The Morality of Monarchs
February 27, 2006 · By George Freeman
Anyone with an interest in the constitutional discourse of parliamentary democracies, those under a Westminster like constitutional monarchy, likely find popular descriptions of constitutional monarchs and their representatives, be they “largely ceremonial” or “the symbolic head of state”, both cynical and misleading. Anyone with an interest in constitutional discourse, period, can appreciate that ceremony and symbolism carry significantly more import in the day to day realities of civil association than the detractors of constitutional monarchs suggest. Such an interest encourages one to consider, realistically, that those who fill “largely ceremonial” or “symbolic” offices do not cease to be moral political actors, however limited their actual political reach extends. Even constitutional monarchs are responsible for their actions in the offices that they fill, reacting to contigent matters or issues affecting the subjects they are give charge over, constitutionally, at least.
With the recent uproar over Prince Charle’s politics, much media opinion has expressed the view that he has committed a wrong, that he should stop writing cabinet ministers to either criticise or support one thing or another, or to “report” his perspective on a recent significant happening in the world. Tony Blair, last week, came to his defence. In his defence of the Prince, Blair said it was unrealistic to think that Prince Charles would not have views on political issues or that he should refrain from expressing his views; conditionally, of course, that they are not party political or cause any undue problems for the government.
In considering this issue of how political a constitutional monarch, their heirs or representatives should be, the Danish monarchy is likely a good study. Going back to the Second World War and King Christian X, the monarch who refused to flee or abdicate amidst German occupation, Danes seem to have a more avid appreciation for the political conscience of their modern constitutional monarchy. Denmark is a country with a well documented and uplifting history in Christian civilisation, a political culture of bold conscience—irrespective of a few over-the-top cartoons.
The current monarch, Queen Margrethe II, has made known her political viewpoints from time to time, most famously last year on how tolerant we should be of Islamic fundamentalism. In remarks to an official biographer, she said that “her country needs to find a ‘counter-balance’ to Islamic fundamentalism, regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad.” She boldly challenged the pervasiveness of political correctness, admonishing the need for courage:
“We are being challenged by Islam these years. Globally as well as locally. There is something impressive about people for whom religion imbues their existence, from dusk to dawn, from cradle to grave. There are also Christians who feel this way.
“There is something endearing about people who give themselves up completely to their faith. But there is likewise something frightening about such a totality, which also is a feature of Islam.
“A counterbalance has to be found, and one has to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on you. For there are some things for which one should display no tolerance. And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction.”
I think what needs to be better appreciated in current political discourse is that conscience matters in politics, that cynicism destroys constitutional order. Constitutional monarchs, their heirs and representatives, remain legitimate political actors to the extent that they are fulfilling their constitutional duties or the oaths that they swore to uphold upon gaining their position; that this includes taking personal stands, with caution, on particular issues. In fact, if they were entirely non-political, they would not only be failing in their constitutional duties but morally failing as human beings, regardless of their unique social standing.
So one can appreciate that Prince Charles is a man of conscience, a man of high standing who feels obliged to exercise his leadership in promotion of a higher good. One can appreciate that Queen Margrethe, in her known love of Christian civilisation, sees the need to pointedly rebuke radical Islam for its incompatibility with Danish, and, by extension, our way of life.
Unfortunately, political conscience is far too readily trumped by cynical lack lustre commentary, sad opining that politics is just democratic wrangling for power by selfish interests. Supplementary to other criticism of MSM (mainstream media), maybe the blogosphere will provide better representation for the morality and sense of duty required of all political actors if constitutional order is to be preserved.
Nice work george
An intriguing subject, George, to be sure. The uproar over Charles recent comments is amusing. I think people generally appreciate the importance of symbols in nation-building and maintenance of those symbols produces second-order stability. I wonder why people feel it easy to disregard the Queen and her family as important political symbols and yet would never be so disparaging about the Canada’s flag or the Coat of Arms (incidentally one of the most beautifully crafted political symbols in history).
If anything, Charles’ example is one of stewardship. He corresponded with an elected official, bore out his point without polemics or partsianhip and has since moved along. A credible example of engaging his democratic rights and he did it without pretense or heavy-handedness.
The cynicism of our age is disconcerting. To rid ourselves of symbols and the stability that those symbols reflect makes us seem like petulant children, wanting to pick a fight when the victory has already been won. Conversely, these symbols can, in a Burkean sense, help us benefit from the hard lessons of history and strengthen our resolve to face the challenges of our time. This notion helps balance the role of reason and prudence in current democratic practice.
Would you kindly advise Citivatensis Democratic Forum BLOG that their ‘removal’ of the entry titled “Disturbing and Disturbed” with subsequent commentary proves outright its present status, in my view, as an UTTER FRAUD.
Inform them as well I have copied all contents.
Regards, Anna Goddard
Hi Anna,
Not sure what you’re refering to, but kaqchikel over at CIVITATENSIS has been having some database troubles. You can see his post on the topic here: http://www.civitatensis.ca/arc.....02/23/1121
I like your take on it Edmund! Well said, especially the part about petulant children …
Speaking of which, welcome back to The Politic Frank Wiley!
No, I do not run that blog. I only delete insulting ignorant comments from juvenile trolls such as yourself.
Speaking of which, Frank, you now banned from this weblog. Go spread your ignorance elsewhere.
Another example of the topic here in discussion:
http://www.iht.com/articles/20...../spain.php
This article adresses the roll of King Juan Carlos of Spain in defending the newly established democratic order of his constitutional monarchy in 1981. Pay attention the misleading cynicism out of some quarters expressed at the end of the article, trying their best to deny how crucial the conscience of the King was in preventing the success of the coup.
Boy, this Anna person has been slandering me everywhere. A couple of posts got deleted, I still don’t know how, and she is pretty sore that her brilliant comments got deleted. FRAUD? Puhleeze!
Funny you should mention King Juan Carlos. I didn’t realize that he has (albeit very disputed) claim to King of Jersualem. I think there is about a seven or eight oher bolldlines as well. Who knew Juan Carlos was King of the Holy City, King of Spain and coup-fighting bastard. If Chuck Norris were a monarch, he’d hang with King juan Carlos!
Kudos on Chuck Norris! But he needs no divine right to rule to hang with monarchs. Hell, he snagged Christie Brinkley for those workout machine commercials.
ATTN: Kaqchikel - Post 9
I’m sure you’re going to figure out those computer glitches and replace your blog “Disturbing and Disturbed” in the interests of the alternate media’s (the blogosphere) silent showplace of democratic principles.
You see when men (mankind) finally grasp. we don’t know what eon that will be, that their God-given ‘intelligence-quotient’ IS NOT God, but a GIFT OF God to be employed for the common good along the journey, then you have the semblance of the democratic process.
The essence of my “brilliant commentary” was basically proposing a return to first principles written into to a majority of democratic constitutions which is that “all men are created equal” and in our own “recognizing the supremacy of God.’
My estimation of the blogosphere as I’ve browsed hundreds of sites now, is that it’s a clever invention since it certainly affords the powers that be the opportunity to keep tabs on the public pulse. Shouldn’t they know what we’re thinking? Why certainly. Shouldn’t they apply the majority consensus to public policy? Why certainly. Will they? Not necessarily. And they’ll blame it on partisan gridlock. Explore those ideas, but PULEESE cartoons begone.
My faith discourages “chest-pounding.” In my faith we are advised to be ‘thinking of the other’ for we face accountability at the end of the road.
So replace the blog in question please and all’s square on the democratic front. I’ve referred others to the site which would be good for business, no? Why certainly.
You have backup files. Replace the blog. If not I have copies for you.
Other topics you could cover of worth, just throwing out ideas, because I’m quickly determining I will return to writing my views on letter paper using the old postage stamp where people can stand by their statements as I do mine.
Another question HOW DO YOU IDENTIFY, TARGET AND TARGET DESTROY TROLLS? Anything that looks like a divergent opinion? Look up the definition of propaganda and think of it in terms of how it applies to blogosphere.
Look up the definition of slander. And fraud. And apply them to the “removal” of said blog. I’m sure you’ll amend your computer problems.
I am however “sore” that matters of social and economic import go unaddressed while MSM and alternate media chase the illcit buck and the diddling cartoon. “Ezra coming out of this looking good…”
Finally in the ‘Burkean’ line of reasoning and with regard to speaking up against hate-inciting materials, you will have already observed my lack of timidity re same and great ability to check my temper at the door. So glad to see the words ‘morality’ and ‘conscience.’ in further up blog. Now put that together with government’s financial accounting to public and get everybody moving in the right direction.
Regards, Anna Keightley
# I can’t commend enough the above posted editorial and Edmund Hamilton’s Post #2 assessing how a return to reason can effectively dispel present pervasive cyniciam involving the democratic process. That is what drew me to this site — commentary that is highly informative, balanced in presentation and demonstrated eloquence.
Far more instructive than anything I would have to offer. And thank you Frank Wiley and George Freeman for welcoming divergent, hopefully forward moving opinion.
Much appreciation
Respectfully yours,
Anna Keightley