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.
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.