Why I Am Not A Monarchist

From the Perspective of a Catholic Traditionalist

An Article by Daniel Tyler S. Chua

Amongst many traditionalist Catholic circles in the Philippines, both in the real world and on the internet, the monarchy
is upheld as the salvation of a country that has suffered from decades of government incompetence under the republican system.
Although I am not fundamentally opposed to monarchism outside the Philippines, and I am not hostile to the concept of a Philippine
monarch, I am not onboard with such a concept because of three fundamental reasons which shed light upon the infeasibility of a
united Filipino Catholic Monarchy.
Among the more active sectors of Filipino monarchism there exists many disagreements on who and what the king will
be. For those that are passive in their support, there exists a level of mediocrity since it is not their higher priority in life. And even
among the Catholic hierarchy there exists a support for Filipino liberalism as a majority of bishops are heaven-bent in preserving the
people-power concept that stems from the ideals of Ninoy Aquino and Cardinal Sin. I do not know of any bishop that will instantly
accept the offer of supporting a monarchy the moment he is asked. To achieve the monarchist goals one must not only reshape the
papers but reshape the entirety of Filipino society. This could work if the monarchist agenda existed in legitimate and actual parties
and societies, but most of the monarchist database exists on some obscure places on the internet.
In monarchist circles there are four distinct circles with loyalties to a different line. These include the Alfonsoist, Carlist,
Habsburg, and localist lines. They all have overlapping interests but I will expand on all four.
Alfonsoism- Alfonsoism is the belief that the line of King Alfonso XIII (Bourbon) is the legitimate line of Spain.
Although in the Spanish Civil War it had traditionalist Catholic tendencies, it was not as traditionalist as Carlism. The current King
of Spain is from the Alfonsoist line. However, it is highly unlikely that these royals would be recommended or accepted by
traditionalists and it is even more unlikely that any of the royals in this line would have an interest in becoming the King of the
Philippines.
Carlism- Carlism is the belief that an alternate branch of the Bourbon dynasty from Infante Carlos María Isidro of Spain
is the true and legitimate King of Spain. It is more traditionalist than Alfonsoism but there is a divide between the sons of Prince
Xavier, one of the major claimants from the Bourbon-Parma line. The two sons are the late Prince Hugo and the living Prince
Sixtus, and although Prince Hugo was the older claimant his socialist tendencies have alienated many Carlists, who then sought
recourse to Prince Sixtus, who rejects his brother’s uncatholic socialism.
However, while Prince Hugo has had many children and descendants, Prince Sixtus has had none, living a celibate and
unmarried life. Although it would be more likely that Prince Sixtus will accept and be accepted by the monarchist circles, the lack of
an heir presumptive would complicate matters after his death, and since he is over eighty it would not be the proper age to marry.
The other minor Carlist lines might stand a chance but little is known about them or their values.
Habsburg- The namesake of the Philippines, King Phillip II, was a member of the Habsburgs. Although their
descendants in the Habsburg-Lothringen line have more or less kept their catholicity it is hard to find information on them. It is
likely however that at least one of their members may be willing to become the next King of the Philippines, it will take some time
to develop a correspondence with any of them. To further complicate the matters, the late Otto von Habsburg did renounce the
Habsburg claim to Spain and all her territories, and once something is renounced it cannot be retrieved.
Localism- This is more popular with non-traditionalist monarchists, but it has a series of problems that needs to be
addressed. No single indegenous monarch has ever ruled the entirety of the country (the Philippines was united under Spain) and not
all extant monarchs are Catholics or even Christians. The largest of the extant domains is the muslim titular Sultanate of Sulu, made
famous for its failed 2013 invasion of its ancestral domain in Sabah. The Sultanate of Lanao is more of a confederation of princes
and the datus and the descendants of the Tondo Lakans and the kings of Manila are more or less either scattered, uninterested, or not
influential enough. My personal choice were the Protestant tribal leaders in Cagayan who could be easily converted to Catholicism.
Despite these setbacks, it would still be possible (not feasible) to elect a supreme ruler above all rulers like in the case of
Malaysia, but in a traditionalist utopia this would mean either having to let the Muslim population secede or ignore their culttural
heritage, which could cost unnecessary legaalities and if the latter, lives.
Many traditionalists worldwide adopt either monarchism or clerical fascism due to the false notion of the masonic origins
of the concept of republicanism. They view Monarchism as the natural order instituted by God. However, they happen to forget, or
deliberately ignore the fact that God did not even want the Israelites to have a king, and the Kings of Israel led to its eventual
decline. Although it is true that many republican governments came about by masonic and unchristian means, the concept itself is
not foreign to Catholicism. In fact, many republics promote Catholicism as part of their national identity, and even as a state
religion, while many monarchies were involved in the persecution of the Church, even in relatively contemporary times.
An example of this is in Italy. While the current republic’s constitutional view of the Church-State relations is
"independent and sovereign, each within its own sphere”, the Kingdom of Italy was very anti-clerical (with the exception of
Umberto II) and participated in conquests upon the Papal States, leading to the Fall of Rome. How could a system seemingly based
on God’s own natural order lead to the persecution of the Church, while a seemingly artificial system not only respects it, but is in
good terms with their Faith? Will a monarchy help the Philippines in the long term, or lead souls to Christ?
 To be fair to the monarchists, we are all in agreement that simply replacing the President with a King and the Senate and
Congress with Parliament will not change anything to both the people and the political socio-economic situation in the Philippines.
They suggest that we make a complete charter change and a complete transformation in society. Although this is clearly laudable, is
a monarch really needed to achieve these goals? Could a monarch do what a president or prime minister cannot?
What makes a leader a leader? It’s quite simple: a leader is anyone who can lead a nation. But the difference between a
leader and a good leader is the specifics of a leader’s leadership that makes it “good.” While the King of Italy Victor Emmanuel II
and his loyal stooge Garibaldi by that time were destroying the Papal States in a new age of anticlerical, possibly Masonic
enlightenment in the West, the President of Ecuador, Gabriel Garcia Moreno improved the current societal climate in Ecuador and
was known as one of the most Catholic presidents in the 19th century. Although it is true that Moreno himself was an avid
monarchist who favored Spanish princes instead of the republican system, he proved that a republic can be consistent with the ideals
of Catholic social teaching.
There are seven practical requirements to keep in mind when planning (or attempting) an monarchist restoration: 1) the
willingness of the candidate, 2) the legitimacy of the candidate, 3) the universality of the candidate, 4) the values of the candidate, 5)
the willingness of society, 6) the willingness of the elite, and 7) the values of society. WIthout these, the chances of a monarchist
restoration go down. Although the religiosity of the Philippines is impossible to deny, the willingness for a monarch is either slim or
stagnant. Some are content with the current political situation, many merely want three full meals a day, even more want the concept
of “people power”. For those that want a king, there are two camps in this sector of society: Those that actively desire it, and those
that passively desire it.
In conclusion, Monarchism isn’t necessarily the orderly system of government that monarchists believe it or want it to be.
The desires of a monarchist are rooted in the laudable desire of an authentic Catholic state, but it is also rooted in the false pretense
that other systems are unnatural or masonic. Not only can the monarchist lobby not rally under a single king, they cannot, as of now,
find an interested party that can fit the costs of a successful and stable monarchical society. Although there exists an extant nobility,
it is hard to come across a monarch and the number of possible monarchs are just about the same number of times snow fell onto the
top of Mount Pulag during the little ice age (the last time was in the late 1800s). Monarchy is not the panacea for the political and
socio-economic situation in the Philippines because the costs of a monarchist revival outweigh the benefits, and the benefits are not
necessarily the result or a monarchist revival, but of a constitutional and societal change which can be achieved under an integralist
republic. This is why I am not a monarchist.