Skip to main content

Caston George is Upholding the Royal Principle in the United States of America

Caston George is a 10-year veteran political professional and former politician, accomplished writer, researcher, author, and archivist.



The great thing about being a monarchist is that I don't have to care about what the popularity thinks, because monarchy does not compete in popularity contests

"I will to my Power cause Law in and Justice, in Mercy, to be Executed in all of my Judgments." - The Coornation Oath of the Crown of England

I've decided not to press charges against a homeless lady for injuring me. And by so doing, I'm upholding the Royal principle in the United States of America and keeping it alive in my own way.

Homeless lady runs over my foot outside with her stroller grocery thing when I wouldn't give her a cigarette. She causes other injuries too. I have her name, I can put her away if I want to.

I flirted with the idea of doing so.

To press charges or not to press charges.


The Crown wins, even if America would have it be otherwise.

The thing is is that I don't want it to be like me expiating my anger, and upon somebody who otherwise would not be able to withstand whatever the court can do to her, because like they could put her away, and what does that help her? It doesn't help her with mental health, it doesn't help her acclimate or with reacclimation to society, and I can only imagine the responses that she's gotten from other people in her life that have conditioned her to respond like that as a first response to being declined, what indignities has she suffered that she just went past the point and said "nope, enough with that s***," running over this guy's foot is much more just than is the outcome I'm ever going to get from anyone else?

Maybe she is not mentally ill, maybe she's perfectly sane and just responding to a society that's absolutely abhorrent insofar as how it treats people like her, and responding normally to extraordinary situation, and an unjust situation.

Maybe she is just poor in a circumstance and society which goes out of its way to damage the lives of the poor, and responding with total sanity, all things considered.

And so aren't we as a society tacitly also responsible?

If we refuse to treat the homeless with more dignity, or a fair opportunity to live, with proportionary understanding as to their situation, which we often outright make more difficult without a second thought to them or to the damage we do to them, aren't we partly to blame for that?

Maybe giving them second chance that we don't otherwise give them will do more good then activating the criminal justice system.

That is what the Monarchial and only true Sovereign Principle would have me do.

Because it seems that we deny them any opportunity for upward mobility, and seems like we say no to them quite a bit, give them zero resources to get out of their situation and then when they finally have enough and they reach their breaking point and they act out, we throw the book at them, expecting them to abide by the same standards as everybody else, even though we've given them no means to do that with, and then we put them away.

And society does so because they're inconvenient, not because putting them away is just.

Maybe if somebody gave her a second chance, maybe, just maybe, it would actually do some good for her and for society at large, rather than just putting her away because she's inconvenient.

I've been reading a lot of royalist philosophy on this, and this is where I've landed:

Scroll to Continue

I was in the moment infuriated that she did that to me as any person would be and thought pressing charges might be best, it also falls on the back of something else which I had a similar experience with someone else, so quite different however, in which I decided not to, almost intrinsically. And so I ran this situation by the same barometer and litmus test and ethically and morally, I really don't think I can press charges unless I'd be a hypocrite.

I'm imperfect but I'm the last bastion of chivalry that there is.

Clemency is said to be a sovereign and divine virtue.

The coronation oath says to cause law and justice with mercy and discretion to be executed in all one's judgments, and this is an oath that every sovereign of the United Kingdom takes.

And as a Monarchist, and speaking to other Monarchists in this regard, if we're going to ask people to embrace monarchy in all of what it stands for, then I ask, ought we not embrace it ourselves, and hold ourselves to the same standards as would the monarchs that we respect and revere?

Therefore does that oath not bind us as well to the cause that it upholds?

The Divine and Sovereign Virtue of Clemency.

If justice is not tempered with mercy and discretion then it itself becomes a most inexorable tyrant and a series of legal mechanisms devoid of humanity. Justice must be executed with an eye toward what is best for all involved. If not it becomes only about an eye for an eye which is not good rulership because getting even cannot be the end of justice and all it's machinations but rather the upholding of a societal good, even in a popularity in a society where the greatest good is unpopular. The difference herein be revealed of what is between a king and a president. And I land on King every time. The crown must win, in all instances and upon all occasions when conflict arises, even in America, and so long as the decision rests with me, so too shall the case be. That is to say, so long as the decision as to whether or not to initiate or execute justice rests with me in instances where I am the person upon whom that hinges, I'm going to do the right and royal thing.

Upholding that is far more important especially in america, which, were it not for me and people like me, would not have that principle. And as long as I uphold it, the Royal principle exists in America, and affects America, for it's betterment, even if America does not wish it to.

If this reads like an indictment of popular supremacy and a condemnation of justice and divvying out of power by popularity contest then that's because that's exactly what this is.

I'm not going to ask the popularity of the angry mob whether or not they believe it's just to burn the witch.

I accord with the crown over the popularity.

And the crown says in some instances that clemency is a higher virtue than balancing the scales in the case of a wrong. it says so in this instance even if I am the wronged.

Did you nothing is often the best course of action, but history is not made by those who do nothing, but making history is about getting a score, and settling scores, and to point, if one is planning to run in a popularity contest for public office for instance, to a series of scores of settled scores, to go to the public and say hey, look at these successful success is victories, and for whom? Settling scores should not be the end of Justice.

It's only the end of Justice if you're concerned about popularity, but Justice should not be concerned with popularity, it should be concerned with what is right, and right, doing right, for rights own sake.

And the popular thing and the right thing to do are often not the same thing.

The crown must win, and as long as the decision rest with me as the person who can initiate or not initiate the criminal justice system, then, I'm going to uphold the Royal principle, even in a place that has been founded as the literal antithesis of that principle, in my own way, forcing monarchy upon America (lol, but true).

But the crown wins in this instance, and I have chosen Divine and Sovereign Clemency.

Reflecting on Royal philosophy and the Monarchial Principle, in all of it's Divinely-ordained significance, allows me to Superimpose that principle in ways large and small in the United States.

Caston George is a writer and archivist and Royal Monarchist, living in Seattle, WA. He has 14 years political experience under his belt, including four as an elected politician in Pennsylvania, he has paged for the United States House of Representatives, and was the first openly gay person to run or hold office in the history of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Related Articles