Melancholic Autumnal splendour was soon overtaken by the instant decay of a new administration. But lest we should have forgotten the Queen’s funeral and the new royal accession, King Charles has now twice reminded us that the Spring of his new beginning is still intact.
First, an appropriate Spring date for his early coronation has been announced. And then, on Wednesday, he perhaps deliberately broadcast to the world his irritation and dismay at Truss: “Back again? Dear, oh dear. Anyway…” This incident has already exploded any notion that Charles as King will be completely apolitical. But a more political monarchy should be welcomed, both in principle and also on account of the immediate and complex danger in which our realm now stands.
In the face of this peril, King and Prime Minister represent two completely opposite possible future responses: one concerned with restoring a more natural, rooted, cooperative order under the authority of a mystical deity; the other determined to install a yet more nakedly liberal and secular regime in which order is to be distilled out of the uprooted strivings of human individuals who seek only their own further advantage.
Thanks to both new global circumstances and to Truss’s overkill, we can no longer be so sure of the inevitable triumph of the second, more obviously modern perspective as we once might have been. We can now recall that the Queen’s funeral was the sudden and gently confident rising to the surface of an older and deeper reality. What drew people to this event was a phenomenon of incarnation, in an ultimately Christian sense, which nonetheless resonated for people of many different faiths and none at all. The Queen, in her increasingly frail body, had been the ultimate locus of power and authority. She stood for the notion that legitimate power, in contrast to the Trusketeer vision, is, indeed, inherently symbolic as well as personal, because it derives from above and from our answerability to the eternally and objective Good, True and Beautiful, not from a balancing of brutally material forces.
England was once devoted to the notion of the “king’s two bodies” — the idea that when the mortal body of a monarch dies, her immortal body of authority survives. (Charles became king not through a ceremony, but at the very instant of his mother’s passing away.) This idea was ultimately inseparable from a theological one: the doctrine that Christ was, in a still more radical sense, at once both human and divine.
Yet in the case of kingship, this never meant that the monarch was a pagan semi-deity. Rather, kingship is anointed: the king is only king under God, and bound to the divinely-given law of the land and to the people who themselves belong to God. The scriptures recognise both the dangers of monarchic tyranny and the likelihood, in a republic, of aristocratic corruption. It is for this reason that they advocate what is in effect a mode of constitutional monarchy.
We speak of ourselves too often as a mere “democracy”, as if we believe in the dominance of the sheerly aggregated will of the British people. But in reality, we live in a representative democracy, under the ultimate sway of the Crown. Political representatives are in effect a kind of “aristocracy”, since they at once guide, influence and interpret the will of the people.
It can seem as if the way forward should be further to liberalise and democratise that mixture. But do we wish to unleash the isolated wills of narcissistic individuals — or their aggregated compound, often in populist reaction against the former? In reality, a less hollow, more participatory and continuous democracy can only prevail if we cultivate a more honourable and rooted leadership at every level, rather than a self-seeking oligarchy that seeks to manipulate and control the populace as though it were a machine.
Monarchy might stand at the apex of this better “aristocracy”. Its leadership is inherited, tying it to tradition, to land, to the interpersonal and to patronage. It is naturally linked to the rural soil, to the encouraging of creative labour, and to life, as instanced by the causes that Charles III supported when he was a prince.
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.
SubscribeIf you are so confident he represents us best out of anyone, let’s put it to a vote shall we?
We could have an open candidate list and a few months of no holds barred campaigning. I very much doubt Charles would win against his son or against candidates willing to trawl through Charles’ past misdemeanours, even with a servile media.
Charles is King because he is the eldest son of his mum who was Queen. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no special claim to best representing anyone but himself. And his prattish mistakes suggest he’s not even very good at best representing himself.
I’m not advocating for a presidency. But to suggest Charles is uniquely qualified above all others is delusional devoteeism.
“let’s put it to a vote shall we?”
Well, no. That’s the point.
People inspired by Monty Python’s “well I didn’t vote for you” anarcho-syndicalist peasants as the last word in political theory always seem to overlook the fact that they eat dung.
As I said, I’m not advocating for a president, I’m criticising the fawning pretence that Charles is a better representative of the people whose influence should be expanded under the guise of Royal Commissions.
Pretty much like any politician then other than we are stuck with him and he with us.
He has had decades of life experience – following the ups and downs of society with different politicos in power. He has no need to offer unsustainable promises to gain power and has the wherewithal to be incorruptible.
Perhaps we need a benevolent monarch like Frederick the Great!. . ..
Yes, let’s do away with all that messy democracy. What’s needed is a government of academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats led by a thick as mince man child who talks to plants. Yep, that’ll do it.
What is it about Nottingham University?
MPs of course are famous for having never pursued careers in academia, finance or the public sector before being elevated by the democratic will of their two-dozen strong local party selection committee and inflicted on a safe seat.
Even an imperfect democracy is preferable to the authoritarian plutocracy that you seem to prefer.
You: the King taking a more active constitutional role means rule by academics, bankers and globalist bureaucrats.
Me: that’s what we have right now.
You: why do you hate democracy?
I did not read the article, but say I do like Charles – as I grew up he was ahead of me in age and on TV a lot, and seemed a good man, And since our wonderful Queen passing away, I have felt he will make a good King. I support him as King.
But the thing is him and the World Economic Forum WEF….(our psychopathic overlords) just do a search – this is what I wish was being addressed – sorry if it was in the above, I just scanned it for those 3 letters.
you will find endless stuff like this, and some gets pretty wild…
‘Now-King Charles has a long history of working with the World Economic Forum. Charles has been attending WEF meetings since at least 1992. Daily Mail said in 2020, “Earlier this year, Prince Charles launched his Sustainable Markets Initiative at Davos,” which is the meeting place of WEF.’
I believe the ‘Global Elites’ (Davis) are behind all which is bad/evil in the world, and are out to enslave the planet – so I would like Charles, or his spokesperson, to address the Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink thing….
Given King Charles’s involvement in Poundbury and his advocacy for climate change, I would call him a creature of the educated ruling class, and therefore likely to be much beloved of university professors like the writer.
But beloved of ordinary Brits? I wonder.
A bigger question is King Charles’ Head, as David Copperfield’s pal well knew back in the day.
This makes an elegant case for the British monarchy while also touching on the problems of true democracy (i.e. elite capture). Historically speaking, as far as Europe is concerned, the power of monarchs was generally limited by the power of landed nobility, and vice versa. The monarch’s ability to unify many lands and peoples was counterbalanced by the fact that the nobility collectively had more direct control over far more wealth/manpower/territory than any monarch. Thus, a persuasive and popular monarch could further restrict the nobility (oligarchs) by threatening them with the will of the people, or more literally, confronting them with the brutal reality that more of the people would take his side in any perceived conflict. Weaker monarchs, on the other hand, were more easily manipulated by members of the nobility. This dynamic takes many other forms but the pattern remains; the most potent threat to oligarchy is a powerful autocrat. As an American, I rather admire the British monarchy as it represents another safeguard against a truly horrid bunch of oligarchs gaining power as the monarch could theoretically wrest control if he or she had enough popular support to do so, and even without formal power can still wield a counter-influence. Whether Charles III can be that sort of monarch is a debatable point, but even if he isn’t, the next one still might be, and that’s the point. The monarch may be just a symbol, but symbols can have great power, as the author reminds us.
A more political monarchy?
Doubtful – but bearing in mind that Charles has been banging on about the Climate for a generation but still obviously hasn’t the faintest idea of the well established fact that tiny increases in temperature in 170 years, followed by a small increase in a trace gas essential for all life on Earth, may be interesting, but is certainly not a harbinger of doom; is unpersuasive that he is the Man for the job.
A thousand pitties that we couldn’t have had Queen Anne Ii.
Ah, there it is: Above all, Charles could expand the role of Royal commissions, colleges and trusts. I guess the author is hoping Charles is an Unherd subscriber.
I found this is a profound and moving essay on our situation at the present time after the Queen’s death. I share John Milbank’s appreciation of our King and his hopes for Charles’s reign, but I doubt whether certain powers, including the media, would allow him to extend his influence much. I hope I’m wrong though.
Thank you.
Neither Kings nor Politicians ever come with guarantees.
Well said Claire. One of the best essays I’ve read all year. Im doubtful too, but while both the Left & Right have reason to distrust him, he also receives support across the spectrum. It will be as God wills it.
Diana would not agree.
This essay makes me think the British are bigger fools than I had imagined.
Truss can at least claim the support of the majority of Conservative Party members. Whose support can Charles claim? Camila’s?