The Strength of the Monarchy is Faith

Belief, Conviction, it has many names, but I shall call it Faith for the purposes of this article. The point I intend to make is that faith is the strength of Monarchy and a Monarch's subjects, and the lack of faith in... anything really, the country least of all, is what leads to the sorry state of affairs in republics such as the troubled US of A.

A Monarch is a representation, a symbol, of the Nation, much like a flag. Except far superior to a mere flag, which is a point that has already been made in previous articles here at the Monarchist. In the ideal monarchy, the citizens of the nation have faith in their Monarch, and vice versa. Since the Monarch is a representation of the country, faith in him or her becomes patriotic fervour. Patriotism lends strength to the country. Let us examine, for example, how the patriotism of Britain in the first half of the 20th century allowed that great kingdom to weather the strains of two world wars successfully. One may consider the Soviet Union of those times to also be a monarchy, albeit a non-lineal, autocratic, communist, absolute monarchy, not at all the constitutional monarchy that we at the Monarchist support. Still, the faith that the people had in their ruler became patriotism, which led the Soviet Union to victory on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. An earlier British example would be the patriotism of British citizens during the Seven Years War and Napoleonic Wars, a patriotic fire which became turned the Royal Navy and British Army of those times into an indomitable fighting force. Patriotism is a strong force indeed, a force to be reckoned with, and when it comes to inspiring patriotism, none do it better than a monarch, and none have done it better than a British monarch. In the golden age of Britain's empire, the Victorian era, when a soldier was to be sent to the Sudan or any other unattractive colonial posts, he would not ask himself "What does that stretch of desert have to do with Britain?", he would ask himself "What does that stretch of desert have to do with Her Majesty the Queen?". Many decades later, in the dark days of the First World War, it was King, God and Empire that motivated the British and Commonwealth soldiers on the front.

Now, i'm not suggesting that blind and dogmatic nationalism should be the dominant emotion of every loyal subject of Her Majesty. The right to question your government is a hallmark of a developed, free society. However, the distinction must be made between Government and State. In the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth countries who base their government upon the Westminster system, Her Majesty is Head of State, and a Prime Minister is Head of Government. Case in point: Her Majesty Elizabeth II and the Right Honourable Gordon Brown. All British citizens have the right to question the government of Mr. Brown if they see fit. However, despite being able to question government, all British citizens (certain odious republicans, europhiles and immigrant radicals notwithstanding) love and revere Her Majesty the Queen. Because the Queen is the living symbol of the United Kingdom, she inspires patriotism in her subjects, strengthening the country as a whole. And with the position of Head of Government seperate from Head of State, British citizens may still question their elected officials, elect new officials, etcetera, etcetera. But not out of personal dislike or selfish concerns, as you see in some modern republics where politicians strive for the female vote, the youth vote, the ethnic vote, etcetera. In a Commonwealth Realm, at least as I have experienced it, one votes out of love for the country, out of believing truly that this will be the best thing for the country, not because the politician supports legislature that is best for you. In an ideal world, what is best for the country is best for the Queen, and vice versa, and people would vote as such. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world and thus we get odious republicans like Mr. Dennis Skinner elected to Parliament.

Now what happens when the Head of Government and Head of State are combined into one office, as in America? Well, sometimes things work out for the better. Oftentimes, you get figures like George W. Bush, who has made the Presidency an object of ridicule for the eight years of his term. Perhaps Mr. Obama will restore some reverence to the office, that remains to be seen. But I digress, when the Head of State is an object of ridicule, the country itself is an object of ridicule. Patriotism declines, and the strength of the country's people declines with it. People are the lifeblood of nations, and patriotism is the immune system which protects the blood from malicious outer forces. When there is no faith in the Head of State, the country is as a person who has lost his immune system to disease. Weak, fragile, sickly. And the lack of faith in the country spreads to other things. People start to think things like "Well if we can't believe in our country, what can we believe in?". Some become bitter cynics, others turn to cults, many fill the void with pop culture and celebrity worship. It ends up weakening the country as a whole. Even on their worst days, people still have faith and reverence in Her Majesty and the Royal Family, and thus in their country, and that is why Britain has, historically, been one of the strongest and most resilient of countries. Britain did not succumb to the republicanism of the 19th century, the nationalist seperatism of the Teens, the communism of the Twenties, the fascism of the Thirties and Forties, and none of the world wars that happened in that span. Why? Because faith in the monarchy was the strength of the Empire, and is the strength of the Commonwealth. As long as that is maintained, the Commonwealth will endure.

God Save the Queen and the Maple Leaf Forever!
-Gladstone