Whilst most of the British media and many (but not all) switch their brains into neutral for the taxpayer funded wedding of the year, Christopher Hitchens writes that the best thing that Kate Middleton and William Wales could do is abdicate:
If you really love him, honey, get him out of there, and yourself, too. Many of us don't want or need another sacrificial lamb to water the dried bones and veins of a dessicated system. Do yourself a favor and save what you can: Leave the throne to the awful next incumbent that the hereditary principle has mandated for it.
I for one will be fleeing to the West Country to avoid the crowds, tat and banal tourism (led curiously by airhead Americans and continentals). Some, I hope, will be protesting a handful on the guest list including the following murderous scum:
- Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz (second in line to the Saudi Islamist theocracy which has intervened in Bahrain to suppress dissent and does not tolerate any basic political freedoms);
- Crown Prince of Bahrain (the regime that is turning its guns on its people).
I have nothing personally against either of them, any more than I have of any random strangers. They mean nothing to me. However, what is telling is how far too many people, who call themselves conservatives, wax lyrically about merit, about people being allowed to achieve, keep the proceeds of their success and to live their lives as they see fit. They talk of how society should mean that people can aspire and achieve, and that those who do not, should not have their lives subsidised, propped up or featherbedded at everyone else's expense.
Yet they embrace the least meritocratic, most featherbedded state institution there is - hereditary monarchism.
For a country to move beyond views of class, or even bigotry against regional accents and dialects, there needs to be a mature discussion about the future of the British "constitution". The House of Lords has been moved from a hereditary institution to a politically stacked talking shop. It would be appropriate to discuss the future of the monarchy, particularly when the future monarch does not remotely meet the test of being political neutral or impartial. Charles is a buffoon, who is not fit to be head of a book club let alone a country.
My only hesitation is the motivation of many of those who want a republic. The likelihood they would advance a constitutionally limited government is not high.
However, the reason to not proceed should not be because of any perceived merit in the status quo - for if the only reason to continue with the monarchy is because the alternative could be worse is no ringing endorsement.
So whilst the millions of airheads watch a wedding of two mediocrities in some peculiar fawning ritual, I'll be ignoring it. Although, I know many of you wont be able to resist the spectacle.