A photograph of the late Elizabeth II imposed on the Sydney Opera House looks beautiful, to say the least. And, my reaction was, “Oh my, lowborns and thieves are celebrated while a hungry child is left to die.”
Elizabeth II, who passed away recently, is the longest reigning monarch in British history.
I have nothing against Elizabeth per se. She will always be, somehow, endearing to me because she signed the gay marriage into law in the United Kingdom, although she was fully booked and missed her gay cousin’s wedding.
Elizabeth deserves the love and accolades of her loved ones, but does she deserve the love of the people, her so-called subjects? Did she really care for them? If she did, she would have dissolved the monarchy and given back the wealth that rightfully belongs to the people.
I wouldn’t be surprised though if Elizabeth or any incumbent monarch today knew of families or forces within, even outside, their circle who would kill them before they could sign the dissolution of monarchy. These monarchists would lose influence with the dissolution of monarchy and would go to extreme measures to keep themselves in power. I expect a parent who happens to be a monarch will do everything in their power to keep their children and bloodline alive.
Monarchies and nobilities are evil forms of government. A society where people are categorized into royal, noble, and commoner is not a fair society.
A lot of horror stories litter royal history (of any country). I’m particularly enchanted by the tyranny of Henry Tudor a.k.a. Henry VIII who sired Elizabeth I. Henry was known for beheading his wives. England was under absolute monarchy then. It is under constitutional monarchy now. During Henry’s rule, England separated from the Catholic Church and Henry established his own Church of England of which the head is the reigning monarch. Currently, the head of Church of England is Charles III, the firstborn of Elizabeth II.
Why did Henry separate from the Catholic Church? Because the pope did not grant his petition to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and likely, because kings are under the rule of the pope and the delusional king wanted to be numero uno. The wealth sequestered from the de-established Catholic churches went to the pockets of Henry and his minions.
Henry VIII is the also the father of Mary I, half-sister of Elizabeth I. Mary is known today as Bloody Mary because she ordered the killings of Protestants. Mary was a devout Catholic who reversed the religious reforms of her father when she ascended the throne. When Elizabeth II replaced Mary, she then bloodied her reign by persecuting Catholics.
Historical fictionist Philippa Gregory wrote about Henry and his wives. I like how Gregory empowered Anne of Cleves, one of Henry’s wives who didn’t get decapitated.
The life of Henry was also fictionalized in the drama series The Tudors with the dashing Henry Cavill playing the tyrant’s best friend.
Under a monarchy, a person born into a royal or noble family is gifted with properties and things they didn’t work hard for. Emperors, queens, princesses, et al., are under permanent welfare, while someone who is called commoner needs to apply for welfare if they can not afford to sustain themselves. A hungry child from a poor family is left to die, while a princess gets a visit from fairy godmothers.
Between Catherine “Kate” Middleton and William Windsor (son of Diana and Charles III), William is the lowborn and Kate is the highborn. Why? Because Kate’s family came to wealth by their own hard work, while William lived off people’s money. William is cute, inheriting his mother’s good looks, and Kate calls him “Big Willy.” H’m. William must pack a royal dick ready to rumble.
Elizabeth II’s father was not the heir to the throne; he was the spare. The throne went to Elizabeth’s father because her uncle, Edward VIII, fell in love with Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, which caused legal troubles for Edward leading to his abdication of the throne. Edward VIII’s abdication speech is available online. Quite a lovely speech.
Between any person and an emperor (or any member of royal and noble families), the emperor is the lowborn because he steals from the people all his life.
Titles earned by birth (emperor, baron, earl, countess, etc.) are forms of legalized discrimination. A person not born into a royal or noble household is raised to think they do not deserve better. Put another way: A person born into a royal or noble household is raised to think they are above most people in the country and/or in the world. Is that really a good kind of government?
A man from a lower caste system in India sat on where the people above his rank sat and got killed for doing so. Monarchies and caste systems are not exactly the same but they are not much different from each other in that they promote the idea that some people are born above others. Ancient Rome much?
Monarchies promote good governance on paper but engender superiority complexes including murderous behavior in practice. Absolute monarchies still exist, and they still murder people for being gay.
In some monarchies, whether absolute or constitutional, it is illegal to criticize the rulers, e.g., Thailand. In fairness, this nonsensical law can also be found in non-monarchial countries like Venezuela. A leader who can not take criticism is not a good leader.
Under a democracy, we can become leaders ourselves regardless of families of origin. Democracy has its faults, of course. Look at what happened to us Filipinos in the recent national elections: A scion of an ousted president is back in power. I sure hope that the reign of current President Bongbong Marcos does not result in historical revisionism, not more than there already is, that is. The sin of the father is not the sin of the son, and I sure hope for the son not to repeat his father’s atrocities. We’ll see.
Communism looks good on paper but is ominous in practice. While I honestly prefer communism over monarchy, I do not wish for the royal families to suffer like the Romanovs of Russia did. Murdering the royals is never an option. A number of countries removed monarchies without killing the bloodline. It was not exactly an easy journey for the exiled or ousted royals, though.
It is curious why communism succeeded in China but failed in Russia. Communism in China started with the people. The peasants had a say in politics and government. They mattered. Communism in Russia was Bolshevik-ed into existence without appealing to the people first.
Before communism fully gained prominence in Russia, the last czar, Nicholas II, was forced to abdicate and was subsequently killed by Bolshevik revolutionaries. The murder of Nicholas II and his family spun a tale of suspense for the possible survival of one of the Romanovs, the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Through the decades, impostors presented themselves as Anastasia and works of literature including films fictionalized her story of survival. A corpse was found matching the DNA of the Romanovs, ending the possibility of Anastasia’s survival.
To be honest though, people in countries under monarchies like Japan (the oldest continuous monarchy in the world) and United Kingdom lead better lives than Filipinos do under a democracy. Why is that? Corruption? Colonial mentality? H’m.
For some reason, I can imagine myself living in Communist China but not in Imperial Japan or Royal Thailand. I can visit monarchial countries, but I can not live there because I just can not see myself curtsying to a lowborn like [insert name of legally ordained royal or noble person here].
