These are very discouraging times for anti-monarchists like me. For watching tens of millions around the world reveling in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations last year was dispiriting enough.
But watching just as many, if not more, heralding the birth of William and Kate’s son (as the third living heir in waiting to the throne) this year felt like an out-of-body experience. Indeed, it was rather like living in a nineteenth-century time warp – when the British monarch had even more power and influence than the U.S. president has today.
I have written many commentaries delineating my moral, political and social disdain for royalty and all of its fairy-tale appurtenances. Moreover, I’ve never been shy about expressing unqualified schadenfreude every time scandal exposed its inherent fallacies and reminded monarchists of the institutionalized affront royal families constitute to the universal truth that all people are created equal.
And, more than any other royals, the British royal family has provided enough fodder in this regard to incite unrelenting snicker and sustained contempt…
I encourage citizens throughout the Caribbean Commonwealth to prevail upon our national leaders to cease and desist recommending our citizens for these farcical investitures, if not to perfect our sovereignty (as independent republics), then as a matter of national pride.
(“Pardon Me Sir, But How Much Did You Pay for Your Knighthood,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 14, 2006)
Alas, polls indicate that support for this anachronistic institution is rising, not falling – pursuant to the first principle of democracy and basic common sense:
Even among 18 to 24-year-olds, the age group most likely to hold republican views, today’s poll shows a solid 69 per cent believe that Prince George will one day become king.
The poll suggests that the majority of the country sees no benefit in republicanism, with some two thirds of those polled (66 per cent) thinking that Britain is better off as a monarchy.
Only 17 per cent wanted a republic instead.
(The Telegraph, July 27, 2013)
But what I find even more dumbfounding is the mockery countries like Canada, Australia, and Jamaica are making of their independence by retaining Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. This would only make sense if, like Britain, Commonwealth Countries were using her as a tourist attraction; you know, the way Disney World uses Mickey Mouse.
Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller brought this perverse form of self-abnegating neocolonialism into embarrassing relief last year when, despite vowing to rectify this constitutional anathema, she laid out the red carpet for the Queen’s notoriously mischievous grandson Harry – who was substituting for Her Majesty on a state visit as part of her Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
And, lest you think I’m just making a fuss over inconsequential ceremonial stuff, bear in mind that almost all of these purportedly independent former colonies retain the British Privy Council as their court of last resort as well. I have duly bemoaned this constitutional anathema in such commentaries as “Idle-minded Debate on Privy Council Continues,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 30, 2011.
For their part, the British are so desperate to maintain this fairytale of the monarch reigning over her realm that Prince Charles is substituting for her at today’s opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. This, despite the fact that Sri Lanka’s record of human rights abuses is so odious that the leaders of Canada and India are boycotting this meeting for fear of becoming contaminated just by breathing its air.
In any event, given these causes for discouragement, I hope I can be forgiven for grasping for republican solidarity in a column the London Daily Mail published on Monday under the provocative but unassailable title, “Sir Becks and Lady Posh? I admire them both, but this would be final proof the honours system has lost all reason.”
This column read, in part, as follows:
Sir David and Lady Beckham: If ever there were five words to seal Britain’s descent into celebrity-obsessed madness, there they are.
So why is the idea of Sir Becks and Lady Posh so offensive?
Largely, because it would confirm what many of us already know — that the honours system is fast becoming absurd.
Of course, members of the British royal family personify this celebrity-obsessed madness that is afflicting not just Britain, but all of Western civilization. But, in fairness to Becks and Posh, nothing demonstrates how unreasonable this system has become quite like even proud citizens of former British colonies still coveting British honours every bit as much as British commoners do.
Is there any wonder we despair for our republics…?
Related commentaries:
Your knighthood…
Good news Friday…
Privy Council
Legacy Note: With over 5,600 posts spanning 20 years, I am easily the most prolific blogger on the most eclectic array of topics on the web. That makes The iPINIONS Journal an unparalleled archive of informed political and cultural commentary. Visit the ARCHIVES section in the sidebar or search by topic. You won’t find a more consistent, independent voice on world affairs.