UPDATED: Monarchy Vs. Mobocracy (“Albion’s Seed”)

Ancient History,Britain,Bush,Celebrity,Classical Liberalism,Democracy,Founding Fathers,History,IMMIGRATION,Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim,Political Economy,Political Philosophy,Propaganda,The West


Trashing the British monarchy is an unfortunate, liberal (not in the classical tradition) impulse, prevalent in the US. Never mind that the British monarchy is purely titular. This American instinct mirrors the deracinated nature of American society, epitomized by the neoconservative creed. Strategically, Americans are taught, in state-run schools, that they form part of a propositional nation, united by abstract ideas, rather than by ties to history, heroes, language, literature, traditions.

In truth, America was founded on both. There was the Lockean philosophy of individual rights. But this philosophy, as the American Founders understood, didn’t magically materialize, or come into existence by osmosis. “Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England’s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated. Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism.”

The fathers of this nation, moreover, loved the American people; they did not delegitimize their ancestry and history by calling them eternal immigrants. John Jay conceived of Americans as “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and custom.” The very opposite of what their descendants are taught.

To denounce the monarchy, as some libertarians have done, with reference to that 18th Century Che Guevara, Thomas Paine, is radical alright, but it is also nihilistic. Paine sympathized with the Jacobins—the philosophical progenitors of today’s neoconservatives—and he lauded the blood-drenched, illiberal, irreligious “Revolution in France.”

Pat Buchanan, in one historically rich column, provides an interesting juxtaposition between king and a despot far worse:

“Louis XVI let the mob lead him away from Versailles, which he never saw again. When artillery captain Bonaparte asked one of the late king’s ministers why Louis had not used his cannons, the minister is said to have replied, ‘The king of France does not use artillery on his own people.'”

In his seminal book, Democracy: the God that Failed, master of praxeology Hans-Hermann Hoppe provides ample support—historical and analytical—for his thesis which is this: If forced to choose between the mob (democracy) or the monarchy, the latter is far preferable and benevolent.

“[I]n light of elementary economic theory, the conduct of government and the effects of government policy on civil society can be expected to be systematically different, depending on whether the government apparatus is owned privately or publicly,” writes Hoppe.

“From the viewpoint of those who prefer less exploitation over more and who value farsightedness and individual responsibility above shortsightedness and irresponsibility, the historic transition from monarchy to democracy represents not progress but civilizational decline.”

… democracy has succeeded where monarchy only made a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elites. The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of a culture of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been lost and forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state.



The democratically elected ruler has no real stake in the territory he trashes for the duration of his office. (Besides, Court Historians and assorted hagiographers will re-write history for him.) It was no mere act of symbolism for the Clintons to have trashed the White House on the eve of their departure.

The Queen of England might be a member of the much-maligned landed aristocracy, but she has acquitted herself as a natural aristocrat would—Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. (It was a sad day when she capitulated to the mob and to the cult of the Dodo Diana.) The queen has been working quietly (and apparently thanklessly) for the English people for over half a century. According to Wikipedia, Elizabeth Windsor was 13 when World War II broke out, which is when she gave her first radio broadcast to console the children who had been evacuated. Still in her teens, Elizabeth II joined the military, “where she … trained as a driver, and drove a military truck while she served.”

It looks as though William, her grandson, has more of a sense of duty (not my kind, but nevertheless a patriotism his countrymen may appreciate) than most members of the pampered American political dynasties. Did any one of the atrocious Bush girls do anything worthwhile over and above preach for daddy’s wars and promote Obama’s healthCare?

But to reiterate, the monarch in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. has far more powers, and uses them far more destructively, than does the monarch across the pond.

UPDATE (May 1): To the ahistoric contention below that American freedoms originate exclusively in … The Netherlands: I guess that the historian David Hackett Fischer, author of Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, got it completely wrong. Ridiculous too is the contention, moreover, made by the letter writer (I never publish untruths about my written opinions) that I was an Anglophile for stating that historic fact. There is a chapter in my forthcoming book titled “The Anglo-America Australian Axis of Evil.” Yes, that’s the writing of an incorrigible Anglophile!

5 thoughts on “UPDATED: Monarchy Vs. Mobocracy (“Albion’s Seed”)

  1. Lester Hunt

    Of all the kinds of government that have so far been tried, the democratic welfare state has so far gotten only the briefest of trials. Whether it will have the sort of staying power that absolute monarch had is, I would say, extremely doubtful. With the world-wide debt crisis, it may be on the verge of morphing into something else. What is coming next I don’t know.

  2. Myron Pauli

    Hoppe makes some interesting points on debt in world countries since World War One (including the American empire) – a product of “democracy”. Indeed, it is the product of Republicans cutting taxes (in the present) and burdening the future generations and the Democrats spending – although the two parties trade roles willingly for votes. Basically, it is the mob ensuring the growth of government and the further slavery/dependency on government to new generations.

    The period between Bonaparte and Sarajevo (1815-1914) saw unprecedented growth of freedom and prosperity with only “minor” wars. It was replaced by a mob of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that lasted until 1991 in some places. Meanwhile, the remnant of Europe is in population decline being overrun by immigrants, the West is pumping phony money, and the US Empire has gone paranoid to the extent of fondling children in the name of fighting terrorism.

    However, like Humpty Dumpty, there is no real monarchy to be “restored”. I agree with Lester Hunt that something else may be coming – but I fear it is likely to be even worse than our current situation.

  3. Bastiaan Schouten


    You mistake the origins of US Liberty and limited government as being British. There is nothing, except a weak Magna Carta, in English history along these lines. Freedom in England has its origin in the Dutch occupation (also called the Glorious Revolution in 1688). Most US institutions and freedom are Dutch, the rest “urban legend.” The US Articles of Confederation have the Treaty of Utrecht as their model. Prior to the US the Netherlands was the only successful federal republic and world power. New York, a Dutch city, was and has always been the largest in the US and its center of finance, pluralism, and tolerance. The Pilgrims came to the US from Harlem fleeing Dutch freedom of religion.

  4. Robert Glisson

    I can’t say much about English history, I remember William of Normandy invaded, took over and I think the Scotland Royalty are in there somewhere. I do believe that there are some people who are natural leaders. We regular citizens simply do better with their direction. The cream rises to the top, so to speak. In this case, I think the cream has soured. William, like his mother is more concerned with Africa than home. Everyone wants to be accepted. Why should an Indian or Pakistani in England embrace the crown; when his prince ignores his children to embrace a foreigner. If he spent as much time trying to get the immigrants inside Britain to accept the English system and the Monarchy, like lifting a White/Brown or Black British subject into his arms instead of some other country’s kids, it would do a lot more good. Queen Elizabeth has been seen numerous times with English commoners and their children. I’m only speaking about William, not the immigration problems.

  5. Tom

    The Netherlands were well known as a haven for religious freedom, which is why the English Pilgrims were there in exile from religious intolerance in England, before going to found their own style of religious freedom in the New World; and that religious freedom of the Protestant Netherlands was extended also to Jews who had fled from earlier persecution in Catholic Spain and elsewhere in Europe, and there were many Jews living in Amsterdam, and publishing Hebrew language books, and the Jews were happy to stay in Amsterdam; but the Catholic King of Spain tried to conquer the mostly Protestant Netherlands, and Protestant Queen Elizabeth of England fought the Catholic King of Spain, yet while the English monarchs opposed absolute English religious freedom, tolerating only minor religious dissent in England. A complex mixture of religion and geo-politics, which continued for more than two hundred years. It would seem to be true that the Netherlands and their American colony of the New Netherlands and the New World city of New Amsterdam were a major source, although not the sole source, of American religious and political freedom, and not merely because the English Pilgrims had come from the religious freedom haven of the Netherlands.

Comments are closed.