from Deus Vult:(http://deus-vult.org/actualites/pourquoi-etre-royaliste/)
Cet acte de consécration au Sacré Cœur a été fait par Marie Antoinette et Élisabeth Marie dans la prison du Temple avant la mort de Louis XVI.
O Jésus Christ ! Tous les cœurs de ce royaume, depuis le cœur de votre auguste Monarque jusqu’à celui du plus pauvre de ses sujets, nous les réunissons par les désirs de la charité, pour vous les offrir ensemble.
Oui Cœur de Jésus, nous vous offrons notre patrie tout entière et les cœurs de tous ses enfants.
O Vierge Sainte ! Ils sont entre vos mains ; nous les avons réunis en nous consacrant à vous, comme à notre protectrice et à notre Mère. Aujourd’hui, nous vous en supplions, offrez les au Cœur de Jésus. Présentés par vous, il les recevra, il leur pardonnera, il les bénira, il les sanctifiera, il sauvera la France tout entière et y fera revivre la Sainte Religion.
Marie Antoinette, Elisabeth Marie. Dans la prison du Temple avant la mort de Louis XVI
I pledge allegiance to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ, and to the Monarchy of Heaven, upon which the Just Judge, Who comes to judge the living and the dead, is seated at the right hand of His Heavenly Father; one Kingdom under GOD, the Most Blessed Trinity, eternal, with truth, beauty, and goodness for all.
The devotion to Jesus, King of Love began on August 17th, 1922, when Our Lord manifested Himself to Yvonne Beauvais, a young French woman sojourning in the monastery of the Augustinian Canonesses of the Mercy of Jesus at Malestroit in Brittany, France. Addressing Yvonne, Jesus said: Morning and evening say, O Jesus, King of Love, I put my trust in Thy loving mercy.
On March 18, 1927, Yvonne Beauvais entered the community of Malestroit, and on September 29, 1931, she pronounced her perpetual vows as Mother Yvonne-Aimée de Jésus. After a life of extraordinary love and of great sufferings accepted in faith, the King of Love called Mother Yvonne-Aimée to Himself on February 3, 1951.
At first, the Little Invocation to Jesus, King of Love spread by word of mouth. Then, simple bookmarks appeared, bearing the text of the invocation with an image of the Sacred Heart. In 1932 the Bishop of Vannes, France, approved the invocation for his diocese. The following year, Pope Pius XI indulgenced the prayer for the Augustinian Canonesses of the Mercy of Jesus, for their sick and for those hospitalized under their care. Pope Pius XII renewed the favour and, on December 6, 1958, Blessed John XXIII extended it to the universal Church.
In 1940, during the dark hours of World War II, Mother Yvonne-Aimée designed a medal and an image to make the Little Invocation even better known and loved. She chose to depict Our Lord as a lovable little boy of two or three years of age.
His expression is compassionate and tender; He is completely approachable. The crown signifies His kingship; the olive branch, the gifts of healing and of peace that He offers; with His other hand He points to His Heart overflowing with tender mercy.
The devotion to Jesus, King of Love is especially consoling to adults having suffered from some trauma in childhood such as physical, emotional, or sexual abuse.
The Child King is not threatening. The child living inside the emotionally wounded adult can accept the embrace of the little King of Love. One traumatized in childhood can allow the Little King to come close and absorb into the innocence of His Divine Childhood the shattered innocence that continues to cause fear, shame, and an inability to keep oneself safe.
At the same time, Jesus, King of Love restores to souls the innocence that was lost in childhood, or stolen, or cruelly defiled.
On August 6, 2012, Silverstream Priory was consecrated to Jesus, King of Love; His statue was placed in the monastic oratory.
As more and more people became attracted to the image of Jesus, King of Love, and learned to pray the Little Invocation, the monks were inspired to offer them the spiritual benefits of a Confraternity.
It is a family of souls who recognize each other as brothers and sisters graced by God with the same spiritual affinity, and who seek to share with one another the powerful support that comes from union in prayer.
There is comfort in knowing that one is not praying alone. Sacred Scripture says that a brother that is helped by his brother, is like a strong city (Proverbs 18:19). The fact that other souls are praying the Little Invocation throughout the day and even in the night is a source of strength in moments of weakness, and of hope in times of suffering.
Our Lord’s own words can be applied to the prayer that unites members of the Confraternity: I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them(Matthew 18:19-20).
There are no obligations apart from the recitation of the Little Invocation morning and evening each day, and the wearing of the medal of the King of Love, or the keeping of it on one’s person. The only bond between members is the confidence they share in Jesus, King of Love. There are no meetings.
The principal benefit of membership in the Confraternity is one’s spiritual union with an international family of childlike souls of all ages who pray the Little Invocation daily for themselves and for each other.
Holy Mass is offered for the living and deceased members of the Confraternity on the first Wednesday of the month, as well as on five other days:
New members will receive a blessed medal and image of Jesus, King of Love, as well as a booklet containing the story of the devotion’s origin, instruction on how to pray the Little Invocation, a biography of Mother Yvonne-Aimée de Jésus, and a treasury of prayers to Jesus, King of Love.
Membership is open to all those who desire to respond to the tender invitation of Jesus, King of Love to place their trust in the merciful goodness of His Heart. The Confraternity is, therefore, open to men, women, and children of all ages.
One joins the Confraternity by applying in writing to its Secretariat at Silverstream Priory, Stamullen, County Meath, Ireland.
Silverstream Priory’s bookstore also distributes hand-carved wood statues of the King of Love in various sizes, as well as medals and images of the King of Love.
They regulate the succession to the Crown of France: customary rules released gradually to solve serious practical situations, they ensure the continuity of the lineage and the state and thereby guarantee civil peace. Not to be written, they have not less force and were always observed.
– The succession to the Crown is hereditary from male to male by order of primogeniture;
– The Crown is unavailable in France: the reigning king can not change the order of succession, he can not abdicate or disinherit or deterred a Prince of the blood;
– Succession is instant: “The King is dead, long live the King”;
– The King of France must be Catholic, born of a Catholic marriage, canonically valid. However, subjects have no obligation to embrace the Catholic faith.
Since I began this website in the fall of 2000, I have had two basic goals: promoting monarchist ideology and providing news and information about historical and (especially) contemporary royalty. The two goals remain equally important to me, although the second inevitably takes up a greater portion of the website as there is simply more material. However, in the process of corresponding with and visiting the websites of others who share my interest, I have noticed that many of them tend to be more concerned with one of these two aspects than the other. To me this difference in priorities suggests the existence of two distinct kinds of contemporary monarchism. It is the purpose of this essay to identify, define and explain these two approaches and clarify my own position regarding them.
Observers of American politics will be familiar with the increasingly bitter dispute on the Right between neoconservatives (who generally favor an aggressive foreign policy and open immigration) and paleoconservatives (who generally favor a non-interventionist foreign policy and restrictions on immigration). Those interested in the Roman Catholic Church will also be aware of a somewhat similar division between conservatives (or “neo-Catholics”) who defend the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI’s subsequent changes to the liturgy and traditionalists who believe that these changes themselves, not just abuses by modernists, have been bad for the Church. (My own sympathies are with the latter group in each case, but that is beside the point.) I bring up these two controversies, seemingly unrelated to monarchism, only because I believe that to a certain extent the terminology associated with them can be applied to the topic of this website. In short, most of the fellow royalists I have encountered can be described as either “neomonarchists” or “paleomonarchists,” occupying positions within monarchism similar to the political and religious categories described above.
What is a neomonarchist? Neomonarchists see monarchy as entirely separate from Left/Right political divisions. Their own political views are likely to range from liberal to moderately conservative, or they may not be very interested in politics at all. While respectful of the religious traditions associated with royalty, they are usually not particularly religious themselves. Neomonarchists are primarily concerned with the support of existing constitutional monarchies, such as the ten currently reigning in Europe, and it is this model of monarchy that they would advocate in the case of any possible restoration. Many of them enthusiastically follow the lives of contemporary royals, and are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt when they are criticized. Neomonarchists tend to be socially liberal and so are unlikely to object to non-traditional marital alliances such as that of the Crown Prince of Norway with an unwed mother who had confessed to using drugs. They embrace multiculturalism and see monarchy as a potential unifying figure in Europe’s increasingly diverse countries, as exemplified by Denmark’s part-Chinese Princess Alexandra and the Prince of Wales’s interest in Islam. They enjoy contemporary popular culture and welcome royals’ interactions with it. Most importantly, neomonarchists are those royalists who have made their peace with modernity and do not see any fundamental conflict between monarchism (they may prefer to say “interest in royalty”) and liberal democratic values. Not especially prone to nostalgia, they are nevertheless often quite fascinated by the royal personalities of past eras, and have no problem sympathizing on a human level with members of autocratic royal families such as Russia’s Romanovs while rejecting everything that these royals stood for ideologically.
What is a paleomonarchist? Paleomonarchists are faithful to the original political framework of the French Revolutionary era, in which support for monarchy was one of the two fundamental issues (the other being religion) defining the Right, as opposed to the anti-royalist, anti-religious Left. Therefore they see their support for monarchy as an integral part of a counterrevolutionary rightist worldview–perhaps the most, but by no means the only, important political issue. They tend to be drawn to the most traditional and hierarchical forms of Christianity, particularly Eastern Orthodoxy or pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Paleomonarchists tend to see today’s constitutional monarchies as, at best, pathetic shadows of what they used to be or, at worst, “window-dressing for socialist tyranny” (as one such correspondent of mine put it). They are unimpressed with democracy and yearn for the restoration of traditional monarchies such as those of the Bourbons, Hapsburgs, and Romanovs. Paleomonarchists may be rather indifferent to contemporary royalty, and find it hard to admire ceremonial heads of state who appear to embrace or at least tolerate so much of what traditionalists detest (socialism, secularism, multiculturalism, relaxed moral standards, pop culture, etc.). They would like princes and princesses to adhere to the old standard of marrying only persons of equal rank, or at least not single mothers. They tend to be skeptical of the multicultural transformation (via mass immigration) of Europe and resent the apparent enthusiasm of royals such as Prince Charles for it. In stark contrast to neomonarchists, paleomonarchists reject much of modernity, and monarchism is only part of their desire to “turn back the clock.”
As with all generalizations, these categories are not perfect, and readers may find that they agree or disagree with parts of both descriptions. For example, I know one royalist who has described himself as socially liberal but nevertheless wishes that royals would make equal marriages. As implied by the first paragraph, I myself sort of have one foot in each camp. While I lean toward paleomonarchism, in my opinion both views have virtues and shortcomings.
Fortunately, apart from succession disputes, the kind of bitter internecine warfare that characterizes the neocon/paleocon and neo-Catholic/traditionalist debates seems to be largely absent from monarchism, although that may be only because we are so much smaller in number than either conservatives or Catholics, or because the two kinds of royalists do not interact very much. Indeed, since most of the distinctions described above are nothing more than my own interpretation of impressions gleaned from private e-mail exchanges and perusal of royalty websites and discussion forums, it is difficult to find discussion of this dichotomy.
However, what might be described as a critique of paleomonarchism from a relatively neomonarchist perspective can be found in former Monarchist League secretary Don Foreman’s 1994 article (apparently no longer available online) on French royalism. Mr. Foreman persuasively questions the wisdom of linking the restorationist cause with traditionalist Catholicism, opposition to immigration, and other right-wing views.
More recently, the neomonarchist view was expressed more defensively (but without any criticism of paleomonarchists) in an essay entitled “Why Royalty?” (not available online) by one Glenn R. Trezza, Ph.D., in the February 2003 issue of the European Royal History Journal. Dr. Trezza begins by describing his embarrassment at his progressive psychology colleagues’ discovery of his interest in royalty, fearing that they would see it as a “celebration of elitism and the pretty things of privileged oppressors.” He then proceeds to justify his enthusiasm for European royalty from a politically progressive perspective, coming up with eight rationalizations which together constitute a spirited and articulate defense of what I call neomonarchism.
Examples of the paleomonarchist view include the Marian Horvat article already referenced and Charles Coulombe’s writings. Free Republic participant Goetz von Berlichingen would also seem to fit this description.
As already stated, I personally am closer to paleomonarchism in the sense that I believe in traditional (non-democratic) monarchy, hold counterrevolutionary views on other issues, do not relish witnessing royal enthusiasm for pop culture, and doubt that even constitutional monarchy is compatible with a leftist worldview. However, I part company with some other reactionaries in that I have a generally favorable view of contemporary royalty, and do not believe they can be blamed for failing to resist various unfortunate trends occurring in their countries over the course of the twentieth century. The reason for this is simple: democracy and egalitarianism have been incredibly powerful trends; consequently, without exception, every modern monarch who refused to become a “rubber stamp” lost his throne (and in the case of King Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II, his life). The most recent example of this phenomenon in Europe was Greece’s King Constantine II, whose attempted defense of his rights (and the Greek constitution) against the overambitious Prime Minister George Papandreou may have been heroic but ultimately led to the fall of the Greek monarchy.
I believe that there is room in monarchism both for those who can easily work within modernity and for those less comfortable with it. We need both pragmatists and purists, democrats and traditionalists. There is no reason for monarchists to succumb to the bitterness that has divided the participants in the political and religious debates mentioned above. Since the democratic ideology that became dominant in the twentieth century does not appear to be about to go away anytime soon, monarchy must currently be defended and preserved within a modernist context, but that is no reason for those of us for whom it is inextricably linked with older values to give up on counterrevolutionary ideals.
Today’s European monarchies (except for Liechtenstein’s) may be purely symbolic, but traditionalists should be the first to recognize that symbols matter, and are worth fighting for. I would rather have a powerless monarchy than no monarchy at all; however disappointing individual royals might be, their republican enemies are worse. Therefore it is my hope that all monarchists, whether or not we long for a broader counterrevolution, will continue to give the world’s surviving monarchies (and efforts toward restorations elsewhere) the principled support they need and deserve.
April 4, 2003
A few days after I wrote this it occurred to me that the existence in Great Britain of a venerable tradition of constitutional monarchy which predates the French Revolution suggests the possibility of a third distinct tendency for which the neo- and paleo- labels are inadequate. What might be called Anglomonarchism combines the neomonarchist belief in constitutional monarchy with the paleomonarchist commitment to traditional values. Anglomonarchists are those who fully support the ideals of the 1688 “Glorious Revolution,” rejecting both Jacobitism and republicanism, but are suspicious of more recent “progress.” Right-wing British journalist Peter Hitchens is a good example, and many British, Canadian, Australian, other Commonwealth, and American Anglophile monarchists would probably also fall into this category.
PS: I identify with the paleomonarchist view, except in regards to immigration; I tend to be open to immigration(however, I do see problems regarding letting people in regards to resources getting scarce, yet I sympathize with immigrants and their sufferings and plights and hold that they should be treated with love, kindness, mercy, and respect and should be assisted in their spiritual and temporal needs.(Note: Although I have been posting information regarding monarchism, I am very new to it and I don’t understand it in much detail. Yet, I am very interested in it and I see that Catholicism is tied in with monarchism, in that a monarchical form of government is reflective of the Divine Hierarchy of God in Heaven. That’s so cool! Therefore, I support it.)
Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet
The Divine Right of Kings(For original, click here.)
IT IS GOD who establishes kings. He caused Saul and David to be anointed by Samuel; He vested royalty in the House of David, and ordered him to cause Solomon, his son, to reign in his place. . .
Princes thus act as ministers of God and His lieutenants on earth. It is through them that He rules…. This is why we have seen that the royal throne is not the throne of a man, but the throne of God himself. “Jehovah hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel.” (I Chronicles 28: 5) And again: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah.” (Ibid., 29:33) . . .
It appears from this that the person of kings is sacred, and to move against them is sacrilege. God causes them to be anointed by the prophets with a sacred unction, as He caused the pontiffs and His altars to be anointed.
But even without the external application of this unction, they are sacred in their office, as being the representatives of the divine majesty, sent by His providence for the execution of His designs….
There is something religious in the respect which one renders the prince. Service of God and respect for kings are things united. St. Peter groups these two duties together: “Fear God. Honor the king.” (I Peter 2:17)
Thus God has placed in princes something divine. “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm LXXXII:6) It is God himself who causes David to speak thus….
It is the spirit of Christianity to cause kings to be revered with a type of religion, which Tertullian aptly calls “the religion of the second majesty.”
This second majesty is but a token of the first, the divine, which, for the good of things human, has caused a certain part of its lustre to be imparted to kings.
Since their power comes from on high, kings should not believe that they are its masters and may use it as they wish; they should exercise it with fear and restraint as a thing which has come to them from God, and for which God will demand an account…. Kings should tremble when using the power that God gives them, and remember how horrible is the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God.
We have seen kings seated on the throne of the Lord, having in hand the sword which God himself placed in their hands. What profanation and audacity of unjust kings to sit in the throne of God in order to publish decrees against His laws and to use the sword which He has placed in their hands to do violence and to massacre His children.
Therefore let them respect their power, since it is not theirs but the power of God, and must be used holily and religiously. . . . That is, they should govern as God governs, in a manner at once noble, disinterested, benevolent, in a word, divine….
God, who created all men from the same earth and equally placed His image and likeness in their souls, did not establish distinctions among them so that some might be proud and others slaves and wretches. He made some great only for the protection of the small; He gave His power to kings only to ensure the public welfare and to be the support of the people…. Thus princes should understand that their true glory is not for themselves, and that the public good which they procure is a sufficiently worthy recompense on earth, while awaiting the eternal rewards which God has reserved for them….
Princes are gods and participate somehow in divine independence…. There is only God who may judge over their judgments and their persons…. The prince may correct himself when he knows that he has done evil, but against his authority there is no remedy other than his own authority….
Thus kings like all others are subject to the equity of the laws because they should be just and because they owe to the people the example of preserving justice, but they are not subject to the penalties of the laws. Or, as in theology, they are subject to the laws not as regards their coactive power but only their directive power….
What is there that a wise prince cannot effect? Under him wars are successful, peace is established, justice reigns, the laws govern, religion flourishes, commerce and navigation enrich the land, and the earth itself seems to bring forth fruit more willingly. Such are the effects of wisdom….
I do not call majesty the pomp which surrounds kings, nor the exterior lustre which dazzles the vulgar. This is but the reflection of majesty, not majesty itself.
Majesty is the image of the greatness of God in the prince.
God is infinite; God is all. The prince as prince is not regarded as an individual; he is a public personage. All the state is in him; the will of the entire people is contained in his. As all perfection and virtue are united in God, all the power of individuals is united in the person of the prince. What greatness that a single man contains so much!
The power of God makes itself felt in an instant from one end of the world to the other; royal power acts similarly through all the realm. It keeps the whole realm in order, as God keeps the world.
Let God withdraw His hand, and the world will fall into nothing; let authority cease in the realm, and all will be in confusion.
Consider the king in his council- chamber. From there are sent the orders which unite the efforts of magistrates and captains, citizens and soldiers, provinces and armies on land and sea. It is the image of God, who, seated on His throne in the highest heavens, causes nature to function. . . . We see a small part, but the essence is impenetrable. Thus it is with the secrets of the prince.
The designs of the prince become known only through their execution. Similarly are manifest the counsels of God: to them no man may penetrate except those whom God admits.
As the power of God extends everywhere, magnificence accompanies it. There is no part of the universe in which the unmistakable evidences of His goodness do not appear. Behold the order, the justice and the tranquility in all the realm: it is the natural effect of the authority of the prince….
In a word, gather together the great and glorious things which we have said concerning the royal authority. Behold an immense people united in a single person; behold this sacred, paternal and absolute power; behold the secret intelligence which governs all bodies in the state, contained within a single head: you behold the image of God in kings, and you understand the idea of royal majesty….
Something indescribably divine is attached to the prince and inspires fear in the people. However, let not this cause the king to forget his own nature…. You are gods, that is, you have in your authority and you carry on your forehead a divine quality. You are the children of the Most High; it is He who established your power for the good of humanity. But, O gods of flesh and blood, O gods of mud and dust, you will die like men; you will fall like all the great. Greatness divides men but briefly; a common fate finally renders them all equal.
Therefore O kings! Exercise your power boldly, for it is divine and beneficial to humanity, but exercise it with humility. It is given to you from without. Ultimately it leaves you frail; it leaves you mortal; it leaves you sinners and demands from you a greater final reckoning before God. . . .
There is among men a type of government that is called arbitrary, but it is not found among us, nor in properly constituted states.
Four characteristics are associated with this type of government. First, its subjects are born slaves, that is, in true bondage, and among them there are no free persons. Second, nothing is possessed as property since all belongs to the prince, and there is no right of inheritance, even from father to son. Third, the prince has the right to dispose freely not only of his subjects’ goods but even of their lives, as would be done with slaves. Finally, there is no law other than his will.
This is what is called arbitrary power. I do not wish to inquire whether it is lawful or unlawful. There are peoples and great empires that are satisfied with it, and it is not for us to disturb them concerning their form of government. It is sufficient for us to say that this type of government is barbarous and odious. These four characteristics are very far removed from our customs, and for this reason arbitrary government does not exist among us.
There is a great difference between a government that is absolute and one that is arbitrary. It is absolute by reason of constraint, there being no power capable of coercing the sovereign who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary. Because, although anything is permitted to the judgment of God and to a government called arbitrary, it is certain that states have laws against which anything that is done is of no right. And there is always available a means of redress on other occasions and in other times, so that each remains legitimate possessor of his property, no one being able to believe that he may ever possess anything in security contrary to the laws, whose vigilance and action against injustices and violences is immortal…. And it is in this that a government called legitimate is opposed by its nature to arbitrary government….
Government is established in order to free all men from every oppression and violence, as has often been stated. And it is this that creates the state of perfect liberty, there being in essence nothing less free than anarchy, which destroys all legitimate rights among men, and knows no law but that of force.
Source: William F. Church, ed., The Greatness of Louis XIV: Myth or Reality? Boston, 1959, 5-7.