In both cases, the king's first minister must conduct governmental business on his behalf. Nowadays, the Georges' current successor is the hereditary Head of State whereas the leader of the largest group in the elected Commons is the appointed Head of Government. Thus, Charlie has a precedent and a model for Talinya. He stays there just long enough to establish a bicameral Parliament with financial power in the lower House.
This is a happy ending for the novel but is it also a happy new beginning for Talinya? Only a sequel would tell. Constitutional monarchy is at least preferable to the previous absolute monarchy.
Despite its title and its central character's name, Star Prince Charlie does not present a science fictional version of the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie. The conclusion:
"Better lo'ed ye canna be.
"Will ye no come back again?" (p. 189)
- is ironic because in our world that song addresses not a distant eternal king but a Pretender who failed and fled.
7 comments:
Hi, Paul!
As we both know, I've been with my "Crime and Punishment" essay, but I'm ready now to comment here.
Yes, I agree we see a happy ending in STAR PRINCE CHARLIE. And I'm glad you came to think better of that book by Anderson/Dickson.
I am a bit skeptical, however, over how long the system of gov't set up by Charlie in Talyina can LAST. I mean, how long can a system where the head of state is some remote, absent, "eternal" king last? How long would it be before either the throne is occupied in fact or some other type of head of state is set up? I can think of at least three or four possible solutions!
Sean
Sean,
I have read that there is a church that believes that Christ should be recognized as Head of State.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I think I have heard somewhere of some small sects which believes that. But my very uncertainty over who they are reminds me of how resistant to theocracy Christianity is. Rather, authority is divided into two spheres: that which belongs to God and that which belongs to Caesar.
Sean
Sean,
I believe in church-state separation. Some Catholics have argued that, if he is to be politically independent, then the Pope must continue to be a Head of State, however small the state.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
And I firmly believe the popes should be free of interference by secular powers. Many quarrels betweeen Church and state ended with secular rulers trying to coercing, exiling, or imprisoning popes refusing to yield to their demands. That has led to the Papacy coming to believe it needs a state of its own, however small, to ensure its freedom of action. I don't see that as theocratic!
Sean
No, since Catholics are not obliged to be citizens of the Vatican!
A more radical interpretation of "Give To Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" is that everything is God's so nothing is Caesar's. Give him nothing!
Hi, Paul!
Quite true, Catholics are not obliged to be citizens of the Vatican City State. If I recall rightly, barely a thousand persons have that status, mostly officials of the Curia or papal diplomats.
And all true Catholics would flatly reject as false the radical interpretation of the give to God/Caesar text you cited. Church and state have their proper and rightful spheres of authority in Catholic eyes.
Sean
Post a Comment