The Queen is Dead

Posted on Updated on by Geoff CarterCategories:Culture, Michael DiMilo, Politics, Social Commentary

Artwork by Michael DiMilo

By Geoff Carter

Last Thursday, at the ripe old age of ninety-six, after a reign of seventy years, Queen Elizabeth II passed away. The news of her passing has (in a gross understatement) dominated the news. She had been the queen since her coronation in 1952, the same year that The Jackie Gleason Show premiered on CBS and Ernest Hemingway published The Old Man and the Sea. 

The ancient pomp and tradition surrounding succession in the monarchy has started moving in full force. The public visitation, the royal funeral, and the endless pageantry will soon be upon us with a vengeance, and then Prince Charles, at 73, will eventually be coronated as King Charles III. The monarchy will continue. Which begs the question—why?

England is a democracy. The Queen—and future King—are only figureheads. It has been argued that they are the face of the nation, but the truth is that they serve no useful function in the actual running of the nation. Great Britain is governed by a democratically elected Parliament since 1642, when the English Commonwealth was established, yet the vestiges of the monarchy have hung on. The order of succession determined by the 1701 Act of Settlement, and with minor alterations, remains in effect today. 

According to Bloomberg, the monarchy costs the British taxpayer approximately £102.4 million per year, a hefty price that that includes costs of garden parties, school visits, and receptions, as well as upkeep for Buckingham Palace and other royal properties. The monarchy itself is valued at £ 67.5 billion, which makes it England’s single largest asset, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, and other properties. 

Yet the monarch’s royal duties are typically only ceremonial, including greeting visiting heads-of-state, beginning the parliamentary year, and appointing a duly elected government. The queen meets with the prime minster weekly to keep him informed of government matters, but this is in effect, a courtesy; in fact, the throne itself is completely apolitical.

While, like the appendix, the monarchy may seem like a vestigial organ, it has been a central part of British life for over 2000 years, an institution deeply ingrained into the Bristish national identity. In a recent YouGov poll, 55% of the English people, six in people believe the monarchy should continue, while only 33% of 18-24 year-olds believe it should be sustained, perhaps foreshadowing an eventual demise.

Over the course of our history Americans have shared the same fascination with royalty as England. At the end of George Washington’s term as president, a group of politicians, including Alexander Hamilton, attempted to persuade him to stay on as a permanent leader—a king. Washington was gracious—and wise—enough to decline. Some of the most influential and powerful American statesmen come from “royal” families. We had the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Bushes, the Roosevelts, the Adams, the Rockefellers, the Cuomos, and more.     

Some, like the Kennedys, have exuded a rarified air of privilege and authority. President Kennedy and his wife Jackie, a beautiful young rich couple, seemed to be the paragon of a successful American couple, so much so their administration was dubbed “Camelot” by the press. Jack was brilliant, young, and decisive, promising a new idealistic vision for the country. Jackie was beautiful, elegant, and chic, establishing new standards of sophistication for American women. Other American political clans never reached the level of public affection the Kennedys received but remain fixed in the American imagination.

The most recent entry into this circle of American pseudo-royalty invited himself. Donald Trump, elected to the presidency despite a three million vote deficit to runner-up Hillary Clinton, grasped the levers of power at the White House and refused to let go. Trump resorted to every dirty trick he could think of to keep himself in power, ignoring the law, traditions, and protocols, bullying members of Congress, and lying about the 2020 election in order to stay in power.

Trump even, in the hallowed tradition of the British monarchy, attempted to keep his power by staging an armed insurrection—an American version of the War of the Roses. He is currently attempting to undermine the integrity of our electoral system through lies, subterfuge, and infiltration. Dozens of Trump-backed candidates, most of whom dispute the results of the 2020 presidential election, are running for the very state and local offices that operate electoral processes. It’s not difficult to imagine their motives for running and their intentions should they be elected. 

The British monarchy was neutered by the 1701 Act of Settlement and since then has been little more than a remnant of a past age when England was the foremost imperial power in the world. It wields no real power and exists merely as a sort of living history to a past time, as evinced by the Commonwealth of over 56 nations, most of which are former British colonies. These colonies were taken by force, their resources plundered, and their peoples conquered and oppressed into servitude. Fights for the crown were bloody and the intrigues to attain the throne and keep it often involved assassination, banishment, and murder. 

This is the heritage of Queen Elizabeth II and King Charles III. Americans witnessed what was very nearly a successful coup by a man who would be king—a selfish, greedy, boorish, undereducated, manipulative, and brutal demagogue. For all that, this would-be-king is shrewd and ruthless. He came very near to successfully halting the certification of the election. Had he succeeded, who knows where we might be today. 

So, as the wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal Funeral and the British Royal Ascension and all the other ancient rituals of primogeniture proceed into our living rooms, a reminder of the ruthlessness, violence, and greed on which this monarchy was built might be in order. 

And, in America, we are perhaps living through a modern-day pretender who would usurp our government in order to establish his own corrupt little fiefdom. There can be little doubt that that is still his ambition.

Sources

Share this!