Thank God it’s a boy

Congratulations to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son, our future king.

Few of us will live to see his reign, but all of us can pray that it’ll be a happy one, over a peaceful, prosperous realm. Meanwhile we can rejoice.

We should also congratulate ourselves – not only on someone who was born but also on something that wasn’t: yet another act of constitutional vandalism.

God has interfered to avoid another exercise in subversion by our Prime Spiv Dave. Having already shoved through Parliament the law abandoning royal male primogeniture, he was waiting for endorsement from other Commonwealth countries to make sure that the monarch’s first child, regardless of sex, would inherit the throne.

Dave improbably styles himself as a conservative, so he must be aware of the virtue of prudence. This was expressed epigrammatically in 1641 by Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland: “If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”

As a true-blue conservative Dave must repeat those words every morning, before screaming, “Sam, have you run my bloody bath?” Therefore he must believe that abandoning the succession law that has existed for over a millennium was necessary.

May one enquire as to the nature of this necessity? What is it about the law of primogeniture that has let the country down? How has it run foul of the constitution?

It hasn’t. What the law of succession has run foul of is the sole faith by which our spivocrats live: political expediency. In search of a few extra votes that would keep them in power they’re ready to trample over the constitution, sovereignty, religion – anything.

You see, primogeniture violates the politically correct tenet of ‘gender equality’ (‘sex equality’ would be correct linguistically but not politically). That’s why our true-blue Dave won’t be held back by historical considerations.

Male primogeniture predates political correctness by centuries, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the next election, which Dave hopes to win by appealing to the intellectually and morally corrupted segment of the population.

It would be pointless trying to explain to him how cosmically wrong he is: he either wouldn’t understand or wouldn’t care. But those of us who do care must realise that the monarchy isn’t there to jump up and salute every time our spivs perch a newfangled piety on top of the totem pole.

In addition to their main duties, both the Church and the monarchy perform the vital function of linking the generations past, present and future.

Aware of this, the people of Britain and other European kingdoms have preserved their monarchies (with minor hiatuses here and there), even though they may have divested them of any real executive power.

However, they understand intuitively that dispensing with even the seemingly powerless monarchs would represent an irreplaceable loss. Unlike Walter Bagehot, they know that the monarchy is so much more than just “the decorative aspect” of the constitution.

As all those countries are now enthusiastically secular and ideologically democratic, few people there would be able to identify what it is that they would be reluctant to lose. If pressed, they would probably refer obliquely to ‘tradition’, without fully realising what it is.

Many would resent the thought that monarchies link their secular present with their Christian past, yet this is precisely what monarchies do. They are Christendom’s envoys to modernity, and even those people who would throw up their arms in horror at this suggestion will still hear vague, intuitive echoes in their souls.

Royal families remind them of the origin of their own families – kings and queens are their link to the past they ostensibly no longer cherish and to God in whom they ostensibly no longer believe.

This is whence they derive their sense of organic continuity, something they desperately, if often unwittingly, crave – and something that is denied to nations where monarchies no longer exist or have never existed.

They may not know exactly what they are missing, but rest assured that deep down they all know they are missing something vital, something they will not get from any secular creed – and certainly not from the nauseatingly puny cult of political correctness.

Just observe the intensity with which the royal birth was watched in the first two revolutionary republics of modernity, the USA and France. One can detect, among other things, a distinct longing for something not to be found in their own lands.

Dave and his jolly spivs don’t share such feelings. They long for nothing but power, their own and that of the new political class whose very existence is incompatible with England’s ancient constitution. So they yearn to destroy it.

The people of our country have proved to be either too indifferent or too weak to stop this act of constitutional vandalism, or many others like it. So thank God for His timely interference. It’s a boy!

 

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.