There are many reasons to be of the opinion that monarchism has an intensely damaging influence on a country. There are sound egalitarian and economic arguments which make the case that having a single family privileged above all others and giving their patri/matriarch the role of head of state, a position both onerous and laden with significance, is quite simply a bad idea. The extent of the British monarchy’s malevolence in the modern era has been exposed by the revelations Prince Charles’ veto over bills; but we should have been suspicious all along given the considerable soft-power that his extended family wield. There is however, one reason in particular to oppose this archaic model of governance and that is the catastrophic effect it has on the psychological wellbeing of a nation, especially it’s young.
It would be one thing to allow a specific family to head a country if its members were to possess attributes which made them particularly suited to the task. It would still violate fundamental principles of democracy by its very terms, but I believe a compelling argument could nonetheless be made that such a set-up could result in a net positive effect on the country. That is manifestly not the case in Britain; the family of Windsor (to use their current moniker) is characterised by its mediocrity and in some ways its thorough incompetence. The reasons why this family are allowed such power are down to the personalities, battles and corruptions of dead men. Yet we allow this to persist and that is a shocking indictment of the nation’s emotional health.
The fact that we allow ourselves (and force others) to be subservient in this way means that while we live in a post-Kantian era we have not yet fully embraced personal autonomy and its associated rights. We accept our subservience to people, not rules and those rules that there are simply do not apply a select few. This is not limited to The Family; in our collective psychosis we allow many others to be free from the shackles of man-made law, not least those who share many of the their characteristics-the economic elites. We allow ourselves to be servile to one genetic lineage and we allow ourselves to live vicariously through them (remember the saccharine coverage of the “fairy-tale” wedding) because we are not confident in our own ability to govern ourselves and are not happy with our own sorry lives. We abnegate this responsibility because want the comfort of the pretending to ourselves that we have strong leaders (whom we are in vital need of given our inherent wretchedness). Even if their hard-power is limited we consider them “role models” and “inspirations”, they are people to admire and emulate. We do this because we over millennia Britain has inculcated in its subjects a feeling of inadequacy; we are inadequate so we need a monarchy and in turn that makes us feel more inadequate still. Perhaps worst of all is that we use their stories as a narrative to control our children (in particular girls): if you are well-behaved, demure and beautiful enough, perhaps you too can marry a prince.
We understand that we can never be them, but because we are poor, boring and powerless in comparison we want desperately to be a part of their lives and failing that use their joy to make us forget our own pain, hence Britain’s obsession. We should not pretend otherwise; the lives of many people in the UK is very difficult and it is only getting worse. Income inequality is at its starkest for decades, more people in work use food banks than ever before, the state has removed vital services from those that need it most: the disabled, single mothers, refugees, children and so on and so on. The gutter press, which often has an interest in preserving this state of affairs, tries to make us think about something else by instilling fear. We are told to fear of foreigners, single mothers, the gays and badgers and then we are told that it is all ok because we get to see footage of someone else’s wedding and pictures of someone else’s child. And we lap it up. We know that our life will never be as good as the Windsor’s, so we might as well kid ourselves that we are happy for them. We stand there sadly waving our flags and demanding that a supernatural being bring them success and glory as if celebrating their power means that we retain some for ourselves.
The consequences of this sordid state of affairs only serve to make this situation worse, in particular because of its effect on children. The cliché on which America thrives, that any child can grow up to be head of state, has a hugely positive impact. It has the capacity to engender in its young both a vision and certain kind of confidence. Not the kind offered lowly nationalism (of which both the UK and the US has in abundance) but a feeling of pride in its citizens, affairs of state and in particular the proximity between them. Britain, and England in particular, retains antiquated power structures which prevent these sentiments flourishing. We are prevented from identifying properly with the way the country is presented to the world because we know we are never properly able to be a part of it. This feeling is internalised by the all the extent of the monarchy’s dominion. The fact that the queen is “Defender of the Faith” is bad enough, but the fact the Prince Charles has proclaimed himself “defender of faiths” is downright patronising.
We are bringing up children to accept that they live in a world where some people are better than them simply because they from a particular family. No matter, how kind you are or how hard you try at school you will never be equal to our rulers. We may have expelled “the divine right to rule” from our politics, but we have not expunged it from our minds - these people are gods to us, untouchable. It is the equivalent of a teacher having favourites, the effect of which is intensely damaging on the other pupils. They are being shown that no matter how hard they try or how well they do in tests, there will always be others who the teacher will prefer. This confuses the terms on which a school is meant to run. What is the point of playing the game if ultimately those who are successful (or have the best time) is an arbitrary choice of the teacher? The same applies to our politics. What is the point of being a good citizen, of taking part in politics and of caring at all if there are those who are above it all and who are able to change the rules without a mandate? The only answer I can give is to take part in order to ensure that this state of affairs (which has existed for millennia) is changed. To fight to ensure that the monarchy, the wealthy, the well-connected and those with poor imaginations do not undermine our democracy and to make sure that those who these elites consider are the wrong race, gender, sexuality and class have an equal say.
There are some who no doubt think that all of this does not matter, that the monarchy has very little real power and that they are strong, opinionated individuals who take no part in these shallow obsessions. For some that may be the case, but as long as we can stomach this extreme elitism, all of us will be mere submissive subjects rather than the assertive political beings we should be.
It would be one thing to allow a specific family to head a country if its members were to possess attributes which made them particularly suited to the task. It would still violate fundamental principles of democracy by its very terms, but I believe a compelling argument could nonetheless be made that such a set-up could result in a net positive effect on the country. That is manifestly not the case in Britain; the family of Windsor (to use their current moniker) is characterised by its mediocrity and in some ways its thorough incompetence. The reasons why this family are allowed such power are down to the personalities, battles and corruptions of dead men. Yet we allow this to persist and that is a shocking indictment of the nation’s emotional health.
The fact that we allow ourselves (and force others) to be subservient in this way means that while we live in a post-Kantian era we have not yet fully embraced personal autonomy and its associated rights. We accept our subservience to people, not rules and those rules that there are simply do not apply a select few. This is not limited to The Family; in our collective psychosis we allow many others to be free from the shackles of man-made law, not least those who share many of the their characteristics-the economic elites. We allow ourselves to be servile to one genetic lineage and we allow ourselves to live vicariously through them (remember the saccharine coverage of the “fairy-tale” wedding) because we are not confident in our own ability to govern ourselves and are not happy with our own sorry lives. We abnegate this responsibility because want the comfort of the pretending to ourselves that we have strong leaders (whom we are in vital need of given our inherent wretchedness). Even if their hard-power is limited we consider them “role models” and “inspirations”, they are people to admire and emulate. We do this because we over millennia Britain has inculcated in its subjects a feeling of inadequacy; we are inadequate so we need a monarchy and in turn that makes us feel more inadequate still. Perhaps worst of all is that we use their stories as a narrative to control our children (in particular girls): if you are well-behaved, demure and beautiful enough, perhaps you too can marry a prince.
We understand that we can never be them, but because we are poor, boring and powerless in comparison we want desperately to be a part of their lives and failing that use their joy to make us forget our own pain, hence Britain’s obsession. We should not pretend otherwise; the lives of many people in the UK is very difficult and it is only getting worse. Income inequality is at its starkest for decades, more people in work use food banks than ever before, the state has removed vital services from those that need it most: the disabled, single mothers, refugees, children and so on and so on. The gutter press, which often has an interest in preserving this state of affairs, tries to make us think about something else by instilling fear. We are told to fear of foreigners, single mothers, the gays and badgers and then we are told that it is all ok because we get to see footage of someone else’s wedding and pictures of someone else’s child. And we lap it up. We know that our life will never be as good as the Windsor’s, so we might as well kid ourselves that we are happy for them. We stand there sadly waving our flags and demanding that a supernatural being bring them success and glory as if celebrating their power means that we retain some for ourselves.
The consequences of this sordid state of affairs only serve to make this situation worse, in particular because of its effect on children. The cliché on which America thrives, that any child can grow up to be head of state, has a hugely positive impact. It has the capacity to engender in its young both a vision and certain kind of confidence. Not the kind offered lowly nationalism (of which both the UK and the US has in abundance) but a feeling of pride in its citizens, affairs of state and in particular the proximity between them. Britain, and England in particular, retains antiquated power structures which prevent these sentiments flourishing. We are prevented from identifying properly with the way the country is presented to the world because we know we are never properly able to be a part of it. This feeling is internalised by the all the extent of the monarchy’s dominion. The fact that the queen is “Defender of the Faith” is bad enough, but the fact the Prince Charles has proclaimed himself “defender of faiths” is downright patronising.
We are bringing up children to accept that they live in a world where some people are better than them simply because they from a particular family. No matter, how kind you are or how hard you try at school you will never be equal to our rulers. We may have expelled “the divine right to rule” from our politics, but we have not expunged it from our minds - these people are gods to us, untouchable. It is the equivalent of a teacher having favourites, the effect of which is intensely damaging on the other pupils. They are being shown that no matter how hard they try or how well they do in tests, there will always be others who the teacher will prefer. This confuses the terms on which a school is meant to run. What is the point of playing the game if ultimately those who are successful (or have the best time) is an arbitrary choice of the teacher? The same applies to our politics. What is the point of being a good citizen, of taking part in politics and of caring at all if there are those who are above it all and who are able to change the rules without a mandate? The only answer I can give is to take part in order to ensure that this state of affairs (which has existed for millennia) is changed. To fight to ensure that the monarchy, the wealthy, the well-connected and those with poor imaginations do not undermine our democracy and to make sure that those who these elites consider are the wrong race, gender, sexuality and class have an equal say.
There are some who no doubt think that all of this does not matter, that the monarchy has very little real power and that they are strong, opinionated individuals who take no part in these shallow obsessions. For some that may be the case, but as long as we can stomach this extreme elitism, all of us will be mere submissive subjects rather than the assertive political beings we should be.