Media Partners | Contributors | Advertise | Contact | Log in | Wednesday 22 March 2023

RE: The Monarchy.


Share This Article:

Having read a reply to my original article I thought it merited a reply.

QueenFirst of all I would like to address a number of inaccuracies. I did not say that celebrating the 60th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s reign is “repulsive”, I said that the swooning over the Royal Family be it from the media or from the public is “repulsive” (I don’t begrudge celebrating her jubilee, just the awful tea towels and plates).

It is also claimed that I used the “Royal Family is a waste of money argument” which I did not. Now to move on the points made in support of the monarchy.

Firstly the article quotes the Queen saying she promised to be devoted to our service. If she is indeed devoted to OUR service, why are we called her loyal subjects? Surely if she is serving us it should be her who uses such slavish terms to address us.

The ‘Monarchy brings in a lot of money’ argument falls flat when considering the fact that in a list of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK Windsor Castle was the only Royal-related place on the list and it came 17th.

Plus should this even be considered an argument in the scheme of things? Britain is one of the top 10 arms dealers in the world. This trade brings in far more money than the monarchy does, so by that logic the CEO of BAE systems should be king.

She then goes onto say that the monarchy is an ‘ever present symbol of diplomacy and dignity’. What dignity? Was it dignified Prince Phillip telling brutal Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroesser ‘It’s a pleasant change to be in a country not ruled by its people’ (I wrote this in my last article, but the reply made no mention of this).

Is the Queen such a symbol of friendship? Is she rushing to Iran to soothe a terrified nation? Has she gone to Palestine to give words of comfort to an abused people whose very existence is denied? has she gone to Pakistan to offer consolation to a country whose sovereignty is trampled on by the West whilst its civil society fragments?

To address the adoration of Diana, the writer states how Diana ‘publicly devoted her life to diminishing the crippling stigmatism of AID’s’. But did she really?

Do you really think she gave a damn about the millions who suffer from this tortuous illness? It of course had nothing to do with the great publicity of spending a few days in Bosnia and Angola. The piece mentions the Ottawa treaty which Diana supported but gives no mention to the instrumental people who worked so hard in putting the treaty together. People like Jodie Williams, a woman who truly devoted her life to ridding the world of land mines, she won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, but no one cares who she is, she wasn’t a celebrity like Diana.

Onto the final paragraph the writer echoes the same words as mine, calling the Queen ‘an admirable woman’. As for her being a dignified woman. Well Britain has thousands of dignified older women, except these women don’t have the money and servants like the Queen does.

I also agree that if there was a vote people would vote for the Monarchy, but Monarchy itself is not democratic, you don’t choose your head of state it is hereditary.

You could get a decent monarch like Elizabeth II or a fascist like Edward VIII who thought Hitler was a smashing fellow, or we could get Prince Charles who is quite clearly a meddlesome idiot. Polls also see-sawed between who they want next on the throne between Prince Charles and Prince William. Here’s an idea, why don’t we have an election for it? Republicanism isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Articles: 29
Reads: 201489
© 2023 is a website of Studee Limited | 15 The Woolmarket, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 2PR, UK | registered in England No 6842641 VAT # 971692974