Monarchy: What is it good for?

[Sefiru]

What with the Royal Wedding this weekend all over the news, I've been thinking about monarchy, kingship and (not sure how to phrase this) ceremonial government.

I am, myself, thoroughly royalist at heart. To the point where, when some asshole told me I should "treat him like a King", my mental response was along the lines of "I'll consider it when your face is on my money." This has less to do with my spiritual beliefs or my ancestry (Swiss, hasn't had monarchy since the Renaissance) and more to do with reading copious amounts of high fantasy at an impressionable age. And, of course, growing up in a Commonwealth country with the British royal family showing up on the news and in history class.

I've been thinking that, usually governemnts are described as having judiciary, legislative and executive branches, with a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth technically belonging to the executive. However, I think it would be fair to say that there is a fourth branch -- the ceremonial -- which is where the monarchy really fits in.

Most of the membership here is from the US, so I imagine you might have some different impressions of the monarchy than I do.

Thoughts?
Is ceremony useful to government, or to society generally? (I say yes; more on this later, must brain on it thoroughly.)
Is there a point to monarchy in the modern age?
What exactly does it mean to treat someone like a king? What does it mean to act like a king?

[PerditaPickle]

What with the Royal Wedding this weekend all over the news, I've been thinking about monarchy, kingship and (not sure how to phrase this) ceremonial government.

I am, myself, thoroughly royalist at heart. To the point where, when some asshole told me I should "treat him like a King", my mental response was along the lines of "I'll consider it when your face is on my money." This has less to do with my spiritual beliefs or my ancestry (Swiss, hasn't had monarchy since the Renaissance) and more to do with reading copious amounts of high fantasy at an impressionable age. And, of course, growing up in a Commonwealth country with the British royal family showing up on the news and in history class.

I've been thinking that, usually governemnts are described as having judiciary, legislative and executive branches, with a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth technically belonging to the executive. However, I think it would be fair to say that there is a fourth branch -- the ceremonial -- which is where the monarchy really fits in.

Most of the membership here is from the US, so I imagine you might have some different impressions of the monarchy than I do.

Thoughts?
Is ceremony useful to government, or to society generally? (I say yes; more on this later, must brain on it thoroughly.)
Is there a point to monarchy in the modern age?
What exactly does it mean to treat someone like a king? What does it mean to act like a king?

Oo interesting thread, I must remember to reply more fully over the weekend - my short answer, perhaps cynically, is: tourism.  (Actually, not as cynical as it sounds, but will expand on this later.)

[Hariti]

Thoughts?
Is ceremony useful to government, or to society generally?

Yes! It promotes patriotism and national unity, and brings people who have different political, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds together. It's no different from holidays or other shared cultural practices; it's the glue that holds a nation state together.

Thoughts?
Is there a point to monarchy in the modern age?

Yes. Monarchs serve as stable personas for the government and the people it represents. The "face" of a republic changes all the time, while the face of a monarchy remains the same. It gives people a figure to associate with their nation state; a personification of the entire country, who can speak to the people in a way that a temporary elected official cannot. A queen, king, prince, shiek, or emperor doesn't need to lie, especially if they are part of a constitutional system; they don't need to be reelected, they don't have to keep secrets of state, they can voice their support or opposition to things going on in he world honestly, and people will listen to them. You might be asking, "is having that type of influential figure good?" No, but every nation has one anyway; people always look for a demagogue, and it's far better IMO, that said demagogue be a stable cultural figurehead rather than a president, general, or other less stable and more politically dangerous person.

Thoughts?
What exactly does it mean to treat someone like a king?

It means to treat them as a symbol of an entire nation or nation-state, a representative of masses of people, and as a symbol of tradition and culture with deep roots in the past. It means following whatever social customs a particular culture request toward their monarch, and not disrespecting those customs. If you intentionally disrespect a monarch, especially someone *else's* monarch, you are indirectly disrespecting their entire culture. They have chosen to have a monarch, in the modern world, nobody forced the to keep the king around. The fact that they did so, shows that they value that institution. So, if you meet a king or queen, you should follow whatever protocol their culture dictates.

When you bow to Queen Elizabeth, you aren't bowing to a person, you are bowing to people, to her subjects, and to the countries that have chosen to keep her as their head of state. You are acknowledging the sovereignty and dignity of the English, the Scottish, the Northern Irish, the Canadians, the Australians, the Jamaicans, and everyone else who she represents.

Likewise, when you avert your gaze from the current Emperor of Japan (which is how one should refer to him while he is still alive, not by his birth name nor his posthumous name... this sort of thing is precisely what I am talking about!) you are actually averting your gaze to show respect to the people and traditions of Japan, not to the man himself. In many ways, a monarch almost loses their humanness when they ascend to the throne. They become a liaison of their people, or peoples, to the world, and should be treated as such. Of course, they are still human beings, and deserve the dignity that all humans deserve, on top of and in addition to their dignity as monarch. Queen Elizabeth and the Emperor of Japan are entitles to human rights and basic respect, and one shouldn't pry into their private lives or take unwanted pictures of them, or anything else like that. 

Thoughts?
What does it mean to act like a king?

First and foremost, it means to act responsible. It means putting your nation and your people before everything else, including your own personal desires and interests. It means being respectful and noble, and setting a good example for your people to follow. It means not acting like a fool in front of the rest of the world. When a king screws up, or does something wrong, it reflects poorly on *all of his subjects* and thus being a king is a serious responsibility. It's somewhat like being the president of a republic, only more focused on presentation and less focuses on actual policy and political skill. One could compare it to the papacy, except you speak for a people consisting of many faiths, rather than a faith consisting of many peoples.

[Sefiru]

my short answer, perhaps cynically, is: tourism. 

You're probably not wrong. I look forward to reading your further thoughts, when you have time.

[Sefiru]

Yes. Monarchs serve as stable personas for the government and the people it represents. The "face" of a republic changes all the time, while the face of a monarchy remains the same. It gives people a figure to associate with their nation state; a personification of the entire country, who can speak to the people in a way that a temporary elected official cannot. A queen, king, prince, shiek, or emperor doesn't need to lie, especially if they are part of a constitutional system; they don't need to be reelected, they don't have to keep secrets of state, they can voice their support or opposition to things going on in he world honestly, and people will listen to them. You might be asking, "is having that type of influential figure good?" No, but every nation has one anyway; people always look for a demagogue, and it's far better IMO, that said demagogue be a stable cultural figurehead rather than a president, general, or other less stable and more politically dangerous person.

That is just about what I was planning to write. So, agreed. I'd also add that republics also adopt inanimate entities (the Flag, the Constitution), which people can too easily project their own opinions onto.

First and foremost, it means to act responsible.

The person I mentioned in the OP is out of luck, then  I've sometimes wondered since that incident what he meant by that phrase; it was obviously much different than what I thought, which is similar to what you wrote.

One could compare it to the papacy, except you speak for a people consisting of many faiths, rather than a faith consisting of many peoples. 

Interesting; one of the thoughts that's been rolling around in my head is that modern monarchs are closer in function to priests than to politicians. The British royal family especially so, what with Church of England and all; heck, the Tower of London has a whole room full of their sparkly ritual tools (ie the Crown Jewels) on display.

[Jenett]

Is ceremony useful to government, or to society generally? (I say yes; more on this later, must brain on it thoroughly.)
Is there a point to monarchy in the modern age?
What exactly does it mean to treat someone like a king? What does it mean to act like a king?

Parts of my brain are fundamentally medievalist, which has an effect. (Also, while I was born in America, my father was British, my mother grew up in the UK, and was born in Austria, which had had an emperor within living memory of her parents. One of my father's regrets when he died was not living long enough to get the relevant birthday greeting from the queen, and he was not otherwise that kind of sentimental.)

That part of my brain sort of sees the monarchy as a representation (note 'a' not 'the') of the egregore of the country. (Because people may not know the term, it's a term for a group mind in magical settings and some others: it often has opinions of its own as it develops, about who and what is welcome, and who and what isn't, but it is also affected by the choices, actions, attitudes, etc. of those in the group that forms it.)

I don't exactly believe in the divine right of kings (in the sense of 'God determines king, king gets to determine everything else') but I do think there's something in a public figure, representing and standing in for the spirit of the country in specific ways, and shaping that direction to some degree. (Some more than others!)

I don't think that's the only way you get one (or should be) but I also think it's one that worked for a surprisingly long time, for reasons beyond pure physical power, wealth, prestige, etc. in many places, and that's not something to sneer at, even if some of the applications of the process were decidedly lousy. (Because honestly, have you met humans? Pretty much every other form of this kind we've ever tried someone has done lousy things with, as well as good ones.)

I took a class in high school that argued that the United States has a civic religion that serves some of the same functions as a monarchy (see civic celebrations like town days or election days, but also 4th of July, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thankgiving, etc.)

But, largely because we refuse to acknowledge that's what's going on, it gets really messy.

With my later magical training, I'm pretty sure that part of it is because people are either not harnessing the egregore helpfully or different people are going very different directions with it. (Which is both a feature and a bug of representative democracy yoked with regularly scheduled elections)

[Hariti]

I took a class in high school that argued that the United States has a civic religion that serves some of the same functions as a monarchy (see civic celebrations like town days or election days, but also 4th of July, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thankgiving, etc.)

I don't do magic (I don't do it; doesn't mean I don't believe in it) so I can't speak much about most of your post, as it's simply outside of the range of my knowledge. I do agree with this bit 100% though; in the US, civic holiday's such as Independence Day and Memorial Day definitely serve the same role that monarchs do in the Commonwealth Realm. I would say that the (bi- and future tri-)centennial serves a similar purpose to the coronation of the English Monarch, in terms of culture power and meaning.

[Valentine]

Is ceremony useful to government, or to society generally? (I say yes; more on this later, must brain on it thoroughly.)
Is there a point to monarchy in the modern age?

Ceremony is definitely useful to a government and a society, and, at this point, I think monarchs are only useful for ceremony and ritual. That has its uses, and hey, sometimes you can ritually sacrifice a king to the land and/or the people when things are a real mess, and that's handy to have on hand in your ritual pantry. (The guillotine is a ritual tool, too. And sometimes the nation needs that ritual.) But for my money, if I'm going to have a ritually-empowered representative of the egregore of the nation, I'd like 'em to be electable and accountable to the people they represent. Maybe it's less potent that way, but it's also, in theory, less potently dangerous.

[Louisvillian]

That part of my brain sort of sees the monarchy as a representation (note 'a' not 'the') of the egregore of the country.

That is a very good way of putting it. I've tried using terms like "national will" or "popular consciousness" but those terms can slide pretty easily into para-fascist territory in the wrong ears. But framing it as specifically a magical-spiritual collective mind, that I can get behind.

I don't exactly believe in the divine right of kings...but I do think there's something in a public figure, representing and standing in for the spirit of the country in specific ways, and shaping that direction to some degree.

Despite being a Roman pagan, I believe pretty firmly in sacred king(or queen-)ship, at least as a concept (I know the historicity of it is sketchy). A relic of my Wiccan days, perhaps, but I think the Romans generally respected the monarchical traditions of other nations. I live in a republic, and I'm fine with that, but I believe monarchy is a valuable institution in the places where it exists. It's not, in my mind, something to dismiss lightly.

[Sefiru]

the egregore of the country. (Because people may not know the term, it's a term for a group mind in magical settings and some others: it often has opinions of its own as it develops, about who and what is welcome, and who and what isn't, but it is also affected by the choices, actions, attitudes, etc. of those in the group that forms it.)

This is a word I needed and did not know existed, so thank you for providing it.

But, largely because we refuse to acknowledge that's what's going on, it gets really messy.

I suspect that part of the reason for this is the rationalist/pragmatic/materialist mindset (is there a word for this too?) that sneers at the Humanities and dismisses all subjective experience as irrelevant.

[Demophon]

Monarchs serve as stable personas for the government and the people it represents. The "face" of a republic changes all the time, while the face of a monarchy remains the same. It gives people a figure to associate with their nation state; a personification of the entire country, who can speak to the people in a way that a temporary elected official cannot.

This is well said, and I completely agree. The stability of monarchy is an important feature, and I think it's beneficial to have a level of government that is above party politics, in which leaders are mainly motivated by their own ambitions. Unfortunately, the British monarchy no longer has a significant role in running the government, but I suppose the ceremonial roles are symbolically important also.

[Riothamus12]

Ceremony is definitely useful to a government and a society, and, at this point, I think monarchs are only useful for ceremony and ritual. That has its uses, and hey, sometimes you can ritually sacrifice a king to the land and/or the people when things are a real mess, and that's handy to have on hand in your ritual pantry. (The guillotine is a ritual tool, too. And sometimes the nation needs that ritual.) But for my money, if I'm going to have a ritually-empowered representative of the egregore of the nation, I'd like 'em to be electable and accountable to the people they represent. Maybe it's less potent that way, but it's also, in theory, less potently dangerous.

Frankly, I think monarchy is good for nothing except for cementing in the minds of the people, a sense of strict, ultimately repressive hierarchy that ought to be done away with. People ought to yield only to the Divine and in areas where they know little compared to another, the knowledge of their fellows who must do so in turn. One should yield to an engineer where they know little of the field and the engineer should in turn yield to the other person in their field of expertise. I find patriotism of any kind to be an equally useless concept good only for creating ethnocentric worldviews, ignorance, an unwarranted sense of superiority,  and causing wars which honestly do not need to happen. It's one thing to be proud of your culture, it's quite another to be loyal to invisible lines in the dirt that cause horrendous blood feuds. Not to mention that things such as nations and monarchies would cease to exist if people simply ceased to believe in them. Such is not the way with the underlying laws of physics and the spiritual cosmos. Those are the only things I ultimately trust.