The admirable Peter Kwasniewski is always worth reading. He has written an article on OnePeterFive which is the exception that proves the rule. For this particular article, although I could hardly agree less with its central tenet, is certainly extremely stimulating. Dr Kwasniewski seeks to extol the virtues of monarchy as a system of government and insinuates that this claim is somehow connected to the Social Kingship of Christ. No such connection exists. The dogma of the Kingship of Christ should emphatically not be confused with the non-doctrinal question of which form of regime ought to be preferred, because this is specifically an indifferent matter on which the laity are free to chose whichever governmental form they consider best in itself and/or most suited to the character and customs of their particular society. As Leo XIII explains:
and elsewhere
Undoubtedly the replacement of the original Feast of Christ the King was inspired by Maritainian errors, but the confusion of the question of regime with the non-negotiable question of the Social Kingship of Christ is itself one of the most fundamental of those errors. The list of royal saints supplied by Kwasniewski is not relevant. There is no question but that kings and queens can be saints, but what about St Severinus Boethius and St Thomas More and the multitude of non-aristocratic saints (such as St Francis) raised in the Mediaeval Italian republics? The Middle Ages were replete with polities of every shape and size. The transformation of them all into hereditary monarchies is an early modern and post-revolutionary phenomenon which coincided with the general secularisation of the West and precipitated the anti-Christian regimes of late modernity.
It is very odd indeed to claim that the rarity of saints under modern secular republics and constitutional monarchies indicates that these governmental forms themselves are detrimental to sanctity rather than that secularism is to blame (a secularism bred in the absolute monarchies of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). The theory of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ is an anti-Catholic Protestant invention. It is dispiriting that Dr Kwasniewski lists the absolutist Charles I who died for the ‘protestant religion’ and the incompetent tyrant Nicholas II of Russia (both persecutors of the faithful) as saints.
The Angelic Doctor recommends a form of government composed in equal parts of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. St Augustine says that the ideal form of government is one in which a virtuous people chooses its own rulers. St Leo the Great declares ‘he who is over all should be chosen by all’. This indeed is the primitive and apostolic structure of the Church herself and yet Kwasniewski writes:
In a fallen world where all of our efforts are dogged by evil and doomed (eventually) to failure, Christian monarchy is, nevertheless, the best political system that has ever been devised or could ever be devised. As we can infer from its much greater antiquity and universality, it is the system most natural to human beings as political animals; it is the system most akin to the supernatural government of the Church; it is the system that lends itself most readily to collaboration and cooperation with the Church in the salvation of men’s souls.
It was the mixed polity if anything which was the characteristic governmental form of the Middle Ages and Aristotle considers pure monarchy to correspond to the primitive stage of human development when the polis has not yet fully emerged from the family or tribe. Kwasniewski employs the traditional royalist tactic of equivocating on the ancient and modern meanings of the word ‘democracy’, claiming that Plato and Aristotle (neither of whom would have described modern western states as ‘democracies’) “maintained that democracy, far from being a stable form of government, is always teetering on the edge of anarchy or tyranny”. For Plato and Aristotle ‘democracy’ meant a polity in which there was no chief executive of the state, the college of rulers was directly elected on a one-year term and the laws were enacted by plebiscite. This has nothing to do with ‘democracy’ in the modern sense. But, as it happens, monarchy is the only form of government expressly critiqued in the Bible (1 Samuel 8:5-20).
And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have. And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them. According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them. Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him, And said: This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots, And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give his eunuchs and servants. Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants. And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves. and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king. But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said: Nay: but there shall be a king over us. And we also will be like all nations.
The Lord accedes to the demands of the people but brings good out of evil by Himself taking flesh from the seed of David so that now the Lord is once more the King of Israel. Doubtless, this is why He translated the seat of the covenant to Rome. For, as St Thomas reminds us, “the royal name was hateful to the Romans”. Indeed, the perfect mixed form advocated by Aquinas (ST IaIIae, 105, 1) was first attempted by the Romans and identified by Polybius. It is praised by no less an authority than Scripture itself (1 Maccabees 8:14-16).
And none of all these [Romans] wore a crown, or was clothed in purple, to be magnified thereby. And that they made themselves a senate house, and consulted daily three hundred and twenty men, that sat in council always for the people, that they might do the things that were right. And that they committed their government to one man every year, to rule over all their country, and they all obey one, and there is no envy, nor jealousy amongst them.
“Has not the Church simply been demoted to the status of a private bowling league that can be permitted or suppressed at whim?” the good doctor laments, but it is the ‘enlightened’ depots of the eighteenth century who effected this transformation and the republicans of the Catholic League who foresaw and strove to prevent it. Surely, the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ understood in the light of these passages precisely suggests that a non-regal governmental form is the most fitting for the temporal government of the Christian people? As St Gregory the Great reminded the Emperor Phocas “the kings of the nations are the lords of slaves but the Emperor of the Republic is the lord of free men”.
[Jan III Sobieski, by the grace of God and the will of the people, King of the Republic of Poland]
Laodicea 
November 9, 2017 at 12:25 pm
“It is dispiriting that Dr Kwasniewski lists the absolutist Charles I who died for the ‘protestant religion’ and the incompetent tyrant Nicholas II of Russia (both persecutors of the faithful) as saints.”
I have disagreed with you before on some things, and I apologize for the rancor. This comment, however, is truth that many, many Catholics need to hear and, more importantly, accept. We don’t get to rewrite history to satisfy our whims. The Stuart dynasty was vitiated by absolutism. There was very little to praise in the regime of the Romanovs.
November 9, 2017 at 12:38 pm
“And that they committed their government to one man every year, to rule over all their country, and they all obey one, and there is no envy, nor jealousy amongst them.”
How do we square this with the historical fact that the Romans elected not one, but two consuls each year?
November 9, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Its actually reported speech in the text so the inspired author is only asserting that this was what the Jewish ambassadors said about the Romans. They probably got the impression from the fact that only one consul in any given month presided over the senate. The admiration for the Romans and what they are admired for is nevertheless significant. Challoner is sufficiently excited about the passage that he capitalises verse 23 “Good success be to the Romans!”
November 9, 2017 at 5:14 pm
To judge from Book 8 of the Ethics, the difference between democracy and timocracy is simply that in the former, the property qualification is abolished. Timocracy was presumably also ‘a polity in which there was no chief executive of the state, the college of rulers was directly elected on a one-year term and the laws were enacted by plebiscite’ (of a part of the plebs). So it would seem from that that Aristotle does think it is bad idea to call all even of the free people to deliberate and vote.
November 9, 2017 at 7:01 pm
When he says “in our state all the citizens share in the government” in Politics VII:13 is he referring to Athens or to his ideal?
November 10, 2017 at 8:57 pm
What is the Bekker number for that?
November 10, 2017 at 10:18 pm
1332a
November 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
It’s a long time since I read the Politics through so I am not confident of knowing his mind in this work. In 1332b he says: ‘On the other hand that the rulers ought to be superior to the subjects cannot be disputed; therefore the lawgiver must consider how this is to be secured, and how they are to participate in the government. […] Nature has given the distinction by making the group that is itself the same in race partly younger and partly older, of which two sets it is appropriate to the one to be governed and for the other to govern; and no one chafes or thinks himself better than his rulers when he is governed on the ground of age, especially as he is going to get back what he has thus contributed to the common stock when he reaches the proper age. In a sense therefore we must say that the rulers and ruled are the same, and in a sense different.’
November 13, 2017 at 5:32 pm
It does seem however that St Thomas is correct to hold that Aristotle considers that “all should take some share in the government” (IaIae,105,1). The considerations to which you have alluded vis-a-vis democracy and timocracy apply only to the pure forms not to the governing role of the many in a mixed polity.
November 13, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Would there be reasons to think that pure democracy was a bad idea which wouldn’t also be reasons to limit the governing role of the many in a mixed polity?
November 13, 2017 at 9:30 pm
They don’t seem at all similar. Why should they resemble each other any more than the England of Henry VII and the Paris of Robespierre?
November 13, 2017 at 9:49 pm
I mean, why would he approve timocracy and disapprove democracy, unless because he thought that below a certain income, citizens were liable to be lacking in civil sense or feckless? But then why allow them to help govern in a mixed polity?
November 10, 2017 at 10:36 pm
While I agree with your main point that his article gives the wrong impression that in order to accept the dogma of the Kingship of Christ one has to become a monarchist, I think you’re being a bit too critical towards the good professor.
1. Even though the choice of the most suitable regime is not immediately determined by the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ itself, it does not follow that the doctrine has no bearing upon the choice and that it may not require us to prefer some regimes in opposition to others. Once we believe the doctrine, it must be included as one of the criteria we use to determine which regimes are better, since some regimes may better represent and teach Christ’s Kingship.
2. I submit that Prof Kwasniewski’s preference for monarchy be understood in this way; also Pius VI who in the wake of the Revolution grieves over “the more excellent monarchical regime” (Quare lacrymae §2, citing Bossuet and the agreement of the Holy Fathers). I believe they don’t view the preference as part of the doctrine, but rather its consequence.
3. You blame him for equivocating on the term “democracy” vis-à-vis the ancient philosophers (in spite of the fact that he draws mainly from John Paul II in that part) whereas you appear to make the same mistake when you take his advocacy for “monarchy” to stand for “pure monarchy”. To the contrary, I’d say he’d happily let the “mixed monarchy” of St Thomas fall under his concept of “monarchy”. Why, even the modern ceremonial monarchies are worth defending.
4. Is the passage from 1 Samuel really a critique of monarchy per se? Instead, it seems to be a condemnation of the transition from a unique Divinely-led government (theocracy?) to a mere monarchy (“as all nations have”). If the desired end regime were anything else, it would perhaps be “critiqued” in equally strong terms. “And the Lord said to Samuel: […] For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.” This is the crux of the passage.
All in all, please keep in mind that I’m in agreement with you that the doctrine should be distinguished from the question of the regime; these are rather minor points I wanted to bring up. Thank you for your blogging!
November 10, 2017 at 11:32 pm
Hmmm…
ad 1. You would have to show how the form of regime impacted on the Kingship of Christ (or vice versa) because it is not obvious.
ad 2. I concede that there is something intrinsically monarchical about political authority as such in that those who are by nature many are best order to one end by that which is by nature one. Nevertheless, the preservation of plurality is also a perfection and the government of the many by consent is consonant with the rational nature of the persons governed and the perfection to which that government is directed. I do not think it is reasonable to suppose Pius VI was speaking of absolute monarchy.
ad 3. As many of the individuals Dr Kwasniewski cites were absolute monarchs (particularly and significantly those who are not Catholics) it seems reasonable to suppose he is extolling relatively pure and hereditary monarchy.
ad 4. The criticisms seem directed at the habitual practices of monarchs as such not non-theocratic regimes in general.
November 12, 2017 at 7:02 pm
[…] favorite Catholic republican, Aelianus of Laodicea, has responded with a sharp attack on Prof. Kwasniewski’s piece. Aelianus points out that the question of the political recognition of the Social Kingship of […]
November 14, 2017 at 12:41 am
[Response to Cordatus’s comment of November 13, 2017 at 9:49 pm] Electing representatives who can judge whether to grant taxes or consent to civil laws (ius civile) is a very different thing to enacting laws by plebiscite and directly choosing one’s governors on an annual basis. The kind of filtering achieved by a property restriction on a franchise is already achieved by the representative nature of the parliamentary system.
November 14, 2017 at 1:13 am
Aelianus, thanks for your kind response.
Ad 1: My point here was a very basic one that we aren’t going to disagree about, I believe. For instance, one may argue that in a monarchy the spirit of personal loyalty and respect towards authority is better instilled in the members of the society, and inasmuch as these reflect those dispositions that should be had towards Christ the King, the regime that teaches them better should be preferred. Now it is not my aim to defend the argument nor to claim that it is any good; my point is just that such arguments should be taken into account when determining the preferable regime. In other words, the distinction/separation between the doctrine of the Social Kingship and the choice of regime shouldn’t be a priori taken to mean that the doctrine puts no restrictions on (or ordering between) the possibilities of the regime forms. After analysing all kinds of arguments similar to the one I gave it could be concluded that the doctrine does not actually impose any restrictions/ordering (that is, in addition to those imposed by considerations from natural reason). But such a conclusion would be obtained only a posteriori; and before it is obtained, those arguments about the preferability of a regime that make a reference to the doctrine of the Social Kingship shouldn’t be excluded out of hand just because of the reference.
Ad 2: I’m not sure whether Pius VI was speaking of absolute monarchy in specific, to the exclusion of other monarchial forms, or not. But he definitely seems to have absolute monarchy in view as a representative of the “more excellent” regime, since (i) the whole speech is intended to defend Louis XVI, an absolute monarch; and (ii) he (or is it just the Acta?) cites Bossuet, a defender of absolute monarchy, to prove this point.
Ad 3: But then he also mentions Kings Saint Stephen, Saint Louis and Blessed Karl, who I’ve understood to be rulers of polities more mixed than pure. Perhaps I’ve got the definitions wrong? Taking the list’s variety and also his popular audience into account, I really think he refers to “monarchy” in a very general way, he doesn’t seem to have an entirely clear conception in mind for the purposes of the article. His more immediate goal seems to be to make Catholics think outside the box of the modern liberal democracies, not to succumb to the “end of history” narrative but instead to become inspired with those now-taboo governmental forms that did manage to keep the Social Kingship of Christ alive throughout history (which, as he attempts to argue, broadly align with Christian monarchies).
Ad 4: Yes, they are. However note that the people were confronted with a critique of monarchs only after they demanded a monarch. As I read the passage, if they had demanded another regime X, they would’ve been in turn confronted with a critique of X, since the demand would’ve still been a rejection of God and His direct appointee Samuel, “in whom they could discover no fault,” as Calmet remarks. (They seem to have chosen monarchy in particular because of their awe of the other nations, which perhaps just makes it worse because they didn’t want a good regime in itself, they only wanted what the others have.)
November 14, 2017 at 3:37 am
Ad 1. I concede the main point although I do not think it necessarily comes out in favour of royalism. I agree that the concrete expression of kingship in a given individual can facilitate those feelings of loyalty and devotion that ought to be directed to Christ. However, when the human person of the temporal monarch falls short they can impede these feelings. The excess of such loyalty can provoke very dangerous reactions as Edmund Burke observed “Would it not, my worthy friend, have been wiser to have you thought, what I, for one, always thought you, a generous and gallant nation, long misled to your disadvantage by your high and romantic sentiments of fidelity, honour, and loyalty; that events had been unfavourable to you, but that you were not enslaved through any illiberal or servile disposition; that in your most devoted submission you were actuated by a principle of public spirit, and that it was your country you worshiped in the person of your king?”
Ad 2. Louis XVI had from the beginning of his reign sought to restore some sort of mixed constitution to France so the fact that Pius VI (in a non-magisterial text) praises ‘monarchy’ and laments his demise does not necessarily mean he is praising the monarchy of Louis XIV.
Ad 3. The common feature of these rulers is that they are hereditary monarchs. This, I suspect, is what is really at issue here. After all the USA is a mixed monarchy. The authors who praise monarchy in various ways and various degrees (e.g. St Thomas Aquinas) are not necessarily referring to heredity. St Thomas never mentions the principle once. However, I suspect Dr Kwasniewski is intending to argue for this principle.
Ad 4. I think that is highly speculative and unlikely. I think the reason a king is offensive to God is because He is the King of Israel and government by a judge and/or elders would not be offensive because there would be no usurpation implied of Lord’s own kingship. Kings are particularly prone to the misbehaviour mentioned because they are less restrained than other forms and it is thus particularly inappropriate to give such power to a mere mortal.
November 16, 2017 at 3:47 am
Ad 1: I didn’t intend to actually argue that monarchy is more favourable. I provided that particular argument just as an example. However, some may consider monarchy a better regime because of similar arguments that make reference to the Social Kingship of Christ — and Leo XIII’s teaching should then *not* be understood as refuting/prohibiting such arguments. (That is not to imply you’ve ever defended such an understanding.) His Holiness directly prohibits only positions like “The only regime ever acceptable for a faithful Catholic is monarchy (whether pure or not)”. And does Prof Kwasniewski really promote or defend such a strong statement in his article? I don’t think so. That’s why I said you might be a bit too critical of him.
1. b) [a new sub-point] Although it’s irrelevant to the original discussion, allow me to ask about your other remarks: Of course the virtues instilled by monarchy may (or, shall we say, will) be abused. But then it seems the same argument could all the more be used against the Papacy. Just because excessive ultramontanism is possible, should we consider the monarchial arrangement of the Church suboptimal? Considering not only the spiritual but also the temporal sovereignty of the Vicar of Christ, isn’t monarchy the only Divinely instituted governmental form after all?
Ad 2: True. But it doesn’t mean he’s excluding monarchy of Louis XIV either. To reiterate, my point wasn’t that H.H. praises the monarchy of Louis XIV in particular but that he praises a generic concept of monarchy (including absolute monarchies) against the alternative, non-monarchial conceptions. I see Prof Kwasniewski doing something similar.
Ad 3: I see, I didn’t realise heredity is key. In that case I take back what I originally said under this point (3). (Although I’m not sure omitting the USA proves anything — did they have any non-secularist Christian Presidents? He acknowledges some good Christian presidents under footnote 7, though he clearly distinguishes them from the ‘monarch’ rulers.)
I’d, however, suggest that he isn’t promoting hereditary monarchy but traditional monarchy. Even though technically it might end up as the same thing, it’s important to note because, as I tried to argue above, I think his main goal is to challenge the secularist and/or anti-hierarchical presuppositions with which even many Catholics approach politics nowadays. He does so by pointing to the examples of historical regimes, which were, in his view, most successful in promoting Christianity and manifesting the Social Kingship of Christ. He appears more interested in “what worked in the past?” (history) than “what is the best regime?” (political philosophy).
Ad 4: This is what I read in Haydock’s commentary: “The government of Israel hitherto had been a theocracy: in which God himself immediately ruled, by laws which he had enacted, and by judges extraordinarily raised up by himself: and therefore he complains that his people rejected him, in desiring a change of government, (Challoner) and wishing to appoint their own magistrates. The priests and judges had been commissioned by God, Exodus xix., and Deuteronomy xvii. (Worthington)” Are there any Catholic exegetes who understand the 1 Samuel 8 passage in the sense that “monarchy is the only form of government expressly critiqued in the Bible”? To the contrary, while replying to Objection 5 under STh I-II q. 105 a. 1, St. Thomas notes that the criticism is not aimed against monarchy per se but against monarchy degenerated into tyranny. (While engaging in these speculations: in Objection 2 of the same article there is an indication that Deuteronomy 17:14-15 had actually allowed the people the choice of king only and no other kind of ruler.)
P.S.: I personally don’t have any strong convictions about the best form of government and I don’t consider myself an advocate of monarchy or any other regime. So please don’t think that is what I’m trying to do here. 🙂
November 16, 2017 at 9:10 am
I think the suggestion that hereditary monarchy is somehow more conducive or fitting to the Social Kingship of Christ is both false and greatly injurious to the cause of integralism by insinuating that men in order to conform to the Church’s teaching on this point must or ought ideally to ally themselves with a suboptimal governmental form thus making void the commandments of God for the sake of the traditions of men. Peter Kwasniewski’s references to aristocrats in his ecumenical basiliology imply that it is the hereditary principle he is basically defending rather than monarchy as such. I agree with St Thomas in IaIIae, 105, 1 that elective mixed monarchy is the highest form of government in the abstract. This form is attributed by St Thomas to the era of the judges. St Thomas never invokes heredity as a desirable means of selecting rulers. The papacy in origin and by a Divine Law (that would be restored if e.g. all the Cardinals and the Pope were to perish unexpectedly) the papacy is an elective mixed monarchy. Its present spangotic form is a corruption. In the De Regno Thomas implies papal appointment or election are the best method of appointing rulers and that any other form is a misfortune for the people. I do not think Pius VI’s remarks are magisterial so speculation as to which form(s) of monarchy he is praising and which form(s) of democracy he is rejecting is of limited value. For what its worth Bossuet has a semi-Hobbesian account of the origin of civil authority that is irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine.
November 30, 2017 at 12:15 am
Thank you for your patience and extensive replies, I learned a lot! God bless you!
November 16, 2017 at 4:05 am
By the way, I just noticed, you say in the blogpost:
But in the body of the very same article of the Summa, St. Thomas states that this perfect mixed was “established by the Divine Law” under Moses. Hence it was surely attempted before the Romans?
November 16, 2017 at 9:12 am
Well yes I was taking that point for granted. Besides if it is established by divine law it is not attempted by men but accepted by them.
November 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Do you believe that thought is led by leaders or do individuals have the capacity to think for themselves? This determines whether hereditary or democratic systems are superior.
November 20, 2017 at 5:57 pm
In what sense?
November 27, 2017 at 10:57 am
If leaders lead their people intellectually and by example, and they are Christian, then their people are more likely to lead Christian lives. But if we leave it up to individuals to make up their own minds, the basis of a liberal democratic system, then we rely on them coming to the truth on their own in a marketplace of ideas. History tells us that the top down approach, sustained by the hereditary principle, did in fact maintain a Christian society; while the latter, associated with the identical approach to religious authority ie Protestantism, has led to widespread apostasy.
November 20, 2017 at 12:53 pm
“Undoubtedly the replacement of the original Feast of Christ the King was inspired by Maritainian errors.”
Could you please explain how Maritain influenced the moving of the Feast of Christ the King? Thank you.
November 20, 2017 at 3:47 pm
Paul VI was very great admirer of Maritain. He honoured him in the closing ceremonies of Vatican II and wept when he died. He also translated Maritain’s Integral Humanism into Italian. Maritain argues here that the mode in which the Social Kingship of Christ should be realised will and should be realised differently under different ‘historic skies’ and there is a kind of blasphemy against providence to seek to realise a previously existing form again in the world. He argues that the development of man is now such that the influence of the hierarchy and the Church as a distinct legal persont to the state should be moral and directive over the civil order and no longer explicit and juridical. This ‘New Christendom’ should now become the temporal ideal of the Church in history. This meant that the Feast of Christ the King became an embarrassment as it was expressly instituted to encourage the “ruers of nations” to fulfil “the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ”. The feast was placed on the last Sunday in October prior to November (in which we commemorate the dead) and Advent in which we anticipate the parousia. This is because the Church seeks to realise the Social Kingship of Christ in this life and this world. Paul VI therefore moved the feast to the last Sunday of the year in order to push the explicit realisation of the Kingship of Christ into eschatological time. “Ultima dominica per annum fit sollemnitas D. N. I. C. universorum Regis, loco festivitatis institutae a Pio Papa XI, a. 1925 et ultimae dominicae octobris assignatae. Hac ratione, momentum quoque eschatologicum huius dominicae meliore in luce ponitur.”
December 1, 2017 at 10:18 pm
[…] favorite Catholic republican, Aelianus of Laodicea, has responded with a sharp attack on Prof. Kwasniewski’s piece. Aelianus points out that the question of the political recognition of the Social Kingship of […]
November 6, 2019 at 9:39 am
I think the main advantage of the institution of monarchy is its psychological value and effect. (Not a secondary consideration given Plato’s analogy between human society and the human soul, which ought to mirror each other.) The king is a paternal figure prior to being a political one, and the royal family becomes the emblem of every family in the nation; this arrangement affirms the dignity of the family, and its pre- and super-political nature. But more important than this, is that the king is an ikon of God and of Christ the King, and embodies in himself the stability and unchanging nature of the divine & natural laws better than any representative elected by the people, since his superiority to party politics and political factions signifies that the law is ultimately above human tampering. The main defect of democracy, by contrast, is that it gives the psychological impression that the law is made not by God, but by man; and that it can change. Monarchy makes it easier to teach men the true top-down cosmology of divine creation, whereas democracy lends itself more to the false bottom-up cosmology of material evolution; these different political orders symbolise different cosmic orders in the universe, and different psychological orders in the soul. Look up Plato’s psychological portrait of the “democratic man” again in The Republic, because even if Athenian democracy was in practice very different to modern, that portrait strikes very true. The Chinese Emperor, “The Son of Heaven”, embodied this principle that the monarch represented a superior (divine) order of being, and a superior divine law (the Chinese called it the Tao, the Way). Aristotle calls man a political animal but this is not his primary definition. Man is first of all the rational animal, which means that, as Aristotle himself admits, his highest purpose is to enjoy a certain form of leisure which enables him to engage in higher contemplation of the kind which fulfils his rational nature. This means that man has a higher purpose than politics; and one of my main grievances with republicanism is that it is “overly political”, that it’s a very political politics, that in order to function it requires the constant political engagement of the public (or at least its enfranchised part), and that this political busyness is opposed to the contemplative end of man and of human society. Aristotle’s definition of man as a political animal is in spirit opposed to the British (at least English) approach to politics, which is that it’s something to be approached with a certain reluctance, not to succeed in taking itself too seriously, and that it should not distract from the higher things in life or take away from enduring customs which are superior to politics. In other words I think it’s a very Greek way of speaking. (Republicanism lends itself to more to hyper-political peoples like the Greeks and Italians, rather than the more keenly compliant like the English or Chinese.) Granted the natural necessity of politics and the state, these have a more medicinal or corrective purpose than a positive one, since they are making up for the loss of stable peace and the self-sufficiency of men and families which the Fall has incurred. Granted the natural existence of the state even without the Fall, it would have been a very stable and unbusy state since unfallen men would have been mutually submissive, obedient to hierarchy, and perfect upholders of the law. I agree that modern kings greatly undermined the true divinity of kingship by putting their own will above the law, and adopting a false understanding of the divine right of kings which made the king a god rather than a steward of God. But these are abuses. I think I agree with Joseph de Maistre that nation’s political constitution arises out of its natural constitution, the temperament of its people. This is why the naturally factional Italians suit a republic where they can play out their competing ideas, whereas the naturally chivalrous French suit a monarch to whom they can swear undying allegiance. All the best parts of republicanism are already there in Arthur’s round table, so we don’t need an arthurian republic but just the return of King Arthur and the ancient English constitution which is Christian and Catholic (I think Guinevere mystically represents the English Church, Lancelot the traitorous English episcopate, Mordred the modern monarchy which replaces the Christian Arthurian kingship). But if there will ever be an Arthurian Republic it will be the Catholic Republic of the United States of America, which has amended the first amendment of its constitution and the Protestant spirit of its people.