By admin — May 30, 2024
Abolishing the Monarchy?
Occasionally, there are voices advocating for the abolition of the monarchy. These republicans argue things like: “it’s outdated,” “it just costs money,” “we don’t need it,” or “you can’t assign a position in a democracy based on ancestry.” These arguments might seem valid at first, but upon closer inspection, they appear more ideologically driven than rational.
Arguments such as “it just costs money,” “we don’t need it,” and “it’s outdated” aren’t persuasive—because they could also apply to all art and architecture from earlier times. Yet no one argues we should destroy Van Gogh’s paintings or demolish Amsterdam’s historic city center for the sake of modernity. Sure, it costs money and we could do without, but it brings aesthetic value and inspires the environment. That’s why we keep paying for it—despite objections from those who don’t see the need.
Ancestry and Democracy
The argument linking ancestry with democracy is based on the ideology of equality, but in reality, everyone’s background matters. In a democracy, not everyone is equal—rather, everyone is equal before the law. A prime minister’s ballot counts as much as anyone else’s, but their influence is vastly different. In practice, tall people experience the world differently than short people; politicians have more influence than coal shovelers; activists more than taxpayers. Equality is unrealistic—because it simply doesn’t exist.
Nobility as Cultural Heritage
The example of art and historical buildings is relevant. The Pantheon has aesthetic and commemorative value. It reminds us that, centuries ago, people could build such wonders. It inspires us to remember and improve upon past culture and technology. It evokes images of long-gone eras when people worshipped different gods and faced different challenges. The art, buildings, and stories of emperors and rulers—seen through the eyes of artists and writers—give our lives depth, helping us avoid repeating past mistakes.
Our past speaks to us, offering insight because it has been preserved. Dismantling our historic heritage, in the form of art, buildings, or literature, is akin to abolishing the monarchy. The royal family is a living institution with historical value—telling stories from which humanity can learn, and offering a certain aesthetic. It is a living past that has gained beauty and depth, which no newly elected prime minister or political party can match.
The monarchy is not just a valuable piece of history but a living memory. Its members pass down stories of heroic acts, national service, or times when the family averted disaster. These stories offer a perspective that goes back centuries—far beyond a politician’s four-year term.
This applies not only to the monarchy but to any family that has held an important role over generations.
Preserving Management Skills
Nobility is sometimes seen as meaningless or as beneficiaries of luck. But this perspective overlooks history. You can only be ennobled by making significant contributions to society.
If a family has managed to retain its wealth for generations—while continuing to contribute to society—it proves their ability to manage. This implies a genetic line of capable individuals. In such a case, assigning roles based on heritage is rational, because the likelihood of competence is demonstrably higher.
Their decisions must have been sound—otherwise they would have lost their wealth. The longer a family’s history, the deeper their historical worldview—enabling better long-term decisions compared to families without such legacy.
Giving the nobility a special position adds value. They see further, unconstrained by the whims of today—or even this century. Their perspective adds a unique dimension to society that we can’t maintain otherwise. Add to this the value of preserved heritage and proof of reliability through long-term stability, and it even reduces the chances of corruption or crime, as those don’t pay off long-term.
Historical Misunderstanding
Nobility has gained a bad reputation due to the French Revolution. But that was an anomaly, compared to centuries of functional feudalism. For most of the 1,000 years it existed, the class system worked well and kept people relatively content [¹]. Modern historical narratives focus on famines and wars, which distort reality. In most places, feudalism maintained security and wealth, with each class playing a crucial, mutually supportive role.
Feudalism declined not because of revolution, but due to urbanization and the declining importance of agriculture in the economy [²]. In cities, criminals were dealt with by police rather than military bands. Thus, the real reason feudalism ended was evolving economic systems—not the Russian or French revolutions.
The class system today is discredited due to isolated historical events, without proper evaluation. Data tells a different story. Countries with monarchies are safer, wealthier, and more stable [³]—not just Western monarchies, but also autocratic ones perform better than dictatorships. Being governed by a higher class, such as in constitutional monarchies, is demonstrably more effective than republics.
The reasons are speculative. Some suggest it offers legal continuity, a long-term vision, and psychological stability by separating the head of government (PM) from the symbolic head of state (monarch).
Whatever the reason, the data shows: constitutional monarchies outperform republics [⁴].
Administrative Innovation
Given that monarchies bring prosperity, safety, and peace, it seems reasonable to expect that reintroducing constitutional nobility on a local scale could offer similar benefits. For example, having a mayor alongside a ceremonial noble provides an extra check: if the mayor wants to push a plan to renovate the city center to benefit a friend’s construction company, the noble could delay approval. Or if a city council passes an unrealistic budget, the feudal lord could refuse to sign.
This would distribute power more effectively, bringing monarchy benefits to the local level. A fluid, constitutional feudal system could emerge—where nobility is ceremonial but functions as an additional check on power, reducing corruption and short-term thinking.
It may also boost tourism and improve land management. In short, a small democratic tweak could help us handle future challenges more wisely—by reviving a system that once worked well and merging it with our modern governance.
Counterarguments
It’s worth reviewing how Dutch republicans formulate their arguments. Floris Muller, chairman of Republiek, lists five reasons to abolish the monarchy.
- First argument: The king gets a huge salary and privileges based on heredity, which violates the constitution’s stance against discrimination by birth.
Counter: Royalty is not just a job—it’s a public function and symbol. The wealth and status are necessary to project national prosperity. - Second argument: The royal media code.
Counter: This ensures the symbol of state retains its stature. - Third argument: It’s impossible to have a fair trial against the king because he appoints judges who swear loyalty to him.
Counter: This is ceremonial and irrelevant—courts have ruled the king can be party to legal proceedings and still be judged fairly [⁵]. - Fourth argument: Royals live in a “gilded cage.”
Counter: This only applies to the heir, who can opt out if desired. - Fifth argument: “We don’t need it.”
Counter: That’s weak reasoning—we don’t “need” art either, yet we value it deeply.
