It's curtains for you, Elizabeth my dear
So the immortal line, penned by the Squire-Brown combination, eerily asserts, with the very warnings of revolt and expression of contempt for establishment that typified the entirety of the self-titled, Stone Roses debut album.
Yet was it every truly curtains for the ol' Hag and her wonderful kinfolk? So wonderful of course, thousands upon thousands of us took to the streets to be adorned by their glorious presence only last year. That the British Monarchy still stands, let alone that Liz&Co. Ltd rakes in an estimated £41.5 million per year in tax revenue, and receives a complementary ceremony in the event of a marriage, courtesy of yours truly, is enough, I will argue, to suggest that the cloth fabric was never even woven, let alone the curtain drawn on the Monarch.
I recently attended a Q&A session with David Miliband, who argued the Royal Family's presence was justified by its ability to 'bring people together' and provide a sense of 'Britishness' for people. Similarly, an article by Dan Hodges in the Guardian only last year, promoted the monarchy as intrinsic to the country's 'shared heritage', and provided a 'figurehead above politics' for the nation to well, who knows, kiss the feet of? There has been a tendency it seems, for the so-called, self-defined 'soft left' to accept and even cherish the Royal Family's presence. For purposes of this article, a reposting of Hodges' bullet-pointed list, arguing the case for a monarchy, would be appropriate. Hodges was engaged in a number of fierce debates in the comment-section of his article, and replied to one, anti-monarch post with the following:
"Well, if you want to go deep:
a) That the nation has a figurehead above politics. A number of progressive social democracies adhere to that principle.
b) That the monarchy helps anchor the concept of Commonwealth. Which represents a positive, state sponsored endorsement of multi-culturalism; an argument people like you and I should think to deploy now and again.
c) That the monarchy is representative of a shared heritage, one that is owned as much by the left as by the right.
d) There are direct economic and commercial benefits that derive from the monarchy.
e) The track record. The monarchy has been a part of British constitutional governance that has, with a few kinks, sustained a moderate participatory democracy."
The presence of a monarchy, in any given society, represents an injustice of power and wealth, that punctures society historically. This injustice is explicit; the majority holds no bearing on the monarchy's control of wealth and property. The majority, the public, does not consent to the monarchy's claim to specific land and resources; rather, the monarchy generally asserts this as a 'right' through a historical power struggle. There are rare examples of elective monarchs, yet examples of these elections can be strung together with an elitist thread; a handful of nobles or 'premier' citizens would participate, rather than the entire population. There is also the definitive distinction between a constitutional monarchy, whereby the monarch holds a distinct role as head of state, yet with a limited political function, and an absolute monarchy, within which the monarch rules by mere will. Yet irrespective of typology, a monarchy of any definition is symbolic of an entrenchment of class relations; it promotes the political power of a minority, reigning unrestrained by the majority. By this, I do not necessarily mean that the monarchy rules the public arbitrarily, yet that the public has no say whatsoever in the monarchy's position in society and reproduction of this position, nor its claim to certain property or wealth. Taking the British situation as a case study, the public does elect its monarch, nor has it ever had a claim to the monarch's various properties, or how the monarchy utilises the public's taxation money. Intrinsic to the very notion of a monarchy is inequality; essentially a family, which through a historical struggle of power has promoted itself to a position of authority, property and wealth that resides above all else.
The notion of the British Monarch, as an institutional pillar of iron, around which people may 'unite', as the argument often goes, and locate community, friendship and comfort, does not at all equate to a moral head-start for those who support its presence. Let us be as clear as possible; the British Monarch exemplifies the legitimisation of class-relations; the King, or be it Queen, of course, ruled supreme over British, and indeed many other 'peoples' for centuries. It's mere existence and continual withdrawal of wealth from the British taxpayer legitimises the ruling and unjust supremacy of a fractional minority over an utter majority upon the theoretical foundations of: heritage, in the family lineage associated with the crown itself; power and brutality in the Monarchy's struggle to maintain power, including the atrocities committed by and in the name of the Monarchy internationally, in order to maintain its power, and wealth, in the resources ruthlessly purged by the Monarchy over time, often executed through a demonstration of the aforementioned, power and brutality. Due to to each of these factors, the Monarchy stands in its current capacity, right now, today, as a constitutional, rather than an absolute monarchy. That it is allowed to do so, with little, if any discussion of these factors, is indicative of a disgusting moral failure on the behalf of government, the public and the media - in essence, society as a whole. The Monarchy legitimised and provided a figurative spearhead for the expansion of the British Empire; a ruthless, imperial, globalised dictatorship that oversaw the enslavement, murder and torture of millions of innocent people. The Monarchy struggled frantically to prevent the emergence of any form of democracy and devolution of power to the British people for centuries. The Monarchy does not provide a figurehead 'outside of politics'; it's entire history, and indeed it's very existence, is the consequence of a colossal, explicitly political struggle that has yet to cease. Murder, enslavement, torture, inequality, elitism and dictatorship are all, in classical political theory terms, intuitively immoral actions and concepts. That people can 'unite' and bathe the streets in delight and pleasure, at the very sight of such a morally corrupt institution, surviving on the basis of these concepts, is not a moral head-start for the 'Crown's' supporters. It is an absolute paralysis of morality, on any conceivable level, that the Monarchy, of enslavement, murder, torture, inequality, elitism and dictatorship is still supported and allowed to exist by people today.
We may now expand; simply because the British Monarchy no longer, ostensibly, exercises political power, does that suggest the Monarchy's presence is somehow legitimised. In addition, that the Monarchy attracts 'economic benefits' for the nation is flimsy, pathetic, froth argument, that attempts to morally equate a tiny fraction of economic activity to hundreds of years of injustice - that people profit from this injustice should be condemned, not applauded!
"The King's name is a tower of strength", Shakespeare's Richard III proclaimed. Indeed, and a strength that does not easily subside, yet must eventually, be defeated.
Yet was it every truly curtains for the ol' Hag and her wonderful kinfolk? So wonderful of course, thousands upon thousands of us took to the streets to be adorned by their glorious presence only last year. That the British Monarchy still stands, let alone that Liz&Co. Ltd rakes in an estimated £41.5 million per year in tax revenue, and receives a complementary ceremony in the event of a marriage, courtesy of yours truly, is enough, I will argue, to suggest that the cloth fabric was never even woven, let alone the curtain drawn on the Monarch.
I recently attended a Q&A session with David Miliband, who argued the Royal Family's presence was justified by its ability to 'bring people together' and provide a sense of 'Britishness' for people. Similarly, an article by Dan Hodges in the Guardian only last year, promoted the monarchy as intrinsic to the country's 'shared heritage', and provided a 'figurehead above politics' for the nation to well, who knows, kiss the feet of? There has been a tendency it seems, for the so-called, self-defined 'soft left' to accept and even cherish the Royal Family's presence. For purposes of this article, a reposting of Hodges' bullet-pointed list, arguing the case for a monarchy, would be appropriate. Hodges was engaged in a number of fierce debates in the comment-section of his article, and replied to one, anti-monarch post with the following:
"Well, if you want to go deep:
a) That the nation has a figurehead above politics. A number of progressive social democracies adhere to that principle.
b) That the monarchy helps anchor the concept of Commonwealth. Which represents a positive, state sponsored endorsement of multi-culturalism; an argument people like you and I should think to deploy now and again.
c) That the monarchy is representative of a shared heritage, one that is owned as much by the left as by the right.
d) There are direct economic and commercial benefits that derive from the monarchy.
e) The track record. The monarchy has been a part of British constitutional governance that has, with a few kinks, sustained a moderate participatory democracy."
The presence of a monarchy, in any given society, represents an injustice of power and wealth, that punctures society historically. This injustice is explicit; the majority holds no bearing on the monarchy's control of wealth and property. The majority, the public, does not consent to the monarchy's claim to specific land and resources; rather, the monarchy generally asserts this as a 'right' through a historical power struggle. There are rare examples of elective monarchs, yet examples of these elections can be strung together with an elitist thread; a handful of nobles or 'premier' citizens would participate, rather than the entire population. There is also the definitive distinction between a constitutional monarchy, whereby the monarch holds a distinct role as head of state, yet with a limited political function, and an absolute monarchy, within which the monarch rules by mere will. Yet irrespective of typology, a monarchy of any definition is symbolic of an entrenchment of class relations; it promotes the political power of a minority, reigning unrestrained by the majority. By this, I do not necessarily mean that the monarchy rules the public arbitrarily, yet that the public has no say whatsoever in the monarchy's position in society and reproduction of this position, nor its claim to certain property or wealth. Taking the British situation as a case study, the public does elect its monarch, nor has it ever had a claim to the monarch's various properties, or how the monarchy utilises the public's taxation money. Intrinsic to the very notion of a monarchy is inequality; essentially a family, which through a historical struggle of power has promoted itself to a position of authority, property and wealth that resides above all else.
The notion of the British Monarch, as an institutional pillar of iron, around which people may 'unite', as the argument often goes, and locate community, friendship and comfort, does not at all equate to a moral head-start for those who support its presence. Let us be as clear as possible; the British Monarch exemplifies the legitimisation of class-relations; the King, or be it Queen, of course, ruled supreme over British, and indeed many other 'peoples' for centuries. It's mere existence and continual withdrawal of wealth from the British taxpayer legitimises the ruling and unjust supremacy of a fractional minority over an utter majority upon the theoretical foundations of: heritage, in the family lineage associated with the crown itself; power and brutality in the Monarchy's struggle to maintain power, including the atrocities committed by and in the name of the Monarchy internationally, in order to maintain its power, and wealth, in the resources ruthlessly purged by the Monarchy over time, often executed through a demonstration of the aforementioned, power and brutality. Due to to each of these factors, the Monarchy stands in its current capacity, right now, today, as a constitutional, rather than an absolute monarchy. That it is allowed to do so, with little, if any discussion of these factors, is indicative of a disgusting moral failure on the behalf of government, the public and the media - in essence, society as a whole. The Monarchy legitimised and provided a figurative spearhead for the expansion of the British Empire; a ruthless, imperial, globalised dictatorship that oversaw the enslavement, murder and torture of millions of innocent people. The Monarchy struggled frantically to prevent the emergence of any form of democracy and devolution of power to the British people for centuries. The Monarchy does not provide a figurehead 'outside of politics'; it's entire history, and indeed it's very existence, is the consequence of a colossal, explicitly political struggle that has yet to cease. Murder, enslavement, torture, inequality, elitism and dictatorship are all, in classical political theory terms, intuitively immoral actions and concepts. That people can 'unite' and bathe the streets in delight and pleasure, at the very sight of such a morally corrupt institution, surviving on the basis of these concepts, is not a moral head-start for the 'Crown's' supporters. It is an absolute paralysis of morality, on any conceivable level, that the Monarchy, of enslavement, murder, torture, inequality, elitism and dictatorship is still supported and allowed to exist by people today.
We may now expand; simply because the British Monarchy no longer, ostensibly, exercises political power, does that suggest the Monarchy's presence is somehow legitimised. In addition, that the Monarchy attracts 'economic benefits' for the nation is flimsy, pathetic, froth argument, that attempts to morally equate a tiny fraction of economic activity to hundreds of years of injustice - that people profit from this injustice should be condemned, not applauded!
"The King's name is a tower of strength", Shakespeare's Richard III proclaimed. Indeed, and a strength that does not easily subside, yet must eventually, be defeated.
Comments
Post a Comment