royal wedding fever
In the midst of Trump-induced chaos and violence in the Middle East, the UK is still managing to drown the news in vacuous ramblings about an upcoming wedding involving one member of a hereditary royal family. A hereditary ‘royal’ family in 2018 – let this sink in.
Headlines about wedding guests, headlines about clothes, headlines about how this will change the royal family, how this is progress. Progress??? A hereditary royal family, passing title and privilege down through generations, living off lands amassed and stolen in wars centuries ago, receiving money from the public purse – having influence and power simply through birth. ‘Progress’ in this context doesn’t even start to come in a mildly unconventional marital match.
As if we don’t have enough to put up with in modern society with the generational celebrity cults of family. At least celebrity isn’t a ‘right’ that is passed on to every random offspring.
In the United Kingdom, if the media is to be believed (is the media to be believed?) the general public are all blindly accepting that the royal family is a fact that need never be altered. Democracy is a flimsy facade draped over a permanent feudal superstructure. We must rejoice in queens and kings and princesses and princes – heap them with praise, bow the appropriate depth, accept their awards, marvel over their lives, delight over their public appearances, take their words seriously, shower them with all the honour their ancient title demands.
But really …. really?
It’s like I’m trapped in an Emporer’s New Clothes existence. Who are the people cheering and waving Union Jacks? I’m drowning in a sea of mindless worker ants, yet wondering how many other nonsense aspects of human life and society I personally am taking for granted, that I’m blind to and celebrating like an excited monkey who can’t see reality for looking.
Here are some highlights I’ve picked up in life so far:
- We don’t need to worship gods. Invisible gods aren’t real and religions are invented by humans to plug the ignorance gaps (naming it the ‘god of the gaps argument’ doesn’t invalidate this clear fact)
- We don’t need to eat or exploit animals. Animals are sentient creatures that shouldn’t live and die on our greedy whim and deliberate ignorance about their miserable lives.
- We don’t need to mindlessly accept traditional roles. Hereditary monarchies should be abolished, now, everywhere.
So don’t be sucked into mindless acceptance of what society tells us is ‘normal’ or ‘traditional’ – humans constantly change their way of living based on the reality and available information around them. As society evolves and we learn more about ourselves and this planet, we must action our understanding and refuse to mindlessly follow what generations before have accepted.
Down with the monarchy!
I think the Sex Pistols said it best of all, don’t you?
🙂
LikeLike
No, I don’t. I said it much better. 😛
LikeLike
And who am I to argue with the lady!
LikeLike
You do know *She* can hear you down in London…
LikeLike
Hope so. Sure she does a bit of blogging in the evening.
LikeLike
Venting, yes, I heard. Be nice of her to step in and sort this Brexit mess. Technically she can, and what a swan song that’d be.
LikeLike
That would be hilarious! Get rid of the monarchy and save us from Brexit in one fell swoop. People would be appalled but it would be too late …
LikeLiked by 1 person
That royalty crap has always bothered me. King Harald is the Norwegian version. It takes more than progress to get rid of these people.
LikeLike
It’s truly disturbing that it still means anything in this day and age. We’re total ants, can’t see past our little ant noses – the Queen! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some kenyans are willing to part with $10,000 to watch the wedding on a tv in some golf course. I think stupidity runs deep in humans
LikeLike
If I had the option to choose between a form of government that allows a single megalomaniac buffoon to weld an extraordinary amount of power and influence on the one hand, and on the other, a government which relies on collective responsibility in which a hereditary monarch has absolutely no power or influence, but provides a little pomp and ceremony for minimal cost, then I’d gladly choose the latter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sure vi what your 3 choice commentary has to do with a ‘royal wedding,’ especially the last one about ‘traditional roles.’
What is traditional about a royal wedding? I would say it is above and beyond tradition. Not many people can relate to pomp and circumstance through birthright. Tradition would be more along the lines of any guy marrying a girl; in that sense, two girls ‘marrying’ would not be traditional. Is that what you getting at, an insult to ‘tradition?’
I say good for them though that ‘royal’ couple, they managed to raise the ire of people everywhere, and oh how the thieves of traditional marriage must be fuming.
LikeLike
Are you, or have you ever been married, John?
LikeLike
35 years to the same wonderful woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Congrats. I have had 25 wonderfull years, with my wife. Although, I do not feel my marriage has lost anything by my gay friends getting officially married now too.
LikeLike
Tks R, I would agree that my marriage suffers nothing by the choices of others, the only point of difference would be the ‘official’ thing, but tkx for the well wish.
Back atcha.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We had a presidential election here in the republic of Finland. The same dude was elected for a second time. He won by staggering persentage of 62,7%. Hence, his actual support was close to Saddam or Kim Jong Un, or Putin. One of the sadly obvious reasons for this success was, that his young poet wife in the press, since she was pregnant – because, don’t ya know – you cant make a dude who is about to have a little baby become uneployed, can you? Or something.
A republic has it’s own celebs, that can be just as futile as a monarchy and popular politicians who mostly appear in the headlines because of their weddings, childbirths and other private occasions, that have nothing at all to do with what descisions they may or may not make. The Finns at least are totally awstruck by some such politicians, actors and what-not celebs. Oh, and of course by the Swedish royal family, that the Finns have totally adopted as our own monarchy, even though this particular family was not even in power, when we last were part of the Swedish kingdom…
LikeLike
Well, people like spectacle and ritual. It brings us together. Afua Hirsch was good on that in the Guardian. I am a mild republican- not serious to want to do something about it. Even if there were a referendum I might just vote rather than campaigning- though I did that last time…
The British government is far more prone to one single megalomaniac buffoon than the US government is. The psychopath Johnson would have more power as PM, and less chance of losing it, than the psychopath Trump as president. When we lose all protection of our rights next March-
now I’m too depressed to finish that sentence…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not familiar with the UK constitution, but I’ve always thought that it was not too dissimilar from ours. Here, the concept of collective responsibility means that no individual, even a Prime Minister can weld much power by themselves. Prime Ministers can and do get replaced while in office. Since the introduction of MMP in 1996, no single party has had a majority in the parliament, and we’ve even had minority coalition governments, that could be toppled at a moment’s notice if the Parliament so chose. The current Government coalition is made up of two parties commanding between them 55 of the 121 seats the Parliament. That’s one seat less than the largest opposition party. The government remains in power only by virtue of a confidence and supply agreement with a third party, so it needs to be mindful that it is 6 seats short of an absolute majority.
As to VW’s statement that “Democracy is a flimsy facade draped over a permanent feudal superstructure” I would strongly disagree. All power is vested in the crown, not a monarch. The monarch currently represents the crown if the monarch is within the borders of New Zealand, otherwise the crown is represented by the Governor General. The Parliament of New Zealand has granted the representative of the crown a limited number of powers, but those powers are very limited as the representative of the crown can only act on the advise of his/her ministers. Constitutionally the monarch or GG can not act on their own. For example, unlike in Australia, the Monarch/GG cannot dismiss a government without being advised by the government to do so.
There is a very important reason why the monarchy should remain in place for the time being. The Treaty of Waitangi by which the Māori ceded sovereignty to the British crown implies a partnership in the governance of Aotearoa New Zealand between the crown and Māori. There is yet to be a true partnership. Maori make up less than 20% of the population, so in effect they don’t have a partnership. They rightfully see it as tyranny by the majority. The Māori regard Queen Victoria as the “chief” who represented the British Empire at the signing of the Treaty. That places an obligation on her and her descendants to see that the treaty is honoured as the obligation is handed down from one generation to the next. And while the Treaty has never been fully honoured, Māori have been very patient in their expectation that some day it will be. They look to the monarch, not the crown, as the crown has proved not to be trustworthy.
Admittedly, the above is somewhat a simplification, but it will do by way of an illustration for now. When the treaty, in the eye of Māori, is being fully honoured, that is time for us to discuss whether or not a constitutional monarchy is he best form of government.
LikeLike