I have never fully modern monarchy. I understand the principle of 'keeping it in the family' and not sharing power. So, for example, the present Queen marrying a cousin, a Royal Prince, makes sense. I sort of even understand Charles marrying Diana, because in the absence of many white non-Catholic Princesses, a member of the aristocracy is hardly thinning the blood at all. But I don't really understand the idea that marrying a commoner in order to breed the next but two monarch is in any way preserving that hereditary principle the monarchists regard as sacrosanct.
Another thing I don't understand is why there is such approval of the Middleton Family. It is very clear that almost from birth, Ma 'Doors to Manual' Middleton groomed her daughter to marry William. Kate allegedly chose that course at that University with the intention of catching him. I'm sure there were probably many girls born in the 80s who entertained similar thoughts, or their mothers did. But very few were groomed.
It's starnge, because if a mother grooms a daughter to be a sex-worker, society as a whole looks on aghast. In my opinion, quite rightly. I'm just struggling to find any significant difference between grooming a daughter for sex work and grooming a daughter to have sex and breed with a specific man because of his status and untold wealth.
It's even stranger because as far as I'm aware (I can't say I have done much research), Doors-to-Manual is as important to the family business as is Mr Doors-to-Manual. It seems even stranger that someone who is demonstrably successful in business is so determined that her daughter should get her entire identity from how her sexual organs function.
And finally, I don't really understand how this blind fawning over the monarchy works. There are various opposing positions I do understand,
- I have considered all the options and my opinion is that a constitutional monarchy is no worse than any other;
- It's not a system I'd introduce from scratch but as we have it, I'm perfectly content
- I fully support the monarchy because although I am less important than them, their continued existence makes me more important than commoners
- I'm really not interested
- I have some views, but life's too short to get worked up about them
- I keep being told they bring in tourist income and I'm too lazy to find the research that refutes this argument
- I'd like to see a referendum but not until after QEII dies
- Having even a symbolic monachy is the root of most of our undemocratic practices
- Off with their heads
What I don't understand is people who sit at the bottom of a hierarchical system, and yet praise that hierarchical system, and, furthermore, heap praise on the individuals who happen to have been born higher up, irrespective of (or in some cases despite) their skills, attributes and personal behaviour. They're not even that interesting as celebrities, doing nothing of exceptional virtue or achievement or behaving so atrociously that we can we satisfy ourselves as to our remarkable superiority. Even Prince Andrew's behaviour is largely a result of him being promoted well above his ability and not able to meet unreasonable expectations.
And come the day itself, people will await with bated breath the bestowal of titles onto the Happy Couple, as if the titles are an earned promotion. The titles will be explained in hush-toned as signifying some growing in importance of Prince Wills, whilst most of us with a functioning brain will think 'Hold on! Regardless of one's views, isn't being Prince William important enough already? Will becoming Duke of Helmand and Anglesey somehow make it easier for him to book a table at a swanky restaurant than being, you know, heir presumptive to the throne?'
