Conceits of monarchy: Okay for Britain; for us, not so much.

Summary: the birth of a son to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has called forth the usual spectrum of American response, ranging from dutiful royalism to splenetic “guillotine the bastards” Jacobinism.  For all the Jacobinism, the British seem to like the Windsors; support for Republicanism in Britain is at an all-time low.  Still, what is good for our friends across the pond is not necessarily okay for us.  Politicians like Cathedral City’s Kathleen Joan DeRosa, with monarchical conceits of themselves, should profit by the example of the ruin that befell the ruling houses of Romanov, Hohenzollern, Habsburg, and Osman, whose autocratic rulers all fell before the titanic stresses of the Great War.  Kathleen DeRosa is no Catherine the Great; her peevishness and personality defects cause her more to resemble Marie Antoinette, or Germany’s sad-sack last Kaiser, Wilhelm II, and his feckless cousin Nicholas II, the last Romanov tsar.

By: Paul S. Marchand

“Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge was safely delivered of a son at 4.24pm,” and within minutes popping sounds began to become audible on this side of the pond: either champagne corks or heads exploding.  American reactions to the birth of the Prince of Cambridge have ranged from the sycophantic to the splenetic; on one side are Anglophile royalists whose fascination with the Royal Family verges upon the creepy, while on the other are the angry American Jacobins who would happily guillotine the whole lot.

In any monarchical form of government, the birth of a new dynast necessarily plays an important role in the body politic.  Having done her dynastic duty, HRH the Duchess of Cambridge has managed to secure the future of the House of Windsor into the 22nd Century.  As one wag has put it, there is now an heir, a spare, and an heir to the spare.  The Windsors now have a cornucopia of future kings.

Yet the very mention of kings or queens tends to send our local Jacobins into froths of head-exploding “guillotine the bastards” anger.  Some of the Internet commentary on the subject of the royal birth has been sulfurous.  One cannot escape forming an impression of a certain type of reverse colonialism; if not having a monarch is good for us, that it must necessarily be good for you, too.

While we Americans have happily done away with the whole idea of monarchy, preferring the raucous uncertainty of our own ostensibly democratic system to the solemn, yet ultimately alien rituals of dynasties and monarchies, we should still remember that the monarchy in the UK enjoys almost overwhelming public support.  The monarchy appears far more secure now than it did when George I, the first of a series of unlovely Hanoverian monarchs, succeeded Queen Anne, last of the star-crossed Stuarts, in 1714.  The monarchy also appears far more secure now than it did when Queen Victoria ascended the throne in 1837 at the tender age of 18. Republicanism in Britain is polling at close to all-time lows, its adherents often coming across as prim, grim, dour, sour, and humorless exponents of an ideology possessing little appeal to “Middle Britain.”  

And, indeed, some of the more Jacobin fulminations emanating from commentators in this country suggest a kind of love-hate relationship with the monarchy in the UK; why invest the time and emotional capital attacking an institution if its existence does not in some way fulfill a felt need, even if just for something to rage against?  Even so, there does seem something a little offputting about some of the more venomous attacks upon the Cambridges and their infant.  It really is too soon to start limbering up the guillotine.

Nonetheless, America’s fascination with royalty does tend to resemble a social pathology, a pathology not too distant from our own often unhealthy fascination with celebrities.  To a certain extent, the Windsors and the unfathomable Kardashians both share the attribute of gratuitous celebrity; they are famous largely for being famous.  We can argue endlessly about the extent to which royal families or celebrities bring value added to their economies, and in the end no agreement will be possible; Burkean conservatism and revolutionary Jacobinism can rarely have anything to say to one another. 

Still, what we Americans should object to and resent is the extent to which our own political officials develop often highly monarchical conceits of themselves.  Here in Cathedral City, we have one such example.  For nine long winters, Cathedral City’s mayor, Kathleen Joan DeRosa has displayed just such a monarchical conceit of herself and her position.  Unwilling to take “no” for an answer, and possessed of a predilection for trying to bludgeon others into submission, DeRosa’s reputation for being a vindictive control freak and a bully very much precedes her.

It should come as no surprise, then, that on DeRosa’s watch, City Hall has suffered a hemorrhage of highly qualified municipal staff.  Indeed, speculation continues to swirl that outgoing city manager Andy Hall’s departure may well have been precipitated by an unwillingness on his part to truckle to unreasonable or unsustainable demands from DeRosa.

Certainly, DeRosa, like would-be monarchs and dictators the world over, has wasted no opportunity to try to create for herself a cult of personality, aided and abetted by the tame, lazy reporters of our local Gannett newspaper.  DeRosa’s goal could not be more clear or obvious; by creating a community cult of personality, and by cultivating local media, she has attempted to insulate herself from any form of accountability.

Yet, what DeRosa forgets, is that monarchies survive when the monarch functions within the constraints of a constitution.  What saved Queen Victoria when Republicanism in Britain was an all-time high was her conscientious adherence to the norms and customs of the United Kingdom’s unwritten constitution; by reigning, not ruling, Victoria brought her dynasty safely into the 20th century.  By contrast, more autocratic dynasties, such as the Romanovs, the Hohenzollerns, the Habsburgs, and the Osmanlıs, with their tradition that an activist monarch should both reign and rule, all collapsed in the general ruin that befell so many ancient states during the Great War. 

Like all control freaks, Kathleen Joan DeRosa craves power, and wants to rule Cathedral City as long as she can bamboozle the electorate into returning her to office.  Last fall, her attempt to run a compliant slate that would give her a permanent, controlled, three-vote majority on the Council failed when voters turned out incumbent councilmember Charles “Bud” England, who had for years been a reliable sycophant and controlled vote for DeRosa, replacing him with former police chief Stan Henry, who has already begun to show signs of distancing himself from an increasingly unpopular Mayor. 

DeRosa’s unwillingness or inability to work collegially with others, together with her need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral, causes her to bear more of a resemblance to an Arab oil sheik than to one of the constitutional queens of Western Europe, while her indifference to the well-being of Cathedral City calls forth ineluctable comparisons between her and the feckless Marie “let them eat cake” Antoinette.  At all events, she is certainly no Catherine the Great.  As with Germany’s sad-sack Wilhelm II or Russia’s star-crossed last Tsar, Nicholas II, DeRosa’s peevish assertions of her own will usually create nothing but ill-will, division, and disaster for Cathedral City. 

If we take any lesson from the birth of a new Prince in Britain, it ought to be that what is okay for them is not necessarily okay for us, and that as Americans, we should resist to our last breath any effort by self-aggrandizing politicians to turn themselves into de facto local monarchs.  As Patrick Henry once declared, Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I had his Cromwell, and our own little wannabe monarch should profit by their example.  Monarchism in America is never admissible, not even in Cathedral City.
-xxx-

Paul S. Marchand is an attorney who lives and practices in Cathedral City.  While he has no particular issue with the ancient monarchy of the United Kingdom, and wishes Duke, Duchess, and infant prince well, he abhors and despises the idea that any American should cultivate a monarchical conceit of herself.  The views contained herein are his own, and not necessarily those of any other entity, and are not intended to constitute legal advice.