For the purposes of simplification the kings and queens of England may usefully be divided into four categories: cads, creeps, thugs and chaps. Examples of the last-named are, I'm sorry to report, few and far between. Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor, Victoria, George VI and of course our present Queen.
Cads, creeps and thugs, on the other hand, positively abound, and indeed Henry VIII managed to combine all three qualities in the course of his eventful reign.
All in all, it's not a great advertisement for the principle of hereditary monarchy, is it? Some might say that I am hopelessly naive and that there is no earthly reason why I should expect the monarch to be a nice chap. After all no-one expects the prime minister to be a nice chap. Personally, I don't buy that argument if only for the fact that the monarch is also the Supreme Governor of theBank Church of England and as such held to the highest standards of probity and behaviour. We expect unimpeachable moral credentials from the Pope in the Vatican, don't we, so why not from the incumbent of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham?
Cads, creeps and thugs, on the other hand, positively abound, and indeed Henry VIII managed to combine all three qualities in the course of his eventful reign.
All in all, it's not a great advertisement for the principle of hereditary monarchy, is it? Some might say that I am hopelessly naive and that there is no earthly reason why I should expect the monarch to be a nice chap. After all no-one expects the prime minister to be a nice chap. Personally, I don't buy that argument if only for the fact that the monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the
Because it is the Church of England which was never seriously based on such "credentials"? (see your own despcription of Henry VIII)
ReplyDeleteand by the way, Henry VIII was sort of a really nice chap at the beginning of his reign, so you may actually grant him all four "titles"!
ReplyDeleteThat's true enough. He was also a composer of some repute (Greensleeves, You're in the Army Now) and an accomplished lacrosse and netball player.
ReplyDeleteOne of those princes in the Tower, the one who would I think have been/was Edward V, hardly had time to be anything, did he? So perhaps should fairly be counted amongst the chaps?
ReplyDeleteAnd I have a soft spot for Willum'n'Mary. I don't think there was much caddish, thuggish or creepy about him'n'her, was there?
btw, when was it believable that Popes would exhibit probity etc? My grasp on history is poor, but .....................
I should have mentioned - Anon posting at msg. #4 (and now) is not the same as #1 and 2.
ReplyDeleteIt is perhaps invidious to reduce a king or queen to just one trait. Charles II, for example, was both a cad and a chap. I agree with Anonymous (it would be so much easier if people would post, or at least sign, under their own name, but I do of course respect everyone's right to privacy and superinjunctions) about WilliamandMary. He was a good king. StephenandMatilda was a bad king.
ReplyDeletePopes have sometimes turned out bad but at least they are elected!