Decades, Diamonds and Dollars

Queen Elizabeth II's Jubilee
and the Relevance of the British Monarchy
in the 21st Century

This past week has seen the British world gathered together in celebration to mark the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth II's reign.  Second only to Queen Victoria's reign of 63 years, 7 months (June, 1837-January, 1901), no British monarch has reigned as long as Elizabeth.

Her reign has been an eventful one to say the least.  Her ascension to the throne in the aftermath of the Second World War was not only a dramatic transition for the new queen but for the British nation as well.  Having already experienced the downfall of its once dominant world presence, Great Britain found itself playing a different role in the 20th century.  As the United States and the Soviet Union jockeyed with one another for ultimate power, Great Britain adapted from being an empire to a commonwealth, and Elizabeth was the key to making it a smooth transition.  And though she has only been a nominal head of state for most of the nations of the commonwealth, Elizabeth has become an icon of stability, grace and royalty in a modern world than now largely laughs at the idea of a monarchy.

In addition, Elizabeth has seen the role of the Monarchy change in a number of dramatic ways in order to meet the needs and expectations of the people.  Instead of remaining as a stoic, uber-formal institution, the Monarchy has been forced into modernity.  There is probably no better example of this fact than the life and death of Princess Diana and her surviving sons William and Harry.  The days of formal, traditional reverence for the Monarchy have been replaced with "The People's Princess" and the Royal Family being on Facebook

And though it is obvious that the British monarchy is only a shell of its once great self, Elizabeth has given the throne new purpose.  She reigns without ruling.  She inspires without commanding.  She motivates without demanding.  In short, Elizabeth has helped to change the British crown from an institution of political power and divine entitlement to that of cultural custodian and solemn duty.  She is head of state instead of head of the government.

But the nobility remains every bit as strong.

For Americans, the continued existence of the British monarchy probably seems strange, even wasteful.  After all, why continue to maintain a nominal figurehead who has little actual power in a palace with servants?  But such an opinion is more revealing of American ignorance and arrogant presumption than actual reality.  Almost all relevant British polls show that the vast majority of the British people still favor retaining a monarchy.  After all, the Monarchy is a fundamental part to their history.  Their culture.  Their sense of what it means to be British.  They could no more do without the Monarchy than we Americans could do without baseball, Lady Liberty or Arlington National Cemetery.  The British Monarchy is the very embodiment of their nation.  It is an institution that prides itself on showing the world the glory of Great Britain.  We Americans have a hard time understanding this concept because we are a nation founded on a healthy disrespect of authority, whereas Britain (and many parts of Europe) have always had a healthy respect for authority.  Both perspectives are neither good or bad, they simply are what they are.

And it is worth noting that while the British people are still "required" to "support" the royal family (it actually works out to be roughly $1.00 per citizen, per year), the British Crown actually generates roughly $200 million in revenue.  Of course, the issue of financially supporting the Royal Family has been a regular source of debate for many citizens, but again, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of British people favor the continued support of the Crown.

And as Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her Diamond Jubilee along with millions of her jubilant and festive "subjects," let us, the cousins across the Atlantic, join in the party.  She may not be our queen, but "We the People" still smell awfully British from time to time.  British history is our history.  It's a wonderful and noble history.  So, as an American, let me be the first to say to my distant British cousins:

"God Save the Queen!"

 

Long Live King Washington?

But the United States doesn't have a royal family, right? Well, we could have.

As the rumor goes, a group of frustrated American colonists, fed up with the lack of productivity in the Continental Congress, actually considered a coup d' etat of the national government and the establishment of a monarchy, with George Washington as its king. A 1782 letter to Washington from Colonel Lewis Nichola is a perfect illustration of just how frustrated some colonists were beginning to feel with the infant American government. Colonel Nichola writes:

This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head...Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things are once adjusted I believe strong arguments might he produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantage. …Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterdox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire and fagots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast [my emphasis].

Washington, however, despised such suggestions, dismissing them as virtual heresies. In response to Colonel Nichola's letter, Washington wrote:

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. [my emphasis].

In his typically stern, yet gentlemanly style, Washington made it abundantly clear that he stood opposed to an American monarchy.

But what if he had embraced the idea of being King?

In a recent Newsweek web article, Kurt Soller discusses how genealogy buffs, for the past century, have been toying over the notion of a Washington monarchy and what it would have meant for America today.

Genealogists have been pondering the possibilities had President Washington been a bit more power-hungry. As early as 1908, newspapers published accounts of history buffs who worked their way through the Washington family tree using rules of succession to determine the rightful heir to the theoretical American throne. But without the Internet, branches of the Washington tree would be lost in Ohio, say, or forgotten by lineage sleuths who couldn't quite decipher a family tree made complicated because Washington himself didn't have any children.

But while brainstorming ideas for their election-themed coverage, Ancestry.com turned to their Chief Family Historian, Megan Smolenyak, for an answer to the historical mystery. Smolenyak first turned to Google where she figured out that, because kinship rules vary by country and because Washington was childless, there were four possible kings (or queens) among the nearly 8,000 descendants of Washington who are alive today.

So, who would be "King" of America today had Washington accepted such a position?

Eighty-two-year-old Paul Emery Washington of San Antonio, Texas, a relatively average American who spent his life climbing the corporate ladder of a building supply company would be your king. And what does Mr. Washington think of such a distinction? Well, the offer is flattering but not all that appealing. He states:

"I doubt if I'd be a very good king. We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision. He fought for eight years to do away with the monarchy, and I think he made the right decision. The idea of one individual having supreme power over all others is an antiquated idea -- to say the least."

Magnifying Magna Carta

The "Great Charter"
in Historical Context and the
Right to Rebel Against Tyrants
Do you remember 9th grade U.S. History? If so, chances are you recall hearing about the Magna Carta of 1215 and how it supposedly set the stage for the legal protection of individual liberties and helped to inspire other documents including the United States Constitution. You probably recall hearing your teacher relate to you the tales of the oppressive and vindictive King John, who, along with fighting his supposed nemesis Robin Hood (another myth for another day) had established a quasi-tyrannical reign over his English subjects. Long story short, the English people became fed up with John and the lack of protected individual liberties and demanded that a charter be created in which the king would recognize certain basic rights to be protected by law. Thus, the Magna Carta was born.

On the surface, this sounds like an inspiring, even patriotic tale, right? It's not hard to see how such a take on history has caught on, especially here in the "land of the free", where the descendants of Christian English settlers (with the obvious exception of the African slaves, Native Americans, and a countless host of other immigrants ) proudly carried the ideas of the Magna Carta to the "New World" and augmented it with a charter of their own: the U.S. Constitution, a.k.a. Magna Carta 2.0.

But alas, as is often the case, pop culture's take on history is usually more the stuff of Robin Hood and invisible Masonic treasure maps on the back of founding documents that it becomes more desirable than the actual truth. It is for this reason that the Magna Carta has become saturated with tales of what we want it to be rather than what it actually was. The truth: Magna Carta did not protect much of anything and was in fact rejected by King John, the Pope and most Englishmen. It was never a binding legal document, nor did it serve to protect indivudual liberties. Despite this fact, Magna Carta did serve one important function: it helped to justify the rebellion to tyranny.

It is true that Magna Carta is one of many important links in the chain that eventually became constitutional law in the Western world. However, it would be a major mistake to make the claim that Magna Carta was the starting point or even the most important component to eventual constitutional rule. For example, the English Charter of Liberties (1100) which preceded Magna Carta by almost 100 years, made some of the same claims, as did many other charters of Medieval Europe.

What is important to remember here, and is often difficult for us in the present day who have lived with guaranteed legal rights to understand, is that these charters were not legislation, but rather a promise from the King that was neither binding in any legal sense nor a requirement of his position. In the Medieval world kings ruled by Divine Right, meaning that God himself had granted them almost complete authority. Individual liberties were nice and certainly people were to be treated with some level of respect, but ultimate authority rested with the king. Defiance to his rule was defiance to God himself. As the Apostle Paul states in Romans chapter 13:

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Obviously this was a convenient justification for nobility to assert their rights to Divine Right kingship. Clothing authority in the robes of the will of God made resistance to leadership not only illegal but sinful. One could find himself in the dungeons of both earth and hell for defying a king.

With that said, the concept of ultimate authority resting with the king did not mean that rebellion was a thing of the past. Quite the contrary. For example, every English king since William the Conqueror was forced to deal with the threat of rebellion by powerful barons who questioned the king's right to lead. However, these rebellions were usually supported by another noble who laid the same claim to Divine Right authority as the King, thus the nobles were able to justify their actions. One could not be found blameless before God for supporting who he thought to be God's chosen man. During the reign of King John, however, there were no nobles present who could lay claim to the throne of England.

But why did these barons want to rebel at all? What was King John doing that was so terribly offensive? To understand these questions we must first understand the fundamental system of social organization in Medieval Europe: feudalism. In the simplest of terms, feudalism was a system in which land and goods were distributed at the will of the king. The fundamental belief was that the king was the rightful owner of all the land, but he allowed powerful nobles and barons to keep and cultivate certain portions of it. In turn, these barons allowed peasants to till portions of that land and keep a small amount of what they produced for themselves. In essence, it was a quasi-"trickle down" system where the higher your social status, the more the king let you have.

During the reign of King John, England was in an impoverished state. Recent wars with Phillip of France had exhausted the king's coffers and forced him to increase taxation upon the barons of the land, who, in turn, increased taxes on the peasants. As a result, the nobles of England became overrun with taxation to such a level that rebellion became a viable option. The lack of a legitimate royal replacement for John complicated issues, which is why the nobles decided on a charter stating their rights. However, this charter, according to historian Austin Lane Pool, was "mere subterfuge since what they really wanted was to replace the king with their chosen man."

Faced with mounting pressure, King John acquiesced to the desires of the nobles, but did so only as a political move. In reality he had no desire to honor the charter and in fact had already laid the groundwork for its demise. As historian David Carpenter points out:

John sealed Magna Carta at Runnymede on 15 June, 1215 with little intention of keeping to it...sometime in July John asked the pope to annul the charter. When the papal letter arrived in England at the end of September, the country was already at war. The rebels realized that John could never be restrained by Magna Carta. The only solution was his replacement...And with the pope's official rejection of Magna Carta the rebels had little faith in their newfound charter.

The fact that John rejected Magna Carta may be surprising to some but again, we must remember that it was not a legal document. As God's chosen leader on earth, John was not bound to follow any document issued by man. The Pope's agreement in this matter helped to support that very fact. For the barons to even issue such a document was, in the minds of John's supporters, blasphemy to God. As a result, civil war erupted as the nobles chose to not only reject their king but also defy God's biblical admonition to, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers." In what became known as the First Barons' War, Lord Robert Fitzwalter (who many have associated with the Robin Hood legends) took the reigns of leadership and directed his fellow barons to established a codified set of "guidelines" for the king to follow. In what became known as The Articles of the Barons, Fitzwalter and his fellow barons provided a list of basic rights (an early bill of rights of sorts) which, in their minds, limited the scope of the king's authority and guaranteed certain basic individual rights. Here are a couple examples:

Article six
The king shall not grant any baron the right to take an aid from his free men, except for ransoming his person, for making his eldest son a knight and for once marrying his eldest daughter, and this he shall do by a reasonable aid.

Article twenty-one
That neither the king nor his bailiff shall take another man's timber for castles or other works of his, except with the agreement of him whose timber it is.

Article thirty nine
No free man shall be arrested or imprisoned or outlawed or exiled or victimised in any other way, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

In a very real sense, what Fitzwalter and his fellow barons did became a precursor for Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, which argued that the law was superior to the authority of a king. These ideas, and many others, eventually became a part of Magna Carta:

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

And though Magna Carta was only intended to protect the rights of the noble baron class (peasants did not receive or expect anything from Magna Carta) it did help to foreshadow the course that later charters would eventually take. Magna Carta, which stood on the shoulders of many other important charters, became a foundation for other documents to build upon. And while Magna Carta was rejected by King John, the Pope and a large number of the nobility, it did endure as an example of humanity's quest for equality, even in the face of secular and religious rebuking of such actions. In short, Magna Carta stands as one of many banners to society's endless quest for liberty.