that great God, who placed him as his lieutenant ouer them, vpon the perill of his soule to procure the weale of both soules and bodies, as farre as in him lieth, of all them that are committed to his charge. And this oath in the Coronation is the clearest, ciuill, and fundamentall Law, whereby the Kings office is properly defined.

The King must be firstly and foremostly responsible to God, his divine ordainer. He must rule in accordance with the will of God. Elizabeth I of England said in her address to her last parliament in 1601:

To be a King, and wear a Crown, is a thing more glorious to them that see it, than it is pleasant to them that bear it: for my self, I never was so much inticed with the glorious name of a King, or the royal authority of a Queen, as delighted that God hath made me His Instrument to maintain His Truth and Glory, and to defend this kingdom from dishonour, damage, tyranny, and oppression. But should I ascribe any of these things unto my self, or my sexly weakness, I were not worthy to live, and of all most unworthy of the mercies I have received at God’s hands, but to God only and wholly all is given and ascribed.

A king must also, if it is in accordance with God’s will, be loyal to his people and be aware and informed of their needs and desires. He must put his people before himself and strive towards their benefit and not his own.

The King must be non-partisan. He must be above politics and unbiased. He can be on God’s side only. He must not vote in any elections of any kind. His political government is beneath him and he must not lower himself to the level of argumentative politicians.

He must guard his people against the malicious politicians. He must hinder the passage of laws that would bring woe to his people. He must not allow his elected government to take advantage of their power or to take advantage of his subjects.

He must open parliament, providing there should be such a body as a parliament. He must dissolve parliament when necessary. He must call elections and appoint ministers. He must form a government, mint coinage, head the military, create courts, and other things which are expected of kings depending upon the customs of the region in question.

The Monarchist Imperative
If monarchy is going to continue in our world today, it is imperative that we monarchists unite. We must take action! We must stop existing monarchies from being abolished! We must help historic monarchies to be reestablished! We must promote new monarchies! Nothing will change without a united front of monarchists.

It is absolutely necessary for more pro-monarchy media to be published and every monarchist must do his or her part. Whether it be an article in a newspaper or magazine, a book or documentary, or even a letter to the editor of a local newspaper, anyone who calls himself a monarchist must educated the world. We must teach the political philosophies of our ancestors to the new generation that has not had the opportunity to learn them. We must combat the anti-monarchy media and do all in our power to promote monarchy to the people of the world.
We must defend the remaining ancient dynasties of the world that are holding on today. Even at the risk of our own lives we must stop the kingdoms, empires, duchies, and tsardoms of this earth from being overthrown against the will of God. We must vote pro-monarchy in referendums and any election where it is an option. Use the republican concepts to defeat republicanism: vote for the monarchy!

We must strive to help restore old, abolished monarchies. Monarchy has a tendency to reestablish itself even centuries after it has been abolished. It is never too late to undo what has been done. As long as there is one overturned monarchy it must be our charge to restore it at any means necessary.

We must establish new monarchies in the place of other less desirable governments by any means. Whether it be through political movements, propagating in favour of monarchy, refuting republicanism, educating on the benefits of monarchic government, etc., action must be taken. We must stand up to argument, rejection, and prejudice in the name of our divine Creator, the King of Kings, for the global establishment and preservation of monarchic governments.
Remember the words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."