Vignettes

Here is an English version of the entry Den konservative Kongstanke, which Ithought might be of some interest to English-speakers as well; especially people accustomed to republicanism.

—

Maria Feodorovna (26 November 1847 – 13 October 1928), born Princess Dagmar of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and later Princess Dagmar of Denmark, was Empress consort of Russia as spouse of Emperor Alexander III. She was the second daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark and Louise of Hesse-Cassel. Among her children was the last Russian monarch, Emperor Nicholas II, whom she outlived by ten years. - Wikipedia

Conservatism & Monarchism

The White Idea –as monarchism is known in the Russian tradition – plays a central role in national conservative thinking as it is found in the Young Conservatives. Our monarchism, our blind faith in the importance of the monarchy and insistence on the political potential inherent in this once so powerful institution can seem detached from reality, even quaint to an outsider, but we are quite serious.

Some time ago I read the excellent book Blot til pynt [Just for show] by Claus Bjørn, who makes a suggestion as to a conservative view of the monarchy, which I and I suspect many others recognize. He writes (paraphrasing Flemming Hvidbergs contribution to the book Til alle mænds tarv [For the common good], published by the Conservative People’s Party in 1956):

Precisely due to its contituinity, its sequestration from daily life and its special legal and social position, the Crown [kongemagten, “royal authority”] can express the lasting and that which exists above and beyond the daily squabbles of party politics and internecine fights over the distribution of resources. Thanks to its special position, the Crown is all that democracy can never be and thus exactly what democracy needs for it to live up to the concept of a nation.

In Hvidberg’s words, the monarchy “brings fortitude and strength and highness to the nation”. In this I can only agree. King Christian X’s behavior during the German occupation is almost the about the best example I can think of. And the same time, there is a longing for – we long for – a dignified, permanent and majestic counterweight to the simple and overly familiar vulgarity of the politicians. This is both a political and an aesthetic fact. The particular aesthetics of the Royal House – its protocol, its forms of address, its formalities – is treasured as equally as the political aspects, and the two have a very clear relationship; for instance, I find it incredibly inappropriate for government ministers and others to discuss what Crown Prince Frederik may and may not do*.

Etiquette holds that the ministers, like all other civil servants, serve at the pleasure of the Crown. When a minister takes office and meets the Sovereign in audience, he is simultaneously meeting the contemporary incarnation of the original rulers of the Realm: the heir to the absolute king and the prince whose predecessors have always ruled the Danes (and others). Will he accept it – inherited privilege, majesty and sovereignty [overhøjhed, “superiority”] – all this that created Denmark and that now, unapologetically, lies beyond the democratic ideal of equality – or will he reject authority and with it, Denmark? The conservative will not.

When we honor, respect and – ultimately – obey the Sovereign, we do so in part because of a sense of classical fealty felt by conservatives. On the other hand, it is also a of showing that there is still such a thing as honorability [ærværdighed, “honor-worthi-ness”]. Our veneration [ærbødighed, humbleness or “honor-offering”] is meant as a reminder of the continuing existence of venerability, even if the notion that there are differences in how much veneration is expected of each person can be how to accept for liberals. Which we do believe there to be. Thus the trappings of monarchy – our insistence on showing deference – are a way of maintaining the underlying principle of hierarchy and to the things that are given by the past, which is so central. Our respect for the monarchy also has to do with its position as “the other power” – the power that comes into play when the politicians (invariably) fail.

Here we are thinking of examples from abroad – King Juan Carlos of Spain, who averted a military coup; the governor-general of Austrialia, who resolved a constitutional crisis in the ‘70s, and many other cases. The monarchy is a plan B, and a plan B that we habitually dust off and consider; also to demonstrate our lack of childish belief in the virtues of democracy.

Such “democratism” has been described elsewhere, but monarchism is the necessary cure.

Long live the Queen!

*When I first wrote this article, there was an on-going debate going about the Crown Prince running for a seat in the International Olympic Committee, which was frank to the point of insolence.