Coronation: The Captivating Story of Monarchies
Moore and Gillette on what makes a king
If you like reading about philosophy, here's a free, weekly newsletter with articles just like this one: Send it to me!
From the mighty pharaohs of Egypt to legendary King Arthur and his knights… from the flamboyant King Louis XIV of France to the tragic last empress of Russia, monarchs have left an indelible mark on world history.
As Britain now gets its new king, let’s have a look at what it actually means to be a king.
Whatever our political views, kings and queens still have a special fascination for most of us.
Argonath, mythical kings from Lord of the Rings.
There is something primal, something very old, something echoeing in our collective subconscious about the identification of a ruler with their state, with their land.
Many mammals, since Disney’s Simba most famously lions, have social structures that resemble monarchies. But the role of the leading animal is not only to enjoy privileges. Quite the opposite. In a fight, the leader has to be the first to fight and the strongest fighter. The leadership role is always challenged. Since the leader represents the whole group, a weak leader would mean a weak group. And this, in nature, would be fatal.
So the leader has to be constantly challenged. They have to make sure that they can always defend their position. That they can protect, lead and embody the strength of the group.
For us humans, this leads first to the idea of the king or queen as God. Later, as a representative of God, as a link between the worlds of the mundane and the divine. Royals have always claimed to be appointed by God, and the rituals of Christian monarchies are still mimicking the rituals of the church.
In their book “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover,” Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette talk about the essence of monarchy. The book belongs to a “new masculinity” movement, so it’s not everyone’s thing. But one can ignore that and just look at their analysis of the social role of kings, which is brilliant.
Their insights about kings and their role in society are based on the psychoanalysis of C.G. Jung and they are fascinating. For them, the King is an archetypal kind of role. A role that we understand on a deeper level than just another “job.” Like the father, the mother, the warrior or the magician, the king is one of these traditional roles that define human beings. That tell us what the essence of being human is. That try to make sense of what it means to lead a human life.
The king archetype does not need to be an actual royal. A company CEO expresses the same idea. Or the leader of a powerful social movement.
Mahatma Gandhi, imagined by Midjourney.
Kings and queens, in all human history, have had two main functions. The first is to organise society around them. To provide a focal point, the throne, the castle, the palace, around which institutions, cities, villages, laws, power structures and social life can organise themselves.
The second is: to be the source of power and life for society. In traditional societies, the king and queen are responsible for the fertility of the land. As God creates the world, as mothers create children, so the king or queen create the state, the land, the country out of the abundance of their power. Ruling is an act of creation.
In the end, that is what social life is all about: the flourishing and growth of the community. But this flourishing is made only possible by the power that the king or queen receive from beyond and that they mediate and pass on to their subjects.
On a personal level, this transfer of power becomes a “blessing.” A blessing is a magical act: the sharing of the divine power. The king or queen, passing on this power to their subjects. The king does not hoard the divine strength, but is a conduit through which the blessing passes into the world. Into the kingdom. Into its people. True royalty is empowering everyone around it.
Robert Moore points out how, in all of history, kings were seen as ordering the world of society “in four quarters.” From the ancient Babylonians to the Egyptian pyramids and Chinese city planning, there is always the idea that the king orders the world according to the directions of the compass. According to the winds. According to the celestial pathways of the Sun and the stars.
The blessing, on the other hand, is what provides for the moral ordering of society. By rewarding loyalty, the king and queen strengthen the social order and provide guidance for human behaviour.
The ancient Chinese sage Confucius taught that the people’s ethical standards are derived from their rulers':
Ji Kang asked how to cause the people to show reverence to their ruler, to be faithful to him, and be virtuous. The Master said, “Let him preside over them with gravity; then they will reverence him. Let him be final and kind to all; then they will be faithful to him. Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent; then they will eagerly seek to be virtuous.” (Confucius, Analects)
The opposite is also true. A bad ruler will destroy the moral fabric of society. A crooked ruler will eventually preside over a society of crooks. In Moore’s book, the two anti-king archetypes are the Tyrant and the Weakling. King Herod is an example of that. Afraid to lose his power, he tries to secure it by killing babies, instead of facing his adversary honestly and in dignity, like a king should.
In family life, the tyrant is the father who wages war on his children, who tries to keep them dependent on him and his money, who tries to prevent them from ever challenging his power. In a company, the weakling boss is one who avoids responsibility by blaming their employees. One who manages to escape blame by directing it to others. Who is unfair to those they control and a spineless servant to those above.
Seen like that, the figure of the king or queen is nothing else than the archetype for a dignified, strong, ethical person. The bad king, queen or ruler is a projection of our own worst impulses, our greed, and our cowardice; while the good king should embody and bring forth whatever is good and noble in every one of us.
And this is, in the end, why we don’t necessarily need any kings or queens at all. Because every one of us can be their own king or queen. Every one can be dignified and upright and proud to be the best human being that they can be. A source of strength and blessings. The most thoughtful parent, the most loving partner, the most generous friend. A true king or queen among the hardships of every-day life.
◊ ◊ ◊
Andreas Matthias on Daily Philosophy:
