The Monarchy: a brief defence | Pierre-Louis Plumejeau-Wilby

If Edward Gibbon was right in saying that Christian morality destroyed the Roman Empire through its aversion to avarice and vice through charity and righteousness, then its absence is what has fashioned and nourished the unholy liberal-postmodernist alliance that occupies every seat within the current establishment.

We live under a regime dictated by ideological amorality and commodification through covetousness, embodied by the wholesale auctioning-off and watering down of all that was once considered integral organs of the body politic and community of this once United Kingdom; the monarchy is next.

There are notably some on the right of politics who have become disillusioned by the monarchy.

After all, the heir apparent appears to be almost sympathetic to the republican cause: a ‘slimmed down’ monarchy, a multifaith Coronation, and a complacent attitude towards mounting republican sentiment throughout the Commonwealth Realms. So why should we defend it?

The histories of these isles and particularly England have been typified by a near-constant struggle between The Crown and her ministers – an evolutionary relationship through which we have achieved an unconditional constitutional equilibrium.

Begotten was a form of anti-revolutionism so entrenched in the collective unconscious of Britons that in the face of the metaphorical and literal decapitations of European sovereigns and regimes, we have merely reconciled what was once thought irreconcilable.

A democratic monarchy which combines and achieves the mixed governmental ideals of both Plato and Aristotle.

The contingent combination of the Commons, the Aristocracy, and a Sovereign. This is the very essence of the organic society hallmarked by the founding fathers of traditional conservatism.

If it is a cornerstone that ensures a structure does not collapse, then the monarchy is certainly this country’s cornerstone.

Traceable to the advent of the Anglo-Saxons, the institution of the monarchy has defined our very existence to such a degree that it is our absolute expression of nationhood. The idea of England is rooted in Kingship through the Saxon concept of the Bretwalda.

A quasi-Emperor of the Britons to govern or influence the seven kingdoms of the Saxon heptarchy from north of the Humber to the English Channel. The acquisitions of King Æthelstan consolidated this image.

A unifying figure and the first King of the English, Æthelstan donned himself with the primaeval characteristics of chivalry and valour as a bulwark defence against the continued Danish threat of onslaught and pillage.

On the hallmark of this warrior, a sceptred isle was born and a canonical legend integrating the mythical deeds of King Arthur and the eminent triumphs of King Alfred became its epitome.

This may have been a millennia ago, but the idea of a national monarchy which defines the very identity of the state is as integral as ever.

Regional nationalism has exposed the cracks in the constitutional reforms made during the Premiership of the newly knighted Sir Tony Blair.

Whether that’s the undermining of the Acts of Union through the creation of devolved administrations or the platforming of republican politics in Wales and Northern Ireland, the monarchy remains fundamental in combating this threat and neutralising the destruction of the United Kingdom.

Westminster does remain, broadly speaking, a national parliament, but the original golden monarchic thread of that original knot which bound our four nations together is the only component left untarnished.

Equating the monarchy to thread is perhaps unmerited given just how resilient it is in binding together those of differing political persuasions.

Consistently, Her Majesty the Queen experiences approval ratings of around 80% - exceeding that of any politician in this country; even The Prince of Wales is achieving this despite the events of the second half of the last century.

A popular demonstration of these results was clearly evidenced at this year’s historic Platinum Jubilee which saw at least one in four people attend some form of celebration and twelve million people viewing it from their televisions.

However, the Monarchy is by no means a circus act. It is certainly an asset for social cohesion, but it is not here for tourism.

We are fortunate to say that we have lived under a reign of a monarch of the utmost stoicism and public service, but we must not be complacent in arguing in favour of the monarchy just because the wearer of the crown is a virtuous leader.

It goes much further than that. The monarchy, as a constitutional mechanism, is vital.

It is well-defined but apolitical. It may not have the powers of an American President or an Arab Prince, but it is the power it withholds which is its true asset.

So long as the monarch occupies the principal office of state, no would-be Caesar can command her armies and no self-indulgent politician can reduce the state to tyranny.

Members of Parliament, the judges, the military, the police, and even first-generation immigrants swear loyalty to The Crown as it is the objective embodiment of our constitution and our values.

As Jacob Rees-Mogg asserted to the tune of the trumpet fanfares of the decrying mob of Scottish nationalists, “It is the Crown that is at the pinnacle of our constitution, outside and above politics, and a defender of our liberties”.

In The Republic of Ireland, those obtaining citizenship must swear “fidelity to the Irish nation and… loyalty to the State”.

What is the nation? Who or what defines the Irish state? Such broad and ill-defined terms simply enable those in positions of power to utilise their control or authority arbitrarily.

Only last year in France, officers and semi-retired generals in the French military sent a letter to Emmanuel Macron threatening civil war for the sake of the “survival of [their] country”.

This is a multifaceted issue however sympathetic we may be to their cause.

The primary problem is the politicisation of the position of French Head of State, but if the armed forces are only dutybound to the people, any decision made by those in government can be perceived as a violation of their rights and consequently justify power being exercised by those who would not otherwise have legal sanction to do so.

The eventual result is revolution.

The royal prerogative is in place to protect the constitution and cannot be weaponised for political usage.

An interesting example took place in 1975, albeit in Australia.

Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, was unable to pass his government’s budget through the upper house.

Given constitutional protocol would require such deadlock to be resolved through an election, the Prime Minister refused.

This led to the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr, Her Majesty’s representative in Australia, dismissing him as Prime Minister, and appointing the Leader of the Opposition as caretaker head of government with the guarantee that an election would be called.

The deadlock was resolved, and the crisis uplifted.

This is a constitutional monarchy at work.

Even from an empiricist point of view, our form of government is simply effective.

There is a reason why constitutional monarchies, despite making up around 13% of the nations of the world, contribute to 10 of the 20 most democratic states according to the Economist’s Democracy Index.

It is because they are, somewhat ironically, democratically enriching. The sovereign, trained from birth in the arts of statecraft and unbound by the constraints of term limits, devote their lives to the progress of their people without utilising any real political power.

Whether it’s through the respect they command as the head of a primaeval institution or merely the fact that they occupy the supreme office of state, politicians are kept, treated, and remain subservient despite the innate egotism common in the political class.

Every week, the elected Prime Minister must ingratiate themselves before the embodiment of the nation, its history, and its values, and inform them about what they are doing, as their chief servant and first minster, to improve the influence of their Kingdom and the lives of those who live within it.

To take an idea from comic and writer Stephen Fry, imagine if the President of the United States had a weekly summit with Uncle Sam, a figure who commands ubiquitous respect and is the living embodiment of the American Dream.

To do that which would displease a character of such distinction, cultural importance, and in most cases, popularity, through the undermining of the democratic mandate that the elected government of the day achieved, would drive the proudest patriot to shame and the most fervent careerist to electoral ruin.

So, what would be its replacement?

Republicanism is a broad spectrum of ideas which appeal to many ideologues we are fiercely opposed to.

Regardless of whether any prospective republican constitution is parliamentary or presidential, we would nevertheless see a politician or another member of the elite find themselves with the nation’s rubberstamp before them.

The appointment of a president would be a political decision made either by our elected representatives or the public.

The opportunism of the political classes would ensure an appointed president would be of their flock – look no further than how Conservative MPs have voted throughout the current leadership election.

On the other hand, a public presidential vote would possibly be even more catastrophic.

The Head of State is meant to unite.

If only a fractional majority of the populace consider a candidate to be fit to lead the nation as its highest representative, we would see the divisions common on the streets of France and the United States.

We have seen how flammable and explosive politics can become in recent years – a presidential election would only stoke the flames.

I will never lay claim to being a prophet, but using history as scope, anyone with sense will recognise that the removal of that centrepiece which has come to define one’s nation’s spirit, crushes its very soul.

The political violence of post-Revolutionary France, the Communist atrocities committed in the name of the Russian state, the rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany, and the totalitarian theocracies of Iran and Afghanistan, can all be rightly attributed to the removal and subsequent absence of those monarchical figures which commanded respect and could ensure stability - none of the aforementioned has truly been the same since.

 It is through continuity that we progress, and so belonging to a nation which, despite whatever upheavals may take place, is ensured that its identity remains, should give any conservative hope for the future. That is why monarchy is so important.

May she continue to defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, God Save the Queen!

If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.