The Royals are
the original Celebrities. The “cult of celebrity” is ingrained in
popular culture, and in our contemporary world, popular culture rules.
(Pace hipsters!-) The Royals provide a timeless standard by which
Celebrity status Is compared. Putting an end to Monarchy and hence
depriving popular culture its benchmark celebrities, is depriving a lot
of people of a lot of pleasure in life.
When this argument is put directly to Republicans, they usually become defensive and deny that is what they are doing. They say that if Australia were totally separate from the shared British Crown, the British Monarch and the other Royals would of course be welcome here on visits, and people can still follow their antics in the popular press. However they do not seem to be able to understand that the Royals are only who they are because they are who they are. As ex-Royals or “pretenders” they would join the legions of other minor, former title holders. It is only because they are truly Royal that they have this status to begin with. In particular, because Her Majesty wears the Crown in so many countries makes Her Majesty’s “majesty” vastly greater, which magnifies the “celebrity status” of the British Royals. Put an end to all of this in a political sense, which also has an ontological validity, will put an end to their celebrity status.
The problem with this argument is that it casts the “Royals” as celebrities. It reduces their private lives at official functions to the status of soap opera. They do serve a genuine social purpose, otherwise they would be the equivalent to soldiers carrying wooden guns, and to promote their survival as a social institution because of this reason debases them and makes them appear to be just a form of popular entertainment.
If all other things were truly equal, then surely this would be sufficient to sway the argument. Then, once it is accepted, even grudgingly, that we are going to continue to be a Monarchy for at least the next century, we should stop making it a divisive issue and instead make the most of it and let it lead to social harmony. It may not be the theoretically most perfect type of ideal society, but it does work with reasonable stability and provides the opportunity for safe, gradual development within existing parameters.
All things are not equal, and there are many more logically incontrovertible arguments against the radical change to some sort of as yet undefined Republic. Consequently, this argument can be put on the back burner. Even though the general public loves its Royal Gossip, including sharing happy and sad royal events, this is not the main reason for the existence of the Crown and retaining it as the fundamental core of our Constitution.
When this argument is put directly to Republicans, they usually become defensive and deny that is what they are doing. They say that if Australia were totally separate from the shared British Crown, the British Monarch and the other Royals would of course be welcome here on visits, and people can still follow their antics in the popular press. However they do not seem to be able to understand that the Royals are only who they are because they are who they are. As ex-Royals or “pretenders” they would join the legions of other minor, former title holders. It is only because they are truly Royal that they have this status to begin with. In particular, because Her Majesty wears the Crown in so many countries makes Her Majesty’s “majesty” vastly greater, which magnifies the “celebrity status” of the British Royals. Put an end to all of this in a political sense, which also has an ontological validity, will put an end to their celebrity status.
The problem with this argument is that it casts the “Royals” as celebrities. It reduces their private lives at official functions to the status of soap opera. They do serve a genuine social purpose, otherwise they would be the equivalent to soldiers carrying wooden guns, and to promote their survival as a social institution because of this reason debases them and makes them appear to be just a form of popular entertainment.
If all other things were truly equal, then surely this would be sufficient to sway the argument. Then, once it is accepted, even grudgingly, that we are going to continue to be a Monarchy for at least the next century, we should stop making it a divisive issue and instead make the most of it and let it lead to social harmony. It may not be the theoretically most perfect type of ideal society, but it does work with reasonable stability and provides the opportunity for safe, gradual development within existing parameters.
All things are not equal, and there are many more logically incontrovertible arguments against the radical change to some sort of as yet undefined Republic. Consequently, this argument can be put on the back burner. Even though the general public loves its Royal Gossip, including sharing happy and sad royal events, this is not the main reason for the existence of the Crown and retaining it as the fundamental core of our Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment