Liberalism, The Monarchy: Reaction to Sunshine Mary

Hey guys, I’m writing a proper introduction post, but for now, this will do.

This is a direct reaction to Sunshine Mary and the Dragon’s post:

This line in particular: “When liberalism and monarchy try to coexist in the same country, liberalism appears to triumph.”

I think she misses out on why the Monarchy eventually turns to liberalism. There is no longer any need for a martial, conservative monarchy. Rather, monarchs became soft and consumed by the desires of their ‘under class’ nobility. In the Low Countries, this nobility is the liberally educated, loud mouthed do-gooders and ‘scientific’ minds.

The reason why Elizabethan England, France and other such powers delved liberal or conservative is according to their power base. During the Protestant Reformation and subsequent wars in France, the King often tried to play the Huguenots and Catholics equally to maintain a balance. Once the Catholics successfully pulled off the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and drove out the Huguenots, the King became wholeheartedly Catholic- politically. He no longer had the power to be his own power or have his own opinions.

What does this small example mean? That the monarch changes according to the most powerful of his nobility. If his nobility depends on martial prowess, then a man like King Henry VII of England is the perfect master of the under-classes. He put in rules to limit their power, so that the king was the most powerful man in England. He was also a fine general, keen money manager and made alliances well. This happened over generations, until the last ‘over-mighty’ citizen during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, could only supply about five hundred troops from his fortress. No one seriously expected him to do it, but it was that he could.

In our times, the Monarchs have become soft and over-educated. In this generation, they are as likely to create art as to patronize it. My own English aunt has, due to her excellence in geriatric care, been to parties thrown by Prime Ministers and even the Queen, once. Of course, there is nothing wrong with geriatric care, but what about liberal arts studies? Would a liberally educated monarch surrounded by liberals give one hoot about something so little as the killing of children? No. Not if it’s wrapped up in such a sexy package as ‘human dignity’. The papers may love it and the conservatives can eat it.

Conservatives do well in democracies like America (though, not right now) because there is no particular nobility. We have our Bushes, Kennedies and so on, but I wouldn’t do anything for a guy based on their name. But if Prince Harry shows up and asks to borrow my car and he is who he says he is, I would be willing to do it on name alone. Heck, I’d offer to drive him. Because he’s genuine, blooded royalty.  Do I agree with what he says or does or his political policies? No, not all of them, anyway. But that shouldn’t matter.

But to a liberal it does matter. Say the kings and dukes of the various nations deny the law. The liberals will ravage them. Call them moral cowards and so on, so forth. Cry, scream, gnash their teeth, never to speak nicely to them again. But there’s something else were not talking about. Belgium ran the most blood thirsty, evil and cruel colony during the colonial period.

To summarize: King Leopold II acquired the colony more or less by whining about it to the other European powers. They gave him the Congo, which he then ruthlessly exploited. Some estimates state that as many as 1 in 5 or 10-20 million Congolese died to produce the rubber Leopold wanted. He became wealthy on their blood. part of the reason that places like India or South Africa are doing better (in that they have a government at all) are because England attempted to create a solid European modeled base for its trade desires. Belgium stripped the land of its resources and slaughtered their people.

Of course, the modern monarch may not be so obviously evil. But the bloodline shows a strong streak to rationalized cruelty. Are they any different? I’d say no. These things run in blood as much they do in morals. They’ll sign off on it and the children will not be safe. But of course, they will be civilized.

How long until a parent has the right to end the child’s life at any time? Not long at all.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s