Now that the tears shed have dried and as the bouquets are turned to compost, we can look beyond the passing of a nice-enough little old lady, no more or less deserving than a million others, at the institution she represented.
And that is a totally different story.
Monarchy obscures the crimes of empire and wraps them in nostalgia. It exalts white supremacy and racial hierarchy. It justifies class rule. It buttresses an economic and social system that callously discards and often consigns to death those considered the lesser breeds, most of whom are people who aren’t white.
The cries of the millions of victims of empire; the thousands killed, tortured, raped and imprisoned during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, so soon after Elizabeth made her famous oath to serve us; the 13 Irish civilians gunned down on “Bloody Sunday;” the thousands of First Nation’s children who died or went missing in government-sponsored institutions established to “assimilate” indigenous children into British culture, and the hundreds of thousands killed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are drowned out by cheers for royal processions and the sacral aura an obsequious press weaves around the aristocracy.
The coverage of the queen’s death was so mind-numbingly vapid — the BBC sent out a news alert on Saturday when Prince Harry and Prince William, accompanied by their wives, surveyed the floral tributes to their grandmother displayed outside Windsor Castle — that the press might as well have turned the coverage over to the mythmakers and publicists employed by the royal family.
These are the thoughts of Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and author Chris Hedges, and I thoroughly recommend them to you.
How does monarchy obscure the “crimes of empire” any more than republican systems of governance? A certain ring leader of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions is not ‘ruled’ by a monarch. Chinese imperialism, Russians now trying to help themselves to Ukraine….I don’t see monarchs at the wheel.
Being white does not make someone more destructive than being of colour .If a coloured race had invented guns and the means to build ships that could sail to all parts of the globe with a large force of soldiers then what is being said about white people would be said of coloured . Due to Europe having harsh winters white people needed to be inventive to survive whereas colored people did not need to . This is not to say white people were smarter as coloured developed to suit their environment.
They still had rulers that took them to war with other tribes to increase their territory and get slaves to work the land .Are these tribes being told to say sorry to those they defeated . Here in NZ are various tribes that defeated other tribes being asked to give back the lands they took many years ago.
Quite correct Trevor – Muslim pirates used to raid the European coast for hundreds of years taking countless Europeans to the slave markets of North Africa . . reason that many of the older villages etc in Southern Italy are sited well away from the coast (something not widely known because surely only white people are responsible for slavery or in a wider sense all evil)?
“In his 2003 book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800, Ohio State University history professor Robert Davis states that most modern historians minimize the white slave trade. Davis estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli alone enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast).[3][page needed] To extrapolate his numbers, Davis assumes the number of European slaves captured by Barbary pirates remained roughly constant for a 250-year period, stating:
There are no records of how many men, women and children were enslaved, but it is possible to calculate roughly the number of fresh captives that would have been needed to keep populations steady and replace those slaves who died, escaped, were ransomed, or converted to Islam. On this basis it is thought that around 8,500 new slaves were needed annually to replenish numbers – about 850,000 captives over the century from 1580 to 1680. By extension, for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/long-run-consequences-pirate-attacks-coasts-italy
Er.. the Chinese invented gunpowder and guns and yeah dynasties and empires aren’t all white are they.
Monarchy is terrible. But without completely cutting out the rats who dominate NZ politics, a Republic would be no better. Look at how subservient Jacinda is to foreign interests.
Good point and I think that the other interests relating around profiteering are worse and less in line with democracy and transparency.
Turns out that the TDB’s resident Muslim Putin Apologist isn’t a monarchist . . who could have predicted that one?
Woke want to cancel history. The monarchy is living history and preserves art and artefacts from that history.
If the monarchy goes in the UK then we all know that some Oligarch will be buying up the palace and all their belongings. That history will be lost for the public.
The public gets to enjoy a taste of history every time there is a royal ceremony. I didn’t watch the funeral and don’t particularly support the monarchy, but do like the history that is available intact from keeping the monarchy rather than being sold off in pieces.
The British Empire, post Tudor period, was largely built by commercial interests, not by the Monarchy, the Monarchy only tagged along to entrench the established incursions.
For centuries the Monarchy has been a rapacious family racket but not the prime mover or representation of Empire.
If only the world coughed up righteous leaders more often. QEII was awesome imo. We will no doubt endure a spell with a lesser leader, so we can fathom how that is in comparison to what we had. There are other awesome leaders on the planet. Their awesomeness is less public, but I’m sure we all know at least one in our personal lives. NZ looses nothing to remain a commonwealth country. NZ is far too immature and corrupt to let that go yet.
The monarchy is all that sets Britain apart from anywhere else. It’s the only living history apart from old trees. In their position I would trim the costs right back, slim it down, assess the business case and ensure it runs at a profit all things considered. It employs many people and is a big tourist drawcard. Also look at the real grief from the everyday person-you can’t buy that. So you need to give the people someone to love and respect even if you and I don’t give a shit. So old soldiers fought for Queen but would they fight for country nowadays? Also the pomp is second to none anywhere in the world-fantastic. The Queen gave Britain Mana around the world-who doesn’t watch the Queens message? My only misgiving is the ethics around saddling children such as George with the burden of being King-not really healthy for any child. I would consider putting an age limit on when they become the Monarch-perhaps 65 so they can lead a normal life first-after that anyone would probably enjoy the drama of it all in their final years.
Sorry to be so clinical about all this-can’t help myself.
Excellent comment Orbital Panda. I agree. I never cared about monarchy all my life but have been learning about it for about a year or so now. As a “getting older” person now, I find history fascinating to learn about to see where we have gotten too now. I think it is fair to say that most kiwis don’t comprehend monarchy. It’s not part of our public education system. Hell, we don’t even know our own short history as a nation yet. But times are changing, however slowly it seems, when we are living it. Jmo
I feel that the trappings of wealth exhibited by the monarchy and Royal family, the billions of dollars that Buckingham palace is worth, the private country residences, the jewels, artworks, carriages, and costumes are extravagant but are they also not symbols of the victory of war? Had the Germans won, it is simply their palaces and castles that could potentially be worth billions of dollars, and we wouldn’t want that.
Moreover the new sovereign had previously dedicated the majority of his life to being heir to the throne and prince of Wales and worked tirelessly before the Queen’s death in order to reshape the monarchy and slim it down somewhat. Most of the trusts are doing well of their own accord, which includes the duchy of Cornwall and the duchy of Lancaster, which own various assets including land holdings and prime real estate. This is not public funds but rather held in trust for the reigning sovereign and passed down from one monarch to the next.
The key role of the Monarchy, and why it’s important, is that it is seen as apolitical and thus acts to unite disparate political ideologies (and cultures). Without it, you end up with the current US system of rabid partisan politics – a sheer hatred of the “other side” (as opposed to a mutual respect for the Crown).
A few facts that contradict this shallow diatribe:
> Britain’s colonial era occurred entirely under the rule of parliament, and not the royalty. From 1653 onwards, kings were little more than figureheads.
> While colonial rule was far from perfect, it displaced systems of government that were vastly more tyrannical. It brought trade, education, infrastructure and in many cases democracy. A classic case in point is India – the world’s largest democracy. That would never have happened if the place was left to the Sultans and Mughals.
> Britain was the first country in the world to outlaw slavery and subsequently enforced the law by force of arms right around the world. The law was passed in 1883 and luckily for enslaved Maori, 10,000 or more slaves were released by their captors subsequent to rule of law being imposed in this country, thanks to the Treaty.
> Of all the British colonies that gained their independence in the 20th century, only Singapore has made progress post-independence. Choose whichever measure you like; economic, social or political, the citizens of all those colonies, regardless of race, lost a large measure of economic, social, or political freedom and now look back with fond memories at the good old days of colonial rule.
From 1689 onwards. There was no King in 1653 …
Obviously, but the point I made is still true.
Good points Andrew . . look where independence from Britain has left Zimbabwe.
The monarchy is not perfect, but which system is? I certainly do not want us to change to a USA style Republic.
IMO we have been well served by QEII; it is now for King Charles to evolve the monarchy to include modern understandings, whilst maintaining the stability and timelessness it provides.
Yes, atrocities have been enacted in the name of the Crown, but the Crown has no monopoly on that. The enduring continuium provided by a monarchy actually provides for those historical acts to be acknowledged and processes enacted enabling recognition and forgiveness so as we are able to move forward.
We are in many ways fortunate in Aotearoa in that we have the stability afforded by a monarch but little of the class society it entails in UK. Personally I think we may be surprised at what Charles will bring to the roll, I certainly wish him well for all our sakes – in our current toxic political environment a debate on a constitution and republic could only create massive civil unrest.
Dear Malcolm
You have the same name as my birth father whose remains lie in France with the others of the Lancaster bomber crew of whom only one survived. Practically speaking I doubt whether not having a monarchy would make a great difference to our tortured human history.
Please go ahead will you with your descriptive artistic jabs at our doings and happenings but making a long-form swipe at our royal institution may end up opening gaps to let some of the intemperate and compulsive materialists trending to psychopathy waiting in the wings stride in and do the Nazi thing. It is quite horrific what propaganda and coercion can wreak in a supposed civil society.
Germany was in the throes of changing its form of polity. As uncertainties and opportunities appeared, they were like cracks in a pavement, the stronger weeds thrust up and hey presto the conflagration of human values reaching the pinnacle of the industrial, mechanised age. I suggest don’t rub the lamp hoping for good magic; the genie that may arise is likely to be deceptively glamorous but with underlying evil.
Sorry Malcolm I don’t agree with your article but I respect your viewpoint.
I reckon the world is a complex place at the moment with no easy quick answers to the monarchy/republic situation.
I would rather give the situation a bit of time, wait and see what unfolds in NZ-Aotearoa and world stage to gauge the future.
There are so many players in this game.
I’m no fan of the monarchy but can’t you choose your sources more carefully Malcolm? I mean a yank with an axe to grind! At least get a British source for God’s sake!
The goober who wrote this belongs in the dustbin of history, along with that shrill little thing “Stephen”… but you have to have been something useful once upon a time to end up in “history’s” dustbin unfortunately. So I guess … just stop “contributing” please. No one cares what you are bleating on about.
You are so unpopular Stephen I bet even Jesus doesn’t love you.
Comments are closed.