Filibuster Cartoons
 |
|
 |
Prince William and his new bride Catherine, whom we are all supposed to call “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge” now, began their nine-day tour of Canada this week, drawing great crowds to Ottawa as they celebrated Canada Day with the Prime Minister. Over the next couple of days, they’ll proceed to visit Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories, before wrapping up their jaunt in Alberta, just in time for the famous Calgary Stampede. (I know all this because I bought one of the hundreds of ROYAL VISIT 2011 guides that now clutter up the magazine sections of every drug store o’er the land.)
As a 27-year-old, I am exactly the demographic that is supposed to be most moved by Kate and Wills, since their proximity to my age is supposed to make me relate to the monarchy better, or something. Eager to run with this narrative, the Canadian press has happily gobbled up the claims of the Monarchist League of Canada that royalism is currently booming across the country due to a sudden spike in youth interest. “This generation is not threatened by the monarchy,” the Ottawa Citizen has a 30-year-old League member proclaiming proudly. “They identify with the young royals.”
I have some friends who, though only in their mid-20s, are already heavily balding. It’s a very frustrating and embarrassing thing for a young man to go through at such a premature age, and a source of much insecurity and anxiety. William certainly shares this uniquely youthful experience with thousands of young Canadians, but beyond that, I’m really at a loss for common ground. By the very nature of their role and lifestyle, the royals are decidedly “above” most of the interesting social/cultural phenomena that have come to define the so-called “echo boom” generation of which me, William, and I suspect most of you, are members.
Job insecurity born from a changing economy? Nope. Since the day of his birth, William’s career has been preordained, and is certainly divorced from such hum-drum concerns such as university majors or unpaid internships. As the child of self-made millionaires, Catherine’s future was hardly any more ambiguous. Both will now enjoy life-long positions bearing endless perks, benefits, and opportunities; jobs they can perform with great leisure and comfort. After all, who ever heard of a princess being downsized?
The Internet and social media revolution? I doubt it’s the sort of thing the Duke or Duchess entirely understand, let alone have actively participated in. The Internet is a tool, and therefore something for other people to master so they don’t have to. Imagine being in your 20s and having a whole staff of people — whom you almost certainly don’t know — deciding unilaterally what should go on your website, Twitter, and Facebook. Hell, imagine having a PR department, period.
Even consider something as simple as talking about politics with friends, family, and coworkers, a pastime I’m sure we all enjoy quite a bit. As members of the House of Windsor, William and Catherine are now constitutionally forbidden to openly express opinions on current events, which, if nothing else, will probably only serve to further confuse and isolate them from full awareness of the zeitgeist of their generation.
There’s thus more than a hint of tragedy in the royal life, despite its unimaginable luxury. I have no idea if the Duke and Duchess are honestly enjoying their time in Canada, for instance, since it’s their job to express nothing other than endless joy and enthusiasm as they trek to the random parts of our arctic wasteland that a small cloister of bureaucrats and handlers have deemed politically expedient to patronize. Though they’re obviously well-heeled for their troubles — Catherine is said to have taken 40 outfits on this less-than-two-week voyage — they’re also under endless pressure to remain in a perpetual state of blissful phoniness, which must get more than a little depressing over time. As must the particular pressure on Catherine to remain perpetually young, beautiful, and stylish, even on days when she’s feeling considerably less so. The name of Princess Diana is thrown around a little too often these days, but it’s worth remembering how much of that woman’s own descent into anxiety attacks, eating disorders, and suicide attempts were reactionary symptoms against, what must be noted, is a supremely unnatural way for a human being to live.
Will and Kate seem friendly enough, and their celebrity allure has clearly proven itself capable of drawing crowds and selling merchandise. But we should be clear that their appeal has never been democratic or populist — indeed, the minute it becomes such, they will have ceased to be royals, since royalty by definition requires a degree of magical distance from the common rabble. For centuries, every new generation of royals have been heralded as ushering in some new, more “accessible” and “relatable” era of monarchy, and every time, the allure proves to be short lived.
In the world of monarchy, all roads, no matter how scenic and modern, ultimately lead back to the dark alley of hereditary birthright, undeserved privilege, and an insurmountable class divide. Even with their megawatt smiles, Will and Kate will have a hard time putting a positive face on that.
For more on the monarchy in Canada be sure to check out my recent editorial on The Mace about the supposed monarchism of Prime Minister Harper.
July 3rd, 2011 at 11:33 am
Soundtrack to this comic: Yours Truly, 2095 – ELO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb5TV7JUvzo&fm...
July 3rd, 2011 at 11:53 am
Humanize or not doesn't matter. The point is that many Canadians don't even want a monarchy. Plus its pointless.
July 3rd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Hehe, "Stepford™"
July 3rd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Is that they don't want the monarchy, or just don't care about it?
July 3rd, 2011 at 4:08 pm
What does it matter? In either case, it's an institution they're better off without.
July 3rd, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Touche. Though you shouldn't say around my grandmother.
July 3rd, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I love your republican cartoons! I've linked to your 'Queen Elizabeth job review' one from '06 more than once.
July 3rd, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Thing is, they're actually quite easily able to have and express opinions on the issues of the day. For all you know, I'm Prince William under a really dumb pseudonym. I'm not(well, except the part about the dumb pseudonym), of course…but isn't that exactly what Prince William would say?
The rest is pretty much accurate, though. I'm willing to put up with some absurd hereditary privilege to avoid having to have an ugly constitutional debate, but it's still absurd.
July 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 pm
h-c-g…
Lovely day for blogging huh…
July 3rd, 2011 at 8:15 pm
To be fair, William's got a real job that actually helps people. I don't think he'll magically transform the royalty, but, despite all odds, he seems to actually be well adjusted and sane. Lord knows his father's a complete twit.
July 4th, 2011 at 12:00 am
But… Prince Phillip speaks his mind from time to time and gets widely chastised for it.
Charles occasionally speaks out on issues but is either told to shut up or derided as a crazy hippy.
William is certainly developing his hereditary hair-loss but otherwise he and Harry both are serving officers in the British Armed Forces. Being Royal is not their only job.
The great thing about the British Royals is that they only do what they are asked. If Canada wanted to get rid of them they only have to say so. If they don't want them to visit – just say the word. In the meantime they go on representing secure and responsible government and a major tourist attraction. (BTW, I'm a republican myself but have nothing against the royals).
July 4th, 2011 at 9:53 am
I was born in Scotland, so I am probably biased.. but I LIKE being a member of the Commonwealth. I LIKE having dignateries who have no real power as representatives of charity and good behavior. Even Harry has a good heart for all that he's a brat.
"But they cost us MILLIONS! *cry* *cry* *cry*" I can't bespeak for every visit by every royal, but in BC, they've made us more money when they're skiing at whistler, dropping pucks at now Rogers Arena, opening ceremonies, than we've spent on security and their travel costs.
They do you no harm, financially or socially.
Now, if you wanted rid of the Governor General, we can talk.. ;)
July 4th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Who is the beaver talking to?
July 4th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
My guess is it's a Loon, just meant to be another animalized Canadian.
July 4th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Beyond the youth element, I suspect William and Kate gain a lot of liking because of a nostalgia for his mother. William should be careful of getting used to the monarch thing. The last two Charles' did not help their heirs too much.
July 4th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
I would have to disagree because if you accept the Royals as a cultural institution then you are for intents and purpose legitimizing the idea that it is proper that some are born with more inherent power than others. I would argue that accepting that it is right that some are born to rule, even if they are a good person, is societal detrimental.
July 4th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Not all pigs are equal.
Some are born richer. Some are born in healthy bodies. Some are born in first world countries..
"Everything is equal" is very nice on paper, but doesn't work so well for human nature.
July 4th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
"Equal" doesn't have to mean uniform or identical. Equality under the law is enough for me.
July 4th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
How are the monarchy not equal under the law to you or I, in Canada? (I know the differences in Britian)
July 5th, 2011 at 8:20 am
That's a good question, and one I'd like to hear an expert on Canadian civics answer.
My fumbling, American understanding is that they get to visit Canada on the government dime, whereas I have to pay my own way. In trials, it is not "The People vs. " whoever, but "The Crown vs." (as if the lone Queen were more important than millions of citizens.) I think the Crown can request to be apprised of the plans and intents of the elected government, something I have no standing to do. And in theory the Queen can remove elected officials from office for gross misbehavior, though in practice it never happens.
July 5th, 2011 at 10:55 am
The Queen could say "Well, Mr Harper, I don't like your chin." and remove him from power. I think the next act would be our (newly appointed from the party) Prime Minister saying "DOWN WITH THE QUEEN!" and holding a referendum to toss the monarchy. I can't speak for all my Canucky friends .. But I kinda like the thought that if my idiot countrymates vote in an incredibly conservative wannabe dictator into a majority, we still have a way to get rid of him that doesn't involve guns and violence.
And true, we do pay a lot for the monarchy to show up and waltz around. But we pay the same for Walter Gretzky, his son Wayne, and a plethera of other celebrities. I think Sid Crosby had an RCMP escort in Vancouver. ("OMG! He's cute, he's rich, and he's SINGLE!") Let's not even discuss the security costs of a Beiber concert. Sadly, we pay MORE for the Govenor General and s/he doesn't seem to generate the revenue for us that any of the previously mentioned do.
I don't think .. and I could be very wrong .. that the Royals even have ambassadorial immunity in Canada when on state visits. So potential American ambassadors could cause more trouble than Prince Willy.
BTW, only mostly off topic but, I can't wait for Queen Camilla!
July 5th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
As to your first point–do you honestly think that the Queen's will is a path to removing a commonwealth leader from power? Discussions on the forums have (I think) thoroughly debunked this theory.
For everything else, you are essentially recognizing that the Royal Family serves as celebrities. If this is what their PRIMARY purpose is, then the conservative argument is that the farce of Royal Sovereignty should be discontinued. Would that hurt some of the celebrity status is the Queen wasn't officially the head of state of all the commonwealths? Probably. But couldn't the costs cut by trimming royal status be worth the risk of loosing some of that income?
What's more, J.J. has consistently made the argument that not only is the celebrity status unearned (the justification for a hereditary system is so far in the past), but it is cruel to the Royals that it is FORCED upon them.
July 5th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Name the Queen's children and their children. Before Will & Kate's wedding, could you have named half of them? :) My point being, those of William's generation CHOSE to make themselves known. (You think those hideous hats were chosen as purely fashion statements?) It is perfectly possible for any of the gentry or nobility to live a quiet life if they so choose.
Harder for those of the titled line, sure, but not impossible.
But .. Life's not fair. Some are brilliant debaters, some are me. :) We all have different starting points and finishing points, we can just try and do the most good we can with what we have.. and i like to think the current generation of the Commonwealth's monarchy is doing that. And if they're not, they're not doing us any harm financially. (Though, I will grant, there's only so many times you want to see the news reports on CBC repeated over and over and over..)
July 5th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
They get to be kings and queens of Canada and suchlike (as defined by the rules of succession in Canadian law, which are identical to those in UK law), and the rest of us don't. Thus people are formally unequal under the law.
July 5th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Perhaps, but don't expect me to feel any sympathy.
July 5th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
In other royal news, the last crown prince of Austria-Hungary died. On topic: the only way to humanize the monarchy is to downsize and change it. Try reworking the titles, residences, privileges, and how much money it gets. Then we can see it humanized. Most importantly we must accept that they are going to say things we might no agree with. Not to say that there shouldn't be a neutral core to the monarchy, just that their every waking moment should be like they are apolitical. The US criticize it's president everyday but n one is suggesting that we abolish the US presidency. Same should go with the monarchy.
July 5th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
A lot of monarchist legal scholars would argue the Queen is basically not even a human under Canadian law, in the sense that she embodies a special class of personhood that transcends all legal rights and obligations. This is the old "le state c'est moi" logic, and it is used to justify why, for instance, the Queen is not obligated to carry a passport, and why her "personal" wealth is so difficult to calculate.
July 6th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Here's a hypothetical situation about the rights of royalty in interfere in government.
Say there's a revolutionary election where a major political reform party (or coalition) gets just barely enough support to alter the constitution. The election was polarizing, and the status quo set have argued semi-plausibly that the reform party is a conspiracy to overturn the established order in favor of a tyrannous dictatorship. The first order of business for the new Reform PM is to abandon all recognition of royalty from government, and the opposition shouts that the royal check on elected government is the last defense against the tyranny of the Reformers. How should the Crown respond? Intervene or not?
This is as appropriate a situation for royalty to interfere in politics as there will ever be. Would-be tyrants would have to be cripplingly stupid to be any more obvious, but a great frequency of normal elections look awfully similar to this setup. Even in this best-case setup for royal involvement, I still don't see sufficient grounds for royalty to interfere. Once I accept the conclusion that the best possible setup still isn't good enough, I'm logically bound to deny any value to royalty as a political oversight mechanism. It simply doesn't work.
A much better check on power is a constitution as supreme law of the land with a well-designed amendment procedure and some political agency empowered to enforce it. If that agency is an judicial enforcement arm of the institution of the Crown, fine. But that, as far as I know, is not the way the crown works anywhere in the Commonwealth.
July 6th, 2011 at 7:10 am
The US President has to win public support in two elections to rule for a full term limit of 8 years. The Crown has it's power for life and generations thereafter without ever winning an election. Presidents can resign, but Royals can't. Presidents can be impeached, but Royals can't. Royalty is more like fate, and elected government more like national self-control. Which do you trust more, fate or will?
July 6th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
That is true. However, without addressing your examples which could be debated forth and back all day long, inequality in one area does not mean that other inequalities should be ignored. No matter the case the core of my point was that by culturally and legally accepting that some are rulers simply by birthright is detrimental to the country as it promotes, what I consider to be, an inhibiting mindset.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Heh, unfortunately I don't trust either. Heck I think that Democracy is to blame for the end of the Golden Age of Athens. That being said I will take will over fate every time.
July 6th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
I was going to say royalty can still abdicate, but apparently Edward VIII's abdication was a big problem requiring quite a bit of legislation. Although, if royalty chose to abdicate, and the Commonwealth didn't consent, I don't see fully how one can be forced to serve. There is some self-imposed lack of free will by the royalty.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:08 am
That's quite a bit like saying citizens can disobey laws so long as they are willing to tolerate the backlash. It's technically true, but it doesn't make the legal system look so good.
July 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
I agree on every point.
July 8th, 2011 at 1:06 am
The difference though is that failure to comply with laws results in criminal punishment. Is there truly any punishment for a failure to remain royalty?
July 9th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Failure to comply with laws CAN result in criminal punishment, but it doesn't necessarily. That was my point: people getting away with lawbreaking makes the legal system look bad.
July 14th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Doesn't really need the beaver's text. You overwrote this one (unfortunately easy in editorial cartooning).
October 5th, 2011 at 11:48 am
It is in point of fact a nice and useful piece of info. I'm glad that you simply shared this useful information with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.