 |
| The Young Elizabeth |
With Mary’s death on November 17, 1558
Elizabeth Tudor came to the throne. She was a woman of 25 at the time of
her accession. Ironically her father had feared a woman monarch would be unable
to rule England and this woman would turn out to be the greatest monarch in England’s
history. Her accession speech demonstrates just how savvy this woman was. When
the Accession Council assembled at her residence at Hatfield, the home given
her by Mary, she declared.
My lords, the law of nature moves me to sorrow for my sister; the
burden that is fallen upon me makes me amazed, and yet, considering I am God's
creature, ordained to obey His appointment, I will thereto yield, desiring from
the bottom of my heart that I may have assistance of His grace to be the minister
of His heavenly will in this office now committed to me. And as I am but one
body naturally considered, though by His permission a body politic to govern,
so shall I desire you all ... to be assistant to me, that I with my ruling and
you with your service may make a good account to Almighty God and leave some
comfort to our posterity on earth. I mean to direct all my actions by good
advice and counsel
Elizabeth clearly states here the “doctrine
of the King’s Two Bodies,” a principle that evolved in the Common Law and the unwritten
English Constitution, but also which flows over into American Law. This
is a difficult concept for most people to understand and it is more an exercise
in arcane trivia than the exploration of a useful topic, but I love arcane trivia. So here we go.
The King (in Elizabeth’s case, Queen; by
extension the Chief Executive—a President, Governor) has two bodies—the
“natural body” and the “political body.” Today, for examples, in and
under the Law, Elizabeth Windsor and Queen Elizabeth II are two distinct
persons. Elizabeth Windsor, when driving her Land Rover through the
mountains around Balmoral, is a private person subject to the same traffic laws
as any other driver in Scotland. Queen Elizabeth, opening Parliament or
performing any of her other constitutionally defined duties, is a symbol of the
nation in a way that the lady behind the wheel of the Land Rover is not.
As Queen she is subject to the Constitution but not to the law. The
natural body dies; the political body does not—it simply passes into another as
it passed into her on the morning her father died. The King is dead; long
live the King. The King never dies. In the same way there is Barack
Obama and there is the President of the United States. Barack Obama has
to pay income tax and otherwise obey the law of the land. The President,
however, in the performance of his Constitutionally defined duties, is shielded
by the obligations and consequent prerogatives of the office, from personal
responsibility for decisions which may not accord with the law. It is
unfortunate, but the President—any President—may need to order someone to be
killed for the sake of national security. He may need—as President Bush
did—to order people abducted and held without charges for the sake of
counter-terrorism. This not make the actions morally justifiable, but
such actions are difficult—if not impossible—to prosecute as long as they are
to fulfill the constitutional duties mandated by the office. Similarly,
while presidents come and go, the Presidency remains. Whether by the
death of a President in office or by the end of one’s term, the man goes but
the President remains. And like the British Monarch, for good or
for shame, the President is a symbol of the political structure of the nation.
This is important as the vitriol that one faction or another of Americans tends
to spew at whomever is in the White House is an indication only of their
ignorance. Criticism, of course. Evaluation, a civic duty.
But respect goes to the office and the man who holds it, whether or not it
belongs to the man personally.
Of course, I am well aware that a
significant number of readers will not agree with me on this, but I am just
stating how the principle of the King’s Two Bodies, distinguishing between the
Person in Office and the person in the office, has become part of the political
heritage. Of course, in American law it is not as settled a
principle as it is in English Law. People do try—even Congress tries—to
bring suits against the President (as opposed to the individual in the office)
but generally without much success as the judiciary sees the need to maintain
the checks and balances. Whether or not this changes is an indication of
the unsettled aspects of our Constitution, which though written, is always
being re-interpreted by the judiciary.
Notice too that Elizabeth begins by
declaring that “I am God’s creature, ordained to obey His appointment …desiring
from the bottom of my heart that I may have the assistance of His grace to be
the Minister of His heavenly will in this office now committed to me….” And
that she continues “by His permission a Body Politic to govern …may make a good
account to Almighty God.” Elizabeth clearly understands that she, in her
“Body Politic” as differentiated from her private person and relationships, receives her authority from God. This is
very different from our American principle where authority to govern is
received from the consent of the governed, though the American principle will
evolve from the British Constitutional tradition but only after many twists and
turns—motivated by the radical Protestantism that was to be introduced into
England under Elizabeth—but that is for postings down the line—considerably
down the line. Elizabeth understood her authority was from God and she
was his vice-regent.
This gives an interesting insight into
Elizabeth’s religious consciousness. We will see in the next several
postings that Elizabeth had some very definite ideas for the Church during her
reign. But there was a religious dimension to Elizabeth that ran much
more deeply than her ecclesiastical polity. I don’t mean to say that she
was devout. I honestly don’t think she was. But she was
theologically minded. She had been well schooled in
Theology—certainly better than either her sister or her brother—and had a much
more open mind than either Edward of Mary. I think for Elizabeth Theology
was primarily political more than doctrinal, devotional, or liturgical.
She wanted, as we will see, to use the Church and its liturgy to advance and
impress on the consciousness of her subjects, a certain political theory.
In this she will have to fight Parliament—and will be more often than not
blocked by Parliament and its counter-vision. I don’t see much evidence
that Elizabeth had a personal piety as did Mary and as did Edward—or even as
much piety as had her father. Faith, for Elizabeth, was all cerebral and
political but then I think this attitude will to a great extent stamp the
Anglicanism of the next two centuries and also foment the rebellion against
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment