In a democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the voter is king. Great Britain therefore has 66 million kings (ish). In them you will find wise men and fools, healthy and sickly men (and women), clever and dull (am I repeating myself? 😉 ) wealthy and poor, youthful and elderly, etc.King Charles isn’t the point. Each of us is king (or queen) of his own life, things, and doings. When you recognize your own sovereignty, you pass from childhood into adulthood, from slavery to freedom, from darkness to light.May God save us all ……
Round heads or Cavaliers ? Charles 1 or Oliver Cromwell ? I know King Charles led his country into a civil war by being so uncompromising , but Cromwell closed the theatres and sold the Kings Art Collection . Cromwell did make a huge contribution to modern Ireland’s national identity as well as inspiring one of Morrissey’s most confusing lyrics . Oliver Cromwell !
Cromwell. No question about it.
He basically founded the British Army and laid the groundwork for rule by the competent instead of the privileged (yes, it feels strange to be writing that in 2024 and we do seem to be letting our standards slip !).
It’s worth remembering that London – professional classes, trade – was always Parliamentarian. He’s a large part of the reason we got to a constitutional monarchy ahead of other countries. And why we have no problems getting rid of poor leaders – I don’t think there’s a Prime Minister that ever tried to outstay his/her welcome.
Charles I had poor judgement and was untrustworthy.
Boris did a pretty good job of outstaying his welcome.
Katharine Eyre
2 months ago
How about you ignore all the guff about divinity and ask yourself the rather more down-to-earth question: who would you rather have as head of state? Someone who is regularly described as “kind”, has done a lot of good with his odd position in life and helped many young people and who is quietly carrying on despite being sick…or one of the rabble we saw scrapping in the House of Commons last week?
The crumbling edifice of Great Britain will come tumbling down soon enough and take the monarchy with it…and I think then you’ll miss your illusions.
I think the most dangerous illusion the British have is to think your are somehow excepted (divinely, one might say) from the kind of civil strife that other countries have been through. Just because GB has been peaceful and non-violent and wealthy for 300+ years, then it always will be.
I’m not sure that people really understand the damage that the ongoing polarisations (about Brexit, Gaza, left-right, city-country etc. etc.) are causing to the fabric of your civil society and what that could lead to. It might be because I live in a country that literally took a trip to hell and back after the old order (including the monarchy) broke down – but observing events in GB from here, it looks worryingly decadent.
The division is overstated to be honest. Most people genuinely don’t care, they’ll have a moan and then forget about it, It’s only noisy minorities on Twitter that give the impression civil war is looming. A more pressing issue is voter apathy, I can see the turnout at the next election being incredibly low
I get that, but there are lessons from history where seemingly quiet places populated by a majority of “not bothereds” can suddenly turn into theatres of violent struggle when previous societal structures give way without a fixed successor structure being in place.
Example: German West Hungary after the fall of the Habsburg Empire. It was as quiet as could be, no nationalist movements like you had in other parts of the empire. Just people living quietly together, farming and going about their business. The conflicts that happened there as Austria and Hungary pulled apart seemed to come out of nothing.
I think it pays to remain mindful of these things, even if it seems extreme and exaggerated.
And yet the monarchy is perhaps one of those illusions – an embarrassing anachronism that is in the way of reforming the embarrassing anachronism that is our political system more broadly which is stuck in the 17th century.
It’s not a coincidence, that link between being socially progressive and constitutional monarchy. It works, it just does and being a smart Alec about it like this article won’t stop ordinary people singing God Save the King as they’re crying over the death of the Queen. They just get it without thinking about it. That’s all.
As for the stuff about Jesus and the old fertility rites CS Lewis goes over that brilliantly in Miracles. Well worth a read.
That all depends on how far back you go I suppose. Rome was both of those things as far as I can tell. During the medieval and early modern periods Europe was surely overwhelmingly a continent of monarchies? Or am I missing something?
Not sure Rome was ever a constitutional monarchy but I may be wrong.
Just don’t agree with the idea that a constitutional monarchy is somehow an ’embarassing anachronism’ when it’s no older, and possibly younger, than alternatives. And generally appears to result in pretty good social outcomes.
As Helen says above, it just works, and the absurd overthinking in this article is a demonstration that there isn’t actually much sensible criticism.
I’ve always thought that one of the big plusses of a monarchy is that you have someone with a public voice and influence that hasn’t had to fight their way to the top. It provides a different perspective. You might even call it diversity.
“I think then you’ll miss your Illusions”. Shouldn’t that be “then we may miss our illusions”?
From another comment you made I now understand that you don’t live in the UK. If you would say where you do live it would make your comments make a bit more sense. You have a very English sounding name which is also misleading.
It is telling that the height used by Mr Eagleton to disparage the king (who is 5ft 10in) is exactly the height desired by the poor chap in another article today in Unherd who literally broke his own legs (in a medical procedure) to attain it. Yes, to a dispassionate observer height is just a statistic but the world is so much more than mere scientific measurement.
Things were never like this in the days of Good Queen Bess. Golden days of good Queen Bess – Royalty – English ballads – National Library of Scotland (nls.uk)
Remarkable that that document (Good Queen Bess) is in the National Library of Scotland given that Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scotland and she had Mary Queen of Scots executed !
Robbie K
2 months ago
Off with his head Charles! (and do us all a favour)
If you look through the list of articles under Terry Eagelton you’ll find one headed ‘why does Charles dislike me ‘. I suspect he was the victim of a prank by his students .
Jane Anderson
2 months ago
It’s amazing how our analyses never fail to be anything other than a reflection of ourselves and our own ideological under-pinnings. Nevertheless,this could have been attempted without having to make personal and gratuitously unkind comments which added nothing but malice to the argument.
2 plus 2 equals 4
2 months ago
The only problem with this is that there is no such thing as a pure British identity, so that the monarchy rests on an illusion.
This kind of reverse-exceptionalism has become a really tedious cliche.
Britain is little different in not having a “pure British identity” than other modern nation-states. Most are formed from an amalgamation of discrete ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups of people. Spain has Basques, Catalans etc etc.
OMG … Google it … he IS a Marxist. That explains a lot. Why the fudge am I paying a subscription to read the bile of Marxists? There is nothing more anti-human than these sorry sad sacks.
Tyler Durden
2 months ago
I feel Charles has had a life of influence but has also been a somewhat tragic figure. He received his great pomp and ceremony after all those years and now, sadly, he may have to hand over the reins himself.
All of that is beyond his control, and the UK may become rather fond of a young girl. But the saddest thing of all is that the late Queen should have been convinced to retire some years before reaching her advanced age and ailing.
JR Stoker
2 months ago
There is nothing wrong with articles advocating a republic. But this rubbish is just bile. Bin it
Jacqui Ford
2 months ago
Oh dear! Terry Eagleton really doesn’t get that Jesus Christ is NOT a dead king. Christ is very much alive because he was raised from the dead. Examine the evidence – it would certainly stand up in a court of law!
I’m Canadian so I’ve never heard of the guy. Imagine my dismay that he’s lettered and an intellectual. I don’t mean to engage in Ad hominem attacks, but I can’t believe how ignorant he is of basic Christian theology. Or he perhaps he was so wanting to write something supposedly intellectually elevated with some sort of Jungian sick king piece that he ended up with a stretchy mishmash that a year one theology student could drive a truck through.
can't buy my vote
2 months ago
Like crooked teeth, C3R is stereotypically Old England. I hope he hangs around as long as he can. There is plenty of time for the millennials to take over.
Dick Barrett
2 months ago
Not so long ago, a King like poor Charles would have been ritually garrotted and his body left in a peat bog. Seeing as that is not going to happen, why doesn’t Prince Harry raise his standard at Oxford or somewhere like that, and lead his followers against his old man? Time to bring some excitement back into the monarchy business.
Margaret Donaldson
2 months ago
Regretfully if we get rid of the metaphysical underpinning of monarchy, we would have to make do with the metaphysical underpinnings such as equality and individual liberty, if Mr Eagleton is to be believed. Both are as dubious as the one they are replacing.
Arthur King
2 months ago
Wow … such bald ignorance of Christian theology. Jesus redemptive suffering for the sins of the world was followed by the Resurrection where Jesus literally stepped out of the tomb transformed. Then ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. The best book to read on the topic is NT Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. See https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/148780
Hilary Easton
2 months ago
It’s part of royalist ideology to regard this balding, bat-eared, petulant character as God’s representative on earth.
What utter rubbish. The majority of people in this country don’t even believe in God, and most royalists that I know are quite pragmatic and don’t hold any mystical ideas about our very down to earth, constitutional monarchy.
We just compare it with the alternatives: all-powerful presidents who don’t represent the state but are fully enmeshed in the political system. They have to be voted for every few years and never can represent stability and unity, the way that a head of state should.
There is an alternative to monarchs and “all-powerful presidents who don’t represent the state but are fully enmeshed in the political system”: elected ceremonial presidents who represent the state, along with a powerful head of government (e.g., a prime minister) who is fully enmeshed in the political system. Lots of countries have presidents who are heads of state, but who are not also heads of government.
Eleanor Barlow
2 months ago
‘It’s part of royalist ideology to regard this balding, bat-eared, petulant character as God’s representative on earth.’
I thought we were supposed to have ditched the divine right of kings when we chopped off Charles I’s head. I’ve no objection to him being a head of state, but can’t stand all the mystique that surrounds the every ordinary people who are Charles and his family.
Ben R
2 months ago
“It’s part of royalist ideology to regard this balding, bat-eared, petulant character as God’s representative on earth.”
You’re not exactly a male model, Terry. Maybe Britain doesn’t need you.
GOD SAVE THE KING
Ray Andrews
2 months ago
Whenever I read an article like this — petty, shallow, nasty — I am confirmed more deeply in my respect for the monarchy. God Save the King.
Republicanism is bitter and sadistic. As an ideology it has absolutely nothing going for it.
Peter F. Lee
2 months ago
Egg us all on, Terry. You, no more, believe what you write, than I do.
Trevor Williams
2 months ago
Nothing of much contemporary interest here.
A A
2 months ago
Uh, OK.
Peter Rigg
2 months ago
Is this article intended to be a candidate for Pseuds Corner?
nigel taylor
2 months ago
Yet another mean and resentful article from the Marxist Eagleton.
Victoria Cooper
2 months ago
Then history and continuity are also blankets as are roots, belonging and frontiers. In fact let’s go the whole hog and say all structures are blankets, nay even our bodies. Can we not accept the King has a body and also be a symbol of national unity?
In a democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the voter is king. Great Britain therefore has 66 million kings (ish). In them you will find wise men and fools, healthy and sickly men (and women), clever and dull (am I repeating myself? 😉 ) wealthy and poor, youthful and elderly, etc.King Charles isn’t the point. Each of us is king (or queen) of his own life, things, and doings. When you recognize your own sovereignty, you pass from childhood into adulthood, from slavery to freedom, from darkness to light.May God save us all ……
Amen!
Round heads or Cavaliers ? Charles 1 or Oliver Cromwell ? I know King Charles led his country into a civil war by being so uncompromising , but Cromwell closed the theatres and sold the Kings Art Collection . Cromwell did make a huge contribution to modern Ireland’s national identity as well as inspiring one of Morrissey’s most confusing lyrics . Oliver Cromwell !
I don’t think I’d have lasted long under Cromwells Puritanism so I’ll have to choose the Monarchy
Me too Billy , just trying to discombobulate Terry ( the Irish hate Cromwell even more than the monarchy)
Seems a bit mean to attack the present king not just despite him having cancer but because he has cancer .
Cromwell’s ‘huge contribution to the identity of modern Ireland’ was to slaughter a quarter of the population. An early model for Mao.
For Mao and almost every autocrat in history!
Cromwell. No question about it.
He basically founded the British Army and laid the groundwork for rule by the competent instead of the privileged (yes, it feels strange to be writing that in 2024 and we do seem to be letting our standards slip !).
It’s worth remembering that London – professional classes, trade – was always Parliamentarian. He’s a large part of the reason we got to a constitutional monarchy ahead of other countries. And why we have no problems getting rid of poor leaders – I don’t think there’s a Prime Minister that ever tried to outstay his/her welcome.
Charles I had poor judgement and was untrustworthy.
I think it was summed up in 1066 and all that .
The parliamentarians were right but repulsive
The Cavaliers wrong but romantic
And Charles 1 wrote the manual in how to be publicly decapitated and keep your dignity
Boris did a pretty good job of outstaying his welcome.
How about you ignore all the guff about divinity and ask yourself the rather more down-to-earth question: who would you rather have as head of state? Someone who is regularly described as “kind”, has done a lot of good with his odd position in life and helped many young people and who is quietly carrying on despite being sick…or one of the rabble we saw scrapping in the House of Commons last week?
The crumbling edifice of Great Britain will come tumbling down soon enough and take the monarchy with it…and I think then you’ll miss your illusions.
I think the most dangerous illusion the British have is to think your are somehow excepted (divinely, one might say) from the kind of civil strife that other countries have been through. Just because GB has been peaceful and non-violent and wealthy for 300+ years, then it always will be.
I’m not sure that people really understand the damage that the ongoing polarisations (about Brexit, Gaza, left-right, city-country etc. etc.) are causing to the fabric of your civil society and what that could lead to. It might be because I live in a country that literally took a trip to hell and back after the old order (including the monarchy) broke down – but observing events in GB from here, it looks worryingly decadent.
The division is overstated to be honest. Most people genuinely don’t care, they’ll have a moan and then forget about it, It’s only noisy minorities on Twitter that give the impression civil war is looming. A more pressing issue is voter apathy, I can see the turnout at the next election being incredibly low
I get that, but there are lessons from history where seemingly quiet places populated by a majority of “not bothereds” can suddenly turn into theatres of violent struggle when previous societal structures give way without a fixed successor structure being in place.
Example: German West Hungary after the fall of the Habsburg Empire. It was as quiet as could be, no nationalist movements like you had in other parts of the empire. Just people living quietly together, farming and going about their business. The conflicts that happened there as Austria and Hungary pulled apart seemed to come out of nothing.
I think it pays to remain mindful of these things, even if it seems extreme and exaggerated.
“Noisy minorities” have typically been the catalysts for large movements.
Sadly, a trip to hell may well be exactly what Britain needs to restore some sanity. Harsh, I know, but probably true.
I can’t think of any example of a trip to hell restoring sanity to a country. Can you?
Germany 1945??
And yet the monarchy is perhaps one of those illusions – an embarrassing anachronism that is in the way of reforming the embarrassing anachronism that is our political system more broadly which is stuck in the 17th century.
And yet many of the most socially progressive countries in the world are monarchies.
Republics go back even further than Britain’s constitutional monarchy. Are republics anachronisms too?
It’s not a coincidence, that link between being socially progressive and constitutional monarchy. It works, it just does and being a smart Alec about it like this article won’t stop ordinary people singing God Save the King as they’re crying over the death of the Queen. They just get it without thinking about it. That’s all.
As for the stuff about Jesus and the old fertility rites CS Lewis goes over that brilliantly in Miracles. Well worth a read.
I’m just reading ‘Miracles” at the moment. It’s brilliant. I think Terry E. trys a bit too hard to be original.
That all depends on how far back you go I suppose. Rome was both of those things as far as I can tell. During the medieval and early modern periods Europe was surely overwhelmingly a continent of monarchies? Or am I missing something?
Not sure Rome was ever a constitutional monarchy but I may be wrong.
Just don’t agree with the idea that a constitutional monarchy is somehow an ’embarassing anachronism’ when it’s no older, and possibly younger, than alternatives. And generally appears to result in pretty good social outcomes.
As Helen says above, it just works, and the absurd overthinking in this article is a demonstration that there isn’t actually much sensible criticism.
Yes he’s really struggling to make an argument, isn’t he; Duke of Barnsley indeed!
I’ve always thought that one of the big plusses of a monarchy is that you have someone with a public voice and influence that hasn’t had to fight their way to the top. It provides a different perspective. You might even call it diversity.
A fair point provided they don’t own the seabed, the swans and the Isles of Scilly!
not that worried about the swans
Heh
Monarchy is a barrier against totalitarianism. That is why Leftists hate it.
“I think then you’ll miss your Illusions”. Shouldn’t that be “then we may miss our illusions”?
From another comment you made I now understand that you don’t live in the UK. If you would say where you do live it would make your comments make a bit more sense. You have a very English sounding name which is also misleading.
I just gave up on the article.
It is telling that the height used by Mr Eagleton to disparage the king (who is 5ft 10in) is exactly the height desired by the poor chap in another article today in Unherd who literally broke his own legs (in a medical procedure) to attain it. Yes, to a dispassionate observer height is just a statistic but the world is so much more than mere scientific measurement.
Things were never like this in the days of Good Queen Bess.
Golden days of good Queen Bess – Royalty – English ballads – National Library of Scotland (nls.uk)
Remarkable that that document (Good Queen Bess) is in the National Library of Scotland given that Elizabeth I was never Queen of Scotland and she had Mary Queen of Scots executed !
Off with his head Charles! (and do us all a favour)
If you look through the list of articles under Terry Eagelton you’ll find one headed ‘why does Charles dislike me ‘. I suspect he was the victim of a prank by his students .
It’s amazing how our analyses never fail to be anything other than a reflection of ourselves and our own ideological under-pinnings. Nevertheless,this could have been attempted without having to make personal and gratuitously unkind comments which added nothing but malice to the argument.
This kind of reverse-exceptionalism has become a really tedious cliche.
Britain is little different in not having a “pure British identity” than other modern nation-states. Most are formed from an amalgamation of discrete ethnic, cultural, and linguistic groups of people. Spain has Basques, Catalans etc etc.
Well said!
In a synergistic relationship, 2 + 2 = 22.
What a horrible, spiteful article. However the author knew he was safe as the subject won’t answer back.
Like so much we read online
I’m honestly embarrassed more so the editors than the poor man who wrote it.
We are not ruled by a King. Ever since the Glorius Revolution of 1688 it is Parliament (democracy) that is supreme. Eagleton is marxist Don Quiote.
OMG … Google it … he IS a Marxist. That explains a lot. Why the fudge am I paying a subscription to read the bile of Marxists? There is nothing more anti-human than these sorry sad sacks.
I feel Charles has had a life of influence but has also been a somewhat tragic figure. He received his great pomp and ceremony after all those years and now, sadly, he may have to hand over the reins himself.
All of that is beyond his control, and the UK may become rather fond of a young girl. But the saddest thing of all is that the late Queen should have been convinced to retire some years before reaching her advanced age and ailing.
There is nothing wrong with articles advocating a republic. But this rubbish is just bile. Bin it
Oh dear! Terry Eagleton really doesn’t get that Jesus Christ is NOT a dead king. Christ is very much alive because he was raised from the dead. Examine the evidence – it would certainly stand up in a court of law!
Only if he appeared called as a witness.
I’m Canadian so I’ve never heard of the guy. Imagine my dismay that he’s lettered and an intellectual. I don’t mean to engage in Ad hominem attacks, but I can’t believe how ignorant he is of basic Christian theology. Or he perhaps he was so wanting to write something supposedly intellectually elevated with some sort of Jungian sick king piece that he ended up with a stretchy mishmash that a year one theology student could drive a truck through.
Like crooked teeth, C3R is stereotypically Old England. I hope he hangs around as long as he can. There is plenty of time for the millennials to take over.
Not so long ago, a King like poor Charles would have been ritually garrotted and his body left in a peat bog. Seeing as that is not going to happen, why doesn’t Prince Harry raise his standard at Oxford or somewhere like that, and lead his followers against his old man? Time to bring some excitement back into the monarchy business.
Regretfully if we get rid of the metaphysical underpinning of monarchy, we would have to make do with the metaphysical underpinnings such as equality and individual liberty, if Mr Eagleton is to be believed. Both are as dubious as the one they are replacing.
Wow … such bald ignorance of Christian theology. Jesus redemptive suffering for the sins of the world was followed by the Resurrection where Jesus literally stepped out of the tomb transformed. Then ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father. The best book to read on the topic is NT Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. See https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/148780
What utter rubbish. The majority of people in this country don’t even believe in God, and most royalists that I know are quite pragmatic and don’t hold any mystical ideas about our very down to earth, constitutional monarchy.
We just compare it with the alternatives: all-powerful presidents who don’t represent the state but are fully enmeshed in the political system. They have to be voted for every few years and never can represent stability and unity, the way that a head of state should.
There is an alternative to monarchs and “all-powerful presidents who don’t represent the state but are fully enmeshed in the political system”: elected ceremonial presidents who represent the state, along with a powerful head of government (e.g., a prime minister) who is fully enmeshed in the political system. Lots of countries have presidents who are heads of state, but who are not also heads of government.
‘It’s part of royalist ideology to regard this balding, bat-eared, petulant character as God’s representative on earth.’
I thought we were supposed to have ditched the divine right of kings when we chopped off Charles I’s head. I’ve no objection to him being a head of state, but can’t stand all the mystique that surrounds the every ordinary people who are Charles and his family.
“It’s part of royalist ideology to regard this balding, bat-eared, petulant character as God’s representative on earth.”
You’re not exactly a male model, Terry. Maybe Britain doesn’t need you.
GOD SAVE THE KING
Whenever I read an article like this — petty, shallow, nasty — I am confirmed more deeply in my respect for the monarchy. God Save the King.
Republicanism is bitter and sadistic. As an ideology it has absolutely nothing going for it.
Egg us all on, Terry. You, no more, believe what you write, than I do.
Nothing of much contemporary interest here.
Uh, OK.
Is this article intended to be a candidate for Pseuds Corner?
Yet another mean and resentful article from the Marxist Eagleton.
Then history and continuity are also blankets as are roots, belonging and frontiers. In fact let’s go the whole hog and say all structures are blankets, nay even our bodies. Can we not accept the King has a body and also be a symbol of national unity?
.