Why the Monarchy Should Have Died With the Queen

Summary

The speaker critiques the overwhelming media coverage and public displays of grief following Queen Elizabeth II's death, questioning the legitimacy of the monarchy and its role in modern society. They argue that while respect for the Queen as an individual is reasonable, the institution of hereditary monarchy is outdated and undemocratic. The speaker highlights the monarchy’s privileges, such as exemption from taxes and certain laws, and criticizes the silencing of peaceful protests. They call for open discourse about the future of the monarchy and its relevance today.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The author feels that the overwhelming media coverage of the Queen's death has overshadowed more pressing global events like the war in Ukraine and protests in Iran.
• 🖼️ The extensive portrayal of the Queen across the UK, especially in London, has created a sense of performative grief that the author finds unsettling.
• ⏳ The author waited to critique the monarchy until after the Queen's funeral but questions how long is socially acceptable to wait before expressing criticism.
• 👑 The author criticizes the institution of hereditary monarchy, distinguishing between personal respect for the Queen and criticism of the monarchy as a political system.
• 📜 The use of terms like 'Highness' and 'Majesty' reinforces a hierarchical, outdated system where citizens are treated as subjects, and the monarchy continues to be legitimized by fictional or symbolic authority.
• 💸 The new King Charles III is exempt from certain taxes and laws, which the author finds unfair, especially when it comes to inheritance taxes and discrimination laws.
• 🚨 Recent arrests of protesters criticizing the monarchy highlight concerns about free speech and public dissent during this period of national mourning.
• 💔 The author acknowledges that while many grieve genuinely, some corporate displays of mourning feel disingenuous and exploitative, similar to corporate support during Pride month.
• ⚖️ The monarchy is seen as both a redundant and controversial institution that is difficult to justify, especially when it comes to legal immunities, financial benefits, and symbolic power.
• 🇬🇧 The author calls for the abolition of the monarchy, arguing that heads of state should be elected in a democratic society rather than appointed by birthright.

Q & A

What is the main critique of the author regarding the coverage of the Queen's death?

The author criticizes the overwhelming, unrelenting news coverage and societal displays of performative grief surrounding the Queen’s death. He suggests that these displays overshadow more pressing global issues, such as war crimes in Ukraine or humanitarian crises, and serve to reinforce the monarchy's outdated position.

Why does the author believe that now is the right time to criticize the monarchy?

The author believes that waiting any longer to criticize the monarchy would be unnecessary. He waited two weeks after the Queen’s death and funeral and argues that delaying criticism any further only stifles important conversations about the relevance of the monarchy in modern society.

What distinction does the author make between respecting the Queen and respecting the monarchy?

The author respects the Queen as a person but draws a clear distinction between her and the institution of the monarchy. He finds it unreasonable to respect the monarchy, which he views as an outdated and illegitimate institution based on hereditary rule.

What is the author's view on the language used to refer to the royal family, such as 'Your Royal Highness'?

The author finds terms like 'Your Royal Highness' problematic because they reinforce societal inequality by implying that some people are inherently superior to others due to their bloodline. He believes this language perpetuates the subjugation of citizens as subjects.

How does the author respond to the idea that the British monarchy is merely symbolic and holds no real power?

The author argues that, despite claims of the monarchy’s symbolic nature, it retains significant cultural, financial, and even political influence. He highlights how the monarch is exempt from taxes and certain laws, reinforcing his belief that the monarchy is not a powerless institution.

What examples does the author give of protestors being arrested for criticizing the monarchy?

The author cites several instances, such as a woman in Scotland who was arrested for holding a sign against imperialism and the monarchy, and a man in Oxford who was arrested for heckling during the proclamation of Charles as king.

What are the legal privileges and immunities of the British monarchy that the author finds problematic?

The author points out that the monarch is exempt from inheritance tax, income tax, capital gains tax, and various anti-discrimination laws. He also highlights the fact that civil or criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the monarch, which he views as unjust.

What is the author's view on the public’s response to the Queen’s death, especially in relation to corporate expressions of grief?

The author is critical of what he perceives as performative grief, particularly by corporations like casinos and gambling companies. He views their public displays of mourning as insincere and driven by a desire to appear socially acceptable rather than genuine sentiment.

How does the author compare the current situation in the UK to the displays of grief in North Korea after the death of Kim Jong-il?

The author compares the UK's public displays of grief for the Queen to the state-mandated mourning seen in North Korea after Kim Jong-il’s death. He notes that while North Koreans are forced to grieve, the British public is voluntarily engaging in similar excessive displays of mourning.

What does the author ultimately propose regarding the future of the monarchy?

The author suggests that the monarchy should have been abolished when the Queen died. He calls for a discussion about the monarchy’s relevance in modern British society and questions why the country continues to support hereditary rule in the 21st century.