Send me your best and dirtiest nudes 😍😍
Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The King personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. Consecrated as he is to the service of his peoples, he possesses a religious sanction and is regarded as someone set apart from ordinary mortals. In an epoch of change, he remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. A legitimate Monarch moreover has no need to justify his existence, since he is there by natural right. He is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.
- Harold Nicholson
Philosophically, as Britons, as subjects, we offer the monarch the Crown. Our Shakespearean ideal is only that they might do their duty better than we as mere mortal men might do ourselves - knowing that they are mere mortals too. A Briton’s core ideal then is duty. Nelson’s England expects it - a duty to what’s innately right, moral and honourable over the course of a life. No man really needs a written constitution to define that. As history teaches us, monarchs, like men, often falter. Good monarchs falter less. Great monarchs somehow seem to almost never falter at all - in doing so they inspire not only Britons but the rest of the world too.
odinsblog