It seems a little facile to me at the moment to discuss the monarchy, but I’ve noticed that a post I wrote a while back about the monarchy seems to be getting quite a bit of traffic from the US. I know the reason for this probably has more to do with the title ‘… Republican Monarchy? Monarchist Republic?’, which could be misinterpreted as a headline for some kind of political threat from tyrannical conservative ambition; rather than the comparatively colloquial concern with, and consideration of, a British monarch. Nevertheless, I’ve reread that post and have discovered that my position has changed to the point where much of it no longer represents my view.
When I originally composed that inoffensive swim in nostalgia, I was coming from a long held and indoctrinated vision of fuzzy benignity for our good ol’ Queen, and a capitulation to the absurdity of her status. Though I do still see her position as absurd, it’s only by proxy of seeing mine and everyone else’s self perceived and publicly conceived positions as absurd also. Even when just thinking of being widely considered as Dave, it becomes quite an interesting occurrence of absurdity; whilst the expansion of that idea to getting 10 people calling me Grand Croaknut Defacto Wannabit is also interestingly very, very humorous (to me at least). I digress. Despite these ludicrous pronouns and titles, the Queen is not benign.
During the Million Mask March 2014 in London, I questioned a number of the Metropolitan Police on their thoughts about making an oath to the monarch rather than to the people; who, after all, are the consent givers that allow the police to police. The responses were not very varied, with most declining to acknowledge my existence beyond being too close in proximity to their batons. Those police who chose to vocalise an opinion mainly came down on the side of “… she’s good for tourism and the economy…” That said, one policeman actually engaged in pushing forth his belief in a Nietzschean philosophy, specifically regarding the benefit of an individual’s strength and the hierarchies resulting from that display of strength. That copper of Nietzsche was pretty unrepentant, and had obviously found his vocation with regards the vicarious power of authority and hierarchy.
I posited the idea of ‘policing by consent’ as being a concept that had been usurped by the State, aka ‘the Government’. I suggested that the State, contrary to being representative of the people, were in actual fact following a specific political doctrine that concertedly prevented the people from countering their political narrative and propaganda by means of protest and peaceful demonstration. Almost all the police I spoke to agreed with me, but admitted capitulation with a generic “It’s just a job.” I did try, with some who were more readily engaged, with these follow-up questions: At what point does it stop being just a job? When the tear gas comes out? The water cannons? The rubber bullets? The live rounds? The arrests for protest? The convictions for political dissidence? The gaoling for opposing views? At what point would you decline the overtime? Not one of them decided to entertain those nuggets. Though their silence spoke volumes, I can only hope I inspired some food for thought.
It is quite comical, in a perverse way, that we have this borderline (in the UK) paramilitary force essentially committed by oath to Mickey Mouse, assured by the fact that the legislative and executive branches of government are allegiant to Mickey Mouse, the judiciary is allegiant to Mickey Mouse, and the armed forces are allegiant to Mickey Mouse. Needless to say, corporations and Disney love Mickey Mouse… Oh! Just in case you missed it, I’m using Mickey Mouse as a satirical simile. Mickey could quite have easily been Ronald McDonald. Anyway, the Queen is Mickey Mouse; which could make David Icke’s reptilians seem a little less of an imaginative stretch, though only if our absurdities are coming from the same place, which I can’t be sure of… Besides, I don’t think reptiles have as much appeal as Mickey Mouse when it comes to selling to the pop.
Regardless of the brand marketing, it seemed to be a common delusion amongst the masked numbers of my demonstrating comrades that the police were policing in the name of the people. When the police barricaded, and prevented with violence and the threat of arrest, a piece of grass, with the now seemingly farcical name Parliament Square, they were doing so in the name of the Queen with consent from the State. I suppose it’s worth noting that the police’s defence of Parliament Square was under the premise of it being private property, which is… err… owned by the publicly funded Greater London Authority. Try explaining that little irony to the police. “It’s just a job!” And just to attract the Godwin’s law mob; how many innocent lives were destroyed by Nazis just doing their jobs? I know, those damn Nazis ruined it for all aspiring fascists, diddums!
Although our looming fascism isn’t quite as overt as the 30’s and 40’s German imperialist variety, it is interesting to see the good ol’ Queen facilitating a whole system of social violence and exploitation using economic and political subterfuge. I’ve alluded to it in a past post also, but the Monarch takes an oath to the legislative, and executive; not directly to the people. Basically, if the government decides it wants to underhandedly negate and nullify democratic power and transfer public services, public funds and public infrastructure into the realms of private/corporate determinacy and ownership, then so be it. The Queen facilitates the facade; and then garners a protection from complicity by the masses conflating her with a vicarious pride and national identity.
This post has maybe been a little disjointed and ranty, but I hope you can appreciate the argument that what the Monarch represents isn’t just some fuzzy benign money-maker off the backs of foreign visitors; more a tangible weapon being used directly against the justices and freedoms of a worldwide population of people numbering in the hundreds of millions. Perhaps this population could increase to billions if you consider the tactical precedent and strategic example it sets to other exploitative global power bases. I have to admit I have no answers as how to combat this sleight. If the monarchy goes, within the parameters of the current neoliberalism, it will only be replaced by a politicised equivalent. Maybe once the convenient ambiguity regarding consent and the Queen is removed all the resultant oaths would become more of a direct moral problem for those who take them, rather than just an abstract ethical problem. At its heart, this is why I want to see the dear ol’ Queen deprivileged; not because I dislike her personally, but because I want to cause the make-up to run for those in power. Remove the disguise and see the wolf.
Before you start thinking me a conspiracy theorist or a one solution radical, I am actually quite a conscientious and moderate fella. I would prefer gradual evolution and reform. I have high ideals of a Humanistic global society. The permanent revolution and responsible autonomies of anarchism promise to maintain an engaged, informed, and liberated people evolution towards that Humanistic global society. The Queen is just a cog in the current hierarchy tailored towards power and authority through exploitation and lies. If my ideal happens, I’ll gladly go get the Queen’s groceries, toil to keep her safe, even continue calling her Queen. She’s an old lady now, and I like to be courteous and to help. However, in her role as a cog, she’s a right royal pain in the arse.