Monarchy in the Bible – and in Britain today

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was once a war hero; he is now about to be an exile living out his days comfortably on the Sandringham estate in Norfolk. He is in disgrace, but England’s past kings would wonder what all the fuss is about, as our kings have behaved disgracefully for most of our history. So here’s a thought, might the world be a better place if we did away with kings altogether?

Christians may reach for their Bibles at this point and open them at Romans 13v1-2, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities … for those that exist have been instituted by God”. From this we deduce the scurrilous doctrine of “The Divine Right of Kings” which has caused nothing but trouble for 20 centuries.

From the fourth century onwards, Roman and then medieval aristocracies colonised the leadership of the church. The divine right of kings was their idea, enhancing the power of monarchs and the positions of their hangers-on.

By contrast, Paul tells us that a peaceful society needs well-ordered institutions with someone at the top, but that person does not need to be a king, neither does he have to be in place for life. Paul uses the word “authorities” not “monarchies”.

You get a better idea of what God thinks of human kingship in 1 Samuel 8:10-18. Israel’s leaders had asked for a king, “like the other nations have”. God, speaking through Samuel, was blunt, “Your king will take… and take… and take… and take… and you will be his slaves.” The history of Israel, and of Europe, bears this out. With very few exceptions kings are, on the whole, bad for you. The Bible tells us so.

On the other hand, in our modern world we are bad for kings. The British royal family are now public property and subject to intrusive scrutiny. For some, they are an important source of entertainment. In the past, kings have royally abused the people, but in modern Britain it is the other way round.

Think of the children. George, Charlotte, and Louis will, as they grow up, be stalked and their private moments photographed. They will be baited; traps laid for them so that a reporter can get a story. Any other young person who is treated like this is protected by the law. George, Charlotte or Louis will not be able to fight back because they are royal. (Look what happened to Harry, he fought back and look how the press continue to punish him).

George, Charlotte and Louis will make mistakes, fail exams, fall in love, or have their heart broken, all in the public gaze. Every step they take will be the subject of unrestrained praise or bile by the entertainment-hungry news industry. One will be singled out as a hero, another as a villain. Harry was broken; will that happen again?

Imagine growing up in a world where any private thought or secret you share with a friend might end up on the front page of the Daily Mail the following day. Movie stars choose this life, royals do not. The news media cannot be controlled, perhaps it is time we took these young people out of the firing line?

At this point, my friends usually say, “But if you get rid of the royal family, what would you put in its place?” It sounds like a sensible question until you think of Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Spain. Countries not unlike ours who have scaled down their monarchies so that their royals can function as – almost – normal citizens.

And then there is the USA, France, and Germany, highly successful republics that function as well as our monarchy even though they elect a temporary “king” every few years. These states are doing just fine without a hereditary monarchy. Great Britain would manage just as well.

Maybe the time has come to re-set Britain’s monarchy?