I certainly find the notion of sacred royalty attractive, but always worry about its connection to practical politics, particularly the realities of rule by sinful men. For example, I have read that the Muslims over-ran large portions of the Byzantine Empire so easily partly because the people of these areas so hated the onerous taxation and general oppressive governance of the Empire. Though Christians, they preferred Muslim rule: this was the verdict of very many of his subjects on the Emperor. I have always preferred the model of the Western Middle Ages to the Byzantine Empire precisely because here there were independent power-sources that could balance the power of royalty: the Church, very powerful nobles, Guilds, Communes. Underlying this was feudalism, the idea that ruler and ruled have mutual rights and obligations. Given your sympathies with “Blue Labour”, I wonder what you think about the historical realities of rule by sacred royalty.
Thank you Andrew. For me it comes down to formation and education. Plato gives us the blueprint for this in The Republic with the very rigourous way the future Philosopher Kngs are brought up. There's a good 24-minute talk here by Rupert Sheldrake where he hails King Charles as being exactly that - a Philosopher King:
What's interesting though is that everything that makes King Charles like this was entirely self-taught. He had to seek out mentors - people like Laurens Van Der Post and Kathleen Raine - who were able to guide him in the things that matter. None of that is part of the standard education of a British heir to the throne. Would it make a difference if it was? Yes, 100%.
Like yourself, I prefer the Medieaval Western European model to the Byzantine template. I think this way of living and being still resonates with us deep down in the collective psyche but modernity and now post-modernity have made it all scattered and fragmented. Blue Labour and Red Tory and related movements are trying to piece those fragments back together, but without an effective, believable monarchical principle at the head of the summit, the jigsaw will never properly fit.
What's often happened in the past, of course, is that those 'independent power sources' - or some of them anyway - have become corrupted and have gone over the heads of the people and conspired and agitated against the King. I think that both Charles I snd Blessed Karl of Austria were brought down in this way. It'll never happen in a fallen world with fallen people but ideally you'd want someone like Alfred the Great every time with everyone pulling in the same direction and everyone having a role in the building of something truly great.
Just a final nod to King Charles. I really loved the screen during the Coronation which hid the anointing from public view. He'd had written on it those wonderful words, 'And all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.' When I saw that I thought of Julian of Norwich, who originally wrote those words, and also of T.S. Eliot who used them so intelligently in Little Gidding. So there's a real engagement there from the King with Deep England.
There could have been more, of course, and hopefully there will be, but that little example represented a good start for me and a good use of symbolism from Charles. It's ingrained in our psyche. Subconsciously I think we all really want to have a King reign over us. It might take a return to more primal material conditions to bring this desire out in us, but if the King gets his part right then the people are more than likely to follow and we will have a happy, well-ordered and flourishing polity.
I certainly find the notion of sacred royalty attractive, but always worry about its connection to practical politics, particularly the realities of rule by sinful men. For example, I have read that the Muslims over-ran large portions of the Byzantine Empire so easily partly because the people of these areas so hated the onerous taxation and general oppressive governance of the Empire. Though Christians, they preferred Muslim rule: this was the verdict of very many of his subjects on the Emperor. I have always preferred the model of the Western Middle Ages to the Byzantine Empire precisely because here there were independent power-sources that could balance the power of royalty: the Church, very powerful nobles, Guilds, Communes. Underlying this was feudalism, the idea that ruler and ruled have mutual rights and obligations. Given your sympathies with “Blue Labour”, I wonder what you think about the historical realities of rule by sacred royalty.
Thank you Andrew. For me it comes down to formation and education. Plato gives us the blueprint for this in The Republic with the very rigourous way the future Philosopher Kngs are brought up. There's a good 24-minute talk here by Rupert Sheldrake where he hails King Charles as being exactly that - a Philosopher King:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdG5yEW0BKQ
What's interesting though is that everything that makes King Charles like this was entirely self-taught. He had to seek out mentors - people like Laurens Van Der Post and Kathleen Raine - who were able to guide him in the things that matter. None of that is part of the standard education of a British heir to the throne. Would it make a difference if it was? Yes, 100%.
Like yourself, I prefer the Medieaval Western European model to the Byzantine template. I think this way of living and being still resonates with us deep down in the collective psyche but modernity and now post-modernity have made it all scattered and fragmented. Blue Labour and Red Tory and related movements are trying to piece those fragments back together, but without an effective, believable monarchical principle at the head of the summit, the jigsaw will never properly fit.
What's often happened in the past, of course, is that those 'independent power sources' - or some of them anyway - have become corrupted and have gone over the heads of the people and conspired and agitated against the King. I think that both Charles I snd Blessed Karl of Austria were brought down in this way. It'll never happen in a fallen world with fallen people but ideally you'd want someone like Alfred the Great every time with everyone pulling in the same direction and everyone having a role in the building of something truly great.
Just a final nod to King Charles. I really loved the screen during the Coronation which hid the anointing from public view. He'd had written on it those wonderful words, 'And all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.' When I saw that I thought of Julian of Norwich, who originally wrote those words, and also of T.S. Eliot who used them so intelligently in Little Gidding. So there's a real engagement there from the King with Deep England.
There could have been more, of course, and hopefully there will be, but that little example represented a good start for me and a good use of symbolism from Charles. It's ingrained in our psyche. Subconsciously I think we all really want to have a King reign over us. It might take a return to more primal material conditions to bring this desire out in us, but if the King gets his part right then the people are more than likely to follow and we will have a happy, well-ordered and flourishing polity.