[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Kate's new life (click to view)
Date: November 19, 2010
In a highly celebrated, yet entirely expected piece of news, Britain's Prince William finally announced this week that he plans to wed Ms. Kate Middleton, his girlfriend of nearly nine years. Their wedding, to be held sometime in Spring, will no doubt be the grandest royal event since the 1981 marriage of William's parents, Prince Charles and the late Lady Diana.

The Diana analogies in particular have been coming fast and furious, as Ms. Middleton can be seen as a fairly analogous figure to the famed "People's Princess." Both are obviously very stylish and affable young women, and both entered into the public spotlight at the precise height of their beauty and glamor, as well as the public popularity of their royal husbands. But the possibility of darker analogies loom as well. Diana is, you must admit, a perfect case study of the multitude of reasons why not to marry into the royal family. Thrust into a public role she was thoroughly unprepared for (and really, who but a royal from birth ever could be?), Lady Di was quickly worn down by the tabloid criticism, paparazzi hounding, and Windsor family drama that plagued her new life as a princess, and entered into a downward spiral of pill-popping, eating disorders, and infidelity. Her death, though tragic, was in many ways the logical conclusion to her tumultuous princesshood, though it's hard to say if the British media, and indeed British culture in general, has really learned any lasting lessons from the episode.

I wish Kate and William well, but I also feel enormous sympathy for them. The case against royalty is a lengthy and multi-faceted argument, and in the past I've usually focused on the political sides of the republican cause. But there's also a strong humanist case to be made that monarchy is a bad system of government simply because of the exploitative and callous way it treats the royals themselves. In the era of emasculated royal power, after all, the extended Windsor family exists only to wave, dress nice, and be vaguely interesting. That, and allow us to live vicariously through their various flaws and foibles, of course. In the grand spectrum of importance, they basically reside somewhere between paper dolls and trained purebreds — though we'd never dream of giving them up.

I strongly doubt the life William is about to lead is the sort of life he'd have voluntarily chosen for himself, if given the chance, and if Kate is able to endure what awaits her, it will largely because her love for her husband is strong enough to overcome the unimaginable hassles and absurdities of the family life she has married into.

As a society, we've long since moved away from the idea that it's socially acceptable to trap and train animals for our own childish amusement and wonder. So why do it to people?

[Ronny]

As an Englishman I do not agree with your republican sentiment but do agree with your points about the media.
The way they shift between being Monarchists and Republicans is the typical behaviour of true cowards. They have no values that they won't sell out in a minute to appeal to the fickle, ignorant, drug-addled puplic sensibilities.
I too pity Miss Middleton, this euphoria won't last and any mistake or gaffe she makes will be magnified tenfold.

But at the same time, I am proud, I am so proud of the both of them. Maybe it's hard for a Canadian to understand, our royal family must mean very little to you. But to me, they ARE England. And without them we'll become just another heartless, soulless European republic which has abandoned its heritage in the name of progressive, limp-wristed ideals. They embody the values all Englishmen should aspire to: Restraint, dignity, pride.

They're a symbol and I truly believe that they have a lot to offer England in this new century. The role may change but their place in the national psyche will be harder to displace.
Although I do envision a scenario in which both Canada and Australia no longer have the English monarch as their head of state. I think it's an inevitablity. But as long as your nation retains its sense of purpose, identity and freedom, then no Canadian has anything to fear from becoming a Republic.

But over here, it's a very different story. Especially when we see how interchangeable a lot of European nations have become. Dull, grey places which prostitute themselves to this dream of a fully united European superpower. It disgusts me, it really does.

[Psudo]

I'm curious, Ronny: In what way does monarchism generally or these particular royals specifically demonstrate restraint, dignity, and/or pride?

So you know your audience: I'm an American, and I don't really follow the tabloids.

[Canadian_Mind]

Like I said in the other thread, I really do wish them good luck, and I wish the tabloids would fuck right off. What happened to Williams parents were nothing short of a disaster. From what little I know of him, he seems like an honourable, upstanding man.; and while I don't know much about Kate, I feel they both deserve a long and fruitful marriage. Really the words to God Save the King come to mind to express my views here.

[Ronny]

Psudo wrote:

I'm curious, Ronny: In what way does monarchism generally or these particular royals specifically demonstrate restraint, dignity, and/or pride?

So you know your audience: I'm an American, and I don't really follow the tabloids.

Thank you for the reply and I will try to explain myself as best I can

I think the English monarchy, under Elizabeth II has come to embody all those traits I mentioned.
Consider the fact that she does not meddle in politics, she appoints the Prime Minister but that is it. Her power is restrained, measured and in my view helps people in a democratic nation stomach the idea of hereditary rule.

Her stoicism, even in the face of numerous wars, terrorist attacks, personal problems and a major shift in societal values are a real inspiration. I see this toughness as a sign of great dignity and resolve. There is a temptation in modern times to have leaders we can relate to, who we see in all their ugliness.
After the 7/7 bombings in London, I will never forget how Tony Blair reacted. He was on television, in tears and his lips were trembling.
I cannot imagine anything worse. That's not the kind of attitude that made our country so powerful, it's hokey sentimentalism that perhaps appeals to low-brow housewives.

The Monarchy itself is a symbol of why my compatriots and I should be proud to be English. Centuries of bloodshed, civil war, tyranny and strife have all led us to this point where the Parliament and the Monarch rule in tranquility. The Monarchy, as much as our elected Parliament, are English traditions, they make us what we are. Throw away that and you throw away everything we were, are and ever shall be. One does not build a strong future by abandoning the ways of the past.

In all these ways, I believe the monarchy personifies the values I outlined earlier. But again, I must stress that I do not expect any of you to share my opinion on the matter. We all have different views on both domestic and foreign issues. So whilst my opinion may seem very...zealous, rest assured that I mean no offence to any of you when I voice it

[Yogi]

You revere the monarchy. That's fine. Keep 'em at home! They are strictly tabloid fodder, and they are losing their appeal on that front as well. Note that 'National Enquirer' has filed for backruptcy protection.
The U.S. has their heroes in Hollywood. Whatever.
Here in Canada, I would prefer that we continue to view and treat our Military members as the true heroes that they are. As it should be. They are the only 'Heroes' we need!

[Ronny]

It's nice that you see the military as Canada's greatest heroes. Too few people share that sentiment. Apathy and an abundance of Communist saboteurs are always trying to make good, patriotic people - like yourself - feel like knuckle-dragging dinosaurs. Indeed, they would have you believe that your national pride as a Canadian is some unforgivable vice.
When the monarchy eventually goes in Canada, I just hope it's replaced by something unifying, something which goes beyond partisan politics and says something about your national identity and shared goals. The problem with republicanism is that the notion of 'power given to the people' descends into 'power given to the individual' and we are left with a society which descends into selfish, petty power struggles.
Working towards the common good is a noble idea, but every nation still needs a reminder of their unity and the limits of their ambition.
If that makes ANY sense

[andyt]

Newsbot wrote:

As a society, we've long since moved away from the idea that it's socially acceptable to trap and train animals for our own childish amusement and wonder. So why do it to people?

We don't, nor do the Brits. If anybody is guilty of trapping and training William, it's his antecedents, including QE2. He could walk away if he wanted, there's an antecedent that did that too. The cage is nicely gilded tho, probable a lot less cruel than the lives the majority of people in the world lead. My heart doesn't bleed, I don't feel much sympathy for them.

[martin14]

Ronny wrote:

which has abandoned its heritage in the name of progressive, limp-wristed ideals. They embody the values all Englishmen should aspire to: Restraint, dignity, pride.

In case you havent noticed, your country already has abandoned its heritage of
Restrait, Dignity and Pride in favor of:

one of the highest teen birth rates in the West,
massive Dole rolls,
and Muslims burning poppies and assaulting vets.


truly well done.



Best thing for Kate and William is to drop the Diana bullshit, that bitch
didnt die fast enough.

Second is the minute Elizabeth goes, Chuckie should abdicate in favor of William.
Then the monarchy may have a chance.

If not, the Republican movement will grow under Charles, and he runs the
risk of destroying the Monarchy altogether.


And I am a Monarchist.

[JJ]

Ronny wrote:

But at the same time, I am proud, I am so proud of the both of them. Maybe it's hard for a Canadian to understand, our royal family must mean very little to you. But to me, they ARE England. And without them we'll become just another heartless, soulless European republic which has abandoned its heritage in the name of progressive, limp-wristed ideals.

I often hear British royalists say this kind of thing, but I never fully understand it. Aside from the Scandinavian countries (which are all monarchies, BTW), what European countries are you specifically thinking of when you talk about these heartless, soulless, liberal hellscapes that have abandoned their history and culture?

I don't think anyone would say the republics of Germany, France, Italy, and Portgual are nations lacking a proper appreciation for their rich traditions and heritage. Indeed, frankly, as the fellow above pointed out, Britain seems to be doing just fine at ruining its own culture, monarchy and all (as is the Kingdom of the Netherlands, whom I'm finding also tends to dominate the "Europe in Decline" section of the paper these days).

andyt wrote:

If anybody is guilty of trapping and training William, it's his antecedents, including QE2. He could walk away if he wanted, there's an antecedent that did that too. The cage is nicely gilded tho, probable a lot less cruel than the lives the majority of people in the world lead. My heart doesn't bleed, I don't feel much sympathy for them.

Really? You think that if William just woke up one day and said "right, I don't want to be a prince anymore, see ya" he could? Doing so would instantly ruin his entire family life, for starters.

There is absolutely no way in hell he could ever, at any point since his birth, live anything even remotely resembling a normal life, and unless he moves to a cave in the Himalayas somewhere, there's no way he can in the future, either. In fact, the paparazzi would probably follow him to the Himalayas, too, considering that the paparazzi are still hounding the Italian royal family, who have been out of power for over six decades now.

I also think it's a bit superficial to say that just because someone leads a wealthy lifestyle they can't endure suffering as miserable as anyone else's. It's all relative. There are plenty of people who are unimaginably destitute, but are happy because they have a wonderful family or whatever, and plenty of people, like Princess Diana, who nominally have everything, but suffer daily from crippling emotional problems borne from an equally unimaginable lifestyle on the other end of the spectrum.

[andyt]

JJ wrote:

Really? You think that if William just woke up one day and said "right, I don't want to be a prince anymore, see ya" he could? Doing so would instantly ruin his entire family life, for starters.

There is absolutely no way in hell he could ever, at any point since his birth, live anything even remotely resembling a normal life, and unless he moves to a cave in the Himalayas somewhere, there's no way he can in the future, either. In fact, the paparazzi would probably follow him to the Himalayas, too, considering that the paparazzi are still hounding the Italian royal family, who have been out of power for over six decades now.

I also think it's a bit superficial to say that just because someone leads a wealthy lifestyle they can't endure suffering as miserable as anyone else's. It's all relative. There are plenty of people who are unimaginably destitute, but are happy because they have a wonderful family or whatever, and plenty of people, like Princess Diana, who nominally have everything, but suffer daily from crippling emotional problems borne from an equally unimaginable lifestyle on the other end of the spectrum.

Edward did it and made out OK. He actually abdicated as King. You want to spend your time worrying about people who have so many advantages in life, go ahead. There are lots of women in Muslim countries for instance, who have way less choice than William. Or someone in the DTES, homeless and mentally ill - that's gotta be way worse than what Diana went thru.

Where did I say wealthy people can't have suffering. But so can poor people have mental problems, or be stuck in situations not of their choosing - who do you think has it worse?

William had a choice, Diana had a choice. Sure, not all choices are easy, but to worry about these people - you're just letting yourself be influenced by the media because it tells you to cry for them. They have way more options than the majority of people in the world.

[Ronny]

martin14 wrote:

In case you havent noticed, your country already has abandoned its heritage of
Restrait, Dignity and Pride in favor of:

one of the highest teen birth rates in the West,
massive Dole rolls,
and Muslims burning poppies and assaulting vets.


truly well done.

And ask yourself, why is that?
Let me tell you why. Because our national pride has been so eroded by Communist and European snakes that many people feel that there is no longer an English identity. Indeed, many feel that we should be ashamed of our proud history. Oh, we can't be English! We can't say 'England'. Let's just call it 'Britain' so no one gets offended.
It is a plot, I know it is. A scheme by various elements to humiliate us. The Europeans hate us, we are surrounded by constituent nations that hate us. The Irish, the Socttish, even certain parties within Cornwall. We are beset by traitors who, in some cases, have been able to create enough confusion to achieve some of their aims.
When young, impressionable people lack any sense of ethnic identity, they will turn to the values of other cultures.

The high pregnancy rate? The joblessness? The sad result of a social movement amongst English teenagers in which they idolise stereotypical African American ‘gangsta’ culture. These people listen to rap music and suddenly think they’re master criminals. It’s pathetic. Imagine a spotty, lanky, smackhead 14 old year old telling you: ‘You ain’t gangsta’, innit blud?
They have no respect for their community, despite their criminal aspirations, the height of they ambitions seem to lie in petty vandalism and driving mentally ill neighbours to kill themselves. They are scum and they have completely, COMPLETELY forgotten where they come from. I often wonder if they even see a white person when they look in the mirror each morning, and then I remember that these cretins are racist as hell and would probably vote for the fucking BNP if they could step away from their precious cannabis for two bloody minutes.

The Muslim poppy situation is another result of this erosion of English culture. Again, ask yourself, why are young English Muslims more radical than their parents? Because their parents believed in the values of this country, only to see those values wiped away by New Labour’s hard core of Trotskyite scum. Without direction, the shaky machine of integration broke down. And the young Muslim’s embraced a stronger, more certain identity, that of the Jihadist movement.
Now they either do things like burn poppies, secretly sympathise with what’s happening, or just despair at the whole situation. And all my people can do is make comments like, and I quote, ‘SEND THEM BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM!’ Ignoring the fact that they are every bit as English as themselves.

All these problems you mention stem from the loss of national identity that Blair and his cronies spearheaded. Perhaps I sound paranoid, I do not think that all our enemies are conspiring together. But I think various Communist, European and Anarchist groups have a common enemy in England. And their attempts to destroy the fabric of our society are very insidious and very, very real.

[Zipperfish]

The Americans have their royalty too. The Bushes, the Kennedys, Brangelina, Britney Spears, the Kardassians (weren't they in Star Trek)?

The problem isn't royalty, because putting people under a microscope isn't limited to royalty. There's a significant percentage of the population that has an unhealthy interest in the sordid affairs of the rich and famous.