The Misconceptions of Monarchism

Written by the Hohenzollern Loyalist Edited by Prussian Madlad

As many of you know, monarchism is a deeply misunderstood, hated, and misrepresented form of government. There are many who believe that gives too much power to a single person, and that monarchs only abuse their power and treat their subjects as serfs and slaves. The purpose of this paper is to point out some of the many misconceptions of monarchy, their origins, and offer some ways in which we can disprove them.  

One of the more common viewpoints of monarchs is that they are tyrants who arbitrarily change laws and oppress anyone who stands against them. Stemming from this assumption are the beliefs that monarchs wield too much power, and that power will always corrupt those who wield it. These viewpoints come from both a complete lack of understanding of historical monarchies, especially the feudal monarchies of the Medieval Period and the absolute monarchies of the 1600s-1800s, as well as from an education system which is bent on portraying monarchies as tyrannical and obsolete systems of government. 

The biggest issue with Americans who view monarchs as cruel tyrants like George III, Louis XVI, and even Wilhelm II, is that they ultimately have little to no understanding of what a monarchy is, the history behind it, or its evolution. They aren’t even aware of the fact that Benjamin Franklin was a monarchist, as were other founding fathers. This is a large factor that contributes to many opinions against monarchy.

Of course, there are more learned people who have a better grasp of history but have drawn erroneous conclusions. Their arguments are often that a person shouldn’t be allowed to rule due to their elevated birth and that hierarchy is wrong and that we should be more equal.  They may argue, “Shouldn’t the people have a say in who rules their country? What happens if the monarch is corrupt? Having democratically elected rulers for shorter terms limits the risk for leaders to become authoritarian.” 

These concerns are understandable, but their objections would fall flat whenever the monarch is raised and tutored well. In regard to the last three arguments, I have often seen made by republicans, this ultimately depends on the monarchy. As seen in the German Empire, you can have a head of government be elected while having a head of state remain as the monarch and share executive authority as another party within the government that can serve as a balance to the other branches. This is much preferable to constitutional monarchies who keep monarchs as figureheads. This, in my eyes, is an affront and perversion of what a king’s or sovereign’s duties are to his or her country.  

Corruption will always be part of every society, regardless of the form of government, due to the flawed nature of humanity. Historically there have been many corrupt monarchs such as Heinrich VI, Richard II, and so on and so forth. However, monarchy is far more reliable on battling corruption than republics. Unlike republican politicians who must galvanize their supporters and lie or exaggerate about their motives to be more appealing and are not held to accountability, a monarch is born into a position of power and wealth and has the necessary resources to be taught on how to rule from an early age. A monarch has much less incentive to be corrupt since they are already balanced by the government, already have the driving forces behind corruption met, and are held accountable for their actions. Many monarchs and royal 

families have the respect of their people due to their service for their countries and their reliability. While modern republican politicians are almost designed to be corrupt, monarchs are designed to rule for the people. The only time they deviate from this is when they are too sheltered from their people and become more self-absorbed. But even these traits are not specific to monarchs, and they are traits that can be battled and corrected. 

And finally, there is the argument against hierarchy. There are some who say that while a completely equal society may be unachievable, it is preferable to a hierarchical society. This lie has already been addressed by The Natural Order, so I shall refer to that article to dispel this argument in this paper. As stated in The Natural Order, this belief originates from the State of Nature which is the belief that man can exist without society as seen by hunter gatherer tribes who lived unbound by land. This belief was created by Thomas Hobbes and was pushed and adapted by John Locke to form the basis of Classical Liberalism, which naturally led to Liberalism, Wokeism, Marxism, and the Left Wing as a whole. From what I’ve seen from the people who subscribe to this belief, they do not want to live subordinate to a hierarchy either due to them refusing to change their circumstances or simply believing that all hierarchy is evil. This is a nonsensical belief that will fall apart as soon as someone does something better than someone else.  

Hierarchy is humanity’s natural state that we always revert to in governance. From birth into a family up into adulthood, through service in a career, we are completely dictated by some form of authority and hierarchy. Any form of effective governance and executive decision making, and organization will always be achieved through hierarchy. The society these people hope to create is a hive mind society where there is total equality through the total suppression and eradication of individual thought, free will, and diverging characteristics that go against the norm. It is essentially the very opposite of what liberalism was created to achieve and it is what it is doomed to become. 

To quote Mikhail Bakunin, a Russian Anarchist from 1873, he states: “If the proletariat is to be the ruling class, it may be asked, then whom will it rule? There must be yet another proletariat which will be subject to this new rule, this new state. It might be the peasant rabble, for example, which, as we know, does not enjoy the favor of the Marxists, and which, finding itself on a lower cultural level, will probably be governed by the urban and factory proletariat. If there is a state, then necessarily there is domination and consequently slavery.” 

The belief that humanity can exist without hierarchy is a contradiction in of itself that will ultimately collapse on its own, hence why many communist and socialist countries to this day have gone under economic reform in order to maintain the government and its societal foundation.  

To quote Robert Michels, a German Italian sociologist, he states: “Organization implies a tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of any kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly. As a result of organization, every party or professional union becomes divided into a minority of directors and a majority of directed. There is no such thing as Equality within it. Who says organization, says Oligarchy.” 

So, the only inescapable conclusion is that if hierarchy is the inevitable and natural order of human civilization, then instead of abolishing it, we must make it as functional as possible.  The simple fact that most monarchies are the most stable and endurable forms of government points to the benefit and inevitability of hierarchy. And so, as monarchists, we hope to return our countries to monarchies as it is the most natural and most successful form of government.