Magical Royals

Keywords: The British Monarchy; Pagan Kingship; Medieval Christianity; Future Visions; Sustainable Power Relationships; Magical Kingship; Non-Hierarchical Leadership; Patriarchy Studies; Collectivity; Connectivity; Emotional History; Emotional Communities

“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too…” 

~Elizabeth I, rallying her armies in readiness for a land invasion by the Spanish on the eve of the historic and victorious sea battle with the Spanish Armada, Tilbury Field, 1588

‘An Elizabethan Maundy,’ miniature by Levina Teerlinc, c. 1560, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

I clearly remember the numinous feelings surrounding the Queen during my childhood in Wirral, on the Welsh border, on the banks of the River Dee. This was soon after the war, when her family had stood by the people, stayed in London and got bombed every day along with everyone else, learned to drive ambulances and mechanic them, visited the hospitalized or those whose homes had been destroyed, and endured rationing like everyone else. Britain was grateful, and tired. And looking for magic, hope, beauty and economic redemption.

I remember the feeling of wonderment, such as attended Christmas mornings for me in those days, or sublime fairytale moments in Nature, redolent of extreme wonder and awe. When the queen was passing through our village (of Heswall, on the River Dee), in the decorated royal carriage of her special train, we all knew what carriage she was in as it flew little Union Jacks all along its exterior. The whole village turned out very early in the morning, many waving their own little Union Jacks, just to see her train go by—though most were probably hoping for a glimpse of the royal visage—maybe a languid wave from the gloved and elegant hand.

There are aspects of the monarchy that perpetuate potent pagan mysteries, aspects of ritual and ceremony surrounding the modern British throne that no one, that not even the Royal Family, no one but extremely high ranking clergy, ever see—rites like ‘The Anointing.’ This occurs during a secret part of the English coronation ceremony, considered too sacred for public view (it was not photographed in 1937, nor televised in 1953), where the hands, breast and head of the ascended monarch have historically been anointed with a holy oil consisting of orange, rose, cinnamon, musk and ambergris. The Archbishop of Canterbury anoints the hereditary monarch in the form of a cross while intoning a consecratory formula referencing the anointing of King Solomon by Nathan the prophet and Zadok the priest from The Old Testament (Shils, E., & Young, M. 1953,p. 63-81).

All this takes place beneath a golden canopy that is held over the monarch’s head, solely for the anointing, by four Knights of the Garter. The knights, along with the filigreed spoon from the Crown Jewels collection used by the archbishop to contain the oil, are the only elements of the coronation panoply to have survived from the medieval period. But, really, the rite is straight out of the pre-Christian pagan playbook. It signifies the sacrifice and dedication of the initiate, the formal dedicant, to the service of the people, to the tradition or tribe. From the Anointing, the monarch is believed substantively transformed into a collectively owned entity of a magical, talismanic nature. As a BBC newsreel commentator described it in 2013, “the hallowing—a moment so old history can barely go deep enough to contain it” (M. Easton 2013, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22764987). In a spiritual sense, it signifies the consecration and sacrifice of the individual to Deity and the Greater Good of All, submission to the Divine Collective, Sacred Community, All-being or Cosmos—to Koad, ‘The Grove’ in the Celtic Ogham system of sacred, runic, lunar, tree inscriptions (Kozacari, J., North, J., & Owens, Y. 1994,p.195-197).

There are the magico/spiritual streams of association, plus conditioned yet unconscious feelings of sacred/sacrilege or magical/taboo that protect the monarchy from moves against it. And in times of instability, such as the U.K. and other social democracies are experiencing now, people gravitate toward tradition, and familiar institutions. Social fear has always driven conservatism, and conservatives always support and shore up authoritarian structures, as with the Church and the Crown, or Russian Orthodox Arch Patriarch Krill with Putin (and vice versa). One of the tools of protectionism designed to protect the monarchy from criticism or dismantling is the idea of the supremely ‘other’ nature of its principals and proponents.

The idea that supports monarchies is that certain types of blood, ‘royal blood,’ is better than and superior to common, ordinary blood. Which is, of course, absurd. As the fallacy and folly of this kind of supremacist thinking comes more to bear in society, intellectual history and culture, the notion of the ‘purity’ and elect status of the notoriously inbred ‘royal families’ of Europe would seem to become insupportable. Custom and fondness for those few monarchs who’ve given their lives in noblesse oblige and devoted service is understandable and to be lauded. But eventually, as patriarchal hierarchal systems give up the ghost and the notion of Divine Right to Rule is relinquished in Christian religious hegemony, the institution will go the way of all things.

Prior to notions of hereditary right to rule by virtue of ‘pure’ or quasi-divine blood taking hold, pre-patriarchal kings, queens and chiefs were elected to leadership by the tribe, Clan Mothers or Elders, served for a time (as long as they were doing a good job of it), then relinquished their role to the next fit leader. He or she or they weren’t considered ‘elect’ by the gods, but by the people. Their post wasn’t for life, wasn’t inherited, and wasn’t written in stone. They were considered first among equals, war band leaders, leaders of the hunt, and other distinctions, but their grave goods would be like anyone else’s, barring the inclusions of some extra shamanic signifiers to commemorate their quasi magical status in a life of service to the group, clan, tribe or collective (Adams, D. Q. 1997,p.632). It seems natural that, as the dominant ideology returns to sustainable life values in an egalitarian collectivist post-patriarchal evolution, the idea that some individuals and families are inherently ‘better than’ and ‘superior to’ others—to the ‘common’ people as a whole—will naturally, and with a global sigh of relief, give up the ghost.

The pageantry and royal panoply are, of course, precious, glorious and justifiably to be adored, but pageantry—including sacred ceremony, ritual and theatre—has always been a part of human rites and reverence patterns. This aspect of humanity will never cease, never go away, as it’s integral to our humanity. Mircea Eliade maintained that all of the arts and sciences originated in shamanism—that the shaman (thought, more and more, by scholars of archeology, anthropology, history, art history, religious history, etc., etc., to have typically been female in the earliest expressions) is the prototypical artist, and that shamanism is the prototype of all the arts. How not—when one considers the origins of theatre in the Rites of Dionysus—of dance in rain dances or animal dances—of visual art in Paleolithic carvings and pictographs, and visionary cave paintings rendered by shamans or those acting in a sacred capacity? Writing in runic inscriptions on standing stones and Celtic Crosses show the origins of literature and storytelling in shamans’ ritual recitations, showing their Paleolithic roots in narrating shamanic journeying on the Tree of Life (Eliade, M.,p. 70). Pageantry and festivals aren’t going anywhere, ever, as they’re part of us. But the hierarchical basis of their current expressions will transform and change into a more community and clan-based format, like the ritual circles forming in post-Christian, post-patriarchal spiritualities around the world, and being resuscitated in Indigenous communities.

My personal vision of a future, re-forested and re-wilded world includes human societies where the artist/shaman role of ‘Royal Master/Mistress/Matron/Patron of Ceremonies’ is restored and properly venerated as essential, whereby those with a gift for designing, throwing, planning and bringing off great parties are elected to the post, serve for however long they’re doing a great job and/or relish the vocation, and preside over sacred pageantry for human-scale gatherings in which every soul is an active, precious participant. This is the only legitimate ‘royal’ role I can envision in any sustainable future reality.

You may have noticed the somewhat noxious supremacist nature of the presiding priest’s closing address prior to saluting the new king, Charles III. Herein lay all of the protectionist signifiers of the monarch’s ‘superior’ and ‘other’ status and nature. I personally find this kind of language wholly offensive and fundamentally immoral. Should the British monarchy hang on for a generation or so more, I humbly offer this new languaging formula for future commemorative ceremonies:

The late most gracious, most loving, most humble, and most excellent Servitor, (Name of Deceased Monarch Here) by the grace of Deity (“The Divine,” “The Sacred,” or whatever seems appropriate to signify an all-inclusive and diverse divine principle), of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (should these territories and principalities have remained intact and incorporated), and of (appropriate pronoun here: his/her/their, etc.) other realms and territories, Queen/King/Devotee (or whatever term seems appropriate and inclusive to describe a role of service and devotion to noble duty for the good of All), head of the Commonwealth, Defender of all that’s holy and humane, and Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter (just because, and why not? Some royal tradition is good even while being hopelessly elite).

One thing I find incredibly dubious about the British monarchy is its lockstep with traditional Christianity in an unholy marriage of Church and State, with this alliance expressing itself in a time when England is more diverse and multicultural than it’s ever been. Britain can by no means, any longer, lay legitimate claim to Christian homogeneity at this point. It’s either a democratic socialist system or it’s not. Theocracy and democratic socialism are mutually exclusive. Charles III is technically ‘Head of the English Church,’ yet the signs and symbols associated with the monarch being head of a colonizing National Christian Church seem a little sinister, their messages nefarious—pernicious in any truly democratic system that touts ‘freedom of religion’ as an inclusive social and cultural value.

The reigning monarch has been anointed as simultaneous head of the Church since the reign of Henry VIII, though Elizabeth I had to fight for the title due to her sex and gender. She had to insist on being accorded all the rights, privileges and distinctions automatically accorded male occupants of the throne. She was initially barred from being anointed head of the Church and also from bestowing the magically healing King’s Touch due to her ‘feminine impurity’ (menstruation) and the ‘polluted touch’ attributed to all women as ‘Daughters of Eve’ who carry ‘Eve’s Curse’ (side effect of menstruation or feminine blood generally). While sanctified, heroic or royal male blood was considered redemptive and cleansing, feminine blood of any status or rank was considered impure, corruptive, physically and spiritually injurious, even the blood of female saints, and was not even to be gazed upon.

But Elizabeth I fought this traditional wisdom of Aristotelian Natural Philosophy and medicine promulgated by Pliny the Elder, St. Augustine, Isidore of Seville, Gregory the Great, Albertus Magnus, and St. Thomas Aquinas (among other authorities and Fathers of the Church). She eventually won the right to bestow the touch, though only to scrofula cases going forward. Originally meant to cure tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis (commonly referred to as scrofula or the King’s Evil), the miraculous touch of the monarch also magically cured rheumatism, convulsions, fevers, blindness, goitre and other ailments. Mary I, being a Catholic, never had any desire to be recognized or anointed Head of the English Church of course, owing all her religious allegiance to the Pope in Rome. She did, however, bestow the King’s Touch. No one seems to have objected overmuch, likely because querying her religious policies could result in the querent being interrogated, tortured and summarily burned at the stake as an ‘heretic.’

Elizabeth II was unquestioned head of the Church from the outset of her reign. This was awkward, as it was for Victoria and Elizabeth I before her as, prior to the first thirty-two women ordained as Church of England priests on March 12, 1994, women were still barred from presiding at the altar or touching the Eucharist, the monstrance or holy regalia. This was due to their reputed ‘polluted touch’ as a ‘Daughter of Eve,’ a proscription carried over from ancient precedence in the doctrines of the early Christian Church. Theodore of Balsamon described how, “at one time deaconesses used to be ordained in keeping with the laws of the Church…They were allowed to approach the altar, but because of their monthly impurity they were ousted from their place in the liturgy and from the holy altar. In the honourable Church of Constantinople deaconesses are still selected, but they no longer have access to the altar” (Ranke-Heinemann 1990, p.25). All of this changed, of course, when, over violent opposition, women were ordained as priests and bishops in the English Church (though they are still not acknowledged or permitted in the more traditional and conservative Anglican churches around the world.)

Mary I “healing” scrofula by touch. A 16th-century illustration by the Queen’s miniaturist Levina Teerlinc, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

I mostly approve of Charles’ humanitarian values and character, generally, at least as it has developed in his maturity, and I totally approve of his passions for the environment, animals and organic farming. He’s an excellent candidate for playing a redemptive role in the twilight of the monarchs in my view. It’s just that old Church and State thing, the repulsive monolith. Notwithstanding the fact that the throne is largely ceremonial in function at this point, the fusion with Christian hegemony—with its toxic history, patriarchal cant, and ongoing imperialistic missionizing throughout the world—makes it an unpalatable socio-cultural construct to the perspective of this pantheistic feminist.

Personally, I’m not sure any of this should be perpetuated—fruit of the poisoned tree, and so on. It seems inevitable that if democratic principles, egalitarian, horizontal value structures, and non-hierarchical Earth-centered spirituality fully take hold of the collective imagination, the idea of monarchies will lose its appeal. I’m not unduly impatient though. I know that things take time to reach their apogee, to atrophy, relinquish their corporeal, worldly expressions, and transform.

In the meantime, I’m totally looking forward to Charles III—for however long he may have power, position, and influence, for however long his reign may last and continue to be held in magical esteem—pushing his Climate reforms and ecological awareness, not to mention architectural and artistic consciousness and the rewilding of Britain. Go King Charles! Long live the King, for however long he’s putting-out like a champion, which he shows every sign of doing. (By all accounts, he’s a workaholic who cries about babies in duress and endangered species—top-notch!). As such, he stands ready, positioned and able to repair a host of historical royal wrongs and imaging problems. And that’s not nothing.