When it comes to her Maj and her offspring I cannot help but cringe. Our country does not seem able to outgrow the need for a monarchy. Realism must play its part here, over and above my own dislike for all things regal. There are no signs of Republicanism amongst the British people, despite some protesters throwing paint all over Charlie and “wicked’s” car. (But it isn’t Charlie and ‘wicked’ Camilla’s car is it? It’s our car really.) And when I call Camilla ‘wicked’ I make no moral judgement on her character. As I will make clear immediately below – I couldn’t give a thru pence halfpenny about her morality or otherwise; she is called ‘wicked’ because that is how she described her feelings on hearing the news of the imminent wedding of William and Kate wotsherface. I was shocked at the use of slang. In fact, you couldn’t have shocked me more than if she had followed this up, by declaring she was buying the happy couple rubber bondage gear and a pet lamb with which to tutor in the ways of righteousness.
Only about one third of the British people would prefer to elect their own head of State. If you listen to the royal watchers in the media, the assorted ‘court correspondents’ employed by TV, Radio and the newspapers, the Windsor’s did indeed have the most beastly time of it during the 1990s. There was all that awful business with divorces, affairs and what not. It really did mean the Windsor’s were in a right pickle and the public were beginning to turn against them.
To which I just sigh. I am a Republican because I quite simply don’t believe my head of state should depend upon who they happen to have been born to. The British people should get the opportunity to decide who they want as their head of state are and have the opportunity to replace them with someone else if they so desire. Any ill-feeling towards the Windsor’s in the 1990s had no Republican edge whatsoever if it is not based on that fundamental principle. Complaints about who slept with whom, and who treated who meanly, are merely an extension of the British obsession with Soap Opera. The Windsor’s pretend to be above us and celebrity culture, whilst needing to share their lives with their subjects, in the posh-est soap opera of them all.
So what does all this have to do with the Wedding in 2011? Allow me to explain. Many years ago I came across a rumour that the wedding in the early 1980s between Charlie and Lady Di was ‘arranged.’ For the Windsor’s, so the rumour went, the motives were clear. Good old Chuck, whatever else he was, wasn’t a looker. Nor for that matter is his current wife, but I digress. Charlie had to marry a good sort – decent breeding, blue blood, all that sort of thing, but above all, she had to be a good looking filly, don’t you know. The bride had to be good looking, to bear good looking children and thereby guarantee the monarchy, and the House of Windsor’s reign well into the next (and now current) century. Good looking heirs to the throne and a good looking Queenie-to-be are more photogenic with which to impress their subjects, after all. Why couldn’t they let love take its natural course? Well, says the rumour, who knows who Charlie would have ended up marrying? (Cue ‘wicked’ Camilla). So Enter Lady Di as the perfect replacement and bearer of well bred sproglettes.
Now if any of this is even partly true this isn’t just cynical, but positively barbaric. I am not suggesting for a second that William and Kate wotsherface do not have genuine affections for each other. I have no proof to make that claim and couldn’t care a less anyway.
Only about one third of the British people would prefer to elect their own head of State. If you listen to the royal watchers in the media, the assorted ‘court correspondents’ employed by TV, Radio and the newspapers, the Windsor’s did indeed have the most beastly time of it during the 1990s. There was all that awful business with divorces, affairs and what not. It really did mean the Windsor’s were in a right pickle and the public were beginning to turn against them.
To which I just sigh. I am a Republican because I quite simply don’t believe my head of state should depend upon who they happen to have been born to. The British people should get the opportunity to decide who they want as their head of state are and have the opportunity to replace them with someone else if they so desire. Any ill-feeling towards the Windsor’s in the 1990s had no Republican edge whatsoever if it is not based on that fundamental principle. Complaints about who slept with whom, and who treated who meanly, are merely an extension of the British obsession with Soap Opera. The Windsor’s pretend to be above us and celebrity culture, whilst needing to share their lives with their subjects, in the posh-est soap opera of them all.
So what does all this have to do with the Wedding in 2011? Allow me to explain. Many years ago I came across a rumour that the wedding in the early 1980s between Charlie and Lady Di was ‘arranged.’ For the Windsor’s, so the rumour went, the motives were clear. Good old Chuck, whatever else he was, wasn’t a looker. Nor for that matter is his current wife, but I digress. Charlie had to marry a good sort – decent breeding, blue blood, all that sort of thing, but above all, she had to be a good looking filly, don’t you know. The bride had to be good looking, to bear good looking children and thereby guarantee the monarchy, and the House of Windsor’s reign well into the next (and now current) century. Good looking heirs to the throne and a good looking Queenie-to-be are more photogenic with which to impress their subjects, after all. Why couldn’t they let love take its natural course? Well, says the rumour, who knows who Charlie would have ended up marrying? (Cue ‘wicked’ Camilla). So Enter Lady Di as the perfect replacement and bearer of well bred sproglettes.
Now if any of this is even partly true this isn’t just cynical, but positively barbaric. I am not suggesting for a second that William and Kate wotsherface do not have genuine affections for each other. I have no proof to make that claim and couldn’t care a less anyway.
What I do believe to be significant is that the wedding will be stage managed as an ‘event’, in no less a cynical way than Charlie and Diana’s wedding was. Big showpiece, give the crowd what they want. Hide the dress til the last minute. Because the plebs can’t wait to see it, and the whole thing will be televised, beamed across all four corners of the old empire. Order in some mugs (the china variety that is. It’s beneath me to suggest that those watching the Wedding Event of the spring are mugs. Although – it appears I just have. Besides, there won’t be any need to order them in, they can’t wait to lap it all up.)
Now you may think I am being a bit too harsh on the Windsor’s. (Or should that be the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s[1], which is their original name before all that awful business in 1914 got in the way and forced them to look for something less, ahem, Germanic. Which raises another point, I had to raise a chuckle to see P. Harry over in Germany collecting some daft award – but was anyone else not embarrassed he didn’t bother to speak in German? He was home after all.) And I am certain they have more than enough people to defend them (don’t get me started on that poxy national anthem of ours). But we pesky Republicans refuse to go away. Yet, being realistic, I doubt we will see a Republic in my lifetime, and there are other battles more worthy of fighting.
No, we Republicans are in the minority in the UK now, and will be the other side of the Wedding. No Republic has ever been born without some recourse to violence, though who is to blame for that in the past, the Republicans or the Monarchists, is open to debate. I for one am not advocating some violent recourse here, or anywhere else. Much better to ignore the whole staged managed soap operatic pantomime. Indeed ignorance in this case, is the most effective response. So don’t expect me to be watching, or taking part in any street parties. I will be at home, telly off and reading some George Orwell. Now – where did I put that copy of 1984?
[1] http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
Now you may think I am being a bit too harsh on the Windsor’s. (Or should that be the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha’s[1], which is their original name before all that awful business in 1914 got in the way and forced them to look for something less, ahem, Germanic. Which raises another point, I had to raise a chuckle to see P. Harry over in Germany collecting some daft award – but was anyone else not embarrassed he didn’t bother to speak in German? He was home after all.) And I am certain they have more than enough people to defend them (don’t get me started on that poxy national anthem of ours). But we pesky Republicans refuse to go away. Yet, being realistic, I doubt we will see a Republic in my lifetime, and there are other battles more worthy of fighting.
No, we Republicans are in the minority in the UK now, and will be the other side of the Wedding. No Republic has ever been born without some recourse to violence, though who is to blame for that in the past, the Republicans or the Monarchists, is open to debate. I for one am not advocating some violent recourse here, or anywhere else. Much better to ignore the whole staged managed soap operatic pantomime. Indeed ignorance in this case, is the most effective response. So don’t expect me to be watching, or taking part in any street parties. I will be at home, telly off and reading some George Orwell. Now – where did I put that copy of 1984?
[1] http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment