[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Royalty Version 3.0 (click to view)
Date: July 3, 2011
Prince William and his new bride Catherine, whom we are all supposed to call "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" now, began their nine-day tour of Canada this week, drawing great crowds to Ottawa as they celebrated Canada Day with the Prime Minister. Over the next couple of days, they'll proceed to visit Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories, before wrapping up their jaunt in Alberta, just in time for the famous Calgary Stampede. (I know all this because I bought one of the hundreds of ROYAL VISIT 2011 guides that now clutter up the magazine sections of every drug store o'er the land.)

As a 27-year-old, I am exactly the demographic that is supposed to be most moved by Kate and Wills, since their proximity to my age is supposed to make me relate to the monarchy better, or something. Eager to run with this narrative, the Canadian press has happily gobbled up the claims of the Monarchist League of Canada that royalism is currently booming across the country due to a sudden spike in youth interest. "This generation is not threatened by the monarchy," the Ottawa Citizen has a 30-year-old Leauge member proclaiming proudly. "They identify with the young royals."

I have some friends who, though only in their mid-20s, are already heavily balding. It's a very frustrating and embarrassing thing for a young man to go through at such a premature age, and a source of much insecurity and anxiety. William certainly shares this uniquely youthful experience with thousands of young Canadians, but beyond that, I'm really at a loss for common ground. By the very nature of their role and lifestyle, the royals are decidedly "above" most of the interesting social/cultural phenomena that have come to define the so-called "echo boom" generation of which me, William, and I suspect most of you, are members.

Job insecurity born from a changing economy? Nope. Since the day of his birth, William's career has been preordained, and is certainly divorced from such hum-drum concerns such as university majors or unpaid internships. As the child of self-made millionaires, Catherine's future was hardly any more ambiguous. Both will now enjoy life-long positions bearing endless perks, benefits, and opportunities; jobs they can perform with great leisure and comfort. After all, who ever heard of a princess being downsized?

The Internet and social media revolution? I doubt it's the sort of thing the Duke or Duchess entirely understand, let alone have actively participated in. The Internet is a tool, and therefore something for other people to master so they don't have to. Imagine being in your 20s and having a whole staff of people — whom you almost certainly don't know — deciding unilaterally what should go on your website, Twitter, and Facebook. Hell, imagine having a PR department, period.

Even consider something as simple as talking about politics with friends, family, and coworkers, a pastime I'm sure we all enjoy quite a bit. As members of the House of Windsor, William and Catherine are now constitutionally forbidden to openly express opinions on current events, which, if nothing else, will probably only serve to further confuse and isolate them from full awareness of the zeitgeist of their generation.

There's thus more than a hint of tragedy in the royal life, despite its unimaginable luxury. I have no idea if the Duke and Duchess are honestly enjoying their time in Canada, for instance, since it's their job to express nothing other than endless joy and enthusiasm as they trek to the random parts of our arctic wasteland that a small cloister of bureaucrats and handlers have deemed politically expedient to patronize. Though they're obviously well-heeled for their troubles — Catherine is said to have taken 40 outfits on this less-than-two-week voyage — they're also under endless pressure to remain in a perpetual state of blissful phoniness, which must get more than a little depressing over time. As must the particular pressure on Catherine to remain perpetually young, beautiful, and stylish, even on days when she's feeling considerably less so. The name of Princess Diana is thrown around a little too often these days, but it's worth remembering how much of that woman's own descent into anxiety attacks, eating disorders, and suicide attempts were reactionary symptoms against, what must be noted, is a supremely unnatural way for a human being to live.

Will and Kate seem friendly enough, and their celebrity allure has clearly proven itself capable of drawing crowds and selling merchandise. But we should be clear that their appeal has never been democratic or populist — indeed, the minute it becomes such, they will have ceased to be royals, since royalty by definition requires a degree of magical distance from the common rabble. For centuries, every new generation of royals have been heralded as ushering in some new, more "accessible" and "relatable" era of monarchy, and every time, the allure proves to be short lived.

In the world of monarchy, all roads, no matter how scenic and modern, ultimately lead back to the dark alley of hereditary birthright, undeserved privilege, and an insurmountable class divide. Even with their megawatt smiles, Will and Kate will have a hard time putting a positive face on that.

[DanSC]

The Stepford Wife label on Catherine was a nice touch. I'm sure she's nice and her parents are quite successful, but it's hard to imagine her leaving university and making herself into something.

[smpat04]

I think the most interesting part of today's article is that where one might expect jealousy, instead I see more than a hint of pity. Yeah, they get to "live" an incredibly opulent lifestyle, but no matter how you slice it, "lived" is in quotes.

[bootlegga]

While they haven't inspired me to pick up the monarchist torch, I do recognize that the monarchy is a key part of our government, and as such, in some ways necessary under our current constitution.

I do agree that each generation is trumpeted as the saviours of the monarchy (as Charles & Diana were), but they usually stumble along the way and drive some people away from the monarchy (like my sister) through their deeds/words/whatever.

However, the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William et al are still people and we have to realize that we are all human and human beings make mistakes. People get divorced all the time, they have affairs, etc. IMHO, blaming one's dislike for the entire monarchy based on the actions of a handful of them is as ridiculous as hating all men because your ex-husband cheated on you. Note: I'm not attributing this to JJ - it's obvious why he doesn't like the monarchy.

I think that if Charles accepts the crown on his mother's death, the monarchy will lose a lot of its popularity, as he is rather unpopular. If he is as willing to make the sacrifices he always claims to have, then he will abdicate in favour of William.

Honestly, I would prefer if the monarchy spent their own money on these lavish visits to our country (after all, the Queen is a very wealthy woman), but I see no reason to get rid of them entirely and adopt a republic as you regularly espouse JJ. I think the value we get for our money is dubious, but tradition and history are important and sometimes we shouldn't worry so much about the pricetag.

It'd just be nice if they offered to pick up the cheque once and a while.

[Murray_Smith]

bootlegga wrote:

I think the value we get for our money is dubious, but tradition and history are important and sometimes we shouldn't worry so much about the pricetag.

History is important as we should be wary of repeating our ancestors' mistakes. Tradition is good so long as the benefits of its maintenance outweigh its drawbacks.

I am anti-monarchy by default: I do not believe that titles and jobs should be involuntarily passed through a bloodline. Queen Elizabeth II seems nice, but she's (probably) not immortal, and you'll eventually have to get used to King Charles III being in charge (of your days, your nights, your wrongs, your rights, etc.).

I am very much aware that abolishing the monarchy would be quite difficult for Canada to implement, considering the fact that society at large abhors change. After all, "I don't want to" is the world's most common reason.

Pro-monarchist: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Anti-monarchist: What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'.

[monapublican]

In other royal news, the last crown prince of Austria-Hungary died. On topic: the only way to humanize the monarchy is to downsize and change it. Try reworking the titles, residences, privileges, and how much money it gets. Then we can see it humanized. Most importantly we must accept that they are going to say things we might no agree with. Not to say that there shouldn't be a neutral core to the monarchy, just that their every waking moment should be like they are apolitical. The US criticize it's president everyday but n one is suggesting that we abolish the US presidency. Same should go with the monarchy.

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Anti-monarchist: What is it good for? Absolutely nuthin'.

Say it again.