Discover more from Samuel Barnes
Thoughts on the Coronation
There is an instinct common among “the right”, rightists and reactionaries to blindly support monarchism. The justification for this arising according to their ideological preference. The civic nationalism of the liberal right-wing waves the flag for the constitutionally-bound head of state, while the ‘trad’ impulse cannot help but blindly support any monarchy on principle.
In the case of the contemporary British monarchy the truth is instead that of a hollowed-out cult of celebrity. One which is devoid of any spiritual depth and casually justified by the economic justification of ‘tourism’. Like much of contemporary British culture the trend has been to adopt American systems, of which the only remaining peice missing is a reality television show sanctioned by the monarchical estate itself. The story of the British monarchy in the 20th and 21st century has been one of managed decline. First, a queen over the ashes of an empire and now a king who plays footsie with the WEF.
Any acceptable “right”, within the current Overton window, is bound by the fate of the undying left-wards trend of all liberalism. Destined to preside over a mere whimpering of pretense against the grayness of ubiquitous republics. Whilst anything reactionary is left longing for the impossible wet dream of this new Charles being the 3rd Charles to dissolve parliament.
As I write this on the eve of the coronation of Charles III, the forecast for the weekend is a wet one. An omen of a tired and dreary nation which is blending into an evermore globally homogonous order. Some would call the weather ‘typically British’, which demonstrates the fact that Britishness remains puddle deep.
Despite the overt symbology of tradition the “Windors” are practically a universalist arm of the British goverment. This becomes abundantly clear when noticing the rebranding of 1917, where the house of “Saxe-Coburg and Gotha” was transfigured into “Windsor”, a PR move which is the epitome of civic nationalism. Who cares if our king is German when anyone who makes small-talk about the weather and has strong opinions about tea can stake claim to the universal ‘British’?
From a particularist perspective the Windors are Germans. This is not to deny the shared Germanic lineage of the peoples of the British Isles and the Germans, but instead to make clear how spiritually shallow and ultimately merchantile the coagulation of ‘British’ is. When the blood of human capital is made unimportant and their land of origin meaningless, ontologically a country can only be viewed in an administrative capacity. This starts with the inception of state-funded extractionary bodies, such as The East-India Company, and ends with the only reason to vote for a given party being their perceived effect on GDP. Certainly, William the Conqueror was French but just because foreign kings have been the norm for a thousand years doesn’t make it good or just. The anglos, as natural merchants, have wrought their own capital enslavement through an impetetus towards universal openness. This impetus, is today, embodied by a post-modern “melting pot” monarchy.
The prevailing sentiment in the zeitgeist towards the future of the British monarchy is one of either gaudy sentimentalism or the implication that ‘progress’ will eventually “phase it out”. Like most popular notions, this demonstrates a severe lack of political imagination. Are we yet to see a return to absolutism? Perhaps, the mythology of Albion will manifest itself in reality? Will the English one day have an Anglo king?