Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #1 
As a Catholic monarchist with Czech roots, my own sentiments are most complex, especially in light of historical legacies. After all, we can validly advance the agument that the destruction of Old Europe in 1914-18 paved the way for the great evils of the 20th century, Communism and Nazism. Hence my profoundly Catholic, monarchist and anti-Communist views are useful in dennouncing not only those ideologies, but certain others too.

However, the spectre of Communism and the Cold War, and rampant PC in today's world, makes things more complex, particularly with regards to nationalism. Now nationalism is an appealing ideal as an antidote to what we're faced with, sure. Nationalism may be compatible with monarchism, other times it may not be. History has shown that, especially in more recent times. After all, monarchies are inextricably linked to a nation's national identity and being, and even those such as Serbia arouse out of national independence struggles. While other forms of nationalism contributed in some part to the destruction of certain monarchies (e.g. Austria-Hungary), even if not all of those in the national movements were against the monarchy, and certainly would have accepted sovereignty under the crown.

Hence it becomes a trickier issue, given that a Catholic monarchist like myself is inclined to identify strongly with anti-Communist struggles, which definitely included nationalism- which meant that Catholicism, nationalism and monarchism could all go together as anti-Communism. However, to this day we see various antagonisms play out- between Serb, Croat and other Balkan nationalists, between Slovak and Hungarian nationalists, and the anti-Russian sentiment that exists in the Baltic states and Ukraine (not to mention Poland but that goes well before 1917). The last one would be especially awkward for Russian monarchists and anti-Communists in general because they are open to empathy for anti-Communists in those countries and their utter disdain for the Soviet evil.

Those of us who are pan-monarchists, of course, can still see the complexities in the issue. Serbia and Albania is a case in point- Alexander II of Serbia, like most Serbs, opposes Kosovo's independence. The Albanian royals, on the other hand, support it. While we definitely don't fall into the left/liberal trap of condemning any kind of nationalism, it's also reasonable to argue that a particularly poisonous and destructive form of it took hold in the Balkans, and that monarchism in Serbia, Montenegro and Albania is a definite antitodte to that, and the other dreadful legacy.

Perhaps it kind of explains my own particular viewpoints which could be seen as "integrist" or "integralist" since it integrates various ideas: monarchism, Catholicism, social conservatism, local particularism and subsidarity, defense of tradition, etc.
Ponocrates

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,517
Reply with quote  #2 
Nationalism makes sense when there is a need for a group of people to feel a common identity to defend the country and work together based on something more than calculated self-interest.  There is emotion connected with nationalism ranging from sentimentality, pride, indignation (at slights), and even love and fervor.  

Well, if you think about it, this isn't specific to nations, but also applies to city-states, tribes, regions, empires, and so forth.  In the US there has been and still is perhaps a competition of loyalty between one's state (and region) versus the nation (US government).   [The US at it's founding was considered something as impersonal as the EU today].   Perhaps there is a limited amount of emotion that can be given to one level of governing authority - so if it increases for the nation, it subsides for the smaller and more local region.   This doesn't mean that one can't have dual or multiple loyalties, but one must temper and limit the other.  Then again, for each individual, there may be a capacity for the emotions of loyalty, then for others, they feel nothing.

So who deserves this loyalty?  Well, obviously governing authorities usually want the loyalty directed toward them unless they are also bound by loyalty to a larger group.   For example, city mayors don't expect unconditional loyalty (just some - "small town pride") because they see the city as dependent and part of a state and nation.   This is unlike Athens or Sparta in 425BC.

The members of a nation who feel nothing toward that nation are putting the nation at risk of disintegration.   It's not necessary that everyone feels an emotional loyalty, but there must be a certain threshold.  You need enough people to commit self-sacrifice to protect and preserve the group.  I think the best way to keep nationalism from getting out of hand is to have other objects of loyalty at different levels.  If you notice, the totalitarian state generally wants all loyalty directed to itself and attempts to eliminate anything that might compete with it - either above or below.   I think its better to have feelings of loyalty for family, local community, alma mater, region, nation, church, etc.  

So being a nationalist makes sense if the nation seems to be of vital importance to protect the lives, property, and the "good life" of the members of that group.  In addition, a nationalism would try to foster the emotional loyalty as described above.  


__________________
"For every monarchy overthrown the sky becomes less brilliant, because it loses a star. A republic is ugliness set free." - Anatole France

Personal Motto: "Deō regī patriaeque fidelis."
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 459
Reply with quote  #3 
I think that feelings of loyalty for family, local community, alma mater, region, and church contribute to a positive, diverse form of patriotic nationalism (I love my country and its people), as opposed to negative,extremist nationalism (my country, and its people, is superior to other countries). 

One of the advantages of monarchy is its ability to transcend politics, and to represent all of a nation's people, whatever their political, religious, or ethnic loyalties. The monarchy should  represent the  common history and traditions of a nation, which belongs to all its citizens. It need not be apolitical, but its political functions should be based upon a sense of morality, rather than upon adherence to any individual political parties or philosophies.  And the sense of morality should be based upon what best combines the various different moral viewpoints of the citizenry. It should be a unifying force, which transcends individual differences, and tries to reconcile them, which is a hard thing to do.

Most nations now are becoming increasingly ethnically and religiously diverse, and the monarchy represents the overall unity of the nation. Usually the monarchy, because of the very fact that it represents history and tradition, is going to be associated with a particular religion and ethnic group. (Nations originally formed around one ethnic group). But it needs to be seen to embrace all religions and ethnicities.

I think monarchs have an advantage over presidents or prime-ministers, in that they do have the ability to be a unifying symbol to all groups. Presidents and prime-ministers tend to be identified with particular political parties and philosophies, and as much as they try to portray themselves as representing all citizens, it doesn't always work as successfully as it's meant to. They come to power as the result of representing particular blocs, and it's more difficult for them to switch over as soon as they achieve office.  They often are beholden to the wishes of the electorate that brought them to power. And it's difficult, sometimes impossible, to gain the loyalty of that part of the electorate which opposed them, and supported someone else. 

I think that last year's royal wedding in Britain was an example of a monarchy transcending individual differences, and acting as a unifying historical, traditional, and cultural force. And the Belgian monarchy has successfully represented a unifying force in a country with 2 different linguistic traditions, which have led to political differences.

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
MonarchistCatherine

Registered:
Posts: 197
Reply with quote  #4 
I think that nationalism isn't inherently good or bad. I prefer moderate nationalism(based on common history, love for the fatherland and preservation of local traditions), but I oppose radical nationalism(based on hatred of other nations and a desire to destroy them). Monarchy unites the nation, but it's also usually more friendly for minorities than a republic. Monarchs are living national symbols and are respected by patriots in each country. Nationalism in its radical, violent form helped to overthrow some monarchies, but we have to accept that the rise of nationalism in Europe is a fact and use that fact for the monarchist cause - make the monarchs national symbols and unifying force again where they were deposed, mainly by Communist revolutions. As DavidV said, monarchism, nationalism, religion(Catholicism as well as others) and anti-Communism are compatible and I think it's very good for us - we can have the nationalists on our side.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #5 
Nationalism as in the right of nations to preserve their identity and particularity?

As I said, since WWII a pan-monarchist and pan-nationalist view has been easier to formulate because of the spectre of Communism and the modern PC agenda. Yet while monarchists everywhere should show solidarity, the cases of Serbia and Albania make it difficult sometimes.

DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 858
Reply with quote  #6 

I've recently read a very interesting biography of King Zog of Albania (by Jason Tomes, perhaps I'll post more about it in the book thread if I have time later) and I learned that way that Zog was an opponent of Kosovo being part of Albania precisely because he didn't want conflict with Yugoslavia. This was aparently very controversial at the time, and his opponent used it against the King whenever they could.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.