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].