We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day The real shock today would be if Meghan Markle came out and said she wasn’t a feminist. There were some slight rumblings when the royal-to-be announced she was swapping her acting career for marriage. But this pales into insignificance in comparison to the ugly insults and criticisms levelled at Katie Roiphe, Germaine Greer, Catherine Deneuve and other women who have criticised #MeToo. No, today it seems as if royalty and feminism are perfectly suited to each other: both are posh, prissy and condescending.
– Joanna Williams
Personally I think Meghan Markle would be a catastrophic addition to The Firm if she does not understand why it is a terrible idea for the Royals to get political. Do that and they stop being symbols (essentially endearing living flags whose job is to wave strangely and act as a navigational datum for flypasts) and become legitimate political targets. There is no surer route to a republic and I would regret that (as I do not share Spiked’s democracy fetish) but not necessarily oppose it if the House of Windsor does indeed go full retard.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Fairly normal “educated people” – the problem is that what the education system teaches is wrong.
And this stuff is not some sort of add-on – leftism is the CORE of what the education system teaches, and what the electronic media reflect. It is, as you would say Perry, the “meta context”.
Obviously, the monarch cannot be a potential insurance policy against unforeseen disasters that the ruling / commentating group cannot handle if the monarch wholly shares a mindset with said group. And in ordinary times the monarch cannot be a different voice at the centre of things without that same quality.
I would note that it matters a good deal less in the wife of a man who is now some little way from being in line for the throne. I trust Meghan is receiving lots of good advice from her grandmother-in-law and others.
In part, the ‘different mindset’ is a statistical thing. All methods that rely on choosing rulers from those who have chosen to offer themselves, and so want to be, rulers have such a statistically poor record that putting it outside the bounds of choice – you were born to these parents, you have no elder sibling, so you are monarch – is hoped to result often in an ideally better but at least different mindset. And, a little like separation of powers, I think that different mind at the centre of things, having to be talked to respectfully and told things, has value in ordinary times and the possibility of exceptional value in extraordinary times.
“if the House of Windsor does indeed go full retard.”
“If”? Have you noticed who is first in line to the throne? Markle is a prototypical brainless Hollywood leftie, but she’s far enough from the throne to be permitted (even expected to have) some eccentricities and quirks. Not so Charles, who has been in training for the role his entire life.
Y’all ought to stop picking your royalty based on heredity, and do as we do in the USA – just go by current box office draw. That way your picks never get stale – there’s always another movie coming out.
You’re halfway there now, of course. Were I sitting at a table with Princess Meg and Sir Elton John, I’d be hard pressed to decide which was more royal. If it came down to picking the less political one, well, hello yellow brick road.
Charles himself went “full retard” into his leftist fantasies decades ago and remains in them. If the Queen doesn’t get some way to prevent Charles from ascending to the throne, the British Monarchy won’t last long enough for William to inherit anything.
I saw a brief interview with Mrs Markle the other day, and Laird’s description came to mind. She was with Harry and the other two, and it struck me what a patronising, lightweight bunch they were. There’s been plenty of concern over Big Ears on this blog, but why bring Noddies into the equation? Megan’s smugness will surely Make England Grate Again if not moderated.
I have a simple compromise, a Glorious Revolution to remove the descendants of George VI from the succession, lest they further dishonour his memory, and invite Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester on the throne, no need to go Jacobite despite the wonderful Liechtensteiners, with their oddly-familiar anthem.
But perhaps Princess Anne would be OK.
I think you may be on to something!
Not sure how far off Prince Charles he’d be:
“He is also a patron of the British Homeopathic Association, a charity dedicated to the study, research and promotion of homeopathy.”
Oh dear, and he was doing so well.
On the flip side, at least the Jacobite’s would have a nicely decorated palace! https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/286277/The-rightful-heir-to-the-Scottish-throne
EdMJ
HRH Prince Richard is patronising towards homeopathy. Sounds fine to me.
Why do you assume that a charismatic young prince could not/would not stage a coup d’etat and reestablish a true monarchy? You don’t need majority support for that, a few percent of the population suffices if it is truly driven.
You’d need a charismatic young prince first 😆
The last Richard wasn’t all that good, was he? And then he went and got himself killed by that Welsh bastard, giving us the tyranny of the Tudors. I suppose that since that lot couldn’t produce a boy, at least you English eventually got the privilege of being ruled over by a Scottish king.
Just for the record, what a bunch of ridiculous nonsense. All that poncing around in coaches and crowns. I mean you can’t be serious, right? This is 2018 not 1018.
It’s called ‘fun’, Fraser 🙂
If we’re going to have nation-states in the Westphalian sense, then something along these lines is inevitable. So I’m actually ok with the coaches and crowns as opposed to some arse in a boring suit in front of a flag, at least until we work our way into something completely different to nation-states as currently imagined.
@Perry de Havilland (London)
then something along these lines is inevitable.
Well maybe if Bonnie Prince Charlie had succeeded, but the Germans? You are OK with the Germans?
I wonder if your sentiments will be the same when that dork Charles ascends to the throne.
The fact I don’t care much for Chuckles Buggerluggs isn’t itself an issue 😜
I’d prefer a proper Norman dynasty myself.
If I had to choose between Charles and Corbyn, I choose Charles. Especially if I could shackle him inside a constitution which limits the harm he could do.
I’m swinging back toward being an ardent constitutional monarchist. Lately when faced with the “hard cases” I’ve taken to asking myself “What would a good king do in this situation?”. Would he mind his own business, would he act, would he use force? I’ve found it surprisingly useful.
I suppose it’s corollary is “What would a bad king do?”, which would help you decide where the constitution should limit the power of the king.
Well ultimately… 😈
I think it’s tawdry to bring his sexual orientation into this.
I guess some of the commenters above have forgotten the days when Prince Charles was a “Nazi architect” because he fought high-rise and concrete brutalism. On matters of artistic taste, which he personally knows something about, he is not an idiot. On other matters (science for example) where he has no personal knowledge or understanding, he echoes the idiot views of our ruling class – which is a pity but hardly a significant aggravation of our woes. When he becomes king, he is far more likely to influence the art and architecture of some projects than to make the slightest difference in what carbon-controlling regulations are inflicted on us.
Meanwhile, I continue to sing ‘God save the Queen’ – and reflect that, given how long her mother lived, He may well do so for quite a while yet. 🙂
It just needs to be made clear that there are tunnels all over the world.
I trust Meghan is receiving lots of good advice from her grandmother-in-law and others.
She looks like the sort of woman who’d start telling the Queen how she should think and behave.
The Windsors have become our version of the Trudeaus and Macrons of this world. Excruciatingly embarrassing and abnormal.
The best thing they could do, once the Queen has departed is to bugger off back to Germany and allow us to put a proper Englishman on the throne; I’m sure there’s still one around who had a valid claim to the throne, who is normal and who actually likes we the indigenous peoples.
There is of course the matter of faith in a Royal Wedding, and I never cease to be touched by the sincerity and devotion of adult (re)-conversions associated with them.
Here’s a YT video of a sympathetic blogger doing his best to highlight Mrs Markle’s good points (by commenting on a speech she gave (date unknown) about her activism aged 11) before, IMHO, he gets overwhelmed by his conclusions.