If you’re like me, the reaction to the Royal Wedding across the entirety of social media, including from some of your “woke”-est friends and favored news/opinion outlets, has been extremely disappointing and maddening.
It seems like damn near everyone has decided to give themselves a temporary lobotomy and revel in the opulence, spectacle and “diversity” of the joining of hands ceremony of the Duke of Sussex and his newfound Duchess. And here’s the final moment, today represents the crown jewel mounted in this coronet of blood – class doesn’t matter, hell, straight-up blood-lines are all that matter – so long as it’s ”inclusive” and ”intersectional”. Those people you thought were ‘leftists’ but placed all this nonsense over class? This is what they’ve delivered. So what’s wrong with this, you might be asking yourself right about now, and what gives me the right to be the proverbial turd in the punchbowl? Well I’m glad you asked.
First thing to get out of the way here is that I’m not a starry-eyed lover of western liberal democracy, and that my opposition to the British monarchy is not rooted in any such Fukuyama-esque idiocy. This is a system that, far from being the savior of mankind and the height of his socio-political aspirations, which is what it has succeeded in painting itself as, has been directly responsible for some of the greatest horrors that the world has ever seen, just in the past century alone. But nor do I see anything redeeming in a purely hereditary, non-meritocratic system like monarchism, which was responsible for so much horror all over the world prior to the advent and dominance of western liberal democracy.
As far as the House of Windsor and the British Crown go, specifically, their crimes against all of humanity, including their own subjects and citizens, are numerous and well-delineated. So I’m only going to highlight a few examples, most of which are directly related to the wedding.
The International Marxist Tendency’s analysis hits the head on the nail here, when it comes to the poshness and opulence and spectacle of the whole thing:
The Tory leader of Windsor council, Simon Dudley, set out plans to clear ‘unsightly’ rough sleepers and homeless people out of the town prior to the wedding, including fining them up to £100 for begging.
Presumably the royal couple’s special day would have been ruined by even the slightest glimpse of the abject poverty that has become a common feature of austerity Britain under the Tories’ watch, as the number of rough sleepers has increased by 169 percent since 2010.
But while capitalism is unable to provide that most basic of human needs – a roof over our head – it has plenty of money for the extravagant whims of the rich and powerful.
While those of us lucky enough not to be homeless continue to struggle under the strain of falling wages and rising living costs, the royals are obviously unconcerned by such trifles. The wedding is estimated to cost a staggering £32 million. This lavish budget includes ludicrous expenses, such as £90,000 spent on twenty silver-plated trumpets! Meghan’s dress will cost at least £100,000. Yet we apparently can’t afford to give nurses a proper pay rise.
The bill will apparently be footed by the royal family themselves. But where do they get their money from? The Queen receives an annual non-means tested ‘Sovereign Grant’ from the government (paid for out of the pockets of working people), which this year totals £82.2m – an increase of 8 percent on 2017/18.
The Queen also has a ‘private’ income from the Duchy of Lancaster, land in the UK which the royal family owns thanks to plundering by hundreds of years of unelected monarchs, dating back to the feudal system. At present she makes around £17 million a year from these holdings.
As far as the aspects of this wedding that are unique when it comes to these affairs, and which so many otherwise intelligent people have been smitten by, i.e. the “diversity” of it all, WSWS says it best:
Markle’s credentials are something else entirely—African-American, brought up as a Catholic, divorced from a Jewish man, but willing to be confirmed in the Church of England out of love for “her man.” She is not only a genuine celebrity, but also a self-proclaimed feminist with a record of charitable and humanitarian work for the United Nations—advocating menstrual health for poor women, opposing gender inequality and offering support to refugees.
Royal protocol dictates that she can’t comment on political issues, but Markle staked out her political credentials, declaring, “I think right now in the climate we are seeing so many campaigns, I mean #MeToo and Time’s Up, and there is no better time to really continue to shine a light on women feeling empowered, and people really helping to support them—men included… So, I guess we wait a couple of months and we can hit the ground running.”
Markle’s feminism and racial identity provide the basis for the ultimate post-modernist makeover of the monarchy in this new era of identity politics.
The media hail the “Meghan effect” on black Britons, wheeling out young black girls to naively proclaim that “anyone can be a princess.” But this appeal is directed above all to the privileged upper layers of the middle class, whose own obsession with identity politics is bound up with their desire for social advancement.
Gone like the morning mist are their previous declarations of republican sympathies. The Guardian’s Georgina Lawton confessed: “I usually disparage the royals, but Meghan Markle has changed that. Prince Harry’s partner is initiating real change in UK race relations. It was exciting to hear the royal family defend this mixed-race relationship.”
The Observer reported Cambridge University historian Ted Powell’s comment that “it is difficult to overstate how important it is to have a member of the royal family… who is mixed race and embracing her heritage and stating that is very much part of her… It is hugely positive for Britain, particularly in the wake of Brexit, the controversies of immigration policy and the Windrush scandal.”
If anything, the response of these same social layers across the Atlantic is more disgraceful still. Maya Rupert, for example, took to the pages of the New York Times to pen a piece titled “How a Black Feminist Became a Fan of Princesses.”
“Ten-year-old me would be horrified by how excited I am about the royal wedding,” she begins. But Rupert now realises that the elevation of “white womanhood” as the cultural standard is no more: “And as I realized that, my anti-princess feminism began to give way to something more nuanced… Maybe instead of rejecting princess culture, wholesale, I could embrace different princesses.”
Within the US ruling elite, who live lives of obscene wealth amid growing social hardship, Britain’s ruling family, which America’s founding fathers waged a revolutionary war to rid themselves of, exercises a magnetic pull. Thus the Times writes: “Though the British royalty went through a rough patch in the 1990s,” Queen Elizabeth II today “presides over a curiously sympathetic and attractive mix of archaic tradition, fairy-tale titles and very modern lives.”
Poor Meghan and Harry, with so much riding on their shoulders! Markle will need to draw on all her acting skills to carry out the multitudinous tasks now assigned the pair—modernising the monarchy, transforming British attitudes on race, sorting out the post-Brexit crisis by resuscitating the Commonwealth, and bolstering the “special relationship” between the US and the UK.
And then, of course, there’s the elephant in the room. The big, deep, dark secret that no one is supposed to address for fear of having their sanity questioned or, at the very least, being considered gauche and beyond the pale in polite circles.
It’s curious that in Britain itself the majority of the population isn’t particularly excited by any part of this spectacle but the rest of the world, particularly that part of it that’s across the pond, can’t get enough. The Anglophilia of the US ruling class is something that has been analyzed in-depth by far more capable hands than mine. But it has always made me wonder about the real reasons behind the American Revolution, because God knows it obviously had nothing to do with a desire to break ties with English culture, nor the a desire to break ties with the Crown, and certainly not with anything having to do with the royal families or bloodlines of Britain.
If anyone has any theories of their own re: the “Revolution” or any readings that they recommend feel free to comment here or drop me a line at [email protected].
In the meantime do yourself and humanity a favor and tune out of the cultivated celebrity worship and wealth worship emanating from Perfidious Albion and the Atlanticist ruling class.