Constitutional Monarchy, Chess, and Tyranny
Tomorrow is the coronation of King Charles III of England and I thought I would give a brief statement as to why I support Australia remaining as a constitutional monarchy.
I recently came across an interesting quote from theologian David Bentley Hart:
The ideal king would rather be like the king in chess: the most useless piece on the board, which occupies its square simply to prevent any other piece from doing so, but which is somehow still the whole [point of the game]. (A Splendid Wickedness, 73-74).
I know the whole idea of monarchy and kingship is affronting to many Americans, but many of us still live in the shadow of the British Empire, and we are having debates about whether to transition from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.
In the past, I’ve supported Australia becoming a republic because the head of the Australian state should be an Australian! But I have to say that I’ve come around to supporting a monarch as a head of state pretty much for the reason that Hart lays out.
In chess, the king is the most important piece, he must be defended. In fact, the whole game, the entire strategy, rides on protecting the king. And yet, the king is one of the most impotent pieces of the board, scarcely better than a pawn, and is certainly not an attacking piece. That’s what a head of state should be! He or she has authority, but no power.
The king (or queen) should have authority as the one who sits above the table of partisan politics, who embodies the majesty, sovereignty, and dignity of the people so governed … and yet is powerless. Power should reside in the elected officials who govern with the consent of the governed. They manage the affairs of the state to which the monarch gives token approval.
The separation of king and parliament means there is a separation of authority and power. And the sole purpose of the king is to make sure no evil maleficent ever gets his or her grubby hands on both authority and power. The king should be a symbol of gloriously powerless authority. The king should hold authority over the power so that those in authority can never be all-powerful.
A constitutional monarchy, even if inhabited by dim-witted, geriatric, whose only achievement is turning up to flag-waving ceremonies, having tea and scones with the CEO of a charity, or even breeding spoiled, attention-craving, brats, may turn out to be one of the most efficient ways of staving off a descent of one’s country from democracy to despotism.
Give me a goofy, flappy-eared King Charles any day over a diabolic despot who tells us that paradise is just one violent purge away.
And so we pray …
Everlasting God, we pray for our new King, Charles III.
Bless his reign and the life of our nation.
Help us to work together
so that truth and justice, harmony and fairness
flourish among us;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Long live the King!
On the coronation and it’s Christian imagery, I strongly recommend listening to Justin Brierly’s interview with Tom Holland over at the Re-Enchanting Podcast.
“ Give me a goofy, flappy-eared King Charles any day over a diabolic despot who tells us that paradise is just one violent purge away.”
This is a false dichotomy. As an American it sounds like a reference to Trump, but it just may be my context. The reality is that the choices are far greater and far more complex than a impotent king or political despot in the context of a republic. I think Americans are perhaps a little too utilitarian to ever understand the purpose of a king: “if they don’t do anything, why are they there?”
The concept of authority without power is a new one to me. I thought authority was synonymous with power. Here’s the definition of authority: “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.”
I’m going to be pondering this concept of a king with authority but no power.