A golden age. (Photo by Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images)
Queen Elizabeth was the last revered European monarch. There are a few other Konigs and Reines in Europe, flying part-time as KLM pilots, cycling on their own to official occasions or forced to abdicate because of garden variety corruption. These are men and women afraid of their own shadows. They might not even be recognised by a few of their fellow countrymen.
There was something different about Elizabeth II. Millions treated her with a hint of the divine right of kings, a woman who lived above interviews, who loomed over her own society mysteriously, with more in common with Franz Josef or the Romanovs than her own son.
This is the end of that story. The remaining royals of Europe are anachronisms, whether they are beloved or not; whether they are effective at their constitutional roles or not. This is the end of something which began on Christmas Day in 508, with the baptism of Clovis, which was the true start of sacral European Kingship. The story of a once Germanic warrior aristocracy that conquered and ruled Europe for over a thousand years, after the barbarian invasions that finished off the Roman Empire. Their demise from Paris to St Petersburg — as a sociology, as a political faith, as a simple fact — has been the story of modernity.
This end was first noted by the Bavarian nobleman Count Albrecht von Monteglas in 1917, when he decried that the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, with a thousand-year history, changed its name to the pedestrian Windsor “for a mere war,” the true age of European monarchy was over. The democratic age had arrived. That great flattening force seen so clearly by de Tocqueville in America, had come home to the old world meaning — not even a Hapsburg, let alone a Hohenzollern, even a Windsor — would serve without the implicit consent of the governed.
Queen Elizabeth’s death marks the latest step away from divinely ordained monarchy, towards something else. No longer sacred, the European monarch would rather be a pilot, or a country gentleman interested in urban planning. Another step along the path we have travelled since the laying of hands on His Majesty to cure disease was suspended after Queen Anne. It is no longer possible to suspend disbelief. The magic — or rather the mindset — was gone. There have been tears for the Queen this week, but can we imagine the same for Prince William decades from now? Looking at him, I can’t shake the feeling that he is just a West Londoner. Not a unicorn on his crest.
You don’t need tabulating political scientists to understand the British and their Queen. You need European psychoanalysts: Freud, Jung, Fromm. You need to understand the subliminal, the subconscious and the immense recesses of antiquity that haunt our psyches. It is here where monarchy draws its power. From the moment it was announced to her in Kenya, through her coronation as Queen of countries including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, across a lifetime of the last post being sounded, over the by then mostly African Empire, that still existed when her reign began — she never stopped pretending. And for her, we never stopped pretending, either.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI have to admit, when I heard the news I did think that it would probably mean the monarchy was all but done for. And though the death of the Queen was upsetting, this expected second death is for me even more heartbreaking.
Even as the news broke, the vultures began to circle. We saw and continue to see the well practised attack lines that have been diligently taught to our next generation; the obsessive child like reduction of everything to the dynamics of oppresion. A fixation on colonialism, racism, guilt by association and a loathing for the rich, all with the revolting stench of self congratulatory assuredness and nihilism that always comes with these tiresome proclamations.
And in Charles, the anti-monarchists have found their ideal foe; a king whose popularity is non existent compared to that of Elizabeth, and a figure who already enjoys complete rejection from many who would have sang ‘God save the Queen’ at the top of their voices. Of this fact he must surely be aware, and why I think, sadly, the only hope for the monarchy is for him abdicate and hand the baton over to the slightly more popular William.
Needless to say, I’m incredibly depressed. I see this country – its traditions, mores and institutions – unravelling at the seams, and I can’t shake the feeling that it is all by patient design.
He seems pretty popular to me, and to be handling it all very thoughtfully and well (leaky pens aside)
King Charles’ recent display of peek and petulance does not bode well for the monarchy.
Or even pique!
Oh i don’t know… who does know what goes on in the King’s private chambers!!!
It is true that our institutions need some patching up but I don’t agree that they are unravelling. Some of them will and should be swept away.
Now that less than a million attend regular services, an established Church of England led by a Defender of the Faith seems antiquated. A House of Lords filled with bishops, hereditary lords and rich men who gave bribes to the serving government; maybe we can do better than that.
Things look bleak but we can build back better (to coin a phrase). We can find new ways to enjoy the old traditions. Everything changes except change itself.
The unravelling has been by the design of the USA powermongers, the EU autocrats and those for whom money is everything and community nothing.
Well said Jim Jam…
This article took a very long time to say nothing at all. Monarchs have led simply by the will of the people since the days of Charles II
Monarchs are merely figureheads : politicians lead.
I’m not sure if this is altogether true. Some politicians might lead, many scurry around looking for an opportunity. Hardly the actions of a leader. And anyway, a politician in a democracy, if they are a leader, is only leader of a party: parliament sees to that. A politician who turns out to be a leader, like Churchill in his day, carry themselves very much like a Monarch. So, not merely figureheads, though it’s always possible for a Monarch to fall short of this.
And what exactly is the, supposed, move away from, or dislike, of the Monarchy based on? Is it the money, the individuals, the fact that it’s a Monarchy, the rituals and traditions, the past, or even the future? The problem seems to lie with a fractured population who find no sense of community among themselves, only division and finger pointing. Maybe it’s the populace that’s lost direction, lost contact with their heritage and sense of who they are, who they want to be. The criticism of the Monarchy may be nothing but transference of their problem onto someone else to solve. Heaven help the institution that can’t bear the load.
You make excellent points. Perhaps I should have said “monarchs are not meant to lead in a constitutional democracy”. They should set an example (e.g. not swear in public because their fountain pen leaks : pay a fair share of personal tax on personal income/wealth) and provide a face of continuity when governments change.
I suspect that a fundamental problem for both pro- and anti-monarchists is a failure to distinguish between the person and the job : the pomp and ceremony is fine – it gives us a link to the past. What is not fine is when the office holder thinks that they are somehow essentially special because of a position they hold by accident of birth, and this is especially irritating when the person is not actually a holder of a relevant office (e.g. Prince Andrew) but still expects and demands deference and precedence.
I have little but praise for the late Elizabeth in her official capacity, though I have little sympathy for the myth of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘duty’ (Mrs Bloggs who has to work on the checkout at Tesco probably has sacrificed just as much, or more, to feed her family and has an equal sense of duty to keep working or starve. Note I said ‘has to’ – not ‘chooses to’ – a key difference.)
I also do not believe that Elizabeth (or indeed Charles) was/is God’s special little pixie, and therefore feel free to say “Do the job for which you get very well remunerated, and stop whining about it.” The rest of us have to get on with our own lives in considerably less comfort, and don’t need to waste our time feeling sorry for you!
Politicians are led by the nose by businesses and donors.
It seemed to be written in a very bitter tone too. The arguments are very poor – if he thinks William and Kate aren’t idolised by millions on social media, and thus ‘influenced’ (the new means of monarchical authority), then he must be living under a rock.
I think we – Britain and the monarchy – are in a moment of rebirth. We might even see an uptick in Anglican worship.
This sort of schoolboy declinism is hardly new. They said it at Diana’s death, during the Annus Horribilis, at the abdication, during Victoria’s mourning, pretty much throughout the Georgian period, when Anne sided with Oxford against the Whigs and so on and so on.
Thank you for the phrase: “schoolboy declinism”, which exactly fits this article.
These opinion pieces are becoming so lame. All those words to say what in a few words is not very much. It’s really quite disheartening.
Mr Judah seems like just another bitter and twisted republican to me….
I agree. Better to have a non-political head of state than an elected party hack with bad breath, a beer gut and dandruff.
Stop whingeing! (to use your own words). Is there anything better on offer?
Not sure what you mean.
Was there any need to make such a comment?
“Never use one word where none will do” (Clement Attlee.)
Oh, I see what you mean. Fair enough.
Those weren’t his words…
His reply to Jeremy Bray, below.
Is it the content of these opinion pieces that you disdain? Or the style?
I’m here because I enjoy reading a diversity of opinions. Should I assume that you do not?
“We pretended with her and for her —“
First, I disagree with his conclusion. Not only does it presume a lot, it interprets something, which even public mourners struggle to explain, with a shallow, soulless eye. Writers seem to think they represent, or have some access, to the thoughts of the man in the street. Some writers, not many these days, maybe because they seem to be journalist based, have been able to capture the spirit or zeitgeist of their time. Today so many writers seem to be very good at writing about what is not there, like failure, or the end of an era, or the absence of spirit, or the disappointment of an individual. This is one of those articles.
Secondly, common today, the article is padded with sidebars, loosely fitted information to support a very slim point. Hence my feeling a telegram could have done the job just as well.
And do not assume anything, otherwise you will end up writing nonsense like the article.
I wouldn’t pay it any mind.
All very interesting. However, King Charles is already here and I doubt if Prince William would be an unpopular king. So when you say the monarchy is on the way out, where is the impetus coming from? Are you suggesting the British people would revolt against the monarchy? Surely not. A lower-key role? That makes no sense as Elizabeth’s role was mainly ceremonial and Charles and William would no doubt follow this course. The British, non-elite, public have twigged that it is better to have a non-political head of state than some party hack with dandruff and a beer gut.
These are people living in their heads, cut off from the numinous.
The magic is gone. And not just from the ruling of people. Have you tried dating recently?
Someone called Diana Spencer did, about three decades ago. Then reality kicked in.
One way of looking at the huge outpouring of mawkish grief at her death is the dawning upon large swathes of the population that Fairy Tales aren’t – or rather, weren’t ever – real. They – we – were mourning for ourselves.
Even now, as we celebrate the life of devotion to the cause by the late Queen, there’s glimpses of frustration and lack of patience by the incumbent. Note, the way he clattered the documents around the table towards the end of signing his assent during the Proclamation at St. James Palace last Saturday. Note, his public expression of irritation with the pens provided for the signings, both there and at Hillsborough, Northern Ireland, yesterday. Trivial but telling.
It’s not his words that matter, but his deeds. He’s trying rather too hard again, to be what he thinks the public want him to be.
I’m a monarchist, in the sense of our monarchy being a great solution to the issue of having an apolitical Hesd of State. And the above isn’t criticism, simply a recognition (if it were needed) that we’re perhsps asking too much of any human being who was born post WW2.
I agree that these articles are becoming tiresome but maybe they’re simply symptomatic of a more general thrashing about to try to establish what’s real, what’s left that we can take forward with any degree of confidence.
In a way, we’re all Kings and Queens of our own personal and private Empires.
“ … there’s glimpses of frustration and lack of patience by the incumbent. Note, the way he clattered the documents around the table towards the end of signing his assent during the Proclamation at St. James Palace last Saturday. Note, his public expression of irritation with the pens provided for the signings, both there and at Hillsborough, Northern Ireland, yesterday. Trivial but telling.”
Not trivial, but very telling, about a man under emotional stress at the death of his mother, of the demands of public office and exhaustion.
He has a very different temperament to his mother, and will find it it increasingly difficult to live up to her ideals, despite saying he would try. He is a good man, i believe, but those signs of irritabilty, even with the pressures he’s currently under, are something his mother would simply not have succumbed to with the world looking on.
Thankyou for reinforcing my point.
I was not reinforcing your point. In Elizabeth’s early years she was not exposed to so much scrutiny.
But you did reinforce it, albeit inadvertently.
It would’ve made no difference to Elizabeth how much scrutiny she was exposed to.
How would you know?
I’ll give you a clue…the past 70 years.
I’m talking about the period when her own father died.
What on earth is wrong with you people?
‘Firing’ most of his staff rather precipitously was not a good start some might say.
So soon? Here we go. The sacrifice of Charles,
No sacrifice just a well meaning moron sadly.
Are you sure it was him who fired the staff?
No I am not. Probably his Chief of Staff or whatever it is called, but HE should have been paying more attention.
This is after all almost Day 1 and he is already 15-0 Down.
I suspect you have no idea whatsoever about what you’re talking about. But it’s interesting that you would cling to it just to condemn Charles,
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
All is this pontificating from a probable Antipodean ill becomes you.
Resorting to ad hominem Charles? Of course that means you accept you lost the argument.
Antipodean is NOT ‘ad hominen’ as you pompously call it, but merely banter. Surely you understand that?
I stand by what I have said about ‘big ears’, or as some will say Charles III.
This rudeness gets me. He is clearly not a moron; he is an articulate intelligent man, a nice man by all accounts, but with an element of grumpiness. Like 90% of his countrymen.
You are free not to want a monarchy, or this monarch, but you hardly assist your case by this 5th form style of nastiness.
Thoughtless would have been a better word I agree.
However inferring that I am a ‘Republican’ is incorrect. Charles is certainly a great improvement on many of his lacklustre predecessors, and may yet do well.
Interesting point. I think, for what it’s worth, that Elizabeth was a good queen. But I wonder what you have to do in the modern age, to be called a ‘bad’ king? Edward VII was an adulterer and perjurer, but that was before he took the throne (as far as we know.) Edward VIII cosied up to fascism, but that was after he abdicated (as far as we know.) Hopefully there are checks and balances in place to prevent a ‘bad’ king doing very much, but as long as he mutters ‘approved’ in the right places, and spouts anodyne platitudes, any king will be sort of OK (though not accepting, in future, plastic bags full of cash from foreign despots might be a good idea.)
The ‘system’ got rid of Edward VIII fairly smartly, just as it had previously disposed of both James II and his ineffectual father.
Prior to that it was death in battle, the ‘red hot poker’, or the dagger.
In any case an occasional slightly grumpy outburst over trivia is quite endearing, and shows he is human.
I wonder if he still has a row of boiled eggs for breakfast, timed at 4 minutes, 4.5 minutes, etc, and goes down the row, saying “Off with his head”, Off with his head, ..” (*), trying each in turn until reaching a perfect boiled egg!
(*) My elaboration, in an attempt to make a more interesting story. In view of his namesake’s fate, I doubt he ever really said that!
They ALL know who they are employed by and when the world changes the ARE redundant. PLus I understand that the person who sent the letter was doing it because the Law said he had to, AND there were obvious references to finding other jobs. Sorry for the caps but it really makes me angry that so many people jump on the “poor people so badly treated by the Poperful Others.
I’m not saying that this is a case of “poor people so badly treated by the Poperful Others”- sic: (whatever that may mean!)
I’m saying it was badly handled despite plenty of time. Who ever or whatever is in charge of Royal PR should be sacked forthwith. Do you not agree?
And do you suppose the King was responsible for the timing and wording of the announcement?
No, off course not, he was blissfully unaware.
”Blissfully” Really, is there any consideration for him as a human in mourning, or do you, unconsciously, regard him as some higher spirit who has let you down?
So now it’s someone in PR that should be fired. You really are lashing out.
Calm down, you are making a fool of yourself.
How so? I only suggested that it might be a bit premature to hold Charles responsible. However I do understand how some require a sacrificial lamb.
Hyperbole.
Hyperbole. Regarding what?
Don’t worry Charles: they think hyperbole is an American football stadium…
The magic goes just because you get older. Magic is associated with lack of understanding, lack of cynicism and lack of being ripped off for years.
This piece makes some valid points. Yes, monarchy will never be what it was. We do live in the democratic age. However, monarchy can be significant today. It can enjoy a recrudescence.
The Coronation will evince symbols and rituals with deep metaphysical and cultural meaning. People will be interested to know what these are all about. Tradition, magic, and spirit will be manifest. We will all be reminded that Britain is more than an open air “refugee” camp and locus for woke degenerates. I doubt there will be rainbow flags, knee takers, and wails from those with blue hair and a face punctuated by piercings when Charles III is crowned. It will be a cultural moment that can be built on. It will demand introspection. It will be an opportunity for an atavistic cultural revival. It would be remiss to let this chance slip through our fingers.
People are of their time. Time changes, but we don’t.
The tradition of a popular monarchy was a new development of the Victorian age. It was a fresh purpose using new mass media for an old institution that had recently lost its constitutional power. Victorian medievalists created a lot of the pageantry we see today. Yet, to us now, the popular monarch we have lost and the pageantry seems to represent an unchanging timelessnesss.
The Queen had global reach not because of her abilities but because of the residual reach of the country she ruled. That reach was the product of an astonishing empire. Like a facsimilie of a facsimilie, that reach will inevitably decline as each future generation becomes more distant from our present. To us living through this, it perhaps feels like it is by design, but all empires decline. The only conspiracy is between the river of time itself and opportunists riding its rapids. It is tempting to think the riders are in control, but really it is the river.
As difficult as it might seem to us, today’s pageantry will eventually become as theatrical and empty as past Italian state attempts at acting out its Roman past. In the long span of history, the UK’s Kings will, eventually, go the way of Rome’s Caesers. The question is: are we in that moment?
“Rome’s Caesars” had a particularly long run being reincarnated as Kaisers and Tsars.
Reincarnations? Or play acting to remember past glories? How did it end for them?
Badly for the Tsar, but Kaiser’Bill’ enjoyed a peaceful retirement in the Netherlands for many years.
Probably not.
Rome was the glory of Italy and for better or worse the Empire the height of our prestige and power. Any nation which discards the traditions made it great completely will sink into mediocrity
One thing perhaps we can all agree on is what an appallingly cheapskate national funeral this going to be. Are we so bankrupt that we can afford little better?
After an unprecedented 70 years or circa 25,500 thousand day reign and years to prepare, is four miserable days in Westminster Hall all we can manage?
I suggest as an alternative that something along the lines of the funeral cortège of the late Queen, Eleanor of Castile, might have been followed.
Thus the cortège of our late Queen would have been conveyed across the country for perhaps twelve days pausing nightly at the following Cathedrals to give nearly everyone a chance to say goodbye. To whit:- Durham, York, Chester, Lichfield, Lincoln, Norwich, Llandaff, Exeter, Salisbury, Canterbury, and Westminster Hall.
As it is many potential mourners will be subjected to the horrors of our national transport system as they attempt to pay their respects in the parsimonious ninety six hours made available to them.
Not a good start to a new reign it must be said.
Or even simply a time slot ticketing system. Good for security. Good for mourners. Good for the sake of decency.
You are quite right. My wife wanted to her pay respects to the Queen and was put off going to Edinburgh because of the short period she was there and the suggestion of a 12 hour wait to file past the coffin (although it is reported a woman managed to file past 7 times so perhaps the line was fairly short during the early hours of the morning). Durham would have suited her fine but again London is far off and waiting in line for half a day or more did not appeal. The adoption of a time slot ticketing system would have enabled her to pay her respects. There is little excuse for such lack of efficiency and organisation.
You’re reverting to “Whinging poms”. Pull yourself together.
Crikey, fair dinkum mate!
On reflection I should have added either Gloucester or Wells to that list to cater for the Bristol- Bath conurbation.
The Royal Family is wealthy beyond all belief while their subjects face a dire winter between the escalating energy prices and the cost of living crisis. It would be a tall order to ask the latter to cough up money when the Royals have so much.
By all means, give the late Queen the spectacular funeral she deserves but surely it would be more appropriate for her family to pay for it, especially since they were forgiven the inheritance tax that the rest of us will pay before our own funerals.
Hear hear !!
Every time Princess Margaret went to the USA I read decades ago that our exports to said country increased. Not possible now, No goods to sell. But tourists bring in lots of money. Would they still come if it weren’t for our continuing historical pomp and ceremony. And Elected presidents cost a fortune too.
Yes, precisely, they are as I recall notoriously stingy.
Incidentally if the cortège had followed my outline plan it would have (hopefully) generated a much interest in our outstanding Medieval Cathedrals and perhaps even a little extra income.
They can’t win, stingy, or spendthrifts on taxpayers money.
The Monarch isn’t “forgiven” tax, he is the one who collects tax in accordance with the law. What does it mean to levy a tax on yourself?
You seem to be setting the monarch on a level with his subjects, which makes it sound as if you haven’t the slightest grasp of what you are trying to talk about.
Are you suggesting that Charles is above the law? That he should not pay tax?
The late Queen paid income tax. To whom did she pay it?
I don’t agree for one. Stop whingeing, eh?
Don’t agree with what precisely?
If Ben Judah thinks European sacral kingship began with Clovis, he is showing a woeful lack of historical knowledge that throws into question the rest of his article. Someone should tell him about the Eastern Roman Empire and how it acted as a template for Western European rulers, who sought to emulate the power, mystique and sacredness of its emperors.
Sacral kingship pre-dates Christianity and traces back through wide paths into Proto-Indo-European culture.
Mr Judah, the Monarchy has survived by adapting over many centuries and, I am sorry to have to tell you this, it will continue to do so.
Such a sad and bitter little piece.
Our admiration and support for our monarchy is expressed and felt in a different way nowadays, but it is stronger than ever. The author appears ignorant of the fact that the UK is second only to the US in “global soft power” and that this is down almost entirely to our Crown and Commonwealth. But this doesn’t fit his narrative of declinism and despair – which I just bet he loves to blame on Brexit…
I just wonder why people bother to live here and participate in our society, only peddle a such putrid dribble of pessimistic misery and despair, in an attempt to make others unhappy. What sort of human being does that? One really has to wonder.
I don’t know, and I don’t care. For the author is small, and one; and we are large, and many. We can absorb his unhappiness unaffected – and perhaps he’ll pick up a little of our optimism, and feel better about things.
I’m optimistic that things will get better but it will take constitutional change to make it happen.
I do think that our days as a global soft power are numbered though. We will eventually lose our permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations as the resentment from the countries of our former empire increases and the support from our friends in Europe fades. Our global influence will also fade as our ability to trade diminishes and the Commonwealth won’t last forever.
No we won’t, once on the UN Security Council as a permanent member you cannot be removed. We remain a top 10 global economy with nuclear weapons, India and Japan may join, France may give up its seat for the EU, ours will stay
No more of these very weak pointless articles please
Many members of the public interviewed by the BBC have had difficulty in explaining why they came out to the processions of the late Queen’s coffin, or why they want to file past it when Her Majesty lies in state.
C S Lewis made several arguments about monarchy and our response to it in his essay on equality. Lewis recognised the need to have equality in the same way as there was a need for medicine. Not as a cure for being human – there could never be one on earth – but as a remedy. In the example he gave, as a remedy for the horrible abuse of power that men have exercised over women.
At the same time Lewis thought that it was impossible to raise equality to the level of an ideal. If people were prevented or deterred from, or if they simply lost the habit of, venerating a king, they would honour athletes, film stars, or infamous gangsters. They would be ineluctably drawn to admire loyal courtiers or such like characters in films, as in the films of the Lord of the Rings. In other words, there is in human nature a certain desire for inequality.
Arguing from the Christian persuasion, Lewis’s essay contains an unspoken conclusion. This is that when human beings are saved by the work of Christ, resurrected for the dead, there would be no need for the medicine.
The members of the public who are moved to attend the ceremonies taking place in respect of the late Queen, this is the effect of the deep past that is manifesting itself, haunting them. Even judging them.
Good exposition, wrong conclusion.
How would “the deep past” judge people? And would people know enough about “the deep past” to feel judged by it?
I suspect it’s more to do with people respecting the continuity that will help us move forwards towards the future, but its perhaps an unfashionable view to express this via the monarchy, even if people were able to elucidate it when faced with a live tv camera and a microphone pressed under their noses.
A very good response. Thank you.
If Charles is skilful he should substantially trim the scale of the monarchy and agree to start paying an appropriate level of taxation. He should then promote three long-term goals, all of which are consistent with his and his parents actions of the last 50 years;
If he can pull this off, the monarchy will survive for the foreseeable future.
I disagree. If the monarchy is to stay then it should be a monarchy. He can’t pay tax to himself! The most appropriate measure would be to spend less, which would be more compatible with all competing values.
What would like to see, is a recognition that he is a national monarch first and head of the commonwealth second. That requires an outright renouncement of his involvement with the global palace in Davos and the Build. Back. Better globalists.
This is an unnecessarily pessimistic and predictably negative view of our country. We are a resilient nation and the monarchy will transform into a more modern but nevertheless relevant institution.
I suspect the Queen already knew all of this.
What a cynical, negative piece, with no profundity or nuance. Something I would expect to read in The Guardian, not UnHerd.
My feeling is that there is something happening here in the death of the Queen and investiture of the King. Those people interviewed in the street seem unable to elucidate their feeling and thoughts, even though they know there is something happening. The articles appearing here so far do not even come close to getting at it. It’s likely the writing about such things takes time and some serious research. So far the best thing I’ve read has been in reference to C S Lewis. Printing some of his views and written work in UnHerd would be interesting. Maybe it’s not possible. But I do feel that there is a struggle going on to comprehend what’s happening and unfortunately, so far, I gave not even seen the struggle itself addressed (I may have missed something), let alone what’s behind it. But there have been some comments here that have contributed towards my personal thinking about it all, which is sort of ironic.
“You know, over here people did not get that fairy-tale feeling about the coronation. What impressed most who saw it was the fact that the Queen herself appeared to be quite overwhelmed by the sacramental side of it. Hence, in the spectators, a feeling of (one hardly knows how to describe it)–awe–pity–pathos–mystery. The pressing of that huge, heavy crown on that small, young head becomes a sort of symbol of the situation of humanity itself: humanity called by God to be His vice-regent and high priest on earth, yet feeling so inadequate. As if He said ‘In my inexorable love I shall lay upon the dust that you are glories and dangers and responsibilities beyond your understanding.’ Do you see what I mean? One has missed the whole point unless one feels that we have all been crowned and that coronation is somehow, if splendid, a tragic splendour.” C S Lewis
UnHerd appears to be more and more taken over by ‘clever’, we might say, over-clever and sniffily disdainful intellectuals who – as we should now know – are often dangerous people massively out of touch with ordinary folk. They tend to engage in a lot of hyperbole and portentous commentary, but their track record of prediction leaves rather a lot to be desired. I would also challenge the endless ‘declinism’ these authors engage in. Britain for all its faults is far more truly democratic than it has been in the past, and its citizens live much better lives – despite the downturn since the financial crash. The geopolitical relative decline of Great Britain was inevitable given the potential power of the United States, China and others, and is not a tragedy.
Many of the contradictions and paradoxes of monarchy have pretty much always been with us; there is the rather obvious fact for example that Clovis, William the Conqueror etc were as well as divinely appointed kings also extremely brutal warlords. We are not stupid (the suggestion here – we are fully aware that the members of the Royal Family are ultimately ordinary people with their virtues and faults. So – a few teddy bears might be the better bargain!
The Royal Family has ‘lost its magic before’ and regained it, including under Queen Victoria, one of our ‘greatest’ monarchs. Then there is always the obvious problem with the alternative model, which almost certainly would insert yet another politician into our political system as Head of State. President Blair, anyone?
The Queen is respected because she did put duty first and played her role, not perfectly, but as well as anyone could have expected, not principally because she was a true believer and even a sincere Christian. I don’t agree with many things Charles as the Prince of Wales said, but so far it is almost movingly to see him dutifully (and exhaustingly) performing his new role as King. The sceptical commentariat may be surprised.
What a wonderful photo for this article.
Rather depressing piece, just as we are all moved by the re-emergence of the primordial instincts of a once great nation. I think we Inuit the sacral quality of Queen Elizabeth, without quite knowing it, or valuing it as something disappearing. A final visit to the old family home before the new buyers move in.
It need not be more of the old downhill. The Crown goes back to a time when England was a remote provincial island on the edge of Europe. That didn’t stop it being content or prosperous. We don’t need soft power or influence to succeed. Just confidence and competence, belief in our collective worth.
This is one the most insightful and accurate comments–one that takes the long view of history without idealism, but with optimism.
The person of the current King aside, I think the greatest threat to the monarchy will come from the increasing complaints against the memory of colonialism. The colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific will be the next to renounce monarchy followed inevitably by Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Why? Were they mistreated or brutalised in some way? If so, how?
If I recall, those African states that renounced the commonwealth turned to communism and Russian support. It was disastrous for them.
Yes, many were brutalised. Several countries experienced traumatic breakaways from Empire including India, Pakistan, Kenya, Malaysia and Guyana.
Activists in India are becoming increasingly vocal about our role in the multiple famines during the Raj. Whether our responsibility is real or imagined will make little difference.
Oh, and slavery and the looting of cultural artefacts.
It won’t help that the government has dramatically reduced our foreign aid budget either.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand will eventually want their own constitutional arrangements.
Hindutva is as unreasoning and unconcerned with objectivity as pre-1914 jingoism in Europe, and it is its own condemnation.
The only reason for the West African colonisation was to enforce the suppression of the ancient African institution of slavery. Africans need to take some responsibility here.
Canada, Australia and NZ do already have their own constitutional arrangements: are they not working?
I wonder about NZ. It has a Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown and Maori. Would removing the Crown delegitimise the Treaty?
The worse for some of them since they seem to be surrendering to Communist China that shows no sign of being an indulgent master. Frying pan and fire come to mind.
This piece charts the gradual progress of divine monarchy from Rome, or as some would have it Jerusalem (anchored to a figure about as far from monarchical as one could get), to its last outpost, from where there is nowhere left to go. HM The Queen contrived to depart from about as far from the source and the Continent of Europe as it is possible to get. The more one sees of the solemn processions of epaulettes the stranger the affair seems. But we must remember that it is barely a century since monarchs had real influence. Have their secular substitutes been that much better? Is the dictatorship of half (or less than half) the population over the other half, or of the wealthy old over the penuried young, better than that of a benign demi-god over an entire people? As to the future, I see King Charles III quietly sloughing off much of the property and mystique of the monarchy, for as long as he lives or chooses to remain, then the real change will come with William. What worries me is that the for-the-time-being United Kingdom, separated from the world and its neighbours by oceans and Brexit, and apparently unable to manage its essential services or provide equitable conditions for its people, may descend into dismal isolation before that transformation can occur.
Yes the Queen and her era has died and it was time. We must constantly change and evolve. I believe in Charles’ religion – the spirituality of harmony with nature. My problem is the WEF have taken up the cause and their methods portray the worst side of religious zealotry.
As she aged, shrinking into her clothes, […] Our ailing world.
Well, it certainly draws on the mourning.
This seems to me to be an exercise in assuming a distinction without a difference – Monarch and Monarchy?
Charles t**d is trying to look sad, but can’t hide his glee. Like Obama, he should invite Beyoncé to his coronation to sing “At Last”.
Read In Defense of Not Mourning Queen Elizabeth at Reason magazine’s website.