Royalty rots at fifty: thoughts on the UK
From The Left
by Joseph Waldman
13 February 2002

Last Wednesday was an evil day of sorts for those of us on the left. Not Thursday. That was a good day--my mother's birthday (happy birthday, Mom). But Wednesday--first, it was Ronald Reagan's 91st birthday, though I refuse to dignify that man with a column of his own until he at last kicks the bucket, whenever it may be (cross your fingers, knock wood).

It also was Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee in Britain, fifty years to the day since she took the throne and became queen. She was on a diplomatic-cum-pleasure trip to Africa when her father, George VI, died. Atop a mountain in the colonies when she received the news, the setting was somehow more appropriate to her character and decline than anyone could imagine.

Why is Liz still in power, anyway? Is it because of cronyism in the House of Commons? Or is it because nobody else wants the job?

One might ask whether a smart-aleck American has any business criticizing the British system of government. I say, hell yes. As colonies we suffered under British misrule for years untold, and eventually achieve nominal, political independence. Just like the East German "wall in the head," however, Americans have never been able to rid themselves of the silly notion that British culture, anachronistic and alien though it may be, is vastly superior to our own. Years of Jane Austen teleplays and cheap Kipling reprints have hammered this ludicrous idea home.

This is dangerous for America and dangerous for democracy. Already we've got in place a head of state immediately descended from one himself not long out of power. The only other time this happened, the country wound up with four years of Baby-Brit Brahmanism under John Q. Adams. Four years later, we were redeemed by the hillbilly hero, Andrew Jackson, who rip-roared on in and saved the country. I'm concerned that the same thing might not happen this time around.

So I believe it is very appropriate for an American to condemn the British monarchy. What are the more general, universal reasons for doing so?

Recognizing that the monarch is little more than a figurehead, and that it is the Prime Minister and Cabinet who make policy, the fact remains that the queen is, still, there on the top. Theoretically--it's a very long shot, but still a possibility--she could reclaim the powers of absolutism and take over all the powers of government de facto. Granted, I doubt this kind of literal palace coup would go over too well with the British people, but one never knows what kind of armed forces could be marshaled by the royals.

Also, the queen controls a great deal of capital; she's certainly the richest person in Britain, and one of the richest in the world. To be fair, only a small portion of it is liquid, and the crown jewels, castles, etc. pretty much reverted to museum pieces in the last half century or so.

Nonetheless, they're hers in name, and yet her Exchequer still taxes the daylights out of the subjects (and remember, they're not “citizens“--that would be too ennobling--but “subjects“) to pay for the Windsors' lavish clothing bills, food accounts, rehab clinics, and sundry other luxuries. A salaried, sheltered head of state is fine, but the President of the United States has a fixed income, and only two official residences, which can change hands and aren't hereditary (unless you're from Connecticut and your name is “Bush“).

This brings us to a third point: means of succession. Royal government is doubly flawed in this regard. Since, at least in Britain, the crown passes automatically to the eldest male child (yes, this monarch is a fluke), regardless of his talents or flaws or those of his siblings, it's a complete crapshoot as to what kind of king or queen the country gets. Elizabeth has not been a particularly bad human being, the circumstances of her position aside. Her uncle, Edward VIII, however, was a lout and a fascist sympathizer, and if not for his abdication Britain would have been in for a long, suffering haul--he took the throne in 1936 and didn't die until 1972.

Even before that, George III, tormentor of the colonies, spent his sixty years as king growing increasingly brain-addled, eventually to the point that he could no longer perform any of the functions of office. High incidences of mental illness are one of the most common results of repeated incest, and monarchy is, at its essence, government-by-incest; and that act can never be justified.

The British had a republic once before, for a very brief time. It didn't work very well, but I think it's worth a second chance. Down with vestigialism; let's dig up Oliver Cromwell.