Thronum Dei

Closed

2010-03-01T22:57:00.002Z

Dear Readers, I thank you for reading and for you months of support, but the time has come for me to retire. I have closed Thronum Dei officially, but all our articles will be preserved at Swell & Dandy, which I encourage you all to follow. Cheers.

Queen Escaped Assassination?

2009-01-28T19:16:00.002Z

Photo: Sky News

According to former detective superintendent, Cliff McHardy, an attempt was made on the lives of Queen Elizabeth II and her husband, Prince Philip, on 29 April 1970. Allegedly, plotters attempted to derail her train in the mountain of Australia almost 40 years ago.

McHardy, now 81, told Australian commercial radio on Wednesday, "They put a log on the line, about six or seven feet long. The royal train hit it and dragged it about 150 metres up towards the Bowenfels railway station... but fortunately it didn't derail. According to the experts, if he (the driver) had been doing maximum speed he would have derailed."

McHardy insisted that it had to have been deliberate, "because it was pitch dark and the pilot train went through only an hour before" and there was nothing on the tracks.

Radcliffe Attacks Monarchy

2009-01-28T18:43:00.002Z

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

The Monarchist Manifesto

2009-01-16T20:42:00.004Z

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."

Election Judge

2009-01-16T20:26:00.002Z

In November of last year I served as an Election Judge in the American Presidential Elections. I was stationed in a very small precinct in a town of about two hundred people. The precinct was slightly larger, covering the entire township not just the village.

Despite the unimpressive size of the precinct, the republic did not cease to amaze me. If I even had any doubts about my opinions of republic before, this experience certainly cleared that up. Yes, republics are just as terrible as I could have imagined. All the judges in my precinct followed the regulations to the letter and acted with perfect integrity, for which I commend them. It was the voters, the people responsible for electing the leader of a 'world power' who surprised me.

Many of the voters who came in to cast their ballots, frankly, are not the sort of people who should be left in charge of such an important decision. Many of the voters found filling in the simple bubbles on the ballot to be quite a challenge. One voter had to be stopped from punching holes through his ballot with a pencil. Very few of the voters actually read the instructions and one voter wrote in a candidate who had not been in the running for president for months. I was particularly discussed when a voter came in which eyes glazed over and slurring in speech, obviously under the influence of an illegal substance. Yet all of these people cast their vote for president.

This experience has only further proved to me that the people can not be allowed to choose their leader. They do not know who or what they want. Several people scarcely know who is running and have to be prompted before voting. There are, of course, the occasional intellectuals who actually follow politics with zeal and could easily vote competently. But these people are an exception to the rule. They are a minority and minorities do not win elections. The principle of the republic is that the majority rules. But is the majority fit to rule?

Absence

2009-01-16T20:23:00.002Z

I wish to apologise to my readers for my absence of late. I have been terribly busy and thus have had little time to blog. I assure you I am still here, battling in favour of monarchy as passionately as ever, online and off.

Queen visits Google

2008-10-17T22:58:00.002+01:00

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip visited the Google headquarters yesterday and were honoured with a royal 'google doodle' featuring a likeness of Her Majesty and a crown. Her Majesty, who likes to keep up with technology, is herself a regular internet user as is the Duke of Edinburgh. They both use e-mail and they recently opened a youtube channel called the Royal Channel.

The royal couple was shown a popular youtube video featuring a laughing baby boy, much to the delight and amusment of Her Majesty who broke into giggles. Her Majesty also met with twelve young school children who had all won contests to design google doodles as well as several youtube users who have risen to fame from their videos.

Her Majesty and Prince Philip received a warm welcome from google employees who seemed excited to have such distinguished guests. Some even greeted the royals with a sign from a window which read, "Hello Ma'am". She was greeted with thunderous applause serval times throughout the visit.

See the Laughing Baby:

Royal Visit Footage:

Visit the Royal Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalChannel?ob=1

Repeal the Ban

2008-09-20T19:03:00.002+01:00

In 2004, the British parliament passed the Hunting Act. This law bans hunting with dogs, particularly fox hunting. Fox hunting has been a Britisih tradition, especially among the aristocracy, for centuries. This age-old tradition has now been brought to an end by the liberals of society. This should not be allowed. There are plenty of foxes around. Their numbers are stable and fox hunting helps to regulate the fox population.

Fox hunting is something that is a symbol of Britain. England is starting to look more and more like America all the time. Many may not realise the problem with this, but trust me, it's there. The political correctness and lack of pride in our own nation is allowing for other, far less desirable cultures to creep in upon us. This law is an act by our own government to deteriorate our culture.

Personally, I believe the ban on fox hunting to be an abomination and a blatant attack against the gentleman and against Britishness. I encourage anyone and everyone to complain to local politicians about this. I might go so far as to say that I wouldn't be detered by this foolish ban, and it looks like I'm not the only one, because hunt membership is on the rise and fox hunting has increased since the ban has passed.

If you are interested in fighting the ban, I would suggest the Fight The Ban website.

Prince William to Become Rescue Pilot

2008-09-17T13:43:00.005+01:00

Photo: AFP

Prince William announced yesterday that he will train full time with the RAF to become a rescue pilot for the RAF's Search and Rescue Force. He will begin an 18-month course in January of next year.

"The time I spent with the RAF earlier this year made me realise how much I love flying," he said in a statement. "Joining Search and Rescue is a perfect opportunity for me to serve in the Forces operationally, while contributing to a vital part of the country's Emergency Services."

Imagine being stranded in a flood only to have none other than Prince William come to your rescue. What an experience that would be! This reminds me of when the Queen drove an ambulance in WWII.

On another note, I would like to thank The American Monarchist blog for the welcome they posted for me on Sunday. Much appreciated. And I've only been blogging a few days!

Happy Birthday, Prince Harry!

2008-09-14T20:38:00.003+01:00

Prince Harry will celebrate his 24th birthday tomorrow. He is reportedly in Canada, so it doesn't look like he will be home to celebrate with his family, friends, or girlfriend, Chelsy Davy.

Hawaii Restores Monarchy?

2008-09-14T20:30:00.002+01:00

Last month a group of Hawaiian natives "officially reinstated" the Hawaiian monarchy after a "brief occupation" of the Iolani Royal Palace in Honolulu. The takeover lasted about two hours as the monarchists barred the palace to tourists, declaring King Akahi Nui the King of Hawaii. "Public information bulletins" were distributed which read "His Majesty Akahi Nui, The King of Hawaii, has now reoccupied the throne of Hawaii. The Kingdom of Hawaii is now re-enacted."
The group claimed that King Akahi Nui had been crowned in 1998, which could not be denied. Protests began with the Executive Director of the Friends of The Iolani Palace, Kippen de Alba Chu, announcing "They have got a King and the King wants to sit on His throne." The takeover ended after two hours when State Police entered the palace and reopened it to the public. Officials say that twenty-two monarchists had been arrested and fourteen had been charger with "trespassing" in the Royal Palace.

What a pity they didn't succeed. It might be nice to see Hawaii as an independent monarchy. They'd probably be better off than under their current republic.

Head of the Georgian Royal Household Addresses Georgian People

2008-09-13T18:01:00.003+01:00

HRH David Bagration meets with His Holiness, Patriarch Illia of Georgia

Prince David of Georgia, the current claimant to the abolished Georgian throne, published an address to the people of Georgia regarding the current situation with Russia. On 14th August 2008 he said,

"We share the deep grief of the Georgian nation and families of those that
suffered loss of innocent lives of their close people, the grief impacted to
Georgia by Russian hostile troops. History has put on trial the Georgians
courage and firmness that will once again show the universe the strength and
unity of the small nation. Russian aggression must not be passed with impunity
from the international institutions, in order to make it see that old times have
past. We pray for the souls of victims of the war and state we are ready to
serve for our motherland Georgia."

Queen Sent 12 Barrels of Beer by Mistake

2008-09-13T17:18:00.002+01:00

Image: AFP

Her Majesty was mistakenly sent 2000 pints of beer intended for the England v. Croatia World Cup Qualifying Match. Royal staff at Windsor Castle were utterly bewildered when the delivery truck showed up with 12 barrels of lager. Upon investigation it was determined that the beer was destined for the Windsor Castle Pub five miles away in Maidenhead.

The Manager of the pub, Misko Coric, said, "We have received mail for the royal household here before but I think this is the first time they have received anything meant for us."

Georgia May Restore Monarchy

2008-09-13T16:33:00.004+01:00

The recent war between Georgia and Russia has helped to fuel a heated political debate that has been discussed in Georgia over the past eighteen years. The worn-torn Georgian government is now considering re-establishing its ancient monarchy under the House of Bagration in hopes that it will improve moral and assert its sovereignty and unify its people under one national identity.
The House of Bagration was over one thousand years old when it was removed by force from the throne of Georgia in 1801 by Russia. The Georgian people never wanted their monarchy abolished, nor did they wish to be annexed by Russia.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia declared independence and since 1991 the issue of restoring the monarchy has been passionately debated. In 1991, the Georgian government showed their seriousness on the matter by recognizing Prince George Bagration-Moukhranski as head of the royal dynasty.

The Georgian parliament has begun serious debates on the matter. Most factions are in favor of the restoration; all but the party which is currently in power under the Georgian president. However, they have lost most backing due to the war and opposition parties have adopted slogans like "Georgia without a President."

President Mikhail Saakashvili has lost much support and people are beginning to turn to the Georgian Orthodox Church in their time of need. The head of the church, Patriarch Illia II, called for the restoration of the monarchy as the "desirable dream of the Georgian people."
The recognized head of the dynasty, King George XIV died earlier this year but if the monarchy is restored, his son, Prince Davit will be called to the throne.

For More Information: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/08/20/demoralised_georgia_may_renew_itself_by_restoring_its_monarchy

Intentions

2008-09-13T02:28:00.003+01:00

As a staunch, life-long absolute monarchist, I have taken it upon myself to publish monarchist beliefs and philosophies in the form of this blog. Until recently I thought that there were very few monarchists in the world. It has, however, been brought to my attention that I am not alone in the world. Unfortunately, monarchists are not united. They do not work together to promote their cause as must be done if we honestly intend to restore, develope, and maintain new and old monarchies in the world.

We can not let the flame die out. We, as monarchists, must pull together. We must speak our minds. We must educate those who do not know the benefits of monarchy. We must spread the word if monarchy is to survive and revitalise.

This blog will be my media, my printing press. Through it I will publish my thoughts and beliefs on monarchy which I hope are shared by other monarchists and may soon be adopted by potential monarchists. It is my hope that the monarchists of the world will stop passively watching monarchies being abolished and will united together to take action.