Saturday, April 30, 2011

Things I Don't Get: British Royalty and Americans' Interest In It

I'm trying to think of things I have less interest in than the Royal Wedding, but I can't think of anything.  Can someone explain to me why we should worship and fawn over someone because they were born into the right family?  Why should we care that someone from that family has decided to tie the knot?  Can you someone give me a justification for giving this particular family millions of dollars for doing nothing, not to mention millions of tax dollars spent on this wedding?

What is even more of a mystery to me is that some Americans have an interest in this royal nonsense. When this country was set up our founders explicitly rejected England's monarchy in favor of a meritocracy, albeit admittedly an imperfect one.  Thus, why should Americans have any interest at all in a Royal Wedding?  That's not who we are.

Imagine if we decided to deem one family in the United States as royalty and gave those family members millions in salary and perks simply for having the right genes (or marrying into the family with the right genes.)  Then, in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depressionm we taxpayers were were asked to spend millions of dollars on a royal wedding. Can you imagine the revolt?

Thank God I'm an American.

6 comments:

Indy man said...

I agree with your sentiments totally.

I would like to include Pat Robertson’s comment that the marriage ceremony was pointless anyway because Kate and William have been living together for the last eight years.

Cato said...

"Imagine if we decided to deem one family in the United States as royalty and gave those family members millions in salary and perks simply for having the right genes (or marrying into the family with the right genes.)"

Show me the family, and let me hear their pitch. This system is broken, vicious, violent, dishonest and working feverishly to destroy all freedom. I might be far better off as a subject instead of a citizen.

A regent has full responsibility for the success of the kingdom. In a democracy, blame is shifted to the citizens in a "you voted for them" deception, as if a citizen really has much of a choice or any real influence in a two-party system where the parties advocate substantially the same things.

I'm open to alternatives to this.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Cato, if I'm part of the royal family, I would be in favor of it.

BayernFan said...

The British have maintained the monarchy better than any one else. They spend lots of money on it. It is living history. The United Kingdom, over the course of 1000 years, have successfully navigated the devolution of power from monarchs to its citizens without revolution. In so doing, they gave us their legal system, common law, and jurisprudence.

Now, they have the best of both worlds.... a parliamentary democracy and a monarchy with absolutely no power.

So the people can do with the monarchy what they have done for 1000 years......

They can talk about them, watch them, hate some of them, love some of them, gossip about them, try to get close to them,..... and it has no impact on anyone else's lives.

As for the wedding in particular..... it is a demonstration of how to do it right. lol Something you only see a couple times in your life.

A testament to tradition and style and substance and the carrying on of cultural cohesion.

Royal funerals, coronations, and papal funerals and investments are the same thing.

You cant say it doesnt matter. 2 billion people around the world watching it live prove otherwise.

It most definitely matters.

HOOSIERS FOR FAIR TAX said...

I agree with the exception of Diana.

Shermlock Shomes said...

With this last wedding I'm moving more toward the belief that the interest is media-generated. If this event was a short paragraph in the equivalent of the 'Social Column,' no one would care.