For those who can stand it, this review by Rosemary Hill in the London Review of Books is a very elegant article about the Royal Family of the past half century. By the end of my reading the article, Ms. Hill had merely provided more proof for me that Jeremy Corbyn and others who support the idea of republicanism in the U.K. are correct: The Brits should abolish the monarchy after the current Queen sheds her mortal coil.*
Spending untold millions each year to present a few human beings as ornaments and fodder for reality television is an institution that is not only wasteful, but poisonous in a nation that prides itself as much on its openness, sense of individual merit and economic equality of opportunity.**
And count me in as someone who has long felt very badly for the bonny Prince Charles. I have long admired his environmental stances and watched with incredulity, but increasing recognition of the role of corporate owned media to discipline people who step out of their given places, the manner in which the Murdoch owned newspapers, and eventually most of British media, hounded and ridiculed him. The show that was Princess Diana has always struck me as hollow at its core and preening and voyeuristic at its worst. Again, human ornaments, all of them.
Long stripped of much of their historical political power, and now constantly forced to navigate against the overwhelming power of mass and social media, the function of the Royal Family has largely been reduced to that of the Kardashians television program here in the United States of America, where we get to preen over, show awe at and often brutally criticize people who live in a continual fishbowl in the form of a camera. Those who watch the Kardashians reportedly feel a combination of envy at their wealth and celebrity, but also feel so superior to them. The Royal Family is in a constant fishbowl, as well, but one where appearances count, so that they are constantly worried their staff may be recording their bodily functions or otherwise their "bad hair" moments, or will outright lie for a media paid "exclusive" about something that has only that grain of truth, and where the Royal Family cannot, in any real sense, refute without more ridicule and insatiable demands upon what remains of their inner lives.
My conclusion, therefore, is not based upon anger or malice against the Royal Family. It is more from a perspective that is perhaps partly pity, but ultimately wanting to be kind to those who I see as victims of modern celebrity. The other part, besides kindness and pity, is that I think abolishing the monarchy may have a salutary effect on the commonweal of not only Great Britain, but the U.S., where we may force ourselves to have a conversation about growing up, facing responsibilities we have to each other as citizens and realizing there is no magical Royal Family, be they Kennedys or Trumps or Houses of Hanover, to save us.
Spending untold millions each year to present a few human beings as ornaments and fodder for reality television is an institution that is not only wasteful, but poisonous in a nation that prides itself as much on its openness, sense of individual merit and economic equality of opportunity.**
And count me in as someone who has long felt very badly for the bonny Prince Charles. I have long admired his environmental stances and watched with incredulity, but increasing recognition of the role of corporate owned media to discipline people who step out of their given places, the manner in which the Murdoch owned newspapers, and eventually most of British media, hounded and ridiculed him. The show that was Princess Diana has always struck me as hollow at its core and preening and voyeuristic at its worst. Again, human ornaments, all of them.
Long stripped of much of their historical political power, and now constantly forced to navigate against the overwhelming power of mass and social media, the function of the Royal Family has largely been reduced to that of the Kardashians television program here in the United States of America, where we get to preen over, show awe at and often brutally criticize people who live in a continual fishbowl in the form of a camera. Those who watch the Kardashians reportedly feel a combination of envy at their wealth and celebrity, but also feel so superior to them. The Royal Family is in a constant fishbowl, as well, but one where appearances count, so that they are constantly worried their staff may be recording their bodily functions or otherwise their "bad hair" moments, or will outright lie for a media paid "exclusive" about something that has only that grain of truth, and where the Royal Family cannot, in any real sense, refute without more ridicule and insatiable demands upon what remains of their inner lives.
My conclusion, therefore, is not based upon anger or malice against the Royal Family. It is more from a perspective that is perhaps partly pity, but ultimately wanting to be kind to those who I see as victims of modern celebrity. The other part, besides kindness and pity, is that I think abolishing the monarchy may have a salutary effect on the commonweal of not only Great Britain, but the U.S., where we may force ourselves to have a conversation about growing up, facing responsibilities we have to each other as citizens and realizing there is no magical Royal Family, be they Kennedys or Trumps or Houses of Hanover, to save us.
* The late Christopher Hitchens was uncharacteristically coy about his ultimate view as to whether to abolish the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's demise. Here is one of his articles on the subject, from Vanity Fair. On the other hand, the British pop singer Morrissey has remained pretty certain about his feelings for the Royal Family.
** A wonderful, rip-roaring defense of British political philosophy, as against French political philosophy, was once penned by the British Marxist, E.P. Thompson, called "The Poverty of Theory" (1978). It is worth buying the book, in which the essay was eventually published, to savor all 200 odd pages of the essay.
