The paradox, quite painful for me, is that very young I was already a royalist. I could almost say, since childhood. My first readings of history led me to research where the monarchy came from and how it worked. I know full well that the monarchy, as I conceive it and other eras have experienced it, is now unthinkable.[…] For me, a power that comes from a transcendence, from a divine origin, and which is assumed as such by the king, as an obligation before a being and an authority superior to men, is much more convincing. From this engagement of the king comes the source, the origin, the reason for this power which is his during his life, as well as the right of his sons to inherit this power, after the ceremony of the coronation. This seems much more acceptable to me, and I commune and live with it much better than with laws, regulations, codes approved by a majority consensus, to which I must submit and which were created by men in my image. That the majority agrees on the fact that society should be like this or like that, for me it means absolutely nothing. For this society to deserve my respect, for me to feel concerned by it and for it to be entitled to my respect, it must be of superior origin, and not the fruit of a logical process, rehearsed and prepared by a group of men who claim to represent the majority of the population. Because in my opinion, it is then the most abominable tyranny that can exist.

Extracts from Souvenirs and other fantasies , book interviews with Eduardo Garcia Aguilar, Editions Folle Avoine.