Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
This frenzied crowd is taking pictures of the announcement of Queen Elizabeth’s passing, posted on a fence at Buckingham Palace.
As a citizen of a republic, I find the mere idea of a monarchy to be repugnant. Not so long ago in this country, living as subjects of an idiot with absolute power over our lives became unacceptable, and we fought a bloody revolution to free ourselves of it. So it pains me now to watch my fellow citizens swoon over that very monarchy, as they have been doing in droves at least since Elizabeth took the throne 70 years ago.
It does not speak ill of the late queen — by all accounts she was a pleasant and decent lady — to point out that her job all these years, by law, has been to do nothing. People are fulminating about her rule; she didn’t rule anything but her household staff. Wonder is expressed at all the history she witnessed. She saw it, just like you and I did, she had nothing to do with influencing it. They enthuse about how she “guided” this, and “oversaw” that, and “held the country together in hard times.”
Hogwash.
She attended endless tea parties and ribbon-cuttings, wearing outlandish hats and often accompanied by a man dressed in a comic-opera uniform spangled with medals he did not earn in the conventional sense (like everything else in his life, he was born to them). She waved from balconies and wished everyone merry Christmas. She distributed knighthoods like party favors to people such as Elton John. In return for these services to a grateful nation, she lived among several castles, coddled by a large staff, guarded by a small army, wanting for nothing.
The British royal family is a very expensive bit of theater mounted by the government for the entertainment and distraction of its people, who are encouraged to revere the monarch and to project on her, now him, all their national pride and prejudice. And they do. Contemplating the Queen after watching a session of parliament was like taking an Alka-Seltzer after a nasty meal. (This was demonstrated in America by Jerry Ford; if you don’t do anything, ever, and don’t say anything that anyone can remember, everyone will like you a lot.) Watching the antics of the royal family as they seduce, betray, marry and divorce each other is better than most sitcoms in entertainment value. Check out couples therapy Berkeley here if you need couples counseling. If you feel your partner is unfaithful to you, you can try to book experts in lie detectors to find out the truth.
I lived in Canada for a time when I was young, and at the end of every showing of a movie in a theater, the screen filled with images of Her Glorious Majesty and the speakers blared “God Save the Queen.” All were obliged to stand at attention until it was over. (Don’t tell the Trumpster about that, he’ll put it on his list of things to do in his second term.)
I get why the British play the game. But what is it in us (small-r) republicans that makes us drool over the British royals as much as the British do? Why do our news media go into wall-to-wall, mass-shooting-style coverage of not only the death of a British monarch, but any notable related event. (CNN apparently has a full time “royals correspondent” on post in London. To quote our own great leader, long may he rule, “Come on, man!”)
I can only conclude that there is something lacking in our political diet, some essential political vitamin that we crave, like when dogs eat grass. The syndrome was demonstrated by the people who became members of the Trump cult, proving that it’s not the quality of the monarch that matters, it’s the nature and quality of the projections.
God save us.
“like when dogs eat grass.”
that pretty much sums it up. well done, sir.
Symbolic monarchs, with all their pomp and theatrics (much of it quite artful in fact) serve as objects of their people’s adoration and/or ire. A King becomes an emotional and spiritual safety valve for his subjects. In so doing, he allows the secular government to go about its business, however competently or incompetently, with relative aplomb. On the other hand, a Prime Minister, no matter how influential, is no big deal – just another glorified clerk…consider the strange fate of Churchill.
No doubt, the British Monarchy is a form of religion, and is, like most Western religions, expensive. But it is a relatively benign one, and seems to serve an instinctual human craving for some level of quasi-divine leadership; otherwise, it would have been abandoned a few centuries ago.
Rome went to hell when its secular leaders became deified, so did Nazi Germany and Trumpist America. Most likely, this won’t happen to the UK, as long as they have their safety valve – their monarchy.
“… she didn’t rule anything but her household staff.”
And her Corgis. If the recently departed Queen commanded, “Leave me,” all 12 of her Corgis would rise as one and dutifully exit her presence quiet as a church mouse.
There was a time when it is was stressful job, being a Queen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMpigAUQt_4
“To command is to wear out” said Napleon. The old rapscallion was right I think. These modern royals all seem to live in to the 90s, their “jobs” are so goddamn easy.
[“I get why the British play the game. But what is it in us (small-r) republicans that makes us drool over the British royals as much as the British do? Why do our news media go into wall-to-wall, mass-shooting-style coverage of not only the death of a British monarch, but any notable related event. (CNN apparently has a full time “royals correspondent” on post in London. To quote our own great leader, long may he rule, “Come on, man!”)”]
Even Mohamed El-Erian and Larry Summers were both asked on Bloomberg to have a go at waxing poetic about the event … (strange cringe alert)
Spoon feeding a little side-narrative; anything to distract the attention away from the approaching energy squeeze and related economic turmoil ?
Whatever…
All of them with the same tacky, fake deference validates the righteousness of the contempt which is to be had towards all these media channels.
The head of the British government is the Prime Minister, whom everyone is free to revile. The head of the British State is the King, who commands the loyalties due to the state itself.
The cost of a King is minor in the scheme of running a modern state
In the US, the President is both head of state and head of government, and so commands loyalty by virtue of the former, no matter what he does as the latter. Does anyone really think that this is healthier?
… healthier or cheaper?
“… loyalties due to the state itself.” Such loyalties depend, surely, on what the state is doing, and how, and to whom? And not the identity of the person who “commands” them?
Don’t think so, Tom. At least, not to some. How else to explain the data?
I must take issue with the statement “…subjects of an idiot with absolute power”. In fact, it was the British Parliament (not the King) that enacted the various onerous taxes which ignited the ire of wealthy American manufacturers and landowners, and eventually led them to the mass tax-evasion movement commonly known as the American Revolution.
As always, the common folk needed to be enlisted in the shenanigans, so that masterful propaganda essay, the Declaration of Independence, was penned in such a way as to lay most of the blame on George III – at the time, hopelessly disabled by mental illness: “The History of the present King of Great Britian is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”…Really?
Ben Franklin, speaking before the London Parliament in 1763:
“You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that [money] which circulates all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury…..In the Colonies, we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one….”
The Colonies were practicing MMT, or, Public Banking for the Commons, and they were thriving. In fact, what struck Franklin most on his visit to England in the ealy 1760s, was how destitute the people were compared to his own.
Perhaps he rubbed it in a little too much, this disparity. The Currency Act of 1764 forbid the Colonies from ever again engaging in this practice, duly elected officials spending and/or loaning money into existence interest free, and the rest, as they say, is history.
A deep and dark depression ensued, and a “revolution” followed soon thereafter.
Revisionist history? Perhaps, but Franklin for one (and Paine for another!) felt the screws that were being tightened in London had little to do with taxes, and everything to do with the controlling the levers of money creation, the ULTIMATE POWER, to dominate, and subjugate.
Well, that’s my MMT rant for today, and I will end it as I usually do, by simply stating, it is all coming down to banking. Everything else, nuclear war, global boiling, biospheric annihilation, and so on and so forth, is irrelevant, if we can’t get our banking right.
If humans don’t start practicing public banking for the commons, and soon, this planet will go dead regardless of how many desperate measures they might make in other realms, to stave it off.
Interesting; I’ve not seen this info before – thanks!
Hi Tom,
Lest it be forgotten that the former Queen was not without powers, after all the Queen’s representative sacked the Australian Federal Government in 1975. And every single bill of Parliament requires Royal assent. The role is a handy circuit breaker for when things spiral out of control.
And the pomp and ceremony is easier on the eye than the dark red and menacing optics of your Presidents recent speech. Imagery is powerful stuff, but only just that, imagery.
Cheers. Chris
It is my understanding that the Governor General fired the Australian prime minister without the Queen’s knowledge, to end a protracted constitutional crisis; and that the Queen’s assent to legislation is ceremonial, and has not been refused in 500 years. I quite understand your sticking up for her, it’s the adulation of my fellow Americans I don’t get.
Very mean spirited of you Tom. Yes they live luxurious lives but, as you know, they hold no political power. The UK is still a democracy , as is Denmark, , the Netherlands, Norway etc. Working Royals work extremely hard. You should check out the actual work they do to raise immense amounts of money – start with Princess Anne and the Save the Children Charity. Also Prince Charles’ The Princes Trust, created by him over 40 years ago. In addition to his numerous other charities and all his fund raising efforts on behalf of the natural environment. Etc etc…
Disappointed with your uneducated rush to judgement . Please do some research.
I come here to look at items related to the environment and what’s happening to our planet, collapse etc. Not interested in your or anyone’s opinion on the monarchy, celebrities, transsexuals, fashion, the price of fish etc .There’s plenty of social media sites for that. Just saying ….