One of the more interesting concepts that has presented itself in recent years is the resurgence of monarchism, the idea that a society should be led not by a democratically elected representative (who one is almost never able to trust except to do the wrong thing), but by a leader selected by natural law and the will of the folk. It is not surprising that we are beginning to see this sort of thing again, as in Scotland we have been bereft of capable leaders since the Renaissance, though the power of the king was becoming increasingly restrained and bound to the will of parliament.
Today in the United Kingdom, designating oneself as a ‘monarchist’ is usually taken to mean support for the British royal family, and also support for the Union (which is based on the extent of the kingdom and includes all lands in which British folk are the majority). However, the problem with this identification is that not only are there serious issues between the British folk and the ‘British’ state, but also with the royalty themselves. As the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is almost completely subject to the will of parliament, though they still retain the power to veto anything put forward by parliament. This does not happen, however, as the concept of democracy means that the will of the parliament (which represents the interests of the merchants and plutocrats, as it always has) is seen to be more legitimate than the will of the monarch, and so the monarch can only realistically act as a puppet of parliament and not as a free agent.
In the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the parliament mainly represented not only the interests of the nobility, but also increasingly of the merchant class who were becoming more powerful because of the connection that had been forged between trade, loans and war. In the Dark Ages, war was done more for the sake of glory and honour, to avenge insults and to expand territorially for the sake of one’s folk. Once the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms has been established, kingdoms such as Northumbria began to expand not for the sake of territorial expansion, but for tribute.
Extracting tribute as part of the terms of surrender to a defeated foe had always been a feature of tribal warfare, but during this time it became the motivation for going to war in order to sustain a growing economy. As the king became a more secular figure with the conversion to Christianity, the profit motive began to dominate warfare. This did not change with the idea of divine kingship being reintroduced by the Normans, as they expanded territorially in order to gain subjects and tax them, which was a development from earlier tribute collecting and made the conquest permanent. It is worth noting that William the Bastard was not a legitimate heir to the English throne because he was Norman rather than English. Harold Godwinson was chosen by the English nobility, and was naturally a more suitable candidate than either William or Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, after the death of Edward the confessor.
This is a rather different situation from the earlier Danish and Anglo-Saxon settlements in England, as they involved the migration of new folk to Britain and the need for their own leaders. The Norman conquest was only possible because William recruited Flemish and Breton mercenaries by borrowing from money-lenders, and so did not need to raise an army from among his own people (the other Norman nobles were not interested as they saw no benefit from the risk of invading England). This was repeated during the English Civil War in the 17th Century, as Cromwell invited the money-lenders back (who had been expelled in the 13th Century by Edward I) in order to finance his war and defeat Charles I.
This sequence of events in British history has led to the situation of our current monarchy, which has been under the heel of the merchants ever since the parliament under Cromwell committed regicide by ordering the execution of Charles I. From then on, war was fought for the sake of expanding trade networks and monopolies, and the king would merely remain the head of state rather than leading his men into battle of his own volition. Nowadays, the only purpose of the monarch is to act as a tourist attraction and a celebrity by being a sentimental reminder of the former power of the British Empire, in addition to acting as the head of the Anglican Church and the Commonwealth of Nations (which is essentially the current form of the British Empire as a trade confederacy).
With this in mind, the identification with ‘monarchism’ is problematic as this would imply retaining the monarchy in its current form, which is essentially non-functioning. I therefore propose the term ‘Neo-Monarchism’ as a way to describe a position which acknowledges the role of the monarch and sacral kingship, but does not apply to the Modern monarchy. By this I mean the rejection of succession based on primogeniture, but on natural talent and suitability for leadership. Ideally, this would result in the passing of the crown from father to son, but this may not be possible if a more suitable candidate appears. I also suggest that the role of monarch should be closer to the Ancient Teutonic role of erilaz (‘earl’) rather than the kuningaz (‘king’), as the latter was a secular general elected by the warrior caste, as opposed to the former being divine royalty who is chosen by the land and the folk. The concept of Neo-Monarchism may also apply to those of our folk in lands where the concept of monarchy has never existed, such as in the United States or other former colonies such as Australia or Canada.
In this instance, it would be possible for other nations to have their own monarchs, as opposed to acknowledging the authority of the Modern British monarch. Personally, I do believe in maintaining the Union among the British folk, although the system of monarchy should be reformed drastically. In particular, the concept of ‘high kingship’ is appealing to me, since it implies that each tribe or nation would have their own kings that are then in allegiance with a high king, or ‘king of kings’. The lands of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own monarchies would ensure accountability among leaders to their people and erase the problem of having to all share the same monarchy, which is always based in England.
The issue of accountability is another great advantage of monarchy over parliamentary democracy. Because the leaders of the democracy are elected as representatives of the people (and therefore the people that vote for them are theoretically the ones in charge), the responsibility rests on the people themselves. Since most Modern people do not wish to accept responsibility, it is claimed by no one, and this enables the oligarchy of politicians to evade accountability due to their interchangeability. A common excuse given by representatives of political parties after coming into power when something goes wrong is that the cause is the fault of the previous administration, thereby implying that they did not cause the problem and so it is not up to them to solve it.
In this way, individual MPs can also refuse to fix certain problems f they were implemented by a previous MP, and they are usually unwilling to do anything about it because they are backed by the same banks and corporations that are usually causing problems through over-regulation and financial interest. When power and responsibility are all placed into the hands of a single individual, it is easy to see who is to blame when things go wrong, and everybody else is simply following the guidance of the monarch and so it is clear that in such circumstances the monarch has to accept responsibility; either fix the problem or hand it over to somebody more capable. The parliament is the Modern equivalent of the Teutonic Althing, which actually included all male members of the folk and was much more local than centralized as a Modern parliament is. A parliament at the level of our Modern one should only consist of regional kings, as the stooges of banks and corporations have no place making decisions on behalf of ‘the people’ of Britain.
In Ancient Scotland, kings were usually coronated on a sacred stone, which represented their marriage to the Earth Goddess and the union of king, land and folk. The folk were the ones who worked the land, while the king led the folk and who was in turn bound to the land. This ensured that everybody knew who each was accountable to, and that each party was engaged in mutual exchange and respect. If the population of a tribe grew too large, then a section of the tribe would elect a kuningaz (which where the word ‘king’ comes from, but in its meaning is closer to ‘duke’) and conquer territory to gain land. This is inevitable in societies that are dependent on agriculture, and cannot realistically be avoided unless population control is better managed. Thus, the role of the king is to maintain balance, to act as a mediator between his tribe and the gods and to provide for his folk. It is not the person of the king himself who is important, but his ability to fulfil the position to which he is appointed. Genetics play a huge role in these requirements, which is why it is necessary to employ eugenics in the selection of a king and queen.
The importance of the queen is also not to be ignored, as she represents the Goddess. She holds the power that is to be wielded by the king, and his attitude towards his queen will reflect his attitude towards the land. A king who does not respect women cannot be expected to perform properly, though if possible he should always act as the monarch. A queen should only be considered to perform as the monarch in the event of an emergency and if there are no male alternatives. Such was the case with the Iceni queen, Boudicca, who was considered the most capable leader to fight against the Romans because she was married to the king (who was killed by the Romans).
It also follows that showing kindness to one’s folk is also important (the fact that the concept of ‘subjects’ applies to a conquered people rather than one’s own says a lot about our current monarchy), but also in remaining steadfast and doing what is right rather than what will please others. A monarch is also notably different from a dictator, in that a dictator seizes power through might of arms or through constitutional reform upon acquiring power through democratic means. A monarch is chosen through none of those means, as they do not involve either the land or the gods in their consideration. It is upon the basis on natural law rather than state law that a monarch is chosen, and so the monarch is considered to be one with the folk rather than above them.
In essence, Neo-Monarchism is anti-Modern and anti-democratic, as its ideas only apply outside of the concept of Modernity and are reliant on the capability of leadership rather than ‘the will of the people’. The mob cannot be entrusted to lead a society, and it is for this reason that the tyranny of the majority under which we currently live is much worse than the tyranny of one man. A single king can be replaced, but if nobody is accountable, then our society’s problems remain unsolved and will lead us to self-destruction. In this sense, Neo-Monarchism also rejects autocracy, as the monarch cannot have so much power that it interferes in the personal life of each member of the folk. The power of the monarch is general in nature, and acting as a micro-manager will only lead to bad results, including resentment among the populace. This is why a monarch appoints others to be in charge of smaller management tasks.
Neo-Monarchism is in fact corporate in nature, although in the sense of the tribe or nation being a corporate body as opposed to a business venture. In order for the ‘body’ of society to function, it must have a head to direct its movements, and one person to act as the head while enabling the other parts of the body to function automatically. The particular people in charge of our society today do not see themselves as part of ‘the people’, but as a separate entity that intends to rule all peoples. We are in desperate need of transparent government, and the only way to achieve that is to adopt a system that has a holistic attitude to the Earth and to the folk, rather than acting as a parasite on both.