There are those of us who scoff at the idea of Kings or Queens and a royal family who 'reign' over us. They hold it to be an anachronistic and medieval institution that today is irrelevant, an institution that should be discarded and consigned to the ash heap of history.
Not only do they decry the concept of royalty but howl at the expense borne by the public purse, viewed as an obscene waste of precious public resources.
We are all entitled to our opinion and although I have no special bond or sentiment towards the royal family, my analytical bent causes me to take an opposite view because quite simply the British royal family is an unbelievable bargain, an asset providing tremendous value for what is spent.
Yes... the Royal family is an unbelievable bargain.
First and foremost the Queen or King provides a valuable symbol of statehood, an innocent unifying and inclusive force, representing all the inhabitants of the Commonwealth.
If you think that this is unnecessary and stupid, look to the USA which doesn't have a monarch and generally looks down on countries that do.
But the USA raises the President and his attending First lady to defacto royal status, a dangerous concept that throws back to a time when the King or Queen actually ruled with absolute power.
Many countries that don't have a royal head of state choose to place a ceremonial 'President' over the defacto ruler, an acknowledgement that elected officials make poor heads of state.
When an elected official such as the President of the USA acts as head of state, it presents a unique problem in that a sizable constituency feel unconnected and unrepresented.
It has become a tradition that championship sports teams be invited to the White House for a celebratory meeting with the President, a visit that some members of the team refuse to participate in because of their political alienation from the president.
The Queen represents all citizens of all political persuasions without distinction and as head of state is better able to perform ceremonial functions that unite us all.
More importantly, having an innocent and harmless sovereign as head of state allows us to judge our politicians with a more critical eye, without the trappings of the head of state.
Boris Johnson and his fall from grace was facilitated by having a Queen stationed 'above' him.
While we respect and revere our monarch who today does nothing more than tirelessly cheer on the nation, we remain free to judge our politicians on their personal comportment and public performance without the trappings of any reverence for the office.
 |
| Seventy years of dedicated Service |
While almost everyone in Canada knows who the Queen, her children and grandchildren are by name, I daresay precious few can name our Prime Minister's children, a situation which I find admirable and healthy.
As for the cost, I fear that those citing the expense as exorbitant are dealing from a weak hand.
The British monarchy is an economic juggernaut generating almost a billion pounds in tourism while costing the British taxpayer less than a third of that.
Then there is the all-important pleasure dividend wherein millions of subjects and indeed tens of millions of foreigners enjoy the pageantry and trappings of a royal family.
While not particularly smitten with the Royals, I will never forget my visit to Buckingham palace, one of the greatest attractions I've ever visited.
Now haters are going to going to say that we should boycott such visits based on the fact that the palace and Royal legacy were built on the backs of the poor.
Such can be said of the Colosseum in Rome, the Egyptian Pyramids, Beijing's Forbidden City, St Paul's and Notre-Dame Cathedral as well as the Palace of Versailles, to name a few.
Should we boycott all those as well?
It is our nature and part of our human condition. It does not need explaining or denigration.
We are what we are.
Many little girls still daydream of marrying a Prince Charming and fantasize about their own royal wedding.
In fact, royal weddings are perhaps the number one television attraction in the world, all provided gratis to the general public.
Now while you may think those people fascinated by the royal family are lame and perhaps stupid, it is important to understand that these millions of people are entitled to their own beliefs and entertainment, just as some of us (many fewer) enjoy museums or classical orchestras, all subsidized by the government.
Queen Elizabeth has undertaken over 21,000 royal engagements over her reign, a remarkable achievement by any yardstick.
In the real world, a royal visit to a hospital, a disaster scene or an important occasion or milestone is gratifying to those on the receiving end.
Royalist or not, who doesn't treasure a birthday greeting from the Queen or a letter of commendation or a sympathetic visit in hard times..
A visit to a school, daycare, or hospital reminds those who toil there that their work is important and appreciated on a national level.
A royal visit is a gesture made by the Queen on behalf of the entire country, and what can be more gratifying.
As for the popularity of the royal family, you can safely ignore those polls that show that getting rid of the Royal family is popular.
Few are willing to reveal their guilty pleasure to pollsters, just like few will admit to watching the Kardashians or The Bachelor.
Here in Quebec the Royals are seen as wildly unpopular but when Prince William and Kate visited Quebec City a few years back, the streets were packed with gawkers, onlookers and yes, royal aficionados, belying the fact that they are loathed or disliked.
Those who decry the monarchy are selfish snobs, failing to accept that the royals bring enormous pleasure to millions of citizens.
There is no economic, social or political benefit to be had in dumping the institution and those who propose to do so fail to accept the benefits which are real and tangible.
Speaking to her popularity, how many billions will watch the Royal funeral of Queen Elizabeth on Monday, a monarch who worked tirelessly for seventy years to bring a little sunshine into the lives of all her subjects.
Nicely said.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Phil, but your sentiments are not mine. Perhaps there was a time royalty worked, but it is an antiquated institution, and why should a monarch have to ascend to the title by the accident of birth? It's not as perfect as you'd like to imagine. It's NOT cheap! Our PM appoints a governor-general, so that can be seen as a patronage appointment; furthermore, governors-general get a colossally generous budget to do whatever they want, so it allows for generous self-indulgence. When I heard what the likes of Adrianne Clarkson's and Michaëlle Jean's expense reports revealed, I was repulsed! Worse yet: Neither was born in Canada! Haiti was a French colony, never part of the commonwealth. I once heard Michaëlle Jean toast Quebec separatism (screw the politically correct "sovereignty" term).
ReplyDeleteNow that we're a 155-year-old country, I think we're mature enough and have enough indigenous citizenry to, like the Americans, start stipulating our leaders and heads-of-state are Canadian-born, and ONLY have Canadian citizenship--none of this dual citizen stuff! Mary Simon suits me just fine as she is doubly indigenous, but of course the Quebec Francophony is upset she does not speak French (the spelling of the French-speaking cohort is intentional). Being "doubly" indigenous (i.e., Canadian-born AND of First Nation descent) should be enough, but if she is getting French tutorials, that's fine.
Ohhhh...and that comparing the royals to "watching the Kardashians or The Bachelor" is an obnoxious comparison. I resent the remark "Those who decry the monarchy are selfish snobs, failing to accept that the royals bring enormous pleasure to millions of citizens." As far as I'm concerned, the Kardashians, the Bachelor and other "reality" shows are cheap TV, nothing more, nothing less; however, they all have their markets, so whoever has empty, meaningless lives and wants to watch that drivel is free to do so. Same goes for the monarchy.
The royal family is full of stumblebums. Maybe for some, that is identifiable to dysfunctional families, I can't think of any family that doesn't have its dysfunctional characters...sometimes entire families from top to bottom! In the royal family, it's especially a spectacle because the heirs are the ones who "ah tot tew be oprite at oll times!" Please pardon my mocking of the prim and propah English accent! I just couldn't resist, and they need slew of "advisors" to tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it. What the hell are they, stringed puppets? The spares become frustrated because they're relegated to second class...after all, they're just the spares! They're told what not to do, when not to do it and how not to do it.
On that note, congrats to Meagan Markel. She managed to climb the social ladder to the summit, grab a royal, and use him as her ultimate status symbol. On the other hand, it's a win-win for Harry, too. This way, he's free from all those "don't-do-this-don't-do-that"-sayers, and he's probably taking in a lot more $$$ than he would as a royal. He's also free of royal duties to do whatever the hell he wants. Well played, MM! I wonder if she was tutored by the Kardashians?
PART I
ReplyDeleteWell said. I subscribe to everything Phil writes. Some observations:
- Regarding the non-partisan nature of the Royals which, as Phil points out, allows the Royals to appeal to all because, unlike the U.S. Presidency which is necessarily partisan, it allows an appeal to all, regardless of political stripe: this is the reason why I believe that Charles has disqualified himself to be King. He has, for the better part of the last 20 years, been an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of catastrophic man-made climate change, a wholly non-scientific, partisan, "religious" movement. I'd like to say that he should abdicate and pass the mantle on to William but, apparently, if news reports I've heard over the past couple of days are accurate, William is as much of a vocal supporter of this non-scientific kookiness as well.
- The people of the U.S. must be starved for the pagentry of the British Royals because, heck, if People Magazine is to be believed, there is a sizeable chunk of the U.S. population that eats up anything royal. They're on the cover of so many of our periodicals and all major networks are carrying the Queen's death with fanfare that rivals Jackie O.
- Regarding the economic benefit, as Phillip so cogently analyzed: Do you remember when Harry and Meghan first made their break and left England? Where did they first go? Well, they went to a residence on Vancouver Island, here in B.C. And then they put feelers out that they'd like to stay but that they needed help with the annual security bill they would, due to their fame, be forced to underwrite. Well! The outrage that filled Canadian media as to the audacity of these pampered Royals looking for a hand-out for the estimated $15 million annual security bill was deafening. And, sure enough, that trial balloon quickly fizzled and the two packed up and moved to California. Keeping in mind Phil's cost-benefit analysis, can you imagine the boon that Harry and Meghan could have reaped for the economy of B.C. for the, comparably, piddling amount of $15 million annually? Now, of course, a quid pro quo should have been part of the deal -- something perhaps along the lines of required number of personal appearances, participation in Canadian life etc. -- but the overwhelming economic benefit of these two living and presenting in Canada would have been an economic boon that paid dividends for exceeding any cost to the taxpayer.
PART II
ReplyDelete- As for the monarchy being archaic and a symbol of the "evil" that the British Empire visited upon the world and that, therefore, it is high time to cancel them by doing away with the monarchy: certainly, there is bad, by today's standards of wokeness, in which we can supply a long list of negatives the monarchy represents: exploitation of conquered lands, the class system, opium trade in China, slavery, and all that. And, yes, the list would be long. But the other side of the coin is one which, when the tally is made, the positive far outweighs the negative. I could mention the legacy of the common law which is the basis of umpteen legal systems throughout the world; I could mention the British parliamentary system one which, again, is a model for much of the civilized world; I could mention the emphasis on free markets (Adam Smith) and that impact on the world, or Britain's incredible legacy in education and the sciences which created a whole slew of scientists, their discoveries and inventions, etc. all of which has benefitted every corner of the world (did I mention the internet, invented by a Brit?).
But I will concentrate on just one of these positive legacies: slavery. Yes, the Brits engaged in slavery and the slave trade. But so did virtually every civilization known to man. But until a group of a dozen or so White, male, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Brits living around 1780 to 1840 advocated for the then novel and unique concept of equality amongst all men and the end to slavery, the idea had never, EVER caught on anywhere. Jesus didn't come out against slavery; nor did Moses, and while Muhammed was against the idea, it was reserved only for Muslims (indeed, slavery was encouraged for non-Muslims as well as genocide, rape, and the seizing of property to any and all who didn't convert to Islam. Google "hindu holocaust").
What these dozen or so British abolitionists did was advocate for and actually achieved legislation in Britain that ended slavery. And this was the starting point for the end of slavery in the Americas and the rest of the world (except for those few pockets where it still is active today).
So let's keep an accurate scorecard on the pluses and minuses of the monarchy if, indeed, they are up for review as symbols of the British Empire. Because when the tally is completed, there is no doubt in my mind which side of the plus/minus column will outweigh the other side.
So Tony, on the one hand you advocate the Royal Family, but on the other hand, you want Charles to abdicate. He has every right to the throne as, per the accident of birth, he was/is the first-born male, and will be the last King per changes made by Elizabeth II during her reign where the first-born, period, will hereon be directly in line to the throne...if the monarchy lasts that long.
ReplyDeleteTalk about English Common Law, it was a U.S. court case in 1939 where the term "fruit of the poisonous tree" originated, and America predominantly observes English Common Law (except for Louisiana, where like Quebec, they observe the Napoleonic Code, i.e., the French Civil Code. Always one in the crowd!)
As far as I'm concerned, this monarchy, like most others, was based on enslavement and stealing the resources of the countries they conquered. Betcha buncha blintzes you're going to see the remaining Commonwealth nations, especially ones with predominantly African descent population, drop like flies. In Australia, the last "attempt" at separation from the monarchy was organized by a pro-monarchy government by holding their referendum on the date of the biggest rugby game of the year, one equivalent to the U.S. Superbowl. Try it during a weekday when there are no significant events on TV. That will be the acid test!
Note that only Canada is holding a memorial service today. N.Z., Australia and others are not...food for thought!
Tony, re your cost-benefit response re Harry and Meagan's $15 million security budget "Keeping in mind Phil's cost-benefit analysis, can you imagine the boon that Harry and Meghan could have reaped for the economy of B.C. for the, comparably, piddling amount of $15 million annually"? I've got news for you: They would have gone to California anyway, because (1) taxes are lower there, even though they're high relative in the U.S. to other states (and they'll eventually, in all likelihood, move their official residence to some tax-free haven), and (2) much more P.R. in California. Upon arrival, Tom Cruise and others put out the welcome wagon for them, they get invited to many more A-list social activities, much better ones than Vancouver can offer. Sorry, "Hollywood North" is small potatoes compared to "Hollywood Central". No Tony, your hypothesis, in all likelihood, would not fly.
ReplyDeleteToo, who needs them? MM is nothing more than a social climber. Every time she moved up the ladder, she discarded her old "friends" like they were useful tools on her way up. I wouldn't be surprised if she learned her pointers from the Kardashians, marvels at self-promotion. Barack Obama was the same thing, as was POTUS #45, who now, along with his Ivana children, faces lawsuits and hopefully criminal indictments before too long.
Oh, and finally, Tony, OMG...are YOU a hypocrite when you write: "[Charles] has, for the better part of the last 20 years, been an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of catastrophic man-made climate change, a wholly non-scientific, partisan, "religious" movement. I'd like to say that he should abdicate and pass the mantle on to William but, apparently, if news reports I've heard over the past couple of days are accurate, William is as much of a vocal supporter of this non-scientific kookiness as well."
So are you for the monarchy, or not? Haven't you observed the goings-on environmentally over the last 20 years, especially the last ten or so. No doubt there is a fanatical fraternity cashing in on this, but the population now is heading to nine million. What was it when you were born, three million? We can't grow water no matter what the circumstances, we can't keep reducing green spaces and the rain forests without causing changes, non-renewable resources will deplete at an accelerating rate if we don't invent or discover substitutes and fossil fuels indubitably add to pollution. If our population makes more demand for resources, renewable or not, we only have so much land to grow food, and if we seek artificial means to do this, no doubt the nutritional value will be affected. Processing has already done that!
Sorry, Tony, but the environmental volatilities of today are just the beginning if we don't pay attention to the environment. Our population has tripled since our births and stands to quadruple by the 2040s from 1960 if we don't control it. Expect food shortages to expand, the drawing on, and demand for water for drinking and industrial purposes to expand on our limited and unexpandable supply. More crowding, more pandemics. How easily are we extinguishing COVID? It's like a new form of flu, but more dangerous, and it constantly mutates. Got any solutions re the recent adverse environmental phenomenon?
The burning of fossil fuels emit CO2 which is not a pollutant but an essential entity for life on Earth. We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. The increase in CO2 has greened the planet.
DeleteI am pro-monarchy, anti-royal members who break the rules.
DeleteMr. Sauga:
DeleteYou write that taxes are lower in California compared to B.C.
Not exactly.
Highest marginal income tax rate in B.C. (combined federal and provincial): 53.5%
Highest marginal income tax rate in California (federal and state combined): 49.3%.
But that doesn't tell the whole story. For the first $147,000 in adjusted income, self-employed people in the States must pay an additional 15.3% in FICA tax. So it depends on how much one earns.
Certainly, the rates are imposed "earlier" in Canada; that is, the rates start at lower income levels. But contributions to CPP are trivial compared to FICA.
And even then the highest marginal rates do not have that much of a difference:: 4 percentage points. So your point on taxes as a reason for them to flee is moot.
Tony, what is their sales tax rate? I found 7.25% + 1% max for districts, i.e., 8.25%. In BC, it's 5% GST and 7% PST, i.e. 12% combined. How do property taxes compare? As you wrote, too, our brackets graduate at lower amounts. Of course, they don't have socialized medicine like we do.
DeleteWhoops, the population numbers should read billion, not million. FYI, except for the very first posting, I forgot to put my alias where Anonymous appears.
ReplyDeleteTony, where you wrote "I am pro-monarchy, anti-royal members who break the rules". Interesting. Who should be king, George VII? I think he's way too young, but you did say rule breakers shouldn't be monarch. You wrote Chares III did for sure, and believe William-to-be-the-Fifth also became political with is environmental views. Too many royal stumblebums based on what you're implying, and there lies the problem: Too many stumblebums in that family. Your response I placed in italics is too convoluted for me to follow--sort of like the late René Lévesque and his "sovereignty-association" idea.
ReplyDeleteWhat can I say? I just don't like Charles. And for the reasons that I stated.
DeletePost Coronation comment: I was extremely moved by the whole affair. Last night I watched several hours of a four-hour youtube video of the Coronation, fast-forwarding through bits I didn't find interesting.
DeleteI will revise my initial comments as a result. I like Charles now. For better or worse, he's da king (as Mel Brooks would say) now. And in him are vested all the good and bad that The Crown represents...and, as I outlined, above, my conclusion is that there is a net good (a huge net good) that results when one does a cold, hard calculation of the good versus the bad of Britain, the British Empire that summarizes in the personification of who it is that is the figurehead of this institution.
I don't know why but I was extremely moved by the anointing part of the ceremony. My friend says the reason that it is "private" -- that is, they bring in those four walls to shield the onlookers from seeing what is going on -- is that the actual anointment is something that is between the Sovereign and God. Well, whatever the reason, it was the highlight for me...and I did not expect to be moved to the extent that I was.