 |
| Prince Albert was the progressive Consort of Queen Victoria |
The natural softness of the cheering of the crowd in Green Park at the Royal Wedding when the newly married Duke and Duchess of Cambridge appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in 2011 was a sensation for anyone present to hear al fresco, as opposed to hearing the cheering on television which reproduces the sound with an element of coarseness.
 |
| The newly wedded Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in April 2011 |
 |
| Hyde Park |
Arguably the best form of government conceivable to date is what can be called balanced government or a balanced constitution, but which has often slightly less elegantly been described as mixed government or a mixed constitution - the culinary feast of a mixed grill of constitutions (where democracy is the (headless) chicken, not to mention who may at times be the sacrificial lamb, minced meat, pork chops...). This is a form of government that combines elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, to prevent their respective degenerations to populism, anarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny. This is of course an idea of Plato.
Compared to tyranny or absolute monarchy a republic may seem preferable and even that is questionable but in any event a republic is inferior to Constitutional monarchy. The republican populist is more dangerous than a tyrant because the populist has technical legitimacy which the tyrant does not have and such technical legitimacy gives greater opportunities of evil.
Democratic legitimacy gives the populist free rein (as opposed to reign) and whip while the limits of the monarch's power are symbolised by the heavy Crown itself. If the monarch moves his or her head too far anyway the weight of the Crown will break the monarch's neck.
In Hegelian terms, a republic is a mere antithesis to the thesis of absolute monarchy or tyranny, while Constitutional monarchy is the superior or supreme sovereign synthesis. With the evolution of Constitutional monarchy, republicanism has become outdated and reactionary.
 |
| Ephesus |
 |
| Bridge from the Reign of King Willian IV on the old Bath Road in Longford village near Heathrow - it has been due to be flattened for an extra runaway to replace the elegant old curvy road on which genteel folk would have travelled to Bath in horse-drawn coaches once upon a time before vulgar polluting mass tourism |
The British Constitution is maybe the nearest form of government in recent times to this design and the most highly developed and progressive constitution in the world, at least until the removal of hereditary peers and when the Monarch had limited power.
 |
| Queen Victoria sculpted by her daughter Princess Louise in Kensington Gardens |
In The Prince (1532) Niccolò Machiavelli writes of the French ancien régime as a kind of mixed constitution:
Among the kingdoms in our times that are well organised and well governed is that of France: in it one finds countless good institutions... of these the foremost is the parliament and its authority... here could be no better nor more prudent an institution than this... the prince must respect the nobles but not make himself hated by the common people.
Anatole France, the French novelist and first winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, 1921, a Socialist praising Emperor Charles of Austria during the First World War by stating (Marcel Le Goff, Anatole France à La Béchellerie - Propos et souvenirs 1914-1924 (Léo Delteil, Paris, 1924), p. 166, emphasis added):
This war without end is criminal. What is abominable is that they do not want to end it. No, they do not want. Do not try to tell me that there was no way to end it. Emperor Charles offered peace; he is the only decent man to have appeared in this war, and he was not listened to. There was, through him, a chance that could have been seized... Clemenceau called the emperor a "rotten conscience," it's ignoble. Emperor Charles sincerely wanted peace, and therefore was despised by the whole world. [...] A king of France, yes a king, would have had pity on our poor, exhausted, bloodlet nation. However democracy is without a heart and without entrails. When serving the powers of money, it is pitiless and inhuman.
He also said: ''[f]or every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free.''
La République laïque, diabolique et laide! It seems that monarchy and real aristocrats may even have more in common with the left and socialists than vulgar capitalists somewhat paradoxically maybe sometimes at least while tribalists on all sides may remain blind to it.
Another winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, Sir Winston Churchill, not only said that: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried” but also that ''[i]f 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” (26th April 1946). (That did not however stop Churchill later agreeing with Stalin that the Soviet Union could have the Kingdom of Romania, ending the reign of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen there, while agreeing that the Kingdom of Greece would not be in the Communist sphere of influence - Churchill did no better than Ribbentrop and Molotov in their little secret treaty protocol of 1939).
Benjamin Franklin seems to have said that every constitution fails because of the corruption of the people. That could mean politicians corrupting voters or voters being corrupt per se or both. He certainly gave a speech refreshingly wise, candid and realistic compared to what we mostly hear – in his Final Speech in the Constitutional Convention (from the notes of James Madison – emphasis added):
Mr. President:
I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho' many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as of that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French Lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that's always in the right. Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.
The Opinions I have had of its Errors, I sacrifice to the Public Good. I have never whispered a Syllable of them abroad. Within these Walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the Objections he has had to it, and use his Influence to gain Partisan in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary Effects and great Advantages resulting naturally in our favour among foreign Nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent Unanimity. Much of the Strength and Efficiency of any Government, in procuring and securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom and Integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administered.
On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have ki to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument.
Maybe the most common form of government and society is hypocrisy - a form of short-sighted absolutism. It seems to be somewhat fashionable at present to be opposed to hereditary elements such as monarchy and hereditary peers or aristocrats. Yet arguably these hereditary elements are the best protectors and defenders of democracy precisely due to their lack of democratic legitimacy, as that very democratic legitimacy is what populists use to justify their evil deeds. (Democratic assemblies are sometimes called diets maybe because of the slimming diets they tend to impose on their voters and the rest of the common populace.) The two Ds that go close hand-in-hand are democracy and dishonesty.
Populism is a chillingly good example of the dangers of democratic legitimacy to democracy itself paradoxically. Like old wisdom says, too much of anything is unhealthy, even democracy. Democracy and republics are opium to the people.
Like populism, democratically electing judges in the US has led to very harsh judges being appointed which is certainly not in the interests of justice and indeed democracy, paradoxical as it is.
The lack of democratic legitimacy means that monarchs and aristocrats cannot afford misconduct like those with democratic legitimacy can, paradoxically making monarchs and aristocrats or hereditary peers substantially more democratic than MPs and government ministers.
Considering how flawed election results marred by populism can by and the persistent opportunism and dishonesty denying a meritocracy, in hereditary succession at least there is absolute clarity of what the succession is, amounting to a kind of transparency and fairness that more ambitious but impossible to achieve forms of succession can never achieve. Therefore hereditary succession is in fact better than democracy and meritocracy, because democracy and meritocracy can never be achieved to any significant degree due to the fundamental flawed character of human nature. Inheriting wealth is far less worse than stealing and killing to get it.
In fairness to politicians the problem is human nature but nevertheless democracy or populism seem to select the worst of people to represent the rest among whom there are many decent ordinary people who rarely end up representing their peers.
Such complexity seems to be surprisingly difficult for many people to realise and the populists do not want too many people to realise that. The dominant conformist view is in support of democracy solely, not seeing the wood from the trees. It seems to be beyond the dominant conformists to see the benefit of the mixed constitution of Plato. That many especially left-wing people tend to be anti-monarchist and republican and hostile to hereditary peers and like seems to be a form of dogmatic ideological absolutism similar to religious fundamentalism. Most constitutions seem to have as their components stupidity, ignorance and hypocrisy.
Indeed, it seems to have been left to monarchs and princes to speak the truth and highlight current issues when contemporary politicians have consistently failed to do so.
 |
| The Royal Pavilion, Brighton - enriched by its multicultural design in a location with a long tradition of open-mindedness - The Royal Pavilion itself during the First World War as a military hospital housed soldiers from the Empire of India which old empire of many centuries had made even little Britain an empire nominally for less than a century from 1876 to 1947 (71 years) |
Queen Elizabeth II in her Christmas Broadcast of 1972 said:
Britain and these other European countries see in the Community a new opportunity for the future. They believe that the things they have in common are more important than the things which divide them, and that if they work together not only they, but the whole world will benefit.
The Prince of Wales said at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 22 January 2020:
Do we want to go down in history as the people who did nothing to bring the world back from the brink in time to restore the balance when we could have done? I don’t want to. And just think for a moment – what good is all the extra wealth in the world, gained from “business as usual”, if you can do nothing with it except watch it burn in catastrophic conditions?
Prince Charles said at the World Holocaust Forum at Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, on 23 January 2020 – emphasis added:
The lessons of the Holocaust are searingly relevant to this day. Seventy-five years after the Liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, hatred and intolerance still lurk in the human heart, still tell new lies, adopt new disguises, and still seek new victims.
All too often, language is used which turns disagreement into dehumanisation. Words are used as badges of shame to mark others as enemies, to brand those who are different as somehow deviant. All too often, virtue seems to be sought through verbal violence. All too often, real violence ensues, and acts of unspeakable cruelty are still perpetrated around the world against people for reasons of their religion, their race or their beliefs.
Knowing, as we do, the darkness to which such behaviour leads, we must be vigilant in discerning these ever-changing threats; we must be fearless in confronting falsehoods and resolute in resisting words and acts of violence. And we must never rest in seeking to create mutual understanding and respect. We must tend the earth of our societies so that the seeds of division cannot take root and grow.
Even the persisting problem of human trafficking and modern-day slavery mostly ignored or even knowingly whipped up by politicians has been left to monarchs to address or even just acknowledge, as illustrated by a former sex trafficking victim’s emotional homage to King Baudouin I of Belgium at his funeral Mass in 1993. Luz Oral, a Filipino, stood in silence as a writer, Chris de Stoop, read aloud the words she had written. Both the King and Queen Fabiola had wanted her to address the funeral. This was her homage – emphasis added:
Now my friend passed away, who else can help us? I come from Manila. My family is very poor. I was promised a nice job in Europe. But Belgian men put us in a sex club. Belgian men put us in prostitution. We cried and we refused. But nobody could help us. We were forced. We were treated like slaves. When I could run away, I was arrested by police. I had many problems. Last year the King came to see us in Antwerp. We were five girls there. We cried again but it was different tears. The King was holding my arm. He listened to me. Only the King listened to us. He was shocked. There are too many victims here. From Manila. From Bangkok. From Santo Domingo. From Budapest. From eastern Europe. All looking for a better life in the West. All pushed in prostitution. The King was fighting against this sex trade. He was standing up for us. He was a real king. I called him my friend.
Slavery in Brazil was ended by the Princess Imperial in 1888 and largely for that reason the monarchy was ended by dictatorial republicans who supported slavery. Indeed, the French revolution overthrowing the ancien régime was not a popular uprising but a bourgeois coup d’état, like the republican overthrow of the ancient Roman monarchy.
Even Machiavelli said that ‘on hereditary principalities’:
Because a prince by birth has fewer reasons and less need to harm his subjects, it is natural that he should be more loved...
Of wickedness Machiavelli said that ‘by those means one can acquire power but not glory.'
The least democratic countries in the world tend to be called a “People’s Republic” or a "Democratic Republic" – seemingly reflecting what is lacking most like the 'bill of rights' that is anything but that. There is a wonderful old proverb "people talk of what is lacking" (- in Finnish, ''siitä puhe mistä puute''). Similarly populists hide their evils behind a shield of technical democracy like where 'the operation was successful but the patient died!' Better a King than a Kim!
Monarchy is such a tolerant form of government that even the opposition is called HM Opposition while in democratic people's republics the opposition is exterminated.
On the other hand, the most stable and egalitarian democracies tend to be western constitutional hereditary monarchies even if some non-Western and non-constitutional monarchies rather betray monarchy through their despotic tyranny, clearly not being mixed constitutions or balanced governments.
Therefore, monarchy is the superior first-class constitution while a republic is merely an inferior second-class constitution, lacking in one or more of the three fundamental ingredients of a balanced or mixed constitution. We have more than enough politicians in governments and parliaments, we do not need one as head of state also.
As H. L. Mencken wrote in The Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920):
As democracy is perfected, the office [of president] represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move towards a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
Also, a fundamental problem with democracy is the short terms that politicians are elected for. To preserve a society’s long-term needs, monarchy, aristocracy, and other civilised elements are needed to balance the inevitable short-term of democracy.
Indeed, democracy is a myth that hardly ever becomes reality in any substantive or significant way or is much limited. Despite all democracy’s inadequacies it is nevertheless an indispensable element of balanced government, bringing a measure of democratic accountability and moderation, but it needs to be balanced by other checks, real checks and balances rather than the bouncing cheques of populism and the poodles of the executive who in turn are poodles of roubles who in turn are poodles of unsophisticated upstarts who unlike true aristocrats destroy the world.
Civilisation was replaced by greed when the rule of the populist profitocracy commenced in the bourgeois French revolution of 1789 and has been increasingly destroying the world ever since.
The increase of republics has not promoted equality. It remains the one percent of humanity who have 99 per cent of money and power maintained by populism.
The British hereditary peers are mostly a contemporary manifestation of Plato’s aristocracy, similar to the traditional Conservative magistrates that were moderate and reasonable in their decisions. These ladies and gentlemen were not hard right wingers. Impoverished aristocrats can be particularly good in combining the best of both worlds while the opposite is also possible. Growing up often (if not of course always) with a stability of centuries of family history and good up-bringing without brutalising challenges, they tend to have a peacefulness contributing to moderation, contributing positively to society together with other elements of society, deserving their place not exclusively but along others to represent the full diversity of society.
Removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords was a reactionary and perverse move by left-wing populist oligarchs, depriving Britain of one important pillar of good government and democracy, a move from checks and balances towards cheques and balances. Such short-sighted dishonesty was betraying the country, as the real reason for their removal was of course that they effectively scrutinised by their independent thinking government bills rather than rubber stamping them like the House of Commons, rightly called the ‘poodle of the executive’ and which was therefore much less democratic in substance than the hereditary House of Lords. (None of this has stopped the little Blairite parvenu profiteer from sucking up to the hereditary monarchy when it profits him.)
Seeking to capitalise on the Millennium, in 1999 Nouveau Labour seems to have misunderstood or ignored two and a half thousands of years of political theory or merely knowingly misled for its own shortsighted material benefit and greed, leaving long-lasting damage hopefully not for as long as a millennium.
In June 1946, Italy demoted itself from an elegant Kingdom to a mere republic in a referendum of the quality of the 70-year later June 2016 British referendum with similar controversy and dividing results between parts of the country and only narrowly swinging the henchman's rope the lethal way. (Fine film maker Luchino Visconti had at this point seemingly only developed as far as antithesis in Hegelian terms (the antithesis of opposing the monarchy questionably associated with fascism Visconti himself had supported (thesis) only later becoming disillusioned with the left and maybe other politicians (synthesis of a degree, maybe never reaching the synthesis of a mixed constitution...)
Maybe Russian influence was also similar then in Italy while saving Stalinist Soviets the efforts of outright invasion needed to destroy monarchies in Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Hungary (since then former fascists and Stalinists seem to have found even more in common than in the secret protocol of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Fascism has largely seemed to have been blamed on the monarchy in the 1946 referendum while conveniently forgetting the considerable popular support for fascism in Italy. Horace's proverb was equally bizarrely misapplied - Quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi (Latin for 'whenever monarchs err, the people are punished.') To add to the ridicule, fascists are again popular in elections of the Italian republic which is not even a Serenissima Repubblica like Venice once was but rather Stalinissima Repubblica leaving the restoration of monarchy long overdue. Worse than a vote for a goat, the referendum vote was to scapegoat the monarchy for fascism.
Whatever the dogmatic ideological absolutists might say (or even think) the mere republic in Italy is not preventing neo-reproduction facism, the original fascism being purportedly the basis to demote the country from monarchy to republic, while the monarchy in Spain certainly does not seem to prevent much 'leftist' government - maybe monarchy is even perversely a vote winner for republican 'lefties', the last thing in their interest to abolish... but all that is to miss the point of more important and timeless benefits of the balanced superior Platonic constitution of true love as opposed to more base materialistic values of republican forms of government.
Geno Pampaloni stressed the handling by Giuseppe Principe di Lampedusa in The Leopard of an 'epoch of transition' during which precious things are inevitably thrown out with the old (Geno Pamploni, 'Il Gattopardo' in A. Moravia and E. Zolla, Saggi Italiani 1959 (1960), p. 134). The liberal politician and writer, Luigi Barzini, agreed, arguing that The Leopard's theme was (emphasis added, otherwise as quoted in The Last Leopard by David Gilmour, 2007, p. 206):
the inevitable decline, which cannot be halted, of the old virtues and graces that have grown useless but made life human even for the humble people; the triumph of other qualities, rougher but essential in the modern world, which do not correct the old injustices but often merely show them up, make them unbearable, and replace them with others that are sometimes crueller and worse. (Luigi Barzini From Caesar to the Mafia (1971), p. 221)
In fact, the top and bottom of society, so to speak, have more in common as opposed to the middle-class bourgeoisie than many people often appriacte. As Friherrinnan Karen von Blixen wrote:
The true aristocracy and the true proletariat of the world are both in understanding with tragedy. To them it is the fundamental principle of God, and the key – the minor key – to existence. They differ in this way from the bourgeoisie of all classes, who deny tragedy, who will not tolerate it, and to whom the word tragedy means in itself unpleasantness. Many misunderstandings between the white middle-class immigrant settlers and the Natives arise from this fact. The sulky Masai are both aristocracy and proletariat...
The middle-class middle-minded likes of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair are a world apart from true aristocracy.
The French descendant of a centuries-old Corsican noble family, son of the 5th Duke (of Two-Sicilies noblesse), Imperial Russian Count Philippe Pozzo di Borgo who survived severe paralysis followed by the death of his wife a few years later recruited to look after him the convicted Royal Moroccan immigrant Abdel as he wanted someone he knew would speak frankly. The wonderful film Intouchables (2011) was inspired by this.
Solutions
Rather than remove hereditary peers, the opposite should have been done, bring more independent thinking into Parliament, set up a system for representatives of universities, business, agriculture, and other industries, doctors, nurses, artists and other professions, civil rights organisations, religions, trade unions, immigrants, asylum-seekers, convicted criminals, prisoners, minority groups, etc to complement hereditary peers and bishops.
Convicted criminals would be particularly well placed to serve in Parliament considering how much worse crooks have already been in Parliament and government for a long time, increasing transparency as at least we would know more than now what their offences are.
The executive and the government should have no or little say in who is appointed to the House of Lords.
Precedents exist to an extent. One example of less direct popular vote was that of electing the president in some countries by members of an electoral college voted for by the people.
Better examples are the Imperial Estates of the Holy Roman Empire, and even better and more representative (if not perfect) the Diet in Sweden (until 1866) and in Finland (until 1906) with representatives of the noblesse, priests, business, and freehold farmers.
 |
| Emperor and Grand Duke Alexander II |
That is not so say of course that a directly democratic House of Commons or such assembly should be removed. Indeed, while the establishment of the democratic parliament in Finland in 1906 seems to have been to create what was lacking until then, representative democracy, the opportunity to establish a form of balanced government was lost but could of course still be taken. The Diet could be restored as an upper house of parliament and complemented by other groups to fully represent the diversity of society. A varied diet contributes to a healthy constitution.
The problem with professions is however that the most successful people in the professions tend to be the most opportunistic self promoters rewarded for the sharpness of their elbows rather than wits. Nobody is perfect and no group or class of people is perfect. That is why different groups together could balance out each other's deficiencies.
On the other hand, different political parties have caused much political instability in several countries while a system of only two dominant political parties in the UK and the US has also some serious shortcomings not least in recent times. Again a combination of the systems might be the nearest to ideal.
Hereditary peers compare rather well with others with their usually centuries stable backgrounds and little need to grab more. Inheriting wealth and position somewhat paradoxically can produce better parliamentary democrats than the upstart opportunists hungry to fill their own pockets first. Politicians have been said to usually put their own interest first, their party's interest second with the country only coming third. In fairness to politicians, most other people are little better in their priorities.
Feudalism also has ideals of trust and loyalty and other good sides which should also be seen in balance while not ignoring the shortcomings of feudalism but without absolutist dogmatism which is contrary to the Hegelian idea of thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis. The absolutists, dogmatists and ideological extremists tend to get no further than antithesis in their passionate hatred of the thesis. A balanced diverse Constitution can also include feudal elements.
Hereditary peers still should be brought back to the House of Lords as they were before with new other groups to complement them. Indeed, democracy should be extended by representation of different parts of the society, not just elected politicians, especially as they do such a rotten job mostly.
It is commendable that Commonwealth citizens in the UK can vote, as did EU nationals until recently. The age for voting should be brought as low as possible for the youngest possible people to vote. The Brexit referendum suggests that maybe an upper age limit for those eligible to vote might be highly desirable to stop senile old lunatics from destroying the future. It seems that by a certain age older voters lose their marbles and therefore might as well lose their vote.
All residents and certainly tax-payers should be allowed to vote, not mere citizens. Criminals should be able to vote (which is no worse than (un)convicted criminals running governments). However, the Lubyanka and organised crime would have hardly needed to be represented in the House of Lords, not least as they are already so amazingly well represented in UK and US politics.
Voting rights should not be limited to merely largely hereditary nationality. If one is good enough to pay tax, one should be good enough to to vote.
If the judiciary and juries should be representative of the diversity of society, so should our parliamentary assemblies. Jury service could be extended to sitting occasionally in the House of Lords or even Commons. A small number or randomly selected representatives could be occasionally elected for periods of time.
Not only should hereditary peers and other groups be restored into parliaments but monarchs should also be given power even if within limits. The monarch should have a role in maintaining the balance of the constitution and government - the sovereign defender of democracy.
Indeed, the native monarch, the last reigning Maharaja of Jaipur, Sawai Man Singh II was a ruler much loved by his people and despite inevitable shortcomings in any form of government conducted successful and good governance in his State during the British Raj, including the introduction of democratic organs of government to complement the princely form of government, a fine example of monarchy during colonialism, and the Congress Party with its extensive corruption under the post-Colonial republic was a sad and shocking decline, illustrated not least by the crumbling of the once well maintained City of Jaipur, demonstrating another lost opportunity of continuing with a Constitutional monarchy. Even Jaipur becoming a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2019 does not seem to stop the authorities of the Republic of India from further damaging and neglecting the wonderful heritage of the city.
 |
| Kensal Green Cemetery, London |
Post-Colonial India made a loss by removing their princely Maharajas and Nawabs from government. India would benefit from restoring the princes as constitutional hereditary monarchs in their historical territories with limited powers, one of whom could be the new Emperor of India, following Mughal Imperial precedent in a contemporary adaptation, should India wish to fully restore the country's dignity and many other countries could follow. Some republics could also be tolerated for variety and experiment as there is not necessarily one right answer to what exactly the most or nearest to perfect constitution should be.
Monarchy and aristocracy are part of a country's and humanity's civilisation and should be cherished and preserved along with other civilisation.
It is manifestly below the dignity of China, Iran, Russia, India, Ethiopia, Brazil, Germany, Austria, etc., etc., to be anything but empires. Indeed it would be highly preferable for the European Union to be restored to the Holy Roman Empire.
It is also high time to abolish the vulgar little white immigrant slave republic called the USA into the rightful native American hereditary monarchy and aristocracy to contain the popular assemblies.
The mere antithesis of republic is hopelessly outdated and reactionary to the progressive synthesis of the mixed constitution of Plato.
How exactly all this should be implemented should of course be carefully thought through. Democracy should be made as inclusive as possible in principle.
Finnish President J. K. Paasikivi said of his position of president of the republic, ''shit job, only two aides-de-camp and the Björneborgarnas marsch!'' ("paska ammatti, ei ole kuin kaksi adjutanttia ja Porilaisten marssi.")
 |
| King Frederick The Great of Prussia, equestrian statue of 1839 by Christian Daniel Rauch on Unter den Linden in Berlin |
Vive la monarchie! Vive la civilisation aristocratique! Jubilate!
