Re Monarchist Radicals

A reader with the daffy but mechanical name of LugNuts writes:

“I think the king thing is one that Wright [sic] loathes as a self-described Virginian regardless of position on anything else.”

It is because I am a conservative. Having a king is a degenerate jury rig make shift necessitated by the break down of the authority of the Commonwealth of Rome.

I am perfectly in favor of a form of government where two consuls, elected for two year terms on even and odd years, must rule in comity as supreme executives, while senators organize and direct the army, and the assemblies of tribes govern the collection of taxes from landowners. But you are not discussing an old, time-tested, tried and true form of government, like the Roman Republic. You are talking about barbarian warlords and how they govern their stinking, blue-painted braves.

Since the Commonwealth of Rome is no longer available, we in Virginia have renewed that form of government here. As happened to Rome before us, we are inundated with barbarians, called Democrats, who wish to install a new Caesar, and curtail our ancient forms of law.

Monarchy is a new-fangled, radical idea. I will have none of it, thank you.

For the record, a return of aristocrat forms of government requires the return of proper forms of address and etiquette, since it is the difference in manners that reinforces the difference in classes. Courtesy requires that you address a married landholder as “Mister”  and not address him as one would address a servant.

So until and unless you actually act as if you mean what you say about a royalist or aristocratic form of government, and act with the manners of a gentleman rather than a lout, villain, or a rustic bumpkin, I suggest you keep your comments to yourself while your betters are talking.