Looking At Monarchy | Charles A. Coloumbe

I am very honoured to have been invited to become Senior Researcher for Monarchy & Institutions at the Orthodox Conservatives group. It is perhaps, at first glance, an odd

position for a Catholic “natural-born American citizen” to accept. But in truth, both my religion and my nationality have allowed me an appreciation of Monarchy –

certainly of Christian Monarchy – in the abstract, which I might have lacked had I been born elsewhere. My father being of French-Canadian and Scots descent, I received

from him a love of the Bourbons and Stuarts (would that he had been alive when we discovered him to be a direct descendant of a veteran of Culloden) and a deep

appreciation of the Quebec Act. From my mother I inherited an abiding affection for the Habsburgs and the Romanovs.

Beyond that, of course, the issues surrounding the American Revolution – in truth, our first Civil War – have always fascinated me. The Loyalists, both in their arguments

for the Crown, and in their deeds, tell us a lot about that conflict, as does the stripping away of two centuries of propaganda on both sides of the Water about King George

III. Of course, the Revolution caused the formation of four countries: the United States, of course, but also Anglo-Canada, the Bahamas, and Sierra Leone. Moreover, it had

as much of an effect on British governance as on American. Eric Nelson pithily comments in The Royalist Revolution that after the smoke of the War and the writing of the

U.S. Constitution was accomplished, “on one side of the Atlantic, there was a Monarchy without a King, and on the other, a King without a Monarchy.” In a real sense, the

1775-1783 struggle was as important a part of the gradual diminution of the Monarchy as 1688, 1642, and Henry VIII’s unwitting foundation of the Oligarchy that would by

degrees absorb the power – although not the authority – of his successors.

It was also from that time that the bifurcation of British governance at every level really began: Monarch versus Prime Minister; House of Lords versus House of Commons;

Lord Lieutenant versus County Council Chairman; High Sheriff versus Chief Constable; and Mayor/Provost versus chairman of the City or Borough Council. This did not

happen in the United States; and so it is, in ways ranging from our retention of Grand Juries to the Sheriffs’ posses renowned in Western lore, American government in

various of our States and their counties there are quite a few parts of medieval English governmental institutions that have long since lapsed or been abolished in the Mother

Country. In those of our States that retain it, the ability of higher courts to intervene in the affairs of lower ones is still called “King’s Bench Jurisdiction.” But in, with, and

under these seemingly antiquarian things (and a delusive belief in the idea – shared with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realm - that the elected politicians

really represent the “people”) is mingled a suspicion of government, that is expressed in what we are please to call “checks and balances.”

Of course, this notion too was imported from Britain. At the time of our Revolution, the shires had a great deal of practical autonomy, while the towns and boroughs under

their various medieval or Restoration charters were run by local oligarchies jealous of their liberties and powers. While membership in such was denied the vast majority of

those living in such places, it did show that the measures affecting life in the immediate area were made by men who were more or less accessible. Since the 1830s, various

local government acts passed by the British Parliament have opened up both the franchise and membership in local offices to practically everyone – while, however, also

depriving local authorities of meaningful power, and devolving it upon Whitehall and/or Westminster. This was brought home to me last year in Cambridge, while visiting a

Godson who is a doctoral candidate there. A strike was to be called that would essentially shut down both town and university over the following four days. Asked what the

mayor, council, and police might think about it, my Godson shrugged and said, “it doesn’t matter – the local MP is on board with it.” If the last two years have taught us

nothing, it is that modern governance can indeed do what it pleases, in Britain and the Crown Realms as everywhere else – only a few places retain any sort of effective check

upon it. Which brings us back to the role of Monarchy to-day.

Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary famously replied to Theodore Roosevelt, when that retired president asked him what he thought his role as a modern Monarch

was, “Protecting my people from their politicians.” To my way of thinking, that is precisely right. The political class certainly perform a task of which most of us are

incapable. But by nature, they are responsible to some degree only to those who voted for them, and absolutely to those who support them financially. Once upon a time,

their attention span went only as far as the next election; now it appears to be the next press conference. Giving them absolute power is a dangerous proposition.

Historical experience would seem to bear this out. Whenever a Constitutional Monarch has come into conflict with his government in the past two centuries, he has

inevitably been in the right over the particular issue – this has also been true in the British Empire and Commonwealth when Viceregal figures have clashed with “their”

governments. Subsequently, politicians, academia, and media have attempted to obscure this salient fact by attacking the Sovereign’s move as an “undemocratic” action. But

whether it was Gustav V of Sweden answering his peasants’ request for assurance that someone would look into the sitting cabinet’s incompetence in defence matters or

Victor Emmanuel III of Italy sacking Mussolini, the pattern remains the same.

One sees echoes of this dynamic in the furor over the then-Prince of Wales famous “black spider memos,” wherein His Royal Highness comes as out as a concerned and

intelligent seeker after public welfare dealing with uncaring or incompetent politicians or civil servants. Although, as the new King has said, his new role will require a very

different approach to things, Jonathan Dimbleby, his authorised biographer predicted that he would “go well beyond what any previous constitutional monarch has ever

essayed”. Future events shall show whether or not that is true; but in this writer’s opinion, if His Majesty does, he shall no doubt deserve the support of his subjects who – as

a rule – have no champion in their dealings with their elected rulers.

But in any case, it is with these understandings that I come to this position. The Monarchy is the only basis of good governance of the King’s Realms and Territories. Despite

the republican sentiments of many in the political class, review online of scores of accession proclamations, from London to Ottawa, to Canberra, to Wellington, and back

shows that local politicians of most stripes have chosen to wrap themselves in the guise of loyal subjects of His Majesty. It is essential that they be forced to continue that

way, for the people’s good.