Remember what we saw in the book-length compound posting "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris" December 2015. In sections 8-10. I want to add more to it today. This is very important in understanding international relations and is something that I cannot see anywhere else.
The modern political era began with the French Revolution. This brings about what I refer to as "The King Factor" that explains so much about relations between nations. The French Revolution resulted in the overthrow and execution of the French king and queen and the rise of Napoleon, who was the prototype military dictator. Napoleon didn't initiate the revolution but he was what ultimately arose out of it.
There is the King Question. The question is: "Is there a king, or has the king been overthrown and, if so, has the king been replaced by a military leader"?
That question reveals so much about international relations today.
What happens in the world is that there are kings, and there are those who have overthrown the kings, and each side tends to stick together with it's own kind. This simple principle has an amazing ability to predict international relations.
America is actually split between the two sides. It broke away from a king but the king and queen of France, the same ones that were shortly thereafter overthrown and executed in the French Revolution, were America's first allies and the ones that helped it to gain independence. As explained in detail in that compound posting, America's Republicans are the continuation of the French royal Bourbon Dynasty while it's Democrats represent the post-royal side after the revolution.
This puts Donald Trump, and Republicans in general, on the king side.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, which overthrew the royal tsars, is very much like a replay of the French Revolution. The Romanov Dynasty of the tsars were replaced by the Communists, but now the Communists are gone and the Romanov flag again flies over Russia. This puts Vladimir Putin in the king category, alongside Donald Trump. Putin is explained near the end of section 10 in the compound posting.
I consider this simple principle as one of the most important things that I have ever written on this blog. It explains so much about international relations.
Why are Saudi-Iranian relations so sour when they have so much in common, even though one is Sunni and the other Shiite? It is because the Saudis are ruled by a king and the Iranians by those who overthrew the king (The Shah). The two are on opposite sides of the French Revolution.
France was where Iranian dissidents often sought refuge in exile. But when the Shah, a king, was overthrown his first stop was Egypt and he never went to France. Of course not. Why would the king who had been overthrown want to go to the place that set the precedent for overthrowing the king? Instead he went to the land of the pharaohs, who are the ultimate kings.
When Ayatollah Khomeini was in exile his case was the opposite, he was trying to overthrow the Shah. Khomeini was in exile in Turkey, then Iraq, and finally France. All of these nations were on the same side as him in that they had overthrown their kings.
Saddam Hussein surprised the world by invading neighboring Kuwait in 1990. But Saddam had replaced the overthrown king of Iraq. As a military dictator Saddam was very much in the mode of Napoleon. But Kuwait was ruled by a king, the Emir. This put the two countries on diametrically opposite sides of "The King Question". After the invasion Saddam subconsciously reminded America's Republican president of the Napoleon that had replaced the guillotined king and queen that had been America's first allies. America, closely allied with the Saudi king, went in to save the Kuwaiti king.
A "king" in this scenario doesn't necessarily have to be an actual crowned king, as in the case of Saudi Arabia. But a leader who isn't technically a king may be a "king-in-fact". When a society has been religious for a long period of time, but then becomes more secular, the patterns of the religion will tend to remain. In a similar way the nations of the world operated as monarchies and empires for centuries, since ancient times, just because they have relatively recently become republics shouldn't we expect the long-established royal patterns to continue?
When it is an actual crowned king that is the king here it will probably always be a "real" king, rather than a constitutional monarch. There are a number of monarchies in Europe today but all are constitutional monarchies, where the constitution is above the king or queen.
Let's make a list of the "kings" in the world today. Remember that kings tend to stick together, often mystifying the rest of the world as to why. A major factor in relations between nations today, that I have never seen pointed out, is where each stands relative to the French Revolution. Basically the question is: "Is there a king or has the king been overthrown and, if so, has he been replaced by a military leader"?
VLADIMIR PUTIN
Vladimir Putin is a post-Communist leader of Russia. He has been effectively in power for more than twenty years. That, in itself, makes him like a king. Putin is from St. Petersburg, the former capital city of the Romanov Dynasty, and the Romanov flag has been restored as the national flag. This makes Putin a tsar in the continuation of the Romanov Dynasty and you can be sure that a tsar doesn't need the approval of outside powers to invade a neighboring country that was once part of the Romanov Empire.
MARINE LEPEN
What is going on in France? How can Marine LePen, a well-to-the-right candidate who has visited Vladimir Putin, be getting so much of the vote? The rest of Europe is mystified. France is the country where the modern political era was opened by the overthrow and execution of the Bourbon king and queen. Napoleon, the prototype of the modern dictator especially one wearing a uniform, didn't start the French Revolution but is what eventually emerged from it. But the Bourbons managed a comeback after the time of Napoleon, eventually being replaced by the House of Orleans until the French Monarchy was eliminated for good by the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. The monarchy might have been eliminated, at least officially, but a country that had been a monarchy for so long cannot just eliminate it by drafting a constitution. Marine LePen is nothing less than the new French Queen. It doesn't matter at all whether she ever holds the presidency as well, or whether she is formally crowned. The political party founded by her father is now the French royal family.
VIKTOR ORBAN
Viktor Orban is Hungary's king, no matter what his official title. Like the other kings here his views are well-to-the-right and he is an admirer of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Orban's Christian values are the legacy of St. Stephen, the first king of the country who Christianized Hungary a thousand years ago. Hungary is also significant with regard to kings because the Holy Crown of Hungary, on prominent display in the parliament building, is possibly the single most valuable object in the world.
RICHARD NIXON
What wasn't understood about Richard Nixon was that he was a king. It was thought that the world was past the age of monarchies but this couldn't be more wrong. The ironically-named "Republican Party" is actually the continuation of the French Bourbon Dynasty, which helped America gain independence and was it's first ally. Why should a king like Richard Nixon have to be bound by some silly constitution? Neither should a real king be bound by this democratic process. Each voter gives a candidate their checkmark and whoever has the most checkmarks gets to be the new leader. To a king like Nixon it must have sounded like a children's game.
DONALD TRUMP
Donald Trump was the classic modern king-in-fact. A king doesn't have to be bothered with silly rules that are for ordinary mortals to obey. Donald Trump is from America's Republican Party which, we have seen, is the descendant of the French Bourbon Monarchy. Donald Trump has mystified many people by praising Vladimir Putin, but the reason is that they are both kings and kings tend to stick together.
MBS
Mohammed Bin Salman, usually referred to simply as MBS, is the crown prince or heir apparent of Saudi Arabia, which means that he is next in line for the throne. At the time of this writing his aged father is still king but, according to many observers, MBS is effectively running the country. Thus far MBS has acted like a king of old. The Saudi royals are the only ones listed here that are technically kings. Since the son of Ibn Saud inherited the crown from his father, royal transitions in Saudi Arabia have been from brother to brother. MBS will be the first of the next generation when he inherits the throne.
XI JINPING
China has been ruled by emperors for five thousand years. Xi Jinping has been consolidating authority to make him the most powerful leader of China since Chairman Mao. Regardless of his political title, Xi Jinping is an emperor. An emperor is actually higher than a king because a king can sometimes be ruled over by another king but no one ever rules over an emperor. This is why China's government hasn't condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine, because kings tend to stick together.
RECEP ERDOGAN
By title Recep Erdogan is the President of Turkey. By reality he is the king-in-fact of the new Ottoman Empire. He is moving away from the secularism and democracy of the Turkish Republic, back toward the style of an Ottoman Emperor. The July 2016 coup, by a faction of the military, was an unsuccessful attempt to remove Erdogan by force, but it only ended up strengthening his position. He has built the largest presidential compound in the world, which is effectively a vast palace for a great emperor. This is why Erdogan is still on good terms with Putin, even though Turkish-made drones are important to Ukraine's military effort.
THE PEACE OF THE KINGS
Here is one that is really interesting. Israel has made peace with several Arab countries. At the time Israel was led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who was of the country's rightward Likud Party. The peace agreements were brokered by Donald Trump, who we saw above as a king. Trump and Netanyahu were very close allies when they were both in office, and that is because they were both kings. Israel may be officially a republic today but it has a long history of famous kings, from Saul, David and, Solomon to all the Kings of both Judah and ancient Israel described in the two Books of Kings in the Old Testament.
The countries that Israel signed peace treaties with are Bahrain, Morocco and, the United Arab Emirates. Should it come as a surprise that all of these countries are ruled by kings? This was truly the Peace Of The Kings. Saudi Arabia, effectively ruled by MBS as described above, has not yet signed an official peace treaty with Israel but the two countries are in much closer cooperation.
THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR
The Spanish Civil War of the 1930s is an interesting case. Adolf Hitler helped Francisco Franco to win the civil war but then he never turned into the ally that Hitler had hoped for. Franco was a king-in-fact, his politics were rightward and he certainly governed like a king. The Spanish Monarchy had been abolished but Franco brought it back, decided who would be king and then named the king as his successor.
Hitler, meanwhile, was not a king. He ignored the request of the old Kaiser Wilhelm II to restore the German monarchy. Hitler typically wore a military uniform and was in the mold of Napoleon, he made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb. Hitler emerged from the German revolution that ended the rule of the kaisers, which was first followed by the Weimar Republic, in the same way that Napoleon is what ultimately emerged from the French Revolution. This put Hitler and Franco on opposite sides of "The King Question" and is the underlying reason why Franco never turned into the ally that Hitler hoped for.
Notice how all of these leaders, except Richard Nixon and Francisco Franco who are past, usually support each other, or at least rarely criticize each other, often to the surprise of the rest of the world. That is because kings tend to stick together. A "real" king would usually be a king-in-fact according to our scenario here, although a constitutional monarch would likely not be.
The opposite of a king is a military leader that has overthrown a king, in the mold of Napoleon. Those may tend to stick together also, although not usually to the extent that kings do. But this king factor is absolutely necessary to understand international relations in the world today.
THE VALUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
A so-called "constitutional monarchy" is a nation that has a royal family, but the monarch is under the rule of the constitution. This means that the king or queen does not have unlimited power and may, in fact, have a mostly-ceremonial role with no legal power at all. Europe has a number of constitutional monarchies, Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and, the Scandinavian countries. Other well-known constitutional monarchies are Japan and Thailand.
In contrast to constitutional monarchies are "real" monarchies, where the king theoretically has to answer to no one. The best- known "real" monarchy is Saudi Arabia. This doesn't mean the king has absolute authority, as the monarchy still requires the support of the people.
Democracies that have no connection to royalty are known as republics. The word "republic" means that the people do not decide on everything directly but elect worthy and qualified people to represent the public. "Republic" is a contraction of "represent" and "public".
More than a quarter of the nations of the world are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, the descendant of the British Empire. But only a portion of those nations list Queen Elizabeth as their head of state. The rest are republics. Even when listed as head of state it doesn't mean that the queen has any real authority in the country. Notice that Canada has Queen Elizabeth on it's currency, but the queen does not wear a crown.
Many people wonder what the point is to maintaining a constitutional monarchy, other than as a tourist attraction and for ceremonial purposes. At the time of this writing there are active discussions in Canada, Australia, and especially Jamaica about removing Queen Elizabeth as head of state, although this doesn't necessarily mean leaving the Commonwealth.
What I would like to do today is explain how a constitutional monarch actually does have power, and how that power is beneficial, even if some of the royals may have behavioral issues.
Monarchy has something in common with religion. When a nation has been religious for a long period of time, but then becomes more secular, the patterns of religion will remain and old religious conflicts will tend to get acted out in modern secular form. We cannot just get rid of religion.
The present east-west confrontation and the Cold War before it, along with Napoleon's invasion of Russia and the eastern fronts of both world wars, are all secular manifestations of the east-west split in religion that began as the Eastern Orthodox Church split away from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism of the year 1054. The Yugoslav conflicts of the 1990s were not overtly about religion, but 100% followed the traditional boundaries of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and, Moslems in the country.
It is just as easy to see how the political and economic structures of recent history are a secular reflection of earlier religious structures. The organization of Soviet Communism was a reflection of the organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The dictators that came to power in historically Catholic countries were secular reflections of the pope. The free enterprise concept of anyone being able to start their own business enterprise is a reflection of the Protestant ideal of anyone being able to start their own church.
Neither can we just get rid of monarchy. Nations have been ruled by powerful kings and emperors since the beginning of civilization. History is a powerful force. We tend to repeat it, often without realizing it, and our long history of being ruled over by kings and queens is not going to just go away by drafting a constitution.
What happens is that, if we eliminate kings and queens, we will tend to end up being ruled by a demagogue who acts like a king, regardless of what his actual title may be.
It was the French Revolution that opened the modern political era. The French king and queen were guillotined and France became a republic. But what happened? France ended up being ruled by Napoleon, who certainly acted more like a king than any of the kings that came before. When the pope came to Notre Dame to crown Napoleon he snatched the crown from the pope and put it on himself, making it clear that he was above the pope and didn't need the pope.
Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III, later became president of France. When his term was over he simply declared democracy over, and the country as an empire, with himself as emperor. The king was gone, but was just replaced by leaders who act like kings.
Mexico initially became a monarchy after independence from Spain. That didn't last but it later became a monarchy again, supported by Napoleon's nephew Napoleon III. The monarchy was removed but the country ended up being ruled by Porfirio Diaz.
The Russians put their royal family in front of a firing squad, but ended up being ruled by Stalin.
Germany ended it's royal family, the Kaisers, but ended up being ruled by Hitler.
Spain ended it's royal family in 1931 but ended up being ruled by Francisco Franco, who restored the royal family and named the king as his successor.
The power of monarchies was in decline throughout the Twentieth Century. But the century became known as the "Century of Dictatorship". Kings and queens had simply been replaced by dictators. If we don't have kings we will just end up with leaders that act like kings. Monarchy is just too deeply rooted in the world's history.
But we want to be free. We do not want to be ruled by either kings or leaders who act like kings, who are usually worse than the actual kings. Fortunately there is a common sense solution that works.
We cannot just do away with royalty because it is far too deeply rooted in human history. What we can do is have a limited monarch that is bound by a constitution, a so-called "constitutional monarchy". A constitutional monarchy fulfills the need for a king or queen, because it is so deeply rooted in human history, but allows us to be much more free than we would be if ruled by a non-constitutional monarch by keeping the king or queen to a mostly ceremonial role.
The presence of the constitutional monarch acts as a psychological counterbalance against demagogues who act like kings. Any nation can eliminate a monarch as head of state if that is what they think best, but kings are just too deeply rooted in human history and that nation would greatly increase it's chances of falling under a leader who acts like a king.
VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF THE KING FACTOR
Democrat U.S. presidents helped France in both world wars. In the U.S. the Republican side represents the continuation of the French Bourbon Monarchy, which was overthrown in the French Revolution, while the Democrats are the post-revolution side. Notice how America's "Republican Heartland" is the land that was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, which was named for the French king Louis. France is now in the post-revolution republic stage. So when France is at war doesn't it make sense that it is Democrat U.S. presidents that are likely to help it, Woodrow Wilson in the First World War and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Second World War?
Paris has no streets named for Republican U.S. presidents. Paris has several streets named for U.S. presidents, but none for Republican presidents. But should this be surprising since France is in the post-revolution stage and it is the Democrats who represent the post-revolution stage in America.
Poor relations between the Nazis and the Kaisers. The Kaisers, the German royal family, ruled Germany in the First World War and the Nazis in the Second World War. But there were never good relations between the two, and not just because the Nazis blamed the Kaisers for losing the First World War. By the time the Nazis were in power the old Kaiser Wilhelm II was still alive, in exile in the occupied Netherlands. His request to Hitler to reinstate the German royal family was ignored, and Hitler showed no signs of wanting any contact with him. The Kaisers actually had a place in Nazi ideology, being the "Second Reich" while the Nazis called themselves the "Third Reich" with the Holy Roman Empire being the "First Reich". The reason for the poor relations was that the Kaisers were kings while Hitler eventually emerged from the revolution, at the end of the First World War, that overthrew the Kaisers. This put Hitler very much in the mode of Napoleon, he made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb and his field of conquest was very similar to that of Napoleon. This also put the Nazis and the Kaisers on diametrically opposite sides of the King Question and this is the reason for the poor relations between them.
Poor relations between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Relations between wartime Germany and Italy were usually not as good as they might have been, especially after the war turned against the two Axis powers, although this isn't necessarily true of Hitler and Mussolini themselves. The reason was that the two were on opposite sides of the King Question, Hitler was very much in the mode of Napoleon while Mussolini styled himself as a Roman emperor. One thing that I think weakened Mussolini's power over Italy is the fact that it already had a king, although the monarchy would be removed by a postwar referendum.
Poor relations between the wartime Axis powers. The relationship between the Nazis and Imperial Japan was affected by the same factor as between the Nazis and Italy. There were photo ops during submarine visits between the allies on the opposite side of the world but, other than that, there was very little coordination or cooperation between them. Emperor Hirohito was royalty while Hitler was very much in the mode of Napoleon, this put the two on opposite sides of the King Question.
Manchukuo in the war between Japan and China. China had it's version of the French Revolution in the Xinhai Revolution of 1911. This is regarded as the end of Imperial China. The final emperor of the Qing Dynasty was a child when he was overthrown. The Qing Dynasty had been based in Manchuria, which is in northeastern China. By the time of the Second World War, which brought war between China and Japan, the former emperor was an adult. Imperial Japan set up a state in occupied Manchuria, called Manchukuo, and set up the former emperor of China as the emperor of it. This was in resonance with Japan, which was ruled by an emperor and thus on the opposite side of the King Question from China. The hope was that many of the Chinese people would follow their former emperor against the government of Chiang Kai-Shek, who was in the mode of Napoleon as having replaced the Chinese royal family.
Hitler's relationship with Stalin but with the factor of the Holy Roman Empire. Hitler and Stalin would seem to be made to be allies, and for a while they were. Both were in the mode of Napoleon, dictators who wore military uniforms and had replaced a royal family that had been overthrown. But there was another royal factor involved, and that factor was the Holy Roman Empire. Hitler was actually complicated, he was very much in the mode of Napoleon and had made a point of visiting Napoleon's Tomb. But Hitler also had his royal side in that he considered the Nazis as the "Third Reich" with the Holy Roman Empire as the first and the time of the Kaisers the second, both of which were royal. Hitler saw himself as picking up where Napoleon left off, but also as the new Charlemagne who had been the first Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically it was Napoleon's conquests that ended the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire. This royal side put Hitler at odds with Stalin, who was not royal. The very purpose of the Holy Roman Empire was to rein in the eastern Christians who were questioning the authority of the pope. Hitler's invasion of Stalin was to complete this purpose, albeit in modern secular form. Napoleon, Hitler's military model, had also invaded Russia when it had been ruled by the royal family that Stalin had replaced.
John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro. The Cuban Communist revolutionary, Fidel Castro who came to power in 1959, was initially popular as he toured the U.S. It was president John F. Kennedy who demonized him. Castro was very much in the mode of Napoleon, a revolutionary leader who wore a military uniform. Castro hadn't overthrown a king himself but was an ally of the Soviet Communists who had overthrown and executed the Romanovs. We usually associate royal behavior in America with the Republican Party and Kennedy was a Democrat. But while Kennedy's policies generally favored the common people and he wasn't known to "act like a king", Kennedy had as much an aura of royalty about him as any Republican president. The Kennedy family was known as America's unofficial royal family. Kennedy's "court" was known as "Camelot", which was the name of the royal court of the fictitious King Arthur. This unmistakable aura of royalty put Kennedy on the opposite side of the King Factor from Fidel Castro. This is why Kennedy had to demonize Castro, even though Kennedy was a Democrat.
Richard Nixon, who Kennedy had won the presidential election against, later became U.S. President. Nixon was a Republican who "acted like a king" in that he thought rules didn't apply to him. This put Nixon on the opposite side of the King Factor from Fidel Castro. The Watergate Scandal, which ultimately brought down Nixon's presidency, began with a burglary, at the Watergate Buildings, in an effort to find evidence that Nixon's Democrat opponents were getting support from Castro's Cuba.
Republicans wanted to allow the exiled Iranian Shah into the U.S. while the Democrats wanted to keep him out. Democrat U.S. President Jimmy Carter is the one that ultimately paid for allowing the Shah into the U.S. But it was actually the Republicans who pressed to allow him in, for cancer treatment, against the objections of the Democrats. The underlying reason is simple. The Republicans are America's "royal" party, a continuation of the French Bourbon Dynasty that helped America gain independence. The Shah was an overthrown king, sharing the fate of the Bourbon monarchs, except that he died of cancer rather than being executed.
Ronald Reagan selling weapons to Iran to use against Iraq. While the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Iran was being held hostage, in demand for the return of the exiled Shah to face trial, war began between Iran and neighboring Iraq. It was this war that really got the U.S. hostages released because, with Iran actually being invaded, the hostages were no longer needed as a rallying point for the revolution and those guarding the hostages were needed at the battlefront. Can you believe that new president Ronald Reagan began secretly selling weapons to Iran, to use in the war against Iraq? In my youth this just mystified me, shouldn't it be the other way around? But now I understand the King Question. Both Iran's revolutionary government and the party of Iraq's Saddam Hussein had overthrown kings. Ronald Reagan was a Republican, which was America's "royal" party. But the two countries took different routes after overthrowing their kings. The Iranian revolutionaries were religious clerics while Iraq's Saddam Hussein was much more in the mode of Napoleon, a dictator who wore a military uniform. This is why Reagan sold weapons to Iran, to use against Iraq, because Napoleon was what ultimately emerged from the French Revolution, which overthrew and guillotined America's close allies, which had helped it gain independence.
Poor relations during 1980s between Moammar Gaddafi and Ayatollah Khomeini. During the 1980s the Libya of Moammar Gaddafi and the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini had many enemies in common. It would make sense that there would be a close alliance between them, being both Moslem countries, but there wasn't. Part of the divide is certainly that between Sunni and Shiite Moslems. The rest is, as with Iraq, both Iran and Libya had overthrown kings but the revolutions had gone in different directions from there. Ayatollah Khomeini was a religious cleric while Moammar Gaddafi was more in the mode of Napoleon, a dictator wearing a military uniform.
The Kroner and Euro and Brexit. This is something interesting. Of the four Scandinavian countries, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and, Finland, the only one without a constitutional monarchy is Finland. The only one that uses the Euro as their currency is also Finland, even though all except Norway are in the European Union. The three countries that don't use the Euro call their currency "Kroner" or "Krone", which means "crown". This shows that monarchy weakens a country's connection to the European Union, or precludes it altogether. When we come to Britain this explains it's former relationship with the European Union. It was a latecomer to the union, joining in 1973, it never adapted the Euro, and finally left the union altogether. We can see by the examples of Scandinavia above that the underlying reason is Britain being a constitutional monarchy. Notice that several leaders listed above as kings or queens, Donald Trump, Marine LePen and, Viktor Orban, are skeptical of the European Union.
Why Boris Johnson struggles. For the same reason that Benito Mussolini did. Boris Johnson, a conservative, is actually a would-be king, Britain's version of Donald Trump. The thing that hinders him from acting like a king is, as we saw above in "The Value Of Constitutional Monarchy" is that Britain already has a monarch, even if it is a constitutional monarch. This blocks Boris Johnson from getting away with things that Donald Trump might have gotten away with while President of the U.S.
America and the Metric System. Why was America the last major country to convert to the Metric System? It is actually very simple. America's first allies, and the ones that helped it to gain independence, were the Bourbon monarchs of France. Not too long after America's independence they were overthrown and guillotined in the French Revolution. The French revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten. They initiated a day with ten hours, a week with ten days, and a year with ten months. None of that lasted but the revolutionaries did contribute one thing that has swept the world, a measurement system based on tens that we call the Metric System. The real reason America has been so slow to accept it is that it was created by those who overthrew and guillotined it's close friends.
THE UPSIDE AND DOWNSIDE OF MONARCHY
THE MONARCHY AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
Why would the Industrial Revolution begin in Britain? Could it have to do with the monarchy?
The world was enthralled by the pageantry involved in the recent funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Very long lines of people waiting to pay their last respect. The orderly procession of the casket, with every move being made in harmony with long tradition. The vast number of people that had to be managed at the final funeral service, which had a precise way that the ceremony had to be done. The extensive rehearsals that must have been done to prepare everyone involved. The tremendous logistics involved must have approached that of holding the Olympics.
Except for the passing out of one of the Yeoman Warders everything ran like clockwork.
Now consider the running of a factory. The building has to set up just right to make the manufacturing process as efficient as possible. Raw materials have to brought in in the right amounts, to the right place in the factory, at the right time. Workers must have the required skills and training. The developing product must be moved along at just the right time in the manufacturing process. If machines are being manufactured the moving parts must work together just like the processes in the factory that produces it. The finished product must be packaged and taken to the markets. Careful consideration must go into the pricing of the product, to exceed the cost of manufacturing it but not high enough to reduce sales.
Just like all the pageantry associated with royalty it all had to work like clockwork. In fact, in terms of the patterns involved, there is a lot of similarity between royal pageantry and the industrial processes in factories. I am just using the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II as one example. Considering what we saw above in how the patterns in life and society are transmitted by art, music and, sports doesn't it seem like the patterns in royal pageantry are a major reason why the Industrial Revolution began in England?
THE MONARCHY AND OVER-CENTRALIZATION
Overall I think the monarchy is a good thing, as described in the compound posting on this blog, "The Theory Of Kings" April 2022. But there is one downside to the psychology of it that I cannot see has been documented anywhere.
The idea of society revolving around a monarchy promotes over-centralization. Two examples in England are the city of London and Oxford University.
One issue with the economy in England is how London overshadows everything else. No other city comes remotely close to London, and maybe this isn't healthy. The last I read the economic output of Liverpool, Manchester and, Birmingham combined is maybe 25% that of London.
No other of the larger European countries is centered around one city like England is centered around London. France, which overthrew and guillotined it's own monarchy in the revolution of 1789, is set up to be centered around Paris. But there are other cities that provide significant counterbalance and Marseilles is another power center in the south. Despite the history of Rome the economic center of Italy is Milan. Spain has a monarchy too, although not as visible as that of Britain, and Spain is somewhat centered around Madrid, although not as much as England is centered around London, and Barcelona in particular is a counterbalance power center.
On the other side of the world Japan is a highly visible monarchy also. Indeed we see that Tokyo dominates the economy of Japan much as London dominates England. Japan is an ancient country but Tokyo, by comparison, is not a really old city. But the reason Tokyo is there is because the Emperor moved from the much-older Kyoto to where the Shogun had been based, and it has since grown to economically dominate the country.
Just as London and Tokyo are the "palaces" of cities in their respective countries, Oxford is the "palace" of universities in England. For decades, Gordon Brown is the only prime minister that I can think of who didn't attend Oxford. I believe that this is due to the influence of having the monarchy, although overall it is beneficial.
THE MONARCHY AND MILITARY COUPS
The recent death of former Pakistani President and General Pervez Musharraf brought something to my attention that I cannot see has been pointed out.
A coup is an attempt to overthrow a government from within the country, as opposed to a foreign invasion. Across the world coup attempts happen all the time. Most are unsuccessful.
As we might expect, coups often involve the military since the military has weapons. A number of countries in the world are led by military governments. Such governments are generally disapproved of by democracies, since a military government hardly ever comes to power by way of a free election. Military governments almost always gain political power by seizing it forcefully, in other words a coup.
It is not uncommon, considering the entire world, for a country to have been ruled by it's military for a period of time, with power eventually returning to civilian control. Many countries have been through one or two military coups in their history.
But there are a few countries where the military operates almost like part of the government. When the military leadership feels that the civilian government isn't working as it should it seizes power, usually bloodlessly, but ultimately returns power to a civilian government.
Several countries fall into this category of having had more than one military coup in the modern era. But the coups seem almost like part of the system. The coups are always successful, bloodless or nearly bloodless, and control is eventually returned to a civilian government, almost always after elections have been held.
The first two countries that come to mind are Pakistan and Nigeria. Egypt has had a president from the military since the last king was overthrown. The exception was that Muhammad Morsi was allowed to win election after the Arab Spring but the military staged a coup and removed him.
Myanmar's military seized power and then another military government seized power from the first one. The democratic rule of Aung San Suu Kyi represented a much-awaited return to civilian control. But the military took advantage of an election that the rest of the world believes that she won and they lost to seize power again.
What I cannot help noticing is that the countries where occasional military coups seem like a regular part of the political system is those that were under British influence during the imperial era. In Britain it seems as if the monarch does not have any actual power. But the king or queen is the one to break a deadlock in government, if it should ever be necessary.
What happens in countries like Pakistan and Nigeria is that the lead general takes on the role of the monarch, outside the government but ready to step in when necessary, until it is decided that the country is ready to move forward with new elections.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
