This weblog began some years ago with an article on the importance of anointing in the English Coronation service. The precedent is Biblical – just as the kings of Israel of times yore were anointed with oil, so too our kings and queens. Soon another coronation will be upon us with the crowning of King Charles III. This great celebration inevitably following upon the sad loss and national bereavement of our longest-reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, whose coronation service formed the subject of the very first article on “A Voice From the Shires”.
With the falling asleep of Queen Elizabeth II and the
imminent anointing and crowning of King Charles, it seemed a fitting moment to revisit
the topic of monarchy. One can see from
the public reaction to the falling asleep of the abdicated king of Greece that
monarchy holds a deep meaning for peoples even after official abolition – however
much on paper the correct processes were followed to create a republic.
Monarchy is the most human of governmental
institutions. It is based both upon a
connection with the transcendent and personal relationship. It is the retold and accepted story of modern
history that we shifted from monarchy, rule of the one, to democracy, rule of
the people. This is considered within
our current paradigm to be a story of benign progress. What our paradigm of thought fails to consider
is that all that Weber categorised as the irrational and inexplicable is actually
the most human aspect of our civilisation.
Within that seemingly irrational realm is faith, loyalty to an anointed
monarch, folk culture, high culture – all that is not procedural or
bureaucratic. Most significantly a bureaucratic
society cannot reach to or aspire to the transcendent. The Transcendent is that which is beyond
analysis and categorisation. It is
understood rather through tradition and revelation, without being contrary to
logic – it is super-logical or over and above the rational.
History is only going in one direction because the
oligarchies of the globe ensure it. There
is no natural law that means a breaking down of tradition and “modernisation”
of systems is inevitable or better. Only
because he thinks within a limited paradigm can Sir (knighted by a monarch)
Keir Starmer describe the House of Lords as “indefensible”. What if we had permitted the restoration of
the monarchy in Yugoslavia or Afghanistan?
Perhaps much bloodshed might have been averted because of the
inspirational and unifying charism of monarchy.
In trying to get around this conundrum, this loss of the
higher by reducing to the procedural, the English utilitarians thought they had
an answer. The liberal English journalist
Walter Bagehot who wrote in the Nineteenth century for what today remains the
voice of liberalism, the Economist newspaper, suggested the concept of the “veiled
republic”. He divided government into
its efficient and dignified functions.
The efficient side of the constitution was the functional and bureaucratic
part, which actually ran the country. On
the other side was the dignified part of the constitution, which included the
monarchy, the ceremony, the ritual. From
his secular liberal perspective the dignified also had a function – to veil the
English republic and to instil affection in British citizens for the apparent
kingdom to which they felt they belonged.
While Bagehot believed utilitarianism worked, he acknowledged that it
did not inspire or create affection in men’s hearts.
What though if we step outside the secular liberal paradigm
and instead ask the question what if the coronation as a sacrament were a true
sacrament? And what if, instead of
adopting a Protestant reductionism, we recognised the existence of an anointed
monarch as an iconic participation in the divine rather than an idolatrous
distraction from God? Everything if
perceived incorrectly can become an idol, but everything when viewed correctly
points to God.
We would then be able to understand the power of Royalty as
something real, not a deceptive veil pulled across the drab reality. Ever since the Enlightenment the Western mind
has been trained to imagine that there is something behind the tradition,
something base and mechanical or an abuse of power. We have become incapable of recognising that
many parts of life are not a base trick, but instead point to a higher reality,
something better, something even more true and something even more beautiful.
Of course the man who is crowned is a mere fallen mortal,
but he participates through his holy and sacramental anointing in something
higher than himself. He is a bridge to
the eternal. This is why from the
British monarch to the Emperors of the Byzantine Empire, there was something
sacred about monarchy. Before too in
pagan times the Roman Emperor was actually recognised as a deity. Christian faith put this right, placing the
monarch in an anointed role, but no longer divine himself.
This is the reason for the Royal “we” as the monarch refers
both to himself and the higher entity to which he belongs not from merit but
through a sacrament of anointing.
From Weber to Bagehot an unremitting message is enforced. Reality is reduced to the processes, the
bureaucracy, but on the other side, everything that seems to participate in the
good, the true and the beautiful is irrational and merely a veil across the
base facts.
This though is not convincing if we step outside of the
secular-liberal paradigm. Anointed
monarchy is personal not a rigid system.
Monarchy is a living and breathing institution, based not on abstract rules
and processes, but personal relationship and history. The Monarch is the father of the people, the
government is based upon bloodline and the realm thereby is a family.
Such a system raises alarm bells for the modern
secularist. Comes to mind the arbitrary
rule of a James II or Ivan Grozny. And yet
historians now seriously question the Whig account of James Stuart’s rule. Religious toleration and resistance to a
narrow-minded and Protestant oligarchy is perhaps a more accurate
understanding. Even in Russia there are
moves afoot to rehabilitate Ivan the Terrible’s memory and some even call for
his canonisation. Unlike Henry VIII who
stripped religion bare (to whom he is often compared) he was of real
significance in achieving Moscow’s status as the Third Rome after the fall of Constantinople.
We must remember as the cliché goes, the victors write the
history. And those victors of the “Glorious
Revolution” in England could have just as easily been the corrupt oligarchs of
the Seventeenth Century, just as today traditional institutions are attacked by
the men of Davos.
Two of the most arbitrary rulers were of course the first
two Tudor kings, who attacked commonweal and Church. While they were anointed and crowned correctly,
Henry Tudor was an usurper and not only did he exhibit miserliness, but his
line under his son and Thomas Cromwell would bring forward a modern and more
bureaucratic system eliminating the age of chivalry last symbolised by Richard
III and his gallant and brave falling at Bosworth.
The anointing might have taken place, but it was based upon
lies and thereby we see the danger of illegitimate power. Monarchy works because the fallen man participates
in the meaning of his anointing and is able thereby to transcend his compromised
nature. He then rules as a father of his
nation, just as Nicholas II was determined to do, even abdicating to protect
his subjects and finally achieving martyrdom at the hands of the Bolsheviks.
And France too is evidence of what the removal of a Christian
Monarch can unleash. The horror of the guillotine
and the cruel and inhuman suppression of the Royalist-peasant uprising in the
Vendee are the result of revolution in the name of progress and reason. The successful revolutionaries, it must be
remembered, first attacked faith and even paraded a statue of the female personification
of Reason in a horrible parody of the Mother of God.
From the Vendee to the modern Greek public there is a supra-rational
recognition of a truth of the link between them and a ruler anointed through
Christian ritual as part of a family that has a right to rule. And very powerfully was this demonstrated by
the many who filed past the coffin of the late Queen Elizabeth, lying in
state in Westminster Hall. This was of
course inexplicable to the new elites in this country who are cosmopolitan people
of nowhere.
Faith in the transcendental God is vital to good monarchy. To go further faith in an Incarnate God facilitates
and promotes true and good Monarchy There
is always the risk of a fallen monarch who no longer fulfils his telos. The alternative though is a compromise with
man’s fallenness – a bureaucratic system that always plans for the worst in
human nature. It protects us, but
prevents us reaching the heights. It no
longer allows for aspiring to virtue, only mediocrity.
