Long to reign over us
July 4, 2008
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Here she is on her throne in the House of Lords, wearing the Imperial Crown and robes at the opening of the new session of Parliament.
I want to take this opportunity to celebrate life under the British Monarchy. There was a time when the British Empire extended over a quarter of the world’s population and a quarter of the Earth’s land area. It was the largest empire the world has known. All that remains are the British Overseas Territories - Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Monserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena (including Ascension, Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekielia and Turks and Caicos Islands. Her Majesty the Queen is also head of state of sixteen independent commonwealth states. The role of the Queen is very important. As the monarch, she is the one who has to give Royal Assent to legislation passed in Parliament. She opens each session of Parliament, the Prime Minister has to ask her permission to dissolve Parliament when he wishes to call a General Election, and it is the Queen who invites an individual to form a government as the next Prime Minister. She is well-informed about what is happening in her realms, spending several hours a day reading through her ‘red boxes’, containing papers from government departments and offices. Since she has been the monarch for over fifty years, and has seen ten Prime Ministers during the course of her reign, she is in a position of considerable wisdom, and has regular meetings with her ministers, including a weekly meeting with the Prime Minister, in which she has a right to be heard, to encourage and to warn. She also has an important representative function, outwardly to other nations, and also inwardly, in her honouring of the achievements of her subjects. The monarchy is good value for the British people, costing each of us only sixty-six pence a year.
It is of course sad that there are those who in the past violently rejected British rule and now forgo this great privilege, for example, the Thirteen Colonies who declared independence on this day in 1776. I can’t help but recall in regard to this affair the words of the apostle Paul: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13.1). I also think of his injunction to ‘pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed’ (Romans 13.7), which he did not qualify with “no taxation without representation”, at least not in my Bible. I was heartened therefore to receive an e-mail this morning from an American friend whose uncle wishes he were a subject of the British Crown, is an imperialist, and thinks the American Revolution was sinful and that they ought to have been loyal subjects of King George.
- God save our gracious Queen,
- Long live our noble Queen,
- God save the Queen:
- Send her victorious,
- Happy and glorious,
- Long to reign over us:
- God save the Queen.
- O Lord, our God, arise,
- Scatter her enemies,
- And make them fall.
- Confound their politics,
- Frustrate their knavish tricks,
- On Thee our hopes we fix,
- God save us all.
- Thy choicest gifts in store,
- On her be pleased to pour;
- Long may she reign:
- May she defend our laws,
- And ever give us cause
- To sing with heart and voice
- God save the Queen.


July 4, 2008 at 2:45 pm
If you are on facebook check out the God Save the Queen application.
A great book to read is Filmer’s Patriarcha
“The estate of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called the gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.” - King James I & VI (1609)
July 4, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I imagine/fear you’ll get stick for this. But I utterly agree - not from some vain and splenetic superiority complex, wishing to bash the spear-chuckers and rule the Irish like a god, but from the same scriptural and traditional motives you gesture to.
Republicanism is monarchy at musical chairs - full of vanity, ambition and pride, rather than Providence, in its selections - and stinks.
July 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Daniel,
Have you ever heard of the black regiment? Lookee here. Your dear king was imposing rulers over us with the moral principles of Manassah, and we didn’t get any say in the matter. It was our presbyterian ministers that led the charge out of a concern for the purity of the church. Taxation was only a minor issue.
As a side note: Long live the Queen! I would have enjoyed a monarchy on this side of the Atlantic.
July 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm
anonymous is me
July 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Those who governed the various parts of the Roman Empire were also similarly immoral. Did Paul say that this was an exemption clause from being subject to the governing authorities? Or Peter, when he told the believers to be subject to the emperor as supreme? I’m sure another ‘army of the kind of Assyria’ could have been raised up to humble these Manassehs. Your presbyterian ministers should have known better.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I would be happy if the United States were to seek British rule once more. I’m sure a more acceptable arrangement could be made.
July 4, 2008 at 5:32 pm
It’s never going to happen. Though it is interesting - for they believed they had divine sanction for the revolution and all that followed in the subsequent centuries of expansion.
“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God” was to be the country’s motto on its great seal (instead of e pluribus unum), and the Israelites passing out of the Red Sea as Pharoah is swallowed up was first suggested instead of the eagle with the arrows and crops.
See here, for instance: http://www.greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/reverse.html
Not to mention their revolutionary-era flags with ‘Appeal to Heaven’ and all that on it.
The Founding Fathers were, in fact - far from being even largely Christian gentlemen - generally freemasons, deists and lawyers.
July 4, 2008 at 5:51 pm
@Tuppy: Interesting to see you consider lawyers on a par with freemasons and deists
July 4, 2008 at 7:46 pm
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2005/06/joy-of-order.html
This says quite a bit of it all, I think.
July 4, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Whilst applauding your Monarchist instincts, I cannot help but think the colonists had a point about taxation, and that the Crown was rather slow in responding to their request for equal right with HM’s other subjects who just happened to be in Britain rather than America. Battles against tyranny - such as the English Civil War or, arguably, the American Revolutionary War - seem justifiable to me. A people that will not defend its liberty deserves thralldom.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the unelected Peers and, ultimately, the Monarch now form the main bastion against the encroachment on our liberties that is characterising the death-throes of this current government..?
God save ‘er.
July 4, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Yes, the ‘politician’ will, I think, quite soon become as automatically tyrannical in the minds of most as kings and queens. I think - with Hitler, Stalin, Blair and Brown - it has certainly earned that, or something worse, already. Certainly, the idea that we have been gratefully delivered out of the bondage of despotic monarchy into the superior judgements of ourselves and our peers is utter nonsense. I don’t doubt that, had the Queen been absolute these past 60 years, we would have been better governed by her than by all her governments, socialist and otherwise. For within the Crown there was never the kind of scope and level of control assumed by such governments, nor allowed by such voters (who foolishly believe that because it’s somehow chosen it is in any way less tyrannical).
And we should not have had this relentless undermining of morality, either.
July 4, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Daniel,
It’s a good thing you are on the other side of the ocean or I would be guiltily looking over my shoulder to make sure you didn’t see me waving my flag, and watching fireworks. Couldn’t you use some less authoritative arguments? Like maybe not scripture? There is a scripture based counter-argument; something about covenant breaking kings. I am fuzzy on the details.
After such a truck load of blog-eloquence I find myself mostly speechless. I’ll try to stay on your good side from now on.
My one problem is this: You think there is a place for fighting against a tyrannical government. I think once you have conceded that, your case that the American Revolution was a sin is wobbly. It seems to me that that undermines the “be subject to rulers and authorities” argument considerably.
Also a side note. We Americans just sort of shook loose, we didn’t come over and execute the king like some others I could mention. King Charles (as Judah helpfully points out) got his head chopped off.
July 5, 2008 at 1:52 am
To avoid confusion, Daniel without a surname is a different Daniel.
I should point out that at the time, a significant proportion of the population of Britain did not have the franchise to vote, yet they got on happily enough.
I’m not necessarily advocating fighting against one’s own tyrannical government, nor am I necessarily convinced that the execution of Charles was right (although people like John Owen were), even if good came out of it.
Some details on those scriptural counter-arguments would be good.
I think I may well broadly agree with Tuppy’s remark on the outcome were the present Queen to have reigned absolutely since 1952.
I’m wondering if Christian monarchical government is actually more consistent with the postmillennialist vision than a President who is elected every four years? It shows a commitment to the long-term process of God’s kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven, with the continuity of monarchy through successive governments enabling building on what has gone before, learning from mistakes and accumulating wisdom, a kind of national progressive sanctification.
July 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
Did St. Peter fight against the tyrannical powers of his day?
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honour all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”
This approach is the same as David’s in 1 Samuel 24:10, “This day you have seen with your own eyes how the LORD delivered you into my hands in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, ‘I will not lift my hand against my master, because he is the LORD’s anointed.’”
July 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I think regardless of postmillennialism, the reasons you give are enough to vouchsafe the Christian superiority of monarchy.
July 5, 2008 at 1:50 pm
What’s wrong with verse 4, about giving the Scots a good kicking?
Do read Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, who has a more ‘democratic’ view of things.
In terms of regicide and tyrannicide, of course, the traditional Reformed line has been that it is the place of junior magistrates to overthrow tyrannical rulers, not the place of private citizens. In which perspective, both Charles’ regicide and the American War of Independence can probably both be justified.
In God’s providence, thank goodness the Americans did go their own way, otherwise we’d have nowhere to flee once New Labour outlaws Christianity.
July 5, 2008 at 3:44 pm
My mistake. Glad to hear you are the absolutist I took you for.
July 5, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Just for Mr. Jeffers:
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King.
I think you may be slightly too pessimistic. Hopefully New Labour will get voted out before we have to flee.
Daniel
July 8, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I sense I may be a lone voice here, but that’s nothing new:
Belief in original sin leads me to think democratic accountability is much more healthy than absolute government by a monarch. I think John Stott was very wise when he said (probably paraphrasing slightly) “man’s status as made in God’s image makes democracy possible; his sin makes democracy necessary”.
The famous verse in 1 Peter “Show proper respect to everyone, fear God, honour the king” has the same verb in its final and first clauses. In other words treat the king or queen the same way you treat anyone else, that is respectfully. I respect the queen, but I also respect my neighbour and it’s ultimately demeaning to both to respect the queen more.
Of course, 1 Pet 3 and Romans 13, I will obey the queen for as long as she remains in authority.
July 8, 2008 at 7:53 pm
C. S. Lewis wrote something similar. But I think time has proven such hope mistaken.I think the very name democracy - in which abortion, euthanasia, lawlessness and license have been authored, crimes against Heaven and our fellow man which no European monarch ever dreamed of - must lie as low as even that of dictatorship or tyranny. It does not, perhaps, override men’s wills, as the latter do; but just as bad, it offers no help or guidance to them, and flatters them into all manner of evil. It has made man collude against himself. The most sinful dictatorship cannot grab that last resistant core of the human soul. The prospering of the persecuted church is proof enough of that; the primitive church especially. I think also of the way the faith survived in the Ukraine and Poland despite the might of the USSR. But democracy has got it. Democracy has taken and ruined it.
Democracy also ensures a debased people merely get even more debased. Bad tailspins are hard to get out of as those who diagnose the problem and prescribe the appropriate medicine, need the permission of the voluntarily sick patient to act accordingly. But many modern democrats take offense to the very suggestion they are ill; and meanwhile busily acquire further illnesses as eagerly as they can.
Oh, and showing respect to all people does not mean treating them the same; offices are worthy of an additional, often hierarchical ‘respect’, on top of the equal respect all humans - all image-bearers of God - deserve. You would, for instance, respect an archbishop in a different way to a deacon, I trust. Likewise, a head-teacher is deserving of a respect greater than a classroom assistant. None of this robs anything from those owed less respect; indeed it assures and aids them. It is a tiresome business to be forever aggrandising oneself in the name of equality.
July 8, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Are you saying Tuppy that because the church in countries like China and Russia thrived under the intense persecution it endured during communism this is an argument for such persecution.
Must go, MD
July 8, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Er, no. Don’t be perverse.
July 8, 2008 at 11:46 pm
To Michael,
Democracy: let’s get lots of sinners together to make the decisions. Excellent idea!
Now, that’s not an argument in and of itself for monarcy, but I think it is fair to say that democracy is not essential because of sin.
From what you say, it simply does not follow that you treat the king the same way as you treat everyone else and can’t treat them with more honour. It’s just saying respect and honour them. It says nothing about the degree of respect or honour. Whilst affirming the equal worth of every human being in God’s sight and the equal status of those in Christ, it should be pointed out that the very verse to which you allude in 1 Peter 3 talks about the emperor being ’supreme’. Moreover, I recall Paul saying that elders should be accorded double honour (I think it’s in 1 Timothy). Differential honour does not necessarily demean those who are honoured less, and it is in keeping with Scripture. It is not that some people are worthy of more honour as people in this instance, but by virtue of the office to which God has appointed them.
I also fail to see the point of your analogy about China and Russia.
July 21, 2008 at 8:58 pm
I think there are several threads to this discussion.
First, democracy vs.monarchy. I refer you to my John Stott quote. The point is that lots of sinners, made in God’s image, will generally make better decisions than one sinner, made in the image of God, because they will check and balance out each other’s sinfulness. There is perhaps an analogy with the need for believers to gather in local churches. I need my local brothers and sisters for accountability and encouragement, not because they’re necessarily holier than I am, they’re also sinners, but just because they’re different people, which means they keep me accountable and check me in my sin. So will citizens in a democracy in a way a monarch’s advisors, who are dependent on his/her approval for their position, never can.
This of course does not mean that I am not absolutely loyal and obedient to the British monarch, as the Bible calls me to be.
Secondly, the honour due to a monarch, relative to any normal citizen. Of course I accept that certain offices are worthy of higher honour than others. If a tramp on the street told me to pay him 17.5% of the value of much of my shopping, I probably wouldn’t. When the queen does, I do, because she is the Queen, I am a British subject and Romans 13 et al are a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. My point is more about how monarchs are treated in our culture; I wander if the endless media interest in their births and weddings, the popularity of photos, novelty crockery etc in their name and the massive public out-pouring of grief over Princess Diana is more idolatrous than respectful. I am not for a moment saying you or anyone else here is in this category though.
July 21, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I would agree that it probably is more idolatrous than respectful some of the time - but I think there is a large degree of mere pleasant affection involved most of the time.
July 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm
This is all very interesting. I must admit to not yet being decided on the ‘monarchy vs democracy’ question. I’d be wary of saying one option is inherently more sinful over the other though. Something has to be said for the divine approval of different forms of organising the state throughout the history of Israel (though we should note that none were specifically democratic).
I wonder whether the idea (I remember reading it in Stott’s ‘Issue’ myself a few years ago) that democracy provides checks and balances to combat sinfulness really stands up in experience. Is there not a case for saying sinners clubbing together are capable of more grievous sin than on their own - the mob mentality effect. You need look no further than ‘crucify him! crucify him!’ to see where democracy can go wrong. At the same time history has shown how ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ (to quote someone else), especially in the case of individuals with autocratic monarchical power.
Which confirms what we all knew all along anyway - you can’t (and mustn’t) look to the state to really deal with sin. And to my mind at least it leaves the question of which form of government is best still open.
I have a funny feeling many (most?) of the christian reconstructionists claimed to be committed to democracy, even in a christian state. Not sure what their reasons where but perhaps someone who does could enlighten us?
July 31, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Thanks, Pete, I’m v sympathetic to this and didn’t want to come across as saying forms of govt other than democracy are sinful.