KINGLINESS.
THE qualities which make a ruler appear in the eyes of his people "every inch a King" may be partly, if not chiefly, superficial. They may be found in a fine presence, handsome looks, a gracious manner, a daring habit. One thinks somehow of a Sovereign in a Jacobite cloak and a feathered hat as more "kingly "than one in the sedate clothes of our day. Thus the conventional ideas which are conjured up by a phrase lag behind what we in our hearts know to be the essential virtues of kingship. England has been blessed in two successive reigns by the existence in her Sovereigns of the more important part of those gifts of heart and character which are able to root affection for the Monarchy more deeply in the minds of the people. A few more such reigns as these, and the notion that a ruler to be "every inch a King" must be in aspect rather more, let us say, of a Cavalier than a Puritan might well fade away. " Kingliness " would become a phrase expressing suitability to the office rather than the satisfying of an artificial conception of kingly mien. "There is nothing more kingly in a King," it was said even before the days of the Cavaliers, "than the performance of his word."
Freeman in a phrase he uses of the early Kings in England says : "The kingship was in the whole kin; one son of Woden was as kingly as another." The sentence contains a play on the word from which King is probably derived. A kingly class was set aside from which the choice of a ruler bad to he made ; but any one of the class was akin to the whole people in the sense that he was representative of them ; he was the type or scion of the race, the child of the nation. In that wholesome significance the title of King has continued for the British people in spite of vicissitudes. It embraces all that the nation itself is, and yet it is the highest title the nation, or even the world, can bestow. "Emperor," it is sometimes said by those who pay more attention to the vulgar than the legal association of words, is a higher title than King. But all the heads of independent countries are equal in the legal definition of their position, whether they call themselves Emperor or King. Even in rude Cymbeline's day, as Shakespeare imagined, the British could say :— " There be many Caesars, Ere such another Julius. Britain is A world by itself; and we will nothing pay For wearing our own noses."
We have no hesitation in saying that an enormous debt is due to the Whig statesmen of England for developing the theory of what the kingly function should be, and in what it finds its greatest strength. The service they rendered to their country was conspicuous throughout the reign of William III., and but for it the Jacobites might well have succeeded in excluding the house of Hanover. The Whig conception of the King's office was that its dignity and great- ness should be only a reflection of the dignity and greatness of the Constitution. There was not a vestige of this idea of being glorious by proxy in the Stuarts. But the Constitutional Monarchy, happily for England, triumphed all along the line, and we may ask ourselves what attributes under this Monarchy truly satisfy our notions of kingliness.
A King of England is the Grand Chairman of the Nation. He is crowned and hereditary President of our Republic, the Royal Lord Protector of our Imperial Commonwealth. His example is more powerful than his edict. He must have kindliness, the sympathy of comprehension as well as the sympathy of approbation; dignity, and the gentleness that is compatible with firmness. All these things the nation marked in Queen Victoria and in him for whom we now grieve. If one thinks what the ideal chairman of a meeting of ordinary Englishmen has to be, one has a very fair picture of the virtues needed in a British King. He must be considerate to the minority; he must never allow them to think that as chairman he is seeking safety on the side of mere numerical strength ; yet he must ensure the prevalence of what he judges to be the opinion of the majority. He must be patient and courteous, and yet never allow a fanatic or a firebrand to impose upon him. He must never appear to stifle discussion, and yet he must ensure that discussion shall be relevant; he must keep order firmly, and yet he must make it appear that in so doing he is only acting as the agent of the meeting, whose chief interest is orderliness. It is a notoriously difficult office to fill. And in this crowned Republic of ours all partied which have any power have come to the deliberate conclusion— this after some earnest questionings at the time of the French Revolution—that the Grand Chairman of the Nation is best drawn from a special family which is, so to speak, bred for the purpose. Having had just the qualities we required in King Edward VII., we look with confidence to see them reproduced in King George V., who is not only his son but his disciple. We, who are of this opinion, think that we leave on the whole less to chance than is left in Republics, where the Presidents cannot have been specially trained for the position which they are chosen to occupy. It was said in the late King's life that if England suddenly became a Republic he would certainly be elected its first President.
Kingliness in the English conception must be marked by courage and self-sacrifice; and yet there is no room for those kinds of courage and self-sacrifice which have distinguished the rulers of some other countries. We do not want the masterly interference and severe, if well-intended, dragooning of a Frederick the Great, nor the passion for splendour of a Louis XIV., nor the policy of enlightenment by cruel coin- puleion of a Peter the Great. We desire to be allowed to live our own lives in our own way, guided only by a wise head which has studied the rules of our procedure, and can be relied upon to interpret them fairly. A Prussian ruler would be quite out of place here, and even if we thought his martial bearing " kingly " at first, we should soon find that he was the very reverse of what in the back of our minds we hold to be a kingly man.
In what we have ventured to describe as breeding a King for our purpose we secure much more than a knowledge of our rules of procedure. " Breeding " means good breeding. We need not use the word in any snobbish sense. That the King should have the breeding which makes him confident of himself, and able to know exactly what indulgences he can allow himself and what concessions he can make to others without lowering the standard of kingliness, is a very important matter for the nation. Breeding proves itself in its liberties. The kingly man is at perfect ease in a multitude. He is gracious and has the air of being pleased, but he never enters into the familiar relations which would end in contempt, nor does he manifest pleasure in such a way as to suggest that applause is a novelty to him or something more than his due. He can preserve the same attributes when he restricts his experience and moves without misgiving among those whom he has chosen for his personal friends. He radiates an atmosphere in which the vulgarity of flattery is impossible :—
" They do abuse the King, that flatter him, For flattery is the bellows blows up sin."
A King has innumerable chances of gratifying private desires for revenge ; and his faithfulness to his friends will be measured by his opportunities for disloyalty. Finally, the kingly man must be without vanity, he must have a scrupulous regard for the truth, and he must be absolutely and fearlessly just. John Bright said that Queen Victoria was the most truthful person he had ever met.
Some of the virtues we have enumerated may seem almost too commonplace for kingliness,—for that kind of kingliness which romantic minds clothe, as we said, in a Jacobite cloak and a feathered hat. But plain sense, simple habits, perfect intelligibility, absolute trustworthiness, are what is needed in the Grand Chairman of the Nation. By these testa he can be, and is, tried daily. The specious ruler would be exposed lamentably within twenty-four hours, and men might then say of him, as was said of Galba, that all would have agreed that he was fit for Empire had he never been Emperor.
Previous page
