Image: Unsplash
One of the
most consistent themes I see in reading the history of Europe, is how much of
an asset kings were to their people. The stereotype that people have of kings
is that they were basically tyrants, some were ok, but many were terrible, and
we are better off without them because they had too much power.
But I
question that assumption because the historical facts don't support it.
The kings
were often champions of justice. Here is one example from A History of France
by William Stearns Davis, about St Louis, the just king,
“In 1254 he came back to France, and for the next fifteen
years devoted himself to the happiness of his kingdom. He was undoubtedly the
most powerful monarch of his age. Delightful are the pictures given us of how
he used to love to award shrewd and speedy justice alike to high and low,
sitting with his legal counselors under an oak in the royal forest at
Vincennes. The Popes listened attentively to the respectful but very plain
counsels he sometimes gave them about their miserable quarrels over secular issues.
The great barons submitted their differences to him for arbitration, even when
under feudal usage they were entitled to draw the sword. Turbulent factions or
dynasts in England and Lorraine (not then part of France) requested him to
judge between them. All this meant that the King of France was adding to his
physical power that imponderable but often irresistible moral power which comes
when worldly greatness, intellectual force, and spiritual worthiness are all
united in the same person.[1]
The kings
were also often the champions of the people. Sometimes for selfish reasons,
they wanted to weaken their competitors amongst the nobles. But often just
simply because they knew their role was to be the chief servants of their realm
(Like St. Louis). But still, this inherent desire they had to counterbalance
the wealthiest nobles often worked in the favour of the peasants of Medieval
Europe and was a powerful protector of people's rights. As Davis writes,
“Such drastic economies and the cutting off of fine
perquisites or spoils of course awakened violent outcry in powerful quarters,
but Henry IV stood by his Minister. King and lieutenant alike seem to have had
a real desire to benefit the lower classes, not merely because a rich peasantry
would add to the royal income, but because of a genuine benevolence toward
their people. Frenchmen loved to repeat the wish of the King "that soon
there might be a fowl in the pot of every peasant on Sunday"; and Sully
with more practical energy, used the royal precept and treasure not to maintain
an extravagant court, but to build roads, to make canals, and especially to
introduce better methods of agriculture, asserting that fertile fields and
pastures of fat cattle were "the real mines and treasures of Peru"
for France.[2]
Kings would advocate
for the low born in many ways. They would do things like free peasants who were
on the lands of troublesome nobles, to weaken the power base of those lords. They would at times promote diligent peasants to positions of power to oversee justice for their fellow peasants.
They would give land grants and freehold grants to towns so that they did not
have to live under a tyrannical lord or Count. They were the chief defender of
the people and their faith, in a real, not just symbolic way, using the force
of their arms to literally defend their people from threats foreign and
domestic. They were capable of using their wealth to foster markets and other
production in their land, to empower the people to live free of dependence on
some Feudal Lord.
They often
frustrated the plans of the wealthier nobles, stood in the way of nobles giving
their land and power to foreigners, so that the nation was protected. They had
the power to outlaw all kinds of injustices, without necessarily needing to get
the approval of a bickering parliament. Most kings were good and average
administrators, some were really evil, but some were really, really good.
This is
important and key to understand why our western civilisation has declined so
quickly without them: They did not have to compromise to get to the top, like
modern politicians do. They were born to the purple, and so it was much more
likely, especially in Christendom, that you would have a king take the throne
with a strong faith in Jesus, because they had not been trained to keep it
quiet to advance up the political ladder like our modern politicians. They
could be openly devout, and were expected to be, and did not have to worry
about offending some interest group who wanted to fund them from behind closed doors.
When you
read about how monarchies were overturned in Europe, especially in Britian and
similar countries, you will know that they were not popular uprisings. We
didn't vote kings out. The overthrows were done by elite Aristocrats to weaken
or break the power of kings, so they sat at the top of the pile instead.
Today, the
real power is the financial oligarchs who buy the politicians, and make sure no
one with principles gets anywhere near a real position of power. When you have
read how these groups did this in Britain through parliament, in France through
Revolutions, in other places by other means, you understand why they really got
rid of effective kings: they were too uncontrollable and unpredictable, and
were just as likely, or even more likely, to favour the ordinary man and woman
over the elite classes. The Aristocrats did not like that, so they created a
system where we now vote for a version of themselves, and only get the illusion
of choice.
How kings
are presented in media, and what the histories actually say are often worlds
apart. Who would have thought, hey?
List of
References
[1] Davis,
William Stearns. A History of France from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of
Versailles (p. 58). Lecturable. Kindle Edition.
[2] Davis,
William Stearns. A History of France from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of
Versailles (p. 113). Lecturable. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment