Flushed Over Royalty
As Independence Day approaches, I, like a lot of people, have been thinking about our founding, and how lucky we are to be the beneficiaries of the wisdom and foresight of the men who came up with our resilient form of government. Oh, sure, there are always attempts to undermine their efforts and to claim the great documents they produced are somehow outdated and irrelevant, but we’ve somehow survived those attempts. But it’s also interesting to me that, after the battles we fought and the treasures we spent to break the chains that bound us to a King who ruled from across a vast ocean, we Americans still seem fascinated by British Royalty.
The enormous ratings and the breathless hype that surrounded the recent marriage of a Prince and the excitement over his coming visit provide the latest evidence that we just can’t get enough of crowns and thrones and castles and such. I guess I could understand it if we lived in England, or were still ruled from there, but—hey!—we had a revolution because we thought that stuff wasn’t exactly what you’d call...you know, democratic.
Maybe it’s all the fairy tales we read as kids, or maybe it’s disenchantment with our own political class, but we Americans can’t seem to get enough news about the royal family. What makes it even odder is that this particular royal family hasn’t exactly been a model of decorum and responsibility. If this group weren’t of royal blood and were just the weird family who lived down the street, we’d all be pointing our fingers and clucking our tongues and shaking our heads.
Throughout history, Kings and Queens and Princes have tended to be the cause of more wars and murders and intrigue than just about anyone. Through unholy alliances and biologically risky inter-marriage, royal bloodlines haven’t exactly produced a stellar lineup of rulers. But it doesn’t seem to matter. A lot of us still want to know everything about these people.
I don’t think Americans really desire to return to a monarchy; we just seem to be interested in what they do. I guess it’s like rubbernecking after a freeway accident. Or maybe it just makes us feel better to know that no matter what problems we may have here with our Republican form of government, it could be worse. We could be ruled by those people. Happy birthday, America. And God save the Queen.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
The Royal newlyweds are in Canada at the moment, charming the socks off us colonials and generally warming the hearts of curmudgeons. Last year, the Queen did the same.
I'm not a die-hard monarchist but I do like the way the British monarchy has evolved since Queen Victoria. The institution has become more important than the individual, although in George VI and Elizabeth II, we have had exceptional individuals. Charles is another matter, but the institution is likely to survive his eccentricities, and William is off to a promising start. So God save the Queen!
And God bless America! My country is extraordinarily fortunate to have such friends and allies as the UK and the US.
Happy birthday, America!
Aug '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Between now and 1776, Disney came along. Princes and princesses have been romanticized for the last ~60 years in American culture. That's not enough to embrace royalty as a source of government, but in a world of TV imagery, reality shows, and cheap celebrity, it's enough to keep our interest.
Of course monarchies were wiped away wholesale over the last 200 years, so we can afford to treat them as harmless yet entertaining relics. Just as long as they don't have formal power.
(But it's worth noting that on Obama's last trip to England, the Queen was a much better diplomat than he was. Her experience is an advantage of ruling for decades; on the day Obama was born, she had been Queen for longer than he can legally be President.)
May '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
I think the general population's fascination with Royalty (and with the super-rich) is connected to fantasizing about life without boundaries. People think, "Golly, they can get away with that?" and wonder what it would be like to be able to do likewise. That's why most of what we read about them has to do with 'breaking the rules', IMHO.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 2:56pmMay '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Our fascination with the Kennedys and the way they are portrayed in the media prove our susceptibility to monarchy.
Jul '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Man, I'd swap Queen Elizabeth for Michele Obama in a heartbeat.
May '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Kenneth used his time machine to go into the future and steal my line. I would sooner be ruled by the first 200 names in Debrett's Peerage than by the Kardashians. Except that one who looks like Padma Laksmi.
Dec '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
BlueAnt, it didn't start with Disney. It was more the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
A couple of years ago at our 4th of July parade on Capitol Hill in D.C. (just a neighborhood parade, fwiw), my husband nearly went ballistic when a Mini Cooper went by with a Union Jack painted on the roof.
And nobody seemed to have a problem with it. So weird.
May '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: A couple of years ago at our 4th of July parade on Capitol Hill in D.C. (just a neighborhood parade, fwiw), my husband nearly went ballistic when a Mini Cooper went by with a Union Jack painted on the roof.
And nobody seemed to have a problem with it. So weird. · Jul 2 at 12:13pm
I nearly decided to conduct The Horse Guards thingy at an outdoor 4th concert once. Thought better of it, and went with the Radetzky March. True story. Nothing says Independence Day like Austrians beating the French.
Oct '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: A couple of years ago at our 4th of July parade on Capitol Hill in D.C. (just a neighborhood parade, fwiw), my husband nearly went ballistic when a Mini Cooper went by with a Union Jack painted on the roof.
And nobody seemed to have a problem with it. So weird. · Jul 2 at 12:13pm
What does your husband have against Hawai'i?
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
genferei
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.: A couple of years ago at our 4th of July parade on Capitol Hill in D.C. (just a neighborhood parade, fwiw), my husband nearly went ballistic when a Mini Cooper went by with a Union Jack painted on the roof.
And nobody seemed to have a problem with it. So weird. · Jul 2 at 12:13pm
What does your husband have against Hawai'i? · Jul 2 at 12:53pm
Not only does he have nothing against Hawai'i, he's a native of Hawai'i!
In fact, he likes to point out that he was born in the same hospital as our president (allegedly .... kidding).
Mar '11
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Pat Sajak:
Throughout history, Kings and Queens and Princes have tended to be the cause of more wars and murders and intrigue than just about anyone.
Other than Hitler, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Al Qaeda ...
And which wars did Queen Elizabeth start?
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 1:27pmJun '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
I'm no fan of monarchy, but Queen Elizabeth has never lost her dignity (even with her goofy children, goofy daughters-in-law, etc etc).
Is there any chance we could hire her as a permanent symbol of our friendship with Britain? She could hold state dinners instead of the Obamas (I think we'd no longer have to worry about rappers appearing at state functions).
Aug '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Was 1776 a rebellion against monarchy, or a rebellion against a really terrible monarch?
(Consider the hornet's nest officially shaken! ;-)
(Full disclosure: I hold a lifetiime membership with The Monarchist League of Canada, and I own a mug that has "Tory Tea" written across the side. So, like, I'm kinda biased, eh?)
(FYI: In Canada, virtually all monarchists are conservatives, and virtually all republicans are liberal socialists. So, like, consider that before you start badmouthing Canuckistani monarchists. Not that you were planning to do so, of course ... )
(I'll take our Head of State since 1953 over nine-out-of-eleven of your Heads of State since 1953, any day of the week. ;-)
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 3:35pmAug '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Throughout the history of the United States of America, have Presidents NOT been the cause of any wars or intrigue?
(I conveniently ignore the point about murder, but we all know that presidential murders have CLEARLY been covered up by the Stonecutters. ;-)
Aug '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
See now, THAT'S the benefit of a Constitutional Monarchy! Even when the Head of Government is an idiot, you can at least look up to the Head of State for a bit of psychic solace.
When the Head of Government and the Head of State are the same person, you're kinda stuck in that regard.
I don't want the symbolic leader of my nation to also be the ACTUAL political leader of my country, because when the leader of the country is incompetent, it's simply too embarrassing.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 3:59pmAug '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Imagine how the past few years of American politics would have been different if Barack Obama was purely the symbolic Head of State (good-looking, dynamic, ivy league, African-American, popular with the foreign press, etc..) but the actual, practical Head of Government was someone boring and competent who actually LIKES the USA!
American voters could then be proud of being oh-so-progressive, and ALSO enjoy the fruits of competent governance! It's WIN-WIN!
;-)
Nov '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Pat Sajak:
I don’t think Americans really desire to return to a monarchy; we just seem to be interested in what they do.
As a self-proclaimed royalty watcher, I find myself intrigued with the centuries-old traditions on display during royal weddings, the State Opening of Parliament, Jubilees, etc.
Despite the political differences we may share with monarchial institutions, one can't help but admire their staggeringly beautiful cultural traditions.
The latest wedding was a spectacular testament to the magnificence of Western Culture; I watched every minute of the ceremony!
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 4:25pmMay '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
Misthiocracy: Imagine how the past few years of American politics would have been different if Barack Obama was purely the symbolic Head of State (good-looking, dynamic, ivy league, African-American, popular with the foreign press, etc..) but the actual, practical Head of Government was someone boring and competent who actually LIKES the USA!
American voters could then be proud of being oh-so-progressive, and ALSO enjoy the fruits of competent governance! It's WIN-WIN!
;-) · Jul 2 at 4:11pm
Particularly since Obama shows no real signs of enjoying being President. His only problem was that you chaps didn't have a vacancy for a King.
Nov '10
Re: Flushed Over Royalty
There's a vast difference between the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain and the monarchy of the house of Saud. The queen reigns but does not rule. As our two law professors posit in the last law podcast it is arguable that there was no really good reason for the revolution and possibly were we still united with Britain, the 1st and 2nd World Wars would have not occurred or been dramatically less destructive due to America's most certain earlier entry into the conflicts along with Canada and the other commonwealth countries.
Even in 1776, George III hardly ruled. Parliament ruled and they only humored the old nut from time to time. Peel the younger was the man in charge after the revolution. George IV, prince regent, tried to get his dad declared non compos mentis and Peel countered his every attempt.
Edited on Jul 2, 2011 at 7:23pm