Thursday, 22 October 2015

Me and Monarchy

As someone who passionately believes in democracy, that is the original Greek concept of δημοκρατία (dēmokratía)  or, if you will,  the "rule of the people", I'd be a hypocrite to want anything less than having elected bodies in every sphere of political life. This coincides with having a Head of State or indeed a second chamber, like the House of Lords, acting on the peoples behest. This naturally means my personal inclinations are against having a Monarchy. However, this does not mean, nor should it imply, that I have any personal dislike for any member of the Royal Family. Having never met them how could I even begin to speculate whether I liked them or not. Nor does it mean I think the House of Lords as it stands is filled with verminous villains. I think the Lords do a tremendous job keeping the current administration in place. For me though doing a great job when unelected by the people is only a half arsed virtual democracy. It is not that I seek. Real democracy has elected members and the House of Lords are anything but.
Elizabeth Windsor, The Queen of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales has done a fantastic job as Monarch. It was a role thrust on her and one which she, out of a sense of duty, took on. I can conceive of no one else doing the job half as well but...and here is the rub, she wasn't elected. You can't have a true democracy without those representing the people are elected by the people.  I have to say that if we did have an election for Head of State that I believe she, The Queen, would win at least eighty percent of the vote. I wouldn't say the same regarding her heir. Not that I have anything against Prince Charles but I don't think he has the same love and respect from his future subjects as his mother.

Shallow thinkers and goodness knows the world is full of them, lend themselves to acting as stereotypes. They neither fully understand nor appreciate the depth of politics' let alone have the ability to act with a smidgeon of self-dignity or common decency when airing their views. It is all too easy when taking a stand to manifest self-righteous hate for a given body or person and then to justify it by making some of the most obnoxious and downright indecent comments about other people whose opinions differ to theirs. This is nothing less than rage transference. The target of their hatred merely fulfils their needs to hate someone.
I dislike organised religion yet have many friends who have faith. It is a personal faith and as such is totally legitimate. I dislike the Catholic Church, not Catholics. I dislike the Catholic Church but have nothing against the Pope. I don't know the man. I dislike the privilege and wealth the Catholic Church hordes as it preaches we should care for the poor. The Catholic Churches sins far exceed those of the British Monarchy as does its wealth. As a progressive democrat, I would like to see the end to organised religion and an elected Head of State for Britain. The one thing I do not like is the inexcusable intolerance and bad manners shown to those whose opinions differ to our own. Those that name-call, deride others with infantile jibes for they are no better than those they seek to replace. They are in fact cut from the same cloth. I, and others like me, often take to task The Daily Mail, The Express, The Star, The Sun, The Telegraph and the Times when they stoop to throw mud at a selected individual. The people who oppose that right wing media group are no better when they do the same. They are in fact just the same. Same meat, different gravy.
Ugly is as ugly does.
.
.
.
Russell Cuts the Corn From The Brewers Whiskers.

No comments: