A Proposal for a Feudal System

              Historians, and, indeed, most people, dismiss fuedalism as a cruel and medieval system that has no place in the modern world. However, it is my view that along with absolute monarchy, a feudal or semi-feudal system could provide a stable and prosperous society.

         Historical feudalism, where serfs and their families were bound to a particular lord and could not move to outside of their lord's borders is obviously not applicable in today's world, and is arguably not a good system. However, if elements of capitalism are introduced, a hybrid between the two systems under the guidance of a strong monarch is not only possible, but in my eyes, prefferable. Bear in mind that this is only a hypothetical, conceptual system, as no such system has ever been put into practice.

      In this system, Lords would "own" parts of the land as vassals to the king, but "serfs" would be free to move from one fief to another. This would create competition between the lords, as people would migrate in order to gain lower taxation, better quality of housing, etc. In esscence, it would run just like free-market capitalism, except in circumstances when the reigning king would need to interfere. This would encourage lords to increase general quality of life for their citizens, negating the popular stereotypes that feudalism means low quality of life. Of course, one other stereotype that people have of feudalism is that everyone but knights and lords would be agricultural workers. This wouldn't be the case in the system I am proposing. Every fiefdom would need agricultural workers, yes. But every fiefdom would need labourers, doctors, teachers, etc. Practically every job one could find in the current system one could find in this system. Education would be funded by the state and compulsary so everyone would be educated to the proper standards of today.

       The military would be a key part of the heirarchy such a system would entail. Under a lord (who has sworn loyalty to the king), there would be a good number of knights and, by extension, knightly families. This hereditary class would take up the highest ranks of the military, and would be trained from birth to be competant in said ranks. These knights could then operate as teachers for the standing army during times of peace.

       Despite the fact that the lords would hold great power within their own fiefs, they would still be subject to the legislation that the king passes, and would have to comply if they wished to keep their titles, thus keeping the monarchy an absolute one - Lords would basically act as local governers for counties/provinces/states within a country, and knights would act as the highest ranks of the military and the title of knight could be gained in a meritocratic way as well as in a hereditary way. The king would be the supreme lord towards which everyone would owe loyalty.

       In conclusion, I believe that a system that combines classic feudalism with capitalism and meritocracy would be a very good way of running the country, as long as there was an absolute monarch to oversee it.

The Failure of Democracy

Despite what it may say on the metaphorical can, democracy (at least, represntative democracy) is not a goverment "for the people". The only way the average citizen can influence the political situation in a democratic country is by either joining a major political party, voting for a major political party, or creating his own party.
The last option, creating one's own party, may seem attractive, but the extremely high costs of doing so render this option obsolete for the average person. Only the wealthy can afford to get involved in parliamentary democracy to a greater extent than simply joining one of the major parties - thus new and potentially great ideas are squashed by the system. Even if these new parties were to get off the ground, and hypothetically started to campaign for their new ideas to become law, they would likely be denounced as "extremist" by the majority of MPs.
People of initially poorer origins can potentially rise to become Prime Minister, who is essentialy a slave to his own party, and of other parties as well. What powers does the Prime Minister actually possess? In truth, not many. He can appoint ministers to a select few roles, declare war, etc. However, he cannot pass any new laws without first putting it through the long and arduous journey through the House of Commons, into the House of Lords and finally into law. Before being passed by the House of Commons, a bill must be read and voted for three times, then it must be read through and voted for in the Lords. Only then can it become an Act, or , law, with the Royal Assent. The nature of this form of government is very malevolent due to its inefficiency, regardless of the individual aims of the parties. Parliament is subject to infighting, as can be seen any time one watches a debate. Bills can be rejected, revised and then submitted again, rejected again, revised, passed by the Commons but then rejected by the Lords, etc. This is one of the principle flaws with democracy - real reform is delayed and is sometimes impossible. In a monarchist state, a new law that was obviously wanted by most people, could be passed virtually overnight.
This inefficiency also seeps into other areas such as the economy and thus social areas. Unemployment is a grave issue in our country, and despite empty promises made by party leaders, nothing is ever done. The government focuses on making slight amendments to the benefits system, without even trying to create new jobs.

In their manifesto, the Conservative party state "Over the last five years, we have put our country back on the right track. Five years ago, Britain was on the brink. As the outgoing Labour Treasury Minister put it with brutal candour, 'there is no money'. Since then, we have turned things around." " More people are in work than ever before", they say. This is not the case in many areas - especially in the more suburban towns, where there are little to no jobs to be found. This is especially apparent with young people, who are rejected from employment in any workplaces that do have vacancies due to them not having any experience, which they cannot aqcuire due to there also being no local voluntary jobs and because nowhere will employ them. This is a vicious circle that needs to be broken. Democracy won't bring this. We have seen time and time again the brutal inefficency of this government, and how long it takes for them to do anything. Cameron's manifesto also advocates "strong leadership", and yet along with most other political parties they have the gall to reject absolute monarchy, which is by its very nature a strong, centralised and caring leadership.
Another problem with our current system is the fact that most of the major parties that actually have any bearing on the way are country is run are bribed and corrupted by wealthy backers. This allows them to run their huge campaigns and also allows them the most publicity, but at the expense of forfeiting their supposed desired goals, playing into the hands of the wealthiest, and going against the wishes of the majority. Could the argument be made that the United Kingdom is a Plutocracy? Absolutely. But that's not what matters. If there is a Plutocracy, it's because of the democracy, and that's what needs to be dismantled. 

Is this really what we want? Do we really want the world run with such an inefficent and cruel system? Where democracy reigns supreme and fools such as parliament continue to deny the truth that absolutism is superior.

His Majesty, Charles I did right in disbanding them. 

The New Monarchist

This Blog....

Hello everyone. My name is The New Monarchist. And before I go any further I must warn you that this is a pro-monarchy, pro-autocracy blog that would likely offend many advocates of democracy. If you are one of these people that advocate republicanism and the abolition of monarchies, you will likely not find what you are looking for here.
Democracy is a system that has truly failed us. How can a government comprised of representatives who are bribed and influenced by powers within and without state borders claim to be truly beneficial to its people? It is a system full of corruption, full of short-term plans that take entire terms to pass through the divided, splintered parliament. Nothing is ever done. Nothing is ever acheived. The politicians tell us exactly what we want to hear but never make the changes they promise when we give them power. For several centuries, most western countries have been governed by the principles of this system. This cruel and inefficient system. It has spread across the globe, now controlling most of the world’s nations. It supposedly puts power “In the hands of the people” by appealing to their needs and allowing them to vote for the party that they think will best satisfy said needs. This all sounds brilliant on paper, and in theory certainly it’s something to be admired. However, in practice, this system is perhaps one of the worst, due to its innately malevolent nature, despite what individuals and individual parties claim to aspire to, Parliament is inevitably gridlocked by constant infighting between parties, and becomes stagnant.
Britain, and by extension, all western and a good proportion of eastern nations, control their populace not through fear, such as with fascist and stalinist nations, but by indoctrinating a belief into its citizens that the very idea of any form of government other than a democracy is “extremism” and must be destroyed – Thus becoming intolerant in their quest for tolerance. Decrying such evil movements as National Socialism and Islamic extremism is of course a noble thing to do, as these movements focused on persecuting and eliminating innocent people. This is the distinction that must be made if this message is to get anywhere: historical anti-democratic movements such as the aftformentioned Nazism and Communism, were hostile towards a sizeable portion of their own people. An authoritarian government doesn’t need to be like this – Authoritarian doesn’t mean evil.
Where can we look, then, for a suitable way of governing? We must simply look at monarchy for the solution. Monarchy is undeniably the most stable form of government, and it is one that “money cannot buy” – as in, it cannot be corrupted. Monarchs – true absoute monarchs – can make decisions quickly and confidently for the benefit of their own country and people, and indeed countries and people beyond.
This blog will be an exploration of the various facets of monarchy and why it is the best form of governance overall. It will be dealing with which form of monarchy is the greatest. In short, this will mean the following –
. The nature of my views on monarchy. I am by no means a “pure” legitimist. If a royal family hasn’t been functioning as absolutists for some time (Such as the Windsors), and if they accept the sham of constitutional monarchy and support democracy, they should be replaced by a new royal family that adhere to the values of absolutism and who know how to rule. This may alienate some hardline legitimists. But I ask you, how did these families become ‘legitimate’ in the first place? And then ask yourself “Why can’t a new monarchy become legitimate”?
. My thoughts on monarchs and other prominent people past and present. These will include reviled figures such as King John, celebrated heroes such as Queen Victoria and my own personal favouites such as Charles I and Napoleon I.
I have now shown you what to expect, and if you are interested then please stick around – I hope you enjoy my posts!

The New Monarchist