The Class Structure is Perpetuated by Having Royals
Posted 7th August 2008 at 20:24 by Royston
Most people who have little time for a monarchy or are of a republican orientation focus too much on the minutiae of the royals as they currently are. Worrying about a Prince Philip's faux Pas - which actually livens things up a bit except for his rather implicit racism - the minor civil list cost in the scheme of things and on the small issues. Whether they pay tax or make a contribution to our balance of payments or can possibly break a deadlock in the house of commons are not significant problems.
The key point is that the purpose of the Royal Family as part of the structure of our society is that it allows the perpetuation of a particular form of society that maintains a differential power and status relationship between people without critique - those who rule and are ruled - are subjects not citizens. The purpose of having such a thing as a monarchy is distract attention away from considering these broader aspects of discipline by (attempting) to pose these people are rather neutral and above things, occupying a mythical world where we admire and have an affect response towards them whilst ensuring uncomfortable issues like control are ignored.
What is surprising to me in this debate is the lack of debate in any real sense beyond the superficial. How this is kept off the agenda or even better how people do not think about the issues around abolition. How people have internalised a particular form of rhetoric and response shows real power and control over the nature of the discussion and is a very subtle and sophisticated way of managing the issue. By criticising an institution based on the terms of the debate as set-down by Royalty and the State (the superficial level) one restates an acceptance of Royalty and the status quo.
Just a Few of HRH's gaffs to lighten up the debate ( I did smirk at the second one):
“And what exotic part of the world do you come from then?”
To Lord Taylor of Warwick, who’s black and comes from Birmingham.
“If it swims and it’s not a submarine the Chinese will eat it.”
At a World Wildlife Fund dinner.
“The bastards murdered half my family.”
About the Russians during a visit to the country.
“So who’s on drugs here?”
To members of a Bangladeshi youth club in central London.
Any more Gaffs welcome - these come from below
http://www.royalanecdotes.com/2006/0...hilips-gaffes/
The key point is that the purpose of the Royal Family as part of the structure of our society is that it allows the perpetuation of a particular form of society that maintains a differential power and status relationship between people without critique - those who rule and are ruled - are subjects not citizens. The purpose of having such a thing as a monarchy is distract attention away from considering these broader aspects of discipline by (attempting) to pose these people are rather neutral and above things, occupying a mythical world where we admire and have an affect response towards them whilst ensuring uncomfortable issues like control are ignored.
What is surprising to me in this debate is the lack of debate in any real sense beyond the superficial. How this is kept off the agenda or even better how people do not think about the issues around abolition. How people have internalised a particular form of rhetoric and response shows real power and control over the nature of the discussion and is a very subtle and sophisticated way of managing the issue. By criticising an institution based on the terms of the debate as set-down by Royalty and the State (the superficial level) one restates an acceptance of Royalty and the status quo.
Just a Few of HRH's gaffs to lighten up the debate ( I did smirk at the second one):
“And what exotic part of the world do you come from then?”
To Lord Taylor of Warwick, who’s black and comes from Birmingham.
“If it swims and it’s not a submarine the Chinese will eat it.”
At a World Wildlife Fund dinner.
“The bastards murdered half my family.”
About the Russians during a visit to the country.
“So who’s on drugs here?”
To members of a Bangladeshi youth club in central London.
Any more Gaffs welcome - these come from below
http://www.royalanecdotes.com/2006/0...hilips-gaffes/
Total Comments 2
Comments
|
Royal familiies help find stability for a country. Take Georgia, if it had a royal family and not a president then how would this country be today?
|
Posted 13th August 2008 at 11:34 by Jack
|
|
|
Royals as Unification? - I don't think soHi Jack,
The argument that Royals provide some sort of unification above the political level is an old one proposed by the royals and those who wish them to be perpetuated. I fail to see what function this has in solving any of the problems of contemporary society that cannot be provided for by an elected president. On the other hand witness the nonsense from Charles over GM food - an uninformed rant given airtime by a national newspaper in this country just for spin purposes and to position Charles as some sort of 'thinker' and unifier of opposition to the concept. By the way the situation in Georgia is an adventure by a fool that went badly wrong and would not have been prevented by having a Georgian Royal family - although I am not averse to lending them ours if you think that would help. cheers Royston |
|
Posted 17th August 2008 at 14:04 by Royston
|
Post a Comment
|
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by Royston
- Banking Crisis - Lloyds was a safe bank in 1825 (22nd October 2008)
- The Bardsey Crown to Return to the land of Merlin (5th October 2008)
- Recent Archaeological research shows football invented in Wales (28th September 2008)
- The Railway Chronicles - starlet's bags under eyes forces new photo shoot (28th September 2008)
- Brown relaunch at labour conference fails (21st September 2008)
