Log In
Search
Is the monarchy a vital symbol of continuity or a drain on the resources and reputation of modern Britain? In the wake of scandals, stripping of titles and the increasing politicization of the royals, a renewed republican movement is calling for the end of the line with King Charles III. Alex O’Connor & Tanya Gold will face off against Cleo Watson & Sebastian Milbank for this explosive live debate.
Monarchy has brought out from the shadows the personal idiosyncrasies of the four guest speakers. And not always in attractive ways.
In his essay Equality, included in the collection Present Concerns, C S Lewis argued: “…a man’s reaction to monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can be easily “debunked”; but watch the faces, mark well the accents of the debunkers…even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. When men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film stars instead; even famous prostitutes or gangsters.”
This, Lewis thought, revealed a craving for inequality. And, he argued, the ceremonial Monarchy satisfies this craving without the harms that would otherwise occur because as man or woman, homo sapiens, no one is fit to have absolute power. Consequently, Monarchy, like democracy and equality, is necessary as medicine, which is good because we are ill. The class system would be beneficial if men and women were fit to be masters. But they are not.
But, Lewis argued, medicine is not food. Monarchy is one of Milton’s “troublesome disguises”. Hierarchy underneath this clothing preserves egalitarianism outside of it.
If anyone is disturbed at Monarchy being vestigial, and wants to remove it on those grounds, let them also remove the vestigial parts of their anatomy, just to be consistent. Let them have surgery to remove their appendix, the muscles of the ear, the tail bone, body hair. And if they are men, remove their useless semi-formed teats.
It was once thought that several glands were vestigial. But now they are known to be vital to the functioning of the body. So, by all means give the Monarchy abolitionists what they desire, and preferably in double measure, and if the body of the state does not function well afterwards, they will have exactly what they deserve.
What a disappointing group of panelists. David Starkey should be invited for a follow up on this topic. He is actually an expert on this topic.
The majority of Americans, at bottom, would express satisfaction with having cast off the British monarchy. And they spend untold hours utterly fascinated by them all and by your continued fealty to them (and admittedly I have spent nearly 90 minutes watching the debate).
Some pretty weak arguments here. Many issues barely touched on. The history of the British monarchy and what it has or they have not done for us and why a republic couldn’t or doesn’t produce decent ethical representation for his or her country. Kings used to regularly torture their subjects maybe not now but their reputation hardly bares them out. The Queen was nice but so has many a president. The royal family has let us down too often and we never get a chance to elect a different one.
On another point its terrible you cant see the questioners in the audience. Tighten up your act if we are paying for this.
Yes, their allies and supports take it upon them selves to torture British native subjects.
Be careful who you offend.