Myth of British Monarchy

As the article says, the monarchy is beginning to appear in commentary on British public affair, and it starting to be examined and debated. Many authors and journalists like Edgar Wilson, Christopher Hitchens and Tom Nairn wrote about this issue; that talk about the constitutional monarchy state of affairs, but it reaches broadly the same conclusions. Mr. Wilson says: the royals do not work hard, they are not like their subjects, they are the richest family in the land and contribute uniquely small amounts to the exchequer.

Mr. Wilson thinks that the monarchy’s popularity is unimportant, because people liked Hitler too!. His analysis of the monarchy is less than convincing. Criticism of the royal family is turning into another item, between calls for a greater London council and demands for a minimum wage. An important strand of Thatcherite thinking is premised on the belief that for century an old, self-perpetuating establishment had let Britain down.

If the royal family is really unimportant, then abolishing it would be of no consequence, something one could do as easily as splitting the department of the environment. The way Britain is must depend, at the limit, upon the fact that monarchy is the opposite of meritocratic. It hence becomes possible to argue that Britain’s class structure, still the starting point for any sensible discussion of life chances is legitimized by the monarchy. The point of monarchy is to provide a link with the past and a symbol of nationhood. Yet the sadness is that Britain is packed with places that summon to build a society where they hoped that the chances of success would be open to all.

Alia falah

Prev Page