In the beginning of January 2008, Sepp Blatter [FIFA President] declared his “surprise” at England having another Non English Professional as Coach of Its National Team. Blatter also talked about the need to “Focus on Country Not Club”.

Premier League Boss Richard Scudamore has replied to Sepp Blatter by saying the Club and the Country are not mutually exclusive and that there exists a room for both. Mr. Scudamore further replied that the Football League and Football Association are in good health with an increase in attendance and interest.

Mr. Scudamore presented the “Virtuous Circle of the Premier League” which shows the following:
1. Putting On The Best Possible Show.
2. Generation of Maximum Interest
3. Conversion of Interest Into Maximum Success
4. Balancing Social Responsibility with Fair Distribution of Revenues and Commercial Success.

He further accused Sepp Blatter of “tinkering with European and National Laws” and went further with this declaration: “If the law of the land says you are nationally qualified, you ARE nationally qualified, no matter what Mr Blatter says”. Mr. Scudamore also stated that voluntary quotas will fail.

Richard Scudamore is right in telling Mr. Blatter about how Country and Club can coexist. I applaud Mr. Scudamore for his stance against Mr. Blatter. Mr. Blatter at the present time is out of touch with the reality of football. In the year 2007, he made the outrageous remark about football being played in heights interfering with the health of the footballer.

He started the year 2008 by making statements about English Football that may have some valid points but others have been based on what transpired three decades ago. The time has come for Mr. Blatter to take a hard look, do a self assessment on his accomplishments and make preparations for a final retirement.

Mr. Blatter may have good intentions but he is not in contact with the real world of football. We are living in the 21st Century under a new set of rules and regulations which must be abided. We also have to work within this frame and globally in order to remain competitive in the sports arena.

I would like to wish the best for English Football, and the Premier League. I would also like to thank Richard Scudamore for having the courage to stand up to Sepp Blatter.

REFERENCE
Slater, Matt; BBC Sport: “Scudamore rejects Blatter plans”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/7187355.stm

Hello Mr. Alvarez-Galloso,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Part of the reason for the delay, though, is that while I will try to answer your questions, it may be difficult for me to answer them in a helpful way as some of them imply assumptions about what it means to be an American monarchist that are not quite accurate in my case. Let me try to explain in a general way before moving on to the individual questions.

While I do believe that monarchy is the best form of government in the abstract, it does not necessarily follow from this belief that each and every country in the world must become a monarchy, or that monarchy is in practice equally suitable for all countries. The most successful monarchies in history were all organic in the sense that their precise origins were shrouded in myths and legends, with the institution gradually evolving over centuries. Even when new monarchies were created in Europe in the 19th century, they were established in lands accustomed to monarchical rule.

Monarchy depends on a certain respect for tradition, and for better or for worse the tradition of the United States for 230+ years has been republicanism. One could even argue that it would be contrary to authentic monarchist principles to demand (even theoretically) that a country established as a republic for more than two centuries (i.e. the US, Switzerland, and San Marino) should become a monarchy. This is one of the fundamental differences between monarchists and republicans. Republicans [anti-royalists] believe that the entire world must conform to their agenda. They want there to be ZERO monarchies left in the world. But most monarchists are not like that; we do not say that there should be ZERO republics left in the world. I think most monarchists would be quite overjoyed and satisfied if monarchies were restored only in countries with substantial traditions of monarchical rule as independent nations (e.g. France, Brazil, Greece, Russia, Iran, Ethiopia, etc.), while other countries, with no claimants to their "thrones," continued to be republics.

Now, there is the possibility that the US as we know it might not last forever and that new, smaller, successor states might emerge. In this case, monarchy might be worth considering. In particular, I would support the secession of Hawaii, which DID have its own monarchy until 1893, and the restoration of the monarchy there. But part of the problem on the mainland is that it is impossible to say who the king(s) would be. If it were up to me, I would prefer a division based on colonial history modeled on the [British] Commonwealth Realms (Canada, Australia, etc.) in which, roughly, the British monarch would be sovereign of the eastern US, a restored French monarch of the central US, and the Spanish monarch of the western and southwestern US. But I must recognize that this is profoundly unlikely, especially as the US moves further and further away from its European colonial roots, and that the results of any break-up of the USA would in reality probably not be as attractive, with the possible exception of Hawaii.

What all this means in practice is that I am not so much an "American Monarchist" as a Monarchist who happens to live in America (I would move to the UK or Canada if I had a professional reason to do so) and therefore often feels more passionately about other countries than my own. For me, my top priority as a monarchist is the support of existing monarchies throughout the world and of restorationist efforts in countries where there is at least a substantial native tradition of monarchy and a widely acknowledged claimant (or, in a few difficult cases, two rival claimants) to the throne.

"People naively expect that problems which genuinely existed under the monarchy will be solved with its removal, and when that does not happen, turn to more extreme "solutions" than democracy can provide."

Hello Mr. Harvey:

I would like to thank you for your invitation. I have visited your website and I am impressed. I have a blog instead of a radio programme. I am doing this programme and these questions so that my readers could study alternatives in government such as Monarchy VS Republic. Now to the Questions.

1.Why a Monarchy for America? What could a Monarchy do for America that a Republic cannot do?

As indicated above, officially I do not in fact propose a monarchy for the contemporary political entity known as the United States of America as we know it. However, I would point out that the distinction between Head of State and Head of Government found in constitutional monarchies like the United Kingdom makes it easier for people to criticize their government's policies without being accused of lack of patriotism.

2. Why has the Concept of Republic failed in America?

American traditionalists ("paleoconservatives"), with whom I am in some sympathy though not in the strict sense one of them, generally identify the victory of Lincoln and the North in 1865 as the destruction of the Old Republic. The events of that decade are a bit beyond the scope of this interview. I would add though that an institution founded on unjustified rebellion against one's lawful King (George III) cannot expect to remain genuinely conservative in the long run, however otherwise honorable the intentions of its creators.

3. Why do Republicans and Democrats behave like the "absolute kings" they claim to detest?

Power tends to corrupt, whether its wielders are called kings or presidents, but it is more dangerous to entrust it to those who seek it (elected politicians) than to those who may not even want it (hereditary monarchs.)

4. Why is it that a Republic brings disaster? This is asked taking into account that Nepal voted to abolish its monarchy and now things are spiraling out of control there?

When a monarchy, especially an ancient one, is abolished, it creates a sort of vacuum which anything can fill. "People naively expect that problems which genuinely existed under the monarchy will be solved with its removal, and when that does not happen, turn to more extreme "solutions" than democracy can provide."
We can see this time and time again throughout history with the Reign of Terror in France, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Nazis in Germany and Austria, the Ayatollahs in Iran, and now with the Maoists in Nepal. There is no monarchy so bad that its replacement cannot--indeed, almost invariably WILL not--be worse. Perhaps C.S. Lewis put it best: "Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served: deny it food and it will gobble poison."

5. What can be done to inform people about Monarchy in order to initiate a discussion about it?
The internet has been helpful for monarchists, as for all non-mainstream causes. I try to reach people with my website and its forum (though the latter is intended for people already sympathetic) and have engaged in discussions at other types of forums. I will admit thought that I have not been as successful as I would like.

6. What would an American Monarchy be like?

It is impossible to say; again, I do not expect the unified entity known as the US to become a monarchy without any other convulsive changes. With the possible exception of Hawaii (and even that would involve a great struggle), a return to monarchical rule in any part of what we know as the US is highly unlikely to occur without being preceded by dramatic events beyond our imagination.

7. How Did the Concept for an American Monarchy get started?

I am not aware that there is any single unified and coherent "Concept" for an American Monarchy.

8. Both of us [I was born in America too] were born and raised under the concept of the "benevolent republic". What made you become a monarchist?

I address this in two articles at my website:
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/whymon.html
http://www.royaltymonarchy.com/opinion/ideology2.html

9. Are there monarchists movements in America doing charitable work in America?

http://www.royal-rwandan-association.org/
http://www.russiannobility.org/

10. What is the future for America if it continues its present course?

I really have no idea. I am not particularly optimistic, but am reluctant to make specific predictions.

While my answers may not have been exactly what you were looking for, I hope you found them interesting and helpful in some way. Best wishes for your endeavors.

Sincerely,
Theodore Harvey
Charlotte, North Carolina

Thank You Very Much Mr. Harvey for taking the time to answer the questions posted by The Alvarez-Galloso News Hour. My Best Wishes to You and the Monarchists living in America.

After seeing some news segments of the Golden Globe, and reading about it in Reuters; I cannot deny that the Golden Globe Award was a disaster and a comedy in poor taste.

This is what Hollywood gets for not taking into account the writers who write the scripts for the show. It is surreal that the Writers are the ones who get the crumbs in Hollywood.

It is for this reason that my fellow writers who belong to the WGA [Writer’s Guild of America] have my support.

Los Premios del Globo Dorado fue una comedia en mal gusto. Hollywood pago caro por tratar a sus escritores como escoria. Por ser marginado, los Sindicatos de Los Escritores de Hollywood [que son mi familia] gozan de mi apoyo

"Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served: deny it food and it will gobble poison." C.J. Lewis

“Cuando el ser humano es prohibido honrar a la realeza, ellos honran a los millonarios, atletas, o artistas de cine. Incluso, honran a las prostitutas y malechores. La Naturaleza Espiritual es como la Naturaleza Corporal debe ser atendido, sin comida, es capaz de consumer el veneno” C.J. Lewis

El dirigente de Primero Justicia, Julio Borges, hizo un llamado este domingo a los venezolanos a rechazar la petición del presidente Hugo Chávez de reconocer a las FARC como una organización política. Asegura que la guerrilla es un problema entre quienes rechazan y avalan la violencia como camino político.

El ex gobernador del estado Miranda, Enrique Mendoza, exhortó hoy a las diversas organizaciones políticas de oposición para que sus candidaturas sean escogidas por las bases. El dirigente político hizo un llamado a los mirandinos para derrotar el militarismo en las próximas elecciones regionales