No tell us what you really think
Why do women keep banging on about misogyny, eh? I just can’t figure it out.
I don’t have a settled opinion about Meghan Markle. There are too many conflicting accounts, and I’m not interested enough to delve into them all. But I very definitely do have a settled opinion about men writing in widely-read newspapers about wanting to see a particular woman dragged naked through the streets while people throw shit at her. Yes I do indeed. In fact his writing this has helped me out a good deal with the conflicting accounts: if people think stuff like this about her, and the Sun is happy to publish it, then maybe she and Harry haven’t been exaggerating all that much.
This is related to that thing I was saying the other day about gut-level fear around angry men. If this is how they talk about us in public…yeah that’s scary shit.
Appropriately, Twitter is the modern electronic equivalent of a shithouse wall, upon which the Simon Harrises of the world are prone to plaster with the contents of the shitpots that pass for their minds.
Omar, Simon Harris was reporting on Jeremy “The Big Fucking Racist” Clarkson’s column.
I too heard many lurid but vague claims of her ‘tarnishing the monarchy’ and similar. With the emphasis very much on vague. She’s definitely a bad influence! but also no act of hers was specified by the accuser. Eventually I was convinced that at most she has done some puny faux pas, something only a royal obsessive could notice; otherwise the accuser would easily be able to point to the dastardly act. And then she apparently went on some talk show and talked about the cold reception she receives behind the scenes, at which point the accusations doubled. She talked about the family!
The ratio of vagueness to vitriol has convinced me she has done nothing but be biracial.
Rev David: I stand both corrected and as ready as ever to stay right away from the shithouse wall that Musk has just bought and which goes by the name of Twitter.
Like Chuck hasn’t done much worse himself at undermining the public regard for the institution? but that’s beside the point. The concept of monarchy tarnishes itself, requiring nothing but time and exposure to blacken and degrade all by itself. The idea that one family in particular (okay, several families, if you allow for the monarchies of more than one country) are somehow annointed by God and better, purer, and worthier than the rest of us, when they manifestly are not, is ludicrous. It’s state-sponsored, state-founding gaslighting on a vast, multigenerational scale. Monarchy is the societal equivalent of a vestigial organ like the human appendix, or the coccyx, but much less useful. Left to their own devices, “royal” families, were it not for regular injections of commoners’ blood, would have died off from inbreeding depression long ago, like some dwindling, parasitic species the extinction of which one could only ever celebrate.
And yet..
Though the institution is illusory and outdated, it is not without its power and grandeur. Though never a monarchist, I must confess to being moved by portions of the funeral service of Queen Elizabeth, the start of whose reign predated my own birth by a decade. She was an institution, and it was hard not to think of all the history and tradition bound up in her life, which, as a Canadian, was part of my own history too, however distantly, tenuously, and accidentally. She was always there. Until she wasn’t. I will feel no such nostalgia, connection, or regard for Charles, and dread the day his ugly mug shows up on a bill or coin proffered as change in the course of a purchase.
I wrote my most recent column for Free Inquiry about the institution of the monarchy and why it’s still around and all that. I re-read it when my copies arrived about three weeks ago and laughed at one or two of my own jokes. It is deeply absurd.
Same about the Queen though. As she went on and on and on I found myself, like so many people, liking her more than I had. Choss…no.
Getting a read on Meghan Markle isn’t something I’ve really bothered with, much as I haven’t bothered with getting a read on the Royal Family or, in fact, pretty much any celebrity at all. What little I’ve heard of Meghan comes from YouTube’s recommendation algorithm when I forget to turn off AutoPlay.
The Head of State of Britain and Austrlia, and maybe other Commonwealth countries, has only one important power left. That concerns situations in which the usual parliamentary argy-bargy has resulted in governmental paralysis. The wearer of the crown or his/her representative can then step in, dissolve both houses and immediately call a fresh election. Sovereignty thus remains with the people.
Here in Australia we arguably get the benefits of the British Monarchy, and for a fraction of its cost. Most of the latter is borne by the British payers of the ‘super-tax,’ wot keeps yer Royals in the manner to which they have been long accustomed, thank yez very much. So we get a Head of State on the cheap, really.
For that reason I am simulaneously a monarchist and a socialist (resources only.)
“Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way.” — Very few. Maybe you’re surrounded by chickenshit yes men, and by that I mean yes men and not women. There are women your age too you know, but I’m sure they don’t count. It’s miserable how famous people think everyone is as fucked up as they are, and that everyone needs to hear about it.
I don’t care about celebrity gossip in the least, never have, but I wasn’t aware one could get a copy of the Sun and see Jeremy Clarkson’s depraved sexual fantasies. That reads like a rapist’s manifesto if you ask me. I wasn’t looking for any more reasons to shun tabloid garbage, but there it is.
Also, agree @1, it’s insidious.
This is a bit of an aside from the main story, but since monarchy was discussed, I dare say that Norway has the best functioning constitutional monarchy in the world. The royal family demands tremendous respect, and much of it well deserved.
When the union between Norway and Sweden was dissolved in 1905 and king Oscar of Sweden could no longer be king of Norway, prince Carl of Denmark (full name Christian Frederik Carl Georg Valdemar Axel, how is that for a mouthful?) was offered the throne. Many Norwegians were in favour of a republic instead, so prince Carl demanded a referendum to decide between the alternatives, republic or constitutional monarchy. The monarchy side won by a good margin, and he accepted the throne, taking the name Haakon.
In 1928, the Labour Party won the election for parliament. Conservatives were alarmed at this, as the Labour Party was more of a revolutionary party in those days. But Haakon, decided firmly to stay within his constitutional role, asked a representative of the Labour Party to form a government. “I am also the communists’ king” he said – a statement well remembered.
Then, when Nazi Germany attacked in April 1940, the occupiers demanded that the King appoint one Vidkun Quisling – yes, that Quisling – as prime minister. At that point, Parliament had dissolved itself, giving over all its powers to the King and government for the duration of the war. The government was undecided, but king Haakon refused to yield, saying he would rather abdicate. So in the end, he escaped to England with the government and stayed there for the rest of the war.
These two events go a long way to explain the popularity of the royal family to this day. One more story, from more recent days:
After the July 22 terror, a nearby hotel was converted to a center for taking care of the survivors and their families. At one point, two girls walked through the lobby, buth crying. There they walked into the arms of an elderly man, and after sobbing into his chest for a while, one of them looked up and discovered they were being hugged by the king.
I am still tearing up just writing this, and that helps explain why, though I am a republican in theory, I am sort of a monarchist in practice. I think many Norwegians share the sentiment. So long as the royal family keeps living up to the high standards they have set for themselves, I am willing to put my republican impulses on the back burner.
Oh, and one more thing. The king of Norway is actually involved in government work, by preciding over a government meeting every Friday. That is where the executive branch of government makes all its major decisions. What is decided at that meeting, is referred to as a decision by the King. Note the capital letter: The king is just a person, the King is the government. And the king basically has no say in what the King decides.
@10 and 11 Fantastic stories, thank you for sharing. I made my first visit to Oslo a couple of months ago (it was my last Nordic country to visit); our firm is working on getting business there so I hope to spend more time there.
Harald
I still think the monarchy has been in steady decline since the days of Eirik “Blood-Axe” Haraldsson (885 – 954 ce), though. By all means, the guy wasn’t a nice person, but the ribbon-cutting ceremonies (using the bloody axe to cut the ribbons!) sure had more style back then. And those New Year’s speeches must have been entertaining to say the least: “My dear fellow countrymen, it’s been an eventful year for the Queen and myself. Among many highlights I could mention invading England and killing everything in our path back in April as well as the beheading of my old enemy, the archduke of Kent, back in September (etc. etc..)”
;)
On a more serious note, as much as I’m against the monarchy, envy at the unearned privilege bestowed upon the royals is not among my main reasons. I wouldn’t want to be borne into that pillory for all the money in the universe. This story admirably illustrates why.
Bjarte,
(Pensively pausing in the midst of sharpening my axe) Aaah yes, those were the good old days indeed. If I recall correctly, we were pillaging and looting in Russia, too. Should we try that again?
Now there’s an idea! At least the old kings would go into combat themselves rather than hide like cowards and leave the fighting to others. I recon Putin would last for about two seconds against Eirik.
I look forward to these new developments!
@10, I am disappointed Prince Carl didn’t choose to be King Axel. That would have been cool.
I remember reading about the king’s reaction to the Nazis back in my junior high WWII days. Made quite the impression on me.
Domino @18, He picked the name because it is a traditional royal name in Norway. Thus he became Haakon the seventh. He changed the name of his son, too. He eventually became Olav the fifth. His son, the current king, is Harald the fifth. (Yes, I have a royal name too, but I don’t get a number.)
I’m not saying this makes it better, but the scenario outlined is a reference to a scene in Game of Thrones where a horrible, arrogant ruler is made to walk the streets naked while people shout “shame!” and throw things at her.
Even if he doesn’t mean it literally (and maybe he does) the kind of hatred he describes is ridiculous. It’s the royal institution that has created the situation, so hate that. There is far worse celebrity behavior than what we’ve seen from Meghan.
For what it’s worth, the “walk naked while people shout and throw things” treatment predates Game of Thrones considerably. Jane Shore, mistress of Edward IV, was punished in such a fashion, and it was apparently a traditional method of punishment, not invented for her.
What on earth is the meaning of that “but”? What is the point of the comment at all? That if there’s a pop culture precedent of some kind then…what?
Also what does a “horrible, arrogant ruler” have to do with Markle? She rules precisely nothing, and I don’t think it’s been established beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s horrible and arrogant.
Also throwing “things” is not quite the same as throwing shit.
[…] a comment by Harald Hance-Olsen on No tell us what you really […]
It provides the cultural reference.
Content aside, my immediate reaction to Clarkson’s remark is WTF? Where is he getting this?
And then I’m like, Oh, right, he’s riffing on some TV show.