Thoughts on “royal emulation” – some aspects of English society

Here are some thoughts I had (of course, I don’t know how true they are):

There is something I keep calling “royal emulation“.  This is a phenomena of English society.  Basically, its a tendency where royalty is looked up to in the same way a child looks up to a parent or guardian.  In this way, it reflects a parent/child association and, accordingly, has similar feelings.  “Royal emulation” has a deeper side, though, entailing sacred and holy-like feelings, of going “beyond the human”.  As a result, royalty is viewed in ways such as these:

  • As something to trust.
  • As something to rely on.
  • As something to depend on.
  • As something to identify with.
  • As something to aspire to.
  • As a source of example. 
  • As a source of unity.
  • As a source of family and tribal feelings . . . the feelings of being a “people”.  
  • As something that connects us to nature.
  • As something that connects us to life.
  • As something sacred and holy.

In short, in “royal emulation” the King is more than a figurehead but a real living image of something sacred, like a god, but not a god . . . a “man-god”, the “sacred personified in a person”.  Because of this, royalty is something that is “beyond human” . . . sacred and holy . . . but human enough that one can identify and relate to.  In this way, “royal emulation” becomes a platform for specific sacred-like feelings that connects the people with nature, life, and themselves.  All this shows that “royal emulation” originates in viewing royalty as something like a religion.  The King becomes something like a god-on-earth that becomes a unifying element, that unites us to life, and unites us as a people in a sacred and holy way . . . the King, in a sense, becomes the “center of the world” (see my article Thoughts on the stages of kingship for aspects of kingship).  As a result of this, “royal emulation” can be described as and is rooted in “religious feelings”.  This is true even down to today.  Most of these original “religious feelings” have largely been either forgotten or covered over by the various events and happenings of history.  Despite this, it is still strong and just as “religious” as ever.


I tend to be believe that “royal emulation” began in Anglo-Saxon England.  It has a foundation, though, in the Norse pagan religion.  Most early Kings stated that they were descended from Odin, the primary god of the Norse, who is like the “royal ancestor”.  In this way, we see that “royal emulation” has strong roots in pagan Norse religion.  But, at the early pagan phase, it had not reached the point of “royal emulation”.  It would take a little bit more to create that.

The Tribe and Tribalism

“Royal emulation” reflects a tribal mentality and reflects what I call “tribalism” (see my article Thoughts on “tribalism” – some aspects and dilemma’s).  This is a tendency to “narrow things down” to a manner that is manageable, causes a unity in perception, and by excluding everything that does not fit in.  In this particular case, the tribe is the people. One could say that “royal emulation” is reflective of this “narrowing the people down under the mantle of the King”.

The King, though, brings in more to the tribe and gives it a whole new dimension.  It makes the tribe more than a tribe.  He brings in things like:

  • A self-preservation instinct
  • A unity as a people-in-the-world
  • A connection with nature and life
  • A connection with the sacred
  • A living representation

This makes “royal emulation” have a quality of “hitting to the core” of what a person is and what a people are.  In short, its more than just a tribal bond.  It gives the tribe a more all pervasive religious tone.  I tend to feel that this is what makes “royal emulation” so strong and deep.

I tend to think that this unique situation was caused by blending the original Norse tribalism with the new Christian belief of the sacred in Anglo-Saxon times.  This caused, in a sense, a new form of Christianity, a “Norse tribal Christianity”, which did not exist before.  The King would figure prominently in this image, a “living Christ”, who represented the sacred but also united the people into a tribe.  Christian devotion would extend to the King who would be looked at as almost god-like.  This Christian devotion is really the beginning of “royal emulation”.  Because of this, there would be a close association between Christianity and royalty ever since.  This is one reason why the religious wars were so devastating to royalty.  Despite this, “royal emulation” still found expression somewhere and in some way, making it persist.

Mass society, on the other hand, seems to be more damaging to “royal emulation”.  This is because, in mass society, there becomes a loss of unity as a people.  Everyone becomes a blur.  In other words, it undermines the tribe and tribalism.  In fact, I would venture to say that mass society is doing more damage to “royal emulation” than anything else in England’s history primarily because it is undermining tribalism and, in so doing, it undermines “royal emulation” as a whole.

The “Monarchial Way of Life”

With the coming of Christianity there became a combining of Norse and Christian society and beliefs.  The combination of the Norse religion and Christianity would create what I call the “Monarchial way of life” (see my article Thoughts on the Monarchial Way Of Life).  This is a lifestyle where the Monarchy . . . the King and royalty . . . would become like a religion and a way of life.  I often call the “Monarchial way of life” an “unofficial religion”.  That is to say, its a way of life that has not been acknowledged as a religion but really is.  I consider that England has the “unofficial religion” of the “Monarchial way of life”.

It seems, to me, that “royal emulation” is a product of the “Monarchial way of life” and the combination of the original pagan Odin-based Norse religion and Christianity.  In the pagan viewpoint the King and royalty were viewed as “divine”, god-like, and holy.  When Christianity appeared, of course, this conflicted with Christian belief.  As a result, there was a “Christianizing” of the pagan point of view.  Basically, it was modified in this way:

  • The King and royalty were viewed as being “saved”, which made them holy-like.  
  • The common people were viewed as sinners and “needed to be saved” and were not viewed as holy.

So we see that the King and royalty were viewed as already “halfway to heaven” by virtue of their royal descent.  They did not need to be saved.  As a result of this, the common people, who needed to be saved, looked upon, or emulated, royalty as something to aspire to in order to be saved.  In this way, royalty were like Christian examples to the common people, of what it meant to be “saved”.  Because they were Christian examples, when the King, or royalty, acted “badly” it greatly affected the people.  As we will see later this will have tragic consequences as a result of historic consequences.  It would end up causing many bad feelings toward royalty such as:

  • Hatred
  • Feelings of being betrayed
  • Disappointment
  • Contempt
  • Disgust
  • A tendency to attack and condemn

Many of these feelings still plague the British Monarchy today.  Basically, the British Monarchy has failed in being Christian examples through the centuries and, as a result, it has let the people down.

The creation of the King and royalty as Christian examples created a lot of mythology and beliefs about royalty that continue to this day.  Being “saved”, royalty was often viewed in ways such as:

  • They don’t suffer in any way.
  • They don’t worry about anything.
  • They have things done for them and don’t have to worry doing anything.
  • They don’t have any problems.

In short, the life of royalty . . . of the “saved” . . . was viewed as being “heaven-like”.  This belief, of royalty-as-heaven, continues to this day.  Of course, we know that, in the real world, that is not what the life of royalty was like.  But this royalty-as-heaven point of view would become quite common with the common people.  It gave people something to aspire to and hope for.  As a result of this, many people wanted to live like the royals.

Changes in the Perception of Royalty in “Royal Emulation”

Initially, though, this aspiration was all Christian, the royals were looked as as an example of Christian belief and the concern was over being “saved”.  Later, the Christian belief faded and the image changed (this seemed to of happened after the Norman conquest).  Basically, it changed from a religious orientation to a more political orientation.  As time would go on it would get even more political.  The issue was no longer over who was “saved”.  The image was more like:

  • Royalty was viewed as “fortunate” and, as a result, are not miserable.
  • The common people were viewed as “unfortunate” to the point of being miserable.

An important point is that the theme of the Christian ideas of who is “saved” and who isn’t changes.  Now we see:

  • Being “saved” is replaced by being “fortunate” and not miserable.
  • Being a sinner and “needing to be saved” is now replaced by being miserable and wretched.

In this way, the common people are now viewed as being in a horrible condition but royalty is not.

But, because of the behavior of the Norman Kings after the Norman conquest, there became many bad feelings toward the royalty by the people.  Royalty, who was the Christian example, was not behaving in that way.  The people, who looked up to royalty, were let down by them.  This being let down by royalty, combined with the view that they are miserable in comparison to royalty, made the people see themselves as victims of royalty, who they viewed as causing their miserable and wretchedness by their failure.  As a result, the people began to see themselves as pitted against royalty.  This point of view would dominate much of English history down to today.  As time went on, this feeling would expand beyond royalty and extend into almost all of society.

The effect of this dilemma would cause many things such as:

  • A paranoia.  There is a a fear that the government, institutions, and people are plotting against them.  It often creates a prevalence of conspiracy theories.
  • A hatred.  There is a hatred of the government, authority, other people, and such.
  • A preoccupation with social status.  There is often a belief that social status will “save” them.
  • A preoccupation with money and wealth.  There is a belief that money and wealth will “save” them.
  • A preoccupation with “defending oneself”.  This often appears as an obsession over rights, oppression, and so on.  It also created an obsession over law and legal matters.
  • A victim mentality.  A point of view that we have all been hurt by something or someone else.

Much of these attitudes continue to this day.  It not only dominates England but lands descending from England, such as the U.S.  Many of these feelings are very disruptive in nature, causing conflict between people and, accordingly, have an “anti-society” effect.  As a result, these feelings tend to break the society down.  This is what it did to England and its what is happening in the U.S.

The splitting of society into two groups, of royalty (the “saved” and “fortunate”) and the common people (the “needing to be saved”, “unfortunate”, and miserable), would later become the base of what would become the so-called “class struggle” .  Most people, looking at things from recent historical events, tend to view this conflict as being based more in the context of social class and money.  To me, that is the later phases of the issue.  It seems, to me, that the “class struggle” actually begins with the separation of royalty and common people as a result of religion, of who is “saved” and who isn’t.  As we will see below this will change with historical circumstances causing these two groups to be pitted against each other.  It will become the source of the unique conflict between the common people with royalty/nobility/aristocracy which has become such an obsession for the English.  In fact, I tend to believe that it has become an obsession because of its “religious” nature, not because of social class and money.  

“Frustrated Royal Emulation”

It seems that specific forms of harsh feelings appears when “royal emulation” has been frustrated in some way.   These can be quite severe.  In some respects, these feelings are really a form of “frustrated love” or something similar.  That is to say,they are reactions to an event that prevents “royal emulation” from happening. This, it seems, becomes prevalent after the Norman conquest and how they turned the royalty into a “pretend Anglo-Saxon King” as well as promoted bad feelings within the people by their behavior.  It seems, to me, that this frustrated “royal emulation” has had great impact on English society through the years.

Some of the reactions of frustrated “royal emulation” include:

  • Hatred.  This can often be quite severe and strict.
  • Contempt. Reflective of great disappointment, it describes an attitude of “looking down” on the people you feel you should be “looking up” to.
  • Disgust.  Being repulsed or having a great revulsion of them.
  • Exclusion.  That is, refusing to acknowledge their power over you.
  • Disowning.  No longer accepting them as “above” you.  This tended to promote a great individualism in England, of relying on yourself.
  • Alienation.  Feeling a disconnectedness with them.

These feelings seem very prevalent in English society.  We must keep in mind that they are not part of the original “royal emulation” tendency and are primarily reactions to adverse situations caused by historical circumstances through the years.  In other words, historical events promoted these feelings and caused them to exist.  Since England has had a great many events happen to it there are many of these feelings that have appeared.

It seems that, once these feelings appear, they tend to remain in the society.  That is to say, they don’t go away that easily.  One of the effects of this is that many of these feelings are reacting to conditions that no longer exist.  As a result, many of the feelings that they describe don’t really exist.  This more or less says that something like a “false reality” is created by the feelings caused by “frustrated royal emulation”.  

The “Inter-Tribal Wars”

As history progressed, the society fragmented more and more . . . nobility, common people, Normans, non-Normans, Protestant, Catholic, rich, poor, and so on.  Each maintained their tribalism attitudes, of unity and so on, but they were all different and often opposed to each other.  As a result, England ceased to become a “single tribe” . . . that is, a single people under a single unifying element, the King.  Instead, it began to be made up of many “single tribes”, so to speak, all living in the same country under the same unifying element, the King.  The effect of this is that each “single tribe” began to have conflict with each other (nobility versus the common people, Protestant versus Catholic, etc.).  This created a unique situation, of “tribal wars within a single tribe”.  I jokingly speak of this phenomena as the “Inter-Tribal Wars”.  In many ways, the so-called “class struggle” is really one of the “inter-tribal wars”.  In fact, much of the later history of England seems to be largely various forms of “inter-tribal war”. 

When England went out into the world, with its world empire, it brought its tribal feelings and “inter-tribal wars” attitudes to the rest of the world.  Some of the effects it created include:

  • The idea that other people are inferior, primitive, etc.
  • Of favoring British people and ways.
  • Of overtly hating and despising specific people, cultures, etc.
  • Of a willingness to destroy other peoples, their cultures, etc.

In effect, the conflicts the British Empire brought upon the world were actually problems that it already had within itself.  Many of these reflect the “inter-tribal wars” that had existed for centuries.  The “class struggle” within English society, for example, turned into “the British are superior, everyone not like us is primitive and backward” when they went out into the world.

One of the things the “inter-tribal wars” created was a lot of hatred.  England has a lot of hatred within itself.  I am often stunned at the hatred England has.  There is a lot of bad and harsh feelings.  These feelings seem to “hit deeper” than in other countries, or so it seems to me.  Much of this is caused by the effects of the “inter-tribal wars”.

Interestingly, one version of the “inter-tribal wars” is the husband/wife relationship.  It shows that English society became so fragmented that even husband and wife became like two separate “tribes”, each with their own sense of unity, that often became opposed to each other and warred against each other.  This has caused a unique relationship in England.  It has even carried over here to the U.S.  Its practically destroying the family in both countries.  I cannot fully explain why this happened but its something I’m looking into.


The Norman Conquest

A very significant event that took place in the progression of “royal emulation” was the Norman Conquest.  It seems, to me, that when the Normans took over England they put the Anglo-Saxon religious-based “royal emulation” into a serious crisis.  Being invaders, who were taking over England, they naturally caused a lot of bad feelings.  The Normans behavior destroyed the image of the Anglo-Saxon “holy King” which people emulated.  In this way, it as if caused something like a religious dilemma that reverberates to this day.

The King, which was once holy and unifying, now became “bad” causing a lack of unity.  In a way, this would be like attacking a peoples god.  The Anglo-Saxon man-god would be “defiled”, so to speak, by the Normans.  As a result of this, there became something like a “rebelliousness” against the Kings and royalty after the Norman conquest.  This was further accentuated by all the abuse and conflicts they caused, or seemed to cause.  The result of all this is that there became a sense that the people needed to protect themselves from the King and royalty, who was previously viewed as holy.  And, because this is based in Anglo-Saxon religious belief, with great religious feeling, it caused a great reaction in the population.  In some sense, England got “hit to the core” by the Norman conquest.  It affected things like:

  • Their belief and faith
  • Their religion
  • The image of what is holy and sacred
  • The sense of a tribe
  • The sense of a people
  • The image of their man-god, the King and royalty

I often feel that England went through something like a “post Norman conquest shock” as a result of all this.

Christian belief, which is a basis for much of the religious feelings of “royal emulation”, seemed to make the English compare themselves with events in the Bible.  This is common with many Christians who view the Bible as an example of life.  In particular, it seems that, after the Norman conquest, the English compared themselves with the Jewish people fleeing Pharaoh during the Exodus, fighting for liberty and freedom.  In other words, after the Norman conquest the Christian English imitated the Exodus and stylized themselves as “fleeing the Pharaoh” (that is, the Norman Kings) in search of liberty and freedom.  As a result of this, the English would become obsessed with liberty and freedom.  This continues to be an English obsession to this day.

This fight for liberty and freedom got support from the new “legalism” that was coming into vogue at that time.  Legalism – the use of legal documents and principles – would become a “leverage” that could be used against the power of the Kings.  Various legal documents were written reflecting this trend, such as the Magna Carta.  As a result, legalism would be given great power and influence in English society.  In some respects, it turned England into a “legalistic society”.

In addition, during this time parliament was formed that also gave “leverage” against the power of the Kings.  This further allowed the aristocracy to rebel against the Kings, at least to some extent.  Of course, the use of parliament would be used extensively centuries later to the point that it practically destroyed the Monarchy (the Glorious Revolution of 1688).

But the use of parliament and assemblies had another side.  Since the people were now pitted against the Kings, the people began to use a principle of Christianity to further their cause:  the Body of Christ.  This is none other than the religious justification of the people.  That is to say, the Body of Christ is the People.  As a result, there began to develop a growing tendency to worship the people . . . as opposed to the King . . . and this had religious sanction.  As the centuries went on this would turn into democracy.

The Norman conquest caused a number of changes to society that affected “royal emulation”:

  • It caused a social and religious disruption
  • It caused a disillusionment about royalty
  • It caused many bad and harsh feelings
  • It caused a rebellion against royalty
  • It caused a tendency to use Biblical stories and Christian principles to further ones cause 
  • It caused a great cause of liberty and freedom
  • It caused the use of legalism
  • It caused the use of parliament
  • It caused the worship of the people . . . the beginning of democracy
  • It caused a need to have means to fight the power of the Kings

In many ways, the Norman conquest seemed to undermine “royal emulation” and may of possibly destroyed it had it not been for the Crusades which revived it (see below).

Its significant to point out that, in regard to liberty and freedom, this means that the English used an event in the Bible to dictate how to interpret historical events.  This means that the interpretation is a “forced interpretation”.  What this means is that the interpretation is based on the event in the Bible, not the real world event.  This causes a tendency to distort the interpretation, often to the point that there may be little or no correlation between the interpretation and the real world reality.  Personally, I think that this tendency of using “forced interpretation”, and the lack of correlation between interpretation and actual event it causes, is a consistent problem in English history, particularly in relation to liberty and freedom.  It causes a number of problems, such as:

  • A tendency to misinterpretation
  • A tendency of distorting things or twisting them out of shape
  • A tendency to “jump to conclusions”
  • A tendency to make things out one way when they aren’t that way
  • The fabrication of events that didn’t happen
  • Exaggeration of events

I’m under the impression that many problems in English history are a result of the effects caused by “forced interpretation”.  This means that many problems probably didn’t really exist and may, in fact, be fabricated.  In short, “forced interpretation” tends to make people “find problems”, more or less.  This same tendency has carried over to the U.S.

The Crusades

The conflicts and bad feelings caused by the Norman conquest seems to of been changed by the Crusades.  The Christian crusading cause seemed to cause a revival in “royal emulation” in England.  In fact, it probably saved it.

As a result of the Crusades the Kings and knights were both venerated and honored by the people.  It gave new hope to the image of royalty.  Some of the things it caused include:

  • The idea of the King and royalty as savior
  • The idea of the King and royalty as reflecting a great superhuman cause
  • The idea that the King and royalty have became a great warrior fighting against evil for us all and our beliefs
  • The idea that there are great threats coming from without ones country 
  • The creation of a great mythology surrounding royalty
  • The creation of a mysticism surrounding royalty

In short, the King and royalty took on a “greater image” than they previously had, an image that transcended the country.

The Early Modern Era (1500-1700’s)

Many of the good feelings caused by the Crusades were, in a way, destroyed by the religious problems that took place after the Protestant Reformation.  It deeply divided the country.  It would destroy the “greater image” of the King and royalty created by the Crusades.  Many of the conflicts and issues the Norman conquest started would be revived (see above).  In some respects, the Protestant Reformation was another Norman conquest.

The English Civil War, in the mid-1600’s, would be like a repeat of the Protestant Reformation, though more political in orientation, and would divide the country in two again.

It seems that the many problems caused by the Early Modern era (1600-1700’s) undermined the image and believability of the Monarchy overall.  As if in response to this, there developed, in the later part of the Early Modern Era, a prevalence in the use of legalism, parliament, and the worship of people (democracy).

This conflict with the King and royalty was so severe that parliament basically took control of the government and turned the Monarchy into a figurehead without much control (the Glorious Revolution of 1688).  This is as the Monarchy stands today.

It was also during this time that the government became more systemized, organized, and controlled, making the King almost redundant and useless.  Government was becoming more like a big machine that did not need the King, royalty, nobility, or aristocracy to function.  Because of this, the King/royalty/nobility/aristocracy started to take a more “figurehead” quality.

It was during this time that the growing rise of the merchant class would create a new cause, as well as new weapons, in the people versus the King/royalty/nobility/aristocracy.  The new weapon was primarily money.  With money they could even rise in social status.  It seems, to me, that this is when the “class struggle”, as we know it, was really established.  That is to say, the “class struggle”, in relation to money and social status, which would figure more prominently as time went on.

The many problems of the early-mid part of the Early Modern Era would greatly affect the royalty/nobility/aristocracy as it would undermine much of their cause by the later part.  As a result, by the 1700’s, they become more decadent and immoral destroying further the older religious-based perspective of royalty.  This caused even more doubt in the King/royalty/nobility/aristocracy by the common people.  It also created a growing contempt and disgust.

The result of all that happened during the Early Modern Era is a deterioration in many of the old patterns of “royal emulation”, such as:

  • That the King was divine and holy.
  • That the King was a savior.
  • That the King was a “greater image” than what he was.
  • That there was a mystical truth surrounding the King.

Despite this, the English need for “royal emulation” continued and even grew.  It went in different directions though:

  • By the end of the Early Modern Era the “royal emulation” tended to be more based on the “principle of royalty” as an abstract idea . . . its what they represent that matters. 
  • “Royal emulation” took on more nationalistic tones, as representing the country in respect to other countries. 

Much of the “religiosity” and mysticism was absent.

So what seems to be the case is that the conditions of the Early Modern Era caused a decrease in the image of the royalty, much like the Norman conquest, causing a decrease in “royal emulation” overall.  But a new form appeared, of “royal emulation” as an abstract idea and nationalistic in tone.

The Napoleonic Wars and Victorian Era

It seems that the Napoleonic War, and its after effects, caused a new lifting of “royal emulation”.  One of the things it caused was the Chivalric Revival in the early Victorian era, which was a reaction to the patriotic feelings caused by the Napoleonic Wars.  Basically, the Chivalric Revivial is a new worshiping of chivalry, knights, aristocracy, royalty, etc.  It reflected how England was “proud of herself”, so to speak.  Interestingly, the image of the Chivalric Revival was harking back to the Crusades, during a golden age of “royal emulation” before the Protestant Reformation, religious wars, and such.

One form of the post Napoleonic War patriotism, and Chivalric Revival, appeared as the people imitating the aristocracy in some way or another (what I often call “noble imitation” . . . see my article Thoughts on the ‘imitation of nobility culture’).  In a way, this imitation would be “royal emulation” taken to the extreme . . . people began to act just like them and try to be them.  In this way, “royal emulation” turned into “royal imitation”.  This became a major factor in the creation of bourgeoisie society (such as see my article Thoughts on “bourgeois society” – its effects, problems, and reactions toward it and others).

But, during this time, there became much poverty, political disputes, and other problems which created many bad feelings toward the royalty/nobility/aristocracy.  There developed much hatred, contempt, and discontent as a result.

The growing mass society, and the disconnectedness that it causes, created problems as “royal emulation” is based in tribal feelings, of the idea of a “people”.  In some respects, “royal emulation” became alienated and much of the feelings it entails would be directed in other areas, such as nationalism.

Because of this, during the Victorian era there became a strong, and deeply divided, love/hate relationship toward royalty/nobility/aristocracy.  There also developed an alienation and a disconnectedness with “royal emulation” that made it go into other areas.

The Post WWI Era

The post WWI era would continue the conditions of the Victorian era, such as the love/hate relationship and the process of dissolution and confusion about royalty, society, and so on.  More and more of the feelings about royalty/nobility/aristocracy would be replaced by other things.  This causes “royal emulation” to change form.

People still have the bad feelings but it seems to become increasingly detached from royalty/nobility/aristocracy and is not necessarily directed toward them. It tends to go in other directions, such as:

  • Its directed to government and politics.
  • Its directed toward institutions.
  • Its directed toward authority and authority images.
  • It appears as a paranoia and fear.
  • It appears as a concern over rights, oppression, etc.

The “royal emulation” also becomes detached, as well, and manifests itself in other ways, such as:

  • A patriotism.
  • Nationalistic feelings.
  • As a “personal devotion”.
  • A “royal imitation”.  This often appears as seeking some sort of social status.

What we see, then, is that the image of royalty fades in the post WWI world.  The feelings of “royal emulation” persists, though, but in other ways.  

Highlights of the Progression

So we see some highlights in the stages of the progression and development of “royal emulation”:

  1. The pagan world, with emphasis on Odin as the founder of the “royals”.  The King/aristocracy was considered divine and half god
  2. Christianity.  The King/aristocracy would be viewed as “saved”.  The people are the sinners who “need to be saved”.  This caused the creation of “royal emulation” in the people.
  3. The Norman conquest.  The new conquering Kings destroyed or conflicted with the image of the holy King in “royal emulation”.  This caused many bad feelings.
  4. Legalism.  The law, and legal documents, were used to fight the King.
  5. The Crusades.  This caused an increase in “royal emulation”.
  6. The Early Modern Era.  The conflicts during this time created many bad feelings.
  7. The rise of middle class.  This gave the common people a means to fight the King/nobility/aristocracy.
  8. The behavior of royalty during the 1700’s.  This brought the royalty closer to the “sin” of the common man making royalty closer to the common man  this helped foster the pseudo-nobility
  9. The Napoleonic Wars.  This caused a rise in patriotism.
  10. The effects of overpopulation in Victorian age.  This caused a great rich/poor problem which caused many bad feelings.
  11. The Chivalric revival in the Victorian age.  This caused an increase in “royal emulation”.  It would be more accurate to call it “royal imitation”.
  12. The modern dissolution after WWI.  This has caused some confusion about “royal emulation” making it appear in other ways.

This shows some interesting points about “royal emulation”:

  • It shows that “royal emulation” originates in religious feeling and that this religious sense is deeply ingrained it it, which is probably why “royal emulation” its so powerful and continues to persist.
  • It shows how historical circumstance effects how “royal emulation” appears.
  • It shows that there is a strong love/hate relationship that has developed as a result of historical circumstance.  I think this shows that people want to believe in the King and royalty deep down even when historical circumstance makes them dislike them.
  • It shows is that there is more to the “class struggle” than the class struggle, that there are other causes for the conflicts between the common people and King/royalty/nobility/aristocracy.
  • It shows that there are deep tribal feelings associated with many attitudes in England.  
  • It shows that “royal emulation” is the source of many problems in English society, of many hatreds,  fears, and so on.
  • It shows that”royal emulation” is the source of great nationalistic and patriotic feelings.
  • It shows that the need for “royal emulation” is so powerful that it keeps resurfacing after being knocked down or undermined. 
  • That “royal emulation” is a unifying element in English society.
  • It shows how “royal emulation” has connected the people with royalty and the government.

In some ways, “royal emulation” is at the heart of English society, or so it seems to me.  It is also rooted in their earliest origins and has persisted throughout England’s history.  I tend to believe that “royal emulation” is unique to the English and is a product of the historical circumstance of their history.


I have often become disgusted with inquiring about the history of England.  In fact, its not uncommon where I just “can’t stand it anymore” and quit.  Later, I will take it up again.  There are several themes that I found disgusting with the history of England:

  • The obsession over class.  I’m often very glad I don’t live in England where everything revolves around where you stand in society.
  • The obsession over rights and oppression.  This gets to the point of nausea.
  • That there is a lot of hatred.  There is a lot of hatred in England.  Most of this is within themselves with little disputes and arguments.

Much of the inquiry as to why this was the case has led to the information in this article.  Almost all of these are related to “frustrated royal emulation” and the bad feelings it causes.

I should point out that, though I was not born in England, I was primarily descended from people from England.  I was also brought up in a largely English-based society.  This may not sound like much but what a lot of people don’t realize is that being brought up in the American west I was influenced much by the pioneers.  Many of these pioneers came directly from Europe.  As a result, they brought their culture with them.  These pioneer settlements didn’t just become “new cultures”, as people often think.  They continued their existing cultures.  This made it so that many small towns became “little England”, for example, and would manifest the same traditions, issues, conflicts, etc. as in the original country.  In addition, the American west was also “out in the middle of nowhere”, at least until recently, and remained isolated from the rest of the country.  As a result, they maintained the culture of their original country in a more pure way than, say, the towns on the American coasts or the ones near large settlements, especially with a collection of international people.  When I look back on when I was a kid I can see how English the society really was.  I would almost venture to say that, in some ways, it was more English than American.

The result of this, is that I found a “familiarity” with many things in England.  I seemed to relate to them, though not totally of course.  Several things kept appearing that I could not tell where they came from:

  • A reverence of royalty.  I found I had a weird almost worshipful way toward royalty, almost as if they were god-like.  This mystified me as I was not brought up in a society that overtly revered royalty.  In fact, American society tended to look down on them.  Then where did it come from?
  • A hatred or distrust toward authority.  This seemed to conflict with the above and seemed to have no apparent cause.  Looking back on it now it seems almost like a “learned attitude”.
  • A strong tribal sense and feeling of being a “people”.  For me, this gets into some very deep and harsh feelings.  I feel a deep need to be part of a “people”.
  • Weird hatreds or dislikes toward specific people and conditions.  Certain people and conditions tended to incite bad feelings in me, though I had no idea why.

I believe these were all attitudes descended from England and that they were “taught” by cultural attitude.  They reflect conditions not reflective of what was going on here in the U.S.  They reflected conditions found in England and in the past, which is why they seemed out-of-place.  In this way, I was as if “transported” into England from the U.S.   I believe that all these feelings refer to “royal emulation” and the feelings caused by its frustration.  It is my own personal inquiry into these feelings that led me to “royal emulation” and the themes in this article.

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

This entry was posted in Christianity, Christian conversion, Post-Christianity, and Christian influence, England, Britain, and all that, Historical stuff, Royalty, Tribal society, tribalism, and the tribal sense, Vikings - Odin, Thor, the Norse, and such and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s