A Monarch for the People


It was hard not to get swept up in the recent royal wedding, despite the loathsome celebrification and tabloid vulgarity that accompanies it. As many of my friends have been emailing me this morning, along with the inherent seduction of grand ritual, here before our eyes was an overwhelmingly White crowd genuinely proud of being British.  


The idealized couple, moreover, instills in the people the conviction that marriage and fidelity is royal and beautiful, not a burden. And even if the Windsors are newcomers of German extraction, royal adulating connects Britons with a millennium of ancestry and tradition.       

On the other hand... a part of me views the event much as I’d view flag-waving Red State yahoos who never stop expressing their loyalty to a government that seeks to dispossess them.  

The situation is different in Britain, of course. Now bereft of aristocratic connections, Parliament essentially stands for liberalism: endless debate, legalism, and faux-representation. The monarchy is actually the more “democratic” institution in the sense that the sovereign subjects the people. As the more primal political institution--that which achieved dominion through right of arms--the monarch commands every prime minister to defer to his more fundamental right to rule.  

Though I hesitate suggesting this, as I don’t want to have trouble with the British border authorities the next time I travel there, would it not be in keeping with the monarchy’s tradition for a sovereign to dismiss parliament, establish a dictatorship, expel all foreigners, and negate all legislation of the past 60 years? (Perhaps some parliamentary-liberal elements could be re-instituted at a later date)  

My sense is that Prince William, much like the rest of the decrepit, decadent “aristocrats” of Europe, wouldn’t contemplate such a notion. Perhaps the more rambunctious Harry is up to the task?

Just a thought.