As numerous &#8220;No Kings&#8221; rallies popped up across the United States, several signs and costumes prompted immediate ridicule — but perhaps none so much as the woman from Durham, North Carolina, who dressed in full 18th century garb and called on protesters to &#8220;give them 1789 France.&#8221;
The woman, apparently dressed as beheaded French aristocrat Marie Antoinette, wore a blonde wig styled in the traditional pouf and fake blood dripped over her pearl necklace. The only two things out of place were her sunglasses and the sign she held, which read, &#8220;They want 1939 Germany. Let&#8217;s give them 1789 France.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Spotted at a No Kings protest in Durham, North Carolina!
Epic creativity! <a href="https://t.co/sd6yWeUqn5">pic.twitter.com/sd6yWeUqn5</a>
— Art Candee 🍿🥤 (@ArtCandee) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArtCandee/status/2037918354787185060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 28, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And while her point was clearly a call to get rid of what she perceived as the &#8220;aristocracy&#8221; in the United States, several critics noted the irony of her invoking the French Revolution specifically. While the most famous public executions during that period were of high profile individuals like Antoinette and even King Louis XVI in 1793, the majority of those who died under the guillotine were commoners who dared to voice opposition to the revolutionaries. In addition, the revolution ultimately devolved into such chaos that the nation was already primed when Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in 1799 — and then returned to monarchy after Napoleon&#8217;s defeat some 15 years later.
In another ironic twist, recent <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/500-groups-3b-revenues-behind-nokings-protests-communist-call-revolution">reporting</a> from Fox News Digital indicated that the &#8220;No Kings&#8221; protests were bankrolled by a number of groups boasting a combined $3 billion in revenue — and by several communist and socialist groups who have been calling for &#8220;revolution&#8221; in the United States.
The lead organizers for protests in St. Paul, Minnesota, for example, were reportedly promoted by Indivisible — a relatively well-known Democratic organization funded by billionaire George Soros.
Neville Roy Singham — an American communist living in China with ties to radical organization CodePink — was also connected several other groups that sent representatives to the &#8220;No Kings&#8221; protests as well. Among those organizations are the People’s Forum in New York, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the ANSWER Coalition, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

US-POLITICS-DEMONSTRATION

‘No Kings’ Protester Calls For ‘1789’ — The History Behind It Tells A Different Story

'No Kings' Protester Calls For Return To 1789 France — Which Resulted In Monarchy

Donald Trump

France

Monarchy

Politics

Protests

Adapted from <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1453-the-fbi-caught-spying-on-computer-searches-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“The Michael Knowles Show,”</a>  March 25, 2024.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a major tabloid scandal involving Catherine, Princess of Wales, who has been missing since January. The future queen of England, Prince William&#8217;s wife, had abdominal surgery at the beginning of the year, but then, she basically just disappeared.
All kinds of theories circulated, including William fathering children out of wedlock and Catherine having passed away with a body double taking her place. Yet there was no evidence for any of this whatsoever.
But now, the gossip and guessing are over because the Princess of Wales has publicly announced why she has been out of sight with an explanation that poses a real risk, not just to their family, but also to the British monarchy.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/A_jE1j_KOZk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In her video announcement, the princess gives thanks for the support she has received as she has been recovering and for the medical team who has taken care of her. At the time she had surgery, it was thought that her condition was non-cancerous. Though the surgery was successful, tests after the operation showed cancer had been present. Her medical team advised her to begin preventative chemotherapy, a treatment she is now undergoing.
Inevitably, there are still going to be all sorts of theories that surface, but this seems to legitimately explain her disappearance. Apparently their children were ending their school term before the Easter recess and they wanted to wait to tell them first — before any media firestorm that the future queen of England has cancer. At the same time, the current king of England, King Charles, has cancer, so this obviously puts a lot of pressure on Prince William.
Some Americans are going to question why everyone is so invested in these people’s lives. They will say, “We haven’t cared about these people since 1776.” But, first of all, I care just because the Princess of Wales seems like a lovely woman. She is a dignified woman. And we should all pray for her and her recovery, as well as for King Charles.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h4>
But why do Americans care? It is obvious that they do. This news has not just been trending in the British tabloids; American tabloids have covered it as well. So, why does monarchy, or aspects of monarchy, endure throughout history?
We kid ourselves in the United States to believe we removed the monarchy. I was at the State of the Union just two weeks ago, and there was much pomp and circumstance. Obviously the American president is not a king, but we have had American presidents who effectively have been kings. Notably, Franklin Roosevelt was the American monarch, reigning for four terms and dying in office. Good luck trying to distinguish him from any supposed autocratic leaders of his age or even from a proper monarch, just on pure aesthetics alone.
Why is that enduring? Because we live in society. That is what politics is. And we need representatives. Even in democracy, we need representatives. That&#8217;s why we call our system of government a representative democracy.
But we have one particular representative in the United States, which is the president. People don&#8217;t get all that jazzed about their congressmen, nor their senators. But people get really fired up about their presidential candidates and their presidents because it&#8217;s just human nature — and as humans, we care about people. We cultivate and form our desires based on the desires of other people. We follow leaders. That&#8217;s just how it works.
Now, one of the problems with the monarchy is that there are some dodgy characters in it, like Prince Andrew gallivanting with Jeffrey Epstein. Then there were the scandals in the 90s with Prince Charles and Princess Diana. However, William and Catherine seem to be quite dignified. If the British monarchy is able to survive, it will be because of that.
This is something to look for, even in our own personal lives. Catherine is dignified. People like her. They like her more than they like Meghan Markle because Markle is not dignified at all. In fact, she is extremely undignified. Yet with Catherine, even after people had suggested her husband was cheating on her, alleged she was dead, and created such terrible theories about her, the Princess of Wales gave a dignified message, thanking people for their care and concern. That kind of dignified behavior is attractive, especially in an age that is extremely undignified and downright shameless.
So we pray for her recovery, and perhaps we ought to try to emulate a little bit of that grace and dignity.

The Royal Family Attend The “Together At Christmas” Carol Service

Why We Should Emulate The Grace And Dignity Of Catherine, Princess Of Wales

Cancer

England

Great Britain

Kate Middleton

Meghan Markle

Michael Knowles

Prince William

Readers Pass

Royal fans are eagerly awaiting the coronation of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/prince-charles">King Charles III</a> on Saturday which will be the first British coronation of this century.
The last <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-kingdom">British</a> coronation occurred on June 2, 1953, when Charles’ late mother, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/royal-family">Queen Elizabeth II</a>, began her record-breaking 70-year reign. Now a whole generation of new citizens will experience the pomp and ceremony of a coronation, though many aspects of the ceremony will be different than the last one.
Due to the time difference, U.S.-based royal followers wishing to watch the ceremonies will need to tune in to livestreams or news sites beginning at Westminster Abbey starting at 11 a.m. BST, or 6 a.m. ET. 
More than 2,000 guests from around the world are expected to attend the coronation, per <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-where-watch-coronation-in-us-king-charles-live-time/">CBS News</a>. Royals from other nations, heads of state, and most of Charles’ family will be there. U.S. President Joe Biden is not attending.
Before the service, Charles and his wife, Camilla, will participate in the King&#8217;s Procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey. They’ll greet crowds from the balcony at Buckingham Palace once the ceremony concludes.
King Charles cut back on the guest list, but the entire production will cost taxpayers an estimated £100 million, or the equivalent of $125 million, per <a href="https://time.com/6275383/king-charles-iii-coronation-cost-taxpayers/">Time</a>. This has caused backlash as the country is currently experiencing rising inflation.
Several big-name performers were invited to perform at the coronation, including Adele, Harry Styles, Elton John, Ed Sheeran, and the Spice Girls, but they all declined. The confirmed headliners are Katy Perry and Lionel Richie.
Charles’ estranged son Prince Harry will be attending the coronation, but his wife, American actress Meghan Markle, will remain at home. The pair have become extremely controversial following their decision to step back as senior working royals and move to the United States permanently. Earlier this year, Harry released a tell-all memoir, “Spare,” which made tensions even worse.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1683221023122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw16mjhcJj4v6BrDibEXrVFW">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The coronation happens to fall on Harry’s son’s fourth birthday. Archie and his little sister Lilibet will remain at home with Meghan during the festivities.
Disgraced royal family member Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, will be in attendance, but he will not be performing any traditional ducal duties on that day, per <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/04/prince-harry-andrew-coronation/">The Washington Post</a>. Andrew had his royal titles and patronages stripped from him after details of his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein became public.
Prince Andrew stood accused of having sex with an underage girl he met through Epstein. The matter was settled out of court, and ever since the royal has been ostracized by members of the royal family.
During the coronation, Camilla will be crowned queen and will no longer be referred to as Queen Consort. This will be a big change as Queen Elizabeth’s husband Philip had the title Prince Consort. The public opinion of her has also been mixed as many citizens still feel loyal to King Charles’ ex-wife, Princess Diana.
There is no legal requirement for a coronation as Charles automatically became king when Queen Elizabeth died on September 8, 2022. The ceremony is still taking place as a religious ritual as it will serve as a formal confirmation of King Charles’ role as head of state and titular head of the Church of England.
Numerous historical artifacts will be incorporated into the coronation ceremony, including King Edward’s Chair, which has been used in these types of ceremonies for 700 years. This artifact houses the Stone of Destiny, which was built around 1300 and used for centuries to crown Scottish kings.
Another <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/king-charles-coronation-cross-has-fragments-believed-to-come-from-jesus-crucifixion">special item</a> being used in the ceremony is a coronation cross which includes shards of wood from the cross that’s believed to have been used to crucify Jesus Christ.

King Charles

What To Know Ahead Of King Charles III’s Coronation Ceremony

What To Know Ahead Of King Charles III's Coronation Ceremony

Celebrities

King Charles III

Prince Andrew

Prince Harry

Royal Family

United Kingdom

World

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/prince-charles">King Charles III</a> has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/monarchy">king</a> for only a few days, and he’s already getting negative publicity thanks to a video of him insistently gesturing to his aides that went viral over the weekend. 
One of the clips comes courtesy of the parody <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/twitter">Twitter</a> account Laura Kuenssberg Translator, and as of Monday, it has close to 26 million views. In it, Charles gestures for a staff member to remove some items from his desk before he sits down. The caption says, &#8220;The servant must clear my desk for me. I can&#8217;t be expected to move things.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;The servant must clear my desk for me. I can&#39;t be expected to move things.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/0pZqY2Xopq">pic.twitter.com/0pZqY2Xopq</a>
&mdash; Laura Kuenssberg beyond parody (@LKTranslator) <a href="https://twitter.com/LKTranslator/status/1568571047892459523?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Sympathy won&#8217;t last long with this sort of behaviour…” one person <a href="https://twitter.com/Your_Avg_Punter/status/1568886681675386881">wrote</a> in reply. 
“With all his wealth, he could already afford some manners,” another <a href="https://twitter.com/SJK_Hopes/status/1568832717860794369">agreed</a>. 
“The new King of England showing us who he really is,” another <a href="https://twitter.com/Thewiseonewon/status/1568776790449037316">said</a>. 
The clip drew as much ire as another snippet from the same day. King Charles had run out of room on his tiny desk and made an impatient face while gesturing for an aide standing by to move some items out of his way. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
While signing an oath at the Accession Council, King Charles III ran out of room and gestured for an aide to help make some space on the desk. <a href="https://t.co/zRfXNO1crQ">https://t.co/zRfXNO1crQ</a> <a href="https://t.co/Fl5Ge24EZY">pic.twitter.com/Fl5Ge24EZY</a>
&mdash; ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1568570431719804928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 10, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Twitter viewers were not amused by these antics and expressed displeasure in their replies.
“That’s what growing up privileged does to you. That’s why they only want people that live the same way around them. They only are nice to common folk when the cameras are around. The common folk are just that to them,” one person <a href="https://twitter.com/JaimeCasarez2/status/1568617297912238082">replied</a>. 
“He didn&#8217;t just gesture. He was rude. This says a lot about him and not in a good way,” one person <a href="https://twitter.com/marydockham/status/1568659733057265665">shared</a>. 
However, King Charles had plenty of defenders who insisted it was well within his rights to expect the staffers to perform their job functions. 
“People moaning about this need to get a life. I&#8217;m a republican but I can see here a bereaved, bit stressed, man trying to get something done,” one person <a href="https://twitter.com/coaldragon/status/1568922145958363136">said</a>. “I&#8217;m sure the assistant was more than understanding. The face is just one of&#8230; &#8216;aaaargh, sort this out will ya&#8217;, that&#8217;s all.”
&nbsp;

Charles Returns To London A King

Twitter Flips Over King Charles III Getting Snappy With Staff On Day 2 As King

London

Why is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/legacy-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legacy media</a> so boring?
CNN is a <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/08/02/cnns-profits-to-dip-below-1b-for-first-time-since-2016-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">billion-dollar company</a>. Yet the best the media conglomerate can conjure up for stimulating conversation surrounding the ascent of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/prince-charles" target="_blank" rel="noopener">King Charles III</a> sounds like a litany of the latest college campus wishes contrived from an international relations 101 class at Swarthmore.
On Friday, the former home of Brian Stelter ranted about BLM, climate change, reparations, and other left-wing goals while discussing their hopes and dreams for the United Kingdom&#8217;s new monarch.
&#8220;Here&#8217;s how CNN spent a good portion of its first hour after King Charles III&#8217;s speech &amp; the service of remembrance at St. Paul&#8217;s Cathedral for Queen Elizabeth II&#8230;.harping on BLM, multiculturalism, &amp; hoping Charles pushes Britain to institute reparations,&#8221; Newsbusters&#8217; Curtis Houck noted.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Here&#39;s how CNN spent a good portion of its first hour after King Charles III&#39;s speech &amp; the service of remembrance at St. Paul&#39;s Cathedral for Queen Elizabeth II&#8230;.harping on BLM, multiculturalism, &amp; hoping Charles pushes Britain to institute reparations.
CNN, still unserious. <a href="https://t.co/h1EKozo1dE">pic.twitter.com/h1EKozo1dE</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1568322263497297921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;This was about five minutes later,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Again, talking about reparations, racial tensions, and the royals being a family of racists. It&#8217;s as if that&#8217;s what CNN feeds off of and pushes to the forefront.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
This was about five minutes later.
Again, talking about reparations, racial tensions, and the royals being a family of racists.
It&#39;s as if that&#39;s what CNN feeds off of and pushes to the forefront. <a href="https://t.co/UUfqcnByXB">pic.twitter.com/UUfqcnByXB</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1568322912859602944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Conservative columnist Caleb Howe also highlighted a chyron, which simply read, &#8220;CHARLES BECOMES KING AFTER DECADES OF CLIMATE ADVOCACY.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
lol this CNN banner <a href="https://t.co/BVfazO1GEf">pic.twitter.com/BVfazO1GEf</a>
&mdash; Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) <a href="https://twitter.com/CalebHowe/status/1568256978899845120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 9, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It is true that Charles has been a climate advocate. The U.K.&#8217;s history of colonialism deserves to be looked at it in its proper context. Of course, it wasn&#8217;t as evil as leftists like to shriek about, but that doesn&#8217;t mean reviewing the good and the bad side of it shouldn&#8217;t occur. A rigorous debate would be worthy to watch, but that isn&#8217;t what happened.
The true dullness about CNN&#8217;s coverage is that they are simply taking the policy goals of American leftists and placing them on the U.K., and therefore the entire world.
CNN&#8217;s Christiane Amanpour herself admitted as much while remarking on the impact that the George Floyd riots had on England and elsewhere around the globe.
In her mind, predominantly white cultures that engaged in colonialism owe something to the brown and black nations they once controlled. The resulting inequity is justification for such reparations.
The conversation sounded no different from CNN&#8217;s expectations of President Joe Biden&#8217;s presidency.
Of course, what Amanpour either ignores or does not realize is that to this day, she pushes her culture onto various nations around the globe.
Just this week, Amanpour tweeted an interview she had with the newly elected president of Kenya. Kenya is a predominantly Christian nation and doesn&#8217;t recognize the right to gay sex.
“Gay sex is illegal in Kenya and President-elect @WilliamsRuto previously said &#8216;we have no room for gays,’” Amanpour tweeted. &#8220;Ruto tells me &#8216;we respect everybody,&#8217; but adds &#8216;this is not a big issue for the people of Kenya&#8217; and President Kenyatta was &#8216;spot on&#8217; to say homosexuality &#8216;is not agreeable.’”
Throughout the interview, you can see the visceral disdain from the supposed non-biased journalist. Ruto defended his culture. Rightly or wrongly, he stands by what his people have decided should be the rule of law.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Gay sex is illegal in Kenya and President-elect <a href="https://twitter.com/WilliamsRuto?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@WilliamsRuto</a> previously said “we have no room for gays.” Ruto tells me “we respect everybody,” but adds “this is not a big issue for the people of Kenya” and President Kenyatta was “spot on” to say homosexuality “is not agreeable.” <a href="https://t.co/qLN3Ss0p2G">pic.twitter.com/qLN3Ss0p2G</a>
&mdash; Christiane Amanpour (@amanpour) <a href="https://twitter.com/amanpour/status/1567567162444849157?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 7, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As Ruto explained in the interview with Amanpour, his culture is different from Western nations that recognize gay sex as legal. If the country decides that should be changed, it will be changed by a vote.
One Twitter user <a href="https://twitter.com/TheoAbuAgada/status/1567580641046286338?s=20&amp;t=h9vcghlyb4r_Ub9pW8CSGQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rebutted</a>, &#8220;Very disappointing question from you. African Journalists need to start asking Western leaders about Polygamy too. Stop imposing your culture and values on us.&#8221;
For Americans judging Kenya’s president-elect disagreeing with Amanpour, they should remember that it wasn&#8217;t until 2003 that the Supreme Court ruled that bans on gay sex were unconstitutional. Just prior to running for re-election, former President Barack Obama and much of the Democratic Party were still against same-sex marriage.
That matters not to Amanpour. Just as it matters not that the history of England and its impact on the world isn&#8217;t as cut and dry as it seems. Nothing ever is.
It doesn&#8217;t matter to folks on CNN if the king carries on the tradition of the throne or defends the Faith. CNN would probably consider it a gigantic step backward for the whole world if he did anything like cede Westminster Abbey back to the Roman Catholic Church, despite it being an ecumenical sign of goodwill and remarkably interesting.
What only matters to these folks is if King Charles advances the leftist cause of the day. How lame.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Why Is Legacy Media So Boring? CNN Pushes Climate Change, BLM, Reparations, And More While Discussing King Charles III

Legacy Media

“Policymaker, father, stand-in king”: that is how a much-discussed “Checks and Balances” podcast from the Economist described the office of the American presidency in anticipation of Joe Biden coming to occupy it. The statement was greeted on <a href="https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1333408612400705536?s=20">Twitter</a> with a staggering ratio of (currently) 645 replies to 149 likes—as sure a sign as any that the Economist had, in the current vernacular, posted cringe.
There are few words that inspire more visceral disgust among American conservatives than “king.” It is a title that has become synonymous for many with “tyrant”: an evil office occupied by an arrogant fool, possessing vast quantities of unmerited power and wielding it over oppressed subjects in a manner doomed to corruption.
This, in the scope of history, is a radical and relatively new outlook. “Kingship” has not always been an inherently bad word—neither, ironically, has “tyrant,” which comes to us from the Greek tyrannis, best translated simply as “king.”
But the ease with which tyrannis slid from meaning “king” to meaning “violent oppressor” shows that even in antiquity, rule by one man was inherently prone to abuse. That is something the great historians and political theorists of Ancient Greece and Rome knew well. Aristotle, Herodotus, Polybius, Cicero: each of them, in his own way, saw that the evil in human hearts made it impossible for one man and his heirs to hold lifelong rule without eventually becoming hypocritical, destructive, and cruel.
But it’s not as simple as just throwing off the shackles of kingship and being done. Someone has to be in charge, and attempts at direct democracy—giving power solely to a majority of the voting public—have ended poorly in the ancient world. Without great statesman like Pericles at the helm, direct democracies like Athens found it difficult to act decisively in times of war or even proceed coherently in times of peace. Just as monarchies decay into tyrannies, and aristocracies decay into cronyism, direct democracies decay very easily into mob rule. The brokenness of human nature always wins out in the end.
Therefore even the Roman historian Livy, who famously endorsed the virtue of republican liberty even as he wrote under the Emperor Augustus, still recognized that simply letting the people loose is a recipe for disaster. Though the Romans put an end to their own decadent monarchy around 509 BC, Livy <a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy02.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy02.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF4SxaZxW7ghw0FMYx6xJhnu8Waiw">wrote</a>, they were lucky they didn’t do so earlier. Because:
<blockquote>What would have been the result&#8230;if they had been freed from the restraining power of kings and, agitated by populist storms, had begun to foment quarrels with the patricians&#8230;before sufficient time had elapsed for either family ties or a growing love for the very soil to effect a union of hearts? The infant State would have been torn to pieces by internal dissension.</blockquote>
In other words, even Romans needed time to mature before they tasted what Livy elsewhere calls “the sweetness of liberty”: if they were going to dispense with the strong leadership afforded by kings, they would need something better to put in its place. But what?
The Lawful Freedom of a True Republic
The answer is given by Polybius, a Greek historian who describes the masterful design of the Roman constitution in his own <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG_wQxLPNe9v2IaS1dqDbCJi-gIIw">history</a>. All simple forms of government, writes Polybius, undergo what has come to be called anacyclosis—a Greek word meaning the “cycle of regimes.” If a virtuous king takes over, nevertheless his son or his son’s son becomes corrupt and monarchy becomes tyranny. Then a few good men oust the king and install an aristocracy—but that devolves into oligarchy, or cronyism, in the end. Then the people seize control, their democracy becomes mob rule, and a king has to rise up to bring order back. The cycle begins again.
But the Roman republic was a system for balancing each kind of government against the other: the voting people, the aristocratic senators, and the “consuls,” a yearly two-man executive that performed some of the duties kings used to perform. So even in the republic, the office of consul looked enough like kingship that, in Polybius’ words, “if one looks at this part of the administration alone, one may reasonably pronounce the constitution to be a pure monarchy or kingship.”
And yet, Livy tells us, the Romans at this point were so disgusted by monarchy that they even chased from the city a perfectly decent man who had the same name as a former king, simply because “the very name was a danger to liberty.” The Romans took every precaution that the consuls should never be tempted to those excesses they had suffered under the rule of tyrants.
Every republic needs an executive power, and that power must fill certain functions which kings fill in monarchies: issuing final decisions in times of war, for example. But it would have appalled the Romans to imagine that a consul, or anyone in government, was coming even close to being a “stand-in king.” The whole point of replacing the kings with a republic was to eradicate the need of kingship entirely.
The Puzzle of the Presidency
All of this and more was on the minds of the American Founders when they drafted our Constitution in 1787. Americans, having thought of themselves as English subjects until very recently, were still stinging with resentment at the abuses of King George III. Those abuses are listed at great length in the Declaration of Independence, and the impulse to avoid them at all cost did much to shape our first national compact—the <a href="https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&amp;doc=3&amp;page=transcript" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash%3Dfalse%26doc%3D3%26page%3Dtranscript&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGpGet2MoZi26JxA9hoyG2_lfNWvg">Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union</a>.
Under the Articles, America discovered what Polybius and Livy both knew: a government whose central power is too loosely held will be vulnerable to chaos. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was, effectively, a response to the problems that arise from a weak federal government: no executive or judiciary branch means no power to do such important things as repay debts or regulate commerce between states.
And so the founders had an extremely difficult needle to thread. On the one hand, they had to vest power in a stronger federal government if America was to survive at all. On the other hand, both they and their people were—exactly like the Romans—still supremely wary from firsthand experience of anything that looked remotely like monarchy. To create an executive office in that climate which would pass muster with the people was a tall order indeed.
That is why Alexander Hamilton, in <a href="https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNG2xAJitQWkA46Dimr7_GJF6fK5Xw">Federalist #69</a>, took every pain to reassure his readers that this new office—the presidency of the United States—would not in any way be a stand-in king. True, “the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate.” But, “ if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.”
Hamilton goes on to give reason after reason why the president will not be like the English king. Presidents will be elected every four years; kings rule for life. Presidents can be impeached; their vetoes can be overturned; their treaties and ministerial nominations are subject to the advice and consent of the senate. And, crucially, “The [president] has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the [king] is the supreme head and governor of the national church!”
Central to all these arguments is the essential point that a king is invited to consider himself inherently superior to his subjects—more fit by divine right to rule—whereas a president must prove himself on the basis of merit in the eyes of his fellow men. At issue is nothing less than the most fundamental question of our nation: are men created equal, or are some born with a greater right to govern themselves than others?
So, Hamilton concludes, “What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism.” Nothing could be further from the truth, in other words, than to call the president a “stand-in king.” By design, in spirit, and according to their own direct protestations, that was the last thing the founders intended.
What Are They After?
Anyone who wants to cast the presidency as a makeshift monarchy should thus be subject to the most careful scrutiny imaginable. Why, we are entitled to ask, do the staff at the Economist think it would be salutary for Joe Biden to occupy the role of “father figure” and de facto monarch? Why does Biden himself seem eager to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-history-and-meaning-of-court-packing" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-history-and-meaning-of-court-packing&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNF9ZuCntufvZJsdyao5GEu3ZALEvw">pack</a> the Supreme Court with judges of his own choosing—and why does he seem to think he can do so without broad bipartisan consensus? Why, for that matter, do so many of his supporters want to turn our carefully calibrated republic into something approximating <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-the-electoral-college-was-created" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-the-electoral-college-was-created&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNElPdM2lv5Eiz_d6tzDikrFmA3uRQ">mob rule</a>—which, as sure as night follows day, will give way to kingship in the end?
The answer to all these questions is older than the Roman republic or the Athenian democracy. It is as old as government itself: power. That enticing ability to make others serve at your pleasure, against which the entire system of American government was designed to protect. “Power tends to corrupt,” <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/214" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/214&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH3oVMmhd9updOhgNOPhJfs0SWJBw">wrote</a> Lord Acton to Bishop Creighton in 1887, “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Already in states like California, where one-party rule and COVID hysteria have turned governors like Gavin Newsom into de facto monarchs, we are seeing the shameless ugliness that <a href="https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1333906492596994048?s=20" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1333906492596994048?s%3D20&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHC5kOZ74bdI0a3kSKO291Oe_qBFw">deforms</a> <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/small-business/ca-restaurant-owner-mocks-gov-newsom-french-laundry-banner-calls-restrictions-sheer-insanity" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.foxbusiness.com/small-business/ca-restaurant-owner-mocks-gov-newsom-french-laundry-banner-calls-restrictions-sheer-insanity&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHGoLfIHQtQ-qarz88WzqxyrBCplQ">men</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1333799010251939844?s=20" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/SpencerKlavan/status/1333799010251939844?s%3D20&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGLsgsoKYCyXLIWjRj7zX7ZYlHy8w">women</a> who can issue command after command without accountability. The face of kingship is the face of a man dining out on fine French cuisine while his people languish in locked rooms after 10pm and eke out a living on the dole. The face of kingship is as God said it would be in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&amp;version=NIV" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search%3D1%2520Samuel%25208%26version%3DNIV&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGJHkZsVgBKL8Vn1AjdmGTJe4n4aw">1 Samuel 8</a>: given enough time, they will drive your sons before them like horses to pull their chariots, will steal the best of your land and leave you hungry, will laugh out of sheer arrogance while you starve.
That is why the president is not a stand-in king. And neither is Gavin Newsom, though he may act like one. The American spirit is battered but not broken, and though this year has been a nightmare in many respects, it is imperative that we not submit. The kings of this world <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%202&amp;version=NIV" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search%3DPsalm%25202%26version%3DNIV&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1607018323414000&amp;usg=AFQjCNFLWvlXu8yWmESMfA32-PuPO0JxRA">rise up</a> and band together against God and his anointed—will we stand against them and be free?
Spencer Klavan is host of the <a href="http://youngheretics.com/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://youngheretics.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1605727221983000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGOa-5uhWZB1tdZYdyHUUZsncs64g">Young Heretics</a> podcast and associate editor of the <a href="https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1605727221984000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHeqHRcOHKxbcUv9rlirlA80vgVhw">Claremont Review of</a> Books and <a href="https://americanmind.org/" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://americanmind.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1605727221984000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGaeulj7VbgJQ5dk6HibW2hrbAtiA">The American Mind</a>. He can be reached on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/spencerklavan" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://twitter.com/spencerklavan&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1605727221984000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEEeT2VvJ36dSMfrqxX2KlMm0OSrg">@SpencerKlavan</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.