STAR-SPANGLED CROWN - A simple guide to the American monarchy 9781944339050

Citation preview

HIARLES A. COULOMBE)

Star-Spangled Crown

Star-Spangled Crown by Charles A. Coulombe

TONBIAR, HOSE Arcadia

MMXVI

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 978-1-944339-05-0

Star-Spangled Crown Copyright © 2016 by Charles A. Coulombe Double Eagle flag illustration by Rasmus Kongshgj

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission, except in the case of

brief quotations embodied in critical reviews or articles. Visit our website at www.tumblarhouse.com

To the Memories of H.I.R.H. Archduke Otto von Habsburg Charl Van Horn, esq. Br. Leonard Mary, M.I.C.M. and Col. and Mrs. Guy J.C. Coulombe This book is respectfully and lovingly dedicated. May I be worthy of what they gave me.

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/starspangledcrow0000coul

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As with every book I have ever written, I am all too aware that this one has really been a team effort in many ways; whenever I write the acknowledgements to a book I feel a bit like Garrison Keillor giving the shout-outs on Prairie Home Companion. But it is truly the least I can do. So here goes—first, the dedicandi: The Archduke Otto von Habsburg, for providing me with counsel, advice, and a cause from the time I was in High School; Mr. Charl Van

Horn, for teaching me to write and

providing healthy diversions at New Mexico Military Institute; Br. Leonard Mary, M.I.C.M., for nearly 30 years of guidance, encouragement, and spiritual direction; and my parents—Mrs. Patricia Coulombe for her gift of life and love of wit and the arts, and Col. Guy Coulombe for almost everything of value there is in my head and heart. I also must thank my publishers, Stephen and Vincent Frankini—both for publishing this book and decades of friendship; my longtime agent, Jake Elwell, whose friendship through 15 tumultuous years (he took me on literally a month before 9/11) has been indispensable; Stephan Baron von Hoeller-Bertram, the last of the mentors of my youth—still going strong, Deo Gratias!; the Los Angeles Branch of the International Monarchist League: Anthony McAlister, Feodor Yakimoff, Francisco de la Pava, Tom Roedl, Dr. Robert Llizo, et al.; my

best

pals, Axel

Muellers,

Brian

Hansen,

Kirk

Mulhearn, Mike Dykes, and their respective wives and children; Ryan Brookhart; Tequila Mockingbird; Michael Feidt, Jr.; Bill

Shaw, Mark Montgomery, and their families, who have between them made three difficult years very much more pleasant; my brethren in the Knights of Columbus and Peter Claver; my

fellow members in the Newman Club of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Breakfast Club, and British United Services Club of Los Angeles. Lastly, but certainly not leastly, my brother Andre, Sister-in-law Joann, nieces Adeline, Fleurette, Bernadette, and Claire, niece-in-law

Claire,

nephews

Guy,

Charles,

Phillip,

Nicholas, Albert, and Joseph, great-niece Azelie, and cousin Dr.

Albert Audet. I could not do anything without all of you.

+\ bile (a«

7

ir

ae

wie 4 ite oe he

ar Tyat Ria

Od

-

i

ANS Nee er

we

Table of Contents FORIEW ORL) eee mer SE

eltistauraton ay

Peso

CEN ESRE

Manne

RU GouncingiViytiise

ete ace

ese

yak 1

eee

ee ae shh

eee

GHABTER III 2 By thie Grace ol Godan

19

shee 31

a bountoe |isuiccs meee eee 43

CAREERS

CHALUER! Ves Kings: COlours srmcrs ertrcc.eteeeeeoes 51 Cia GR CLA TA

Ce lstates oO! Lieicalliiens ices ere61

RaNbising s,Councileesensrccsccceterr 75

CEUX E Ray lil

Meters of @redence me

83

CHAPTER IX: Neither Sovereign nor Servile ......... 95

CHAPTERS

LordiMayors. Show.

te eee 107

CHAPTER XI: ‘The Republic of Learning............. Ibs CHAPTER XII: Royal Command Performance....123

Mord’of the: Sout trate:

135

CHARTER XLVosRoyalielomseholdin cet.

155

CHAPTER XIU

ARPITERW ORD ihe Empty Uhronesccs..sct-csscess0s 179

TESS ENGEDA Te POS: SUL) Lares socesen ccccecacossttecesssee43 187 PAP PIRINIDDe

ESTES TCL OG

eter

A ei

tien tenet ete ete cseacsascatesseseysec 207

peee sc crcsrrestisedesstpecsesearcscssossesnves 209

“us

FOREWORD At first glance, yet another book on the way the Monarchy works in these United States might seem redundant. Yes, there are civics textbooks aplenty explaining the mechanics of the system to school children; there have been innumerable histories covering every aspect of the Instauration', from every conceivable point-of-view. Indeed, I myself was only a schoolchild when those stirring events occurred, and so have no new personal insights to add on that score. But I have gained some renown as a generalist, and I believe that a short account of how our uniquely American Monarchy works and came to be, could be of some interest to non-scholars,

and to foreign Monarchists dealing with Restoration issues of their own. In addition, at a time when everyone seems heredity and genealogy mad, I should point out that this sort of thing is in my blood. My great-uncle was Charles A. Coulombe I, who advocated Monarchy long before it was popular; of course he played no part in the events leading up to and culminating in the Instauration, being—as he put it to me in my childhood— “too obscure, too lazy, and too old” —at the time. My uncle, Rt. Rev.

Msgr. Charles A. Coulombe II, was the author of Diary of a Barrio Priest, an essential primary source for the unrest of the early 21 century in Los Angeles. In any case, I hope to have

1 instauration - restoration after decay, lapse, or dilapidation

2

FOREWORD

written a guide to our government that both of my collateral forebears would be proud of. In the course of this book, I have attempted to give a more or less impersonal account of how our American Monarchy functions. While I hope to have shed light on the topic, I am also faced with a basic paradox. As G.K Chesterton said, “There are only two forms of government: the monarchy or personal government, and the republic or impersonal government.” To give a fully accurate account of my topic, I must explain how the Monarchy has affected me in the course of my life—a life which just predates it, and having entered its ninth decade must be coming to its end sooner rather than later. My earliest memories are of the last days of the republic—which in those memories were a golden time. I was the youngest of a large family, born to a father who likewise had many brothers and sisters—and one great-uncle. He was, of course, Charles A. Coulombe I, just as my uncle was Msgr. Charles A. Coulombe IJ. Our family had an isolated ranch out in the Antelope Valley, but my parents and I lived in town, as did most of my aunts and uncles. The “compound,” as my elders called it laughingly, was used for family holidays. Little did we know it would become key to our survival. The December

before the Instauration,

the heart of the

“Troubles,” was very bad. The economy had almost collapsed, street gangs were taking over, and crime was completely out of control. I was ten years old, and my memories of that unseasonably rainy winter are made up primarily of hunger, fear, and cold. One by one the couples with their children who made up my extended family went out to the ranch, and my father and uncles joined our few neighbours in a “neighbourhood watch” that was armed to the teeth. By Christmas Eve, the only family members still in town were my uncle, who would not leave his parish, and my great uncle, would refused to budge from his apartment. The men of the family decided that Uncle Charles

____STARSPAN CROWN GLED 3 would have to look out for himself, but that Great Uncle would have to be compelled. Four of them set off in a big van, shotguns

at the ready, to bring him home. The next six hours were filled with tension as my mother and aunts prayed for their safe return. To our intense joy, they came back with a querulous Great Uncle and eight boxes of his “books I can’t live without.” After Uncle Albert did some jury-rigging, we were able to get a television signal the next day, and found out that Great Uncle had been extracted just in time—his entire block had been burned down with great loss of life. Over the next few weeks and months, we saw events unfold

from the relative safety of the ranch. We did not see the Christmas-day occurrence that became an icon of the time. I’m sure you remember it—my uncle, a dumpy little priest in cassock and biretta, his hand raised in benediction

over two sets of

gangbangers kneeling in the street. Two gangs that had been about to start shooting at each other when uncle took advantage of whatever piety they had, and commanded them to lay down their arms in the name of Almighty God, who would surely burn them all forever in Hell if they did not. The image went viral on the internet, and, as I say, is now an icon of that era—but Uncle’s

only reference to it in his diary is— “broke up a little trouble down on Central.” At any rate, those two gangs under Uncle’s guidance united to patrol and protect the neighbourhood, After the Instauration, they were made a regular militia unit—the Cazadores del Rey (“the King’s Huntsmen”), which still exists. Juan “Lil’ Sleepy” Marquez, the leader of the Clantone gang, became their first Colonel Commanding. Afterwards he went to West Point, eventually becoming the celebrated General Sir Juan Pablo Marquez y Guzman, KCB, of the Philippines Pacification, and ended his days as a Field Marshal. If you look very closely at his last official photograph, you will notice that on the hand wrapped tightly around his Marshal’s Baton, the knuckles still have gang tats.

4

FOREWORD At any rate, the Instauration took place, and we watched on

the computer screen the very first Speech from the Throne. Great Uncle declared, “Aragorn has come at last,” and none of us dared

to laugh. Troops and food arrived, and life began to return to normal. No one complained about the new government; it was such a relief to be warm, and fed, and safe. Years later it was

revealed that about that time the King had exorcisms performed of the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court Building, and the White House—whether there was any truth to the rumours that His Majesty had it done at his residence in response to an apparition of Lincoln, it is certain that James felt our former government had been under some sort of satanic influence. About a year later, the Coronation was held, and we watched again. Great Uncle literally grinned ear-to-ear throughout the ceremony. We didn’t know it, but he was already dying. The end came about a week later; but just before I was ushered out so that Uncle could give him the Last Rites, he grabbed my hand and whispered to me— “Fear God and honour the King!” I have never forgotten that moment. Over the next few years, King James was always on television, appearing here and there, inaugurating new public works, reviewing troops, visiting hospitals. He was young, he was energetic, and he was confident—and his theme was always the same: “We have had some horrible times; but we are together again, and whatever happens, that shall not change!” The King came to Los Angeles eventually, and because of the notoriety that gang-blessing picture had brought my Uncle, we were given front row seats at the Plaza, where the King stood in front of the statue of Carlos III. “My people,” he bellowed, and the crowd roared its approbation, “my people! I stand in front of this statue of my ancestor, founder of this City!” More cheers and applause.

“I command you, in his name and my own, to join in the redemption of this City we all love so well, of this State, and of this Nation!” Further approbation ensued. “Together, let us

___STARSPANG CROWNLED 5. mend what has been broken, heal what has been hurt, and bring hope to those who have lost it!” There was much more, of

course. And then he left to say similar things elsewhere. But most if not all of us who heard that speech that day came away convinced that together with our King we could do great things—however vague and nebulous those things might be. I joined the Boy Scouts, who in those days were deeply involved in rebuilding the community. On one occasion, the Chief Scout, the King’s Uncle, Prince Heinrich, came to Los

Angeles. I was his ADC for a day, and was amused at how he mangled English—but not so amused I couldn’t see his genuine love for Scouting and the work we were doing. Years later, when

I was in College, the grand old man died; his was the first Royal

Funeral we had ever had in this country, save that of King Peter Il of Yugoslavia—and he was the first to occupy one of the Royal tombs at Arlington, though his Princess followed him within the year. Proud young College man that I was, I could not help the tears that flowed as I watched the funeral on television; it would not be the first time a Royal ceremony did that to me, be they tears of sorrow at deaths, or joy at weddings, baptisms, and jubilees. In any case, I took my High School exam, and qualified for a Royal Bursary that allowed me to attend Loyola High School; my grades there qualified me for another that paid my way into Stanford. There was, of course, a price: Officers’ Training Course, commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in the Militia, and five years active service “at the direction of His Majesty.” Little Crown on my cap and all, I was sent off to the Mexican Border, which in those days was heavily fortified. There I sat for four years, while my favourite cousin, Mark, saw real action fighting the King’s enemies in the Philippines—so real, in fact, that I received word of his death just after being transferred to Washington to serve my final year as a junior staff officer. The

6

FOREWORD

same day it was released to the news services that Prince Henry, youngest son of the King, had been killed in Liberia. His Royal Highness had been universally loved; his older brothers and sisters, including our present King, were respected as earnest young people who were trying their best to fulfil their roles. But Henry had been born here. He was handsome, lighthearted, and had what was called in those days, “a winning way.” But now, like Mark, that youth and ebullience were snuffed out. Heavy-hearted because of my cousin, the Prince, and all our

losses, I was part of the mob that formed to give its condolences to the Royal Family as they stood before us on the White House terrace. By that time, many of the old Jacobite songs had found their way into the national patriotic songbook, alongside such old tunes as God Bless America and recently imported English songs like God Save the King and Land of Hope and Glory. I watched our King and Queen and their surviving children on the terrace, and threw myself with everyone else into the words of Jt Was All for Our Rightful King: It was a’ for our rightful king That we left fair Scotland’s strand; It was a’ for our rightful king We e’er saw Irish land, My dear,

We e’er saw Irish land. Now a’ is done that men can do, And a’ is done in vain! My love, and native land, fareweel! For I maun cross the main, My dear, For I maun cross the main.

Their pain, and my pain, and that of everyone in the crowd merged as we sang the other three verses. We wept, and they wept. When we finished singing, King James attempted to speak; but all he could get out was “My people, my very dear people!” His Majesty may have won our allegiance when he appeared out of the blue and saved us from ruin; but he won our

STAR-SPANGLED CROWN

vi

love that night. As it happened, I was given command of a company of troops that marched in the cortege to Arlington, and as a result was presented to the King afterwards. I bowed stiffly, he was very much abstracted, and as a result, our conversation

was limited to “My condolences, Your Majesty,” and “Thank you very much.” It went much the same with Crown Prince Charles and the other members of the Royal Family. Back in Los Angeles and demobbed, I was out of work and at loose ends. But like the other Royal New Deal-esque projects, The Royal Writers Project was up and running, hiring writers to update the old FWP’s American Guides—by then long over a century old. The new series was to be called The Royal Encyclopaedia of the United States in tribute to the Imperial Encyclopaedia of Austria-Hungary; as that long-ago work had been sponsored by Crown Prince Rudolph, so ours had been by Crown Prince Charles. He visited the Sacramento office while I was there. His Royal Highness claimed to remember me when I mentioned meeting him after the funeral of his brother; whether that was true I do not know—yjust as I cannot say how deep his interest my work regarding the California Missions was. But he certainly gave the impression of being interested, which I have learned since is one of the skills Royals cultivate. Eventually, the Encyclopaedia was finished while the RWP was spun off into State bodies. Fortunately, I was able to get a

deal to write a book on the rebuilding of the Province House in Boston as a residence for the Governor. While researching it, I met the lady who did me the honour of becoming my wife, and acting as my secretary. We were fortunate; made a bit of money, travelled a lot together, and raised seven children. When the youngest was born, we were able to ask His Majesty via the Court to serve as his Godfather as is customary with a seventh child. He kindly did so, and sent a certificate and $500 in gold. After that, I accepted the post as professor of English with which I was able to eke out my income from writing. When my Mary

8

FOREWORD

died, a letter of condolence came from the Court, given my service in the military and RWP, and the military service of four of my sons. As the Monarchy became ever more rooted in national life,

the sort of haranguing one heard during political campaigns changed. Instead of how “we” fought at Lexington against the British, we began to hear how “our ancestors” fought beside his at Culloden. While neither assertion is factually true for most of us, in both cases it spoke accurately of whom we are in the present rather than what was true in the past. In time,

King

James

died,

having

established

a firm

foundation for the new Monarchy. I wept watching the Royal funeral, as I had watching Prince Charles wed the British Princess Sophie months before. The old King was gone! But, as they say, “The King is dead; long live the King.” So far, King Charles has continued upon the path his father set him—and which he seems to have placed Crown Prince James firmly upon. When I look at the Royal Arms on buildings and the King’s face on coin and note, when I hear him prayed for after Mass and

toasted at formal dinners, I feel a rush of love and pride. My background is in literature; well do I understand Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Old Tory, for example, who dreamed of “the blessed quietude of Royal sway, with the King’s name in every ordinance, his prayer in the church, his health at the board, and his love in the people’s heart,” or Washington Irving’s poor old Rip Van Winkle, who plaintively declared, “I am a poor quiet man, a native of the place, and a loyal subject of the King, God bless him!” Had I been born 50 years earlier, these sentiments would have been incomprehensible to me. But I was fortunate enough to have been born when I was. My career, perhaps an undistinguished one, has nevertheless been led in the service of my Sovereign; I have tried all my life, as my Great Uncle directed me, to fear God and honour the King. As I close this account, both honesty and pride force me to make

STAR-SPANGLED CROWN

y

this disclosure. While writing this foreword, it has been made known to me that His Majesty the King has seen fit to create me a Member of the Crown of Stuart for services to literature at the New Year Honours. At my age and in my condition, I cannot possibly travel to Washington or even Sacramento; but if I am spared I shall attend upon His Lordship the Lord Mayor of Los Angeles at his levée. I pray that I live long enough to sign my name Charles A. Coulombe III, MCS. But whether or not that

occurs, I have never felt so much love and loyalty for my King as I do now, nor so proud to be an American.

Charles A. Coulombe III Los Angeles, California Feast of Christ the King, 21--

a]

Instauration!

CHAPTER I The Presidential election of 2016 produced a result quite as disastrous as all sides had feared. The next few were, to put it mildly, worse. All the while national divisions increased and the general standard of living slowly declined, successive presidents

flailed about, enacting ever more draconian regulations over a whole lot of things, and severely punishing those whom it was still in their power to punish for violating them. Overseas, the struggles in Europe and the Mideast continued unabated. How long things could have gone on in that fashion is anyone’s guess. But then came the so-called “Second Great Depression.” Who can forget that horrible time, when being any kind of minority anywhere—white in black areas, black in white areas, and so on and on, was an invitation to abuse or death? Lynching of Gays and “homophobes,” despatched in reaction to one another, depending upon what city or state one was in, were commonplace. Of innumerable atrocities that occurred then, two remain in my mind. One was the slaughter of a bunch of college students and their faculty “ally” in a so-called “safe space” by terrorists at a northeastern university. The other was the looting and burning of the mayor’s residence of a major eastern city: Her Honour had egged on rioters against the police during a similar occurrence some years earlier. Now the same police stood by as the rioters did their work, laughing, whooping, and encouraging

1]

|

CHAPTER!

the mob in its mayhem. I am sure that all of us who lived through this period have a few similar episodes tucked away in our heads. Every day carried new horror stories, but the crescendo, as

we all know, was reached on an early February morning. It had been a bad winter with large-scale starvation in certain areas. The president had ordered Federal troops to take control of New York City, a nation-wide state of emergency having already been declared. She had been acting irrationally for a few weeks, and one must suppose the pressure of a collapsing nation was too much for a woman who had not really had much experience in either the public or the private sector. In any case, in the privacy of the Oval Office, she shot the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defence, exclaiming that they were out to get her. Then there occurred one of the miraculous events that have convinced so many that this land of ours is divinely blessed. Rather than giving the president the nuclear football, which POTUS demanded after emptying her pistol into the supine body of the Secretary of Defence, the Secret Service agent who held that device ran. His track days at the University of Oklahoma had served him well. He ran out of the Oval Office, out of the White House, out of its grounds to his car. Then he

drove to the Pentagon, and was able to force his way into the office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, to whom he delivered

the lethal package happened.

and a breathless

account

of what

had

The Chairman rallied his brother Chiefs-of-Staff, and the

Old Guard at the White House were duly notified and ordered to take charge of the president. After a scuffle with Secret Service agents, the soldiers found themselves in an unthinkable situation: a shootout with the president in the Oval Office. It did not last long, and to this day there is some question as to whether the president’s death was suicide. In any case, a motorcade left the Pentagon for the White House, and the Chairman took charge there upon his arrival. By default, the United States had just

—sTauRATIONN undergone

their first (and so far, thankfully, their only) successful military coup d’état. The death of the president hit the entire country like a massive stroke. Furiously the next few weeks sped by, as the Joint Chiefs used both the armed forces and federalised National Guards to impose order upon a nation that had been lurching drunkenly toward total collapse. Curfews with shoot-to-kill directives quickly imposed order upon the cities, and commandeered trucking lines ensured delivery and distribution of essential goods and services to stricken areas. For the moment, the United States were pacified. The

operative

phrase, however,

was

“for the moment.”

Unlike their colleagues in other countries, the hapless Joint Chiefs had no tradition of military government behind them. Even if one of the Chiefs had the stuff of a Franco, Peron,

Pinochet, or even Cromwell, the country would not have tolerated it for long. The Chiefs themselves craved a civilian authority to surrender power to. But the Constitution had been shredded by their action, and even if there had been a sitting cabinet secretary to take the reins (and there were not, all save the murdered duo having resigned the day before the “Battle of the Oval Office,” as it has come to be known), they might well have faced arrest and perhaps execution for their deeds. Even so, it was only a matter of time before State and local authorities began to question the legitimacy of orders coming from Washington; any man the Chiefs might appoint president would obviously be illegitimate, but the calling of a presidential election under current conditions was unthinkable. The Pentagon truly had a tiger by its proverbial tail. Now the Joint Chiefs were not really resolute men. They had humbly acquiesced as successive administrations had eaten away not merely at the Armed Forces’ material strength, but even unit cohesion. Signing off humbly on the order that had gender-integrated the SEALS, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

14

CHAPTER I

had “taken full responsibility” for the bloodbath the abortive attempt to rescue the Greek president from the clutches of ISIS had resulted in. But somehow, that assumed responsibility had resulted in neither resignation nor firing. Nevertheless, each of them realised that their personal survival depended upon their taking firm action, and fortunately for them (and for us, to-day) the Army Chief of Staff was blessed with an imagination and a thorough grounding in Literature and History, both of which he had taught at West Point in days gone by. As the Chiefs looked glumly at each other around the table in the White House’s Cabinet Office, discussing the formation

of various alternative civilian authorities to surrender power to (and not be executed by), he said, “how about a Monarchy?” His colleagues stared at him as though he were mad. But he then uttered those fateful words which are inscribed on the base of his monument at Arlington— “Anybody got a better idea?” Dead silence was the response, until his Naval counterpart asked, half-thinking it must be a joke, “who do we get for King?” Of course, we all know the answer—Grand

Duke Hans-

Josef Il of Lichtenburg. It seems obvious now, of course. But at the time, few Americans had ever heard of the Brooklyn-sized Grand Duchy in Central Europe. The vast majority of those who had known about the country only from Call Me Madam, the old biopic of Sally Miller, Truman’s ambassadress to the place. It seemed like an odd choice, but General Anderson had very good reasons for suggesting the youthful Grand Duke. For one thing, while Lichtenburg was tiny, its Grand Duke was the wealthiest Monarch in Europe, with properties of all kinds throughout Central Europe (indeed, larger in total than the Grand Duchy itself). For another, he spoke English perfectly, and had served in the British Army—he had military experience. So far from being a figurehead, his father and grandfather had successfully faced down the country’s parliament, threatening to abdicate should a referendum to limit their powers

INSTAURATION!

i

succeed—they won handily, at 76%. In a word, the Lichtenburgs had the skill of keeping their politicians in their place while working with them, and securing the affections of their people as well. Hans Josef had followed in their footsteps. He also shared his forebears’ fascination with the United States (his grandfather had written a book—Third Millennial Statecraft—in which he analysed modern governance, and in particular the American government). But the Grand Duke also had an appropriate pedigree. In the female line, he was the inheritor of the claims of the House of

Stuart, not only to Great Britain and Ireland, but to the Thirteen Colonies as well. Moreover, he was descended from Louis XIV

of France, who had presided over the settling of Quebec and Louisiana, and Charles III of Spain, founder of California and ruler of Florida, Texas, and the Southwest. As icing on the cake,

he also descended from the Kings of Italy and Portugal, as well as anumber of German, Czech, and Polish royals and noblemen,

so there was widespread ethnic appeal too. A cousin of the Habsburgs also, he had married a glamorous Habsburg Archduchess. “He is FDR, JFK, and Reagan all rolled up into one!” the army chief assured his colleagues. Indeed, no one had any better ideas at that juncture—and they were desperate, since every day that went by increased the chance of power slipping out of their hands and general collapse. As it happened, a cousin of the Grand Duchess lived in Washington, and was duly despatched to Lichtenburg with an official invitation. What the Grand Duke thought upon receiving it no one knows, since neither he nor any of his family have revealed his reaction up to the present. But he did accept, subject to three conditions: a) he must have full power, to include that of re-writing the Constitution (save, however, the Bill of Rights, which he would accept as sacrosanct); b) Congress must be

convened and vote to accept him; c) immediately after this, all office holders at national, state, and local levels must swear

16

CHAPTER

allegiance to him as King, his heirs and successors. After that,

his reply stated, he would start to work. The Joint Chiefs immediately accepted the conditions, and a week after the idea had first been floated, Hans Josef and his Grand Duchess arrived

at Andrews Air force base. Corralling Congress and forcing Representatives and Senators to accede was found to be easier than the Chiefs had thought it would be. Some of the legislators were as motivated by the fear of national meltdown as were the military; others

found threats to life and limb even more alluring than the blandishments of lobbyists had been. In either case, both houses meeting in a joint session unanimously endorsed both the invitation to the Grand Duke and the acceptance of his three conditions. The Speaker Pro Tem of the Senate announced in a slightly quizzical voice, “The motion carries. Hans-Josef of Lichtenburg is now our King!” As had been pre-arranged, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs filed in and took their places in the House Chamber, as they would have done at the State of the Union Address in days gone by. But in lieu of the deceased or resigned cabinet, the Papal Nuncio, selected members of the Diplomatic

Corps, and the heads of the larger religious denominations took those seats. Then, the Sergeant-at-Arms called out with a touch of a choke in his voice, “Mister Speaker, the... His Majesty, the King!” Wearing the dress blues of a U.S. Army General, with his beautifully gowned Grand Duchess-turned-Queen on his arm, Hans-Josef slowly approached the Speaker’s rostrum, accompanied by the Congressional Escort Committee. But there was no applause and no glad-handing, as there was in the days when presidents took this road. His wife took her seat, and our first King in almost three centuries mounted the rostrum. He cleared his throat, and in an Oxbridge-tinged voice began what

INSTAURATION!

a ee a ee

M7

has gone down in history as the “First Speech from the Throne” —although there was no throne there present. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Pro Tem, Members of Congress, Honoured Guests, and above all, My Fellow Americans: This is not, in reality, a day of change. It is a day of reunion. A day of repairing bridges that were broken, of reconciling kindreds that were sundered, of undoing mistakes that were made. In 1607 your forebears named Jamestown after my ancestor, James I of England, and VI of Scotland—who had commissioned the version of the Bible that has played such a huge part in the culture of this great country of ours; in his name the Pilgrim Fathers concluded the Mayflower Compact. In 1629, the Carolinas were named for his son, Charles I, and in 1644, Maryland for Charles’ consort Queen Henriette Marie. In 1682 Louisiana was named for Louis XIV of France, likewise my forebear, as was Charles III of Spain, who ordered the founding of California. As with so many ofyou, I too was born and raised in a foreign land; but my roots in America are as deep as any and greater than most. We are, you and me, at last reunited. The Declaration of Independence of 1776 was not against my ancestors, but rather, against that branch of our family that had usurped their place. You may recall, members of Congress, that your predecessors invited mine, King Charles III of happy memory— “Bonnie Prince Charlie” of song and story—to accept the Crown of America; an invitation that he, alas, did not feel able to accept. And so your predecessors went on to construct a Constitution that has served this Nation well for almost three hundred years. Unhappily, the time has come when that instrument, through the disinterest of the many and the malice of the few, has failed. It is for this reason that I have accepted the invitation once tendered and refused by my illustrious forebear. Not to destroy or efface all that has been done under the former regime, but to perfect it, so that together,

18

CHAPTER

and invoking the blessings of Almighty God upon our work, we may together ‘form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” In the coming weeks and months I shall endeavour to propose a new Constitution, built firmly upon the best foundations of the old, to provide for these things in a manner more suited to the times in which we live. I shall also endeavour to visit as much of this our country as I may. To signify our new

beginning together, I hereby take a new name and title, to bind myself ever closer to this land of ours. Henceforth, I shall be called James IV, King of the United States and of their Possessions, Grand Duke of Lichtenburg, in memory of my valiant forefather first mentioned; of James II, unjustly deprived of his rights by unnatural rebellion; and of James III, who struggled in exile for his people and his Crown. Henceforth also, my family shall be called Lichtenburg-Stuart. I leave you now, to recall you at my pleasure when the labours of myself and those upon whom I shall call to assist me in the draughting of a new Constitution shall have concluded our labours, at which time I shall place it before you for your consideration. Until then, may God bless you all! There was no cheering, and the Royal party departed as silently as they had entered. The Instauration was over, and the work of building had begun.

Founding Myths

CHAPTER II Most Monarchies,

Christian or not, reigning or not, are deeply based in the history and traditions of their country— organic growths that in essence make of the present holder of royal claims a sort of living flag. In Europe, such nation founders as Alfred the Great, Kenneth MacAlpin, Clovis, Charlemagne, Pelayo, and Ss. Erik, Olav, Canute, Vladimir, and Stephen of

Hungary were seen as fathers of both Crown and Country. But James IV and his supporters were faced with the same problem as Napoleon Bonaparte and Japan’s Emperor Meiji: the creation of a “new” Monarchy which somehow must be connected with national tradition. It was far more difficult for the new American Sovereign, because the country at which he now found himself head was both republican in its roots (a unique occurrence in culturally and history), and intensely divided world religiously—bound together only by a tenuous national ideology contradicted by the very fact of the new King’s existence. But James was very astute. He called together a Committee

of 70 to help him create, so to speak, a “traditional” basis for the new regime. Its membership was extremely diverse, drawing from

academia,

law, agriculture,

media,

industry,

religion,

labour, and other fields—and represented a crazy quilt of political beliefs, from Palaeo-Conservatives to a few unreconstructed Marxists. The number chosen, of course, was

symbolic—and to this day we know nothing of either their 19

20

CHAPTER II

deliberations or their actual influence upon what finally emerged. But their very existence granted a sort of popular sanction to what in great part probably emerged from the fertile imagination of James IV himself. At any rate, all concerned were only too conscious that the continued existence of the United States as a viable entity depended upon their success. Some questions were quickly solved. James himself preferred to be King rather than Emperor (despite heavy lobbying for the latter title) for a number of reasons. As Grand Duke of Lichtenburg, he was a feudatory of the then-nonexistent Holy Roman Empire; despite the empty Imperial throne, he felt taking an Imperial title would be a usurpation. Secondly, Empires in the New World—Brazil,

Mexico, and Haiti—had

generally not turned out well. Thirdly, he did not want to invoke the endless debates of earlier times about whether America was “becoming an Empire” —which it clearly had, despite its republican government. Lastly, he feared that to take the title of “Emperor of the United States” would place him in succession to the mad San Franciscan Norton I—endless ridicule would not help build firm foundations. So King it was, and King it has remained,

even

after the

re-accession

of Liberia

and

the

Philippines to these United States. A weightier issue was the question of the role of the King in the new Monarchy. At the time, most reigning Monarchs did not rule; from the ranks of the professional politicians came prime ministers who dominated Parliaments via party machines, leaving the Sovereign ceremonial duties and the right to “be consulted, to encourage,

and to warn,” in Bagehot’s famous

phrase. But not only were the United States used to an effective chief executive, in James IV’s view many of the ills affecting Europe in his day—including his ancestral countries and the Commonwealth realms—were directly attributable to the

relegation of Royalty to the sidelines. Of course, as Grand Duke he had presided over the only effective Monarchy in Europe, and

FOUNDING MYTHS

ZA

a

he had moreover the example of successive kings of Jordan in his mind, generations of whom had lead their embattled nation through external storm and stress, and who, although themselves devout Muslims, had safeguarded their Christian subjects. So,

substantially, the American Monarch would be an hereditary president with—save a few exceptions we will notice in due course—the powers given that office by the first constitution. But of most import was the mythic justification, the ethos under which the new Monarchy would function. The presidency had derived its legitimacy from that first constitution, and with the passage of years had acquired a quasi-sacerdotal function, with the president serving as high priest of what the sociologists were pleased to call the “American Civil Religion.” Successor of Washington and Lincoln, inhabitant of the White House, the

president was the beneficiary—together with Congress and the Supreme Court—of a national mythology. Basically, the Pilgrims played the part of the Children of Israel in the Old Testament, coming to the New World to escape oppression and establish a “Shining City on the Hill.” Theirs was the Old Covenant, replaced by the American Revolution as the New. The Holy Ghost had brought the Constitution to Philadelphia, and the Liberty Bell, the flag, and original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were holy relics. There were shrines as well—Independence Hall, Plymouth Rock, Fort McHenry, and on and on. Lincoln, of course, was the Saviour

who

had rescued

the Union—unless

one

belonged

to the

schism from the National Faith, in which case he venerated the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy, as well as Southern

Washington and so forth. By the early 21* century, this narrative had been somewhat superseded, seeing in the War of Independence simply the first chapter in an ongoing American Revolution, succeeded by abolitionism, labour rights, Women’s

rights, gay rights, and so on, into ever greater freedom. Needless to say, this alteration was one of many factors in producing the

vip

CHAPTER AL

situation whereby the Instauration occurred in the first place. How could one possibly build a Monarchical ethos in the face of

that? James IV and his collaborators would need to craft a new narrative for a new

Monarchy—and,

nation. At that time, there was Monarchism

in a real sense, a new

no theory of Monarchy

or

in the abstract. For reasons we have noted, the

intense identification of each Monarchy with its particular country meant that Monarchist writers and theorists were primarily concerned with their own nation. The French had produced De Maistre, de Bonald, Blane de Saint Bonnet, La Tour du Pin, Maurras, and Bernanos, to mention a few; Spain had given Balmes, Donoso

Cortes, and the Carlists; indeed,

every nation in Europe had done so. Even the United States had produced Ralph Adams Cram, H.P. Lovecraft, and Ross Hoffman. The King and the Seventy undertook an intensive study of literally hundreds of these sources, and worked to squeeze from them what was more or less common to all. This greatly influenced the reshaping of our national institutions. But King and colleagues also looked very intensely at American history and culture to see what could be brought out of it in order to inculcate the new regime in the national mind. A new historical narrative had to be forged, at least as accurate as the old, but conferring legitimacy upon the Crown of the United States as the old one had upon the American republic. Moreover, since what was required was not merely popular acceptance of the Monarchy but national reconciliation in a severely fragmented country, the new narrative would have to be far more inclusive than the old. Ironically, this was a requirement a Monarchy could uniquely fulfill, in ways a republic—especially an ideological—could not. Sovereigns have often presided over

polities composed of radically different—and even mutually hostile—ethnic, religious, and cultural groups.

—_ FOUNDING _ MyTas

3

Of course, much of his eventual success in this area came

from King James’ own mindset. He had been brought up as a pious Catholic Royal, to believe that God would place the people of his Grand Duchy into his hands for their Salvation and his own, and that he must try to love them all as a father does his sons. It was this conviction that had led his forebears to successfully challenge their politicians. Now, while neither they nor he had pursued the family’s claims to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland, he was deeply aware of them, and so of

his continuing connection to America. Nor was it lost on him that he was also descended from French and Spanish Kings who had each in their turn controlled large chunks of American real estate; indeed, between them, his British, French, and Spanish

forebears had ruled the entirety of the Continental United States. Left to himself, he would have quite happily spent his entire life quietly administering Lichtenburg. But when the call came, he saw in it both the Will of God and the Duty imposed by his ancestry. It may well be that, in the beginning, he was the only one who really believed in his legitimate and God-given right to rule, once installed. But he did, to the bottom of his soul.

James IV saw his role first and foremost as a reconciler: of past and present, of the contending races, religions, and social classes. From the moment his accession was sanctioned by Congress, he considered himself first and foremost an American—but that conviction he knew had to be extended to the population at large. He hit upon an unusual stratagem. As it happened, Hereditary Fortnight was about to occur that first April. To-day, of course, in our genealogy-mad society, it is a major event of the Washington Social Calendar: the Society of the Cincinnati, the Colonial Dames, the Californios, the United

Empire Loyalists, the Sons and Daughters of all the various conflicts this country has fought, and all the rest gather in their various uniforms and regalia. The Capital engages in two weeks of nonstop balls and banquets while the hereditary societies

24

CHAPTER TT

display themselves. But it was a very much subdued affair when James IV summoned their leaders to the East Room of the White House, treating them to champagne and hors d’oeuvres (a welcome break for many of them from spam and other emergency fare). At what has since become the opening event of the Fortnight, the King delivered the first Royal Address to the Hereditary Societies. In that speech James complimented the crowd highly on all that they and their ancestors had done to settle and build the country, alongside his own. Given that many of those present were leaders of many kinds in their own localities, he called on them to join with him in renewing the work of their forebears—and much more. The members of societies of descendants of Charlemagne or the British Monarchs, he addressed as “Esteemed Cousins.” When James

IV was done, he had created an entire class of adherents in every State. That April, he assembled in the East Room over successive days, leaders of fraternal organisations (the King was initiated into the Knights

of Columbus

and Peter

Kiwanis, Rotary, and Lions, to name

Claver,

the Elks,

a few), labour unions,

chambers of commerce, the State Associations in D.C., ethnic societies, religious leaders, and many more—in a word, what the

United Nations folk used to call the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) which together make up “Civil Society.” To a man, the participants came out of these gatherings feeling as though the work of reconstruction depended upon each of them and the King alone. Many had been wooed by presidents in the past; but this time the wooing was for the common good and the wooer painfully sincere. At any rate, all of these groups were instrumental in

disseminatiing among their various constituents the following ¢ “revised 'view of American SalvationHistory as presented in our schools to-day. Firstly, “America’s founding goes back to

FOUNDING MYTHS

Zs

Christopher Columbus; and was a common task of those intrepid souls in the employ of the Kings of France, Spain, and England—St. Augustine, Santa Fe, and New Orleans share equally the limelight of creating the country with Jamestown, ; y Plymouth—and Santo Domingo and Quebec! Our founding year = is not 1776, but 1492. )

~ Even though the rightful King, James II, was overthrown in 1688 (and his governors, Thomas Dongan and Sir Edmund Andros are heroes in the textbooks), two of the succeeding Sovereigns are lionised—Queen Anne, who saved the Catholics of Maryland from utter destruction, and George III,) whose various deeds in relieving local complaints prior to the Revolution are recounted, as is his coming to the aid of his cousin, the rightful King, Henry IX (Cardinal York) when the latter was reduced to poverty by the French Revolution. But the men who were once called the Founding Fathers are not simply denounced as rebellious Oligarchs, which assuredly they were.

Rather, it is pointed out that many of the Founding Fathers) had asked King George to rule the colonies directly, rather than ) with Parliament, which such as John Adams, Alexander ) Hamilton, James Wilson, and so on believed had usurped the | King’s powers—that is, to rule as a Stuart. )Faithful to his oath, George, in this view, could not find his way to doing so, and thus the war broke out. To their aid came Louis XVI of France and Carlos III of Spain (himself the founder of California). Thus both Loyalists and Patriots were actually in favour ofMonarchy, though _ fatally misunderstanding each other. The > Congress S /offered the Crown of America to the Stuart heir,Charles III,)He féfused it, but when Adams and his associates draughted the first constitution, they made the presidency an elective Monarchy. George Washington becomes even more heroic in this reading by refusing the Crown to which he had no right. This is why, in the current narrative, both Loyalists and Patriots are considered

heroes.

26

CHAPTER II

A similar magic is worked upon the second civil war, which is cast as the inevitable result of republican government’s inability to reconcile national unity with local liberty, or to liberate the slaves peacefully, as did the British, French, Spanish, Danish, Dutch, Brazilian, and Russian Monarchies/ The main

combatants on both sides are seen as heroic victims of historical forces over which they had no control; thus Northerners may venerate Lincoln and his Generals, and Southerners Davis and

his men. Of course, the large number of Royalist foreign volunteers on both sides is pointed up, as are the Black contributions to Union and Confederacy alike. Russia’s support of Lincoln and Britain and France’s of the South are remarked upon, as is Pope Pius IX’s recognition of the latter. Interweaved with the tale of these two conflicts is the story of the French and Spanish settlements in the centre and west of the country. Black history is extensively recognised, but not, perhaps, in a way that-20" century historians would have felt comfortable with. Slavery is seen as providential only in the sense that it brought the Blacks here, and that the country would be far poorer without them and their physical, material, and cultural contributions. As noted, the republic’s poor handling of emancipation is emphasised, and the role of reconstruction as the natural forebear of Jim Crow pointed out. Much is made not only of figures like Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver, but of the four canonised Black American Saints of the Catholic Church. \The Civil Rights struggle is covered, as is the collapse of the Black family in its wake. It is emblematic of the American Monarchy’s dealing with these issues that the tombs of Martin Luther King and Nathan Bedford Forrest, both heavily damaged during the violence preceding the Instauration, were rededicated by members of the Royal Family on the same day. Moreover, a note lauding Forrest’s command of Black soldiers

during the War has been added to the inscription on his tomb. Years later, of course, this policy was underlined when Liberia

FOUNDING MYTHS

27

successfully petitioned to be admitted as a Commonwealth to the United States. Just as skillful has been the Monarchy’s dealing with the American Indian and other indigenous peoples. James IV made a point of assuming the role of George III toward the eastern tribes, and Fernando VII of Spain to the western. The Indian nations are again direct feudatories of the Crown—symbolised among the New Mexico Pueblos by the King granting their governors a third set of canes to go with those issued by the King of Spain and Abraham Lincoln. In Alaska, he assumed toward the Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians all the obligations once occupied by the Tsar of Russia. James’ efforts in restoring the King of Hawai’i and the Tui Manu‘a of Samoa are reflected in the Royal titles, as is his successor’s acceptance of the Sultanate of Sulu’s feudal allegiance subsequent to the Philippines reentering the United States. Of course, in addition to the six “Founding Peoples” —British

and

Trish, French,

Spanish,

Dutch,

Black,

and

Indian—over its three centuries these United States attracted many other immigrants—a large number of whom founded organisations and institutions over which their ancestral Sovereigns exercised varying degrees of patronage. Without displacing these foreign Monarchs, King James granted his own patronage as well, thus securing their personal allegiance to his throne and person. In the Eastern United States, the Northwest, and the country as a whole, James IV is considered the successor of both the Stuarts and the Hanoverians; in the Mississippi Valley and the Great Lakes States, of the French Bourbons; in Florida, the Southwest, Puerto Rico, Micronesia, Guam, and the Philippines, of the Spanish Habsburgs and Bourbons; in Alaska, of the Romanovs; and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, of the Kings of

Denmark—hence the frequent Royal visits to the nation’s former colonial capitals. Moreover, exalting the United States’ role as a “bridge nation,” King James obtained for his realm

28 observer

GHAPTERTI status

in

the

renewed

British

Commonwealth,

Francophonie, and Hispanidad. Committing himself solely to this country, it was a poignant day when James renounced the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland—which

claim had

brought him the Crown of America—for himself and his descendants, in favour of his cousin, the actually reigning George VII. Of course, as we know, George’s acceptance of headship of the Jacobite tradition would lead to his reclaiming effective control of the Royal Prerogative in his realms, but that

is a story beyond our current purview. But for all of that, James very wisely grafted on to the Monarchy many of the pre-existing American symbols. Although the original seal of the United States was replaced by the crowned double Bald Eagle (its two heads symbolising North and South as well as East and West) we are familiar with to-day, the order surrounding it—in true European Monarchical style—is the nation’s highest award: then as now, the Congressional Medal of Honour. The flag and its attendant etiquette and ceremony James retained. The White House remains the principal Royal residence, although Camp David has been rebuilt on a scale more fitting its exalted status. Even the King’s Official Birthday was fixed in James’ and succeeding reigns on July 4, thus incorporating the fireworks, parades, and speeches of Independence Day into the Royal celebration (appropriate, since these had themselves been borrowed from the old pre-1776 King’s Birthday observances). Although the King’s head appears on all coins and notes, these are still cents, dollars, and eagles, just as before. The Third United States Infantry Regiment, the “Old Guard,” remain responsible for

security at the Royal residences and Arlington National Cemetery. Zhe Star-Spangled Banner is still the National Anthem, for all that God Save the King is the Royal Anthem. Yet for all the continuity, the older folk among us will remember being aware that a new day had dawned when a copy

FOUNDING MYTHS

29

of the equestrian statue of George III, pulled down in 1776, was re-erected at New York’s Bowling Green and the little crowns replaced on that park’s surrounding fence. It has been ever since one of the sites where a new Monarch is proclaimed as “By the Grace of God, King of these United States and their Commonwealths and Possessions; Protector of Hawaii, Samoa,

and Sulu; High Chief of the Indian Nations; and Grand Duke of Lichtenburg.” A truly American Monarchy had begun.

By the Grace of God: Monarchy and Religion

CHAPTER III All Monarchies that have ever existed have been based upon religious belief. This has been true so long as there have been Monarchs, and that takes us back to the very first cities of men. Prior to Christ (save for Israel/Judah) —and in all non-Christian and non-Muslim realms since—Kingship was automatically Sacred. The King might descend directly from the gods, as in Japan and among the Incas, or be divinized, as with the preChristian Roman Empire; he might simply incarnate the Will of Heaven, as in China; or he might merely be the head of the national cult, as in modern Thailand. The very notion of “Separation of Church and State” was incomprehensible. Into this mix came the Church. In the beginning, the relationship between the Church and the Roman State was relatively simple. For the Divine Emperor, the Christians were traitors who would not worship him; Nero made their existence a crime punishable by death. For the Church, the Emperor was to be prayed for, his taxes paid, and his army served in. But he was not to be worshipped, which led directly to the martyrdom of such military Saints as George and

Sebastian. This relative simplicity began to become more complex when the Kings of such countries as Armenia, Georgia, Edessa,

and Ethiopia accepted the Faith, and brought their subjects into

ol

32

CHAPTER

the Church with them. When

Emperor Constantine himself

converted, the question became paramount and remained so. After his time—and especially after Theodosius the Great conflated Baptism with Roman citizenship—the relationship of Church and State became a key element for any Christian Monarchy. The Church gave legitimacy to the Monarch in return for protection and help in her spiritual mission. When James IV came to the throne of the United States,

however, things were quite different here. We had spent the better part of a century escaping from the vague mix of generic “Christianity” and ceremonial Deism with which the republic had started, and which—married

to the moral consensus that

collapsed in the 1960s—had served as the State religion. Its collapse, of course, had contributed to that of the nation which precipitated the Instauration in the first place. The challenge that faced our new King was that of establishing a new religious basis for his Crown upon a nation that had no _ religious unanimity—and which diversity he could not simply abolish by fiat. James was Catholic; while Catholicism was the largest single religion in the country at that time—something like 24% claimed to be Catholic—that still left over three quarters of Americans as adherents of other religions or none. Over these he must rule as fairly as his own co-religionists. Even so, if the American Crown were to endure, he must somehow tie it into

the religiosity of most of his new subjects without betraying his own conscience nor what he believed to be in the spiritual best interests of his people. His job was of course made easier by the fact that the Catholicism of his time was far more vibrant than that of say, the early 21“ century. Although suffering some hiccoughs along the way, the Benedictine Reform had produced a Latin-Rite Church that had gained in confidence, and suffering both the Euro-American political persecutions of the mid-21*

century and the Muslim wars in Europe, faced the 22™ with a

BY THE GRACE OF GOD

33

renewed sense of purpose. In America, both the expansion of the Eastern Rites and the rapid growth of the Anglican Ordinariates, fueled by the collapse of the Episcopal and other mainline Protestant churches, had given Catholics here a new sense of mission, as had closer ties with the Orthodox Churches after the

Concordat of Bari. Even so, many fervent Evangelicals, Lutherans, Mormons,

and non-Christians were not happy with the idea. The Orange Order declared it would never tolerate a Catholic King; the Sons of the IRA equally denounced the idea of being ruled by a descendant of King James (to this day, the “Orange-Green Lodges,” the tattered remnants of those two organisations, remain bastions of lingering republican sentiment). Fortunately, the fractured nature of such opposition and the lack of any viable alternative went a long way toward quieting the opposition. Moreover, he had Monarchical precedent to draw upon. Saxony’s Kings had converted to Catholicism in the late 17" century, and for over 200 years functioned with the approval of the Roman authorities as heads of the Lutheran State Church;

Bavaria’s Kings held the same position in their country, although Catholics were there in a majority. A more modern foundation had been laid by Great Britain’s 21° century King Charles, who, as Prince of Wales, had declared that he wished to

be as King not “Defender of the Faith,” but “Defender of Faith.” Although ridiculed at the time as mere New Age syncretism, the forward-looking but devoutly Anglican Prince had something else entirely in mind. First, the vast majority of his subjects would not be Anglicans, and he wished to play as active a part in their religious lives as he could; and second, he saw the

aggressive secularism of that as an opponent which required the unity on some purely practical level of all religious believers to resist. Our own King James saw the problem in roughly similar terms.

34

CHAPTER III

As with so much else, for a practical solution to the problem, he looked back into both European and American history. To begin with, while affirming that under the new Constitution the First Amendment would remain intact, Congress would continue to have no right to establish a religion, and no American would be penalised for his religion or lack thereof, he also reaffirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court in their 1892 ruling, Trinity Church versus the United States of America: If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally

prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, “In the name of God, amen;” the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

King James IV cited this decision in quashing later Court judgements regarding school and other public prayer, aid to religious schools and the like. This latter, given the enormous disarray the public schools had fallen into across the country, was a great relief to educators of all varieties. Going back further, the King noted that at the time the Constitution was adopted, several of the States had their own

established churches, either Episcopalian or Congregational; by that precedent, the establishment or not of a State Church—so

BY THE GRACE OF GOD

35

long as equality of civil and political rights of non-adherents of that

church

were

maintained,

as

outlined

in

the

First

Amendment—was a matter for the State governments to decide. Not too surprisingly, Utah was the first to move on the issue, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been the established religion of that State ever since. Indeed, the Prophet and Head of the church soon received a revelation that the new Kingdom of the United States was a further step on the road to the re-establishment of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, and even more deserving of Latter Day Saint loyalty than the republic that preceded it was. Of course, to safeguard the rights of gentiles, no Mormon has been governor since and Salt Lake City’s Catholic Cathedral of the Magdalene is a Royal establishment. It is at times an uneasy modus vivendi, but it usually works well enough. Nevertheless, in terms of how the Monarchy would work with religion directly, King James had to look further back still. When Europe crossed the Atlantic, the modern state was far advanced, and would continue its development all the while the European nations struggled for mastery of the continent. At the same time, however, none of the European monarchs had been reduced to figurehead status completely by the time of American independence. Their direct activity in planting the seeds of American civilisation was very influential, and has left its mark on the country to this day, in terms of institutions, artefacts, and

Sites. In his role as patron of the Church, each European King had an obligation to plant the seeds both of his country’s religion and of education, in keeping with the age-old dogma, “NoSalvation, “Outside the Church”))Public piety and personal devotion were of necessity united in the King’s person. In France, Spain, and Russia, where the Monarchs

were at the time of settlement

unimpeded in their actions by parliaments and cabinets, this obligation took the form of issuing direct orders as to Catholic

36

CHAPTER III

or Orthodox Church establishments in their dominions. The founding of missions, the presentation of religious art and liturgical implements, and the despatching and funding of priests all fell under the ruler’s personal supervision. For the English and British Kings, however, Church patronage was exercised much more indirectly. As the Churches of England and Ireland “as by law established,” were Anglican in faith and controlled not by the King but the government and supported by public taxation, so too were the Churches of Georgia, South Carolina,

North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and the four southernmost counties of New York. In the remainder of the colonies where Anglicanism was not so supported, the government in London directly financed Anglican churches via the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Despite this patronage, the British Kings nevertheless took great interest in sending American Anglican parishes communion silver, bibles, and various other gifts, many of which are still treasured. Moreover, where the purely secular institutions of learning established in their territories by the French and Spanish rulers on U.S. soil have virtually all been snuffed out by the historical events which placed them under British or American rule, many chartered by the British Kings remain. In addition, certain foreign monarchs such as those of Scandinavia,

the Low

Countries,

and the

Balkans, whose ancestors were unconnected with colonisation

here have performed various religious and educational acts of patronage, endowing churches, temples, and/or schools of their former subjects in America with charters, gifts, or funds. The

Emperor of Austria and the King of Bavaria, for example, contributed millions of dollars to Catholic churches in this country before 1914, and many Orthodox, Lutheran, and Reformed churches also received such largesse from their ancestral rulers. As noted in the last chapter, part of the ethos of the new Monarchy was to claim continuity with all the nation’s past

a

BY THE GRACEaOF GOD a

eee

a7

Sovereigns. In keeping with this tradition, King James called upon all churches and other institutions that could prove such association to apply for Royal patronage.In better times such organisations are always in need of funding and encouragement; given the horrors they had just passed through, church and temple, school and library, museum and chamber of commerce jumped at the chance. This is how not only Catholic churches as the aforementioned Magdalene but houses of worship as diverse as the Unitarian King’s Chapel of Boston, Libertyille, Illinois’ Serbian Monastery, Oroville, California’s Chinese Joss House,

and Los Angeles’ Wat Thai and King Fahd Mosque were able to claim the now-coveted title of “Royal Foundation,” which came not only with a small cash gift but the right to display the Royal arms. Of course, King James followed ancient precedent in declaring St. Vincent’s Archabbey in Pennsylvania and all the houses of the English Benedictine Congregation in this country, Abbeys) The effect was to make the Monarchy popular as Royal / amongst Americans of all religious stripes and pursuit of Royal patronage by clerics of many kinds a truly interfaith affair. This having been effected, the King decided that the time

was ripe for a Coronation. Traditionally considered a sort of “eighth Sacrament,” it has featured with many variations among the various European nations and the Holy Roman and Byzantine Empires. But several motifs are common to virtually all of its versions. The rite is inevitably performed by the highest ranking bishop in the land—the Primate—to include, for the two Emperors, the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Monarch being crowned often receives Communion after the manner of a priest; wears demi-clerical clothing; takes an oath to defend both the Church and the laws; receives anointing; is given the sceptre, orb, one or more swords of state, and often spurs (showing his headship of the country’s knights); and is crowned with his country’s diadem (often, like the rest of the

regalia, a powerful symbol of his nation’s very existence). Those

38

CHAPTER III

tasks completed, the acclamations—either or both liturgical like the Jaudes imperiales or merely the cheers of the attendant representatives of various classes or peoples of the realm are given, and the ceremony proper is over. Inevitable this ceremony takes place in an old church or cathedral whose status as “coronation church” gives it a sort of civic sacredness that in many cases survives during republican interludes—as is often the case as well with churches customarily used for Royal weddings and funerals. In Catholic nations before and after the Protestant Revolt, this rite gave to Monarchs a demi-priestly character, which often included liturgical tasks. The “challenge” facing the King was to create a aru American version that would be at once firmly tied to its classic roots while expressing the unique nature of t the Monarchy in the / United States! There had been some concern about an overtly Catholic ceremony—and, of course, many non-Catholic recipients of Royal patronage among the other denominations were keen to take part. But James pointed out to his advisors that few objected to the former presidents taking part in the annual Red Mass with the Supreme Court at St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington (a custom the succeeding Kings have scrupulously maintained), and that the ceremony would be—to him—a sham if it were not done as a truly religious rite. Further, the rise of mere inaugurations and investitures instead of full coronations

as had taken place in Europe during the 19", 20", and 21* centuries had signalled the rise of figurehead Monarchies— themselves a symptom, in his eyes, of the governmental failure that had engulfed the West. At the same time, the ceremony would have to maintain some shreds of the former presidential inauguration for continuity’s sake. That first coronation has been the model for all those that have followed. The morning-coated King took the oath at the Capitol Building on George Washington’s Bible; it was substantially that of the Anglo-Saxon King Edgar:

BY THE GRACE OF GOD

39

“I, James, Fourth of that name and rightwise born King of these United States and their territories, do solemnly swear First, that the church of God and the whole American people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment; Second, that Iwill forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men; Third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all Judgments.” The bells of Epiphany Church rang out joyfully. After lunch with Congress in Statuary Hall, the King and his family entered into the newly constructed State landau, after which the Royal party with various attendants and military units processed up North Capitol Avenue to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Once arrived there, His Majesty changed in the Sacristy into ~ the semi-clerical garb used at European coronations, but newmade for the occasion; his Queen similarly changed. The ceremony followed the now familiar pattern: As the King sat in the sanctuary, the Archbishop of Baltimore, assisted by the Archbishops of New Orleans and Santa Fe and the Bishops of St. Augustine and Louisville, using the coronation rite from the

pre-1960 Roman Pontificale, prayed over and anointed him. The newly made regalia—all save the Crown imitations of those his ancestors had used in London, were presented. The Crown itself,

of course, gold and emerald and patterned after the Crown of the Andes, gives a uniquely American flavour to our Crown Jewels (the original, which went to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2015, has been restored to its original use as a Marian votive crown). After the Crowning, the choir sang the Laudes Imperiales. At that point, the fifty chosen representatives of each State’s Electors shouted loudly on cue— “God Save the King!” —this ceremonial function is, of course, the only reason

for which the Electoral College has survived. Then the entire congregation of dignitaries cheered, as did the people outside watching on the screens.

40

CHAPTER III

When the King and Royal party left the Basilica, the procession then headed over to Washington National Cathedral. Once the seat of the Episcopal diocese of Washington, it is of course now the headquarters of the Archordinary of the United States, head of the Anglican Use of the Catholic Church in this country. There His Majesty was solemnly enrolled as a canon of the Cathedral. Although considered a bit odd at the time, it was

in keeping

with

Monarchs—Spain,

European France,

custom, England,

whereby and

the

the Holy

major Roman

Emperor—were made canons of particular major basilicas in Rome, and several cathedrals and other churches in their own countries.

Now,

of course,

we

take

it for granted,

as the

Cathedral is where a number of annual Royal ceremonies take place—some of which we shall look at in future chapters—as well as Royal funerals. That ceremony concluded, the grand procession back to the White House took place. Seated upon the new throne in the East Room, Their Majesties held an official levée—the first of what has become an annual custom on New Year’s Day—tickets to which are one of the most sought after items in the capital’s social calendar. That affair concluded, the coronation balls began—at the White House and venues throughout the city, and indeed, the country. A new era had begun. We shall notice other points in the religious life of the Monarchy in later chapters. But one thing must be noted here. In the Western Europe of the 20" and 21* centuries, public officials were expected to appear at certain formal religious ceremonies —Corpus Christi processions, openings of the Judicial year, certain saint’s days, and the like; but any official who spoke of

personal religious belief would have been hounded out of office in many cases. In America at the same time, participation in such ceremonies by high-ranking public officials was usually frowned on (with a few exceptions, such as the earlier noted Red Mass). But a self-proclaimed atheist would never have been

BY THE GRACE OF GOD

4]

elected dogcatcher. So it was that, regardless of personal almost every president would be seen trudging away church of his choice. All of them at one time or another be seen to worship at the Episcopal Church of St. Lafayette Square—the “Church of the Presidents.”

belief, to the would John’s

As with so many other Episcopal churches, St. John’s is now a property of the Archordinariate,/and, since the White House falls within its boundaries, functions as the Royal Parish. Thus

it serves as the Royal wedding church—much as London’s St. Martin-in-the-Fields,

Paris’

St.

Germain

1’Auxerrois,

or

Vienna’s Augustinerkirche do for their Sovereigns. These are of course very joyous affairs, far different from the funerals at the Cathedral and the following interments at Arlington National Cemetery’s Royal Tomb. At any rate, other than weddings, you are not likely to see

the current king or Royal family at St. John’s. King James and his successors, as has always been expected of Catholic Sovereigns, attend daily Mass at the private chapels in the White House and Camp David. For many of their subjects, and certainly for themselves, this regular encounter with the Divine not only brings our Royals the blessings they deem necessary for the carrying out of their heavy office and the inspiration to choose wisely among the many decisions presented them, it. underscores Aheir claim and desire to be God’s Viceroys in temporal matters. Whether or not you believe them to be so, they do—and that has made all the difference between Their | Majesties and the former occupants of the White House. =

et

er

ie

4}

}

Fount ofJustice: Monarchy and the Law

CHAPTERIV If, before the Instauration, the president of the United States wielded more power than the most powerful of Monarchs, that was at least doubly true of the judiciary—and most especially of the Supreme Court. Where the POTUS could wage war and do sundry other things with little or no interference from anyone else, a majority of the Supreme Court justices could alter reality)

(in a manner eerily reminiscent of the Spacing Guild in Dune or the “Control Boys” of the Outer Limits) —the nature of marriage, or property rights, indeed, ofhumanity i itself, by mere fiat. On the State level, many a legislature dodged possible political bullets by putting controversial measures up to the populace as propositions; often enough, if the vote went the wrong way, the results would simply be quashed by the judiciary. Indeed, throughout the late 20" and early 21* centuries, this “activist judiciary” —unelected as it was, for all the prattling about the “Sovereignty of the People,” held in great degree the actual reins of power. This was believed by many—not least among them a majority of the 70 advisors chosen by James IV—to be one of the many factors which had | led to the destabilisation and collapse of the American republic. Of course, by that time not merely the role of the courts but the perceived nature of the Law itself had become almost unrecognisable since the days when the new King’s forebears

43

44 had—with

CHAPTER IV the

other

European

Monarchs

and _ the

Pope—dominated the mind of Europe—of old “Christendom.” In the Middle Ages, the “T_aw’)was not seen as something to be

created—whether by Kings, nascent legislatures, or judges—but (as something pre-existent? to be discovered and enforced by those bodies. Neither the English Common Law nor the Civil Law prevalent in Scotland and on the Continent were seen as anything other than (vessels of the eternal law given by ) God—and justice was thought to reign when the former conformed to the latter. The root roles of King or Emperor were at once religious, military, and judicial. It fell to the Monarch to enforce justice upon his realm—this was the King’s Peace. The appointment of Sheriffs and Justices of the Peace by the King revolved around this concept—as did “breaking the peace,” “keeping the peace,” and “disturbing the peace” —expressions which found their way with the Common Law itself into American jurisprudence. Disputants might bring their quarrels for adjudication before their Sovereign—as the two women disputing the maternity of a child once famously did before King Solomon. This was, of course, done at the Royal Court—and

even to-day, the word

“court” can mean either a Monarch’s entourage or the collection of figures who conduct a legal trial—or else the building wherein such takes place. Obviously the King of any country could preside over only a token few of such trials, and so judges were nominated to wield the King’s authority in this area—symbolised by the Royal Arms behind the judge’s bench. In various countries at different times the Sovereign played less and less an active role in the administration of justice, and the judges became less and less

dependent upon the Crown for their retention of power; this was the foundation of that “judicial independence” so prized in the early 21 century, and so deleterious in its effects.

FOUNT OF JUSTICE

45

By the time of the American Revolution, each of the colonies had developed their own judicial systems—often with the Governor’s Council playing the roles of both colonial Upper House of the Legislature and Highest Court—as did the House of Lords. There was of course a court higher than that—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which served as the Highest Appellate Court for all British colonies, and as it does once again for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,

and the rest to-day. In England, the highest court for most purposes was that of King’s Bench, a name used by several of the colonial courts as well, in the 13 colonies, Canada, and elsewhere. The King’s

Bench had a supervisory power over the actions and judgements of lower courts—and after independence, although the name of the various United States’ highest state courts varied, a number continued to call that supervisory power ae Bench Jurisdiction.” “ Upon his accession to the Throne, James IV decided that radical reorganisation of the Judiciary was an absolute necessity. From now on, the King’s justice would reign—and that meant reining in the Courts. For starters, he ordered that the Royal Arms be placed once more behind each judge’s chair in every courtroom across the land, regardless of jurisdiction—Federal, State, or Local. In keeping with the precedent noted earlier, every Supreme Court—including the one in Washington—was_ renamed the Court of King’s Bench. Although the office of Chief Justice was retained, he was subordinated to the newly created “Lord Chancellor,” who would both preside over the Supreme Court, head the Department of Justice, and exercise presidency of the reorganised Senate—we’ll look at his cabinet and congressional roles later. He is responsible to the King for the smooth functioning of all three bodies—and, of course, each of the States, Commonwealths,

Territories, and Protectorates

have a mere “Chancellor” who performs the same roles.

46

CHAPTER IV

The new King saw in the power of judicial review that the Supreme Court had arrogated to itself since Marbury versus Madison in 1803 the root of the Judicial activism that, in his

opinion, had taken such a toll upon the nation. Declaring that “no court shall be above the law,”“he quashed a number of the Court’s decisions, especially in the social sphere. He then decreed (and said decree was embedded in the new constitution) that no Court would have the right to decide upon the Constitutionality of a given law; instead, those questions would be left to a vote of the Judicial Committee of the reorganised Senate, acting very like the Law Lords. The King himself would sit in on such hearings if he deemed the question sufficiently important. But as might be surmised, the entire relationship of the law to the courts had shifted. ‘Such basic givens of society—such as marriage, infanticide, or private ownership—that the courts had seen fit to-attempt to alter were removed from their purview. What was left them were matters of criminality and civil equity. The King brought over to the American Judiciary another custom from Britain—the variously coloured robes and the wigs that had so fascinated and repelled American jurists for the better part of three centuries. Tradition and continuity with the prerevolutionary past was part of the reason, as was a break with the discredited republican system. It was a sheer jest that the King sought thereby to punish judges and attorneys for their trade! At any rate, the Red Masses with which the Judicial Year

opens are far more colourful affairs than they were under the republic. Law enforcement too has changed somewhat, with what were called “District Attorneys” in various jurisdictions once more called “King’s Attorneys.” Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, and Coroners

are again appointed by the Governor,

as His

Majesty’s representative, rather than elected. While the system

FOUNT OF JUSTICE

47

has settled down to-day,(its inauguration, in keeping with the ( ational temper at the time, was stained with bloodshed. At the time of James IV’s Instauration, large stretches of the country—especially in urban areas—had become utterly lawless. Despite this anarchy, as late as two months before the death of the president, police in some jurisdictions were still being bidden to bust cigarette smoking in bars and enforce courtordered gender integration in gym shower rooms. This James ended immediately. The King appeared on the internet, and declared that,

“As the Lord our God, the great lawgiver, has entrusted to me this government of these united states, he requires of me that I impose peace upon them. This I am determined to do. Having consulted with senior law enforcement and military officials, and leaders in all segments of society, I am binding all of you, my beloved subjects, to keep the peace in the name of Almighty God. Failure to do so shall result in the swiftest and most uncompromising of punishments, up to and ‘including the death penalty, 'Those who will not keep the peace deny themselves its \benefits. God bless you all! ”) This

is where

James’

consultations

with

the fraternal,

veterans, and hereditary organisations bore fruit. Upon their advice, he appointed provisional “Keepers of the Peace” to go to problem areas, take command of all law enforcement, raise such citizens as might be willing to help him, and put down civic unrest. New Orleans, for example, saw the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Peter Claver take control of the remnants of the NOPD, and with auxiliaries raised from the KPC, the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, and the Sons of Confederate

Veterans—alongside hired security paid for by the local Rotaries—end the gang violence that had plagued the Crescent City for the past two years. Ten of the most recalcitrant were hanged publicly in Jackson Square. Everyone acknowledges that the “Cleansing,” as it came to be called was a horrible, bloody

48

GHAPTER TY

experience in the life of the nation; but how the King’s Peace could have been installed upon the wilder centres of population otherwise remains an unsolved mystery. In any case, the omnipresent crowns on police caps and breast badges and the Royal Arms behind every judge underlie the fact that it is the King’s Peace that is being preserved and the King’s Justice that is being carried out. But just as true is the fact that this Peace and Justice can only be maintained with the willing assistance of the vast majority of the King’s subjects. Government has neither the money nor the reach it had during the republic’s heyday—partly because of the tight rations the previous regime’s wastefulness has imposed upon government expenditure, partly because of the commitment to subsidiarity on the part of James and his successors. Actually, the nature of crime has altered as well. Where a century ago, jurists talked about criminalizing “hate speech” and the like, all that sort of thing is gone; while racial segregation (except in a de facto way, and that has never left) has not returned, gender segregation has, especially in regards to sanitary facilities. In any case, few crimes save treason are considered worthy of national attention—or often enough, of State. On the other hand, Justices of the Peace and Sheriffs are

rarely if ever appointed from the populace of the area in which they shall serve. As with everything else in life, this has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, they are generally alien to local squabbles, and so are likelier to administer justice impartially; but on the other, they must try hard to make themselves popular amongst their people, in case they need to raise the posse comitatus against some malefactor. If a sheriff or a Justice of the Peace manages to make himself annoying to a majority of the citizenry, they can appeal to the Governor, who will send a Visitor to enquire into the charges. But in point of fact, this rarely happens.

FOUNT OF JUSTICE

49

Society to-day is far more self-policing than it was a century ago. As we shall see, local communities tend to be far tighter than they were,

and

in urban

areas,

the Guilds

and other

organisations to which the locals belong exercise a great deal of discipline on their members. The way in which the King’s Peace was imposed on a given area can also play a part. So, for example, when the local members of the Loyal Order of Moose opened Mooseheart (then as now, a residential childcare facility), 40 miles west of Chicago to refugees—and then, in concert with locals armed them and drove off their pursuers—they established a local prominence for that institution it has retained ever since. For better and worse, law

enforcement is far less intrusive and far less centralised than it was under the republic. As generations pass and the horrible

Gmemories of the time of anarchy fade, it remains to be seen how pow acta

enh Sotelo Bl

it will develop.

NTs

1

a

' sts. co» =

a

emeeinatag

ilAl damapt

eagertnd

"lead

PY nee Lea ee

2

Bel St

ie,

Wage

vis

1

en

Seoe

7

aan ge aT een

Pe eae

teat) BtSeal ¢

2 ale Bere

SS

ae

i

a)

a

a

wus

ee

ne

a

SH

AS

=

&-

A

Gly

v)

) “to diewhen Kings ceased to lead their men into battle.” The reasons for this development have much to do.with the. rise of the modern bureaucratic state, which found it could do age without Kings as generals “quite ¢as Sealy as it could do without them as judges—and it may be that the increasing reluctance of Sovereigns or their courtiers to allow the risk of the former’s life on the modern battlefield hastened the process. Whatever the case, it happened, although not all at once. Indeed, so late as the 18" century, Sweden’s Charles XII and Prussia’s Frederick the Great made names for themselves as “Warrior-Kings.” Both dispossessed Stuart Kings James III and Charles III risked their own lives to regain their Kingdoms, albeit unsuccessfully. Napoleon came to power as a general, and decided that true peace required him to attempt to succeed 1

OV!

CHAPTER V

Charlemagne. Napoleon III met Franz Josef on the field of battle, and neither Emperor enjoyed the carnage. World War I saw Belgium’s Albert I and Austria’s aforementioned saintly Emperor lead their troops on the battlefield; the latter, as both the youngest ruler of a great power and the only one to directly experience the horrors of the battlefield, was not too surprisingly the only one in real favour of an early peace. His unsuccessful bid for it ended as badly as our own Bonnie Prince Charlie’s attempt to regain his throne did at Culloden. Britain’s future Edward VIII, as Prince of Wales, also spent time in the trenches,

which is why he was not keen on a Second World War. When that conflict did arise, it saw a temporary rebirth of soldiering among Kings, as they either stayed in their countries to rally its defence, as occurred with Belgium’s Leopold III, Denmark’s Christian X, Romania’s Michael, Bulgaria’s Boris III, and Italy’s Victor Emmanuel II]—or else went with their governments overseas to organise continued resistance, as with Norway’s Haakon VII, Holland’s Wilhelmina, Yugoslavia’s Peter Il, and Greece’s George II. Only the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, and Greece got their rulers back after

the War; the left compelled Belgium’s King to abdicate in favour of his son, a rigged plebiscite brought in the republic in Italy, and the Soviets got the rest. Almost unique in the 21% century was Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who flew raids against the ISIS predecessors of the Caliphate. —~ Despite such eruptions as Gustav V’s impassioned call for the strengthening of Sweden’s defences in 1914, in most Constitutional Monarchies the Sovereigns played little active

role in the military—although heirs to the throne usually continued to spend time in military academies and subsequently in units. But in addition to this, important symbolic connections remained. When someone joined the armed forces, they swore an oath to the Sovereign, as a sign that his loyalties actually lay higher than with whatever political hack happened to be Prime

KING’S COLOURS

ee en

ee

53

Minister—a fact underlined by the Crowns surmounting branch and unit badges, just as with law and customs enforcement. British and Commonwealth Realm regiments retained both the unit colour—a regimental flag, marking self-identity, and the King’s colour, usually the national flag with the Royal cipher, symbolising the unit’s direct loyalty to their Sovereign. In most Monarchical armies, units which had particularly merited their Monarch’s favour were called “Royal” —and often proudly remembered that title long after their countries entered their republican interlude. When the European powers colonised the Americas, they established militia companies among their colonists. These fought alongside regular troops from their respective motherlands during the several world wars that took place in the

17" and 18" centuries. In the case of the French possessions, these units passed into British or Spanish control after France’s elimination from North America in 1763. In the latter nation’s colonies, the militia served on both sides during the Wars of Independence—a majority of Royalist troops were native born, while most Latin American armies to-day also trace their descent from the early Royal militias. The British also formed such units; most of these were purged of their Loyal officers just before the American Revolution, and many survive in one form or another down to the present as part of the National Guard in the thirteen oldest States—although the Puerto Rican, Philippine, and Florida National Guards all take pride in their Spanish origins. There are also Canadian units that claim descent from Loyalist militia groups, and both the Canadian Queen’s Rangers and the United States Rangers and Special Forces claim common origins in Rogers’ Rangers from the French and Indian War. Despite this heritage, for the most part the United States armed forces are the creation of the republican regime, although the Navy and Marines retain a certain conscious resemblance to their British forerunners. This is even true of the National Guard,

54

CHAPTER V

although many of those regiments trace their descent to either the Union or Confederate armies of the Civil War. From the beginning, officers and enlisted swore to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against foreign and domestic opponents.

For all that some wags would joke that the oath, if taken literally, would require the military to depose the government immediately, it was taken quite seriously. Hence the events surrounding the Instauration sorely tried the mettle of the entirely military establishment even more severely than the impending collapse of civil order. When James IV assumed the Crown, he was well aware of this. Immediately, all soldiers,

sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen—whether Regular, Reserves, or National and State Guard—were obligated to swear a new oath mandated by Congress. Familiar enough now, it was revolutionary at the time: “J, N., swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King James IV, his heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, his heirs and successors in person, crown, and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and of the generals and officers set over me.”

The King set off on a whirlwind tour of military bases and positions, focusing on places like Baltimore and New Orleans where the fighting was most severe. Having served himself in the British Army, he was well aware of the needed mix of humour and inspiration he had to pass on to what were now “All the King’s Men.” Given that both his continued rule and the stability of his new Kingdom were entirely dependent upon the :

/goodwill of his forceswhose unit cohesion was already stretched to the limit—it was essential that he succeed. In the event, he did so with flying colours. His behaviour was the opposite of that of most American generals of the time: while

KING’S COLOURS

Be e Ot See ee

55

never glad-handing and always retaining formality of speech and manner, he was not afraid to help push a truck out of the muck,

and share the sometimes meagre rations of his men—always last in the chow line, of course. As a result, his popularity amongst the rank-and-file-was immense; the officer corps took a little more time, but they too were won over in the end. It did not hurt that he poured substantial chunks of his European income into ameliorating shortages of supplies. While all-important, however, and certainly playing a crucial role in restoring order to the nerve-shattered nation, these gestures could not and would not be enough for the long-term might of the American military. For almost a century and a half, successive presidential administrations had used the military as a field in which to score political points through imposing social experimentation at the cost of unit cohesion. Even before that—as a result of the mammoth expansion of the forces in response to World War II—the corporate mentality was engrafted onto the military: the mentality that put individual advancement through the ranks above any other consideration. This destroyed the regimental system, whereby, though a man might be a corporal for 20 years, he would be an expert at his job. This also put an enormous strain on military families;under the old dispensation, regiments moved as a whole entity: wives, | families, and all. In a sense, the regiment was as much a \ neieubon oo as anything else, as far as dependents were _ concerned.) ‘Individual rotation directly influenced the almost axiomatic military divorce rate of the late 20" and early 21* centuries. Given that very little of the armed forces remained outside the United States by this time, the return to the regimental system was much easier than it would have been two decades before—and the King made much of the fact—in his " speeches at posts and bases—of the fact that the military was a calling, not unlike Kingship, in its way. Both he and his men, he stressed, had to be willing to give up a large chunk of their

56

CHAPTER V

personal freedom for the good of the country. Given the enormous amount of affection that both current servicemen and veterans had for the existing uniform and ranks structure, these were for the most part retained—although the Navy again has Commodores. Although this will be no surprise to my readers now, seventy or more years ago my exclusive use of the masculine to refer to members of the armed forces would have caused comment. But another of the Royal reforms was to remove the vast majority of) women from the armed forces-again, in the name of unit cohesion. The great debacle of the co-ed SEALS earlier mentioned was still very fresh in everyone’s minds back then, but with the myopia typical of our leadership in the late republican period, neither the civilian nor military authorities would face the obvious lessons of that horror. The King did. Of course, as King James’ sons came of age, they entered the military. Perhaps the single greatest event to wed our dynasty to our nation came when the King’s youngest son, Prince Henry, was mortally wounded during the Liberian Pacification. My adult readers will easily recall the daily reports on His Royal Highness’ condition and finally his tragic death. The Court in mourning, the Royal funeral at Arlington, the Queen silently sobbing through the Requiem—and her enrolling in the Gold Star Mothers afterwards—no one who lived through that time can forget it. Tragic as it all was, it truly consummated the union of Crown, Military, and Country; since then, there have been few

among us—save the Orange-Green Lodge members—who can consider themselves patriotic if they are not also loyal. Certainly none of us can look at our current King, who was approaching middle age when his youngest brother died, without thinking of his bereavement—so like that of so many of us. One of the hallmarks of Monarchical armies has been the

presence of special guard units to protect the person of the country’s Sovereign. The British Household Cavalry and

________KINGsconours_ 57 Brigade of Guards are perhaps the most famous, but every Monarchy—to include the Holy See with its Swiss and revived Noble and Palatine Guards—has had them. Most countries, such

as France, Italy, and so on transformed them into presidential guards (though often with similar or identical uniforms) during their republican periods. In the United States, the presidents boasted the services of the Third United States Infantry Regiment, the “Old Guard,” who claimed descent from George Washington’s Guards. There was also a Marine detachment, including a band dubbed the “President’s Own.” With these exception of the latter now being called the “King’s Own,” this arrangement has been retained. But as we shall see, the King is not merely King in and over Washington; he is King of each of the States and territories individually as well. As earlier mentioned, the Thirteen original States have colonial era National or State Guard units; each of these,

and

the oldest

outfits

in the other National

Guard

formations have also been denominated “Royal Guards” and the word “Royal” added to their names. This has been done with certain particular renowned regular regiments as well, hence, for example, the 7" Royal United States Cavalry, as opposed to the 14 United States Cavalry. But in the case of State units who continue their names, one sees such odd pairings as Massachusetts’ Royal National Lancers—which is surely as redundant as it can be—or North Carolina’s Royal Fayetteville Independent Light Infantry. Yet Connecticut’s Governor’s Foot Guards and Horse Guards are NOT called “Royal,” presumably because their name already conveys the connexion. The Governor is, after all, a Royal appointee. Another area, important for morale if seemingly unimportant to the less informed civilian, is the military honour system. This was retained intact, with the Congressional Medal of Honour remaining the nation’s highest award for gallantry (and being placed in the new Royal Arms). But both it and the

58

CHAPTER V

(former Presidential, now Royal) Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian

award,

were

subsumed

into

the

new

Orders

of

Knighthood through the simple expedient of automatically making the holder a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath. So, for example, when Ruben Gonzalez won the Congressional Medal of Honour for his actions at the Battle of Izmir, he quickly became Sir Ruben Gonzalez, KCB— something none of his family could ever have expected when he was born in El Paso. But it is no coincidence that, despite his disability, Sir Ruben is now High Sheriff of El Paso County—an appointment, incidentally, made directly by King Charles V himself, rather than being recommended by the Governor. If he does well in that position, he may end his career as a Baron. One last point that must be made is that King James, in reorganising the army, was very solicitous of the spiritual needs of his men. Here too, he had to reconcile his own Catholic Faith

with the requirements of the men of many religions who served him. The result of this conundrum was the current system, whereby the Catholic Archbishop of the Armed Forces is spiritual head of all the Catholic chaplains; as Military Chief of Chaplains he is the military commander of all three Chaplain’s Corps, though the heads of each of those (who may be of any religion represented in the respective corps) carry on the day-today running of army, air force, and naval chaplaincies; and as Dean of the Chapel Royal, he is formally head of the King’s ecclesiastical household—Royal chaplains and chapels, choirs, etc. The Cathedral of St. Emil Kapaun, seat of the Military Archdiocese, is one of six cathedrals in Washington, in addition to the National Shrine, St. Matthew’s for the Latin Archdiocese,

the Anglican Archordinariate at the National Cathedral, and the Russian and Greek Cathedrals. One last point to be made is that the King and or the Royal Princes inevitably celebrate the feast days of the different

branches of the military with an appropriate unit somewhere in

KING’S COLOURS

59

the country—St. George’s day with cavalrymen or tankers, St. Barbara’s day with artillerists, Our Lady, Star of the Sea with the Navy, and so on. The military play an integral part in the ceremonial life of the Monarchy and the soul of our nation, and perhaps have never been held in such high esteem as they are today. It is certainly true that, on the one hand, a man is highly unlikely to advance up the ranks very quickly; but at any time a private may die with a Prince, and gallantry in battle can land one in the highest echelons of Society.

v7

‘i

Estates of the Realm: Monarchy and Congress

CHAPTER VI The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire led to the rise of Feudalism in Europe—that is, a Europe based upon local loyalties, where the powerful nobility looked after the peasantry, and in turn were economically supported by them. The Church, in the meantime, whose bishops were often recruited from the

nobility and lesser clergy from the peasantry, attempted to give spiritual guidance to the lot. This left the Holy Roman Emperor and the Kings of Latin Christendom at the apex of the system with authority—the right to decide what should be done; but little power—the ability to make things happen. These Monarchs generally financed their immediate and usual needs out of their own personal lands and estates.

Indeed, power was increasingly diffuse as what we call the Middle Ages wore on, and webs of various interlocking and parallel hierarchies developed ever more complexity. In the Church, there were of course the various national episcopates, but there was also the web of monasteries and eventually religious orders—both of canons regular, friars, and knights. The ranks of nobility developed in each nation, as did the cities, with

their contending guilds and local patricians. Provincial identities developed—complete with their own sets of customary laws. Added to this was the growth of the medieval universities as autonomous “republics of learning.” Each of these entities were 61

62

CHAPTER VI

both firmly rooted in local reality and connected to a larger web of similar interests. By 1200, Europe as a whole and each of its constituent Kingdoms was a crazy quilt of such bodies. Internally, this meant what appeared to us to-day to be sheer chaos—a mutually imagined “King’s Peace,” whose enforcement required local support. If a baron or other individual became too criminal, the King might declare him an “Outlaw” —outside the law. This meant his neighbours might take his lands, castles, or whatever else he had—in those areas

ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor, this outlawry was called being put under “the Ban of the Empire.” Of course, this delicate system might be endangered by famine, plague, or civil war caused by familial disputes within the ruling dynasty. And there were external threats—the Muslims, and the Vikings and Magyars before those peoples converted and joined the ranks of Christendom with Kings of their own. At any-rate, in most of the European Kingdoms, all of this required the Kings to take counsel of the great figures—clerical and lay—of their realms. These Councils eventually gave rise to Cabinets. But larger problems gave rise to larger needs beyond the King’s usual expenses— especially in terms of levying men or raising taxes, and this meant bringing together the major interests of the realm—the greater and lesser nobility and landholders; the bishops and abbots; the representatives of the

various groups that dominated the cities; and in some places the universities. These were the “estates,” who might meet on either a provincial or a national basis at the King’s summons to consider his requests for extra aid. In some places there might be four “estates,” in others, three. In England, the “Knights of the

Shire” —representatives of the non-noble rural landholders, and the “burgesses” —envoys of the free towns and cities or “boroughs” —coalesced in the “House of Commons,” whilst the Barons on the one hand and the Bishops and Abbots on the other joined to become the “House of Lords.”

ESTATES OF THE REALM

63

In England, Parliament came to overshadow the Monarch—culminating in the Civil Wars, at the apex of which our King Charles I was martyred, and at last in the so-called “Glorious Revolution,” that drove our rightful King, James II off

the thrones of the Three Kingdoms and these colonies. Thus was begun the pretended notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the creation of the Whig Oligarchy—the first of many to rule through Parliaments and Legislatures around the globe, and the beginning of a collision course between Great Britain and her American colonies. Eventually, after the French and other revolutions—as well as peaceful “evolution” in places like Scandinavia—the dominance of various oligarchies ruling through a political class in Parliament became complete. This was particularly true throughout the Commonwealth, as the “Westminster System” became the model for all Anglophone Parliaments subsequent to the American Revolution. In the remaining Monarchies, the Sovereign became a mere figurehead. Ritualistically opening and closing Parliament, and offering the Royal Assent—there never being any question of a veto—the King might “be consulted, encourage, and warn” but that was it. It was, in fact, against just such a system in Lichtenburg that our new King’s father and grandfather had rebelled successfully. In these United States, however, things were different. Our

colonial legislatures were firmly rooted in British practise and tradition—hence the presence in some of Crowned-topped maces as signs of Royal authority; the division into two houses; speakers of the house, sergeants at arms, and all that sort of

thing. Moreover, the Governor exercised the veto—although on the advice of the Government of London, rather than the King, for all that such things were usually couched as Royal orders. All of these facts were very much in the mind of the draughters of the Constitution.

64

CHAPTER VI

These same Founding Fathers were faced with a grave question which plagued the United States until the Instauration: when, in 1783, George III absolved those whom he claimed as

subjects in America from their allegiance, to whom did his Sovereignty devolve—to the individual States or to the national government? We shall look at this conundrum again in more detail in a later chapter. But for the immediate, it is sufficient to

realise that it was one of the elephants in the room at the Constitutional Convention. Moreover, how were the competing claims of representation between the Thirteen States as equals and their respective populations as individuals to be reconciled? Fortunately, with the model of Parliament behind them, a

solution was found in a bicameral Congress (that which met under the “Articles of Confederation” had been a single chamber house). This “Connecticut Compromise” resulted in a House of Representatives, popularly elected (although the individual States would determine who might vote, and apply literacy tests, poll taxes, property requirements, etc.) with representation proportionate to the States’ populations—thus making censuses all-important. There would also be a Senate featuring two Senators elected by the legislatures of each State. The lower house would look after the “people’s” interests, while the Senate would safeguard the rights of the States. In turn, the president of the United States, as chief executive, would be responsible for

carrying out the laws passed by Congress which was seen as the centre of gravity of the new government, for all that he retained the Royal veto. But—partly from the sheer importance of George Washington to the country’s very existence—almost immediately the president became something of a senior partner. Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, which was certainly questionable under the Constitution, while Madison worked unsuccessfully at taking Canada and with success at grabbing Florida. The increasing friction between Slave and

ESTATES OF THE REALM

65

Free States centred on the creation of new States which would determine control of Congress. The eventual failure of compromise led directly to the attempted Secession of the South, the bloody Second Civil War, and—for better or worse—further reduction in the power of Congress as Lincoln bent or broke rules to end that conflict. In the midst of all of this historical drama, however, the

antebellum era was the Golden Age of the United States Senate. Deeply opposed as they were to each other at times, there could be no doubt of the ability of such men as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Henry Clay. If the same high quality did not prevail after the War, the Senate remained, on the whole, a more

elite body than the House. But during that time, as the franchise widened, the Senate came to be increasingly seen as corrupt and “un-Democratic.” Complaints were made that State legislatures sometimes delayed elections of Senators, thus leaving their constituents unrepresented during crucial votes—though in reality that rarely happened. Appearances triumphed over reality as the propaganda grew, and in 1913, shepherded by president Woodrow Wilson, the 17 amendment to the Constitution was

passed. This provided for popular election of the Senate. The unintended consequences of this action were profound, and haunted the United States until the Instauration. On the one hand, Senators were suddenly freed of oversight other than the nominal threat of citation by their peers. If a representative were guilty of wrongdoing, his two-year term and the relatively small number of constituents he served made a relatively swift defeat in the next election more likely; but the Senator, in office for six

years and responsible to an entire State was far less vulnerable—in practice he had no one to answer to. The opposite was also true, however. If pressured by outside forces, the Congressman could appeal to his district and make his case known; the Senator no longer had any connection to his State’s

66

CHAPTER VI

authorities. Moreover, by losing this key power, the place of the States in the scheme of things was even further reduced. But so too would be the role of Congress as a whole. The New Deal saw Congress voluntarily surrender a great deal of control over economic, internal, and foreign policy to FDR. The post-World War II period saw the president making war without a Congressional declaration, while between executive orders and judicial decisions, ever more power was siphoned away from those alleged to represent the “Sovereign People.” In reality, of course, Congress was dominated by a political class far more beholden to lobbyists and the media than to its constituents—a situation both concealed and aggravated by the party system that consistently placed political advantage over national needs. This was the body that failed the country so abysmally in the 21* century.

Nevertheless,

at

the

Instauration

James

IV

saw

the

discredited-Congress as being the residual holder of the nation’s authority—hence his insistence that it be recalled to approve his accession. With the experiences of his father and grandfather in dealing with a similarly corrupt legislative body behind him, the new King and his advisors went to work in crafting a renewed Congress that would safeguard the national interest above its own. There would, however, be no question about the Congress’ role vis-a-vis the Monarch; it would exist primarily to approve the annual budget, to advise the King via resolutions as to the perceived needs of the people, to propose legislation if its leadership thought it necessary, and to approve declarations of War or deployment of troops overseas—the latter right granted because, in the King’s estimation, it was Congress that would

have to approve any added expenditure. The Cabinet would be responsible to the King as it had been to the president, and not Congress—unlike the practice in most of the former

Constitutional Monarchies.

ESTATES OF THE REALM

67

For starters, the new Senate was once again to be elected by the several State legislatures. As mentioned in a previous chapter, the newly created Lord Chancellor would preside over the body, and in his absence the president pro tem. A crowned mace was given the Senate to serve as the symbol of the King’s authority over the body. The Judicial Committee of the Senate was charged not only with offering candidates to national judiciary positions for the King’s approval, but also with offering considered official substantive advice to His Majesty on the Constitutionality of challenged laws. The make-up of the House has remained unchanged, for the moment—although in recent years a movement has grown up for representation by occupational groupings according to States, rather than by mere geography. As of this writing, it is unknown whether this will gather sufficient momentum for the King to call for a Constitutional Convention to consider implementing such a change. But one major alteration to the House ‘has come in the form of appointment of the Speaker of the House. This is an office that goes back to Medieval England; originally the Speaker was appointed by the King. At the time of the English Civil War, he became the servant of the Members of the House, elected by the majority. In that capacity, he ran the proceedings for the benefit of the majority faction. After the American Revolution, the Speaker in the British and Commonwealth Parliaments eventually became a non-partisan official, but in the United States Congress he remained a creature of party. Oddly enough, he also had at his disposal an eagleheaded mace as a symbol of Congressional authority. In the renewed House, he is now a non-partisan official, appointed by the King. Although the original mace has been retained, it is now understood to serve as a symbol of Royal authority over the

House.

68

CHAPTER VI

Indeed, to fully understand the relationship between Monarch and Congress, a look at the annual State Opening is necessary. This uniquely American ceremony draws upon both Westminster and the old Congress for its ritual and symbolism. In the former system, the State Opening of Parliament in London, Ottawa, or wherever was a very regal affair. The Sovereign or his Viceroy (depending on where it was happening) would take part in a parade from his residence to Parliament. Once arrived, he would take up his seat in the Throne in the Upper House. An official called the Usher of the Black Rod would then proceed to the Lower House chamber; thereupon the door would be shut in his face to show the independence of said Lower House. Black Rod would rap on the door three times, it would be opened, and he would proceed to the Speaker’s chair and request the attendance of the Lower House upon His Majesty (or Excellency, were it a Viceroy involved). The Speaker, Prime Minister, and a number of others would then

make their way to the Other House, where they would listen to the Speech from the Throne. The point of all of this was to commemorate the attempt by King Charles I to arrest several treasonous Members of Parliament in the Commons

Chamber;

henceforth, no King could set foot in the Commons, nor could

his representative—Black Rod—do so without the Speaker’s permission. Once the Speaker, MPs, and Prime Minister were assembled, the Monarch or Viceroy would read the Speech from the Throne, setting forth the government’s policy for the next session. Although the Sovereign referred to “My Government” proposing to do this or that, the speech was in fact written by the Prime Minister, and except for occasional non-partisan comments at the beginning or end and the ritual hope that God would bless their proceedings, the Monarch had nothing to do with it. The reading completed, the Sovereign returned as he had

ESTATES OF THE REALM

a EE eee

69

come to his palace and the Speaker and the rest decamped to their Chamber. Once ensconced therein, a pro forma resolution declaring to their “Most Gracious Sovereign” the House’s unswerving loyalty to “His Majesty’s Throne and Person” was proposed—this was called the “Address-in-Reply.” There was never any question of it not being passed, but debate on it allowed the opposition party or parties to attack the government’s policies as a whole. Usually taking several days, when it was concluded the Address was passed and sent on to the Monarch or Governor-General after which Parliament proceeded on its merry way. To-day, the Opening of Congress begins with the Royal Progress from the White House down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. The Old Guard always takes part, as well as the King’s Own Marine Band and the Governor’s Troop of Cavalry of the Maryland National Guard; other units compete from one year to the next for the honour. Once His Majesty and his party arrive, they enter the House of Representatives without knocking or any delay, thus asserting Royal authority over the Lower House. Once therein, the proceedings follow very much in the manner of that very first Speech from the Throne, when James IV accepted the Crown of America. The King lays out the measures proposed by what is truly “his” government, and then departs. The next day, His Majesty returns in similar fashion to receive the Address-in-Reply. While filled with loyal language, the address includes all of the questions the Congressmen have regarding the proposed legislation and taxes, as well as any other concerns the House may have. The King does not respond, but sits in silence as it is read. Upon his return to the White House, he convenes the Cabinet, and they review the Address; the following day the relevant Secretaries appear before a Joint Session to respond to the Representatives’ and Senators’ questions and concerns.

70

CHAPTER VI

Perhaps what makes the current Congress most different from the former one are not these sorts of structural and ceremonial changes, but the lack of organised parties. Certainly there are regional and other factions, but there are no whips, no

majority and minority leaders—every vote is what was once called a “conscience” vote, whereby the Representatives and Senators vote according to their own mind or interest. What has been attempted is to make Congress truly representative of its constituents and so an aid to the King, rather than an interest of its own—how well that shall work out, only the future can tell. Another ceremony that Congress has borrowed from Westminster and adapted to its own needs is that of the Royal Assent. By the beginning of the 21“ century, in the world’s remaining Constitutional Monarchies, legislation required Royal Assent to take effect—but that Royal Assent was rarely withheld. Belgium’s King Baudouin I abdicated for a day rather than assent to legalising abortion; Luxembourg’s Grand Duke Henri had the power stripped from him by a “Christian Democratic” government when he refused to sanction euthanasia. No British Monarch had risked it since Queen Anne in 1708. Nevertheless, in the Westminster system, an impressive ceremony of granting the Royal Assent was maintained—and even into the 21“ century done most impressively not at Westminster itself but in several of the Canadian Provinces. In its original form, the Monarch would enter into Parliament with the same impressive panoply that accompanied the State Opening. The titles of the bills passed were read, the King stiffly nodded to each signifying assent, and the clerk would say in Norman French, /e Roy le veult— “the King Wills It.” The Royal or Viceregal party would then depart after each was treated in like manner. As noted, however, James IV’s father and grandfather had

fought their politicians down successfully; he was resolved that the breed should never have their hold on this country again. So

ESTATES OF THE REALM

aA

it is that the ceremony of Royal Assent is carried out in the House of Representatives in similar style to the Westminster fashion—save that every time it occurs, the King will say of at least one bill—often a pro forma one passed just for the purpose, but sometimes substantive—the words unheard at Westminster from the 18" century until relatively recently: Je Roy s ‘avisera— “the King shall consider it.” This is how the veto is exercised today, and unlike its presidential forebear, a two thirds majority cannot override it. Usually, however, if it is something really important to a majority of both houses, the question will come up again when it is time to approve the budget. The business of Congress is perhaps best expressed by the prayers recited by each House’s chaplain every morning of the Congressional Session: The Lord be with you. And with thy Spirit. Let us pray. Lord, have mercy upon us. Christ, have mercy upon us. Lord, have mercy upon us. Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen. O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler ofprinces, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most Gracious Sovereign Lord King Charles; and so replenish him with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that he may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way. Endue him plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant him in health and wealth long to live; strengthen him that he may

G2

CHAPTER VI

vanquish and overcome all his enemies; and finally after this life he may attain everlasting joy and felicity, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Almighty God, the Fountain of all Goodness, We humbly beseech thee to bless Queen Margrethe, Crown Prince James, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy Heavenly Grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Almighty God, by whom alone Kings reign, and Princes decree justice; and from whom alone cometh all counsel, wisdom, and understanding; we thine unworthy servants, here gathered together in thy Name, do most humbly beseech thee to send down thy Heavenly Wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations; and grant that, we having thy fear always before our eyes, and laying aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the result of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed Name, the maintenance of true Religion and Justice, the safety, honour, and happiness of the King, the publick wealth, peace and tranquility of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same, in true Christian Love and Charity one towards another, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Amen. Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help, that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy Holy Name, and finally by thy mercy obtain everlasting Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with us all evermore. Amen.

ESTATES OF THE REALM

Wp

Adapted from the prayers said daily in the British House of Lords, these serve,

as does so much

else of Congressional

ceremony, to remind us of the four origins of the nation’s legislature—European, British, colonial, and republican. These are equally the origins of the Monarchy itself, and there is perhaps no more poignant symbol of that continuity than the dish always served the King immediately after the given ceremony when he visits the Capitol—Senate Bean Soup, whose recipe has remained unchanged for over a century and a half.

King’s Council: Monarchy and Cabinet

CHAPTER VII What every government under the sun believes to be essential for governance—a cabinet of ministers (or, in the case of the United States, secretaries), developed out of the Medieval

King’s Council and Household. The former—depending on the country—consisted of the highest ranking prelates and nobles in the realm, while the latter usually consisted of the clerics and laymen who took care of the Monarch’s immediate needs, staffed’ his homes,

officiated

at his chapels,

carried on his

correspondence, and so on. This heritage is remembered in the very title of “minister” —which means servant: servant of the King, to be exact. The path these two bodies followed in developing into the cabinet varies quite a bit per country, and again, titles give us some insight. Originally the “Chancellor” was a cleric who

carried on the King’s correspondence. Over time, in Germanic countries he became a Prime Minister-type figure, whereas in England he gradually evolved into the Lord Chancellor, the powerful judicial figure we know to-day. In any case, Medieval government in general was—to later eyes—quite rudimentary; there was very little machinery of governance anyway, much of it was carried on by provincial and local authorities, and the rest was left to a collection of Church, nobility, and guild interests to deal with. ip

76

CHAPTER VIL

Starting with the Reformation era, the Monarchs of Europe concentrated more and more power in their hands from these sources,

and the broad

outlines

of the centralised

sort

of

government that dominated the world until relatively recently emerged. This was the “Age of Absolutism,” and it saw the transformation of Council and Household into the Cabinet Ministries and national bureaucracies that our fathers became so familiar with. This was the age of such Monarchs as Louis XIV and Frederick the Great, who—through the medium of these governmental structures—wielded power over their subjects unheard of before that time, for all that it was far less than that

of our former presidents and Supreme Court. In time, the structures of State found they could do quite well without the Monarchs that had called them into being, and the

Age of Revolutions emerged. Kings were killed or overthrown, but the governmental apparatus—most especially the cabinet ministries and the courts—went on as they had. Counterrevolutionary writers like de Maistre and Bonald partly ascribed the revolution to the Monarch’s earlier crushing of local liberties. In the remaining—now “constitutional”—Monarchies, the power of the Kings was slowly eclipsed by the Prime Minister, the head of the largest party in the national parliament. These Sovereigns no longer presided over cabinet meetings; instead, for certain ceremonial purposes, the King might meet with the cabinet to rubber stamp various decrees in what might be called a “Crown Council” or “Council of State,” depending on the country. This process was not without a few hiccoughs, when such Kings clashed with their governments over the best interests of the nation, as with

Sweden’s

Gustaf V in the

Courtyard Speech affair of 1914, or Christian X of Denmark with the Easter Controversy of 1924. Every American schoolchild learns about these events to-day—and is taught just how right those Kings were proved to be by events. At the time, however, being right did Their Majesties little good, and in time

KING’S COUNCIL

a

77

they were almost completely shackled to the whims of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Britain and her Commonwealth followed a somewhat analogous process, but with several important differences that would have a huge impact on American history. In the course of the Middle Ages, the gathering of notables about the King to aid and advise him in governance was called the Privy Council. As noted in the chapter on Congress, our King’s ancestor Charles I fought the Oligarchy (that had arisen through Henry VIII’s distribution of monastic lands) for control of the Three Kingdoms. His son Charles II was restored, and ruled in an uneasy diarchy with Parliament. This was overturned when William of Orange invaded and James II was overthrown. William accepted Parliament’s sovereignty, and when he died, his sister-in-law, Anne, occupied the throne de facto. By this time, the Privy Council, which had grown to a considerable size, had developed several committees, one of which was called the

“Cabinet,” and through which the Sovereign ruled—that is, it was made up of the men responsible for carrying out the King’s orders within their several areas of competence. Charles II, James II, William, and Anne all presided over its meetings, and helped to shape policy. With Anne’s death and the Oligarchy placing upon the throne the Elector of Hanover, George I, things changed. As the new “King” spoke no English, he ceased to attend cabinet meetings, which instead were conducted by the First Lord of the Treasury, Robert Walpole, who is considered the country’s first “Prime Minister.” Never again would Kings run their cabinets—although had either James III or Charles III regained their thrones, that would have come to a speedy halt. Instead, there grew up the system whereby, although the real decisions were made by the Prime Minister and cabinet— although the Monarch might advise, warn, or encourage— without any reference to their nominal master. Nevertheless, the

78

CHAPTER VII

almost absolute power the Prime Minister wielded—so long as he kept his majority in parliament—was legally that of the King—the “Royal Prerogative.” As a sign of this legality, from time to time administrative orders—called “Orders-in-Council” —were signed by the Monarch in the company of a few ministers and often the Prime Minister. These gatherings were referred to as the “King-in-Council,” the fiction being that they represented meetings of the Privy Council. That body did still exist, although in those days the entire membership generally only met at the accession of a new Sovereign. But there were still some minor roles the Privy Council fulfilled, and its Judicial

Committee was the final Court of Appeal for the British overseas Dominions, as it has become once more. In those

Dominions,

the Governors-General,

Australian

State Governors, and Canadian Provincial Lieutenant Governors

went through a similar ritual with their respective Prime Ministers and Premiers. Except for Canada, which boasted “The King’s Privy Council for Canada,” the klatches of Viceroy and ministers

were

called

“Executive

Councils,”

and

held

to

represent the “Governor-in-Council” wielding the Royal Prerogative. Both the British King and his Dominion Governors, although usually bound only to act politically on the “advice” of their ministers,

nevertheless

retained

what

were

called

the

“Reserve Powers.” Although fairly well-known to-day because of their use by George VII in effecting the Change of System, historically they had been rather obscure over the past few centuries. Basically they were the powers of dismissing a Prime Minister and dissolving Parliament on the King or Viceroy’s own initiative. In the case of the Governors-General, as also in

withholding Royal Assent, prior to 1931’s Statute of Westminster, the Viceroys depended upon the British Government for both their appointment and advice. But after that date, they ceased to represent Whitehall, and were chosen

on the advice of the Dominion Prime Minister; obviously he was hardly likely to advise a Governor-General to refuse Royal Assent to a bill he himself had pushed through Parliament. Nevertheless, it sometimes happened that the actions of a Prime Minister forced a Governor-General to wield the reserve powers on his own initiative, as in Canada in 1926, South Africa in 1939,

and Australia in 1975—again, all cases schoolchildren study carefully. Since George VII’s actions, of course, it is highly unlikely such things could happen again in the British Commonwealth. At any rate, when the British American colonies were settled, the Royal Governor in each of them governed with the aid of a Council. These Councils often did triple duty, being at once cabinet, upper house of the Assembly, and the highest court in the colony. The Governor ruled in accordance with instructions from the Prime Minister and cabinet in London,

rather than directly from the King. But although the King did not make colonial policy until Lord North became Prime Minister in 1770, he was occasionally able to intervene directly in colonial affairs, as when relieving the Ashfield, Massachusetts Baptists of having to support a minister not of their religion, or in giving the Mashpee Indians their own autonomous government. At any rate, as Eric Nelson pointed out almost a century ago in his groundbreaking Royalist Revolution, a number of the Founding Fathers initially wanted George III to directly rule over the American colonies, without any intervening cabinet or parliament—they would perhaps be happy to-day. Certainly, when draughting the first Constitution and forming the new government, this history was very much in the minds of the framers; although not called for in that document, President Washington immediately formed the first American Cabinet.

Comprised

of the

Secretaries

of State,

War,

the

Treasury, and the Attorney General, it has only one less member than to-day’s cabinet, the Department of the Interior not being

80

CHAPTER VII

created until 1849. But that belies the entire history of the United States government between now and then. Unlike the contemporary British situation but just as under the Stuarts, the United States Cabinet during the republic answered to no one but the president—save for funding and confirmation of the various Secretaries, which latter job was the Senate’s. There was no Prime Minister. In time, the number of

and presided over mushroomed, a_ huge departments bureaucracy whose tentacles literally extended into every citizen’s life on many, many fronts. This was the system whose ruins James IV was tasked with attempting to reconstruct. To rebuild the Federal Government as it had been was impossible—even had the King wished to do so. He was imbued with the notion of Subsidiarity—that is, that governmental actions ought to be conducted on the lowest level possible, with only the things that a lower rung of administration absolutely could not do being done at the next highest. As effective ruler of a small nation, he had seen adequate proof of both the utility and desirability of this idea. It was just as well, because practically speaking, the chaos that had preceded his accession had also seen power devolve in many areas to States, Counties, and/or Cities. In restoring order, His Majesty had used the army extensively. This “Military Aid to the Civil Power” was in direct contradiction to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, whereby Federal authorities were forbidden to use the armed forces in domestic affairs. Successive presidents “federalised” the National Guard—part of the various State forces to deal with civil unrest or disaster relief. At the time the King declared that the act did not bind him, seeing as he was neither Congress nor president. Nevertheless, without the support of the State and local authorities and the various private groups James had already appealed to, a lasting order could not have been reestablished. As a natural result a great many functions the old Federal government had exercised devolved to lower ranks of

KING’S COUNCIL c rc a l

81

government. It was perhaps a blessing—but for the purposes of national unity, it also made Royal appointment of State Governors an absolute necessity. In our current system, the Monarchy is very much the glue that holds the country together. So, though somewhat bigger than that of 1789, to-day’s cabinet is a shadow of that of 1989. The King himself serves as Head of Government as well as of State, just as the old presidents used to, although his role at the national level is far more circumscribed. The ordinary running of the central government in Washington actually comes primarily from the revenue from the Crown Lands as well as His Majesty’s European holdings of various kinds—which also help subsidise his Grand Duchy of Lichtenburg. Anything beyond that requires taxes that only Congress can levy. Similarly, Congress must approve any declaration of war or deployment overseas, as well as any accession of territory. That said, the King appoints his cabinet secretaries without resort to Congress for approval. The Lord Chancellor presides over the Department of Justice, in addition to his Congressional and Judicial roles. The Attorney General’s position remains, albeit in a subordinate and non-cabinet level position; he continues, however, to vet the

legality of measures to be introduced into Congress. Since the scope of the Justice Department is far less than it was, its numbers have shrunk over the past several decades. The Secretary of State oversees the nation’s foreign policy, and is Keeper of the Great Seal of the United States as well. The design of that seal is different from the old republican one, the obverse bearing the figure of the current King, and the reverse the Double-Headed American Eagle. He is also Chief of Protocol—an extremely important role in these times. Under his department also fall the external relations of our three protectorates, Hawaii, Samoa, and Sulu.

The Secretary of Defence—usually a serving General or Admiral—is responsible for the Military, relations with the

82

CHAPTER VII

General Staff (as the former Joint Chiefs have become), selection of candidates for military honours, and especially the security of our Caribbean, Liberian, Filipino, and Micronesian

possessions as well as that of the protectorates. The Secretary of the Treasury manages the public funds, regardless of origin. He also appoints the Governor of the Bank of the United States, and the directors of the Royal Mints in Philadelphia, New Orleans, Denver, and San Francisco.

The Secretary of the Interior has perhaps the most varied job. Under him falls direction of the Royal Household, the Crown Lands (formerly the Public Lands, National Parks and Monuments,

and National

Forests),

the Chancellery

of the

Orders of Knighthood, the American

College of Arms, the

Chamber

of Indian Affairs, the

of the Nobility, the Bureau

Bureau of Worship (which deals with the King’s ecclesiastical relations with both the Catholic and other churches), liaising with State authorities for the maintenance of the King’s Highways (former Interstates and U.S. Highways), and a number of other important things. Together, the Cabinet Departments function as what a Cabinet was meant to be—its Monarch’s servant rather than his master. The members hold office at His Majesty’s pleasure, and also occupy important ceremonial roles at such events as the Speech from the Throne and the Red Mass. Small though it is now, the national government focuses on the jobs remaining to it, and as a rule does a better job than the government preceding it.

Letters of Credence:

Monarchy

and Foreign Affairs

CHAPTER VIII Representing his people before the other nations of the world has always been a special role of every Christian Monarch—a part and parcel of his Coronation vow to defend them. Part of this included the despatching of ambassadors to the courts of his brother Monarchs; diplomatic protocols developed which were codified at the Congress of Vienna, and have survived more or less to the present day—hence the lovely diplomatic uniforms and ceremonies of presentation of letters of credence which play a part in the lives of every Head of State, and have done so for centuries. The great tragedy of European Monarchy was the inability of the Sovereigns to establish a lasting peace among themselves. This was true even when all believed themselves to be part of one Christendom—an idea that struck a seemingly mortal blow at the Reformation. Still, despite the incredibly bloody wars the Monarchs fought among each other, it would pop up from time to time. The most recent, before our own day, was Tsar Alexander I’s Holy Alliance in 1815. This strife prevailed even though, in latter centuries, Kings made a point of marrying foreign Royals. Widespread as the custom was, the rulers of Britain, Germany, and Russia being personally friendly cousins did not stop the horrors of World War I, which demonstrated that those Sovereigns had lost control of their countries to the

83

84

political establishments

CHAPTER VIL

and bureaucracies

in each of them.

World War II demonstrated, of course, that republics did not

need Monarchs to behave horribly. There were several themes running through Monarchical diplomacy, however, which every Kingdom had to address. One—for the Catholic States, and for many others later on, was

relations with the Holy See. This relationship was expressed in several different ways. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Kings of France, Spain, and England held honorary canonries in the Eternal City—and they also had specific liturgical roles at Papal Masses they could perform if in Rome. Beyond that, however, each had an embassy to the Holy See, and received a Nuncio in their own capitals in return—who would function as Dean of the Diplomatic Corps. There would be one or more national churches in Rome for each of these countries’ pilgrims, and often hospices as well. In later years, an academy of some sort would be in place, as well as a national college to train priests of the given nationality. A second common theme was the dealing of the King with the Holy Land. From the time Palestine fell to the Moors in 644 A.D., the safety of the Holy Places, the native Christians, and

pilgrims were of paramount interest to Christian Monarchs— especially as regarded those of their own subjects who went to visit the scenes of Christ’s life. In return for Bl. Charlemagne’s support against his co-religionist rivals in Spain, the then Caliph sent the Emperor the keys to the Holy Sepulchre. On that basis, France later claimed the right to protect the Christians of the Holy Land after the failure of the Crusades and the fall of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In time they were joined in that claim by Spain, Naples (whose claims were later taken up by Italy), and Austria, followed by Russia, Germany, and Britain. Each of these countries sponsored particular organisations and churches, and bickered with each other over the management of Christian affairs. By the 21“ century, the French, Spanish,

LETTERS OF CREDENCE

ee ee eee

85

eee

Italian, and Belgian consulates-general in Jerusalem retained spiritual privileges among the Catholics, as did their Russian, Greek, and Romanian counterparts with the Orthodox, and the

British and Germans with the Protestants. Obviously the fighting with ISIS in Europe itself, the attendant rise of the Caliphate, and the 11" hour rescue of Israel by the Europeans in return for internationalization created the present situation, accompanied as it was by the Russo-Balkan seizure of Constantinople. So reminiscent of the Crusades as those actions were, their

forced coordination of efforts between Russia and the newly devout European nations engendered a revival of a third issue in traditional Monarchical foreign policy: the exact relationship of the nations of Christendom—or “Abendland” or the “Occident” —to each other, that is their connexion to the “Holy Empire” —and precisely what that connexion meant. As recounted by Viscount Bryce in his Holy Roman Empire, ‘Placed in the midst of Europe, the Emperor was to bind its tribes into one body, reminding them of their common faith, their common blood, their common interest in each other’s welfare. And he was therefore above all things, professing indeed to be upon earth the representative of the Prince of Peace, bound to listen to complaints, and to redress the injuries inflicted by sovereigns or people upon each other; to punish offenders against the public order of Christendom; to maintain through the world, looking down as from a serene height upon the schemes and quarrels of meaner potentates, that supreme good without which neither arts nor letters, nor the gentler virtues of life, can rise and flourish.

Obviously, the Reformation and the following rise of Absolutist France put an end to that notion, and it may be said to have almost died in 1806 with the abdication of the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II. But the idea remained, resurfacing from time to time in such manifestations as the Holy Alliance, the Paneuropa Movement and to some degree the notions of the

86

CHAPTER VIII

founders of the European Union, and even in a sense with the foundation of the United Nations. Those organisations may all be dead, but the issue has remained, for all that it seems to be

moving toward some sort of resolution. When Europe broke out of the Continent and into the wide world, an extension of the dynamic involved with the Holy Land occurred. Spain, France, Great Britain, Russia, the Netherlands,

Portugal and the rest all wished to extend their settlers, religious and political institutions, and commercial enterprises around the globe. In so doing they waged World Wars from 1689 on, and

founded colonial empires which were themselves the foundation of the global civilisation of which all the world’s nations today—save to some degree the East Asian Empires and to a lesser degree the Caliphate—belong. They also created larger or smaller settler populations of pure or mixed European blood which careened between intense loyalty to whichever of the Mother Countries they sprang from, a youthful nationalism which asserted independence therefrom, and to-day’s uneasy combination of the two. It will be obvious to the reader that these four motifs in foreign policy are very much with all of us to-day, as they have been since they began. But these United States have been in a very peculiar position. Our King’s Stuart forebears unsuccessfully attempted to regain their thrones with foreign aid—French, Spanish, Papal, and at one point even Swedish. The American Revolution could not have succeeded without the intervention of France, Spain, and the Netherlands—and at last

the threat of the First League of Armed Neutrality (Russia, Sweden,

Denmark,

Prussia,

Austria,

Portugal,

the Ottoman

Empire, and the Two Sicilies) to join the war against Great Britain. The Second Civil War saw Great Britain and France backing the Confederacy, while Carlists, French Legitimists, and Neapolitan Bourbon supporters flocked to her banners; the Union was supported by the Russian Empire and Karl Marx (for

LETTERS OF CREDENCE

87

very different reasons) and veterans of the 1848 risings and Garibaldi’s legions joined her—Irish, naturally, were plentiful on both sides. But that was the last domestic conflict where foreign powers openly chose sides in our affairs. As early as the 1820s, the United States had sought to influence events in Latin America, from cheering on the rebels in the Wars of Independence to support for anti-clerical Liberals against pro-Church Conservatives in every country they could affect. The Spanish-American War saw us trounce one of the three nations who gave us birth, and whose intervention had been crucial in our independence—in return we snatched Cuba and the Philippines (which we did later set free), Puerto Rico, and Guam from her. Wilson’s disastrous intervention in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles not only led to the overthrow of the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns, it created both the conditions for Hitler’s rise and eventually for Stalin’s expansion into the heart of Europe. World War IL saw America’s propulsion into superpower status—which status we used to put an end to such as the Italian Monarchy and the colonial empires of our European allies. This country made itself into a centre of anti-Monarchical power, as witnessed by our government’s successful effort to suppress restorations in the wake of the Soviet Union’s fall. There had always been, however, a contradictory current in American thought on foreign policy, from the time President Washington warned us against “foreign entanglements:” Isolationism. The remaining New England Federalists and such as Virginia’s John Randolph of Roanoke had bitterly opposed our going to war with Britain in the War of 1812, while the Whigs (including Abraham Lincoln), North and South, and the Transcendentalists opposed the War with Mexico and “Manifest Destiny.” Northern Copperheads opposed compelling the South militarily to return to the Union, and the opposition to the Spanish War in 1898 included both the Anti-Imperialist League,

88

CHAPTER VIII

Andrew Carnegie, and such literary figures as Henry James and Mark Twain. The so-called “Old Right” of the Republican Party opposed interventionism abroad from the time the group was founded in 1910—and so had no use for our entries into either World War. Of course dislike of both Nazism and Communism on the part of the majority of Americans led to a temporary eclipse of their views; but popular opposition to the Korean and Vietnam adventures revived isolationism to some degree. The fall of the Soviet Union removed a major impetus to interventionism on the part of many, and the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan revived isolationism as an intellectual force to be reckoned with—even as the government strove to impose the cultural revolution regarding marriage and family life that characterised the American scene in the late 20" and early 21" centuries upon our hapless allies. That effort collapsed with our internal disorder prior to the Instauration. When. King James assumed the American throne, he was faced with a number of foreign policy challenges. The Europeans had dealt with the internal threat from the Caliphate through a combination of regime changes and draconian antiIslamic laws—and there were more than a few atrocities committed, both against Muslims and the remnants of the former elites. Russia, meanwhile had gained wildly in influence over the Continent.

These

events, coupled with the Euro-Russian

incursion into the Near East just mentioned, underscored the inability of the United States to affect the area—this had been prefigured in the way that Russia and the Europeans had battled ISIS in Syria as early as 2015, with America being primarily a

bystander. It was this inability that forced the Israeli authorities to surrender control to the International Governing Authority for the Holy Land (created by Russia and her European allies) in return for the safety of the population. Extending the “Law of

Return”

to include

Christian

Palestinians

may

well

have

bolstered security for the IGAHL, and served as a model for

ee

ee

LETTERS OF CREDENCE SO 89 ates et

Constantinople and the areas of Anatolia and the Near East that the coalition currently control. But it could never have happened in the days of America’s superpower status. The King bowed to the inevitable. A token force was despatched to the Near East to serve alongside the Europeans and Russians in order to keep the United States’ hand in—and coincidentally get this country a seat on the IGAHL, to which we were entitled by our Consulate-General in Jerusalem and the American institutions in the Holy Land. Despite those, however, we have very little say over Near Eastern affairs; nor—save in working to secure the civil rights of Jews and the integrity of their religious and educational institutions—do we try to affect the joint decisions of the coalition. America’s relationship with Holy See has been interesting, and based primarily—during the days of the republic—upon what we considered self-interest. During the days of the Papal States we maintained consulates accredited to the Pope. At the time of the Second Civil War, Lincoln despatched Archbishop Hughes of New York to try to convince St. Pius IX not to recognise the Confederacy, and to recruit Irish ex-Papal Zouaves for the Union Army: he was more successful in the latter work than the former. Despite the presence of Americans in the Zouaves, the American government after the War tacitly supported the Sardinian takeover (Lincoln had tried to be conciliatory—returning the California Missions to the Church, for example). The Spanish American-War led to the American occupation authorities disestablishing the Church, expelling all Spanish-born clerics (thus crippling her work), and in the Philippines, stealing most of her property and giving it to the schismatic Aglipayan Church. That last was reversed when the Holy See agreed to appoint Irish American prelates to the conquered realms. FDR appointed unofficial emissaries to Rome, a practise Truman stopped: but since Ronald Reagan’s day we have had regular ambassadors.

90

CHAPTER VIII

Of course, the Holy See counts for much more politically today than it did in Reagan’s time. Given that Catholics of all rites are now closer to 60% of the population than the 22% they were then, the Church is more influential now than at any time in her history. But a great deal of that growth has been based upon Royal patronage—coupled with the collapse of much of mainline Protestantism as a result of both internal contradictions and its connexion with the discredited elites. The Apostolic Nuncio is Dean of the Diplomatic Corps; but no money voted by Congress—in keeping with the re-erected First Amendment— can be used directly to support religious institutions. Nevertheless, our two Kings have lavished much personal patronage upon the Church, in addition to including its rites in many of our national ceremonies. In addition to the Anglican Ordinariates, the Royal Household has given a great deal of financial aid to such organisations as the National (now Royal) Catholic Rural Life Conference; to home missionaries, such as

the Catholic Extension Society and the Glenmary Missionaries; and to foreign missionaries—particularly the radically reformed Maryknollers: The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America. To be sure, the evangelisation done by the latter does have the effect of helping American interests overseas—in precisely the way missionaries from every country have always done. There was initially some objection to this action of the King’s—and not just on the part of the Orange-Green Lodges. But King James pointed out that at various times Protestant missionaries were paid to seduce Catholic Indians from their Faith by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Catholic Blacks by the Freedmen’s Bureau, and Catholics in Latin America by various government-backed aid agencies—all from Congressionally appropriated funds. Silence ensued. More controversial however, was James IV’s decision once

the country was stable once more and the Military had been renewed, to intervene decisively in the affairs of the Philippines

Se

ee

LETTERS OF CREDENCE eee

EEE

eee)

on

and Liberia. His decision to so in large part came from what he called a “debt of honour.” The appalling situation in both countries was in great part a result of our role in their history. The legal reason given for the Philippines was straightforward; not only had the government we installed at their independence failed, but James claimed to have succeeded Carlos III of Spain as King of the Philippines in much the same way as he did over Florida and the Southwest. Liberia was a bit more creative. The American Colonisation Society, which had founded Liberia and given it independence in 1847, had survived as an entity until 1964. In that year it dissolved and gave its records to the National Archives. Its headquarters in Monrovia were levelled in the 1950’s to make a highway, but the Company continued to be assessed on that spot for taxes by the Liberian government, until by the 1980s, an enormous phantom sum was owed by the defunct corporation. In the wake of the Liberian government’s appeal, the King paid off those back taxes and declared that he was reviving the Company. As its now hereditary president and chairman of the board, he accepted the Sovereignty of the country from the fearful Liberian Congress—which he immediately recalled, naming the country’s president as interim governor. This is why the Philippines are considered a Commonwealth

of the United

States, like Puerto Rico, but

Liberia is “a Corporate Possession of His Majesty the King” —although there is little practical difference in the way they are

administered. The annexation—or “return to allegiance” as it was called—of the Philippines did precipitate an enormous revolution in World politics, alongside the rise of the Caliphate. This was because the Cuban government misunderstood our actions in the Philippines to mean that they would be the next to be incorporated—although, as the publication of Lord Weathersford’s diaries show, nothing was further from the King’s mind, given the relative stability of the Cuban

92

CHAPTER VIII

government at that time. Nevertheless, fueled by memories of past American aggressions, it precipitated—in imitation of the then rapidly restructuring British Commonwealth—the creation of the Union de la Hispanidad, under the presidency of the King of Spain, and the formation of similar structures for Francophonie and Lusofonia, now under their own Sovereigns. The irony, of course, is that as these macro-states grew closer to each other and Russia in the face of events in the Near East,

Africa, and East Asia, the United States would seek and receive admission to the first three blocs as an observer, in token of our

long history with each of them. Another result of our reattachment of the Philippines and Liberia has been the stimulation of financial fortunes among both Filipino and Black Americans—the latter of whom have played a large part in reviving the role of the Americo-Liberians in the life of that possession, as well as bringing the local tribal peoples more securely into the American Way of Life. Much the same is true of the Filipino Americans, although events proved the necessity of making the Sultanate of Sulu a protectorate like the revived Kingdoms of Samoa and Hawaii. All of these factors have contributed to the great question which faces the West to-day. Events have brought the four major trans-continental blocs, Russia, the smaller European countries,

these United States, and even Ethiopia much closer. Although the fighting with the Caliphate resembles a draw at the moment, it is a very fragile peace requiring constant effort. Thanks in no small part to the work of Maryknoll, the United States hold a

prestigious place in the minds

of China, Japan, Korea, and

Vietnam, as well as of those Empires’ allies. But who knows what the future holds—especially, say, if there is friction over Siberia or the South China Sea or Indonesia? Many voices have been raised in support of a supranational organisation uniting all the Western Nations, with a central authority that nevertheless allows tremendous freedom to its constituent parts, and that will

a

LETTERS OF CREDENCE eee

93

take over the more positive roles once exercised by the EU and the UN. Given the Monarchical constitutions of most of the nations involved, most have agreed that it should be styled an

SEmpires: Some things are obvious. This putative “Empire” —in an age that loves legal fictions, a love directly inspired by our own Instauration—would be seen as a revival of the Roman Empire; its Emperor would be at once be the successor of St. Constantine the Great and St. Theodosius the Great; of St. Justinian and BI. Charlemagne; of BI. Constantine XI and Charles V; of St. Karl

I and St. Nicholas II. The Double Eagle would be its crest, its boundaries those of its constituent Kingdoms and Empires—and the Romanoffs and Habsburgs would have to abdicate their hereditary claims to succeed Rome; the Emperor would be selected from the Electors, and they comprised of all the hereditary rulers of Europe. If this comes to pass, an enormous amount of nuts-and-bolts questions need to be worked out—in similar manner to the proposal of replacing IGAHL with an independent and hereditary Kingdom of Jerusalem. There the succession to the original is disputed between the Habsburgs, Bourbons of Spain and of the Two Sicilies and the Savoys; one would have to be selected to be King in Jerusalem and the others persuaded to renounce their title. In any case, given the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since the Concordat of Bari, a more-or-less united Church will throw

her weight behind a more-or-less United Empire. In any case, all of these questions would not have affected the United States, which would have been ignored and left out of the issue entirely. But thanks to King Charles V’s hereditary Grand Duchy of Lichtenburg, we have a voice at the Imperial table. And just as his father’s conjuring up of the American Monarchy from cast-off bits and pieces has inspired the push for the restoration in some form of the Holy Empire, so too has the successful continued functioning of our constituent United

94

CHAPTER VII

States under the Monarchy heartened those who love their respective countries and fear that a revived Imperial Crown might smother them under bureaucracy and ignorance, as once the EU threatened to do. It is thus to those very States we now turn our attention.

Neither Sovereign Nor Servile: The Monarchy and States’ Rights

CHAPTER IX In the last chapter we looked at the relationship of the Monarchy to foreign countries. What must be remembered in looking at the internal organisation of our nation is that its constituent and united states were—for much of their history—separate Sovereign units of their own; in theory, anyway. As with all else, the States past and present position have roots deep in the European past. The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire and the rise of feudalism is still in great part responsible for the political map of European provinces and regions to-day. Slowly through the later Middle Ages, the Kings of France, Spain, Scandinavia,

Poland, and elsewhere reduced the power of the handed nobility and transformed their estates into provinces. But often enough these provinces retained their own legal systems, through which the King was expected to rule them. Germany and Italy actually fragmented further—a process that would not be reversed until the Wars of Reunification of the 19" century. By that time, the French Revolution had crushed local liberties in that country, as well as murdering the King who had vowed to protect them at his

Coronation.

But

French

Legitimists,

Spanish

Carlists,

Portuguese Miguelists—all campaigned for the restoration of Provincial freedoms as an essential part of restoring their respective Royal Houses. The Habsburgs had always (save for

Ue

96

CHAPTER TX

the unfortunate Joseph II) ruled through the local provincial institutions, and were—until their defeats by the Sardinians and Prussians—the traditional defenders of the small Italian and German States. In any case, most Kings were often rulers of some or all of their provinces not by virtue merely of being King, but also count or duke of this or that province—his subjects owed him allegiance on two or more counts. When Spain expanded into the New World, she was more accurately referred to as “the Spains.” Her King was King of Castile, and Leon, of Aragon, Navarre, and Granada, and had to

rule each of them according to their own laws or fueros. When the Canaries were conquered, they became a separate Kingdom. So too, with the New World: the Viceroyalties of New Spain,

Peru, New

Granada,

and Rio de la Plata were

not Spanish

colonies, but separate realms under the Spanish King. When the Bourbons inherited the thrones of the Spains, they began to centralise administration, with ultimately disastrous results. The Three Kingdoms of the Stuarts had been notoriously fractious. Ireland had traditionally enjoyed four Kings under her High King, and God alone knows how many sub-Kings under them. When Strongbow and then Henry II began the conquest of the Island, it fractured the Emerald Isle yet further. Scotland had been assembled by Kenneth MacAlpin from Kingdoms ruled by Scots, Picts, Britons, and Angles. But the Highlands, Islands, Lowlands, and Borders were not only separate from each other but had the ever fractious clan system. England was also deeply regionalised—not just by semi-Independent Celtic fringe countries Wales and Cornwall, either. The West Country, the Midlands, the North, East Anglia, and the rest were all quite

different from one another. The Tudors began and Cromwell finished the smashing of all into one polity—but since the backbone of Stuart support had traditionally come from the Celtic fringe, Charles II reigned separately as King each of England, Scotland, and Ireland. So too was his brother, James II.

NEITHER SOVEREIGN NOR SERVILE

a

oF,

As we know, however, his expulsion led eventually to the Union of Parliaments under his daughter Anne, and the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. But neither James III nor his sons recognised the Act of Union, and officially denounced it during the 1715 and 1745 Jacobite risings. The Stuarts were much more comfortable with the above-mentioned Continental mode of direct rule over disparate provinces through their own laws and institutions. Not too surprisingly, a number of figures prominent in the rise of Neo-Jacobitism in the 19" century were also involved in the rise of Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Cornish

nationalism. The settlement of the Thirteen Colonies was a piece-meal and haphazard affair, with little central planning—as opposed to the Spanish settlement of Florida, Texas, New

California, apparent to New York Dutch, that

Mexico, and

or the French colony in Louisiana. But it was James I, who had already organised the colonies of and New Jersey when they were taken from the inter-colonial unity was essential. He merged those

two mentioned colonies with Massachusetts, Connecticut, and

New Hampshire in the Dominion of New England. This arrangement, however, did not survive his overthrow and the usurpation of William and Mary. Under the pressure of warfare with the French and Indians, representatives of the colonies gathered in upstate New York for the Albany Congress, at which time Benjamin Franklin presented a “Plan of Union.” This would have retained the colonial governments, but placed over them a pan-colonial government run by a Crown appointed President General, with a Grand Council chosen by the colonial assemblies; the plan was rejected by both those assemblies and the British authorities. It did have an effect on the thinking of another Pennsylvanian, Joseph Galloway, who presented a similar plan to the First Continental Congress in 1774. They rejected it and Galloway became a Loyalist. But his plan did

98 have

CHAPTER IX some

influence

on the Articles

of Confederation,

the

United States’ first republican institution. The American experience would also have quite an effect on future British colonial policy, in terms of creating a desire to unite small colonies into Federations. It was in fact the fear of American invasion after the Union success in the Second Civil War that led the Colonial Office to push the Canadian colonies—a

newly

re-divided

Quebec

and

Ontario,

New

Brunswick, and Nova Scotia to form the Dominion of Canada in 1867. Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, and British Columbia

were added in the 1870s, and the Canadian government given control of the Hudson’s Bay Company lands during that decade. Something similar was done with the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 and the Union of South Africa eight years later. The former separate colonies became Australian States or Canadian and South African provinces, but their statuses were unequal. In Australia, the State Governors continued to be appointed directly by the Crown, in token of the fact that the country was a mere “Federation;” this remained the case even after the States’ power of taxation was taken away by the national government. In Canada, the provincial Lieutenant Governors were appointed not by London but by Ottawa, although they continued to represent the King on their level. South Africa being a “Union,” the provinces were led by “Administrators,” who simply represented the government in Pretoria. Nevertheless, in each case, the King operated on two

levels— “The King in Right of [Canada, Australia, or South

Africa],” and “The King in Right of [Manitoba, Tasmania, or Natal].” Both the national and provincial/state legislatures were opened with the splendid ceremonial we have seen in an earlier chapter and each provincial/state government maintained an “Agent General” in London. What provided the glue for all of

these ventures was common allegiance to the King.

NEITHER SOVEREIGN NOR SERVILE

oe

The late 19" and early 20" centuries saw the rise of a movement

for “Imperial Federation,” which would have seen

those three Dominions (plus then-separate Newfoundland and New Zealand) into a single national union. This would feature

an Imperial

Parliament

in London

in which

all of these

Dominions would be represented alongside the United Kingdom (or else, in the “Home

Rule All Round”

scenario, England,

Scotland, Wales, and Ireland), and an Imperial Government to

direct defence, foreign affairs, and customs—while leaving their several institutions intact. A failure at the time, it bears a striking resemblance to what has happened in our own day; even the constitutions of the Dominions could be left unaltered, since

there was no mention of party or ministerial power in them—just read them, and you would never know that mere convention had dictated that the British and Commonwealth King appoint his Viceroys at the behest of the local political leader. In any case, this desire for rationalization through Federation led the British into a few successes (Malaysia, for example) and a number of failures—the West Indies, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the East African

High Commission,

South Arabia,

and British West

Africa. We referenced earlier the fact that a number of the rebels wished the King to rule the American colonies directly, without reference to Parliament or Ministry; this he refused to do, and so

was given the unjust opprobrium dumped on him in Jefferson’s declaration. As we know, the United States under the Articles of

Confederation were absolved of their allegiance by George III at the treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783. Charles III, the rightful King, was not a party to it. Although he had refused the Crown of America a few years before, he never abdicated his rights to it any more than he did in regard to the Three Kingdoms—still less did his brother. To-day, Washington’s refusal of the Crown is seen at least partly to have been motivated by his realisation that he was not the rightful heir; until recently it was still a matter

100

CHAPTER IX

for debate, but it has become bad form to do so. Similarly, in

recent years, the custom has grown up of calling the period from 1783 to the Instauration the “Interregnum,” as though it were a short period roughly equivalent to Cromwell’s protectorate. But in over 250 years the vague outline of our present government was developed; to understand how it works to-day, it is essential to grasp the structural problems of that period in order to see how the Monarchy solved them. Never is this truer than in the relationship between the former Federal government and the States. The adoption of the Constitution of 1788 left a number of questions unsettled; but the one which would plague both politics and judiciary again and again throughout the life of the republic was this: who had inherited the Sovereignty of the King? The States or the Federal Government? If the former, then the Washington regime was little more than what the Federal government had been under the Articles of Confederation—in which case, should a court of law decide in this fashion, by the

21 century, American governance was nothing but a tissue of usurpations. But if the Federal Government had inherited the power of the King, then the States under such a judicial ruling were reduced to little more than big counties—a finding that would endlessly complicate public life. So from Dartmouth College versus Woodward in 1819 to intermittent squabbling by States with regard to Federal control of the Public Lands (today’s Crown Lands) down to the 21“ century, Courts were careful to point out that their decisions were only for the immediate case, and did not address the larger issue. While complicating and obscuring the overarching question, it is obvious for practical reasons why no judge wished the responsibility for destabilising the country. Obviously, for the reasons cited in an earlier chapter the role of the State

governments became much more difficult legislatures lost the right to elect U.S. Senators.

when

their

NEITHER SOVEREIGN NOR SERVILE

101

Above all, the ultimate question in the Sovereignty issue was Secession. Obviously, the original Thirteen United States had seceded from the British Empire. It certainly seemed from the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence that Secession was as much a civil right as any other, and the government under the articles of Confederation suffered deeply from that threat— hence the first Constitution. But New York’s delegates only signed on with the proviso that their native state could secede if it liked; the Hartford Convention was called by the New England States during the War of 1812 to discuss leaving the rest of the Union to their fate. As a stop-gap prior to leaving the Union, the doctrine of Nullification was developed, whereby a State would simply refuse to recognise Congressional laws it did not like—this did not go over well with Andrew Jackson when South Carolina tried it. At last, fearful of the newly elected president, Abraham Lincoln, the Southern States pulled out and the Confederacy was born, ushering in this country’s bloodiest War to date. For the Southerners, they were doing as their fathers had done vis-a-vis the British—hence the image of Washington on horseback that graced their national seal; for Lincoln and his supporters, the Union was a sacred thing that no State could ever leave. The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse provided a de facto answer to the secession question, but not a de jure one—from time to time various annoyed State officials would mention it, half-jokingly. The Federal government soaked up most tax revenues, and kept the States in line by threatening to withdraw funding, while the Supreme Court quashed many more State laws than federal. But in the half decade before the Instauration, the question was raised ever more seriously. With order breaking down in more and more localities, it began to be seen as a real threat—especially after the Chief Justice of Alabama was deposed by a presidential order for refusing to sanction a polygamous and incestuous marriage at precisely the

102

CHAPTER TX

moment that serious racial rioting broke out in Montgomery. The fact that the blacks and whites involved in the disturbances suddenly made common cause to defend the State Courthouse against Federal Marshals did not win the Feds any kudos, although it did bring peace back to the State Capital for a time. This was the dangerous situation into which James IV stepped when he accepted the Crown of the United States. The Sovereignty question was immediately answered—Sovereignty went to neither the formerly rebellious States nor to the defunct Federal government that from their agent had become their master:

instead, it was restored to the heir of James II, from

whom it had been wrested illegally in 1688. It was a legal fiction, like so many—but one that has saved countless lives then and since. When at last James IV issued his new Constitution, the preamble was an odd mix of that of the French Charter of 1814 and those of the Confederate and old United States Constitutions: James, by the grace of God, King of these United States, to all those to whom these presents come, greeting. Divine Providence, in recalling us to our estates after a long

absence, has laid upon us great obligations. We are mindful of the disorder and immorality that has fallen upon our peoples in consequence of the long separation between them and our dynasty, and the urgent need to provide for redress, peace, and order. Therefore, we, James Fourth of that Name, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our subjects, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Assured of our intentions, and strengthened by our conscience, we pledge ourselves, in the presence of the assembly which hears us, to be faithful to this Constitution, reserving to ourselves to swear to maintain it with

——

NEITHER SOVEREIGN NOR SERVILE

103

a new solemnity, before the altars of Him who weighs in the same balance kings and nations. The Bill of Rights was maintained, but most of the other amendments did not reappear. There was a tenth clause in place of the existing one, which declared that all laws—National, State, County, or Municipal, were to be colour-blind, that Life

begins at Conception, and that marriage is between one man and one woman. This would have far-reaching effects later, but it certainly accounts for the reversal of the demographic implosion that had plagued this country since the 1970s. As regarded the States, their legislatures were to resume the election of United

States Senators.

Henceforth,

however,

all

State Governors were to be appointed by the King and paid by his government;

the Governors,

in turn, would

appoint the

County Sheriffs. This latter forced such as the New England States—who for the most part had abolished county governments as much as a century before—to re-establish them; in the case of Connecticut the change was even more radical because they had abolished sheriffs as well. Under the republican regime, the Governors of States had been elected. Now they are direct representatives of the King in right of the given State. The former executive or Governor’s mansion is now a Royal Palace, where the King or members of the Royal family stay when in the State capital. Normally, his Excellency draughts the Speech from the Throne for the opening of the Legislature; but both of our Kings thus far have made a point of opening each legislature in person at least once—and giving the Royal Assent at the end of a session. As with Congress and the King, the Governor will go to the Legislature for extraordinary expenditures and keep them informed of his policies; at times when a majority of legislators question a given measure or general policy the Governor lays before them, they will ask their senior Senator in Washington (who functions as Agent General for the State) to appeal directly to the King for

104

CHAPTER IX

redress. On a practical level, this system has destroyed permanent political parties at the State level and forced political debate to become much more issue-oriented than factional. The National and State Guards are completely under the authority of the Governor; in place of “Federalising” the former, the King issues a “Commission of Array,” under which they are temporarily placed directly under the command of the King. Very many areas which the old Federal Government had arrogated to itself have been returned to the States, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. One of these is the establishment of State Churches. By the time of the Instauration,

the war of the rulership on organised religion in the name of the First Amendment had gone so far that the wishing of “Merry Christmas” or the mention of “God” on public property was a misdemeanor—save in the fossilised uses of ceremonial Deism,

which required for example, that a witness swear “to Almighty God” that their testimony was true; but if that same witness spontaneously invoked the Deity, said testimony could be thrown out. When the Old Constitution was adopted, however,

several of the States had an established Church. The King had made clear that the First Amendment would stay in place— which meant that no one could be denied civil rights because of their

religion—however,

Establishment

His

Majesty

declared

that

the

clause referred only to Congress, and bound

neither him nor his State legislatures. As mentioned earlier, at

the declaration, Utah immediately made the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the State Church. But the King has never appointed a Mormon Governor to Utah since. The New England States, on the basis of population, but for historical reasons also support colonial-era Congregational, Unitarian, and Anglican churches. New York and New Jersey have a similar arrangement, with the Dutch Reformed taking the place of Congregationalists and Unitarians.

NEITHER SOVEREIGN NOR SERVILE

a

105

Another power firmly in State hands is the regulation of the franchise. As noticed, the current Constitution expressly forbids colour-based discrimination. But most common is the creation of three voting rolls: a) homeowners; b) non-homeowners who are professionals, whether blue- or white-collar; and c) people who qualify for neither of the other rolls, but can pay a small poll tax. To be registered on any of the three, the prospective voter must be able to pass a short literacy test. The old republic could not tolerate a great deal of diversity in State governmental structure. But while the King is both King of the United States and by that Kingship King also of each of the Fifty States individually; he is separately King of each of the Commonwealths: Northern

in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, the

Marianas,

the Marshalls,

Palau, and the Federated

States of Micronesia in succession to the King of Spain; in the United States Virgin Islands, in succession to the King of Denmark.

As

noted,

he is Hereditary

President

and

Chief

Executive Officer of the American Colonisation Society, whereby he rules Liberia. He is also Protector of the Kingdoms of Hawaii and Samoa, the Sultanate of Sulu, and the Several

Indian Tribes. Indirect rule—a protectorate—was a major and very effective standby of Monarchical empires; but there was simply no way for the old Constitution to accommodate it. The King is of course also Grand Duke of Lichtenburg, in succession to his male ancestors. The practical differences between the various kinds of realms have to do primarily with voting, taxation, and military service. A subject of one of the States who sees a percentage of his taxes going to Washington, can vote in national Congressional elections, and—if a member of the National Guard, may be sent to wherever—in or out of State, or overseas—the Commission of Array prescribes. A subject of a Commonwealth cannot vote for the Federal Congress but none of his taxes go to Washington. In addition, if he is in the militia his own legislature must approve his unit being sent out of the

106

CHAPTER TX

Commonwealth in response to a Commission. The Protectorates and Liberia pay no taxes to Washington, and are administered through their own institutions; however, just as the King is obligated to defend them against all external enemies, they are required to send troops if asked. Subjects of the District of Columbia pay no taxes and do not vote; the boundaries have been enlarged to include the Virginia section given back to that State in 1846, what became the City of Arlington and a chunk of Alexandria. But the King directly appoints the Lord Mayors of Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown. The relationship of the King to each of his realms is intimate, to be sure. But it mirrors His Majesty’s presence and influence at the County and City level. It is that bond which we examine in the next chapter.

Lord Mayor’s Show: Monarchy and Local Government

CHAPTER X Cities and towns have long been seen as what separate “civilised” from “savage” man—indeed, the Latin for “City” is whence we have derived the word “civilised” itself. With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, city life was almost snuffed out; the Angles and Saxons called the heaps of urban ruins the Romans

left “-chester” or “-caster,” after the Latin castra—

hence such places as Winchester and Lancaster. Sheep grazed in the Roman Forum itself. In the East, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria continued on serenely, at least until

the Muslim hordes successively overwhelmed them. In the West, urban life slowly recovered—much of the impetus was religious, as the sites where bishops fixed their diocesan headquarters in time played host to the great cathedrals—indeed, in the Middle Ages and later having a cathedral was what defined a city, and often enough bishops or even cathedral canons played key roles in civic administration. This latter development led to “Prince-Bishops” in various places, to the ecclesiastical Peers in France and Electors in the Holy Roman Empire, and the “Counts-Canons” of Lyons and elsewhere. The struggle between lay and religious authorities for control of all or part of their cities was a big part of European urban history. In any case, the local parish—rural or urban—was

107

108

CHAPTER

an important part of local government at the lowest level, as the parish council not only looked after the fabric of the church, but

cared for the poor, kept order in its little area, and—in some places—was also a recruiting ground for the local militia. Another impetus was economic. Towns grew up around centres of communications—roads and bridges over rivers— where farmers, merchants, and artisans alike could sell their

wares in weekly markets and annual fairs. Designation as a “market town” and the right to hold fairs on one or more patronal feast days were much sought after privileges from local lords or the King himself. Both merchant

and craft guilds arose, and

struggled with each other, the local nobility, and the ecclesiastical authority for control of civic government. That government in turn granted “freedom of the city” or town to citizens, and in many cases runaway serfs could become freemen of the town after a year and a day—hence the German phrase Stadtluft macht Frei— “City Air makes one free.” The Guilds, in the meantime, contributed to the upkeep of parish churches (often endowing chapels to the particular guild’s patron saint in a local church), and also put on Miracle or Mystery plays for the major feast days. The larger towns and cities became autonomous republics, so to speak, free of control by any other authority save the King or Emperor—hence the Imperial Free Cities of Germany, the Royal Free Towns of Hungary, the Bonnes Villes— “Good Towns” —of France, the Italian City States, the Boroughs of England and Ireland, the Burghs of Scotland, and on and on.

Each had an individual and unique constitution based upon the outcome of the struggles aforementioned, and in a number of countries the freemen of the cities counted as an estate of the realm—one of the building blocks of later Parliaments. Several developed defensive or economic alliances between themselves, most notably Northern Europe’s Hanseatic League and Italy’s Lombard League. Crushing city liberties became as important a

eS

LORD MAYOR’S SHOW ee eee

SS Se

eee

109 ee

part of the various revolutions and other political developments that created the modern State of the dawn of the 21“ century as was deposing or defanging the various Monarchies. So, too, as noted in the last chapter, with the rights of the provinces that had

been patched together from various feudal domains. In the British Isles, despite the Reformation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms, and the Jacobite Wars, the Medieval

constitutions of the various Boroughs and Burghs remained intact in 1800. Although the specifics varied from city to city and town to town, both the Craft and Merchant Guilds chose the

Mayor and aldermen. Since only a minority of the male population of these places were “‘freemen’,” this meant that each Borough or Burgh was basically ruled by a self-perpetuating oligarchy, whose biggest worry was ensuring that the mob did not riot. This situation became far more difficult with the explosion in size of urban populations as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Beginning in 1835, a series of acts of parliament “reformed” local government, reducing mayors and guilds to ceremonial roles and widening the franchise. As in the rest of Europe, civil parishes were separated from church parishes, and the traditional Shire or County governments were reduced in authority; their Sheriffs and Lords Lieutenant were reduced likewise to purely ritual status. This process continued into the 21% century, progressively eliminating unelected offices and extending the electorate on the one hand, while concentrating ever more power into the hands of central authorities. Thus, by the time of the Instauration in this country, although Mayors were directly elected in a number of jurisdictions, urban government as a whole had little control as compared to the officials in London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, or Belfast. The one exception to the rule was the City of London—the square mile at the centre of the greater London

2 “freemen” - members of a guild

110

CHAPTER X

Metropolis. Her constitution remains unchanged from Medieval times—guilds (or “livery companies”) and all; for centuries the City was an odd survival, now it is considered a model. But through it all, the annual parade, the “Lord Mayor’s Show,” welcoming the election of a new Lord Mayor has remained one of the great sights of the capital’s autumn. In what became these United States, things were a bit different, due to patterns of settlement and the vast wilds of the

colonial era. While lesser Spanish towns had two mayors apiece—each alcalde elected by the local nobility and commoners, the major cities had a Royally appointed Corregidor as Mayor, each governing with a Cabildo, or City Council. With some differences, this system was employed in the New World Viceroyalties. But although such metropoli as Mexico City and Lima might boast Corregidores, none of the Spanish civil settlements in what are now the United States warranted such a grand official. So it was that St. Augustine, Florida;

Santa

Fe,

New

Mexico;

Pensacola,

Florida;

Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Antonio, Texas; and San Jose

and Los Angeles, California had to make do with mere Alcaldes. The Dutch incorporated what became Albany and New York City as towns. These passed to the English who added them to a growing number of legally constituted municipalities. Such French settlements as Green Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Vincennes, Prairie du Chien, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, St. Louis, Arkansas Post,

New Orleans, Mobile, and Biloxi had rudimentary governments, but they had them. In the Thirteen English Colonies, the reign of George III saw quite a number of established municipalities. In New England, centering on the colonial capitals of Boston, Providence, Newport,

Hartford, New

Haven,

and Portsmouth,

the towns

were like the ever-fissioning cells of an embryo. Each had a Congregational Church, whose male members were also the members of the Town Meeting, which appointed the Selectmen

LORD MAYOR’S SHOW

————————————

111

who governed the town on a regular basis. This meeting was the most important single event in the life of the Town. The Constable would summon each of the eligible voters “in His Majesty’s Name,” which custom survived until the Revolution. As soon as a section of a town had enough people to support their

own

parish

church,

the

colonial

assembly

would

be

petitioned to set that area off as a new town. The pattern in the Middle Colonies was different; there, because settlement was less concentrated, incorporated towns and cities were far fewer; those that existed imitated English practise with Mayors and Common Councils. The situation was the same only more so in the Southern colonies, each of which boasted no more than two or three cities—primarily on the coast or major rivers—for most of the colonial period: these served primarily as entrepdts’ for the export of tobacco, indigo, rice, and other crops to the rest of the British Empire, and the import of manufactured goods from Great Britain and slaves and molasses from Africa and the West Indies. Reflecting this bias toward the countryside and the great Manors and Plantations of the Middle and Southern colonies, County and (Anglican) Parish government tended to be more important than in New England, although throughout all three sections the Sheriff was an important official, responsible for a great many judicial and

political affairs. At the time of the Revolution,

all existing municipal governments outside of British lines (and with the exception of the New England towns) were suppressed and their Royal charters voided, to be replaced at different times by the new State authorities; this was to show that they had assumed the King’s Sovereignty—a question of vital interest, as we noticed in the last chapter (A few places were overlooked, like the Hamptons 3 French for “warehouse.” A port, city, or trading post where merchandise may be imported, stored or traded, usually to be exported again.

112

CHAPTER X

on Long Island which still function under James II’s charters to some degree). But from then until the Instauration, the governing of counties and municipalities was strictly a State matter—and the 50 States with which we ended up featured a truly dizzying array of local governments. For some States, counties were virtually independent fiefdoms; for others they were mere divisions. In New England, they vanished almost completely. As the United States expanded inexorably across the continent, new States and Counties were carved out, each requiring and developing its own manner of governance. Some extremely large cities—New

York,

Chicago,

Los Angeles,

to name

a

few—at different times in their histories became bywords for corruption, as the frontier between organised crime and city government ranged from porous to invisible. Although a few cities had figurehead mayors after the English fashion, none had the panoply of civic robes and regalia—chains, maces, and the rest—that perhaps consoled those officials for their lack of power. This system came perilously close to collapse during the period just prior to the Instauration—and did collapse to some degree in a number of areas. In the vacuum this created, chambers of commerce, labour unions, fraternal societies, ethnic

associations, and a number of other such groups frequently stepped up to restore order in the immediate area. This was one of the reasons why the new King quickly acted to cement relations with them on a national level; it is also why the municipality of to-day tends to be far more independent of the State government than was the case before. As he had at the national level, James IV encouraged groups with similar interests to join together across what had been ideological lines—specific labour unions with manufacturers’ associations and retail organisations, for example, in order to rebuild their local society on a firmer basis. Taking a cue from earlier practise, the local Catholic church encourages these bodies to

So

LORD S SHOW Es MAYOR’ eee

113 ee

observe their common patron’s feast. As an example, in a given town, where shoemaking is a major industry, the locals of the Boot and Shoe Worker’s Union, the local independent cobblers, and the shoe factory and store owners will form a Guild of St. Crispin to look after their common interests. On St. Crispin’s Day, October 25, they shall attend a Mass in honour of the Saint,

and elect their representative to the City Council. Facing such a Council filled with the various interests that actually make up the life of the city or town—as opposed to political or crime bosses, as was the former practise—the Mayor, not unlike the Sheriff, the Governor, or the King himself, must

be a sort of orchestra leader, using every resource at his command to bring these diverse concerns together. Ceremony is one of these. The whole panoply of English (and French or Spanish, where ethnically appropriate) civic garb and ritual is brought to bear. An annual Red Mass for Mayor and Council underlies the unity each are called upon to contribute to. In addition to this religious sanction, however, there is that of the King. Shortly after his Coronation, James IV decreed that all municipalities in the United States chartered by Monarchs—Spanish,

French,

British,

Dutch,

Danish,

or

Russian—would be issued new Royal Charters; their Mayors would henceforth be called Lord Mayors and be appointed by the King, regardless of their size. The same would hold true for all cities of a million or more. The remaining Mayors, whether chosen by their City Councils or else elected by the inhabitants as also be considered nevertheless at large, would and City, their of Subjects First and representatives of the King therefore respected as such. As innumerable examples have shown since then, that prestige would prove essential in reconciling the needs and wishes of an incredibly diverse In practise, the smaller historical Lord constituency. Mayoralities are appointed by the Governor, while the King reserves to himself the metropoli. It is an unusual curiosity made

114

CHAPTER X

up of the fact that Alexandria, Virginia actually had a Lord Mayor before the Revolution (the only one in the colonies), Georgetown received one as having been incorporated prior to that event, and Washington received one on the basis of population—that the District of Columbia has three Lord Mayors. The Red Mass for the Three Lord Mayors and Councils at the National Cathedral is always the kickoff event for the capital’s Spring Cherry Blossom festival, and one of the brightest and most solemn events in the Washington social calendar. Few other observances, perhaps—save the National Maundy Service at the Cathedral and the Corpus Christi Procession on Pennsylvania Avenue—show how deeply the Monarchy has become part of the everyday life of our country. In New

England, of course, outside the cities with their

Mayors and Councils, once again the warrants to summon the Town Meeting are issued to the Constable with the same wording that prevailed before 1776: Pursuant to the Laws of the State for regulating a Warning of Town Meeting, You are hereby required in His Majesty’s Name, forthwith to warn the freeholders and other inhabitants of the above said Town that are duly qualified by law to vote in common town affairs that they meet at the Meeting house in said Town on Tuesday the 9" day of March next, at nine of the clock in the forenoon &c. Just as before, His Majesty’s writ runs from the glitter of the capital to the humblest village.

The Republic of Learning: Monarchy and Education

CHAPTER XI So far back as we have records, Monarchs have been patrons of learning, both for themselves and their people. This patronage has had several key reasons for being. An educated populace is more creative, more productive, and indeed, happier than an uneducated one. Such a people make for a prosperous realm. Good Monarchs saw their goal as being development of both their lands and their peoples, and education is always an important tool in that effort. The Confucian Monarchies of the East always prized learning in the tradition of the Confucian Scholar-Gentleman, and the rigourous civil service exams that allowed the candidate entrance into the ranks of the Mandarin elite were based upon knowledge of the Confucian classics. In stark contrast to the Caliphate of to-day, the Abbasids, for example were great patrons of every imaginable branch of education: for over four hundred years (until the Mongols destroyed it in 1258), their “House of Wisdom” in Baghdad kept scholars busy with both the humanities and the sciences. Their remote Ottoman successors founded Madrasas throughout their realms inspired to a great degree by the Abbasid example; starting in the 19% century the Sultans adopted European methods for their schools. The Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II founded the Pandidakterion or Imperial University at his palace in 1 bs)

116

CHAPTER XI

Constantinople in 425. There the students were taught in both Greek and Latin, sitting under 31 chairs in law, philosophy, medicine, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, rhetoric, and many other topics. Although receiving many setbacks (most notably with the sack of the City in 1204), the University limped on until 1453. Even though closed with the fall of the City to the Ottomans, Sultan Mehmed II founded the Imperial University of Istanbul immediately—which he claimed as successor to the defunct Byzantine institution. The barbarian invasions in the West of course destroyed the educational system in many places. Learning and manuscripts alike found refuge in the network of monasteries around Europe, and literacy became the preserve of the clergy. For this reason, the barbarian Kings employed clerics as secretaries or “chancellors” (from the Latin cancellarius). The importance this official soon attained is reflected both in the title of “Chancellor” used by prime ministers in Germanic countries, the Chancellier of France (a sort of minister of Justice), and our own Lord Chancellor. It is also interesting to note that St. Thomas More was the first layman ever to hold that post, in keeping with its clerical origins. It was BI. Charlemagne who in this area as in so many others set the pattern for Western Christian Monarchy. He put BI. Alcuin, an Anglo-Saxon monk in charge of the palace school of Aix-la-Chapelle. The Emperor issued his Admonitio generalis, a 789 law which, among other things, required cathedrals and monasteries to establish similar schools to teach boys reading and music in order to spread the Catholic Faith throughout his domains. These schools multiplied throughout Western Europe, and—despite the fall of the Carolingian Empire and the rise of feudalism—developed a very distinctive curriculum. This consisted of the Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy) —the

THE REPUBLIC OF LEARNING

117

Seven Liberal Arts. These in turn formed the basis of what was taught at a newborn Medieval institution—the University. The first of these was born at Bologna in 1088, when the Liberal Arts began to be applied to the study of Roman and Canon Law. In 1158, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa took the nascent university under his protection, declaring it absolved of any other secular authority save his own. From this beginning, a network of universities grew up around the Continent—often enough under the patronage of the local Monarch. So in 1200, King Philippe Auguste of France approved the merger of various schools into the University of Paris with four faculties (Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology), and took the University under Royal protection, where it remained until the Revolution. So it went through the Middle Ages in all of Europe, with certain Monarchs, such as Castile’s Alfonso X attaining particular reputations for their love of learning and support (financial and otherwise) of scholarship. Often enough, a realm’s university was represented in the provincial or national Estates. In England, Oxford University owes its origin to a group of English students who returned from the University of Paris in 1188. King Henry III gave the new foundation a Royal Charter in 1248; but thirty-nine years previously a group of scholars fled one of the occasional town and gown fights, to seek refuge at Cambridge. Despite being a younger institution, Cambridge obtained its charter from Henry III 17 years earlier than did Oxford. Most of the Medieval colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were founded by clerics or wealthy laity; but a future King of Scotland founded Baliol College at Oxford. Edward III’s consort Philippa founded Queen’s College there (ever after famous as the home of the Yuletide Boar’s Head Feast with its attendant Christmas Carol). The saintly King Henry VI founded Eton and King’s College, Cambridge (birthplace of the Ceremony of Lessons and Carols), while his wife, Margaret of Anjou, endowed Queen’s College at the same University. Both Oxford

118

CHAPTER A

and Cambridge would send representatives to the House of Commons

until the 20" century, and Christ Church College,

Oxford, was Charles I’s seat during the First English Civil War. With the Renaissance came an emphasis on Greek and Hebrew, as well as study of the Natural Sciences in addition to the Medieval Liberal Arts. This was the foundation of what was called in the 20" and 21% centuries a Classical or Liberal Education, and was expected of anyone (up until World War II) of genteel background, regardless of whether they went into the Humanities, the Sciences, Law, administration, the Military or

the Church. It was the common inheritance of all the Western Nations. To study or expand different aspects of learning, beginning in the 17" and 18" centuries, the European Monarchs began founding, endowing, and supporting a plethora of academies and learned societies focusing on any number of interests—and these in turn were stimulated by the discovery of new lands and new scientific techniques. So Louis XIII of France sponsored the Academie Francaise for the study of the French language in 1635; his son Louis XIV in turn founded academies

dedicated

to Humanities,

Sciences,

Painting

and

Sculpture, Music, and Architecture. In 1662, our own Charles II

chartered the Royal Society of London—formed by some of the leading scientists and scholars of the day—and gave it a mace, to show its Royal provenance and protection. Soon, every nation in Europe had its own Royal Academies of Arts and Sciences, and the prestige formerly reserved to great soldiers was shared by savants and artists, as Monarchs invested the greatest names among them with knighthoods and special awards. Similarly, Royal Libraries became the nuclei of various national libraries, like Paris’ Biblioteque Nationale, which started life as the Biblioteque du Roi of Charles V at the Louvre in 1368. These institutions also crossed the water with the Europeans. In 1551, Emperor Charles V established the Royal and Pontifical University of the City of the Kings at Lima, Peru and the Royal

THE REPUBLIC OF LEARNING

No

and Pontifical University of Mexico. By 1812, the Kings of Spain had founded 30 universities in their American dominions. In 1663, King Louis XIV sponsored the foundation of what became in time the Royal and Pontifical University of Laval. In the English colonies, the first college, Harvard, was founded

in

1636,

in

order

to

train

ministers

for

the

Congregational Church. It never received a Royal Charter—nor did Yale, Penn, or Brown. But William and Mary, Princeton,

Rutgers, Dartmouth, and King’s (now Columbia) all did. Most of the presidents of the chartered colleges received chains of office and maces symbolic of Royal authority. The curriculum for each was standard Classical education, as it was in all the

European and Spanish-American schools—with a deeply religious context, although here that context was Anglican, Congregational, or Baptist. Secondary education was primarily private, although there were a few community schools about such as Roxbury Latin School (chartered under Charles I). But of what was called public schooling in 20" century America, there was little save on a strictly town level. With the Revolution and independence came an explosion in the number of colleges and universities, commensurate with the growth of the nation. Not only did every religious group open as many as it could, there were a number of religiously neutral institutions begun, all continuing in the Classical tradition (though of course the Military and Naval Academies were engineering schools). But in 1862 the Morrill Act was passed by Congress, authorising the donation of Federal public lands to each

State for the establishment

of “Land

Grant Colleges,”

which—while not doing away with Liberal Arts entirely—were to

focus

on

Agriculture,

Science,

Military

Engineering. Not only did this begin the long Classical Western Education in the American involved the Federal Government heavily in first time. Ironically enough, virtually all

Science,

and

march away from university, it also education for the of these varied

120

CHAPTER XI

institutions carried on the tradition of carrying a mace at graduation—to modern eyes a melancholy reminder of the lost role of Monarchy in education at that time. During the same period a parallel development was taking place in primary and secondary education—the rise of the “Public School” (What has been called a “State School” in other countries—not to be confused with the venerable Public Schools in Britain). During its existence in America, this institution underwent several transformations. Although such institutions as the aforementioned Roxbury Latin School and Virginia’s Hampton High School go back to the 17 century, they were both extremely community and religiously based. The idea of “free, compulsory, and non-sectarian” education did not arise until after the Revolution;

not, in fact, until Horace Mann became Massachusetts’ Secretary of Education in 1837. Mann believed that using the school system to homogenise the student population and “Americanise” immigrants was quite as important as educating them in basic academic skills. Between 1852 and 1917, all of the States passed bills making such education compulsory. Starting in 1916, John Dewey’s influence on the uses of school purely as socialization rather than as a means of education came to the fore. After World War II, Classical Education in most places (save for a few “Great Books” schools and programmes) was increasingly eclipsed by more “practical” pursuits—especially business and law, and—in the wake of the Atom Bomb, hard

sciences. The number of college graduates soared, and a sort of academic inflation took place, reducing the value of the Bachelor of Arts degree. In 1965, Congress, as part of LBJ’s “Great Society” programme, passed the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act—which featured the creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The 1960s released scores of Marxist and other ideologues into the groves of academe, who, by the first decades of the 20" century saw all

THE REPUBLIC OF LEARNING

121

subjects purely in terms of feminist, LGBTQ, ethnic, class, and other lenses. Gone was the idea of the “Life of the Mind,” that

dated back to Charlemagne or even the notion of “Free Enquiry,” a product of the Enlightenment. In their place was the notion of University as day care, wherein Eloi-like adult-children were to

be protected not merely from the real world but from any concept they might find disturbing. As so many of them were products of a Mann and Dewey-modelled lower education that had for the most part ceased to give what scholastic value even that duo had called for, it was not difficult for the majority of them to be moulded as their equally reality-divorced professors wished. The end result was a collapse of the educational system as well, just prior to the Instauration. Like so much else, it had to be rebuilt from the bottom up. The King had definite views on education, as had so many Monarchs

before

him.

Above

all, he

was

wont

to

say,

“Separation of School and State.” As he constantly repeated, “the parent is the chief educator of the child.” This notion was completely contradictory to the entire... ah... progress of American education to that date. But he emphasised over and over that education had to be a voluntary effort on the part of those in need of it. Public Schools as they had been known were replaced by private schools of various types, and trade and agricultural schools run by the guilds and farmers’ associations. The Morris Act of 1862 was repealed, thus ending any hope of reopening most of the State Colleges; the lands involved reverted to the Crown. But the King used the monies therefrom (and Royal charters) to encourage the remaining private colleges that did reopen, employing a Classical curriculum. The experience of numerous smaller Liberal Arts and “Great Books” institutions before the collapse had demonstrated to him that such training of the most academically adroit minds fitted them best for advanced learning—regardless of whether that learning was in the humanities or hard sciences. Periodic examinations

[22

CHAPTER XI

during young people’s lives determine which are best suited for such training—and Royal bursaries are plentiful to supply the gifted but poor with the means to go as far as their abilities shall take them; in that way, their talents are not lost to the Body

Politic. To-day, when one of the remaining universities or colleges have their commencement ceremonies, the beautiful hoods and gowns, the president’s chains, and the academic maces once more proclaim that education enjoys the protection and patronage of the King. As we shall see in the next chapter, much the same is the case with the Arts. In keeping with this mandate, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Academy of American Poets, indeed, all

the members of the American Council of Learned Societies and that council itself have been awarded the prefix “Royal” and a portion of their operating budgets from the Lord Chamberlain’s Department of the Royal Household. Naturally, the King encourages donations to their work from both the relevant Guilds and the wealthier citizens—whose efforts thereat may well result in a Knighthood or even a Peerage. The King’s favour is no small thing for an institution heavily dependent upon donations. Here too, education very closely resembles the Arts.

Royal Command Performance: Monarchy and the Arts

CHAPTER XII As with learning, so with the arts—their connexion with Monarchy goes back to the beginning of history. Monarchs were perforce patrons of architecture—not only of great palaces and quiet retreats for themselves and the edification of their subjects, but also places of worship; as noted before every Monarchy must ultimately resort to Divinity for its legitimacy. From Peking’s Forbidden City and the Altar of Heaven to Topkapi and the Blue Mosque to the Louvre and Notre Dame to the Hofburg and the Stephansdom, civic and sacred architecture alike would simply not exist without Monarchy. The debt the world owes the Sovereigns of old in this area is simply incalculable. Nor should it come as much of a surprise that interest in such things has continued down to our own day. The late 20" century Prince of Wales (later Charles III of the House of Windsor) taking up the cudgels in defence of traditional architecture was very much in keeping with this age-old pattern—as was his essentially advocating the tastes of the “average man” against that of the so-

called experts. So too with the decorative arts—and not just in terms of coronation regalia and liturgical implements, either. The world’s Royal Courts required furniture of all kinds, and many techniques developed for them by craftsmen were then used for less regal customers. The same can be said for carriages and 123

124

CHAPTER XII

harnesses, carpets and windows, needlework, and so on. Even

the republics that for a long time usurped the thrones of France and Austria were only too happy to use the inventories of the Hofmobiliendepot and the Garde Meuble royale (called in presidential days the Mobilier nationale) to furnish their homes and offices—and were rarely able to create anything as good. From the Hungarian Royal National School of Arts and Crafts to Britain’s Royal School of Needlework and The Prince’s School of Traditional Arts, it was important to Monarchs the world over not only the best in arts and crafts be available for their own use, but that as many fine artists and craftsmen be trained in these pursuits for the general welfare. On the job training was offered in many times and many places by various Royal establishments. Tin-smithing? The Manufacture royale de Bains-les-Bains was the very thing, if you were French. Glass-working and crystal were produced by Spain’s Real Fabrica de Cristales de La Granja and France’s La Verrerie Royale de Saint-Louis. Tapestries could be had from the Real Fabrica de Tapices de Santa Barbara and Paris’ Gobelins.

Interested

in Porcelain?

Sevres, Augarten,

Berlin,

Copenhagen, and a score more Royal factories produced mountains of high quality wares starting in the 17" and 18" centuries—directly competing with Imperial China’s monopoly thereon. There were Court painters and sculptors—the very best that could be found, and these often found schooling in such institutions as the Royal Academy of Arts (founded by George III in 1768). With so many Royal factories and so many artists producing high quality work, it is little wonder that such repositories of Royal Art as the Louvre, Charlottenburg, the Prado, the Hermitage, and countless others were and continue to be centres of World culture. Even in the realm of Cuisine, Monarchy has left its mark. Korea, China, Vietnam, Japan, Mughal India, and the Ottomans

all had styles of cookery restricted to the Sovereign’s kitchens,

___ROYAICOMMAND PERFORMANCE _125 which nevertheless influenced the national methods of food preparation very deeply. Much the same happened in Europe with the emergence at the French court of Haute Cuisine, spearheaded by such Royal chefs as Francois Massialot, who introduced such dishes as meringues and Créme Brulee. Just as Versailles became the exemplar of Court life for all of Europe under Louis XIV, so too did the French King’s table affect those of all his brother Sovereigns. This in turn affected the kitchens of the nobility, and in time became general; so too with wines—as, for example, that from the Royal Hungarian vineyards at Tokay, prized by Monarchs throughout Europe.

Beginning in the 17" and 18" centuries, Kings sought the raw materials for all of these artistic endeavours—from architecture to cooking—from specific purveyors and suppliers. Those with whom the Royal Households did regular business gained Royal warrants—usually the Monarch’s Coat of Arms with the legend in the local language being some variation of “By Appointment to His Majesty, Purveyors to the Royal Court of .” This was a practise which—unlike so many in the course of development of the European Constitutional Monarchies in the 20" century—did not diminish with the gradual loss of political power. Indeed, until that process began to be reversed

after our

own

Instauration,

British,

Dutch,

Belgian, Scandinavian, and Spanish businesses of all kinds hotly competed for Royal warrants, because they attracted customers who wanted wares of the highest quality. So true was this that even during the republican interludes, companies that in Austria had been “Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court” continued to display the Imperial Warrant proudly. So too in France, Italy,

Portugal, and elsewhere. This Royal patronage of the arts continued among the more intangible ones as well, with Monarchs vying with the Church in providing for music and musicians. The two impulses came together in the various “Royal Chapels” —which often enough

126

CHAPTER XII

described both the attendant choir in the King’s worship space and the clergy who served it. Often enough—as with Vienna’s Hofmusikkapelle (which featured the famous Vienna Boy’s Choir) the musical ensembles would survive the fall of their Monarchy. But Royal interest in music did not end with the liturgical. Europe was dotted with Royal Conservatories where students learned to play and compose music, and to act in musical productions. One of the most Royal of musical art forms is ballet. The Far Eastern Monarchies all have styles of Court Music and Dance peculiar to themselves. But ballet arose in 17" century France, developing from Court Masques in which King and Courtiers played different roles, rather than professional actor-dancers (an earlier form of this diversion was the dancing of “carols,” as mentioned in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight). Connected to it historically was the development of Opera—foreshadowed in other traditions, such as the Chinese Peking Opera or the Japanese Kabuki, both originally Court pastimes. As a result, Europe was and is dotted with Royal Ballet Companies and Opera Houses—the latter generally featuring a Royal or Imperial Box. So too with the many “Theatres Royal” —as drama and comedy both received Royal patronage. Many an aspiring ballet dancer, opera singer, or stage actor has honed his craft at an Imperial or Royal Academy dedicated to teaching the art in question. Literature has also benefitted throughout its history from the support of Monarchs. The Tale of Genji and The Dream of the Red Chamber, for example, were respectively written by Japanese and Chinese courtiers. The whole of Medieval Romance—the “Matter of Britain” dealing with the Arthurian Legend; the “Matter of France,” chronicling the adventures of Charlemagne; “the “Matter of Rome,” which medievalised heroes like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar; and the

“Matter of Jerusalem,” which dealt with the Crusades were

ROYAL

COMMAND PERFORMANCE

a

127

composed and immortalised by writers and minstrels enjoying noble and Royal support. These have served as the foundation of all of our Western Literature. Poetry too was prized, and no Court worth mentioning lacked a Poet Laureate, whose reward for a lifetime of poetic endeavour was his King’s mandate to put into verse important occurrences in the life of the Royal Family and nation. As mentioned in the last chapter, the 19% and 20" centuries saw artists as well as academics receive chivalric and other honours from their Sovereigns once reserved to noblemen and soldiers. In this country’s colonial days, support of the arts was entirely private—save for the building of such structures as government buildings and the Anglican or Congregational churches in the colonies where those religions were established. When the United States became independent, things changed to the degree that one by one the new State governments stopped paying for churches; the last established religion, Connecticut’s, being ended in 1833. But from the White House and Capitol down to the smallest town’s city hall or public library, governments on every level built impressive buildings in any number of architectural styles, fairly bristling with stained glass, fine stone- and woodwork and statuary. But in general—with a few exceptions, as with the Utah State Arts Council, founded in

1899—the arts relied upon private patronage for support. Although this resulted in a plethora of beautiful private homes and mansions, it also underlined an important point. Patronage of the arts was not a function of constitutional republican government, other than in the purely utilitarian manner noted. In a free nation, the artist must sink or swim, like anyone else. This attitude changed radically with the Great Depression, the election of FDR, and the onset of the New Deal. For all his inveighing against “the Modern Tory and the Economic Royalist,” the “Country Squire in the White House” as John Flynn labelled Roosevelt, was himself an extremely ersatz regal

128

CHAPTER XII

figure—for all that he happily trampled upon ceremony by feeding King George VI and Queen Elizabeth hot dogs at a weenie roast in Hyde Park. Patrician in his attitude or not (and descended from an old New York Dutch family), he had a disdain

for the niceties

of the Constitution,

some

sense

of

noblesse oblige, and an extremely paternal attitude towards the arts. His vast public works programmes—the Public Works Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works

Progress Administration—were unique in American history up to that point, because the goal of building needed government buildings and infrastructure was secondary to putting people to work. This, of course, was

something Monarchs

have done

throughout history; but it was alien to what the United States had been heretofore. While these programmes did not succeed in banishing the Depression (it took our entry into World War II to do that) they did leave a large and complex heritage behind them that remain the pride of innumerable communities to-day. Moreover, the WPA did something that the Federal Government had never engaged in—direct support of the nonarchitectural arts. The Federal Writers, Music, Art, and Theatre

Projects not only employed countless practitioners of these disciplines across the country, they too left some enduring traces behind them, such as the innumerable murals in public building done

by the Arts

Project,

and the American

Guide

detailing every one of the 48 States, Alaska, Hawaii,

series, and a

number of specific cities and localities. The then unpublished folklore and oral histories gathered by the Writers Project were eventually all published in one form or another, but that task was not completed until 2038! But unlike most Monarchs, FDR exercised little of his own taste in these matters, leaving the thing in the hands of “experts” —many of whom, it was complained of at the time, were of left-wing or even Communist orientation. But the concern at Federal levels in poetry was exemplified by the appointment in 1937 of Joseph Auslander by the Library of

ROYAL COMMAND

PERFORMANCE

129

Congress as the first “Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress.” This office became in time de facto what it has been since 1985 in law: Poet Laureate of the United States. The year 1937 also saw former Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon donate his sizable art collection and an equally sizable endowment to found the National Gallery of Art—a gift Congress happily accepted on behalf of the country. In one area, however, FDR did indeed exercise regalesque judgement: the architecture used on Post Offices built during his reign. While recovering from polio, the future president had taken a hiatus from political work, and threw himself into the labours of the Holland Society in surveying the remaining Dutch period structures of his native Hudson River Valley. When, years later, the New Dealers were planning a new Post Office for Rhinebeck,

New

York,

a number

of the local citizens

petitioned Roosevelt for a new design reflecting the vernacular architecture of the area. FDR signed off on their request, and went further by decreeing that all such structures to be built in the Hudson area should be of Dutch Colonial style. Thinking about it further, and knowing that very section of the country had an architecture peculiar to it, FDR went on to order the Post Office Department to build new Post Offices in accord with whatever architectural style happened to dominate that particular region. World War II, although bringing these United States out of the Depression and cementing their leadership over the nonCommunist world, had the effect of subordinating the

Humanities and Arts to hard science. This was reflected in artistic styles. Where these had developed over the centuries in a relatively organic way, from Romanesque through Gothic, Baroque, through Rococo, Neo-Classical and various historicist styles to Art Nouveau and Art Deco, after the War there was a radical break, with tons of buildings being churned out in the anti-decorative Bauhaus and Brutalist styles. This was reflected

130

CHAPTER XII

in various other ways, as, for example, the triumph of Abstract Art. So things stood when John F. Kennedy was elected. JFK may have had an even less impressive lineage than FDR; but he did know how, as folk once said, “to put on the

dog.” His was the last presidential inauguration in full morning coat, and he and his at least equally well-born wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, brought to the White House an air of youth, glamour, and sophistication—regardless of what unsavoury currents flowed under that particular surface. He was also the only Catholic ever to occupy the White House until James IV became King. Both he and his wife were great lovers of the arts (though he preferred show tunes and Irish ballads to Mozart and Beethoven), and was overjoyed to have his favourite living poet, Robert Frost, read a poem at his inauguration—to which he invited more than fifty other writers, painters, poets and musicians. The Kennedys enjoyed hosting performances by artists in the East Room (now the Throne Room) of the White House—to include a series of “Concerts for Young People” —and entertaining them at glittering State Dinners. The fare guests enjoyed there was French cuisine of sufficient stature to literally make Julia Child gush over it—a height it never reached again under subsequent administrations, as that first celebrity chef ruefully concluded. But the efforts of the elegant first couple to promote the arts in Royal fashion were not confined to the White House guest list. The president arranged with the French government the loan of the Mona Lisa in 1962 to both the National Gallery of Art (where it was seen by over 700,000) and New York’s Met, where over a million saw it. This success led JFK to appoint in the same year August Heckscher to be his “Special Consultant on the Arts.” Heckscher draughted and submitted a report on the state of the arts in the United States, the result of which was JFK’s creation on June 12, 1963 of the Advisory Council on the Arts.

In his statement at the time, Kennedy enumerated in detail the

ROYAL COMMAND

a

PERFORMANCE

Heal

problems faced by the Country through lack of a national arts policy, and then declared: The Government has a responsibility to see that this important aspect of our lives is not neglected. The concept of the public welfare should reflect cultural as well as physical values, aesthetic as well as economic considerations. We have agencies of the Government which are concerned with the welfare and advancement of science and technology, of education, recreation

and health. We should now begin to give similar attention to the arts.

While very much in keeping with a Monarch’s traditional role of overseeing and encouraging every aspect of his people’s well-being, it was most unlike what had been the province of presidents up until then. He concluded his speech by saying: The cultural life of the United States has at its best been varied, lively and decentralized. It has been supported—often with great -generosity—by private patrons. I hope these characteristics will not change, but it seems well to assess how far the traditional sources of support meet the needs of the present and the near future.

Again, save with FDR, no one up until then thought that a president of the Federal Government’s mandate extended this far. No one had been appointed to the Council, however, at the time of his assassination, and the organisation quietly withered away under Lyndon Johnson. Nevertheless, Kennedy’s concern for the arts did leave one enduring legacy: the General Services Administration Art in Architecture Program, which buildings. Federal new commissioned artists to decorate If LBJ (whose rather vulgarian manner stood in stark contrast to his predecessor’s) was not as interested in culture as Kennedy, he was much more successful in getting legislation through Congress—an essential skill given how much was required in order to push through his “Great Society”

132

CHAPTER XII

programmes. As mentioned in the last chapter, he was able to create the National Endowments for the Humanities and for the Arts. Amongst other things, the bill required the NEA to earmark funds for any State that had its own Arts Agency (Utah, as we have seen, had long had one; New York founded one in 1961);

within a few years, all 50 boasted such agencies and were duly

receiving Federal money. Neither Johnson nor most of his successors had either the taste of the training to really monitor intelligently what was being done by these two agencies. Educators, artists, and supposed experts would chart their policy. This came to a halt under Ronald Reagan, the first president since Kennedy to take a personal interest in the Arts and Humanities (as also the first to wear a morning coat to his inauguration since JFK). He was of the opinion that both National Endowments had strayed significantly from their intended purposes. Reagan’s advisors divided in two over the matter, some wanting the Endowments to be returned to their original goal of supporting “high art and scholarly practice,” and the others wanted them abolished entirely. In 1981, the president launched a Special Presidential Task Force on the Arts and Humanities, which reported that, in general, the two bodies were sound. The following year, he created the permanent President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities to work with both Endowments and the Institute of Museum and Library Services in terms of structuring programs to support the highest standards in arts and humanities programmes. The 1990s saw the NEA end funding to individual artists because of the obscene or otherwise inflammatory work of a number of the artists so supported. All four bodies would last as long as the republic, altering their emphases in accordance with the changing mores forced upon the Country by her elites. As both the recipient of a Classical education and (in his capacity of Prince of Lichtenburg) the custodian of one of the World’s largest art collections, James IV came to the throne with

ROYAL COMMAND

PERFORMANCE

133

a deep belief in the beneficial and essential role that both humanities and the arts should play in national life. He was also deeply convinced their decay had been both a product of and a stimulant to the national collapse that had ushered in his rule. At the same time, he was also determined that—in keeping with the original intent of the draughters of the First Constitution—that Congress should play no role in either funding or supervising education, the arts, or religion, which three he saw as being

tightly bound together. The King’s response to these three challenges was to place such institutions as the Smithsonian and the National Gallery under a new Royal Collections Department of the nascent Royal Household; the renamed Royal Committee on the Arts and the Humanities and the two Royal Endowments were placed under the Household’s Lord Chamberlain’s Department. Funding for them, as with the learned societies referred to in the last chapter,

comes

partly from the King and to a great degree from the

particular Guilds

concerned

and the wealthy—to

these last,

generosity may well be crowned with a Knighthood or Peerage. Since each State has its own Royal Household, based upon the Governor’s Mansion, the State Councils function in a similar

manner alongside the State Historical Societies and Historic Preservation Agencies. The maintenance of high standards of both learning and

artistry required, in the opinions of both our Sovereigns a degree of censorship—the more so since to a degree they were footing the bill for such endeavours. But in America, partly because of the anti-artistic bent of our culture’s Calvinist inheritance, censorship had come to mean philistinism of the sort formerly wreaked upon the populace by such as Boston’s Watch and Ward Society—as a result of which, being “banned in Boston” was, in the early 20" century, almost a badge of honour for any work of art worth its salt. To overcome this, James IV borrowed

a technique from the Austria-Hungary of the belle époque, a time

134

CHAPTER XII

and place of unparalleled artistic brilliance. Artists, writers, composers, and actors of proved ability make up the ranks of the censors—both to avoid the banning of any work of genuine merit, and to root out any cleverly disguised message subversive of faith, morals, or public order. Whatever its faults, our system

has at least worked as well as that of the Habsburgs did. And, as James IV rather caustically remarked when the Censorship was created, “Jn 1913, Kansas was considered by American liberal opinion one of the most—if not the most progressive States in the Union; Austria-Hungary, with her Monarchy, State Church, Secret Police, and Censorship, was considered by that same opinion, one of the most backward countries in Europe. But which City at that time produced the greatest art—Vienna or Topeka?” In any case, unlike the former president—who constitutionally was simply the chief executive elected to carry out the decrees of Congress—the King considers himself, and is considered by the vast majority of his subjects, appointed by God to defend his people and encourage their spiritual and material welfare—or to die trying. This role is deeply rooted in His Majesty’s Lordship of the land, and it is that to which we now must turn our attention.

Lord of the Soil: Monarchy and the Land

CHAPTER XIII From the beginning of recorded history, one of the key elements of a Monarch’s legitimacy was his connexion with the Earth. The health of the pre-Christian Sacred Kings was held to be bound up with the health of the soil—and repeated bad harvests blamed on him (and likely in some places, to get His Majesty killed or sacrificed). In Medieval Europe, the King’s authority was tied to his being Lord of the land itself—the apex of the Feudal System. He was the ultimate landowner, from whom all others basically rented, or sublet to their vassals or tenants—and

so on down the line. But whereas, in much of

Europe this ultimate land title—allod—over time was given over to great Lords, it was not in England. This is why, if apparent necessity arose, the King of England could resume direct ownership over a parcel of land via “Eminent Domain.” When the Thirteen Colonies were settled, this ownership carried over to them and the territories they claimed to the West—which is why complete chains of title to any given property in those areas of the United States often commence with the King of England or Great Britain (and also why so many of the phrases used in American real estate law are feudal terms coming directly to us from the Middle Ages). But depending upon which nationality first settled an area, the chain of title may go back instead to the Kings of France and Spain. Because of that history, 135

136

CHAPTER XII

elements of Spanish land and water law (such as Community Property) prevail in various Southwestern States. Moreover, due to this background, a long simmering legal conundrum, similar to the Federal versus State Sovereignty question, would emerge from time to time—whether Americans enjoyed their property under

Feudal

or Allodial

law—that

is, was

the

citizen’s

ownership of his land absolute? Without explicitly doing so, by the time of the Instauration the United States Supreme Court had ruled in favour of Feudalism by making land ownership contingent on the ability of local governments able to seize land under Eminent Domain if able to find someone who would pay higher taxes upon it. Paradoxically, while James IV settled the question definitively by a statute declaring the country’s Allod to rest with the Crown, having by that same statute repealed the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kelo v. City of New London (which allowed Eminent Domain under the above-mentioned

circumstance) and Berman vy. Parker (which had paved the way

for the disastrous “Urban Renewal” programmes by allowing local authorities to seize “blighted” areas), he rendered the subject’s “contingent” ownership of his property far more secure than the citizen’s “absolute” title to his land. And, in some cases,

the King was able to encourage return of long-seized and derelict urban property to private owners in a constructive way: Boston’s New West End rivals England’s Poundbury as a monument to successful Royal Urban Planning. Of course, when the Europeans arrived in the Americas,

there were already inhabitants here—the various Indian nations (it was the fashion for a while in academic and media circles to refer to them as “Native Americans” in the United States and “First

Nations”

in Canada;

but

since—outside

the

most

assimilated members of their population—the Indians themselves preferred “Indian,” it is now the official term). These ranged in levels of technology and organisation from the Aztec and Inca Empires and our own Mound Builders (unhappily

______}ORDOFTHESON 137 , extinguished before the European arrival) to the “Digger Indians” of Utah and Nevada—with every imaginable permutation in between. Their concepts of land ownership varied just as widely. After the shock of the Conquest in Latin America, the Spanish Crown attempted to regulate the position of the Indians within the Viceroyalties. Under the Laws of the Indies, Indian communities (which might range in size from Mexico’s Principality of Tlaxcala to the individual Pueblos of our own Southwest) were considered part of the “Republic of the Indians,” separate from and not subject to the “Republic of the and Creole Spanish” (which encompassed Méestizo communities) but subject alike to the Church and the Crown. One reason why so many Indians favoured the Royalist side during the Wars of Independence in Latin America, and the Conservative side in the civil wars that wracked so many of the is that the newly republics independent afterwards revolutionaries and liberals were keen on suppressing Indian privileges. Affairs in North America were quite different, save for the Spanish Missions in California and Texas, the aforementioned Pueblos, and the Indian Kingdoms in Georgia and Florida (these were destroyed by the British colonisers in Georgia and South Carolina as part of their struggle with Spain). In New England and Virginia, bloody wars reduced the Indian tribes to broken remnants on reservations at the mercy of the government of the particular colony; a few (such as Virginia’s Pamunkey and Mattaponi tribes) had direct treaty relations with King, and George III intervened directly in 1774 to allow the Mashpee selfgovernment (taken away immediately by the revolutionaries in 1776, although the Mashpee had sided with them). But the powerful Iroquois and Cherokee were British allies in their wars with the French, and as such treated with respect. The French, in response, treated all of their Indian allies with deference (thus gaining the alliance of the majority of the Indian tribes) and

138

CHAPTER XII

threw their doors in Canada open to refugees from the broken tribes in New England. But although the French King did not claim sovereignty over the Indians as did his Spanish cousin, he was just as assiduous in supporting Catholic missionaries. By way of contrast, except for sporadic attempts (as with the “Praying Indians” in Massachusetts and some efforts by Anglicans to evangelise the Mohawk), the Protestant English made little attempt to convert “their” Indians to Christianity. This pattern changed with the final defeat of the French. At the 1763 peace treaty, George III agreed to treat his new French subjects and Indian allies as though they had been so since birth. This was, in part, the ultimate genesis of the Quebec Act; but it

also gave birth to the Proclamation of 1763, which conceded to the Indians all lands west of the Alleghenies, and forbade White settlement therein, unless permitted by treaty between the Crown and the relevant tribe. Frustrated at being cut off from a huge potential source of profit, would-be land speculators among the colonial leadership found yet another grievance against the King. Despite that, and despite the American Revolution, the Proclamation served as the foundation of the Crown’s Indian policy in Canada (and Tecumseh’s alliance with the British). As a result, the Canadian tribes surrendered their lands only after binding treaties with the Crown, and the settlement of the Canadian West was far more peaceful and orderly (under the watchful eye of the future Royal Canadian Mounted Police) than that of the American West: the two Riel Rebellions were tragic exceptions that nevertheless prove the rule, as do descendants of refugee tribes from the United States in Canada. In the United States, of course, the land-hungry speculators and settlers progressively defeated the tribes in ways (such as killing off the buffalo) that approached genocide; by the time a century and a half had past, most Eastern tribes (save the few recognised by the Federal Government) were fortunate if they had State recognition. The Western tribes were placed on

LORD OF THE SOIL

139

reservations in the less appetising parts of their former lands. Unlike Canada, Indian Sovereignty was never really defined in the United States, although Congress was mandated by the Constitution to regulate commerce with them as it did with foreign nations and between the several States. In 1905, those living under tribal governments were made citizens, and twentynine years later FDR pushed the Indian Reorganisation Act through Congress, which replaced their traditional leadership with a new elected one. This in turn, on many reservations, led

to conflict between the adherents of the two bodies. The incorporation of Alaska and Hawaii into the Country had required similar arrangements for their indigenous groups. Beginning in the 1970s, new interpretations of tribal sovereignty led to the building of money attracting casinos on Indians lands, free of any restrictions laid by the neighbouring State on gambling. The quest for this new source of income led many Eastern Indian groups with State recognition to seek Federal status, and other groups who had simply subsisted as kinship communities to try to attain it as well. By the time of the Instauration this situation had led to endless legal conflicts between both the tribes and the Federal and State governments and within the tribes as well. When James IV assumed the Crown, as noticed earlier he

immediately made contact with the tribes, and gave new canes to the Governors of the New Mexico Pueblos. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was transferred from the Department of the Interior to that of State, and both the IRA and the measure giving tribal members citizenship rescinded. The King announced that he was taking up toward the tribes the role of the British, Spanish, and French Kings and (for Alaska) the Tsar of Russia: suzerain and ally. Of his own income he financed the spiritual and educational work of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Black and Indian Mission Office, and returned to them all of the missions and property taken by the U.S. Grant

140

CHAPTER XIII

administration; James was also generous to the religious orders and lay organisations involved in that apostolate. Once the tribes had decided upon their own leadership (a varying mix of the two sides produced by the IRA in the first place), he encouraged them to form confederations with their own peoples across reservation and national borders. This is why, for example, the

Ambassador of the Wyandot Nation to the King represents groups in Quebec and Ontario, as well as Kansas and Oklahoma. Of course, in return for continued economic aid through the BIA each reservation maintains its own security forces, upon which the King or his Governor may call in emergency. When the Philippines were reintegrated into the United States, similar arrangements were made for the tribal groups there, and the Philippine National Commission on Indigenous Peoples folded into the BIA. In Liberia, when the King became Hereditary President of the American Colonisation Society, he soon found that there were no organised tribes but rather ethnic groups. In deference to Liberian tradition (and to prevent the kind of ethnic conflict that bloodied so much of the nation’s history), the administration has promoted national and country loyalty with great success. The death of Prince Henry as a result of combat in the country ironically brought all of Liberia much closer to the Royal Family, and there are few cities there of any size that do not now boast a “Prince Henry Square” or “Prince Henry Street;” there are countless statutes of the first member of the

dynasty to give his life for his country since Charles I. This experience helped the King immensely in dealing with Hawai'i. From his youth, when he first read about the tragic Queen Liliuokolani’s doomed attempt to save her Kingdom, the then Hereditary Prince of Lichtenburg had been fired by the injustice of what had befallen her and her people. Little did he know—either then or when he became Ruling Prince himself—that he would one day be able to redress that crime. During the Troubles, extreme Hawai’ian Nationalists linked to

LORD OF THE SOIL

141

one branch of the Hawai’ian Royal Family had targeted Haoles* and Asians; in response, there were anti-Hawai’ian native riots in Honolulu, and the Governor had called out the National Guard

to impose peace. After James’ accession, he duly recognised Prince Albert Kawananakoa as King Albert I of Hawai’i, investing in him control over the Hawai’ian Crown Lands and Native Reserves, Iolani Palace and the other Royal residences, control of the State Government, and command of the National

Guard (immediately renamed the Royal Hawai’ian Army). The new successor to Kamehameha I was crowned at Kawaiaha‘o Church in Honolulu with the feather cloak of Kamehameha and the Crown of King Kalakaua by the Archbishop of Honolulu, assisted by the Catholic Anglican Ordinary of Hawai’i from St. Andrew’s Cathedral. By the treaty of alliance between the two Kingdoms, the United States undertook to conduct the foreign affairs and defence of Hawai’i (for which purpose the RUSN retained control of Pearl Harbour, the RUSAF of Hickham Field, and the U.S. Army of Schofield Barracks). Two years later, the success of this arrangement led King James to revive the title of Tui Manu‘a (High King) of Samoa and bestow it upon the nearest heir. This led to the reunion of the two Samoas under American suzerainty, in terms similar to Hawai’i’s. A decade later, a similar arrangement was worked out for the Sultanate of Sulu, ending the rebellion that had so destabilised the Philippines, culminating in the resumption of American authority in that country. Tribal lands apart, there is a great deal of land in the United States that belongs directly to the King—the “Crown Lands,” administered by the “Crown Estate.” These are extremely important, because it is primarily from the profits made from them that the King is able to finance so many educational, 4 Haole - (in Hawaii) a person who is not a native Hawaiian, especially a white person.

142

CHAPTER XIII

cultural, and religious endeavours outside of what is voted for the running of the government by Congress and the State legislatures. As with everything else about the Monarchy, the roots of the Crown Lands lie far back in time. In Medieval Europe, the Crown Lands (or, in France, the Domaine Royale) were those territories the King or Emperor did not grant to feudal lords, but reserved for himself (nominally this included Royally chartered cities or towns; although, as we have seen, they tended to become semi-independent statelets on their

own). For reasons we shall see momentarily, a large chunk of these tended to be hunting grounds. But there were also extensive manors and farms which, in a pre-monetary age, provided an income in the way of a share of the farmer’s crops. Depending upon the place and time, there might also be mines, vineyards, or anything else that might provide an income. In addition, new lands created by changes in river lines or coastlines also became part of the Crown Lands. In England, the Crown Lands were quite extensive, not least

because the King was the ultimate Allodial owner. From them—even as Parliament arose and the outline of modern governance began to emerge—the King derived all of the money necessary for the Royal Household, and a considerable part of the regular government budget. Indeed, it was through this income and various fees that Charles I was able to finance all of the government during the “King’s Peace” of 1620-1640, when the added expenses of the Scots War forced him to call Parliament back into session, with disastrous results. Over a century later, George III offered the revenues from the Crown Lands to Parliament in return for an allowance—the Civil List. While that appeared to be a bargain at the time, by the latter part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, the Civil List, Grants-in-Aid, and various other funds given the Monarch were about 20% of the revenue from the Crown Lands, the remainder of which went

into the government’s coffers. So far from the Monarchy costing

———

LORD OF THE SOIL

143

the British taxpayer anything, it was making a titanic profit for him! The then Price of Wales suggested that said revenues go directly to the Queen, who would then turn over the 80%. While this would have been an admirable scheme in terms of showing the economic reality of the Monarchy to the world, many politicians feared it would make the Royals too independent. As a compromise, in 2012 the Sovereign Support Act abolished the Civil List, and paid the Queen a like sum drawn from the revenues of the Crown Estate. This system would last until our own time, when George VII regained control of the Crown Estate and began the current method of paying 80% into the Treasury—thus fulfilling the Prince of Wales’ suggestion almost a century and a half later. When the Europeans expanded into the New World, as noted the lands they discovered and colonised became as much Royal property as anywhere at home, and so the Kings of Britain, France, and Spain began giving out grants of land. But some property was reserved to the King, usually for the purpose of paying for all or part of colonial government. In Spanish California, such areas would be platted just outside the chartered towns, and dubbed with names like E/ Rancho Real—the “Royal Rancho.” Such were Boyle Heights and National City, the latter having been renamed E/ Rancho Nacional under the Mexicans, and being called by its current name after it was settled. For the British in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and

elsewhere, such properties were called “Crown Lands” —and in the first two

countries,

existed

at both the Dominion

and

Provincial/State levels. When the United States became independent, the remaining Crown Lands were renamed “Public Lands,” and taken over by the nascent Federal Government (although the States had public lands of their own). In time, as the frontier was pushed further and further West, these became quite extensive. We have seen how portions of them were used to finance the Land grant

144

CHAPTER XIII

Colleges, and, of course, they played a huge part in attracting homesteaders out West. Those lands of particular historic or touristic interest (such as the first, Yellowstone) were made into National Parks—reminiscent of such entities in Europe. In another extension of presidential power, Theodore Roosevelt created the National Park Service to maintain these and various other sorts of lands. But by the late 20" century the remaining Public Lands had become money makers through mining, recreation, and much else. Several State governments sued to take control of them, arguing that as the Public Lands were the successors of the Crown Lands, and the States had succeeded to

the Sovereignty of the Crown, they had a right to them and the income therefrom. Rather than face the thorny Sovereignty question, the Court threw out the State’s case on the basis of “Course of Conduct” —since the States had been content with things as they were for over 200 years, they had no right to ask for an alteration based upon previous law. That particular issue vanished at the accession of James IV. But he was faced with the problem of what to do with the administration of public lands in general. In the event, he created as a department within the Royal Household, the Crown Estate.

His Majesty then placed under this entity’s control the National Park Service (administrators of the National Parks, National Historic Landmarks,

National

Reserves,

National

Seashores,

and National Lakeshores) from the Department of the Interior; the United States Forest Service (guardians of the National Forests and Grasslands) from the Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Land Management (guardians of most of the Public Lands and a kaleidoscope of protected areas) from the Department of the Interior; the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, likewise transferred from the Interior Department; and

the Historic Buildings Programme of the General Services Administration. The Public lands were redubbed “Crown Lands.” On the State level, the Governors were each instructed

LORD OF THE SOIL

145

Le ae SS Se

likewise

to create

State Crown

Estate

offices that would

similarly receive control of State Parks, State Forests, and Fish

and Game Departments. Even the larger counties and cities did the same, so that such as Los Angeles’ Griffith and New York’s Central Parks became Crown Lands. While on the one hand this put the Monarchy foursquare into the fields of conservation and historic preservation (and so an ally of State groups like Massachusetts’ Trustees of Public Reservations and bodies like the National—now Royal—Trust for Historic Preservation), the income generated from mining and farming on the Crown Lands proper and tourism on the other is enormous, and allows the King

to

finance

his

educational,

cultural,

charitable,

and

religious interests without having to consult Congress. The attachment of the various Federal, State, and local Fish

and Game Departments to the Crown Estate points up the importance of a pastime essential to Monarchs as long as we have had records—and a major reason for the maintenance of Crown Lands in any Monarchy: hunting. Why was this so important? What Murray G.H. Pittock said of our King’s ancestors in The Invention of Scotland (p.4) was certainly true of most if not all other Monarchs: The Stuarts made much of hunting: it helped to confirm their heroic status as stewards of nature and the land. In doing this, they identified themselves not only with Arthur, but with Fionn, the legendary Gaelic warlord who was in the eighteenth century to be the subject of James Macpherson’s pro-Stuart Ossian poems.

Hunting allowed Monarchs in the earliest ages of Mankind to show their quasi-religious tie to the land—above, beyond, and under their connexion to their subjects; it was a way of illustrating that they received their mandate to rule not from the consent of the governed, but from that of He who made creation. There were, however, other and more practical reasons for

the Royal Hunt. In an age when Kings were expected to go into

146

CHAPTER XIII

battle with their troops—and warfare was a cavalry-heavy affair—equestrian sports of all types offered Royals essential physical expertise: even to-day, horse-racing is called “the King of Sports and the Sport of Kings,” and not without warrant. Hunting, however, required more of a Monarch still—steady nerves, acute observation, and above all, sang-froid’. Imperial or Royal Hunts became and remain extremely ceremonial affairs, with an etiquette, roll of officers, and ceremonial all their own

which in time trickled down to the hunting of nobility and commoner alike, and even into everyday life—hence the idea of the “sporting chance.” From early times, in Europe, China, and elsewhere, while

lesser animals,

such

as rabbits

and foxes, that were

often

destructive of agriculture could be hunted by anyone; but the larger beasts, such as deer, elk, bear, even bison or wild cattle,

were reserved as prey to the Monarch and those whom

he

licenced to hunt them. In order however, for there to be animals to hunt, there had to be safe tracts of land for them to live in.

Thus arose Royal or Imperial hunting forests or parks, many of which survive to-day: Poland’s Bialiowieza; Denmark’s Dyrehaven;

Spain’s

Britain’s

Coto

Forest—the

New

D’Onana;

Forest;

China’s

France’s

Nanhaizi;

Fontainebleau;

India’s

Gir

list is endless. In a nutshell, it was the Eurasian

Monarchies who began what we call to-day Conservation. Not to be outdone, noblemen and lesser landholders followed their

example —not only in this, but in the building of hunting lodges. Perhaps the most famous hunting lodge ever built by a King was the Louvre.

In the 18" and 19" centuries, Royals from Louis XVI to Archduke Franz Ferdinand built up reputations as great huntsmen in times and places where there was great competition

> sang-froid - composure or coolness, sometimes excessive, as shown in danger or under trying circumstances.

——————

LORD OF THE SOIL

147

for such fame. But in those days Royal Hunts also served at times as settings for diplomacy. Entertaining foreign rulers at such affairs was quite as important as State Dinners—and even the French presidents continued the tradition through the 19% and 20" centuries, maintaining hunts at Rambouillet, Marly-le-

roi, and Chambord. These “presidential hunts” entertained not only visiting heads of state but cabinet ministers, senior civil servants and the like. Of all the American presidents, Theodore Roosevelt—not surprisingly, the most personally committed to conservation—was probably the greatest hunter. His encomium to the sport in his book, Wilderness Hunter, epitomises a Regal

view of the chase: In hunting, the finding and killing of the game is after all but a part of the whole. The free, self-reliant, adventurous life, with its rugged and stalwart democracy; the wild surroundings, the grand beauty of the scenery, the chance to study the ways and habits of the woodland creatures—all these unite to give to the career of the wilderness hunter its peculiar for the lack of which in a nation, as

in an individual, the possession of no other qualities can possibly atone.

It was, however, precisely “vigorous manliness” against which the political and media classes of the late 20" and early 21° centuries set themselves. During that era, the then Prince of Wales was attacked both for enjoying the hunt and for introducing his sons, Princes William and Harry to it. Spain’s King Juan Carlos received similar bad treatment by the press, and French president Sarkozy was forced to close down the presidential hunts by the head of the very committee that was supposed to oversee them. Although they survived the ban on foxhunting as the German hunts had (by drag hunting), the British foxhunts were in a difficult strait by the time new century dawned. While there may not have been a causal connexion, the furiously anti-hunting political leadership in the West proved

148

CHAPTER XIll

itself entirely incapable of dealing with the disasters and unrest that, in America, ushered in the Instauration. While some might

think it unfair to characterise that leadership as “effeminate,” it was certainly lacking in the kind of manliness that Theodore Roosevelt praised. In any case, it is interesting to reflect that the issuing of hunting licences by the various States had come down to us, in the circuitous sort of history that legalities have, from the Royal licences to hunt the “King’s Deer” in England, with the individual States inheriting the Sovereignty of the Crown in this instance. Unlicenced hunters have always been considered as much poachers as ever was Robin Hood and his merry men in the Royal Forest of Sherwood. As Prince of Lichtenburg, King James had been an avid hunter of deer, boar, and fox. When he came here, he brought

with him his Uncle Heinrich and Aunt Amelie. Old Prince Henry

(not to be confused with his tragic great nephew, young Prince Henry) and Princess Amelia—as they were swiftly renamed— apart from appearing as the stereotypical devoted Germanic couple, quickly immersed themselves in work with the Boy and Girl Scouts, of which they soon became respective Chief Scouts. While their nephew set about rebuilding the national government, the childless pair took unto themselves not only the task of guiding the country’s youth, but also the environment (those of us who were Boy Scouts in those days will remember HRH’s endearing Germanicisms, which earned him gentle ribbing but never ridicule—he was at once too good natured and too princely for any of us to have done that). But he was appointed by his nephew Master of the Horse—a position in the nascent Royal Household that put him in charge of Royal Hunts.

When King James—and later King Charles—was in a mind for foxhunting,

there

were

many

established

hunts

around

Washington which the King and Princes could ride with, thus requiring no real outlay on the part of the Household. Both our Monarchs have been fond of the Philadelphia area’s Radnor

____LORDOFTHESON. Hunt and Virginia’s Loudon Fairfax and Middleburg Hunts. But their favourite is without a doubt the Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds in Maryland. One of the highpoints of the hunting year is certainly the annual St. Hubert’s Mass with the HCIB at the private chapel of Doughoregan Manor, seat of the Carroll Baronets. If it is not possible for the King to be present, a senior Prince is inevitably on hand to enjoy the chorus of hunting horns that accompany the liturgy, and the subsequent Blessing of the Hounds. Deer hunting with horse and hounds was not, however, practised to any great degree before the Instauration. To redress that lack Old Prince Henry assembled a pack of buckhounds for use in hunting white tailed deer in the Catoctin Mountain Park surrounding the Royal country residence at Camp David—now the seat of the Master of the Royal Buckhounds, whose kennel is there. In any case, as with the King’s ancestors, the Royal Forests (as the National and State Forests were re-designated) are his to hunt in, just as the game beasts are his to hunt. But he is (subject to conservation concerns in specific places and regarding particular species) quite happy, via his Governors, to issue hunting and fishing licences in terms almost identical to those of the former regime. There is one difference; each such licence bears the Royal Arms, and every hunter and fisherman knows that his sport is granted by a special privilege from the King himself. Never, perhaps, since the 1950s have hunting and fishing been so popular; it is probable that the example of the Royal Family has done much to resurrect interest in them among the general population. But it must not be supposed that the love and attention of Monarchs for the land is restricted to the wild parts of it. Here too, for as long as we

have records,

Sovereigns

have been

devoted to the prosperity of farming. The Emperors of China at Peking’s Temple of Agriculture and those of Japan at their palace in Tokyo, as well as the Kings of Laos, Cambodia,

150

CHAPTER XIII

Thailand, and Burma all perform Royal Ploughing ceremonies in the Spring to ensure the favour of the gods upon their subject’s crops. Many Christian Kings participate in the processions of the Rogation Days as well, similarly seeking the blessings of God upon the fruits of the Earth. The concern of European Kings for the advance of agriculture has not been restricted to ceremony, however. The farms and Royal Manors that supported the Monarchs’ various country homes were expected to be as well-managed as possible. Royal encouragement of agriculture took all sorts of forms—in France, for example, Louis XVI founded the Royal Sheepfold at

Rambouillet to improve the level of French sheep by providing champion Merinos sent him by his cousin Carlos HI for breeding; these in turn had been raised in the Canadas reales—”Royal Glens”—of Spain by the Honrado Concejo de la Mesta de Pastores (the “Honourable Council of the Mesta of Shepherds”) chartered by Alfonso X in 1275, and one of many such Royally-sponsored bodies in the country. The need for horses for both war and peace resulted in virtually every Monarch in Europe supported at least one Royal or Imperial Stud for horse-breeding, as well as such riding schools as Vienna’s Spanish Riding School or France’s School at Saumur. Similarly—and especially after the Voyages of Discovery in the 17" century—countless “Royal Botanical Gardens” sprang up across the Continent, not merely to provide shade for subjects, but to introduce them to new and often useful plants. The 19" century was the Golden Age of the Agricultural show, whereat farmers in a given area vied with each other in exhibiting the best livestock and crops. These were encouraged by Royalty in Monarchies, with both their presence and the awarding of prizes. This became an immense undertaking throughout the British Empire, where such shows were put on

by various Royal Agricultural Societies in the British Isles, the Canadian Provinces, Australian States, New Zealand, and South

LORD OF THE SOIL

eee

151

Africa. The Royal Horticultural Society’s Chelsea Flower Show—imitated around the World—is another institution that draws the support of the Monarchy. Throughout Europe, various gastronomic and wine brotherhoods have existed for centuries, each dedicated to the propagation of one or more local foods or wines. These too attracted Monarchical patronage; of the role of the wine brotherhoods, Archduke Otto von Habsburg once wrote: Fidelity to our tradition is not only reflected in attitudes, but

also in the outer customs. Anyone familiar with the history of Europe, knows the importance of our wine culture. It is no coincidence that Jesus Christ his first miracle by turning water into wine, and at the request of his mother, accomplished. Those who travel to our continent, know that that civilization has experienced a golden age in those places where the wine is building the economic base.

When James IV became our King, American agriculture was in a terrible way; it was producing poorly, and most farmland was in the hands of major corporations—which in turn had led to the severe depopulation of many of our smaller States and concentration of the population in urban areas. He had two major concerns for the agricultural sector: a) Economic—the Country must once again be able to feed itself and be able to export competitively; b) Social—the Family Farm must be preserved where it existed, and if possible, augmented in numbers via voluntary resettlement of urban populations. To carry these goals out, the King and his Governors liaised with the national and State departments of Agriculture, the Farm Bureaux in every State, the National (now Royal) Council of Farmer Cooperatives, organisations of particular crop or animal farmers, and groups ranging from the Four H-FFA to the Grange to the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. Heavy tax incentives were given Agribusiness companies to sell parcels to

tee

CHAPTER XIII

family farmers, existing agricultural schools were pressed into service to teach city-dwellers or suburbanites eager to make a new life for themselves the techniques of farming and each State Fair given funds to offer substantial prizes for innovative private farmers. Baronetcies were showered upon successful and prominent farm-holders, such as the aforementioned Carrolls at

Doughoregan Manor; the Staatses at Hooghbergh in Schodack, New York; the Carter-Hills of Shirley Plantation, Virginia; the Barkers of Barker’s Farm, Massachusetts; the de la Guerras of

Rancho San Julian, California; and many more. As a result, the

United States to-day are able to not only feed themselves but build up a healthy surplus. Private farmers, great and small, make up a vast proportion of the total agricultural sector—which is now able to compete in terms of power and influence with the manufacturing, banking, and technology sectors. In addition,

due to a vastly enlarged population, the “small States” now carry a much larger clout within the House of Representatives than they have at any time since World War I. A last way in which Kings concerned themselves with the land was in terms of highways, given that they were vitally interested not only in the production of useful goods, but in their marketing—and, of course, the unimpeded travel of Royal messengers throughout a given Realm. The ancient “King’s Highway,” running from Egypt to the Euphrates became a matter of legend, as did the Persian Royal Road linking Smyrna with Persepolis, and the Roads connecting every Province in the Roman Empire. Under the Carolingians, four major routes were launched, binding together an Empire that ran from Hamburg to Rome, and Brittany to Poland: the Via Carolingia, tying together Charlemagne’s two capitals, Rome and Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen); the Via Francigena, uniting Calais with the Italian Province of Apulia; the Via Regia, running from Compostela to Moscow; and the Via Imperii from Stettin to Innsbruck. These

were the first of a series of Reichsstrassen (“Imperial Roads”).

LORD OF THE SOIL

NS3

These were placed directly under Royal jurisdiction (K6nigsbann) regardless of whose lands they might pass through, and travellers thereon were to be safe under the Landfrieden—the “Land Peace.” Similar thoroughfares or “King’s Highways” prevailed throughout each European Kingdom, those who made their journeys on them being guarded by the “King’s Peace.” Royal messengers bearing letters were the originators of each Realm’s postal service. When the three colonial powers came to North America, they brought this concept with them—Britain’s “King’s Highway” —with a number of spurs here and there—united the capitals

of the Thirteen

Colonies,

from

Portsmouth,

New

Hampshire to Savannah, Georgia. The French Chemin du Roy in Quebec ran from Quebec City to Montreal on the north side of the St. Lawrence Rover. But the Spanish excelled in blazing their

Caminos

Reales

in Cuba,

Mexico,

Central

America,

Panama, and the three wholly or partly in the United States: the Camino’ Real de los Tejas, stretching from Mexico City to Natchitoches, Louisiana; the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro,

running from Mexico City to Santa Fe, New Mexico; and the most famous, the Camino Real de California, which united the

Golden State’s 21 Missions from San Diego to Sonoma. In an interesting reuse of the old term, in 1930, Ontario re-designated their provincial highways as “King’s Highways,” in keeping with the Province’s motto: “Loyal She Remains.” But in these United States that did not so remain, there was

still a need for highways over which commerce and post could travel. The States saw to this, until in 1811 as more and more

people began to move west, the Federal Government began work on the “National Road.” When completed in 1837, it ran from Cumberland,

Maryland to Vandalia, Illinois. But it was soon

turned over the States through which it ran. The advent of the automobile required a network of reliable highways, so in 1925 there were founded a network of “U.S. Routes.” Beginning in

154

CHAPTER AIH

1956, the Interstate Highway System was superimposed over the web of U.S. Routes, inspired by the web of Autobahns thenpresident Dwight D. Eisenhower had seen in Germany. As a curious reminder of the Federal/State Sovereignty question, law enforcement on the Interstates was conceded to the State Police rather than local authorities, an unconscious reminder of the

“King’s Peace” that once prevailed on these roads’ European

predecessors. After

designated Highways

James

IV

all three and

assumed

types

Caminos

the

American

of roads—the

Reales,

the U.S.

Crown,

historic Routes,

he

King’s and the

Interstates as “King’s Highways.” Highway repair became and remains a top priority for the Crown, in marked contrast to the state of affairs in the last few decades of the republic. Those whose memories

stretch as far back as mine will remember,

about three years after the Coronation, when King James made his four. “Royal Progresses” along the four historic highways—emphasising his succession to the Kings of Great Britain, France, and Spain alike over these States. It was at His

Majesty’s stop in Los Angeles on this occasion that I first saw him live. At any rate, when a motorist to-day is driving down one of the King’s Highways and sees the Crown painted on a car of the Royal California Highway Patrol, say, or the Royal New York State Police, he may rest easy knowing that he is enjoying the King’s Peace as enforced by the servants of the Lord of the Land.

Royal Household: The Inner Life of the Monarchy

CHAPTER XIV Volumes have been written about the organisation and functioning of the Royal Court in Washington, as well as the Governors’ Courts in the State and Commonwealth capitals—to say nothing of the encyclopaedic information offered annually in the Court Register and Royal Almanac and the Washington Gazette. While I do not wish to bore my readers unduly with repeating a great deal of that information, so many of the operations I have chronicled in the preceding chapters find their centre in the Royal Court at the White House that a cursory examination of it as well as a look at the Royal Year are, I think,

essential for a complete understanding of the Monarchy to-day. As with all else regarding the Monarchy, the roots of the Royal Household lie far back in time. As long as there have been Sovereigns, there have been Households to attend to their physical, spiritual, security, and administrative needs. Moreover, as we have also seen in the course of the book, all the

elements of government—judicial, executive, or legislative— have developed in different ways and different places from these self-same Households. The Japanese Imperial Household Ministry, for example, goes back to about the 8" century A.D.;

with the exception of almost a century after World War II when it was reduced to an “Agency,” this Ministry has actually fluctuated very little in mission, because for so much of that time 155

156

CHAPTER XIV

actual executive power over the Japanese Empire was exerted by the Shogun or later the Prime Minister. In the surviving European Constitutional monarchies of the early 21* century, the Royal Households tended to be very small bodies, tending purely to the upkeep and administration of Royal Palaces and ceremonial activities of the Monarchy. Canada, Australia, New

Zealand and the other Commonwealth Realms also followed this pattern, with the respective Government Houses forced to accept whatever the local Prime Minister or Premier decided for them in these matters. As a result, every so often there would be “honours sales” scandals in these countries, as Prime Ministers

gave knighthoods for cash—various suggestions would be offered but not adopted to change the system in response, save one. No one suggested they be placed back in the hands of the Sovereigns who had originated them (those few such honours—like

the British Orders of the Garter, Thistle, and

Merit that remained in their Monarch’s gift inevitably were given to a more altruistic sort of individual than the cronies of politicians in charge of the other orders). By way of stark contrast, the White House that the King inherited hosted an enormous bureaucracy, the Executive Office of the President, in keeping with the fact that the president had been both Head of State and Head of Government. One of eleven agencies within the EOP was the White House Office; one of 20 offices within that body was the Office of Management and Administration, into which could fit most of the functions and

personnel of the British Royal Household. Apart from changing the title of “White House Chief of Staff’ to “Lord Chamberlain” and a few other such cosmetic alterations—and the appointment of a Court Chaplain in Ordinary to the White House—there was little immediate change. James’ focus was on bringing the Country’s immediate problems under control, and for that he would need every bit of the bureaucracy that was the presidential legacy.

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

oy

As the years went on, however, and more governmental functions were spun off to the State and local levels or the private sector, James IV could shrink the Court to more manageable (and traditional) levels. But there were additions. The Department of State’s Office of the Chief of Protocol became part of the Court; the Ecclesiastical Household was created, nominally headed by the Military Archbishop (St. John’s, Lafayette Square, once “the Church of the presidents,” is now the Chapel Royal). The former Chief Usher of the White House has been redesignated the Lord Steward. The White House Motor Pool—now the Royal Mews—acquired a collection of horses and carriages for State Processions. But the largest new offices were those dealing with heraldry and honours. For the former pursuit, every Monarch had had his own bureau of heralds; Great Britain has two—the College of Arms (for England and the Commonwealth) and the Court of the Lord Lyon (for Scotland). These bodies, like those of other countries registered and created coats of arms for individuals, companies, cities, corporations, and anyone else who needed them. Before the Instauration, Americans desiring such (depending on their descent or what part of the country they lived in) would have recourse to the two British sources, the Chief Herald of Ireland if they were of Irish descent, or the Spanish Cronista de Armas if they lived in the Southwest or Florida (where the Cronista claimed jurisdiction) or else came of Spanish blood. There were, of course, any number of “heraldic

experts” making money off “family coats-of-arms.” It is hard to imagine to-day, when personal and corporate arms are such a big part of everyday life and protected by law; but they were not in those times. As early as 1864, the “Committee on Heraldry of

the New England Historic Genealogical Society” began registering arms—but this was an unofficial venture, although it continued until the Instauration. There was an attempt to found an “American College of Heraldry and Arms” in 1966, but while

158

CHAPTER ATV

it did issue arms to LBJ and sundry others, it was a private organisation and folded four years later. In 1972, the “American College of Heraldry” was founded along similar lines, and it too was in existence at the time of the accession of James IV. Three years later, when the King was able to turn his mind to such things, the two existing bodies and the College of Arms Foundation, which had been founded decades earlier to support the College in London, were merged into the Royal American College of Arms, and given quarters in Washington. It rapidly assumed the importance in national life it occupies to-day. Almost immediately, James arranged for copies of records from Britain and Spain to be deposited with the new College. There were already a number of Americans of various backgrounds claiming noble titles, as well as Russian and Polish Nobility Associations. Once their claims had been verified, they

were automatically entitled to membership in the Corporation of the American Nobility. Shortly after this body was formed, Congress passed the Noble Titles Act, in which it was declared that henceforth the King of the United States would award at his own

sole discretion the hereditary titles of Baronet,

Baron,

Viscount, Earl, Marquess, and Duke. These titles carried no legal privileges with them, however. Almost immediately, every member of the Society of the Cincinnati had the Baronetage conferred upon him, as did the heads of many long-established landholding families, as related in the last chapter. The former joint chiefs who had brought about the Instauration were all made Marquesses, and since that time, both of our Kings have

awarded titles based upon service to the nation—be it military, artistic,

scientific,

or commercial.

The

Corporation,

in the

meantime, now has branches in every State and Commonwealth of the Union, and the Nobility have become an interest of their

own. In turn, the King had to create an American honours system befitting both American precedent and his own Royal tradition.

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

p59

In the same spirit that has seen both Spanish and Austrian Orders of the Golden Fleece and Neapolitan and Parmesan Constantinian

Orders,

James

created

his own

orders of the

Garter (whose members wear a light blue sash, in contrast to the dark blue one introduced to the English Order by the House of Hanover to distinguish holders of their order from the Stuart appointees), the Thistle, St. Patrick, and the Bath. All holders of the Congressional Medal of Honour and the (now Royal) Medal of Freedom were automatically made Knights Grand Cross of the last named Order, a custom which continues to this day. In emulation of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, James IV took the private Order of the Crown of Stuart (which had been a strictly private organisation linked to the Royal Stuart Society, which gave permission for this measure) and made it a retained their Royal Order though its then members membership. The most commonly awarded decoration to-day, it offers three classes—Member,

Officer, and Knight. All four

orders were given chapels in prominent Washington churches. As with the peerages, these honours are awarded strictly on the basis of merit—which makes them quite different from the politicised honours’ systems prevailing in most Monarchies until the past few decades. Knights of Malta, the Holy Sepulchre, the Papal Knightly Orders and holders of foreign knighthoods are also duly registered as such by the College of Arms, and expected to wear their habits, uniforms, and regalia of their orders at Royal occasions. The most visible role of the Court is of course in assisting the King in performance of his ceremonial duties, several of which we have mentioned already. But since so many of these are linked to the calendar, it would be helpful to look at the Royal Year in a little detail—bearing in mind that similar ceremonies are carried on in the King’s name by his Governors at the various Executive Mansions around the country. In most Monarchies,

New Year’s Day has always been celebrated with a little pomp.

160

CHAPTER XIV

In Japan, the Emperor’s New Year’s Poetry Party has been a feature of Court life there since 1267: in the presence of the Emperor and Empress, poems selected from the general public’s submissions, famous poets of the day, and the Imperial Family themselves are read. In European Monarchies, traditionally the Royal family of the given country would start the day with High Mass; and in the afternoon conduct a levée, whereat first the

diplomatic corps followed by the great officers of state, and then the general public would file past the Emperor or King and present their greetings for the year. Although this custom in most places did not survive the First World War, it has remained an important part of the year in Government Houses across Canada since the French colonial days—in fact, it has expanded, with mayors and military units holding levées of their own throughout that Realm. Interestingly enough, the presidents of the United States had a similar custom from 1801 until 1932 at the White House. Since 1890, in Great Britain and the Commonwealth,

Knighthoods and other honours have been conferred on this day. Our King begins the New Year with a Pontifical Solemn High Mass offered by the Military Archbishop at St. John’s, Lafayette Square. The Royal party then returned to the White House for the levée in the Blue Room, greeting first the Papal Nuncio and then the rest of the diplomatic corps, followed by the cabinet secretaries, Lord Chancellor,

Speaker of the House,

Chief Justice, Joint Chiefs, and other dignitaries. When they are done, the first 500 of the general public who lined up outside file past (the number is limited because James IV was mindful that Herbert Hoover abolished the custom after shaking 6,000 hands). The King’s Own Marine Band play a selection of music, and while the male attendees are in uniform or morning coat, the

dresses of the ladies are often covered by the newspapers—as are the floral decorations. This ceremony concluded, the New Year Honours—peerages, baronetcies, and knighthoods, are

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

161

conferred by the King in the Throne Room (formerly the East Room). The Epiphany—the feast of the Three Kings—is a Royal holiday in itself; to commemorate it, most European Monarchs made gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrth to their Chapels Royal. To-day, Epiphany Eve is marked by a ball, and the following day the King goes in procession to St. John’s Lafayette Square; after a High Mass, he presents the gifts to the main celebrant who places them upon the altar. Following a blessing, the party returns to the White House. Another January festivity is the State Opening of Congress, with the ceremony of the Speech from the Throne described earlier. Since this marks the return of Congressmen and Senators from the Christmas break, there are balls throughout Washington; needless to say, the most sought after is the Royal Ball at the White House. The last part of January features some sobering observances: on January 21, the King attends a Solemn High Requiem for the repose of the soul of Louis XVI of France at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. On January 30 the Royal Family repair to the National Cathedral, where the Archordinary offers Mass in honour of BI. Charles I, King and Martyr, His Majesty’s ancestor. On both of these occasions, wreaths are laid at these

Monarchs’ respective statues on Pennsylvania Avenue by various organisations—at the former, the Society of the Cincinnati take the lead role, at the latter the Society of King Charles the Martyr and the Royal Stuart Society. On the night of Candlemas Eve, February 1, the National Christmas Tree is lit for the last time, and then turned off and

dismantled; it is the final end of the Christmas Season. February 22 is Washington’s Birthday, on which the King travels to Mount Vernon and lays a wreath at the tomb of George Washington. In the rest of the Country, Governors or their representatives (if there are several such sites to be honoured)

162

CHAPTER XIV

lay similar wreaths at the graves of past presidents and that of

Jefferson Davis. It is a day set aside to remember the triumphs and tragedy of the republic. Shortly before or after is MardiGras; the White House Mardi-Gras Ball is legendary, of course. But a prince or princess is despatched to New Orleans to attend the Rex Ball in that city. In keeping with a tradition begun by Edward VIII when Duke of Windsor, the attending Royal makes a point of bowing or curtsying to the King and Queen of Rex. Lent is a quiet time in the Royal calendar, as might be expected, although the King receives delegations of Welsh Societies on March 1 (St. David’s Day) and Irish on March 17 (St. Patrick’s) —on these occasions the Throne Room is festooned with leeks and daffodils on the one holiday, and shamrocks on the other. But with Holy Week, the Court comes back to life. As most European Monarchs did and do, after the Mass of the Lord’s Supper at St. John’s, Lafayette Square, the

King washes the feet of twelve poor men, and the Queen those of the same number of poor women. Each is then given a few gold and silver coins, and all are brought back to the White House for a banquet. Good Friday sees the Royal Family return to St. John’s for that day’s observances, which include the “Creeping to the Cross.” That completed, the King follows in the footsteps of his English forebears with the “Blessing of Cramp Rings,” a ritual revived by King James in his last decade. The Adoration of the Cross completed, a number of steel rings are placed on a silver dish; the Military Archbishop then reads a psalm and offers a prayer for healing. The King then blesses the rings with the following prayer: “O God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, hear mercifully our prayers, Spare those who fear thee, and be propitious to thy suppliants, and graciously be pleased to send down from heaven, thy holy angel, that he may sanctify and bless these rings to the end that they may prove a healthy remedy to such as implore thy name with humilities. Amen.” His Majesty

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

163

then rubs them between his hands, and prays: “Sanctify, O Lord, these rings and graciously bedew them with the dew of thine benediction and consecration, and hallow them by the rubbing of our hands which thou hast been pleased according to our ministry, to the end that what the nature of the metal is not able to perform may be wrought by the greatness of thy grace.” The Archbishop then sprinkles them with holy water in the name of the Trinity, and the rings are later given to sufferers from epilepsy who have previously applied for them. Despite the ridicule of such as the Orange-Green Lodges when this rite and that of touching for the King’s Evil were revived, the rings are highly prized to-day, and some claim to have received relief from their malady by wearing them. That ceremony concluded, a card is presented to the King on which is a list of names; these he reads aloud—they are the names of those who have received the Royal Pardon in the District of Columbia. Across the nation, the Governors read out similar lists. The’ Easter Vigil is celebrated with great pomp at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception; as the bells of the Gloria

ring out from

that the church,

all the bells of

Washington take it up, and Easter has arrived in the capital. Apart from the Easter parades conducted throughout the country’s major cities (and the traditional rolling of eggs on Easter Monday), there begins preparation for the following weekend—the weekend of Court presentations. While the period just before Christmas is, in these United States, the major period for debutante balls, the cream of those ladies are presented at Court before the King and Queen on the weekend following Easter. The festivities begin with a ball on Friday night at the White House. On the Saturday and Sunday nights, dressed in

white ball gowns with ostrich feathers in their hair, the ladies curtsey before the Royal couple seated on their thrones, after their names have been read out. Originating at the Court of Queen Victoria, this custom was abolished by Elizabeth II in

164

CHAPTER XTV

1958, and revived by James IV in the second decade of his reign. Apart from reviving the popularity of Ivor Novello’s ancient song, The Night When I Curtseyed to the King (almost inescapable at balls and public places in the capital for the week preceding), the practise has firmly established the Court as the social centre of the nation in a way the White House never had been before. What arcane methods the Presentation Committee use for selecting the debutantes has never been made public, but

once presented a girl has no problem finding a suitable match. The two weeks following Presentation Weekend are very busy ones in Washington, because they include both Hereditary Fortnight, whose importance is bound up with the early days of the Instauration, and the National Cherry Tree Festival, commemorating the gift of the trees to Washington by Japan. The events of the former observance begin with an Audience at the White House for the heads of the various societies, and are

followed by two weeks of brunches, lectures, and balls given by and for the members of the various groups. Depending on the date of Easter, these festivities may culminate with the feast of St. George on April 23, which features the King attending Mass with the Knights of the Garter, and receiving representatives of English societies at the White House afterwards. The last Monday in May is Memorial Day. The King attends a Requiem Mass at St. John’s, and then travels to Arlington National Cemetery for observances at the Tomb of the Unknowns, the Confederate Memorial, and the Royal Tombs. These ceremonies are echoed all over the country, as Governors, Sheriffs, Lord Mayors, and Mayors join with their people in

remembrance of all those who have died through the centuries for our country, and latterly, for our King. June offers several important days for King and Court. On June 4, either the King or a member of the Royal Family will fly to New York City to join the Governor of the State, the Lord Mayor, and the Common Council for a wreath-laying at the

______ROYALHOUSEHO16s LD statue of King George III on Bowling Green—this date being that King’s birthday. This is followed by a Solemn Evensong in commemoration of the late Monarch at Trinity Church, New York’s Chapel Royal (alongside St. Paul’s Chapel), and a banquet and ball at Federal Hall. June 10 is White Rose Day, the anniversary of the birth of James III—whose birth triggered the overthrow of James II, and the long exile of the House of Stuart that ended only with the accession of James IV. Masses are offered for all the deceased members of the Royal House to include Mary Queen of Scots, the two James, Charles III (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”), and Henry

IX (“Cardinal York”). In particular, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and English societies recall their forebears’ loyalty, and bagpipes playing dirges alongside sentimental Jacobite songs (many of which have entered the patriotic songbook) are everywhere. Flag Day comes on June 14, and similarly features a Royal visit—this time to Philadelphia’s Betsy Ross House, with a Solemn Evensong at Christ Church. As with Washington’s Birthday, Flag Day is an important symbol of continuity with the republican past; desecrating or destroying a United States flag is considered an act of /ése-majesté® as egregious as defacing a picture of the King or insulting His Majesty to his face—and is punished accordingly. The flag represents him just as much as do the Royal Arms—which are similarly protected by law. Four days later is Emancipation Day (“Juneteenth”), which is observed with a Solemn High Mass in honour of the Four Black American Saints (Ss. Toussaint, Augustus Tolton, Mary Lange, and Henriette Delille), this time at the National Cathedral. Not only is the freeing of the slaves recalled on this day, but the fact that it was done as a result of the bloodiest conflict this nation ever participated in, giving rise to 6 Jése-majesté - the crime of violating majesty, an offence against the dignity of a reigning sovereign or against a state.

166

CHAPTER XTV

Reconstruction

contrast

marked

and Jim Crow—in

to the

peaceful manner in which it was accomplished by the British,

French,

Spanish,

Portuguese,

Dutch,

Danish,

and Brazilian

Monarchies. On a Thursday in June occurs Corpus Christi—the feast of the Eucharistic Body of Christ. From the Middle Ages, Kings and Emperors have marched in the processions honouring the Blessed Sacrament—Austria,

France, Spain, England, and the

rest. During the last decade of his life, James IV saw fit to emulate their example, which his son has continued. Joining the clerics of the Chapel Royal and the Military Archbishop, the officers of the Royal Household, the Lord Mayor of Washington and Common Council in their chains and robes, religious orders and confraternities, guilds, orders of Knighthood, heralds, and

members of the various armed services, the King begins the procession at St. John’s. Along Vernon Avenue to Thomas Park they march, and then right on to Massachusetts Avenue and the final station at the Church of the Ascension and St. Agnes; Mass and Benediction concluded, the procession returns to the Chapel Royal. The splendour of the occasion is legendary, and what was said of the Emperor of Austria’s version of the observance is equally true of ours— “God’s Court Ball.” The King’s Official Birthday is July 4—and it is no coincidence that James IV chose the then-national holiday as his statutory natal day, nor that Charles V decided to continue it so. All across

the Country

there are

church

services,

parades,

speeches, and above all, fireworks. The irony is that while the

King appropriated these from the Independence Day celebrations, they had before 1776 been precisely what was used to celebrate the British King’s birthday. In any event, the spectacle on the Washington Mall remains one of the most popular and extraordinary in the Country. The most obvious difference between the two are the King’s Birthday Honours

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD

a

ee

167

ee

investitures in the evening at the White House, which are conducted in much the same way as the New Year Honours. From the King’s Birthday until Mid-September, much of official Washington is out of the Capital, and the Royal Family themselves head to Camp David, although they return for the solemn Liturgy at St. Nicholas’ Russian Orthodox Cathedral on July 17. Commemorating the murders of St. Nicholas II and the rest of the martyred Russian Imperial family in 1918, it is the only regular annual observance our Royal Family attends in the Byzantine Rite. After a reception for the Russian community and the Alaska Society at the White House, the King and his family return to Camp David. But all are back by Michaelmas—St. Michael’s Day—when the King attends High Mass with the various Orders of Knighthood at the National Cathedral; this is followed by a banquet with their leading members at the White House. The Sunday before the first Monday in October witnesses the King at St. Matthew’s Cathedral attending the Red Mass with the Supreme Court Justices, members of the diplomatic corps, the Cabinet, Senators and Congressmen, knights and various other notables. This continues a Medieval tradition that was revived in presidential times, and retained by both of our Kings. The following day the Supreme Court reopens. October 21 is the feast of Ss. Karl and Zita of Austria—the doomed Imperial couple whose shrine at Old St. Mary’s in Chinatown attracts pilgrims at any time of the year; the King and Royal Family attend a Solemn High Mass in honour of those paragons of Monarchy. In keeping with a tradition going back to Eisenhower, the White House is decorated for Halloween, and costume parties for poor children

held on the lawns and in the state rooms. November 2, All Souls Day, features a private visit by the Royal Family to the Royal tombs at Arlington; the following day requires an excursion to Doughregan Manor for the St. Hubert’s Mass.

Remembrance

Day,

November

11, sees

a return

to

168

CHAPTER XIV

Arlington by the Royals, much like the observances on Memorial Day. But they are back to the White House before the three minutes silence at 11 a.m.— “the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.” Cars stop, pedestrians halt in their tracks. The day has undergone several developments, having initially begun as a commemoration of the end of World War I, branching out to honour all veterans, and finally settling its current theme—the wreck of the West the War brought on. Red poppies are everywhere for at least a week before. The third Thursday in November is Thanksgiving Day; in a custom going back to presidential times, the King pardons two turkeys. The last Sunday of the month is the Feast of Christ the King, which His Majesty observes as a sort of patronal feast; he attends a Solemn High Mass at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. November 30 is the feast of St. Andrew, patron of

Scotland: Mass at the National Cathedral with the Knights of the Thistle; the Kirkin’

of the Tartans

immediately

afterwards;

reception of the Scottish Societies in a throne room decorated with thistles; and at last dinner complete with the piping of the haggis comprise a day given over to celebrating the country whence the Stuarts had come and which so loyally stood by them. December 8 is of course our national day, the feast of our country’s patroness, Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception. Once again, with the Royal Family in tow, a grand procession wends its way to the National Shrine. There, after a Pontifical Solemn High Mass, the King takes off his Crown and places it at the feet of the statute of Our Lady of America, the Crown on her head a larger double to his. After a few minutes of prayer, he replaces it upon his head, and the Royal party return to the White House for rest, a banquet, and a ball. Once again, as on the

King’s Birthday, the Mall shall witness spectacular fireworks in the cold winter night—a sight repeated in every town across the Country.

______ROYALHOUSEHO169 LD The King visits the National Shrine again on December 14 for a Solemn High Requiem offered for King Carlos III of Spain—founder, among other things, of California, devotee of the Immaculate Conception, and like Louis XVI, and

indispensable ally in the war for independence. Christmas Eve’s festivities include the lighting of the National Christmas Tree by the King, and Midnight Mass at St. John’s. The Queen trims the Royal family’s tree in the Blue Room. Christmas Day features Mass in the White House Chapel (formerly the Movie Theatre), followed by that rarest of all things for our King and his family—a quiet day at home together. We may leave them with that, and their pleasure in their own company—which shall come to a crashing halt on New Year’s Eve with the Court Ball. And so it all begins again. Of course, the machinery of the Court also works on more irregular events—Royal progresses through the States, State Visits of Foreign Monarchs. Royal Weddings, Funerals, and Christenings, and guidance on similar matters for the staffs of Governors, Sheriffs. Lord Mayors, Mayors, and Guildmasters.

As King James’ reign progressed, it became ever clearer that he wanted to dismantle the huge governmental machinery that he inherited. To do this, and return power to civil society, the

towns, counties and States—without endangering national unity—he had to strengthen the religious, traditional, and ceremonial sources of Royal authority. As government became less oppressive, the Monarchy itself must become ever more an integral part of the “non-governmental” elements of national life. That he and King Charles have succeeded so well thus far speaks well for those who man the Royal Court. Of course, much of the Kings’ success lies in the fact that a) being in the job for life; and b) wanting to hand the country over intact to their

offspring, they had both the ability and the desire to lay wise long-term policies in a way that no mere politician with even eight years to play with could or can do. Of course, it does not

170

CHAPTER XIV

hurt that good Kings are trained to believe that they should be ready to die for their people if necessary, and that they shall go to Hell if they rule them badly. Quite a contrast to most of our previous rulers! Above all, the public life of our country, like its private life, is dedicated to the spiritual and well-being of its

subjects, each in their own degree, rather than to the advantage of an oligarchy that rules through division and party strife. That is the greatest gift our Kings—or any others—can bring to their people. May it always be so!

The Empty Throne

AFTERWORD

2016

Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony,

the dance, can reach—men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a King they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature,

will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison. —C.S. Lewis

Thus ends our excursion into an imaginary American Monarchical future. I must hasten to say that I find any such outcome to our current situation highly unlikely. Although my family and I lived for a few years in the house of famed television psychic Criswell, I claim no special insight into the future. Neither am I proposing here anything like a concrete political programme herein for this or any other country. Ignorant in economics as I am, I have no real idea whether such a system could even support itself. Nevertheless, I did have several key goals in writing this volume in the name of my asyet nonexistent great nephew. In fine, it is my hope that the readers hereof will begin to think in ways they have not done, to “dream dreams they have never dreamed before.” In so writing,

i

1/2

AFTERWORD

2016

I also realise that I am confronting one of our few remaining permissible prejudices—hatred of Monarchy. Certainly, we Americans are taught early on to despise an institution as old as civilised humanity itself from the time we are children—I remember well the old Schoolhouse Rock’s episode, “No More Kings,” through the course of which George III is presented as a gluttonous, nasty, and greedy old tyrant, and at the end of which we are assured that: We’re gonna elect a president! (No more kings) He’s gonna do what the people want! (No more kings) We’re gonna run things our way! (No more kings) Nobody’s gonna tell us what to do!

Apart from the fact that none of that refrain is or ever was true in this or any other republic, it does encapsulate the attitude we Americans are raised with thanks to the highly inaccurate view of the Revolution we are given in school, and—if we are Catholic—the memory of Henry VIII. Monarchs are inevitably portrayed on television and in movies in much the same way as Schoolhouse Rock dealt with George III. The current popular series, Game of Thrones, plays along on this theme, making every Royal or Aristocrat simply power-hungry and evil—or else weak and stupid. Few indeed are such cinematic moments as in The Fellowship of the Ring, when the dying Boromir tells Aragorn: “I would have followed you, my brother, my captain, my King” —a touching moment not to be found in the novel. We are simply never told about the scores of Royal Saints of Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican persuasion, who did immense good for their countries—and indeed, founded and shaped them. We are taught to ridicule the sacrifices of such as Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas IH, while preening ourselves on a system that has produced far more Hardings than Washingtons. Nevertheless, although hatred of Monarchy is truly as American

THE EMPTY THRONE

173

ee

as apple pie, love of and concern for these United States is one of the three major themes of this book. Firstly, whether or not he is an American, the reader shall

have been deeply affected one way or another by my native land. Yet, despite being the most powerful nation on the planet, it is in reality unknown territory. Her detractors attack her as an aggressor state that oppresses while she builds an Empire; her defenders hail her as “the last, best hope of mankind.” In truth, these United States are an amazing combination of persons, places, and things, at once blessed and cursed with a peculiar historical amnesia. A nation dedicated once upon a time to “A Church without a Pope and a State without a King” by her political founders nevertheless has deeply Monarchical and Christian—even

Catholic—roots.

On top of those roots, her

peoples have built some wonderful things—and not just in the realm of architecture. Think of the American songbook, the Broadway

Musical, the movies, and cocktails!

The music of

Irving Berlin, and the art of Norman Rockwell! Jazz and the Blues, Creole and Cajun cuisine—plus American versions of Chinese, Mexican, Italian, and virtually every cookery imaginable, to say nothing of our innumerable regional dishes and the Great American Steakhouse. None of this is great art or haute cuisine—but it is good, very good indeed. I have had the pleasure of travelling throughout this Country, and have experienced at first hand and so come to love its regions—not merely New York City and the Hudson Valley where I was born, nor only California where I have lived most of my life, or my father’s native New England, but the legend and

war-haunted

South,

the rest of the Mid-Atlantic,

the

Midwest and the Far West. The folklore of each of the States enchants me, as does their history. Indian lore and Black culture, the cultures brought by various waves of immigrants—our entire American story is enthralling—at least I have always found it so,

from the first time I picked up an American Heritage when I was

174

AFTERWORD

2016

six to my last coast-to-coast road trip a few months ago. Truly, I love this Country of ours savagely; but I love her for what she is, not for what some accuse her of or pretend her to be. But for all of that, she has something essential missing today. When the Founding Fathers invented her institutions, they were faced with two major challenges: of the two pillars of European Civilisation, the altar here was already divided and the throne was overturned. To what could the nascent republic look to for unity? What could be its animating principle or philosophy? There were two interconnected responses. One was the more or less conscious creation of a sort of American civil religion, that deified in the name of Providence and Freedom the historic events that had led to independence (to which would be added later those of the Civil War—though Southerners would similarly venerate the Lost Cause) as well as the Constitution and the instruments of governance—especially the Judiciary. The other. was a kind of generic Christianity; very light on specific doctrines, liturgically open enough to accommodate the rituals invented for the above-mentioned civic religion, and above all, heavy on morals—the moral code being the one thing that the varied sorts of Protestants then making up the majority shared even with Catholics and Jews. These served as a quasiState Religion until the 1960s, when the moral consensus collapsed and the national ethos shattered. Subsequently, the nation’s elites used the tatters of the civic religion—especially its worship of “freedom” in the abstract—to mop up the remnants of the former moral code. To judge by the new standards they have enforced upon their subjects, their interests appear centred primarily in sex—as varied and widely available as it can be made, and as sterile. They tacitly replaced the old generic and non-dogmatic Christianity with a much more doctrinaire yet hedonistic secular humanism. Any resistance to their sway is crushed through the Judiciary and other means. But their victory is of necessity pyrrhic: imposing infertility—both

THE EMPTY THRONE

IME)

ee

literally and figuratively—upon a society only means that one is an unwise

parasite, dooming

one’s host as well as oneself,

especially when that imposition cracks the unity of the given society to its core. Without somehow acquiring a more fertile basic

national

Faith,

disastrous

financial

conditions

shall

eventually crack our divisions wide open, with inconceivable results. If I find the Deus ex Machina manner with which I resolved this conundrum—and the means I employed to do so—highly improbable, the “Troubles” that led to the Instauration are quite as likely to happen as the Instauration itself is not. I fear very much for the future of this Country as it stands; I can honestly say that while I believe in the right of the Sovereign States to secede (especially as the South were trying to leave a country itself the result of successful secession), I would have done anything short of War to keep them in the Union. I pray that some substitute ethos shall be found in time to keep the Country from shattering when it faces its next major crisis. It is my dearest wish that this book shall stimulate thinking along those lines. The Monarchist theme was initially suggested by a Belgian friend of mine who bemoaned the fact that there really is no single “Monarchism” in the nations of Europe, but rather national “Monarchisms” —themselves often severely divided over dynastic questions, the amount of governmental power to be given a restored Sovereign, and the place of the Church in such a restoration. Moreover, despite the similarities in the various Monarchist doctrines developed in each nation since 1789, they were intensely nationalistic. French Legitimists, Austrian Monarchists, and Spanish Carlists, for example might well share a basic world-view;

but it is very hard for their

proponents generally to see the commonalities between them—a fatal difficulty in a time when Europe (despite Brexit) —has become ever more a super state. In creating a Monarchy from scratch, so to speak, I could explore those elements common to

176

AFTERWORD

2016

all of Christian Monarchism. In this way, I hope also to encourage Monarchists of all stripes to see what unites them across national lines, in hopes that a coherent Monarchist body of thought might in time develop. Of course, the question might fairly be asked of me why, as an American, I should care that such a thing comes to pass? When and why did I become a Monarchist? Well, in one sense,

I have always been one as far back as I can remember: When

watching The Sword in the Stone with my father when it was first released, I was spell-bound by the opening song, which informed us that “A legend is sung, of when England was young, and Knights were brave and bold...” The phrase “The good King had died, and no one could decide who was rightful heir to the throne...” I have been a lover of King Arthur, Charlemagne, and the romances of Chivalry ever since. As Michael Davis wrote in his essay “Why I’m a Monarchist” in the Jmaginative Conservative blog: We’re all born Monarchists. Or, at least, we used to be. Every boy raised by parents who want their sons to become gentlemen will be given the example of Prince Charming. Every little girl should be lucky enough to be Daddy’s Little Princess. Every child wants to live in a castle, sees his father as a king, or her mother as

a queen. No little five-year-old dreams of living in an executive mansion or imagines his mother to be a charming and able politician’s wife.

He then turns the question around masterfully: “...perhaps you might ask yourself—you who grew up on tales of King Arthur, and Cinderella, and The Chronicles of Narnia—when

did you stop being a Monarchist?” When, indeed?

Important as that basic Romantic impulse was, it was far from the whole story. My father was French Canadian by descent and language, and taught me to have a great love of our heritage. But it was, of course, all bound up with Louis XIV, /e

____THEEMPTYTHRONE 17 roi soleil, who had sent our first ancestors to Canada. Dad also had Irish and Scots blood, and from the latter derived a love of

the House of Stuart—of Mary Queen of Scots, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Cavaliers and Jacobites, and on and on. Moreover,

he told me the tragic stories of the unjustly deposed European Kings of the post-World War II era: Umberto II of Italy, Simeon II of Bulgaria, Peter II of Yugoslavia, Zog of Albania, and Michael of Romania. This pattern was repeated in my tome with the travails of Constantine II of Greece. My mother taught me—for reasons of her own convoluted family history—to love the Houses of Habsburg and Romanoff; in the former case, my father had tremendous respect for Archduke Otto. And so I started school. I learned of the French and Russian Revolutions, and grew correspondingly to revere the martyred Louis

XVI

and

Nicholas

I]. But

then,

what

of our

own

Revolution? How was it different from those other two? In any case, as is so often the case for me, my sympathy for George III was solidified by two phrases in his regard culled from two different sources. From Golden Press’ The Universal History of the World, Volume 11: “The Age of Revolution,” came a chapter head— “Good King George and the Dragon.” From American Heritage was derived an article title: “Our Last King.” These two together solidified in my mind very clearly a much more heroic image of “Farmer George” than is generally imagined. Despite this building Monarchical sentiment, I did not call myself a “Monarchist” until High School, wherein I discovered four books pivotal to my political development: Charles Hitchcock Sherrill’s The Purple or the Red, Geoffrey Bocca’s Kings Without Thrones, Walter J.P. Curley’s Monarchs-inWaiting, and Charles Fenyvesi’s Splendor in Exile. | encountered a number of White Russians as well, and began a correspondence with the Archduke Otto that would end only with his death. So I admitted to myself and others at last the

terrible truth: I am a Monarchist.

178

AFTERWORD

2016

The years following were given up to many pursuits, mostly having to do with college and career. But I found time to explore Monarchy as well. I joined the Constantinian Society, and on a European trip in 1979 became a member of the International Monarchist League in London (and eventually the Canadian Monarchist League) and visited the offices of Action Frangaise in Paris. In time I was befriended by Frederick Wilhelmsen and was introduced to Carlism; corresponded and met with French Legitimists and the adherents of the Prussian/German Tradition und Leben; visited the Schwarz-Gelb Allianz and the Weisse

Rose in Vienna; joined the Royal Stuart Society; and in short became acquainted with many Monarchists and a few Kings and heirs from a number of European and one African country—in the latter case, Kigeli V of Rwanda. All of these experiences reinforced my views to the excellence of Monarchy and the need for Restorations wherever dynasties had fallen (and resumption of the reins of power in those few favoured countries where they remain). I became something of an amateur expert in what one may well call “The Varieties of Monarchist Experience.” But what of this country? It seems to me that the great social commentator and architect, Ralph Adams Cram, when serving as the American Prior of the Order of the White Rose put the problem accurately back in the 1890s: The Cause in Great Britain and France and Spain and Italy is clear and simple, but with us it is grievously complicated. An usurping dynasty drove our ancestors to revolt and revolution. An independent government was established that has endured without question and in spite of inconceivable and increasing corruption for more than a century. No Prince claims sovereignty over us, no royal house can demand our allegiance. There is none within our borders that has the right or the power to overthrow the existing order and establish a dynasty. An hereditary monarchical government is for us an impossibility as far as many can now

Sa

THE EMPTY THRONE eee

9

foresee. This fact we must recognize, and accepting it turn at once to such efforts as may result in making better that which we have.

Moreover, he was speaking of succession to the Britishfounded areas of the Country. But what of those sections settled by order of the French and Spanish Kings? The fact is that there was seemingly no one dynasty that could succeed to all three claims. Or was there? In fact, my mythical Lichtenburg dynasty is emulated in the real world by a Princely House, whose latest heir does indeed inherit the Stuart claims, as well as descending from Louis XIV and Carlos II. Ruling over a tiny country, his father and grandfather did indeed trounce their politicians in a referendum. They are a fabulously rich family as well. Given their descent and present status, I have no doubt they would make a wonderful Royal family for this country. Of course, if by some strange turn of events they were able to ascend the throne refused by George Washington and the then-not-so Bonnie Prince Charlie, I have

no doubt that as with my putative older self in this book, I would be “too old, too lazy, and too obscure” to play in any part in it. In any case, by creating a scenario wherein European rivalries were not the focus and elements of Monarchy could be examined separately, I hope to be able to encourage conversations tending toward a definition of Christian Monarchism in the abstract. Of course, I must also point as regards non-Christian Monarchies that I for one would probably not have enjoyed living under—the Ottomans and the Qing come to mind—even they have never been replaced by anything better, unless you are an Ataturk or Mao fan. The same must be said, incidentally, for colonial independence; with the partial exception of these United States (our first decade being a nightmare), not a single former colony—not in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, or Asia—have the people fared better under “their own” oligarchies.

180

AFTERWORD

2016

This brings me at last to the third theme of this book—the place of religion, and specifically Catholicism—in public life. As I mentioned earlier, every human society must and does have an animating philosophy, a State Church. This need not be religious:

in the Soviet Bloc Communism

fulfilled the roll,

wherein “There is no God, and Lenin is his Prophet.” In these United States, it was the odd sort of synthetic civic religion

married to a kind of generic and moralistic “Christianity;” it has become a version of that civic faith wrapped up with vaguely Priapic worship. Whatever it may be, this philosophy or principle both legitimises the rulership (and shapes and in turn is shaped by them) and dictates the rules according to which life in that society is to be led—or at least, what it aspires to. Now, our embrace of Priapus, while exciting at the outset, is

ultimately self-defeating because a) it destroys the notion of virtuous self-sacrifice on the part of the individual—who lives only for his own pleasure—an idea without which no society can endure; and b) it ends by making the masters of said society oblivious to the requirements of reality, and focuses them purely upon reshaping said reality into whatever their fantasies may be. They become incapable of dealing effectively with economic, social, cultural, and military realities, until said realities destroy

them and their hapless subjects. We—both in the West as a whole and in these United States in particular—are far advanced along this path. If we are not to collapse before an opposition whose own organising principle is quite clear, we must adopt one of our own that inspires us to function effectively as a society and as individual. In my humble opinion, the best candidate for that job is the one that launched the Western idea in the first place: Catholicism. And in this imaginary scenario, that is precisely what happens. Now to be sure, the Catholic Church as we see her to-day seems little able to fulfil that role. She is divided, listless, and

still wandering about in the decades-long miasma created, as

ST181 ee THE EMPTY THRONE IEISUARONE peeeere Pope Benedict XVI pointed out in an interview in March of 2016, by her leadership and theologians ceasing to believe in the necessity of her Sacraments for individual Salvation. Without that belief, the Pontiff Emeritus pointed out, not only is there no need to “evangelise the heathen,” but no real necessity for her members to follow her teachings either. For our present purposes, this disbelief also eliminates her ability to act as an animating principle for Western Society. Nevertheless, and despite certain immediate developments

in the life of the Church, the seeds of reform planted by Benedict himself do seem to be spreading despite the best efforts of many in authority—wedded both to their memories of their youthful excitement during the 1960s and the hedonistic “faith” of our ruling classes—to squelch them. The efforts by Benedict to reunite the Church of the present with that of all ages (his celebrated “hermeneutic of continuity”), his liberation of the Traditional Mass, his efforts toward regaining the union with the East that prevailed during the first millennium, and especially his establishment of the Anglican Ordinariates all continue to bear quiet fruit. There are such thinkers in our time as Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. who in his magisterial works Christendom Awake and The Realm struggle to carry these efforts down into everyday life and thought. Moreover, amongst many younger folk—clerical, religious, and lay—one is beginning to see signs of the coming to fruition of Valentin Tomberg’s prediction during the dark days of the immediate post-Vatican II era in his Covenant of the Heart: The Christianity of the hermits ... was no passing phenomenon limited to a few centuries only. Today it still lives with all the intensity of its youth. Though it may not be deserts and thick forests into which one can retire into an undisturbed solitude nowadays, there are still people who have found or created in the deserts of the great cities and among the thickets of the crowds, a solitude and stillness of life for the spirit.

182

AFTERWORD

2016

And as before, their striving is devoted toward becoming a witness for the truth of Christianity. The way into the depths has not led them to an individualistic brand of belief, but has given them unshakable security in the truth of Christian revelation as transmitted and taught by the Church.

They know the truth of the following: Extra Ecclesiam non est salus (“there is no salvation outside the church”); the Holy Father is not and cannot be the mouthpiece of an ecumenical council; the Holy See alone can make decisions in questions of

faith and morals—a majority of the bishops cannot do so and even less can a majority of priests or congregations do so; the Church is hierarchic-theocratic—not democratic, aristocratic or

monarchic—and will be so in all future times; the Church 1s the

Civitas Dei (“the City of God”) and not a superstructure of the will of the people belonging to the Church; as little as the shepherd follows the will of the herd does the Holy Father merely carry out the collective will of his flock; the shepherd of the Church is St. Peter, representing Christ—his pronouncements ex cathedra are infallible, and the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven belongs to him and him alone. In other words, those who become solitary in order to seek profundity may reach on their path of spiritual experience to the unshakeable insight that the dogmas of the Church are absolutely true. And so it can happen that, as they did at the time of the Arian darkening of the Church, the “hermits” of today may come again to the assistance of the Holy See, leaving their solitude to appear as witnesses to thetruth of Peter’s throne and its infallible teaching. In those times it happened that St Anthony of Thebes left the desert and hurried to Alexandria to support St Athanasius with the weight of his moral authority—St Athanasius who became the standard bearer for the divinity of Christ. The darkening which today is described as “the present crisis of the Catholic Church” can lead to the necessity for the solitary sons of the Church to hurry to the aid of the Holy Father, the most

SS

THE EMPTY THRONE ee

ee

183

solitary of solitaries, in order to save the Church from the abyss toward which she is moving...

Although never precisely spelled out, the Catholic Church of this present fantasy is one wherein—under the crucible of external persecution—the Benedictine Reform has been completed, and the Church’s leadership have regained their sense of Salvific Mission. As part of that, the efforts of the Anglican Ordinariates in the evangelisation of the Anglosphere, alongside and partly powered by the collapse of mainstream Protestantism with the former national elites, have also born

fruit—hence an “Archordinary,” presiding from the formerly Episcopalian National Cathedral. The “Orange-Green Lodges” are my way of poking fun at the way historical prejudices can linger without reference to current reality—and sometimes make very peculiar bedfellows. Naturally, I agree completely with Pius XI’s statement in his encyclical Quas Primas, on the Kingship of Christ: When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord’s regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen’s duty of obedience.

All that having been said, however, and much as I believe in

the Church’s beneficial role for Society, that is not her ultimate value for me. What really sets her apart from all her competitors is not her role in forming and sustaining our civilisation, and its slow decline and impending collapse since her influence has been ejected. It is not her music, her art, and her social teachings,

great as these have been and can be. It is that her teachings are true, and if I am faithful to them and reception of her Sacraments whereby she dispenses the Salvific power Christ gave her, then

184

AFTERWORD

2016

one day I shall be able to escape this world of sin and shadows, and spend eternity with Christ the King and all the bright company of Heaven. This I know to be true now, and it shall be true for our descendants, whether they inhabit the sort of renewed Christendom I have described in these pages or else are forced to live as Maronites or Chaldeans throughout what was the West—sacrificing all hope of worldly advancement for the sake of Christ, and living with the heartbreak of seeing many of

their brightest and best in each generation selling their souls for the sake of position under Caliph or Sultan. Or else any other future that may result from the actions we living to-day may take. Now, I do understand that many may find some or all of these views offensive—to say nothing of the phantom Monarchy we have been touring here. Believe me, as a child of the 60s myself,

born

the day John

F. Kennedy

was

elected,

I do

understand. It is obvious how annoying a rejection of all that we have been remade into since their High Mightinesses of the Supreme Court took the governance of these United States into their care might be. Similarly, a failure to embrace wholeheartedly that vision of the Country those Solons have rejected—the America of Norman Rockwell and Irving Berlin (for which, however I confess some nostalgia) —could only cause revulsion. But if, for either reason, you are displeased with either the real or imaginary authors of this book or the dwellers in the shadow-land described herein, let me offer you as we part some comfort via the words of that devout Monarchist and Crypto-Catholic, William Shakespeare, which he put into the mouth of Puck in 4 Midsummer Night’s Dream: If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended, That you have but slumber’d here While these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme,

THE EMPTY THRONE No more yielding but a dream, Gentles, do not reprehend: if you pardon, we will mend: And, as I am an honest Puck, If we have unearned luck Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue, We will make amends ere long; Else the Puck a liar call; So, good night unto you all. Give me your hands, if we be friends, And Robin shall restore amends.

185

The Varietes of Monarchist Experience

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE Regardless of his personal imperfections, a monarch represents the majesty of history. He is an heir—a link in a chain that leads to the Middle Ages that in turn connects to antiquity and beyond, to the beginning of measured time when the first hero slew the dragon of disorder and established the rule of law. —Charles Fenyvesi, Splendor in Exile, pp. 278-9

As one may have gleaned from reading this book, there are a wide variety of Monarchies past and present in the world, and so of Monarchists. Indeed, we might almost speak of “Monarchisms” rather than Monarchism as some sort of coherent political doctrine. And yet, like “Conservatism” —a word which describes any number of beliefs, some of which are utterly contradictory to one another—it is not without some value. Nevertheless, it would probably be helpful to give some idea of Monarchism as it exists in the year 2016. To begin with, we should probably say what it is not. Monarchism

is not, of itself, “Conservative,” although, to be

sure, many Monarchists would call themselves that in terms of

retaining their national traditions. It all depends, you see, upon what the individual is trying to “conserve.” There are certainly a

great many republicans in the world who would call themselves “Conservative,” by which they mean they are trying to preserve the supposed victories of the revolutions of 1688, 1776, 1789, 1911, or 1917—that is, whenever the rightful Sovereigns were

187

188

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

ejected in the British Isles, these United States, France, China,

or Russia by the national oligarchy or bourgeoisie. There are others who wish to preserve or restore as an undoubted absolute good an utterly unfettered market. For obvious reasons, most

who call themselves Monarchists would view the ideological heirs of those who started the problem with some suspicion, and given the paternalistic nature of Monarchy would rather see some controls on the economy and culture. But this would be on an issue by issue basis, rather than the Socialists’ endorsement for government controls of any kind as their version of absolute good. In these things the Monarchist looks to the “Will of God, Honour of the King, and Good of the subject,” a triad that allows for very little sweeping and absolute formulae in this area. Nor can Monarchism

be called “Authoritarian,”

still less

“Totalitarian,” in the sense of granting complete power over the lives of the people to those in government. Monarchs are inevitably.bound by traditions—many of them religious, others not—which have the effect of limiting how far they can go. That doesn’t mean that they have not on occasion made life miserable for those around them. But even Henry VIII could not alter the nature of marriage—he could just take control of the Church in his country for the purpose of securing an annulment, and then execute two of his six wives for infidelity. But he could not simply alter the nature of marriage at a whim, as one of our Supreme Court justices was able to do. It is the mark of a dictator, a strong man, or an oligarchy that—unfettered by Faith or custom—they are able to alter reality to fit their own image of the world, or at least their lust for power. Modern Monarchists inevitably support existing Monarchies and Restorations because they love liberty and see the King as the best bulwark against either dictatorship or a political class so in love with itself that it is cut off from reality. Another anti-Monarchical canard peculiar to those Commonwealth countries that retain the Queen as Sovereign

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE

189

(Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a number of smaller states

in the West Indies and Pacific) that the Monarchy is “foreign” or a “colonial relic.” Now, this is true only in the sense that everything the British brought to those countries—the English language,

Christianity,

Common

Law,

and _ indeed,

every

element of civilisation—are subject to the same criticism. The stark reality is that the Queen, her Governors-General, and her

Australian State and Canadian Provincial viceroys operate only on the advice of the local government, without reference to the British Government. The truth is that republican politicians look to the United States, and see a country where the political class are supreme, untrammeled by even the shadow of the Monarchy (whose

representatives

still

retain

the

“Reserve

Powers,”

allowing them, among other things, to dismiss a Prime Minister who tries to govern illegally, as happened in Australia in 1975). Now, one charge that can be made against many Monarchists is that they are nostalgics or romantics. As the elderly: Maude tells her young lover, Harold in Harold and Maude, I don’t regret the kingdoms—what sense in borders and nations and patriotism—but I do miss the kings. When I was a little girl I was taken to the palace in Vienna, to a garden party. I can still see the sunshine, the parasols, and the flashing uniforms of the young officers.

And, indeed, decades ago, Charles Fenyvesi wrote quite perceptively: Nostalgia for royalty is not a potent political force; it cannot send people out into the street to demonstrate. Monarchism has become a mood rather than a movement—a longing for another century, a way of expressing a sense of loss, an argument with time.

190

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

But however true that might have been in 1980, when there were still many White Russians running about and innumerable former subjects of the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns, it is far less

so now. Nevertheless,

it must

be admitted

that

several

of the

archetypes of Kingship retain their hold upon the imagination in a way no president can—save to the degree that he resembles them. The old King (or Queen), like Franz Josef of Austria, George III of Great Britain, Louis XIV of France, or Victoria and Elizabeth II—Sovereigns around so long that they do in time seem to become the national grandparent; having been on the throne before most of their subjects were born, life without them seems unimaginable, until they die. The martyr-King, like Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II, or Karl I, who knowingly

sheds his blood is a Christ-like sacrifice for his people. There is the Lost Prince, whose very disappearance inspires a host of charlatans: such as these were Sebastian of Portugal, the Lost Dauphin of France, and Dmitri and Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia (for all that the last two were centuries apart). There is the dispossessed Prince, such as was Bonnie Prince Charlie in the 18 century, the Comte de Chambord in the 19, or Michael of Romania in the 20". Another is the King who returns to set things right once more, like Charlemagne, Justinian, or Henri IV of France. And there is the Sleeping King, like Arthur, Frederick Barbarossa, or Constantine XI who will return one day to save his people. The fact that these archetypes are still powerful—and by no means only among Monarchists—is shown by the skillful use of all of them by Tolkien in his The Lord of the Rings. “The Hands of the King are the Hands of a Healer” is an old saying in Gondor; but the Kings of England and France cured scrofula by their touch, as the Kings of Spain cast out demons and those of Denmark epilepsy. There are of course, in addition, scores of Royal Saints of various kinds.

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE e e

191

This all being true, it is no surprise that one basic source of Monarchism to-day—or at least a disposition toward it—to be found in Christian circles comes from devotion to a given martyr King. In France (and in a few places in Belgium and Italy), the days around January 21 will see a number of Requiem Masses

offered for Louis XVI, and a torch light procession in his honour for this King whom Pope Pius VI called a martyr. On and around January 30, Anglo-Catholic churches throughout the world offer Masses revering Charles I as a Saint (the only man whom the Church of England canonised); the high point of these festivities is the placing of wreathes at the statute of the White King in London’s Trafalgar Square by the Society of King Charles the Martyr, the Royal Martyr Church Union, and the Royal Stuart Society. The latter organisation also organises requiems for Mary Queen of Scots, James II (both of whose causes for canonisation, while stalled, have not been officially closed), and

the other members of the House of Stuart. Nicholas II and his murdered family are venerated as Saints by the Orthodox Churches—and

indeed,

the

Russian,

Serbian,

Romanian,

Bulgarian, and Georgian Orthodox hierarchies have all urged restoration of the Monarchy in their respective countries. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church practically revere Haile Selassie, the last reigning Christian Emperor, as a martyr, due to his brutal death at the hands of revolutionaries in 1975. On October 21, the date of his marriage to his Empress Zita (who is up for beatification), Austria’s last Monarch, is honoured as a Blessed with a proper Mass. The Emperor Karl League of Prayers works for his canonisation,

and his cu/tus and shrines continue to

expand in number—not only in the countries he formerly ruled, in Germany, France, Belgium, England, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Lebanon, the Philippines, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Canada, and the United States. Obviously, any church or abbey

but

blessed with Royal tombs continues to pray for the repose of their souls. Not all devotees to these Saints are Monarchists in

yo2

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

any practical way; but they certainly are not blind to the benefits of a system that produced such men. But do not think that the religious underpinnings of Kingship mean that Monarchists are uniformly devout, or wish for their national Faith to regain a dominant role in their country’s life—though of course, many are and do. As early as the 18" century there was Bolingbroke, a zealous Jacobite who not a religious believer in any real sense. Until he was quite elderly, the leading French Royalist thinker Charles Maurras had no personal Faith, but merely valued Catholicism for its key role in the formation of the French identity. One of our most famous American Monarchists, H.P. Lovecraft, was an avowed atheist.

Nevertheless, he famously wrote in his Guide-Book to Quebec: There now broke out—in 1775 that unhappy warfare betwixt His Majesty’s thirteen more southerly colonies and the home government; which culminated in the loss of those colonies to the Empire, and which may in times to come bring about their tragic engulfment in a new and alien barbarism of mongrel and autochthonous origin, in which all the standards of civilisation will be lost in a brainless worship of size, speed, wealth, success, and luxury, sad chapter to record!

For some Monarchists, the pro forma ritual backing that Anglicanism gives the Monarchies of the Commonwealth and Lutheranism

those of Scandinavia

(and for that matter, the

generic American civil religion that supports our institutions) is quite sufficient. Indeed, as we shall see, together with local liberties this is one of the big fault lines across Monarchism. But what of the political role of the Monarch? Well, there are at least two schools of thought in this regard. But all Monarchists would agree with the following preparatory observations. An Emperor or King (unless he is self-made, like Bonaparte) is trained all his life for the role he will one day play. Obviously he brings to that role his own strengths and

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE 193 a eee weaknesses. But as everyday life shows us, a trained plodder usually does a more dependable job than a_ brilliant amateur—and few elected heads of state are brilliant. Moreover (despite recent trends from Pope Benedict to the Sovereigns of Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands), a Monarch is usually in the job for life. Where he has executive power, this allows him to set long term policy; where he does not, his consultations with,

warnings

to, and

advice

for “his”

successive

prime

ministers is based upon a wealth of background and experience they cannot hope to match in their relatively short time in office—as has often been said, an elected official spends half his term learning his job, and the other half trying to get himself (or at least his party) re-elected. Needless to say, he only commands the loyalty of the portion of the population that elected him. With those realities as the background, the. surviving western Monarchies (Great Britain and the Commonwealth, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg,

Spain, Sweden, Norway,

and Denmark) as well as—for the moment, anyway—Japan, are constitutional; that is, the Sovereign reigns but does not rule. Outside the spectrum of everyday politics, he serves as a transparty focus of loyalty. As earlier noticed, his functions are ceremonial and often quasi-religious in nature. He visits all over his realm, opening bridges, receiving deputations, and in general acting as national cheerleader. Ambassadors present their letters of credence to him, and he opens and closes parliament. Oaths are sworn to him by soldiers, judges, bureaucrats, and even elected government officials to symbolise their allegiance to the country rather than party. But “his” ministers are responsible to the majority of the politicians who inhabit parliament, and to the collection of dominant interests that engineer and finance their election thereto. While the reserve powers may confer upon him

a limited ability to correct things if the system stumbles in terms of pure legality, his ability to “protect his people from their politicians” (as Emperor Franz Josef described his role to

194

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

Theodore Roosevelt) is severely limited. This is pointed up by the clashes between the Sovereigns and the governments of Belgium

and

Luxembourg

over

abortion

and

euthanasia,

wherein the attempts by those rulers to defend the most helpless of their subjects from death were easily brushed aside by the political leadership. While the legitimacy of this system depends upon the political class being truly the voice of the majority (a highly debatable proposition in itself), many Monarchists favour its retention where present, and its adoption as the desired programme of restoration. Certainly, whatever its defects, it would be better than the status quo in parliamentary republics like Portugal, Germany, Austria, and Italy. There the former

Royal (now presidential) palace becomes a sort of retirement home for washed-up politicians; surrounded by remnants of Monarchical pomp, they do not have even the personal strengths and historical ties to the people over whom they nominally preside that Constitutional Monarchs enjoy. The other model for Western Monarchists is that of chief executive (often wrongly called “absolute” —wrongly because, as just noticed, no Monarch can utterly violate tradition the way a president or judiciary can in republics). In such a system, the government ministers are responsible to the Sovereign for their tenure, and he sets political policy—all in addition to carrying out the ceremonial duties his constitutional brethren are also obliged to perform. As with the presidents of the United States, France, and Latin America (when the latter are elected rather than coming to power in a coup), he must get budgets and other matters passed through the national legislature. Unlike a Constitutional Monarchy, where all the King’s official actions must normally be countersigned by a “responsible” minister, in this system, the Emperor or King is responsible to God alone for his actions—although, as Sovereigns have found from at least the time of Magna Charta, they must also be aware of immediate realities. In the existing Christian Monarchies—and as in Japan,

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE ee

195

where they appear to be becoming dominant—some Monarchists would like to see the experience of Liechtenstein, where the reigning Prince regained his power after a showdown with the politicians. This is the sort of Monarchy many would like to see restored in various places. Again, it does come down to whether one believes the democratic myth—that the politicians really speak for the people as a whole, rather than being mere mouthpieces for the dominant oligarchy. The struggle between these two visions of Monarchy—and the role of Christianity in the State, as a source of legitimacy or mere ritual background—have been the major impulse for much of modern European history, and an ongoing division between Monarchists to-day. The great dynastic divisions that have plagued Western European Royal Families from 1688 to the present owe their existence as much to this ideological divide as to obscure genealogical issues. So the Jacobites in the British Isles and colonies,

the Carlists

in Spain, the Miguelists

in

Portugal, and the Legtimists in France stood for an executive

Monarchy, provincial liberties, and the predominance of the Church in the nation’s social life, while their respective opponents held the opposite. Proof that this division was more than genealogical can be seen by the fact that Jacobitism and Carlism outlasted their own

branches of their Royal families,

and sought other branches for leadership to accomplish their goals. In France, the Legitimist line died out, and the Orleanists adopted many of their beliefs for a new French Monarchy; this change was in great part the work of Charles Maurras and his Action Francais. But when the Orleans heir himself became increasingly liberal in the latter 20" century, the Legitimist side roared into a new life around a Spanish Bourbon who dedicated himself to the restoration of a traditional French Monarchy. To confuse matters further, there is also an heir to the Bonapartes— whose mother, however, is a Bourbon princess, albeit of an Italian branch. Meanwhile, in Portugal the liberal line died out,

196

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

and the Miguelists—banished from their homeland for almost a century—became the recognised heirs and returned home,

where the current heir lives. So in Spain you have Carlists as well as defenders

of the status

quo;

in France

Legitimists,

Orleanists, and Bonapartists. The remaining Jacobites are for the most part reconciled to the current house—but would like to see more power given it. Certainly, for those who bother to read Prince Charles’ writings and acquaint themselves with his numerous philanthropies (as opposed to having their negative views of the Prince of Wales manufactured for them by the media), there is some hope for a more positive activist Monarchy in the future. What Irish Monarchists there are divide into those who would like to reenter the Commonwealth, albeit as a republic; Jacobites; and adherents of one or another of the many Gaelic Royal Families, Ireland under the High Kings at Tara having featured as well five provincial Kings and numerous subKings as well. Central Europe was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire (whose Emperor had nominally been the suzerain of all Western Christendom), latterly ruled by the Habsburgs—who were forced to abdicate that Imperial throne for the substituted and newly-created one of Austria by Napoleon in 1806. Subsequent to his fall, Austria dominated the Italian and German States until the wars of Italian and German Unification (which left the Kings of Prussia and Sardinia as German Emperors and Kings of Italy—the latter of a Constitutional variety). To the Habsburgs were left their other realms including Hungary and the Czech lands, Croatia, Slovenia, a chunk of Poland, and so on. World War I deposed the Hohenzollerns and the remain German princes (Bavaria, Saxony, etc.) and the Habsburgs—whose saintly last Emperor Karl, did not abdicate but tried to regain his Hungarian throne twice before his untimely death. The Habsburg lands were partitioned into unstable ethnic nations, leaving, as Churchill observed, a power vacuum for Hitler and

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE So ee eee

197

Stalin to fill. Karl’s son, Archduke Otto, eventually turned his

attention from regaining his father’s thrones to uniting Europe according to the Christian vision of Charlemagne; he threw his weight behind the European Union. Italy’s last King, thus far, was deposed in a rigged election in 1946—personally pious and a member of an ancient dynasty, he nevertheless represented a very liberal constitutional Monarchy. The result of all of this history is that Central Europe offers a true crazy quilt of Monarchist movements: adherents of either or both Otto’s Habsburg and a _ restored vision Monarchy European encompassing some or all of its former people; devotees of the various Italian and German Kingdoms, Principalities, Grand Duchies, and Duchies on the one side, and of the Hohenzollerns

and Savoys (now divided into two warring branches along ideological lines to some degree) on the other; and varying groups wishing the restoration of the Kingdom of Poland in one form or another. In contrast to these, by way of ironic contrast considering their history, the Monarchist scene in the Balkans is quite stable. Kings Michael of Romania and Simeon II of Bulgaria, Crown Princes Alexander of Serbia, Nicholas of Montenegro, and Leka

of Albania, and King Constantine II of Greece have all returned to their homelands,

and, save

the latter (who

still receives

difficulty from the various incompetent Greek governments) live in one or more of their Royal Palaces, and in a reduced way, act

as Constitutional Monarchs in all but name and specifically governmental ceremonial (although Simeon actually was Bulgaria’s Prime Minister for a while). As noticed, the Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian Orthodox Churches have officially endorsed restoration, and Monarchists in those countries work

for that day. In addition, in a vague way for all Orthodox and a very specific one for a particular branch of Greek nationalism, there is hope for recovering one day Constantinople, and with it

the Byzantine Empire.

198

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

What of Russia, the Third Rome? Well, despite the cavils of certain Romanoff descendants, the Grand Duchess Maria

Vladimirovna and her son, the Grand Duke George, act more and ever more as heirs to the throne—going about the world (and Russia) from their base in Spain scattering decorations among émigrés and current governmental officials alike; rumour has it that as part of his attempts at renewing his motherland, Putin supports a restoration in much the same way as Franco did in Spain; here too, the Russian Orthodox Church endorses the idea.

As aside note, when Ethiopia’s Marxist revolutionaries deposed and murdered Emperor Haile Selassie, the then Soviet Union reversed itself, backing the new regime against long-time Soviet client Somalia. This was an act with disastrous results for both the Soviet Union and Somalia, and can only have been motivated by a weird Communist Romanticism. At any rate, Russian Monarchists (and they too come in varying stripes, but the Grand Duchess’ adherents are dominant) are riding high—as they are in neighbouring Georgia, where a recently-born Prince unites the bloodlines of the two feuding branches of the age old Bagration dynasty, whose restoration the local Orthodox Church also endorses—as does the the Ethiopian to some degree. In Scandinavia and the Benelux countries, the Monarchy remains—despite its powerlessness—a strong symbol of nationality, both at home and for their descendants abroad. Indeed, in Belgium the Monarchy is the only glue remaining to keep Walloons and Flemish together. Recently abdicated Belgian King Albert II went even further, when he kept appointing for over a year caretaker Prime Ministers as the deeply divided parliament kept failing to produce a majority. The Reserve Powers are like a fire extinguisher—rarely used, but essential when needed. Outside

the United

States,

the Americas

offer

several

Monarchist varieties of their own. In Spanish-speaking America, the division since independence into Liberal and Conservative

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE 199 e a eee offers one strand of the former that upholds each nation’s connection with the Mother Country—Hispanidad. Adherents of this belief hope one day to see the King of Spain as, at very least, the Head of an Hispanic Commonwealth. Mexico had two ill-starred Emperors of her own: Iturbide and Maximilian; being childless the latter adopted the former’s grandson as his heir, and that family subsists until today. Brazil broke away from Portugal as an independent Empire in 1822 under a Prince of the Royal House of Braganza; deposed by the oligarchy in 1889 as punishment for freeing the slaves, their descendants also continue today—and there is a large and divided Monarchist movement in Brazil, growing in strength in response to the republic’s increasing enfeeblement. Canada has a trifurcated Monarchist movement of its own: those who are intent on preserving the current Constitution; the “High Tories,” philosophical Anglophone Monarchists (such as John Farthing, George Grant, and Ron Dart) inspired by the Jacobites and Tories of Britain and the Loyalist tradition brought American refugees after the American revolution; and the French Royalist/Nationalist tradition expressed by such luminaries as Marcel

Trudel,

Fr. Lionel

Groulx,

and Maurice

Duplessis.

Although shattered during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, the last-named is making a small comeback. Together with the High Tories, it represents the original partnership upon which Canada was originally based. So

much

for

Christendom;

Islamic Monarchies and The first is, as it were, kinds. Monarchists are generally of three almost tribal; the Saudis and the Yemenites (deposed in 1963,

after which a long civil war with republicans ended in their defeat six years later) fit that bill. As quasi-religious leaders of Islam, they are unfriendly to Christians on the ground, to put it mildly—though they may cooperate with Western governments for certain ends. Their adherents are deeply Muslim. There are the Westernized variety, who often ruled or rule a restive

200

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

Muslim majority through a network of minority peoples: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia—as well of the Ottoman Empire in its final years, each of whose overthrows has been disastrous for us all in the long run; and Jordan, Morocco, Oman,

the

United

Arab

Emirates,

Qatar,

the

Malaysian

Sultanates, Brunei, and Bahrain. Although these Monarchies’

most loyal followers Muslims, they are also notably the Naqsbandi. at ISIS, who would see

are often non-Muslim or secularised supported by various Sufi sects, most Lastly, and most daunting, are our foes a universal Caliphate engulf the whole

world. Monarchists to be sure, but none whom I would like to

see accomplish their goals. Of the great Confucian

Vietnam

Monarchies,

China,

are long gone; only Japan remains.

Korea,

and

Politically, of

course, they have been obliterated in the first three lands; but the

philosophy behind them remains—and so does the culture they generated in terms of court ceremonial, dance, music, religion,

and cuisine. Each of these are preserved carefully, and members of their former ruling families (and descendants of their courtiers) are foremost in their preservation—supported in this work by the governments of Communist China and Vietnam, as well as uber-Capitalist South Korea. So it is that today the tourist can take in an Imperial sacrifice ritual at Beijing’s Temple of Earth, the changing of the Royal Guard at one of the Palaces in Seoul, or a Court dance in the Forbidden City at Hue. Who

knows where this may lead? In Japan, where the postwar constitution imposed by the victorious allies limited the position of the Emperor in many ways, the current Prime Minister and many of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party are members of the Monarchist group Nippon Kaigi. There is a great deal of discussion at the moment about amending the Constitution to revive the nation’s right to wage war, and to extend the Emperor’s powers. In response, the Emperor himself has spoken in an oblique way about abdicating, and the Crown Prince of the

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE 201 eh necessity to learn from the past. Whether this constitutes agreement with or opposition to the suggested moves is a question time may make clear. In Buddhist Monarchies such as those of Bhutan, Thailand and Cambodia today, and Laos, Burma, and Sri Lanka in times

past, the King is head of the “Sangha,” the whole community of Buddhists in the nation. This has allowed the first mentioned King to guide his country through a series of coups and elections; but his course has been stable compared to that of Cambodia’s long time ruler—King-turned Prince-turned King Sihanouk, whose adventures were amazing—but resulted in his son currently occupying what seems to be a secure throne. Laos’ King was murdered by the Communists sometime after their takeover in 1975, but the Royal family continue to lead the Laotian community in exile. Similar revered status has allowed the long-deposed Burmese dynasty to survive under the military regime which has just ended. Hindu Monarchy was very similar in many respects, for which reason devout Hindus in Nepal support the restoration of King Gyanendra, who was deposed in 2008. As the Europeans colonised the Americas, Africa, Asia, and

Oceania, they came in contact with a great number of small Sultanates, Kingdoms, and other Monarchies. Those who cooperated with the Europeans generally retained their positions until independence. In Latin America, most of these were obliterated by the new republican authorities. In the rest of the world, only Tonga, Swaziland, Lesotho, Burundi, and Rwanda

became independent national Monarchies; the latter two suffered revolutions and then endless rounds of mind-numbing ethnic slaughter between Hutus and Tutsis at the behest of various presidents (I have had the honour of knowing Kigeli V of Rwanda; what a blessing for his poor realm had this kind gentleman been able to retain his throne). But in the rest of the post-colonial world, countless traditional sovereignties continue

202

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

to play a strong regimes, where own territories rigged elections

local role under more or less rickety republican they often exert a stabilising influence in their while the dreary series of military coups and continues to play out in the capital. The Sultans

and Rajas of Indonesia, and the Maharajas and Nawabs of India, Pakistan,

and Bangladesh

still receive

the respect

of their

erstwhile subjects. The tribal Kings of Uganda, having been dispossessed by Obote and Idi Amin, were restored to their thrones in 1993, and many African and Pacific countries have “Houses of Chiefs” at either the national or state level. Hawai’ian Nationalists long to restore their country’s Kingdom, unjustly annexed (according to a congressional apology issued in 1993) by the United States. Yet even in these United States,

there are traces of such traditional rulerships: the Governors of the New Mexico Pueblos stand in a feudal relationship to the presidency as once they did to the King of Spain, as symbolised by the two.sets of bastones del mando or “canes” each pueblo possess—one from the King and the other from president Lincoln. At the same time, the Senate of American Samoa is elected not by the general populace but by the heads of the chiefly families. Which brings us at last to these United States. Unlike any other nation on Earth, we do not have a single Monarchical tradition; but we did and do have Monarchists. Some Loyalists did not leave, but like St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and her husband

and first Episcopal Bishop Samuel Seabury stayed behind to do what good they could under the new regime. In time, such as Ralph Adams Cram and Isabella Stewart Gardner took up the Jacobite cause. T.S. Eliot, an exile in London, famously declared himself a “Royalist in Politics.” Some, such as H.P. Lovecraft,

felt compelled to reexamine the revolution in the light of its results.

Later,

in the

1930s, various

American

Monarchists

including Cram (and may other alternative writers) could be found in the American Review of Seward Collins. Nor were our

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE ee eee ee ee

203

other two Monarchical traditions lacking in adherents—the French-Canadian version earlier referred to was publicised in the Sentinelle and Travailleur newspapers of Woonsocket, RI and Worcester, MA. In Mexico after the Cristero wars of the 1920s,

the Sinarquistas preached the gospel of Catholic Government and Hispanidad, for a while they were present in Latino communities throughout the Southwest, and allegedly made a

showing in the Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots of 1944—as a result they even make a cameo appearance in James Ellroy’s novel, The Big Nowhere. In the 1960s, Catholic Monarchists emerged from the pages of Triumph magazine, featuring Carlist Frederick Wilhelmsen and French Royalist supporter Gary Potter among others. Over at National Review, despite the republicanism of most Conservatives of the time, Erik von Kuehnhelt-Leddihn

never ceased to praise the institution. Add to those tenuous traditions of Monarchist intellectualism both our colonial heritage, governmental structure, and the fact that members of literally every Monarchist movement, cause, or sentiment that we have touched upon in this appendix have made their home in this country, and it will become apparent that Monarchism of one sort another is just deeply rooted in our soil. It is diverse to the point of incoherence, not unlike the nation itself—it is as

American as apple pie. There only remains to wonder if, as the strength of our founding myths and their ability to animate our institutions continue to wane, could America’s “other” set of traditions be

called in to maintain our body politic. Certainly, the three most memorable presidents of the 20" century were also the most faux-regal: FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. The first-named was the most successful in achieving his goals—but it took him three and a quarter terms in office to so. For all the glamour of Camelot, Kennedy’s blip on the time screen was more show than substance, and despite the immense reassurance Reagan gave the country that it was still “Morning in America,” were he to come

204

ESSENTIAL POSTLUDE

back today he might doubt whether he had really accomplished anything. Nevertheless, the trio’s respective senses of style and most un-republican interest in the Arts and Sciences have guaranteed them some place in the nation’s memory. Without a doubt, in some future crisis another president shall invoke their

legacies and Lincoln’s to justify whatever illegal acts he feels compelled to enact to restore order. But what about explicit interest in Monarchy in some form in these United States? There has been a minor boomlet of interest since the appearance of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed in 2001. Such diverse academics as John Medaille, Lee Walter Congdon, and William S. Lind have declared themselves Monarchists. The rise of the internet alongside the ongoing collapse of the national consensus has unleashed a new generation of young American Monarchists of innumerable varieties—blogging away and in touch with the likeminded here and overseas. Will anything like a coherent body of American Monarchist political thought emerge? Who knows?

Still, as H.P.

Lovecraft

himself

observed—

“with

strange aeons even death may die.” One thing is certain. If this country—and indeed the other countries that make up what was once Christendom—are to survive they shall require both a new animating principle and a new myth of governance. In this book, I have nominated those that built the West in the first place: the altar and throne. Regardless of whether that happens, and regardless of whether this or any other country survives, those two ideas shall, until the Great King of All, Christus Rex, Kristos Pantokrator, shall draw

this world’s drama to a close. Until that day, these words of that Arch-Monarchist J.R.R. Tolkien shall remain absolutely true, somewhere: All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost;

THE VARIETIES OF MONARCHIST EXPERIENCE The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken,

The crownless again shall be king.

205

t

a

7

_

7

-

ONT MA POEy TER

ce

atin

:

7

7

es

e's

[v7

+

_—,

vans ree a

ee

;

i

a

:

tae 7

7

re

ae

"ia

242

J

APPENDIX ROYAL PLACES IN AMERICA

Given the United States’ long connexion with all the world’s peoples—and their Monarchs, to say nothing of our own colonial Sovereigns—there are a great many sites in this country connected to Royal administration and patronage, Loyalists, Monarchist émigrés from various countries, and so much more. Browse our online list of over 500 sites to find local places in your own area with Royal significance. You’llnever look at your own town quite the same way again!

www.tumblarhouse.com/royal-places.php

207

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Thomas B. Tories: Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010. Bak, Janos, ed. Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern

Monarchic Ritual. Berkeley: University of California, 1990: Bloch, Mare. The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in France and England. New York: Dorset Press, 1990.

Bocca, Geoffrey. Kings Without Thrones - European Monarchy in the Twentieth Century. New York: Dial Press, 1959. Curley, Walter J.P. Monarchs-in-Waiting. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1973.

Dart, Ron. The North American High Tory Tradition. New York: American Anglican Press, 2016.

Fenyvesi, Charles. Splendor in Exile. New York: New Republic Books, 1979.

Gelb, Norman. Less Than Glory. New York: G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1984.

Kantorowicz, Ernst. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957

Menczer, Bela. Catholic Political Thought 1789-1848. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press, 1962

209

210

Molnar, Thomas. The Counter Revolution. New York: Funk &

Wagnalls Company, 1969

Nelson, Eric. The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014 Phillips, Kevin. Zhe Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, and the Triumph of Anglo-America. New York: Basic Books, 1999

PAM

About the Author Charles A. Coulombe is one of North America’s most respected and sought-after commentators on culture, religion, history, and politics. A specialist in the history and government of the Catholic Church, Coulombe’s influence and expertise extend far beyond matters religious. He has written on topics ranging from the history of rum to haunted houses to a history of the United States. Mr. Coulombe is a social and political commentator of note. In 2005 he provided narration and commentary for ABC News during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the subsequent election and installation of Pope Benedict XVI. A former journalist, Mr. Coulombe served as a film reviewer and Contributing Editor of the National Catholic Register, during which time he received the Christian Law Institute’s Christ King Journalism Award. Coulombe’s work has appeared in over than 20 journals, including regular columns in Fidelity (Australia), PRAG (London), Monarchy Canada, and Creole Magazine (Louisiana). As an informed and passionate speaker on a wide variety of religious, social, political, historical, and literary topics, Mr.

Coulombe has appeared on lecture circuits throughout the North America,

Europe,

Australia,

and New

Zealand.

In 1992

he

lectured at Oxford University and the following year embarked ona lecture tour of Ireland and Great Britain, returning to Oxford and Cambridge in 1995. Coulombe has also delivered lectures at the University of Southern California on the history of Rock & Roll and at Cleveland’s John Carroll University on the history of medieval monarchy. In February 2011, he was invited to take part in a debate on the abolition of the monarchy before the

prestigious Oxford Union.

Pe tas ind | =a"42,

se _ i,iin

Ls

=

ray tle

ir? :

Zt3

Other books by Charles A. Coulombe: Puritan’s Empire

Vicars of Christ

The Pope’s Legion Desire & Deception

The White Cockade

The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI Haunted Castles of the World Haunted Places in America

Made in the USA Middletown, DE

14 June 2020

97977932R 00 TeW/

For 240 years, most Americans have identified our country with its government as the embodiment of “Freedom” and the nation itself. Take away the Constitution, Congress, and presidential elections, and not only liberty but the United States themselves would vanish. Or would they? We have a government that imposes social change from above at breakneck speed, while each presidential election seems to offer even more pathetic choices than the one before. Many are scratching their heads and wondering - not just “where are we going?” but “how did we get here?” Is our governmental system itself - the leading symbol of the American way of life - heading for a meltdown? And if it is, what - if anything - shall be left of our country?

Star-Spangled Crown is a book that comes to us from over a century rbemaatcmaiablucmm Wot-lms(cr-lucremrelcline(oniaemerche-lbus-lehmeleolbw acre mem eltimuanenie United States survived the loss of the presidency. Erected on the ruins of our current regime, a Monarchy has emerged; contrary to all of our 21st century notions, it is a thoroughly American iggy functions - as and where all governments, including=y=4resent one must function - is the subject of the book. Star-Spangled Crown is not a call for radical change. Tyleleree for serious thought about the realities of civil life tha have spent more than two centuries ignoring or ultimate peril. What values shall our society expre re those decisions? By what right do they do so? What is - or, as our 22nd century author might say, what United States? Star-Spangled Crown offers one set of ans from a possible future - but above all, it calls on you to ask the questions in the present.

ISBN

ilb= 744339-05-0

| | i

ill