Kingdom Tidings May/June 2002

On Wednesday 14 November 2001, Alistair McConnachie led the opposition at St. Andrews University Debating Society to the motion “This House Would Abolish the Monarchy”. Putting the case for the abolition was Joan Burnie, Deputy Editor of The Daily Record, and a University student. The Motion was successfully opposed. The following are some of the notes made by Alistair McConnachie before the event.

So long as we believe in nation states and so long as we need governing systems to govern nation states, then we will continue to need Heads of State: people who can represent the nation to itself and to the world. A Head of State can provide a personal identity to an impersonal State, and a collective sense of itself.

A Head of State who does not owe his or her position to either patronage or a vote can more properly represent all the people.

Consider that a President who has been elected, often by a minority of a minority of the electorate, cannot adequately speak for the people who did not vote for him or her.

It is even worse if the President has been appointed because then he owes his position to a small clique.

So, the accident of birth is the best means of appointing a Head of State. Someone who has no party political axe to grind or special favours to repay to a vested interest.

Someone whose allegiance is to the people. Not just allegiance to the people who voted for him or his political party, but allegiance to all the people of the country equally.

Far from being “incompatible" with democracy, a Monarchy can thereby enhance the government of the land.

The Monarch is a national icon. An icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspects, both good and bad.

When you see the Queen you not only see history since 1952, when she was crowned, but you see a person who provides a living sense of historical continuity with the past. Someone who embodies in her very being a history which extends back through time, back through the Victorian era, back into the Stuart era and beyond. You see the national history of all parts of our islands, together, going right back in time.

A living continuity between the past, the present and the future. That’s something that no politician can provide. When we look at Tony Blair for example - whatever you may think of him - we see nothing meaningful on a national scale, pre-1997. All politicians come and go, but Monarchy is forever.

With its traditions, its history its ceremonial, and with its standing and respect throughout the world, the British Monarchy represents a unique national treasure, without which the United Kingdom would be sorely impoverished.

If you value national distinctiveness, you should be a Monarchist. If you are anti-globalist you should be a Monarchist because Monarchies represent the different national traditions and distinctions among the nations.

The desire to secure, strengthen and promote your own distinct national icons, whether your Monarch, or your own unique national identity, should be your concern, whether you live here in St Andrews, or whether you live in St Petersburg, or whether you live in St Paulo.

As the global financial system rushes us all towards a world intended to eradicate all local and national distinctions, the Monarchy stands out as different, distinct and valuable.

Constitutionally, practically, spiritually and symbolically this nation would be impoverished without Monarchy.

This is just rhetorical humbug. If you want egalitarianism then look at Norway and the Netherlands - both highly “egalitarian” societies, and both monarchies.

If you want oppression and class injustice then look at the countries in South America, almost all of which are republics!

The Monarchy is a concept which can transcend class divisions in the sense that, in the eyes of the Monarch, all are equal before the Crown.

The annual cost of around £37 million is good value for money. In any case, Monarchy is meant to be majestic, yet there seems to be a deliberate move to diminish the majesty of the Monarchy.

The pageantry the ceremonial are all part and parcel of Monarchy - not intended to glorify Mrs Windsor, per se, but intended to elevate the national icon. So long as the Monarch remains a symbol of the nation, then no expense should be spared.

A nation which values itself will treat its national icons with prestige and respect.

Don’t confuse the personalities of the Royal Family with the concept of Monarchy itself. Personalities come and go but the principle remains.

On the contrary, the Monarchy is real. It is television and the media which deliberately diverts people and encourages them to become obsessed with pop stars and soap operas, which are fantasy.

A privilege is a special right. It is the privilege of the Monarch to reign. It is the privilege of the Monarch to serve. If by “privilege” you mean the enjoyment of an advantage not bestowed upon others, then, you should judge the Monarch by how she uses that privilege.

The unfortunate fact that the Prime Minister has usurped the power of the Crown is not an argument to abolish the Crown or even to reduce its powers, but rather an argument to restrict the power of the Prime Minister and restore the Monarchical authority of the Royal Prerogative back to the Crown, where it belongs.

The truth is that Monarchy is forever. Even if the Monarchy were officially “abolished”, it only takes one person to say, "You are my King” and the Monarchy lives.

It argues on the superiority of democracy only, without realising that the Monarchy can be integrated into the democratic process.

Its small minded, envious objections to petty things like the cost or the ceremony. The fact is that the Monarchy provides extremely good value for money.

It fails in its inability to explain the nature of the system which would replace the Monarchy.

It fails in its lack of historical consciousness. Some of the worst bloodshed ever has been a result of the overthrowing of monarchies.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE QUEEN

Republicans claim that the idea of sovereignty residing with the people is in direct conflict with the idea of sovereignty residing with the Queen.

This is to create a conflict where none should exist. These definitions of sovereignty are not opposing concepts. They exist together, united within the organising principle of “nation”.

Both the concepts of kingship and “a people” are united within the organising principle of “nation”. The word “nation” is derived from the Latin word nescare, meaning, to be born.

The word “king” is derived from Old Norse konungr, meaning, Offspring of The Kindred.

The combination of kinship, kingship and nation is described respectively in the Scots’ term “the community of the realm of Scotland”. Nations have Monarchs; Offsprings borne of the Kindred. In this regard, and contrary to some Scottish republican statements that the claim of the Hanoverian dynasty on the Scots is “slight”, the late Sir lain Moncreiffe, who was one of the world’s greatest genealogists, wrote in Books and Bookmen magazine July, 1977 that "Prince Charles descends from Mary Queen of Scots 17 times over; that is, by eight separate blood lines through King George V and Queen Mary - also nine more through Prince Philip”

The doctrine of popular sovereignty, expressed commonly as “the sovereignty of the people” is a term which extends its franchise logically to the entire population of the world.

However, as soon as one specifies “the sovereignty of the people of Britain” then one ceases to talk in purely democratic terms and begins to talk also in a nationalistic manner. A people is being specified and defined as a nation; the nation of Britain and the British. It is the British nation which is to be considered the sovereign entity.

As soon as one accepts the idea of a nation then one must accept the necessity for governing institutions to express that nation, to itself and to the world. If these institutions are to function they must be endowed with sovereignty.

That is, they must be able to exercise full and exclusive political and legal authority within the territory of the nation, and in its relations with the world; and they must not be subject to a higher political authority in a higher legal order.

National sovereignty is indivisible and is vested and exercised at all levels. Individuals, groups, institutions and heads of state can all embody and exercise this national sovereignty.

Therefore, it is not helpful to imagine that there is only one location for sovereignty and only one expression of it. A hereditary Head of State, borne from a long line within the nation, is well suited to embody and express national sovereignty in a focused and tangible manner.

Thus, while it would be wrong to claim that Parliament alone is sovereign, it is proper to talk about our Sovereign Queen ruling in, and through, a Sovereign Parliament, for the Sovereign People of a Sovereign Nation. There is no conflict when considered within the organising principle of “nation”.

To summarise: The sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the Queen are not two different and incompatible ideas.

The sovereignty of the people, both individually and collectively, is exercised at the ballot box and it is exercised nationally through the governing institutions of the nation.

The Crown is the term for the national governing authority. The Queen is the person of the Crown, and embodies and exercises sovereignty on behalf of the people of the nation.

Locating sovereignty in the Queen does not deprive the people of it. but provides a focused and tangible symbol of sovereignty.

Equipped with sufficient political power, the Monarch should be able to speak for, and defend, the sovereignty of the people.

(Sovereignty is a 4-page monthly journal for national self-determination, published by Alistair McConnachie. An annual subscription is £15 payable to Sovereignty, at 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR. Website: http://www.sovereignty.org.uk )

Genesis 17:6	Promised to Abraham
Genesis 49:10	Prophesied to come from the Tribe of Judah
2 Samuel 7:8-17	The Covenant Promise to David of an Enduring Royal Line
Psalm 89:1-4 & 28-37	The Promises to David Confirmed
Jeremiah 33:17-26	The Promise Proclaimed again before the Fall of Jerusalem
Numbers 27:1-11	Zelophehad Law: Daughters can Inherit
Ezekiel 17:1-24	Parable of The Throne’s transfer out of Palestine
Ezekiel 21:27	The Throne overturned Three Times
Luke 1:30-33	David’s Royal Throne Promised to our Lord Jesus Christ

A thousand years before the birth of Christ, David, the youngest son of Jesse, was anointed and crowned king of Israel and became known to history as a man after God’s own heart. This was not due to his virtue and perfect obedience to divine command, for David sinned grievously on many occasions; but always he repented and sought to live a new and better life. The Almighty always honours, and forgives those who fail but whose contrition is sincere.

With the ancestors of King David, God had made covenants and agreements, guaranteeing the existence of their seed as a nation and company of nations as long as day and night remained and sun, moon and stars still shone from heaven. Now the same Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made a similar covenant guaranteeing in perpetuity the house, throne and kingdom of David. The agreement is to be found in the second book of Samuel, chapter seven:

"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: thy throne shall be established forever." - (II Samuel 7:12-16)

"This covenant, upon which the glorious kingdom of Christ of the seed of David according to the flesh is to be founded, secures:

And this fourfold covenant has but one condition: disobedience in the Davidic family is to be visited with chastisement but not to the abrogation of the covenant.”

Following the death of David, and as a result of the oppression of Solomon’s later years and the foolishness of his son Rehoboam, the kingdom was divided. Ten tribes under the leadership of Jeroboam set up an independent kingdom to the North, while two tribes remained with the House of David in the South. The two nations, henceforth to be known as Israel and Judah, were never re-united. The royal line of David ruled over Judah until 585 B.C., when Nebuchadnezzar invaded and captured Jerusalem. The sons of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, were slain before his eyes, and he himself was blinded and carried captive into Babylon. No doubt Nebuchadnezzar thought he had succeeded in destroying once and for all the royal House of David and thus nullifying the covenant of Jehovah. with that family, but the Babylonian monarch either forgot or else did not know that according to Israel law, if a man died and had no male heir, his daughter could inherit. Zedekiah had two daughters who, under the care and protection of their guardian, the prophet Jeremiah, escaped from Jerusalem into Egypt.

" But Johanan, the son of Kareah, and all the captains and the forces, took all the remnant of Judah that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; even men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters, and every person that Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah. So they came into the land of Egypt, for they obeyed not the voice of the Lord: thus came they even to Tahpanhes. “ - (Jeremiah 43:5-7)

Some years ago, in excavating the site of Tahpanhes, archaeologists uncovered what they described as the “castle of the Jew’s daughter,” which was undoubtedly the refuge, granted by the Pharaoh to the royal princess of Judah. It is interesting to note that on three occasions Egypt has provided shelter and refuge to Israel. In time of famine, the family of Jacob found sustenance in the land of Egypt receiving the richest portion of the country for a possession; in time of invasion, the House of David, Israel’s royal house, found temporary shelter in the same land; and many centuries later, when the life of the new-born child was threatened by Herod, Mary and Joseph brought the Redeemer of Israel to safety in the land of Egypt.

Jeremiah and his charges, however, did not stay long in Egypt for that country also was about to be added to the Babylonian empire. Doubtless, acting under divine direction, Jeremiah, with his secretary Baruch and the daughters of King Zedekiah, set sail in one of the ships of Dan and made for the land of Dan, Danmerk, or as we know it today, Denmark. However, again under divine direction, they were driven off their course by a storm and eventually had to land on the coast of Ulster. Eochaid, the Heremon of Ulster had just been elected High King of Ireland. He was a descendant of Zarah-Judah whose people had left Egypt before the Exodus and had migrated via Spain to Ireland. He welcomed the royal travellers and eventually married the elder daughter of Zedekiah, the princess Tea Tephi. They were crowned king and queen at Tara and thus the two branches of the royal Tribe of Judah, Eochaid from Zarah and Tea Tephi from Pharez, were united in Ireland. When the royal couple died, they were buried at Tara. From that union was descended Fergus McErc who became king of Argyle, and one of his descendants, Kenneth McAlpine became first king of a united Scotland. From Kenneth came the royal House of Stuart, which, in the person of James VI, and I, united the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Through Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of King James, is descended Her Majesty Elizabeth II. The Biblical account of the fortunes of the House of David ends with the arrival of Zedekiah’s daughters in Egypt. From that point Irish legend and tradition continues the story until the appearance of Fergus McErc when history again takes control.

In Tara, therefore, we must seek the vital link establishing beyond any shadow of a doubt the royal line from David of Israel to Elizabeth of Windsor, for it was there that Tea Tephi was buried.

Reproduced from “Thy Kingdom Come” P 0. Box 1478, Ferndale, WA. 98248, U.S.A.

I recall learning this little song at the time of our Queen’s Coronation, and thought it would be good to reproduce it as far as I recall the words.

You must visit our new Open-Bible Ministries Online Resource Centre from where you can listen to available talks and download them to your computer in MP3 format or purchase them as audio CDs or even MP3 CDs. We plan to increase the number of talks available from this new Resource Centre over the coming weeks while still maintaining our cassette tape facility for those folk who need this medium.

"THE THRONE OF DAVID FOUND IN BRITAIN"

the late A. J. Ferris

First published in 1935 to mark the Silver Jubilee of King George V

Fully Illustrated

Suggested Donation £2.00 UK or $3.00 US (plus postage)

"The Image of Jealousy"

"Beulah Land"

Pastor Bill McMurdo

"The Ten Commandments - Part 6"

"The Ten Commandments - Part 7"

"The Ten Commandments - Part 8"

"The Ten Commandments - Part 9"

"The Ten Commandments - Part 10"

"The Ten Commandments - Part 11"

"Health - Healing and The Kingdom Message"

"How Safe is The Rock of Gibralter?"

"Why We Believe in The Resurrection"

"The Bible and The Environmental Crisis"

Pastor Alan Campbell

Any of the above titles available for a Suggested Donation of £UK 2.00 or $US 3.00 (Plus Postage) from: