Just recently, I watched a video on YouTube by the historian Dr David Starkey. He is an expert in tying up the events of the past in Britain’s history with those of the present. Historians have an annoying habit of speaking about historical events in the present tense, as though they are happening now; but in Dr Starkey’s case, there is at least an obvious reason for it. It’s because it is happening now.

On September 8, 2022, an innocuous-sounding date on its own, an historical event occurred: the death of the longest-reigning monarch in English – or British – history, the late Queen Elizabeth II. The list of historical events that have taken place during her reign is eye-watering: our American friends may be interested to know who their president was when we last had a change of monarch: it was Harry S. Truman, the only president – in fact, the only leader in the history of this planet – to use nuclear weapons in anger.

Whatever your interest or area of expertise in life, have a quick think back to who its leading light was back on February 6, 1952, the date of the last accession to the throne of a British monarch. Have a little look back on how much your little corner of knowledge has changed, or developed, since the lyrics of ‘God Save the King’ became ‘God Save the Queen.’

Now that those lyrics have changed back again, much is uncertain; but was is certain is that the new King Charles III will not reign, if that word can still be applied to a ceremonial figurehead, for as long as his mother did. And, even if he does, I will not be around to be proved wrong.

But hang on, you hear me cry, what has 1707 got to do with anything? First of all, let me establish something: there is certainly longevity in the genes of our beloved British monarchy: King Charles III is only the thirteenth accession to the “throne” of Britain since Queen Anne did so on 1 May 1707.

When Queen Anne, the last surviving monarch of the House of Stuart, became queen of Great Britain and Ireland in 1707, she had already been monarch of England, Scotland and Ireland for over five years.

Huh???

I said, when Queen Anne, the last surviving monarch of the House of Stuart…

Listen, I’m not deef, I heard you the first time. I just think you’re spouting gibberish!

I’m not spouting gibberish; I assure you I’m making perfect sense. In 1707, Queen Anne signed the Acts of Union – that is, she signed the second of the two Acts of Union which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, effectively dissolving itself, and forming what we know know of as Great Britain – the union of the three states of England, Scotland and Wales, all governed by the Parliament at Westminster. Ireland, like Scotland had before it, remained a separate state but sharing, for the time being at least, its monarch with the new Great Britain.

The first Act had already been passed by the English parliament in 1706, so Queen Anne already knew she was going to have to surrender one of her crowns to herself. The first Union of the Crowns, in 1603, occurred when the outgoing English monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, died without issue, leaving her throne to her double first cousin twice removed, King James VI of Scotland (thence King James I of England). But this so-called Union, despite its being referred to as a single crown, was nothing of the sort – merely an acknowledgement by the monarch to reign over two states as though they were one, but in fact they weren’t. Despite Great Britain’s existence on paper, it didn’t really exist in practice.

When James I became king in 1603, I believe it was his intention to unite England and Scotland completely. But the English parliament in Westminster – and, probably, with some justification – feared that it was the King’s intention to rule over England with the same degree of absolutism as he was used to in Scotland. Westminster said, “No!” The king tried again in 1610; Westminster said, “No!” The king died in 1625 and his son, Charles I, tried several times and each time Westminster said, “No!” In fact, they said no with increasing ferocity, to the point where, in 1642, a civil war erupted between the King’s troops and the Parliamentary ones. Parliament was ultimately triumphant and, in 1649, it cut off its monarch’s head. If ever England was without a Head of State, it was then.

After an 11-year interregnum, the late King’s son, who had fled to The Netherlands or France or somewhere, was restored to the English, and Scottish, throne(s), as Charles II, in 1660. But, although united, the English and Scottish crowns were still separate ones. And, to make matters worse, Charles II died in 1685 without any legitimate children. It fell to the late King’s brother, as James II, to assume the throne(s).

But, there was a problem that someone forgot to foresee. James II was Catholic.

Arrrgghhh….if he was only anything else but Catholic. It turns out that, while your average Joe on the street (if they could be called streets – those muddy, plague-ridden dirt tracks that passed for streets in those days) was largely tolerant of someone’s religion, that already over-privileged band of men elected to Parliament weren’t.

Don’t forget, at that time, England and Scotland – despite sharing a monarch – were still separate sovereign states. That’s important to remember for the time being. Anyway, both Parliaments flatly refused to pass any of the king’s measures into law. James II returned to the old mantras that had served his father Charles I so badly, and basically told his parliaments, I am your king, appointed by God, no man can get in the way of that, you’ll do as you’re told.

Oh, here we go again, said the parliaments.

When James II had a son, James, on 10 June 1688, both England and Scotland breathed a sharp-intake of breath, as the prospect of a Catholic dynasty became a reality that no Parliamentarian seemed to be able to stomach. His daughter, Mary, already 26 years old, was Protestant. I told you it was complicated.

Within weeks of the royal birth, James had seven bishops tried for seditious libel. This was even more complicated. Despite being staunchly Catholic, King James issued a series of Declarations of Indulgence, in which citizens of both England and Scotland could all enjoy the same liberties in religious practice whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Scottish Presbyterian, whatever.

Yet the established churches, the Church of England and the Scottish Presbyterians, both objected to it, despite the fact that they could have enjoyed much more tolerance from their Catholic monarch. They objected to it because the Declaration had no specified limitations; in other words, you could be any denomination you liked – or, worse still, Jewish, Islamist, Buddhist or Jedi*. (*Just kidding. There was no such thing as Jedi then.)

The king then tried the old classic trick of, we are the King, we have Supreme Authority, you will obey us without reserve. The king had already gotten rid of both the English and Scottish Parliaments in 1685 and 1686 respectively, and now he attempted the same with the established churches. Seven bishops who refused to read the king’s Declaration in church were tried for sedition, which is basically an attempt to lead people against the ruling authority. They were acquitted on 30 June 1688, but it was already too late. The King’s authority was gone. Another civil war seemed inevitable; only the arrival of William of Orange and his wife Mary (remember? James II’s Protestant daughter) on British shores in November 1688 prevented that war, and James was kicked off the throne.

This restored the relative stability in Britain, or so they thought. It wasn’t over yet. Mary II seemed fit and healthy, yet she contracted smallpox in 1694 – but even that was complicated. At first, she seemed to recover, and it was thought that she had suffered from a minor form of the illness, or perhaps even measles. But it was not the case – her illness had simply turned inward and she died on December 28, leaving her husband William to rule alone. This he did until 1702, when he too died, leaving the country without issue once again. Why can’t anything be simple, eh?

So it was up to his sister-in-law, cousin and heir Queen Anne to take the throne and try to introduce some stability in this country for a change, which she did by signing the Acts of Union in 1707. All Anne had to do was get pregnant…

Anne had a whopping seventeen pregnancies during her lifetime, and of these, sixteen were dead before the age of two. The seventeenth, William, duke of Gloucester, died at the age of 11 in 1700, the same year Anne experienced her final stillbirth pregnancy, all before she became queen. Whether she or Parliament expected her to expect again, she was to die in 1714 without further issue, causing the Privy Council to look to Germany for the next monarch, George I of Hanover.

George I became king because the other claimant, James Stuart – remember, son of James II? – was Catholic, and therefore not the rightful heir. William III had signed the Act of Settlement in 1701, meaning that subsequent claimants to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland could only be Protestant.

And it was upon that basis that King Charles III signed his accession to the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (added later; a whole other story) last Friday.

So Charles III has vowed unequivocally to uphold the values of the Protestant Church of England – despite fact that he must surely be at loggerheads with his own church leaders by being the first monarch in English history to ascend the throne as a divorcee. It seems they have gotten round this by proclaiming Charles’ wife, Camilla, not as Queen but as Queen Consort. Oh, that’s all right, then…

In case anyone is wondering why I am anti-monarchist, it is for the above, and other, reasons. I don’t, as some do, object to them as people; I’m sure they’re all great at parties. Indeed, I happen to think that William, the future William V, would make an excellent king. But it is the sheer level of hypocrisy behind the scenes merely for the sake of keeping the tradition of a constitutional monarchy going, allowing a hapless family to live a life of luxury and privilege for which all they have to do is shake hands with us ordinary folk all day long.

Therefore, when I see videos go viral just because Charles is waving dismissively at his staff to remove a pen case off the table, I just place my metaphorical head in my metaphorical hands and go, you don’t know the half of it. If that’s the best you can do to demand that King Charles III abdicates the throne then you need to go back to your history books and study them carefully.

It always happens to the Charles’, doesn’t it. Charles I was beheaded for demanding the Absolute Right of Kings, Charles II died without issue leaving James II demand the Absolute Right of Kings and force his own abdication…and Charles III told someone to remove a box of pens.

Many dismiss Dr Starkey’s gifts as a historian because of his tendency to over-dramatise even current events, never mind historical ones, but I happen to think he is an excellent historian, one of our greatest, with a magnificent ability to tie the events of the past with those of today and make us understand the truths of what is unfolding right in front of our eyes.

The last time we had a coronation, in 1953, there was no Elvis, there was no Beatles. There was no Clint Eastwood, there was no Olivia Newton-John. Albert Einstein, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Jean Sibelius and Igor Stravinsky were all still alive. Even the great Cliff Richard was only 12. Thus it is little wonder that much of the Commonwealth – and indeed the rest of the world that knew and recognised Elizabeth II as a Head of State – is looking on with dazed amazement at the events unfolding in the United Kingdom today. Anyone under the age of 75 is not likely to remember any other sovereign except Queen Elizabeth II.

Yet the machine that took over once she breathed her last at Balmoral last Thursday afternoon was as well-oiled and well-rehearsed as any that has been invented or created in the last 70 years, because they have had centuries of tradition upon which to base their actions. And don’t forget one group of individuals who are as stunned as we are – not one of them doesn’t look as though they have been hit by a 50-ton truck in recent days – and that is the royal family themselves. Not one of them looks as though they have the slightest clue what is going on, or what is supposed to happen next. Thank goodness they have that well-oiled machine working in the background for them to point them in the right direction. x