Class Warfare Blog

May 9, 2020

The Royals v. The Tabloids

Filed under: Culture,History — Steve Ruis @ 8:48 am
Tags: , , , ,

It seems the main reason to have royals of the British sort now is so the tabloids have something to publish about this or that tiff in their weird social club.

I find the whole idea of royals to be absurd in the first place. Consider the British Royals Harry and William. So, what do they bring to the table? Why are they so “special?” Well, they are special because they were born of “special parents.” Those parents were Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spenser. Lady Diana Spenser was “special” because she was born of “special parents,” and more so because she married a “very special” person, Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. Prince Charles was special because he was born of “special parents,” too. And those parents were special because they were born of “special parents,” and on and on. Most of these people have done nothing to merit their “special” claim, albeit one or another does something charitable from time to time, but so do many other people.

When you get back to “special people” who actually did things to merit their specialness, we find that the main skills of these people were: spending other peoples money in large quantities. One was to lavish expensive gifts upon themselves: jewels, clothes, houses, land (lots of land), food, wine, . . . there really was almost no limit. And of course, lavishing gifts and “grants of specialness,” aka titles, on their friends and relatives. The other main activity was unnecessary wars.

Imagine what would have happened if each of the wars initiated by British royals had been forgone. What would have changed? How would people’s lives have been different? Obviously if someone else brings war to your land, someone needs to lead a response, but this doesn’t seem to be all that common.

Consider the back and forth wars with the continent made by British monarchs. What were these about? Mostly they were about who was to be the most “special” where. The tussles over who ruled Normandy were incredibly destructive but the claims of both sides were equally ridiculous. The royals were motivated by ego, greed, vengeance, etc. none of which had anything to do with the future of the British realm.

And at one point more than half the countries in Europe were ruled over by people from one family. Now, that’s special.

Think about all of the times people have done wonderful things for you. Doctors, dentists, car mechanics, plumbers, you name it. You remembered their effort with a gift or a Christmas card come that season. You didn’t worship them as a monarch.

Well, those are small things, what about the big things?

Ah, you mean like Abraham Lincoln did in preserving the union or Franklin Roosevelt in fighting the Second World War and helping to win it? Did we kneel down to any of those? Did we acknowledge that they were divinely inspired agents of God? It seems that this divine right of kings bullshit was made up as a way that religions could support monarchies giving the religions some say as to which monarch would rule. (How many European monarchs got excommunicated because of their bad behavior, eh?)

If at one time in our development, we may have need a war leader who we gave some authority over us to. But we didn’t have to go whole hog (as the Vikings proved) as we acceded to most everywhere.

History is a story in which human beings think way too much of themselves. I call it the Great Man Theory of History.

14 Comments »

  1. WW1 was a dispute between [royal] cousins.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by john zande — May 9, 2020 @ 12:03 pm | Reply

    • A dispute that had a distinctively American attempt at resolving it … a bullet to the head of the Archduke, if I recall correctly.

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — May 9, 2020 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

      • That kicked things off, but as someone once said, “at that point is was easier to have a war than not have one.”

        There’s a letter from George to Wilhelm (the cousins) just prior to the start of festivities where he pleads, “Willie, don’t do this…” (yes, he called him Willie).

        Like

        Comment by john zande — May 9, 2020 @ 12:08 pm | Reply

        • He probably heard that as a criticism of the length of his willie. The royals are so sensitive.

          It is quite disgusting to see people defend the “royalty con” (Oh, our “” we love ‘im so much!”) The stoutest defense of the royals in the UK I have heard so far is that it is good for tourism. (I can remember touring castles and cathedrals and thinking “What a waste …” I do acknowledge that if it were not for royal spendthrifts we would not have such collections of art or furniture and architecture … but we also end up with masses of poor people and masses of people in graves to pay for them. I’d rather just have folk art than the world laid waste by royal vanities.

          On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:08 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — May 9, 2020 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

          • Think I’ve said it before, but it works for Australia. Keeps our politics and politicians in a well-behaved box.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by john zande — May 9, 2020 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

            • I lost track of what “it” refers to at this point.

              And, I just saw an Aussie Internet film (Marketing the Messiah” which was very good. I will probably have to recommend it on the blog.)

              Like

              Comment by Steve Ruis — May 9, 2020 @ 12:18 pm | Reply

              • Never heard of it. What’s it about?

                “It” is the royals as [remote] head of state.

                Like

                Comment by john zande — May 9, 2020 @ 1:13 pm | Reply

                • Got it. :o)

                  On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 1:13 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                  >

                  Like

                  Comment by Steve Ruis — May 9, 2020 @ 1:16 pm | Reply

  2. Mmmm, listen to her lyrics… 😉

    Like

    Comment by Professor Taboo — May 9, 2020 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  3. The royals do have a use, to provide a convenient distraction from a failed government as they’re doing in England. Prince Andrew and the pedophile scandal, the “terrible” Meghan and “duped” Harry committing the ultimate crime of trying to be normal, make useful distractions whenever people get a bit too worried about how Boris and his cronies screwed up first Brexit and then the virus response, or Labor’s ongoing problems with antisemitism or whatever other little government faux pas they need to bury on the back pages.

    Like

    Comment by grouchyfarmer — May 9, 2020 @ 10:24 pm | Reply

    • Damn! All we have for a distraction is Donald Trump. Maybe there is something to this royal business,

      On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:24 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Steve Ruis — May 10, 2020 @ 9:31 am | Reply

      • Ah, but Trump IS the distraction. He’s made a very convenient tool for the extremists. While everyone is focusing on his, oh, let’s call them “antics”, the GOP has been busy stacking the court system with extremist right wing judges, undermining unions, decimating the EPA, and now is aiming for the Social Security system and federal employee pension system. Everyone is so focused on Trump that a lot of this is slipping under the radar and isn’t even making most news outlets.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by grouchyfarmer — May 10, 2020 @ 5:01 pm | Reply

        • I AGREE! It makes for interesting reading (albeit also maddening) to know what the orange baboon is doing, but you’re right-on that way too much is going on in the shadows that we-the-people need to know about. The “headlines” are the attention-getters … and of course, that’s what ultimately makes money for the news media, BUT …

          Quite frankly it it wasn’t for some of the bloggers (Robert and Scottie come to mind), some of us wouldn’t have a clue what’s happening in the shadows.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Nan — May 10, 2020 @ 5:09 pm | Reply

  4. Whatever use Royalty and aristocrats were in the past they are plainly redundant today. I could tolerate A monarch but what use are the rest of them except to displace real news from newspapers. And the modern aristos – celebs, likewise.

    Like

    Comment by conartistocracy — July 12, 2020 @ 10:41 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: