What to Think about King Charles’s Accession

Welcome to the

Conversations That Matter podcast. I'm your host, John Harris. I hope you will indulge me. A short episode on the royal family.

I know I'm late to the game because everyone else has been talking about this over the weekend. I missed my opportunity though because I scheduled some podcasts.

The ball was already rolling and I thought, well, I'm not gonna jump in the way and mess everything up.

I'll just on Tuesday weigh in. So here I am on Tuesday weighing in and I just want to make a few observations.

One is that it's odd to me, it's inconsistent to me to view all the pomp and circumstance we did over the weekend and really the treatment of that pomp and circumstance in American media among American liberal elites when some of these same liberal

American elites are so opposed to white privilege, they're opposed to what they consider to be

Christian nationalism, which is this idea that Christianity should have an effect on the country.

I mean, that's really basically what it means in their mind. Any kind of impact you think Christians should have on the political situation and oh, you're a

Christian nationalist. They're against that. And yet for some odd reason, a family that has been

Anglo, has been white in memoriam and at least the kings and queens have been and a family that has a privilege by nature of their heredity and a family that whose king or queen, the sovereign in that particular family ends up being the defender of the faith, the official religion of the nation in England.

That's all cool. That's awesome. I mean, that's celebrity stuff. We need to get the paparazzi over there.

And why is that? What is up with that? There's not a word of criticism to Queen Elizabeth except from some folks on Twitter that are really far left.

And I would suggest they're probably more consistent than some of the majority of, I would say, leftists who may give

Queen Elizabeth a pass for some odd reason. She has almost universal support and recognition and respect.

Her son, King Charles, of course, is not as respected.

In fact, I saw today as I'm recording this on Monday, a trending video where he,

I saw it actually at the time, but now it's trending, that he kind of gave a little bit of a, I don't know if a scowl's the word, but kind of an eeks kind of look to one of the people that he was, that was working for him during the accession ceremony.

He had to sign some documents and he didn't have the pen right in front of him. And it was interesting. It was, he gave him a look.

And that's going around the internet. You know, he's no son of, he's no Queen Elizabeth, right?

And he doesn't look like her, the way she, with grace, treated people. And that's probably true. But I think it's just, it's interesting that we are very comfortable, even in the

United States, without the divine right of kings, without a royal family, without heredity being a factor in how successful one is, we spurn those kinds of things generally.

And yet, for some reason, there's this fanboying, fangirling over all the pomp and circumstance of the royal family.

The outfits, the music, the customs. Even the religious ceremony, we're all, even atheists are just enamored with this to some extent and don't see anything really wrong with it.

Or at least they're not saying it if they do. And that is odd to me. It's interesting to me.

And I have a theory. Now, I could be wrong because it's my theory, but I'm struggling with trying to make sense of all this.

And my theory is this. There's probably a number of factors. You have habits, of course, being one.

I remember as a young man or young boy, really, when Princess Diana died and the media blitz, the media,

I mean, she's still a famous celebrity, a role model. I still remember that.

So this has been my whole lifetime seeing the royal family treated that way. And so I think there's some habit there for why the media is still treating them that way.

You kind of run on that inertia. But secondly, and maybe more importantly,

I have a theory that actually we want there to be a form of hierarchy.

If you remember, the children of Israel wanted a king. They wanted

Saul to be a king. He looks like a king. I mean, he's a head foot taller than everyone. We wanna be like the nations around us.

Why did they wanna be like the nations around them though? What was the purpose of that? What is that desire in their hearts?

God said, I'm your king, obey my law. That wasn't enough for them though.

And of course they were warned. Don't, he's gonna tax you. He's gonna take your kids.

He's gonna take your young men, send them to war. You sure you want a king? Yes, we want a king.

That is a desire that seems to reside in human beings deep down. They want there to be someone that can be a role model, someone to set the standard, someone to look up to, someone to take responsibility who is not them, someone to be higher up in the hierarchy than they are.

That's a natural human tendency. America, at least many Americans, have thought of themselves and their culture as an aberration of this, that the

Americans are more of a meritocracy, that you can be whoever you want as long as you're willing to put in the hard work.

Of course, that's changed in my lifetime, but traditionally Americans have thought of themselves as self -sufficient, independent.

And I don't know that that actually is, to some extent it is, but it's not fully compatible with human nature.

You can't take that to its extreme or its conclusion really and say that across the board, everyone really wants that, that they only wanna be a sovereign in their own household.

Of course, God's the only one really with sovereignty, but they only want to be responsible and they want to administer the sovereignty

God's given them in their own household and then no one else in charge of them. We still have to have a government, we still have to have some form of hierarchy above us.

And we have it in various situations and voluntary associations in religion and business and government, of course, local, state, and national.

And so we have all these different layers of hierarchy.

And I think that's very healthy. You have checks and balances in that, you have different places to go for different problems or different things that are natural human needs.

You go to different places for them and you're not going to one all powerful totalitarian state.

Now, increasingly that's what's happening. We're becoming like Soviet Union or other communist regimes where the state becomes all encompassing.

We're marching in progressive increments towards that. But there's still voluntary associations, intermediate groups that have their own hierarchies and we submit to those.

And the interesting thing is we do it voluntarily. If it's not under compulsion, we do it voluntarily.

Humans naturally form these things. And I think that has something to do with why people are still kind of enamored with the royal family.

It's a vestige of what once was and is no more, but the outer shell of it still is.

The pomp and circumstance is still there. The outfits are still there. The tradition is still there, but the authority is not.

So we kind of go with this pretending along that this is somehow very important, but we know it's really only symbolically important.

The King of England doesn't really have authority other than he can set a good example.

There may be a few little things here and there. He has access to the fortune of the royal family, but there really isn't much other than he has connections, relationships.

He's a symbol, he's an example, but the authority to govern does not rest with him.

Now, I mean, I guess he could try to say that I'm gonna reinstitute that authority, but obviously that's not happening.

I mean, King Charles is a great reset king. He is in it with the

World Economic Forum and the global elites, he's a globalist, but he still has to tip his hat to the national traditions that he was raised in and he values them to some extent.

This is a natural human tendency he has to value what is his own. And it's a natural human tendency to,

I think, look at royalty and have somewhat of a respect for it, to see it as something that's important and something perhaps comforting.

If you're English, I think it's probably something that's comforting to you to have an adult in the room almost, that there's something above you, something that's keeping a watchful eye and has your interests at heart and is not going to let you down and these kinds of things.

Little girls from the time they're young, I think, look at being a princess and perhaps a queen as some kind of just romantic ideal, even though it's been hundreds of years in America, at least, there haven't been princes or queens or nobility, but little girls don't, when they're young, think of themselves as wanting to be a business tycoon.

That's not a natural tendency, at least. It has to kind of be inculcated in them. It's more natural for girls to wanna be princesses and it's more natural for boys to wanna be knights, something that has valor and honor and some kind of, or a warrior of some kind, right?

That's just a natural tendency to have authority. They don't generally, from the point at which they're five or six years old, think of themselves as business tycoons or politicians necessarily.

That's something that generally comes later on in life. Why is that? Is this something that is so fundamental to who we are that we naturally want not just a hierarchy based upon success, but we want a hierarchy that is based upon nobility, honor, tradition, and intangible attributes and values, virtues really, that lie outside of ourselves, that are common to all, but are actually of a divine nature?

I think this speaks to something deep down in all of us. There is a longing, I think, even in the hard hearts of many atheists and non -Christians and progressive ideologues that they have to recognize that actually, you know what?

There is something beautiful about this. As imperfect as it is, there is something they have to look at and pause and say, wow, that's pretty cool.

Now here is something that I want to predict. We'll see what happens, but remarkably, the transition from what

I can tell that King Charles just underwent is very similar to what his mother underwent.

Let me give you some examples of this. I will play for you first the

Queen Elizabeth's, the day she ascended the throne and what the Sergeant of Arms said, and it is,

I think, almost word for word, the same thing that was said over the weekend when

King Charles ascended. Here's what was said in 1952. The high and mighty

Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late sovereign of happy memory, become

Queen Elizabeth II. By the grace of God, Queen of this realm and of all her other realms and territories, head of the commonwealth, defender of the faith, to whom her alleges do acknowledge all faith and constant obedience with hearty and humble affection, beseeching

God by whom kings and queens do reign to bless the royal Princess Elizabeth II with long and happy years to reign over us.

Now remarkably, if you were watching over the weekend, you heard pretty much the same thing, the same exact thing from the

Sergeant of Arms concerning the King Charles, because they kept tradition.

They even kept the religious references. However, there does seem to be a change, and I looked online to make sure, because I couldn't find anything where it seems that King Charles had said what his mother,

Queen Elizabeth, said, and I believe it's what's been said since the 1700s. He said it differently. Here's what

Queen Elizabeth said when she ascended the throne. She said this, I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactment which secure the

Protestant succession to the throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers, according to law.

That was November 4th, 1952. Here is what King Charles said in respect to this.

He said this, I, Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of all my other realms and territories,

King Defender of the Faith, do faithfully promise and swear that I should inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true

Protestant religion as established by the laws made in Scotland in prosecution of the claim of right, and particularly by an act instituted, an act for securing the

Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government, and by the acts passed by the Parliament of both kingdoms for union of the two kingdoms, together with the government worship discipline rights and privileges of the

Church of Scotland. So help me, God. Now, this is part of a speech called, it's the accession declaration.

So Queen Elizabeth had to make it, and King Charles had to make it, but you can see there's a difference here.

And King Charles, if you were watching, you probably thought, wow, that's great. Look how Christian this is, that's amazing.

If you're a Christian who likes Christianity having an influence in the civil and in the cultural realm, but it is different.

It is, he doesn't say the same things that Queen Elizabeth said about being a faithful Protestant himself. He also talks about the settlement of the true

Protestant religion. And I don't know if that's a word choice that would be different, perhaps. I'm just, I'm speculating a little bit here, but it seems to be less, more humble, less aggressive,

I guess, than just declaring that this is a Protestant country or something like that.

He's just, the settlement, it's like one of the religions that settled here. It's the settlement. And in what respect is it settled?

Well, maybe that's a little open today to interpretation. But Elizabeth, what she said was very much more aggressive,

I think, that she's securing the Protestant succession to the throne, upholding and maintaining the set enactments to the best of my powers.

She doesn't use the same language of the settlement of the

Protestant religion. And of course, and again, King Charles doesn't make the same personal statement about being

Protestant himself, because that is a requirement for the King of England. They have to be Protestant. So I think it's assumed he is, he says he is, but here's where things get different,

I think. I sense at least a change possibly here. And what will be super interesting is to find out what actually happens, not during what we've just witnessed, but during the ceremony that will be to come, probably next year, or if not, maybe a little later this year.

I don't know when they're going to do it exactly. But what you just saw was the accession to the throne.

But you will be seeing a grander ceremony.

I'm gonna show you the coronation. That's what they call it, the coronation ceremony of Queen Elizabeth in 1953.

This is what it looked like. Check this out. Receive this imperial robe.

The Lord your God endure you with knowledge and wisdom, with majesty and with power from on high.

The Lord clothe you with the robe of righteousness and with the garment of salvation.

Receive this orb set under the cross and remember that the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our

Redeemer. Receive the royal scepter, the ensign of kingly power and justice.

Receive the rod of equity and mercy. Be so merciful that you'll be not too remiss.

So execute justice that you forget not mercy. Punish the wicked, protect and cherish the just.

Hey everyone, I want to take a moment in the middle of the podcast here, speaking of Great Britain and England, to talk to you about Gold River Tea.

Gold River Tea is a wonderful company. You can go to goldriverco .com, that's goldriverco .com, and check out their holiday blends.

They have a number of them, but most recently is their Pumpkin Spice. And in fact, I have some in my mug right now.

This is my special Conversations That Matter mug. I just put the whole bag in when I drink tea.

It's wonderful tea. And you don't need to feel guilty when you purchase tea from Gold River because they're employing

American workers, they're pro -Western civilization, they're pro -America, they are pro -Christianity, most importantly, and they're not doing diversity trainings and giving their money to woke organizations and corporations.

So you can rest assured when you buy from goldriverco .com, they are going to give you some of the finest quality tea, but without the wokeness.

And if you type in the promo code conversations, you can get 15 % off your tea blend.

And there's many of them. There's not just pumpkin spice. You can get mint teas and green teas and chamomile and black tea.

And there's even summer blends if you're living in Hawaii and you're thinking, I'm never gonna drink hot tea. Well, that's just fine.

Get some of the iced tea they have. It's great. So go to goldriverco .com today and get yourself some tea.

So this is basically a church service. It's the Archbishop of Canterbury that's administering all these symbolic things, saying blatantly,

Jesus Christ, the Redeemer. It's unheard of today, right? And that's the thing that I'm wondering is what's gonna happen with King Charles, because even things down to like the rod that she's given and the scepter.

The scepter has a cross on it representing the sovereign's power, but that she's under God, she's under Christ, the true sovereign, and that all sovereignty is actually delegated.

And then, of course, she has a rod, which represents the Holy Ghost. And it's these intangible things, equity and mercy, not equity in the sense of social justice equity we think of today, but impartiality.

And so there's just all kinds of things like this. It's just, it's amazing. And I can see why someone would be really just mesmerized with it.

You have the orb of gold that she's given signifying the dominion of the cross. I mean, these all religious, the whole thing.

And then there's a celebration of communion during the same ceremony.

And these are the traditions of Great Britain. And so is Prince Charles, now

King Charles, is he going to do these things? I want to bring to your attention an article from The Guardian that is from 2022,

September 9th, so fairly recently. And in this, it says, the headline is,

King Charles to be defender of the faith, but also a defender of faiths, plural, defender of faiths, plural.

And it talks about, in this article, it talks about what King Charles now has said over time about his relationship to Christianity and the monarchy.

In 1994, Charles, it says, triggered controversy when he said he would be defender of faith rather than defender of the faith.

In a desire to reflect Britain's religious diversity, there were suggestions that the coronation oath might be altered. In 2015, he clarified.

He said, as I try to describe, I mind about the inclusion of other people's faiths and their freedom to worship in this country.

And it's always seemed to me that, while at the same time being defender of the faith, you can also be protector of faiths.

So look, the language is changing. Well, I can protect these other faiths and defender of the faith to which

I am a part of by tradition's sake, because I don't think Charles is probably an

Orthodox Bible -believing Christian. I would highly doubt that, although I would think that his mother probably was.

And so, it's this whole article, I think they're probably positive about this, that social attitudes have changed.

And I mean, Charles, look, Charles III is divorced. He's the first divorced sovereign since Henry VIII.

I mean, and so there's a little bit of a breaking of tradition here.

And it doesn't mean that the royal family's perfect. They're not. They never have been, obviously. And no one, I don't think anyone hardly believes that unless you're super blinded by the pomp and circumstance.

But this is probably gonna be changing into a multicultural framework.

And that's something that we'll just have to see during the coronation if that happens. If it happens, though, it's one step towards,

I think, the dissolution of not just the monarchy itself and the authority the monarchy has had, but the outer shell of what the monarchy represents.

Because sooner or later, how is it gonna be any different than a secular state official?

Because that's really what makes the monarchy, I think, special. It is the religious element. It is the

Christian element, uniquely. It is not these other things. I mean, outfits and music and all of that just simply are the icing on the cake.

They beautify. They accentuate this religious fervor.

But without that, you don't really have a monarchy. The whole idea is that there's a divine sovereign, the

Lord Jesus Christ, who has bequeathed to men, given to them some of his power, and that this is recognized in a monarchy.

And that it's something that's, when this kind of responsibility is given to a particular family, it is then passed down generation to generation.

And from a young age, children are raised for a purpose. So it's not something that they compete for or realize when they're 30 years old, yeah,

I wanna run for president someday. This is something that, from the beginning of time, they know they had a duty and station, and that's why

Prince Harry's leaving the royal responsibilities and living in North America is such an affront to so many people.

And then, of course, kind of attacking the royal family to some extent. It's such an affront because that's just not done.

It's not protocol, right? Because there's a duty, there's a responsibility, and I think we actually like that deep down.

And there's things like this, the divine right of kings being one, where the responsibility is associated with monarchy.

Arranged marriages, of course, is another one. Dueling, right, another one. Slavery or serfdom, another one.

There's probably more I could think of. But all these things carry with them certain hierarchies, responsibilities beyond oneself, an attachment to things beyond oneself, duties, obligation.

And we spurn those things in the, at least Western civilization, and particularly

American culture, spurns those things. Yet, at the same time, I think there is a recognition that there's something special about it, that it's inescapable.

And I would submit to you that 2020 was an example of this to some extent. You saw that the common good was so elevated that we must, for the sake of others, your mask became kind of the symbol of whether or not you were going to carry your social obligation in a rightful manner if you took it seriously.

If you didn't have a mask, you didn't take your social obligation seriously, right? So this is, I think, a warped kind of understanding of this because it was administered by people who didn't really have the authority to administer it to the extent they had to administer it.

It was also, behind it was basically some, it was built on lies. It was a power grab.

It was all, I mean, it was all these nefarious things. But we want, I think, deep down there to be a legitimate authority that has good motivations for us.

That's what a king and a queen are supposed to represent. They have good motivations. They represent the people and they have their best interests at heart, not like some of the elites that we have ruling us.

And this thing doesn't really exist in the real world. It's not something, I mean, there's no teeth in it. It's not something that we really see, but it's something

I think we all long for. And ultimately, where does that longing have its consequence or its fulfillment?

Ultimately, and this isn't meant to be a gospel coalition article, but ultimately that longing is fulfilled in Jesus. That there is a earthly desire or a desire we have to see something physically in a temporal realm reigning or the reigning of a sovereign, but that's fulfilled when

Jesus comes and he actually puts the earth under his own dominion.

And that will, we will all live to see that, whether we are on his side or not.

We will all see that at some point, even if it's after the physical death, we will see it. And that will be the fulfillment of that desire.

So I just wanted to make that observation that even the pagans out there, I think, have this attraction and they don't think they can account for it because it runs counter to everything else they say they believe.

And yet here they are praising the pomp and circumstance and the nobility and all the rest of those intangible things that they don't really believe in.

They're praising it, they're enjoying it, and they're looking to it. So God bless, I hope that was helpful.