from the desk of the Master of Buckland, Took Hall
I.
It would be wrong to think that for all our humble earthy pleasures that Hobbits are averse to ceremony and formalities. Indeed, when Samwise Gamgee reminisced about how Faramir gave his protection to Frodo, he observed that for all the formalities exchanged, there would have been far more exchanged in the Shire. Likewise when the Sackville-Bagginses questioned the written will of Bilbo, they found that it was all quite in order since Hobbit wills require the signature of seven witnesses, all signing in red ink.
As I watch the early days of kingship beginning once again in the land of the big folk, I am reminded of this. The outsider and uninitiated and wilfully ignorant will watch the events of the coming days, weeks, and months, reaching their pinnacle in the coronation of Charles III, and they will confuse ceremony with pomposity. They couldn't be further from the truth. These ceremonies are a liturgy of life. Those who see them and understand them and can read their significance will take peace from them. It is because we have marked, liturgically, this moment that we can be at peace with it.
II.
All forms of animal life engage in ceremony. I suspect if old Treebeard was around he would tell us, taking a very long time to do so and at great length, how trees and ents engage in their ceremonies. These ceremonies are usually involved in the mating process. Now one expects asinine comments drawing from my observation that the King, with all his ceremony, now intends to mate with us. But, for all the stupidity present in this, it is beginning to get at some truth present in the ceremonies we have observed.
When a species of bird displays a high level of sexual dimorphism, it is the male that has the bright and beautiful appearance (a situation quite different from what one finds in Hobbits). A more vibrant and healthy coat displays a better genetic candidate to mate with. In between the display and the genetics exists the ability to get resources. A genetically superior male will have a better time of acquiring resources to feed himself which then further contributes to the health of his plumage. So a beautiful coat implies good genetics and an ability to provide.
But these methods of attraction aren’t limited to feathers. We also see, in birds, sophisticated mating dances. The Great Crested Grebe, Podiceps cristatus, is a preposterous looking bird that performs an equally absurd dance. But dances also require all sorts of things that display health and vigour and the ability to provide. Strength, agility, and the time to engage in the dance itself.
Knowing you, dear reader, you’ll see where I am going with this.
III.
The question we might ask is “are these displays a waste of resources?”... Well, by no means! And for two reasons. A mean utilitarian might say that the system would be more efficient if the male birds looked just like female birds, and just stockpiled nuts and seeds and then displayed their horde to the females, and the females would simply choose based on that… Well, those hordes might not keep, or they might be impossible to guard. The coat and dance the bird carries with him is actually a much more efficient system, which is the first point. To put it another way, it is a qualitative display of resources rather than a quantitative display.
The second is that this begs the question of “What are resources for?”... A system in which resources are only horded will quickly come to a standstill. This is true of economies, ecosystems, and all relationships. In one sense, I even want to say that resources cannot be wasted. They simply pass through our hands in a continuous cycle. Let us come back to this shortly.
IV.
The smart republicans (as in political anti-monarchists, not the political party in America) have kept their heads down for the last few weeks. To advocate for a republic in the countries where Queen Elizabeth reigned, at this moment, would lack tact. But as things build up towards coronation, they will start to stick their heads above the barricades.
They will start to say that any money spent on a coronation is a waste of the tax-payers money. When you point out the fact that the monarchy doesn’t cost the UK a penny, and in fact subsidises it from the income of the Duchy of Lancaster, they’ll snidely respond with something about inheritance tax. Again, aside from the fact that inheritance tax in the UK is squarely aimed at the middle class, the assets ‘owned’ by the Crown are held in trust, preserving those that are of cultural significance for the nation, while taking income from those that are of financial benefit. Slashing them to pieces with inheritance tax would benefit no one. They look at the crown jewels and think “if only we could sell them and pour that money into the bottomless pit that is the NHS”... as if it would make the slightest bit of difference.
What the republicans don't understand, being petty mean materialists and utilitarians, is that the coronation, just as the ceremony we’ve already witnessed, has and will ultimately serve a benefit that cannot be quantified.
V.
Why do we invent ceremonies for ourselves?
When I go into a church for a service (it really doesn't matter what denomination as long as there is some sort of liturgy being practised) I feel more at ease and at peace. I do think that those Evangelicals with no proper structure or ceremony are severely lacking in their worship. Now I admit, I am a Hobbit of routine. But it's more than some personal preference. For instance, I don’t think that a village could possibly cohere around a modern evangelical church. The modern evangelical church thrives in towns and cities where churches of different types are available and one can pick their preference. So those who think evangelical low church services are adequate could form around them. And while a community might emerge within the church, no community would or could emerge around the church.
In England, by contrast, there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to ecclesiastical architecture. Every village in the country has a beautiful country church at its heart. No evangelical service could be done in them, or at least done well. They are not concert halls, but sacred spaces meant for worship (... and for the sake of this point, I would ask that my Roman Catholic and Orthodox friends please temporarily put aside any hatred or objections that they have towards the Church of England itself, especially as it is in its modern form). These places were built for a ceremonial approach. This is what I mean by liturgy here. A ceremony directed towards God and the worship of Him.
Now, the Evangelical will say that this gets between God and Man, and thus becomes an idol... There's really no response to this. This is an aesthetic disposition that cannot be argued with. If they ever change their mind on this point it will be from an aesthetic experience. All I can say is that standing on this side of the divide, liturgy is actually a means of approaching God that is beyond value. I do not think that it is absolutely essential, but I shall put this aside for now. What I will say though, is that a spiritual life in which the liturgical plays a role puts one far closer to God than merely relying on extemporaneous prayer could ever do.
BUCKLANDER INTERRUPTED…
I will now pull back the curtain a little and reveal some of what I go through in writing these letters to you. I put a halt to this one several days ago. Unfortunately, several events have happened that have seasoned my optimism with more than a little pessimism.
I was hoping that we might have something of a return to an older and higher form of monarchy under this King. I am now pessimistic about this. Word has come out about a slimmed down coronation and a reduced number of “working Royals.” Incidentally I have just seen that the Queen of Denmark has slashed the number of princes and princesses in half, taking away the title from the four grandchildren she has through her younger son. This is petty and an abasement of the concept of Royalty. Charles shows similar signs with his family. On the other hand, this is a moment, regardless of the economic situation, to actually double-down on Monarchy. We do not want or need a King that becomes the equal of the President of Ireland in stature and grandeur. We need to initiate a new generation into grandeur and majesty, not for Charles’s sake, but for theirs… Show them that there’s something more spectacular than the latest Avengers movie.
Sadly what we seem to be moving towards even faster than we were under ERII is little more than an inherited presidency along the lines of Ireland or the President of Germany (the Chancellor not being the Head of State). A figurehead with no power and rather drab ceremonial role.
How can I salvage this now? What can be said?
First, I shall, in a future letter, approach the issue of ceremony, ritual, and liturgy, from another angle because this is still worth us considering.
Secondly, on Monarchy: rituals do die. But they should die a certain type of death. They accrue and can be displaced by some new ritual of greater significance. What is sad is when they are simply shoved out the door and left to die in the cold. And sometimes they should be smothered. I'd rather see the end of ceremonial dress than see ceremonial dress meant for a man being worn by a woman. A female Black Rod in all the regalia, a Black Rod Drag King, disgusts me, to put it simply.
And I would rather be a French Monarchist with a memory of Louis XVI (he was practically the last King of France in any meaningful sense) going to his death like a man and a martyr for the cause. In this way the Ancien Regime had more legitimacy than the Bonapartists, with both Napoleon and Napoleon III dying in ignominy. And the Orleanists aren't any better, scurrying off. Was Louis XVI the last King? Of Europe, I mean? What other King was, first, a legitimate leader of his people, and then, faced the end of his house in such a manful way? Manuel II (of Portugal) disgraced the memory of his father, Carlos I, and his brother and Carlos’ heir, Louis Philipe, after they were martyred by abdicating. And the 19th century cheapened monarchy altogether with Princes being set up as Kings in places like Bulgaria only to be chased out a few years later and a new one put in their place. Any King that runs from his throne never deserved it in the first place. And Charles III seems to be walking away from his throne which is just running but at a slower pace.
Better to have the ritual and ceremony of Monarchy die on the walls like Constantine XI than slink away in the night…