These are difficult days to be an Englishman, and difficult days to be a monarchist. I am deeply indebted and deeply committed to my English heritage, though ashamed of the secular cesspit and hedonist hell that modern England has become. I am a monarchist, though as a dyed-in-the-wall Jacobite who believes that the True King of England (James II) was exiled more than three hundred years ago, I have mixed feelings about the present royal family, who are descended from the usurper, William of Orange, and not from the True King in Exile. For me, as for J. R. R. Tolkien, the present royal family are like the stewards of Minas Tirith, keeping the throne warm until the Return of the King. And yet I’d rather have a steward on the throne than a secular president of a secular republic. I thank God that we have a queen as head of state, albeit the descendent of a usurper, than a President Blair, or a President Cameron. Indeed, the present queen’s stoic if too passive devotion of her life to the duties of her position demands admiration and respect. This cannot be said of too many members of her family, who have disgraced their mother and their motherland in their sacrifice of duty on the altar of self-gratification. How refreshing, therefore, that the queen’s cousin, Lord Nicholas Windsor, is taking a stand against the culture of death, defending the life of unborn children from the bloody ambitions of the abortion industry. A convert to Catholicism, Lord Nicholas’ impassioned defence of human life was published on the front page of last Friday’s Daily Telegraph in England. Here are the links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8817337/The-world-doesnt-have-a-right-to-abortion.html
I too have great respect and admiration for the Queen, with an equal degree of disdain for many members of her family, and so I’m delighted to see this news about her cousin.
I didn’t know Tolkien was also a Jacobite, though I’m not at all surprised. The comparison of the present reigning family to the stewards of Minas Tirith is so very apt–why hadn’t I thought of it, I wonder. Perhaps Lord Nicholas may be compared with Faramir….
Joseph, you’re a monarchist? Awesome! Nice to see there are people in the world who still believe in it! And I understand your feelings about the current Royal family and James II, the true king. It’s terrible what happened to him. Sure they say the revolt was done to save England from an Absolute Monarch….but let’s be serious now, they didn’t like having a Catholic King. Just a little over a century before his reign, most Brits were still Catholic….think how much wicked propaganda Henry and Elizabeth must have spread to have their countrymen come to revile everything Catholic in so short a time.
Dear RC,
In case you’re interested, here is a link to information about Francis II, King of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France via legitimate succession. Among his many legitimate titles is also Prince of Bavaria, the place of residence.
http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/francis2.htm
You can read his biography there online; his history and that of the family is in stark contrast to that of the family that now reigns illegitimately (because of England’s hatred and fear of Catholics) in the UK.
To R.C.:
Yes, he is the true king; I don’t think Tolkien had him in mind for Aragorn, however. If he had any one historical figure in mind, it might have been Charlemagne, maybe. But who knows?
Monarchy vs republic: Neither will work if the heart of the governed is corrupt. Either will work if the heart of governed is not corrupt. The temporal source of power has always been the governed, not the governor, since no one person or body can exercise power without the consent of the governed. It’s no good blaming kings or parliaments or congresses for evil laws or policies. We have to blame ourselves.
Therein lies the pathetic fallacy of the “noble savage”, the idea that the common man is morally superior to the king. It’s an idea which has led to evils on a scale never even imaginable before the birth of the idea.
Our Christian faith teaches us that the heart of man is corrupt at its core; unfortunately, we learn only by experience, it seems–and most of us, not even then. Democracy has proven that the common man is no better than the king, but it has a huge advantage over monarchy: it allows for wider distribution of blame, so that it’s easier for us to avoid personal responsibility–especially if the “other party” is in power at the time.
But we have to obey whatever authority we find ourselves under, not because they have temporal power but because Pilate would have had no power over Christ were it not given to him from above. In other words, God lets us have our way, even as we continue to erect barriers between ourselves and the awful consequences of our free will.
It is a poignant blindness that causes people to demand “freedom” when the truth is that they have never been anything but free. Only by facing the truth of that freedom (repentance) are we able to render unto God OR to Caesar. Until then, we render unto neither what belongs to them–because we are denying what belongs to us.
But to answer your question, if I were given a choice to be governed by a Christian king or a secular republic, I’d choose the king–without hesitation.
@ Dena Hunt
Thank you for the link! It is very interesting stuff! So Francis II is the True King, eh? So that makes him Aragorn, right? 😀
What about you Dena? Would you, like Joseph, rather have a King (or even a Steward) over a secular republic?
Thanks for the in depth response! And good too! A few comments though:
“Yes, he is the true king; I don’t think Tolkien had him in mind for Aragorn, however”
Oh I know, actually I was not even suggesting that. Probably should have made that clearer.
And as for Aragorn’s influence, I have never heard Charlemagne mentioned before. Regardless, I like Charlemagne, and if that was what Tolkien was thinking, all the better.
You are very right about corruption and the governed, not to mention our love of avoiding blame.
I have never seen the concept of ‘noble savages’ applied to the common man before. Is that what it was about originally?
“But to answer your question, if I were given a choice to be governed by a Christian king or a secular republic, I’d choose the king–without hesitation.”
Then we are on the same page, I too would choose the Christian King! 🙂
“I have never seen the concept of ‘noble savages’ applied to the common man before. Is that what it was about originally?”
No, I don’t think so. I believe it was originally Rousseau’s contagious idea. Basically the more “savage” (uncivilized) a man was, the more “noble.”