My Brief Review and Praise of The Annals of Roger de Hoveden

The fact that the author of this work has an almost Dutch-sounding surname is one of the personal reasons that I am interested in it. At the same time, this is also a recognition of the scholarly value of this work and what merit it may have for the cause of monarchy. After all, the British monarchy which is undoubtedly one of the main themes of de Hoveden's work is one of the eldest (if not the eldest depending on how you count) monarchy in existence on the European continent. I suspect that what helped the British monarchy endure for such a long time is that the United Kingdom is insular and cut off from mainland Europe by the ocean. This geographical reality means that there is great potential for conservatism in Britain, and history shows that the British are indeed a quite conservative people, despite the fact that their language has adopted many more foreignisms than most continental Germanic languages.

So it can be said that the British are quite conservative in customs and beliefs, although their language in general is an exception to this general tendency towards conservatism that one would commonly expect to find among an insular or geographically isolated people such as the British, Icelandic, or Faroese people. Nevertheless, the spelling of English is quite conservative and it has as a language not changed considerably since the time of Shakespeare, although Shakespearean English is obviously different from Modern English in quite some ways. It is really the gap between Old English and its descendant - the latter of which has adopted many words of non-Germanic origin - that makes the Modern English language quite non-conservative. If we were to consider the relationship of Modern English with its previous historical stages after Old English, then we will, however, see a reasonable degree of conservatism. Perhaps another testimony to British conservatism is that it has been demonstrated in recent genetic research that the original tribal divisions - all these tribes originally had their own separate kingdoms and cultures - are still visibly extant in the native population of the United Kingdom.

de Hoveden originally wrote his work in Latin which Henry T. Riley took the trouble to translate into English in the middle of the 19th century. His translation was published in 2 volumes (the second volume is available here). There was only one version or publication of the Latin text available in the 19th century according to Mr. Riley, as he states in his preface, and it was evidently in bad condition because it contained many errors. For this reason the task was transferred upon him to correct these errors in his translation. Mr. Riley thus relied for his translation entirely upon the Scriptores post Bedam of Sir Henry Saville, London, 1598, which was later reprinted at Frankfort in 1601. It was only an accident that I came across de Hoveden's work which deals with European, though chiefly British, royal history from 732 AD to 1201 AD, since I was looking for annals that would give me more insight into history from a more contemporary and more monarchy-friendly perspective. It is unfortunate that the history books written in modern times often adopt a modern liberal or leftist perspective on history, since many of today's scholars are liberals or leftists, and this taints our understanding of historical monarchism and creates its own misunderstandings as we project contemporary liberal or leftists ideas into the past.

I think that de Hoveden's work is exactly the kind of work that will give you in many ways a more nuanced view on monarchism in Europe, particularly in the British Isles. The historical accuracy of his work as a contemporary historian, as with the works of other historians, may be disputed here and there, but what ultimately matters is that he provided a contemporary perspective that is valuable in and of itself. We would be really poor if we could only rely on the leftist-inclined perspective of modern-day scholars. It is certain that many modern-day intellectual writers have a quite antagonistic view of monarchism, despite the fact that they neither seem to really grasp its essence nor its timeless and universal principles. Monarchy has meant so many things in so many different times and places, but there is an essence to it and it does have specific principles that make it monarchy wherever and whenever it exists among any people on Earth.

I think that if we read de Hoveden's work, we get to feel this essence of monarchy; we get to feel its timeless and universal principles as the author narrates his account of European or British history. I think that it is quite difficult to capture monarchy in a few words, because it is a complex system, but once you can feel it through history, in this case de Hoveden's annals, you can come to a better understanding of it and achieve monarchism-realisation, as it were, because you may never be able to fully "comprehend" monarchy if you do not allow yourself to feel its profound culture and spirituality. Again, monarchy is a complex system and it would be absurdly and painfully naive to think that it can be completely summarised in just a few words.

On the Possibility of a New Beginning For Our Civilisation After Its Potentially Inevitable Decline

I originally wrote this as a comment under an excellent article by Mad Monarchist on the decline of Western civilisation in modern times, but unfortunately my comment did not get posted, so I will post it here: 

I see the turbulent future of the West as an opportunity for monarchy. Where there is destruction, there is an opportunity for construction. Destruction can bring about new opportunities for a civilisation, at least if the people bearing the culture do survive through the process of destruction. What is worrying of course is that the culture of the West is being threatened from without, but these worries are by no means unique to our times. Europe has survived various other disasters, both natural and man-made, and although it is possible that Europeans in their home continent will go the way of the American Indians - a terrible disaster - it is yet not at all certain that this will happen, so there is reason for hope. If Europe will experience a tremendous shock and survives this shock, it will have to reconsider certain aspects of its culture afterward. While this cultural evolution is happening, spontaneously emerging monarchies may have a unique opportunity to rise to the task of filling the void that is left by the ruins of the previous stage in European civilisation and to meet the new challenges that are characteristic of the new period in the history of our civilisation. 

If one chapter in our history ends, a new one may begin. It is purely contemporary ideology, a set of terribly wrong ideas, that is destroying the West. These ideas will have to be reconsidered sooner or later, and it appears that these ideas will have to reach their logical conclusion before it will be clear and obvious for all that these ideas are terribly wrong. The West, right now, is at a turning point in its history, and monarchists, at least in my humble opinion, ought to recognise this particular moment as an opportunity for the cause of monarchy. Monarchs and monarchists in the past proved themselves capable of going with the times, and once again this dynamic nature should be showed to the world for the sake of breaking with the republican aberration that has plagued every single Western country since it abandoned monarchical rule. If the aim is to meet the new challenges, particularly open-mindedness to absolute monarchy will be an important step towards making the next chapter in Europe's history one of monarchical restoration and stability. 

Just as monarchies spontaneously emerged in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe can rise from its ashes fully embracing monarchy once more. Of course, Europe will have to deal with various demographic challenges, but absolute monarchies will be more than capable of dealing with these challanges in an appropriate and efficient way. Native European fertility can be boosted by reconnecting with the glorious past and regaining confidence in the future, foreign cultures that do not traditionally belong in Europe can be repatriated, and the new Europe, i.e. the Europe of the future, can officially become a continent belonging to its natives, preventing future demographic disasters (which might bring about European extinction or which might reduce native Europeans to a minority status in their own countries), and the best way, of course, to make this official is to systematically encode it into European law and to teach all the future generations about the mistakes of their forefathers in regard to preserving their own culture. For the time being, the psychology of the West will remain suicidal. 

However, if the suicide attempt fails, the West may wake up to its own contemporary "stupidity" (I hate to say it) and learn from its mistakes. The Zeitgeist of the West will be suicidal for as long as the West has not been shocked out of its own world that is detached from reality. The West is dreaming and depressed, its idealism is overly pessimistic. However, a long period of cultural optimism can follow a brief period of cultural depression. We are, as I have said, experiencing a turning point. The West will eventually have to reevaluate its core principles and values. Either it will do this before disaster strikes or disaster will force the West to adapt to the realities of this world. 

I believe that the West can survive this period in its history, even though the disaster will be unprecented if current trends are not going to be arrested and will be left to reach their logical conclusion. After all, Europeans have proved throughout their history that they are robust survivors in times of extreme hardship. Maybe hardship is just what the West needs in order to wake up from its highly unrealistic dream world, to let go of outdated and wrong ideas, and to finally return to absolute monarchy. Objecting to absolute monarchy because hereditary succession would not be fair is a good example of the current mentality of the West. This kind of mentality has to go because it is unproductive. 

To reiterate the point of my comment, I think there is always reason for optimism and in my view it is important to not lose oneself in pessimism lest one's chances of success or even survival be significantly reduced.