Can someone tell me why the Flat Earth Society has withered and died but the British Royal family lives on? I mean they are both equally antiquated and ridiculous institutions! Watching all the hubbub about the royal wedding, any vaguely rational person must scratche their head in wonder at how silly it all seems.
I have heard the rather tired and hackneyed arguments defending the monarchy, but they are all as ridiculous as the monarchy itself. Some people claim that the monarchy is supposed to act as some sort of model or inspiration for the people. And of course, societies do seem to need people to whom they look for inspiration and stability. However, people should occupy these social positions should do so by merit not because of some antiquated, historically oppressive institution. Frankly, I gain inspiration from people who work hard to achieve things at a personal and social level. Great philanthropists, great writers, charity workers, inventors, feminist activists, these are the kinds of people who deserve our respect and should serve as our role models.
One other argument that people make to defend the monarchy is the idea of tradition; that is to say that they tie us to history and help us maintain some sense of continuity. Well, that would be a fine argument if the Royal Family was in anyway a positive model of tradition. Some traditions we dispence with because they are a negative rather than a positive image of our past. We don't still have public hangings, don't keep slaves. But these were once 'traditions.'
No, the whole thing is hopelessly ridiculous and must be dispensed with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
At one time I felt that one purpose of the monarchy was to prevent undemocratic excesses by an elected government. They would do things like refuse to sign a law that blatantly Gerrymanders ridings or refuse to prorogue Parliament when the government was facing a non-confidence vote.
I don't know what to think any more.
Post a Comment