By Randall Dicks, Governor
The Constantian Society is a monarchist organization with educational
goals and purposes, which include: to give unity to monarchists,
particularly in the Americas, enabling them to meet and contact other
monarchists; to promulgate information about and foster interest in
monarchy, monarchies, and royalty; to generally educate the public on
these subjects; to advance the political theory, history, and philosophy
of monarchy, to further theories of modern monarchy, and to promote and
defend the theory of monarchy as a superior governmental form; to cause
to be written, published, and distributed accounts, records,
information, and news of monarchy and royalty; to counter criticism of
monarchy in the media or from whatever source; and to work for
restorations.
The Society's membership is widely varied, from students to dentists to
housewives to professors to diplomats. A journal, The Constantian, is
published quarterly, and all members are invited to contribute to it;
other activities include sponsorship of lectures and exhibits, book
sales, and distribution of materials to schools and libraries. The
Society also makes charitable contributions as its resources allow.
The Society was founded in 1970, and takes its name from the Latin
constantia, stability -- one of the advantages of monarchy, and an
increasingly rare quality in modern times. Monarchy offers stability.
The monarch is always there, a permanent symbol of the state and man's relationship to it. The modern monarch is often above the fray of partisan politics, an advocate for his nation's principles, if not its specific governmental policies. Today, a monarch may reign but not rule. Nevertheless, there is a benefit in hisbeing therewhenever he may be needed.
A modern prince consort once said, "The only interest of monarchy is to
serve." This says a great deal about monarchy as a form of government and as a way of life. The interest of monarchy is to serve -- to serve the country, the people - -not to be served. Monarchy is not a self-serving form of government, and no monarch has need to resort to Watergate tactics.
The Constantian Society does not support monarchy solely because of
tradition, or pomp and circumstance; the outer trappings of monarchy are
not monarchy. Nor do we insist that a conjunctive hereditary nobility
is a sine qua non. (It is not meant to deny the value of tradition,
trappings, or nobility, for all of these have great worth; but their
places under a monarchical regime must be understood in its proper
framework.) The necessity for flexibility, on the other hand, is fully
realized. King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has adopted as his motto, "For
Sweden - With the Times". The Crown Prince of Ethiopia, whose country
had 225 monarchs before the monarchy was toppled by a Marxist
revolution, says "[The monarchy] is a symbol of unity in a divided
land. Both in Africa and Ethiopia, the monarchy is seen as a
stabilizing and unifying force. Like all institutions of government,
the monarchy has to have the capacity to evolve, it must be able to
respond to change." Too often monarchism is confused with legitimism; a
distinction must be made between belief in monarchy and belief in
restoration or the cult of personality. We firmly believe in the
monarchical system for the good of the people, and do not merely hold
the idee fixe of absolute partisanship for a particular dynasty or
person. Rather, we believe monarchy to be the best form of government
for all of the governed. Objectivity, honesty, and sincerity are best
assured by monarchy. Autocracy is not essential, and monarchy by no
means precludes democracy, in practice. The different types of
monarchy are many, and there are more non-democratic republics today
than non-democratic monarchies.
Monarchy is too often confused with its outer trappings. Archduke
Otto of Austria points out that crowns, palaces, and titles are but
incidentals, external signs which are not the basis of monarchist
political thought, "any more than the top-hats of presidents of
republics form the essence of the republican ideal." Such externals
should not be confused with the basic values of the doctrine, yet many
people confuse these adornments, or certain decadent individuals or
periods, with the political reality; "we must think of the monarchist
idea as what it really is: a political doctrine, as the idea of mixed
government, as the guarantee of continuity, as the assurance of a State
above parties."
There is indeed a difference between those who believe in monarchy and
those who believe in restoration. A return to the past is a difficult
feat, and an uncompromising "all or nothing" attitude, requiring the
reinstatement of a particular individual in an outdated framework, may be unreasonable and unrealistic. Many people, monarchists and non-monarchists, confuse belief in monarchy with belief in legitimism --
belief in monarchy as a form of government with loyalty to a particular
dynasty. If monarchists wish monarchy to survive in worthwhile forms,
it must be admitted that the institution is ultimately of greater
importance than its representative. We do not wish to gainsay the worth
and significance of loyalty, but rather we suggest that the various
values within the monarchical system be kept in perspective: it is all
too easy for over-zealous attachment (or opposition) to an individual
to cause one to lose sight of the system as a whole. The Constantian Society
supports the present heads of exiled or non-reigning Houses as de jure
sovereigns, this recognition being co-existent with the realization that
the institution is, in the end, more important than a particular
claimant.
Monarchy provides the stability which is essential to the solution of
major problems. In a republic, whoever is in office must achieve a
positive success in the shortest possible time, for otherwise he will
not be re-elected. This urgent need, the constant spectre of
re-election, leads to short-term policies which cannot cope with
problems of worldwide scope. A king faces no elections, and is able to
make long-term plans and policies, for the duration of his reign, which
is his lifetime, and for the hereditary succession. A monarch, too,
through the vestiges of that misunderstood Divine Right and because of
his symbolic paternal role, faces a higher responsibility than a
professional politician; Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia told the
Society in an interview, "The duty of a king or of a prince worthy of
the name consists of remaining true, under all circumstances, to the
noblest and most legitimate ideals of the nation to which he belongs."
The justification of the hereditary succession is not only in the
professional upbringing of the future king, not only in the continuity
of a line, although these are important factors, but in the fact that an
hereditary ruler does not owe his position to any particular social or
interest group, but rather to divine will alone. This is the meaning of
"by the Grace of God" - the ruler is not an exceptional person, but
rather a person with an exceptional burden, extraordinary obligations, a
great task. The formula "by the Grace of God" is a constant reminder to
the sovereign that an accident of birth, and not his own merits, was
responsible for his position, and he "must prove his fitness by
ceaseless efforts in the cause of justice," as Archduke Otto says.
John Adams, one of the redoubtable Founding Fathers of the American
republic, said that "Mankind have not yet discovered any remedy against
irresistible corruption in elections to offices of great power and
profit but making them hereditary."
A king is much freer than a president, in that he is not tied to any
party, as a republican leader invariably is. The king does not owe his
position to a body of voters or to the support of powerful groups; the
office of a royal ruler is based on higher law, his power derives from a
transcendental source, whereas a president is always under someone's
very earthly debt. It is probably impossible to become the president of
a republic without immense financial and organizational support of
certain groups, and a president bears too heavy an obligation to those
who really put him in office. A president is not truly president of
all the people, regardless of what the electorate may think, for he is
president first of all the groups which enabled him to attain office.
There is a very real and constant danger that a republic will cease to
safeguard the interests and rights of all citizens when the highest
positions become the privileged domains of the groups which placed a
president in office.
The greatest danger of the monarchical system is that an incompetent
might succeed to the throne. This danger, however, is not restricted to
monarchies, for incompetents and worse (consider Warren Harding, Adolf
Hitler, Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Muammar Qaddafi,
Saddam Hussein) have been popularly chosen or otherwise come to power in
republics. During the Middle Ages, it was always possible to replace an
unsuitable successor with a more suitable one, and the system has not
entirely disappeared: King Saud of Saudi Arabia was essentially deposed
by his family, and replaced by his eminently capable brother, Faisal.
Any decision as to the suitability and competence of a successor by
primogeniture should preferably be left to a dynastic tribunal, which
would be empowered to change the order of succession, if necessary, or
to require a regency.
King Simeon has said:
"There is no ideal political system, but in certain historic periods
one system appears to be better than others. Though forms of government
rotate in a cyclic manner, Monarchy is the one that has always lasted
longest. In our age of agitation and extremism, the image of the Ruler
as a moderator is unique. The King belongs to all his people, not to
51 percent, 78 percent, or 99 percent. He does not owe his soul or allegiance to a party, or
to a faction, but to his country. He is objective and independent, and
has no need to make political maneuvers merely for the sake of the
opinion polls! Even today, when Monarchy has so many loud and
bushy-haired detractors, it still has great appeal. A glimpse at any
magazine proves this...there is something mystic and dazzling which
cannot be equaled!...in times of professionalism and specialization, a
sovereign who has had a lifetime's training and schooling for his job,
is more qualified for it than any amateur or political conjurer, and
this is irrefutable...Monarchy, even in chaotic times, guarantees
objectivity, progress, social justice, and international respect!"
The widespread canard that monarchy is an expensive form of government
is an uninformed or deliberate misstatement of the facts. The figures (see elsewhere in this site) show that modern monarchy is, indeed, more likely to be a bargain. King
Simeon told The Constantian in an interview, "I would be very surprised
if any single European monarchy costs more to the taxpayer than any
democratic European republic... To put it quite flatly, considering
human weakness, I feel that a King's "appetite" should be logically
lesser because his family has been on the throne for generations and has
always been told that one is there to help and not to help oneself!"
A king is the living representative of a nation's history. He is not
the leader of a party, not the representative of a class; he is the
chief of a nation. The Crown is able to combine the loyalties of
parties which may disagree on all else, and be a symbol for those who
need one. Monarchy offers much to the modern age; as Prince Louis
Ferdinand of Prussia said, monarchy offers security in these very
insecure, troubled times, a feeling of connection with a long past,
giving faith in the future. Archduke Otto says that it is erroneous to
speak of any political form as belonging to past, present, or future;
certain political forms should be accepted as having permanent value.
Although their outward appearances may change, their substance will
generally remain. Monarchy is an intelligible and honest form of
government, and it is our belief that it is better suited and able to
serve the common good under present and future conditions than any other.
This entire site copyright 1997, The Constantian Society. All rights reserved.