“God Save the King!”

 

Sheet music of God Save the KingTwo hundred seventy-seven years ago, on September 28, 1745, the still relatively new kingdom of Great Britain was in disarray. The perfidious Scots (I think understanding a writer’s point-of-view is important, so I always try to make mine clear from the start) were in rebellion (again) and the Stuarts, in the person of Bonnie Prince Charlie (at best a vain and difficult man; at worst, perhaps, a coward and a despot) were revolting (again). George II’s reign was thought to be in jeopardy, banks and stocks were failing, and the country was in need of a symbol to unite it.

That evening, at Drury Lane theater, immediately following (best evidence seems to indicate), a performance of Ben Jonson’s play, The Alchemist, the cast and orchestra appeared on stage to sing an anti-Jacobite song written by the well-known composer Thomas Arne. The tune was borrowed from a number of traditional melodies and was mildly stirring,* but it was the words that captured the imagination of the audience:

God save great George our king,
Long live our noble king,
God save the king.
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the king.

(There are some variations to the reported lyrics. However, they stand for the most part, with the elimination of prayers for a specific monarch, to this day.)

The Daily Advertiser (a newspaper of the time) reported that the audience

were agreeably surpriz’d by the Gentlemen belonging to that House performing the Anthem of God save our noble King. The universal Applause it met with, being encored with repeated Huzzas, sufficiently denoted in how just an Abhorrence they hold the arbitrary Schemes of our invidious Enemies, and detest the despotick Attempts of Papal Power.’

So. There.

Subsequent to the final defeat of the Scots (pace Nicola Sturgeon) at the Battle of Culloden in April of 1746, “God Save the King” became the de facto national anthem, and gradually evolved from the celebration of an individual monarch to a song of praise and solidarity on behalf of the nation.

And thus, it remains.

So, who is this King (or Queen) of Great Britain of whom I speak?

That’s easy.

In these early years of the third decade of the twenty-first century, he (or she) is a constitutional monarch who reigns with the support of the majority of the British people. There are, no doubt, republicans in that mix; that’s baked into the cake. And–as has been the case for a thousand years–some monarchs are more popular than others.

And yet.

Although it’s certainly true that the death of Elizabeth the Dutiful, the Steadfast, the Beloved, the Faithful, has brought on a welcome hiatus (for the most part) when it comes to bashing Charles Philip Arthur George, the former Prince of Wales and now King Charles III, I daresay it won’t be long until we’re doubting again.

We shouldn’t doubt. Great Britain has survived far worse monarchs than Charles III is likely to be, and will probably survive more of them in the future.

So.

Constitutional monarchy.

Here is what the British Monarchist League has to say about it:

A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution. Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the Monarch may have strictly Ceremonial duties or may have Reserve Powers, depending on the constitution. They have a directly or indirectly elected prime minister who is the head of government, and exercises effective political power.

As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy’s executive authority is vested in the head of state. Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the political class, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government’s symbolic head, it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country.

I hear and see some of you jumping up and down and asserting that Britain doesn’t have a constitution, so how can all of that (as marvelous as it sounds) possibly be true?

Actually, Britain does have a constitution. It’s often called an “uncodified” one, but, really, it’s codified in hundreds, maybe thousands, of legal and parliamentary decisions over hundreds of years, going back to at least 1215, when the whole idea of “divine right of kings” (finally expunged forever, somewhere in the late-eighteenth century) took a substantial hit. Ever since then, with increasing frequency and attention to detail, the idea that the monarchy and the people’s elected representatives must find a way to rub along amicably has been paramount.

I’ve shown my hand here lately in a few posts, so you know where I stand. And I think one of the most cogent comments on one of my posts WRT why the idea of a constitutional monarchy actually works in the UK was one which stated that the assumption that such a system might work depends on the “decency” of both sides–the elected and the inherited–and in their honoring long-standing tradition. (It may have been my resurgent friend @bdb who made that comment somewhere; I’m not sure. If it wasn’t he, please show yourself, because it’s spectacularly on-point.)

Here’s a post by a man who’s regularly celebrated by the American Right: Daniel Hannan, titled “It’s no coincidence that the most successful democracies are constitutional monarchies. A monarchy is there to legitimise the government and to forestall the possibility of civil war.” Unfortunately, it’s on The Telegraph website, which has a paywall.

Here’s a short excerpt:

All of them are from outside the Commonwealth, and the vast majority from republics. Many of the people sending them, especially the Americans, see the repudiation of monarchy as an important part of their own identity. One friend, an old-fashioned lefty from Vermont, was typical: “Even I, a resolute republican, am an admirer of how Elizabeth conducted herself in her anachronistic role. My condolences.”

Americans tend to profess admiration for the woman who wore the crown rather than for the crown itself, much as one might admire the Dalai Lama without being a Buddhist. Yet, the more you think about it, the harder it is to separate the office-holder from the office. Had Elizabeth Windsor had the baby brother she used to pray for as a girl, she would doubtless have lived a blameless life of rural domesticity. The virtues that the world admired in her – discretion, dignity and, above all, duty – were admirable precisely because they were the virtues of a head of state.

Yet this is to miss the point. A constitutional monarchy is not there to magnify the ruler; we leave that sort of thing to people’s republics. No, a constitutional monarchy is there to legitimise the government, to elevate and ennoble the state’s core functions and, in the last analysis, to forestall the possibility of civil war.

Indeed. If you can find a way to read the whole thing, please do.

I’m going to introduce a personal note here:

When Elizabeth II died (I was named after her, having been born just several months after she was crowned), I found myself far more affected than I thought I’d be. After all–for God’s sake–I’ve lived in the United States almost (but not quite) continuously since 1963. I love this country, these United States.

And yet.

I recollect that–since 1066 and the day–almost exactly 956 years ago–on which the Norman, William the Bastard, defeated the Anglo-Saxon King, Harold Godwinson, there have been just 42 British monarchs.

956 years, 42 kings and queens.

I live in a country in which there have been 46 presidencies, and 45 individual presidents (due to good old what’s-his-name; oh–that’s right–Grover Cleveland) over the past 233 years. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And yet.

My point is that–perhaps–the continuity over the decades and centuries–of a monarchical tradition may have some soft benefits.

Crimenutely. I’m 68 years old. I’ve never (until a couple of weeks ago) known a Great Britain with a monarch other than Queen Elizabeth.

So, when she died, I found myself remembering:

My childhood. My boarding school.  My own allegiances. My parents. Nigeria. The colonies. My father’s and my mother’s encounters with the Queen in the 1950s and the 1960s. My grandmother and her “Queen Elizabeth” roses, not to mention her “Coronation” silver teaspoons. World War II. My great-grandmother (born in 1869, died in 1968) and her devotion to the Queen. Auntie Betty.  Maudie Nichols. All my life.

Then I read a text from a lady who takes the time to visit Auntie Pat in the nursing home to which she’s now confined.  And she said that she’d enjoyed Pat’s reminiscences, not only of Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1952 to 2022) but those of George VI (reigned 1936-1952), Edward VIII (reigned 1936) and George V (reigned 1910-1936).  This–of course–got me thinking of Uncle Arthur, who died at the age of 102 in 2009, and who was born during the reign of Edward VII (1901-1910).

I feel so connected to all this history.

And I think about how this sort of thing works in republics, whose “heads of state” have fixed, short terms to their prominence.

Perhaps, when Jimmy Carter dies (he’s a year or so older than the Queen was. Wishing him good health, but let’s get real): What will we say?

I’m guessing something like: “Who, he?” Yeah. Fifty years ago or so, he may have been important. But since then? Ummm. No. Crickets.”

Jimmy Carter (whose presidency I remember vividly) didn’t form a part of my life.

Queen Elizabeth did. Because she was there for the whole of it.

And, as Robert Frost said in a somewhat different context, “That has made all the difference.”

Perhaps there is something to be said for a model of government for the humans who comprise the nation it’s focused on–umm–that the model itself should focus on a human who represents that nation.

Just a thought.

To conclude, I’ll link to the video (which I’ve linked to before) of the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, just after 9/11.  (See brief discussion of “decency” above.)  I think this–more than anything else I can bring up here–makes that point:

God Bless America!

God Save the King!

*This page contains much in the way of interesting history, which is beyond the scope of this short post. Most intriguing did I find the assertion of Percy Scholes, a music historian who wrote in the early twentieth century, that a very similar melody belonged to a Jacobite (read Catholic) anthem and that Arne had stolen it as a sort of protest. I found this doubly interesting on the theory that turn-about is fair play, in light of the American patriotic song, “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee.” LOL.

PS: I’d love to engage in an actual conversation here. However, as I’ve said on another post (which–despite almost three-dozen likes and (to date) seventy comments–didn’t make it to the main feed), I’ll not sit quietly by while those of you who find the idea of a monarchy of any sort inimical can’t express your disagreement in other than insulting terms towards those of us who–whether subjects or interested bystanders–find ourselves well-pleased with such a system.

That is all.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Lefties should eschew the term “anachronistic.” Their ideas have been tested to destruction too many times.

    And I think I’d prefer being invidious to being perfidious.

    • #1
  2. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Well don’t hate me but my mother’s ancestors came to America from Scotland in 1743 to escape the 2nd Jacobite Uprising and not end up like William Wallace. Having said that, though, I admired the Queen very much (my dad met her in WWII in Bury St. Edmonds when she was Princess Elizabeth) and have always thought the Monarchy is a splendid example of Continuity, Tradition,  and Stability. And to all the miserable little lefties on Instagram and Reddit whining about “colonization,” I say that very few if any of the countries colonized by Britain are better places to be after they left, and the Queen did a lot to achieve decolonization.

    Long Live the King! (even if he is a Green loon kinda)

    Also I love your family history!

     

    • #2
  3. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    Can you say that Edward VIII reigned?  I thought that because he abdicated before there was a coronation he wasn’t “really” king, or that the only reason he could abdicate was because there had not been coronation, or something.

    I especially like the fourth verse of America, written by Samuel Francis Smith in 1831 and sung to the same tune.  You know it as My Country ‘Tis of Thee.

    Our fathers’ God to Thee,
    Author of liberty,
    To Thee we sing.
    Long may our land be bright,
    With freedom’s holy light,
    Protect us by Thy might,
    Great God our King.

    • #3
  4. EJHill+ Podcaster
    EJHill+
    @EJHill

    I cannot hear the melody without singing the American words. And not just that I also hear the voice of Mahalia Jackson. We had a copy of her recording when I was a kid and I found her Southern pronunciation fascinating. 

    “Moy Cointry Tis of Thee… Sweet land of Lib-bar-tee…”

    https://youtu.be/gupDzXBxkzU

    • #4
  5. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    I love the continuity and tradition of the British monarchy. It’s still so difficult to think and say “God Save the King” after only a few weeks since Queen Elizabeth’s passing.  

    • #5
  6. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I love the continuity and tradition of the British monarchy. It’s still so difficult to think and say “God Save the King” after only a few weeks since Queen Elizabeth’s passing.

    Connection, belonging and relationship is the key: I believe humans are designed to be connected and in relationship with God and one another to sustain healthy civilization. The immediate – sincere – confirmation that the monarch’s relationship and commitment to his citizens was intact reassured the community. Notwithstanding current or previous family squabbles. (We are both Scots derived and could march at the annual Tattoo.)  I don’t see nationalism disappearing until people stop wearing Red Sox caps and sweatshirts even after a terrible season. Loyalty in adversity is a positive attribute in my book. 

    • #6
  7. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    “God save King Pendragon,
    May his reign long drag on,
    God save the King.
    Send him most gorious,
    Great and uproarious,
    Horrible and hoarious,
    God save our King.”

    ― T.H. White

    • #7
  8. She Member
    She
    @She

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Well don’t hate me but my mother’s ancestors came to America from Scotland in 1743 to escape the 2nd Jacobite Uprising and not end up like William Wallace. Having said that, though, I admired the Queen very much (my dad met her in WWII in Bury St. Edmonds when she was Princess Elizabeth) and have always thought the Monarchy is a splendid example of Continuity, Tradition, and Stability. And to all the miserable little lefties on Instagram and Reddit whining about “colonization,” I say that very few if any of the countries colonized by Britain are better places to be after they left, and the Queen did a lot to achieve decolonization.

    Long Live the King! (even if he is a Green loon kinda)

    Also I love your family history!

     

    Thanks!

    I’m just kidding about the Scots.  Some of my best friends are…oh, never mind.

    9thDistrictNeighbor (View Comment):
    Can you say that Edward VIII reigned?  I thought that because he abdicated before there was a coronation he wasn’t “really” king, or that the only reason he could abdicate was because there had not been coronation, or something.

    That’s a good question, but I don’t think so.  Queen Elizabeth’s reign lasted from February 1952 until September 1922, but she wasn’t crowned until  June 1953.  The next-in-line automatically assumes the office upon the death of its former occupant; the coronation is simply the formal ceremony confirming the rightness of it all, and the connection between monarch and people,  before God and kingdom.

    Abdication is the process by which a monarch, crowned or not, can get “out” of, or in some cases be forced out of, the job. Others in addition to Edward VIII–Mary Queen of Scots, Richard II–also abdicated, although in their cases the pressures of politics and war were brought to bear, and James II (VII of Scotland) fled the country, was assumed to have abdicated, and William and Mary became, jointly, King and Queen after him.

    We I might really like to diminish everything WRT  Edward VIII just because he (like his great-great nephew) was such a dog in the manger about everything (and suspect in other ways to  boot), but I’m afraid he has an equal spot in the pantheon of 42 to the rest of them.

     

    • #8
  9. David C. Broussard Coolidge
    David C. Broussard
    @Dbroussa

    Britain certainly has a constitution it just isn’t written down like ours. What amazes me is how consistent they have managed to be in keeping to their core tenants. We have a written constitution and can barely abide by what’s written in it. 

    So, hats off to the Brits who are more consistent with their unwritten constitution then we are with our written one. 

    Here is a wonderful song by Beethoven’s Wig about the Kings and Queens of England. If you’ve never heard they stuff its wonderful. Yes it’s aimed at kids but it’s clever and fun and uses pop classics. It also teaches some.music history. 

    • #9
  10. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    I did not watch much of the activity surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II, but I did happen to stumble onto the ceremony at St. James’s Palace at which Charles III was formally proclaimed King.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk0rS4LaVc 

    I found the ceremony fascinating as I contemplated why various things were included and their historical origins. The proclamation included an assent by the people via their elected representatives. Other wording in the proclamation made clear that the new monarch was expected to operate within limits. There was a ceremonial laying down of arms by the army that I presume began historically as an indication to the newly proclaimed king that the army wasn’t going to fight against him (transfers between monarchs aren’t necessarily smooth and orderly affairs). Actually, many of the elements of the ceremony seemed likely to have a background in facilitating a smooth transfer of the monarchy associated with acknowledging that such a transfer would be successful only if the monarch had the support of the subjects (people). 

    • #10
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Well don’t hate me but my mother’s ancestors came to America from Scotland in 1743 to escape the 2nd Jacobite Uprising and not end up like William Wallace. Having said that, though, I admired the Queen very much (my dad met her in WWII in Bury St. Edmonds when she was Princess Elizabeth) and have always thought the Monarchy is a splendid example of Continuity, Tradition, and Stability. And to all the miserable little lefties on Instagram and Reddit whining about “colonization,” I say that very few if any of the countries colonized by Britain are better places to be after they left, and the Queen did a lot to achieve decolonization.

    Long Live the King! (even if he is a Green loon kinda)

    Also I love your family history!

     

    Huh. My father’s family (as far as I’ve traced it) came from the Hebrides. GG-grandfather and G-grandfather went to Cape Breton in mid-1800s, so they were still in the Hebrides during the ’45. Might have to look at what side they took, if any. 

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Your fondness and connection to the British monarchy allows me to piggyback on your relationship to it. That doesn’t sound very elegant, does it? But I’m very sincere. I love how the British function and am amazed at their devotion to their Constitution, even though it’s not written down. Would that we could follow their commitment…

    Thanks for a great post, She.

    • #12
  13. She Member
    She
    @She

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Your fondness and connection to the British monarchy allows me to piggyback on your relationship to it. That doesn’t sound very elegant, does it? But I’m very sincere. I love how the British function and am amazed at their devotion to their Constitution, even though it’s not written down. Would that we could follow their commitment…

    Thanks for a great post, She.

    Thanks, Susan.  Good to hear from you, and–indeed–all others in your neck of the woods.  I did see you say that you hadn’t had too bad of an experience.  Some of the devastation looks just awful, though.  

    • #13
  14. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    I, for one, greatly appreciate that my country’s head-of-state lives on the other side of the ocean, has virtually zero legal authority to mess with us, and costs taxpayers not a half-penny except when he comes over to visit on holiday at which point we’ll spring for a few close-to-retirement Mounties to provide security, a few meals, transport aboard a drafty RCAF bone-rattler, and some mouldy old guest rooms in the official residences that should probably be condemned as unfit for human habitation.

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    She (View Comment):
    Thanks, Susan.  Good to hear from you, and–indeed–all others in your neck of the woods.  I did see you say that you hadn’t had too bad of an experience.  Some of the devastation looks just awful, though.  

    It was awful south of here, particularly Naples and Fort Myers. We were extremely lucky.

    • #15
  16. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Your fondness and connection to the British monarchy allows me to piggyback on your relationship to it. That doesn’t sound very elegant, does it? But I’m very sincere. I love how the British function and am amazed at their devotion to their Constitution, even though it’s not written down. Would that we could follow their commitment…

    Thanks for a great post, She.

    Oh, I wouldn’t go too far praising how the British function.  The Monarchy is fine by me, but the British Parliament has way too much power.  That country needs another Magna Carta.

    • #16
  17. She Member
    She
    @She

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Your fondness and connection to the British monarchy allows me to piggyback on your relationship to it. That doesn’t sound very elegant, does it? But I’m very sincere. I love how the British function and am amazed at their devotion to their Constitution, even though it’s not written down. Would that we could follow their commitment…

    Thanks for a great post, She.

    Oh, I wouldn’t go too far praising how the British function. The Monarchy is fine by me, but the British Parliament has way too much power. That country needs another Magna Carta.

    More than it should, but less than it might.  And I think the monarchy deserves some credit for that.  

    • #17
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    One of the things that’s most mendacious and meretricious about Harry and Meghan’s oft-told story is this pretense that their lives weren’t their own, and that they had no privacy or ability to do ‘normal’ things out of the limelight.

    In fact, the royal family is full of rather normal people (rich, landed, privileged, but still rather normal) who have jobs and live lives mostly out of the public eye except when they turn up for bun fights like the Queen’s funeral or a royal wedding.

    Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice (the King’s nieces) have jobs. (As “non-working” royals, they get nothing from the tax-payer-funded Sovereign Grant.) One (sorry, I have great difficulty telling them apart) lives in Portugal, where her husband has a job.  I think the other is still in England.  Both are married to ‘commoners.’ (As was their father, Prince Andrew.  Fergie may have been one those who put the ‘common’ in ‘commoner,’ but still.)

    Zara and Peter Phillips (Princess Anne’s children and the King’s niece and nephew) both have jobs.  Zara is married to Mike Tindall, a retired British rugby player;  Peter is divorced from his wife Autumn.  Neither they, nor their kids, have any royal titles at all.  She’s so privileged that–when her last child was born and the ambulance service didn’t get there in time–her husband delivered his first son on the bathroom floor.

    The youngest of the King’s nieces and nephews belong to Prince Edward, Charles’s youngest brother, and his wife Sophie.  Prior to their marriage, she trained as a secretary and ended up working in public relations.  They refused the “prince” and “princess” and “royal highness” designations to which their children were entitled as grandchildren of the reigning monarch, so their kids go by their lesser “Lady Louise Windsor,” and “James, Viscount Severn” titles.

    James is 14 and still in school.  Miraculously, nobody bothers him there.  Lady Louise is 18 and has spent the summer (it was only just revealed) working a minimum wage job at a local garden center. Her family is the recipient of enormous goodwill, and not a soul let the cat out of the bag while she was there.  Now she’s done, a few locals have said what a lovely young woman she is, and how helpful she was. (When she was an infant, her parents said their decision not to use their children’s royal titles was part of their desire to inculcate in the kids the idea that they should work for a living.)

    You’ll find the same to be true as you look further afield, to cousins, uncles, aunts, and other members of the royal family.

    My point–and I do have one, or perhaps three–is that Harry and Meghan have based much of their anger and bitterness on this phantasm of being hounded from dawn to dusk, as Harry tries to reframe his own life in the context of his mother’s.

    But Harry is nothing like his mother.

    Harry and Meghan could–at any time–have done what the siblings (Andrew, Anne, and Edward) of the previous heir to the throne have done–stepped out of the limelight and lived their lives, with their children, quite privately and relatively normally.

    They didn’t want to.  As I think is obvious to any with eyes to see and ears to hear, and based on their behavior subsequent to “leaving” the royal family. (All you have to do is look at Meghan’s whinging to Oprah that–somehow–her son was not–at birth–given the title of “HRH the Prince Archie” (one to which tradition did not entitle him) for racist reasons, to see that they’ve been stirring the pot for years.)

    I quite like this version of the RF.  Yes, as @rightangles mentioned, Charles is a bit of a “green loon.”  But Camilla has proven to be resilient and remarkably level-headed and straightforward.  And Kate Middleton and Sophie Rhys-Jones are national treasures.  As is the Duchess of Gloucester (and she’s not even a Brit by birth).

    Every once in a while (and this is my second point), as is always the case in life, you’re going to pick a real dud.  Those who’ve done so in living memory (Edward VIII, Prince Andrew, Prince Harry), perhaps have other issues which compromise their ability to make rational decisions about their lives.

    **Encouraging news:  Harry and Meghan have been demoted on the royal.uk website to a position above only the totally disgraced Prince Andrew.  Coming before them, after the usual, obvious, suspects, are the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra (Dad’s favorite royal), and the Duke of Kent.  Bravo, Charles! (I don’t expect it’s easy for him to jettison his brother and his son.  Still, he seems resolved to do it.)

    • #18
  19. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    Even as an Irishman I can accept most of the contents of  the post- but the “well bred” bit puts me off completely. Sorry.  

    • #19
  20. She Member
    She
    @She

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    Even as an Irishman I can accept most of the contents of the post- but the “well bred” bit puts me off completely. Sorry.

    Thank you.

    So your complaint appears to be with the “British Monarchist League” rather than with me, or anything I said in my post. To be clear, what the BML said (as I quoted them) is:

    As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy’s executive authority is vested in the head of state. Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the political class, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth. 

    Well, OK, then.

    I wish that “compromises” between the perfect and the good were not always those things upon which we’re called to make.

    If only.

    • #20
  21. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    I bear no personal animus against the pleasant German immigrant family that has resided at Buckingham Palace lo these last 250 years. And as an American, that the Hanoverian usurpation is a fait accompli and tacitly if not formally recognized globally does not require me to recognize much less celebrate it.

    Kinfolk who survived at Culloden (and were not subsequently sent to the Caribbean as slaves) and who escaped to Nova Scotia did well which is ever the best revenge.

    An avid historian friend has regaled me with stories about how much George Washington liked his Irish troops (GW’s son used to party with revolutionary war vets in Alexandria VA pubs every St. Patrick’s Day).  They were not as picky about being paid regularly, had no land to go AWOL for and the near-miraculous opportunity to get paid to shoot redcoats made this a promised land indeed.   If not for patriots like that and had the Revolution instead failed, would so many Americans still have the warm and fuzzies for royals if left under the presumptions of their rule for additional generations?

    • #21
  22. She Member
    She
    @She

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    I bear no personal animus against the pleasant German immigrant family that has resided at Buckingham Palace lo these last 250 years. And as an American, that the Hanoverian usurpation is a fait accompli and tacitly if not formally recognized globally does not require me to recognize much less celebrate it.

    Fair enough.

    Kinfolk who survived at Culloden (and were not subsequently sent to the Caribbean as slaves) and who escaped to Nova Scotia did well which is ever the best revenge.

    Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, and perhaps even the settlement called “Culloden” there, are a couple of my favorite places on earth.

    An avid historian friend has regaled me with stories about how much George Washington liked his Irish troops (GW’s son used to party with revolutionary war vets in Alexandria VA pubs every St. Patrick’s Day). They were not as picky about being paid regularly, had no land to go AWOL for and the near-miraculous opportunity to get paid to shoot redcoats made this a promised land indeed. If not for patriots like that and had the Revolution instead failed, would so many Americans still have the warm and fuzzies for royals if left under the presumptions of their rule for additional generations?

    An interesting question.  A few years ago, there was a Group Writing challenge on the subject of Elimination.  People took it, as they do, in many different ways.  My own post, for November 5 of that month, in that year, had to do with what might have happened if the Guy Fawkes plot of 1605 had failed.

    Perhaps  it’s time for a post on what might have happened had the American Revolution failed?

    Or not.

     

    • #22
  23. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    She (View Comment):

    An interesting question.  A few years ago, there was a Group Writing challenge on the subject of Elimination.  People took it, as they do, in many different ways.  My own post, for November 5 of that month, in that year, had to do with what might have happened if the Guy Fawkes plot of 1605 had failed.

    Perhaps  it’s time for a post on what might have happened had the American Revolution failed?

    Or not.

     

    Guy Fawkes did fail. Did you mean that above?

    I can’t find the cite but some liberal clown said that it would have been better if the Revolution did fail and the US would be more like Canada, docile, disarmed and using the metric system.

    • #23
  24. She Member
    She
    @She

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    An interesting question. A few years ago, there was a Group Writing challenge on the subject of Elimination. People took it, as they do, in many different ways. My own post, for November 5 of that month, in that year, had to do with what might have happened if the Guy Fawkes plot of 1605 had failed.

    Perhaps it’s time for a post on what might have happened had the American Revolution failed?

    Or not.

     

    Guy Fawkes did fail. Did you mean that above?

    I can’t find the cite but some liberal clown said that it would have been better if the Revolution did fail and the US would be more like Canada, docile, disarmed and using the metric system.

    Yeah, thanks. My post was based on the failure of the GF plot.

    • #24
  25. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Kate has poise. Maybe she could give Meghan some pointers.

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    I bear no personal animus against the pleasant German immigrant family that has resided at Buckingham Palace lo these last 250 years. And as an American, that the Hanoverian usurpation is a fait accompli and tacitly if not formally recognized globally does not require me to recognize much less celebrate it.

    Kinfolk who survived at Culloden (and were not subsequently sent to the Caribbean as slaves) and who escaped to Nova Scotia did well which is ever the best revenge.

    I have no beef with the Royal Family. They even gave one of my ancestors from the Sceptred Isle a free trip to America, there to remaine and not to returne.

    Some people just can’t take a joke.

    Anyway, that was before the Georges showed up.

    • #25
  26. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I bear no personal animus against the pleasant German immigrant family that has resided at Buckingham Palace lo these last 250 years.

    Geez. If that family isn’t British after 250 years it means that there’s no such thing as an American since the country is only 246 years old.

    • #26
  27. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    My favorite royal lately is Prince George:

    https://9now.nine.com.au/today/prince-george-cheeky-warning-to-classmates-his-dad-will-soon-be-king-british-royals/97fb97b3-697d-405b-a194-a6d961a7129b

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • #27
  28. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    She (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    Even as an Irishman I can accept most of the contents of the post- but the “well bred” bit puts me off completely. Sorry.

    Thank you.

    So your complaint appears to be with the “British Monarchist League” rather than with me, or anything I said in my post. To be clear, what the BML said (as I quoted them) is:

    As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy’s executive authority is vested in the head of state. Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the political class, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth.

    Well, OK, then.

    I wish that “compromises” between the perfect and the good were not always those things upon which we’re called to make.

    If only.

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. My issue – being a low-born wretch myself- is with the concept that “breeding” should determine one’s character and place in society. It’s not just about monarchs: it’s also all the dukes and earls and other so-called nobility- the relics of feudalism. I enjoyed the post very much. 

    • #28
  29. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I bear no personal animus against the pleasant German immigrant family that has resided at Buckingham Palace lo these last 250 years.

    Geez. If that family isn’t British after 250 years it means that there’s no such thing as an American since the country is only 246 years old.

    There was that Teutonic gene refresh with Prince Albert… and typically the melting pot thing involves living in neighborhoods with working natives. 

    When prole boys were sent to the slaughter of WWI, the king of England was more closely related to the Kaiser and the Czar than to any of the Tommies he sent to war.

    • #29
  30. She Member
    She
    @She

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    Even as an Irishman I can accept most of the contents of the post- but the “well bred” bit puts me off completely. Sorry.

    Thank you.

    So your complaint appears to be with the “British Monarchist League” rather than with me, or anything I said in my post. To be clear, what the BML said (as I quoted them) is:

    As in most republics, a constitutional monarchy’s executive authority is vested in the head of state. Today constitutional monarchy is almost always combined with representative democracy, and represents (as a theory of civics) a compromise between total trust in the political class, and in well-bred and well-trained monarchs raised for the role from birth.

    Well, OK, then.

    I wish that “compromises” between the perfect and the good were not always those things upon which we’re called to make.

    If only.

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. My issue – being a low-born wretch myself- is with the concept that “breeding” should determine one’s character and place in society. It’s not just about monarchs: it’s also all the dukes and earls and other so-called nobility- the relics of feudalism. I enjoyed the post very much.

    Thanks for the clarification, and for your kind comments on the post!

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.