Friday, September 9, 2022

Long Live the King!


Friends, tributes and accolades are pouring in for the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II, and I certainly encourage you to share your admiration and your reflections here, but I am going to pivot right away to a celebration and an analysis of the new sovereign, King Charles III.  Charles is 73, so he's had an extraordinarily long wait for the throne.  He was, as I just read, the first royal to receive a university degree, and he embodies modernity in many other respects, perhaps most notably (and least endearingly) in his self-absorption, which played a significant role in ending his marriage to Diana.  I'm less concerned with Charles's character, however, than I am with his fitness for the role of King.  Charles has been, as you'll read below, outspoken about his views on certain issues, or at least much more outspoken than his mother ever was.  For her, upholding her dignity and her perceived neutrality was infinitely more important than self-expression.  Indeed, for her, self-negation was her chief duty.  We can expect Charles to be less scrupulous in this respect, and thus we can also expect that the British monarchy may face considerable headwinds.  Charles is personally a lot less popular than his mother, and his penchant for progressive/elitist pontificating could easily drive those numbers even lower.  I hope that won't be the case, and I hope he acquires a renewed sense of sobriety and self-restraint, but I frankly doubt that he'll maintain either at all times.  What this means is that the very future of the monarchy may be cast into doubt, and, frankly, conservatives, who are temperamentally and ideologically the most likely to revere the monarchy, may be among those least enthused about their new monarch.  I fear, therefore, for the institution of the monarchy, especially given our modern obsession with "cancel culture", equality/"equity", and social transformation.  Everyone looks on the royal family with sympathy now, but how will they look at the (admittedly dysfunctional) Windsors in five years, or ten, or twenty?  Charles should think long and hard about this question, and he should do everything in his power to buttress confidence in the monarchy, but not at the expense of cheapening it with casual or superficial rebranding.  In a nutshell, therefore, Charles has a difficult job ahead of him.  Chances are he's always known that.  At least now he can get on with it.  Godspeed!

In other news, an Irish schoolteacher appears to be auditioning for the role of martyr in the struggle against transgenderism.  Read all about it here:

Finally, Ukrainian security forces appear to be making gains against the Russians.  Exciting and encouraging, you say?  Think about how Russia may react...  Some of the possibilities are a lot less exciting and encouraging than the latest news reports.  In fact, some of them are downright horrifying.


  1. Ray to Nick

    Sorry about the Queen's death and all that. Of course she was 96 and lived in luxury all of her life, so it could have been more sad. Ha!

    So her son is now King? And? He has absolutely no power over anything, except of course to manage all the money the royal family has, most of it unearned except by the sweat of someone else's brow.

    In any event, Monarchies stink. Of course dictatorships do also. So! Maybe Charles' first act should be to abolish the monarchy in the UK, and then people won't have to follow all of their silly bullshit anymore.

  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Your comments on now King Charles were courageous and objective. I love Great Britain and the institution of the British monarchy, with all its majestic trappings and its dramatic history. On balance it is a glorious nation and I hope it does not repudiate that tradition. God save the King ( the Kingdom).

    1. Ray to Jack

      Time for you to pack up and move to Great Britain, where you can become a British subject, and dream about kissing the King's butt. In any event, Great Britain is now a hotbed of Leftist ideology, so you might not like that part. Otherwise, you can hand around Buckingham Palace and feed the royal pigeons, and hope they don't shit on you too much. Have at it Jack.

    2. Ray to Jack

      When you get over there to your real homeland of Great Britain, you need to buy a 19th Century British Cavalry Officer's uniform complete with saber and horse. Then you can ride around and pretend you are "teaching the natives" a lesson in some far flung corner of the empire. However, "The Charge of the Light Brigade" should fit you better.

    3. Ray to Jack

      While you are indulging your fantasies about Great Britain, you might want to watch one of my favorite movies (2002) titled
      "The Four Feathers". Give it a try Jack, and you can pretend you are one of the officers in the movie by the same name. Seriously, this is a great British Empire movie.

  3. " . . . AND the Kingdom"

  4. Ray, the British monarchy can be criticized from many angles, but can we really hold it against the royals that they're rich? I mean, sure -- their wealth is "legacy wealth". So what? Lots of rich people got that way through inheritances. I hope you're not suggesting we should disallow inherited wealth. If so, you might be a Bolshevik! :O

    Thanks for the kind words, Jack!

    Ray, I've always wanted to travel into the bush (with my butler, cook, and several dozen houseboys, or better yet housegirls) and dress for dinner and teach the natives how to play croquet and what not. The British, in their heyday, had the conceit that their culture and religion and political system were the best that ever was. That's arrogant, true, but I happen to think they might have been right. In any case, once they started apologizing for their imperial excesses they became just another bunch of whipped, quasi-Marxist, self-hating Westerners. Very sad. If all they have left to comfort them, therefore, is the occasional horse parade, I say let them enjoy it!

  5. Ray to Nick

    Inherited wealth is fine, not a problem for me, and especially if I inherit some. My case is against Monarchy in general. It is a worthless institution, in my opinion. And I am sure you did not forget that even certain elements of the English population at one time did not like to be bossed around by Kings. You do recall that Charles I lost his head (literally) in 1649 because he was, among other things, so damned arrogant? In any event, the British can do what they want, and that includes a love for that con artist, silly ass royal family. Don't tell me they give to charity.

  6. Dr Waddy and Ray from Jack: Ray, I am certain I would dislike some aspects of living in the UK and had I the chance of moving there I'd probably pass it up. I would not want to risk losing my affection for the place; eg. I know I wouldn't like their taxes or their gun laws.But that said, I greatly admire their high civilization and think that, on balance, it has done the world great good. I enjoy being quasi British and I delight in being there. As for monarchy, they have made the best of it. It floats their boat.

  7. Hi Jack

    One thing for sure, the King James Bible did come out of Great Britain, and that book has certainly done the world a great good, for sure.

    Otherwise, I just don't care much for the current royal family. I'm sure you are also aware that other countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Spain also have monarchies. You never do hear about those royal families much. Probably because they aren't seekers of publicity like the Brit mob is.

    In any event, nothing personal towards you in your like for the Brits. My late Mom was a great fan of everything British, and especially the Brit royals. You can well imagine I had to keep my mouth shut.

    Anyway, good luck to you.


  8. Ray, I would say the royal family's value in merchandising and tourism revenue justifies its existence in and of itself. Many people don't appreciate that the monarchy is largely self-funded these days. Sure, the Brits could scrap the monarchy, but then they'd be just one more boring old republic. Where's the fun in that? I mean, literally. Why can't politics be just a little bit fun and self-indulgent?

    Jack, I agree: England is a place best enjoyed at a safe distance. Sadly, they're woker than we are these days, and that's saying something!

    Ray, that's a good point that other European countries have monarchies that the international press seldom notices. I suppose that's partly because the Brits have better PR, but I think it largely reflects an anglophilia in the U.S. (mixed with a healthy dose of anglophobia, which, in this case, doesn't hurt ratings any), plus our PROFOUND ignorance about most of the world. Personally, I'd like to hear about the antics of Norwegian princesses every once in a while. I'd like to see pictures too!