Off With Their Heads!

Royal WeddingOur ancestors once cowered before royalty they believed were divinity made corporeal. These days, the notion of the monarchy is so outdated that supporters are reduced to citing tourist revenue in defense of a barbaric relic.

Other rationales — the divine right of kings, a repository of tradition, moral paragons, manifestation of the state, a (barely) living national symbol — have long been eroded by the tides of the history. So the last excuse for hereditary rule is that of the bean counters’ ledger: the cost-benefit analysis.

Kate and William’s royal nuptials will reportedly generate more than $1 billion in economic activity, supposedly a boon for commoners who each proffer but a few pence for the $60 million annual subsidy to the fusty Queen and her adulterous horse-faced brood. (Never mind that this sum excludes the costs of security, policing and vast estates and manors off-limits to the Exchequer; though at least a few years ago the royals were foiled in their attempt to pay for heating their drafty castles by tapping public monies meant for indigents.)

Perhaps it would be tacky to mention that the wedding pageant will not have “any sort of lasting effect” on the economy. The public, however, doesn’t seem to be listening. Brits “graced by The Presence [come] away like medieval peasants brushed by the royal fingers to cure the scrofula,” sayeth the Financial Times. The real boon then may be to distract the serfs from higher taxes, galloping inflation, fewer jobs and public services under the axe.

Tackier still is commemorative merchandise that makes up much of the prized economic activity. There are ashtrays – stub your cig in the face of the newlyweds; toilet seat covers – Kate and William can now grace your throne; or “regal prophylactics” – wrap your willie in a William condom for coitus with your fantasy Kate.

Raining on the parade, anti-monarchists say direct subsidies are $180 million, or triple the amount usually cited. And the royals are downright plebian as a tourist attraction; the crowning glory, Windsor Castle, ranks as only the 17th most-visited tourist site in England, easilysurpassed by the nearby Legoland.

Of course why would anyone want to fork over $26 to gawk at Queen Liz’s chambers and screech, “Ewww, loovly”? Many more prefer to traipse through the Tower of London, once a royal residence, but far more notorious as an executioner’s ball and medieval Guantánamocrammed with racks, scold’s bridles and head crushers.

If the only justification left is tourism, then it’s time to imagine more lucrative schemes. Eliminating the royals would first free up all those tax dollars spent on such vital activities as Charles and Camilla’s 12-day yacht tour of the Caribbean in 2008 (a $430,000 bargain) or the heir apparent jetting across the pond in 2007 with a 20-member entourage to pick up an environmental award from Al Gore (a mere $228,000 tab).

If Clinton-era donors were willing to pony up $100,000 for a White House sleepover, think of how many über-rich would spend a million or two for a bacchanalia in Buckingham Palace. Or how much revenue, taxes and jobs the royal landholdings would generate as exclusive hotels and chic party rentals. Indian steel tycoon Laxmi Mittal, for example, reportedly dropped more than $50 million in 2004 for his daughter’s wedding, which included an engagement ceremony at Louis XIV’s old crib of Versailles Palace.

But what to do with the royals, whose pomp, ceremony and charity are meant to hide the fact that they are the very embodiment of the idle rich. Prince Charles — the man who would be king who would be Camilla’s tampon — is utterly useless as he long ago fulfilled his destiny of siring “an heir and a spare.” Charles now fills his days peddling quackery such as his branded “Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture,” ranting that Galileo is to blame for consumerism and hatching dimwitted real-estate schemes, including putting his charity foundation in peril for a $40-million loan to purchase an estate, which has since lost 80 percent of its value.

There is always regicide. A bit extreme, but it would only be taking the lead from London protesters who chanted “Off with their heads” while attacking a Rolls Royce-bound Charles and Camilla last December. Plus, with media saturation, what better way to capture viewers’ attention than televising a 16th-century-style beheading of the royal family.

Regicide has a storied past. During revolutions, most monarchs manage to escape popular wrath for murder, plunder, torture and other crimes of absolutism. But in the revolutions that define modernity — the French and Russian — the royalty met a well-deserved fate. The depredations they visited upon their countries are precisely why Louis XVI was guillotined and the Romanovs shot. Other less-known nobility — King Faisal II of Iraq, George I of Greece and Umberto I of Italy — were cut down by bullets for their crimes.

But, whingers may object, the Windsors while parasites are a mostly harmless lot. It may seem that way with all the garden parties and polo matches, but as head of a British Empire (rebranded as the Commonwealth of Nations) soaked in the blood of its forced subjects, the royals have never paid for their crimes. (For a terrifying account of the tens of millions killed by imperial British policy in Asia in the late 19th century, see Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis.)

What better way to help the English to topple a government rooted in medieval despotism, overcome their class deference and end a culture of hereditary idiocy than chopping off a few royal heads?

Plus, imagine putting the Queen’s head in a jar on public display. It would be the ultimate tourist attraction.

This article orginally appeared in the Indypendent. Reproduced here with kind permission of the publisher.

, , ,

  • Lynne

    Well that’s one point of view LOL

  • Lynne

    Well that’s one point of view LOL

  • Loves a fairytale wedding

    hang on! did i just hear the yanks calling the Royals tacky? muahahaha!

    • Andrew

      I hate all this royal wedding bullshit, but you hit a bull’s eye there!

    • seinnm

      The royals do not rule, what use do you have of them? They are but inbred celebrities worshipped by the uncultured masses.

  • Loves a fairytale wedding

    hang on! did i just hear the yanks calling the Royals tacky? muahahaha!

  • Andrew

    I hate all this royal wedding bullshit, but you hit a bull’s eye there!

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I still think we should compile a list of things that people should be caring about instead of this crap.

    • quartz99

      For instance, how many homeless could have been given a fresh start and adequate food and shelter for the sums of money spent on royals and pseudo-royals (the moneyed class that passes for royalty in the US) in just one year? How many trees could have been planted to counter the carbon we keep pumping into the atmosphere for that amount of money? How many kids who are otherwise going to die of either thirst or water-borne disease could have clean water in the third-world?

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        Solution: give the starving homeless people royal souvenir condoms so they do not create any more thirsty helpless children

        *disclaimer: royal souvenir condoms are not qualified as contraception and are only a novelty item

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    I still think we should compile a list of things that people should be caring about instead of this crap.

  • youlldoitandlikeit

    Hurl. That is all.

  • Anonymous

    Hurl. That is all.

  • Dcoy

    Beautiful.

  • Dcoy

    Beautiful.

  • Mr. Coffee

    Selling Official Royal Wedding keepsakes at my Official Royal Wedding “garage sale”

    That is all.

  • Mr. Coffee

    Selling Official Royal Wedding keepsakes at my Official Royal Wedding “garage sale”

    That is all.

  • MoralDrift

    The fact that the British Crown still exists is an affront to humanity. I’m not big on beheading, so how about exile?

    • Liam_McGonagle

      Yeah, it’s hard to imagine that the existence of the monarchy is any great favor to the participants themselves. Constantly under the microscope for no really good purpose, their life choices constantly evaluated and thwarted by a pig-ignorant public for its own amusement.

      Charles really missed his calling in life because of this delivery ward lotto. My sense is that both he and the British public would have been much happier had he been allowed to be the tampon he always dreamed of.

      http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=44686

  • Anonymous

    The fact that the British Crown still exists is an affront to humanity. I’m not big on beheading, so how about exile?

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Well, people are desparate for something resembling good news. And fuck if they’d get it by paying attention to the economy or public policy debates.

    I’m convinced that 99.999% of humanity don’t give two shits about democracy or civil rights beyond their immediate ability to afford a few creature comforts for themselves. Never have; never will. It’s really quite pointless for anyone to embark on any major educational campaigns in those regards. Especially when the unavoidable objective reality of the situation is so bleak.

    So long as people aren’t immediately dying of starvation on (their own) streets, none of this pie-in-the-sky bullshit about morality and self-determination is going to mean squat to any of the people who really decide elections–the “Great Undecided” 67% of the population. Granted, it likely WILL come to that point under the prolonged burden of the corrupt and incompetent rule of inbred elites, but that’s years down the road. Cross that bridge when we get to it.

    In the mean time, let’s all enjoy the idle fantasy of two silly people being celebrated on account of how celebrated they are. Everyone enjoys a celebration.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Well, people are desparate for something resembling good news. And fuck if they’d get it by paying attention to the economy or public policy debates.

    I’m convinced that 99.999% of humanity don’t give two shits about democracy or civil rights beyond their immediate ability to afford a few creature comforts for themselves. Never have; never will. It’s really quite pointless for anyone to embark on any major educational campaigns in those regards. Especially when the unavoidable objective reality of the situation is so bleak.

    So long as people aren’t immediately dying of starvation on (their own) streets, none of this pie-in-the-sky bullshit about morality and self-determination is going to mean squat to any of the people who really decide elections–the “Great Undecided” 67% of the population. Granted, it likely WILL come to that point under the prolonged burden of the corrupt and incompetent rule of inbred elites, but that’s years down the road. Cross that bridge when we get to it.

    In the mean time, let’s all enjoy the idle fantasy of two silly people being celebrated on account of how celebrated they are. Everyone enjoys a celebration.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, it’s hard to imagine that the existence of the monarchy is any great favor to the participants themselves. Constantly under the microscope for no really good purpose, their life choices constantly evaluated and thwarted by a pig-ignorant public for its own amusement.

    Charles really missed his calling in life because of this delivery ward lotto. My sense is that both he and the British public would have been much happier had he been allowed to be the tampon he always dreamed of.

    http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=44686

  • sully

    Republic be better for you ? I think not. Enjoy some englishness while you can.

  • sully

    Republic be better for you ? I think not. Enjoy some englishness while you can.

  • Anonymous

    For instance, how many homeless could have been given a fresh start and adequate food and shelter for the sums of money spent on royals and pseudo-royals (the moneyed class that passes for royalty in the US) in just one year? How many trees could have been planted to counter the carbon we keep pumping into the atmosphere for that amount of money? How many kids who are otherwise going to die of either thirst or water-borne disease could have clean water in the third-world?

  • White_Cloud

    The royals and other lord types should have their titles removed and all their huge estates made into public lands.

    • ArgosyJones

      I don’t see how mastectomy is going to solve anything, but that’s one yankee’s point of view.

  • White_Cloud

    The royals and other lord types should have their titles removed and all their huge estates made into public lands.

  • ArgosyJones

    I don’t see how mastectomy is going to solve anything, but that’s one yankee’s point of view.

  • Altered state

    Is thinking of a perfect, fairytale couple tying the knot on this day……..
    Today is 66th anniversary of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun’s wedding.

  • Altered state

    Is thinking of a perfect, fairytale couple tying the knot on this day……..
    Today is 66th anniversary of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun’s wedding.

  • seinnm

    The royals do not rule, what use do you have of them? They are but inbred celebrities worshipped by the uncultured masses.

  • seinnm

    The royals do not rule, what use do you have of them? They are but inbred celebrities worshipped by the uncultured masses.

  • chris marson

    While it is true that most do not care for the monarchy, most can also see through this daft post. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see how biased it is. Certainly, I wouldn’t suggest the author goes into balanced reporting!

    First of all, blaming the Royals on the crimes of their forefathers is no different to saying because you are white you are guilty of the crimes against slaves.. furthermore where does that stop?…. I have a roman nose so am I guilty of the crimes at Carthage? Grow up…!

    Finally, people really don’t give two hoots as to if there is a royal family or not.. they care where the next meal is coming from.. how they are going to pay the next gas bill and if for just one day a wedding shares an ounce of Joy, the only wrongdoer is in fact you who wants to bring down an ideal.

    Make no mistake, I am not a royalist but I am not so blinkered as to think that a republic is the perfect solution (Just look at America! and it’s corrupt financial election policy!) but the royal family are not what broke this country, the Government did and all the moaning you like about the current regal situation will not change the fact that we have a royal family and they will be here to stay for many many years to come!

  • chris marson

    While it is true that most do not care for the monarchy, most can also see through this daft post. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see how biased it is. Certainly, I wouldn’t suggest the author goes into balanced reporting!

    First of all, blaming the Royals on the crimes of their forefathers is no different to saying because you are white you are guilty of the crimes against slaves.. furthermore where does that stop?…. I have a roman nose so am I guilty of the crimes at Carthage? Grow up…!

    Finally, people really don’t give two hoots as to if there is a royal family or not.. they care where the next meal is coming from.. how they are going to pay the next gas bill and if for just one day a wedding shares an ounce of Joy, the only wrongdoer is in fact you who wants to bring down an ideal.

    Make no mistake, I am not a royalist but I am not so blinkered as to think that a republic is the perfect solution (Just look at America! and it’s corrupt financial election policy!) but the royal family are not what broke this country, the Government did and all the moaning you like about the current regal situation will not change the fact that we have a royal family and they will be here to stay for many many years to come!

  • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

    Solution: give the starving homeless people royal souvenir condoms so they do not create any more thirsty helpless children

    *disclaimer: royal souvenir condoms are not qualified as contraception and are only a novelty item

  • Let Them Eat Chicken Nuggets

    Couldn’t Arun Gupta have written how much the monarchy is costing us, the British – in GBP – and let the Americans ” do the math (s) ” in their own heads ! Hey “dudes”….”go,figure.”

  • Let Them Eat Chicken Nuggets

    Couldn’t Arun Gupta have written how much the monarchy is costing us, the British – in GBP – and let the Americans ” do the math (s) ” in their own heads ! Hey “dudes”….”go,figure.”

  • reef

    i don’t personally care about the royals as it would make no difference if they were here or not, but they are part of our national identity, and if take 60p of me a year well I’m not massively bothered as i loose more money than that down the side of my couch. And also good luck to them as i hope their marriage lasts , ps Kate is fucking hot

  • reef

    i don’t personally care about the royals as it would make no difference if they were here or not, but they are part of our national identity, and if take 60p of me a year well I’m not massively bothered as i loose more money than that down the side of my couch. And also good luck to them as i hope their marriage lasts , ps Kate is fucking hot

  • Marycolletti

    Not being British, could not really care one way or the other, but according to info dispersed with the hoopla the last couple days, only 11% of the British are for getting rid of the monarchy – so it’s a democratic entertainment choice. They also said the monarcy only costs each citizen one pound per year – which doesn’t seem like too much too pay for entertainment. I just think if the public is supporting them, they shouldn’t be so chintzy with their appearance when requested. I have to admit I was disappointed I didn’t get to see any of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, and got a mild kick out of Kate & Wills, but wouldn’t have been broken-hearted if my cable had gone out on either.

  • Marycolletti

    Not being British, could not really care one way or the other, but according to info dispersed with the hoopla the last couple days, only 11% of the British are for getting rid of the monarchy – so it’s a democratic entertainment choice. They also said the monarcy only costs each citizen one pound per year – which doesn’t seem like too much too pay for entertainment. I just think if the public is supporting them, they shouldn’t be so chintzy with their appearance when requested. I have to admit I was disappointed I didn’t get to see any of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, and got a mild kick out of Kate & Wills, but wouldn’t have been broken-hearted if my cable had gone out on either.

  • Marycolletti

    Forgot to say that if the unlikely situation would occur that I be invited to England (all expenses paid of course) to meet one of the more interesting royals, I would be happy to do so, but under NO circumstances would I bow/curtsey. My knees only bend before God.

  • Marycolletti

    Forgot to say that if the unlikely situation would occur that I be invited to England (all expenses paid of course) to meet one of the more interesting royals, I would be happy to do so, but under NO circumstances would I bow/curtsey. My knees only bend before God.

  • Smashandgrabprod

    I dig the royals. They got class!

  • Smashandgrabprod

    I dig the royals. They got class!

21
More in Monarchy, Royal Family, Royal Wedding
Jerry Seinfeld on Royal Wedding: ‘Let’s Pretend These Are Special People’ (Video)

Here could have said whatever he felt like, so I'm glad he called it like it is:

Close