Featured Post

The Great Con: The Iran Deal

We live in a time of government by con men, women, and those of flexible and reassignable gender. In the last few days this bitter truth ha...

Saturday, May 19, 2018

A Friendly Snark: The Royal Wedding

Heading back to California tomorrow for a family emergency. Just going to put up a quick and snarky post.

OK, OK. I should pretend as some others do, not to be aware that there is a Royal wedding underway today in the UK. But, I can't. The media won't let me. Do I wish the newlyweds all the best? Of course. Is this the most important event in the world and of our time? Uh, no, no it's not. It's not even close to being the most important event of the past couple of days or so. It's an A-list celebrity thing. It's pretty and nice, and nobody does these sorts of events better than the Brits. The Royal family is the greatest tourist magnet on the planet. Whatever they cost, they are worth it in tourist jobs, hard currency and the endless number of movies and TV shows that saturate the airwaves, clog the studios, and provide lots of jobs.

The Royals themselves? Meh. I have said before, and will again that QEII is a class act. I wish her and her irascible Prince Phillip many more years gracing the world scene. Her kids and grandkids? Well, most of them fell pretty far from the ol' QEII tree. Now, I will modify that a bit. Many years ago, I declared Harry to be an idiot for wearing a Che shirt while partying. I dismissed him as just another in a long line of callow youths produced by the Royal family, almost stupid enough to be a Kennedy.

I have to take some of that back, however.

Harry served his country well and bravely in combat in Afghanistan--per American sources I heard that he performed quite admirably. Anybody who does that, well, he gets a pass for a lot of stupidity. In addition, he has gone on to devote a considerable amount of time and effort trying to better the lot of wounded veterans both in Britain and the US. Again, he gets some serious points for that. So, let's say he has atoned for his youthful stupidities. Marrying the very politically correct Meghan Markle? Uh . . . well, who knows? The only thing I could think of was poor ol' Nazi-symp Wallis Simpson muttering, "Hey, MM! That's my act you've stolen!"

Bottom line: All the best to the couple, but let me repeat what I said back in 2012,
July 4, 1776. That's the date on the official excuse note. It was signed by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, and others, and delivered by George Washington. As of that date, it's official: We Americans don't have to worry or care about monarchs. And I don't.
My "I don't care about Royals" permit is still valid.

Thanks, Founding Dudes!

40 comments:

  1. Queen Elizabeth assented to the Lisbon Treaty wherein her Government betrayed the electorate (joined European Union without promised referendum). She should have refused to assent. It would have created a constitutional crisis, but if ever one was called for, that was the time. In my opinion, the British government getting away with the Lisbon Treaty was the end of democracy/accountable government in Britain. Brexit will be sabotaged. Why not? Who's going to do anything about it?

    I have raised this question of Elizabeth's culpability many times with adoring Brits. They all say she had no choice. Of course she did. But the government holds an ace up its sleeve: the threat of estate taxes. So she assented. Has her reign been successful? Well, during it Britain lost its Empire and its sovereignty. Yeah, I know she's just symbolic, but symbolic of what? I don't call that success.

    This matters somewhat to me as my mother and maternal family were originally English and my father spent WWII with a squadron that dropped bombs for England and Europe's freedom. They would not recognize what England and Europe have become (vassals of Brussels/Germany).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She should have worked to change how parliament would vote, but the people elected parliament, and it's the will of the British people that brought such buffoonery to power.
      I'm agreed with you, the EU and british government will find a way to stop Brexit, there's too much bureaucracy at stake for the government to back down against only the will of the people it rules.

      I wish I could say America was in a much better situation, but it seems like finally having some sanity in the white house is just driving our newer generations further into the angry-entitlement hole.


      - reader #148

      Delete
    2. I believe it is always a truth, that Britain and America are at greatest risk from our own governments.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, the British republicans of today are probably more a hash of Trotskyites, Islamofascists, radical feminists, and tree huggers rather than the Puritans who nurtured political doctrines of political compact, the political supremacy of law, and limited government (I know your high school textbook didn't mention it; or forgot to mention that the Mayflower Compact was written by Puritans, but it's actually the way it was). While I agree QEII is a class act, Barmy Prince Charlie does not impress me.

      Delete
    4. Msher, I believe that Queen Elizabeth also holds a strong ace. I was stationed at CINCUSNAVEUR in the 70's and MoD friends informed me that the Royal Army
      swears allegiance to the crown, not the government. Perhaps this has changed over time?

      Delete
    5. Financials

      What would she do with the army? Assuming the army would agree to overthrow the government - a huge if, tlhe populace would not support the monarchy taking over government - even though the elected government is betraying them. Part of my bewilderment about present-day Britain, especially England, is its passivity and wimpyness. Not the Brits of Empire or WWII. How did the populace become victims/wimps so fast?

      Delete
    6. Tincansailor, unlike the RAF, RN, RM, the British Army is not 'Royal' as a whole, but parts of it are (Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, etc.). Not sure about the allegiance thing.

      Delete
    7. Found the allegiance thing. It's to the Queen.

      I... swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me.

      Delete
  2. Diplomad,agree, QE II is a class act, when she is gone what will happen to monarchy ? Well, being Republican I hope it will disintegrate too but unfortunately it looks like it is reinventing itself with this new wedding. The court has realized that a winning formula is multi-culturalism, trendy charities, celebrities and accessibility to media. Why else were Oprah, the Clooneys and the Beckhams at the wedding ? There is something very fake about it. It reminds me of the Obama White House. That is what we will see coming. We will hear endlessly about the brides AfroAmerican mother and their genes even though the bride looks more like a Mexican to me. The old Queen has her faults but she represents good, old, virtues and a bygone Britain. She is definitely not fake. No spin-doctors created this lady. Well, I have only shallow, superficial knowledge of her and the British monarchy but that is my impression. And I cannot argue about her responsibility in political questions. I just like her old-fashioned country style and lovely flowery dresses. And we share the same good name, Elizabeth. So I say, long live the Queen.
    Swedishlady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just curious, but, Swedish Lady, what's your opinion of your own country's Carl xvi Gustaf and his Bernadotte family?

      Delete
    2. Oh, not much, Kepha. The Bernadottes were a breach from the previous dynasties, they were invited from Napoleons France when the "ruling" family was childless, so they were French from the beginning. Now they have of course integrated. Carl Gustaf is a man with few, if any, talents, and he is dyslectic on top of that. He is a "fumbling", simple man, interested in nature, hunting (!!), agriculture and sports. No intellectual there, no lofty or interesting ideas about anything, probably conservative, or even a Social Democrat. I believe that has made him appreciated. People, even Socialists, tend to forget that the Socialist agenda includes, get rid of monarchy. .Swedes would never accept a stuck-up individual , this low-key person gets a pass. And since his daughter, the Crown Princess , married an ordinary Swede, she will get a pass too. But I am republican and of course I think that the entire institution is obsolete. I don´t want to spend more tax money on these people.
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    3. "Hunting(!!)" Your prejudice is showing, my dear !!!

      Delete
    4. Eric W, I think that nature and agriculture are excellent hobbies and interests, I don´t like hunting much, though.Yes, some prejudice there, perhaps. But I would prefer if Carl Gustaf went into the woods and had some coffee and schnapps while he watched the elks instead of attacking them with a gun.
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    5. ..."Swedes would never accept a stuck-up individual"...
      HAHAHA! Funny stuff, pass the aquavit~~~
      https://www.thetoptens.com/most-hated-countries/sweden-391426.asp

      OW~~~

      Delete
    6. Thanks for your answer to my question, Swedish Lady. On my mother's side, I have Norwegian ancestors; and I spent two years as a junior US diplomat in Thailand, which is a monarchy (when their king, figurehead though he may have been, was genuinely revered). I suppose that when I consider how my own republic threw up such characters as the O and Shrillary Shroooo, I can sometimes appreciate monarchy (then I read history and get back on my republican feet).

      Delete
  3. Never thought much of "the monarchy," but (apparently, like most here, I have always thought well of the Queen. She exemplifies the (mostly gone now) British characteristic of duty without complaint.

    As for Charles, well this probably tells all one needs to know about him. May he remain "King in waiting" for many more years.

    As a side note, when I took up citizenship in a Commonwealth country, I had to affirm allegiance to the Queen. No problem doing that, but if Charles were King, I could not have done that (at least not honestly).

    I do have a soft spot for William and Kate. He has avoided negative stories (unlike his younger brother), and she seems quite grounded, family-oriented, and determined to raise their children in as normal of an environment as possible. My impression (which could be way off-base of course), is that she would have married him if he were an ordinary person, perhaps a full-time military pilot, which he has spent time doing in the past.

    As for Harry, the word "immature" comes to mind whenever I think of him. Maybe he has outgrown that (for his sake, I hope so). I don't really like Meghan at all. She has always idolized Diana, and obviously wants to become (at least in the public eye) Diana's successor. Would she have married Harry if he wore an ordinary person? No way! She wants to be "important," hand he can give that to her.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At least the party didn't interfere with the running of the Preakness Stakes.

    Green Bear

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Queen has a message for Charles:
    https://youtu.be/QAwsYEX0sCU

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anecdotal -- as it chanced, on the Day That Changed The World, I was passing through London's 3rd World airport. As might be expected, every TV monitor was gushing over the 9th (or is he only the 6th?) in line to the throne legalizing his common law wife. However, almost every person in the airport was sitting with his/her back to the screens.

    There have been some polls suggesting that most of Her Majesty's subjects care little about the nuptials of one of her less important grandchildren -- which is in line with that observation of English people at Heathrow Airport.

    My current hypothesis for the excessive media coverage is that much of the "elite" media suffers from Kardashian Envy. The chance to cover the "Upstairs" Battenburgs lets them finally compete with the gutter press's coverage of the "Downstairs" Kardashians.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not in agreement with the consensus here. To England the Crown is a representation of its history. All the evolution of democratic government took place either in accord or in conflict with the Crown. It's not the human person herself (soon to be himself) that matters but rather the position itself.
    For Americans we might look at the flag that way -- it's just a piece of cloth, but it represents all that came before, so we respect it.
    So too for thinking Brits -- if they give in to the riffraff calling for abolition of the Crown just because some of the wearers are less than savoury characters, or that the accoutrements are a bit silly looking, there won't be much left to identify one as a Brit. Some think that would be good -- I disagree.

    That's what the idea of a "Royal Wedding", with all its ceremony, is intended to keep alive. Through thick and thin, it has worked for over 1000 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see your points, Graham. But during the previous 1000 years it was "easier" to unite under one person. People had no choice and they didn´t know much about the person. The members of the Royal houses were often the only celebrities in the country, all focus was on them, they were semi-gods. But now we live in an entirely different era, the Internet has revolutionized everything. People can be scrutinized in a way impossible yesterday.Royals do not get away with everything like they used too. And many, many other celebrities, many with real talents, call for attention. That´s why I believe that Elizabeth II will be the last of her kind, she comes from another era when royals were respected because they were royals and they played by the rules. Her son,Charles, is probably a good and fine person but he will not have an easy time, I believe. People are not respectful anymore. So many European countries got rid of their monarchies, France and Russia after revolutions, Germany, Austria, Italy, Greece after wars because the royals acted in a destructive way. Britains, Scandinavias and Hollands royals are still hanging on, but I believe Belgiums and Spains are having a harder time. Maybe they need to wed some Hollywood people ( like Harry did )? Be interviewed in Ophras show ? But if that is the solution, what´s the point with royals ?
      Swedish lady

      Delete
    2. Graham

      I have used the queen many times to explain to Brits what the flag means to Americans. Symbol of common history, values and unity and shared future - at least theoretically. I say that the queen is a living person but our flag is also organic in that it has the 13 stripes that represent the 13 original colonies with a star added for every state that has joined the Union. Theoretically it could still get two more (Guam, Puerto Rico). Arguably, it is more authentic than recent and future British monarchs in that its name has never been changed, while the present monarchial familial name went from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor.

      I have had a number of Brits tell me they find Americans' reverence for our flag quite bizarre. These are Brits who see nothing odd about bowing/curtseying to the queen and celebrating her various jubilee birthdays.

      My English grandmother changed her name at age 16 (I think) to Elizabeth to honor Queen Elizabeth and went by Betty, short for Elizabeth, for the rest of her life. I don't know what her birth name was.

      Delete
    3. Parliament has slowly been chipping away at the house of lords. Without that as a balance England could slip away to an elective oligarchy. I say long like the queen or king!

      Delete
    4. The House of Lords could slip away by simply letting them sleep!

      Delete
    5. When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
      As every child can tell,
      The House of Lords throughout the war
      Did nothing in particular,
      And did it very well... nod to Gilbert and Sullivan

      Delete
  8. BackofanenvelopeMay 21, 2018 at 1:34 AM

    How about we loan him to you lot? He could be governer of California!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you clone him multiple times, so he can take all of the california senate? That's the only way to be sure. (grin)

      Delete
  9. Prince Phillip is a class act. Tells it like it is.
    Let the idiot media try to distort his words but those in the 'know' like and respect him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_MzGP_kGB8

    ReplyDelete
  10. I would question whether the Duke or Duchess of Windsor were "Nazi sympathizers." They were polite to Hitler when they visited Germany---like many other British visitors at the time. I've seen pictures of US Boy Scouts in uniform giving the Scout salute as the swastika flag passed, watching a parade in Berlin before WWII.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. before WW II the open hand salute was used for the pledge of allegiance, boy scouts, etc. It WASN'T considered a NAZI salute until those bastards corrupted it in the public mind.

      Delete
  11. Off-topic for this thread, but definitely in the wheelhouse of the proprietor here...

    Obviously, this story is quite biased, and as such (I am assuming you knew this man), I would appreciate any background and commentary you wish to offer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dwan Seicheine May 21, 2018 at 3:46 PM

      "Prince Phillip is a class act"...

      What "class" could that be DWAN?

      Old School? I suspect so, but can't actually tell from this angle? Is that your silver tongue caught between his 'cheek 'n'gum', or late onset dementia, with the unexpected tact gene, sadly, lost in transit?

      OW~~~

      Delete
    2. I believe the media twist what the public perceives, in this case.

      Delete
    3. Plus, I'm related. Is a Bahten. (another branch) We left Prussia in 1850 during the liberal revolts. Basically it was be purged or get the hell out.

      Delete
  12. Assuming you would like your descendants to live in a society with the lowest probability of civil strife, which system has the better track record of avoiding a descent into civil war.
    Republicanism or constitutional monarchy?
    A league table could be drawn up if so inclined
    (Assumption that the worst wars are the "civil" ones)

    ReplyDelete
  13. my 8x great grandfather signed that note for me as i was unavailable.

    ReplyDelete