The Radical Monarchist Manifesto (2025 Edition)

Preface to the 2025 Edition

My very first work in political literature was this manifesto, which was completed in March 2024. It was also the most difficult for me to write because, at the time, the philosophical foundation of Radical Monarchism was still in embryonic form. It took months for it to be sufficiently developed and even more months after that to extrapolate a coherent political plaform from that foundation. The latter hurdle in particular was the greatest challenge in producing this manifesto.

I am proud to say that, within the span of over a year, we Radical Monarchists have accomplished much growth and progress. At the time of this writing, our membership is around 300 strong. Our Substack is perhaps the most active monarchist publication thus far, producing one or two articles per week. As recent as March this year, we formed an online vanguard of Nepalese monarchists, and together with that vanguard, we participated in a major social media campaign for the Nepalese Royal Family. In fact, to my knowledge, our publication was the only one within the monarchist community that covered the recent protests in Nepal.

And finally, as our crowning acheivement, our movement has developed an advantage which, from what I've observed, makes it unique among others. We have become the most theoretically advanced in the international monarchist community. Forgive me if this bold claim sounds immodest or egotistical, but those who have familiarized themselves with our articles and essays would know that this claim is not without foundation. Through research and discourse, we have forged a strong intellectual foundation that provided a deep, coherent, and well-structured understanding of society, power, and change. We operate not on mere reactions or sentiments but on systematic principles and theories. While other monarchist organizations busied themselves with policy, we have busied ourselves with philosophy.

Now that our movement has arrived at the vantage point of being theoretically advanced, I am in a better position to further refine this manifesto. Here, you will find new content aside from this preface, specifically a brief observation on the consequences of digilization and a whole new section dedicated to the matter of civil rights.

And all this great work could not have come at a better time, now that the modern liberal world order seems to be on its last leggings. As this intricate web of bureaucracy crumbles under the weight of its dysfunctionality, it is paramount for us monarchists—now more than ever—to present an alternative. Otherwise, the only other alternative would be the opposite extreme of the sterile, hollow world of modernity: barbarism!

Our alternative is the natural order of society; it is a balance between conserving and reforming, a balance that could only be achieved under the the most natural form of government: monarchy.

Lucian Gray

Introduction

Our movement welcomes not only those who are already monarchists, but those who are dissatisfied and disenchanted with the current state of society. Perhaps one of its readers lives in a country which prides itself in supposedly being governed by “the people”, only to see it fail them again and again. Perhaps one has moved to such a country to escape tyranny, only to be disappointed. Or perhaps, by some chance, this manifesto has somehow reached someone who lives under an oppressive regime.

To all readers, this manifesto offers a change that will be far-reaching and thorough, but not in a utopian or totalitarian way. We propose not some castle-in-the-sky fantasy, but rather, an entirely different way at observing and confronting many of the political problems which plague society. In the modern world, one could describe this approch as radical, hence the name of our movement.

Make no mistake, our radicalism is free of extremism and fanaticism. We do not endorse extremist ideologies, for such things are antithetical to monarchism. Nor do we condone zealotry or terrorism, which are also incompatible with our cause. We are radicals against extremism, radicals in a pure, unadulterated sense of the word.

Genuine radicalism is to dive into the rest of the matter with such thoroughness and completeness. That is precisely the kind of monarchists we are. We dive into the heart of all matters of monarchy, not just in reversing its abolition in many nations but also in grasping its fundamental nature. Our desire for the latter is our primary driving force, one much deeper than mere sentiments of nostalgia.

We seek to achieve our goals through reformism first and foremost. We only encourage revolts against regimes that are tyrannical or dysfunctional beyond repair. We will never take up arms while the possibility of reform remains.

We welcome all regardless of ethnicity, religion, ideology, and so on. Just as monarchy transcends such divides, our movement aspires to do so as well. Through the preservation, restoration, and proliferation of monarchies, we aim to help society transcend the divisive forces that tear it asunder.

A radical for monarchy is a radical for stability.

The Natural Order

Since the French Revolution, there has been two kinds of states: organic and revolutionary. Guided by tradition and gradual reform, organic states value generational wisdom and continuity while evolving naturally. In contrast, revolutionary states are founded upon ideology completely detached from ancient wisdom, driven to achieve rapid and extreme changes at the expense of tradition and continuity.

In these two kinds of states, we find two opposing views: the organic one and the revolutionary one.

According to the organic worldview, or what our movement calls the Natural Order, man is by nature a societal and hierarchical creature. Ergo, it is natural for him to partake in a network of obligations. In this network, the needs of the individual, the family, the community, and the nation-state are in a symboitic balance. This balance, being a premenance of relations, postulates that societies are social organisms. Like the constituent organisms of a tree or a human body, every institution, community, family, and individual are all bound in a mutual duty to each other and to the greater whole, the societal corpus.

This brings us to the Primaeval Contract, the foundation of the organic state. It binds not only the ruling class and the masses but also past, present and future generations in a partnership. From this intergenerational bond stems two sacred balances. The first is between tradition and evolution, to conserve and to reform. The other is between individual autonomy and the common good, between liberty and responsibility. These carefully crafted balances underly the moral fabric of society as well as the organic symboisis of its constituent parts.

History blatantly demonstrates monarchy is the most common and most endurable organic state. Its head serves as the bridge-builder between the temporal realm and the transcendental order from which the state derives its legitimacy. In this capacity, one that no other state could provide, monarchies serves as the bulwark for the Primaeval Contract. By extension, they protect the sacred balances, the moral fabric, and the organic symboisis of society. This is how monarchy serves as a unifying force across classes, faiths, ethnicities, and most importantly, ideologies.

In a royal head-of-state driven by a sense of noblesse olige, the Left can find a true man of the people, a paternal protector of the less fortunate. As for the Right, they would be blessed with a true defender of law and order, a guardian who preserves their culture and traditions.

Sacred royalty stands in stark contrast to the inauthentic protectors who range from the “Dictators of the Proletariat” to the Fuhrers and the Ayatollahs. These Robespierres, Putins, Hitlers, Stalins, and Khomeinis are all traitors to their own countries because they reject the eternal truths that guide civilization. They all reject the Primaeval Contract and the sacred framework entailed.

The Spectre of Revolution

In every variation of the revolutionary worldview, man is a blank slate, something to be molded for the “collective good.” Traditions, culture, inherited rights, and evolutionary reforms passed down by generations are all discarded in vain attempts to forge an ideal society, and to construct a new man.

The origin of this strain, tradically enough, is the same political philosophy that gave us freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and property rights: Classical Liberalism.

Now, it must be made clear that our movement embraces the reforms and liberties provided by Classical Liberalism, but not the philosophical framework entailed. We view these reforms as a necessary stage in the evolutionary progress of organic societies. What we reject is the Liberal anthropology, for it rests upon false assumptions about human nature, the greatest of these being the State of Nature.

The State of Nature is the idea that people originally lived in a “pre-social” state in the wilderness, free from society or hierarchy. Most Classical Liberal philosophers, and many contemporary Liberals, would admit that the State of Nature does not exist. For the Classical Liberals, this idea best served as a thought experiment. Nonetheless, they still use it as the starting point of their line of thinking. And from this line of thinking emerges the rest of the false assumptions. Among these are the idea that the humans are blank slates molded by society (as opposed to being a societal creature) and the idea that society is a collection of individuals bound by a social contract (as opposed to an organic whole in and of itself).

When taken to its logical conclusion, Liberalism—not just its Classical variety—ultimately leads to revolution. In one form or another, revolutions have brought about a fundamental reshaping of society in an effort to forge a “new man” and a society “liberated” from the past. It is this pathological drive to a “pre-social” state of being, a dangerous fantasy.

The first attempt was made in the French Revolution, when the Cult of Reason sought the perfection of mankind. Subsequent attempts would later include the New Soviet Man, the Ayran Master Race, and more recently, the blank slate socially-engineered by the Wokeist* technocracy in the West. Ancient wisdom and eternal truths be damned!

Now that we have gone over the intellectual origins of the spectre of revolution, let us examine one of the most—if not the most—instrumental factor in its rise: industrialization.

During the late 1700s, the seeds of revolutionary ideology—the false asseumptions from Classical Liberalism—first took root in France. Later, those seeds were scattered across Europe in 1848, shortly after the Industrial Revolution. This is no coincidence considering how the effects of industrialization contributed to the planting of those seeds.

Now, one cannot dispute the many great benefits of industrialization and the free market. Nonetheless, these things, when left unchecked, are accompanied by great costs on the social fabric that binds communities. More and more people were moved from the countryside into the cities, bringing them closer together. And yet, the demand, concentration, and regulation engendered by industrial labor have in some ways served to alienate individuals. Pressured by the spirit of Mammon, whether that spirit be within himself or his superior, the worker concentrates more and more on his work. He becomes less inclined to socialize with his fellows, to partake in the web of obligations and relationships that bind him with his family and community.

At the expense of those relationships, industrialization incentivizes a near-pathological drive for accumulation. The accumulation of capital for the plutocrats. The accumulation of material pleasures for the hedonists. The accumulation of power for the despots. Without a strong bulwark to preserve its moral fabric and social institutions, an industrialized society loses its sense of honor, its sense of beauty, and above all, its sense of meaning. Individuals remain tightly-knit cogs within the machine, yet they are atomized in their relations with one another.

Today, these factors still persist in the age of digitalizaiton. Individuals are still atomized (while paradoxically brought closer via digital communication and online social hubs). And the pathological cycle of accumulation and consumption continues its rotation, fomenting social alienation—and by extension, the erosion of the social fabric of society—in the process.

From the vaccums of both industrialized and digitalized societies emerged revolutionaries who unite the atomized parts with their false promises of solidarity. Thus, the opposite extremes of excessive individualism and totalitarianism have reached the same logical endpoint: the atomization of communities.

However, unlike in our current era, the monarchist forces were able to resist this atomization.

Even after being exorcised at the end of the Napoleonic Era, the spectre of revolution came back with a vengeance within mere decades. Nonetheless, the great empires of the continent, with their monarchs at the helm, still managed to keep the revolutionaries at bay. Furthermore, the negative effects of industrialization were mitigated by reforms, prime examples being those of Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck. These reforms ensured that working and living conditions for the lower classes were improved. Meawhile, the religious institutions and the aristocracies both continued to inspire a sense of honor and duty in members of society. Thus, the moral fabric and social order of society was maintained while the fruits of industrialism were still enjoyed.

Then came the First World War.

In 1917, the spectre of revolution at last extended its reach beyond Europe thanks to Wilsonianism and Bolshevism. Upon dragging America into war against the monarchies of the Central Powers, Woodrow Wilson made it into a crusade to “make the world safe for democracy.” Later that year, the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, founding the first revolutionary state outside of the Western world. The sinister crusades of Wilsonianism and Bolshevism both ultimately lead to the rise of Fascism and Nazism, which in turn led to the Second World War and the Holocaust. Thus, the strain of revolutionary ideologies has spread to to all corners of the world.

Since its first manifestation during the Enlightenment, the logical culmination of Liberalism has reappeared again and again in different forms. Jacobinism, Communism, Wilsonianism, Fascism, Nazism, Wokeism. They are all but reiterations of the same spectre of revolution.

Furthermore, there are ideologies, such as Fascism and Nazism, that are outside of the Liberal anthropology. Yet they are revolutionary in the sense that they aim towards a fundamental transformation of society at the expense of tradition, continuity, and organic progress. Even though a “pre-social” state is not their aim, the impact their ideologies have upon society are just as corrupting and destructive.

It is the sacred mission of the Radical Monarchists to exorcise the spectre of revolution once and for all. We desire a return to the balance of tradition and evolution, a return to a Primaeval Contract protected by a strong monarchy.

*By “Wokeism”, we refer to Intersectionality, which essentially divides people into various categories of “empowered” and “oppressed” groups. These classifications, which smack of the Marxist “oppressor and oppressed” dichotomy, are used by Intersectionalists to not only delegitimize traditional institutions as systemically evil, but to justify tearing them down to remake society in their image. Again, we hear the echoes of Marxist thinking, which in turn echoes that of the French Revolution, which in turn echoes that of Lockean-Rousseauian Liberalism. Wokeism, therefore, is the logical and historical culmination of Liberalism.

The Tyranny of Our Time

There are many kinds of regimes that stand in the way of tradition, reform, and monarchism. While united in their opposition to those things, these ruling elites vary in their ideologies and methods of control.

In managerial totalitarian states like China, a byzantine machine of incompetent bureaucratism consumes itself, ruining the country into the process. In authoritarian “democracies” like Russia and Turkey, coercive oligarchies of plutocrats and bureaucrats are centered around nominally democratic despots. In nations like North Korea and Iran, ideological cults umpose their will via indoctrination and brutal oppression. And in liberal democracies, plutocrats and technocrats impose their will via manufactured consent, which is achieved by social-engineering and the illusion of popular sovereignty.

For the sake of brevity, this manifesto will focus primarily on the ruling elite that is the most influential on the world stage. This elite can be referred to by multiple names: the “international bourgoisie” in Marxian parlace, “Syndicalist Feudalism” in Jouvenellian terms, and the “Managerial Elite” in a Burnhamite observation. Here these elites will be referred to as the “globalist plutocrats.”

The expansion of regulatory power since the end of the Second World War has resulted in corporations becoming legal creations instead of being creatures of the market. These institutions are dependent upon the state for legal recognition and certain rights such as the abilities to own property, engage in transcations, and issue shares. Therefore, the authority and influence of the shareholders—the owners of the corporation—are dependent upon the expansive bureaucracy. This gives the bureacracy, an instrinsically anti-capitalist institution, huge sway over the free market. Thus, the relationship between the ownership of capital and de facto power has been diminished. However, this did not weaken the sway of the plutocrats. If anything, it strengthened their hold.

The plutocrats treat the free market as if it is a ladder. Once they reach the top, they would be strongly inclined to kick the ladder down. They utilize their capital to 1) monopolize ownership in market shares, 2) monopolize ownership of media outlets and platforms, and 3) influence politics by funding politicians, NGOs, and lobby groups. Through these three methods, the plutocrats gained control over the economic, social, and political spheres of society respectively. This gives the plutocrats sway over the very bureaucracies that hamper the free market, using regulatory power to squeeze out competition. It is no wonder why plutocrats align themselves with anti-capitalist politicians.

When engaging in business with politicians, plutocrats do so through bribes or through more subtle means. The latter would include subsidies, ludicrous state contracts, laws that squeeze out competition (such as greater regulatory restrictions and higher minimum wages), and of course, revolving doors.

Upon closer inspection, one may notice how frequent corporate and political elites hire each other. It is through this incestuous amalgamation that these elites become the same ruling class. By partaking in this amalgamation, the globalist plutocrats subsumed the elites of multiple nations, most notably those in the Western world.

To keep their national subsections united as a single class, the plutocrats align themselves with supranational states like the European Union and globalist institutions like the World Economic Forum. It is no surprise that a global elite would push for a globalist centralization of power at the expense of national sovereignty, regional autonomy, and cultural identity.

With the veils of constitutionality, manufactured consent, and propaganda torn aside, we can see the brutal grimy machinery of the modern states in all their imposing and grotesque glory.

The plutocrats and all the other aforementioned ruling elites could have accepted their roles in society as part of a greater whole. Instead, they allowed their class interests and ideologies to cloud their jugdement. They chose to believe that they ought to shape society how they see fit. In their hubris, they all became petty oligarchs who justified themselves by perpetuating the very problems they were meant to resolve.

Their visions for societies are still diverse. Their conflicting interests would still pit them against each other at times. Nonetheless, they all find common cause in rebelling against the Natural Order, which pit them not just against monarchy, but against organic society itself. Furthermore, they also share a common means to their own ends. Here, we return to the atomization of communities.

While industrialization strained the social fabric of community and the bonds between individuals, these ruling classes would take it a step further and completely tear apart those very things. To remake society and man in their own image, they aim for the dissolution of all bonds between men. Moral, familial, social, cultural, and sometimes even national bonds are all evaporated. Without this sacred network of relations with and obligations to one another, individuals are isolated, ripe for ruthless exploitation by their managerial overlords. All of this is sacrificed on the profane altar of “progress!”

This is tyranny of our time! It is one of soulless technocracy, spirit-crushing bureaucracy, and insidious social engineering.

The Counter-Revolution

As a counter-revolutionary movement, it behooves the RadMons to align themselves with classes whose default stance towards revolutionary action is one of hostility or inertness. These classes, as the Marxists realized, were not only the petite bourgoisie—which are the most hostile—but also the peasantry and the proletariat.

The RadMons must have no interests separate from those three classes. They must not set up one class over the others, nor must they neglect any one of them. Moreover, no other kinds of distinction—religious, ethnical, or otherwise—should be allowed to undermine and divide citizens of the middle and lower stratum. No one shall be left to face the leviathans we all oppose.

The shared desire for long-term stability would make the middle and lower classes of republics the most open towards monarchy, but only in times of dire instability. As the atomized societies of those republics run their course, their moral foundations and social fabrics would be unravelled by plutocrats, bureacrats, and ideologues. The people would desperately seek a unifying figure, a “Caesar” or a “Napoleon,” who could protect their way of life. Here, we reach the plebiscitarian unification of the nation, the “historical culmination of democracy” as James Burnham put it.

What better opportunity for the RadMons to present an alternative mode of social formation?

As our movement treads the plebiscitarian path to monarchism, it cannot be emphasized too much that it must beware the pitfalls of totalitarianism. The historical culmination of democracy could lead to totalitarian rule just as easily as it could lead to a monarchical one. For this reason, the RadMons must set themselves up as vanguards within any promising plebiscitarian movements, serving as its most advanced and resolute section.

With these vigilant and well-organized sections at the helm, even the most loosely-united populist movements could be refined into a more cohesive and formidable force. Through the shared interest of long-term stability and the shared hostility and inertness to revolutionary action, these movements would pave the way for the counter-revolution.

Tessellatus Imperium

Now, it should be noted that each vanguard should be left to produce its own set of policies along national lines. Each country has its own separate identity, interests, culture, political system, social order, and economic model. A policy that may be beneficial for one may not be so for another. So it will be paramount for the RadMons to adjust their policies in accordance to the unique conditions and developments of the nation in question.

Furthermore, we must also take into account the diversity of perspectives among the non-monarchists we must work with in reforming society. Ergo, by necessity, a monarchist platform in one nation would be different than another.

Fortunately, this eventuality has been anticipated. Here, we present a political model known as Tessellatus Imperium.

The Quilt

On the national level, the Radical Monarchist movement will push for the regionalization and localization of power to the farthest extent possible. This syncretic policy for regionalism serves to ameliorate any political and ethnic tensions, thereby preventing the evolution of organic society from veering off course. This is our national model, “the Quilt”.

This form of decentralization is accompanied by the following policies:

• With the exception of interstate commerce, a matter reserved exclusively to the national government, constituent states would be given complete autonomy in economic affairs.

• Constituent states would also have complete autonomy in social policies.

• Constituent states would have the right to reshape of their own forms of government however they see fit.

• Constituent states will have their own national guards to ensure stability, and moreover, to protect their autonomy.

The Mosaic

Upon seeing the bereaucratic catastrophe that is the European Union, one cannot be blamed for regarding supranational unions with skepticism. In fact, being a bulwark of republicanism, it goes without saying that the complete dismantling of the EU, and other such institutions, must be a priority for the Radical Monarchists.

Once a supranational bereaucracy has been done away with, a trade bloc would be put in its place. This bloc would be accompanied by an intergovernmental organization for military defense. Like NATO, this organization would ensure geopolitical stability in regions that are historically susceptible to war. As long as it is prosperous and strong, this economic-defensive bloc would defend its member-states from foreign aggression, rendering American Wilsonianism unnecessary. This is the “Light Mosaic”.

If the member-states of such a pact desire further unity, another option is available: the “Hard Mosaic”. Based off of the Holy Roman Empire and Malaysia, it is a confederal union of nation-states. Its governing body would be an electoral college or council of monarchs. Representing their respective member-states, these monarchs would elect one of their own to serve as the head of the confederacy. This head-of-state, be it an Emperor or High King, would serve for a term.

In the event that the latter project would be implemented, a prime target would be Europe. While the complete dismantling of the EU would be a welcoming sight for our movement, its conversion into a monarchical confederacy—coupled with the removal of the bereaucratic institutions—would serve the continent well. A conferacy of European monarchies would unite its peoples under a common identity as the heirs of Rome and Charlamagne all the while instilling pride in the traditions, histories, and cultures of their respective countries. Furthermore, member-states of this confederal union should have the right to exit with immediate effect and without difficulty.

Admittedly, until monarchism becomes mainstream in EU politics, the Hard Mosiac would have no chance at being implemented. Hence, the Light Mosaic would be the default policy of the Radical Monarchists in regard to supranational unions.

Civil Rights

Because we RadMons reject the Lockean-Rousseauian concept of the State of Nature, it must logically follow that we reject the concept of natural rights derived therein. But this begs the question, what of civil rights?

Is it here that we return to the great philosopher who gave us the concept of the Primaeval Contract: Edmund Burke. In his book Reflections on the French Revolution, he described the rights of man manifesting themselves in society “like rays of light which pierce into a dense medium.” This medium, being the vast and myriad “mass of human passions and concerns,” unavoidably cause the light—the “primitive rights of man” as Burke called it—to “undergo such a variety of refractions and reflections, that it becomes absurd to talk of them as if they continued in the simplicity of their original direction.”*

With this illuminating analogy in mind, we now arrive at Burke's paradoxical description of the liberties espoused by the theorists of his time:

“The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes; and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of man are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned.”**

Here, it should be noted that this perfectly summarizes the challenge of the RadMons, not just in civil rights but in philosophy and politics in general. Our movement, and the school of thought serving as its intellectual vangaurd, are hell-bent on a pursuit of metaphysical truths while simultaneously trying to avoid the pitfalls of moral and ideological falsehoods.

Now, returning to the matter at hand, our movement faces the hurdle of discerning that which is beyond clear definition.

As stated in the previous section, RadMon ought to adapt their policies to the unique conditions and developments of the nation in question. For example, a fundamentalist society like that of Saudi Arabia could not adopt an alien system like, say, a Westminister-style parliament without catastrophic consequences. Thus says Burke: “Men have no right to what is not reasonable, and to what is not for their benefit…”***

Therefore, specific suites of civil rights must be designed to fit the societal conditions of each nation. These suites, far from being etched in stone, would be gradually adjusted as the society itself evolves. And as the march of the evolution of societies continue, the RadMons would adhere to an international criteria on civil rights:

1. To preserve the Primaeval Contract which balances tradition with evolution, civil liberties must be defined within the context of keeping that balance. In other words, the suite of rights established in any society must be grounded in traditional laws and values while leaving enough room for any necessary course-correction in political, economic, or social matters.

2. Liberties must never stem from or be conflated with desires, especially those that are detrimental to the moral fabric of society such as hedonism.

3. For every liberty, there is a responsibility. And for every responsibility, there is a liberty.

With these principles established, we can now specify which rights ought to be pursued internationally:

1. The Freedom of Criticism – Rather than using a vague and excessively abused term like “freedom of speech,” we instead substitute it for a more apt term. By “freedom of criticism,” we obviously refer to the right to critique political systems and its leaders and policies therein. This liberty must be accompanied by the duty to be truthful and to not cause chaos, examples including defamation, disturbing the peace, and public harassment.

2. Private Property Rights – To ensure that every citizen would be able to provide for themselves and their families, which are the most immediate responsibilities of any individual, the right to own property—housing, land, earnings, and other kinds of capital—goes without saying. This liberty would not only ensure the material and financial well-being of the citizenry. It would also encourage more productive and creative individuals to invent, produce and provide new kinds of goods and services, thereby improving—rather than merely sustaining—social and economic conditions.

3. The Freedom of Religion – Being an international movement that spans national, cultural and religious barriers, it would behoove Radical Monarchists to embrace this freedom. Even the most autocratic of great monarchs recognized that individuals ought to make their own choices on their spiritual journeys. Of course, this freeom would be accompanied by the duty to uphold the moral and social fabric of society.

*Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution, p. 152

**Ibid., p. 153

***Ibid., p. 153

A Final Word

In a crude and materialistic society which holds no respect for the metaphysical or the transcendental, monarchists cannot be blamed for succumbing to Weltschmerz. To stand apart from the herds of sheep being led astray by wolves in shepard's clothing makes one feel lonely and powerless. So why not confine yourself to being a political hermit? Why bother trying to make a difference?

Whether people like it or not, monarchy is the most natural form of government because Humanity is hard-wired for it. It is in our nature and nothing can change that. So it is only a matter of how much longer societies must suffer the consequences of republicanism and totalitarianism. No matter how long it takes, the resurgence of monarchy is inevitable, though it may not occur in our lifetime. As the old saying goes, “Mountains and rivers can be moved, but man's nature cannot be moved.”

God save their majesties around the world!