We were not invited. Instead, the presence of 27 of the world’s “Sovereign Monarchs” was properly and politely requested for a lunch last week with one Liz Windsor, in celebration of her 50th year on England’s throne.
Apparently, the Queen didn’t want to spend her Diamond Jubilee hanging out with the 99 percent. Or even the 99 percent of the 1 percent. After all, it’s her party (albeit financed by the common man), and she’ll twist and shout with her fellow blue-blood royals if she wants to. But, while nice ol’ Liz was serving a sophisticated supper to kings, queens, sheiks, emirs, sultans, emperors and empresses, there were detractors.
“Inviting these blood-soaked dictators brings shame to the monarchy and tarnishes the Diamond Jubilee celebrations,” declared human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, pointing to tyrants attending from Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland.
He missed a few. Why not add King Mohammed VI of Morocco, who still has the power to veto most government decisions, or Sultan Qaboos of Oman, who personally makes all the key decisions in his country?
What level of despotism is just too much? Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s role may be largely symbolic, but citizens remain subject to arrest for any insult to the king.
Granted, most of the remaining monarchs hold their positions of privilege and pomp with little circumstance. They are not the dictators of old, brutalizing the people at whim.
Progress, I guess.
But why continue even the trappings of monarchy? And why dine with the real thing?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
7 replies on “Tea & Tyranny”
Diamond Jubilee is 60 years. Fifty years is merely golden.
You forgot to mention she is the richest person in the world. She OWNS thirty-two countries. This makes her a trillionaire many times over. Not bad work if you can get it, being a sovereign monarch. She was born into the job; she did not actively seek it, like, say, our imperial president and his maladministration. It is never wise to fraternize with those who are not your peers. Just ask any CEO. In the armed forces it is a court martial offense. The Queen is just following standard corporate, military or monarchy protocol.
What about extrajudicial killer and indefinite detainer (etc.) Barack ‘the Kenyan’ Obama? I figure he also qualifies as prototypical tyrant material… very smooth however.
Easy to forget that kingdoms were all originally set up by someone that was a good leader, whose ability to get people to fight for them surpassed that of others. Once set up, it becames easy to ensure that most of the resources flow to their deisgnees and that heirs have first dibs on everything. It then perpetuates, until it misses the delicate baalance between control and absense thereoff, then it’s head on a stick time again.
Sadly, we are all presently over-governed. Unlimited governmental power, not the form of the government, is the real issue.
Theoretically, one could postulate that monarchical governance has a lesser risk of becoming totally tyrannical than majority rule. After all, there is only one monarch who, regardless of the means of their ascension to the throne, faces a limited lifetime and a very strong self-interest in not losing their privilege during it. Most monarchs have and an even stronger self-interest in not forfeiting its remainder. Therefore, except with very grave personal risk, there is a practical limit on the imposition of the monarch’s singular will on their “subjects”.
It is much easier to depose a despot than resist the “democratic” majority which has determined they have “needs” and therefore “rights” to your (which will soon be expanded to all persons’ and later nations’) productivity and property, by force if necessary.
Severely and absolutely limited government, so limited as to make it irrelevant in your personal and commercial life, should be the goal. At that point form — whether king, queen, president, prime minister, whatever — does not matter.
Cmon Paul, let the Queen have her party. I don’t see any problem with it.
Brian could show a little respect for our President too.
Anyone with that much money is a monster when millions of people are starving, animals are being hurt and abused and filthy rich people do nothing about it, greed is a terrible thing.
To JFB
It’s not “unlimited” government power that’s the problem, it’s “too much” government power. Unlimited government power mostly went away with the Magna Carta, but it does still exist in many unfree countries.