I don’t agree with it either, but found it an interesting read nonetheless. The author was also a surviving member of the Habsburg Dynasty, which ruled much of mainland Europe for about 700 years so he is obviously a bit biased. He passed away about a year or so ago. Ironically, the previously mentioned Philip II of Spain was also a Habsburg.
It was a compelling read. Despite his family ties, though, it was a bit abstract and read like it was from a political scientist rather than an interested party. Too much about form, not enough history. I wonder most about his insistence on comparing republics and democracies to monarchies now rather than then. Why? The damnable done broke. No monarchy in a civilized country will resemble those of centuries ago, no matter how well defined is the form.
Take Bismarckian Germany (please). Sure, it had a king. But was it a monarchy, really? It was further down the road to the modern welfare state than any government in the world. Of course, this guy says socialism and monarchy are not mutually exusive. Certainly I agree with Bastiat that socialists think they’re the vanguard but actually are 2,000 years behind the times. I seem to remember reading that nineteenth century socialists like Engels were mad for Ivanhoe; makes sense.
But what is it we mean when we talk about old timey monarchy. It’s not the empty form this author has in mind. It is certainly not anything that could stand beside mass democracy nor become a welfare state.