So, What Did We Learn from the Latest Skirmish Between the Crown and the Commoners?

"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbor who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbor who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown." 

In other words, all that pageantry and costume wearing gets on the nerves when to you, it represents a history of invasion, killing, and forced starvation. It's curious that to Americans, there isn't a little of the same feeling, considering that we teach the Revolution in our schools and sing about the War of 1812 in our national anthem. 

But there is some significance in the British monarchy to Americans. At the lowest, it is at the level of magazines about movie actors. At a real level, it is the history of the United States from before we were the U.S. 

I recommend The Law of the Land by Charles Rembar (you would probably want to buy it used) to get a feel for how our current system developed over these past thousand years or so. How did the concept of justice develop, as embodied in our courts, the jury system, and even the concept of people having rights? It all goes back to British kings and queens, the infighting between the king and Parliament, and ultimately the development of (at least some) concept of universal human rights. 

So, at the level of history, the British monarchy serves to remind us that it was a long, slow grind to rid ourselves of them. We ought to be celebrating our lack of a king. 

And on top of that, we ought to be celebrating the fact that we rid ourselves of the entire aristocracy. Can you imagine if Donald Trump had inherited the presidency, would serve in it for life, and would then leave it to Donald Jr.? 

The mind boggles. Yet that is the curse of the hereditary monarchy. 

There is one other ultimately curious thing about this whole story of Meghan and, before her, Diana. In the entire United Kingdom and its 68 million people, there are only a few dozen people who have the social rank of royalty. There are a few dozen more who carry some hereditary rank of the aristocracy -- I hesitate to use the word "nobility" because it has taken on a different meaning in American English. That leaves the other 68 million to live the role of social underlings. They are all of them common. At least officially. 

I prefer the social role conferred by the term American Citizen. It represents a condition of equality before the law -- and at least at some level -- the condition of social equality. It is true that snobbery exists in this country and there is a constant need among some groups to assert their social superiority, but it is countered by a parallel theme of the self-made-man (and now woman) who asserts his/her own superiority in the doing of things. The American theater and movies have made mockery of our self-appointed society people almost as long as they have existed. 

I'm not going to get all weepy about Meghan, who has a boatload of money, an estate of her own, and has demonstrated that she could woo and win a prince. It makes for a story right out of Disney. But I suspect that the reality is that Meghan quickly realized that she used to be able to drive to Starbucks, go for a ride up the coast, go out to lunch, and chat with friends as she saw fit -- and all of that was suddenly denied to her. Imagine having to worry about obeying all the myriad rules as to what you can wear in public, when you can lift a fork at dinner, and what you can and cannot say. It would be interesting at first, but eventually it would wear on you. 

As to the Oprah interview, if Meghan was making it all up it was an incredible performance. If not, it is a lesson not only for the Brits but for all of us. And then add the issue that the British are working through their own issues with racism, and that the problem exists within the aristocracy just as much as among the commoners. 

What a word -- commoner -- with its multiple levels of meaning. Yet the British refer to their main legislative chamber as The House of Commons. Perhaps they will find another name for it sometime in the 22nd century. 

One last thought on this topic. Back in 1929 the Soviet film industry was pushing out propaganda films to support the ongoing revolution. Some of them get shown at film festivals, so I got to see what is perhaps the masterwork of the genre. It is called (in English) Fragment of an Empire, referring to a term used by a former Bolshevik leader. Anyway, right near the end, the protagonist utters the words -- in total contempt -- "Pathetic fragment of an empire." I don't think the author of that phrase was thinking about European royalty, but it is what came to mind as I watched Harry and Meghan put the knife into the royal family. That's all there is to the royalty -- a historical pageant, a clown show, and a pathetic fragment of an empire. 

Addendum 

There was a comment to a previous article that suggested (at least that's my interpretation of the meaning) that the Covid relief bill (now signed!) was just a lot of wasted money. First of all thanks to those who take the time to comment. Second let's understand that there are those who would disagree entirely with that suggestion. Eric Levitz offers a summary of what he thinks are good things that will be accomplished by the bill. Taking children out of poverty is one of them. I will concede that to some people, this is a bug rather than a feature. 

Speaking of real pork barrel, there is rumor that the Democrats are contemplating bringing back Earmarks. That is to say, pork. Individual congress members would be able to add projects of benefit to their own districts. (Maybe we could finally get the road fixed here in San Pedro -- you know, the road that disappeared during a coastal landslide a decade ago and was never replaced.) 

The point is that even members of the minority party could partake of the pork. This was a method that helped to get bills passed in the old days. A Republican from western Nebraska or middle Alabama could tell the voters, "Yeah, I voted for the bill, because it got us the highway bypass and the new post office." It will be interesting to see whether Republican leaders in the House will be able to hold party discipline against earmarks, considering that they are going to lose every vote anyway. 

Earmarks are not that foreign to the Republican Party anyway. Remember that Mitch McConnell bragged to his voters about getting a billion dollars for Kentucky into the budget. Maybe good old fashioned pork barrel is the way to generate some bipartisan enthusiasm.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])

-cw