Kings and paper crowns

While I was walking from Palace Green Library to Queen's Court today, I heard a woman say to her son, "Watch out for your crown; it's falling down." A very young man, I doubt more than six, no less than four, was walking along wearing a paper crown upon his head, upon which I could see the word "KING," but did not walk round him to see what the name of this king was.
When I saw this monarch, something in me wanted to bow down before him and say something such as Pumbaa says to Simba: "Your Majesty! I gravel at your feet." And Timon says, "It's grovel, not gravel..." Anyway, gravel or grovel, I thought to myself, here is a king. Perhaps it was the way his mother had referred to his crown: "your crown." Here was a man wearing a crown, unashamedly displaying his regal status; no one was complaining about how much he cost the British taxpayer; no one was complaining about class division - though I am not aware of any society, even that of heaven, in which there is no class division. Even the saints in heaven are not equal: some are greater saints than others; none of them would claim to be the equal of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for that would be blasphemy. That all men are worth the same is, it appears to me, totally false. All human life is priceless, yes: but that men are unequal in terms of morality, social status, health, intelligence, cooking, confidence, emphathy, circulation, knowledge, veracity, passion, appetite, opinion, and skills, appears to me to be so obvious that the vague assertion that all men are equal sounds like to me like an almost meaningless cant phrase. It is not totally meaningless, for every soul is invaluable in the sight of God. But aristocratic government is based on the idea that all men are not equal, but that some are better than others, or more suited to governing than others. England used to be an aristocracy; ancient Carthage was an aristocracy; medieval Venice was an aristocracy. But I know so little about politics that I had better leave it alone.
That boy who was wearing that crown filled me with joy. Any boy could have been wearing that crown, and if I had pretended to be a loyal subject any boy would have continued to play at being king.
I had never seen a living king in the flesh before; and so I was deeply moved by the sight of this monarch. I did not know where he was king of: but I thought that perhaps he ought to rule this country. If it were possible, I fancy I should vote for him at the next election.
But this country is of course a constitutional monarchy. In theory the monarch has a great deal of power. I have often wished that that power were used, since it is the only counterbalance that we have - since the odious 1911 Parliament Act - to the insidious power of the House of Commons. I wonder whether we would be better off now if Guy Fawkes had succeeded in blowing up that abominable institution. I wonder whether the English monarchy, properly so called, would then have been extinguished on that evil January day in 1649.
I seriously think, though, that that arbitrarily selected boy, if he had no court of self-serving politicians about him, would, if he were allowed to run this country for even one day, do this country a great deal of good.
But then this is the point of a monarchy: hereditary monarchs are selected at random - by no means other than hereditary means. And that means that we have in effect a randomly chosen person at the head of our commonwealth. A king should not be a politician: it is when kings are politicians that we end up with leaders like Adolf Hitler (his government was, of course, monarchic). Now it seems obvious that to take a boy or girl from the street and make them king is a far better way of governing a country than our farcical parliamentary system. And this is why it is such a shame that the Queen reigns, but does not rule. It is because she does not rule that people regard her as unnecessary. But she is necessary to counteract the evil influence of our parliamentary system; she is the only person with that power.
There is a legal maxim, "The king never dies," also expressed in the French phrase: "Le roi est mort! Vive le roi!" The monarchy has been an integral part of our constitution for more than a thousand years, and it is one of those forms of government most natural to men. And if monarchical government were inherently evil, then surely we should be very concerned about little boys wearing paper crowns with the word "KING" on their heads. But that will take us to the ancient Romans, who hated the word, but only the word, "king" - but that's another story.