As IF Times

A few months ago, an ‘organic’, but somehow well orchestrated national protest consumed all the media headlines with the catchy slogan of  ‘No Kings’.  This of course was not a protest against kings per se, but was targeting the policies of one individual they considered to be acting as a king, that is, Donald Trump.

It sounds good; a protest against someone who autocratically imposes his will upon his subjects and who restricts the rights and privileges of his people.  But as in all protest movements by the left, there is usually more thought put in to creating the jingoistic war cry than the actual substance of the underlying cause.  Take for example, Black Lives Matter, a movement intended to galvanize a particular constituency politically but which was entirely non-sensical.  In reality, the movement was all about Black Lives Better and this movement was used as a sledgehammer to cow the larger population against pushing back against obvious racial crimes.  Objective crime statistics over decades showed that Blacks were disproportionately represented in crime statistics as a percentage of population.  This fact is blithely ignored by the deluded movement.

On to the No Kings protest.  Recently, the present Regent of the UK, King Charles, paid a state visit to the United States, a former vassal colony but one that turfed the Brits in an independence war exactly 250 years ago.  In fact, this can be considered the preeminent No Kings protest because the colonies decided that they really did not care for the way the Kings and Queens were running things, especially by imposing non representative taxation and thus they fought a war to have…no kings.

America was the first nation ever in history to endow its own citizens with the ability to rise to the level of their own efforts, without the advantage of birthright as has been (and still is) the case in most nations until then.  Mere citizens could be elected to high office solely on their appeal to their constituents, not because they happened to be the scions of rich dudes from past conquests.

The very notion of someone being entitled to rights, privileges, wealth and power just because their ancestors won some battles centuries ago is absurd in this modern age….or should be.  Most monarchs today live their privileged lives solely through the support of taxes by their loyal subjects and are largely ceremonial in their positions, much like vases in a curios cabinet…and just as useful. They really are human museum pieces representing an archaic history which, while amusing, is of no real consequence to anyone today.  Of course, people still sit in rapt attention when these regents make a well-crafted speech, but the fact is, it’s like consulting a magic 8 ball as far as any real wisdom is concerned.

Let’s pick on King Charles as an example. On his recent visit to the United States, he made a speech about the historical connection between the UK and the United States and their shared history and traditions.  This is somewhat reminiscent of a spouse talking about their romantic history before the acrimonious divorce.  Many residual royalists swooned in reverence at his articulate delivery as compared to the oaf sitting in the President’s office.

The reality was that the visit was not a social call.  It was a personal plea to have the United States continue to deliver military funding to the European cause since the Europeans are in dire straits.  Under Charle’s watch, the UK’s influence had collapsed in the realms of industry, of trade and of the military.  Their role as a finance capital is in serious jeopardy. The nation itself is on the verge of civil war not helped by the King’s embrace of Muslims.  This civil war will be inflamed by the speech made by Charles in the weeks after his visit announcing that the UK will implement nationwide digital ID’s.  Apparently, this was so that ‘everyone would be equal’.  This might have been taken more seriously had he not been wearing a jewel encrusted crown, wearing an ermine cape, sitting on the regal throne.

The pearl clutchers and hand wringers in the United States are in perma critique mode as to their own nation without understanding that the US is still the freest nation on earth.  This is in no part due to the help of globalists who are tirelessly trying to bring their own brands of kings and queens with their associated levels of inequality back to the US.

We can see this brand of ‘Royal’ behavior in the nation to the north, Canada, still a vassal state to Britain. We can observe that elections are manipulated, certain people are given more rights than others and speech is increasingly being stifled with the help of compliant state media.  They even have the King’s representative whose position is like the vase in the cabinet mentioned earlier but nonetheless commands a royal salary, allowance, housing and oh, a pension for life, informing the public that they need to tighten their belts. Where are the No Kings protestors?

The public have hopefully become fatigued by the protest flavor of the day, telling them how and what to think. The collapse of credibility of mass media has made the bleats of the day as just so much noise.  Ironically, they are correct in this particular bleat, they just targeted wrongly.  We don’t need Kings.

link:  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/2/another-era-as-king-charles-iii-takes-crown-canada-shrugs

In a few days’ time, arguably the biggest social event of the past half century will be celebrated in Britain, if not worldwide.  For the first time since 1953, The United Kingdom will coronate a new monarch, with the title of King Charles lll.  Charles of course, is the son of the now deceased Queen Elizabeth ll.

Charles has literally been waiting for this job since he was born, having not prepared for any other vocation.  All he had to do was wait.  And wait he did, for virtually the entirety of his adult life.  His mother, Queen Elizabeth decided not to relinquish her position as notional head of state for reasons only she knew. While she was only 27 at her coronation, her son Charles will be 75 upon his.  That he was so long in the on-deck circle kind of tells you that the Queen didn’t have a lot of confidence in her son.

As it happens, Elizabeth was quite beloved by her subjects and always exuded the epitome of Royal dignity and decorum. Her patented rotating arm wave was the subject of many comic emulators as was her formal British accent during speeches.  She was an anachronism and an iconic standard for British society even as her society changed dramatically during her reign.  It’s hard to dispute the popularity of the notion of a royal society given the wild popularity of the Downton Abbey television series.  People, especially Brits, love their traditions.

And speaking of anachronism, it may be amusing to look at the history of the Royal Family to give some perspective to their role in modern society.  It’s hard to believe in our modern times of rapid change in all things, but the Royal Family’s roots began with King Alfred the Great, the effective first King of England in 871 AD. Thus Charles lll is the 33^rd great grandson of the first King, known simply as “The Great” to his close friends.

Back in the day, you don’t get to be King of a realm unless you are able to marshall a bunch of men to conquer other men, so Alfred’s moniker of “The Great” was probably due to his prowess in the war business. Luckily for him, once he got ensconced in the leadership role, he was able to keep it unless someone else was able to beat him.

Thus for many generations leading up to modern times, the lineage of children continued to enjoy their privileged roles as scions of a Royal bloodline.  This is pretty remarkable when you consider that through the ages, people were constantly fighting over this issue or that piece of land. There was always a war to be fought with someone.  That one family could retain their power through the centuries is quite amazing.  The Windsors are the longest continuous line of ruling families in the world.  It’s a pretty good gig if you can get it.  To be conferred wealth, respect and power simply because of your parents is pretty much a life lottery win.  Also, pretty cool to have images of your family on the coin of the realm.

Of course, in modern times, the role of the British Monarchy, or for that matter, any Monarchy, is largely ceremonial.  No one expects these Monarchs to be hoisting broadswords into battle.  So if that’s not the case, how does any Monarchy retain their privileged positions atop a society?  The constituency of the British Empire has changed dramatically since the days of Alfred, but most significantly over the past 30 years.  People whom were once part of the far flung colonies now make up a significant portion of the native British population.

Will they continue to respect the throne and the traditions attached thereto?  When Kings or Queens wielded power, it was through their implied control of armies.  Such is not the case today as all governments are essentially some form of functional bureaucracies.  Policy is often made by these bureaucracies and not really by the elected representatives of citizens….much less than by ceremonial heads of state.

Access to information was also a former purview of Royal Families.  Not anymore. Information and intelligence is widely available to the masses and no one depends on the opinions of those who happen to be of Royal bloodlines.  In the case of Charles, his life under the microscope has revealed that he is as vulnerable to human foibles as any of us.  He comes in at time when the population is much less forgiving of such foibles.  In addition, his cause celebre is Climate Change.  Good luck on convincing those with actual facts.  It will be ‘amusing’ to see the direction in which the new King Charles takes the Monarchy and what becomes of the House of Windsor.