Ignore that man between the pictures
Nick Cohen on republicanism v the monarchy in Time is very droll, because of a certain inconsequence on the part of the editors. It goes like this:
When the 18th century English dissenter Richard Price, friend of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, warned that fawning before royalty produced “idolatry as gross and stupid as that of the ancient heathens,” he aptly titled his denunciation “A Discourse on the Love of Our Country.”
Ha! Never mind all these pesky words about something or other, just look at the pretty snaps. Oooooooo she don’ahf look luvley in that tyara.
But whatever the complicating factors, only royal propagandists doubt that the marriage of this bland couple is failing to excite the nation.
Okye! I don’t know what “propagandist” means anyway, so I’ll just watch the nice video.
But if the media had taken their cameras to the beaches, parks and pubs of Britain, they would have found millions of others who no longer cared for the spectacle and maybe, just maybe, were beginning to agree with Price, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin that their country deserved something better.
Brilliantly funny, do admit.
Yeah, I know most of them are gits, but Americans were the ultimate Dianaphiles–any rag with her picture on the cover could boost its sales. And the Royals represent the ultimate in class stratification; there could never have been a Johnny Rotten without an Elizabeth Windsor. Class consciousness is firmly founded upon social immobility: if you’re stuck in the working class forever, you’d better make common cause with the other workers. The American dream, through the promise of social mobility, has thus far made socialism a non-starter in America. And that’s a problem, because the American dream is pretty much dead, and nobody in the working class has noticed yet. They all think that they’re aristocracy in waiting.
On the other hand, how much of the tourist trade in England is inspired by the pomp and pageantry of the Royals? They might actually be a bargain. As far as I can see, they’re a management company for tourist traps and historical monuments, and they do it mostly out of their own pockets (and they do pay taxes now.) The traders of the financial districts of the world are another matter. I can’t help feeling that the animus towards this rather quaint historical institution rather misses a larger point, and may itself be something of an anachronism. Class stratification is a reality in nearly every country in the world, and the fact that the guys running Goldman Sachs aren’t participating in processionals down Broadway does not change this. Oh, and speaking of gits, have you caught Donald Trump’s act lately?
Liz Windsor is a minnow. There are bigger fish to fry.
Ah, We Are So Few.
What wankery.What relevance do comments on 18th century monarchy have to 21st century Britain, the nation is a democracy and the British could abolish their monarchy any time they chose. I agree, the royal franchise is a nice little earner and brings some prestige to a faded imperial power.
Actually, the US is one of the least socially mobile countries in the OECD,many monarchies have far less rigid class structures.So the notion that the American republican form of government somehow enhances social mobility is nonsense.
How much British Tourism relies on an extant monarch in residence at vast expense? Probably a lot les than you think.
According to Johann Hari, quoting a survey, the highest ranking Royal tourist attraction in Britain is Windsor Castle coming in at number 17. He points out that as that is 10 places below Windsor Lego Land at number 7, the logic of the tourism argument suggests we should have a little Lego person for the monarch.
And our first hit was free…
Yes but it is an enduring part of what we canadians used to call ‘Yankee BS”. Just part of the picture that americans have of themselves. Some other parts are “we’re trying to spread democracy around the world”, “we’re a peaceloving people”, “America has the best – (fill in the blank). The problem is not that it’s BS, but that americans believe their own BS. But then we canadians have our own brand of BS that we believe (belied these days by what’s happening in canadian politics) that says “we can suss out BS better than the yanks can”……
Thanks for my morning giggle! It’s not often you can actually hear the accent in the written word.
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s line in one of the Discworld books, Interesting Times I think: ” ‘Ere, what a toff! ‘Eave ‘arf a brick at ‘im!”
@RJW
In the way that the thoughts and events of history do tend to have relevance to modern society, the essential point about Paine et al is that they were saying these democratic, enlightened things two hundred years ago, and yet in Britain we still see mindless obsequiousness to a hereditary monarchy, which I as a Briton find intensely embarrassing.
I must have missed the referendum where we were offered the option of voting for or against the monarchy. Supporters often seem to suggest the horror of a ‘President Blair’, but at least an unpopular president is voted in, can be voted out, wouldn’t have his son’s wedding partly paid for by the public and televised as an apparent day of national rejoicing, and wouldn’t have to be bowed and curtsied to and referred to as ‘Your Majesty’. It’s this servile grovelling which annoys me most; monarchy isn’t simply an equal alternative to an elected head of state – it’s a system whereby people, by pure accident of birth, are deemed somehow objectively better than the citizenry, with all the attendant titles and airs. It’s quite a pathetic sight for a 21st-century democracy. A republic like the US might not be perfect (and who is suggesting an alternative has to be perfect? It need only be fairer to be justified), and getting into office might, de facto, be nigh-on impossible for many Americans, but it’s not literally impossible as with a hereditary monarchy.
I don’t care, frankly, if the monarchy is ‘a nice little earner’: so is selling arms to the Middle East, but there are good ethical reasons for not doing that. I’d rather Britain attract tourists because of our history, heritage and culture, not because of a romantic attachment to an inherently anti-democratic and antiquated little system.
We need Sam Harris to settle this disagreement scientifically!
Hahahahaha
Speaking contrarianly, I’d say that the monarchy is very far from being ‘the problem’ in UK politics. We could abolish it tomorrow, and find ourselves in even deeper sh*t as soon as we elected a politician to be head of state. Besides which, as a matter of practical politics, abolition isn’t going to happen any time soon, and pressing for a written constitution and a proper delineation of executive powers is both much more important, and much more plausible.
And if monarchy is so anti-democratic, how do the Belgians, Dutch, Swedes, Spaniards, Danes…. cope? Not to mention the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders… Many of the most open, liberal and democratic societies in the world are monarchies, whereas almost without exception the worst hell-holes are republics. One of them is the USA, which is so far down every single quality-of-life index that its whole political class should come crawling to Europe’s ‘antiquated’ monarchies begging to be told how to run a country.
Speaking contrarianly.
# 6 dirigible,
yes,tried it and didn’t like it.
# 9 Dave JL,
yes, however I’m not sure to what extent America’s founders were ‘democratic’ in the modern sense. I’ll bet that-(1) some owned slaves and (2) most were not in favor of extending voting rights to all free men and didn’t even consider allowing women the franchise. They had no objection to obsequiousness so long as they weren’t performing the act themselves. That’s why I made the comment in regard to the relevance of 18th century republicans, just an old cynic really. Surely if there was enough support for a republic in Britain the monarchy would be abolished,perhaps I’m naive. (I’m in favor of a republic BTW).
#7 sailor1031,
as an Australian I share very similar sentiments to you in regard to “America’s Everything Invented Here” syndrome,it’s usually supported by total ignorance of the rest of the world. As a Canadian I’m sure you’re used to Americans misundersatnding/misrepresenting parliamentary democracy and monarchies-“you don’t elect your head of government”-so what? We elect a parliament. I could counter with “Americans don’t elect a government, just a temporary monarch”.
We tried abolishing the monarchy here in Australia, the monarchists managed to confuse the issue and frighten the voters by claiming our political system would become like America’s,
That said, in my opinion, the USA is one of the great achievements of Western civilization,I’m just not prepared to uncritically ‘buy the whole package’.
Hey, the English executed the king and brought in a republic way back in 1649. Been there, done that, decapitated the hereditary monarch. The period 1649-1660 was spent discovering that not being a monarchy had no advantages over being a monarchy.
@RJW: I’d have to agree that on the whole we’re better off with the USA than without it; it’s just that sometimes the hyperbolic rhetoric and the seeming lack of knowledge of and interest in the rest of the world gets a bit much. And there’s been some serious losing of the way since 1945. However as a canadian (not a US citizen) in the US I’ve never been insulted, picked on or discriminated against, although I was so treated in the UK when they thought I was american. Then they found I was canadian and that was OK, I was a sort of honorary english. But the brits didn’t know any more about other countries than the americans. Some brainless limey bimbo even called Canada “that bit tacked on the top of the USA”. Way to gain friends and influence people!
As for the monarchy, it may be quite a good thing to have someone less political (not apolitical) to provide some continuity, I guess. We don’t have that in Canada, we just a series of Governor-Generals (like Oz, I think) who are usually selected as a reward for a political career so we have the worst (or best) of both worlds – no real monarchy and no elected president either, just an unelected politico as head of state. Oh well……as Old Bill said “if you knows of a better ‘ole, go to it!”
The tourism thing is over-rated. Surveys have been done, and they tend to reveal that “royalty” is not a top attraction.
And even if it was, I’m not sure a country’s constitution should be designed to attract tourists. Why not just make your head of state an endangered panda, in that case?
Also, republicanism is perhaps less about the figure of the monarch, and more about the nature of the powers exercised constitutionally on behalf of the monarch.
Dan
@Sailor1031,
Yes, I’d say the republican inertia in Oz(and probably Canada) is due to the fact that both countries function as de facto republics anyway, there would be little practical differerence if we changed our constitutions. My main objection to the monarchy is that it’s a colonial relic.
Americans certainly don’t have a monopoly on ignorance,however American ignorance can, and has been catastrophic for many small countries. It can also be very annoying–I’ve tried to convince, more than one American,that the doctrines of trial by jury,presumption of innocence and the right to silence for an accused person are definitely not unique to the US or even American inventions. Jeez.
Your experiences as a Canadian in the UK are interesting, some English people(“Poms”) seem to have a much more ambivalent attitude to Australians—New Zealanders make sure they’re not mistaken for Australians.