«

»

Nov
17

Royal Pain

The Happy Couple - Kathilliam

So the entire English-speaking world is abuzz at the news that Prince William has finally proposed to his longtime girlfriend, “commoner” Kate Middleton.  Over my coffee I noted that Good Morning America led with 20 minutes of coverage, and the Today show picked up after GMA’s segment ended - a weirdly suspicious relay that would arguably have allowed a royal-besotted American nearly an hour’s worth of WillsKate.  Wates?  Kwilliate? Willatherine?  Give me a hand with this one.

I am utterly depressed at the treacle we are passing off as news here in the U.S.A.  Did we not fight a war for the express purpose of showing this fella’s great great great grandpappy that he could take his monarchy and shove it right up his Hanoverian ass?  Hey, you can fact check me on whether I got the royal House right – nota bene: I don’t care, because as an American I don’t have to care about the genealogy and current doings of some upper crust head of a foreign government.  I disagree with the very notion of a monarchy.  That arrangement (which, in however watered down a form you believe it, puts one man inherently above another man) is antithetical to liberty.

God Save the Queen

But let’s be honest: when has our lack of a king in America ever stopped us from getting into a tizzy about someone who is richer, smarter, better-looking?  Celebrity worship is to Prince William as Abject Submission is to Louis XIV.  Low born people, lacking any hope of attaining the lofty heights (oh, read Prince Charles biography, yes do) of the monarchy, sit back and vicariously (voyeuristically) fantasize about the life of the royalty.  I look around me and I see a country founded on liberty and born in blood, betraying this belief by the servile manner in which we endlessly discuss these limey bastards.  The impulse to monarchy must be ingrained in human beings; the American experiment is to breed this deadly trait out of our species.

Let me be clear: the British are valued allies and essential partners in the ongoing effort to keep the Germans and French from running anything, and especially in blunting the jihad being waged against us.  Our cultural ties make them something akin to friends.  But America, when you swoon over this family, these…Kardashians with better accents, you disgust me.

Get a grip.

2 comments

  1. Steve says:

    While I agree completely with your thoughts on this royal family and its coverage and the attention people show it, I disagree with your thoughts on monarchy in general.

    Monarchy is natural – democracy is not. Existence itself is a monarchy – democracy is a man-made notion. Holy Mother Church never gave democracy so much as a howdy-do until Vatican II, which was simply pastoral and doesn’t change anything with regards to the morality of monarchy.

    That doesn’t bar the faithful from promoting/approving of democracy and certainly we ought to us our voting capabilities to promote properly balanced mercy and justice, but to give the kabosh to monarchy in and of itself is to allow swine like those Anglican heretics to take full possession of our pearls.

  2. NealDewing says:

    Steve,
    I do not believe that a monarchy is in any way superior, save for perhaps retention of cultural identity. A monarchy is only as good as the most pious, most intelligent, savviest leader. Under such a system, all manner of abuses occur that are opposed to the God-given rights and dignity of every man. Only a republican form of government can preserve that dignity and give full value to the life of each person. A monarchy arbitrarily assigns value to a human being above another human being; the king is worth more than the peasant just because he is the king – not because he serves an essential role. God gave us reason, and reason tells us this is unjust.
    You say monarchy is natural and so it is; but so is the impulse to lust, greed and sloth. We are bound to overcome such impulses and should likewise do so with a monarchy which has outlived its usefulness. I don’t believe violent revolution a la the French model is the solution to that, but if the people make it known that they have no need of a monarch then optimally the king will take some money and retreat to private life. The consent of the governed is paramount. The British model of a constitutional monarchy is a good transition – the royals have little say in actual governance, but remain as a symbol of the British people. Which is fine for the Brits, but as American I say they can rot.
    The Church is itself a monarchy, but not one that emphasizes birthright. It is collegial and the pope is elected. But even so, the papacy has been used for evil and the temporal power of the Church marshaled for political ends – not spiritual ones. If even the more enlightened monarchy of the Church can be misdirected, what chance do entitled hereditary rulers have to be good?
    No sir, republicanism is superior to a monarchy if only to prevent the consolidation of power into a single man’s hands and the corruption of that one man.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>