Sixty Joyless De-Britished Uncrowned Commonpoor Years (1949-2009)

Elizabeth II Vice-Regal Saint: Remembering Paul Comtois (1895–1966), Lt.-Governor of Québec
Britannic Inheritance: Britain's proud legacy. What legacy will America leave?
English Debate: Daniel Hannan revels in making mince meat of Gordon Brown
Crazy Canucks: British MP banned from Canada on national security grounds
Happy St. Patrick's: Will Ireland ever return to the Commonwealth?
Voyage Through the Commonwealth: World cruise around the faded bits of pink.
No Queen for the Green: The Green Party of Canada votes to dispense with monarchy.
"Sir Edward Kennedy": The Queen has awarded the senator an honorary Knighthood.
President Obama: Hates Britain, but is keen to meet the Queen?
The Princess Royal: Princess Anne "outstanding" in Australia.
H.M.S. Victory: In 1744, 1000 sailors went down with a cargo of gold.
Queen's Commonwealth: Britain is letting the Commonwealth die.
Justice Kirby: His support for monarchy almost lost him appointment to High Court
Royal Military Academy: Sandhurst abolishes the Apostles' Creed.
Air Marshal Alec Maisner, R.I.P. Half Polish, half German and 100% British.
Cherie Blair: Not a vain, self regarding, shallow thinking viper after all.
Harry Potter: Celebrated rich kid thinks the Royals should not be celebrated
The Royal Jelly: A new king has been coronated, and his subjects are in a merry mood
Victoria Cross: Australian TROOPER MARK DONALDSON awarded the VC
Godless Buses: Royal Navy veteran, Ron Heather, refuses to drive his bus
Labour's Class War: To expunge those with the slightest pretensions to gentility
100 Top English Novels of All Time: The Essential Fictional Library
BIG BEN: Celebrating 150 Years of the Clock Tower

Tuesday, 9 September 2008

Argument 2: Tradition and Continuity

Tradition is reason with a root. Our ancestors did not randomly associate in political arrangements. Our parliamentary system, our moral and legal codes are the result of thousands of years of distilled experience.

The Civil Sphere: The Crown is a living link between past and present and a symbol of the eternal. As our anchor, it is one of The Permanent Things.
Related Concepts: Tradition, History, Rootedness, Gravitas, Connection, Experience
Previous Posts: Why Monarchy? Why Tradition?; The proper role of tradition in Civil Society

vTRADITION IS REASON WITH A ROOT. "The mark of insanity", wrote Chesterton, "is reason without a root, reason in a void." Rootedness in turn is the basis for gravitas and long organic experience, our standing ground against transient ideological fashion and a present-tense culture in which individualism and relativism hold sway. To turn a phrase on Paine, the churlish and persistent calls to "grow up" and dismantle the monarchy, to wilfully abandon our heritage and the institutions built by our ancestors, to overturn decades of distilled experience as if we somehow know better than the sum of generations past, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies.

And for what? Is it really possible to suppose that whatever republican system of government might be chosen; could possibly be better for us, than what we have evolved for ourselves over the course of a thousand years? Why this feckless urge to risk it all away, to trash our ancient Crown, to turn the page and begin anew? By driving out a "foreign" Queen, we gain what exactly, a foreign presidency and a foreign system of government?

As one of our scribes wrote here some years back:

"Our ancestors did not randomly associate in political arrangements. Our parliamentary system, our moral and legal codes are the result of thousands of years of distilled experience. Our institutions are organically grown from the trials, tribulations and experiments of our ancestors. They were not imposed from above to recognise created rights, but grew from below as recognitions of rights already existing. The right of trial by jury was created because our ancestors saw that a man could not impartially judge his own cause. The Petition of Right of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 state, “Whereas experience hath shewn”, and go on to recognise the fundamental rights of British subjects, rights which form the basis of our legal system. Institutions like Parliament, the law, the freedoms of religion and so on are thus all recognised not only by law but developed by tradition, rooted firmly in the village green. It is these traditions which progressivism as a philosophy seeks to challenge, not on the grounds of reason, but of ideology. The Privy Council, for instance, is “anachronistic” in the present government’s view, not because it fails to deliver a high standard of impartial justice but because it is a symbol of our dependence on the United Kingdom, which the government rejects as “infantile”. Progressivism hates the institutions of organic tradition because, as C.S. Lewis puts it, “they give the individual a standing ground against the state.”

Progress and tradition are often seen to be opposed, but they are not. T. S. Eliot responded to the claim that “We know more than our ancestors did” with the answer “and they are that which we know.” That is, tradition is and ought to be living. Progress comes from what Eliot called “the historical sense”, an awareness that “We are not the owners of the earth, but are trustees with life-renewing lease.” Tradition thus can only be renovated when it is understood."

When we lose sight of the concept of true progress, when we try to go after an unrealisable utopian ideal, we risk a great deal. Turning ourselves into a republic would probably not be catastrophic, there is a tradition of republicanism in this world we could awkwardly graft onto our own institutions, but we would gain precisely nothing by going through with it. Republicanism, after all, is not our tradition, not our roots. When it comes to embracing our good traditions, of availing ourselves of the capital of nations and ages, it is wise to stick with what we know, with what we are. "Yes there is a justification for tradition on the grounds of tradition alone; thus it is, and ever thus it has been, and ne'er has a soul come to harm becuase of it!"

15 comments:

Adrian Kidney said...

Bravo, Mr. Beaverbrook, bravo; a most splendid article, and pleasant to read.

TS Eliot was indeed a very smart man. He rightly struck down chronological snobbery.

David Byers said...

Well at least this article makes some intelligent reasoning. Justice Michael Kirby, one of the founders of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, once said that our Constitutional Monarchy “is not something you would sit down and make up”. You need that history and evolution of institutions for it all to come together and come into being.

Communism is the complete opposite, in that it forces an artificial ideology onto people. Remember “Governments exist to serve people, people don’t exist to serve Governments!”

Kris said...

Certainly a step up from 'god was a monarchist'.

Conservative theory is grounded in the notion that institutions shape our personal identities, and that of our society. Additionally it reasons that these institutions have indeed grown organically, over hundreds of years, and been carefully adapted to the society of today. Further it can be said that regardless of how one feels about these institutions, at least we know them, and know how to use them as best as is possible. Were we to implement a superior system that no-one knew how to really use to get results, it would be of little benefit, if not even to detriment.

The case for the court dress is an interesting one. Indeed it is no longer relevant, but then, it is a harmless tradition, and it forms a part of national identity, one could reasonably argue.

However, I can offer the following in contest to this as a definitive argument for the monarchy.

"Why this feckless urge to risk it all away, to trash our ancient Crown, to turn the page and begin anew?"

This is the fallacy of non-anticipation, the erroneous assumption that everything worth doing has already been done. If you wish to argue with republicans who are claiming a republican system would be a better system, you need to meet them at that level, and demonstrate that it would not be a better system, as opposed to simply saying *no* system can possibly be better, since if it were it would already be in use.

This is repeated a couple of times in the article where assumptions are made that the current institutions are necessarily *the* best possible thanks to their lengthy existence. Sure, there's cause to defend old institutions, but not blindly and necessarily only because they are old.

Perhaps all we know are our ancestors, but they didn't know us, and there's no reason we can't do better.

Next, the court dress example is a false comparison. There, it could be fairly argued that we would get nothing out of changing the system, which would probably actually cost money. It comes down there to a question of image, which will differ depending on personal taste, who wants the UK to appear as an old and traditional nation, and who wants it to be viewed as a nation on the forefront, embracing modernity. But to extend this argument to the monarchy is invalid. You claimed we would gain precisely nothing from a republic, however this is evidently not true. I imagine very few republicans are fighting against the crown in the hopes of gaining nothing.

So what is to gain? Primarily the right to more advanced democratic society, a chance to have a say in who should represent our nation, instead of having this hefty burden unfairly forced upon children who never asked for it. A greater sense of independent control over the country that is ours, is to be gained. If you like, Liz could run for president and you could vote for her. If that's what the people want, that's what the people want, but at least it would be their choice.

Byers reminds us that governments exist to serve the people, and not the other way around, and yet is monarchy not fundamentally about the subjugation and servitude of the masses to a single unelected official.

It is unfair to the royal family to force them into their position, and it is unfair to us to have them forced upon us. And there is no serious accountability in the current system. Charles has been seen making the most incredible claims without any serious and credible research to support his reactionary and sensationalist notions that might have been plucked right out of a sci-fi novel. It has earned him the title of the 'idiot prince'. Whilst some political figures may be no better, they can at least be held to account for their vapid remarks, and speaking without first knowing what you are speaking about can for them have its consequences.

Finally, the argument here seems to be ultimately that the royal family should stay because they have always been here. Should we be rushing to bring back slavery then? Were our ancestors wrong when they gave women the vote? Should we surrender the welfare state, the NHS? Was it, in fact, a mistake to institutionalise the monarchy, way back when, in favour of the political systems of old? Perhaps parliament is in fact a mistake, and we should return to absolute monarchical rule?

The desire to reform our political system is indeed born out of ideological thinking, the ideal that all are equal and all should have the right to a say in how we are governed, and by whom. Certainly, not at all political systems attempted to realise these ideals have succeed, but to say that we will necessarily fail when we've so much to gain betrays a fundamental lack of respect for and faith in Britain and its people.

We can do better, and we deserve better. I'll grant that this is a step up from 'argument' number 1, but no, tradition for tradition's sake is not acceptable, not on its own, not when the tradition is riddled with problems, and not when there is so much to be gained. If tradition is all you care about, then rest assured that today's reforms will become tomorrow's traditions.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Sir or Madam:

Should we surrender the welfare state, the NHS?

Yes, yes, yes! Please do!

The desire to reform our political system is indeed born out of ideological thinking, the ideal that all are equal and all should have the right to a say in how we are governed, and by whom. Certainly, not at all political systems attempted to realise these ideals have succeed, but to say that we will necessarily fail when we've so much to gain betrays a fundamental lack of respect for and faith in Britain and its people.

With the mess popular government has given us, this scribe certainly does not have much faith in it. I definitely do not see it as wise to order more democracy.

A say in who governs? Look at the American Republic. There you have one in several million votes on whether it's McBama or McBama. Please give me a break!

If tradition is all you care about, then rest assured that today's reforms will become tomorrow's traditions.

Ah, yes! Woodrow Wilson broke an American tradition of non-intervention and created a tradition of running around the world "making it safe for democracy." Such progress!

The desire to create heaven on earth has led to the creation of hell on earth. To quote the late Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn:

Indeed, the old monarchies were far from being models of perfection. The ancien régime, if we look merely at its seamy side, was made up of murder, inefficiency, corruption, narrowness, immorality, procrastination, intrigue, egoism, deceit and pettiness and it had long been in need of radical reform when it disappeared. Yet it never promised a New Dawn or a Paradise on Earth and it must be conceded that it relinquished the stage of history with little opposition, almost in the expectation that the bombastically heralded New Experiments were bound to fail. And fail they did!

There are five more arguments coming up.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

BTW, this scribe does not believe everything worth doing has already been done.

I do believe that things can be done better, and real progress is possible.

The faith people generally have in their own wisdom and their own ability to outdo those who have gone before, however, outdoes reality.

Neil Welton said...

How delightful and reassuring to know that all our traditions be rooted, indeed created, via a natural, organic and slowly evolving order. Those who prefer "the natural order" as opposed to the "God given order" can surely have no complaints here, dearest Beavers. After all, if you choose "the natural order" over the "God given order", it only be right you experience a little more of "the tooth and the claw" as a consequence. Therefore, may he with the biggest army win! That is why we have a Monarchy in this Kingdom today - for the bigger army has always won, always believed, and always "loved".

For how much "joy" there be in tradition and continuity, almost as much as there be in belief and in order. For these four be linked most subtly and cleverly by the Lord (sorry, by the natural organic order). Indeed, those who try to break this root or link to our Lord (sorry, the link to our "by a fluke" humanity) will surely create only disorder and discontinuity in their wake.

For there be no tradition and continuity at all, if you change the script and thus lose the plot - overnight. For these changes advocated by republicans be like that advocated by the bull who, after entering the china shop, proceeds to wreck everything for no real reason until he be well pleased with himself and also quite self satisfied. It all be ordered how "he" likes it, as opposed to how nature, or even how man likes it. Let alone how the wider Society actually likes it if, of course, at all!

Monarchists are thus like the zoo keeper. With one clean shot of realism to the brain, this said bull be pleased and self-satisfied no more. For he be stunned, humbled and converted. He be made into a monarchist. Thus the people be kept safe from a political tyranny and its false promises - and, of course, all "the bull".

For surely there be nothing worse then tradition and continuity being trashed in a moment in order to please the whims and sudden fancies of "the passing wind". Don't the young republicans realise they be here today, but be like dust again tomorrow. For when we salute a King or a Queen, or I, as a most loyal Welsh subject, bow most meekly before my English Prince, it be just like having the opportunity to thank our forefathers (and of course the dear English) for placing us, the Welsh, in such a perverse position. For giving to us this freedom to serve, beautiful traditions and ceremonies to experience, this most wonderful democracy to participate in, the boundless justice to keep us all safe and warm and, of course, a very "real" Prince to serve, honour and to believe in. For this King or Queen be like a Flag. You honour it because of all it represents, what it has been through, what all our forefathers sacrificed and also gave up for it. Their very blood! For the very same blood they gave to us, that blood that lives in our veins today, it be already given to the Crown for its ownership - through their sacrifice. You be too late!

Thus to dishonour a King, a Queen or a Prince, by seeking their instant removal without any reference to the electorate, is thus the greatest disrespect to our most common of humanity. In many ways it is rather like poking out a tongue at a parent or a wiser elder. It be futile, it be pointless, it be disrespectful, it be rude.

Now, at this very junction, I be reminded of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech To The Commonwealth which, as a mere boy myself, I would listen to most keenly at school. I remember thinking how wonderful it was to be part of one great big Family, with The Queen as our Mother, and us - all Her obedient and "good little children" around the world. I oft thought how wonderful it was to have brothers and sisters in Canada, Australia and also The New Zealand (to name but a few). Each year without fail we would think of them and pray for them - and thank the Lord above for surely placing us into the greatest Family this world has ever known. Greater even than America, greater even than the EU, greater even than the republicans in their minority.

Little did I know in the 1980s, as I "sat in my knee high breeches, listening to Her most Glorious Speeches" that one day I would meet so many of my fellow brothers and sisters in the Crown. Indeed, even this blog be the perfect example of how the Family, the tradition and the continuity can work in action. For every day we renew our glorious commitment to this tradition just by blogging on here. Even the republicans who come here also honour our tradition. They'll realise that one day.

You see republicans, you cannot change what you do not like, especially if the people be not with you. For the people be with Monarchy (70%) - and we only need worry about converting those who be quite undecided in their minds. Thoughts of God, Queen and Country may not appeal to you, but they do appeal to those who seek order, the better, and the traditional society. All that be based around Family. Funny that, don't you think?

Now for today's reading which instructs, not only those who be our elders and betters today, but also us - those who will be the elders of tomorrow. Now, let us consider and read this text together: 1 Peter 5 (verses 1 to 11).

Kris said...

Actually, the majority of the people be (sic) not with you. Well, not necessarily. My point is that I shall not pretend to know the actual figures, but sufficed to say the 'official' figures of people being 'for' the queen, are once again, inaccurate. This is because in the latest poll to be conducted (2006 Ipsos Mori ) people were asked

"Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?"

Those who are neither monarchists nor republicans will not necessarily go for the 'Don't Know' option. What they will do in the desire to feel they are expressing an opinion is opt for what they see as the safer and easier option. i.e. if one is to ask others would they choose to become or remain, when they are ill-informed on the issue, the overwhelming majority will opt for remain, only because it seems safer, and easier. In fact, when you consider that as many as 30% didn't opt for the monarchy in spite of the leading question, the figures don't look so great for the monarchy.

Second, I nor anyone else is attempting to force a new system of government on those who do not wish it. The whole concept is about real democracy, real choice. If there are those who do not like the idea of liberty and freedom to choose then clearly more debating is in order.

Third, Baltzersen you are clearly not a welfare liberal, and we clearly differ in opinion ideologically. This is unfortunate, because England was a much darker place to live before the NHS and the welfare state. Again, this institutions surely have their problems, but they are not nearly so problematic as to make resorting to the US system of health care and welfare a desirable option. I imagine you are a person of great means, well good for you. Not everyone is. Bottom line, no, the market is not sufficient to grant everyone a good life, and yes, I believe in helping others, both to have fish to eat and to learn how to fish themselves.

Fourth, democracies get the people they deserve. I shan't for a moment pretend that democracy is not without great problems, not least of which being the people themselves and in particular our ill-education. But I would prefer to work to improve the situation of the people than sit and hope a despot will be nice to me.

Fifth, wrt Wilson, you just made my point for me i.e. that tradition for tradition's sake is not enough.

Sixth, no doubt, people have thought they could make things better and instead made things worse. This might mean you give up and lose faith in humanity, but some of us keep going to make life better. That we may encounter new problems and challenges in the future is no reason to surrender to the problems and challenges we have already in a fit of desperation.

Seventh, I've noted that most of the monarchists writing here constantly appeal to nostalgia, they make remarks as you did regarding their childhood when love of the monarchy and perhaps even the empire was still at its height. This is reassuring for two reasons. First, as Bolingbroke noted this is not any argument for the monarchy, yet it seems to reside at the real core of what you are thinking. Incidentally I would include here that Chris Frith noted not long ago that we rarely, sadly, employ reason to form our decisions. What we often do instead is make an unconscious choice, and then attempt to reason it backwards. This is interesting because second, it appears the new generation no longer has any interest in being ruled by an unrepresentative despot. Their time is limited.

Lord Best said...

I have to say, there is nothing wrong with a national heath service if it is done well, I think Australia's is rather good, speaking as someone who has had to use it.

We would do well as Monarchist to avoid the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" argument. Not because it is not true, but because it is too much like a slogan, and far too glib. We need to explain WHY our current system is the better, and emphasise the risks of the new system, if the republican demands can even be called a system.

David Byers said...

Lord Best, I half agree with you. Constitutional Monarchist in Australia should have a well explained argument as to the resons for keep the Crown, however sometimes slogas can be very helpful as they can get a complexed idea into peoples minds in a way they can understand and remember.

You need to have all bases covered at all time in this debate.

Lord Best said...

Well, yes, slogans can be useful, but the problem with 'if it aint broke dont fix it' is that it is just a slogan, not an argument, but it seems to be used as such too often.

Neil Welton said...

There be nothing wrong with the NHS. It saved my life once and, as my dear soul floated between this life and the next, it brought me back here to haunt the living. Some aspects of The Welfare State and particularly the NHS are really good - especially support for the genuinely disabled, as in the case of my late father, or our troops returning home with legs and arms missing. Many monarchists are "reasonably progressive" and want to see "the better society for all". Without throwing out the baby Prince (and all those traditions) with the bath water.

I do oft wish people who advocate 'The Monarchy' would resist the human temptation of bringing in completely unrelated political topics - like The Welfare State, the NHS, race, immigration or homosexuality. For it only helps our opponents by enabling them to paint us as "out of touch" with the "reasonably progressive" public opinions - which the public, I see, do oft support. You may think annoying our opponents be wonderful and a prize in itself - but the great British public, who believe by far in a "progressive reasonableness", merely look on and think "it is the monarchists who actually be the crackers ones". Now, this may very well be the case. However, I oft find that if ye be "crackers", it best be expressed via Westminster lobby groups, rather than be proclaimed publicly in the nearest High Street.

What! This Krust accuse the "wise and wonderful" British people of being ill-informed because they refuse to support his crackpot theories. "Surprise! Surprise!" as our dearly beloved Cilla Black once saith. For this Krust sounds like a great dictator who said - lets change the people to get the answers we want. So too, our "lovely Queen" be the one who is "the unrepresentative despot". Quite unlike the elected ones, of course. Those who are elected by around 20% of the total votes cast on a 40% turnout. Lecture me not on this great representation, when the overall public do support our beloved Sovereign by around 70%. Be gone, goofball!

Indeed, just yesterday, I spoke to this goofball producer from the BBC. Labouring under the sad delusion that people actually watch his late night talk show, he saith: "It be time to debate the role of The Prince of Wales in Wales." I thinketh to myself: "Be gone, be gone, ye with Welsh tongue. There be no debate here. Monarchy Wales celebrate, not debate." He was most put out when I revealed public support be at 70% - as it did not suit the current media and political shenanigans within Wales. When will the planks and dullards realise, ye get Queen or Prince whether ye like it or not, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS IT. There is not going to be serious debate. For the titles of The Prince of Wales and King or Queen shall continue - FOR IT BE FAIT ACCOMPLI.

This blog be well hilarious at times. It be just plain daft to suggest that I, or any serious monarchist, would appear on national television or in national newspaper print saying: "Believe in The Monarchy because God ordained it, because if ain't broke don't fix it, because it helped to give us all such a wonderful and joyous childhood, because multiculturalism is utterly evil, because the NHS is rubbish." I have never mentioned any of the above in my press releases and never will.

Regular readers of The Family Circle (otherwise known as The Monarchist, or the dear members of The British Empire) know full well that the references to my school days, The Bible, and also all this antiquity, be as "an in joke" on this blog. It merely be done to add to "the gaiety of the debate" and to "lighten the load" of an otherwise "serious indigestion". For when one be in an asylum or an menagerie, it does oft not pay to be from "the outside". For you be free to step outside into "the real world" anytime, but who in their right mind would seriously do that. For the real world be the sic(k)est.

I will admit that I became a monarchist long before I first thought about it. For when one is aged eight, one experiences, feels and senses, as opposed to having "long and convoluted intellectual chit chats" with the School Nit Nurse. One merely exists for the moment, in a sort of continuous joy and wonder, where a newborn Prince was very real to me - and those who be against his mere fragile frame, well, they be quite "evil". For sound argument and sound judgement, be sound - no matter at what age you first hear it. For the Truth is like a door bell. If it rings true, it rings - eventually.

Now, to closeth and to your blessed relief I'm sure, I've merely suggested, on this gift from the Heavens, that God, Tradition and Order gives a real happiness to those who do understand and appreciate "the great mystery that is the gift of human life and existence".

For institutions become just like magic, not because they exist, but because they be judged so by all our forebears and forefathers. One day ye shall see the magic. Until then I prayeth for your soul. May the dear Lord Christ help you to see. For it be clear I cannot.

Thus you, yes you - republican - lighten up. Before this wise and wonderful public, ruled by their "unflinching and overbearing despot" Queen, switch off because of "too much seriousness" - from you. For at this very junction, I be reminded of my psychiatrist, who once said: "It doesn't pay me to take you too seriously."

J.K. Baltzersen said...

Sir or Madam:

I imagine you are a person of great means, well good for you.

Now, why didn't I think of suggesting that you are a limousine liberal?

[D]emocracies get the people they deserve.

In democracies the people get government the majority deserve. See Mr. Harvey's brilliant post on argument number 3.

[W]rt Wilson, you just made my point for me i.e. that tradition for tradition's sake is not enough.

I pointed out to you that there are more arguments coming up. You don't seem to be getting it. Again, see Mr. Harvey's post.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

"Lord Best":

I agree largely on the use of the slogan "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

With it alone we will lose in the end, for it suggests that monarchy should stay because change is risky, not because it is superior. At least it will often be perceived that way.

Mr. Welton:

I have no doubt that the NHS has saved lives. What I do doubt though, is that the modern provider state is progress.

I do believe the modern provider state has very much to do with modern democracy, which again has to do with monarchy. I touch on that here. However, it is not a "modern" argument, so I do not wish to bring that point further here.

Neil Welton said...

"It is not a "modern" argument, so I do not wish to bring that point further here."

You miss my point. It matters little whether people's views are ancient, modern or middle-aged. It matters little whether you support the NHS or whether you don't.

I merely suggested here it was quite unnecessary for monarchists to feel that they have to laden themselves with an entire party political manifesto (or ideology), when the Monarchy be above politics, "modern democracy" and all the modern state providers.

My views on immigration, dear Baltzers, especially from your country of Norway would turn your hair bright pink. Yet, I would never suggest for a moment, that to be a true monarchist my views on immigration from Norway to the United Kingdom State must be adopted by all. Actually I'm "rather taken" by Norway. Particularly The Royal Family and The Crown Prince - who be my age.

For a manifesto debate is a party political debate - it is not a debate that needs monarchists, nor indeed, an important debate that monarchists need to have.

J.K. Baltzersen said...

You miss my point.

I don't think so.

I merely suggested here it was quite unnecessary for monarchists to feel that they have to laden themselves with an entire party political manifesto (or ideology), when the Monarchy be above politics, "modern democracy" and all the modern state providers.

I have no "litmus test" for monarchists.

I do, however, prefer a more classical monarchy than what we mostly have today. In arguing for this, the size and reach of the state is indeed relevant.

I do not demand of a monarchist that he be a minarcho-monarchist in order to be a good monarchist.

On the other hand, if one is to serve in the monarchy-philosophical tradition of Erik von Keuhnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, etc., I cannot see how one can avoid bringing in the size and reach of government.