Wednesday, 5 November 2025

Gunpowder, Treason and Plot

Are those fireworks, or are we being invaded as the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the monarchy all collapsed? The Labour Party has let out two prisoners by mistake, but the Conservative Party was unable to expose that because it could not count to six. Only that level of decay makes the monarchy look relatively healthy.

Most people think that we are celebrating Guy Fawkes as a folk hero for having tried to blow up Parliament. Even those who know the history enter into that spirit by calling him “the last man to enter that place with an honourable intention” and so on. On 16 October 1834, it burned down anyway. 229 years earlier, most Catholics had had no idea about the Gunpowder Plot, and they would have disapproved of it in the strongest possible terms. But they, of course, paid the price for it.

Just as they did for the Spanish Armada, even though the Navy that defeated it was commanded by a Catholic, Lord Howard of Effingham, as loyal to his Queen Elizabeth as I was to mine. Philip of Spain had expected to be supported by a Catholic uprising in England. But there never was one. As anyone who had known anything about the English Catholics could have told him that there was never going to be.

It was also on this date that William of Orange landed at Brixham in 1688. An invasion by invitation is still an invasion. In any case, against the Bourbons and thus their Stuart cousins, he was allied to the Papal States. A Papal Blessing was sent to him when he set out for Ireland, and there hangs at Stormont a painting depicting his crossing of the Boyne with, in the sky, a vignette of the Pope with his hand raised in blessing. The Lateran Palace was illuminated for a fortnight when news of the Battle of the Boyne reached Rome. His Protestantism was most manifest in the fact that he was married to his first cousin. They had no children, but the intention had been that they should.

Yet now, the King is a Royal Confrater of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, until quite recently often known in English as Saint Paul Without the Walls. As the Old Labour saying goes, “We may be a broad church, but even the broadest church needs walls. When the King gave Royal Assent to assisted suicide, then would he place himself without them?


I Vow to Thee, My Country was sung instead. That is theologically nowhere near as bad as O Valiant Hearts; in his 1939-1945 Star, his Africa Star with 8th Army Clasp, his Italy Star, his France and Germany Star, and his War Medal 1939–1945, my father simply would not have that one, and he was not alone in that view. But it does offer one’s country “the love that asks no questions”. At the bride’s request, it was sung at the King’s first wedding, which was why it was also sung both at his first wife’s funeral and at her tenth anniversary memorial service. And now, it has become an alternative National Anthem for those who considered him an illegitimate monarch. Again, gosh.

But then, when none of the children of Queen Anne and of Prince George of Denmark and Norway survived, then the Throne passed to the House of Hanover largely due to arrangements made by the Spencers, entwining the two dynasties for centuries until they went too far and intermarried. The King is a patrilineal member of the same House of Oldenburg as was Prince George. It took that very ancient and illustrious Royal House 308 years to accede here, but it has. Even from beyond the grave, will Spencer Whiggery do for it a second time? The Raise the Colours fraternity, which has amused some of us by making parts of the old 32-County Republic of Consett look like East Belfast, has been expressing its scorn for the King because of his environmentalism and his perceived Islamic sympathies.

Long hidden, they have deep wells on which to draw. “We have no King but King Jesus,” proclaimed the Covenanters of 1638, and another King Charles’s prayer with the Pope has at least implicitly caused the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster to hoist once more the Blue Banner, “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant”, from Kyle Paisley’s ministerial charge in old Puritan East Anglia. Under the name of Reformed Presbyterian, the original Cameronian, Covenanting tradition that saw the Revolution of 1688 as an anything but Glorious betrayal, lives on in tiny numbers in Scotland, Canada and Australia, and in still small, but nevertheless larger ones in Northern Ireland. That it is the origin of the epithet “Hun” is contested, but there is no doubt that the opponents of Irish Home Rule conspired with “Protestant Bill the Kaiser”. Far from having decommissioned its weapons, Ian Paisley’s Ulster Resistance has never so much as declared a ceasefire. Think on.

12 comments:

  1. Utterly fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sitting here thinking of who should write which article.

      Delete
  2. We're still lucky to have a Monarch there, though, because of what would take its place if it was gone.

    Far better to have a King who is above politics as our Head of State than to have the likes of Starmer (or Donald Trump or Xi Jinping) as our Commander-in-Chief and Head of State, complete with the military uniforms and an 'Air Force One' instead of the royal carriage. The unimpeachable argument for monarchy is that we constitutional monarchies -Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and ourselves - have never had military dictators or demagogues in charge, except for the one time we briefly abolished our monarchy in the 17th century. Thus proving the point.

    And the monarchy still stands as a living symbol of inheritance (and thus private property), British history, the married family and our sovereignty over ourselves, all things which are easier to destroy once it is gone.

    On balance, therefore, we are lucky to have it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You spend the rest of your time bemoaning that these things had been destroyed. And Starmer does sometimes wear a sort of military uniform, while the last former Prime Minister to have died was buried with full military honours despite never having served, no doubt setting the pattern for the rest of them. They already fly in some style, too.

      But yes, the republican arguments are as bad as the monarchist ones, so the case for change has not been made.

      Delete
  3. Such things plainly have not yet been destroyed as Britain has not yet become the kind of country I describe (as all the republics on the continent have, within living memory). The argument for the monarchy is unimpeachable but many British people - who’ve never lived abroad or know little of international politics - do not realise how lucky they are to have it.

    The Prime Minister is not Commander-in-Chief, our armed forces don’t swear an oath of allegiance to him and does not address public rallies in military uniform (if he did, he’d be ridiculed). PMs in constitutional monarchies can’t occupy that space, that’s why don’t have demagogues or dictators here.

    You know that you’re talking nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What "space"? Trooping the Colour? Who cares? And if Starmer or Farage wore a uniform to the only rallies that politicians (apart from Jeremy Corbyn for a time) addressed in this century, their own carefully vetted partisan ones, then the punters would love it, both in the hall and watching on television. Watch out for that, in fact. It is going to happen, and the existence of the monarchy will no more stop it than it stopped anything else, including things that mattered a very great deal more.

      Delete
  4. “What space?”

    As Peter Hitchens puts it beautifully today in Compact Magazine. “Constitutional monarchs have no actual power. They are similar to the king on a chessboard, whose only strength is to keep others away from his square. And this we must do, if we are wise. Career politicians must never be allowed to come near the grand parts of the state, or to hold titles such as “Commander in Chief,” which Americans unwisely give to their president.

    Once political hacks start taking the salute and appearing on horseback before the palace guard, they will swiftly become drunk on their own vanity, and far too powerful. Also they will be far too sensitive to criticism, because they think they deserve dignity. And, as they do not in fact deserve it, they will be especially angry when they do not get it.”


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has spent 30 years rightly saying that they were already like that, although, as he would probably acknowledge, it went back another 10 years again.

      Does he really think that politicians care about "appearing on horseback before the palace guard", or that not doing such things (they sometimes do take the salute) restricted them from doing anything that really mattered? You can take the boy out of the 1950s prep school.

      Delete
  5. “He has spent 30 years rightly saying that they were already like that, although, as he would probably acknowledge, it went back another 10 years again.”

    He has not-because it hasn’t happened. It can’t. Our politicians are not Heads of State or Commanders-in-Chief, they don’t dispense awards, lead parades on horseback or in military uniform or have palaces and carriages. They’re grand enough as it is but we wisely keep them away from what he calls “the grand parts of the state.”

    As for horseback, you’ve taken it too literally. He’s using that as a vivid metaphor for the kind of majesty that only Royals enjoy in our constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do they? But the old just-a-figure-of-speech defence? Give over! You wouldn't catch Hitchens stooping to that.

      Delete
  6. The rot really started under Labour: as Peter Hitchens said in his masterful The Abolition of Britain, Labour’s constitutional vandalism, especially the destruction of the hereditary peers, was a conscious assault on the constitution and the hereditary principle that sustains the monarchy.

    New Labour was filled with signatories to Charter 88, a radical left wing anti-Thatcher charter that sought to break up the United Kingdom with separate parliaments so that the four nations would never be under Tory rule again, abolish the hereditary peers to abolish the inbuilt Tory majority in the Lords, enshrine human rights and equality in law with Human Rights and Equality Acts to prevent a government ever doing anything conservative again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You relate to Hitchens as Margaret Thatcher did to Enoch Powell. Told that she professed to have been influenced by his books, he replied that, "That cannot have understood them, then."

      Delete