When I review a rare and unusual book, like the volume edited by Joseph Shaw, A Defence of Monarchy: Catholics under a Protestant King (Angelico Press, 2023), sometimes I don’t know where to begin. Faced with such a monograph, I feel like Aladdin in the cave of wonders: the brilliance of the jewels scattered everywhere dazzles me. The ideas and information generously spread by the six contributors—Sohrab Ahmari, James Bogle, Charles Coulombe, Peter Day-Milne, Sebastian Morello, and Joseph Shaw—gave me much to ponder. As an admirer and supporter of the monarchical principle myself, throughout the reading I felt like a poor beggar invited by a prince to take his place. Mark Twain would smile with satisfaction. But this time, when I closed the volume in question, I knew precisely, without any hesitation, that I would begin with one of the best quotes I’ve ever read in a volume of political philosophy and theology. Here it is:
I do not imagine that the Cardinal refused the customary canopy in order to be better seen [as suggested by the report in The Times] but in order to comply with the Pope’s wish for ‘simplicity.’ If these customary symbols of high office are abandoned the office itself, be it of Pope, King, Bishop, Judge, or Mayor, will lose its significance, its dignity, its solemnity. By the sight of these symbols we recognize that which they represent. High Office must be made visible by such symbolic and customary signs and the canopy of the state, the crown, the mitre, the Judge’s wig and robes, the Mayor’s chain etc. Remove these symbols and you lessen, even destroy, all respect, for authority. […]
A generation that has no reverence for the past is doomed to become rootless, isolated, adrift. This is the sin condemned in the commandment of Moses,—if you do not hold your ancestors in honour you will not keep long the inheritance that they handed down to you. The keeping of this commandment is the secret of the miraculous survival of the Jewish race. It is by the preservation of their ancient laws, festivals, fasts, and liturgical language that the Jews have kept their racial identity. Pope Paul is advocating a policy of ecclesiastical suicide when he announces that the Church will despoil herself—of that old royal mantle—in order to reclothe herself in more simple manner suitable to the taste of to-day. The disappearance of the canopy of state and the hat may be small matters but like certain small marks on the body they can indicate a deadly disease.
This quote belongs to an early chairman of the Latin Mass Society, Geoffrey Houghton-Brown. It can only be read in this volume, because, as we learn from note 3 on page 142, it was extracted by Joseph Shaw from an unpublished manuscript dated 1965—“Notes on the Struggle to Retain the Roman Liturgy, 1964-1972”—kept in the archives of the Latin Mass Society. Now, almost 60 years after it was written, we can see that every element described and predicted has come true with precision. In the age of clownish popes and bishops who ride bicycles and skateboards in churches, the dignity and solemnity of high ecclesiastical or secular offices have disappeared, and their significance has been reduced to a kind of exotically-dressed ‘entertainer.’ As for the respect for ancestors and the perpetuation of classical and traditional values, is there even any point in discussing it in the era of revolutions and four-year mandates?
Houghton-Brown identified the mortal disease that has gripped modern culture and civilization: the complete disappearance of authority, foretold in the same period of the 1960s by Hannah Arendt. In a world dominated by the destructive principle of equality, as denounced by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, where the notion of authority is equated by most political leaders with so-called ‘authoritarianism,’ symbolic vestments have long since been thrown into the dustbin of history. And not just the cardinal’s hats! In such a landscape, stripped of all that is symbolically meaningful, dignified, and solemn, one exception was the coronation ceremony of King Charles III.
Using this extraordinary event as a pretext, the volume seeks to answer two related questions. The first seems almost rhetorical: “What is the meaning and function of a monarchy and its rituals in the modern world?” The second is indicated in the subtitle: how can one be a Catholic subject to a king under a monarchy that, shackled by the Protestant Reformation, made history by denying the divine rights of the only true Church of the Savior Christ? The mere act of posing these questions is already a rare display of intellectual courage.
The answer to the first question seems inevitable: in the modern world, monarchies no longer hold any positive significance or function. Revisionist history books are full of examples, real or invented, of despotic kings and emperors; and films and television series often portray them in unflattering roles, avoiding at all costs an accurate representation of luminous figures like Alfred the Great, Saint Louis IX, or Blessed Charles I of Austria. As for the media, it generally trafficks in scandal and gossip. Of course, various members of royal families receive special attention only when they compromise the dignity of their titles and lineage. Despite this hostile context, the six authors have provided responses from which we can learn a lot of unexpected things.
In the shortest contribution to the volume, “Coronation is a Ritual Humiliation,” Sohrab Ahmari condenses into a few pages a dense lesson that combines sociology, the history of religions, and anthropology. He emphasizes “the indispensability of ritual for decent and stable societies” and explains the significance of rituals in the case of royal anointing. The most important aspect is the separation and ‘erasure’ of the future king as a person from the public eye to be later re-presented in his new role as sovereign. Essentially, he is ‘dissolved’ as an individual person to undergo a true spiritual ‘rebirth,’ after which he becomes “the servant-ruler of the British people, rather than merely a political leader.”
Charles Coulombe, a distinguished American intellectual wholly dedicated to the monarchical cause, has two contributions in the volume: “An Eighth Sacrament?” and “Loyalists in America’s First Civil War.” While the latter clarifies little-known aspects of American history, the former expresses the author’s hope for a world where societies and leaders resembling old Christendom might, by God’s grace, shine once again. The comparison in the title to the holy sacraments of the Church refers to the similarity between the anointing of the sovereign and the anointing of Christians who receive Confirmation, through which they are bestowed with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, catechism manuals presenting the significance of this sacrament always mention the anointing of ancient kings, firmly establishing a correlation between the three dignities of Christians—as priests, prophets, and kings.
For Coulombe, the crux of the matter lies in a particular detail of the coronation ceremony of Charles III, which he repeatedly emphasizes: “For the first time since the coronation of King James II & VII in 1685, the Coronation chrism was indisputably blessed by a hierarch in the Apostolic succession.” Specifically, the chrism was co-consecrated by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, along with the Anglican bishop of the city. This is an unprecedented ecumenism! Considering that, as our author emphasizes, “The anointing was the most sacred part of the Catholic coronation rite,” his title seems fully justified. However, Coulombe does not draw hasty conclusions; he merely suggests a meaningful parallel for both the Catholic royal tradition and the current sovereign of England.
For someone like me, who lived in a communist country, certain ideas in the texts by James Bogle are downright and fruitfully provocative. After mentioning his texts—“The Monarchy and the British Constitution,” “Queen Elizabeth II and the Royal Assent,” “The Monarchy and the Responsibility for Legislation,” and “The Place of the Monarchy in the Anglophone Culture”—I will tackle the issue that electrified me. It concerns the crime of sedition, which Saint Thomas Aquinas described as a great evil in his Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 42, aa. 1 & 2). The discussion is aimed at responding to those critics who have claimed that Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “was nevertheless responsible for permitting very serious immoral legislation to pass the UK Parliament during her time as Queen.”
With erudition and strong arguments, Bogle builds his entire case against these critics on the premise of the limits of Her Majesty’s power. On one hand, these limits do not allow her to oppose Parliament and the House. On the other hand, she is not responsible for the decisions of politicians who were not elected by the monarch. This is why, as some scholars have suggested, the current English political system could be called a “crowned democracy.” All this is due to the Constitution, which prohibited such an intervention by the Crown as far back as 1688. The only thing left for Her Majesty is to protect democracy from tyranny. Details of such situations, real or hypothetical, are provided by Bogle in his text.
When I read it, alongside the surprise caused by the formula “crowned democracy” (would Aquinas have accepted such a ‘hybrid’ concept?), I thought of the situation in communist Romania. In certain situations, what the sole Communist Party demanded was a submission similar to that given Elizabeth II, but given instead to politicians who had been elected by vote. However, in the case of the Central European country, King Michael I of Hohenzollern abdicated. That is exactly what Bogle considers morally unacceptable. But would a compromise by King Michael with the communists have been desirable? Perhaps my comparison is exaggerated—I do not rule this out. However, another, much stronger example immediately comes to mind: the (practical) abolition of the Gregorian Liturgy by Pope Paul VI.
In circumstances and for reasons that probably require an entire book, the most sacred liturgical treasure of the Catholic Church—the Roman Rite—was gravely endangered. Through an abusive decision—and supported by documents produced during Vatican Council II, such as the Sacrosanctum Concilium constitution—a pontiff decided that the most important liturgical rite in all of Christendom’s history was inadequate for the modern world. We know the result: what Joseph Ratzinger called the “organic liturgy” was replaced by the Novus Ordo liturgy, crafted by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini’s specialists. Years after this historically unprecedented event, a cardinal who did not hide his critical view of the decision became pope under the name of Benedict XVI. Diplomatically, he proposed—through Summorum Pontificum—a compromise formula by which he tried to establish a coexistence of the two rites. The attempt failed for a very simple reason: for the followers of Paul VI and Bugnini, the reason for the ‘reform’ (i.e., revolution) is clear. The old liturgy is considered inferior to the Novus Ordo because the former, with its hierarchical, sacred, and austere style, does not fit the spirit of the modern world. Therefore, the only solution is to eliminate it completely, which is now being carried out slowly but surely. Now comes my question, inspired by the reading of Bogle’s text: is the attitude of a pope like Benedict XVI correct? Can he say that, given the situation in the Church created by a previous pontiff—Paul VI—he cannot ban the fabricated liturgy in order to allow the traditional liturgy of the Church to shine as before? Can he invoke the status quo created by what Michael Davies called a “liturgical revolution” as the reason for the impossibility of such an action? If we were to follow the same line of reasoning as that pursued by Bogle regarding the limits of the authority of the Queen of England, we might say yes. And yet, I do not believe that he himself would agree with such a conclusion.
Sebastian Morello contributes three texts to the volume coordinated by Shaw: “The Monarchy and the British Constitution” (co-authored with Bogle), “Lost Dignity: On the Dignified Aspect of Government and the Problem of Totalitarianism,” and “Honour a ‘Heretic’ King? The Question Facing King Charles III’s Catholic Subjects.” Of all his writings, I was particularly impressed by the personalist argument he provided in favor of the superiority of the monarchical system over the democratic one. Here is a striking quote:
A document or a flag will never be able to inspire the affections among a people that monarchy can effect in a nation. The reason for this is that a monarch is a person, and so the species of political affection in this case in interpersonal affection (this sort of warmth towards a nation embodied in a person was on full display to the whole world during the national mourning and funeral ceremonies for Queen Elizabeth II at the end of 2022). … Given that it is precisely by interpersonal relatedness that we flourish (which is the why we form political societies at all), a government centred on this deepest aspect of human nature is surely incalculably more robust than any government that centres on an impersonal subject.
I completely agree with Morello’s argument.
The texts of the last two authors have something in common: a strong emphasis on the symbolic dimension of the British coronation ritual. Peter-Day Milne, a mature philosopher with extensive historical knowledge, presents in “The Vocation of Queen Elizabeth II” and “Innovations in the Coronation Prayers of 2023” a broad historical vision that allows him to discuss not only the English context but also the medieval Christian monarchical ideal. His focus—the role that monarchy could play in the future—is shared, explicitly or implicitly, by all contributors. He not only asks, “What is the Catholic’s answer to the modern, corrupt, increasingly tyrannical system of desacralized absolute oligarchy, emboldened by democratic mandates?” but also demonstrates a critical spirit by issuing severe warnings against the absolutism of kings like Louis XIV. The positive aspect of his answer is well-balanced, centering on what any just government must pursue: the punishment of the wicked and the rewarding of the righteous. However, this, he shows, cannot be achieved by secular power alone without the support of spiritual power—namely the Church and religious communities—which are the first called to oppose any type of state that seeks to homogenize its subjects through dangerous ideologies.
Joseph Shaw, the coordinator and editor of the entire project, has three texts: “The Monarch and Cooperation with Evil,” “On Monarchy and Tradition,” and “Rex Sacrorum: The Monarch as a Sacred Symbol.” Aside from an excellent exposition on the meanings of the concept of ‘tradition’ in the broadest sense, Shaw highlights the profound connection between any human community and its own “markers of identity” defined within the context of its traditions. He also clearly states that “political institutions are themselves traditions.” The British monarchy provides him with numerous arguments to support this view. He prudently avoids claiming that monarchy is the only legitimate form of governance. However, it seems to me that he overlooks emphasizing that the monarchical system is the only one that mirrors the hierarchical structure of the celestial hierarchy and the ecclesiastical—also hierarchical—body.
Following in the footsteps of Houghton-Brown, Shaw justifies the teachings of the Council of Trent, which defended liturgical pomp and ceremony. Citing the example of Ireland, which is undergoing rapid secularization, he sends a serious warning to Catholics who believe that a republic can substitute for a monarch or the Church hierarchy. Finally, putting politics and history aside, Shaw concludes with a true symposium on the symbolic value of the King and the enormous advantages that come from respecting this.
True lords of the spirit, these six authors know how to discuss extremely difficult issues with great civility, reminding us of that giant of the English-speaking Catholic world, Saint John Henry Newman. Without a doubt, regardless of our positions on the arguments they propose, we will give our assent to the aristocratic quality I have attributed to them. With such devoted defenders, the British Crown can be assured that the ancient Christian values encoded in its royal symbolism are presented with utmost fidelity.
