Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Philip Hepple

GET UPDATES FROM Philip Hepple
 

Surely the Royal Family Has Run Its Course?

Posted: 01/09/2012 01:00

What a great summer to be British.

The London Olympics were rightly regarded as a huge success, with a phenomenal performance from Team GB and British Paralympians already going great guns. These athletes push themselves to the limit and capitalise on years of sacrifice and dedication to reach the pinnacle of sporting excellence.

As their weary bodies take to the winner's podium, their hard-earned medals gleaming brightly on their chests, they turn to the side and sing a plodding song about an old woman.

"God Save The Queen"? Did the Queen just become the best human on the planet at a certain sport? Why is she getting praised? Shouldn't the athletes be singing "God Save the Funding of Regional Sports Projects"? Yeah, I know that that doesn't really fit with the melody, but you could probably sing it in a jazz-scat way?

Remember when the Queen celebrated her Diamond Jubilee this year, when she floated down the Thames like an aquatic Mad Max? She had a concert in her own front garden featuring the best of the music world (and Will.I.Am). Stevie Wonder even changed the words to Isn't She Lovely to honour her. Does she smile? No, she sits there with a face like Robert De Niro after somebody threw a bag of manure at his mother. It seemed like the whole event was a huge pain for her, like she was dragged to a wedding where she didn't know anyone.

This is not a dig at the Queen personally. She just happened to be born into this world; she didn't do anything to be put in this position, which is exactly the point.

See also:

David Cameron Lurches To The Right In First Major Reshuffle


Why University Isn't the Be-All and End-All

Not In My Name: Islam, Pakistan and the Blasphemy Laws

We Are Producing Less Than Half the Engineers Our Economy Needs

A Rock Star's Guide to Coping After Not Getting Your Grades at School

The Jubilee was a highly organised outpouring of affection towards the Queen. Why? Because she was still alive. She had made it through 60 years of being our monarch. Congrats! It just goes to show what you can achieve with tremendous wealth, the best healthcare in the world and no real job.

Now I'm not saying the Queen hasn't got a job, she's not kicking back at Buckingham Palace smashing some punk online at Call of Duty, she has a job. She opens places, even if they have already been open for a few years. She visits places. When she visits places she sometimes opens things too (that's what you call multitasking). She opens and dissolves parliament (when the decision has already been made for her). What else... hmm... she puts on meals for specially selected guests when they are in the area (Come Dine with One?). Oh yeah, she waves to people too. Sometimes she waves to people whilst she opens places on her visits (take that, you lazy nurses!).

Surely in this tough modern society of economic uncertainty and flagrant tax-avoidance, the notion of a predestined ruling class seems quite ridiculous.

LIKE HUFFPOST UK COMEDY ON FACEBOOK|FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

Her job and actual work based skills would barely crack minimum wage in the real world, but we decided to pay her over £30million last year (she does have a lot of corgis to feed and buffets to put on).

The British monarchy is very much like the pop star Prince, all their greatest hits were in the past and all they are now is a symbol.

A symbol can be a powerful thing (just ask Batman), but what does the symbol represent? It represents an out-dated autocracy, a class-structure that doesn't define society the way it did. It shows that the smashing together of a few lucky chromosomes, not hard work, can give you everything in this world. Young people cannot aspire to head their state, because it is predestined due to some person's relative centuries ago decided to say, "Hey, look guys, God picked me to rule over the rest of you" and the other people replied "Yeah, cool".

The Royal Family do, however, bring in a lot of wonga to the country via tourism. But it's not like the tourists are coming to see actuals members of the royal family? The royals aren't putting on a cabaret act. People come to look at things that the royals have, like houses and shiny things. If we lost the royal family we could make the tourist money back easily by making Buckingham Palace the biggest casino/Laser Quest in the world.

The country has evolved in the 60 years since the Queen took the throne. From technology to travel, we have moved towards self-reliance rather than obedience. Church attendance is way down, divorces are increasing and people can get any information they want online as quickly as it takes a person to find their library card.

Society has changed. It doesn't matter if the Royal Family have a funky website or how much a young Prince claims to love dub step, the monarchy is just not relevant to the running of the country like it was, and it will never be again.

So what instead? A US-style Presidential model? Totalitarianism? An eating contest to decide who leads the country? I think, in this time of economic strife, people just want to see that if there is a job, any job; it is earned rather than predestined. The majority of the people in this country get where they are through hard work, why should they be ruled by a minority that gets everything handed to them?

Also, put David Bowie on all currency.

 

Follow Philip Hepple on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DoctorMysterio

FOLLOW UK COMEDY
What a great summer to be British. The London Olympics were rightly regarded as a huge success, with a phenomenal performance from Team GB and British Paralympians already going great guns. These ath...
What a great summer to be British. The London Olympics were rightly regarded as a huge success, with a phenomenal performance from Team GB and British Paralympians already going great guns. These ath...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 102
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
07:22 PM on 10/06/2012
You go on about how the UK has 'evolved' in the last 60 years, I suggest instead much of it has 'changed' and not necessarily for the good.
Once the British had a wonderful reputation for being sophicated, that has long since gone. Once the British were economic super-stars, that has also long since gone. However, you still know how to make good government. The Queen as the head of state represents a 2,000 year continuity of the British people. You are very welcome to emigrate to a country that has corrupt power-seeking madmen as their head's of state while the Brits have a leader who has tirelessly worked and done a wonderful job, maintaining the UK's reputation while your politicians and their ilk embarrass you daily. so do please give it a rest.
10:46 AM on 10/06/2012
This is a silly article.

Today, America is run by a financial and political aristocracy. Bush H, Bush W, with Bush J in the background. Clinton W, and Clinton H following as Sec for State. Romney Snr ran for president, advised his son not to run unless he had big personal income - son runs on big personal income. A few outsiders get in - Obama for example - after joining this aristocracy, but it remains a fairly small group of insiders. It is reinforced by a gross lobbying system. This is why America cannot grip its essential problem: that a middle class with decreasing power has to fund both a parasite wealthy class and an increasing number of poor dependents. The growing 'rentier' class in America have managed to persuade the rest that they are 'job creators'.

Having an hereditary principle in British politics embodied by someone who has no political power paradoxically neutralises this. The Queen no longer stands for the glamour of the aristocracy, but the validity of all social classes. This is one reason why upward social mobility is greater in Britain than in America. It's not the main reason, but it's a factor.
02:42 PM on 10/05/2012
look, the monarchy is good, okay. It works, and it's British. Stop being anti-British, be proud to be part of Great Britain. Unless you're foreign, in which case...... ner ner ne nerrrr nerrrrrrr - JEALOUS !
04:11 PM on 10/04/2012
The tourism argument really depresses me. According to the royalists if we had no monarchy our tourism industry would just crumble. The streets of London would suddenly be completely devoid of tourists as they try and find other countries that have palaces that still contain monarchs.

This is either a) completely rubbish or b) incredibly depressing if true. If this is true then basically as a country full of fantastic museum, interesting cities, attractive countryside, decent (but not great) beaches, and tonnes of culture the ONLY thing that brings the tourists in is the Queen. If that's true then we don't deserve a bloody tourism industry.
02:52 PM on 10/03/2012
One might have merely/unfortunately been born into "Royalty" but would you accept riches and entitlements should you not be deserving of it? Really? Why, Your Majesty Huffy The 3rd, where shall I begin the licking of thy boots. When Truth is being denied left, right and centre, one can be 101.53% certain that truth is not the point but entitlement is, the extra 0.53% being for "Insurance" purposes.

When a human lacks conscience, he will supplant that lacking with Over or Under such that "Entitlement" and such Disagreements may spin forever and a day and hopefully never arriving at its truthful destination, Disagreement being the Wages of The Bookie, The Bookie being the only One who profits from Disagreement, the lucky devil because Humanity exist on disagreements and little else.
02:26 PM on 10/02/2012
The concept of monarchy for any country is anachronistic. It belongs to a time that has faded and gone, but much of Britain's population are just too damn lazy, too sheep-like, and too fawning of their historical traditions of place and position, i.e., serf and master, that they actually 'fear' the loss of their country's symbolic royalty.
Even the term 'royal' is degrading to those that aren't, as if they are meant to praise and be subject to those that allegedly are. It's an ingrained, inculcated psychosis of a quaint and delusional comfort zone, in which the sense of 'British-ness' derives from feudalistic ages...the British have still yet to throw off the chains of abhorrent legacy of priviledge and position.
Other Western countries have their own derivative, but based on nothing more than wealth, which gives power and position, rather than the sense of heredity which the British plebeian snobbishly subjects themself to. Royalty is nothing more than when a Poodle heads the wolfpack!
10:51 AM on 09/28/2012
England was a republic once upon a time. Oliver Cromwell was its head of state. The Long Parliament that ruled the realm became as much of as a tyranny as the monarchy that it had struggled to abolish. Cromwell eventually assumed one-man-rule as a military dictator, governing the country through a series of military zones each controlled by a Major-General of the New Model Army. Their Constitutional authority was the Holy Bible. Power lay with an elite group of religious fanatics that are more familiarly known today as 'Puritans' - you know, that loveable, saintly crowd that sailed away on the 'Mayflower' to goodness knows where. Twelve years of "Rule by the Saints" was enough for the English. No personal liberty. No theatre, no dancing. No Christmas celebrations, or May Days, or Birthdays for that matter - all deemed heathen and unwholesome. Then when Cromwell died with his boots on, he was succeeded by his son as Lord Protector. Interesting to see that the hereditary principle still stood for something in even in a republic. A principle that even that proletarian paradise of The Peoples' Republic of North Korea holds in even greater esteem today. In short then, the English couldn't wait for their monarchy to be restored in 1660 to bring back our cultural traditions and traditional freedoms as well - and we've been blessed with it ever since.
01:48 PM on 10/02/2012
A monarchy is not an absolute necessity for a democracy. Greece to my knowledge in the time of Plato did not consider it needed a king or a queen, its system of senators is the basis of our parliamentary democracy. A Prime Minister is a modern twist because our Hanoverian monarch could speak no English and had little or no time for the finer points of democracy.

As for Cromwell, you have to view his rule in the context of the times, laws were made by the landed aristocracy and the rich to protect the landed aristocracy and the rich, the poor were just cannon fodder to be blown away in wars of succession or greed. Was the autocratic rule of a king any more democratic and law abiding than that of the Puritans, hardly, people were gaoled and tortured and killed merely for not bowing and scraping to the devine authority of the king.

We have freedoms today because our forefathers fought against the absolute power being in the hands of one man, it took hundreds of years to get the few right we have today, would you give them up and restore the devine right of kings?

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and nowhere is that more true than today's excuse for European democracy where decisions are made by unelected unrepresentative unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, every bit as bad as rule by kings.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
What's the story mourning Tories?
09:26 AM on 09/28/2012
The Royal Family will never 'run its course.' It is quite simply what makes us Brits unique, and if you don't know how that is so, I suggest you go educate yourself.
04:21 PM on 09/25/2012
Kennedy, Kennedy, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Roosevelt, Roosevelt.
Even in a democracy the alternative seems to be an oligarchy.
The big advantage of a hereditary, constitutional monarchy is that they know their place.
That's the joke.
10:57 AM on 09/24/2012
Lazy journalism
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fwdinsight
02:20 PM on 09/23/2012
The person who wrote this article must live underground in a cave. The Monarchy is extremely popular world wide and in Britain. I lived in Africa and America and can confirm even though few could name the President of Germany, can you by the way? Many have never heard of Britain or Spain and had no idea who was currently president of America, they all knew of Elizabeth the Queen. But that is the same all over the world. Even the Afrikaans?Boers who hated the British could not get enough about the Monarchy.
This establishment not only brings tourists but far more importantly provides an image of stability to an extent that one has the feeling you know who to phone if things go wrong with you deposits in London. Stability is what you need if you are depositing money off shore.
The state Britain is in right now she probably needs the Monarchy more than ever as she is queen of 16 nations and head of a World Wide Commonwealth that we are just re-discovering as our relationship with the corrupt EU falters.
What is this worth? Its clearly worth trillions because the world still puts trillions through London daily, despite the actions of Labour who acted like wreckers and others. YahwehnewsCom
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CynicalAgnostic
01:36 PM on 09/27/2012
Germany has a president does it?
02:35 PM on 09/27/2012
Yes it does. The chancellor of Germany is the political head.Its head of state is its president, who (somewhat like in Ireland) engages little in politics.
01:40 PM on 09/23/2012
The article wanders all over the place. A Republic is not the same as a Parliamentary Democracy. The United Kingdom has a head of State who has some very limited power if Parliament hits a snag. Parliamentary supremacy is the key to this system of Government. Probably a different system could be used to appoint a head of state. People in the United KIngdom approve of the present one. Maybe they just could be right. Cromwell really didn't work out that well.
04:59 PM on 09/22/2012
The trouble with republicanism is however would you replace Queen Log? In a parliamentary democracy, it becomes a job for a superannuated politician: in the UK context, almost certainly Mandleson, Clegg or Major (or, even worse, Blair!). In what possible way would that be any improvement?. Go over to an executive president as in the USA, which seems increasingly popular with our power man political leaders (witness our elected mayors, now followed by politically selected police commissioners)? Cameron has already overthrown the consitution by forbidding any election before the present parliament has dragged itself out to a weary end in 2015. What was done by sleight of hand in 2010 would become the rigid law of the land for ever, under a presidential regime. Like Weimar after Hindenberg! And if it is the hereditary principle that is being objected to, then we should end all inherited wealth, and have whatever we own revert on death to the Treasury. Of course, deep down, we all believe in the hereditary principle, we are just jealous of the Welfs (aka House of "Windsor").
07:38 PM on 09/22/2012
It is the arrogance of these people. TV coverage over this last Jubilee, were all going on about the Queen and Duty, and that is the trouble, she is being paid, and living in the lap of luxury, by the tax payers of this country, and so do her family. That word duty is the problem, because that's what she does duty, she does very little over and above what is expected of her, when there is a disaster, she sends one of her minions, and before you say she is 85 she has been doing this for years, so what she has is a job, which has allowed her and the family to live rent free, get perks, and freebis. none of us. I have worked all my life, paid tax, never had children that would cost other people to pay education etc. I think if we have to have this family, they will have to be more like the Danish Dutch and Swedish, people should look to people like Crown Princess Mary, Crown Princess Maxima, and Crown Princess Victoria, these Royals all give the press and there people an oppertunity to take photo,s . CP Mary and CP Frederick, when thay left hospital, with there twins, stood outside the hospital, for at least 10mins, they were smiling, answering questions, had a real connection with the press and the people, Unless the lady on the Mall, stops this high and mighty way of going on the people will.
01:04 PM on 09/26/2012
Regarding the last half of Ms Treslove's post: Familiarity breeds contempt. There is no reason for the Monarch were to behave in the same way as your common or garden B-list celebrity, we already have plenty of those. The present operation of the Monarch seems to fit perfectly well with her position as head of state.
04:00 PM on 09/22/2012
Royalists are probably worse than actual royals, I mean, you can at least ignore the queen and with a debit card and email you don't even have to see her much. I did think it was ironic that for the London's Olympic secularism it was odd that 'God save the Queen' was announced quite so frequently. But back to royalists and their crazy logic:

No monarchy must mean an American or French style of presidency, which is a strawman, why not any of the presidencies that do much of the existing job with real consent and without the cost.

If it aint broke don't fix it mentality means what exactly ? Is it like having a classic Morris Minor and refusing to buy an EcoPolo because, well they have exactly the same number of wheels.

Royalists are in love, it is irrational and futile but idol worship makers the worshipper feel better than their peers.
01:28 PM on 09/27/2012
>Royalists are in love, it is irrational and futile but idol worship makers the worshipper feel better than their peers.

Total tosh. I've never met anyone in Britain who's stated they 'love' the monarchy, but most of us know that Queen (and the future King) is a much better Head Of State than any slimy fly-by-night politician could ever be.
09:49 AM on 09/28/2012
I count myself as one of those Royalists you are so contemptuous of. The monarchy is an anachronism in the modern age for sure, but our constitution as it stands seems to work. If there is any lack of enthusiasm for the democratic process it seems to emerge from the political class trying to preserve their careers, and public notoriety. Having a head of state, and a top family living in a state of world-wide fame and luxury that most of us cannot even begin to imagine ensures that monetary corruption just would not figure. The downside for the royals would guarantee a life under the microscope, and all that entails. If royalty didn't exist, society would promote a top family because society seems to feel the need: The Kennedy's in the U.S., or to be a bit prosaic - the Beckhams in Britain. What if the monarchy was abolished, and we had to endure an election for a president of our brand new glossy 21st century republic? Looking down the list of candidates - all the usual suspects - I for one might lose the will to live. Better the devil you know in my opinion. We are used to it, it works, and the overwhelming majority of us love it.
09:22 AM on 09/21/2012
They should get rid of the civil list and tax their incomes the same as everyone else - outside of that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; it doesn't seem to be particularly broken, outside of the civil list, does it? Their role is a matter of British heritage and history - only fools would throw that away without good cause. If they annoy you, hey, they're effectively very wealthy zoo animals.